Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The challenge to Darwin’s theory of evolution – Part 3
World Peace Herald ^ | October 16, 2006 | Sekai Nippo

Posted on 10/16/2006 8:10:58 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

TOKYO -- To understand ID theory, we have to review Darwinism, and its founder.

English naturalist Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882) conducted a scientific survey while aboard the British warship HMS Beagle from 1831 to 1836. Based on his encounter with diverse forms of life on the Galapagos Islands off Ecuador, Darwin wrote “The Origin of Species” in 1859. The central focus of the book was the theory of natural selection.

The natural selection theory is remarkably simple. It proposes that individual organisms gradually mutate and that those with favorable traits for adaptation are more likely to survive. It claims that the organisms evolved transcendent of species by the repetition of mutation and natural selection.

According to Darwin, “Natural selection acts only by the preservation and accumulation of small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being; and as modern geology has almost banished such views as the excavation of a great valley by a single diluvial wave, so will natural selection banish the belief of the continued creation of new organic beings, or of any great and sudden modification in their structure.” (Origin of Species)

Mutation and natural selection are both gradual processes. Today researchers have made advances in population genetics, biochemistry, and neo-Darwinism (modern evolutionary synthesis) that explain DNA mutations which Darwin referred to as random. However, the basic concept is no different from the one established by Darwin.

Darwinism claims that all evolution of life can be explained by accidental mutation and natural selection, and implies that evolution has no purpose. It claims that humans are an extension of apes, and that human intelligence and language ability are accidentally acquired abilities.

Importantly, ID theory does not question the history of evolution as a process of life becoming more complex and advanced. Rather, it raises the question of why it evolved. It claims that the concept of an intelligent designer’s involvement can better explain the evolution of complex life forms.

A drastic change of world view

The legacy of Darwin is not limited to the interpretation of evolution. “Great scientists before Darwin, including Newton, considered that the universe and life are designed in some way,” (Dr. Paul Nelson), but the birth of Darwinism drastically changed the world view and value system of the Western world.

Darwinism came to be considered a truth rather than a hypothesis. Naturalism, which claims that the universe and life can be explained by materialistic factors alone, (Materialism and Darwinism can be considered forms of naturalism) became the mainstream thought and teaching around the world.

On the other hand, ID theory emerges as a new paradigm to interpret complex life, fossils and facts observed in the universe, challenging science’s old materialistic framework that has been sustained for almost 150 years since Darwin’s “Origin of Species.”

For this series of articles, Sekai Nippo interviewed leading scientists of the ID movement. These scientists include Stephen Meyer, director and senior fellow of the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute, Jonathan Wells, senior fellow of CSC, Scott Minnich, associate professor of microbiology at the University of Idaho, senior fellow at CSC, Michael Behe, professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, and Guillermo Gonzalez, assistant professor of astronomy at Iowa State University.

These scientists embrace different faiths, and their articles do not state the identify of the designer. They are engaged in a scientific debate and they think it is not the role of science to answer who the designer is.

Later in this series, we will introduce the core concepts of ID theory, irreducible complexity in the area of biochemistry, specified complexity in the area of logics, and the correlation between habitability and measurability in the area of cosmology and astronomy.

Cambrian fossils are a major issue for Darwinism. ID advocates stress that they prove the role of a designer.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: crevo; crevolist; evolution; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-236 next last
To: Semper

> Try checking for cases where medical care was given up (medically incurable situation) and then were healed by prayer.

Huh. So, the *only* possible explanation for healing when doctors fail is prayer, eh?

> it appears as though it is a waste of time to debate someone who has not figured out the spell check option or is too lazy to use it.

Good to know where your priorities are.


101 posted on 10/16/2006 11:19:15 AM PDT by orionblamblam (Prayers... give people the feeling they're doing something without making any real effort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Nice try.

I was thinking along the lines of a description of life as being unlimited and this human experience just one of infinite phases in which we have the opportunity to express the nature of our Source. The closer we get to expressing the true nature of our Source, the more rewarding our experience becomes and the closer to "heaven" we get. The further away we get from expressing this true nature, the closer to "hell" we get. The true nature of our being never changes, it is as perfect as our Source; the only thing which is variable is our awareness and expression of that Source. And, the true nature of that Source is Spiritual. This imperfect, human phase of our being is as much of an illusion as the illusion of a flat world.
102 posted on 10/16/2006 11:19:32 AM PDT by Semper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

Scientists are not honest enough to admit that they merely eliminate any ideology that competes with their personal favorite through the use of the 'naturalistic' axiom and the 'naturalistic explanation only' as acceptable definition.

________________________________________________________

Rediculous. Since when does "ideology" have a place in a science classroom. Observation of measurable facts/data are what scientists deal with (and argue about). Ideology is reserved for political science, religion or philosophy class.


103 posted on 10/16/2006 11:20:03 AM PDT by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Cambrian fossils are a major issue for Darwinism. ID advocates stress that they prove the role of a designer.

Serial misrepresentations by its advocates are a major issue for ID. Please ask me what I'm talking about, Dave. Put a nice, hurt, innocent look on your face, please.

104 posted on 10/16/2006 11:25:12 AM PDT by VadeRetro (A systematic investigation of nature does not negotiate with crackpots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings
Orangutans pray regularly to the god, "Eee-ooo-hah." Prove I'm wrong.
105 posted on 10/16/2006 11:31:19 AM PDT by VadeRetro (A systematic investigation of nature does not negotiate with crackpots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

Only that you are wrong, and that you know it because Mother Theresa is Definately NOT and APE, Waldo.


106 posted on 10/16/2006 11:36:38 AM PDT by JSDude1 (www.pence08.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; DaveLoneRanger
Serial misrepresentations by its advocates are a major issue for ID.

Sad, but demonstrably true.

An example of which has been posted on this thread already.

107 posted on 10/16/2006 11:39:00 AM PDT by highball (Proud to announce the birth of little Highball, Junior - Feb. 7, 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Non-evangelical Atheist

I submit that Atheism is often just a matter of definition. Why could not the "natural laws" you cite be evidence of God? One definition of God is not "a supernatural being" but ALL being - all true being. In that case, if you say there is no God, you are saying there is no being which is obviously not correct.

I do not believe in a "super being" God who makes decisions about human matters. That may make me an Atheist to some but that is not the case. I believe that all life is governed by laws and when we humans do not conform to those laws, there is negative consequence. For the primitive people of Biblical times that same thought would be expressed as conforming to the "will of God" - different description but the same truth.

Anyway, to me you express yourself as a believer in much of the same truth I believe.

108 posted on 10/16/2006 11:59:00 AM PDT by Semper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: highball
"It isn't the fault of scientists that words mean things."

It is the fault of scientists that they use 'truth by definition' disingenuously for personal reasons.

How very 'unscientific' of them.

109 posted on 10/16/2006 12:03:42 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Semper; 1000 silverlings
For the primitive people of Biblical times

Primative? We're not so far removed from "Biblical times."

If we say a generation is 25 years, only 80 generations have passed since the time of Jesus Christ.

110 posted on 10/16/2006 12:06:45 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1

> Mother Theresa is Definately NOT and APE

OK... "dead ape." Or "was an ape."

Or is it your position that she was *not* a member of the family Hominidae? If so, where exactly did Agnesa Gonxha Bojaxhiu diverge from the normal scientific classification for a human? Was she some sort of robot from the planet Bortchulon 7?

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae (Note: everything in family Hominidae here is considered "great ape")
Subfamily: Homininae
Genus: Homo
Species: Sapiens
Subspecies: Sapiens


111 posted on 10/16/2006 12:12:13 PM PDT by orionblamblam (Prayers... give people the feeling they're doing something without making any real effort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Tulane
"Rediculous. Since when does "ideology" have a place in a science classroom. Observation of measurable facts/data are what scientists deal with (and argue about). Ideology is reserved for political science, religion or philosophy class.

Point is, naturalism *is* an ideology.

If ideologies have no place in a science classroom then, according to your own definition, neither does naturalism.

What you advocate is teaching technology-only in 'science' class and I venture that the overwhelming majority of creationists (including me) would wholeheartedly agree.

That would, however, force evolution out as well since it is a naturalistic ideology.

112 posted on 10/16/2006 12:12:44 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
We're not so far removed from "Biblical times.

The people of Biblical times had no concept of our place in the physical universe. They did not have an understanding of a solar system or a galaxy. They did not even understand the nature of our own planet. They had no concept of the physical make up of material - atoms, molecules. It is estimated that over 90% of all human knowledge has been accumulated in the last 100 years - the people of Biblical times had about 1% of current human knowledge if they were lucky. It is difficult to get an accurate view of human life with so little knowledge and much of what they accepted as truth was myth and superstition. That does not mean that what was expressed in the Bible is not true if taken in the context of that time. The truths of the Bible, expressed today, must be described much differently. We have too much more information to believe in myth and superstition.

113 posted on 10/16/2006 12:23:23 PM PDT by Semper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Dr. Eckleburg; RunningWolf; metmom; Mamzelle; Alamo-Girl
Orangutans pray regularly to the god, "Eee-ooo-hah."

Prove I'm wrong.Since you alone have this knowledge, then there's only one scientific conclusion to come to, but feel free to prove me wrong.

114 posted on 10/16/2006 12:23:58 PM PDT by 1000 silverlings (why is it so difficult to understand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
In any given argument, the side trying to re-define words is the one without a substantive argument.

Unfortunately for you, that's the IDers.

115 posted on 10/16/2006 12:27:42 PM PDT by highball (Proud to announce the birth of little Highball, Junior - Feb. 7, 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Semper

"I submit that Atheism is often just a matter of definition."




All words are subject to definition. For me, atheism is the disbelief in all things supernatural, which includes deities of any kind.

I believe that there is nothing that is outside of the natural. Period. Everything, from a single atom, to the entire universe is subject to natural laws.

I find no reason for any supernatural creator whatsoever. If the laws of nature are followed, as they must be, then what we see around us exists. If we exist, and can see what is around us, then the laws of nature have been followed, whether we understand them fully or not.

It is a human conceit that there is some "intelligence" that is outside of the natural world. I find that conceit to be flawed in many ways, not the first of which is the plethora of religions and deities humankind has managed to think up.

Yes, atheism is a matter of definition. I have given you mine.


116 posted on 10/16/2006 12:30:00 PM PDT by MineralMan (Non-evangelical Atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Yes, but since modern day man sits in the seat of God and proves to himself with vain thoughts daily that he is God, it's incomprehensible to him that anyone other than he, is all that intelligent.
117 posted on 10/16/2006 12:31:46 PM PDT by 1000 silverlings (why is it so difficult to understand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1

"Mother Theresa is Definately NOT and APE, Waldo"

Ah, but she is, Dude. All humans, including Mother Theresa, are great apes, primates, mammals, vertebrates, and are alive. It's all part of the chain.

Go sit in the primate exhibit at the zoo for three or four days and observe the behavior of the chimpanzees in the exhibit. If you do that, you will understand.


118 posted on 10/16/2006 12:32:18 PM PDT by MineralMan (Non-evangelical Atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

"If we say a generation is 25 years, only 80 generations have passed since the time of Jesus Christ."




This is true. Now, name three members of the eighth generation of your ancestors. If you can name a single one, you are very exceptional.

Now, multiply that lack of knowledge by 10, and you see the difficulty of 80 generations of history.


119 posted on 10/16/2006 12:34:43 PM PDT by MineralMan (Non-evangelical Atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings
Yes, but since modern day man sits in the seat of God and proves to himself with vain thoughts daily that he is God, it's incomprehensible to him that anyone other than he, is all that intelligent.

Yep.

"We must preach, we must reprove, we must pray, because they to whom grace is given will hear and act accordingly, though they to whom grace is not given will do neither." -- Augustine

If the modern man would just keep to himself, who would care? But modern man is making decisions for us daily.

Wrong decisions.

120 posted on 10/16/2006 12:36:45 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan; Dr. Eckleburg
three members of the eighth generation of your ancestors. If you can name a single one, you are very exceptional.

Oh well, Noah, Shem or Japtheth.

121 posted on 10/16/2006 12:37:45 PM PDT by 1000 silverlings (why is it so difficult to understand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
Maybe DI considers this peer review.

These articles do seem to flood FR though. Perhaps FR considers this paper a news source rather than a journal of religious opinion.

122 posted on 10/16/2006 12:40:50 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

Because there is measurable data on evolution: fossils, etc. That gives scientists data...they can also observe living things and compare their physiology to records of those that came before...again, they have data to observe.

ID is simply an ideology based on religious faith. There is no data, other than to say, the universe is really intricate therefore, there must be a designer...that is not science.


123 posted on 10/16/2006 12:42:40 PM PDT by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Semper

I deny them my Source, Mandrake ...

124 posted on 10/16/2006 12:42:40 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings

"Oh well, Noah, Shem or Japtheth.
"

If you think those three are in the eighth generation of your ancestors, you are very old, indeed.

It is a serious question, and you have given a silly answer.

You cannot conceive of the lack of knowledge of those who lived 2000 years ago. They lived in the bronze age. They knew nothing about blood circulation. They did not know that microscopic life even existed. They did not know there was such a thing as a spermatazoan, nor a human ovum.

They did not know that the continent of North America existed. They did not have a glimmering of an idea of the distance from the Earth to the Moon, much less the distance to the stars.

Our ancestors of 80 generations ago knew virtually nothing about the world around them, except what they needed to know to grow their crops and raise their sheep and goats. Jerusalem was a city made of stone and mud.

Again, you have no concept of the ignorance of 2000 years ago. Fortunately, humans have continued to increase their knowledge of the world around them...to all of our benefits.


125 posted on 10/16/2006 12:44:12 PM PDT by MineralMan (Non-evangelical Atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan; 1000 silverlings
I''ve come to realize it's very difficult to discuss anything spiritual with someone who calls himself an "atheist."

Even though I once called myself by the same name (during a foolish period in college when I thought I enjoyed the rebellion of conceit.)

Our frame of reference is now 180-degrees apart.

WHY I BELIEVE IN GOD by Cornelius Van Til

As Van Til concludes in his short essay...

"So you see when I was young I was conditioned on every side; I could not help believing in God. Now that I am older I still cannot help believing in God. I believe in God now because unless I have Him as the All-Conditioner, life is Chaos.

I shall not convert you at the end of my argument. I think the argument is sound. I hold that belief in God is not merely as reasonable as other belief, or even a little or infinitely more probably true than other belief; I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else. But since I believe in such a God, a God who has conditioned you as well as me, I know that you can to your own satisfaction, by the help of the biologists, the psychologists, the logicians, and the Bible critics reduce everything I have said this afternoon and evening to the circular meanderings of a hopeless authoritarian. Well, my meanderings have, to be sure, been circular; they have made everything turn on God. So now I shall leave you with Him, and with His mercy."


126 posted on 10/16/2006 12:45:37 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

And not being on the religion forum, lies such as this may be discussed.


127 posted on 10/16/2006 12:46:08 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan; Dr. Eckleburg; RunningWolf; metmom; Mamzelle; Alamo-Girl

You might want to expand your own personal horizons a little, and google the Hindu concept of the atom. The Jews, believe it or not, were an ancient Oriental people and knew things that apparently, you do not.


128 posted on 10/16/2006 12:47:56 PM PDT by 1000 silverlings (why is it so difficult to understand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Even though I once called myself by the same name (during a foolish period in college when I thought I enjoyed the rebellion of conceit.)

Oh me too! When I was 18-20, I knew everything. I just get more and more stupid, apparently,according to some, the older I get.

129 posted on 10/16/2006 12:50:16 PM PDT by 1000 silverlings (why is it so difficult to understand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
These folks are doing apologetics, not science.

As they (and their soulmates, the postmoderndeconstructionists) have been for decades. The purpose (as stated in ...Doctrine Of Scripture...) is to destroy scientific inquiry as a means of obtaining knowledge. At least the quoted document is upfront about the attack on science.

130 posted on 10/16/2006 12:51:36 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
I believe that there is nothing that is outside of the natural.

How complete is your awareness/understanding of the natural? It is not possible that after many evolutions of discovery, what seems natural then would seem supernatural now?

If the laws of nature are followed ...

What is the Source of the laws of nature? Why can it not be that the Source of those laws is God, the ultimate natural law?

It is a human conceit that there is some "intelligence" that is outside of the natural world.

I don't understand or agree with that. It is not conceit to believe there is something beyond yourself. It is conceit to believe that you are the ultimate authority on the nature of existence.

131 posted on 10/16/2006 12:52:53 PM PDT by Semper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

I think he means that the anti-evolutionist addiction to the moonie point of view is being exposed.


132 posted on 10/16/2006 12:53:00 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: highball
" Are you a monkey? Are you a monkey?"

There is no obligation in conversation to address a boorish question such as that, particularly from a vulgar newbie, probably in fresh disguise from DC.

I had already made it clear that what Moonies believe is their own business, and that I much appreciate the Washington Times, which is a big point in their favor. The liberals have the Christian "Science" Monitor--and they never make apology for Mary Baker Eddy.

133 posted on 10/16/2006 12:53:59 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings

You wear it well. 8~)


134 posted on 10/16/2006 1:00:23 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Semper
How complete is your awareness/understanding of the natural?>/i>

My understanding is limited, as is that of most people. However, I have no experience whatever with the supernatural, so I disregard it. Each year, I and the rest of humanity learn new things about the natureal world. That is, for me, sufficient.

What is the Source of the laws of nature?

Nature itself. Were there no laws of nature, there would be no existence. The fact that there is an observable existence is proof that there are laws of nature. We understand some of them.

It is not conceit to believe there is something beyond yourself. It is conceit to believe that you are the ultimate authority on the nature of existence.

I am using the word "conceit" in its secondary meaning, not in the meaning you are understanding. It's a rather archaic meaning, but is close to the word "concept" or "conception," or "construction," but "conceit" is better at describing what I mean. You can look it up in your dictionary or on the web.

135 posted on 10/16/2006 1:00:51 PM PDT by MineralMan (Non-evangelical Atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

"The purpose (as stated in ...Doctrine Of Scripture...) is to destroy scientific inquiry as a means of obtaining knowledge

Which Doctrine of Scripture are you referring to?


136 posted on 10/16/2006 1:01:25 PM PDT by scottdeus12 (Jesus is real, whether you believe in Him or not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

Preview is your friend, MineralMan! Crapola!


137 posted on 10/16/2006 1:01:47 PM PDT by MineralMan (Non-evangelical Atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

:)


138 posted on 10/16/2006 1:03:24 PM PDT by 1000 silverlings (why is it so difficult to understand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

> And not being on the religion forum, lies such as this may be discussed.

Indeed. Until it's magically moved to the religion forum, and then anyone who dares bring up the fact that many of the IDer's "points" are outright fabrications can be banned or suspended.

Oooh: ammend the topic line with "prayer request." That shuts down *all* debate.


139 posted on 10/16/2006 1:04:01 PM PDT by orionblamblam (Prayers... give people the feeling they're doing something without making any real effort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: highball

I'm not re-defining anything. In fact, I'm using the definitions that the evos give.

I know they both have the word 'definition' in them, but there really is a difference between 'redefinition' and pointing out 'truth by definition'.

Equivocating the two isn't a substantive argument. Unfortunately for you, that's the evos.


140 posted on 10/16/2006 1:08:03 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

where are the previous parts of this series...recent?


141 posted on 10/16/2006 1:08:40 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tulane
"Because there is measurable data on evolution: fossils, etc. That gives scientists data...they can also observe living things and compare their physiology to records of those that came before...again, they have data to observe."

I can see that you don't know the difference between 'evidence' and 'interpretation of evidence'. The actual fossil is evidence. Dating those fossils is 'interpretation of evidence', which is not observable and not science.

"ID is simply an ideology based on religious faith. There is no data, other than to say, the universe is really intricate therefore, there must be a designer...that is not science.

Naturalism is simply an ideology based on religious faith. There is no data, other than to say, the universe is really intricate therefore, there must not be a designer...that is not science.

142 posted on 10/16/2006 1:11:50 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: scottdeus12

The one referred to in the post to which I replied. It claimed that all scientific inquiry has to be in conformity with one sect's interpretation of scripture. Of course, other groups may differ. Harun Yahya (famous for providing the Kansas Conservatives with expert testimony) required conformity with other writings.


143 posted on 10/16/2006 1:13:20 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Semper; 1000 silverlings
Yes, we are a very clever species.

The truths of the Bible, expressed today, must be described much differently.

LOL. Some important "truths of the Bible" can be summed up in the following words -- God creates all things by His will alone. Men struggle to understand that will by seeking to put their own fingerprints on God's handiwork. Yet all of life is happening exactly according to God's will.

Amazing; difficult to comprehend; true nonetheless.

With this understanding, life becomes knowable and joyful and productive because it is God-centered. All science, biology, chemistry, physics, become what God wills us to understand.

Thus the Period Table of the Elements was written by God and discovered by man, according to His will.

All life is known by its fruit. If the fruit of biology and chemistry reflects God's grace, then it is worthwhile. If the fruit of biology and chemistry does not reflect God's grace, but instead demeans God and His word, then it is not worthwhile.

Therein lies the difference between sheep and wolves; myth and truth; condemnation and acquittal.

144 posted on 10/16/2006 1:14:41 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Here is an interesting definitional exercise. Substitute the term God for laws of nature and here is what you get:

Were there no laws of nature (God), there would be no existence. The fact that there is an observable existence is proof that there are laws of nature (God).

If God were defined as the "Laws of Nature", would you be an Atheist?

Are you accepting someone else's definition of God or can you determine your own? Or do you just want to be a contrarian?

145 posted on 10/16/2006 1:17:38 PM PDT by Semper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
God creates all things by His will alone

There are at least two ways of interpreting this phrase:

God is a superhuman male being who does things which please him. (The stuff of myth in a male dominated, dictatorial, primitive society)

Or, mankind exists because of a Principle which is the Source of all life. That Principle is unchanging, infinite, perfect and Spiritual and it is made evident by all life. (The stuff of a spiritually evolving society)

All science, biology, chemistry, physics, become what God wills us to understand.

This concept of a God "willing" us to do things is just a step above the myths of a sun god, etc. The concept of an anthropomorphic god is about as primitive as a fertility god or whatever. The Bible is saying (in a way those of 2000 years ago might understand) that God is All Being, All Life, the Principle which underlies all action. That is what we are striving to understand with science. The more we understand and apply God's principle, the closer we are to salvation and eternal life.

146 posted on 10/16/2006 1:42:04 PM PDT by Semper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Semper; 1000 silverlings
The more we understand and apply God's principle, the closer we are to salvation and eternal life.

LOL. So knowledge brings salvation? That's what the Gnostics believed. And apparently, many still follow them to this day.

147 posted on 10/16/2006 1:46:24 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan; Tulane
Naturalism is simply an ideology based on religious faith.

No it isn't, but thanks for playing.

There is no data, other than to say, the universe is really intricate therefore, there must not be a designer...that is not science.

You're right, that goofy argument isn't science, which is why no one's stupid enough to actually make it.

148 posted on 10/16/2006 1:49:56 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
"You are confusing the laws of nature with will."
____________________________________________________________

The laws of nature did not arise by themselves and from nothing. To do so, they would have had to exist before they existed and would have had to create themselves when there was nothing to create themselves from -- for the laws of nature and the matter they govern are inseparable.

It follows, that either:

    i) the "rules" (natural laws) by which matter behaves were put in place by matter itself (non-sentient, inanimate material) when matter did not yet have the "rules" to guide it

or

    ii) these highly ordered, complex and consistent "rules" arose from sentient, intelligent agency.

There are no other possibilities here and to believe alternative (i) is to believe not only in animism but in magic.

149 posted on 10/16/2006 1:53:40 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
So knowledge brings salvation?

No. Knowledge is necessary but action is what counts. If you do not live by God's law, you do not have salvation.

150 posted on 10/16/2006 2:01:33 PM PDT by Semper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-236 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson