Creationism: Should we burn the Bible and the Koran?- Free men<

Le débat sur le créationnisme, repris ces jours sur les blogs, pose la question de la relation entre la science et la foi religieuse. Les créationnistes prennent les livres fondateurs au pied de la lettre: l’univers a été créé, Homme compris, il y a environ 6’000 ans. Les tenants du dessein intelligent admettent eux l’évolution mais en lui donnant la marque d’une intention divine prédéterminée.

The debate has been relaunched for a few years by Muslim and Christian Cretionists who want to introduce their views in education and at school.Under a provocative title I deliberately take the party to want to limit the influence of the sacred books of religions.The supporters of creationism present themselves as scientists.The question is not to know who is right at first, but who is empowered to speak, in the name of what, and with what means of demonstration.A first thing is to be taken into consideration: one cannot claim science without subscribing to the intellectual and experimental approach that this implies.In the magazine La Research last June, on pages 81 to 83, two scientists, Guillaume Lecointre and Jacques Arnould, answer the question: should we dialogue with the creationists? About creationists who call themselves scientists, Guillaume Lecointre recalls thisWhat is the scientific approach: “The scientific approach is skeptical about the facts.(…) Another characteristic of the scientific approach, less known, is its methodological materialism.He places experimental space in the physical world: by contract, what sciences can take over the real world is the material or its sophisticated properties.Sciences do not know how to work with extra-natural, intangible entities."For him," all creationists (...) are breaking with this characteristic of a scientific approach.All work on scrambling of the limits between the collective dimension of the validation of scientific results and the individual dimension of metaphysical options.In other words, a creationist could in parallel be scientific, but his scientific research must remain circumscribed to what is experimentable, reproducible by other researchers, verifiable and which can be validated by the whole community of scientists.There is a mixture of genres to want to develop a metaphysics of the origins of the universe and to want to explain "how" it happened concretely.The founding books of religions do not give a technical manual on how the creation of the world and the development of species on Earth took place.They offer allegories to give creation a spiritual dimension.In absolute terms, zero in the state cannot say who, religious or scientists, has the right explanation, since we were not there.However, science has developed dating methods which have demonstrated their reliability and which allow us to say that the solar system was already in place since well before the supposed date of creation according to the Bible, that is, around 6,000year.Denying this would amount to denying the reliability of the approach and the tools that science uses, that is to say, denying medicine research for example.A literal reading of religious books would only make sense if the allegories could be demonstrated materially.This is not the case.In the absence of this, you have to be based on what is most plausible, the most demonstrable, even if all the answers are not yet found on the origin of the universe and on the development of life.Besides, a literal reading supposes that the whole human species comes from a single couple whose children have at least committed incest to reproduce.I imagine God, who punishes incest, authorizing him for creation.Besides, this question of incest is dismissed from the text of Genesis.Noah's Ark implicitly takes up this theme of incest since only Noé's family embarks in the ark.That everyone therefore takes care of their area of competence.Let us not ask a theologian to explain the dating in carbon 14 or genetics.Likewise do not ask a scientist to preach the Gospel.As for the intelligent design, the possibility that conscious and oriented intelligence presides over all stage of creation, this is only a hypothesis.You could say that everything is hypothesis.I prefer those who have started to be checked, even partially.And in the field of verification, an oh so legitimate area, science has a serious length on religions, without making it a system of belief but only an attempt to explain the world.As for religious books, if they want to claim this rational explanation of the world without any possible verification, if we want to impose its allegories as indisputable truths, it will be necessary to seriously think of burning them to finally pass to another stage ofhumanity and leave that of irrational belief and submission to "revelation".

1.I realize it's fat tuesday this tuesday. 2.I want to celebrate this as pancake tuesday. 3.I look up How to COO… https: // t.CO/RHCAEQIYBA

— Jenn(ifer) Jolley 👩🏻‍💻 Sun Feb2322:37:43 +00002020

(Images: 1: le dessein intelligent -2: arche de Noé -3: nasa "la main de dieu").