Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
100 online now:
PaulK, Tangle, xongsmith (3 members, 97 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,025 Year: 5,137/6,534 Month: 557/794 Week: 48/135 Day: 0/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kenneth R. Miller - Finding Darwin's God
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 322 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 64 of 94 (564196)
06-08-2010 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by marc9000
06-08-2010 7:45 PM


He’s only human, he has moods, can be forgetful, and can obviously get tired of constantly fielding difficult questions about his duel beliefs. Let’s look at what he forgot he wrote in his book, page 54 (in the paperback version);

Why do you suppose that he "forgot" what he thinks?

Do you believe that you can read minds, or do you have some sort of rationale for your claim?

---

As you appeal to Christians specifically to clear up your confusion, I am disqualified from replying to the rest of your post.


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 67 by marc9000, posted 06-09-2010 8:49 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 322 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 72 of 94 (564371)
06-10-2010 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by marc9000
06-09-2010 8:49 PM


I suspect you didn't even completely read what I said

And you are, as usual, wrong.

but posters like you always provide great opportunities for challenging word processing.

Does that even mean anything?

Let’s see what I can do.

The first paragraph of his that I quoted was from a webpage dated in June, 2008. The first version (hardcover) of his book “Finding Darwin’s God” was copyrighted in 1999. So the first paragraph that I quoted came many years – about 9 years – after the second paragraph that I quoted. Are we clear so far? I’m going to go way out on a limb here, and assume you have this straight in your mind. I’ll now move on to the next phase of a detailed answer to your question.

In the first paragraph, he claimed he never heard of anyone described as a “theistic chemist”, obviously because a person’s religion would have no importance/no relationship on a persons desire or ability to study chemistry. He showed a comparison between that term and the term theistic evolution because he was implying that in exactly the same way, a persons religion has no importance, no relationship, no bearing on a persons desire or ability to study evolution.

In the second paragraph (written 9 years earlier, remember) he said it would be nice to PRETEND to be able to study evolution without having an effect (no importance/no relationship) on religion. That there was a “clash” between evolution and religion. This clash would be the opposite of “no importance/no relationship/.The clash would actually indicate an importance, a relationship. In the first paragraph, his message was that there is NO relationship between evolution and religion, and in second paragraph his message was that there IS a relationship between evolution and religion.

Still confused? I’m sure you are, so I’ll continue. When he wrote his book in 1999, he indicated that there was sometimes a controversy between science and religion, that many people who take an interest in one, often tend to question the other. He elaborated on it quite often throughout the book, giving examples of how people like Richard Dawkins use science as a weapon against religion. Or how people like Henry Morris question the exact location of where the line should be drawn, between actual science, and a godless scientific philosophy about events from millions of years ago.
In his more current paragraph from 2008, he simply disregarded all that, by implying that he was mystified by the term theistic evolutionist, like the term wasn’t necessary.

You seem a little confused as to what his message is. I suggest that you read both paragraphs again until you understand them.

In one, he points out, rightly, that there is no particularly theistic way to be a biologist, a chemist, or any other type of scientist.

In the other, he points out, rightly, that evolution has impacted religion.

By pretending that the first paragraph says that "there is NO relationship between evolution and religion", you have managed to create a contradiction that exists in your head but not in his writings, since the first paragraph actually says what it says and not some nonsense that you've made up.

I hope this clarifies matters for you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by marc9000, posted 06-09-2010 8:49 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by marc9000, posted 06-13-2010 5:06 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 322 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 73 of 94 (564391)
06-10-2010 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by marc9000
06-09-2010 9:06 PM


You’re probably not alone, the belief that different Christian denominations hate each other has been erroneously put forth by the scientific community for decades now.

Ah yes, scientists like Pat Robertson:

You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. - Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991

Wait, he's not a scientist, is he? Remind me again what job he does.

The fact is, ALL Christian denominations basic doctrines are exactly the same – that Christ was the true son of God, that he was one man who lived and died for the sinful nature of humans that originated from one man, the first fully formed man, Adam.

Yeah ... the minor differences between them are so trivial and inconsequential that, in retrospect, they probably weren't really worth burning one another alive over.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by marc9000, posted 06-09-2010 9:06 PM marc9000 has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 322 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 76 of 94 (564556)
06-10-2010 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by nwr
06-10-2010 11:22 PM


Ron Numbers
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).

He must have trouble phoning people up.

"Hello, who's there?"

"Ron Numbers."

* click *


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by nwr, posted 06-10-2010 11:22 PM nwr has seen this message

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 322 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 88 of 94 (564925)
06-13-2010 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by marc9000
06-13-2010 5:06 PM


All he was really talking about, was a term used to describe a person. He was referring to terms that describe people, not "ways to be". Notice that he used the word “term” twice. Since he also referred to “anyone” being “described”, he wasn’t getting near “ways to be”.

I believe that I have understood his meaning better than you have. This hypothesis would explain why you were talking complete rubbish about his meaning and I wasn't, and why you thought you detected a contradiction that didn't exist and I was able to see that it didn't exist.

Now, is there anything else you'd like to be wrong about, or are we done here?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by marc9000, posted 06-13-2010 5:06 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