Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
75 online now:
AZPaul3, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx (3 members, 72 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,317 Year: 4,429/6,534 Month: 643/900 Week: 167/182 Day: 47/27 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kenneth R. Miller - Finding Darwin's God
nwr
Member
Posts: 5974
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 63 of 94 (564184)
06-08-2010 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by marc9000
06-08-2010 7:45 PM


I'll note that I have not read Miller's book, so bear that in mind when reading my comments.

marc9000 writes:
Let’s look at what he forgot he wrote in his book, page 54 (in the paperback version);

I don't see that as actually contradicting the earlier statement.

Most people take a theistic evolutionist to be a theist who

  1. is an evolutionist, and
  2. who believes that God has guided the direction of evolution by stepping in and making sure that the "right" mutations happened on schedule.

One can, however, be a theist who believes that God kept a hands-off approach to the details of how species evolved, though he designed the whole system at the start. I take Miller to be the latter kind of theist/evolutionist. To say, as in that page 54 comment, that evolution affects religion is a different matter. I think he is just commenting on the fact that many members of his religion are not happy with evolution, so he has to keep defending it.

marc9000 writes:
He opens chapter 8 with the following statement;

quote:
Ironically, when I have publicly advanced the idea that God is compatible with evolution, I find that my agnostic and atheistic colleagues are generally comfortable with such ideas, but many believers are dumbfounded.

This goes along with what I see from posters on forums such as these. As a believer, yes I am dumb-founded just like he says, and up to now I’ve only had atheists attempt to explain this rationale to me.


I suspect that you are dumbfounded because you are so familiar with seeing evolution bad-mouthed by creationists.

It seems to me, though, that creationists are denying their own creationism when they object to evolution. For, if one believes that God is creator of all, then it follows that he is creator of evolutionary processes. The anti-evolution creationists seem to be saying "I believe that God created half of what I see around me. He created the parts that I like, but I refuse to believe that he created the parts that I don't like."

marc9000 writes:
In reading Miller’s book, I find that he also shows little knowledge of Christianity. Almost at the end of the same chapter, chapter 8, he makes this statement;

quote:
…only those who embrace the scientific reality of evolution are adequately prepared to give God the credit and the power He truly deserves.

I suspect that you are misreading Miller there (though keep in mind that I have not myself read Miller's book).

I read Miller as saying, in that quote, something like: "As a believer in God as creator of all, I marvel at the absolute brilliance God showed in his design of the evolution system."

In short, while you read Miller as saying something about the nature of God, I read that as saying something about the nature of evolution, and about evolution being counted as an enormous credit to a God brilliant enough to come up with such an idea.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by marc9000, posted 06-08-2010 7:45 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by marc9000, posted 06-09-2010 8:38 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5974
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 70 of 94 (564338)
06-09-2010 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by marc9000
06-09-2010 8:38 PM


marc9000 writes:
A hands off designer? It doesn’t make logical sense.

That's a strange thing to say. Are you rejecting the idea that God is omnipotent and omniscient?

marc9000 writes:
And in defending it, all he’s focused on is the evolution, he doesn’t seem to listen to the views from the religious standpoint.

I'm sure he listens. He obviously doesn't agree with the views of some Christians.

marc9000 writes:
That’s understandable if he thinks that science is the only, or main, source of knowledge – that it’s in first place, and religion has to fall in line behind it. I’ll c/p part of what was c/p’d from the book in message #16 of this thread;

I'm sure that Miller understands that science is fallible. All scientists understand that.

It's not science that is in first place. But the way the world is, has to be given high place. For that is the direct creation of God. The biblical text is secondary, for that involves the hand of fallible man.

marc9000 writes:
Miller obviously puts “human reason” above anything in Christianity.

The text you quoted does not show that. It only shows that Miller puts reason and evidence above the claims of Henry Morris.

marc9000 writes:
His secular convictions that allow Christianity to be bent beyond recognition are also unjustified and dangerous to many in the general public who provide tax money to publicly fund scientific research.

It seems to me that it is Henry Morris and other founders of 20th century creationism, who have bent Christianity beyond recognition.

marc9000 writes:
Most creationists don’t deny all evolution, they’re fine with the micro parts, the build up of immunity to diseases, the changes within kinds, the parts of evolution which are proven.

Yet that part is already sufficient to account for all of biological diversity.

marc9000 writes:
Claims that the book of Genesis is an allegory, that there was no fully formed first man, that there was no original sin by one man, later redeemed by one man.

The physics in Genesis 1 is badly wrong. Why can you make excuses for Genesis, and read it as symbolic? But you apparently won't do that for Genesis 2, 3.

I guess it is all the "original sin" issue. Yet the doctrine of original sin is mostly made up theology with very little real biblical support. It is not universally accepted as a required part of Christian belief.

marc9000 writes:
Why aren’t atheists furious at that claim?

Why would they be furious. The question of origins has not been settled by science, so there is room for a diversity of views. Moreover, most atheists are not anti-theist, they just don't adopt a theistic view for themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by marc9000, posted 06-09-2010 8:38 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by bluegenes, posted 06-10-2010 9:09 PM nwr has replied
 Message 81 by marc9000, posted 06-13-2010 4:46 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5974
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 75 of 94 (564549)
06-10-2010 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by bluegenes
06-10-2010 9:09 PM


bluegenes writes:
Henry Morris is very much in keeping with interpretations that have existed in Christianity throughout all its epochs. Christianity is a creationist religion, and has always included "young earthers".

There has long been some sort of creationism. But the modern strident YEC version is quite a bit different from the more traditional versions.

The Wikipedia article suggests that the modern version originated with George McCready Price and was modified by Henry Morris and John C. Whitcomb Jr. That's pretty much consistent with other reports about modern young earth creationism (such as the book by Ron Numbers).

I'm old enough to have been been a member of an evangelical church before the 1961 publication of the Morris and Whitcomb book, and young earth creationism never came up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by bluegenes, posted 06-10-2010 9:09 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2010 11:37 PM nwr has seen this message
 Message 77 by bluegenes, posted 06-11-2010 6:10 AM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5974
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 78 of 94 (564614)
06-11-2010 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by bluegenes
06-11-2010 6:10 AM


bluegenes writes:
Morris felt (and apparently marc9000 feels) that Christianity is threatened by the high level of acceptance of science that Miller represents. Miller probably thinks that Christianity is threatened by the rejection of science.

I agree with both of them. It's doomed either way.


Yes, that's probably a pretty good assessment of the current situation.

I am reminded on my former neighbor. I'm sure he was deeply religious. I saw him heading off for church every Sunday (at least in the warmer weather). He was carrying a bible. The bible was disguised as a bag of golf clubs.

And that, I think, is the real situation in USA today. Many people call themselves Christian. Yet they are more likely to go to the football game, the rock concert or the golf course than to a religious institution. Many of the Churches are turning themselves into social clubs.

We are said to be a religious nation, but I think much of that religion is superficial.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by bluegenes, posted 06-11-2010 6:10 AM bluegenes has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by marc9000, posted 06-13-2010 5:12 PM nwr has seen this message

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5974
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 90 of 94 (564928)
06-13-2010 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by marc9000
06-13-2010 4:46 PM


marc9000 writes:
No – if he’s omnipotent and omniscient, he’s ALWAYS hands on! If his hands are off at any time, then he’s not omnipotent and omniscient.

Ah, okay. So you seem to be saying that God is a bungling incompetent fool. He is incapable of planning anything. Therefore he must keep his hands on at all time so that he can patch up and cover for his mistakes, thereby giving the illusion that he is omnipotent and omniscient.

And since you say that he has hands on at all time, then we must also accept that the usual statement that God exists outside of time is also wrong.

marc9000 writes:
He doesn’t show knowledge of, or interest in, two more very important things about God, that he is intelligent, and that he is purposive.

Perhaps you should explain that. It seems to me that you are denying that God is intelligent enough to do any planning, and because he lacks that intelligence he must keep hands on at all times.

marc9000 writes:
And most of them think that scripture is fallible as well.

The physics of Genesis 1 is quite plainly false.

marc9000 writes:
It is a basic of Christianity to believe that biblical text is written by God

That may be a basic to fundamentalists. But it is not a basic to all of Christianity.

You are taking your own extremist view of Christianity, and asserting that all of Christianity agrees. You are quite wrong about that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by marc9000, posted 06-13-2010 4:46 PM marc9000 has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022