Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,584 Year: 2,841/9,624 Month: 686/1,588 Week: 92/229 Day: 3/61 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is True Because Life Needs It
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 86 of 188 (653478)
02-21-2012 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by jar
02-21-2012 8:25 AM


Re: There will be a 101 level course for Creationists.
It is why last Sunday was Evolution Sunday.
I hadn't heard of that event before!
From Clergy Letter Project:
quote:
The Project also encourages congregations to participate Evolution Weekend by sponsoring events in which clergy and congregations are encouraged to learn about and discuss evolution. The weekend chosen is the closest Sunday to Charles Darwin's birthday, February 12. Evolution Sunday events first took place in 2006 and the Project renamed it in 2008 to be more inclusive. The Clergy Letter Project states that Evolution Weekend activities are "an opportunity for serious discussion and reflection on the relationship between religion and science" and in an effort "to elevate the quality of the discussion on this critical topic, and to show that religion and science are not adversaries."The Project states that events are specifically intended to emphasize that "Religious people from many diverse faith traditions and locations around the world understand that evolution is quite simply sound science; and for them, it does not in any way threaten, demean, or diminish their faith in God. In fact, for many, the wonders of science often enhance and deepen their awe and gratitude towards God."
Far better and far more constructive than the Fundamentalist approach of seeing science as attacking God and the creationist approach that if they find the world to be as it actually is, then God does not exist -- ie, creationists make a multitude of contrary-to-fact claims while teaching that if those contrary-to-fact claims are false, then Scripture has no meaning and God does not exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by jar, posted 02-21-2012 8:25 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by jar, posted 02-21-2012 4:29 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 98 of 188 (653508)
02-21-2012 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by markl67
02-21-2012 8:41 PM


Re: more misrepresentation
Calling God a critter and expecting to actually examine Him...and I'm committing hubris...?
Well, not necessarily the "critter" part, but the rest is true.
Review basic scientific method ... assuming that you've learned it at some time or other, an assumption that is all too often very wild when applied to creationists. Hypothesis building and testing, which can lead to theory building and testing. You observe something and form a hypothesis to explain it. You then test that hypothesis and find it lacking, in which case you either modify it or reject it for another. You test that new/modified hypothesis and repeat the process.
OK, what if you want to use a supernaturalistic hypothesis. How do you test it? No, that is not a rhetorical question: how would you ever be able to test a supernaturalistic hypothesis? We cannot observe the supernatural, nor can we measure it in any fashion, nor even determine whether the supernatural even exists. Science cannot work with the supernatural. We even had a topic here asking IDists to explain just exactly how their proposed supernatural-based science was supposed to actually work and no answer was forthcoming. Science cannot work with the supernatural, but only with naturalisitic causes and hypotheses, since we can observe and quantify those. This is called methodological naturalism, which is entirely different from philosophical naturalism that the Discover Institute falsely accuses science of employing.
So then, yes absolutely, if any god, including yours, is to be included in science, then we absolutely do need to be able to observe and to examine him or her or whatever. That's not hubris, but rather scientific necessity. If we cannot, then the gods are absolutely useless as a scientific explanation for anything. Not as a value judgement on God or on any other of the gods, but rather because science cannot work with the supernatural.
And your {plural} hubris is in expecting special treatment in having science completely changed in order to include "God".
Edited by dwise1, : included the other gods

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by markl67, posted 02-21-2012 8:41 PM markl67 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 100 of 188 (653510)
02-21-2012 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by markl67
02-20-2012 11:34 PM


Re: There will be a 101 level course for Creationists.
In Message 73:
jar writes:
GOD is far grander than the picayune little bling-bling pimp daddy worshiped by the Creationists.
To which in Message 75:
markl67 writes:
You state God is far grander - grander than what? But not grand enough to speak the universe into existence? I worship the God of the Bible. What God are you referring to?
Basically, he is speaking about the real God, Sovereign over Nature, as opposed to the creationist and ID "God of the Gaps". The real God is omnipotent and has nothing to fear from science, whereas the God of the Gaps, born as he is from and residing in the gaps in human knowledge, is puny and powerless and lives in constant fear of the ongoing growth of human knowledge which keeps shrinking his gaps inexorably.
To help you better understand creationism's and ID's "God of the Gaps", I would like to recommend some essays that Dr. Allen Harvey, a physicist specializing in water (hence, "SteamDoc"), wrote for his Sunday School. Here's an exerpt from his Science and Christian Apologetics :
quote:
The second problem where we dictate to God is telling him how he is and isn't allowed to create. There's a common view that the world runs completely on its own, except maybe for a few interventions where God sticks his hand in and does something. Of course atheists have this view (and then they say that the number of interventions is zero), but a lot of Christians have it too, they have the idea that in order for something to really "count" as God's work, it can't be natural, God has to have worked in some sort of miraculous interventionist way. There's actually a name for that, it's called "God of the Gaps" theology. God of the Gaps theology divides the world into 2 categories. There's things we can’t explain (gaps in our understanding where we say "that's where God is" [in primitive times thunder and lightning were gaps]). The second category is things where we do have a natural explanation, and therefore God isn't in those places. The result of "God of the Gaps" theology is that every time science finds a natural explanation for something, one more gap closes up and God gets squeezed closer to nonexistence. This forces Christians who have this theology to attack science in order to make room for God.
Maybe my most important message today is that this "God of the Gaps" theology is wrong. The reason it's wrong is that God is sovereign over nature. (Take-home point #2) The Bible tells us that everything that exists is upheld by God's power. God isn't just in the gaps, he's the creator and sustainer of the whole fabric of creation, including the things we call "natural." So what does God's sovereignty over nature mean for our apologetics? It means that science isn't any threat to Christianity. Scientific results don't count as points against God, they're just uncovering how God did things. It means that if somebody has the idea that some scientific explanation (evolution or whatever) has eliminated God, the wrong thing to do is to argue against the science — that's defending the God of the Gaps and it's a losing strategy (unfortunately, it's the strategy of a lot of Christians). The right thing to do is to remember that God is sovereign over nature, that the atheist argument that natural explanations mean God is absent isn't science, it's completely unjustified philosophy. We can tell people that natural explanations may eliminate the God of the Gaps, but they don't eliminate the Christian God.
His writings are listed at http://steamdoc.s5.com/writings.htm. Read the essay I quoted from and I would also recommend his What Does "God of the Gaps" Mean? and A Personal View of the Evolution Issue .
I had found his writings when search for info on the "Joshua's Long Day" claim which was one of the two creationist claims I was first given in 1970 and from which I immediately realized that creationism is worse than pure hokum. SteamDoc's essay on the claim is Thoughts on "Joshua's Long Day"
Share and enjoy!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by markl67, posted 02-20-2012 11:34 PM markl67 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