Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9046 total)
115 online now:
DrJones* (1 member, 114 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,289 Year: 4,935/14,102 Month: 533/707 Week: 88/176 Day: 17/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kenneth R. Miller - Finding Darwin's God
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 62 of 94 (564176)
06-08-2010 7:45 PM


BUMP!

I’m fairly new to EvC - yesterday evening I proposed a new thread on Kenneth Miller’s book, and was pointed to this one by administration. This thread was started in 2002, so many of the posters are now inactive. I’ve read through it all, and I’ll respond to what I think is relevant, (not necessarily all tonight) taking into consideration which posters are active or inactive. But first, as administration pointed me here, he said this, and it probably should be the first thing addressed;

Adminnemooseus writes:

By the way, Miller does not consider himself to be a theistic evolutionist, in that he refuses to believe that God guided evolutionary pathways. Theist, yes. Evolutionist, yes. Theistic evolutionist, no.

Miller confirms this statement;

quote:
"I always reject the term 'theistic evolutionist.' I am a theist and an evolutionist, to be sure, but the combined term makes no sense to me. Never heard anyone described as a 'theistic chemist,' have you?"

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);

quote:
It would be nice to pretend, as many of my scientific friends do, that the study of evolution can be carried out without having any effect on religion. In their own way, they might envy other scientific fields – say, organic CHEMISTRY or oceanography – that seem to barrel ahead at full speed without ever being cast into the arena to grapple with the Almighty. However one might hope that to be the case, and much of the scientific establishment surely wishes it were, the clash between evolution and religion is not about to go away anytime soon.

It has not gone away. The combined term makes sense if there is a clash – if someone believes in both and attempts to reconcile them as he does. He is widely thought of as a theistic evolutionist – a google search on his name and theistic evolution clearly shows it, and he makes a really good living at it. His occasional desire to “pretend” to not be considered what he actually is matters little, in a discussion about him or his book.

I’ll now repeat what I intended to be an opening post on this subject, and we’ll see if this old thread is thoroughly resurrected.

Kenneth Miller, a professor of biology and public school textbook author who is fairly well known throughout the scientific community, is one of the few, if not the only, Christian (Catholic) theistic evolutionist who has written a book on the creation/evolution controversy. The book, called “Finding Darwin’s God – A Scientist’s Search For Common Ground Between God And Evolution”, is one that I read a few years ago, and I still have a paperback copy.

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. Their attempts have come up short, largely because atheists show little knowledge of Christianity. 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.

If anyone considers that a “quote mine”, I’ll be glad to add some surrounding statements to show that it’s not – it’s central to the lesser statements around it. He appears to be saying that evolutionists know more about the nature of the Christian God than do Bible scholars. I’d like for a Christian theistic evolutionist on these forums to address this. To clarify for me if that is in fact exactly what he is saying, and their knowledge/beliefs of Christianity to back it up in a detailed way, detail that I didn’t see in his book.


Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by nwr, posted 06-08-2010 8:34 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-08-2010 10:34 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 65 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2010 3:38 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 79 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-11-2010 5:07 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 66 of 94 (564321)
06-09-2010 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by nwr
06-08-2010 8:34 PM


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.

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

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.

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. 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;

quote:
(Miller writes) Nonetheless, he [Henry Morris] looked me straight in the eyes. "Ken, you're intelligent, you're well-meaning, and you're energetic. But you are also young, and you don't realize what's at stake. In a question of such importance, scientific data aren't the ultimate authority. Even you know that science is wrong sometimes."

Indeed I did. Morris continued so that I could get a feeling for what that ultimate authority was. "Scripture tells us what the right conclusion is. And if science, momentarily, doesn't agree with it, then we have to keep working until we get the right answer. But I have no doubts as to what that answer will be." Morris then excused himself, and I was left to ponder what he had said. I had sat down thinking the man a charlatan, but I left appreciating the depth, the power; and the sincerity of his convictions. Nonetheless, however one might admire Morris's strength of character; convictions that allow science to be bent beyond recognition are not merely unjustified - they are dangerous in the intellectual and even in the moral sense, because they corrupt and compromise the integrity of human reason.


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

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

No, it’s because I’ve seen Christianity in general bad-mouthed by evolutionists!

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."

The word “evolution” has multiple meanings, it’s always necessary to clarify it in discussions such as these it seems. 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. When creationists “object to evolution”, it’s almost always a rejection of neo-Darwinism – of common descent, of claims of what happened millions of years ago. 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.

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.

Why aren’t atheists furious at that claim? Creationists claim to see the brilliance of God in nature, in plants and trees and grass and sky and the love between a man & women, parents & children. Miller sees the brilliance of God in all the detail in evolution, and Miller obviously says that atheists are too dense to see that brilliance at all!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by nwr, posted 06-08-2010 8:34 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by JonF, posted 06-09-2010 9:01 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 70 by nwr, posted 06-09-2010 10:37 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 67 of 94 (564322)
06-09-2010 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dr Adequate
06-08-2010 10:34 PM


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?

I suspect you didn't even completely read what I said, but posters like you always provide great opportunities for challenging word processing.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. Since there are atheistic evolutionists like Dawkins, and Biblical creationists like Henry Morris, if someone claims “common ground” between them, then the term theistic evolutionist fits perfectly. (the term “common ground” appears on the front of his book, just under the title)

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

A brilliant deduction, we’ll wait and see if any show up. If they fail to clear up “my confusion”, it will be up to the reader to determine if that indicates that I may not be the one who is actually confused. If the reader is a militant atheist, I have a prediction whose side they will be on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-08-2010 10:34 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2010 7:09 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 80 by straightree, posted 06-13-2010 1:03 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 69 of 94 (564324)
06-09-2010 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by PaulK
06-09-2010 3:38 AM


Interestingly Richard Dawkins is also accused of having little knowledge of Christianity when he argues against belief in God - and his arguments are more developed than the simple argument that evolution disproves Christianity.

They may be developed with his views of how evolution works (his specialty) but they’re not developed from a Christian standpoint. I’ve seen his mocking of Christianity, and he shows no knowledge of it – it’s simply another carbon copy of the mocking that has been going around the scientific community for at least half a century now.

I suspect that it is your knowledge of Christianity that is limited, mistakenly thinking that the doctrines of your sect define Christian belief.

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. 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. As I recently pointed out in another thread, the Billy Graham crusades, as well as the Answers In Genesis creation museum in Kentucky are only two examples of many, of Christian organizations that transcend all Christian denominations.

The reason different Christian denominations exist is because of disagreements in details of how worship services and daily behaviors please God the most. The way a church is governed, the role of clergy, the marriage of clergy, the behaviors concerning the sacraments, the liturgy, baptism, missionary works, are just some of the types of things that cause Christians to organize themselves under different roofs.

The basics of Christianity are always present in any denomination, original sin in the first fully formed man, Christ’s birth without an earthly father (outside of natural laws) his resurrection, also outside of natural laws, and of course, the importance of the 10 commandments. The current trend for some well known Bible teachers, or even the leadership of entire denominations to cave in to the scientific community and begin bending, shaping, and compromising Christianity to appease them is an unfortunate reality, and authors like Miller are partly to blame for it. It happens because the scientific community is politically powerful enough to gain the position of the ‘ruling realm’, strong enough to supersede something traditional and important to the general population like the 10 commandments, when it comes to decisions involving traditional morality, like abortion, homosexuality, animal rights, embryonic stem cell research, many other things. The scientific community wants religion to be number 2 in these matters.

Since however, you offer no explanation of your objections it is impossible to know exactly where the problem is.

I hope these last three posts of mine have clarified my position some more. I’ve never had a detailed discussion with a genuine theistic evolutionist like Miller – I hope one will come along on this thread. We’ll wait and see.

No, he doesn't. The point appears to be quite simple. To give God full credit for the creation you must acknowledge the full glory and majesty of that creation.

Glory and majesty, of what Dawkins calls "blind, pitiless indifference". How can two people see such differences in the same science, and show little or no desire to discuss it with each other? I'm not necessarily talking about Miller vs Dawkins, I'm talking about theistic evolutionists in general vs atheists in general.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2010 3:38 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 06-10-2010 1:36 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2010 8:18 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 81 of 94 (564901)
06-13-2010 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by nwr
06-09-2010 10:37 PM


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

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.

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

In his evaluation of his conversation with Henry Morris, it's apparent that he doesn't listen too carefully. In the book, he didn’t show a basic knowledge of Christianity. One basic is that God is living, but that’s all that he acknowledges. 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.

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

And most of them think that scripture is fallible as well. In many political decisions, one has to be number one, and one has to be number two. A ruling realm, and a secondary realm. Miller obviously considers science the ruler, as do the atheists like Dawkins.

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.

It is a basic of Christianity to believe that biblical text is written by God, that God inspired its writers directly in a way above and beyond anything else he’s ever inspired humans to do. He’s active in the world, and Christians believe he inspires a lot of important things, including the U.S. founding documents IMO. (they promote free will, he promotes free will) but the authorship of scriptures were on a level of directness unlike anything else. The only input from man in scripture was the personalities of the writers. There is a reason the final book (Revelation) makes clear that it is the end. And also a reason why Jesus himself didn’t write any scripture. It would obviously be considered more important than the rest.

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

But Morris’s claims are clearly backed up by scripture.

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.

It’s actually loaded with Biblical support. I believe that all current Christian rejections of original sin came as a result of Christianity being bent to fit evolution.

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.

Of course not, they need funding from theists. They’re satisfied as long as theism doesn’t get in their way. Displays of the Ten Commandments, theistic beliefs on embryonic stem cell research, on homosexuality, abortion, on many other things, tend to get in their way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by nwr, posted 06-09-2010 10:37 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by nwr, posted 06-13-2010 6:04 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 82 of 94 (564903)
06-13-2010 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by PaulK
06-10-2010 1:36 AM


I think that you will find that belief in a literal Adam is not something shared by all Christians. Certainly the view that Adam was physically created is unnecessary (the official Catholic view is happy with idea that the physical form of human beings is the product of evolution, for instance).

Is that officially noted somewhere on the internet? I’d like to see it. Also, I can’t find a single official Catholic review of this book anywhere. There are several reviews on the back cover of my paperback from scientific sources, but none from Catholic sources. I can’t find any Amazon reviews of it from a Catholic source. I’m not saying that none exist, but if no one on this thread can point me to one, then it’s safe to say they don’t exist. Why are they hard to find/non existent?

The AiG "Creatiion Museum" is there to support Young Earth Creationism. Do you REALLY believe that all Christian denominations support YEC doctrine ?

The word “young” isn’t necessary. It’s not called the “Young Earth Creationist Museum”. The one single dimension of time that humans are limited to isn’t accepted as a measure of all of reality by Christians the same way it is by atheists.

You still haven't explicitly said where - in your view - the conflict between evolution and Christianity is. The only point you explicitly mention is belief in the existence of an Adam (but the Catholic idea that God supplied a soul to Adam rather than physically creating him goes a good way to getting around that). However, you also hint that you believe that Christians must accept YEC doctrine, which goes a good deal further.

I hope I’ve explained the insignificance of the word “young”. If not, let me know and I’ll elaborate more on that. Concerning Adam’s soul vs a literal person, That’s a big leap, one that reduces Genesis (and all of Christianity) to an allegory.

Suppose you watch a violent movie, “Scarface” for example, one where there’s a lot of killing going on. Then watch some of the actual film footage of 9-11-2001. In some of that footage as I recall, there’s telephone/radio communications going on in a small group of officials on a ground floor in the area, and you can hear falling bodies hitting the ground, and adjoining roofs. To me there is no comparison in the reality of that vs the allegory of an actor pretending like he’s shooting someone on a move set. Most anyone can quickly forget Hollywood movies much quicker than they forget the reality of 9-11. People making public policy, deciding whether or not to believe what atheists are telling them about our purposeless existence, are going to assign the atheists completely different positions of authority, depending on how how they view the historical account of Genesis, if it was reality, or if it was an allegory to make some point, a point that is subject to countless different interpretations.

Dawkins believes in BOTH the "glory and majesty" and the "blind pitiless indifference" of nature. There's no contradiction between the two. And don't forget that Dawkins has no interest in finding ways to reconcile evolution and Christian belief at all. Why should he want to help Miller in that endeavour ?

Dawkins is one of the few prominent atheists who doesn’t care – he’s actually honest about who he is. William Provine is another, he puts it like this;

quote:
I suspect there is a lot of intellectual dishonesty on this issue. Consider the following fantasy: the National Academy of Sciences publishes a position paper on science and religion stating that modern science leads directly to atheism. What would happen to its funding? To any federal funding of science? Every member of the Congress of the United States of America, even the two current members who are unaffiliated with any organized religion, profess to be deeply religious. I suspect that scientific leaders tread very warily on the issue of the religious implications of science for fear of jeopardizing the funding for scientific research. And I think that many scientist feel some sympathy with the need for moral education and recognize the role that religion plays in this endeavor. These rationalizations are politic but intellectually dishonest. ~ William Provine

Most atheists want to help Miller. It’s always about the money.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 06-10-2010 1:36 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by PaulK, posted 06-13-2010 6:00 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 83 of 94 (564906)
06-13-2010 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Dr Adequate
06-10-2010 7:09 AM


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

I’ll admit that I made what his first paragraph contained more complicated than it actually was, leading you to do the same.

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.

Lets look again at his words and compare them with your wording, and see what we have;

quote:
"I always reject the term 'theistic evolutionist.' I am a theist and an evolutionist, to be sure, but the combined term makes no sense to me. Never heard anyone described as a 'theistic chemist,' have you?"

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”. His paragraph was addressing one thing, how a person’s belief (or worldview) is referred to by a term. He knows that there are religious people that reject common descent evolution, (a creationist like Henry Morris) and he knows there are evolutionists who reject all religion. (an atheist like Richard Dawkins) His book written 9 years earlier indicates that he accepts those terms for people like Morris or Dawkins, he used them many times throughout the book, but doesn’t want any equally descriptive term for himself. His book claimed to seek common ground between religion, and atheism. He knows that there is a term for someone like Morris (creationist) and he knows that there is a term for someone like Dawkins (atheist) He only claimed that he rejected a term for himself, while showing no indication that he had any alternative term for himself in mind. Admittedly, his book showed his lack of interest in applying a term to himself. Atheists, as well as theistic evolutionists, always seem to imply neutrality. That there’s a neutral study of science that a person’s worldview doesn’t affect. It’s not true.

Now a look again at the second paragraph;

quote:
It would be nice to pretend, as many of my scientific friends do, that the study of evolution can be carried out without having any effect on religion. In their own way, they might envy other scientific fields – say, organic CHEMISTRY or oceanography – that seem to barrel ahead at full speed without ever being cast into the arena to grapple with the Almighty. However one might hope that to be the case, and much of the scientific establishment surely wishes it were, the clash between evolution and religion is not about to go away anytime soon.

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

And that many scientists pretend that it has not. In that paragraph, he didn’t say one way or the other that it was all religions fault.

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.

So you created another contradiction by claiming the first paragraph was about “ways to be” a scientist, which it was not. Then you over-simplifed the second paragraph, ignoring the fact that it was about pretending on the part of scientists, or where the blame for the clash actually lies.

I hope this clarifies matters for you.

You weren’t much help.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2010 7:09 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2010 5:56 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 84 of 94 (564909)
06-13-2010 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by bluegenes
06-11-2010 6:10 AM


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.

Doomed either way haha – that’s a good way to put it!

Psychology, and other fields dealing with human behavior, are saturated with evolutionary thinking. Science (mostly atheists in science) propose that humans are simply evolved animals, and this leads to the evaluation of human behavioral problems on an animalistic basis. Many Christians don’t believe that experimentation with monkeys is good guidance in dealing with human problems. When evolution proponents proclaim that studying evolution is no different than studying…plumbing, the dishonesty is obvious to many. But other people, particularly young people who are not yet firm in an atheistic worldview, are often fooled.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by bluegenes, posted 06-11-2010 6:10 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by bluegenes, posted 06-14-2010 2:40 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 85 of 94 (564911)
06-13-2010 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by nwr
06-11-2010 9:39 AM


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

And Miller’s brand of Christianity is largely to blame for it. The Bible has warnings about false teachings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by nwr, posted 06-11-2010 9:39 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 86 of 94 (564913)
06-13-2010 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by New Cat's Eye
06-11-2010 5:07 PM


I consider myself a theistic evolutionist.

I don't know if that is, in fact, what he is saying, but it seems fairly accurate to me. In the 5.4 years that I've been here, I've seen again and again:

Biblical Literalists have to put so much spin and mental gymnastics on the Bible to get it to jive with reality and maintain its literal inerrantness that they totally loose sight of what the Bible is actually saying. Time and time again, when we get down to the gnat's ass, the atheists turn out to have a better knowledge of what the words in the Bible actually are than the Biblical Literalists, themselves.

If you consider science the first word in reality, it’s not surprising that you’re eventually going to get all the way to the point that you describe. The point where you consider atheists to be Biblical authorities. Does the Catholic church consider atheists to be Biblical authorities? Or is that just the opinions of some Catholics like yourself? Any idea of the percentages of Catholics who consider atheists to be Biblical authorities?

Part of the problem is that the atheists are actually reading the book and quoting it in context and trying to understand what the author was most likely saying. On the other hand, the BL's tend to use quote mines from other sources than the Bible itself and parrot often repeated arguments that have already been refuted.

Have you read Miller’s book?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-11-2010 5:07 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-14-2010 1:25 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 87 of 94 (564915)
06-13-2010 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by straightree
06-13-2010 1:03 PM


I happen to be a theistic evolutionist, that is, I think God created the universe through evolution. I mean every thing in universe, not only life.

I also happen to be convinced that the scientific method, as it has been developed by the concurrence of many scientists, and philosophers since ancient times till present, is the method to be used to gain scientific knowledge. I recommend you to read the Wiki article on scientific method history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method).

I looked at it. But I don’t believe that all those scientists and philosophers from ancient times till present, all combined, have developed an authority that surpasses the authority in the 66 book Bible. And we never have an assurance that today's scientists follow those methods 100% perfectly all the time.

And finally, I also happen to be a Christian, primarily because I was born in a culture with Christian tradition, and I feel that it has a meaning for present and future of mankind, not because I take Bible to be the sole book written or inspired by God.

So you don’t believe the Bible was written by or inspired by God? It would then HAVE to be in a secondary position of authority to the ruling realm of science then, wouldn’t it?

If you do that’s fine, it’s a worldview clash that we have to agree to disagree on. But my point is that once the Bible is declared an allegory, it then has no more power over naturalist philosophy than it would if it were simply fiction, as atheists insist it is.

By the way, religion is a cultural phenomenon, and one also subject to evolution, like every thing else in human culture.

A better way to put it would be that evolution is a cultural phenomenon, one that is subject to the truth of scripture, just like everything else in human culture.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by straightree, posted 06-13-2010 1:03 PM straightree has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by straightree, posted 06-14-2010 2:55 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021