Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   take it or leave it
skibum_theory
Inactive Junior Member


Message 1 of 7 (8804)
04-22-2002 2:26 PM


i pretty much break all your little sterotypes, I'm religious, and I believe in evolution. I'm a Biology student and the evidence for evolution doesn't lie, no matter how much one bends it to fit their preception. Evolution makes perfect sence when describing our material existance. But like Dr. Miller says in, Finding Darwins God, that it would be silly for a divine creator to have "flaws" in the divine plan. The flaws would be science not being able to prove something came about through naturalistic ways. That would mean that life was placed on this earth by a creator with scientific, empirical proof to back it up. This scenero would mean that we would need no faith, a cornerstone for many religions, and that we would never really have true free agency (with a scientifically proved god looming over our shoulders). Evolution hinders religion in no way, and it takes a truely arrogant mind to think so. I do think it is bad science to claim that god doesn't exist based on science, such as Richard Dawkins. It is not sciences part to dismiss the paranormal, because the paranormal can not be observed and critisized using the scientific method. This is my view as incoherently as i sound, take it or leave it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-22-2002 2:39 PM skibum_theory has not replied
 Message 3 by Quetzal, posted 04-22-2002 5:07 PM skibum_theory has not replied
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 04-22-2002 6:27 PM skibum_theory has not replied
 Message 7 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-24-2002 8:27 AM skibum_theory has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 2 of 7 (8805)
04-22-2002 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by skibum_theory
04-22-2002 2:26 PM


A fine summary of a more middle ground perspective. Many of the evolution side of this discussion probably have this viewpoint.
The debate, however, gets polarized into the creationist perspective of (Godless) evolution versus Godly creation. The extreme of this creationionist perspective is that of the "Young Earthers".
I have noticed, in my browsings of Terry's "Talk Origins" site, that "Young Age" seems to have become a more preferred term, to replace "Young Earth".
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by skibum_theory, posted 04-22-2002 2:26 PM skibum_theory has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by wj, posted 04-22-2002 11:17 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 3 of 7 (8806)
04-22-2002 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by skibum_theory
04-22-2002 2:26 PM


Hi skibum: Welcome to the evcforum (I seem to be the unofficial greeter today). Believe it or not, I have no problem with someone who believes in both a supreme deity and accepts evolution. There's a lot more of you around than the average creationist would like to believe (I'd guess the majority). You're absolutely correct: science can not, by definition, prove or disprove the existence of a deity. It is not a question that IMO resides rightfully in science's purview. BTW: I don't think Dawkins actually uses science to try and disprove God. He IS a strong atheist, and a vocal one, but his opposition is philosophical, not scientific - a distinction about which he is quite clear in his talks and writings.
Anyway, welcome!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by skibum_theory, posted 04-22-2002 2:26 PM skibum_theory has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 4 of 7 (8808)
04-22-2002 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by skibum_theory
04-22-2002 2:26 PM


I have not heard that any "stereo types have been broken". My brother is an elder in the Presbyterian Church a SYSTEms admininstrator with big salary, couple of kids and he insists that evoltutionists have not been given the time to come up with the mechanism. So you would open no differently unless pray tell me what sterotype broke? I never heard this at Cornell and I went there to understand as well as "sense" evolution socially. I would love to know what it is I can not read.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by skibum_theory, posted 04-22-2002 2:26 PM skibum_theory has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 7 (8818)
04-22-2002 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Minnemooseus
04-22-2002 2:39 PM


quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
A fine summary of a more middle ground perspective. Many of the evolution side of this discussion probably have this viewpoint.
I have noticed, in my browsings of Terry's "Talk Origins" site, that "Young Age" seems to have become a more preferred term, to replace "Young Earth".
Moose

This may be in recognition that some creationist postulations involve a different apparent or real ages for the earth and the rest of the universe. I think this is part of Humphreys' Starlight and Time scenario. Nevertheless many creationists seem to struggle to find an acceptably broad term to encompass most of themselves. I think this is due to the disparity of theological and "scientific" evidences which they are prepared to accept and those which they reject and their interpretations of the literal meaning of bible passages. And "old age creationism" might simply be idiocyncratic to those creationists on that board and not be an endorsed party line.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-22-2002 2:39 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Brad McFall, posted 04-23-2002 8:02 PM wj has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 6 of 7 (8835)
04-23-2002 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by wj
04-22-2002 11:17 PM


Seems to me that ICR is banking on turning Humphries necessity into a universality but correct me if I over synthesize. Research universitty's are no good because they tend only to support globilization not universal joint in universality thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by wj, posted 04-22-2002 11:17 PM wj has not replied

Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 7 of 7 (8855)
04-24-2002 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by skibum_theory
04-22-2002 2:26 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by skibum_theory:
I do think it is bad science to claim that god doesn't exist based on science, such as Richard Dawkins. It is not sciences part to dismiss the paranormal, because the paranormal can not be observed and critisized using the scientific method. This is my view as incoherently as i sound, take it or leave it.[/B][/QUOTE]
Hi Skibum. I have to agree, although I place myself in the agnostic camp, being of the opinion that a) god, or God, can neither be proven nor disproven by natural means and b) the odds of us (mankind) being able to understand some form of supreme creator are pretty damn small. While I think that Dawkins is a good writer I diagree with his statements re: science and religion; it is my opinion that the man should take a course in the Philosophy of Science, it would outline to him his errors in this area. I also disagree with the farther reaches of his selfish DNA concepts for a number of scientific reasons (I think that the highest that "selfish" DNA can reach would be transposons, p-elements, and other sequences that act like genomic virus's and copy themselves over and over). I am more of the Gould camp that religion and science occupy separate demes or areas, although I think that Gould has fallen to much in love with PE and has tried to push that aspect of evolution too far
I like Miller as well, I thought that Darwins God was very well written. If you want another good author try Gabriel Dover, the originator of the molecular drive theory (or subset theory) of evolution.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz
[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 04-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by skibum_theory, posted 04-22-2002 2:26 PM skibum_theory has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024