Creationists:: What would convince you that evolution has happened ?

quote:

---

"Evidence that Demands a Verdict" (Josh McDowell's title for his apologetical study, which I use here in an analogous sense to include the vastness of reasons why the most intelligent and fair-minded people must accept the Bible as what it claims to be, the inspired word of God).

---

Oh my, a bit arrogant and self-righteous aren't we?Considering that most people on the planet are not Christian, you must think that the world is pretty much overrun by a whole lot of stupid, unfair people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:

Oh my, a bit arrogant and self-righteous aren't we?

​

Considering that most people on the planet are not Christian, you must think that the world is pretty much overrun by a whole lot of stupid, unfair people.

​

_________________________________

​

I can understand why people would, at least initially, come to that conclusion, but here's why your at least partially wrong in what you intimate. (Yet this will be a limited rebuttal here, not taking into direct consideration the "strict predestinarian" Calvinism and "free will" Armeanianism issue.) Believe it to be fairy tale material or not, the fallen archangel, Lucifer (now Satan), has blinded the minds of people. Jesus said that narrow is the way that leads to salvation and few find it, but broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many go that way. It's "many," versus "few." It goes against the grain of the fallen nature of mankind to simply accept the truth: That there is one God, and that he offered one plan for mankind to be redeemed. Those who broke away from the truth in ancient (or modern) times, and began other belief systems, were (are) in rebellion to God, and if they persist in their rebellion, or, tragically, inherit a tradition or culture of rebellion and ascribe to them, are lost. From the earthly, human, perspective, this seems unfair. But given the fallen nature that all are born with (due to our inheritance of it from Adam), and due to our own practice of sin, all of us fall into the category of deserving judgement. The amazing thing isn't that many will suffer eternal judgement; the amazing thing is, given the human condition, that anyone from that group could escape that fate, a fate that is deserved by everyone.

​

If our debate on this issue (in reference now, specifically, to my usage of the terms "intelligent" and "fair-minded")were to continue, though, I'd wind up conceding that many of those who have the "highest IQ's" reject God's only way. There are also people who have "low IQ's" who accept God's only way. (Perhaps you'll resist the temptation to offer a humorous come-back about the latter point.)

​

The reason why most people on the planet are non-Christian is because being non-Christian is the most natural way to be for a fallen race. Born again Christians deserve judgment, but they shall not suffer judgment because they've received the Messiah who already paid the price for people's sins. Those who elect to pay for their own sins will do so. I'm not saved because I'm righteous of my own merit. I'm saved (righteous) because I have received the plan of salvation that is offered by the only righteous being in existence.

​

Arrogant? Perhaps. Sometimes (in a sense) there's a place for it. But arrogance is not reserved as a response for everyone. Elijah was arrogant when he confronted blatant paganism. Jesus was arrogant against religious leaders who falsely claimed to be serving God. As a first choice, I'd like to influence people into realizing our need to repent and receive Jesus. TRUTH is sometimes falsely perceived of as being arrogant, even when it is shared gently, simply because of how dramatically it counters falsehoods.

​

In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)

​

--Marty

​

---

So, why are you so sure you are right? There are many people who have a different faith that is just as strong, or even stronger, than yours. I mean, all you have is your feelings to go on, right, and we all know how quixotic human emotions are.Lots of people are utterly convinced that they were taken up onto alien spaceships and probed, and lots of people are utterly convinced that they were King George III in a previous life.How do you know they are wrong? How do you know you are right? All of you have only your feelings to go by. All of you have exactly the same amount of evidence.Perhaps Lucifer is blinding you to the ONE TRUE FAITH.How do you know?To change the subject, how about that evolution thing?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
[b]. . . then I think that that would supply one of the main reasons why otherwise intelligent people would be so susceptible to falling headlong into the support structure of a theory (naturalism) that the facts have failed.

​

You consider "naturalism" a theory?![/QUOTE]

​

_____________________________

​

quote:

---

Of course naturalism is a theory. "Naturalism" is not simply a study of physical systems because physical systems are what we must study in order to objectively learn about our universe.

---

​

I cannot really understand this.

​

"Naturalism is not a study of natural systems, because physical systems are what we study to learn about the universe."

​

I don't get it.

​

[QUOTE]"Naturalists," especially the ones who actually have influence, are crusaders for cosmic and biological evolution which are totally materialistic notions (assumptions: beliefs: religions).

​

[/b]

---

Science is, by definition, descriptions of naturalistic phenomena using naturalistic explanations. The supernatural is not in it's realm of influence, so to speak. It makes no comment one way or another about the supernatural.Anyway, getting back to the original comment, how is Naturalism a theory, again? It may be a philosophical viewpoint, but I really don't see how is it a theory.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

[QUOTE] This is also where the "religion versus science" misnomer becomes relevant with regard to those who only want to promote the religion of evolutionism in the classroom because that happens to be consistent with the state's somewhat unofficially established religion for public schools (for one thing) of Secular Humanism.[/B][/QUOTE]The words, "under God" are repeated during the recitation of the Pledge to the Flag every day in public schools.Christmas vacation and recognitionEaster vacation and recognitionSt. Valentines day recognitionSecular Humanism is promoted in schools? Give me a break. Our schools are just as steeped in the Judeo/Christian traditions as the rest of public life in America. It's hard to get away from it anywhere.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Indeed, absolutely no doubt, some people who will wind up in Hell for not accepting Christ will have been more ethical, altruistic, etc., than some converts to Christianity (thus, destined for Heaven) who did not renew their mind according to the scriptures in this life--Saint Paul called these people carnal Christians. We can't get saved by works, or by being good by human standards; we get saved by accepting the Savior. Period.

---

Well, that is a really shallow and meaningless salvation, then, isn't it?What kind of sadistic, utterly cruel God would send his most wonderful, altruistic, loving creations to eternal suffering simply because they didn't believe exactly the way you say that God wants them to? What kind of wierd, twisted God would reward a serial child rapist/murderer with his heavenly reward only because he was a death row convert?Sorry, but that is some kind of sick philosophy, if I may be blunt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
[b]
quote:
Well, that is a really shallow and meaningless salvation, then, isn't it?

​

response:
Since all humans are fallen below the level of being able to redeem themselves, I find it incredibly fulfilling to realize that an avenue of help has been availed. My gauge for judging the worth of the plan of salvation is, "Does it work?" If the accurate answer is "yes," I'll climb aboard regardless of whether or not it fulfills some faulty humanistic need to think that I earned it.[/QUOTE]

​

What you are saying, then, is that there is no justice.

​

Your God is not a just God.

​

quote:

---

What kind of sadistic, utterly cruel God would send his most wonderful, altruistic, loving creations to eternal suffering simply because they didn't believe exactly the way you say that God wants them to? What kind of wierd, twisted God would reward a serial child rapist/murderer with his heavenly reward only because he was a death row convert?

​

Sorry, but that is some kind of sick philosophy, if I may be blunt.

​

Response:
I don't mind the bluntness. To the universally fallen human perspective, it is entirely expected.

---

​

Um, a sense of justness and fairness is a characteristic of a "fallen" nature?

​

quote:

---

And I'm not being condescending. I once sported the perspective myself, of course. But the MOST loving and kind people are not the non-Christians.

---

​

You have absolutely no way of knowing this and thus it is something you like to think but have no basis for saying.

​

quote:

---

The worst-behaving carnal Christians are one thing,

---

​

No, they are exactly the kind of christian YOU say will be let into heaven while the best-behaving non-Christians (perhaps never even hearing about Christianity their whole lives) will be left to their eternal suffering. This is what you are claiming, and this means that the God you believe in is utterly unjust and cruel.

​

quote:

---

but those Christians who have spent their lives in an effort to discipline themselves to honor God, walk in the highest form of love and goodness. Their love is enhanced in a way that no-one elses "love" could be. It's empowered by the presence of God's Holy Spirit in the life of the individual.

---

​

I don't care about the "good" Christians in this hypothetical situation of the death-row conversion of a child rapist going to heaven, and the loving, altruistic non-believer rotting in hell. You are not really addressing my point.

​

[QUOTE]In essence, neither last minute converts, life-long "disciples," or those representing the various types of rebels to the Christian faith, deserve salvation, no matter how any of them may have behaved. We're all past self help in the area of eternal salvation. And it is Christianity that delivers one from shallowness and meaninglessness.[/b]

---

No, it can't possibly deliver anyone from shallowness and meaninglessness if there is no justice.If there is no ultimate justice, and the worst scum of the earth can be let into heaven after a last-minute conversion, I'll be happy to spend eternity in hell with all of the other Buddhists, Hindus, Shinto, Native American, Jewish, pagan, etc. folks.You all can have all of the death row rapists and child molesters who converted at the last minute up there in heaven.Besides, you just said that we are all beyond any kind of eternal salvation, no matter what we do. Then, in the next breath, you talk about Christianity being our only hope. As a christian, you have no hope of salvation, but then you say that this hopelessness is somehow our only hope?Confusing AND depressing all at once.Gee, where do I sign up for this joyless, hopelessness-inducing religion. Do I get a free prescription to prozac when I join?BTW, are you going to reply to my message dealing with why I should believe you over the person who thinks they have been abducted by aliens, and how do you know that Lucifer isn't deceiving you?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Pseudo-quote:
Christianity is responsible for the universally fallen human perspective.

​

Reply:
How is it responsible for it? Its the remedy for it.

---

You have to be a Christian, and you have to interpret the Bible in a certain way, before you believe that humanity has a universally fallen nature. So, the perspective doesn't work for everyone. In fact, lots and lots of people don't think that humanity has a universally fallen nature.I, as a non-christian, do not believe that humanity has a universally fallen nature. I think that humanity is neither good nor bad, by nature. Our cultures and societies have constructed rules and morals by which we have constructed value systems (which have changed, and continue to change, over time), and by these value systems we judge the "goodness" or "badness" of human behavior.BTW, MArty, I was wondering if you are going to reply to my comment on your claim that secular humanism is promoted in our schools?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
[B]

quote:

---

You have to be a Christian, and you have to interpret the Bible in a certain way, before you believe that humanity has a universally fallen nature. So, the perspective doesn't work for everyone. In fact, lots and lots of people don't think that humanity has a universally fallen nature.

​

Reply:
So, do you believe in statistical morality, the notion that if enough people believe a certain way, then it must be OK?

---

Not at all.My morality is based on a combination of the Golden Rule (Do Unto Others...), Live and Let Live, rational self interest, and recognition of the value of following group rules and engaging in cooperation for the greater good.

quote:

---

I, as a non-christian, do not believe that humanity has a universally fallen nature. I think that humanity is neither good nor bad, by nature. Our cultures and societies have constructed rules and morals by which we have constructed value systems (which have changed, and continue to change, over time), and by these value systems we judge the "goodness" or "badness" of human behavior.

​

Reply:
Well, that's certainly the popular humanistic perspective.

---

It beats the heck out of living my life feeling like I am worthless or unworthy. It also seems to be the most rational way to look at how and why human cultures are the way they are.If you believe that all is hopeless with regards to human nature, and that we are all "fallen", then a bleak and dreary perspective you must have. It is much more hopeful and inspiring to me to recognize that we CAN change. Under your philosphy, we are hopelessly doomed.

quote:

---

BTW, MArty, I was wondering if you are going to reply to
my comment on your claim that secular humanism is promoted in our schools?

​

Reply:
What was the secular humanism comment again . . . sorry.

---

You made the comment that the unofficial, yet promoted, religion in our public schools was Secular Humanism.I replied that our public schools were just as steeped in the Judeo/Christian Tradition as every other part of public life in the US, as evidencd by the recognition of Christmas, Easter, and St. Valentine's day during the school year, with the vacations that go along with these Christian holidays.Children also recite "under God" in the Pledge to the flag every single day.

quote:

---

The difference is that naturalists are unable or unwilling to distinguish between unseen processes that can be uncontroversially extrapolated from empirical realities, and unseen processes that are inherently metaphysical in nature.

---

So, how can we tell the difference between an "inherently metaphysical" process and a natural process that we don't (or can't) understand?You are making a "God of the Gaps" argument. The problem with this is that for unexplained phenomena, there's always the possibility of a naturalistic solution that we haven't thought of.You cannot claim "Godidit" simply because science does not possess perfect knowledge.It is a very large leap from "We don't know" to "Godidit". Also, history is littered with examples of people claiming "Godidit" until science figures out the natural process or system that was previously thought to be only possible by God's hand.The example of Apollo driving the sun across the sky in his firey chariot comes to mind. Or Thor sending down ligtning bolts.etc.

quote:

---

So, how can we tell the difference between an "inherently metaphysical" process and a natural process that we don't (or can't) understand?

​

You are making a "God of the Gaps" argument. The problem with this is that for unexplained phenomena, there's always the possibility of a naturalistic solution that we haven't thought of.

​

Reply:
First of all, there's a difference between appealing to God regarding natural processes that followed the original works of creation, and appealing to God as the Creator who made the laws of physics that can be used to address "naturalistic solution(s)" for unexplained phenomena (in the sense of "naturalistic" meaning that we can investigate nature to see how things happen).

---

If you mean there is a difference between saying "God did X", and "God set up the rules of the Universe and let them roll along", then I agree.

quote:

---

So, as a creationist, I wouldn't consider the quantum jump phenomenon as God zapping particles in and out of existence. I believe that there are physical reasons for this phenomenon. I would say, though, that God created this universe with the laws of physics that allow for the quantum jump to occur.

---

I have no problem with this philosophy. It isn't scientific in any way, but neither does it claim to be.

quote:

---

It's just as metaphysical to say God doesn't exist as it is to say that he does. It's just as metaphysical to operate with a definition of science that assumes the legitimacy of the latter being true, as it is to assume the former is true. At least theoretically, both views are equally possible, and so to rule out one unproven philosophical possibility for another is irrational.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

Naturalism is not all about nature simply in the sense that that is what must be used in order to be objective; naturalism makes it impossible to consider God even if nature itself supplies evidence that would lead rational people to consider the possibility
that the universe may have come into existence by "something" that transcends nature.

---

Agreed, but you do understand that naturalism is also a philosophy, not science, don't you?

quote:

---

You cannot claim "Godidit" simply because science does not possess perfect knowledge.

​

Reply:
Yes, and . . .
. . . It is a very large leap from "We don't know" to "Godidit," or to God didn't do it (refering to creation works).

---

The problem with your objection is that science doesn't ever "say", "God didn't do it." Some philosophies might, but the scientific method makes no comment upon the supernatural at all.Science never says "God didn't do it", or "Godidit". Science says, "The evidence found in nature suggests the following naturalistic explanation", or, "There is insufficient evidence to suggest anything."

quote:

---

Also, history is littered with examples of people claiming "Godidit" until science figures out the natural process or system that was previously thought to be only possible by God's hand.

​

The example of Apollo driving the sun across the sky in his firey chariot comes to mind. Or Thor sending down ligtning bolts.

​

Reply:
And history is littered with examples of people claiming inferior things, things that the Bible anachronously refuted all along the way, things that science too has eventually figured out, i.e., caught up with an area of Biblical revelation.

​

The example of levitical sanitation principles compared to the coterminus example of inferior secular humanist medical practices
of the Egyptian Empire comes to mind. Or the sphericity of the earth as declared in scriptures compared to the coterminus inferior secular humanistic notions of ancient times.

---

OK, the Egyptian empire was simply not Secular Humanist! They were polytheists, and very clearly believed in all sorts of resurrection myths and an afterlife as evidenced by their burial practices....and Secular Humanism is a 20th century philosophy. I defy you to provide evidence of ancient Egyptian writing which mentions Secular Humanism.Are you sure you know what Secular Humanism is?My point in mentioning the long history of science knocking down mystical explanations of natural phenomena is simply that science, as a method of inquiry, has certainly stood the test of time and has been extremely productive and dependable. I do not deny that the Bible contains examples of the ancient science of a tribal desert people. However, it also contains a lot of things about nature which are clearly and demonstrably wrong, many of which were attributed to supernatural powers and are, in reality, due to natural phenomena.That's why the people at NASA use the scientific method, rather than the Bible, to send people into space.That's why the folks at the NIH use the scientific method, rather than the ritual sacrifice suggested in the Bible, to discover cures and prevention methods for disease.Just for two examples.P.S. Since you like to talk about Secular Humanism, perhaps you would like to address my reply to your claim that secular humanism is taught in our schools?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-16-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-16-2002]

Allison: If you mean there is a difference between saying "God did X", and "God set up the rules of the Universe and let them roll along", then I agree.

quote:

---

I say (that the Bible says, and that there's no legitimate scientific reason for not believing) that God set up the rules of the Universe and engaged in the acts of Genesis (and beyond).

---

Well, as far God setting up the rules of the universe, beliving this does not clash with science, but neither is such a belief scientific. Nothing wrong with being unscientific in an unscientific context, of course, but I think you understand what I am driving at. When you say "the Bible says", you have left science.Genesis agreeing with science depends upon how you interpret Genesis, doesn't it? Genesis deals with the forming of the Earth, the stars, and life, all of which have left clues to their origins which do not agree in the least with literal interpretations of the book.

quote:

---

Naturalism is not all about nature simply in the sense that that is what must be used in order to be objective; naturalism makes it impossible to consider God even if nature itself supplies evidence that would lead rational people to consider the possibility
that the universe may have come into existence by "something" that transcends nature.

---

Naturalism is a philosophy, not science.Allison: Agreed, but you do understand that naturalism is also a philosophy, not science, don't you? [QUOTE]I certainly see this.[QUOTE] No, I don't think you do (at least you didn't), because I have already had to remind you that they are separate.

quote:

---

The problem is that naturalism and science are synonymous in the minds of most people.

---

While I agree that this is a problem, it is not a problem of science itself. It is a problem of people being ignorant of how science works.

quote:

---

Evolution itself is evidence of this.

---

Huh?Allison: You cannot claim "Godidit" simply because science does not possess perfect knowledge.

quote:

---

Yes, and . . .
. . . It is a very large leap from "We don't know" to "Godidit," or to God didn't do it (refering to creation works).

---

Since science doesn't ever say anything about God, I don't see your point.Allison: The problem with your objection is that science doesn't ever "say", "God didn't do it." Some philosophies might, but the scientific method makes no comment upon the supernatural at all.

​

Science never says "God didn't do it", or "Godidit". Science says, "The evidence found in nature suggests the following naturalistic explanation", or, "There is insufficient evidence to suggest anything."

quote:

---

There it is: "Science says ... the following naturalistic explanation." Science, today, doesn't keep it objective; it's corroded with naturalistic philosophy (i.e., with metaphysical assumptivism).

---

So, it seems you are suggesting that scientific inquiry would benefit from allowing supernatural explanations for phenomena. Please explain how.(Hint: Supernatural explanations can explain everything, so they actually explain nothing. That's why miracles and magic are not allowed in science. But please tell me how we would get a deeper understanding of the workings of nature by allowing scientists to say "Godidit".)OK, the Egyptian empire was simply not Secular Humanist! They were polytheists, and very clearly believed in all sorts of resurrection myths and an afterlife as evidenced by their burial practices.

​

...and Secular Humanism is a 20th century philosophy. I defy you to provide evidence of ancient Egyptian writing which mentions Secular Humanism.

​

Are you sure you know what Secular Humanism is?

quote:

---

OK. I do equate the Egyptian Empire as a parallel to today's culture of Secular Humanism. I bundled all non-God ideas together in order to do this. The non-God ideas of ancient Egyptian practice (including false gods) and the non-God ideas of today (including false philosophies).
Secular Humanism teaches, basically, knowledge without God.

---

A non-Christian theistic belief is still belief in the supernatural, I'm afraid.The Egyptians had a rich and influential polytheistic mythology.It's very clear that in order to feel more secure in your own religious choice, you consider it necessary to trivialize and insult all other religions.BTW, in this vein, you never did answer me as to how you know that you are right and the people who do not believe exactly as you do are wrong, since all of your reasons for believing are inside your own heads and emotions? How do you know that Lucifer isn't deceiving you?Allison: My point in mentioning the long history of science knocking down mystical explanations of natural phenomena is simply that science, as a method of inquiry, has certainly stood the test of time and has been extremely productive and dependable. I do not deny that the Bible contains examples of the ancient science of a tribal desert people.

quote:

---

SCIENCE has stood the test of time; naturalism, however, has certainly not.

---

While that is arguable, I was never talking about naturalism. You are the one that kept talking about naturalism when I was trying to talk about science.Allison: However, it also contains a lot of things about nature which are clearly and demonstrably wrong,

quote:

---

Please demonstrate.

---

There is no evidence that the Earth was literally formed in 6 days.The moon does not produce it's own light.There is no evidence that all animals were originally herbivores.There is no evidence that Noah's flood occurred.There is no evidence that humans or animals were suddenly and specially created.The stars are not "fixed" into a "firmament".There is no evidence for the existence of "waters above" the Earth.Snakes do not eat dust.Etc. [b]Allison: That's why the people at NASA use the scientific method, rather than the Bible, to send people into space.

quote:

---

Yep. They must use science (not naturalism)--some of them are creationists.

---

Why do you keep bring up naturalism?BTW, which NASA scientists are Creationists?Allison: That's why the folks at the NIH use the scientific method, rather than the ritual sacrifice suggested in the Bible, to discover cures and prevention methods for disease.

quote:

---

Although the Biblical sanitation "rituals" were far in advance of the contemporary culture--"rituals" that "modern" science has finally caught up with in recent years.

---

Care to elaborate?Allison: "We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."

quote:

---

Now let me get this straight--"You're a creationist now?"

---

No. What is your point?

quote:

---

Boy, my answer to this is probably going to reconfirm all sorts of potentially negative ideas people have about those Christians, but here goes. Yes, the Bible is just as much ingrained in public life as are Secular Humanistic ideas.

---

I would say that Christianity, and at least theism, is much more prevalent in our culture than secular humanism.Take it from me, an Agnostic; it is everywhere. You probably don't even notice most of it because you already agree with all of it.

quote:

---

The problem is that it wasn't always that way--it used to be just (or PRIMARILY) Christianity.

---

Exactly We used to have an oppressively Christian nation, much of it propagated by government, which is unconstitutional.

quote:

---

I'll pause a moment, here. I don't dislike people who believe or think differently than the biblical way. But, for one, there's such a thing as a country being under the blessing of God. When the actual God is exalted, blessings from God can be experienced in ways that would not otherwise be possible. That's why it's good for everybody (even for those who hold contrary beliefs, those who have not yet converted to Christianity) for God's only way to be promoted.

---

So says you. That's a nice belief, but so what if you believe that? We can't base our government on what Martin thinks his God will do for us if we believe like Martin does.

quote:

---

This doesn't mean the Constantine thing. It isn't (and never was) CHRISTIAN to force conversions.

---

According to the Old Testament, that kind of thing is perfectly OK as long as God tells you to do it.

quote:

---

What's the difference between forced conversions and assembling a culture founded on Christian principles? One of the important differences is that the people of the country would actually be in agreement to base the country's practices on Christian principles, much like most of the founders of the US were.

---

Several of the founders of our country were decidedly NOT Christian, such as Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine.How do you propose to arrive at an agreement among 300 million people, many of whom are not Christian? Jeez, there are several hundred denominations of Christianity alone, Marty! Most of them do not interpret the Bible literally and have no argument with science or Biology.Who gets to decide which version of "God's True Way" is the one we should follow?

quote:

---

We have problems today because the agreement is eroding. Ultimately, the erosion cannot be interpreted as anything but a hellish tragedy.

---

Do you consider the dramatic nationwide decrease in violent crime over the last several decades a "hellish tragedy?"

quote:

---

I love all sinners (regardless of their inferior ideas about reality).

---

LOL!! YOu love them, but you are superior, of course!

quote:

---

That's not a condescending, prideful, or self-righteous statement.

---

Sorry, it is very much a value judgement.

quote:

---

m: Naturalism is a philosophy, in part an assumption about the nature of reality; it assumes that nature is all there is. Naturalism, therefore, is not simply an objective study of nature, as the title "naturalism" would seem to suggest.

---

Usually, "ism" at the end of the word indicates a philophical bent to me. If there is confusion with some people about what Naturalism is, it's probably because they have not done any study of the subject. That's not Naturalism's fault.

quote:

---

It is one thing to limit one's scientific investigations to nature, and quite another to define science according to the limitations of the metaphysical philosophy (of naturalism).

---

So, are you suggesting that supernatural explanations for phenomena would benefit scientific inquiry? How so?Naturalism says that, "all there is, is nature."Science says, "use naturalistic explanations for naturalistic phenomena." It doesn not make any comment about the supernatural because that is not what it deals with.See the difference?

quote:

---

"Naturalists," especially the ones who actually have influence, are crusaders for cosmic and biological evolution which are totally materialistic notions (assumptions: beliefs: religions).

---

All of science is materialistic. It does not address the supernatural because that is not what it deals with.What Naturalists do with scientific findings in their "crusades" is irrelevant to the validity of the science.

quote:

---

And constructing a definition of science that couldn't make room for God even if God exists (due to favoring the contrary metaphysical philosophy that "nature is all there is"), is not rational.

---

Why isn't it rational? Why wouldn't the study of nature restrict itself to the natural?You are also continuing to make the mistake of stating that science says that "nature is all there is", which I have already told you several times that it expressly does not do this!Science, when asked about the existence of the supernatural, says "There is no positive evidence for the supernatural, so no determination can be made."This is entirely and completely different from saying, "There is no positive evidence for the supernatural, therefore nature is all there is".Do you see the difference now?

quote:

---

It's a theory to the extent that it has become synonymous,in the minds of many, with evolutionary speculation.

---

Sorry, that doesn't make it a theory.All it means is that people are confused.

s: Usually, "ism" at the end of the word indicates a philophical bent to me. If there is confusion with some people about what Naturalism is, it's probably because they have not done any study of the subject. That's not Naturalism's fault.

quote:

---

m: I can appreciate this. Evolution, then
, would be more accurately expressed as "evolutionism."

---

No, Evolution would be more accurately expressed as the scientific Theory of Evolution.Unless, of course, you would like to start puting "ism" at the end of every scientific theory, such as "Atomic Theoryism", "Theory of a Heliocentric Solar Systemism, or "Germ Theory of Diseaseism".s: So, are you suggesting that supernatural explanations for phenomena would benefit scientific inquiry? How so?

quote:

---

m: That's not necessarily what I'm suggesting. Just as the definition of science should not be made to require the assumption of creationism, the definition of science should not be made to require the assumption of naturalism.

---

So, yes, you are suggesting that supernatural explanations should be allowed.s: Naturalism says that, "all there is, is nature."

​

Science says, "use naturalistic explanations for naturalistic phenomena." It doesn not make any comment about the supernatural because that is not what it deals with.

​

See the difference?

quote:

---

m: I see the difference, always have. The difference that I have a hard time getting naturalists to recognize is that they are promoting an unprovable metaphysical philosophy as science.

---

For the umpteenth time...The philosophy of Naturalism and science are not the same thing. I have explained this to you several times, you say you understand, then you go ahead and say the same thing over again.

quote:

---

If there is no God, then their lack of objectivity is a mute point. If there is a God, and if his handiwork (i.e., creation) has left evidence of HIS nature, it could never be acknowledged even as a hypothesis to be examined, given the assumptivist philosophical basis of the current gatekeepers of the definition of science.

---

Incorrect.If the supernatural left evidence, then it would be incorporated into science.Of course, you would first need to identify what this evidence would be, and then all sorts of questions about the nature of the Designer/God would need to be addressed. So far, the IDists have done none of this.

quote:

---

m: "Naturalists," especially the ones who actually have influence, are crusaders for cosmic and biological evolution which are totally materialistic notions (assumptions: beliefs: religions).

---

s: All of science is materialistic. It does not address the supernatural because that is not what it deals with.

quote:

---

m: But it doesn't deal with the material in an objective manner. Objectivity would leave the issue of ultimate cause open,

---

Ultimate cause is left open, in that science says "We don't know". No determination has been made because none can be made because the evidence isn't there.

quote:

---

ideas springing from physical evidence (complexity, possible "design") would not be ruled out from the onset as they are now.

---

So far, no compelling physical evidence has come forward which suggests Intelligent Design, let alone the existence of God. Complexity can be explained in naturalistic ways. The main arguments the ID folks have are Arguments from Incredulity ("I cannot fathom how this could have come about, therefore Godidit"), and God of the Gaps (Science doesn't understand X, therefore Godidit").Both are logical fallacies.In addition, since ID makes no predictions and doesn't provide any positive evidence, it is only a philosophy, not science.s: What Naturalists do with scientific findings in their "crusades" is irrelevant to the validity of the science.

quote:

---

m: Then most of our textbooks and public TV documentaries on the subject are irrelevant to the validity of the science, a destructive influence in many ways.

---

Please provide a Biology textbook quote which states that "Nature is all there is". I do not think it exists, and I certainly deny that "most of our textbooks" proclaim anything of the sort.

quote:

---

m: And constructing a definition of science that couldn't make room for God even if God exists (due to favoring the contrary metaphysical philosophy that "nature is all there is"), is not rational.

---

s: Why isn't it rational? Why wouldn't the study of nature restrict itself to the natural?

quote:

---

m: Is it rational to conclude, at the onset (before the scientific journey is begun), that there is no Creator,

---

Science DOES NOT DO THIS.You seem to have trouble understanding that IGNORING something is not the same as CLAIMING THAT THIS SOMETHING DOESN'T EXIST.

quote:

---

OR THAT it is impossible for physical evidence to imply the work of a Creator?

---

Sure, it is rational to restrict the study of the natural to naturalistic explanations.The alternative is to allow scientists to say "Godidit", which explains nothing.OTOH, I personally know several scientists who look at the "amazingness" and wonderfulness of life and the Universe and see God in it. However, they do not for a minute think that it would be a good idea to change the scientific method of inquiry. They understand the difference between science and philosophy; between what you can demonstrate and what you like to believe.Do you fault science for not explaining aethetics, or morality? Science does not comment on these things because it is not in it's scope of inquiry. The same is true of science and the supernatural.

quote:

---

It's grand to say that we're limiting our study to nature because we want to be objective, but it is illogical to paint oneself into a corner (via a commitment to naturalism) when the possibility exists that there is a Creator.

---

It is only illogical if you expect science to tell you anything about the supernatural. It doesn't, because it isn't designed to or meant to. That's what philosophy and religion is for.There may be a Creator, or many Creators. Or not.Science is the most powerful predictive and retroductive tool we have for understanding the nature of our Universe. It is powerful in large part BECAUSE it restricts itself to the natural.What would happen if we all decided a few years ago that Behe was right, and that blood clotting was a sign of Intelligent Design because it was Irreducably-Complex (nobody knew how it evolved, or could have evolved)Would any study into the evolutionary pathways of a blood clotting mechanism be ended because we decided Godidit, so no more questions need be asked? Would research be allowed to continue and then when an evolutionary path was found, as it has been, would we all decide that maybe this system wasn't actually Irreducably Complex and could have occurred by naturalistic means?Do you see the complication to research, and the real posibility of a chilling effect to inquiry once we start ot use the God of the Gaps fallacy?We used the God of the Gaps fallacy when we decided that Apollo drove the sun around the horizon every day. You are suggesting that we go back to that kind of "thinking".

quote:

---

Evolutionism is correct only if its unprovable metaphysical assumptions are correct--just like creationism.

---

Science, Biology, and the Scientific Theory of Evolution, like all other scientific theories, are considered to be the best explanation of the current data if they survive repeated tests, if their predictions and retrodictions are borne out, and if they agree well with independent lines of evidence from other scientific fields.Creationism, by contrast, agrees only with itself and an ancient religious book.s: You are also continuing to make the mistake of stating that science says that "nature is all there is", which I have already told you several times that it expressly does not do this!

quote:

---

m: Then, let's get those textbooks and documentaries rehauled in order to make it clear to people that creationism is every bit as philosophically valid as naturalism (given the incomplete nature of our investigations).

---

Naturalism and Science are NOT SYNONYMOUS, as I have stated over and over again.ALso, you made the claim about the textbooks, so please, let's see some quotes which state that "Nature is all there is, and God doesn't exist."Even if all the textbooks were wrong, it still wouldn't make denial of the supernatural a tenet of science. It would simply mean that it was being taught incorrectly.Do you think that events in history did or didn't happen if they are or are not taught accurately in history class?s: Science, when asked about the existence of the supernatural, says "There is no positive evidence for the supernatural, so no determination can be made."

​

This is entirely and completely different from saying, "There is no positive evidence for the supernatural, therefore nature is all there is".

​

Do you see the difference now?

quote:

---

Of course I do.

---

I don't think you do, because you keep making the same mistake of confusing naturalism with science over and over again.

quote:

---

I think most people do, even those yec creationists.

---

Wait, didn't you say several posts ago that many people think that Naturalism is science; the study of nature? Now you say that most people understand the difference. Which is it?

quote:

---

Would it have been consistent to add the following to your response above: "There is no positive evidence to discount the possibility of the supernatural, so it may be that our universe was created"?

---

Since science deals with positive evidence, saying that there is no evidence which counts against something that has no evidence in it's support in the first place is a little labored, don't you think?It might be that our universe was created. It might also be that it has always been here. It might have been created 15 minutes ago, our memories of the past intact. It might have also been belched up from the belly of the Great Galactic Goat. Who knows?When you start listing unsupported possibilities that science doesn't have any evidence for, they you can go far beyond the Creator of your preference, because the possibilities are endless.

quote:

---

m: It's a theory to the extent that it has become synonymous,in the minds of many, with evolutionary speculation.

---

s: Sorry, that doesn't make it a theory.

​

All it means is that people are confused.

quote:

---

I am sorry also, especially since children are being brainwashed to make the same error of confusion that governs school districts' decisions about what is good "science": the assumption of a self-existing universe that must rule out at the onset the possibility of a Creator and of a superior divine meaning to human life.

---

You keep saying this but providing absolutely no evidence that this is happening.Please provide those texbook quotes which state that God doesn't exist.Again, ignoring the supernatural is not the same as declaring that the supernatural doesn't exist.Again, Naturalism is not the same thing as Science. amd science does NOT state that the supernatural does not exist. Science is silent on the subject; it neither confirms nor denies.Again, how would letting scienctists use the supernatural as an explanation for natural events benefit inquiry?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peter:
[B]I guess when it comes down to it, calling on the supernatural
as an explanation has traditionally been the last resort.If we have a phenomenon, and expend all of the naturalistic
explanations available to ur current level of thought and
technology we are likely to say 'Must be a supernatural
agency then.'Doesn't mean it is ... just that we've run out of ideas or
methods by which to test them. [/QUOTE]...therefore, since we are human and therefore are imperfect and limited in our intelligence, there is always the possibility that we just haven't come up with the solution to the problem....therefore, science must always leave open the posibility that someone down the line will figure it out....therefore, when science cannot figure something out, it says "We don't know". We might figure it out in the future, or we might not.I find that many Biblical literalists have a strong discomfort with "not knowing".