|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Verifying truth in science - is evolution faith-based? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Either way, the point of this thread is that believing Greg is the killer requires less faith than the converse. Likewise, a lot more faith is required to deny evolution than to accept it. As best as is possible we can verify the conclusion of evolution, so under the definition set out in the OP, it does not require faith, whereas omnipotent beings do require faith. i don't mean to be assinine, but way to logically prove the obvious. has the doublespeak of interchanging "faith" for "science" and vice versa gotten so bad that this is now actually a pertinant point instead of a truism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
As best as is possible we can verify the conclusion of evolution, so under the definition set out in the OP, it does not require faith, whereas omnipotent beings do require faith. This sounds like your saying that it's not so much that the evidence for evolution is definitive, but rather that the alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-24-2006 11:08 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
This sounds like your saying that it's not so much that the evidence for evolution is definitive, but rather that the alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible. If you read the OP you'll see exactly what I am saying. Given the definition of faith in the OP, either evolution doesn't require it, or everything requires it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
However, we can demonstrate many lines of evidence that infer evolution that agree with one another. Turning back to murder, if we had 1. DNA evidence, 2. fingerprint evidence, 3. a CCTV camera 4. a witness 5. a confession 6. no alibi 7. a bloody (victim's blood) weapon found at the suspect's house 8. a diary that details what the suspect was going to do, which matches up with what happened. 9. footprints that match the shoe size and type of the suspect 10. tyre tracks that match the suspect's vehicle, 11. which was caught on a speeding camera 200 metres from the location of the crime 12. The forensics pinpoint the time to within 20 minutes of the speed trap 13. etc The question is whether the evidence for evolution is comparable to the above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The question is whether the evidence for evolution is comparable to the above. Not strictly speaking, but if you want to present your case, why not go ahead and do so. The central theme is about verification, namely from independent lines of enquiry. Perhaps you should reply to the OP (Where the full argument is laid out) with your thoughts and feelings? This message has been edited by Modulous, Fri, 24-February-2006 05:28 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I'm afraid its obvious to some, but not to others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I guess I don't understand this topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Garrett Member (Idle past 6166 days) Posts: 111 From: Dallas, TX Joined: |
Percy,
The major problem with your assertion is that the Creationist model can also be said to be broadly supported by evidence. We all have the same evidence, it's just a matter of interpretation based on presuppositions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The major problem with your assertion is that the Creationist model can also be said to be broadly supported by evidence. Only by an act of "Willful Ignorance" which is why the Christian Cult of Ignorance supports Biblical Creationism. The Biblical Creationist position though is simple a new, primarily American aberration of Christianity. It is not a matter of interpretation, rather Biblical Creationism depends almost entirely on suppressing evidence. The origin of Creationism is:
The roots of “Creationism” are to be found in the Seventh Day Adventist Church following the visions and teaching of Ellen White. From about 1900 the Adventist George McCready Price, who had a year of college science teaching, began to write books like The New Geology and Evolutionary Geology, in which he argued all geology was wrong and that all strata were laid down in Noah’s Flood. His works had a limited impact in the USA, but paved the way for the future. In the fifties a hydraulics engineer (Henry Morris) and a theologian (John Whitcomb) were concerned on how evangelicals were beginning to accept evolution and collaborated to write The Genesis Flood, (1961). In part, this was an un-acknowledged re-hash of McCready Price. It was this book and the work of Henry Morris that gave rise to the new “Creationism”. At first it grew slowly but after 1970 took off, resulting in a plethora of creationist organisations throughout the world, and the many attempts to change science teaching. from this source. In the words of the Clergy Letter Project, an open letter endorsed by over 10,000 US Christian Clergy:
We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Garrett Member (Idle past 6166 days) Posts: 111 From: Dallas, TX Joined: |
jar...seems like you have everything figured out. Kinda makes me wonder why you even bother wasting your time with us less enlightened beings :-).
Despite your assertion that the Biblical Creationist position isn't new, it's been the major position throughout the entire history of Christianity. In fact that's the position of the Bible itself..hence the name Biblical Creationism..LOL. Beyond this, most early scientists were creationists who believed that God created the world with laws of order. This is the whole reason that Science took off in the Western world. We assumed that because God made things ordered, we could study the order and learn from it. The East had alchemy,the West chemistry....and we owe it to Biblical Creationism. Edited by Garrett, : Sorry...misread jar's original post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
The East had alchemy,the West chemistry... Errr...beg your pardon? Where did gunpowder and paper come from? What sort of chemical arts did Sir I. Newton practice? You're making stuff up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Despite your assertion that the Biblical Creationist position isn't new, it's been the major position throughout the entire history of Christianity. In fact that's the position of the Bible itself..hence the name Biblical Creationism..LOL. That of course is simply nonsense. It was certainly true before all the evidence we have discovered in the last 400 years or so, simply as a default position. However, since the 1600s or so Christianity has known and acknowledged that the tales in Genesis are but myth.
THE ROOTS OF CREATIONISM It is often alleged that until the rise of geology in the 18th century all Christians believed in a six day creation and only “stretched Genesis like an elastic band” to placate geologists. In fact, the early church were divided on the issue, though the majority of Reformers accepted a six-day creation, as there was no evidence otherwise. However from 1600 most theologians did not affirm a literal Genesis preferring to accept that God created first Chaos and then re-ordered creation in six days (but varied on the day’s duration). From 1770 when geological evidence for a vast age was widely held, the opposition from the church was minimal and it was only after 1817 that some British Christians argued for literalism. By 1860 the number of literalist Christian writers scarcely tops double figures. From my research I found that 10-20 % of Anglican clergy were literalist in 1820-30, I found none after 1860 to 1970, except for W.H. Griffith Thomas in 1919, and in the noughties the figure is 10%. From this already referenced source. It is only those who are willfully ignorant that still think the Biblical Tales are anything more than poetic and allegorical. For a contemporary view of Creation, I suggest you study A Catechism of Creation which says:
Are the creation stories in Genesis, chapters 1 and 2, meant to convey how God originated the universe? These majestic stories should not be understood as historical and scientific accounts of origins but as proclamations of basic theological truths about creation. “Creation” in Holy Scripture refers to and describes the relationship between God and all God’s wonderful works. Biblical Creationism is simply a Christian Cult of Ignorance, and also a very effective way for the conmen to get gullible Christians to send them money.
Beyond this, most early scientists were creationists who believed that God created the world with laws of order. This is the whole reason that Science took off in the Western world. We assumed that because God made things ordered, we could study the order and learn from it. The East had alchemy,the West chemistry....and we owe it to Biblical Creationism. That of course is the old trick of misdirection and palming the pea. The reason science took off is that unlike Biblical Creationism, science actually worked and produced results. It is also a bunch of nonsense and frankly, dishonest statements; for example both the East and West had alchemy and both the East and West developed Science. There could be no science without the knowledge and inventions of the Islamic World as well as the Pagan World. To claim that Christianity played anything more than a bit part, often only as a hinderer and obstacle to be overcome, is to misrepresent the role Christianity played. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Don't forget the important things like pasta and ice cream.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Garrett Member (Idle past 6166 days) Posts: 111 From: Dallas, TX Joined: |
That's just silly. You say that since the 1600s "Christianity" has known and acknowledged that Genesis is a myth. Whom do you refer to when you say Christianity? No church I've ever gone to beleives this. There are many denominations with varying beliefs and to stereotype them all into one box is rather foolish...and I'm guessing purposefully misleading.
Your post honestly makes me giggle. You suggest I study A Catechism of Creation for a contemporary view of creation? LOL, from what perspective. I can name 100 books that I could suggest you study for the church's current view on the book of Genesis. I somehow doubt either of us will waste our time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Garrett Member (Idle past 6166 days) Posts: 111 From: Dallas, TX Joined: |
Coragyps....I'm taking a little artistic freedom in that statement...thought that was obvious. The point is that it was the belief by many scientists that God upheld order in the universe that led to their studying of science.
Answer this...where is it that modern science began to flourish. The answer is of course, mainly in Europe which was largely christian. Many historians even support this view saying that modern science owes it's foundation to a belief in a rational creator who maintains a rational creation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024