No, what I said was they believe that "a literal interpretation of the Bible leaves no room for science."
In other words, if I believe that God created the earth 7,000 years ago, I must also reject the Theory of Evolution. Or, if I believe in evolution, I cannot believe that God created the earth as described in the Bible.
Personally, I'm just glad the term "intelligent design" isn't taking off in the public, because I really hate that term. It's just such a transparent attempt to talk about creationism without calling it creationism, and trying to remove religion from intelligent design results in a huge logical mess.
Cuz it's true.
100%, you forgot about me.
I've read your points, and they're very persuasive.
But the original point I was making had more to do with the nexus between the existence of organic matter and the existence of God. I don't see where you get a logical nexus to determine that the mathematical impossibility of a natural process is evidence of the existence of God. It may evidence some form of intelligent design, but again, the possiblity of intelligent design (I've been told here repeatedly) isn't necessarily contiguous with a belief in a Divine creation.
In that sense, your argument relies, it seems to me, on an article of faith that would be shared widely by Christians (and therefore, many Americans). But the reliance on that article of faith does not make the conclusion that you posit inexorably true.
On a side note, I don't understand why critics of evolution are so quick to disparage that notion on the basis that "it's just a theory." In science, the status of an idea as a theory is a rather lofty perch. It attains that status only after being subjected to extensive testing and criticism. That the scientific community is willing to refer to evolution as a theory strikes me as an admission that while it can't be proven conclusively, it also cannot be refuted -- at least not easily.
In common parlance, "theory" means something very different -- something much less concrete -- than it means in scientific parlance. The notion that a scientific theory is somehow of questionable value strikes me as a disregard for the means of science.
Not worth a long discussion here, but just my thought.
I did state that the nexus was faith.... and that I didn't expect others to share my belief.
I then went on to show why peoples' belief in certain 'scientific' theories (the origin of life is not subjectable to experimentation without a time machine) also requires faith, albeit of a different variety.
Semantics on the definition of the term.
I've never argued with 'the theory of evolution' as a descriptive process of what we observe today.... I will, however, wholeheartedly argue against the claim that 'evolution' it is an unguided, process.
What most call 'evolution,' I call 'adaptation'... and this biological selection process was instated by GOD Himself for the preservation of His Creation.
Last edited by hegamboa; 03-09-2006 at 07:42 PM.
Hector, and that is a great stance to take becuase nobody can tear it down. I have no beef with that idea because it has about as much backing as anything else.
I'm not sure thats what the people answering the poll thought, though.
Not that it matters, I'd say Americans are idiots as a whole regardless of religous affiliation.
I'm not sure this is semantics. Science has studied what you call adaptation and has developed tested hypotheses about that process. Those hypotheses have survived the criticisms to which they've been subjected, in scientific terms, and are therefore accorded the scientific value of theory, which is just short of law -- a le reserved only for matters that can be conclusively established.
I just find it odd that some find it so easy to discredit that theory (again, a word of specific meaning and descriptive of a tested hypothesis in scientific parlance) on the basis that it's "just a theory."
If you choose to believe that the process (or any other processes) exist because of God's will, so be it. But the discounting of the scientific theory as "mere theory," strikes me as odd.
" Not that it matters, I'd say Americans are idiots as a whole regardless of religous affiliation."..........................Interesting!
If by "idiots," Manny means uninformed and unwilling to seek knowledge (from whatever source), then I think there's some validity to that point.
Obviously, there are a great many people who pay attention and acquire knowledge to inform their opinions. But, there are also a great many adults who would struggle to tell you who the President and Vice President are, in which countries the United States is currently engaged in armed combat, and other minor details like that. Idiot might not be the best way to describe such people, but there is little doubt that there are a fairly good number of uninformed and underinformed people in this country -- and, generally, they like it that way.
I tend to dismiss the idea of Christianity, not God.
And that is your perogative... as long as you don't resort to childish insults.
Question for those holding onto some form of a "Intelligent Design" belief... if we were to find life elsewhere in the solar system (big discovery regarding a moon of Saturn this week, btw), how does that fit in with the ID belief? How do these simple single or multi-celluar organisms fit into God's plan? Are they saved?
A fan of the man, not his fanclubs, eh?
Let's put it this way... The Darwinian Theory presented in 'Origin of the Species' is what gave rise to the theory of evolution. And all of that was developed........ way...... way... way.... before the discovery of DNA and modern genetics.
Those scientific elements that gave rise to the theory, have since been subjected to new findings in said genetic fields... as they should. Modern genetics have complemented the theory in many ways, but the field has also exposed some conceptual flaws. The Theory of Evolution thus has kept a le which was 'awarded' rather prematurely.
With regards the the semantics of evolution.... 'Adaptation' does not equate to 'speciation,' which is the principal process evolution attmpts to describe. Adaptation is observable and subjectable to the scrutiny of experimentation. The same cannot be said for 'speciation'... it is confounded by the concept of evolution itself.... specifically it's timeframe... it's unguided premise... which when tested is no longer unguided.
There are three main problems hinted above. 1) The timeframe required for evolution to be observed and verified is too grand to conduct practical experiments. Evolutionary experiments are therefore flawed because they incorporate human interference in what is supposed to be an 'unguided' process. Yet article upon article in support of evolution is published without people realizing that this bias factor is at play.
Another problem is that the vast genetic wealth stored in our genes can in fact manifest countless of phenotypic variations. Not one of those cons utes the rise of a new species. And yet many times when this phenomenon is observed it is confused for speciation... which to some is evidence enough to confirm evolution. Again, the observations are correct, the conclusions are not. Canines for example have so many recessive genes and have over a span of a few centuries (a short time in the context of the evolutionary timescale) exploded and given rise to many 'breeds'.... this of course has had man's hand at play.
The other problem is introduced by the taxidermic system itself. What exactly cons utes a species?? The ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring?? So if a new finch species arises and the species is still interfertile with other finch species.... has a new species really been created??
Anyway, the 'Theory' has been given more weight than it should because of social implications and because science was somehow vindicated by its arrival. The modifier however does not mean that evolution should be free of reproof.
Last edited by hegamboa; 03-10-2006 at 09:27 AM.
We are the only creation on earth with body, soul, and spirit. Thus only we can be saved or condemned. All other biological organisms only have body and soul. Whether or not life exists outside of earth is irrelevant... as they are still within the realm of GOD's creation.
But you're really not looking for an answer are you???
If I wasn't look for an answer, I wouldn't have asked a question. Please check your assumptions at the door.
Spare me the scorn, I answered your question. I nevertheless had a feeling that the answer given would not satisfy what you were looking for...
You have a serious persecution complex. Nobody here is going to feed you to the lions, so relax.
I always thought that it was an interesting issue. If there are other beings in the universe, are they capable of "being saved?" They couldn't know Christ, since they are on other planets, so what does that mean for them? Also, why did everything in the Bible occur here on Earth? God created billions of planets, so was this his favorite? It must have been if he sent his only son to this planet.
Obviously, I intended these as rhetorical questions (I don't know that a response that is not highly speculative is possible).
You thought you were clever. Thought you "had" him, didn't you?
Very impressive, Heg....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
