A New Foundation for Positive Cultural Change: Science and God in the Public Square

Human Events ^ | September 15, 2000 | Nancy Pearcey

[FreedomProtector]

Halane->Haldane

[Alamo-Girl]

One reason a conversation is difficult with an evolutionist is there is usually not an agreement on epistemology.

Exactly. Thank you so much for your excellent post!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Jim Robinson stated that anyone that understood evolution was a marxist etc, and had nothing to add to the conservative movement, his words.

You're misquoting Jim, I think. I was lurking on that thread. His literal comment was:

You can't be a conservative if you fall in league with the Marxist ACLU and the socialist Democrat Party.

The context was that you can't use evolution to bash Christians and be a conservative.

Speaking as a 5-year-veteran of the crevo threads, I agree with him.

On the other hand, I don't consider creation science to be science. But I consider science to be an excellent way to observe God's handiwork.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

Sorry, not a misquote and not a misunderstanding of what Jim said.

He stated that we added nothing to the conservative movement, his words.

[FreedomProtector]

any clarification on "DNA evidence is rather convincing, and it is repeatable"?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

For no reason whatsoever, I'd like to include a picture of a girl holding a seed cone from Pinus coulteri (Coulter Pine);

I just liked the name.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I would appreciate a link.

Thanks.

[betty boop]

kewl!!!

[FreedomProtector]

...would make a funky Christmas decoration!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

LOL!

You could hang them on your tree if they didn't knock it over.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

No clarification will be forthcoming.

Anyone that posts bible passages when discussing science is too far gone to continue to talk science with.

Science is not concerned with your bible, your bible has no effect on it, should have no effect on it, and should not be used in any scientific context.

When every response you give me is praying to God to open my hear, or quoting scripture, I know that you are attempting to witness, not dicuss science.

Sorry, I don't play that. You wish to discuss science, let's discuss it, but leave your religious beliefs at the door, because they have nothing to with science, or are in any way scientific.

[FreedomProtector]

Anyone that posts bible passages when discussing science is too far gone to continue to talk science with.

Limiting ones self to only one method of discovering what is true [experimentalism] is limiting your ability to only discover truth found inside a limited sphere of knowledge, and ignoring truth that is outside the sphere, even if the truth inside and outside the sphere are related. This was part of what I meant when I wrote "One reason a conversation is difficult with an evolutionist is there is usually not an agreement on epistemology."

Why is it exactly that any other historical text (Egyptian hieroglyphics, stone carvings, Babylonian writings etc) are in the realm of 'forensic' science, but the bible is off limits? Why is it that when people swear that they swear by the name of Jesus Christ and not Darwin or Dread Scott, or anyone else?

I know that you are attempting to witness, not discuss science.

I am unapologetic about "attempting to witness". When someone argues for evolution, they are "attempting to witness" for their evolutionary religion as well. Claiming that "witnessing" is off limits is demonstrating a desire for bias instead of intellectual objectively or curiousity about the subject.

It should be noted that there are a fair number of interesting scientific concepts from many different scientific fields of study which directly relate to the question of origins in post #260, many of which I personally find particularly interesting.

[Cicero]

The Bible, even if you don't believe in it, as those belonging to the Jewish or Christian traditions do, is an ancient text, which includes a great deal of wisdom. I don't see why it should be impermissable to quote from it, if the quotation is relevant, any more than it would be impermissable to quote from Plato or Sophocles.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

Either we are discussing science, or we are discussing religion, we cannot be discussing both.

Evolution is science, and it does not compete with nor dsprove religion in any way.

You may think so, but that is your lack of faith, not the fault of science.

Your bible may indeed contain wisdom, but it has nothing to do with science.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

As I said, we are done.

You mix religion with science, which makes science useless, your idea of plato and socrates is ancient, and is of little use to modern science, (unless you are speaking of logic of course,) the rest of the platonic stuff is useless for science. Great philosophy, useless science.

You just keep going on your little dreamworld, and science will just continue on it's real world.

Evolution is not religion, has never been a religion, and never will be a religion. It is a scientific theory, nothing more. It may scare you, it may even weaken your faith, but that just makes it a threat to your beliefs, it doesn't threaten mine. It is a scientific theory, it is incapable of impinging on my religious beliefs.

[FreedomProtector]

Evolution is not religion, has never been a religion, and never will be a religion. It is a scientific theory, nothing more.

I agree with you that natural selection as a selective breeder within kinds of animals is not religious in nature. Selective breeding is observable, repeatable, falsifiable etc. However, evolution as historical reconstruction is very religious in its nature. It is not observable as we do not know how to build a time machine nor it is repeatable. If one believes in evolution it affects how we view all of the rest of life ethics (ethics must evolve), the religious purpose in life logically becomes man should save himself my directing his own evolution. Evolution provides the philosophical base for all the necessary elements of a religious view.

Evolutionists themselves state that evolution [historical reconstruction] is religious.
As far as the twentieth century is concerned, a leading evolutionist is often considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, a primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "Religion Without Revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said: “Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.” [Huxley, Julian, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and `Row, 1964) pp. 125, 222.] Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern.” Then he went on to say that: "the God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."

Evolutionist and senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson: “If we accept [Karl] Popper’s distinction between science and non-science, we must first ask whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudoscientific (metaphysical) … Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test.” [Colin Patterson, Evolution (London: British Museum of Natural History, 1978), pp. 145-146

Evolutionist Harrison Matthews in the Introduction to Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species “The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory – is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation – both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.” [L. Harrison Matthews in the Introduction to Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1971)

Evolutionists like to pompously masquerade repeatedly stating like a broken record that is evolution is scientifically and intellectually superior precisely because of its supposed non-religious character. Not so. Religious is exactly the right word to describe it. The philosophy of “matter is all there is” (Carl Sagan) is built on a faith-based premise. Its basic presupposition—a rejection of anything supernatural—requires a leap of faith. All people have a religious worldview--all people have presuppositions about ultimate reality. No one is neutral. Evolutionists openly state their presuppositions starting with the assertion that "Evolution is a fact". Nevermind the fact that no one has ever verified evolution--either abiogenesis or an enough beneficial information generated from random mutations to transition from one kind of animal to another. With religious fervor evolutionists presume that they know the cause of circumstantial evidence before examining it.

“Evolution is a fact, not a theory.” Carl Sagan

“The first point to make about Darwin’s theory is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact…” Julian Huxley

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution. - Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

…The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution. - Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p.434

Professor of Genetics, Dr. Whitten, University of Melbourne: “Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.” Professor Whitten, 1980 Assembly Week address, University of Melbourne.

Evolution is the central doctrine and provides the foundational basis for the religion of Secular Humanism. Although the religious doctrine of evolution is essential for religion of Secular Humanism, it is not synonymous with Secular Humanism. Although the fundamental doctrine of intelligent design/creation is essential to Christianity, it is not synonymous. Intelligent design is not synonymous with any other specific religious theistic view of the world either. Evolution is not synonymous with any other religious atheistic view of the world (ex Marxism). Both are essential religious doctrines by which the religious worldviews which they support stand or fall.

The Humanist Manifesto I: “Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.”

Evolutionist Julian Huxley: “I use the word ‘Humanist’ to mean someone who believes that man is just as much a natural phenomenon as an animal or a plant, that his body, his mind, and his soul were not supernaturally created but are all products of evolution, and that he is not under the control or guidance of any supernatural Being or beings, but has to rely on himself and his own powers.”

Humanist Manifesto II: As non-theists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity……humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves…..human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces….

John Dewey, a signatory of the Humanist Manifesto I, wrote A Common Faith, in which he said, ‘Here are all the elements for a religious faith that shall not be confined to sect, class or race. . . . It remains to make it explicit and militant.’

In its decision in Torcaso v. Watkins (June 19, 1961), the U.S. Supreme Court stated, ‘Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.’ A few years later (1965) the Supreme Court allowed Daniel Seeger conscientious objector status because of his religious beliefs. He claimed to be a Secular Humanist.

Evolution is based on faith. No one has ever observed anything close to abiogenesis. While the science of taxonomy isn't perfect and while the definition of species is debated, it is clearly observed there are limits to change within kinds of animals. No one has ever observed mutations changing an animal from one kind to another, and natural selection doesn't produce anything new. Fruit flies are still fruit flies, nylon bugs are still nylon bugs, polar bears and still polar bears, nowhere does one observe a fruit fly becoming a house fly or a polar bear. An evolutionist accepts by faith abiogenesis and enough random beneficial random mutations to transition from kinds of animals, and enough beneficial random mutations to provide enough information for ameba to become human, elephant, whale, bird, and sheep. Evolution is indeed religious faith in the extremely improbable.

[Cicero]

Ditto. Well said.

Darwinism becomes a religion when it becomes a matter of faith rather than reasoning.

Baconian science began when Bacon said, in effect, let's shove God upstairs, and do science as if he doesn't exist. God is a matter best left to the priests. Christians could agree with this, perhaps, to a certain point at least. God sustains and upholds the universe, but He does not normally interfere with the natural laws He laid down. When He occasionally does, that is defined as a miracle.

OK, that's a legitimate starting point, perhaps, but it becomes a religion when you segue from saying, "Let's leave God to one side" to saying "God simply doesn't exist," and then turn to your neighbors and say, "Belief in God is a superstition." And then turn to the ACLU and activist judges and demand that only YOUR religion, Darwinism, should be permitted in the public schools. There must be no questions asked about it, and no allowable competition, on pain of suffering the full force of the law brought against you.

The thing is, there is simply no way of establishing the nonexistence of God as a fact or a truth by any scientific method. It is simply an arbitrary hypothesis.

[Cicero]

Impossible to argue with such a compartmentalized mind, I'm afraid.

[Tribune7]

Just getting to this. This sums up the debate and the cost of losing it.

[Tribune7]

Jim Robinson stated that anyone that understood evolution was a marxist etc, and had nothing to add to the conservative movement, his words

OK, let's consider this. JR never said anyone who understood evolution was a marxist. OTOH, you said he did. I mean specifically -- "in his words".

Which frankly doesn't make you very rational does it?

So you make this claim that the "Creo's have completely lost it here" and make an ad hominin attack -- I'll grant that it was likely inadvertent (i.e. thoughtless) --on someone who's creds are beyond question then accuse your opponents of being "irrational", which illustrates a problem.

Creos have been banned and I can think of at least one, who insisted on spamming these threads with the same cut-and-paste, bandwidth-wasting illustrations, that I was glad to see go.

In the recent bloodletting at least one of the evos should have got the boot a long time ago.