Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: raj bhatia

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.


9 posted on 11/17/2005 9:55:21 PM PST by wigswest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: wigswest
You just touched on the big problem I see with the evolutionists today. To them, in order to be a good 'orthodox' scientist, you have to have a worldview that assumes there is no creator/designer and that long periods of time and random chance gets us to where we are today, and if you believe things were created/designed, you're a scientific throwback.

Not to mention that the founding fathers of science saw the natural order of things and it confirmed for them an intelligence behind all of the laws and repeatable processes they saw.

What's harder to believe, that all of this complexity organized itself from nothing (and we still don't know the cause of the big bang), or that the universe was designed and ordered by an intelligence?

I just love it. And depending how the debate is going, either evolution is a long process and slow mutation process, or a punctuated equilibrium (many chgs in short spurts of time) idea. I wonder why we all don't sit around and wonder what kind of animal is going to come out of our cat when it gives birth. How come we don't see totally new animals being born? I've had evolutionists paint me a picture telling me to imagine the first 'bird' hatching from a dinosaur egg. This is how these people think it could have occurred. (I do sure hope another 'miracle' change takes place somewhere nearby so another creature is made so they might be able to have a mate, but I guess if you're going to wish for one hopeful monster, you may as well believe that two of them somehow come into being at the same time.)

If that's how it happens, how come we aren't seeing any new things like this? It should be observable as we have so much life being born on this rock. I just see micro-evolution (variation within species) nad this is easily observed and repeatable. Cats begat more cats. Dogs begat more dogs. But I've never seen a cat give birth to a new non-cat creature.

You know I also heard that if you kiss a frog, you might be able to turn it into a prince. That's pretty close to punctuated equilibrium.

57 posted on 11/17/2005 11:46:18 PM PST by Secret Agent Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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