Posted on 11/18/2008 12:34:41 PM PST by trumandogz
Hope this doesn’t sound too trite, but there is no “randomness” in our universe.
Proverbs 16:33
The roll of the die is cast into the lap
But its every decision is from the Lord.
The dice are directed. Now, can you or I detect how that occurs? No, but that doesn’t make it untrue. Nor can I fathom the mind necessary to simultaneously manage a supernova and a flea’s heart (do they have hearts?) But, the evolutionist demands the conversation commit to a true randomness that allows no intervention. You are trying to fudge the system and will find unbridled evolution (the kind advocated in the article) demanding we admit such fudging is “unnecessary” to the universe. Faith and this excuse for “science” are incompatible.
As I stated previously, science can neither include or exclude the idea that “random” processes are all occurring as God would wish them to.
You win at dice. That is God's plan.
You lose at dice. That is God's plan.
But a discussion of how to play dice cannot account for or predict God's will, so to all intents and purposes in discussing “how to play dice” we talk about “good odds” and “long odds” for these “random” processes.
And thanks for the Bible citation. I will use that!
“The entire ToE could be forgotten tomorrow by everyone and it would not make a bit of difference.”
Unless you get sick, and need medication. Then it might make a small difference. But, if you’re a true believer, then you will go to heaven anyway.
Taking a yearly flu shot is also testament to the power of evolution.
If the virus didn’t evolve then last year’s shot should be just fine!
What? You don’t want last years shot you want THIS years shot?
I guess evolutionary thinking DID make a difference.
I also found this response interesting even when they tried to skew the response with the phrase, the ‘weaknesses’ of evolution as advanced by proponents of creationism and intelligent design theory.”
The survey further queried respondents about whether the State Board of Education “should amend the [state’s science] curriculum standards to exclude discussion of the ‘weaknesses’ of evolution as advanced by proponents of creationism and intelligent design theory.”
Of all respondents, 67% said either that they strongly agree or agree somewhat with excluding such discussions. Another 6% said “not sure,” while 13% replied they “disagree somewhat” and 15% of the respondents chose “strongly disagree.”
Funny, we didn't see that in the article.
Maybe I am not communicating well, here. There is no randomness. That is the claim of the document that those of faith hold to be true. I cannot prove that the document is true any more than they can prove that they exist. But, even particle physics is not truly random, but rather has a large component of non-identifiable patterns of one (two?). They are directed and by definition non-random, irrespective of their appearances to us.
When an evolutionist says that a non-directed event occurred giving rise to a mutation of species which accidentally included characteristics more conducive to survivability than the former (parent) or others (”siblings”) they are wanting this “natural selection” to be void of any manipulation, causation, interference. Life for them is just completely accidental. Perhaps you are willing to live with this demand, but your remarks about the dice game imply a subtle, indetectable control that will never be brought up by an evolutionist.
Life, in their curriculum, survives for no particular reason than accidental suitability which passes to the next generation (don’t ask why generations would even be a characteristic of an unthinking universe) to begin all over again, awaiting another completely random event.
Your description therefore would be unwelcome. I am contending that unbridled evolution will demand you leave any direction out of the conversation. Is that okay?
I reiterate, science can neither include or discount the notion that random processes are directed by God.
This is true in particle physics, generation of genetic variation by mutation, or any other process.
Someone will be along to do it for them, using "with us or against us" arguments.
Scientific-method based experiments which would conclusively substantiate claims that man evolved from single-cell organisms over the course of billions of years, for example, would likewise take billions of years to conduct; an impossibility. And then there is the "minor" problem of repeating such time-consuming experiments in order to verify outcome.
Also, biological experiments which were said to simulate billions of years of evolution were spoiled by harmful mutations.
The contrary idea, mirroring the biblical concept of kinds (gussied up as "baraminology"), has significantly less evidence supporting it--pretty much zero in fact.
I don't suppose that should be brought up, though, eh?
What about teaching the "weaknesses" and "teach the controversy?" Or don't those apply to creation "science" and its illegitimate stepchild, ID? If creationists applied even a tenth of the criteria to their own efforts as they do to the theory of evolution they would be amazed at the results, as they saw their a prior conclusions fall apart when confronted by the evidence.
Occam's razor cuts both ways.
Regarding evolution, students should be at least taught that most macroevolution ideas have never been scientifically verified with the consistent results of repeatable, scientific-method based experiments.You're reading too much into my statement. The truth of the matter is that neither creationism or many macroevolution ideas have a place in public school science classrooms.The contrary idea, mirroring the biblical concept of kinds (gussied up as "baraminology"), has significantly less evidence supporting it--pretty much zero in fact. I don't suppose that should be brought up, though, eh?
And the problem remains that, since the states have 10th A. protected power to regulate religion, creationism should never have been kicked out of the public schools altogether.
That’s quite a leap you’re taking there.
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.