Posted on 01/10/2005 2:47:28 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
You do realize that the Catholic church has officially stated that they have no conflict between their interpretation of Genesis vs. Evolution?
Again, my point is that Christians don't all believe in creationism. Christians can't agree on the meaning of the important parts of the Bible, so it is not at all surprising they can't agree on the meaning of Genesis either.
By the way, I got my ideas on the non-conflict between Genesis and Evolution at a class during a Southern Baptist church retreat. Southern Baptists do not have a hierarchy of doctrine like the Catholics, so some may consider evolution heresy as you do. But my point stands that Christians do not agree on the meaning of Genesis vs. Evolution.
People do find God in foxholes, as I have witnessed.
But they rarely have time to study religion as well. Afterlife and other religious beliefs are a product of religion and not a belief in God. People faced with death make judgments about themselves and believe they will be judged. They find God to aid them in that effort, religious beliefs do not need to be included.
I have been a God fearing man for most all of my life, yet I do not believe in any afterlife, as do religious people. Never bought into the idea as it is taught.
I really do not think you are grasping the what is going on here.
But, I really don't care much.
Which theory of biological evolution?
>>Intellect, Pride and unbelief.<<
Yes, if intellect AND pride are in play, that is another story. That pretty much sums up Satans position.
With that I wholeheartedly agree.
"ID and creationists are the same. They use the Bible against science"
That is a logical fallacy. Not all ID proponents accept the Bible. The "athiest" mentioned in this article does not accept the Bible; he is a deist.
As I understand the ID concept (and honestly I really haven't read any of their writings), it is a rather vague position that says things as they exist(life) could not have evolved/occurred without a designer involved. Someone who holds to theistic evolution could also be called an ID proponent. By default a creationist could be consider an ID proponent also. However, not all ID proponents are creationists or theistic evolutionists.
Well, good for him. But I believe he will still have to answer for all the people he purposefully directed towards atheism.
I have never heard it put that way, but you just nailed my maturation process on the head. It took some time, but I couldn't keep up the arguments. Now, I just believe.
Not even close to true.
There are those for whom the theory of evolution represents a direct attack on God. We see them all the time at FR.
There are also those who use the theory of evolution as an argument against God -- Richard Dawkins being one such.
Moreover, scientifically the theory of evolution is based on an essentially atheistic foundation -- if you look at it closely the a priori assumption is that God plays no role in anything.
Most IDers are religious. They have to be. There is no science there.
Biology doesn't care whether there is a God. That is a far cry from being an "atheistic" science.
The Theory of Evolution does not contain God in it, because it does not contain creation. The only way this can be a "debate" at all is for the creationists to create a strawman by putting creation into the theory and then arguing against it.
There is no "assumption" there is no God in anything. It is simply that God is not needed to support the theory. If He was, it would be a miracle not science. If God is influencing evolution it would not be noticeable, anyway.
A crevo thread the other day attempted to document how many evolution proponents had admited to being athiests (much less advocated athiesm). They could only come up with 3 or 4. So I don't believe you "see them all the time at FR".
Moreover, scientifically the theory of evolution is based on an essentially atheistic foundation -- if you look at it closely the a priori assumption is that God plays no role in anything.
Depending on your point of view, God plays a role in everything. Did not God create gravity? Then the coffee you just spilled went to the floor because of God.
Lots of posters latched onto that sentence I posted for the wrong reason. I'm not saying that God is irrelevant in the universe. I'm saying that God does not play a second by second, molecule by molecule role in Evolution. My opinion is that He created the process of Evolution, as He created gravity, and allows His creation to work.
One can say that God caused the coffee to go to the floor, or one can say that gravity did it. It is a distiction without a difference.
My motivation in these posts is to stop the damage done to Christianity by these senseless attacks on good science. From the Catholic churches attacks on Galileo through these modern attacks on evolution, every time Christians attack solid science, they loose. They are loosing on the ID challenge, despite the fact that many are yelling "ID is winning" as loud as they can. They are merely deluding themselves. They may convince a majority, but the majority are not scientific workers. Those are the ones that must change their minds against evolution, and they most certianly are not doing so. The rare exception to the contrary.
The ID theology will damage Christianity, and the sooner it can leave it behind as they left Earth centered cosmology behind, the less damage there will be.
I see no conflict between Evolution and Genesis, and I certianly see no gain to Christians by fighting against it. They merely make themselves appear uneducated.
Perhaps, but imagine how they will sit up and take notice when they hear he has given it up!
I imagine only a tiny fraction of those will ever hear of this.
"Most IDers are religious. They have to be. There is no science there."
I would agree that IDers must hold to some form of belief in a deity; unless they think aliens were the designer. However, what you stated was that IDers and Creationists both hold to belief in the Bible and are the same. I tell you that is not true. Not all IDers accept the Bible - even in a watered down form. Not all IDers are even nominally Christian.
If one feels justified in making a blanket statement that anyone who doesn't hold to a totally naturalistic (atheistic - no creater or designer) evolutionary view is a mental defective or moron - then I guess that is one's choice/opinion. However, when one is going to characterise that very broad group and "all the same", one had better realize there are many deferring views. One should never attack a "straw man" of one's own creation/design. :-)
"irreducible complexity"
Sir, can you provide me with some more information on the biochemist that wrote the book. I found his website, but couldn't find anything about his theology - if any? A link maybe?
This is a good example of my point. You have basically said that God would enter into evolution only before evolution actually occurred. This tacitly assumes that evolution runs "on its own," and that there was no intelligent interaction within the development of species at any point.
The only way this can be a "debate" at all is for the creationists to create a strawman by putting creation into the theory and then arguing against it.
Or, by the same token, one could automatically deny the possibility that life on Earth was affected by any intelligent interaction ever -- be it from God or some other source -- and pretend they're being scientific. ;-)
There is no "assumption" there is no God in anything. It is simply that God is not needed to support the theory.
Surely you're aware of the irony inherent in these two sentences.....
If He was, it would be a miracle not science.
Oh? Suppose that, rather than God, it was one of Fred Hoyle's aliens. Would it still be a miracle, or would it be science in that case?
If God is influencing evolution it would not be noticeable, anyway.
This makes no sense as written. What you may mean is that one couldn't tell the difference between "natural" evolution, or evolution guided by God (or some non-God alien intelligence). Perhaps -- but that doesn't mean it can't happen. In fact, we know for a fact that it does happen, because we humans have been guiding evolution of plants and animals literally for millenia.
Well, keep on accentuating the negative. What's he supposed to do, build a time machine? God help us all if we have to answer for our past errors in the same manner...
Actually, in talking about those whom "you see all the time," I was referring to those who oppose the theory of evolution on religious grounds. My long-stated opinion is that many of those folks consider evolution to be a test of their faith. Sorry for the confusion. However, I have run across a number of folks -- the local "Free Thinker" society, for example, or Richard Dawkins -- who use evolution as an argument against the existence of God.
Depending on your point of view, God plays a role in everything. Did not God create gravity? Then the coffee you just spilled went to the floor because of God.
See my #158...
My motivation in these posts is to stop the damage done to Christianity by these senseless attacks on good science.
I can't argue with you on that. The question is, though, whether it's really "good science." My take on that is that the loudest proponents of the theory of evolution make a lot of unfounded assumptions, and claim to be "scientific" on issues that are merely the flip-side of things in ID that are denounced as "unscientific."
The ID theology will damage Christianity, and the sooner it can leave it behind as they left Earth centered cosmology behind, the less damage there will be.
I certainly can argue with that. Heck, narb, there's no need to invoke God in a discussion of ID -- we need only invoke some intelligent agent. Humans, for example, are demonstrably intelligent agents responsible for the development of countless species. So it's clearly not out of bounds to suggest that intelligent agents may have played a role at certain points in the past.
The interesting thing is that the anti-ID folks automatically leap to the assumption that ID is secret code for "God." This is not surprising to me.
I see no conflict between Evolution and Genesis, and I certianly see no gain to Christians by fighting against it. They merely make themselves appear uneducated.
Then again, if one believes in God -- especially a God Who can create an entire universe from scratch, including life -- it seems rather silly to simply assume that God didn't take part in the development of life on Earth.
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.