Bluejay writes:
I've been at a conference for the North American Benthological Society, and haven't really had the time or the energy to get to the computer since that started.
I had to look up on the internet the term Benthological Society. I cannot even find a definition. I guess it has something to do with aquatic biology. Regardless, I hope it was a good meeting.
I can agree with this statement: there are many people who want us to stop believing in God.
That seems to be true!
However, do you believe that evolution is just a manifestation of this "someone's" desire to hurt peoples' faith in God? More specifically, do you believe that evolution is the work of Satan? Or that it is a conspiracy against Christianity?
Until I came across this website and began to communicate and read some of the information here, I don’t think I believed anything about evolution. I never really even considered it. If you had asked me these same questions one month ago, then I would have given you different answers. However, I will try to answer these questions.
do you believe that evolution is just a manifestation of this "someone's" desire to hurt peoples' faith in God?
No, I do not believe that evolution is JUST a manifestation of someone’s desire. Microevolution is an observation in the world today. The “Theory of Evolution” is an attempt by scientists to explain life on this planet without God. I believe that there are many people in the world who are abusing the “Theory of Evolution” (either with or without awareness) and this is hurting peoples’ faith in God.
More specifically, do you believe that evolution is the work of Satan?
I believe that Microevolution is an observation. I believe that the “Theory of Evolution” is an idea of man who has been influenced by Satan. I believe that Satan is effectively using this theory to help achieve his goals.
Or that it is a conspiracy against Christianity?
As I said, Microevolution is an observation. Observations can not be the origin of conspiracies. I believe many people in the scientific world are involved in a conspiracy against God. This is not limited to the “Theory of Evolution.” By conspiracy against God, I mean that these people would like to eliminate the belief in God.
Wumpini writes:
My theory is that God was involved in the Creation of the universe, and in the Creation of man. This theory is held by most of the people on this earth.
Bluejay writes:
First, and I'm repeating myself a bit here: it's not a theory if you don't have a mechanism attached.
God is the mechanism!
If you say "God spat out the oceans" is your theory, I would accept that as a testable alternative to evolution. If you were to say "God took some dirt and molded it into the shape of a man," I would accept this as a testable alternative to evolution. If you were to say "Bees spontaneously spring from the rotting pancreas of red kangaroos," I would consider this an testable alternative to evolution.
These seem to be attempts to attribute human characteristics to God known as anthropomorphism. God could have chosen to create using natural laws, or to create outside the natural laws of nature. The theory is God Creates. God creates the oceans. God creates man. God is the power.
But, when all you have to say is who was involved in the process, and nothing about the process itself, YOU DON'T GET TO CALL IT A THEORY!!!! No matter how much you believe in it.
I know you do not like it but it is my theory. I have spent a lot of time in another thread attempting to understand what scientists mean when they say theory. Since this is not a science thread, I can use the word theory any way that I would like.
The Wikipedia encyclopedia says that I can do this:
quote:
The word theory has many distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.
I am using theory of Creation to mean that most people in the world believe that God was the mechanism for Creation.
Second, lots of people believe something very similar to what you believe. They believe in something that you would likely associate with what you call "God," and they believe in some sort of magical process that resulted in the appearance of animals, plants and human beings.
I assure you that God does not use magic. He does not need to because He is the power. Actually, God condemns magic. Magic is synonymous with sorcery. Moses used the power of God; the Pharaoh’s magicians used magic.
And, they believe in something that you would likely associate with what you call a "soul."
I think everyone knows that they have a soul. I do not think everyone realizes that it originates from God. Do you not believe that you have a soul? Don’t you sense a part of you that seems separate and distinct from your physical existence?
This does not make them all conflatable into a single "theory." They would likely disagree with you (maybe even call you a heathen or something) if you tried to share with them your opinion about "God's" nature.
And, why would that be? When you say the “Theory of Evolution” you mean one theory. However, scientists do not agree on many of the details. As a matter of fact, they disagree on many things. So why can you have one theory for evolution and I must have many theories for Creation?
Wumpini writes:
We all have faith; it is simply what you believe to be true. You can have faith that there is a God, and He was involved in the Creation of the world. Or, you can have faith that there is no God, and He was not involved in the Creation of the world. Or, your faith can lie somewhere in between. No matter what your position, your position rests upon faith.
I have heard numerous definitions of the word "faith" on this website, and there isn't a topic here that pisses me off more than this.
Sorry.
So, for you, "faith" simply refers to "belief?" Got it.
It depends upon the context. Biblical faith in God does not simply mean belief. It takes more then believing in the existence of God to have faith. However, faith in God includes belief in His existence.
In the Book of Mormon, there's a story about a man who had the greatest faith ever, and he was given the privilege of seeing God, at which point he is explicitly stated as no longer having faith, because his faith was replaced by knowledge. So, my opinion as to the meaning of faith is clearly not equivalent to yours.
I do not believe that anyone can have complete and perfect knowledge about anything. Therefore, there is always an element of faith. This is even true with science and the natural laws. When you say something is a fact, or that you are completely sure of anything, then there is always an element of faith in that statement.
I was always raised believing that faith is "belief without evidence," just as all the atheists and evolutionists on this forum define it
You cannot have faith without evidence unless you are insane. That would be totally irrational. You can have faith without objective evidence.
And science simply does not "believe" anything without evidence. Anything that a particular scientist believes without evidence is no more than a personal belief.
Once again you are using anthropomorphism. You are correct that science cannot believe anything without evidence, because science is not human. You are also correct that scientists believe in things without evidence.
I hold out in my hope that someday, somebody will find evidence of God, or of the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon, etc., but, until there is evidence for it, it's just a personal belief, and I will not incorporate it into my scientific studies.
There is already evidence for the existence of God. Many people are convinced by that evidence. Even if more objective evidence became available for the existence of God, you would still not be able to use God in your scientific studies. It would not change anything. Your theories would still have to be based upon natural laws without supernatural intervention. The only thing that could change is possibly the number of scientists who believe in God. I think many would still deny God even with more objective evidence.
Until you can actually show that science is built upon the beliefs of individual scientists, and not entirely on evidence, there is absolutely no reason to bring up anybody's faith in anything in relation to science.
Science is definitely influenced significantly by the personal beliefs of scientists. It takes time for science to correct these biased theories. Here is a quote that probably explains it better than I do.
quote:
Other kinds of values also come into play in science. Historians, sociologists, and other students of science have shown that social and personal beliefs-including philosophical, thematic, religious, cultural, political, and economic beliefs-can shape scientific judgment in fundamental ways. For example, Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics as an irreducible description of nature-summarized in his insistence that "God does not play dice"-seems to have been based largely on an aesthetic conviction that the physical universe could not contain such an inherent component of randomness. The nineteenth-century geologist Charles Lyell, who championed the idea that geological change occurs incrementally rather than catastrophically, may have been influenced as much by his religious views as by his geological observations. He favored the notion of a God who is an unmoved mover and does not intervene in His creation. Such a God, thought Lyell, would produce a world in which the same causes and effects keep cycling eternally, producing a uniform geological history.
Does holding such values harm a person's science? In some cases the answer has to be "yes." The history of science offers a number of episodes in which social or personal beliefs distorted the work of researchers. The field of eugenics used the techniques of science to try to demonstrate the inferiority of certain races. The ideological rejection of Mendelian genetics in the Soviet Union beginning in the 1930s crippled Soviet biology for decades.
http://www.nap.edu/html/obas/contents/values.html
Fair enough. I don't suppose everybody needs to know anything in particular. But, if someone doesn't need to know something, they also don't need to comment on it, either. Let biologists study biology, and everybody who doesn't understand should just shut up and read until they do understand.
That is true. Except that your theory of evolution (which is possibly biased) contradicts my theory of Creation (which you say is not a theory). Therefore, I cannot shut up right now. Maybe that will change in the future.
First, the topic of this thread is not the origin of the universe, so I don't have to tie my remarks back in to that.
Actually, the thread was started to help me better understand scientists views on all origins, including the origin of the universe. Evolution is being used in the broad sense of the word, not in the biological sense of the word.
Belief/disbelief don't mean anything when you're trying to find truth: only supporting evidence means anything.
As I discussed above, belief/disbelief have a lot to do with trying to find the truth. Scientists make judgments to interpret evidence. This judgment is based upon personal beliefs and values.
Third, tell me exactly what it is that I have put my faith in. If you mean I have put my faith in the ToE, I have already addressed this.
It would seem you have put your faith in science rather than God. I am not saying that you do not believe in God. However, it seems that you are saying that whenever the evidence is contradictory, you will lean towards a naturalistic approach. This may be the most rational, and logical conclusion, but that does not mean it is the correct conclusion. There is a big difference.
I do not intend to answer those questions. This is because I don't know what God did or didn't do, nor do I base my faith in Him on what He did or didn't do. I believe He is real, and that He did something, but I will not risk attaching my faith to something that may later be proven false. So, whatever science can explain, ascertain or prove with sufficient empirical evidence, I will accept as likely true, and I will remain silent on all other questions.
Thanks for answering the questions.
You believe God exists, and He played a role in creation, but you do not know what that role might be.
As for attaching your faith to something that could be proved false, do you believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead? I am sure that science has already proven that people are not raised from the dead! However 1 Cor 15 says if you don't believe in the physical resurrection then your faith is worthless. Do you see how relying completely upon science in contradictory situations could put you into a difficult spot?
I am traveling to Togo today so I may or may not be able to reply for the next few days.
"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
™ Version 4.2