Your view on Evolution is incorrect. Modern Evolutionary Theory offers no hypothesis for how the first life form evolved from inanimate matter.
Posted on 08/30/2002 4:19:55 PM PDT by jennyp
If science is about the search for truth then science cannot deny any explanation a priori.
Really? How does cognitive science imply supernaturalism? We know that a person's thinking ability can be altered in many specfic ways by disabling specific regions of the brain, and we know you can enhance specific abilities by altering a person's brain chemistry, etc. You can even induce a near-death experience in a non-dying subject via the administration of ketamine.
I don't think there's any objective evidence for a separate "soul" organ that exists in some supernatural plane that's in any way attached to our physical selves. Sure, detecting a person's actual thoughts or memories directly may well turn out to be a computationally intractable problem, but without positive evidence to the contrary the evidence still weighs heavily towards a purely naturalistic explanation for our "spiritual" selves.
ME: Cognitive science
Please, once again I said nothing about the supernatural.
Science imposes the natural "limits" for the reason that supernaturalism implies complete non-causality. The scientific method can't deal with complete non-causality. A forensic scientist or historian can deal with beings having free will making surprising decisions, and an evolutionary biologist can deal with random mutations or accidents or asteroid impacts, because the subjects under study still had to respond within predictable physical constraints.
The forensic scientist's job, for example, is to decide what were the most plausible ways for the suspect to get from known location A to known later location B, given known physical constraints. But if an avenging angel came down & smote the victim for being a hussy while she was jogging alone in the park, then how could the detective possibly be faulted for not considering that scenario???
But again, this occurs only with biology. Why does the materialist want ID(ers) to call upon (a) god? What about reason? Those who reject ID believe there is no ‘reason’ for ‘any’ existence. This prideful proclamation is ironic and, if true, without reason.
I think your use of "reason" is equivocal. If by reason you mean "cause", then the reason I exist is because my parents reproduced, and the chain of reasons is discovered thru biology, chemistry, physics, etc. If by reason you mean "purpose", then the reason I exist is because my parents wanted a child, and the reason I continue to exist is because I prefer life over suicide, and because I have learned what it takes to survive. In this sense, "reason" is something that exists as soon as a being appears who has the capacity for making decisions - it's not some supernatural commodity that has to be transferred from some other person.
Nebullis: Can you give an example of science without materialistic constraints?Oh, well then what's the difference between "without materialistic constraints" and "supernatural"?Heartlander: Cognitive science
JennyP: [assumes H is referring to something supernatural]
Heartlander: Please, once again I said nothing about the supernatural.
That may be true, however there is plenty of evidence for the opposite, the mind controlling the body. That is why doctors always try to keep the spirits up of sick people, because they know that if they want to live, there is a much higher chance that they will survive.
The actions of any sufficiently subtle and omnipotent God are indistinguishable from naturalism.
This is the best comment by far, cutting through the usual fog of these evo-threads. Evolution by itself has nothing to say, pro or con, regarding the existence of God; in this it is no different from any other science. The problem is that the creationists think that evolution somehow puts limits on God; in realiy it is the creationists who are guilty of putting limits on God. They want God all neatly wrapped and tied up in the box to which they have assigned Him. They have confused their idea of God with God Himself, and consider their idea to be the only valid thing.
Believing that the Earth just happened to be positioned perfectly to sustain life, and that advanced intelligent life - like humans - could evolve from some primordial goop requires many orders of magnitude more blind faith than believing the watch just randomly assembled itself right on the fence post.
No it does not. Leaving out the fact that we don't know the actual odds, the fact remains that the universe is infinite, and that there are an infinite number of universes. Therefore, the possibility of there being universes with no life is infinite, but the possibility of there being universes with life is also infinite. Therefore our being here today is not unlikely; it is absolutely certain. The "watch" argument only holds water in a universe of limited duration and limited extent, in which no other universes exist. Modern research is already showing evidence of sub-atomic, quantum particles leaking in from other parrallel universes. Given an infinite and eternal complex of universes extending outwards in all directions, in all dimensions (as is only natural if we assume an infinite and all powerful God), it follows that all possible possibilities are not only probable, but certain. To an infinite degree.
Science has to be OBJECTIVE predictable-probable-facts-LOGIC(finite/rational)---
Science must limit itself from the political-ego/subjective lower CARNAL animal world!
Science is law/design---CREATION!
Evolution is manmade myth/legend---FICTION/fantasy/denial!
-------------------------------------------------------
Good News For The Day
‘The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone.’ (Luke 20:17)
"The most familiar, and the best-loved images of Jesus, are those that picture to us, his gentle, compassionate spirit. "Whoever comes to me, I will in no wise cast out"; "Come to me, all you who are weary"; "Let the little children come to me."
"But there are other images of Jesus in the Gospels, which show another aspect of his personality. They emphasize the steel in him. Sometimes Jesus was awesome; formidable."
"In the parable, Jesus presents himself as the landlord's Son; the rejected stone, that eventually becomes the most important stone in the superstructure of the kingdom of God. Jesus plainly thought that those who opposed him were in collision with God. He was warning nation's leaders: "It is unwise and unsafe to be against me." Tough talk from Jesus! He was signaling what was taken up by Peter at Pentecost, where, full of resurrection joy and authority, he preached saying: "This Jesus, you put him to death. . . . but God raised him from the dead. God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:31-36).
"In the parable of the wicked tenants, Jesus teaches that those who discard him, will not thereby have gotten rid of him. Jesus was not, and is not now, a passing phenomenon. So truly does Jesus represent reality; so deeply entrenched in the ultimate truth of existence, is his life and teaching, that He, and not his opponents, will prevail. If the universe is a moral place (and Christ himself is the most convincing evidence that it is), then his prediction that he would triumph, even over those who killed him, must come true. Therefore let us treasure the august aspects of his personality, as much as his gentle features, for they signal a world order in which 'goodness', as Jesus taught it, will... reign---unopposed. The stone that was rejected, will become the capstone."
Good News For The Day
‘The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone.’ (Luke 20:17)
"There is a certain inevitability about Christ. He is the fulfillment of Herod's worst nightmare. Herod killed John the Baptist, and when Christ followed, the ruler thought John had risen from the dead. In a sense, it was true. Jesus' first appeals to the corrupt king were made through the Baptist."
"Christ is uncompromising; inexorable. He is unpreventable, unstoppable, unavoidable. An outline of the creation's future is discernible in the personality of Jesus. The new world order will bear the stamp of his character."
"The invincibility of Jesus is good news. It confirms our deepest hope-that the highest values known to humankind, will overcome, and reign. It is good strengthening to believe that... Spirit---is higher than matter. No one really wants to inhabit a world where material values rule. The incarnation of such values are exampled by Adolf Hitler, or Idi Amin."
"It is good news to know that we are loved by a 'tough love'; a love that is not willing to give up, or let go, and hence, a love that suffers long. In short we are loved by a love that will triumph. "Love never fails."
[1] Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
[2] And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
[3] And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
[4] Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
[5] Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
[6] Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
[7] Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
[8] Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
[9] For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
[10] But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
[11] When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
[12] For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
[13] And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
Your view on Evolution is incorrect. Modern Evolutionary Theory offers no hypothesis for how the first life form evolved from inanimate matter.
Evidence is frequently misinterpreted by scientists with preconceived notions.
For example, it wouldn't be difficult to imagine that if explorers from a future race came to Earth and saw layer after layer of buried automobiles on a dead planet, that said future race might examine the depth that each type of car was buried, carbon dated them, noticed the slight modifications in each model over the years, and conclude erroneously that the cars evolved.
In reality, we know factually that the cars didn't evolve, but rather that the designers of cars evolved and improved upon their creations.
But that fact wouldn't necessarily stop a future race from misinterpreting the evidence at hand. They'd probably even wonder about the "missing links" between the great gaps in models from carbureted vehicles to fuel injected autos to electric, etc. Of course we know why they would be so puzzled about those "missing links". It would be because there was no evolution of cars. They didn't evolve. The whole theory was leading them in the wrong direction, and their "puzzle" was a clue to point out to them to reconsider their faith in their initial theory. Further research would probably lead that future race to figure out that the intelligent designers of cars were responsible for each new model, not unaided mutations in the cars themselves.
And once they realized their error, they would most certainly discard their initial "evolutionary" theory and replace it with a new "intelligent deisgner" postulate.
But that fact wouldn't necessarily stop a future race from misinterpreting the evidence at hand. They'd probably even wonder about the "missing links" between the great gaps in models from carbureted vehicles to fuel injected autos to electric, etc. Of course we know why they would be so puzzled about those "missing links". It would be because there was no evolution of cars. They didn't evolve. The whole theory was leading them in the wrong direction, and their "puzzle" was a clue to point out to them to reconsider their faith in their initial theory. Further research would probably lead that future race to figure out that the intelligent designers of cars were responsible for each new model, not unaided mutations in the cars themselves.And once they realized their error, they would most certainly discard their initial "evolutionary" theory and replace it with a new "intelligent deisgner" postulate.
Hmmm... First of all, these archaeologists would immediately see that the "skeletons" were all made of iron and/or aluminum alloys. So to conclude these were originally living things would imply that there was a family of animals that produced iron alloy bones. With an offshoot family that produced aluminum alloy bones!
The scientists would also discover that every single fossil car of a given species was exactly the same shape & size. Can you give me an example of any large-animal species where every one of them has a skeleton that's the exact same size & shape as the others?
If they find some particularly well-preserved specimens, they'll notice that fossil cars seem to contain many parts that are straight, cylindrical, or round. In contrast, living bodies basically have no straight lines, cylinders, or perfect circles at all. (Some parts of the eye are good circles, if you ignore their full 3D shape.)
The scientists will also note the lack of any structures that seem suited for procreation. All living things have some way to reproduce themselves. All things that we know to be designed cannot reproduce themselves. (Maybe if they find a model car they could conclude it was a baby car, but model cars tend to be made of plastic, not metal.)
The evolution of designed things is characterized by pervasive meme transfer between unrelated lineages, as new designs & inventions get adopted by unrelated companies. It's also characterized by massive convergent evolution: Unrelated companies will come out with cars, for example, that look a lot like the latest blockbuster model. (For instance see the bullet-shaped art deco appliances of the '30s, atomic & biomorphic furniture designs in the '50s, the knockoffs of the Mustang in the '60s, and the egg-shaped Ford Taurus & the Chrysler minivan in the '90s.)
The specific "evolution" that characterizes designed things as opposed to living things should be quite apparent once the archaeologists uncover enough fossil cars to see the patterns.
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.