Why does evolutionary science seem to be

So hell bent on dispelling the reality of a creator?
Can we define dispassionate to mean that there is no hope of heaven; and we are going to do our damndest prove it?

Evolutionary science isn't hell bent on anything other than verification of what can be tested in the natural world. Proving or disproving a creator is outside the realm of science. If something cannot be verified, tested, repeated or falsified it isn't science.People may make their own judgements on a creator because of science or the lack thereof, but science itself makes no statements on the subject.

---

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

Assuming that you mean by "we" = the evolutionary-scientists who study nature in all of it's grandeur, then how may I ask, do "we" prove or disprove the existence of a creator without destroying or watering down the scientific-method? The existence of a creator is not a testable hypothesis by strict scientific standards, and therefor cannot be proven or disproven by the methods of science. Science has it's limits; the scientist cannot be dispassionate or otherwise about "God", because "God" is a religious matter. It is absolutely incorrect to say that "we" are trying to prove the nonexistence of a creator or of an after-life. The reailty of a creator is a matter of religious faith, not of evolutionary science.

My pal Tim Wallace says:"In reality, and in spite of the much-parroted claims of evolutionists, the facts of science (i.e., the empirical data and natural laws known to man), when examined without the prejudice of a naturalistic, mechanistic philosophy/belief system, do not support evolutionary theory."I guess that this also means that the god of Evolution- The Big Bang theory- stays outside the realm of science.

If that's the Tim Wallace that runs the "True Origins" website then his opinion carries little weight.Are you actually prepared to back up that statement with facts or is it just Tim Wallaces word against that of the scientists who have studied evolution for the last 150 years ?Is it from Tim Wallace that you got the idea that the "Big Bang" is "the God of evolution" ? Because such an idea has no basis in reality.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 02-01-2004]

Ok, list some of those specific facts and give a different interpretation of them. Tim's interpretation needs to explain all the facts. Show the detailed logic. Thanks

---

Common sense isn't

All hail The Big Bang! Praise be unto His prophets Darwin and Hubble! Worship our Messiah Hawking! Let us go forth and sacrifice a hundred oxen in His Holy Name!
I bet your messiah can't calculate quantum states! Our Messiah has a cooler chair!

I wonder why. Is that just because you dont agrree with him or because his phd in chemistry is a lie. I guess we still would need to know what is fact in your case. 150 years of studying evolution? and this says exactly what to me? that they wasted their time actually it was me who said it and i said it because apparently for you guys that was the beggiing of everything. Or would you like to share yuor theory

It doesn't seem Jazz, that there is all that much difference in the ideas does it?You think that God made everything pop into existance in an instant and others think that everything popped into existance through quantum fluctuations in an instant.I wonder how we would try to see if there are any differences between the two ideas???Hmmm, how about one predicts the current expansion of the universe, the microwave background and the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium. And the other predicts? Well, you tell me how I would start with the other and arrive at predictions that I could check.

---

Common sense isn't

Tim Wallace's opinion carries little weight because much of what he says is not true. His appearance on the talk.origins newsgroup where he kept insisting that the t.o crew MUST have seen a "theory of creationism" yet never being able ot offer more than vague handwaving as to where such a thing could be found was pretty pathetic.Then there's his attempt to argue that evolution violates the second law of termodynamics on trueorigins.org where he starts arguign about the real second law of thermodynamics, admits that evolution doesn't violate that and then invents his own "second law" so he can keep to the conclusion he wanted all along. A PhD in chemistry OUGHT to know better.As to your comments the Big Bang is the beginning of outr universe but that doesn't make it anything to do with evolution or any sort of God.

It's important to dispell the creator to push the over-all politcal agenda of secular humanism. It is grounded in immorality and vice. Particularly with the sodomites. Immoral behavior always hides behind a shroud of dignity (like "science").

Since the majority of Christians don't agree with you I don't see why I should pay any attention to what you have posted. If you care to suport your assertions in some detail you might convince me that other Christians are wrong about this.

---

Common sense isn't

quote:

---

the over-all politcal agenda of secular humanism. It is grounded in immorality and vice. Particularly with the sodomites.

---

I am unaware of the immoral and vice foundations of secular humanism. Perhaps you can open a new thread and explain this to me.It appears that there are many gays (aka sodomites) that are Xian and Jewish and trying to gain greater connections to and acceptance from religious faith, rather than by appealing to secular humanism.

quote:

---

Immoral behavior always hides behind a shroud of dignity (like "science").

---

What does the Theory of Evolution have to do with immoral behavior? As many on these forums have stated, you can be a Xian and still believe in the ToE. And you can certainly have whatever faith/moral beliefs you choose. Science dispells none of that.The only problems pop up if you have a religion that has a creation story which MUST be taken literally, and happens to conflict with available evidence.Did heliocentric theory lead to greater immorality? Or should we begin to oppress it again, since it is counter to Biblical scripture, and thus must be overturning God?I will be honest, I am an Agnostic-Atheist (pretty much a secular humanist), and even if I were to go with a religion it would be more or less Eastern/Pagan. But my belief system had no help from science, and I can't figure how I could use science to convince others that they should not have faith in their religion.That would take quite a bit of data that I have no access to.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I don't know what the heliocentric view is.Don't you think that the moral decay of sosciety is in part due to falling away from the Bible? Isn't that what evolution has done?

helio -- sun, this is the sun centered view of the solar system. The only way that evolutionary theory could possible cause a falling away form the Bible is if someone made large numbers of Christians think that if some parts of the Bible (that have nothing to do with the true message of the Bible) were scientifically wrong then those believers would have to throw the whole Bible out.For some reason there are actual people claiming to be men and women of God who actually make this claim. They seem to think that is the earth is not 6,000 years old then God doesn't exist. At least this is what they try to convince some poor Christians.Then guess what happens. These false preachers get what they must have wanted in the first place. Some of these Christians relalize that the earth can not be that young and do, in fact, loose their faith.It is hard to understand how these guys get away with this. Can you explain that?Since about 40% of scienitists are believers it seems unlikely that they would be interested in doing this. And certainly you don't get more than a few atheists (Dawkins comes to mind) trying the same trick that these so-called preachers pull.You may find it hard to believe but some of these characters actually have web sites attempting to do even more damage. The Institute for Creation Research | The Institute for Creation Research and answersingenesis being two of the bigger ones.

---

Common sense isn't