Evolution, Big Bang, God

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:18 am

Thinker wrote: I don't subscribe to these magazines, nor would I, but I have seen articles every now and then that briefly bring the topic up that everything is by chance and accident, meaning it is anti-God, not stating God, but in a world where God is the center of all discussion, these topics would of course be brought up. As I said, I don't subscribe, but I read the latest issues at magazine stands and archived ones at the library. Unfortunately and honestly I did not care to look at the date of the archived issues and mostly the same with new ones on magazine stands, but I do know, every now and then, articles are published like that. I also see advertisements promoting atheism in these science magazines, so I do get a clear meaning of what their intention is, and that would be to examine and observe and say it all came about naturally and accidentally which would state in this world that revolves around God, that they are downplaying Him, not even acknowledging or considering the possibility. And it does get worse in my opinion every year. Science is the # 1 contribution to demolishing faith and bringing up atheism. And I do hope you know what kind of science I am talking about.

My point was that these magazine's you mentioned are not scientific journals. They are popular science magazines which cater to their audiences. Just as People, Soup Opera Weekly, and Southern Living cater to their audiences.

Jbuza · Post by **Jbuza** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:13 am

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

My point was that these magazine's you mentioned are not scientific journals. They are popular science magazines which cater to their audiences. Just as People, Soup Opera Weekly, and Southern Living cater to their audiences.[/quote]

What does it mean that peer reviewed journals don't want to publish articles about the existence of God?

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:35 am

Jbuza wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:My point was that these magazine's you mentioned are not scientific journals. They are popular science magazines which cater to their audiences. Just as People, Soup Opera Weekly, and Southern Living cater to their audiences.
What does it mean that peer reviewed journals don't want to publish articles about the existence of God?

I beleive someone brought up a point using instruction manuals.
Peer reviewed scientific journals don't mention God simply because religion is not under the subject matter.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:03 am

Gould's NOMA isn't true for all subjects...if you're saying theism and science cannot overlap.

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:19 am

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Gould's NOMA isn't true for all subjects...if you're saying theism and science cannot overlap.

No, what I am saying is that even if an article based on a scientific finding has implications for one or more religions it will certainly not be discussed in said article.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:38 am

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Gould's NOMA isn't true for all subjects...if you're saying theism and science cannot overlap.
No, what I am saying is that even if an article based on a scientific finding has implications for one or more religions it will certainly not be discussed in said article.

But it'd be such an interesting read!

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:44 am

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Gould's NOMA isn't true for all subjects...if you're saying theism and science cannot overlap.
No, what I am saying is that even if an article based on a scientific finding has implications for one or more religions it will certainly not be discussed in said article.
But it'd be such an interesting read!

Perhaps Discover magazine could do an issue on this.