|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Religious Nature of Evolution, or Lack Thereof | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Well lets go over your ponts to me
1) The underlying assumption is that either Genesis is entirely fiction or a literally true account. That is a very restrictive view which fails to take into account the nature of the Bible. Is it not at least possible that Genesis was primarily written to make theological points to the people of that time ? In our culture we have a great deal mre scientific knowledge - and relatively few people have an understanding of the peoples and cultures of the time Genesis was written - even a knowledge of other Middle-Eastern creation stories is unusual. So how can you say that your understanding of Genesis is the only one when you cannot hope to see it as the original audience did ? And we don't even need evolution to refute YEC interpretations of Genesis - the Earth was known to be more than 6-10 thousand years old before Darwin published. If Christianity requires rejection of scientific results that have stood for two hundred years, then too bad for Christianity. You may find theistic evolution theologically unacceptable but Kenneth Miller has built it into his theology. 2) You are still absolutely wrong. Evolution requires that a universe exists - but not how it got here. Your assumption here is that the only alternatives are current science of YEC creation. That obviously isn't true. While the Big Bang itself is pretty well established there is still a possibility that it could be replaced. Equally there are other possibilities within creation. If, for instance, the whole universe were created ex nihilo at the time the first life appeared on Earth (2-3 billion years ago) - as it would have been given the conventional scientific view - with the first life form already existing it would make absolutely NO difference to evolution. This is why it is so important to support your points. Your claim here is obviously false - and if you actually tried to find supporting arguments you might at least see why it is not automatically accepted. 3) Your answer here contradicts your answer to 2). If God could start the first life then there is an alternative to abiogenesis by natural means - and in fact for the whole history of the universe up to that point. You can erase the whole thing and substitute a completely different means of getting to the same position and evolution is entirely unaffected. 4) Humans were recognised as being part of nature from before Darwin. Even Linnaeus recognised human affinities with the apes. And you just quote statements - you don't actually show the importance of this statement at all.If you actually read the manifestos [URL=http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html]Humainst Manifestos I & IIp.url you will see something different. As would be expected they are primarily statements of belief and little supporting argument is provided. This in itself is fatal to your use of them since they are lacking in the very area you wish to quote them. And your quote from Humanist Manifesto 2 is completely out of context - in context it is seen that the scientific knowledge of evolution is used only as a minor supporting point for the denial of salvvation and dmnation. Hardly the overwhelmingly important role you wish to assign it.Here is what Humanist Manifest 2 says about ethics: quote:Where is evolution mentioned there ? It isn't - because it is not the foundation of humanist ethics. Let us also note that we are dealing with religious (not secular) humanism here. It in itself is a religion that makes use of scientiifc findings. If the scientific findings were different then humanism - if it existed - would be different, too. And since the roots of humanistic thought go back to the classical civilisations it is not so unlikely that some movement of that sort would exist. But this does not establish that evolution is itself religious. The fact that Kenneth Miller can employ evolution in his Christian theology shows that evolution can be accepted and even play a significant role in quite different religions. So we are still left with no real argument that evolution - as science - is religious, any more than the germ theory of disease which denies that plagues are sent directly by God is religious.Humainst Manifestos I & IIp.url you will see something different. As would be expected they are primarily statements of belief and little supporting argument is provided. This in itself is fatal to your use of them since they are lacking in the very area you wish to quote them. And your quote from Humanist Manifesto 2 is completely out of context - in context it is seen that the scientific knowledge of evolution is used only as a minor supporting point for the denial of salvvation and dmnation. Hardly the overwhelmingly important role you wish to assign it.Here is what Humanist Manifest 2 says about ethics: quote:Where is evolution mentioned there ? It isn't - because it is not the foundation of humanist ethics. Let us also note that we are dealing with religious (not secular) humanism here. It in itself is a religion that makes use of scientiifc findings. If the scientific findings were different then humanism - if it existed - would be different, too. And since the roots of humanistic thought go back to the classical civilisations it is not so unlikely that some movement of that sort would exist. But this does not establish that evolution is itself religious. The fact that Kenneth Miller can employ evolution in his Christian theology shows that evolution can be accepted and even play a significant role in quite different religions. So we are still left with no real argument that evolution - as science - is religious, any more than the germ theory of disease which denies that plagues are sent directly by God is religious.[]Humainst Manifestos I & IIp.url you will see something different. As would be expected they are primarily statements of belief and little supporting argument is provided. This in itself is fatal to your use of them since they are lacking in the very area you wish to quote them. And your quote from Humanist Manifesto 2 is completely out of context - in context it is seen that the scientific knowledge of evolution is used only as a minor supporting point for the denial of salvvation and dmnation. Hardly the overwhelmingly important role you wish to assign it.Here is what Humanist Manifest 2 says about ethics: quote:Where is evolution mentioned there ? It isn't - because it is not the foundation of humanist ethics. Let us also note that we are dealing with religious (not secular) humanism here. It in itself is a religion that makes use of scientiifc findings. If the scientific findings were different then humanism - if it existed - would be different, too. And since the roots of humanistic thought go back to the classical civilisations it is not so unlikely that some movement of that sort would exist. But this does not establish that evolution is itself religious. The fact that Kenneth Miller can employ evolution in his Christian theology shows that evolution can be accepted and even play a significant role in quite different religions. So we are still left with no real argument that evolution - as science - is religious, any more than the germ theory of disease which denies that plagues are sent directly by God is religious.Humainst Manifestos I & IIp.url you will see something different. As would be expected they are primarily statements of belief and little supporting argument is provided. This in itself is fatal to your use of them since they are lacking in the very area you wish to quote them. And your quote from Humanist Manifesto 2 is completely out of context - in context it is seen that the scientific knowledge of evolution is used only as a minor supporting point for the denial of salvvation and dmnation. Hardly the overwhelmingly important role you wish to assign it.Here is what Humanist Manifest 2 says about ethics: quote:Where is evolution mentioned there ? It isn't - because it is not the foundation of humanist ethics. Let us also note that we are dealing with religious (not secular) humanism here. It in itself is a religion that makes use of scientiifc findings. If the scientific findings were different then humanism - if it existed - would be different, too. And since the roots of humanistic thought go back to the classical civilisations it is not so unlikely that some movement of that sort would exist. But this does not establish that evolution is itself religious. The fact that Kenneth Miller can employ evolution in his Christian theology shows that evolution can be accepted and even play a significant role in quite different religions. So we are still left with no real argument that evolution - as science - is religious, any more than the germ theory of disease which denies that plagues are sent directly by God is religious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hello, almeyda.
You have generated a lot of responses, so I will only answer you comments to me.
quote:I disagree. Religion only answers questions about the purpose of existence and morality. It may incorporate certain beliefs about origins into its cosmology in order to justify the answers to these quesions, but this belief in origins must be added a priori. Of course, that is based on my definition of religion, which, as I admitted, is idiosyncratic. But you have to be careful how you define religion. As I tried to point out in an earlier post, if you make the definition religion too broad, then everything is a religion, and the word becomes useless. -
quote:But those people are not alive today. We only know of those people, and Washington himself, because they left records, that is, physical evidence that they existed. You have never seen, I bet, any of this evidence. If you have, I bet you never performed any sort of analysis to verify the evidence is what it claims it is. You have never tried to come up with another interpretation of that evidence. All you have is what "experts" have written in books. And you take their word for it. Yet when we say that evidence for evolution exists, you skoff. When we point out that the "alternate interpretations" of that evidence offered by creationists fall apart when other evidence is taken into account, you don't believe this. -
quote:I lied. I'm going to comment on a post not directed to me. Why does this make creation right? If an idea does not change, no matter what the evidence is, no matter what discoveries are made, that seems to make it wrong to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MonkeyBoy Inactive Member |
MONKEY BOY - You are the same person who has not yet found God. And are still searching Well, I believe I have found god, but not the god that you believe in. I think that the different faiths are searching, discovering new things as they are revealed through nature. Thus, I absolutely do not see a problem with god and evolution co-existing. I cannot for the life of see how they cancel each other out.
Things came to being through natural processes (evolution). Supernatural is the complete opposite. God/creator created the world,universe,life etc. These are the two frameworks evolutionists and creationists build upon. Same science, same evidence, different interpretation. How is the supernatural studied by science, if science deals exclusively with the natural? Evidence is evidence, if I jump off a building, I am providing in vivid detail evidence to support gravity (which by the way does not conflict with the biblical god; does it? Maybe it does since Christ ascended to heaven); how can the evidence of my ultimate splat due to the existance of gravity be 'interpreted' as anything else? Please forgive for posting so late on this, but you didn't reply to me and I just noticed it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
NosyNed quote:
______________________________________________________________________ In a science you don't get away with making assertions without support. ______________________________________________________________________ Does this include the claims of quantum mechanics in the past, lets say, 10 years ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Does this include the claims of quantum mechanics in the past, lets say, 10 years ?
Since QM is well off this topic you might propose one to allow you to put forward such claims and have them discussed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
Science does not exclusively deal with naturalism. Evolution does. Which is a form of historical science & belief about the past that states that the world has evolved on its own. Supernaturalism is confirmed by evidence fitting in the biblical framework and fitting in with Gods word. This "supernatural" science is used to confirm, affirm & reinforce faith and trust in God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Science does not exclusively deal with naturalism. Ludicrous. Science can only study what is apparent to our senses, though instruments (the natural world). By definition, the supernatural can't affect the natural world - or else it would, by definition, be a part of the natural world and not the supernatural. Therefore we know, by definition, that the supernatural is not only not apparent to science, but can't ever effect anything we can observe. That means it's not only outside of the purview of science, but of human experience altogether. If science could address something purported to be supernatural, the fact that science could address it would, by definition, make it natural.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
I dont think you understand. If God says there was a flood. The scientist can test for it. This is using real science in the present using your 5 senses right?. God says to look at the heavens and earth and see his design and creation. We can check for design,complexity,diversity,genetics. Real science in the present right?. The chronology of the Bible gives us a younger earth. We can check for a young earth right? Using dating methods etc just like evolutionary scientist. Real science right?. All this is real science. Science in the present. Creation scientist have got the same PhDs!, same acheivements. JUST DIFFERENT PRESUPPOSITIONS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST.
This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-22-2004 07:01 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The scientist can test for it. This is using real science in the present using your 5 senses right? Right. Of course, the truth is, there's no evidence of the flood because the flood didnt happen. Does that make God a liar, or what? Anyway, even if the flood happened the way it says in the Bible - just because anything happens the way it says in the Bible - still isnt proof that anything supernatural - including God - exists.
We can check for a young earth right? Checked and discarded - by creationists, btw, in the 1800's.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Try these simple facts.
Real science says that there was no Flood. It is not simply a difference of presuppositions - the Flood view is believed despite the scientific evidence. Real science says that the Earth is old. The arguments to the contrary omit relevant facts - as the Helium-loss argument did. The idea that the Earth is young is believed despite the scientific evidence. Creationism is religious apologetics - not science. If you want to argue to the contrary then produce the creationist arguments. Don't simply rely on what the creationists say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
almeyda writes: If God says there was a flood. The scientist can test for it. Okay. Resonable statement. Unfortunately there is NO evidence of a Great Flood. But we are getting off topic again. Almeyda. You claim the Evolution has a religious nature. To try to keep this from spreading like wildfire, can you give us ONE reason that you believe there is a religious nature to TOE? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Almeyda,
Science does not exclusively deal with naturalism. Evolution does. Rubbish. All science uses methodological naturalism. Which is why there isn't a Godly Theory of Gravity, where God is alleged to hold everything down by his force of will. Or A Religious Theory of Particle Cohesion where those silly physicists got it wrong about the strong & weak nuclear forces. God does it! Can you name any scientific theory at all that invokes the supernatural? If it can't be tested/falsified it ain't science. You agreed to this. Which reminds me, I am still awaiting your agreemt on point C/, here. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
I never said anything about invoking the supernatural. What i said was that if the evidence around the world fits within Gods word and the biblical framework and is consistent then we can have real trust and faith in God. Whereas evolutionists have nothing but their own opinions that will always continue to change, this is blind faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
almeyda writes: Whereas evolutionists have nothing but their own opinions that will always continue to change, this is blind faith. Where is there a single example in the TOE of Bilnd Faith? The fact that the theory changes as new information and observation come along shows that it is NOT blind faith but rather based on reality. If it were Blind Faith it would not change. You have simply proven that the TOE is NOT religious in nature. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
What about the origins of evolution on how non-life became life?. Are you saying theres no faith involved in this theory?. Since they say it happened by chance over billions of yrs then they must rely on a accident through chance. Their theories will always continue to change therefore how can they ever trust their own ideas? ever?.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024