Julie MarshAs my dear readers at The Stir know well, I'm not religious. In fact, I harbor much disdain for organized religion, because evidence shows that it's at the root of far more human suffering than comfort.
But most of those who follow organized religion aren't much concerned with evidence -- historical or scientific. After all, that's how faith is defined: "Firm belief in something for which there is no proof." Evidence not required.
Which is fine. If believing offers comfort and community, I support that. I simply choose to find comfort and community elsewhere.
What's not fine is when believers cite scripture as "evidence" contrary to actual scientific evidence -- and then use it as an argument to further political and social agendas that are at best hilarious, at worst harmful.
The latest example: Andy Schlafly's ridiculous attempt to paint Einstein's Theory of Relativity as false, being "heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world." He cites 28 reasons why Einstein was wrong, including -- surprise, surprise -- scripture.
First off, a whole wiki just for conservatives? My mind's racing with all the fodder contained within. Oh, the hilarity!
Plus, his references crack me up. The majority are simply additional explanations by Schlafly. Only a few cite external scientific sources (linking back to another Conservapedia page doesn't count), and they're not conclusive, merely questioning based on new observations and theories. It's misleading for Schlafly to declare them as evidence.
But Schlafly also cites scripture as evidence against the inherent limitations of the speed of light (just under 300 kilometers per second). Since Jesus could reportedly "cause something to happen instantaneously in another location," he was defying relativity by acting faster than the speed of light. Even the sun takes eight minutes to shine on us here on Earth, but apparently the light of Jesus faces no such physical constraints.
Andy's a little confused about the definitions of relativity and relativism too, but even that's funny. Per Merriam Webster's entry on relativism, Schlafly is referring to the definition of relativism as "a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them" when he posits that liberals' endorsement of relativism is related to advocacy of the Theory of Relativity.
What Andy doesn't realize is that there's another definition of relativism that actually comes first in Merriam Webster's entry: Relativism is "a theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing."
Sorry, Andy. I guess there are just some things that your mind is too limited to know. Stick to the Bible.
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
KStew Refuses to Shower
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
This Hot Dad Cooks AND Does the Dishes
Comments 18
Scripture will always trump science. God will always trump science.
Scripture will always trump science?!?!? Oh, my. The bible was written thousands of years ago by MEN with little understanding of the world around them. You think it's infallible? Give. Me. A. Break.
But let me just say something about Einstein.
Einstein was just a regular guy with funny hair and a really focused brain. I am sure that if we could ask Einstein, he would say he never believe that his "theories" were the end-all and be-all. They are just advancements on previous ideas and hopefully foundations for future ideas. Einstein would probably be offended to be compared with God.
As for the comment "The bible was written thousands of years ago by men with little understanding of the world around them" - have you read the Bible, as an adult? These men had considerable understanding about the world around them. More than most individuals have today. I agree they were "men" but they too were building on considerable knowledge, experience, and insight.
Interesting to wonder what the Book of Einstein would say if it were a part of the Bible.
Ah, dearest Julie - are you talking about the Bible sitting on my shelf that has been transcribed, transliterated and translated countless times over the years? That is the one which is supposed to be some sort of definitive source for "answers"?
He believe that the universe definitely wasn't by chance but must have been ordered by a God.
The scriptures are quite encompassing and read deep you will realise that science has a firm root in it.
Daniel one of the best mind in the Bible, demostrated alot of creativity in astrology and the sciences.
The men that new the bible new the answer to what most scientist are searching for, of course they had their limitation(in language) just like every person.
The scripture is Infallable and will survive for all times but science i tell you will fade.
I wonder if the person who wrote that actually read Einsteins book on relativity? it to me does not seem like he has, I have read it. (althought several years ago) I am pretty sure quite a few of those were answered already and several theories of einstein have been disproved or greatly improved upon(can't think of what ones right now I just remember reading it somewhere) but that does not disprove the theory of relativity. the quantum twinning one does not make sense to me how it could disprove the theory of relativity. it is very very interesting and because of that I have read what I oculd about it but I have not heard of any leading scientist claiming that it disporves the theory...... Quantum physics as a whole is really very interesting and actually does not follow most of the laws of "large" physics but that does not mean anyone is going to throw out all of the Newtonian physics. As a unreligous person I am going to listen to real scientists. It is a very funny peice and does have a few valid points.