Posted on 08/31/2010 8:31:48 PM PDT by Diago
Darwin, Evolution and God Writings - Christian Manhood Sunday, 09 December 2007 20:34 The Lord God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being. Genesis 2:7
We live in a world where movie stars offer political commentary and musicians are self-appointed experts on the rainforest. What is next? Plumbers who offer tips on French cuisine? The lines of expertise are often blurred. Admittedly, I contribute to the confusion. It is impossible to teach young people without, inevitably, someone asking me, “What do think of evolution?” I am reluctant to journey down this scientific path, mostly because my interest in biology ended the first time I smelled formaldehyde. I thought that photosynthesis was a camera company. But journey I must, for no matter how much I prefer to speak of Aquinas or Saint Paul, I can’t seem to escape a man called Darwin.
The name Charles Darwin is volleyed about like a ping pong ball served up by educators, scientists, and atheists on one side and returned by fundamentalists and creationists on the other. Somewhere near the net lies most of us, wrestling with the implications and misapplications of Darwin, and the intellectual dynamite he lit – the theory of evolution.
Though not the first to expound evolutionary theory, Charles Darwin’s publication of The Origin of Species in 1859 made his name synonymous with evolution. Actually, the book centered on the case for natural selection, the process of passing on individual traits within a species rather than an overall theory of evolution. Only later in his writing, in The Descent of Man in 1871, did Darwin proclaim the naturalistic manifesto that humans evolved from lower species. But Origins had ignited the powder keg nonetheless, and many were quick to see the volatile new theory as either a scientific milestone or a biblical millstone.
Religious leaders, who had relied on a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation, refused to see the pursuit of scientific truth as an ally. They saw only the danger of Darwin and attacked his conclusions as heresy. Although their literal reliance on Scripture was itself flawed, they had good reason to be alarmed. Atheism was the rage of 19th century intelligentsia. The elite saw Darwin’s theory as an advantageous explosive that could damage the fortress walls of what they thought was primitive religious belief. They were quick to exploit Darwin and proclaim alternative secular doctrines, both social and philosophical, that would be the dawning a new scientific age. Some borrowed the naturalist’s name and fashioned the racist doctrine of “social darwinism,” the belief that certain human beings are less evolved, and therefore, inferior. Aryan supremacy now had a pseudo-intellectual fuel to justify racial and ethnic cleansing. Adolph Hitler was quick to biologize the Jewish cultural threat by describing Jews as “parasites” and “leeches” to a world that was used to thinking in Darwinian terms. Industrialists at the turn of the century invoked an “economic darwinism,” to justify an unregulated free market, “survival of the fittest” capitalism which would ignore social welfare policies. Andrew Carnegie went so far as to credit Darwin with helping him abandon his belief in the supernatural.
At the other end of the economic spectrum, Karl Marx hailed Darwin’s work as proof of his own anti-religious doctrine of historical materialism. He so admired Darwin that he even wanted to dedicate Volume II of Das Kapital to him, but Darwin courteously refused. To his credit, Darwin consistently resisted speaking out on political and religious issues, confining himself to science. To his discredit, he never spoke out in opposition to the intellectuals of his day who used him as an alternative to God. In fact, his own religious beliefs were shaped by the intellectual elite of his day. Early in his writings, Darwin had stated that life was “originally breathed by the Creator,” but by 1871, he had moved personally to agnosticism.
From the publication of Origin, to the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, to present day, the dust of Darwin’s explosive evolutionary theory has not cleared. The confusion began with the title of Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species. It is not an account of the origin of species, but rather a theory about the process of how species change through natural selection. The theory assumes the existence of matter and organic life, saying nothing about their philosophical origin. The biblical book of Genesis – a word that means “origin” – proclaims God as the originator of creation. Darwin’s book assumes the created order and then describes the process by which species evolve. Evolution is not a scientific theory in opposition to the proposition that God is the Creator. Evolution describes how we might have developed. Genesis states that God is behind the development no matter how it happened. Evolution might be the biological tool God used to sculpt human life. The two can be reconciled.
More confusion resulted from contemporary scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan who spoke of evolution as if it were an unarguable fact. Evolution is better described as a theory, not an observable fact. A theory is a yet-to-be-proven way of explaining a set of observed facts. It needs to be constantly tested against the facts to be verified. If new data is not consistent with the theory, then the theory needs to be rethought, just as the heliocentric view of the solar system replaced the established geocentric view. The vast majority of scientists today see new information from the fields of paleontology, genetics, biochemistry, and embryology combining to make evolution a plausible theory on how life develops. Although there are gaps in evolutionary theory, most scientists have enough circumstantial evidence to be intellectually convicted of the truthfulness of evolution.
All scientific theories are limited because the scope of science is limited to describing the narrow material world. The theory of evolution does not describe the development of the human being in his totality; it only describes the theoretical development of the human body. Although we are bodied beings, we are more than just bodies. Although we have an animal nature, we are much more than animals. Genesis makes it clear that only the body was sculpted from the clay of the earth. We became human when God breathed into us His Spirit, His breath of life. (Note: The word spiritus means “breath, the soul, life.” It is the same root for the words inspire and expire.) As a theory, evolution only explains the process of how our biological nature came to be. It says nothing about our spiritual nature. Whether we became human in a supernatural moment in time or whether God chose to touch us with a spark of His divinity through an evolutionary process, we cannot know. Whether He formed us from clay or monkey has little impact on the human condition. We can leave that curiosity to the biologists. However we got here, we are here, and we are no mere animals. We are embodied souls with rights and dignity.
At the turn of the 20th century, G.K. Chesterton aptly descibed the entire evolution debate as a "colossal trifle," meaning that evolution is too much adu about something, but it has a trifle impact on anything. Imagine, if tomorrow they proved with 100% certainty that evolution was true. What would change? Would we stop going to work? Would we cease loving our families? Would we no longer dream noble dreams? Nothing would essentially change. Its effect would be trifle. On the other hand, consider if a nonbeliever woke up tomorrow to discover thatthe Genesis account is 100% true (which it is.) Everything would change. A God that has lovingly planned every speck of creation, a God who has a will and destiny for every person would be no trifle. He would be of colossal consequence. Sticking strictly to the science of evolution; it doesn't much matter. Embracing the divine Architect of human destiny, nothing could matter more.
Thus, I have no problem with Darwin's unproven theoretical contribution to science. The whole maelstrom of controversy began when Darwin's science was used unscientifically to create a pseudo-religion. Darwin? - whatever. Darwinism? - armed and dangerous.
Because so many in our increasingly secular culture are unaware of fundamental Judeo-Christian truths, they accept evolution, a small theoretical piece in a larger puzzle, as filling a void that theology once filled. Just as Darwin’s writings were misused to justify “social darwinism,” today they are misused to promote “philosophical darwinism” – the reduction of human beings to merely a smarter animal, which effectively takes the “being” out of human being. The result is a blurring of the distinction between man and animal, evidenced in the American culture.
Animals are now elevated to the status of human beings – as in the animal rights movement – while more and more, humans are treated like animals. Degrading women is commonplace on television. So-called “adult” magazines call their centerfold models “pets” and “bunnies.” Newscasts are quick to celebrate the rescue of whales but quick to marginalize right to life advocates who seek to rescue unborn males and females. (Statistically, the most dangerous place in America is the womb, with an unborn child having a one in three chance of being aborted.) Parent groups speak of a “right to bear a child” as if children were chattel to be owned. Laws are proposed to legitimize the killing of the terminally ill, as if they were horses to be put out of their misery. Like branded cattle, teenagers are encouraged to mark their bodies with tattoos and body piercing. All of this plays out one terrible truth: If we see ourselves as animals, then animals we will become.
In the process of moving animals closer to man, philosophical darwinism also moves man further away from God. It reduces the person to a collection of chemical-electrical impulses shaped by the impersonal, random forces of nature, rather than the personal will of the supernatural God. By effectively eliminating God from the human equation, it follows that any objective moral code that protected the “survival of the unfittest” would be eliminated as well. The moral and spiritual vacuum is filled with an “only the strong should survive” mentality. The result is that the “strong” of society – the young-looking, the beauty queen, the athlete, the millionaire, the celebrity, etc. – are hailed as the new icons of American culture.
We are not different in degree from the animal; we are different in kind. Animals are natural, but we are supernatural. Although our animal nature is undeniably a rooted aspect of what we are, it is not all that we are. Our spiritual nature stands in stark contrast to the rest of the natural order. Humankind is a miracle. Like two weather fronts colliding in the atmosphere, spirit and body swirl like a tornado inside of us. And in the eye of the tornado lies God’s miraculous calm. The Christian understanding of the human person is based not on a theory of evolution, but rather a theory of revolution. We are an affront to the animal kingdom. We fight being reduced to the status of animal. We swim against the tide of nature, for we have abilities far beyond those of mortal beasts – five in particular. What are the five super-natural abilities? We are free. We are aware. We reason. We are conscientious. We love.
Freedom, self-awareness, reason¸ conscience and love define the revolution. Because humans are free, we are capable of the greatest good and the lowest evil. No animal demonstrates our capacity for generosity or debauchery. No lion can act “unlionly.” No cow acts in an “un-bovine” manner. However, we do hear the words “unmanly” or “inhumane” used when referring to people, because we are the only species on the planet that can act in contradiction to our best nature. It is only when our spiritual nature is ordered toward doing what is good that we become truly human, the kind of being that God intended us to be.
Because we are self-aware, we are the only living beings that can ask a question. No animal can ask a question, nor seek a meaningful answer to the riddle of its existence. Only a human being refers to himself as “I,” something much more than the sum total of his visible parts. We are the only creature that laughs, (even laughing hyenas don’t laugh) because we are the only creature that is uncomfortable with our own existence. Therefore, we don’t just eat, we are aware of the fact that we eat. We don’t just live, we are aware of ourselves living. And that changes everything.
We are also separated from animals because we can reason. We can think what no animal can. Animals only have knowledge derived from sensory experience, but, in addition, we can conceive of abstract ideas we have never perceived with our senses, such as grace, justice, heaven, and truth. Aristotle understood this when he called man the “rational animal.” In his book Miracles, C.S. Lewis pointed out that naturalists themselves, studying fossils and animal nature, are engaged in something supernatural: they are thinking. Reason is the supernatural season of man.
In addition, human beings experience an obligation to do the right thing – we call this our conscience. We don’t always obey it, because we have free will, but we all recognize the existence of spiritual compass within us, that, when properly formed, directs our behavior towards truth, just as a properly working compass points us toward true north.
Finally, because we can love, we can commit ourselves beyond emotion, beyond instinct, beyond selfishness, to another person’s spiritual growth. Unlike animals that follow the path of least-resistance, human beings can choose the path of most-resistance – the path of love. Love is a revolt against our self-centered nature. We can even violate our self-preservation instinct and sacrifice our lives for another, as did the Man from Nazareth. In love we find the highest expression of our humanity.
Darwin looked to the past, but being true to the limits of science, he did not look far enough. Looking backward, time appears to slope downward to chart the history of man. But the line does not end there, for Genesis reveals a line that then slopes upward to the summit of God. The origin of species lies outside the created world, in the sculpting hand of the Creator. Again, as C.S. Lewis so eloquently wrote:
Human minds, then, are not the only supernatural entities that exist. They do not come from nowhere. Each has come into Nature from Supernature: each has its tap-root in an eternal, self-existent, rational Being, whom we call God.
Christianity is the proclamation of the ascent of man to God. We are the result of supernatural selection. It is for each person to choose to see himself and his fellow brothers and sisters as miracles, and embody the theory of revolution.
"Animals are now elevated to the status of human beings--as in the animal rights movement-while more and more, humans are treated like animals. Degrading women is commonplace on television. So-called magazines call their centerfold models "pets" and "bunnies". Newscasts are quick to celebrate the rescue of whales but quick to marginalize right to life advocates who seek to rescue unborn males and females. (Statistically, the most dangerous place in America is the womb, with an unborn child having a one in three chance of being aborted.) Parent groups speak of a "right to bear a child" as if children were cattle to be owned. Laws are proposed to legitimize the killing of the terminally ill, as if they were horses to be put out of their misery. Like branded cattle, teenagers are encouraged to mark their bodies with tattoos and body piercing. All of this plays out one terrible truth. If we see ourselves as animals, then animal-like we will become"./
Great stuff!
I agree! Hey, I am also a local high school teacher!(At least where I live)
"Animals are now elevated to the status of human beings--as in the animal rights movement-while more and more, humans are treated like animals. Degrading women is commonplace on television. So-called magazines call their centerfold models "pets" and "bunnies". Newscasts are quick to celebrate the rescue of whales but quick to marginalize right to life advocates who seek to rescue unborn males and females. (Statistically, the most dangerous place in America is the womb, with an unborn child having a one in three chance of being aborted.) Parent groups speak of a "right to bear a child" as if children were cattle to be owned. Laws are proposed to legitimize the killing of the terminally ill, as if they were horses to be put out of their misery. Like branded cattle, teenagers are encouraged to mark their bodies with tattoos and body piercing. All of this plays out one terrible truth. If we see ourselves as animals, then animal-like we will become"./
Great stuff!
O, I think I shall merely observe this thread.
well he was doing well until he said evolution (i.e., species intergenerational change over time) shouldn’t be thought of as a fact (it is a fact. just think of the annual mutation of the flu as a simple example). he was right that darwin’s poor theory (relative to say, a great predictive theory like Einstein’s) is not one about evolution. it was trying to explain why evolution occurs. there are lots of variants of darwin and other explanations as well. that being said, there is nothing in darwin’s theory or the fact that species change over time that detracts from my belief in God or proves a non-divine origin of humanity.
He lost it when he writes that nothing will change if evolution
is proven to be true. So many people believe it explains
everything in science that it does effect their actions.
He mentioned how animals are elevated to a status near
human. How fetuses over lowered to that of an animal.
People never would make those comparisions save for the
concept that evolution has occured that transcends the
species/kind lines.
All ya gotta see is the films produced by Hitlers staff
showing how some races are less fit than others, and not
fit to be candidates for further evolution....
Then he describes how he has love. Maybe love is a biological
adaptation, or a trick of the human brain. I don’t think
the author appreciated how much of human thought and customs
are changed.
As a side question, if Darwin, or other contemporaries knew
the immense complexity of prokaryotic or eukaryotic cells,
would they have thought it was possible for those cells to evolve
from mud? I think the scientific term was “bags of protoplasm”...
to be extra clear about “change,” biologists picture change as a new species splitting off from an old species over time. the old species may then continue or die out. within the new species (reproductive cohort) you generally see stability over long periods. so their metaphor is a tree with branches. related species have a common ancestor species.
Sounds like a line from Avatar.
Not true.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/06/04/chimps-apes-laugh.html
I think my horse was laughing when it took the hammer off the tailgate while fencing, drops it in the pasture and neahs at me.
But I was also created through a cellular process involving DNA. Was my creation less literally “from dust”?
Well, dust does contain all the elements that make up DNA...
bump
Horsehockey, Darwin wa nevers neutral on the social issues of the day.
At the time of Origin, perhaps he was, he was also an unknown botanist at that point.
He also published the Descent of Man after he had became famous and had a soapbox, where he endorses euthanasia and eugenics to improve the human race.
Evolution is a THEORY. Not a fact. You speak of changes in flu virus, that is adaptation. A bird can adapt over time, changing the shape of its beak based on food sources. BUT it is still abird.
Let me know when you have that bird changing into a cat.
Evolution does not claim that birds turn into cats. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it an less a fact.
Evolution is an observable fact. We have the theory of evolution to describe how we best think it takes place.
Just like gravity is an observable fact, and we have the theory of gravity to best describe how we think it works.
Even if his discussions of eugenics were as malevolent as you make them seem, this is really irrelevant.
The Nazis constructed the first jet fighter and discovered many of the foundations of modern rocketry. This doesn't makes rockets and jet fighters evil.
But was my creation “from dust” a less literal creation “from dust” than the creation of Adam?
Does science looking into how I was formed through cellular processes involving DNA detract from the miracle of life and the lessons of God? Does it become a less miraculous “from dust” if we understand the processes that are involved?
Evolution claims that we all come from a common ancestor. As in, all the different forms have changed FROM something TO another. Sheer nonsense. You may couch it in other terms, but that is the ‘theory’, that man can from something else, soemthing ‘not-man’.
Yes, evolution does claim ‘change in form’.
The theory of evolution involves the mechanisms, like genetic drift, mutation, natural selection, etc. It is an attempt to describe the observed fact of evolution that is evident in many things from the fossil record to DNA.
Even your own statement that 'evolution claims that we all come from a common ancestor' is quite different from a 'bird changing into a cat'.
Of course most Catholics don't believe that.
Just like gravity is an observable fact, and we have the theory of gravity to best describe how we think it works.
Descent with modification is an observable fact (otherwise everyone would look alike). Also what we call gravity is an observable fact.
It is one thing to make statements about observable facts but quite another to cross over into the field of theology and make statements about cosmogony.
I didn’t make any statements about origins, of life, the universe or anything else.
My statement of bird to cat can be paraphrased: “When an animal that is NOT a bird changes into one, let me know”
Dogs can be bred into other breeds, yet they are still dogs.
Dogs come from dogs, which came, amazingly enough, from dogs. You may try to evade by using other terms, but evolution, the process of life changing in form, becoming more complex over time doesn’t fly.
Yes you may see, hear, smell, taste, etc., and the brain may process chemoreception, but what evaluatss the electrochemical input?
You posted on a thread about an article which accepts the so-called "evolutionary" cosmogony. While the word "evolution" may denote only "descent with modification," it connotes the entire "Darwinian" cosmogony (including non-biological theories such as the "big bang").
It is a common tactic of the advocates of non-Biblical cosmogony to say that because descent-with-modification (evolution) is as obvious to the eyes as gravity, then the non-Biblical cosmogony ("evolution") is therefore as obviously true as the theory of gravity. Very dishonest, but quite typical.
God breathed life into Adam, whom he made from the clay of the earth. Genesis tells us both what happened and how it happened. Believing anything else is foolhardy and blasphemous.
Dogs came from primitive carnivores, as most modern carnivores did. The primitive carnivores came from smaller mammals, and so forth.
It flies if you understand the process.
Darwin has nothing to do with the Big Bang, or even how life itself began.
I wouldn’t call differing strains of flu as ‘evolution’, but as you yourself labeled it - MUTATION.
I don't know. You should ask an evolutionary biologist.
There's an easy to read book on the subject called Evolution of Consciousness by Ornstein that addresses the subject. Maybe you should check it out.
Evolution through natural selection of genetic variation is an observable fact. Science uses this predictable fact to figure out how species can change and how they are currently changing.
But at least you admit that you are uninterested in the actual data- and base your understanding of what went before entirely upon your interpretation of revelation - uncolored completely by evidence.
That is refreshing, as most creationists like to pretend that they are engaged in science.
We share more DNA with coral than with apes.. so maybe we are rock heads
It is not provable with the scientific method, therefore it remains a THEORY that is no more valid that creation..
Exactly..small changes within a species,are mutations. In scripture we see jacob breeding the sheep of his father in law for spots..even thousands of years ago men understood selective breeding
The theory of evolution is used to explain the observable fact of evolution. The theory may be tweaked and changed to fit new evidence, but the fact that evolution occurs is not scientifically in dispute.
Accent on the currently.
Evolution through natural selection of genetic variation is an observable fact. Science uses this predictable fact to figure out how species can change and how they are currently changing.
Accent on the currently. It is only when scientists take these phenomena and retroject them into the act of supernatural creation (at a time when natural laws didn't even exist) in order to explain cosmogony as a purely natural process/event that they jump off the cliff entirely, as you do yourself.
But at least you admit that you are uninterested in the actual data- and base your understanding of what went before entirely upon your interpretation of revelation - uncolored completely by evidence.
That is refreshing, as most creationists like to pretend that they are engaged in science.
Cosmogony isn't science. Science studies the current world that operates according to current laws. You yourself admitted that science properly so-called refers only to what is happening "currently," thus implicitly excluding creation and former eras when the laws of nature did not have their current form. In other words, you yourself implicitly accept that cosmogony and prior ages are beyond the purview of science--only the current world is.
I did not direct any comments to you. I have no use for someone who thinks the Vilna Ga'on is a "loon." Anyone who does so is an ignoramus. You are also someone who will not even answer questions posed by fellow "theistic evolutionists." Kindly do not bother me in the future.
Absolutely incorrect and loony as well. Extrapolation is the nature of scientific inquiry. When Galileo rolled weights down an incline plane or dropped weights from a tower, he was not collecting data on how those particular objects would roll down incline planes or fall; but on how ALL objects roll down incline planes or fall, and how ALL objects were rolled down incline planes or fell in the past, and how ALL objects that will be rolled down inclined planes or fall will fall or roll down the inclined planes in the future.
The scientific principle discovered is applicable to the past, the present, and the future.
We know stars are forming right now through gravity and nuclear fusion. Does this mean that God is not creating these stars, if gravity and nuclear fusion is the mechanism?
If I am formed “from dust” but also via a cellular process involving DNA, is my creation “from dust” less literal than Adam's creation “from dust”?
“You yourself admitted that science properly so-called refers only to what is happening “currently,””
Absolutely incorrect and loony as well.
Then I guess you're incorrect and a loon (though you don't flatter yourself that you're on a par with the Vilna Ga'on with regards to anything), because that's what you said.
Extrapolation is the nature of scientific inquiry. When Galileo rolled weights down an incline plane or dropped weights from a tower, he was not collecting data on how those particular objects would roll down incline planes or fall; but on how ALL objects roll down incline planes or fall, and how ALL objects were rolled down incline planes or fell in the past, and how ALL objects that will be rolled down inclined planes or fall will fall or roll down the inclined planes in the future.
Well, except for those resurrection from the dead and "real presence" things, because those (unlike creatio ex nihilo) were "miracles."
The scientific principle discovered is applicable to the past, the present, and the future.
Wrong. Scientific principles cannot apply to situations in which nature or physical laws do not exist.
We know stars are forming right now through gravity and nuclear fusion. Does this mean that God is not creating these stars, if gravity and nuclear fusion is the mechanism?
The forming of stars here and now is not a continuation of the process of creation that brought existence into being from non-existence. It is merely the functioning of the universe after its creation.
If I am formed “from dust” but also via a cellular process involving DNA, is my creation “from dust” less literal than Adam's creation “from dust”?
Then if such processes go "all the way back," I guess there was never a "nothing" at all, in which case you don't believe in creatio ex nihilo.
Since we both know ahead of time what the other one will say and since I have asked you to kindly leave me alone, am I to assume you are intentionally trying to provoke me? I'm sure it amuses you.
I did not aim any post at you because I knew your position. You couldn't possibly make it any clearer (unless you actually got down and explained how at a certain point one single solitary supernatural "intervention" by G-d brought about the universe which has been forming entirely naturally for billions of years ever since, but since you won't even give a straight answer to people much more sympathetic to your position than I am, I know you're never going to answer that question).
You want me to perhaps point out your hypocrisy in claiming to believe in the resurrection of J*sus or in the "real presence" when they violate the inviolable natural laws you claim to believe in? I notice you don't extrapolate from the fact that no one who dies ever comes back to show that this has never happened and never will happen. Is that what you want me to do?
Perhaps you want to bait me into saying that atheist who drove a nail through a consecrated host was justified in pointing out the hypocrisy of evolutionists who believe in transubstantiation so you can then have me banned. Is that what you want to do?
I suggest that you either extrapolate consistently or don't extrapolate at all. In the meantime (and for the second time), kindly leave me alone. I get the strange idea you may actually be trying to bait me into leshon hara`, and believe me, it's very hard not to. Be satisfied with that, please.
Thank you for your reply. I have asked many evolutionists. The problem is that darwinists, as materialists, to be consistent materialists, presuppositionally exclude must exclude any invarient, abstrat entity. Therefore they MUST exclude any theory or agree that there is metaphysical transcendence. Consider your mind.....not your brain.....your mind. How much does a mind weigh? What is the chemical formula for the Law of Noncontradiction. The evolutionist must, to be consistent, deny the laws of logic, reason, and rational thought.
I found that assertion to be rather humorous myself -
“flu viruses change every year, so therefore, humans evolved from goo”.
It’s a fact! /sarc
I never said that science only refers to what is happening currently - that is absolutely ludicrous, and only someone with very little understanding of science (like yourself) and completely uninterested in letting a little thing like reality and data interfere with their interpretation of revealed wisdom (like yourself) would make such a fundamental mistake about the nature of scientific inquiry.
I do believe that God created the natural world through natural means, and all the evidence that you reject out of hand suggests that the mechanisms we see currently are perfectly applicable to what happened in the past. That doesn't for a second imply that I reject the miraculous resurrection of my Lord Jesus Christ (as you do).
Why do you insist that the natural laws did not exist during the creation of our Sun and our Planet?
The natural laws seem to be working just fine for forming Stars that we can observe forming one hundred thousand light years away and thus from one hundred thousand years ago.
So natural laws worked just fine one hundred thousand years ago, but not during the creation of our own Sun and planet?
So was my creation “from dust” less literal than Adam's creation “from dust”? Different physical laws apply, or they apply to one and not the other?
Sorry again about insulting your mystic man guru who thinks he can predict things out the Torah codes, I know it must really be eating you up because you keep mentioning it, and really, that was YEARS ago! It must be rough to carry around that wound in your heart year after year.
“You probably despise me, don't you.”
“If I spared you any thought, I might.”
It calls to mind the story of Laplace's meeting with Napoleon where he demonstrated a working orrery. Napoleon asked where God was in his model, and Laplace replied that it worked well without one.
I don't know how much a mind "weighs". It seems like an irrelevant question. Since the mind is made up by a combination of cells and electrical impulses, you might as well ask how much lightning weighs.
If such a number could be calculated, then an interstellar astronauts mind would weigh less than someone on Earth. In other words, who cares?
The weak ones are killed off and through mutation of the remaining strong viruses new ones arise.
So therefore humans evolved from pondscum over the limited number of years that evos claim the earth has been viable for life...
mmm hmmm.
Really? and please point me to the PROOF
There are entire libraries built around evidence and research for evolution. Do you want me to cite a book or article at random?
Misdirection and euphemisms have not removed the concerns of scientists and philosophers since Plato. Empiricists and positivists , as a philosophy, create objections repeatedly which only raise a question in epistemology. Ordinary perceptions are theory-laden, and similar problems plague scientific realism. The empiricists and positivists have searched tirelessly for a “rock-bottom” “given” which is free of presuppositions, but it is not to be found. Positivism has retired to the asheap of philosophical history, never to rise again. There can be no impartial, neutral arbitor of different theories or interpretation, as much as the materialist wishes to redifine the term materialism or physicalism to empiricism. It seems the only “honest” reply for the darwinist, physicalist, materialist...is to deny that there exists any abstract invarient entity, and make his case, or admit that there are abstract entities, immaterial in nature and open the discussion with honesty and candor.
I'm sort of a theological non-cognitivist, so unless you define exactly what you're asking me to deny, I can't make a determination one way or the other.
For example, an abstract entity could be anything from a deistic god to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. In this case, I would say that while there is evidence for neither, the existence of the former seems more likely than the latter.
You answer, "Yes they do." For example, Transcendent God, soul, thought, any mental event, consciousness, laws of logic, numbers,.....all exist (you may deny God, but we could discuss that), but you do not deny the existence of yourself as a sentient creature, your consciousness, logic reason, or rational thought, or numbers.....do you? These cannot be accounted for by atoms, subatomic particles, wave theory, or any physicalists commitment to the notion that all there is, is physical matter created at Big Bang. What transcendent entity set it all off?
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.