[QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++++++++++++++++++++
My interpretation of the bible is not hinging on miraculous. I take it on its word. Therefore if God said He created the cosmos and man, then I have no reason to doubt that.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Without getting into issues of trusting the "literal wording" found in the Bible (which will be addressed later), I need to point out that your interpretation does hinge on the miraculous... not in whether a God created the Cosmos and Man, but in HOW he created the cosmos and man.
Scientists can come to the conclusion that a God created things, and many do. It's simple a question of how he created these things, and current scientific evidence does not fit with traditional (ie, miraculous)interpretations of Biblical creation.
[QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++++++++++++++++++++
The story you presented is one I have heard before, and one that I agree with. If anything, it shows that we may not always get the answer the way we want it, because God's ways are higher than our ways.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Exactly. And while we may want the answer to be "as it is written in the Bible", and further we may want the "as it is written" part to be the interpretation we are used to, it may just be that the answer is not that way at all.
What's wonderful about science, when it is done well, is that it removes that "getting the answer we want" problem from the process of finding answers. While the devout man may say "this is a boat and I expected a sunbeam to save me", the scientist would say here is a boat and it will save me. If he has faith in God then he may understand the boat as being God's answer to his prayer to be saved (and there is no way in hell science could disprove that understanding).
by sonnikke++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is another point I wish to illuminate. Repeatedly you have mentioned ID in relation to IC, however, I never made the assertion that my design examples were or were not in accordance with IC.
It is my contention that regardless of IC, the complexity and functionality were in and of themselves, at the very least, an inference of design, based on logical conclusions from everyday life, where we infer design in many observed instances.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My mistake. I was assuming that the ID forum was about ID Theory in specific, and not about the universe being intelligently designed in general. These are two totally different topics, and I am only interested in the first.
The reason for my specific interest is that IC is pretty much the closest thing to "evidence" from which one can infer design. Behe and Dembski know this and that is why they have hung their entire ID theory on it.
In fact, your statement "where we infer design" is based on IC, or at least a large part of it (specified complexity). How can we say something we have found is designed? Dembski and Behe state that we determine this based on its level of specified complexity. Any other methods of inference are weak and, even if true, bound by a circular logic that will give one just as many false positives. Dembski (in one of his few moments of lucidity, though not clarity) does a run through on this very point.
[QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is obviously a debate forum, and as such, anything anyone says is going to be controverted by the opposing side.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I seriously hope this is not true. If anything (meaning everything) people say will simply be controverted by the opposing side then there is no point to any of this discussion. As it stands, in my own topic on circular logic I agreed with you that homology had been used incorrectly. Check it out.
I came to this site with the belief (faith?) that most are interested in a fair review of evidence and logic to better understand all points of view, and ultimately change their own view if anything is found lacking. I've been caught twice on minor issues, and you yourself pointed out a very real logic problem used by some evo scientists.
[QUOTE] by sonnikke++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That said, I mentioned that I take God's word for what it says, and I do. The obvious response is that "science" doesn't agree with the age, for instance. And, within the christian community this is hotly debated.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Before we get into the meat of your criticism of science, I simply want to point out the reason it is hotly debated in the Xtian community is because it is only contradictory with certain interpretations of the Bible (in this particular case the literal reading of Genesis, and the flood).
I have a problem with literalists in that very very few people take everything in the Bible literally... most notably the Xtian leaders who tell others to take Genesis literally. If there is "wiggle room" for parables, and passing things off as correct for people in that day and region (but not today and in the US), then why not Genesis? Why not the flood?
[QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have been on both sides of the fence, but when I dug deeper it became clear to me that an old world just doesn't fit with the evidence out there. That is just one example. My point is (whether it's clear or not, I don't know) that there's a conflict of interest with perhaps all parties involved. Evolutionary science depends on old ages, uniformitarionism, and arguably, a God-less universe. Therefore, any evidence "science" gathers that isn't in line with this paradigm, must get discarded or overlooked.
So you can't tell me to "open my eyes to the fruits of science" (sorry I can't find your exact quote) because in a lot of areas in science, the bias towards to current paradigm does not allow for veracious investigation.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is incorrect. Science is not a particular belief of any kind. It does not require evolution or an old earth, and it certainly does not require a Godless universe.
Science itself is merely a process to discover how things work, and creates models about the world, given these discoveries.
The worst that can be said (from a Xtian standpoint) is that science ---as a process--- excludes the supernatural from explanations until they are necessary, and currently the supernatural has not been necessary to any model.
This does not mean that science has said supernatural beings or events have not occured, simply that we have no solid evidence for them. This could change (as ID theorists argue) with new evidence, and no current model should be treated as dogma which exempts new evidence which might overturn it.
Relativity is just one example of a conflicting theory (model) which rose to prominence due to gathering evidence. Continental drift is another and perhaps more important to the discussion at hand. Change came to the scientific community whether individual scientists wanted it or not. Their "wants" were removed via the process and replaced by "evidence".
Their wants could not force the world to discard or overlook the evidence.
Granted the discarding and overlooking of evidence (in support of a current paradigm) DOES happen on small scales of time and place. Unfortunately, that is part of the human condition in all endeavors. It is in recognition of this problem, that scientists since the enlightenment have made the process much more rigoruous. In the scientific world of today, discarding and overlooking evidence to support a current theory is called BAD SCIENCE.
Honest debate is supposed to take care of such problems, and ultimately (IMHO) it does. Even Einstein had to fess up that he was human and made some of these errors.
As far as your problems about the current scientific model for the age of the earth... I just do not know what evidence you have for a young earth. I see debates about problems in scientific methods which may lend credence to miscalculations, but nothing positive to advance a young earth.
If there was some real solid evidence, like say we have concrete proof that radioactive decay fluctuates, I'd be the first person on board saying our estimates of the age of the earth cannot be correct. I wouldn't "lose my faith" in science if that happened. And most of the scientific community would jump on board with me.
But this simply is not the case right now, and it is doubtful this will happen. Actually I hope it won't as calculations with regards to nuclear weapons, power plants, waste, and even certain cancer screenings and treatments rely on stable decay rates.
[QUOTE] by sonnikke++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It therefore comes down to one thing, in ALL our lives, and that is faith. We must all decide on which side of the fence we want to be. Because, no one can say for 100% certainty that they have all the facts, or that they know everything. The evidence that two scientists examine, can usually fit two different paradigms, depending on what assumptions you begin with.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I agree... in part. Belief in ultimate causes and how things work "behind the scenes" is a matter of faith for everyone, including the atheist. The only person unclouded by faith is the true agnostic, and there are not many of those.
But you mischaracterize science and scientists when you make statements suggesting that it (or they) say they know anything 100%, or have 100% of the facts. There are many paradigms which scientists investigate, much more than two. And woe unto any scientist which has a paradigm which includes God or Gods.
Science is about making statements regarding the world we interact with directly, or indirectly (if it still has measurable effects). Religion is beyond the scope of science and except for Dembski and Co trying to pull it into science, no one else is trying (or no one noteworthy). In REAL science, you better not begin with ANY assumptions.
It is true that science allows people without a faith in religion to go on not having a faith, because up till now it has been unnecessary to include religion in any model, but that says nothing about science. It merely means that God (or Gods) are not interacting with the Universe via any method obvious to us at this point in time (if indeed they are at all).
Any scientist making a greater claim than that, is simply making a statement of personal faith (or philosophy). Don't take it out on science, just because of a few bad apples.
[QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have often said that evolutionists possess much greater faith than the creationist. Because you believe in spite of the unfathomable odds, and the evidence you see.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You were mistaken in saying this. I hope my explanation so far has made this clear, and that you don't say such things in the future. Mischaracterization is purely add hominem and does not help discussions at all.
Actually, let me reinforce why this is a mischaracterization, so you understand why this isn't just ad hominem on my part.
Evolution is simply the best model science has to explain the physical evidence at hand. While one may be a scientist who accepts evolutionary theory as the best model right now, the term "evolutionist" is meaningless. More evidence will certainly change the nature of the current "evolutionary model" as it already has since the days of Darwin.
Gould and Eldredge's punctuated equilibrium has removed much of the idea that long times are needed for changes to occur within/between species. Lynn Margulis' work is removing the idea that mutations are the sole or primary methods for change. In fact, Margulis has called for an altering of our conception of what a specie is, and under what conditions speciation can occur.
The "unfathomable odds" which get thrown around as reasons to dismiss scientific theories, are generated by science itself. So I'm not sure how they can be used, except perhaps as a test of whether we have the most accurate explanation yet. Since the odds are long, and life is evident, we probably don't have the most accurate explanation (of mechanisms) yet.
I should mention, odds have very little to do with evolution outside of IC issues within specific biochemical systems. Long odds have more to do with abiogenesis which is wholly separate from evolution (as Crick... the discoverer of DNA... makes clear).
While specific known mechanisms result in a calculation of long odds (for abiogensis), scientists currently believe in a general theory of evolution (which is not contigent on those known mechanisms, especially for abiogenesis)BECAUSE OF the evidence they see, not in spite of it.
The fact that evolutionary theory has changed with increases in evidence attests to this truth.
holmes
{Shortened another example of overly long lines of plus symbols - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-14-2003]
)
™ Version 4.2
