quote:
But as I touched on in my previous post, it goes both ways. Creationists are often told that their understanding of science, (and therefore how the world works) is very limited.
So what you mean is that creationists assume that they know what their opponent's think - and are wrong AND creationists often assume that they know about science - and are wrong about that, too.
quote:
I’ve done some reading and studying on the actual history of the ToE. Darwinism wasn’t made a complete package by only Darwin, it has been put together by many others, by philosophers as well as scientists. People like Thomas Huxley and Herbert Spencer were two of the more prominent early ones, but there are practically too many to name. Huxley’s two grandsons, Sir Julian, and Aldous, made profound statements about evolution that are no longer politically correct, but are just as true as they ever were.
Yet apparently you don't know that Aldous Huxley made no great contributions to evolutionary theory - or that the quote that you offer isn't about evolution at all. THe only good point is that you didn't falsely attribute the quote to Julian Huxley as a number of creationists have done.
quote:
It is documented that the purposelessness of the evolutionary mindset is often closely connected to moral and ethical decisions. The Terry Schiavo case is a good example. Several people with scientific credentials that were quoted by the media attempted to discredit individuals of opposing views simply by mocking them because of their public Christian worldview.
I very much doubt that that is an honest description of the case. Of course those who took the moral stand were those in favour of taking the corpse off of "life support". THe campaign of lies and slander came from the other side.
quote:
The Origin is not directly consulted, but the detailed works that followed it were inspired by it and are often consulted. Daniel Dennett is described as a major contributor to the understanding of the conceptual foundations of evolutionary biology. He doesn’t call evolution an innocent study of science, he calls it a universal acid that eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways.
Have you ever heard of Daniel Dennett?
Yes. And that is why I know that he is a philospher - primarily known as a philosopher of mind - and that his main contribution is one popular-level book written in 1995. Hardly a foundational work, and one that did not meet with universal agreement from evolutionary scientists. Nor is it a book consulted for ethical advice by - to the best of my knowledge - anyone at all.
quote:
Just as Christians have no desire to eat Bibles. The passions are equal — each worldview applies their beliefs to their own lives, and their opinions on the political decisions that they believe make the best organized societies. In believing that the order we see the world is formed by purposelessness, it’s only natural that evolutionists hold science in high regard as a source of knowledge. Those of the Christian religion are more likely to regard time-tested,corroborated, written history over the evolutionist writings of Daniel Dennett or Richard Dawkins. Neither worldview holds a defined advantage in critical thought, as this threads opening posts assert.
And what "time-tested,corroborated, written history" contradicts the writings of Dawkins or Dennett ?
™ Version 4.2
(1)
