Posted on 07/28/2013 3:57:08 PM PDT by spirited irish
ping
Thank you for the post. I have always said that evolution essentially removes the obligation of man to worship God. With no obligation to God, anything is possible, ergo you see the results in current culture.
What is a “Darwinist?”
Is that like a “Einsteinist?”
>>Thank you for the post. I have always said that evolution essentially removes the obligation of man to worship God. <<
It does no such thing. You confuse cause with effect.
Now I shall silently watch the thread and say no more.
If the truth is on your side, why do you resort to such insults?
Amazing how the Enemy can take the first few chapters of Genesis and turn it into a bone of contention between believers.
I am not taking the bait.
The Catholic church doesn't seem to think so.
Is that like a “Einsteinist?”
It's more like a "Watson-Crickest", I would say. Einstein is more for the physics worshippers.
Let’s be very clear: this Stephen Meyer is *NOT* a biologist. His PhD is in physics.
I guess if I could come up with some ludicrous claim about physics, I could write books on it and make lots of money, too. After all, I have a PhD after my name—and it’s in science—so that makes me perfectly qualified to write about physics.
Whatever the hype about this book, I don’t expect most scientists are even going to notice it. We have our hands full with, you know, actual science.
an idiot that has “faith” in a theory that has no tangible proof yet accuse Creationists of the same thing.
If the truth is on your side, why do you resort to such insults?
Spirited: You have it backward. What you mistake for insult is in fact truth. From the ancient Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans in the West to Buddhists and Hindus in the East and native Americans throughout the Americas, all worship matter and energy in one form or another; and under one name or another. And this is pagan monism.
ping to read with coffee (it ain’t making it with the beer!)
Thanx for the ping. So good to see some of the inspired writing of Ravi Zacharias being quoted.
bttt
By traditional definition of the word "science", the scientific enterprise requires a commitment to "methodological naturalism" meaning: natural explanations for natural processes.
Science cannot and is not intended to deal with spiritual or metaphysical matters.
Even if, for example, "G*d" is the best answer for a question, then science must throw up its hands and say, "we don't know" or ascribe it to some process of random chance.
That's the traditional nature of science.
And the results are exactly as the article describes -- when methodological naturalism leads to philosophical naturalism, then the soul, in effect, commits suicide and humans become, well, less than human.
Perhaps the analogy of fire will help -- when humans are in charge of it, fire (or science) is highly useful for heating and cooking, etc.
When fire takes charge, it can instantly kill us.
That's the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism.
Of course, there is no scientific "faith", since to become a faith, science must be elevated from methodological to philosophical naturalism, and philosophical naturalism, by definition, is not science, it's religion.
Can I say that more simply?
Science is intended to be a box of tools, highly useful in building or repairing our material needs -- that's methodological naturalism.
But if we set our box of tools up on some alter, and bow down to worship it, that does not increase the utility of those tools, and makes us into idiots -- that's philosophical naturalism.
Nor does science ever use the term "tangible proof" relating to hypotheses and theories.
Instead, hypotheses are "confirmed" according to their ability to make strong predictions and withstand falsifiable tests.
Since basic evolution hypotheses have passed these tests many times, they are considered "confirmed theories".
And scientists do not have "faith" in a theory.
Instead, like other tools in their tool-box, scientists use the theory in every-day work, until it produces some result they didn't expect.
Then they sit down, scratch their heads, and begin work on some new hypothesis to explain their unexpected results.
That's what science is all about.
I’m not convinced Darwinism and Spiritualism are incompatible.
I am sure that strict materialism is a dead end, though. Materialism seems to describe only part of all reality.
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.