Posted on 05/21/2009 6:05:26 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Some readers thought I was unfair in a previous entry explaining the difference between my perspective on evolution and that of my fellow Beliefnet blogger Dr. Francis Collins over at Science and the Sacred. Am I really not being fair? Well, let's test that hypothesis by picking out one idea from Dr. Collins's book and from his website BioLogos. It's his treatment of the idea that somehow a moral law in every heart points us to the existence of God.
Because BioLogos -- or theistic evolution, however we may designate the general approach -- surrenders so easily to naturalism, it must be willing to accommodate Darwinism's explanation of where that moral law comes from...
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.beliefnet.com ...
>>REST EASY AND FEAR NOT FR, YOU’RE SAFE FROM THE ATTACK OF THE LUDDITES! FD’03 IS ON THE JOB<<
Indeed.
>>As if gubmint-funded education in our graduate indoctrination centers makes anyone more skilled at science. Your average conservative creationist FReeper apparently knows more about common-sense-based science than typical overeducated evo goons do.<<
IOW you are admittedly uneducated.
>>I’ve seen creationists, armed for online spiritual combat with only the Word of God and self-taught Creation Science dance circles around PhDs on FreeRepublic and other forums, where the moderation is actually fair and balanced, and not tilted toward the side of the evos.<<
IOW you don’t understand science.
>>Your typical PhD might know this-and-that about some anhydride chemical balance of saline electrolytes in the mating habits of the diurnal cycle of some obscure mutation of the Atlantic sea slug, but they don’t know squat about the big picture, except for rampant speculation.<<
IOW you don’t even understand the basics of TToE, much less can debate them.
>>That’s where the common sense input of FreeRepublic comes in, to stamp out the fancy-talk of the libs who are running the “science” show, and bring some objective truth into the matter. And the evidence shows, without a doubt, that the “scientists” have no clue, and that Creation prevails!<<
IOW you wear your complete lack of understanding of science as a badge of honor.
>>If I had a PhD from a so-called “university” who teaches this modern “science” nonsense, I’d want my money back for the fraud being filled into my head.<<
IOW you think that a street education is better than an academic education. Those on FR (and elsewhere) with advanced degrees probably disagree. But thank you for confirming you have no higher education.
There are different schools of thought on that and I've seen real scientists tell you that you DON'T understand science.
What with the definition of species being so vague as to be worthless and is used by evos as best suits their purposes, I can understand how evos say that speciation has occurred. But their saying so doesn't make it so.
Fruit flies are still fruit flies and bacteria are still bacteria.
When anyone can demonstrate document the kind of change that makes a clearly different and unique species that is not identifiable as the original parent organism, then the evos might have a case, but that has not been yet demonstrated in the lab and lining up fossils doesn't rise to the level of a repeatable, observable experiment conducted in a lab.
That's a little harsh. Facts are in evidence, but frequently in questionalble context. Sometimes they are summoned to the debate, but arrive as "conventions".
Sane, rational, inquisitive, seeking to know ALL aspects of God, engaging the culture and society via science, and revealing God to all by revealing the intricacies of His creation.
But no, they must be those darned "liberals", since they believe in "darwood's lie". I guess next you'll call Hillsdale College the Berkeley of private colleges, for - GASP! - teaching the theory of evolution?
Metmom, surely you know that when FreeDumb refers to “real scientists”, he’s not defining them by real, actual science! What he really means is that he agrees with the scientists who worship at the alter of the Temple of Darwin, and he disagrees with the scientists who worship the God who created the heavens and the earth in six days. Actually, he goes much further than that. FreeDumb adtually agrees with the Evo-atheists when they say that life looks like it was designed for a purpose, but that in reality it is all just an illusion randomly generated and then preserved by darwood’s natural selection god.
==Sane, rational, inquisitive, seeking to know ALL aspects of God, engaging the culture and society via science, and revealing God to all by revealing the intricacies of His creation.
That is an excellent description of Creation Science. Thank you for your sudden inspiration PSS...We will wear your description of Creation Science with pride!
==But no, they must be those darned “liberals”, since they believe in “darwood’s lie”. I guess next you’ll call Hillsdale College the Berkeley of private colleges, for - GASP! - teaching the theory of evolution?
And to think I was thinking of sending my son there! Not anymore. Thanks for the heads-up!
“Understanding science” does not cure being an idiot.....
The fact is you dont do science either here or at your anti-freeper home base darwin central. And with your vulgar obscene rants against GG and other freepers over there you wrote the book on unsubstantiated elementary-school taunts and worse.
Good job on hijacking this thread with insults starting with your first posts without ever getting into the content of the article. I guess that counts for science with you.
I realized years ago that when an evo says *real scientist* or *real science* it has nothing to do with actual science but everything to do with one’s conformity to the hardline materialistic, naturalistic, random mutation, natural selection, no intelligence allowed version of the ToE.
It appears that the evos are right about one thing. Science isn’t done by consensus. It’s done by dogmatic mandate. Conform to group-think or commit professional suicide.
So, of course most scientists *agree* with evolution as posited by the evos. Their choice is submit or pay the consequences. They weed out dissenters. They skew their own numbers.
Those undecided learn very quickly to keep their mouths shut, or pay the consequences.
See, they are even confusing us on our own side of the debate. I think it’s time for another one of your poetic rants!
“When anyone can demonstrate document the kind of change that makes a clearly different and unique species that is not identifiable as the original parent organism, then the evos might have a case, but that has not been yet demonstrated in the lab and lining up fossils doesn’t rise to the level of a repeatable, observable experiment conducted in a lab.”
How about wolves to chihuahuas? That’s a morphological change VASTLY greater than apes to humans, and yet (most) Creationists put wolves and all dogs into the same “kind”. Imagine if chihuahuas were the only extant dog breed - Creationists would sooner put them into the same kind as rats. :-) And that occurred in just in a few thousand years.
Also, paleontologists don’t have to line up fossils - they’re already conveniently lined up as evolution would predict in the earth.
And every fossil that’s dug up is another experiment for evolution. There’s specific patterns that evolution predicts for the fossil record (as dictated by taxonomy), and so far evolution has faced millions of tests by the millions of fossils dug up for the past few centuries and has passed them all.
"Scientists" put them in the same genus. And your point is?
Sheesh, creationists use the same system of classification as scientists and they're criticized for it. There's nothing a creationist can do that's ever right for an evo.
Bingo- Well put- It would be one hting if those folks simply discussed science in a rational, mature manner, but apparently, folks like that aren’t about to- their only objective is to deride Creationists, malign ID’ers, and thump their own chests
“Real Science” (ie: apparently referring to Methodological naturalism- Macroevolution) ignores scientific principles- ignores biological impossibilities, ignores chemical impossibilities, ignores the fossil record, ignores mathematical impossibilities, and ignores the second law of thermodynamics
Creation science, and Intelligent Design ackowleges biological boundaries, ackowleges chemical parameters, ackowleges the second law, ackowleges mathematical probability limitations, ackowleges the fact that the fossil record shows not the continuity needed for common descent, but rather discontinuity
And they have hte nerve to call Creation science and Intelligent Design ‘pseudoscience’?
Psa 53:2 God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God
Psa 36:2 For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful.
Psa 36:3 The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good.
Catholics were not as threatened by Darwin’s Book because our faith does not rise and fall on a certain kind of literal interpretation of the Bible. We were determined not to make the same mistake we had made with Galileo et al. and confuse Biblical teachings with ancient science. Darwin was writing about what was called “secondary” causes under the scheme of the old natural philosophy. On the other hand, many Catholics were beguiled by Comte’s positivism , which treated scientific knowledge as factual and religion as not, but largely a matter of sentiment. And Darwin himself soon went beyond his brief to deal with “final” causes, including a strong and scientifically ill-founded book on human evolution. How shallow was his knowledge base can be seen is how his principles led him AWAY from the discovery of the science of genetics.
And for htose (who come from DC) who are confused about what science really is, and what it is not, and just which side practices ‘Real Science’ (And for htose who keep insisting that Macroevolution ‘isn’t about origins science’ lol:
“Confusing ‘origins science’ with ‘operational science’; the real origins of science
Scientific American also repeats the common claim that evolution and ‘methodological naturalism’ are the basis for modern advances in science:
Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. [SA 85]
This fails to note the distinction between normal (operational) science, and origins or historical science.3 Normal (operational) science deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present, while origins science helps us to make educated guesses about origins in the past.
Operational science has indeed been very successful in understanding the world, and has led to many improvements in the quality of life, e.g., putting men on the moon and curing diseases. And it’s vital to note that many historians, of a wide number of religious persuasions, from Christians to atheists, point out that the founders of operational science were motivated by their belief that the universe was made by a rational Creator. An orderly universe makes perfect sense only if it were made by an orderly Creator. But if atheism or polytheism were true, then there is no way to deduce from these belief systems that the universe is (or should be) orderly.
Genesis 1:28 gives us permission to investigate creation, unlike say animism or pantheism that teach that the creation itself is divine. And since God is sovereign, He was free to create as He pleased. So where the Bible is silent, the only way to find out how His creation works is to experiment, not rely on man-made philosophies as did the ancient Greeks.
These founding scientists, like modern creationists, regarded ‘natural laws’ as descriptions of the way God upholds His creation in a regular and repeatable way (Col. 1:15–17), while miracles are God’s way of upholding His creation in a special way for special reasons. Because creation finished at the end of day 6 (Gen. 2:1–3), creationists following the Bible would expect that God has since mostly worked through ‘natural laws’ except where He has revealed in the Bible that He used a miracle. And since ‘natural laws’ are descriptive, they cannot prescribe what cannot happen, so they cannot rule out miracles. Scientific laws do not cause or forbid anything any more than the outline of a map causes the shape of the coastline.
Because creation finished at the end of day 6, biblical creationists would try to find natural laws for every aspect of operation science, and would not invoke a miracle to explain any repeating event in nature in the present, despite Scientific American’s scare tactics. This can be shown in a letter I wrote to an inquirer who believed that atoms had to be held together by miraculous means:
‘Natural laws’ also help us make predictions about future events. In the case of the atom, the explanation of the electrons staying in their orbitals is the positive electric charge and large mass of the nucleus. This enables us to make predictions about how strongly a particular electron is held by a particular atom, for example, making the science of chemistry possible. While this is certainly an example of Colossians 1:17, simply saying ‘God upholds the electron’ doesn’t help us make predictions.
And in my days as a university teaching assistant before joining CMI, I marked an examination answer wrong because it said ‘God made it so’ for a question about the frequency of infrared spectral lines, instead of discussing atomic masses and force constants.
So, Scientific American is wrong to imply that creationists are in any way hindered in real operational scientific research, either in theory or in practice.
In contrast, evolution is a speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable past. Thus, it comes under origins science. Rather than observation, origins science uses the principles of causality (everything that has a beginning has a cause4) and analogy (e.g., we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past). And because there was no material intelligent designer for life, it is legitimate to invoke a non-material designer for life. Creationists invoke the miraculous only for origins science, and as shown, this does not mean they will invoke it for operational science.
The difference between operational and origins science is important for seeing through common silly assertions such as:
… evolution is as thoroughly established as the picture of the solar system due to Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton.5
However, we can observe the motion of the planets, but no one has ever observed an information-increasing change of one type of organism to another.
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-1-argument-creationism-is-religion-not-science
Not evolution but geology. Geology is what gives the theory of evolutionists timeline and physics a verification of the great antiquity. of the earth.
And speaking of cheap insults, ever notice how that’s all FreeDumb has? It would seem FreeDumb’s boast about his vast store of scientific knowledge has been greatly exaggerated.
Thats pretty much it.
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.