Posted on 01/03/2006 12:12:37 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Keep digging!
You did say it was the basis for your belief in ID.
No I did not. Subjectivity is not a "basis." Nor does it enhance or establish objectivity. It is simply a characteristic of being a human observer. It also happens to attend your scientific belief in evolution.
That's a good question, hosepipe! The dreams do seem to focus our impressions, often in a constructive way.
[joesbucks reacts to the statement]: We can’t allow something that is true to become true?
Obviously, joesbucks, such statements are troubling. Personally, I don’t subscribe to the idea that truth “cannot be allowed” among the masses. But I do understand the speaker’s concern respecting values and culture. Two observations:
WRT Darwinian evolution, the problem is that many of its earliest “boosters” -- e.g., Julian Huxley and Ernst Haeckel -- promoted it as “proof” of either the nonexistence, or the irrelevance of God. This trend has continued to our own time; for many of its modern boosters -- e.g., Dawkins, Pinker, Lewontin -- find it appealing for the very same reason. And they promote it as fundamentally “atheist.” Dawkins, for instance, claims the theory has allowed him to become “an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
Yet I have no evidence that Darwin himself regarded his theory as in any way denying or repudiating God. My point is, it is likely that the Left Progressives out there who wish to transform human society “into their own image” have hijacked the theory in support of their progressivist, socialistic goals. Historically, the greatest challenge the Left has had is to debunk God; for God’s moral law is designed to accord with the fullest expression of the dignity of the human individual. Collectivists don’t want “individuals”; they want “mass man.” So God must be repudiated, delegitimated, “killed,” on the (most probably correct) theory that atheists are more easily manipulated, more likely to give their absolute allegiance to the State than Christians or Jews; for they know of no higher authority than the State.
The “death of God” cult goes back at least to Nietzsche, and has been justified by the likes of Marx and Feuerbach. But really, this doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with Darwin or his evolution theory per se. It’s a situation analogous to the way in which the Islamofascists have hijacked the Koran in support of their political goals.
But here we are dealing with a situation of untruth being promoted as if it were true. That’s the first observation.
The second observation goes to scriptural interpretation. Different religious confessions regard the scriptures differently. Some say sola scriptura -- the Holy Scriptures are the only revelation God gave to man; and they alone are truthful, for they are the Word of God. Such confessions tend to say that the Bible must be interpreted strictly, literally. In which case, Darwinist theory must be assumed to be wholly untrue, because the theory does not jibe with Genesis. Faith alone is what saves.
Other Christian confessions, however, believe that God gave man two revelations of Himself: the Holy Scriptures, and the “book of nature.” And they say that there is no conflict between the two revelations, for God is the Author of both, and “Truth cannot contradict Truth.” As Francis Schaffer put it, in the Bible, God has told us of Himself and His creation “truly, but not exhaustively.” Christians are invited to seek God in scripture, as well as in the world of creation: God reveals Himself in both. Such Christians tend not to be biblical literalists. To them, the Holy Scriptures are written in symbolic, not literal language. Such Christians tend to be more open to all the knowledge disciplines, most definitely including science. And they tend to notice the tension between faith and reason, which results in what has been called fides quarens intellectum, of “faith in search of its reason.”
In short, one might say that individual Christians may stress either the pneumatic or spiritual dimension, and others the noetic or intellectual dimension of the Christian confession. It’s the difference between simple faith and an inclination to theology, which St. Justin Martyr called the perfection of metaphysics, of philosophy. Yet every man is characterized by both faith and reason in varying degree. And it’s my belief that neither one of these approaches to God is “superior” to the other.
But all this is by way of background, to finally get to the issue you point out, joesbucks. Which is the desire of many religious leaders to protect their flocks from subversive ideologies that destroy the moral foundation of the human person, and thus his relationship with God; and also undermine the well-being of free societies based on the moral law established by God.
The United States historically has been such a society. Indeed, the principal difference between the U.S. and most European nations is that, from the time of the Founders, we have understood ourselves as a people “under God,” not as a people “under a secular monarch” -- the State. The Framers designed a constitution that made the government the servant of the people, where Europe makes the people the servants of the State. In the U.S., we call ourselves “citizens.” In Europe, people are “subjects.” And the reason for this unique distinction of the historical American self-concept is that we have seen ourselves as responsible (and accountable) to God alone. Therefore, the State cannot legitimately assert that its prerogatives against individuals are preeminent, or must take precedence over all other considerations, nor may it command our allegiance, because God already commands it; and God is the higher authority.
But when religious leaders try to protect their flocks from subversive ideologies, I don’t think evolutionary theory per se is the real target; rather I think the target is the abusive treatment it has received in the hands of ideologists.
I very much admire what Christoph Cardinal Schonborn had to say about such matters:
“Evolution happened, … and our biosphere is the result. The two sets of facts correlate perfectly. …[The] modern biologist … is free to define his special science on terms as narrow as he finds useful for gaining a certain kind of knowledge. But he may not then turn around and demand the rest of us, unrestricted by his methodological self-limitation, ignore obvious truths about reality, such as the clearly teleological nature of evolution.”Sorry to run on so long. Just my two-cents, FWIW.
BTW, if you ever track down the source for your paraphrase at the top, I’d like to know it. Thanks for writing, joesbucks!
Fester, I meant to ping you to this.
Jeepers, betty boop! What a magnificient essay-post! You have again left me speechless. I have nothing at all to add.
Objective means "of or having to do with a material object," "having actual existence or reality," "uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices," "based on observable phenomena; presented factually."
Do you see anything in there that indicates testing must first take place for something to be "objective?" Do you really think your posts as they appear before my eyes do not qualify as objective evidence for your existence because I have not subjected them to testing first?
Similarly, the principles of mechanical engineering could be used to demonstrate the nonexistence and irrelevancy of Detroit.
Which is fine with me, since I don't live there.
A most reasonable observation, Fester! I join you in it. Thank you so much for writing!
Thanks, dear Alamo-Girl! Just had to get that off my chest....
LOLOL marron! Thanks for the chuckle!
If you can't test something, how do you expect to convince somebody it's correct?. You believe ID for subjective reasons, as you have said. You don't think it needs to follow the accepted scientific methods of testing. So be it. You can believe what you wish. Don't pretend it is science though.
Some things are self-evident. Intelligent design happens to be one of them. Those who believe it do not need to be convinced they are right. If you can produce an example of unorganized matter that does not behave according to predictable laws, then you will be well on your way to establishing a reason to discard intelligent design as a self-evident, objective reality.
I haven't tracked it down, but it's not a new sentiment:
As you are aware, the Council of Trent forbids the interpretation of the Scriptures in a way contrary to the common opinion of the holy Fathers. Now if your Reverence will read, not merely the Fathers, but modern commentators on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will discover that all agree in interpreting them literally as teaching that the Sun is in the heavens and revolves round the Earth with immense speed and that the Earth is very distant from the heavens, at the center of the universe, and motionless. Consider, then in your prudence, whether the Church can tolerate that the Scriptures should be interpreted in a manner contrary to that of the holy Fathers and of all modern commentators, both Latin and Greek.Source: The Trial of Galileo: Selected Letters.
-- Cardinal Bellarmine to Foscarini (April 12, 1615)
True. It would only lessen the likelihood of intelligent design as an accurate, objective way of viewing the universe. Finding a dinosaur in a Brazilian rain forest would not rule out evolution either, but would only lessen the likelihood of certain features of the theory.
It is both. It is reasonable. To the extent it evaluates objective evidence, including organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws, it is scientific.
Finding unorganized matter would in no way lessen the likelihood of ID, because the designer can do anything and everything.
The designer is not defined or made evident by possibilities and potentials but by what is actually designed, built, and set into motion. The presence of unorganized matter that does not behave according to predictable laws would be uncharacteristic of an intelligent designer, and thus serve to undermine its presence or activity. Intelligent designers are not by definition omnipotent or able to do just anything. They may be bound by physical laws.
Finding a human in the Jurassic would be devastating evidence against evolution.
Nope. It could easily be explained away as an anomaly, much as when an old spark plug is found embedded in rocks that date "millions" of years old.
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.