Talk:Relationship between religion and science/Archive 3

2460:

Snell review multiple studies on higher education and religiosity in the US the pages in the reference discuss reasons why college students from 1990 onwards are slightly more religious than people who do not go to college. Other references in the article do show that indeed since most people in America do not see conflict and since college undergraduates in the social and natural sciences don't have this view either, then, why would anyone assume that higher education reduces religiosity necessarily? ARIS data on post graduates does show that they resemble the religious demographics of the general population. Barry Kosmin's report on post-grads even noted another reference which was removed (Norris and Inglehart). I am open to rewording to reach a consensus. I think they are indeed relevant to science and religion just like the section on scientists. What do you guys think?

1954:

journal is not clear enough to the reader, improve the corresponding part of thid article and our article on the journal. If the reader is interested in the website, it is trivially found as the official website of that article. The reader is best served by having the most relevant material early in the article and having a fairly brief set of informative external links at the end (the current 15 are quite a lot). There is very rarely a need to have a link to a website that we have an article about; it is unnecessary redundancy. I propose we represent it in the "See also" section instead of "External links" if editors think a link beyond what we already have is appropriate.

1570:, and should not be changed. Personally, when I think of the "relationship between religion and science", I think of how close and how strong this relationship has been in the past (again, a Western bent). I think of how, even though he was able to prove Copernicus to be closer to the Truth than Ptolemy was, and prove it beyond any shadow of doubt, the Church was able to effectively squelch Galileo and his telescopic discoveries for a significant period of time. As I said, there is so much more to it than that, and so have I learned by reading this article and by reading this Talk page. Thank you for that! 99:, which states (with citations): "The first period of transmission during 8th and 9th centuries was preceded by a period of conquest, as Arabs took control of previously Hellenized areas such as Egypt and Syria in the 7th century. At this point they first began to encounter Greek ideas, though from the beginning, many Arabs were hostile to classical learning. Because of this hostility, the religious Caliphs could not support scientific translations. Translators had to seek out wealthy business patrons rather than religious ones." -- I am therefore removing it. 1283:

nature of reality." In other words, science is accepted if it submits to the wills of the Christians. The preceding sentence says: "Non-Christian faiths have historically integrated well with scientific ideas, as in the ancient Egyptian technological mastery applied to monotheistic ends, the flourishing of logic and mathematics under Hinduism and Buddhism, and the scientific advances made by Muslim scholars during the Ottoman empire." So perhaps this article should be re-named "Relationship between non-Christian religions and science"?

280:, and it vividly shows Huxley attacking theological dominance of scientific thought – for example, "It is true that if philosophers have suffered, their cause has been amply avenged. Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain." . . 2383:, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." Isaiah 1:18 kjv When talking about the very center of conversion, salvation from sin, the text appeals to reason. One's feelings are not the focus. One may have feelings that come from conversion, but they are not the cause of it. Rather, it is logic and reason that form the basis for real conversion. Those people who 2533: 31: 820:, it seems the pontiff is not denying the effectiveness of condoms, as the reference suggests. What he is actually saying is that abstenence is more effective at preventing the sexual transmission of AIDS. There is debate about the most effective method for controling that type of AIDS transmission, but it is far from an outright denial of the science behind it. I would suggest a re-edit of this statement to make it more accurate. 1756:"Prominent modern scientists advocating disbelief in religion include evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and Nobel prize winning physicist Stephen Weinberg. For a more complete list, see List of atheists (science and technology). Prominent scientists advocating belief include Nobel prize winning physicist Charles Townes and climatologist John T. Houghton. For a more complete list, see List of Christian thinkers in science." 1408:@89.253.73.146: There are scholarly books and journals devoted to religion/science relations, so this article is not about just "any" relationship made up at the whim of Knowledge (XXG). Many statements about Christians that you supplied in the previous paragraphs are inaccurate as generalizations, especially as blanket generalizations (for counterexamples, see, for example, 591:

scholarship considers religion to be good for science. I've made a few edits to the section, hopefully making it clearer that it is only the original Draper-White formulation that has been refuted. Having said that, I would tend to agree that the page might be improved by having more (sourced!) material on examples of religious interference in science. --

1857:

a possible relationship between science and religion that allows each some separate turf to make "truth" statements on. Since Gould was a seasoned opponent of creationism, he was certainly well aware that NOMA is not adopted by many religious adherents. Anyway, if you have a specific change to the article in mind, spell it out here. Cheers, --

126:, as just shown by Hrafn. Nevertheless, I don't see any serious contradictions as Hrafn concludes. Moreover, I think that Hrafn's removal on these grounds and at this time is rather hastey and extraordinarily confusing. For Hrafn has made a concomitant deletion of other sections. Doing so appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to make a 1830:

Yet (or so Dawkins says) religions regularly do make claims about material reality. These include (for instance) the origin or disposition of particular historical artifacts, such as the Shroud of Turin, or the relics of saints; the efficacy of prayer or ritual in accomplishing healing or other observable material effects; and so on.

2505:

Hey Anupam, thanks for the support! I see where you are coming from. I also get a sense of where some of the editors are coming from. I think I will provide quotes in the refs and reintroduce the edits. I think this will give others a more clear picture of the claims in the research. I may also go to

2412:

The entire parallels in method section sites a single source - Ian Barbour's book - yet it is written in such a way as to suggest that it is an accepted parallel. I have read no one else that agrees with his conclusions (having read the source, I find them tenuous). If the section is to be included,

2338:

I do not think we are quite discussing what causes a person to convert, but specifically how "science" and "religion" pursue knowledge and judge the truthfulness of propositions. And this, bearing in mind that both are very loose terms; with religion capturing: buddhists who do not believe in god, or

2116:

The lead paragraph currently says: "Religion often relies on revelation and faith, while science typically seeks dependence upon reason and empiricism (see scientific method)." Twice, I have mede an edit (with citation) that indicates the use of logic and reason by theologians. Twice also rejected

2050:

Huh, wrote more than I expected... Prolly because I just pulled an all-nighter writing a paper on Barth. And I thought I was sick of that guy... I got here through googling Barth, and I'm brand-new here so I'm cautious about making edits to articles right now.. So I'll keep an eye on this article

1953:

In addition to ELNO #19 the journal is also linked to our own article in the "Current scholarship" and "Religion and science community" sections. This is the what Knowledge (XXG) prefers: whenever possible link to our own content and avoid sending readers to other websites. If the significance of the

1730:

The relationship between religion and science is more like a societal problem: 1. do they cooperate or quarrel, 2. would the world be better if one of them didn't exist, 3. if they both provide value to the society, is there a part of the summed up value that can be attributed to synergy, or is there

1875:

The Hinduism section does not really lay down the relationship between the particular religion and science. It immediately jumps into evolution/creationism and concludes on the same subject. There needs to be an integration of that into a full section speaking of science as whole; not just a part or

1856:

I don't know that the article is incorrect on the point of NOMA. Or, indeed, that NOMA itself is "rebutted" just because some (well, let's be honest, many) adherents to religion don't agree to bide by its terms of disengagement. I think the point that Gould (et al.) is articulating is that NOMA is

1829:

NOMA holds that the magisteria of science and religion have zero overlap; that is, they do not (or should not) make any claims about the same domains of knowledge. The operation of material reality is held to be the province of science, while morality and ultimate truth are the province of religion.

1318:

If I tell a Christian Jesus spoke to me, he will believe me. I tell him Buddha spoke to me, he will not. At least he will not believe it was Buddha. Perhaps Satan was trying to lead me away from Jesus? So maybe we should have a "Relationship between Christianity and groupthink" page? A "Relationship

1101:

Actually, I agree with the suggested outcome, even though I do not buy the reasoning behind it. I don't think the page takes a POV with respect to whether the relationship in question is a good one or an adversarial one. But it does seem to me, now that you point it out, that the shorter title would

627:

Also, the conflict thesis section is longer and more focused on criticism than the corresponding sections after it. I would advocate removing all but the first sentence of the first paragraph, since the Augustine quote is certainly not introductory material, and the unsourced claim that it is widely

613:

I think a lot of the misperception here comes from the structure. The conflict section only discusses the historical conflict thesis, while the subsequent sections give an array of more philosophical approaches. I certainly think it is no worse to cite Coyne and Tyson in favor of conflict than it is

94:

Section 'The attitudes of religion towards science' stated: "Some early historical scientific texts have been preserved by religious groups, notably Islam collected scientific texts originating in various countries and Christianity brought them to Europe during the renaissance." This is contradicted

1995:

Barth had a lot of silly things to say about evolution. I don't know if he's entirely opposed to it or just somewhat opposed, but you don't read Barth for his insights into the hard sciences. If wikipedia folk determine that stuff merits space in an entry, that's fine and I'd enjoy working on it.

1833:

Christianity holds that Jesus was resurrected and then assumed into Heaven, and therefore did not leave a physical corpse behind; Catholicism holds that Mary was also assumed into Heaven. These are material claims, and could in principle be falsified materially: if archaeologists found a corpse and

1336:

The intro says "Religions rely on revelation and faith, while science relies on observable, repeatable experiences, ontological naturalism, philosophical realism, rational skepticism, fallibilism, the thesis that nothing comes from nothing, and the law of economy." Well, Aristotle stated that males

839:

I think there should be more discussion of Richard Jones's "control belief" thesis. Only this thesis explains the history of "war" and "peace" between religion and science. It explains the conflict over Galileo and Darwin and the general support religion was supplied when science is not challenging

2391:

are not following the counsel of God through Isaiah. There are pseudo-Christians out there, who don't really know what they think they believe. They are no different that anyone else who mindlessly and stupidly goes by "if it feels good, it must be right!" There is right and wrong, and it takes

1793:

I see what you mean. If we agree that the specific examples can remain in the section, perhaps we should treat those lists in a different way. I still think there is some value in providing some sort of link to those lists, but perhaps it would be better to delete those two sentences from the text

590:

recognize that Draper and White originally painted the issue with too broad a brush, focusing only on conflicts and not enough on benign or neutral interactions. Therefore, when the page says that modern scholarship has rejected the conflict thesis, that is not the same thing as saying that modern

392:

Sunni opinions of the Umayyad dynasty after Muawiyah are typically dim, viewing many of the rulers as sinners and the cause of great tribulation in the Ummah. For example, in the section concerning Quran 60:17 in the exegesis by al-Suyuti entitled Dur al-Manthur, the author writes that there exist

1760:

I'm not sure but... why do we mention these atheists as advocating disbelief and theists as advocating belief when many people in those lists are just believers/nonbelievers and don't really have much to say about religion and science's relationship? I mean, just because a scientist is an athiest

386:

I do not believe you can use the Ummayyad's as examples of Islamic belief regarding their acceptance of science, since they were known to prevent people from converting to Islam, and their period in Islamic history by later historians, is regarded as a period and their lineage as being a negative

2459:

Greetings, I am a bit confused on the removals of the information higher education and post graduates. Perhaps I can get better explanations for this from other editors. These are not selective or counterintuitive as the references contain the relevant sections which note these points. Smith and

1926:

linked are "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Knowledge (XXG) article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits,

1300:

I tell a Christian I have a miracle I want to show him. He is all exited when I take him there. When we are there I show him a horse giving birth. The Christian is very likely going to be disappointed. This is not what a Christian think of when he thinks of miracles. This is in relation to Brian

1282:

This whole relationship deal is about forcing religion (read Christianity) on science. This relationship is not mutual. This is a quote from the page: "Even many 19th century Christian communities welcomed scientists who claimed that science was not at all concerned with discovering the ultimate

1553:

The IP just doesn't seem to "get" what article Talk pages are for. There is always room for improvement, for example how the position of the See also section should be (and soon will be) above the Notes section to come into compliance with the manual of style. There, it can be shown that this

1116:

I think the current title is fine, neutral, and preferable. A shorter title has the advantage of brevity, but it is more ambiguous and might provoke misunderstandings. Some people might read narrower meanings into the title than are appropriate for the current page, imagining that it focuses on

1217:

And not all religious people are anti-science, although there are longstanding objections to the way scientists assume the material world is all that can or should be studied. These objections can get quite heated. But a lot of religious people welcome science as a way of humbly studying God's

1203:

I suggest we describe all the aspects of r/s and not just the minority that wants to condemn and isolate religion. Many scientists welcome religion or are religious themselves. The 5% of scientists who reject evolution are (I'm guessing here) probably religious, or at least open-minded about

1934:, as a peer-reviewed journal devoted to the topic, is a source of much encyclopedic information on the topic -- indeed, more info than could ever be integrated into this page. Therefore it seems a prime example of a valid external link. Am I mistaken in my reasoning here? I will revert per 1121:

between R+S (such as encouraged by the Dalai Lama); others who imagine that conflict is fundamental might imagine it aims to discuss only their conflict. The fuller title alerts readers right away - from a "distance" so to speak - that they should expect something more complex and nuanced.

1894:

I'm wondering if anyone is interested in the ancient worship of Egyptian and Mesopotamian, Greek, Persian, Roman and Chinese gods of medicine, law, mathematics, geography, surveying, metal working, divination, alchemy, history, accounting, administration, natural philosophy, architecture,

1558:

be improved. And involved editors may always find ways to show, in a way that piques the reader's interest, how the relationship between religion and science is so much more than just whatever is happening, or historically, whatever has happened, between Catholicism and Western science.

1626:

You left me a note on my talk page, and I figured I would answer it here. I think the new third-level header is much better. What I reacted to before was mainly the word "relevant" (since we assume that if it's here, it's relevant), and to a lesser degree, the word "statistics".

227:

I will work on any part of the article I damn well choose. Today, I decided to do a bit of work on 'The attitudes of religion towards science'. Doing so required an explanation longer than can be fitted into an edit summary, so I documented my reasoning here on talk. If

1697:

which is a ridiculously narrow perspective (though valid). The relationship between religion and science stretches out over 2000 years with conflicts, coexistence and crossfertilization, a time range during most the very specialized demarcation problem wasn't

403:

So using people who are regarded as anti-islam... well I don't think it would be appropriate. Nor would it be accepted as "Islam". Islam being the quran, and what we learn from the quran. The prophet's tradition, we learn, being one part in the quran.

2413:

it should either be clear that it all comes from one bias source (the point of Barbour's book is to prove they are the same methodology) or include a published counter argument or other source in agreement. Unfortunately, I do not have one at hand.

883:"Religions rely on revelation and faith, while science relies on observable, repeatable experiences, ontological naturalism, philosophical realism, rational skepticism, fallibilism, the thesis that nothing comes from nothing, and the law of economy" 1337:

and females have different number of teeth, without bothering to check; he then provided long arguments as to why this is the way things ought to be. There are many alternatives to the scientific method and they are all related one way or other.

1778:

And I'm not talking about the examples used. Dawkins and Wienberg do advocate atheism, but what I mean is, we tell the reader to go to a list that has nothing to do with advocates for either position, but rather believers and nonbelievers.

2015:"The idea of evolution in itself does not exclude this fact. Organic nature in its tendency towards individualisation and increased organisational complexity has sufficient room for even so peculiar a phenomenon as that of man." (83) 1607:

Besides that, under "Studies of scientists' belief in God" I have again tried to provide a summary of what is otherwise a big boring list of percentages. I also mention some of the most recent research by Professor Ecklund.

2033:"that man must be regarded as adapted already in his mother's womb to the peculiarity of his premature birth and his later acquirement by his own active efforts of the bearing and speech characteristic of his species, and 393:

traditions which describe the Umayyads as "the cursed tree". There are some exceptions to this -- Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz is commonly praised as one of the greatest Muslim rulers after the four Rightly Guided Caliphs.

1152:) entirely separate is just one of many, many ideas about how the two fields relate. Ironically, it is both the pro-science, anti-religion and pro-religion, anti-science advocates who want to keep the two separate. 1454:

You can find scholarly articles on anything. The number of books on Christianity and science illustrate Christianity's problem with science, not the other way around. This is an artificial relationship created by

1834:

demonstrated that it was the remains of Jesus or Mary, these would falsify these material claims. Similarly, many researchers have claimed to put the belief in the healing power of prayer to material test.

1761:

doesn't mean he thinks religious people are a bunch of delusional people and just because a scientist is religious doesn't mean he's going to try to argue or advocate that belief in the scientific arena.

1354:

And math is not science. Math does not deal with reality. Math deals with the abstract. If you want to relate math to anything religious, it's numerology. Numerology is part of most religions, I believe.

1794:

and move the list links to either the "see also" section at the bottom of the page, or to a "further information" tag at the top of the section. Any preferences between those options, or other ideas? --

441:

Typo, that should be they are not in any philosophical debate regarding the relationship between religion and science, nor are they a number worth mentioning (claims are of false membership statistics

1505:

There is nothing to improve. This article is Christian apologetics. It seems Wiki has been hijacked by apologists like you. You are the enemy within, the ones who have turned Wiki into a pomo joke.

1076:

Simply calling it "Religion and science" would be enough. Calling it "Relationship between..." is an assumption that there is relationship. Assumption is not scientific. The title is anti-science.

157: 123: 96: 2047:

Oh, it looks like on p.211 of this "Creation and double chaos" book, he mentions that Barth doesn't discuss extra-terrestrials, either. Does that little quip deserve space on wikipedia, too?

1165:

Scientists since the time of Galileo have sought the endorsement of religion (maybe even further back, for all I know). Galileo's early career got a big boost from prominent religious people.

1030:, but it's inappropriate to go into all such claims in this overview. The point about Thomson's religious views is unexplained, and his views were entirely in line with earlier concepts – 1022:. Critics of this argument point out that it stems from a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics, as it applies only to closed systems and the earth is not a closed system. 2583: 2578: 2566: 2561: 1992:

What sort of ridiculous & biased notion is this? 1- who in their right mind thinks it's necessarily a failure to not mention evolution? 2- more importantly, this IS NOT TRUE.

1248:

one, in fact." That is nonsense, just as this article. There are so many wrongs with that statement. There is a love-hate relationship between science and some more extremist religions.

81: 76: 64: 59: 2295:('a German noun translated as "longing", "yearning" and "craving"') in his conversion. That bears little resemblance to "reason and empiricism". That religious people, like Lewis, 1837:

The argument here is not to claim that religion is debunked by the above; rather, that because religions do regularly, consistently, and unexceptionally make material claims, that

2174:

I would point out that a key difference between science and religion, and a not-infrequent source of the occasional conflicts that arise between them, is that fact that religion

2069:

I would agree that the claim appears to be demonstrably false. This probably renders the source unreliable & means that we should eliminate the whole passage sourced to it.

739:), Abortion, Stem-cells, Reproductive therapy, Therapeutic cloning, Euthanasia, etc, etc, etc. The whole realm is only tenuously related to issues raised in this article ( 1416:). Please stay focused on improving the article, and remember that "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject" ( 462:

This section is worth noting if only for the fact that Baha'i is the only world religion that unambiguously accepts the concept of the harmony between science and faith.

1566:

And so far as the topic of this section goes, I have to agree that the title of the article, while just a little long and unusual for an encyclopedia, does comply with

771:

The conflict between science and religion is a philosophical conflict between supernaturalism and ontological naturalism. This isn't even mentioned on the site, why?

1537:

At this point, I withdraw my suggestion to shorten the title of the page. Does not need to be improved. And I think this talk thread has more than run its course. --

359:

Both Browne and Desmond & Moore discuss the significance of the statement, so I can try to provide secondary sources if that's required. Bit busy just now! . .

860:(1680's). According to Gould, the enemy of science is not religion, but irrationalism. Orthodoxy and dogmatism also rank high against inquisitiveness and logic. 2549: 1968:

Does anyone want to do some research/editing about Zygon's reputability? Without that information, users may be forced to go looking elsewhere in the end anyway.-

160:-- which explicitly stated that the "religious Caliphs" (i.e. the relevant "religious groups") did not support transmission (via translation) of the Greek texts. 47: 17: 2008:"But in these points he clearly approximates to the higher, the so-called anthropoid ape. And according to Titius we cannot exclude from the general process of 1265:

With the risk of coming off all zen and stuff here, you can find relationship between everything. But you do not have articles about all possible relationships.

2135:

I have tagged the incomplete and inaccurate sentence as being dubious. Logic and Reason are used by both religion and science. The article must reflect this.

2487:

with related studies but my edits were reverted. If other people continue to object to the restoration of material in this article, you could add it to the

1895:

engineering, arts and crafts, skilled workmen, and their responsibility for teaching, testing, certification, licensure and periodic examination of skills.

201:

Since neither of us have been working on this material in the lower sections, bringing it up at his point in time appears to be a confusing distraction. --

2483:

I agree with your line of reasoning and feel the information should be inserted into the article once again. A while back, I similarly tried to balance

1922:#19, but that rule states that an exception is links that "otherwise qualify as something that should be linked". And the page states that a links that 1056:

Even though I've previously made edits trying to clean it up (after another editor first added it), I'm going to agree with you. Removing it is fine. --

529:

I have taken the liberty of moving this to a new thread. Making it a response to a thread whose last comment was 18 months ago really isn't appropriate.

2435:

Agree -- Barbour's book cannot be cited as a source for widespread acceptance of Barbour & Polkinghorne's work. I'm therefore removing this claim.

1826:, is that religions make specific concrete historical and material claims, and that these claims are incompatible with a scientific view of the world. 1593:

One very important consideration is the search engine results, and I just Googled "religion and science". This article was number one on the hitlist!

1178:

I think the objection above comes mainly from one small current in the r/s stream, i.e., the objection on the part of pro-evolution atheists to "

1026:

This is unsourced, and is a detailed creationist claim with little or no relevance to the broad subject of this article. The claim is covered in

1604:

First of all, I grouped some of the more random background information under "History" (for which we could probably think of a better header).

2122:

Theology certainly includes the use of logic and reason: there are dozens of citations that could be given in support. The entire subject of

1204:

religion. Some scientists even study religion from the viewpoint that, hey, those men of faith might actually be right about the supernatural.

2153:

Thanks for your patience! I think you make a valid point. I have tried a rewrite that describes religion as often using faith and revelation

1620: 903: 778: 2350:

would seem to vote yes. My own vote would be "hmmm maybe, but mostly I would like to see some data, and in the meantime I am content with

2339:

even "cultural" religions which reject most spiritual ideas, but also those who think their Holy book is the perfect word of God. I think

1079:"Relationship between religion and science" is just an attempt by religion (read Christianity) to piggyback on the good name of science. 1896: 1512: 1378: 1086: 2420: 2231:. I've yet to come across anything that a reasonable person would label a "religion" that is primarily "reason and empiricism"-based. 2063: 1780: 1762: 1645:

I am glad I asked before plunging into a violent depression over, as I saw it, "the world's indifference to the majesty of headers".

1006:

in the universe, debaters have used thermodynamics in argument both for and against religion. In modern times, some opponents of the

983: 829: 2202:

To me, that also seems a valid point. Religion is such a loose word though, I just added some tentativeness to the language (i.e. "

1186:

have not paid enough attention to the clash of motives but have focused on (or been co-opted by) attempts to proof one side right.

628:

circulated is doubtful. I think I will attempt said edit and also try to put more info on conflict in general above the section.

2040:

Here's where I got this info, but some of you folks may not be able to get there if you're not using a university's internet..

2354:". We should also celebrate the success of agreeing on a fix for the original problem: the language no longer suggests that 1480:

I supplied no generalizations. I quoted this article, for example. If Christianity looks bad it's because of the Christians.

970:, has been used in argument either for or against religion, since its inception. Since the publication of German physician 260: 2523: 2499: 2488: 2477: 2448: 2428: 2401: 2373: 2328: 2278: 2244: 2217: 2195: 2168: 2146: 2102: 2082: 1977: 1961: 1947: 1904: 1884: 1864: 1850: 1803: 1788: 1770: 1744: 1715: 1668: 1654: 1636: 1585: 1546: 1520: 1429: 1386: 1227: 1131: 1111: 1094: 1065: 1050: 1011: 937: 921: 869: 806: 786: 760: 721: 685: 663: 637: 600: 570: 520: 491: 471: 453: 432: 413: 367: 330: 288: 249: 210: 196: 139: 112: 2442: 2322: 2238: 2189: 2088: 2076: 1943: 1425: 1127: 754: 564: 324: 243: 190: 106: 2227:

privilege "revelation and faith" (and/or mysticism, and a few other related concepts) over "reason and empiricism",

887:

Maybe it would make this article more reliable if the examples for religion were a bit more fleshed out, or lengthy.

2540: 2343:

is a perfectly neutral way of pointing out that these other values are sometimes held over reason and empiricism.

2311:

religion, and how it differs from science. And the way the two of them approach "reason and empiricism" is clearly

817:

The statement about Pope Benedict XVI seems to be out of context. After reading the article to which it references

254:

Hope this isn't too far off topic, Hrafn, but noticed your edit to the scientific perspectives section and thought

38: 503: 497: 2059: 1579: 1183: 857: 578:

I'll make the observation that past talk on this issue has considered the facts that (1) modern scholarship does

986:’s 1852 article "On a Universal Tendency in Nature to the Dissipation of Mechanical Energy", which proposed the 232:

find it to be a "confusing distraction", then don't read it. You aren't the only editor on this article and you

2253:"Primarily" is not correct. The primary reason is highly variable. There are certainly people who are faith ( 2035:

he cannot therefore be placed merely in the same stage of evolution as that of mammals, primates or chimpanzees

899: 508:

Someone may also consider moving some of the material currently in the conflict thesis section to the article:

782: 532:

Rather than simply templating the section, it'd probably be more practical if you offered some alternate text.

1900: 482:

I have flagged the "conflict thesis" section for NPOV issues. I see I'm not the first person to notice this.

2492: 2424: 2274: 2142: 1846: 1516: 1382: 1090: 467: 2416: 1508: 1374: 1082: 928:

Anyone is free to add to the page. The key factor in this instance is sourcing to back up the additions. --

891: 774: 1939: 1784: 1766: 1421: 1245: 1145: 1123: 979: 895: 444:) compared to the other religious beliefs that are more than them and have an relationship with science. 313:

Given that the remainder of that material has just been excised as unsourced, this should be enough of a

161: 119: 1881: 865: 703: 825: 982:

and leading to discussion as to where the initial energy of the universe came from, English physicist

736: 500: 2370: 2214: 2165: 2055: 1973: 1799: 1664: 1650: 1632: 1616: 1574: 1542: 1107: 1061: 1047: 967: 933: 917: 681: 659: 633: 629: 596: 516: 512: 487: 483: 364: 285: 206: 135: 2261:) driven but others have different views. One good example of logic and reason based conversion is 818: 543: 2519: 2511: 2473: 2465: 2397: 1722: 1689: 1409: 1007: 256: 2307:

of these beliefs. This is not "limit the basis of religion for other people", it is attempting to

1876:

contradictory idea of science. That section needs work and extra work from a source of expertise.

1042:

are much more significant figures in the development of ideas of science sa applied religion. . .

821: 2270: 2138: 1842: 707: 463: 449: 428: 409: 264: 2182:"reason and empiricism". It is not a case of "also acknowledges", but "primarily acknowledges". 171: 127: 2130:

in their studies. This article makes many references or has citations referencing apologetics.

709: 423:

Why is the Bahi section even mentioned here? Aren't they non-existant current science debates?

2291:

I have not read that book, but the article on it states that Lewis places primary emphasis on

1371:

Wiki is more and more looking like American textbooks: Anything goes--let the market decide.

1223: 849: 732: 398: 1919: 1567: 1417: 122:. The uncited passages, which have been inherited, are far less "crisp" than those found in 2262: 1877: 1736: 1707: 1179: 861: 852:(1970's), the author argues that science and religion are not naturally in conflict, citing 747:). Really needs its own article (assuming that one doesn't already exist under some title). 2041: 1935: 179: 175: 2363: 2207: 2158: 1969: 1819: 1795: 1731:

a conflict diminishing the summed up value from whether they were completely independent?

1660: 1646: 1628: 1612: 1538: 1413: 1103: 1057: 1043: 1003: 991: 929: 913: 802: 677: 655: 592: 551: 442: 360: 281: 202: 131: 314: 1319:

between Christianity and communal reinforcement" page? But those would be biased, right?

2515: 2514:) 23:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC) I re-added them. They should be ok since I provided quotes. 2507: 2469: 2461: 2393: 2258: 2044:

There's plenty more in the section. Barth talks about Darwin and "anti-Darwins," too.

1958: 955: 853: 1027: 794: 149: 1858: 1039: 1035: 731:… :) ) too big an issue to be covered here. Think 'orthodox medicine=lack of faith' ( 717: 711: 673: 445: 438:

I presume you're talking about the Baha'i section? I don't get your second question.

424: 405: 1148:

one, in fact. The viewpoint that religion and science have been (or to be precise,

1219: 1015: 971: 2495:

article, where you could place the information. I hope this helps. With regards,

2548:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2496: 2298: 2266: 2123: 1732: 1703: 1702:

formulated. D*rn, the universe didn't emerge in the middle of the 19th century!

793:

Perhaps because nobody has chosen to cite a reliable source to that effect? See

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2346:

I feel like we should be discussing whether they are "often" valued primarily.

2126:

uses logic and reason to make a theological point. Many theologians also used

504:

http://www.tnr.com/booksarts/story.html?id=1e3851a3-bdf7-438a-ac2a-a5e381a70472

498:

http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/essays/nathist/perimeterofignorance

496:

Here's some refs that are more favorable to the conflict thesis for starters.:

2438: 2318: 2234: 2185: 2127: 2072: 987: 798: 750: 560: 320: 239: 186: 102: 1014:, often paraphrased as the universal tendency of all systems to tend towards 539:, none of them are scholars on the relationship between religion and science. 2292: 2269:. It is not proper for us to limit the basis of religion for other people. 2254: 1927:

interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." (from #3).

1019: 744: 277: 672:, so you may also want to take a look at that. (See also the discussion at 2001:

according to Bonting , the Church Dogmatics "does not discuss evolution."

1031: 975: 713: 669: 702:

Certain writers have specialized in describing the relationship between

963: 1688:

The relationship between religion and science has been a focus of the

1102:

be entirely appropriate. What do other editors think of the rename? --

999: 959: 118:

Many of the uncited passages in this religon and science article are

1999:

Here's evidence: all of these are from the Church Dogmatics, § 44.

727:

I think the relationship between religion and medicine is way (WAY,

1914:

It seems to me that another editor who deleted an external link to

706:. It might be a good thing if there could be an entry on this too. 654:

Overall, I agree with the direction you are taking this. Thanks. --

501:

http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/essays/nathist/holywars

1931: 1915: 1552:

Oh, shucks! and just when it was getting interesting... <g: -->

586:

conflict between religion and science, and (2) modern scholarship

509: 1822:, in defending the conflict thesis and specifically in rebutting 2022:. Work in the service of this ideal as undertaken by man at the 1823: 978:

can neither be created nor destroyed", articulating the law of

2527: 25: 158:

Transmission of Greek philosophical ideas in the Middle Ages

124:

Transmission of Greek philosophical ideas in the Middle Ages

97:

Transmission of Greek philosophical ideas in the Middle Ages

2026:, the mastery of nature as a cultural process, is only the 2018:"He will then find himself in the closest harmony with the 1841:

is debunked, and the notion of conflict is strengthened. --

614:

to cite Gould in favor of independence in the next section.

535:

I would note that while the sources you cite are prominent

169:

support the retention of such material. I will ignore your

1563:

much more. At any rate, I enjoyed the above conversation.

998:, which raised the concept of entropy as the signifier of 2028:

continuation of evolution beyond the formation of species

2042:

http://solomon.dkbl.alexanderstreet.com/dkbl.search.html

236:

the target audience for the top comment in this thread.

2484: 2392:

logic and reason, not emotions, to know what is what.

2030:

to their harmonious integration as a totality." (84)

1721:And to stress how specialized it is: Larry Laudan 1182:". Our articles on evolution, creationism and the 276:might be of interest. It came up while working on 1600:Edits to "The scientific community's perspective" 1190:is an NPOV violation, if you're looking for one. 2506:the pages you suggested and add some material. 990:theory of universal end, and German physicist 18:Talk:Relationship between religion and science 261:"ART. VIII.- Darwin on the origin of Species" 90:Islam and "early historical scientific texts" 8: 912:I modified the title, and placed the quote. 674:Talk:Religion#Science, Religion and Conflict 546:, it is appropriate that mention is made in 1818:One of the points used by writers such as 1814:Historical and material claims of religion 974:’s 1841 postulate that the "energy of the 2012:the emergence of the human psyche" (82) 510:http://en.wikipedia.org/Conflict_thesis 2546:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2408:Parallels in Method section is Biased? 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1244:"Of course there's a relationship: a 7: 2229:then it most probably isn't religion 1144:Of course there's a relationship: a 2117:by an editor without consideration. 1611:Constructive criticism is welcome. 879:In the opening statement, it says: 2178:privileges "revelation and faith" 2005:§ 44 Man as the Creature of God: 1983:Barth fails to mention evolution?? 668:P.S.: There are related issues at 24: 1599: 317:for reintroducing it. Thanks. :) 2531: 2111:Lead paragraph- Logic and reason 2024:peak of the process of evolution 1910:Retaining external link to Zygon 1301:Swimme mentioned in the article. 29: 2297:employ reason as part of their 2362:completely belong to science.- 767:Supernaturalism and naturalism 478:POV in Conflict Thesis section 1: 2303:, does not imply that reason 2083:14:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC) 2064:13:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC) 996:The Mechanical Theory of Heat 840:some tenet of Christianity. 813:Pope Benedict XVI's Statement 670:Religion#Religion and science 156:by sourced information in -- 2489:Religiosity and intelligence 2468:) 17:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC) 2020:biological idea of evolution 1996:But this tripe can't stay. 1978:13:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC) 1962:11:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC) 830:19:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC) 807:20:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC) 787:18:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC) 761:14:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC) 722:14:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC) 2449:06:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC) 2429:23:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC) 2301:in defence of their beliefs 2223:I would suggest that if it 1987: 1948:23:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 1905:10:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC) 1890:Ancient Temples as Academia 1885:07:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC) 1010:argue that thermodynamics' 858:Sacred History of the Earth 686:17:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 664:17:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 638:04:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 601:16:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 571:04:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 521:03:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 492:02:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 454:23:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 414:23:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 2602: 1918:was overzealous. He cited 1865:14:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 1851:05:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 1051:20:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC) 938:18:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC) 922:09:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC) 870:03:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 472:18:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC) 433:03:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC) 2524:02:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC) 2500:18:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC) 2478:17:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC) 1804:16:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1789:01:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1771:01:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC) 1745:14:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC) 1184:evolution-creation debate 812: 368:16:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC) 331:15:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC) 289:11:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC) 250:10:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC) 211:09:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC) 197:09:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC) 140:09:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC) 113:08:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC) 2491:article or create a new 2402:04:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2374:14:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC) 2329:07:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC) 2279:12:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC) 2245:05:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC) 2218:19:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC) 2196:04:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC) 2169:02:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC) 2147:01:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC) 2103:16:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC) 1716:11:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC) 1679:Narrow perspective intro 1669:22:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC) 1655:22:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC) 1637:22:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC) 1621:22:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC) 1586:01:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC) 1547:19:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 1521:19:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 1430:15:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 1387:14:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 1228:20:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 1132:18:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 1112:18:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 1095:13:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 743:more closely related to 1066:16:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC) 2493:Religion and education 2381:let us reason together 2157:empiricism and logic.- 1988:Section 'Independence' 1659:Oh, not at all! :-) -- 980:conservation of energy 906:) 08:54, 26 April 2010 875:Biased towards science 550:article as well as at 395: 2544:of past discussions. 704:religion and medicine 698:Religion and medicine 390: 152:information that was 148:Firefly322: this was 42:of past discussions. 2455:Public views Section 2389:emotional experience 2313:profoundly different 1930:It seems to me that 835:Control Belief Model 2309:accurately describe 1690:demarcation problem 1410:Religious pluralism 1008:theory of evolution 958:, the study of the 949:Moved from article: 737:Jehovah's Witnesses 1683:The intro starts: 265:Westminster Review 2589: 2588: 2556: 2555: 2550:current talk page 2419:comment added by 2257:) or revelation ( 2101: 2096:reven i susej eht 2087:I agree w/Hrafn. 1940:Health Researcher 1862: 1511:comment added by 1422:Health Researcher 1377:comment added by 1124:Health Researcher 1085:comment added by 1072:Title is not NPOV 908: 894:comment added by 850:Ever Since Darwin 777:comment added by 733:Christian Science 399:Umayyad Caliphate 87: 86: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2593: 2575: 2558: 2557: 2535: 2534: 2528: 2447: 2431: 2367: 2327: 2263:Surprised by Joy 2243: 2211: 2194: 2176:not-infrequently 2162: 2100: 2098: 2093: 2081: 1957: 1860: 1741: 1712: 1582: 1577: 1523: 1389: 1180:Creation Science 1097: 907: 888: 789: 759: 735:) transfusions ( 569: 329: 275: 273: 272: 248: 195: 180:personal attacks 111: 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2601: 2600: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2571: 2532: 2457: 2445: 2436: 2414: 2410: 2379:"Come now, and 2365: 2325: 2316: 2305:forms the basis 2241: 2232: 2209: 2192: 2183: 2160: 2113: 2094: 2089: 2079: 2070: 2056:Christopherosly 1990: 1985: 1955: 1912: 1892: 1873: 1820:Richard Dawkins 1816: 1753: 1737: 1708: 1681: 1602: 1580: 1575: 1506: 1414:John Macquarrie 1372: 1080: 1074: 1004:irreversibility 992:Rudolf Clausius 984:William Thomson 954:The science of 946: 889: 877: 848:In S J Gould's 846: 844:Stephen J Gould 837: 815: 772: 769: 757: 748: 730: 700: 567: 558: 552:Conflict thesis 480: 421: 327: 318: 270: 268: 255: 246: 237: 193: 184: 172:grossly incivil 109: 100: 92: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2599: 2597: 2587: 2586: 2581: 2576: 2569: 2564: 2554: 2553: 2536: 2503: 2502: 2456: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2441: 2409: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2321: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2259:sola scriptura 2248: 2247: 2237: 2201: 2199: 2198: 2188: 2152: 2150: 2149: 2136: 2132: 2131: 2119: 2118: 2112: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2075: 2054: 1989: 1986: 1984: 1981: 1967: 1965: 1964: 1911: 1908: 1891: 1888: 1872: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1815: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1752: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1727: 1726: 1695: 1694: 1680: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1640: 1639: 1601: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1571: 1564: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1119:collaborations 1073: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1024: 1023: 956:thermodynamics 945: 944:Thermodynamics 942: 941: 940: 925: 924: 896:Kegsdragondude 885: 884: 876: 873: 854:Thomas Burnett 845: 842: 836: 833: 814: 811: 810: 809: 779:84.158.210.198 768: 765: 764: 763: 753: 728: 699: 696: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 666: 645: 644: 643: 642: 641: 640: 620: 619: 618: 617: 616: 615: 606: 605: 604: 603: 563: 556: 555: 540: 533: 530: 525: 479: 476: 475: 474: 459: 458: 457: 456: 420: 417: 389: 388: 383: 382: 381: 380: 379: 378: 377: 376: 375: 374: 373: 372: 371: 370: 344: 343: 342: 341: 340: 339: 338: 337: 336: 335: 334: 333: 323: 300: 299: 298: 297: 296: 295: 294: 293: 292: 291: 259:(April 1860). 242: 218: 217: 216: 215: 214: 213: 189: 143: 142: 105: 91: 88: 85: 84: 79: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2598: 2585: 2582: 2580: 2577: 2574: 2570: 2568: 2565: 2563: 2560: 2559: 2551: 2547: 2543: 2542: 2537: 2530: 2529: 2526: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2513: 2509: 2501: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2486: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2444: 2440: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2390: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2372: 2369: 2368: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2344: 2342: 2330: 2326: 2324: 2320: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2302: 2300: 2294: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2271:Grantmidnight 2268: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2246: 2242: 2240: 2236: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2216: 2213: 2212: 2205: 2197: 2193: 2191: 2187: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2167: 2164: 2163: 2156: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2139:Grantmidnight 2137: 2134: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2120: 2115: 2114: 2110: 2104: 2099: 2097: 2092: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2080: 2078: 2074: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2052: 2051:for a while. 2048: 2045: 2043: 2038: 2036: 2031: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2016: 2013: 2011: 2006: 2003: 2002: 1997: 1993: 1982: 1980: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1963: 1960: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1928: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1909: 1907: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1897:69.39.110.136 1889: 1887: 1886: 1883: 1879: 1878:Andrew Colvin 1870: 1866: 1863: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1825: 1821: 1813: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1786: 1782: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1758: 1757: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1740: 1734: 1729: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1713: 1711: 1705: 1701: 1693: 1691: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1678: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1609: 1605: 1592: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1583: 1578: 1572: 1569: 1565: 1562: 1557: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1544: 1540: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1513:89.253.73.146 1510: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1379:89.253.73.146 1376: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1247: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1120: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1087:89.253.73.146 1084: 1077: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1040:Adam Sedgwick 1037: 1036:John Herschel 1033: 1029: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 985: 981: 977: 973: 969: 965: 961: 957: 953: 952: 951: 950: 943: 939: 935: 931: 927: 926: 923: 919: 915: 911: 910: 909: 905: 901: 897: 893: 882: 881: 880: 874: 872: 871: 867: 863: 859: 855: 851: 843: 841: 834: 832: 831: 827: 823: 819: 808: 804: 800: 796: 792: 791: 790: 788: 784: 780: 776: 766: 762: 758: 756: 752: 746: 742: 738: 734: 726: 725: 724: 723: 719: 715: 712: 710: 708: 705: 697: 687: 683: 679: 675: 671: 667: 665: 661: 657: 653: 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 639: 635: 631: 626: 625: 624: 623: 622: 621: 612: 611: 610: 609: 608: 607: 602: 598: 594: 589: 585: 581: 577: 576: 575: 574: 573: 572: 568: 566: 562: 553: 549: 545: 541: 538: 534: 531: 528: 527: 526: 523: 522: 518: 514: 511: 506: 505: 502: 499: 494: 493: 489: 485: 477: 473: 469: 465: 464:MARussellPESE 461: 460: 455: 451: 447: 443: 440: 439: 437: 436: 435: 434: 430: 426: 418: 416: 415: 411: 407: 401: 400: 394: 385: 384: 369: 366: 362: 358: 357: 356: 355: 354: 353: 352: 351: 350: 349: 348: 347: 346: 345: 332: 328: 326: 322: 316: 312: 311: 310: 309: 308: 307: 306: 305: 304: 303: 302: 301: 290: 287: 283: 279: 266: 262: 258: 253: 252: 251: 247: 245: 241: 235: 231: 226: 225: 224: 223: 222: 221: 220: 219: 212: 208: 204: 200: 199: 198: 194: 192: 188: 182: 181: 177: 173: 168: 167: 163: 159: 155: 151: 147: 146: 145: 144: 141: 137: 133: 129: 125: 121: 117: 116: 115: 114: 110: 108: 104: 98: 89: 83: 80: 78: 75: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2572: 2545: 2539: 2504: 2485:this section 2458: 2437: 2421:68.49.250.87 2415:— Preceding 2411: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2364: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2345: 2340: 2337: 2317: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2296: 2233: 2228: 2224: 2208: 2206:primarily")- 2203: 2200: 2184: 2179: 2175: 2159: 2154: 2151: 2095: 2090: 2071: 2053: 2049: 2046: 2039: 2034: 2032: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2017: 2014: 2009: 2007: 2004: 2000: 1998: 1994: 1991: 1966: 1929: 1923: 1913: 1893: 1874: 1838: 1836: 1832: 1828: 1817: 1781:98.198.83.12 1763:98.198.83.12 1759: 1755: 1754: 1738: 1709: 1699: 1696: 1687: 1682: 1610: 1606: 1603: 1590: 1560: 1555: 1536: 1218:creation. -- 1187: 1149: 1118: 1078: 1075: 1025: 1018:, disproves 995: 972:Robert Mayer 948: 947: 886: 878: 847: 838: 816: 770: 749: 740: 701: 587: 583: 579: 559: 557: 547: 536: 524: 507: 495: 481: 422: 402: 396: 391: 319: 269:. Retrieved 267:. pp. 541–70 257:Huxley, T.H. 238: 233: 229: 185: 170: 165: 164: 162:WP:IMPERFECT 154:contradicted 153: 150:unverifiable 120:WP:IMPERFECT 101: 93: 70: 43: 37: 2538:This is an 2352:'at times' 2299:apologetics 2267:C. S. Lewis 2124:apologetics 1576:Ellsworth's 1507:—Preceding 1455:Christians. 1373:—Preceding 1150:ought to be 1081:—Preceding 1028:this source 890:—Preceding 862:Crasshopper 773:—Preceding 36:This is an 2360:empiricism 2341:"at times" 2128:empiricism 2037:..." (87) 1970:Tesseract2 1796:Tryptofish 1723:rejects it 1661:Tryptofish 1647:Tesseract2 1629:Tryptofish 1613:Tesseract2 1573:— Paine ( 1539:Tryptofish 1104:Tryptofish 1058:Tryptofish 1044:dave souza 1012:second law 988:heat death 930:Tryptofish 914:Willluckin 678:Tryptofish 656:Tryptofish 630:Speciman00 593:Tryptofish 544:WP:SUMMARY 513:Speciman00 484:Speciman00 361:dave souza 282:dave souza 271:2008-06-29 203:Firefly322 132:Firefly322 2584:Archive 5 2579:Archive 4 2573:Archive 3 2567:Archive 2 2562:Archive 1 2516:Ramos1990 2508:Ramos1990 2470:Ramos1990 2462:Ramos1990 2394:AshforkAZ 2385:got saved 2366:Tesseract 2293:Sehnsucht 2255:sola fide 2210:Tesseract 2161:Tesseract 2155:on top of 2010:evolution 1959:JonHarder 1924:should be 1246:love-hate 1146:love-hate 1020:evolution 745:Bioethics 537:generally 419:Bahi-who? 278:Darwinism 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 2417:unsigned 2387:by some 2225:does not 1871:Hinduism 1735:dixit. ( 1706:dixit. ( 1700:invented 1554:article 1509:unsigned 1375:unsigned 1220:Uncle Ed 1083:unsigned 1032:John Ray 1016:disorder 976:universe 904:contribs 892:unsigned 775:unsigned 446:Faro0485 425:Faro0485 406:Faro0485 176:baseless 166:does not 128:WP:POINT 2541:archive 1920:WP:ELNO 1861:LUMBAGO 1751:Huh...? 1418:WP:TALK 994:' 1865 968:systems 964:entropy 822:Gredloc 582:reject 234:weren't 39:archive 2497:Anupam 2371:(talk) 2356:reason 2215:(talk) 2166:(talk) 1936:WP:BRD 1733:Rursus 1704:Rursus 1581:Climax 1000:change 960:energy 2443:Stalk 2439:Hrafn 2348:Hrafn 2323:Stalk 2319:Hrafn 2239:Stalk 2235:Hrafn 2204:often 2190:Stalk 2186:Hrafn 2180:above 2091:Wekn 2077:Stalk 2073:Hrafn 1932:Zygon 1916:Zygon 799:Gabbe 755:Stalk 751:Hrafn 676:.) -- 565:Stalk 561:Hrafn 325:Stalk 321:Hrafn 315:WP:RS 244:Stalk 240:Hrafn 191:Stalk 187:Hrafn 107:Stalk 103:Hrafn 16:< 2520:talk 2512:talk 2474:talk 2466:talk 2425:talk 2398:talk 2358:and 2275:talk 2143:talk 2060:talk 1974:talk 1944:talk 1901:talk 1882:Talk 1847:talk 1839:NOMA 1824:NOMA 1800:talk 1785:talk 1767:talk 1739:bork 1710:bork 1665:talk 1651:talk 1633:talk 1617:talk 1568:NPOV 1543:talk 1517:talk 1426:talk 1412:and 1383:talk 1224:talk 1188:That 1128:talk 1108:talk 1091:talk 1062:talk 1048:talk 1038:and 962:and 934:talk 918:talk 900:talk 866:talk 826:talk 803:talk 795:WP:A 783:talk 718:talk 682:talk 660:talk 634:talk 597:talk 588:does 548:this 542:Per 517:talk 488:talk 468:talk 450:talk 429:talk 410:talk 387:one. 365:talk 286:talk 207:talk 136:talk 130:. -- 2265:by 1843:FOo 1743:!) 1714:!) 1591:PS. 1584:) 1556:can 1420:). 1002:or 966:of 856:'s 741:far 729:WAY 714:ADM 584:all 580:not 230:you 95:by 2522:) 2476:) 2427:) 2400:) 2315:. 2277:) 2145:) 2062:) 1976:) 1946:) 1938:. 1903:) 1880:• 1849:) 1802:) 1787:) 1769:) 1667:) 1653:) 1635:) 1627:-- 1619:) 1561:So 1545:) 1519:) 1428:) 1385:) 1226:) 1130:) 1110:) 1093:) 1064:) 1046:, 1034:, 936:) 920:) 902:• 868:) 828:) 805:) 797:. 785:) 720:) 684:) 662:) 636:) 599:) 519:) 490:) 470:) 452:) 431:) 412:) 397:- 363:, 284:, 263:. 209:) 183:. 178:, 174:, 138:) 2552:. 2518:( 2510:( 2472:( 2464:( 2423:( 2396:( 2273:( 2141:( 2058:( 1972:( 1956:✤ 1942:( 1899:( 1859:P 1845:( 1798:( 1783:( 1765:( 1725:! 1692:. 1663:( 1649:( 1631:( 1615:( 1541:( 1515:( 1424:( 1381:( 1222:( 1126:( 1106:( 1089:( 1060:( 932:( 916:( 898:( 864:( 824:( 801:( 781:( 716:( 680:( 658:( 632:( 595:( 554:. 515:( 486:( 466:( 448:( 427:( 408:( 274:. 205:( 134:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index