Posted on 09/17/2004 7:09:02 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
In the discussion of origins, both sides claim to be interested only in the truth. If that be the case, what is the purpose of your question? Surely if the proponents of ID can be discredited on account of personal religious beliefs, then any materialistic evolutionist can be discredited on account of his refusal to see all of the evidence.
This should be a battle of truth claims not truth claimers.
I was wondering if the ID proponents could be driven by their religious convictions. If they were trying to fit the science to their religious convictions. Perhaps I'd already know the answer if I followed these threads more.
"Surely if the proponents of ID can be discredited on account of personal religious beliefs, then any materialistic evolutionist can be discredited on account of his refusal to see all of the evidence."
I agree with the above to some extent, in that all of us usually invest plenty of emotion into our convictions, regardless of what they are. Although it could be pointed out that Christianity is evangelical by nature while science is not.
Anyhow, as I stated in a prior post, while the theory of evolutions makes sense to me, I do find the idea of ID intriguing. I am happy to have the links from Alamo Girl and r9etb and intend to check them out.
I would think so, Sam Cree. Just some thoughts:
It seems likely to me that people who resonate to ideas of divine transcendence -- irrespective of any particular religious credal identification -- are probably more open to universal ideas than people who aren't.
Not all religious traditions believe the universe was created. Buddhists believe that the universe is eternal, without beginning or end, and cycles through a periodic rotation of expansion and contraction, birth and death followed by rebirth; and that the divine principle of reality is immanent in it. It should be obvious the Christian and Jewish models do not see it this way.
Notwithstanding, what all sincere religious believers seem to have in common, regardless of confession, tradition, or culture, is the conviction that the universe exists beyond themselves and is infinitely greater than themselves, although they are intimately parts and participants of it. They believe the universe is lawful, whose laws are binding on natural reality, including mankind.
Another common thread that seems pretty universal is the idea that there is a deeper truth at work in the world than mere appearance can suggest. The Great Greeks were famously on to this problem: "Nature loves to hide," as Heraclitus put it. One needs "eyes that can see, and ears that can hear," to see this deeper truth. Otherwise, it cannot be discerned.
I'd also point out that traditional religions East and West all place a value on humility or self-restraint: The general understanding being the "microcosmic tail" does not wag the "macrocosmic dog." All cherish the sense of wonder and delight in the beauty of the Universe.
I imagine there may be atheists out there who are characterized by such qualities. Still, I doubt they are numerous. For the great attraction of atheism is the sense or belief that one can "depose" God (who is imagined to be a fictional being or psychological projection anyway, so good riddance!) and thereby seize human freedom, unobstructed and unencumbered by some fictitious divine law pertaining to man and the world. You can make up your own rules then, and do what you like without risk of penalty.
But I digress. My main point is that openness to universal reality that seems so characteristic of the religious believer seems to be a hallmark of a great scientist or poet, artist, philosopher, etc. In the matters of scientific inquiry and the life of the mind in general, the person who is "open" to the transcendent or divine beyond of his own little self is motivated to pursue the evidentiary trail wherever it leads, in the spirit of truth.
Perhaps this doesn't make much sense, Sam Cree. Let me try to put it another way by citing an example of a spiritually aware people, for whom such awareness was indispensably valuable and practical:
"...the American Indian approached nature through the mediation of a revealed tradition. The Indian learns from nature to the extent that he learns from his religion. Nature teaches only him who is taught by God. That is to say, a spiritual discipline is needed in order for the conditions of a life in nature to evoke in man the state in which a symbolic, analogical understanding of the world is possible." [Jacob Needleman, A Sense of the Cosmos, 2003, p. 79] We post-moderns seem to have lost our connection with nature. Still, I think this statement refers to a profound psychological insight into how humans acquire knowledge. Nowadays, we speak of such a "frame of reference" as a "worldview."
Problem is, it seems worldviews get flatter and flatter in our secular culture with every generation. The contact with the idea of nature and its "beyond" (as Plato would put it), has increasingly been marginalized. And it is not surprising that the capacity of human beings to acquire new knowledge seems to have suffered as a result. We're increasingly becoming "flatlanders," and only see what lies on the plane which we think is "all there is."
Anyhoot, I am attracted to ID theory because it acknowledges certain problems that metaphysical naturalists positively deny out of hand, but which are so obvious to me, I don't see how they can be denied.
But on the other hand, if you do deny them, then you can argue til kingdom come that, say, life originated from spontaneous chemical activity, in the teeth of the second law of thermodynamics, without identifying or articulating the principle or law by which this supposed event -- abiogenesis -- could have occurred.
Standard biology isn't paying enough attention to quantum field theory, information theory, and relativity theory. These three all pertain to the universal, not merely to the natural aspects of reality. But I imagine that the natural is the product of just these three. And we have to find out how that is. IMHO, FWIW.
I've run on overlong, as usual. Hope I haven't bored you to death, Sam Cree. Thanks for writing!
There may be false assumptions in your statement which are not readily obvious:
2)"science is not." Though science is not centered in the good news, it does not stand in opposition to it nor is the Gospel (good news) opposed to science. It is bothersome to many materialists that most of the founders of modern science were Christian.
3) The implied and theoretical dichotomy between "science" and Christianity is an artificial construct. The modern fact/values split might be useful in explaining our origins if the realm of facts actually contained that which is factual and the realm of values actually was limited to only that. Unfortunately, much of what has been categorized as fact is factual by declaration, not because it actually corresponds to reality. The same with the realm of values. So it is with ID, which should be judged on how it corresponds to reality, not on who adheres to it or whether materialists declare it a member of the values realm.
Also remember that evolution is not science. It is an interpretation of evidence based on unfounded assumptions. If it were science, it would not be afraid of close examination. The more theorists fear of criticism, the more they suppress opposition, the weaker their theory. So which side fears the light and which side welcomes it?
I find very little to quarrel with in your post (305).
I might dispute your assertion that we are now less able to acquire new knowledge, I think human nature hasn't changed much there, but the rest of the post is so elegant that I don't wish to quibble.
I am pretty much on the same page with most of your points, in spite of the fact that I am sympathetic to the theory of evolution.
As far as explaining the origin of life, that seems like a stretch, considering that just explaining what it is exceeds our capacity.
My mention of the evangelical nature of Christianity was not meant to be uncomplementary, my apologies if it came out that way. I was contrasting that aspect of Christianity with science, which is not evangelical.
I agree that science and Christianity don't inherently conflict, in fact I said as much myself a few posts back.
As to which side fears the light, I don't see why either side would, since I don't necessarily see an inherent conflict, at least not on all levels. A good scientist ought to welcome the truth, as would a good Christian.
You spoke of materialism, I confess my ignorance in not knowing what the term means.
Me too, Sam. It just stands to reason. The problem is these days, some people are turning the theory into a dogma. And I don't like that. Too much "closure," when we need to stay "open" -- if we want to learn anything new and valuable, that is. FWIW.
I like the above sentence from your post. I'm not even very religious at all, not a bit, but I try pretty much to be aware of what you're talking about there. There are lots of ways that the existence of a greater power, universal truth, or whatever one wishes to call it, makes its existence evident.
Materialism is a set of presuppositions that are the basis for an atheistic worldview. It is summed up in this simple statement: Matter and its motion are all there is.
The glaring weaknesses are obvious, yet atheistic evolutionists dare not depart from materialism (sometimes called naturalism)else their theory of origins will collapse. ID has no such confining restrictions. In order for materialism to be true,
The universe cannot be expanding,
There are no exceptions to physical laws (except the exceptions necessary for a naturalistic worldview),
and matter must either be self-creating or eternal (an attribute of deity applied to dirt).
OK thanks.
Yes, I agree, it's beyond us to think we can define the universe in such terms. Even the word "universe" seems too small and confining.
Thank you, and may the Lord of Life bless you and yours always.
If you do, Sam, I suspect you will find that the investment of your time and interest will yield substantial dividends. :^)
bump
God exists outside of the normal universe (The one that we see) although His presence is a part of our lives, so why should He conform to somebody's narrow-minded view of how the Universe is supposed to behave?
Science without faith is a souless existence. It's what the Devil wants. God is not just part of the equation; he IS the equation.
If God exists, any explanations that exclude the possibility of His existence are "not science."
If God exists, miracles are automatically possible.
If God exists, any theories opposed to His existence are automatically false.
umm
amino acids come to earth on meteorites from outer space=
cf your local PBS station on NOVA-
where they come from in space nobody knows
yup
Ditto! :-)
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.