A school administrative director in Maine has come under attack and ridicule recently for his recent urging that evolution be dropped from the curriculum in schools.
Matthew Linkletter, director of School Administrative District 59 in Somerset County, claims that no theory – neither evolution nor creationism – should be taught in schools if it cannot be proven.
"You can't show, observe or prove [evolution]," Linkletter said in a statement.
David Connerty-Marin of Maine’s Department of Education, however, countered Linkletter’s stance, claiming that evolution should continue to be taught in schools because it is based on “proven science,” and is part of the state mandated curriculum.
"For our students to be prepared for college work and life in the 21st century, it's necessary. Evolution is not just a belief, or based on faith, it's based on scientific evaluation. The worldwide science community supports it,” he said.
Town Manager Norman Dean of Madison, one of the locations where the instruction of evolution has been challenged, also criticized Linkletter, adding that his opposition to evolution was "absolutely stupid."
Linkletter’s opposition, however, has come at a time when the “Evolution Academic Freedom” legislation – which allows for the public criticism of the tenets of Darwinism in public schools – advances under review in four states.
Lawmakers in Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, and Michigan are currently considering options to change or modify the instruction of evolution in schools that would allow students to challenge and “think critically” concerning Darwinism.
"The evolution concept is a theory, and not provable. If the science department at Madison High (a school in Somerset County) is simply teaching theory, then you ought to leave it in the science department,” said Roy Blevins, pastor at the Church of the Open Bible in Athens, Maine.
Linkletter’s arguments will be examined for review by school district directors on May 19.
RSS
Despite extensive searching of the Gospels I am unable to find any teaching of Christ's on Darwin's origin of species. Also I found nothing in the gospels where Christ seeks to prove the existence of God. It seems to me that not only is the pursuit of "scientific" evidence for God (ID) a enormous waste of time and inherently doomed to failure (since Science by definition deals with NATURAL phenomena and NATURAL causes and God by definition is supernatural) it is also fully inconsistent with the manner and teachings of Christ. One even wonders seriously if this vanity is what Christ spoke of when he discusses the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit. Is it not the Spirit of god living within us as C.S. Lewis so well describes in "Miracles" which informs us of the truth of Christss revelation. Is not chasing after other "proofs" of god and his covenant a repudiation of this new spirit which is to live within us.
Tgender when you say that ID is falsifiable by showing that any particular object is not contingent,complex or specified what do you mean by these terms. I am sincerely interested. If I take your grammer as stated the term or allows falsification if any of the three conditions exists in relation to "any particular object" if this you mean what you say by this and you use the term complex in the way that ID advocates use it (irreducible complexity) then I would contend that by your proposition of falsification ID is already shown to be false since such objects are numerous in our natural universe. However for my self I can't see how such a proposition for falsification for ID hypothesis could be correct since the advocates when shown something that was not "complex, contingent or specified" could simply posit that that is the way the designer wanted it. You can't have it both ways that the designer can make things any way he wants and then say that there can be in the design something that shows their is no designer. ???
Agentorangx
Hi, While I agree with your line of argument that ID is not science and no falsifiable hypothesis is formable the SETI project has problems as well. The project directors admit that in fact their hypothesis is not falsifiable either. Like ID they look at the universe and based on their understanding of statistical probability can not conceive of a universe that does not have other intelligent life somewhere in it and therefore based on this belief they search for what they can not develop a falsifiable test for. You are correct in that they search in the natural world and therefore have the possibility of demonstrating the truth of their guess about the universe at some point. This however would be the discovery of a fact by virtual explorers not the vindication of a theory through experimentation under the scientific method.
TGender,
As I believed you are unable to provide any support from the SETI project itself that supports your INTERPRETATION of that project. Also you failed to respond to the challenge for you to provide something beyond a bald assertion that ID is science.
The absence of external support for your SETI claim is somewhat moot since even if true it would not follow that ID is science. The problem with your SET claim is that SETI does not use the "Scientific method" in their search. Even the people who run it admit that it would be impossible to falsify their hypothesis even if all human endeavors were turned to searching the radio waves for millions of years. They would contend that this simply meant that the E.T.s didn't use radio waves or that we missed the broadcast. They admit this and rely on a probability equation as the basis of their belief system. It is ok with me if they want to believe this. (In fact the belief in E.T. does not conflict with my spiritual beliefs and I consider it a feasible possibility). However the SETI While using technologies to explore the universe do not do SCIENCE. Scientific hypothesis by definition must be falsifiable or they are not scientific. It is the willingness and ability to posit the opposite of ones hypothesis and consider it to be legitimately possible which is at the heart of the difference between science and faith. You seem fundamentally unable (as do the supposed ID scientists) to consider the possibility of your being wrong in relation to creationism. This is understandable since the propositions you are advocating are faith positions. There is nothing wrong with holding such faith positions in my book. (I do so myself) What I do not do and object to in others is the self delusion that faith positions are science.
By the way your quote regarding Theology being the Queen of Sciences was not a saying of medieval scholars in general as your statement implies. Rather it is a commentary on the attitude of the scholars of that time found in various texts that discuss the period. In fact the statement relates very strongly to Thomas Aquinas. Interestingly it does not mean what you interpret it to mean.
A master principle which informs Aquinas' analysis of creation is that the truths of science cannot contradict the truths of faith. God is the author of all truth and whatever reason discovers to be true about reality ought not to be challenged by an appeal to sacred texts.
While they disagreed on some things this is one area where Aquinas was in agreement with Augustine. In fact both of them agree in this regard with all major Christian theologians. Your argument that science must be interpreted through the lens of Christology is contrary to centuries of Christian theology. What is alarming is that it is consistent with the approach to science/faith that members of the Taliban and other extremists find attractive.
Tgender,
So you’ve heard how the type 3 secretory system explains the evolutionary pathways for the bacteria flagella then? So you’ve read the literature on species showing how the blood clotting cascade system isn’t in fact IC? These are just 2 instances of IC which aren’t IC and its exactly what you asked for to falsify ID as a hypothesis, well, there it is, now what?
“different disciplines?”
Science is science, philosophy is philosophy, they shouldn’t be used in the same manner to explain each facts in each IE, we leave scientific methods to be used in science and we leave philosophical methods like predicate logic in philosophy. Explain these 2 genetic facts using the ID hypothesis in a scientific manner. After tryign to do explain these 2 in a scientific manner you'll see how ID as a hypothesis isn't scientific, but quasi philosophy.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
ao,
Don't bother. I've heard it all before and it's a crock. Don't care to address my comment about integrating knowledge from different disciplines?
tgender,
ok, did you want me to explain the instances of IC Behe refers to and how they were shown in Dover to not be IC, or do you take my word for it?
ao,
Respectfully, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what IDs purpose is, but more importantly, the need to integrate various disciplines of knowledge to form a coherent worldview that we can be confident is true. If God exists, then all your contortions to constrain science and avoid theology are all for naught.
Regards
“I suspect you accept SETI because the SETI scientists do not posit God as the intelligent agent, but some sort of mysterious alien life.”
Right, SETI appeals to the natural world, while ID appeals to the supernatural (ID/God), however the supernatural can’t be held constant and therefore can’t be readily studied by scientific methods.
“! Well, it is science just like SETI is because the principles are the same.”
Not quite. SETI attempts to explain the natural world with natural things and only natural things, while ID attempt to explain the natural world via supernaturalism, thus not science.
“ID is falsifiable by showing that any particular object is not contingent, not complex, or not specified’
So if I list the systems which Behe asserts to be IC and show how they have evolutionary pathways would that about suffice?
“When evolutionists run into trouble, they simply posit more time for evolution to happen or appeal to future discoveries”
Ya, like when? Lord Kelvin first suggest the Earth to be many millions (about 20) of years old based solely on the laws of thermodynamics, but he didn’t know about radiation and so his numbers were off, the earth is much older, closer to 4.5 billion years. Even the Disco Institute clowns know and accept the age of the earth and all life which has lived on it so even there you have explain why the ID folk accept it.
“How do you falsify evolution?”
Find some mammalian fossils in the Devonian layers and its spot on about dead. I can list numerous falsifiable predictions evolutionary theory has passed if you’d like?
This is tedious,, explain these 2 simply genetic facts using the ID hypothesis in a scientific manner.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
ao,
Yes, your view is what I suspected. You want to deny ID as science because you seem to fear who might be at the end of it. In other words, you’ll accept ID in SETI because at most we’ll find aliens and you can deal with that. However, if we apply ID to nature and discover God, you want to reject it and say it’s not science! Well, it is science just like SETI is because the principles are the same. Scientific discoveries of design would then lead one into theology to identify and understand the Designer. So what? If it leads to TRUTH, then that’s what we’re after, right? ID does not tie the hands of science, rather it frees it to pursue the truth wherever it leads. Disciplines of knowledge should not be compartmentalized, but integrated.
ID is falsifiable by showing that any particular object is not contingent, not complex, or not specified. It is evolution is that is not falsifiable. When evolutionists run into trouble, they simply posit more time for evolution to happen or appeal to future discoveries. How do you falsify evolution?
TG,
Here’s the key difference, SETI and their search for signs revolve around not the supernatural like ID, but instead the natural world. SETI doesn’t refer to things in the supernatural realm to explain those in the natural world, its entire avenue of gaining knowledge on ET’s stems from the natural world. As opposed to ID, which appeals to some un-described supernatural agent to explain natural phenomena in the natural world, again this is why it’s not scientific.
SETI is searching for something in the natural world and therefore it can make falsifiable predictions based on it, ID is engaged in searching, but again its searches revolve around detecting supernatural agents. SETI isn’t used to collectively explain many things in the natural world. More of less I am just asking to show how ID as a hypothesis is falsifiable? Take for instance the examples of ERV’s and Human chromosome 2 fusion, how could the ID hypothesis explain such facts in a falsifiable manner?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
Viking—
SETI is a scientific research program dedicated to searching for extraterrestrial intelligence (the “I” in SETI). It does this by scanning radio signals looking for contingency, specification, and complexity—which would be signs of intelligent life (or intelligent causation or intelligent design), i.e., it looks for complex patterns that cannot be mistaken for chance events. This is exactly what ID is arguing for, except they say let’s point this ID filter at other things besides radio waves to see if we can discern intelligent causes in nature. If you don’t see this, then you simply are not willing to see it. I suspect you accept SETI because the SETI scientists do not posit God as the intelligent agent, but some sort of mysterious alien life.
I want to clarify something I wrote in my last post. I agreed with agentorange that “science is NOT the only avenue of knowing” and that only real science should be taught in science classes—as opposed to bad science. I fear that you and perhaps others might have misconstrued my meaning. I believe that God is the maker of the heavens and the earth, therefore we will find Him in all things. Since God created the nature that science investigates it will be no surprise to find Him at every turn.
Medieval scholars were right when they said “Theology is the queen of the sciences; and philosophy is her handmaiden.” Theology must therefore transcend, inform, and unify all human disciplines. Since God is the ultimate Reality, all truth is God’s truth. So, if Christianity is true, then any view of science that leaves Christ out of the picture is fundamentally deficient. Christ is the lens through which it is possible to understand all of human existence. Therefore, we should expect Christology to enter substantially into all of life’s various disciplines. The naturalistic views of science I have seen on this website do not seek to integrate it into a coherent worldview, but rather want to isolate it from other forms of knowledge. This is detrimental and ultimately dangerous in my opinion.
Hi Tgender, based on your last post you would agree that if ID is not science then it should not be taught in schools. you give as support for the proposition that ID is science is that its principles are used in the SETI program. I went to the SETI web site and could not find this. Could you provide the link that demonstrates this claim with an official quote from the SETI scientists that says their project is based on ID principles.
In contrast to this proposition I would refer you to the exhaustive examination of whether ID is science in the Dover PA decision where it was found that ID as it was presented by its advocates was in fact not science on multiple grounds.
Given lack of any evidence to support the opinion that ID is science I would expect you be consistent with your own statement and withdraw your position that ID should be taught in schools.
ao,
“I am suggesting not that science is the only avenue of knowing, rather I am saying that what aught to be taught in science classes must remain as science and not quasi philosophy or other realms of knowing.”
Believe it or not I agree with you. Our difference of opinion is that I say ID is legitimate science and you do not. SETI is an established scientific program and it uses the principles of ID. Do you object to that program being called science?
“The fact that you want to limit your knowledge to science reveals your bias”
Respectfully no, I am suggesting not that science is the only avenue of knowing, rather I am saying that what aught to be taught in science classes must remain as science and not quasi philosophy or other realms of knowing.
“I gave you a perfectly good example of how a scientific conclusion points to God and you reject it.”
Then you need to re-read it, b/c that’s not what I was asking. I asked, again for the 3rd time, show me a science question or even a math or science equation in which it couldn’t be solved or we couldn’t understand it until a person injected the hypothesis of ‘god did this part and that part’ in the equation. Namely, demonstrate in thermodynamics or another realm of science in which the hypothesis ‘god made it that way’ actually resulted in real tangible knowledge. Christ rising from the dead still needs an explanation on HOW it occurred if it occurred at all. Again, saying ‘he rose from the dead’ doesn’t explain the details in the matter, it simply asserts he did and without any detailed explanation on how and without such details it’s not possible to rebut or critique the idea.
Lets put it on the table. Show me how ID as a hypothesis is actually scientific and should be taught as such in schools. That is what this all boils down to, appealing to the supernatural as ID does to explain natural phenomena doesn’t end up explaining any of the details, it simply asserts certain complex patterns require design but doesn’t explain the designer nor the design process, thus making it not really possible to falsify the claims, consequently making it not science but more akin to philosophy.
Agentorange—
“Has a supernatural explanation ever been shown to result in new actual tangible knowledge in SCIENCE?”
The fact that you want to limit your knowledge to science reveals your bias. I gave you a perfectly good example of how a scientific conclusion points to God and you reject it.
To summarize: Science informs us what it means to be dead. Furthermore, that all men die and stay dead is a repeatable and verifiable fact of science and is our uniform experience throughout human history. However, one man did not stay dead, but was raised to life after being dead for 3 days. Science can CONFIRM such an event, but it cannot EXPLAIN it because it is supernatural.
The resurrection of Christ is a verifiable historical event that is the most important thing that has ever occurred since the creation of the world. It is knowledge of the utmost significance and relevance to our lives, yet you are totally uninterested because you think it’s not “scientific”. You ignore this knowledge at your own peril.
TG,
“You haven’t heard anything I’ve said.”
Respectfully, I don’t think you’ve even bothered to research the ‘Wedge Document’, if you had you’d see the ID folks agenda as clear as day and how they seek to undermine science by injecting the supernatural into it. Again, injecting the supernatural into science kills the scientifc method as gods can be contolled making testing a hypothesis utterly pointless, this IS why it's not scientific and the fact that they don't allow one to know who/what the nature of the desinger is and consequently remove it from being critiqued at all, again making it not science. You're a smart person TG, surely you can recognize non-science propositions right?
‘Jesus Christ was raised from the dead 2000 years ago to rescue sinners from eternal condemnation.”
Over your head I guess. Has a supernatural explanation ever been shown to result in new actual tangible knowledge in SCIENCE? For instance, in a given equation has ‘god did this, that, and that over that’ has ever been used and actually resulted in real tangible, verifiable knowledge in Science? Show me the instance where a scientist was looking to explain particle physics or atomic matter or something else (evolution too) and they use ‘god did this and that’ and by using such a hypothesis resulted in actual knowledge. ID makes the claim that certain things are outside of the processes of naturalism and appeals to the supernatural to explain them, all the while not explaining the supernatural agent which is used to explain the natural.
One thing that is interesting is just how small the God of ID is, Newton and the great scientists of the past had great visions of God who controlled the paths of the planets (fill in your own superlative) etc...What ever one thought of their ivew on that particular topic at least they had stlye and a big view of God.
Whattdo we get with the God of ID, we get the bacteria flagella, you can just feel the awe . Now it might be just me but this does seem rather a come down? This is where the God of the gaps is today getting pushed further and further out of the universe, getting smaller and smaller.
As an aside, the many Christians who are quite happy with evolution don't have this problem.
Regards
Steve
Agentorange—
“You mean ID seeks to undermine how we do science and inject the supernatural into it”
You haven’t heard anything I’ve said.
“What you might find as express design can by others and their research and evidence be shown not be expressly designed by some invisible being, but instead the byproduct of bottom up tinkering or the result of natural forces and laws which dictate how matter can and does work.”
You haven’t heard anything I’ve said.
“Show me a single instance ever in which ‘god made it that way’ has ever produced actual knowledge which has increased the prosperity of humanity.”
Jesus Christ was raised from the dead 2000 years ago to rescue sinners from eternal condemnation.
“On the one hand, naturalists scream that ID is not scientific and on the other hand they shout ID must bring God into it or they’re being inconsistent.
No, science doesn’t allow for the supernatural to be used to explain things, so they indeed reject the idea on face value as bringing in supernatural agents kills the scientific method, surely you understand this. Show us all how ID as a hypothesis is falsifiable. Take for instance the examples of evidence on ERV’s and human chromosome 2 fusion. How could the ID hypothesis be used to explain such But the ID crowd can’t too openly say ID = god as doing so would kill their whole motive of injecting neo-creationism back into the public schools. B/c there was a written history thanks to Pandas and People it was clear in Dover who *wink wink* the designer is.
“ID does not “equal” God.”
Oh ok, then ‘who or what is the designer then? If it’s not god, then why does Dembski, Behe and others openly admit to ID =god and not aliens? By not defining the designer, they remove it from being critiqued and consequently make the hypothesis unfalsifiable and therefore not science.
“ID doesn’t deny that there is order in the universe that could be explained by natural causes.”
Right the ID crowd doesn’t deny some natural forces can produce design, but when they can’t find a natural answer immediately, they revert to the primal instinct of injecting supernatural agents to explain things, how illogical. That is essentially saying ‘ I can’t figure it out, god dun it’. My, my, this is the very same logic that left Europe in the dark ages for a millennia.
“That also has implications of God, but these implications can and should be pursued independently of the scientific investigation”
Right it should be explored by all avenues possible, however as you just noted, these ‘other’ methods wouldn’t be scientific, implying they are philosophical or ‘other’ and if it’s philosophy or ‘other’ one certainly can’t teach it as science now can they? But, that doesn’t’ stop the ID folk from trying to teach it as such.
”The goal of ID is to expose the bad philosophical presuppositions of science as it’s practiced today and replace it with a more open-minded approach that doesn’t rule out whole avenues of investigation.”
You mean ID seeks to undermine how we do science and inject the supernatural into it, again refer to the 'wedige document'. If you know anything about science and the scientific method it doesn’t allow for use of the supernatural as a means to explain phenomena as doing so makes testing impossible and proving a given hypothesis utterly pointless. Go ahead, show me a single instance ever in which ‘god made it that way’ has ever produced actual knowledge which has increased the prosperity of humanity. Show me an equation in which ‘god did this, that, and that over there’ and actually explained something with actual evidence backing and is verifiable and again resulted in actual tangible knowledge for humanity.
“If we see design in nature, then let’s acknowledge it.”
Fine, acknowledge ‘design’, but even the notion of ‘design’ and whether its intelligent or not is highly subjective and largely dependant upon evidence to derive its quantitative value. What you might find as express design can by others and their research and evidence be shown not be expressly designed by some invisible being, but instead the byproduct of bottom up tinkering or the result of natural forces and laws which dictate how matter can and does work. Hurricanes, snowflakes and rainbows can be ignorantly seen as ‘designed’. After all, how does the snow ‘know’ how to form such a complex design? How does the hurricane ‘know’ how to form in the manner it does? How does the rainbow ‘know’ how to form a perfect semi-circle with color patterns? In truth, they don’t, they are the result of natural forces, just like all other things, but alas ask an ignorant person and they will no doubt infer some supernatural explanation.
Case in point, Behe asserts the bacteria flagella is such an IC system which evolution couldn’t possibly explain. However this assertion is built on Behe’s ignorance and demonstrated how Ken Miller utterly rips Behe’s arguments on IC systems. Behe asserts such IC systems and their individual parts can’t have secondary functionality, alas he argues such a complete system is only possible when made all at once as such individual parts would have no meaning and therefore evolution couldn’t use them to select.
What is found is from the 50 some parts from the flagella, all but 10 can be removed and we’re left with the type 3 secretory system, which is functional and found in other bacteria as they use it to inject into their hosts. Right there the flagella is shown to not be IC. Nor is the blood clotting cascade system and others, all is required it the research and it becomes evident the idea of IC is simply arguing over gaps of ignorance and personal incredulity.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/6/3027
Flagged myself.
(thanks tg for your thoughts on Hume, I see the t stands for Tom, I did wonder if it was trans,
:-p
Steve)
P.s I don't think the our univerese is eternal but I don't see that implies a creator because we have no idea of conditions prior to Planck time.
AO,
“The reason why the ID crowd doesn't openly express that the designer is god is the sheer fact of doing so would negate it from be taught in public schools.”
The goal of ID is to expose the bad philosophical presuppositions of science as it’s practiced today and replace it with a more open-minded approach that doesn’t rule out whole avenues of investigation. If we see design in nature, then let’s acknowledge it. If we don’t then so be it. But, on what grounds should we ignore an approach that might lead to knowing more truth about nature?
“The ID crowd has put itself into a paradox. It can't openly proclaim ID = god and consequently by defining the designer they remove it from critque and in doing so make it a unfalsifiable hypothesis and therefore make it instrinsicly worthless as it's not scientific.”
This is such an amusing viewpoint to me. On the one hand, naturalists scream that ID is not scientific and on the other hand they shout ID must bring God into it or they’re being inconsistent. ID does not “equal” God. ID looks for evidence of intelligent causation in the natural world, period. If they find it, then certainly there are implications of God and they can be pursued as a separate activity. This is no different than the currently accepted theory of the origin of the universe. At some point in the ancient past the universe did not exist and then it did. That also has implications of God, but these implications can and should be pursued independently of the scientific investigation, since science is not equipped to answer such questions.
Your view seems to imply that one cannot distinguish design from purpose. I would ask why not? One can detect that something was designed, but not necessarily know how or why it came into being. The two issues can be investigated separately.
Steve,
Oh no! I need a daily dose of Hume now? I’ve read some Hume and I’m not sure I could take him daily.
“For the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design.”
I think Hume is mistaken here. ID doesn’t deny that there is order in the universe that could be explained by natural causes. That’s why ID employs a 3-step explanatory filter: 1) Contingency (it could have been otherwise), 2) Specification (exhibits a pattern), and 3) Complexity (not too simple). An object must meet all three in order to conclude design; otherwise design cannot be definitively concluded. The snowflake and crystal examples exhibit patterns, but not sufficient complexity to be called design.
“In order to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes.”
I don’t see how this follows. If this is true, then it would seem we couldn’t investigate our present universe at all since we don’t have any prior experience investigating universes. Human knowledge has always advanced by applying known principles to the unknown. ID is no different.
“Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism.”
I agree. ID proponents are concerned with the scientific aspect of detecting design in nature. The theological implications are a separate issue. For example, if there truly is a Grand Designer, then we have other legitimate questions to pursue, such as who the designer is, where did he come from, what are his purposes. BTW, your “who designed the designer” question leads to an infinite regression of causes, which is impossible. Logical demands that there must be a first cause of all things that begin to exist. Either the universe is eternal or its creator is. Science has already proven that the universe is not eternal, has it not?
Tom (a sinner saved by grace)
Up early to study, I just love planetary science its soooooooooo interesting, I wish I'd known that learning could be so much fun when I went to school, however I believe that it is said that education is wasted on the young
BW
Steve
steveh20,
6 am and you're back on the horse....you're hardcore.
"ID makes no claims at all about who the Intelligent Designer is"
TG, I think I and Steve have already addressed this, but I give it a go again. The reason why teh ID crowd doesn't openly express that the designer is god is the sheer fact of doing so would negate it from be taught in public schools which is ultimately part of their driving motivation and to know their motivation one need only to become familar with the 'wedge document'. The ID crowd has put itself into a paradox. It can't openly proclaim ID = god and consequently by defining the designer they remove it from critque and in doing so make it a unfalsifiable hypothesis and therefore make it instrinsicly worthless as it's not scientific.
TJ, since you gush over the idea of 'design' and are at odds with not being specially or specifically created, or made in purpose for this universe, what purpose or design is there for things like black holes, quasars and gamma ray bursts? This isnt good design at all, well, at least not good in consideration for our outcome anyway, such things are hostile to life. No ominibeleveolent being would even bother with such things to begin it. Does this negate god? absolutely not, but it narrows it down, that much is true.
Hello tg
Here is your daily dose of David Hume, I suggest taking daily, until symptoms alleviate :-P
For the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose".
Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognise human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But in order to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied.
Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design. In this way it could be asked if the designer was God, or further still, who designed the designer? (I guess that answer to this will be the old fall back God does not exist in time etc...)
If a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well-ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world? (Really like that point!!)
Often, what appears to be purpose, where it looks like object X has feature F in order to secure some outcome O, is better explained by a filtering process: that is, object X wouldn't be around did it not possess feature F, and outcome O is only interesting to us as a human projection of goals onto nature. (This anticipates natural selection by over a 100 years)
Kind regards
Steve, a fool (no disrespect taken)
Viking—
It is because we know that the skyscraper is designed by human beings that the analogy is useful. My purpose in comparing ID to an indisputable example of real design is to get people to think about how they know that the skyscraper has been designed. It is because it exhibits certain patterns and complexity that we know could not have been created by chance. Of course I agree with you that the analogy can only go so far because ID is not looking for evidence of human intelligent action, but rather some sort of intelligent design that transcends humanity. Thus, your point is taken, but I hope you see what I was aiming for. BTW, the SETI project is using ID principles to detect signs of extra-terrestrial “intelligent” life.
I disagree heartily with some of your other assertions however. I do not think the complexity of life is “well explained by evolution”. In fact, it’s not explained at all in my opinion (of course that’s a whole other discussion, so I guess we can just respectfully disagree). I also disagree that one can hold to belief in evolution and the Bible. I can give you several reasons why I think this if you’re interested. One big one is this: If man evolved from a single cell in a warm little pond, I think it seriously diminishes this idea that we were specially made in God’s image.
I see that you seem to reconcile evolution and the Bible by accepting the idea that the OT cannot be interpreted literally (the early chapters of Genesis I presume, although you didn’t specify). I think this is a mistake as there are ways to reconcile the best science with the creation account.
So, for the record, I reject evolution on two counts: 1) For purely scientific reasons because I think the evidence is wholly inadequate to explain the diversity and complexity of life and 2) For Biblical reasons because it's at odds with many aspects of the creation account specifically as well as the general tenor of the Bible (OT and NT alike).
Regards
Hi Tgender, thanks for the feedback
I do have to point out a flaw in the analogy you give regarding a skyscraper. This same flaw applies to the watch/watchmaker analogies etc. of ID. When we look at a skyscraper we do not assume it was created by random actions because we KNOW from direct experience that skyscrapers are made by human beings. this comes under Ocam's razor. or when you here hoofbeats in kentucky think horses not zebras. The only valid analogy would be if we discovered some complex cosmological phenomena such as the rings of saturn would we conclude that they were constructed by some lost extraterestial race. No we would not. The fact is that there is no need to go looking for ancient astrounauts because the phenomena is explainable by known natural causes. The same is true for life forms on earth. We need not look for a direct designer of individual species since the complexity is well explained by evolution. This begs the question however of where the process of evolution came from. My position fully consistent with science is that the fundamental order of the universe and the rules it operates by were designed or set in motion prior to (not really prior since time becomes meaningless at that point) the event that marks the start of the natural universe. This view of a designed universe allows me to hold without conflict both a faith and a scientific point of view. What it does not let me do is take the OT literally. Examining the current issue of debate in this light shows that underneath proponents of Creationism and the current concept of ID reject evolution not because it conflicts with faith in a divine being (which it doesn't) but because it disagrees with their interpretation of Christianity. The sad thing is that interpretation is inconsistent with the holy writings they purport to uphold (for example Galatians 4:24)
best regards
tg
Thanks for the book recommendation but I am doing planetary science at university at the moment so my reading list on the subject is very full at the moment. I appreciate the thought though.
Regards
Steve
p.s I would take Dawkins at his word that he meant just that. Forget Dawkins though, go back 250 years and read some David Hume, he really sorted me out on this subject of apparent design.
Steve,
“When I look out at the universe I don't see design, what I see is a series of events which I can understand, there is no sense of design in them.”
May I suggest a book for you to read called The Privileged Planet by Gonzalez and Richards? They provide lots of evidence for the design of the universe. Looking a little closer to home, do you not see evidence of design in the human body or other life forms? What did Dawkins mean then when he said, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”?
“I am not saying the universe looks designed, am I silly?”
I said it was silly to say something looks designed and then act like it’s not. However, and no disrespect intended, the fool says there is no God.
tg
When I look out at the universe I don't see design, what I see is a series of events which I can understand, there is no sense of design in them.
I am not saying the universe looks designed, am I silly?
Regards
Steve
Steve,
It’s silly to say things look designed and then act as if they are not, to the point of inventing all kinds of implausible theories about how the designed thing came to be by natural causes. If something looks designed, then why can’t the designer be sought? This is all that ID is saying.
Why is it silly to say things look designed?
Viking—
I agree that science is limited to investigating the physical world. My point was that there is no reason to assume that only natural explanations would be forthcoming if God exists. In other words, if God created the universe, then we would be very likely to find evidence of design in the universe. The principle is the same if we look at a skyscraper; we don’t conclude that it was created by natural processes, but rather that it is the product of design and therefore someone designed it.
I’m not saying that science should stop looking for natural causes, but that it should not be afraid to conclude that God is at the end of it. For example, if the complexity of biological organisms seems to imply they were designed, then who designed them? Instead we get scientists like Dawkins who say silly things like “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” So instead of following the evidence wherever it leads, we get ridiculous theories of how life arose from non-life and evolved into life forms that are millions of times more complicated than computers and spaceships designed by intelligent human beings.
BTW, I think you’re on to something when you ask where does rationality come from. It really makes no sense that it came through blind and random processes of nature. If it did, there is no way we could rely on it. Rather, it must have come from the ultimate rational mind--God Himself.
let's try this again...in English...got to love this little type box......
Vaho, a computer simply does what it's operator tells it to do. Although you can say the computer only does math comp in 1s and 0s (and this would be true) it would not be true that the computer does not do what it was designed to do (within the limitations of our flawed ability to design computers). There are a variety of functions to explore.
Still, most users are at the stage where they turn it on and stuble through simple software. There are others who understand how the computer thinks and study why it does what it does. Both, on one level or another, discover what the designer and programmer has done.
The same is true of science. God is not bound by the limitations of the creation any more than the computer designer and programmer are limited by their creation. God, being the creator, made all kinds of wonderful things for us to discover and study. I am yet to find a subject that does not reflect on him in some way.
Just for the sake of arguement...and "intelligent designer" of all of this would have to be far, far above the likes of us!
So it is the acceptance of science itself as valid which demands the acceptance of reason and since it is a basic assumption of science that while ordered the universe is unreasoning, then the natural universe can not be said to be the origin of reason. Given this reason must originate in some way other than the natural universe in order for science to be valid. Now while we don’t know where/what/when (approximations since this origin must be external to the space time continuum of this universe) this SUPERNATURE is by definition beyond nature. Therefore reason (the foundation of science) can be understood as an invasion of supernature into nature or in Christian terms each reasoning act is in fact a miracle. It is an irony that some of those most dedicated to science reject the foundation for their belief and that those dedicated to faith reject the fruit of their belief.
Tgender, Actually Vaho is correct about science and honest about the limits of science. some of the fundamental assumptions of science are (these are written loosely for the purpose of the discussion)
1. Materialism: There really is something there an external reality not jus a dream or illusion
2. Order: that this reality or universe operates according to a set of rules or laws within the natural universe.
3. Rationality: that human beings through observation and the use of analytical tools come to ever increasing understanding of that universe and the rules or laws that dictate its operation and phenomena.
Interestingly though none of the assumptions of science (i.e. a real universe, that is ordered and the through the scientific method we can come to understand etc.) conflict with the existence of God or supernature. This is why we say that Science in itself does not deny the existence of the supernatural including God but science admits frankly that it can not understand,find, or explain such things. It can only (though it does so exceptionally well) deal with the natural universe.
However it should be noted that the assumptions themselves can be seen to implicate the existence of supernature.
For example the assumption that humans can come to know and understand the universe. In order to accept this assumption there is an underlying assumption that human beings are rational. That is that our thinking and understanding is more than simply a manifestation of the rules of the universe. This is so because if all human thought (including the assumptions of science) were simply a product of the interactions of the physical laws of the universe then there would be no particular reason to believe that any of them are valid. They would simply be artifacts or manifestations of the workings of the universe at the time with one thought no more valid than another. So in order for any scientist to say that he knows anything or that there is any determinable reality he must accept rationality. But if so where does this rationality come from. Some have argued that rationality arose as a selected trait through evolution. But if so and evolution favors only what is best fitted in a given environment to perpetuate the species (Which I believe to be true based on my rational examination of available evidence) then by this reasoning we can have no security in our reasoning. It may simply be that what we think of as rationality is not valid thinking at all but just the best fit at this moment for the current species survival. So Science demands rationality in order for science to be valid but can not explain rationality or account for it by natural means.
Vaho—
“Then intelligent design is not the realm of science.”
So I say ID makes no claims about who God is and you say because of that it’s not science. What sense does that make?
Me: "If God really does exist then it’s likely science will reveal evidence of His work."
You: “No, that's not correct. Science exists to find natural causes for natural events.”
Well that’s a pretty close-minded definition of science, wouldn’t you say? It’s no surprise that you won’t find God if you define the rules in such a way that you can’t find God. Science doesn’t exist to “find natural causes for natural events.” Science exists to investigate the natural world in order to understand it. If the evidence leads to God, then so be it.
"If God really does exist then it’s likely science will reveal evidence of His work."
No, that's not correct. Science exists to find natural causes for natural events. Science does not make guesses about supernatural ideas. Also, there could never be any evidence for anything supernatural. Your "If God really does exist then it’s likely science will reveal evidence of His work" is wishful thinking. It will never happen. Have faith in God if you want to, but don't expect science to support your faith. Science has absolutely nothing to do with any religious idea. That's why it's extremely dishonest to claim intelligent design creationism is scientific.
The Discovery Institute does not like to talk about who the designer is, because they are trying to disguise intelligent design to look scientific. They are not fooling anyone. Everyone knows intelligent design is a religious idea that has absolutely nothing to do with science. That's fine, but why be dishonest about it? Why not just admit intelligent design is religious and not scientific? Isn't there some Commandment that forbids lying?
"Because that’s not the realm of science."
Then intelligent design is not the realm of science.
Vaho—
"ID makes no claims at all about who the Intelligent Designer is." “Why not?”
Because that’s not the realm of science. If God really does exist then it’s likely science will reveal evidence of His work. This is where ID focuses. To understand who this God is and what His purposes are, one looks to theology (the study of God).
"ID makes no claims at all about who the Intelligent Designer is."
Why not?
tg
I never wrote you said the eye was perfect, what I wrote was that some had used the, Darwin could not have believe that natural selection could not produce such an item, argument, please be assured I would never put words into your mouth(not delibrately), if you feel I have then please accept my apologies.
In the UK, "underwear" is also called "boxers" or "kegs",LOL
Regards
Steve
Steve,
For the record, I never claimed the eye was perfect. I merely said that human beings are not in a position to make claims that it is somehow poorly designed.
I think you err when you refer to “the God of the ID movement.” ID makes no claims at all about who the Intelligent Designer is. For that you need to get into theology.
Regards
P.S. We call it “underwear” here.
Steve, in the states we call them 'underwear' for obvious reasons.
Can I just add that in the UK pants are not trousers but what you wear under them, what do you call them in the states? (a bit off line I know but hey its 10.00 Friday night here.....)
You can try to rationalize it all you want, but in the end I call it like it is. There is no logical explanation for why we have things like wisdom teeth, there is no possible greater explanation that we’ve yet to find in this instance and others and collectively they point to the same ad hoc haphazard design. If for you, you find such self delusion (no offense) then by all means, whatever floats your boat.
Hello tg
Let me be completely honest with you, I have no ides how "good " the eye should be...What I do know is that evolution has produced by natural selction a part of us that can view light waves in what we call the optical part (for obvious reasons) of the electromagnetic spectrum, beyond that I can personally say no more. However this conversation started because the "complex eye could not have developed by incremental steps" arguament was raised and therefore there must be a designer line of thinking was raised(there is a distinct sense of de ja vue as I write that sentance). All I have done is point out that the designer could maybe have done a better job, nothing more nothing less, Ithink this upsets some because until it is pointed out they think the eye is some sort of perfect object the idea that it is not becomes a bit of a shock (still having de ja vue sensations).
As I 've said before this does not mean God does not exist but I can't help but feel that the God of the ID movement is (as my kids would say) a bit pants.
Kind regards
Steve
agentorangex—
“So by your logic you're saying he made our wisdom teeth so dentists would have jobs, is that about right?”
I’m saying that, as finite creatures, we don’t know all the reasons things are the way they are in the universe. We are able to discover some of the reasons. That’s one reason we do science, right? But, we will never exhaust all the knowledge to be had of God or the universe.
What you call design “flaws” may not be flaws at all, but may just need further investigation to understand them better.
tgender,
So by your logic you're saying he made our wisdom teeth so dentists would have jobs, is that about right?
"God wouldn’t have to make gradual steps at all, such an all knowing Being would be able to create an optimally made system immediately. "
Ok, so where is the optimal design then, in the eye for example? Steve already pointed out the flaws in the eye, and this is us little pathetic humans noting the errors, so surely a much wiser being wouldn't have bothered with such sub par design, now would he?
agentorangex—
You’ve missed my point entirely. I said that, as finite creatures, we cannot comprehend all the objectives of a transcendent and infinite Designer. And then you proceed to act like the omniscient, infinite designer who understands all the constraints and goals of the entire universe. Just because you don’t know the reasons God designed in one way and not another doesn’t mean He had no reason or that your objectives are better.
I do agree with you on one point: God wouldn’t have to make gradual steps at all, such an all knowing Being would be able to create an optimally made system immediately. And in fact He did create man in His own image in one amazing moment.
“From our human experience, we recognize that designers strive for constrained optimization”
Constrained? No, not really. The best possible design would be one which would address past, present and future needs for the system, living or not. Humans design and redesigned based on continually trying to achieve the highest level of perfection, IE how the development and safety of cars has advanced over the decades. This is in stark contrast to how such a god might hypothetically work Whereas an omniscient poofing being wouldn’t have to make gradual steps at all, such an all knowing thing would be able to create an optimally made system immediately and one which would endure virtually all modern and future hurdles the system would be faced with. So with this in mind, why does the eye and other systems human, non-human and alike not demonstrate such ‘spot on ideal design’? Rather, virtually all systems can, after some inspection, be found not to be optimal with all things considered, and appear to be, if designed, the product of haphazard design.
“How do you know how good it could be?”
Just compare our eyes in totality compared with all other organisms and those, which excel in other areas, it will bring some doubt to our eyes being perfectly designed in relation. I don’t think I need to list all the ways other organisms have better additions to their eyesight, perhaps just listing the animals will give you an idea. Octopus, Tiger, Eagle, Pit viper, you get the idea…
““You could have built a better house!” Really? How would he know?”
Oh trust me, had it really been omnisciently designed, it would exemplify such traits and it hardly stops at the eye, take the wisdom teeth for instance. Just what exactly was the designer thinking there? ‘hmmm, more teeth are better, even if it crowds the jaw causing other teeth to migrate, o well, I am too lazy to increase the size of the jaw now, suck it up and take another set of molars pity humans!’
steveh20—
“Don't get me wrong, the eye is a pretty complex item. My point is though that those who wish to claim it is the product of a great designer need to ask themselves why it is not as good as it could be?”
How do you know how good it could be? This claim that there can be no Grand Designer because of some contrived examples of so-called “suboptimal” design is not a very strong argument. From our human experience, we recognize that designers strive for constrained optimization, which endeavors to strike a balance between many conflicting objectives (e.g. a spaceship is very complex and must be safe for humans to fly, but it can’t be too big or weigh too much or cost too much). As finite human beings, we cannot comprehend all such objectives of a transcendent and infinite Designer. It’s a little like an ant saying to a man, “You could have built a better house!” Really? How would he know? It’s beyond his comprehension to understand all the factors involved.
tgender: That doesn't sound like love to me. Imagine me telling my 10 year old that I will only love him if he loves his mom. If he doesn't, I won't love him.
As for God being perfect, if he was, then why is there a hell?
Also, this suggests that god isn't so great. "And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." —Judges 1:19
Jerry 2 - OK, I looked up on dictionary.com what an airhead is.
air·head: noun Slang. a scatterbrained, stupid, or simple-minded person; dolt.
Why do you say that I am an airhead?
No, I do not know what an airhead is Jerry2.
To the lunatic who deletes comments for the fun of it: Did it ever occur to you that other people might want to read the comments you deleted? Whoever you are, you need psychiatric help.
Jerry2 - How do you know that God did not create us?
Jerry2 - When are you going to come up with some original ideas?
Jerry2 - If you stop your name calling then maybe people would stop flagging you. BTW, I did not flag you.
"I think that the first thing to note, is that God did not create us as physically 'perfect' beings."
Chris, God did not create us, period.
Grow up Chris. People were not magically created.
"Some of this can be answered that we are living in a 'fallen' world."
What happened Chris? Did you fall down?
Grow up Chris. Only brainwashed religious nuts talk about a "fallen" world.
Read this quick before some childish christian coward deletes it.
The Christian cowards here continue to delete my comments.
Grow up Christians. What are you so afraid of?
Whoops!!
That should of course read "come INTO play......
Hi Chris
"It seems like evolution is not leading life to be better suited to environment, but rather to be more fragile and less suitable to environment."
I think you've put the cart before the horse. It is the change in an organisms enviroment which "may" in some cases cause natural selection to come play and which "may" in certain circumstances lead to evolution. Remember evolution is due to a change in enviroment not vice versa.
Regards
Steve
Steve,
"As I wrote earlier this is by no means indicates that God does or does not exist what it does do though is question the craftsmanship of the brilliant ID designer trumpeted on these pages."
An interesting point, to be sure. I think that the first thing to note, is that God did not create us as physically "perfect" beings. The eye is not the only part of the human body that is innefficient, God could have made us pure energy which could sustain istelf without the need to consume, that could not feel pain or die, and which never suffered the effects of old age. In all reality the human body is extremely fragile, I dare say we are one of the most innefficient creatures on earth.
Some of this can be answered that we are living in a "fallen" world. Perhaps God did create us more perfectly, but due to our rejection of Him our bodies and genes have become degraded further and further. Perhaps God wanted a being that was not physicall perfect, but in many ways dependent, thus such a being would not be able to become arrogant so easily. In any case, our bodies are amazing and originally God says that they were, "very good".
But this provides a problem for evolution as well. Our bodies are really innefficient, we are pretty weak comparitively speaking. By far the most efficient creatures are bacteria and one celled organisms. If evolution is based on natural selection, which proposes that life evolves into better suited organisms based on environment, then I cannot see why life would not have simply remained one celled, simple but efficient organisms? It seems like evolution is not leading life to be better suited to environment, but rather to be more fragile and less suitable to environment.
Hello tgender
It was'nt me who said the eye was designed it was JG who inflected it when he misquoted Darwin in an earlier post which seemed to suggest that Darwin could not believe that natural selection could produce such a thing by incremental steps..I believe that at that point he was expecting the idea of complexity by natural selction to fall apart. I pointed out that whilst the eye does a good job if it was designed it could have been done much better, some of these things are:
Light has to take long journeys in it due to the layers of neurons and capilleries, degrading the image.
The optic nerve blocks light creating a blind spot in each eye, the reason we don't notice it is our brain works overtime to correct it
The retina comes loose easily due to the fact that photorecepters have very delicate nerve endings and can't be firmly attatched.
Don't get me wrong, the eye is a pretty complex item. My point is though that those who wish to claim it is the product of a great designer need to ask themselves why it is not as good as it could be? Its not a problem I have to live with.
As I wrote earlier this is by no means indicates that God does or does not exist what it does do though is question the craftsmanship of the brilliant ID designer trumpeted on these pages.
Kind regards
Steve
jjdiogenes—
“So god doesn't love us then. A loving god wouldn't send finite creatures to an infinite and infinitely bad place. That's the most most idiotic logic I've ever heard.”
Of course He loves us. It’s us who don’t love Him. Most people don’t appreciate God’s holiness.
The primary meaning of holy is “separate”. But God’s holiness is more than just separateness. His holiness is also transcendent. To transcend is to rise above something, to go above and beyond a certain limit. When we speak of the transcendence of God, we are talking about that sense in which God is above and beyond us. Transcendence describes His supreme and absolute greatness. It points to the infinite distance that separates Him from every creature. When the Bible calls God holy, it primarily means that God is transcendently separate.
This holy God is a just God. How serious is sin? God cannot violate His own holiness by overlooking sin. Judges simply do not overlook crimes and God is the perfect judge. Moral crimes must be punished and the penalty is death – eternal separation from God. We have broken God’s law and owe a debt to God as a result of our sin, so He can justly punish us. This is very bad news.
But there is good news. There is another way that an infinite debt can be paid – by an infinite Person. God became a man because only an infinite Person who is both God and man can provide substitution and satisfaction for the infinite debt that we owe to God. He has to be human to represent humanity and He has to be divine to be able to pay an infinite debt. God the Father can pour out His wrath on God the Son in a finite period of time and thus pay and satisfy an infinite debt. God has, in fact, made this provision and offers forgiveness through His Son, Jesus Christ, who was punished for our moral crimes. Because the debt is paid, you can’t pay it, so it has to be by grace – it’s a gift. How do you receive this gift? You simply trust God’s provision in Jesus Christ.
So God is not being petty or arbitrary by sending people to hell over some little detail about Jesus. There is a reason for requiring exclusive trust in Jesus. It’s the means by which God can give mercy and He offers this mercy freely. You can say no to the offer if you want to, but don’t complain that God is being unfair or narrow-minded. In fact, He’s offered you a free pardon. Jesus is the only way to salvation because He is the only One who solved the problem – and the problem is sin. You already know you’re guilty and a penalty must be paid. You can let Jesus pay for it or you can pay for it yourself, but somebody’s got to pay – that’s the way justice works.
Far from being idiotic, this is the most logical, wonderful, amazing, loving thing God could do.
tgender: So god doesn't love us then. A loving god wouldn't send finite creatures to an infinite and infinitely bad place. That's the most most idiotic logic I've ever heard.
agentorangex—
“The idea of hell isn’t one of self-evidence like your hand in front of you, rather it’s derived from religion and its therefore its sole purpose is based on supporting the religion itself.”
Hell is both Biblical and logical. The Bible clearly teaches that hell is a place for those who choose in this life to be separated from God. They will get their wish and be separated from Him forever. Hell is also a logical conclusion from these premises:
1. Sinning against an infinite and holy God requires an infinite penalty.
2. Finite creatures cannot pay an infinite penalty except by an infinite duration.
Of course, the Bible also teaches that Jesus (as God Himself) was able to and did pay the penalty on our behalf and we need only accept it as a free gift.
steveh20—
“The eye in many ways is an imperfect object it colud be much better but natural selection has made use of the materials that natures gave it to use (don't read anything into those terms). If the eye was designed, then to be honest the designer did a pretty poor job and you should be asking for your money back, if someody who was supposed to be a master craftsman did work like that in my house I'd be pretty upset.”
You have made a claim that the eye is poorly designed, but did not explain what you mean. What’s wrong with the eye? Seems like a pretty valuable thing to me. Honestly, it seems arrogant to claim something is not designed well when human beings can't even come close to creating anything like it.
Evolution is just as "proven" as any other widely accepted scientific theory. There will never be absolute proof for any of them...this just goes to show the ignorance the general public has of the scientific method. If anything, this should stress how important science education is...
agentorange
One day God will give you the evidence that you seek.
Hey can someone call Dr Jones and get him to find those transitional fossils.”
What, like these?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
“The funny thing is that their is proof of life that is extinct yet where are those elusive transitional dinosaurs.”
Um, what? Don’t you mean transitional fossils and not transitional dinosaurs?
"Hell means nothing to anyone until God reveals its reality to the heart and mind of a person"
In other words, not until ones own imagination of the here after totally and their imagined eternal burning becomes compleately and utterly overwheling and with the imaginative thought of frying forever do they consider it an actuality. Truly a wonder the mind is.
" I most assure you that when He does the person has fear. "
I know star, this is what I've been saying forever, the arguement reverts not to evidence but just the sheer imaginative thought of frying, surely that's generally enough to convince people to do about anything stupid and irrational while they abondon logic and reason. We all saw how easily the fear mongering of nuclear fallout compelled people in the US govt to abandon logic and reason to their primal fears lead to an unjust war. What's there to think such similar fear tactics wont compel people to believe in otherwise extradinary propositions? Nothing.
"One thing i do know Darwin is dead! "
I think you will find that should actually be "the only thing I know is........"
agentorange
Hell means nothing to anyone until God reveals its reality to the heart and mind of a person. I most assure you that when He does the person has fear. I know from personal expereince not only in my life but in the life of a person I witnessed Jesus Christ to.
Hey can someone call Dr Jones and get him to find those transitional fossils. whereever they're hiding. For interesting reading read Darwin's family tree -his father and grandfather were both religious men. So voila here is the Son fighting his fathers belief (pride will make you do that) it is quoted in the bible that father will turn against son and son against father.
The funny thing is that their is proof of life that is extinct yet where are those elusive transitional dinosaurs. Christians have proof of the reality of Christ in scriptures that are proven valid both by Christians and non Christians. Their is actual proof of the existence of Jesus and his miracles, for people to goto the death for being Christian some 2000 years ago after Jesus ascended to be with his Father when all thy had to do was bow down to the emporer of rome and they would live tells me that JESUS LIVES.
The fact that fossil evidence has been tampered with to prove evolution means that the scientists need to lie just to validate a theory.
Once again pride in action!
One thing i do know Darwin is dead!
Bio systems come and go. If evolution was used in the current world, so what it does not exclude Devine design or intention. However, meatheads need evloution to exterminate those they hate, like belivers who are Able.
“Fear mongering is the use of fear where no reason for fear exists.”
Exactly, so whence comes the actual fear which is evident with regards to hell? Is hell self-evident and therefore something, which all people naturally would be fearful of without the invention of religion/? Most certainly not. The idea of hell isn’t one of self-evidence like your hand in front of you, rather it’s derived from religion and its therefore its sole purpose is based on supporting the religion itself.
“the purpose of evolutionary theory is to somehow disprove creation”
No it’s not, the purpose of the evolutionary theory is like that of all other science theories, to explain the universe and all its properties as they truly are by testing nature against itself through the scientific method. Evolutionary theory doesn’t negate the need for a god, besides if one is to accept only a literalist biblical view, evolutionary theory is hardly the only realm of science such literalists must reject. They must also reject various other forms of science, which also don’t conform to a literalist biblical reading, namely physics, cosmology, astronomy, paleontology and others.
Daniel Paul: God's grace is so amazing and he so loved the world that if you don't love him back, he sends you to hell for all eternity where you will be tortured forever. That don't sound like love to me. Does it to you?
Evolutionary theory wasn't created to disprove creationism. Darwin was a Christian. Get your facts straight.
Fear mongering? I think you proceed from a false assumption. Fear mongering is the use of fear where no reason for fear exists. The Bible is clear concerning heaven and hell. There is such a thing as a healthy fear!
Truth be known though, Jesus portrayed God as a loving father running out to meet his wayward children. Those who portray Him otherwise don't really have a grasp of the concept of grace. Grace is undeserved favor.
The Bible also says God doesn't want any to parish. Still, He's not going to force His desires on you. You're welcome to perish if that is your choice and hell is the place those who reject Him will end up. No fire and brimstone preaching here...just the facts of eternity from the Bible.
Again, the purpose of evolutionary theory is to somehow disprove creation. Disprove creation as written and you disprove (or at least water down) peoples responsibility to obey Him. The purpose of the theory of evolution is not the origin of man but to disprove that man's origin was created by God.
Hello JG
I have not presurpossed in any way that Christianity is wrong all I have done is make some comments concerning the eye, which you raised as a problem for natural selection, it is you who makes the link between being against evolution and Christanity, something which a great many Christians have no problem with. Don't think you speak for all Christians, you don't.
Now you bring in a point that maybe the eye was imperfect so that Jesus could heal it, somehow I feel you are now trying to have your cake and eat it.
Kind regards
Steve(still not fearful)
danpwil,
Ahhh, the whole sin thing, blame it on mankind so he has this built up guilt trip, nice, then after the guilt is layed on nice and thick you can tell him he'd better belive or he's going to burn forever. How can you guys not see through this type of physcological trickery? Seroiusly.
What's the whole rationale behind things like earthquakes then? I often hear of televangalists thumping around blaming homosexuals, other religions and misc. things for them and other disasters, so which is it? Gays or sin the eden which causes them?
Star,
"Luke 13:3"
Allow me to reitertate my point, any proposition which is backed by fear alone and not by evidence is to the point the fear mongering, it doesn't matter if its described in person by you or through religion, it's the SSDD IMO. Now, you have many means to use to convince a person for a given proposition, evidence, witness testimony, historical records, etc., but, if from the get go you opt for the 'turn or burn' message, well that just doesn't give the impression of any truth at all. I don't want to told to belive or burn in hell as a its figureatively like hold a gun to a persons head and asking for them to respond in kind, as it wouldn't be geniune.
Hello Star, you write
“Jesus and the writers of the NT (for example, Peter, Jude, the writer of Hebrews) all accepted as literal fact the accounts given in the book of Genesis, along with the other OT historical accounts such as Jonah and the whale. We should do no less.”
I do not find this in my reading of the NT in fact while some areas could be interpreted either way I give as "Biblical" not scientific evidence the following.
Matthew 5:13 - "You are the earth's salt. But if the salt should become tasteless, what can make it salt again?
5:14-15 - "You are the world's light - it is impossible to hide a town built on the top of a hill.
6:22-23 - "The lamp of the body is the eye. If your eye is sound, your whole body will be full of light.
Clearly the scripture records that Christ used metaphor and allegory to preach.
We see in Mark how Christ illustrates and uses the allegorical nature of OT Scripture.
12:1b-11Have you never read this scripture - 'The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. This was the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?'"
No Christian could seriously contend that Christ believed that he was himself literally a stone. Rather he was interpreting the OT as its writers intended as allegorical.
The NT words of Christ that might seem to give literal interpretation of Genesis are his instruction on divorce. Even in this his words “and the two shall become one flesh” must be taken as allegorical of spiritual rather than literal truth. Christ could not be literally stating that married persons became a single physical entity. Rather it is well understood he was indicating their spiritual union. Since even in this verse he uses allegory to show spiritual truth what cause is there to believe that the same is not true in Christ’s general attitude towards Genesis.
In Galatians Paul specifically states that Old Testament scripture “may be taken figuratively”
21Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.
24These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children.
Do you also hold that Paul is a heretic?
More importantly where in the gospels does Christ command us to demand that gentiles believe the Genesis of the Old Testament? I have read and reread the gospels in many translations and am unable to find such a commandment.
steveh20
RE: The eye in many ways is an imperfect object it colud be much better but natural selection has made use of the materials that natures gave it to use (don't read anything into those terms). If the eye was designed, then to be honest the designer did a pretty poor job and you should be asking for your money back, if someody who was supposed to be a master craftsman did work like that in my house I'd be pretty upset.
When God created man, and everything else, it was perfect. There was no sin. When Adam and Eve broke the rule and ate the apple, sin was introduced. And death. And disease. And degeneration of what was initially perfect. To say that the eye is not perfect is accurate now. But who can say what kind of eyesight man had before sin. When God finished his work of creation, it was "very good." Sin has ruined us, not the creator.
agentorangex
You call it "fear mongering"....we Christians call it "The Truth." Sorry if you find it offensive. Truth can be sometimes.
agentorangex
RE: So, according to you, the main virtue isn’t living a good moral or decent life for oneself and all of humanity, rather you suggest it’s believe in him or bust.
Living a good moral or decent life according to whose standards? Yours or mine? Star2's? Without God there is no true moral standard, it's all relativism. You can never be good enough on your own to come before the Almighty God. That's why he sent his Son, Jesus Christ. "God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16). And Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). Not much room in those scriptures for doing it your way.
agentorange
Re: "'Turn or burn' is quite literally fear mongering, "
Then you are calling Jesus a fear monger because He said, that if you don't repent you will perish. (Luke 13:3)
steveh20,
I'm not prepared to write out my entire beliefs on this comment system. Honestly it would take me quite a bit of time to clearly go over each idea and it's time I don't have.
And about the idea of the eye being imperfect. From a secular standpoint of course that looks weird. But do you realize that something as simple as Jesus healing a blind man to witness could be a reason God allowed the eye to cloud? This is something a secular would NEVER think of, because they have the presupposition that Christianity is wrong.
Hello JG
Now I don't want to put words into your mouth but I guess from what you have written that you don't feel evolution by natural selection is a good explantion for the complex bio diversity we see on this planet. To back up your claim you have chosen to use the eye as an example of complexity that natural selection could not have produced by incremental steps, please feel free to corrct me if I am wrong at any point so far. I guess then that you propose a designer who either steps in from time to time over the course of millions of years or causes evrything to be formed completely 6000 years ago, I'm not fussed which one. So far so good?
Now for the bad news. The eye in many ways is an imperfect object it colud be much better but natural selection has made use of the materials that natures gave it to use (don't read anything into those terms). If the eye was designed, then to be honest the designer did a pretty poor job and you should be asking for your money back, if someody who was supposed to be a master craftsman did work like that in my house I'd be pretty upset.
Make your choices. An imperfect eye produced by natural selection or a second rate designer who produces shoddy goods.
Please note that what I have written makes no judgement on whether God exists but only comments on the ID designer .
Kind regards
Steve
P.s Flagged myself
Regardless if Darwin stated it or not doesn’t make it logically true, what makes it true are facts and evidence. Ones opinion or declaration in the matter doesn’t make it any truer, evidence backs a proposition.
“I'm surprised no one hit me up on the DNA part though, seeing as obviously it's the most important.”
The origins of DNA are so far a mystery, however based on the evidence from the earlier microorganisms, it suggests the earliest organisms weren’t using DNA, but something more like a primitive RNA, which still replicates.
But since you’re fond of DNA and its implications on evolutionary theory, perhaps you also find these interesting.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
agentorangex,
I'm simply making a point, that is all. I will look at those videos.
I'm surprised no one hit me up on the DNA part though, seeing as obviously it's the most important.
Josh,
"Of course not! I'm merely insiting that his words were correct, and find it interesting that evolutionists contradict it. "
Hello, hadn't you noticed that the quote you mentioned is taken out of context aka 'quote mined' to make it appear that Darwin himself couldn't imagine how the eye evolved? Darwin set the stage to make it seem as if such a system like the eye couldn't have evolved, unless of course, gradations could be shown and he followed up this by explaining how such examples should be found to exemplify the evolutionary pathways of the eye. By doing this he set the stage to make it seem impossible and then followed it up with valid examples that we should be able to find to explain their pathways thereby making his point hit home harder.
‘And yet it's this very thing we lack the most.’
Wrong again. We do have contemporary and past examples for the pathways evolution used for the evolution of the eye other organs and in multiple organisms; one of the best studied is the Mollusks and their eyes from primitive pin holes to more complex lens. For an idea, watch, read and learn.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/05/ncse-eyeing-id.html
If you want examples of gradation from species to species, here review these. And no, these aren’t all the fossils on record and the collection and its completeness will grow more over time revealing a truer nature of what transpired. These are some of those transitional fossils CRC expounds 'dont' exist'.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
'No, you are hell bound because you reject Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, as your personal Lord and Savior."
So, this is statement from you is not fear mongering how again star? I stated earlier that you resort to fear tactics to make your argument have weight and this you have done again here so clearly. 'Turn or burn' is quite literally fear mongering, how this escapes you is beyond me. When a proposition can't rely on evidence alone and falls back to such 'turn or burn' fear mongering, it becomes quite clear that fear is basically the only thing holding up the proposition to begin with and it should hardly be listened to let alone accepted outright. Could you imagine a scientist arguing to believe or accept gravity or 'you'll burn in eternal hell!'? Of course not, it's entirely illogical and only those who so easily crouch in huddled fear before their imagination.
So, according to you, the main virtue isn’t living a good moral or decent life for oneself and all of humanity, rather you suggest it’s believe in him or bust. So, hypothetically speaking, if I accept Jesus and still accept evolution and other forms of science, which don’t support the YEC rhetoric, am I hell bound or not?
agentorange
Re:“The Word of God makes it very plain that if you die in your sins you will perish (ie, go to hell).”...And the words of star make it very clear over and over as you’ve just done by fear mongering in sake of actual evidence.
My job is to preach the gospel. It is God's job to reveal the truth. Only God can provide you with the evidence you seek.
Re:By your own admission by believing in evolution one is committing heresy as you always so eloquently put it ‘b/c god says he didn’t do it that way’ implying one then doubts this section of the bible and therefore is hell bound.
No, you are hell bound because you reject Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, as your personal Lord and Savior.
Steve,
Of course not! I'm merely insiting that his words were correct, and find it interesting that evolutionists contradict it. Is there anything wrong with his statement? He insisted that for his theory to be correct there must be multiple evidences for a slow and gradual change, like for the Eye. And yet it's this very thing we lack the most.
And next time do please refrain from putting words in my mouth, it's a pet peeve. I only insisted that Darwin himself pointed out the truth that without many evidences for a gradual change his theory is almost meaningless. This is not true because Darwin says it, it's true because it's logical. Common sense :)
crc
There is an apocryphal tale about Galileo who when forced to recant by the church is alledged to have bent down afterwards to kiss the floor and said very quitely " yet still it moves", bring on all your impossibles because "still it happened".
Regards
Steve
evolution is:
mathematically impossible.
scientifically impossible.
biologically impossible.
physiologically impossible.
logically impossible.
evolution is by definition racists.
evolution is flawed in every way, that's why it is forever changing, it contains no truth. there are no transitional fossil forms.
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day...
Romans 1
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
"Our Evolution tree has enormous gaps in it"
Which enormous gaps? Besides with every fossil that is found creos simply retort, look 2 more gaps !!
Are these gaps too?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
“The Word of God makes it very plain that if you die in your sins you will perish (ie, go to hell).”
And the words of star make it very clear over and over as you’ve just done by fear mongering in sake of actual evidence.
“Every time I gave you the gospel it was always in reference to your moral accountability to God never in reference to what you believe about evolution.”
By your own admission by believing in evolution one is committing heresy as you always so eloquently put it ‘b/c god says he didn’t do it that way’ implying one then doubts this section of the bible and therefore is hell bound.
Creation is also backed up by proven science. Still, neither creation nor evolution can be proven by the scientific method. While our science departments are arguing evolution other nations are passing us up on the science front because they are teaching science in science class and not trying to argue for or against religion (humanism included). This is one example of why we are falling further behind educationally as a nation in the sciences.
There are NO facts which PROVE evolution or creation. Both require faith. At least God states it from the get-go! The scientific method is the rule of science. If evolution is to be taught (let alone creation along side) it should be used as an example of the difference between philosophy and science.
Hang on JG how do you get the idea that Darwin had the last word on evolution, that there is nothing else to add, as if his writings are some sort of holy scripture as you seem to think they are to some. I have next to me a copy of Charles Lyell's Principles Of Geology (pub 1830-1833), it is like saying that after that there was nothing more to learn or add about that beautiful subject, almost as if he had the final word and nothing could be added or taken away.
Kind regards
Steve (not in the least bit fearful)
"numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect"
The one thing Darwin said multiple times during his research, and it's the one thing evolutionists fear the most. This is where most of Evolution falls apart (that and at the beginning when DNA somehow magically appeared). Our Evolution tree has enormous gaps in it, and yet Evolutionists still claim that's the way it was done, clearly contradicting Darwin in his own words.
?????????????????????
Matter to Man is what it is all about. Why wouldn't what we find in our mind, constructive recollection, be reflected in the world outside of us?
agentorange
Re:That is absurd. I never made such a claim"
C'mon Star, we've all been here for a while and know by now that you tend to use fear mongering or fear tactics as a means to convince the opposition.
Not so agentorange. If you really think that, and apparently you do, then that goes to prove that you never bother to really read anything I say.
This is what I said below:" I preach to them the gospel. I assumed that they know what it means to be a sinner. You know, breaking God's moral law such as lying, stealing, sexual immorality (fornication, adultery, homosexuality), idolatry, drunkedness, drug addiction, cursing God, murder, hatred, unforgiveness, and etc."
When I gave you the gospel I always assumed that you understood that I was talking about you being a sinner and having to give an account of your life to God on judgment day.
The Word of God makes it very plain that if you die in your sins you will perish (ie, go to hell). If you die with all your sins having been forgiven by Jesus, you will go to Heaven.
Re:Star you've made it implicitly clear that if one doubts the bible as you interpet it they are going to hell,
Not so. Every time I gave you the gospel it was always in reference to your moral accountability to God never in reference to what you believe about evolution.
Re: Simply doubting Jonah living in a fish for 3 days is by your measure of biblical literalism heracy and I suppose grounds for a one way ticket to hell, right? I mean you did just sort of imply that earlier below.
I said that Jesus took the book of Genesis as literal fact as well as other OT historical facts like Jonah and the whale story. Christians are to do no less.
It was Augustine, who was a student of Plato and Aristole, and whose thinking was steeped in Greek thought and philospohy, that interpret the book of Genesis as an allegory instead of literal fact as Jesus did. Augustine introduced heretical teachings by doing so.
MaxOut I have another great quote from 1859, its the whole of the passage you quoted not just the first part, hope this help you....
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility."
Hello MaxOut
Thats a great quote from 1859.
Steve
P.s Flagged myself.
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Origin of Species (1859) p.186
http://bevets.com/equotesd.htm
“…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts.” Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) pp. 456, 475.
http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionquotes.html
"That is absurd. I never made such a claim"
C'mon Star, we've all been here for a while and know by now that you tend to use fear mongering or fear tactics as a means to convince the opposition. Star you've made it implicitly clear that if one doubts the bible as you interpet it they are going to hell, nevermind the evolution part. Simply doubting Jonah living in a fish for 3 days is by your measure of biblical literalism heracy and I suppose grounds for a one way ticket to hell, right? I mean you did just sort of imply that earlier below.
viking
Re:Augustine goes on in his writings to elaborate that the holy writings were to be understood as allegorical spiritual truth. This is consistent with all informed understandings of the Christian scriptures.
Augustine (354-430) was a student of Plato and Aristole before becoming a Christian and was steeped in Greek thought and philosophy. When he became a Christian he did not allow God to renew his thinking to conform to God's thinking (Romans 12:2) and as a result he viewed scripture through a Greek philosophical worldview. This resulted in him interpreting the book of Genesis as allegorical. This method of interpreting the Word of God became the norm in the RCC and has resulted in heretical teaching.
viking
Jesus and the writers of the NT (for example, Peter, Jude, the writer of Hebrews) all accepted as literal fact the accounts given in the book of Genesis, along with the other OT historical accounts such as Jonah and the whale. We should do no less.
ifeelfine72
Re: "star: You said to Jerry that his tactics aren't persuading any Christians here that evolution is true - I agree with you but maybe you should follow your own advice."
Jerry2 said that Christians don't have any original ideas. I already agreed with him at least on two different articles. When he says that Christians are lacking in original ideas then he is implying that non-Christians are the only ones with original ideas. So, since I, a Christian, doesn't have an original idea, then he, an atheist must have some original ideas. So, I have been pursuing him to start coming up with an original idea. I have been waiting for him to come up with an original idea for about a month now.
Re: You and most of the Christians here are not winning over any atheists with their ridiculous claims that you have to be against evolution.
Oh, so you are calling God's account of how He created everything ridiculous?
Re: And using the threat of fear (you'll burn in hell) to convert them to believers and your prideful ways when you say it ("I know where I'm going and your not going there unless you repent").
Oh, really. I never made such a claim nor has any Christian on CP who believes in creation as described in the Word of God ever made such a claim. The atheist/agnostic evolutionists make those claims. I preach to them the gospel. I assumed that they know what it means to be a sinner. You know, breaking God's moral law such as lying, stealing, sexual immorality (fornication, adultery, homosexuality), idolatry, drunkedness, drug addiction, cursing God, murder, hatred, unforgiveness, and etc. It is the atheists and agnostics who claim that I say that they are going to hell because they believe in evolution. That is absurd. I never made such a claim.
Sorry that should be viking, it's very early in the UK at the moment!!
Well put Vilking.
I have friends etc.. who I consider to have a mature deep Christian faith but from a totally diffrent tradition within Christanity (my parents included) who find the views expressed on this site concerning evolution by other Chrstians quite contrary to their own faith experience. I think some of this comes down not just to the particular tradition of Christianity they work their faith out in but also they have a broad understanding of church history especially concerning the church fathers etc...
Kind regards
Steve
star: You said to Jerry that his tactics aren't persuading any Christians here that evolution is true - I agree with you but maybe you should follow your own advice. You and most of the Christians here are not winning over any atheists with their ridiculous claims that you have to be against evolution. And using the threat of fear (you'll burn in hell) to convert them to believers and your prideful ways when you say it ("I know where I'm going and your not going there unless you repent").
It is unfortunate that the conflict in this issue has been promoted as faith (specifically Christian faith) vs. Science. In fact this is a created conflict inconsistent with historical or informed Christian teachings. This issue was addressed by St. Augustine 1600 years ago.
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
– The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]
Augustine goes on in his writings to elaborate that the holy writings were to be understood as allegorical spiritual truth. This is consistent with all informed understandings of the Christian scriptures. For example in the new testament Christ constantly uses metaphor to explain his teachings to his disciples.
This is well articulated 1600 years later at this website http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/genint.html
Perhaps persons of sincerity can move beyond conflict to respect and tolerance.
This is so disappointing. We have well intentioned but misinformed or uninformed people taking this battle forward in the wrong way and wrong time with the wrong approach. I am sure they are well intentioned and honest Christians and we cant stop them from exercising their beliefs. But we will have no success in the ID movement if this keeps happening. It saddens me.
Jerry2
To persuade creationists to you side you first started out explaining evolutionary concepts to show us poor dumb, uneducated, gullible, hick Christians how evolution is the right explanation for how life evolved over time. When we weren't buying it then you started to call Christians names and putting them down. Tha's not working. Obviously you can see that neither of these methods are winning any Christian who believes in Biblical creation over to your side.
Why don't you puts some thought into your approach and come up with an approach never use before to persuade us to your side?
...and the rhetoric of hatred toward people of faith and conscience continues unabated. Fortunately for all on-lookers, it's easy to determine which camp holds the least defensible position and has the most to lose by observing the quantity of venom that they spew-
much akin to a rabid animal cornered.
..."stupid", "idiotic", "moron"... hmmm, sounds more like gradeschool playground epithets. One wonders about the supposed education level of those hurling such lame insults.
Star
I think you are quie right we should think critically and question what we are taught, I did which was why I came to see that evolution was the premier explantion as to the bio diversity on this planet.
Regards
Steve
I hear that some evangelicals in Mississippi are challenging that "theory of gravity" myth and want their public schools to stop teaching it as well.
"For our students to be prepared for college work and life in the 21st century, it's necessary. Evolution is not just a belief, or based on faith, it's based on scientific evaluation"
I think he just summed up mainstream evolutionists goal in one nice sentence. Evolutionists wish to remove the faith part of Evolution and replace it instead with assumptive language that then turns into fact and thus essentially removes most opposition to them.
Nobody in their right mind would deny micro evolution, it's something that can be noted in one's senses. We can actually see certain animals change due to certain climate changes, like birds beaks growing larger (Note that the birds beaks actually RETURN to normal, it's not permenant). But evolutionists wish to push that nobody in their right mind would also deny macro evolution, which in no way can be proven and can only be supported by unprovable assumptions (and of course the assumption that there are no other explanations besides evolution therefor evolution must be able to explain everything) and at it's core, at the level of DNA, is still so confused and lost.
I don't agree that both positions should not be taught. Let the student look at the various theories out there because believe it or not, those same kids are going to actually go into the real world and face both. Equipping them with Evolution, and presenting it like it's common knowledge to be true, is the equivalent of filling their heads with propaganda. They will leave school with a one-sided mind and never seek to actually challenge Evolution. Who in their right mind would challenge the law of gravity? That's exactly what we're telling our kids, and it's sad.
So, let's be rational, and do what a school is actually supposed to do, educate kids and prepare them for entering society.
"The evolution concept is a theory, and not provable. "
Uh oh, back to square one with those who don't understand what 'theory' means in the context of science and why in science it refers to a model to explain facts and not a wild guess. I guess by this pastrors logic gravitational theory is also equally not provable either. As is cell theory, quatum theory and all the those other science theories.
"Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, and Michigan ".....yup, culural and educational standouts nationally.
Re:"Lawmakers in Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, and Michigan are currently considering options to change or modify the instruction of evolution in schools that would allow students to challenge and “think critically” concerning Darwinism."
Learning to think critically about what you are taught, isn't that how new ideas and better theories come which many times advances our understanding of physics, chemistry, and biology?
Jerry2
Re:The Christian war against science education will never end.
I agree with you here Jerry2.
We Christians will always be in your face with Jesus Christ, the Creator of the Universe. He told us how He created everything in the Word of God. We will always be in your face with that truth.
The Christian war against science education will never end.