Posted on 09/07/2009 10:41:31 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
If you were to explain creation to a highly primitive people and do so in 300 words or less ( the beginning of the universe, the earth, the appearance of life on it, and finally the first truly human man and women), what would it sound like???? I bet it would sound a LOT like Genesis!
While every other primitive creation story is high magical, it **amazes** me how much of Genesis is absolutely smack on right!
Modern science exists because those who are Judeo-Christian in their worldview believe in a **rational** God. Not only that, but discovering how the mysteries of the universe work gives us a glimpse into the mind of God. In fact, it is our duty to do so. It is also our duty to live productive lives, and use this knowledge, so that we can serve Him and uplift our fellow human beings.
So...Personally, those who worship science ( instead of God) should be wary about destroying Judeo Christian belief because in doing so they very well may destroy the political and social milieu, and framework of freedom, in which the study of science is even possible.
Lat I checked, carricatures don’t count as scientific evidence. Again, please show me the evidence that falsifies biblical creation.
And speaking of miracles, your fellow evo co-religionists are inventing miracles all the time. Ever hear of the Big Bang? Your fellow cosmic evolutionists believe the entire Universe came from nothing!
Try the next paragraph. That's the third paragraph of my post, not of my answer.
That's the first useful thing I've read on this thread so far. But, whatever others may do, I don't worship science. I look to it as a way to explain the "nuts and bolts" of the universe. It does not, nor is it intended, to explain the eternal verities. Religion does that for some. Philosophy for others. Science will build the rocket ships and make the vaccines and other things so we can live like human beings instead of animals. That's all I need it for.
“Where Arrington goes wrong is in pretending the Darwinist is addressing the first issue when in fact he's addressing the second. The IDer asks, “How did nature become comprehensible?” and the Darwinist answers, “That is not a question that is addressed by modern evolutionary theory.” Arrington then goes on as if the Darwinist said evolution doesn't attempt to learn how people developed minds, when it's obvious that he's talking about why nature conforms to discernible rules. It's misleading, and I suspect it was done on purpose.”
You're interpreting the question to make it seem a misrepresentation. The Darwinist adds that ‘alignment with reality is selected for’. He understands the question is to the comprehensibility of nature by the human mind and the answer given reflect that:
“To the extent that nature is comprehensible, modern evolutionary theory
predicts that alignment with reality will be selected for.”
The “alignment” of what? Nature and reality? No, the mind's.
But then, it's not the argument but the motives of the writer you're attacking in saying that he engaged in purposefully being misleading or misrepresentation.
I've now gone back and read the original conversation, in comments to Arrington's original article. StephenB (the IDer) asks several questions in a row:
"How did nature become comprehensible? How did the mind develop the capacity to comprehend it? How and why did the two realms get coordinated such that each makes sense with the other? "
Delurker (the "Darwinist") answers them separately. I agree that his followup sentence to the first answer--the one you quote--is a bridge between the two. My beef is with the way Arrington separates the questions to remove the context from Delurker's answer. It's clear from the context that his first answer is *only* to "how did nature become comprehensible?" Arrington writes:
"Darwinism purports to be a comprehensive explanation of the development of all characters of all organisms....Delurker’s assertion that Darwinism does not attempt to address the question of how human’s cognitive abilities developed is spectacularly false."
That's a clear misrepresentation of what Delurker was saying. He goes on to discuss "how human’s cognitive abilities developed"! I'm not misinterpreting the question and answer, Arrington is. It's possible he's not doing it on purpose, but I doubt it.
Indeed, in fact this very line of illogical liberal reasoning came up with the closet FR liberals on here before when it comes to evolution and origins...in the discussion of bridges...as if bridge builders never take into account the span that bridges actually span...the content of the soil, dirt, rock that the bridge foundation will be embedded into etc. etc. etc.
Liberals argue none of this matters, bridge builders just happily build bridges, and no real effort or thinking goes into anything but the actual bridge itself.
And it was pointed out Bezerkly, the liberal school on the left coast indeed makes it a point in their Evolution 101 course that origins is specifically addressed.
But the actual facts and reality never seem to register with liberals.
Well that's always the case with liberals...thus GGG's post pointing it out.
Yes, exactly right: admitting no explantaion rather than making one up would be good advice for godless liberals to take indeed.
The idea that everything just is by sheer happenstance, with no intelligence, no design, by accident with no purpose is one thing...
but then to DEMAND children be indoctrinated with such tripe, and call anyone and any idea that disagrees with it a religious attack on science...
well that’s illogical, liberal, unAmerican, unscientific nonsense.
“Materialism is not really an intellectual position at all. Quite the contrary, It is a declaration of war on reason”.
I noticed this in the response section...spot on!
BTW, God didn't write the bible. Some old guys Jewish guys did. Bigamists at that. What the bleep did they know? They where just sheepherders with too much time on their hands. They didn't like the pagan religions of time so they invented their own. There's no mystery here, except for how otherwise rational adults can abandon all their critical faculties and embrace the most fatuous nonsense where religion is concerned.
Abandoing critical faculties?
What....you're just another Chrissy Fit Matthews soulless poo-flingin great ape that believes all we know just happened by accident, void of intelligence, purpose, design...?
and you call that science?
No thanks...I reject the algore apporach to science.
I reject liberal scientific "logic".
It really is. As CS Lewis once said:
“If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees.”
This immediately exposes your lack of understanding of science, and your previous post doesn't do very much for your understanding of religon...
and now you just (in typical liberal fashion)...project-alot.
You're only allowed 3 strikes...yet you're still swinging after achieving 3 OUTS!
It's time to sit down!
It’s there, sorta. It’s not in the mainstream of the Evolution 101 topics. But it is in the “further reading” section, as are the sections on stratigraphy and radiometric dating—in other words, related but not core topics. But once the creationists found it, they’ve trotted it out again and again as “proof” that evolution addresses origins. I think they’re oblivious to its role in the Evolution 101 site because they never actually read the site, they only know about that one link.
I knew this was coming YHAOS...Ira wants proof Bezerkly’s evolution 101 does indeed address origins...would you still happen to have the link?
And how do I know that you’re not the liberal? Theology, of a sort, is big on the left. I guess, like Obama, you want your opponents to “stop talking” and “the debate is over”. You parrot your commander in chief well, and he also spent a lot of time in churches.
LOL....creationists trot it out...????
How funny, because once I read it, I told YHAOS I noticed it was quickly pulled.
That has alot more to do with evoulution simply can not tolerate the light of day, being exposed, more than creationists “trotting it out”...
not that I’m remotely suprised...IIRC you were one of the libs demanding bridge-builders not even so much as give the span being spanned a second thought, as it just wasn’t necessary. LOL!
On the contrary, you THINK it's untrue for the same reason as the woman in the magic show. You don't KNOW that it's untrue.
All you've stated in your diatribe against Christianity is your opinion. There's not a shred of fact supporting what you said.
You can't know that it's not true unless you have an absolute standard of truth to which to compare the Bible, and you don't have that.
Sources? Evidence to back that up? You know this how? Were you there when they wrote it? Did they tell you that's what they did?
What you've done with your post is added to the evidence that evos objection to creation isn't really a matter of actual science, as much as it's demonstrating that the whole objection to creation is the Christianity. Like so many other evos, you rail against religion as fairy tales, mythology, etc.
All it does is give support to the contention that evos aren't in it for the actual science as because they object to the Christianity and evolution is a convenient tool with which to bash religion with.
Science is not what keeps us from living like animals. Morals do.
Science without the moral underpinnings of the Judeo-Chrsitian worldview that you mock and deride as being fantasy or magic or made up fairy tales by sheep herders, results in the atrocities that we see in all the atheistic, communist regimes, and ones like Nazi Germany under Hitler.
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.