Creation vs. Evolution

[gary-ramey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ce4jesus
You are going to deny that classical darwinism was "to show that living beings can be explained as a result of a natural process, natural selection, without any need to resort to creator or other external process". If so, you are being dishonest.

Actually, you're the one parroting the lies fed to him by his church. Darwin was forthright about where he saw his theory fitting in with (and conflicting with) his Christian faith. Darwin wrote extensively about his feelings about god and how his theory fit in (and conflicted with) his Christian upbringing and formal education. He did not formulate the theory to replace god - he saw it as in insight to gods world.

Now, I know you won't read this as it would actually force you to face upto all the lies your church has so clearly fed you over the years, but in his autobiography, Darwin goes through how he sees how his scientific revelation fits in with his faith:

I'm not parroting anything but the congomeration of quotes from well-known evolutionists. Gould himself had this to say about evolution.
DAVID GERGEN: Okay. Now what is it?

STEPHEN JAY GOULD: Evolution is a process of constant branching and expansion. Life began three and a half billion years ago, necessarily about as simple as it could be, because life arose spontaneously from the organic compounds in the primeval oceans. You couldn't begin by precipitating a giraffe out of this primordial soup, so he began the history of life with the simplest possible form of cellular life, namely bacteria. And since there's no way of getting any simpler as life expanded every once in a while you get something more complex because that's the only direction open, but if you look at the full range, rather than falsely, and myopically concentrating on the history of the most complex thing through time."

Seems Gould agrees that evolution and abiogensis are also inseparable and that differs from the opinions on here.

 

[gary-ramey]

The Bible doesn't give us much detail about how God accomplished the creating. If we try to view Genesis as having the purpose of relating science, the very least criticism that could be made is that it's incomplete. Couldn't it be argued that "incomplete" is incorrect? Are we in trouble?

Who's trying to convince who? I've haven't really been studying the Bible all that long so, I'd be happy to be corrected here but...As we look through the Bible who is it that's most often the object of the lessons? Isn't it the believers? What is the tool that God seems very fond of using to convince non-believers? Isn't it the faith of the believers? If someone is being rebuked or pruned back so they can yield more fruit later, might it not be the believers?

One last question. Is doing a bad job of debating science a good demonstration of faith? The bible says that God made foolish the wisdom of this world but how? By the preaching of Christ crucified, right? (1 Cor)

Mike - There's some wisdom in what you say. I've been out of the apologetic field for years and I'm sure it shows. I guess jumping in here, in 500ft of water with only lead on wasn't the brightest idea I've had in some time. But then again, I've never been afraid to jump in and these chaps won't mistake me for Hawking anytime soon.

 

[Thalassamania]

You are going to deny that classical darwinism was "to show that living beings can be explained as a result of a natural process, natural selection, without any need to resort to creator or other external process". If so, you are being dishonest.

Actually, you're the one parroting the lies fed to him by his church. Darwin was forthright about where he saw his theory fitting in with (and conflicting with) his Christian faith. Darwin wrote extensively about his feelings about god and how his theory fit in (and conflicted with) his Christian upbringing and formal education. He did not formulate the theory to replace god - he saw it as in insight to gods world.

Now, I know you won't read this as it would actually force you to face upto all the lies your church has so clearly fed you over the years, but in his autobiography, Darwin goes through how he sees how his scientific revelation fits in with his faith:

I'm not parroting anything but the congomeration of quotes from well-known evolutionists. Gould himself had this to say about evolution.
DAVID GERGEN: Okay. Now what is it?

STEPHEN JAY GOULD: Evolution is a process of constant branching and expansion. Life began three and a half billion years ago, necessarily about as simple as it could be, because life arose spontaneously from the organic compounds in the primeval oceans. You couldn't begin by precipitating a giraffe out of this primordial soup, so he began the history of life with the simplest possible form of cellular life, namely bacteria. And since there's no way of getting any simpler as life expanded every once in a while you get something more complex because that's the only direction open, but if you look at the full range, rather than falsely, and myopically concentrating on the history of the most complex thing through time."

Seems Gould agrees that evolution and abiogensis are also inseparable and that differs from the opinions on here.

I don't know what point you're trying to make. Gould knew to separate the two and there were lots of thinks that I think he was wrong about, punctuated equilibrium, being one of them. But that's a fine point discussion that assumes evolution as a proven process to begin with.

 

[gary-ramey]

Please point out one place where a scientific theory specifically states that creationism is wrong. You can't, cause there isn't one that does that. science doesn't give a damn about your religion - all we do is faithfully report the observations ewe make of the universe.

if these don't line up with your faith, it quite frankly, isn't our problem. You're the one with the pre-conceived notions that you're so disparate to uphold.

The theory of Evolution isn't just about adaptation as falsely presented on here. Otherwise we wouldn't have an argument. According to its most notorious supporters it does exactly what you claim it doesn't.

And that Darwin's was the second that taught us that we were not separately created in the image of a benevolent deity, but were part of a history of genealogical connectivity of all living things.

 

[Thalassamania]

The theory of Evolution isn't just about adaptation as falsely presented on here. Otherwise we wouldn't have an argument. According to its most notorious supporters it does exactly what you claim it doesn't.

You have three (or more) graduate level experts in evolution who have told you what evolution is and what it is not. But you, an admitted novice (at best) in the field, have the nerve, the ego, the gaul, to tell those experts that they are wrong and that you have a clearer idea of what evolution is and is not. You need to drop your hat size a bit, stop participating in the sin of false pride, and exhibit a bit of that there Christian humility.

 

[Mermaid71]

It's not a matter of the metaphysical being allowed or disallowed, it's simply that the metaphysical is untestable (not falsifiable in the science lingo) and thus it is irrelevant to the discussion. Science simply does not solve it's puzzles deus ex machina.

I agree - There are no Scientific laws saying "There is no God". I think that it is a misconception that Science is anti-God. However, Science was designed to test things that can be tested, observed and measured. Since the existence of God is not testable science doesn't address it.

- Elyse

 

[coachpill]

Please allow me to rephrase the question.

Where did God come from?

I think I know of some stories of where the devil came from. But, where did God come from?

I think you know the Biblical answer to that one.

 

[coachpill]

It's not a matter of the metaphysical being allowed or disallowed, it's simply that the metaphysical is untestable (not falsifiable in the science lingo) and thus it is irrelevant to the discussion. Science simply does not solve it's puzzles deus ex machina.

Agreed, the metaphysical is untestable/unfalsifiable.

But testing is not what I was talking about. After the tests, after the collection of data. After gathering data, the data must then be interpreted such that conclusions can be drawn. It is here, at this point, at the interpretation of evidence stage, where the presuppositions of the one doing the interpreting come out.

That's all I'm getting at. It is the naturalistic interpretations of evidence that is the philosophical backing of secular science. And yes, science is secular when only naturalistic/materialistic interpretations are allowed.

I'm not talking about testing for the supernatural. I'm talking about the conclusions drawn from the interpretation of evidence. Interpretations of evidence are based on the presuppositions of the individual.

 

[Sordello]

Agreed, the metaphysical is untestable/unfalsifiable.

I'm not talking about testing for the supernatural. I'm talking about the conclusions drawn from the interpretation of evidence. Interpretations of evidence are based on the presuppositions of the individual.

Of course thats going to happen... It happens all the time. Thats is why there is peer reviews. After all we do choose our parameters and tools when we do a study. You know some humans are very smart but, none are perfect.

When a group collects evidence / data - it is usually available to many groups for many interpretations. That is how the world works.

If you read the interpretations of the bible stories the meanings can be read many different ways. Some say the bible creation was a single event. Some see it in there every day life. Most see it somewhere in a range between these two extremes.

 

[Warthaug]

Yes, evolution and abiogenesis are different disciplines. However, since science, by definition, can only delve into the physical and not the metaphysical, the origin of life could not have been done by God...at least not in a scienctific aspect, because metaphysical is not allowed by science. I think that's the point that's trying to be made here.

No, that is the exact opposite of the point being made. I really do not understand why this is so hard for some to grasp...

Science deals with physical phenomina, and is the best system we humans have devised to describe our universe. However, science is "blind" to whatever is behind those phenomina - we see how the universe works. Some interpret that as a naturalistic understanding, but you would be equally correct (or more accuratly, incorrect) to conclude that we are seeing how god runs things.

The reason I say incorrect is the proper way to phrase things is simple - if a god exists, and acts through natural processes, science would be unable to tell the difference. We just see the end product - i.e. the rules by which our universe runs.

Bryan