Christians can't afford to oppose evolution [says evangelical-biologist]

Chicago Tribune ^ | 27 November 2005 | Richard Colling

[johnnyb_61820]

"But if H. erectus was a transitional species between apes & humans, then you should expect to see disagreement between scholars as to what it was. And lo & behold, you do!"

You would also expect to see disagreement just because people are human and don't get everything right, especially when all you have to go by is bones. This is especially interesting in the light of the fact that secular scientists are now doubting the usefulness of morphology for determining phylogenic lineages because the molecular data directly contradicts the morphologic data. Personally, I think it is because they are trying to fit a series of design patterns into a singly nested tree, when in actuality life is multiply nested.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Your cartoon in post 203 just reveals the artists lack of understanding. It's not a valid point at all. It takes what we agree on and pretends that we don't. I guess that's because he couldn't come up with anything better. But ridicule based on ignorance just make the author look stupid.

[THEUPMAN]

It is speaking of spiritual death, not physical death.


Thats a mighty big statement there buddy.
Are you the guy with the magical power to know what the Bible "really" means? Because there are plenty of folks looking for you.

The Bible says sin brings forth death ... the wages of sin is death.

When Adam took from the tree his death began. It took him a while to get there but that is when death entered the world.

Romans 5 is a good place to start

[THEUPMAN]

Ever thought that Jesus came to show us how to live?

Thats an interesting idea.
Perhaps you can start a religion that goes along those lines ... or just join one of the many that are out there.

The problem is that the Bible has this theme that runs all the way through it.
Sin... death .. Saviour ... life

Now granted you don't have to go along with it. You can go with whatever you want .
But it's not right to make up a religion and then say it's what the Bible teaches ...

The whole point of the book is to reveal to us our need for the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross.

If we are just suppose to live a certain way , what was the cross all about?

[john_baldacci_is_a_commie]

Stick your lying bunch of bull crap you call science where the sun don't shine, anyone stupid enough to believe evolution is to stupid for me to take to.

You're an idiot! Now leave me alone!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Creationist Meltdown Placemarker

[VadeRetro]

I'm sure you just haven't had a chance to acquaint yourself with the evidence. You seem like a reasonable chap. Try a browse at this and see if it doesn't influence your thinking. 29+ Lines of Evidence for Macroevolution.

[Quark2005]

On occasion they point out old or bad arguments that need to be put to bed, but a whole lot of it is misrepresentation.

Well, that leaves the creationist position with absolutely no arguments, then. What exactly is the creationist position then, and exactly what arguments does it use to try to debunk one of the most fundamental and solid theories in the biological sciences?

[RightWingNilla]

You seem like a reasonable chap.

BWHAHHAA! Oh thats a good one.

You owe me a new keyboard and a cup of coffee.

[Quark2005]

The other index

I thought the sections on radiometric dating and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics were especially amusing. Does this list serve any other purpose than to try to confuse people, or is it some sort of strange comedy database for scientists?

[elbucko]

Jerry Falwell has done more good than you can imagine.

So you think the " Teletubbies" are gay too?

Falwell may have a big heart, but he could use a smaller mouth and an increased intellect.

[Quark2005]

The protection from UV radiation afforded by the canopy of the water over the earth was probably one of the reasons ancient man lived approx 10 times longer than modern man.

Also, If the people in the middle ages had followed God's dietary and sanitary laws, the plague would have never spread causing the black death...

Wow, I certainly hope the M.D. isn't for Doctor of Medicine.

[elbucko]

So your idea of the conservative movement rises and sets on the theory of evolution?

Back off, jack! No more than yours does on Creationism. The founding of this country was based upon reason. Reason that the Founding Fathers gleaned from the known science of the time, philosophy AND the Bible. However, I don't see that they confounded reason, science and religion in creating the Constitution for the expressed purpose of spreading of religious dogma by the state.

I serve God first.

Well "Bully" for you!

[pby]

Is this only an assumption of yours or do you have Scriptural proof?

I agree that Adam did not start "aging" (physical deterioration towards death) until after the fall...But how do you know that Genesis only accounts for Adam's post-fall days and his mentioned age of 930 years is not inclusive of his pre-fall days as well?

Prior to the fall, in Genesis 1:14, the stars, sun, moon and etc. ("lights") were given for the marking of seasons, days and years.

Given this passage, it is obvious that time was being tracked prior to the fall. This would indicate, to me, that Adam's 930 years are inclusive of the pre-fall days...It is his accurate age from the sixth day until his death.

[Sensei Ern]

It is a subject of interpretation. If you want to argue on it, I will concede since to me it is of no importance.

[Matchett-PI]

"Good, you have studied about metaphysics. I'm happy for you. Do you now realize that it does not necessarily have anything to do with the supernatural?"

That depends upon which "scientist" you talk to, now doesn't it. LOL

Methodological Naturalism? ~ Alvin Plantinga

The above link is posted on my FR profile page, QUOTE: "...science is said to be religiously neutral, if only because science and religion are, by their very natures, epistemically distinct. However, the actual practice and content of science challenge this claim. In many areas, science is anything but religiously neutral; moreover, the standard arguments for methodological naturalism suffer from various grave shortcomings. .." Methodological Naturalism ~ Alvin Plantinga

*

MORE: ".. Since science is not a system of thought deduced from first principles (as are traditional metaphysical systems), and that it deals precisely with objective experience, science is not, nor is any theory of science, a true metaphysical system. ...

However, the claim is sometimes, and more plausibly, made that evolutionary theory, along with some other scientific theories, functions as a kind of attitudinal metaphysical system [Ruse 1989] Ruse, M: 1989. The Darwinian Paradigm: Essays on its History, Philosophy and Religious Implications, Routledge.

Ruse also describes what he calls "metaphysical Darwinism" [ Ruse 1992 ] Ruse, M: 1992. Darwinism. In E F Keller and E A Lloyd eds Keywords in Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University Press. (as opposed to "scientific Darwinism") which is indeed a metaphysical system akin to a worldview, and which has expressed itself in numerous extra-scientific philosophies, including Spencer's, Teilhard's, and Haeckel's, or even the quasi-mystical views of Julian Huxley. .. ~ John S. Wilkins (talkorigins)

[Matchett-PI]

"You're not doing yourself any favors on this whole metaphysics thing. Better to quit while you're ahead."

You're embarrassing yourself - in public, too.

[Matchett-PI]

"As you keep posting, metaphysics isn't about the supernatural. Darwin was talking epistemology. You are showing yourself to be incredibly ignorant of philosophy. Why do you suppose he was talking about Locke??"

I see you're claiming to speak for all "scientists". Stop embarrassing yourself.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

1) Your quote from Platinga is evidence of nothing. It does not say in WHAT WAY science is allegedly religious. More importantly, it is not discussing METAPHYSICS. The claim you made is that metaphysics is about the supernatural; this is wrong.

2) "MORE: ".. Since science is not a system of thought deduced from first principles (as are traditional metaphysical systems), and that it deals precisely with objective experience, science is not, nor is any theory of science, a true metaphysical system. ...""

So? Darwin was talking about Locke's epistemology, not science. You DO know that epistemology is not science, right? You DO know why he mentioned Locke, don't you?
You have not shown in ANY way that Metaphysics is about the supernatural. Saying it is extra-scientific is NOT the same as being supernatural. Logic is also not scientific; it's an a priori system. That doesn't make it illegitimate.

I'll ask again, why did Darwin mention Locke?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Stop embarrassing YOURSELF. The statement you like to trot out from Darwin's notebooks is NOT about the scientific implications of common descent, it's about the epistemological implications. Which is why he spoke of Locke.

You obviously have never read any Locke.