bangla2000 Home • b2k Interactive  Home • all   bulletins New Members Sign Up b2k Members Sign In
Sunday, July 22, 2018 BD

Others Group

Bulletins Participate in the Bulletin
Enter Your Opinion
Click to add Emoticons.
blush confused cool cry eek frown biggrin
evilgrin supergrin kiss lol smile love mad
redface rolleyes sweat tongue trippy winky alien
devil happy indifferent nerd ohwell sick tired

Bulletins Bulletin : Published and Discussed
Date: Saturday, March 02, 2002
From: kuashaa
Haay Dhormo Haay Biggan, Porechho Orbacheener Haatey: Kisti Chaar

Koto Ojananarey!

Likewise, in today’s schools children learn theories about the origins of our cosmos that are intimately bound to religious perspective. We all know the controversy surrounding this topic. In last July, (if you were in US then, I hope you remember it) for instance, Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, a Republican, introduced an amendment to President Bush's Secondary Education Act that aims, in his words, “to make sure we teach science in science class and that we don't teach religious or philosophical theories without having them scientifically tested” ("Teachers: What in Creation," USA Today, July 25, 2001, p. D1). In his view (and I might add, in mine as well) evolution fits into this category.

"Evolution is now taught as a given," Sen. Santorum says. “We shouldn’t stop questioning and testing theories simply because they happen to be pervasively believed.” The catch? Some groups maintain that this language is simply a loophole to allow or even encourage the teaching of creationism in our science classes. Regardless of political outcome, however, such events illustrate that we are-all of us-currently living the experience of how religion can regulate the content of our science.

Religion, it seems to me, is a little like that dog when it’s lying in a science ethics room-kind of a friendly, loving old creature that we pretty much ignore until someone calls our attention to him. Right now, we’re only seeing religion in the science arena if it's posted with huge “Beware” signs-an unfortunate and unnecessary interpretation, for it tends to predispose us to unwarranted and limiting negativity.

As many of us have long suspected, religion needs science to keep its truth claims free of superstition. But there is another, more surprising aspect to the relationship between science and religion. Robert John Russell, founder and director of University of California-Berkeley’s Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, puts it well when he writes, “science needs religion to expose its pretensions to absolute authority and unique and unequivocal truth.” We must no longer allow science and religion to remain adversaries, he adds, for then “they will either be locked in a conflict of mutual conquest, such as ‘creation science,’ which costs religion its credibility, or ‘scientific materialism,’ which costs science its innocence”.

Physicist Mehdi Golshani, for instance, draws inspiration from his belief in the Quran. To him, research is an act of worship in that “it reveals more of the wonders of God’s creation.” Similarly, Carl Feit, a cancer biologist and Talmudic scholar, believes, after the Jewish philosopher Maimonides, that understanding the natural universe is the only pathway to achieving a love of God. And astro-physicist Joel Primack maintains simply that “practicing science has a spiritual goal.” (“Science Finds God,” Newsweek, July 20, 1998).

People Discussion
(Saturday, March 02, 2002)

Evolution is not taught as a given concept. Darwin’s theory has been challenged recently (not by religion but by science) and it is no longer accepted in its original form. I am sure there are muslims who believe homosexuality is not a sin. Exception proves the rule!

(Sunday, March 03, 2002)

you should know, religion never accepted Darwin's crazy theory of human inception. religious explanation of human inception is a fact. not fiction. since it is prevailing for longer period of time only new theories can challenge it. religion is not that fragile to challenge every single disorder to make itself feel safe.
here you are confusing my feeling of your love to truth or logic.

(Sunday, March 03, 2002)

“Religious explanation of human inception is a fact” – to whom? The people who have faith in religion? Is not that obvious! Religion can’t accept Darwin’s theory because it provides an alternative to it (although I know some religious people who try to prove that Darwin’s theory has been stated in quran in different words)!

Copyright © Bangla2000. All Rights Reserved.
About Us  |  Legal Notices  |  Contact for Advertisement