Posted on 05/31/2007 4:25:48 AM PDT by Mr. Brightside
The heart of the issue is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason.
The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God.
People of faith should be rational, using the gift of reason that God has given us. At the same time, reason itself cannot answer every question. Faith seeks to purify reason so that we might be able to see more clearly, not less.
Faith supplements the scientific method by providing an understanding of values, meaning and purpose. More than that, faith — not science — can help us understand the breadth of human suffering or the depth of human love...
Ultimately, on the question of the origins of the universe, I'm happy to let the facts speak for themselves. There are aspects of evolutionary biology that reveal a great deal about the nature of the world, like the small changes that take place within a species.
Yet I believe, as do many biologists and people of faith, that the process of creation — and indeed life today — is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him.
It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science.
Biologists will have their debates about man’s origins, but people of faith can also bring a great deal to the table.
For this reason, I oppose the exclusion of either faith or reason from the discussion. An attempt by either to seek a monopoly on these questions would be wrong-headed.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I am a software engineer.
I used to be an atheistic evolutionist.
However, as an engineer and information technologist, I know that randomness does not introduce new information, but rather corrupts existing information. No matter how many iterations you run, and you can run many, many billions in a few minutes, the result of randomness is, well, randomness, and when it is applied to existing information, the result is always deleterious.
Evolutionism is a sacred cow religion.
It’s every bit as fanatical and self-righteous, and every bit as silly, as the droolings of the pedophile “prophet” Mahomet.
Mahomet taught that Jews descended from apes and pigs, so I guess that makes him an evolutionist, too.
Church and State... Mixing??? No wonder we have so many problems without solutions! Enough time waisted on this issue... Ciao
Why did God make anything any particular way? (His good pleasure.)
Cephalopods die, don’t they?
Everything dies. The question is has Jesus Christ actually resurrected from the grave and defeated death?
Well said Senator!
To test Evolution fairly, try adding natural selection to your randomized model.
The lower spine has it’s flaws, as well.
ask Him, not imperfect humans who can’t comprehend His ways in the first place.
science books get re-written every day, since they’re nothing more than notes on theories - this is what we think happened, and why.
> To test Evolution fairly, try adding natural selection to
> your randomized model.
Yes, by introducing “natural” selection into the random bits introduced into and deleted from the code, we get LESS functionality, not more.
I can say with certainty that by adding “natural” selection to randomization in a spreadsheet program, it is not going to evolve into a compiler or word processor.
Oh, and without a purposeful intelligence to program it, “natural” selection could not exist, neither could the original code base upon which “natural” selection is made to act.
The early members of the Holy Catholic Church(as they referred to it; read Eusebius' History of the Church 311 AD) were willing to be tortured horribly for their faith. And we today are not even willing to be emarrassed or inconvienced
All three of your sentences are false and/or misleading.
Actually, computerized evolutionary simulations were performed successfully and published in peer-reviewed journals a few decades ago.
This is why they cling SO tightly to the Evolutionary religion -
it’s the only belief that can completely exclude any higher power (to be accountable to).
Beautifully and truly said, dear brother in Christ!
“..Don’t go trying to change it into some question its not. It’s not a question of faith and reason. It’s a question of whether or not you believe the case has been made. Obviously, you don’t believe it’s been made, since you raised your hand. (Or you would rather not admit to your constituents that you believe it’s been made.)..” ~ samtheman
Like the pope said - (no I’m not RCC) - there is more than “one” theory of evolution floating around. (For details, see my comments and links beneath Brownback’s excerpted comments below):
Sam Brownback: What I Think About Evolution:
Excerpts:
“.. There is no one single theory of evolution, as proponents of punctuated equilibrium and classical Darwinism continue to feud today.
Many questions raised by evolutionary theory like whether man has a unique place in the world or is merely the chance product of random mutations go beyond empirical science and are better addressed in the realm of philosophy or theology.
The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident. That being the case, many believers myself included reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality.
... It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science. ....
The fundamental question for me is how these theories affect our understanding of the human person.
The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is __a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded__.
I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man’s essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos.
I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose. ...
Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order.
Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge.
Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science. ..”
His comments sound _pretty close_ to the recommendation I made a few days ago (5/25/07) here:
Theories of evolution: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1839540/posts?page=22#22
Age of the earth: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1839540/posts?page=24#24
A vey naive statement. If you actually think that ANY Republican politician is going to be able to avoid the subject of evolution between now and 2008, you are in denial.
Don't forget - the demagogues on the left who are running for office - mine the ignorance and stupidity of their constituencies (see my tag line) for their talking points. And one of those "talking points" is this: "the Republicans are waging war on science".
See the links in my post #34 for details.
There are only two VIABLE political parties in America at this point in history; The Stupid Party and The Evil Party.
The Stupid Party is called "stupid" because the majority in it _today_ are naive for the most part, and are either always blindsided by the evil party's tactics, or have no idea how to combat ruthless street fighters like Hillary, et.al.
Conservatives (Classical Liberals) usually vote for candidates in the stupid party, because that is the only political party in which we have any hope at all of having any influence - having our voices listened to.
We have no voice in the evil party. Those who deliberately make choices that result in the evil party coming to power - (either by not voting, voting for a candidate in a non-viable political party, or voting for any RAT) - have my everlasting contempt.
> All three of your sentences are false and/or misleading.
I am a software engineer. I do this for a living, and I’ve been doing it for over 20 years.
I can promise you that you will never see “Flight Simulator” evolve into “Linux” by injecting random bits into, or taking random bits out of, the code.
There is nothing false or misleading about any of those statements.
Just because it is not congruent with your silly paridigm, does not mean that it is inherently false.
> Actually, computerized evolutionary simulations were
> performed successfully and published in peer-reviewed
> journals a few decades ago.
Yes, proving the point that no intelligence whatsoever is necessary to create life or even to drive “evolution”.
:rolleyes:
But then again, circular reasoning is the hallmark of the Evolutionist. His belief system cannot exist without it, in spite of his vigorous protestations to the contrary.
Can you provide any evidence of honest questions being asked? All I ever see is proclamations that ID is not science, surrounded by personal insults to whoever dares to claim they believe in it.
Amen.
awesome post #22
thanks
Thank you so much, xzins, for the heads up to Westbrook’s excellent post!
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.