Skip to comments.Phony Theory, False Conflict
Posted on 11/17/2005 9:25:39 PM PST by raj bhatia
click here to read article
Well said IMHO.
" Einstein saw his entire vocation -- understanding the workings of the universe -- as an attempt to understand the mind of God."
The sad part is that some can't see this. Any theories that cast doubt upon a strict interpretation of the bible's version of creation are labeled as heresy.
"...a high-tech factory, complete with artificial languages and decoding systems; central memory banks that store and retrieve impressive amounts of information; precision control systems that regulate the automatic assembly of components; proof-reading and quality control mechanisms that safeguard against errors; assembly systems that use principles of prefabrication and modular construction; and a complete replication system that allows the organism to duplicate itself at bewildering speeds."
I usually agree with Krauthammer 1000 percent. But I think he's gotten things a little ass backwards here. First of all, neither Newton nor Einstien were evolutionists. As Christians they believed in an intelligent designer; i.e, God. Very few, possibly no evolutionists are devout Christians. It is in fact the evolutionist, the enemy of intelligent design, who makes himself the enemy of God.
I've thought from the beginning of this debate, that those of faith who need to have the Science Seal of Approval on their beliefs are so denigrating the very idea of faith.
Science is science. I'm an avid naturalist.
Faith is faith. I'm a firm believer, and lover of God (because He loved me first).
I don't need to have some validation from the scientific community to confirm my relationship with God.
God gave us many things. Inquiring minds, a vast history, and complex biologies are just a few of his gifts.
Many religious people feel that their faith is denigrated by scientists, as indeed it is many times; trying to shoehorn one's beliefs into a scientific framework will not assuage critics, however, and only serves to belittle the faith which one is trying to forward.
"First of all, neither Newton nor Einstien were evolutionists. As Christians they believed in an intelligent designer; i.e, God. Very few, possibly no evolutionists are devout Christians. It is in fact the evolutionist, the enemy of intelligent design, who makes himself the enemy of God."
I don't think you understood the article. The notion of intelligent design is not inconsistent with evolution. But one is faith, and one is science. Actually, many evolutionists are devout Christians, because they are not so arrogant as to argue that their interpretation of Scripture must be correct even when faced with strong evidence to the contrary.
I find it interesting that he claims someone has made the theory of evolution the 'enemy of God'. Since Darwinism is the enemy of faith and the enemy of truth, it makes itself the inherent the enemy of God.
If and when 'evolution' is openly and plainly taught with the clear disclaimer that it is an unobservable theory, impossible to recreate in a laboratory, then it will be the enemy of nothing. But since they teach it as doctrine in public schools, colleges and the media, as though the theory is not controversial in the science community, it is ipso facto an enemy of God, as are all lies that pretend to be truth.
Actually, this is bunk. Devout Christians cannot be Darwinists, and vice versa.
"Devout Christians cannot be Darwinists, and vice versa."
Hi The Crusader, I like you am a sceptic - as are all good scientists. I like you am also a person of faith, and shall defend that always. I have had my struggles with the Theory of Evolution, and have always maintained that it needs to be discussed as just that - a theory.
However, I ask you this question, as I ask myself: If evolution is a false theory, why are we all waiting on pins and needles to see if the "bird flu" is going to evolve to the point where humans can pass it freely to each other, without any birds being involved at all?
In heaven, Darwin is the "missing link".
You are familiar with what is required for a scientific theory to become such are you not?
Very good points, Kimosabe.
Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, New York, 1954 p. 46.
What is a Darwinist?
Please, tell! :)