Posted on 08/30/2005 9:31:31 AM PDT by RightWingAtheist
Great post. Now all we have to do is listen to the pap that the evolutionists throw to try and debunk what you say. Could be quite humorous.
"Philosophically, I believe Occums razor makes it unreasonable to believe that God tweaks an occaisonal mutation."
I'm not ready to say that's definitely the way He did things. I don't see how I could know, unless He were to tell me. On the other hand, I can't rule it out.
However, the notion seems to grow in likelihood as the probability of certain things happening by accident falls.
"The explanation that He acheived the evolution of man through a purely natural process is more parsimonious."
Yes, but the notion of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God doesn't exactly cry out for parsimoniousness.
"Theologically, the God we know from revelation and experience is one who generally prefers to work through the laws of nature and who only performs mircales on extremely rare occasions"
Well, big, conspicuous ones, anyway.
"and then generally only for the purpose of revealing himself to man."
I have come to believe over the past several years that there are lots and lots of "small" miracles every day...anything from relieving toothache pain to moving someone's heart to do a good deed for someone.
As to why one prayer is answered in the affirmative and another in the negative, I haven't a clue. But then, lots of kids haven't a clue why their parents won't let them get a tattoo, so there you are.
"Therefore, it would seems more consistent with what we know about God that He would create man using a wholly natural process."
Maybe He did. Wouldn't surprise me either way. For me, once you get to the point that He did it, the rest is pretty much window dressing.
The only thing I'm objecting to is the notion that science has anything to say about such things.
Let science do science, and theologians will deal with the really important stuff.
I'm really at a loss as to why you are laboring over such an obvious point.
I have been reading and participating in these threads for nearly five years, and have seen this opinion stated in pretty much identical words by nearly everyone arguing the mainstream science side.
"Festival of the Trolls who Keep Coming Back to Life" placemarker
Allow me to explain: the art of being an anti-evo is the ability with which one can take a straw-man argument and ride it like a hobby-horse.
Amen.
Unfortunately, that's NOT what the proponents of so-called "intelligent design" believe. They are using pseudoscience in trying to "prove" that evolution required constant supernatural intervention. Any reasonable person should oppose this.
I agree it does not matter very much whether God occaisonally and imperceptively "tweaked" evolution. I think it is more theologically sound to say he did not, but we have more important things to worry about.
Like you, I would not be surprised very much either way.
"Over the centuries, the harsh environment and sparse vegetation of the Shetland Islands has caused the ponies to decrease in size from about 13.2 hands down to the maximum 42 inches of today."
Hmmm. Sounds like evolution at work.
"Allow me to explain: the art of being an anti-evo"
You saw something in one of my posts that makes you think I deny evolution?
"The difference is that scientists don't say "it happened by accident"; they say "it happened by this MECHANISM."
Look, I admit that I have only had one graduate-level course in molecular genetics, and that was way back in the 70s -- you know, before God created dirt.
However, the difference between "accident" and "mechanism" in this case is a distinction without a difference.
If a given strand of DNA suffers UV damage that causes a mutation, is it mechanism or accident that determines whether that mutation is harmful or beneficial?
To say "mechanism" is only to say that, because of the nature of the physical universe, this can happen and that can't happen.
"but say that the Mechanism was put in place by an Intelligent Designer."
A theological opinion. You may disagree, but surely they are entitled to it.
"But the Scientific method is ill equipped to ascertain the MOTIVES or UNKNOWN FORCES behind a Mechanism."
Actually, I would say that it is completely unequipped to do that.
"They are left describing and predicting the effects of the Mechanism, and leave the ascribing of motive to philosophers/theologists."
Ah, if only they did. However, this furor would not even exist if not for the misrepresentation of this science as grounds to assert God's non-existence.
"They are using pseudoscience in trying to "prove" that evolution required constant supernatural intervention. Any reasonable person should oppose this."
I don't think you can *prove* it that way. If you can demonstrate -- using proper scientific methods -- that the probability of a given event is infinitessimal, even on the "billions and billions of years" scale, you can make it look like a reasonable conjecture.
If you can demonstrate -- using proper scientific methods --a given event is impossible absent design, even on the "billions and billions of years" scale, you still haven't proved it, but you've put yourself in a pretty strong position.
I haven't delved into the material sufficiently to have an informed opinion as to whether it would be impossible for certain things to evolve without design, because, frankly, I don't care very much. Maybe God did it this way, maybe He did it that way, either way is fine with me.
I don't think I've read your posts at all; the comment was inspired by something "js1138" said about "laboring over a point."
If you accept the theory of evolution, that's fine by me. If the comment doesn't apply to your discussion with "js1138" I'll take your word for it.
Randomness is not the same as "by accident". Quantum mechanics don't happen by accident, they happen randomly.
As perhaps those who are biologically less-intellectually accomplished might conclude.
Why don't you consider doing a few experiments with nutritionally deficient inbreeding and see exactly what evolutionary advancements you happen to come up with on your own!
Kind of unfair to do to your kids, I'll admit, so I'd steer clear of that gene-pool modification.
That is,.... unless of course deep down inside you really believe in your evolutionary heart-of-hearts that such things as stunted growth, bone disease, likely mental retardation, acute heart problems, very probable childhood cancer, assorted blood disorders, respiratory distess, and if you're really lucky, maybe even Tay-Sachs, and yet other still unnamed genetic maladies are -- in your esteemed opinion -- evidences of evolution-driven genetic advances to your personal gene-pool... well then, in the interest of the advancement of evolutionary premise and inquiry what are you waiting for?
Up for the challenge? Great! Then go ahead. Pretend to understand a thimbles-worth of science as you often attempt to do here on FR (without much success, either I might add), perform the experiments and get back to us with the results. Fair enough, Hoot'nanny?
"Randomness is not the same as "by accident". Quantum mechanics don't happen by accident, they happen randomly."
IMO, a distinction without a difference.
I'm not going to waste any time squabbling with you over that.
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.