Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bible 2003 Edition by God et al.
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 64 (34784)
03-20-2003 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by David unfamous
02-19-2003 5:40 AM


One reason, coming right up!
"Give me one reason why the most powerful being in existence would create such a scrappy, thrown together book comprised primarily of hearsay, then watch nearly 2000 years pass as the book gets screwed up through translation and has holes picked in it because of scientific and historical errancy, but doesn't think of updating it."
"... a scrappy, thrown together book..."?
1. Tell me, do you claim to know and understand this "scrappy, thrown together book"?
2. Do you know what God's purpose was in giving us this "scrappy, thrown together book"?
3. Do you know why He included some things while leaving others out of this "scrappy, thrown together book"?
I for one would like to know the answers to these questions.
"Surely it would be a piece of cake to create the new edition in every language spoken by every person on the globe. I mean, why produce a book in just one language after that Babel incident?""
Piece of cake? Yes! Fulfilling His purpose? No!
"And if it were a new version, it would contain new stories of modern people doing stuff young people can relate to. And at least then it would be verifiable by all of us."
New version not necessary - original version is perfectly fine for its intended purpose.
As for the 'verifiable' part - what is it you want to 'verify'?
When would you feel completely satisfied that you've 'verified it'?
Also, tell me, do you pretend to know more than : [i][b]"... the most powerful being in existence..."[/i][/b] (your words)?
"Then there's the science. As we know a lot more than we did back then, it could contain up-to-date explanations of Genesis."
You are neglecting the purpose of the Book.
A while back I wrote a brief book review on Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is. In that book review I didn't include a discussion on Fermat's Last Theorem. So?
"Is this a good idea, or is there some perfectly good reason against it?"
The "perfectly good reason" is that these things that you would like are completely unnecessary/irrelevant/contrary towards accomplishing the objective that God intended. He had a purpose... the Bible as it is accomplishes that purpose... and that is the end of the story.
Complaints against this policy may be voiced against the Author Himself on Judgment Day.
In Christ,
Jorge

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by David unfamous, posted 02-19-2003 5:40 AM David unfamous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Brian, posted 03-20-2003 3:01 PM Joralex has replied
 Message 19 by Andya Primanda, posted 03-21-2003 9:45 AM Joralex has replied
 Message 55 by David unfamous, posted 03-26-2003 11:52 AM Joralex has not replied
 Message 64 by doctrbill, posted 07-04-2003 12:23 AM Joralex has not replied

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 64 (34869)
03-21-2003 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Brian
03-20-2003 3:01 PM


Purpose
"The "perfectly good reason" is that these things that you would like are completely unnecessary/irrelevant/contrary towards accomplishing the objective that God intended. He had a purpose... the Bible as it is accomplishes that purpose... and that is the end of the story.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that purpose is?
Clearly the purpose is multi-faceted and no human has ever or will ever know what all of these facets are.
Nonetheless, one of these facets is plainly evident : He intended to tell us "just enough" about Himself and His creation (this creation includes us, of course) for our needs and the most important of these needs is to allow us to sustain faith while not eliminating the need for faith.
In Christ,
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Brian, posted 03-20-2003 3:01 PM Brian has not replied

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 64 (34922)
03-21-2003 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Andya Primanda
03-21-2003 9:45 AM


Love to, but...
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A while back I wrote a brief book review on Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joralex, would you share it with us here?"
... I'm not sure of copyright prohibitions.
My review of May's What Evolution Is was published in the last (Jan-Feb 2003) copy of the TJ (Technical Journal of Creation - formerly Creation Magazine).
In summary : the book is pretty good if you want to know about 'evolution' and terrible if you want to know the complete & true story. In this sense it was precisely what one would expect coming from a leading apostle of naturalistic evolution.
In Christ,
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Andya Primanda, posted 03-21-2003 9:45 AM Andya Primanda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Andya Primanda, posted 03-22-2003 2:11 AM Joralex has replied

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 64 (34953)
03-22-2003 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Andya Primanda
03-22-2003 2:11 AM


The complete story...
"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary : the book is pretty good if you want to know about 'evolution' and terrible if you want to know the complete & true story. In this sense it was precisely what one would expect coming from a leading apostle of naturalistic evolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(btw, should we start another thread? this is off-topic." [Don't know... I'll let Admin decide this - Joralex.]
Well, since you seem to think that Mayr did not present the complete and true story, what do you think he's hiding from us?
The 'complete and true' story is simply that the real issue here isn't scientific - it is of clashing metaphysics. In the same vein, that the creation-evolution battle is a battle of 'science versus religion' is one of the biggest myths being circulated. Even many Christians and other religious folks believe this to be the case. It is also true that many people aren't even aware of this falsehood (and these people may be forgiven). Heck, I'm not even 100% certain that Mayr himself is knowledgeable of this - ignorance occurs at any level.
My strong suspicion, however, is that Mayr is fully aware of the 'complete and true story' but continues to promote the party line / his worldview. I base my suspicion on the fact that Mayr is extremely well educated, has the necessary IQ points, and has been around "forever" (he's almost 100 years old). Thus, I doubt very much that he can plead 'ignorance' in this matter.
In Christ,
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Andya Primanda, posted 03-22-2003 2:11 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 03-22-2003 10:52 AM Joralex has replied

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 64 (35000)
03-23-2003 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by PaulK
03-22-2003 10:52 AM


Explanation
"If it isn't a clash between science and religion can you explain how it could be a clash between metaphysics ? Or why it is religious organisations like Answers in Genesis that push creationism ?"
Do you know and comprehend what a 'metaphysic' is? If you do understand then you must know that 'naturalism' is a full-fledged metaphysic. Ergo, this is a clashing of metaphysics - naturalism vs. creationism. Quite simple, actually...
BTW, 'metaphysical' is another way of saying 'religious'. Thus, as an example, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) pushing naturalistic evolution is no less "religious" than is Answers in Genesis pushing creationism.
Just making sure that one standard gets applied uniformly.
In Christ,
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 03-22-2003 10:52 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 03-23-2003 10:49 AM Joralex has replied
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2003 2:41 PM Joralex has replied

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 64 (35016)
03-23-2003 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Percy
03-23-2003 10:49 AM


Then you agree.
"But not all metaphysics are equally valid in all contexts. For example, naturalism would be a poor metaphysic for the study of the supernatural, and religion a poor metaphysic for the study of natural principles."
While a constrained metaphysic is theoretically possible, a metaphysic is generally regarded as all-encompassing. That is why a 'metaphysic' and a 'worldview' are synonymous meaning that all aspects of existence are encompassed by that particular metaphysic/worldview.
Also, what you propose above is a caricature - e.g., no knowledgeable person would consider employing Maxwell's Equations to study the Bible.
You've got it all wrong (as do many others).
"When examining a phenomena it is important to describe on what basis or for what reason the position of religion differs with the position of science. For example, does religion have a different position than science on Newton's Laws of Motion? No, of course not. But your religion *does* have a different position than science concerning evolution."
That alone ought to give you a hint. Newton's Laws of Motion make no pretense to oppose the creationist worldview so there is no 'clashing' of metaphysics. Newton's Laws of Motion aim merely to describe certain aspects of the universe and not to suggest an alternate means by which that universe may have come about. The evolutionary paradigm, on the other hand, aims to replace the creationist worldview with materialistic naturalism - an alternate and opposing worldview.
Surely you can see this (very obvious) point.
"Data supporting evolution was gathered using the same scientific method as data supporting Newton's Laws. What distinction do you draw between evolution and Newton that causes the religion metaphysic to interpret them differently?"
I believe that I've answered this above.
In Christ,
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 03-23-2003 10:49 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2003 5:11 PM Joralex has replied
 Message 34 by Percy, posted 03-23-2003 5:21 PM Joralex has not replied

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 64 (35022)
03-23-2003 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by PaulK
03-23-2003 2:41 PM


Evasion? I don't think so.
"Well you have not answered the question at all. Indeed you seem to like insuinuating that those who disagree with you do not comprehend the sitatution whilst displaying no understanding yourself."
Yes, I do hold that many people do not comprehend the situation. Some do it due to ignorance or confusion while others do it with full premeditation for dodging the truth and propagating falsehoods.
As for me "displaying no understanding myself", you are entitled to your opinion.
"However, unless you can show that your "creationism" metaphysic is non-religious it seems clear that the situation you are describing is a clash between science and religion."
I disagree and your statement clearly demonstrates that you belong to that group that doesn't understand what a metaphysic really is. More specifically, you don't see / understand that what we have here is a clashing of metaphysics - 'religion versus religion'.
"And, yes, I do know what a metaphysic is - it is you who does not as your equation of metaphysics with religion clearly demonstrates."
If you say so.
"What is more your attempt to label science religion presents yet more evidence that what you are talkin about is indeed a clash of science and religion "
You sound a bit agitated - don't be. Simply go and do some homework (lots of it!) and discover what most learned people realize almost immediately - that this is a war of worldviews and not of "science versus religion".
BTW, I never labeled 'science' as 'religion'.
Naturalism is a metaphysic/worldview/religion.
You need to get your terms straight.
In Christ,
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2003 2:41 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2003 5:27 PM Joralex has replied

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 64 (35028)
03-23-2003 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by PaulK
03-23-2003 4:46 PM


Metaphysics : a definition...
"Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy concerned with the basic nature of reality. Its aim is to give a systematic account of the world and the principles that govern it. In contrast to the natural sciences, which study specific features of the world, metaphysics is a more general investigation into the fundamental features of what exists. The metaphysician relies on forms of analysis that depend on pure reason rather than the experimental methods of the natural scientist. Metaphysical speculation has always focused on certain key concepts such as space and time, causality, identity and change, possibility and necessity, universals and particulars, and mind and body.
For obvious reasons I used a secular source (World Book Encyclopedia, 2001) for this definition.
The essence of any metaphysic is to ponder the question of "reality" and there are two - and only two - basic metaphysics : naturalistic, in which space, time matter and energy is ALL that there is (Atheism holds this metaphysic) and supernaturalistic, in which there are things that transcend space, time, matter and energy (Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, et al. hold this metaphysic).
From the above it is clear that a naturalist is every bit as religious as a Snake Worshipper of Bali since neither is able to conclusively prove his metaphysic - it must be "believed in".
I trust that this has cleared up the misconceptions that you seemed to have on this issue.
In Christ,
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2003 4:46 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2003 6:37 PM Joralex has not replied

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 64 (35054)
03-24-2003 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by PaulK
03-23-2003 5:11 PM


Further corrections/clarifications
"... There is a conflict between science and creationist religion. So why try to deny something that is obvious from your own post ?"
"...obvious from my own post"? I must've missed something.
There is absolutely no conflict between science and creationism. There IS a major conflict between the metaphysic/religion of naturalism and other religious views such as creationism. It's because of clashing metaphysics.
The alleged conflict between Christianity and science is one of those tirelessly parroted myths.
"BTW if evolution is part of naturalism can you explain why Christians such as Kenneth Millar and Howard Van Till see no conflict ? Surely the fact is that evolution conflicts, not with Christianity in genreal, but with the beliefs of some Christian sects."
To fully explain would be rather lengthy - this is a complex issue.
Concisely, people such as Van Till, et al. are simply in error. I am not questioning their Christianity (that's between themselves and God) but I am questioning their logic, theology, science, history and, most important of all, their willingness to undermine Scripture in order to accommodate a paradigm that is contrary to the Biblical essence. Frankly, I see this as the epitome of ignorance, carelessness or wickedness - but as Dawkins would say, I don't want to believe in the last of these possibilities.
In Christ,
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2003 5:11 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2003 2:45 PM Joralex has not replied

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 64 (35086)
03-24-2003 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by PaulK
03-23-2003 5:27 PM


Confused? Definitely!
"Even according to your definition evolution is not tied to a particular metaphysic. So you still have given no reason to think that this is anything other than a clash between science and religion, and indeed your own posts indicate that that is all there is to it."
Hard as I've tried, I cannot see what it is that you don't understand here, PaulK.
If you've been involved in this debate for as long as you indicate then you should know that there is definitely a science of 'evolution'. That this 'evolution' occurs is a given - a fact - and no knowledgeable creationist will dispute this fact. But this statement remains true only as long as we constrain ourselves to a very specific definition of 'evolution'.
'Evolution' as a change in the allele frequency in populations is science. But 'evolution' as 'the sole causing agent for the entire flora and fauna in the earth's biota' is a metaphysic - a religion - in the sense that this 'evolution' represents the operational mechanism by which naturalism may have some rational justification (however weak that justification may be). That is why Dawkins once remarked that (paraphrasing) Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Before, the Atheist could point only at a vacuum; now they point at 'evolution'.
Most people are confused on this issue, PaulK.
In Christ,
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2003 5:27 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by John, posted 03-24-2003 12:07 PM Joralex has replied
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2003 2:26 PM Joralex has not replied

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 64 (35123)
03-24-2003 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by John
03-24-2003 12:07 PM


Religion & Science
quote :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But 'evolution' as 'the sole causing agent for the entire flora and fauna in the earth's biota' is a metaphysic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No it isn't. It is an extrapolation from the statement preceeding this in your post-- a statement which you claim no informed creationist would dispute. Thus, it is a very physical description/theory, and not a metaphysical one."
Extrapolations are certainly a part of science and mathematics. But extrapolations that extend far beyond what the data allows are usually not acceptable in science. To wit : we observe and measure phenomena including changes in organisms. Some people then extrapolate those micro-changes to explain how a single goo-like substance became palm trees, penguins, whales, roses, Mozart, Einstein and a plethora of other organisms. People who believe that this degree of extrapolation is justifiable (and evolution advocates do) practice a kind of "science" that I never once learned or practiced (and for good reason).
"That it encroaches upon what was traditionally metaphysics does not make it metaphysical, just as meteorology is not a metaphysic though it encroaches upon what was once described metaphysically-- ie. the weather was described via appeal to the actions of Gods. There are certainly metaphysics involved, but evolution isn't it."
The science of evolution is not a metaphysic but it is necessarily founded upon some metaphysic (from your last sentence above I think you would agree with this). However, aside from the 'science' of evolution there does exist the evolutionary paradigm which IS a metaphysic.
The majority of materialistic naturalists not only uphold the science of evolution but also the evolutionary paradigm - a metaphysic founded on naturalism. It's a forked-tongue strategy : talk about the 'science' of evolution when it's actually the entire enchilada - the evolutionary paradigm - that is being promoted.
Take yourself, as an example. Do you promote only the 'science' of evolution (change in the allele frequency in populations) or do you promote the whole enchilada - materialistic naturalism? I rest my case.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in the sense that this 'evolution' represents the operational mechanism by which naturalism may have some rational justification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I fail to see how evolution justifies naturalism. For one, such a construct would be circular. Secondly, naturalism doesn't even require the ToE. Naturalism requires explainations based upon accessible evidence. That's all. It so happens that evolution fits that bill best at the moment."
Evolution justifies naturalism by providing an intellectually defensible position against creationism. Just ask Richard Dawkins.
If, as you say, naturalism doesn't require the ToE then what else would naturalism suggest as its explanation for earth's ultracomplex biota?
If "naturalism requires explanations based upon accessible evidence" then where is this "accessible evidence" to uphold that space, time, matter and energy are able to account for everything including life and consciousness? Where is the "accessible evidence" that shows that matter-energy is able to start on its own and that life is then able to start from nothing but this raw matter-energy?
If you are to be truthful then you will have to admit that this "accessible evidence" doesn't exist except in the minds of the faithful believers. This is a religious attitude, not a scientific one.
In Christ,
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by John, posted 03-24-2003 12:07 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by nator, posted 03-24-2003 4:04 PM Joralex has replied
 Message 47 by John, posted 03-24-2003 5:25 PM Joralex has replied

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 64 (35234)
03-25-2003 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by John
03-24-2003 5:25 PM


Trying again...
"The problem with your analysis is that it minimizes the gobs of evidence that evolution has in its favor."
What 'evolution' are you talking about? Yes, there is "gobs of evidence" for variation (changes) in organisms. But evidence for the earth's entire biota having a common, goo-like ancestor? Hardly! Hope, however, does spring eternal.
"Aha... So there is a new character in the play. Exactly what is the evolutionary paradigm? Can you describe this metaphysic?"
I wouldn't characterize the evolutionary paradigm as a "new character". In a nutshell : There is a start (Big Bang?)... raw matter evolves (condenses) into stars which then evolve (stellar sequences) heavier elements via nucleosynthesis... some stars explode releasing these heavier elements which then evolve (condense) into planetoids/planets... under the right conditions the matter on some of these systems generates life (abiogenesis) and this life then evolves into palm trees, penguins, whales, Einstein, et al. Seems to me like this "new character" has been around for a long time.
"I am not a materialist. Which part of the enchilada is that?"
Not a materialist? So, are you a theistic evolutionist, a progressive evolutionist, or some other?
"hmmm.... creationism isn't intellectually defensible, so why would one need an intellectually defensible position against it? Does one need a defensible position against the idea of pink elephants?"
Typical - ridicule that which is not understood.
There are many intelligent, well educated individuals that not only defend creationism intellectually, but are completely devoted to that task. They say creationism is defensible. You say it isn't. Now what?
"If I could only express how little I care what Dawkins has to say..."
Chalk one up in your favor. Mind you, I do listen to what people like Dawkins have to say since it reflects a part of the social conscience and also since people like Dawkins are (unfortunately) teaching the future generations.
"There doesn't have to be an answer. Like when your wife asks "Where are my keys?" and you reply "I don't know." Or, less trivially, when someone asks "Why does God allow suffering?" and you respond "I don't know." "
"Where are my keys?" is nowhere near "Why does God allow suffering?".
The first question is trivia. The second question is extremely profound and should interest anyone interested in the deeper things of life.
BTW, the answer to "why does God allow suffering?" is available to anyone that wants to listen.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If "naturalism requires explanations based upon accessible evidence" then where is this "accessible evidence" to uphold that space, time, matter and energy are able to account for everything including life and consciousness?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There isn't any, but you are missing the point. Asking the wrong question, I think."
So, there "isn't any" (evidence) but I'm "missing the point". This I've got to hear!
"If we reason not upon accessible evidence, then we reason based upon what? INaccessible evidence? Evidence we don't have? Information we don't know? Data that does not exist? Naturalism, as I see it, is the not unreasonable idea that we work with what we've got rather than what we don't. The assumption is that anything of importance will influence our experience, our perceptions, including of course inferences we can make. Or, conversely, why bother with what might exist but does not influence the world we inhabit? Notice that God and the supernatural is not excluded, assuming that God influences the world we inhabit. I looked it up in my Encyclopedia of Philosophy and this view is supported therein. Maybe there is a copy online somewhere, but I haven't looked."
I thought so...
Dear John, it is thee that has missed the point. You do, however, bring up a valid point :
We can only go by what we do have - I totally agree. But then it becomes necessary to fill in whatever gaps we have in our knowledge. If we don't do this then we aren't able to "connect the dots" and formulate the integrating entity that we call a 'theory' or a 'law' or even a 'worldview'.
Now, just how is it that these gaps are filled? You have considered, I presume, that there first had to be something to evolve before it could evolve. So, where'd this 'something' come from?
Aside from fanciful/wishful theories and unrealistic experiments (e.g., Stanley Miller), there is nothing that tells us how evolution could have gotten its start. And so people like yourself are forced to say, "Well, we don't know how it got started but it did."
This isn't science, it's metaphysics.
I stand to be corrected on this last paragraph.
In Christ,
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by John, posted 03-24-2003 5:25 PM John has not replied

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 64 (35237)
03-25-2003 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by nator
03-24-2003 4:04 PM


One standard...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If "naturalism requires explanations based upon accessible evidence" then where is this "accessible evidence" to uphold that space, time, matter and energy are able to account for everything including life and consciousness?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Where is your evidence that God is required?
There are some questions that science may never find the answers to, but just because we don't know something doesn't mean "Godidit.""
Try following your own logic, please.
Just because we don't know something doesn't mean God did it.
But why must it mean that God didn't do it?
Better yet, why must it mean that "Naturedidit"?
Why is nature the de facto answer when things are unknown?
The answer to that last question is simple : because of a metaphysical (NOT scientific) commitment to naturalism.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is the "accessible evidence" that shows that matter-energy is able to start on its own and that life is then able to start from nothing but this raw matter-energy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Are you debating evolution or abiogenesis? They are two seperate theories."
Are you talking about evolution only or are you trying to insert materialistic naturalism through the basement? Methinks it be the latter.
'Evolution' is a fact - any knowledgeable creationist will state this. But the true issue here isn't 'changes in the allele frequencies in populations' now, is it? If it were then I doubt very much that there would be scores of sites debating the creation-evolution controversy. Waddaya think?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are to be truthful then you will have to admit that this "accessible evidence" doesn't exist except in the minds of the faithful believers. This is a religious attitude, not a scientific one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So, do your beliefs in God change when evidence that contradicts your belief is discovered?"
No such 'evidence' has ever presented itself. Alleged 'evidence' has been proposed, that's all. Nothing ever presented (to me) has been compelling.
"That's the kind of "belief" scientists have in scientific concepts."
You jest, yes?
When the fossil evidence ran contrary or non-supportive to the expectations of evolution, did the "beliefs" of naturalists in evolution dwindle? Of course not! Suggestions such as Goldscmidt's Hopeful Monsters, Nilsson's Emication, Eldredge & Gould's Puntuated Equilibrium, and others emerged so as to explain/account for the discrepancies between observation and expectation. The theory (of evolution) was retained in spite of the evidence. This was done in a highly sophisticated way that allowed the community to retain "scientific" credibility.
When naturalists modify their theory (as they did with Punkeek) it's called "science". When we creationists modify our thinking it's called "fanaticism", "irrational" or "moving the goalposts".
Shall we have one standard, please?
In Christ,
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by nator, posted 03-24-2003 4:04 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 03-25-2003 3:14 PM Joralex has not replied
 Message 53 by nator, posted 03-26-2003 6:43 AM Joralex has not replied

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 64 (35344)
03-26-2003 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Admin
03-26-2003 8:36 AM


My last post on account of...
... Admin's warning on 'drifting topic'.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better yet, why must it mean that "Naturedidit"?
Why is nature the de facto answer when things are unknown?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because science is the study of nature using evidence that anyone can observe."
Really? So, when was the last time that you observed abiogenesis?
"If you would like science to include "Godidit" any time it couldn't explain something, inquiry would be at a standstill.
Indeed, it was only when science was freed from the religious constraints which dictated what Galileo and others were "allowed" to discover about nature that scientific inquiry flourished.
If you are suggesting that "Godidit" be allowed back into scientific exlanations, please explain how this "answer" is a benefit to inquiry and of understanding nature."
The above is a ridiculous and frequently parroted argument. That God created the universe in no way prevents us from examining how His universe operates. Newton and Maxwell, to name just a few, had absolutely no difficulty with "God did it" and then having extremely scientifically-productive lives studying how He did it.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The answer to that last question is simple : because of a metaphysical (NOT scientific) commitment to naturalism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You have a strange idea of how science is done, I think."
You are entitled to your opinion - an opinion that is groundless and counterfactual.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you talking about evolution only or are you trying to insert materialistic naturalism through the basement? Methinks it be the latter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Look, you are the one bringing up the start of life from non-life, not me."
In an earlier post I had asked a simple question : are you promoting only that evolution is the change in allele frequencies in populations or are you promoting the complete naturalistic package? If, as I suspect, you are promoting the complete package then it is YOU that brought up the start of life from non-life - or hadn't you noticed?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Evolution' is a fact - any knowledgeable creationist will state this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This has not always been the case. For years, the leading creationists refused to accept speciation. It was only after years of ridicule that many decided to change their tune."
Yet another of those frequently parroted myths!
'Change' is a fact of life and for as long as I've known about creationism change has been considered a part of the natural and theological world.
'Speciation' is a whole other matter because it is a term that may be (and has been) defined/interpreted differently. What, after all, is a 'species'? Able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring? Once this was what you'd find as the definition. But then, coyotes, wolves and dogs are different species and yet they are able to interbreed and have fertile offspring. So the definition was "modified". The ol' malleable standard, once again.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the true issue here isn't 'changes in the allele frequencies in populations' now, is it? If it were then I doubt very much that there would be scores of sites debating the creation-evolution controversy. Waddaya think?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I agree.
The true issue for me is the fact that Creationists are pushing to get their religious views taught as science in public school classrooms."
Ah, some of the truth finally rears its head - how nice of you.
I would respond to your accusation by saying that the issue is that ONE religion (namely, materialistic naturalism) is being forced on our children while the only other possible metaphysic (this being that naturalism is NOT a sufficient explanation for the universe) is purposely kept from our kids.
Education means that all possibilities are presented... indoctrination means that only one view is presented. Our kids aren't being educated, they are being indoctrinated into materialistic naturalism. The only reason that people such as yourself don't see anything wrong with this is because materialistic naturalism is your religion and you are quite happy that your children are being indoctri... er... educated in that faith.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No such 'evidence' has ever presented itself. Alleged 'evidence' has been proposed, that's all. Nothing ever presented (to me) has been compelling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But would you, in theory, be willing to change your beliefs in the light of evidence?"
I can answer that truthfully - YES, I would. Here's why : one characteristic of God is truth - truth above all. To oppose any truth is, in essence, to oppose God.
This having been said the question of 'evidence' needs to be understood. Allow me a simple example :
I tell you that I've been to Australia and as evidence of this I hand you some photos of the Great Barrier Reef (that I say to you I took while I was there). So, you have tangible evidence - do you "believe" my claim?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"That's the kind of "belief" scientists have in scientific concepts."
You jest, yes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No, not in the least.
I am talking about the concept of "tentativity" which is a vital part of scientific inquiry. Nothing is ever 100% proven in science. Evidence could always be found at a later time which could contradict current understanding."
You shouldn't confuse an "instance" with the "totality" - 'observable phenomena' with an 'interpretative paradigm'.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the fossil evidence ran contrary or non-supportive to the expectations of evolution, did the "beliefs" of naturalists in evolution dwindle? Of course not! Suggestions such as Goldscmidt's Hopeful Monsters, Nilsson's Emication, Eldredge & Gould's Puntuated Equilibrium, and others emerged so as to explain/account for the discrepancies between observation and expectation. The theory (of evolution) was retained in spite of the evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Evolutionary theory was not completely thrown out because much of it was still valid, as the new field of genetics has shown. It was altered in the light of new evidence, however, as are all scientific theories."
"Altered". Hmmm...
"Do you fault Physics because we did not throw out Newtonian theory when Einstein showed that it broke down in certain circumstances? No, we continue to use Newtonian theory because it works, and we use Relativity when it applies."
You do keep forgetting that F = ma does not in any way oppose a metaphysic (e.g., Christianity) while "our ancestors were primates" clashes directly with other metaphysics.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was done in a highly sophisticated way that allowed the community to retain "scientific" credibility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ah, yes, the conspiracy theory finally comes out. There always is one with Creationists."
Think what you want. If evolution bites the dust, tell me, with what does materialistic naturalism replace it with? It is clear that evolution must be retained at all cost since the alternative is simply and completely unacceptable to the faithful naturalists.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When naturalists modify their theory (as they did with Punkeek) it's called "science".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Science changes in the light of new evidence. Otherwise, we would have rejected Einstein. Do you suggest that it was wrong of us to have accepted his Relativity Theory?"
Of course not and you're creating a strawman here.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When we creationists modify our thinking it's called "fanaticism", "irrational" or "moving the goalposts".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It depends upon what basis you have of changing your thinking."
Same basis as everyone else - we learn something new and modify as deemed necessary.
"Scientific thought is changed slowly and tentatively (there's that word again), with a strong evidenciary support from several sources, including different fields if possible.
By contrast, Creationism is relavatory in nature rather than evidenciary. It doesn't matter what the evidence is if it can be supplanted by doctrine from scripture, and this is exactly what the stated method is for all of the major Creationists organizations including the ICR, AiG, and the CRS."
You're missing a huge part of the picture. While revelation is part of Christianity, any all all aspects of natural science must support this revelation - God cannot be a deceiver with His creation and a revealer with His revelation.
But then there's 'interpretation (there's that word again). If the observations are interpreted under a materialistic paradigm then these interpretations will undoubtedly support naturalism (and they do). But this is the ol' GIGO - hardly compelling.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shall we have one standard, please?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why should science and religion have the same standard if they deal with different realms?"
F = ma applies equally whether you're dealing with ping-pong balls, locomotives, or the moon around the earth. Different realms doesn't imply that the "laws" must be different.
Likewise, fairness and scholarship dictates that if creationists modify certain positions as things are learned, that they be accorded the same flexibility as naturalists insist on having. Claiming that the latter are doing 'science' and that the former are engaged in 'fanatic goalpost moving' is... baloney.
Last post here as per Admin - you may start a new thread elsewhere if you wish.
In Christ,
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Admin, posted 03-26-2003 8:36 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Gzus, posted 03-26-2003 4:58 PM Joralex has not replied
 Message 63 by nator, posted 03-27-2003 12:07 PM Joralex has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024