Kay 17:

Oh mine!! Irrelevant. We are refering to systems (religion vs science).

Not irrelevant ! Lest it is thought that being religious hinders science. That is not the case as demonstrated in the examples of the scientists I mentioned.

*Kails*:
Religion and science are basically two in the same.
However radicals and separatists from both sides have played tug of war
thus separating what was once a beautiful union in a childish "us against them" fight.

I once tried to sell the idea that religion and science share a common ground in philosophy and in mentations. I see both as an employment of the human ability to reason. Of course, science lays much more emphasis on critical analysis and empirical investigation than the other. And this should make the scientific method the basis of one's views.

gothrones:

What are you smoking? There is no such thing as faith in science. It deals primarily with evidence!

tell me more. Recreating full organisms by evolutionists from just teeth fossil (which makes up more than 90% of the fossil record) is what? You are right, it's not faith, it's stupidity.

She never said science is built on faith, but rather that religion and science share many similarities, the most notable of which is that they are both offshoot of man's interest in the unknown.

Learn to read between the lines. Thought such a zealous defender of science would at least be interested in critical reasoning.

maclatunji:


You know the Nile and Amazon are now salty after you mixed them with salt water. #LOL

Keep telling yourself you are special. #Hehehe

Do you think the Quran should guide science?

Oahray: tell me more. Recreating full organisms by evolutionists from just teeth fossil (which makes up more than 90% of the fossil record) is what? You are right, it's not faith, it's stupidity.

She never said science is built on faith, but rather that religion and science share many similarities, the most notable of which is that they are both offshoot of man's interest in the unknown.

Learn to read between the lines. Thought such a zealous defender of science would at least be interested in critical reasoning.

That might be the only similarity they share.

ayobase: Why hasn't this made it to the front page yet.....Oga Seun, pls go edit ur duplicated post biko!

Science can prove anything to be through, that what Thomas wanted. PROVE IT TO ME AND I WILL BELIEVE.

The fact u don't believe in God makes is so easy to counter anything SUPERNATURAL.

As far as I'm concerned, God hasn't changed, but we.

God created rain, sun, thunder, lightning, snow, fog and the likes, but we still have to protect ourselves from them in some ways.

If God has used just simple rain (water) to wipe out the earth before, then I don't see why he can't use others to do the same, besides He is gonna use fire later. That's left for you to believe or not!

I LIVE BY FAITH, and not by SIGHT!

God is the greatest scientist, Engineer, Author, Builder, Architect........ A creator begat creator!

Have you asked yourself why the INVENTORS are predominantly Christians or Jews?

So god also created the the thunderstorms in far away Jupiter?
For what purpose, for whose benefit, or to punish whom?

Oahray: Come to think of it, I'v never come across anywhere in the bible that says every lightning is a manifestation of God's anger. Overzealous critics perhaps? First of all, science isn't the same as atheism. There are many religious scientists. Newton was one.

It's like the HELIOCENTRIC VS GEOCENTRIC saga. The church based its geocentric position on the 'Joshua and the sun standing still' account, forgetting to recognise that it was narrated from a layman's point of view. However, that does not discredit the Bible.

Not that science is any better. For example, years ago SPONTANEOUS GENERATION was considered a theory and widely accepted by scientists. The Bible said creatures reproduce (living organism from living organism) according to their kind, centuries before the 'cell theory' was established. It's obvious who won. However,it does not discredit science either.

Did you need the bible to tell you creatures reproduce according to their kind?
The fact that science can hold on to an idea today, and then discard that idea tomorrow in the face of new knowledge is what makes science far superior to religious absolutism.

mazaje:

He is an atheist. . .

Atheism: The belief that there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. MAKES PERFECT SENSE..
Atheism: A religion in which you believe in nothing, show it off, think you're superior to others with a religion characterized by a God, talk about how retarded people with religions are, and basically hate on other/people with other religions
Atheism: The religion devoted to one's own smug sense of superiority.
As there is no way to use logic to prove or disprove the existence of God, atheism is, in fact, based completely on theory and faith. Also its followers tend to be no less educated, dogmatic, and fanatical about their chosen spiritual path than they claim christians, muslims claim to be..
Whats My point? If people want to believe in God, or don't want to believe in God, it's really nobody else's buisiness.
Get over it you fools.. and stop arguing.. Even the Op is a f*****tard for posting this..end of story

Uyi Iredia:

I once tried to sell the idea that religion and science share a common ground in philosophy and in mentations. I see both as an employment of the human ability to reason. Of course, science lays much more emphasis on critical analysis and empirical investigation than the other. And this should make the scientific method the basis of one's views.

I have never never seen reason or the ability to reason when it comes to religious belief.
Please show me one set of religious beliefs that can deemed as showcasing the application of reason.

plaetton:

I have never never seen reason or the ability to reason when it comes to religious belief.
Please show me one set of religious beliefs that can deemed as showcasing the application of reason.

The Golden Rule from Christianity, the concept of Dao (or Tao) in Taoism, the underlying belief in theistic religions that the universe must have a self-sufficient cause, the call to high moral standards (some of which is acceptable to most people e.g honesty, discipline, cleanliness). Not to mention the reasoning used in justifying the validity of their religions which albeit, could be said to have flaws, is an employment of their mentations.

Uyi Iredia:

The Golden Rule from Christianity, the concept of Dao (or Tao) in Taoism, the underlying belief in theistic religions that the universe must have a self-sufficient cause, the call to high moral standards (some of which is acceptable to most people e.g honesty, discipline, cleanliness). Not to mention the reasoning used in justifying the validity of their religions which albeit, could be said to have flaws, is an employment of their mentations.

Golden rule isn't from christianity. . .Confucius(479 BC), Thales (546 BC),Isocrates(338 BC) have stated the golden rule hundreds of years before it appeared in the bible. . .

Misunderstood_G:
Atheism: The belief that there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. MAKES PERFECT SENSE..
Atheism: A religion in which you believe in nothing, show it off, think you're superior to others with a religion characterized by a God, talk about how retarded people with religions are, and basically hate on other/people with other religions
Atheism: The religion devoted to one's own smug sense of superiority.
As there is no way to use logic to prove or disprove the existence of God, atheism is, in fact, based completely on theory and faith. Also its followers tend to be no less educated, dogmatic, and fanatical about their chosen spiritual path than they claim christians, muslims claim to be..
Whats My point? If people want to believe in God, or don't want to believe in God, it's really nobody else's buisiness.
Get over it you fools.. and stop arguing.. Even the Op is a f*****tard for posting this..end of story

Is this your OWN definition of atheism?. . .

Misunderstood_G:
Atheism: The belief that there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. MAKES PERFECT SENSE..

It is defined as the lack of belief in God or as the belief there is no God. What you stated here is an extrapolation from that belief not the belief.

Misunderstood_G:

Atheism: A religion in which you believe in nothing, show t off, think you're superior to others with a religion characterized by a God, talk about how retarded people with religions are, and basically hate on other/people with other religions
Atheism: The religion devoted to one's own smug sense of superiority.

Describes some, but not all atheists.

Misunderstood_G:
As there is no way to use logic to prove or disprove the existence of God, atheism is, in fact, based completely on theory and faith. Also its followers tend to be no less educated, dogmatic, and fanatical about their chosen spiritual path than they claim christians, muslims claim to be..

There is logic to arguments for and against God's existence. And from statistical studies most atheists are educated. Religious folks carry the bulk of the uneducated especially since they're more ubiquitous.

Misunderstood_G:
Whats My point? If people want to believe in God, or don't want to believe in God, it's really nobody else's buisiness.
Get over it you fools.. and stop arguing.. Even the Op is a f*****tard for posting this..end of story

It's clearly your business since you made it a duty to type this drivel.

mazaje:

Golden rule isn't from christianity. . .Confucius(479 BC), Thales (546 BC),Isocrates(338 BC) have stated the golden rule hundreds of years before it appeared in the bible. . .

The Golden Rule from in Christianity.

Uyi Iredia:

The Golden Rule from Christianity, the concept of Dao (or Tao) in Taoism, the underlying belief in theistic religions that the universe must have a self-sufficient cause, the call to high moral standards (some of which is acceptable to most people e.g honesty, discipline, cleanliness). Not to mention the reasoning used in justifying the validity of their religions which albeit, could be said to have flaws, is an employment of their mentations.

Big laughs.
First, what is the golden rule from christianity?
Most of the above are man made philosophical constructs.

The Egyptian concept of Maat, for example, are not religious, but philosophically contrived codes of morality.
Moses,an Egyptian, bequetted this concept of Maat to the ancient hebrews in the form of the ten commandments.
The hebrews simply plugged in their god, or idea of god, to give the codes of Maat a binding divine authority.
See what I mean?
Please google maat.

Second, early humans did not need religion to to contemplate that one event gives rise to another. Infact, they created different gods and religions in an attempt to fill the gaps in their knowledge- the same thing we do today when we say that god created life, simply because our scientific knowledge has not yet convincingly answered how the first life could have began.
When there is a gap in knowledge, we create god.
In other words, the ideas came before the religions, and not the other way round.
This is the premise of the Op's thread.

Moral standards? Give me a break!
In the case of christianity, for example, what kind moral standards are involved when god supposedly seeks to punish the entire human generations for the supposed disobedience of an ill-informed but curious Adam and Eve? What moral standards are involved when the so-called creator of the all humanity selects one tribe above others and then instructs them to committ acts of genocide against the others?

So please spare us the religious morality nonsense. That is exactly what I mean by the irrationality of religious beliefs.

Oahray: tell me more. Recreating full organisms by evolutionists from just teeth fossil (which makes up more than 90% of the fossil record) is what? You are right, it's not faith, it's stupidity.

You would be amazed at the amount of information you can extract from a single fossilized tooth or even a bone fragment. If you'd bothered to read any of the original papers describing such fossils, you'd know that scientists go to extreme lengths to support every little detail of their claims with evidence. Whenever they make guesses, they always clearly indicate so. There is zero tolerance for any form of hidden conjecture in the scientific world.

Any scientific paper that makes unsupported claims will get torn apart during the peer review process. Or another scientist will try and make a name for himself by debunking the paper and humiliating the authors.

The only time anything resembling faith comes in is when artists (who are almost always not scientists) try and create images of extinct animals for pubic consumption. When they do they usually use their artistic license to fill in the gaps in scientific knowledge, to make their pictures prettier and to dumb things down so that ordinary people can understand. When they do this, they usually don't bother to tell the public which aspects of the image are supported by evidence and which aspects they just made up. This is not the fault of the scientists though.

Of course, the situation is not ideal, but its far better than what happens in the religion industry where people just cook up stories and claim that an invisible man with wings told them.

mazaje:

Is this your OWN definition of atheism?. . .

Absolutely..

plaetton:

Big laughs.
First, what is the golden rule from christianity?
Most of the above are man made philosophical constructs.

Google 'The Golden Rule'. And I amended it to 'The Golden Rule in Christianity'.

plaetton: The Egyptian concept of Maat, for example, are not religious, but philosophically contrived codes of morality.
Moses,an Egyptian, bequetted this concept of Maat to the ancient hebrews in the form of the ten commandments.
The hebrews simply plugged in their god, or idea of god, to give the codes of Maat a binding divine authority.
See what I mean?
Please google maat.

This doesn't preclude the fact that a call to live a moral life was called for under various religions.

plaetton: Second, early humans did not need religion to to contemplate that one event gives rise to another. Infact, they created different gods and religions in an attempt to fill the gaps in their knowledge- the same thing we do today when we say that god created life, simply because our scientific knowledge has not yet convincingly answered how the first life could have began.
When there is a gap in knowledge, we create god.
In other words, the ideas came before the religions, and not the other way round.
This is the premise of the Op's thread.

What of the inferential proofs for God layed down by Thomas Aquinas ? Those aren't based on gaps in knowledge. Even if they did create religion because of gaps in knowledge it was based on a search for truth and employs the ability to reason_however faulty it may be_ which was my argument.

plaetton: Moral standards? Give me a break!
In the case of christianity, for example, what kind moral standards are involved when god supposedly seeks to punish the entire human generations for the supposed disobedience of an ill-informed but curious Adam and Eve? What moral standards are involved when the so-called creator of the all humanity selects one tribe above others and then instructs them to committ acts of genocide against the others?

Noted, but that's not my focus. I was pointing out the more agreeable advice to honesty, hard-work and selflessness. Proverbs in particular demonstrates this.

plaetton: So please spare us the religious morality nonsense. That is exactly what I mean by the irrationality of religious beliefs.

My argument was that science and religion have common ground in PHILOSOPHY and MENTATIONS.

Uyi Iredia:

There is logic to arguments for and against God's existence. And from statistical studies most atheists are educated. Religious folks carry the bulk of the uneducated especially since they're more ubiquitous.

I still stand my ground, there's no way to use logic to Disprove the existence of God... Oya if you can disprove God let me see

Uyi Iredia: It's clearly your business since you made it a duty to type this drivel.

It's really none of business, and i don't care at all.. You atheists are just bringing up so many arguments, it just shows how insecure you guys really are..
I'm a christian, and you don't see me arguing with you guys or other religious folks.
What's my point? you believe in atheism so much...good.. STAY THERE and stop this fuuuucckked up arguments..

Evil Brain:

You would be amazed at the amount of information you can extract from a single fossilized tooth or even a bone fragment. If you'd bothered to read any of the original papers describing such fossils, you'd know that scientists go to extreme lengths to support every little detail of their claims with evidence. Whenever they make guesses, they always clearly indicate so. There is zero tolerance for any form of hidden conjecture in the scientific world.

I doubt that was the case in the Piltdown man and the Nebraska man. And tooths tell you nothing about a SUPPOSED ancestral organism. And of course there isn't zero tolerance for conjecture or else the wild extrapolation of an organism wouldn't have been made from a tooth.

Evil Brain:
Any scientific paper that makes unsupported claims will get torn apart during the peer review process. Or another scientist will try and make a name for himself by debunking the paper and humiliating the authors.

That is ideal but human beings are social beings. Group think could allow unsupported claims go unheeded. How else would Freud's or Darwin's notions have been accepted.

Evil Brain:
The only time anything resembling faith comes in is when artists (who are almost always not scientists) try and create images of extinct animals for pubic consumption. When they do they usually use their artistic license to fill in the gaps in scientific knowledge, to make their pictures prettier and to dumb things down so that ordinary people can understand. When they do this, they usually don't bother to tell the public which aspects of the image are supported by evidence and which aspects they just made up. This is not the fault of the scientists though.

It is the fault of the scientists, who give free hand to the artist's to publish such drawings and fail to notify the public of the imaginary nature of such drawings.

Evil Brain:
Of course, the situation is not ideal, but its far better than what happens in the religion industry where people just cook up stories and claim that an invisible man with wings told them.

Not far better, just slightly better. The neo-Darwinian theory is mostly stories covered up in science-speak. If you wish to argue this further you can resurrect a past thread that debated evolution. I won't reply to a new thread.

Misunderstood_G:
I still stand my ground, there's no way to use logic to Disprove the existence of God... Oya if you can disprove God let me see

By logic I meant, a procession of thoughts, arguments for and against God follow my definition of logic. I don't intend to disprove God.

Misunderstood_G:

It's really none of business, and i don't care at all.. You atheists are just bringing up so many arguments, it just shows how insecure you guys really are..
I'm a christian, and you don't see me arguing with you guys or other religious folks.
What's my point? you believe in atheism so much...good.. STAY THERE and stop this fuuuucckked up arguments..

Back up there. What makes you think I'm an atheist ? I think a first step to not being bigoted to atheists is to realise they're humans.

--- An honest God is the noblest work of man.
--- Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god market was fairly glutted and heaven crammed with these phantoms.
--- Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so.
--- If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly the teachings of the New, he would be insane. --- It is a blessed thing that in every age some one has had the individuality enough and courage enough to stand by his own convictions.
--- Let us put theology out of religion. Theology has always sent the worst to heaven, the best to hell.
--- Reason, observation, and experience; the holy trinity of science.
--- The Church has always been willing to swap off treasures in heaven for cash down.
--- The inspiration of the Bible depends upon the ignorance of the gentleman who reads it.
---There is no slavery but ignorance.

Uyi Iredia:

I doubt that was the case in the Piltdown man and the Nebraska man. And tooths tell you nothing about a SUPPOSED ancestral organism. And of course there isn't zero tolerance for conjecture or else the wild extrapolation of an organism wouldn't have been made from a tooth.

Good examples.

The Nebraska man was a peccary tooth that was misidentified as human by the people who discovered it. Most of the scientific world never accepted that it was human and it was eventually proven not to be so by other scientists within 4 years. In that case, the system worked beautifully.

The Piltdown man was a very clever hoax that fooled a lot of people and wasn't fully debunked for 4 decades. Despite that, most authorities in the field were suspicious of it because it contradicted what we knew about human evolution from other fossils. Eventually though, it was still scientists, not creationists, or pastors that proved it was fake, and the scientific community immediately threw it away. That's how science works, everybody's work constantly gets checked by others and the rubbish gets thrown out.

Thanks for helping to illustrate my point

That is ideal but human beings are social beings. Group think could allow unsupported claims go unheeded. How else would Freud's or Darwin's notions have been accepted.

You must be joking if you're suggesting that groupthink had anything to do with Darwin's theory gaining acceptance. Do you know how much opposition Darwin faced when Origin of the Species got published? His ideas got accepted because they made too much sense to be dismissed and they made testable predictions which turned out to be correct. Go and read a history book or something.

I can't say anything about Freud. Even today, psychology is barely a science.

It is the fault of the scientists, who give free hand to the artist's to publish such drawings and fail to notify the public of the imaginary nature of such drawings.

Except that the artists work for the media, and the scientists have no control over them. Scientists are constantly complaining about how their work is being dumbed down and misrepresented by the press, but nobody ever listens to them. Like when your Nebraska man tooth was mistakenly identified as human, the newspapers included a drawing of a cave man in their reports, giving the impression that scientists knew what Nebraska man looked like. Henry Osborn, the scientist who misidentified the tooth called the picture a "figment of the imagination of no scientific value". Note that this was the guy who "discovered" Nebraska man, and even he admitted that he had no idea what it looked like.

The media is far more interested in sensationalism and selling papers than scientific accuracy. And the journalists who report on science often don't have a clue about what they are writing about. Its ridiculous to blame honest scientists for someone else's mistakes.

The neo-Darwinian theory is mostly stories covered up in science-speak. If you wish to argue this further you can resurrect a past thread that debated evolution. I won't reply to a new thread.

Rest assured that I have no intention to start a thread just to argue with you. Clearly, you are too far gone in your creationist delusions for me to help you. I'm sure that whenever you are ready to stop fooling yourself and face reality you'll find your own way to the truth.

Cheers

Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes.... A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men.

Uyi Iredia:

I once tried to sell the idea that religion and science share a common ground in philosophy and in mentations. I see both as an employment of the human ability to reason. Of course, science lays much more emphasis on critical analysis and empirical investigation than the other. And this should make the scientific method the basis of one's views.

dear i am not trying to sell anything though.
it's a fact.

theism + science together were the foundation for every great civilization there was in the ancient world. once egos came to play it all went down hill.

Evil Brain:

Good examples.

The Nebraska man was a peccary tooth that was misidentified as human by the people who discovered it. Most of the scientific world never accepted that it was human and it was eventually proven not to be so by other scientists within 4 years. In that case, the system worked beautifully.

The Pillow man was a very clever hoax that fooled a lot of people and wasn't fully debunked for 4 decades. Despite that, most authorities in the field were suspicious of it because it contradicted what we knew about human evolution from other fossils. Eventually though, it was still scientists, not creationists, or pastors that proved it was fake, and the scientific community immediately threw it away. That's how science works, everybody's work constantly gets checked by others and the rubbish gets thrown out.

Thanks for helping to illustrate my point

Poor examples.

You started out by making the claim that huge information can be extracted from a tooth. Here is a case that fails at that and you exclaim 'Good examples'.

Your words.

"If you'd bothered to read any of the original papers describing such fossils, you'd know that scientists go to extreme lengths to support every little detail of their
claims with evidence. Whenever they make guesses, they
always clearly indicate so."

Do the examples I cited follow this supposed claim ? Clearly not. You see that. Instead of owning up to the error of the case in point, you brag about how science caught the errants - after years had passed in a system that supposedly has 'zero tolerance for hidden conjectures'. You claim a victory that was at best, pyrrhic, at worst, a failure.

Your pathetic attempts at sugar-coating earlier assertions failed because the 2 forwarded examples clearly include conjectures, outright falsehoods and tolerance for both.

Evil Brain: You must be joking if you're suggesting that groupthink had anything to do with Darren's theory gaining acceptance. Do you know how much opposition Darwin faced when Origin of the Species got published? His ideas got accepted because they made too much sense to be dismissed and they made testable predictions which turned out to be correct. Go and read a history book or something.

I can't say anything about Freud. Even today, psychology is barely a science.

Actually, I am well aware of the opposition and even I am aware that without gaining like-minded supporters the theory couldn't possibly have flourished. Group think is the similarity in the thoughts of a group of people on an issue. That is needed to propagate any theory. Darwin proposed the theory, Huxley is popularly known to have gained support by aggressively promoting it, the result is the brainwashing of generations of humans including fellows such as yourself. State the testable predictions made by Darwin.

Of course, you wouldn't state anything about Freud because his theory was a fraud. Since you claim psychology isn't a science, don't let me catch making silly statements on how morality and religion evolved, since their explanations are derived from evolutionary psychology.

Evil Brain: Except that the artists work for the media, and the scientists have no control over them. Scientists are constantly complaining about how their work is being dumbed down and misrepresented by the press, but nobody ever listens to them. Like when your Nebraska man tooth was mistakenly identified as human, the newspapers included a drawing of a cave man in their reports, giving the impression that scientists knew what Nebraska man looked like. Henry Osborn, the scientist who misidentified the tooth called the picture a "figment of the imagination of no scientific value". Note that this was the guy who "discovered" Nebraska man, and even he admitted that he had no idea what it looked like.

The media is far more interested in sensationalism and selling papers than scientific accuracy. And the journalists who report on science often don't have a clue about what they are writing about. Its ridiculous to blame honest scientists for someone else's mistakes.

Artists also work for science journals, magazines and textbook publishers so that's not an excuse. The discovery of the Nebraska man along with claims of it being the remains of an ancestral species were published in Science. Verify this on Wikipedia. So as you can see in this case, scientists can publish flawed conclusions. While your points on the media are note-worthy, this in no way precludes the fact that scientists give them a free rein by not correcting them, using the media which they also have access to, or even make mistakes of their own.

Evil Brain: Rest assured that I have no intention to start a thread just to argue with you. Clearly, you are too far gone in your creationist delusions for me to help you. I'm sure that whenever you are ready to stop fooling yourself and face reality you'll find your own way to the truth.

Cheers

Of course, there is the possibility this statement is written because you are deluded with evolution and hence see no need to argue with opposition. The dialectical method is a way to the truth. Debates work on that method. Your unwillingness to debate betrays your non-critical attitude - the mark of a dunce.

Good night.

whew!!

see debate!

*Kails*:


dear i am not trying to sell anything though.
it's a fact.

theism + science together were the foundation for every great civilization there was in the ancient world. once egos came to play it all went down hill.

What happened when Galileo et al essentially formed the modern scientific community, spurring the age of enlightenment, which featured a focus on separating science from religion/superstition unlike any other seen before, roughly ~500 years ago? Notice the effects?

Or would you rather return to one of those great civilizations that was doing stuff right? At least consider tossing out whatever godless device you're using to browse atm. It's a another terribly product of the scientific method, yes?

*Kails*:


dear i am not trying to sell anything though.
it's a fact.

theism + science together were the foundation for every great civilization there was in the ancient world. once egos came to play it all went down hill.

If by ego you mean 'religious faith and doctrines', no problem..

musKeeto:

Do you think the Quran should guide science?

The Qur'an has already guided science. One of the greatest social scientists ever was born on this day in 1332 - Ibn Khaldun http://www.coolstuff49ja.com/2013/05/today-is-ibn-khalduns-birthday.html?m=1

Islam provided the basic framework on which he made many discoveries.