But I wouldn't expect people to 'throw science to the ground' either, particularly when science happens to challenge their beliefs about a certain topic, the one about creation.
humor aside, puppies raised by a cat is not enough science to get me to question anything except the judgement of people willing to believe with no scientific proof that they are other than what they look like, newborn puppies being nursed by a cat, just because someone suggests it... but then that does show you how when we wish for something to be true, we will look for "proof" anywhere.
(edited for bad oopsie, I forgot the "other than" so it made no freakin' sense.)
Okay Garth. You know I love ya, not that there's much currency in that, but with a litle change we can get a couple packs of Beebo's Nutty Bumpers and get sugared up!
Your other points, I can't really comment on, so I'm trying to dazzle with dishpit. I'm not a creationist if that means that the earth is only a few thousand years old, period. I don't think that's what the bible really says, but frankly I don't think the bible really addresses topics like that. If it did, it should have an index and at least a table of contents. It doesn't. Seriously, I think my main challenge over the years has been coming to an understanding on what it does speak to and where it's true integrity lies.
At the same time, I have a problem with a - call it, a non-intelligent design view of the universe. To me, there does seem to be design, although the intelligence of it doesn't completely compute to me in everything. I sense a purpose I don't completely understand.
One of the pitfalls I think is to take the world as we see it and say "it doesn't make sense. Why is it like this? It could be much better if it was like THIS. Since it isn't like that, I can't believe there's a God or any kind of higher presence involved because it doesn't make sense to me that there's so many inconsistencies".
You may not view it that way, but many do. What I think that does is create it's own gods. Gods who should do things the way we want them, the way we think would work best. When those self-created Higher Powers don't behave as projected, they're denied. If the god of my making can't do a better job than this, it must not exist. It's an odd way to look at life, to me.
I've often wondered why the physical world seems to move the way it does. Granted, there's some serious zig-zags but our world seems to be waddling down a path that's too familiar to be completely spontaneous, IMO. F'instance movement. Things exist, and things that have life tend to have movement. Not always, but a lot of living things have self-generated movement. That movement's all the same kind - living things crawl, walk, step, swim, paddle, push, drag, float, pull, ooze, twist, sway. Movement and transportation is - it seems to be the same kind of thing regardless of the species. I wonder sometimes why alternate forms of transportation haven't evolved. I can imagine much more efficient means of moving from point A to point B but have never seen them or read about them. In the vast world of endless universal possiblities, there seems to have been only one that we see or have ever seen. There could possibly be a design, direction, purpose behind that. ???
... As I said before, evolution doesn't deal with whether there is a creator (ie., God) or not. It _only_ deals with the physical, natural process, based on various findings that (seems to, at the very least) show the process of evolution by means of natural selection...
It appears to me that Darwinism depends more on a philosophical viewpoint than scientific evidence. Imho a lot of the scientific method can be understood as a disciplined approach by observation and experimentation. There's evidence for changes within a species – sometimes referred to as microevolution. Man has taken advantage of that with techniques in domestic breeding. But where is the evidence for macroevolution - where man has been able to produce a totally new species? Where is the proof it occurred naturally overtime – where is the missing link? Has anyone created life in a lab? Going by the basic principles of the scientific method – Darwinism and macroevolution doesn't stack up for me.There's a dispute among some scientists over the scientific validity of Darwinism. Here's a link with some info on the dissent:
One thing that people don't realize about 'where is the missing link' defense. Ie., there IS no 'missing link'. Ie., evolution all occurs over a progression of time. There is no ONE generation where it jumps from one species/genus to another. And thats where the 'where is the missing link' folks trip up.
And genus is a level above the species. Ie., there are various species within a genus. And this doesn't address categorizations like families and other divisions. Which, as someone else pointed out, are man-made.
Are there missing 'gaps' in the theory of evolution? Yep. But have you noticed that the gaps continue to shrink and/or get filled in as the years and decades go by? And more and more evidence that does this continually point towards the evolutionary process, and away from the 6-day/biblical account of creation. Now many people seem to take this discounting of the biblical account as a sign of moving away from God.
Perhaps you should rethink this approach. Because if the existence/gospel of God is dependent upon the account in Genesis being taken as The factual truth as put in the 1st - 3rd chapters, you are placing your entire faith upon the account in Genesis being rendered as a scientific/factually true account. And even those who utilize the Old Earth Theory (which still depends on the account in Genesis) in the same manner, there are still too many factual flaws to be taken seriously on a scientific basis.
... And that's a m-i-g-h-t-y shaky ground to base one's faith upon, if you ask me.
I have to disagree with you saying that more and more evidence points towards an evolutionary process. You're going to have to get more specific – something better than the Brazilian Cat/Dog thing. I think it takes a lot more faith to accept blind chance as the key to the development of species/genus…
…So you're telling me this evolutionary process takes place ever so gradually - over a progression of time – and it must be an awfully long time – because we're not able to observe it happening. What I do see happening is certain groups of people looking at the data and giving their explanation of how they think these things came to be this way. Fine – but when their explanation defies basic principles of physics – it's starting to look more like a faith-based agenda to me. From nothing we get something? From chaos we get order? Simplicity slowly developing into great complexity?...Genetic research is really wasting a lot of intelligence, resources and time – why don't they just go to Las Vegas and kill time until they get a call from the janitor "hey you guys something interesting is happening in the petri dish."
Let's get more specific on the issue – like this excerpt I posted below:
"Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Slowly But Surely...
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4]
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]
And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]"
I don't know if anyone mentioned it before but...how come no fossils or skeletons of 'half evolved' animals etc..? If evolution outside of species existed where are the fragments ?? Where are the remains of wolves with frog legs etc..etc.. ??
They have fossils of barnacles, scallops, oysters (clams) that are (supposedly) millions of years old and they still look like the barnacles, scallops and oysters of today. How come such 'rudimentary' life forms never evolved ?
Just like numerous finds of trees and shell fossils that have been unearthed and found to be sitting UPRIGHT through (supposedly) tens of thousands of years of sediment ! Are they to be thought of as having fossilised 'over time'. Most finds of course have fossils 'layered' sideways and geologists measure the 'levels of sediment' by layer, but what about the fossils found to have expired and been covered over in a standing position....interesting.
I love this! I really do! A well disguised creationist/intelligent design site disguised as an 'objective science' site. Well done, I must say! ... See, this is what you find when you go to their 'About Us' page, and read up on what their agenda _really_ is.
See, the thing blocking them from objectively learning about evolution, and the (yes Virginia) increasing evidence supporting it, is that, at the basis of all their presentation, is still not allowing themselves to question their scripture/doctrine re: the biblical account. Arguments of 'irreducible complexity' and the like scientific sounding phrases are used to attempt to protect the 'integrity of the scriptures' from being challenged by any science, particularly the evolutionary biology variety.
…So you're telling me this evolutionary process takes place ever so gradually - over a progression of time – and it must be an awfully long time – because we're not able to observe it happening.
Flawed argument of the false dilemma variety. The reason that you aren't able to observe it happening is the same reason why you don't observe the movement of the continents over the millenia. Ie., its to darn s-l-o-w for direct observation. But via other tests; archeological, geological, and the like variety, geological scientists can conclude that the plates and continents do indeed move.
Also keep in mind that the theory of evolution in Darwin's time was far more limited in scope and knowledge, as compared with what we know today. It (if you'll pardon the term) evolves. :)
It isn't a theory 'in crisis', unless you consider the 'crisis' the fact that it isn't a static and complete science. And nobody claimed that it was. And I laugh at the term, as it seems to suggest that the evolutionary scientists are quite insecure in their holding of the idea. ... Funny! As it always seems to me that its the Creationists who are the ones 'in crisis', what with their desperate measures to include creationism to be taught as a science on school boards across the country. That's why I find it refreshing that the judge in Dover PA ruled like he did.
Anywho, we could go on and on about this, but having been in (and left) the creationist camp, frankly I found that their attempts to 'scientize' the biblical account, ... shall we say, lacking, due to what I explained above. Particularly when time after time, creationist supporters seem to hit this 'invisible wall' where they just will NOT question (as in challenge) the scriptures/central doctrine when that, and evidence/information that supports evolution, collide.
Sorry, but I don't regard that as a really honest way of finding out the facts, do you?
P.S., oh by the way, I do believe I did explain and retract what I said about the catty-dog link, did I not? So please stop trying to use that as a straw man argument against the position of evolution. ... mmm-kay?
And to Cynic,
Bingo! The methodology by which evolutionists come by their claims is not philosophically (or theologically) neutral.
Then please explain to us all how it is that many Christians (and I'm not just referring to the theologically 'liberal' ones, as the judge in Dover PA clearly illustrates; he was a Baptist, if I recall correctly) accept the evolutionary stance. And please also document where Darwin set up the theory from a philosophical 'there cannot be a creator god' standpoint?
Here is a little bit of history behind how the Creationist movement 'evolved' , and one thing I noticed that it shows, was that it didn't originate from a purely scientific standpoint, but rather via a means of achieving a Constitutionally legal standing in the public schools by changing the usage of their terms. Check this segment out:
C. Federal Jurisprudential Legal Landscape
As we will review the federal jurisprudential legal landscape in detail below, we will accordingly render only an abbreviated summary of that terrain by way of an introduction at this juncture. The religious movement known as Fundamentalism began in nineteenth century America as a response to social changes, new religious thought and Darwinism.
Religiously motivated groups pushed state legislatures to adopt laws prohibiting public schools from teaching evolution, culminating in the Scopes “monkey trial” of 1925. McLean, 529 F.Supp. at 1259; see Scopes v. State, 154 Tenn. 105 (1927) (criminal prosecution of public-school teacher for teaching about evolution).
In 1968, a radical change occurred in the legal landscape when in Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), the Supreme Court struck down Arkansas’s statutory prohibition against teaching evolution. Religious proponents of evolution thereafter championed “balanced treatment” statutes requiring public-school teachers who taught evolution to devote equal time to teaching the biblical view of creation; however, courts realized this tactic to be another attempt to establish the Biblical version of the creation of man. Daniel v. Waters, 515 F.2d 485 (6th Cir. 1975).
Fundamentalist opponents of evolution responded with a new tactic suggested by Daniel’s reasoning which was ultimately found to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment, namely, to utilize scientific-sounding language to describe religious beliefs and then to require that schools teach the resulting “creation science” or “scientific creationism” as an alternative to evolution. In Edwards v. Arkansas, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), five years after McLean, the Supreme Court held that a requirement that public schools teach “creation science” along with evolution violated the Establishment Clause. The import of Edwards is that the Supreme Court turned the proscription against teaching creation science in the public school system into a national prohibition.
Notice that with each succeeding items in bold, they try a tactic to succeed where the previous tactic failed. Ie., they were all tactics with the central emphasis of routing out evolution and putting the biblical account back in its place in the public schools. Tactics that has *nothing* to do with scientific inquiry and discovery.
V-e-r-y interesting & revealing legal history here, as I had no idea how the current Creationist ideas/terms came into usage before.
The reason I reject Darwinism is not because it challenges the Biblical account of creation – but because it proves to be invalid by the scientific method – observation and experimentation. And if scientists are able to figure out that continents move through the various disciplines of archeology, geology, etc. [i.e. scientific method – especially keen observation skills] – then what do the fossil records reveal? Entirely new species just appear on the scene! Which from my Christian viewpoint suggests creation! Where is the evidence to support this ever-so-slow macro-evolutionary process? Darwin admitted in Origin of Species "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most serious objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution." This excerpt is towards the end of the first paragraph of Chapter 9, On the Imperfection of the Geological Record, and see link below for the entire chapter:
Let's look at it from the experimentation angle. Darwinism's argument is that if artificial selection [scientists using breeding techniques] can make significant little changes in a short time – then large changes could have occurred naturally [natural selection – or really Darwinism's blind chance] over a much longer time-frame. But this is like comparing apples to oranges. There is intelligence and purpose behind artificial selection – which imho indicates that's the way the stuff was started in the first place – God! Usually breeders pick preferred characteristics in species they want to perpetuate or enhance for some reason. Breeders have a very active and purposeful role in the selection process – protecting/isolating preferred characteristics and eliminating undesirable qualities - hopefully reaching their goal at some point along the line of the generations.
I have no desire to "scientize" the Scriptures or prove the validity of the Bible through science – some movement you think every Christian must follow. From my viewpoint, which I've stated earlier as believing there is a harmony of science [the study of the physical world] and Scripture since the author is the same – I don't see a problem between the Bible and true science. When the Bible speaks of things in the physical world – I understand them to be true – even though stated in unscientific terms. When scientists study the evidence that suggests a Big-bang event – I see Genesis 1:1 as a summary statement for the beginning of all matter, energy, space, and time. Scientists base their knowledge on physical constants, laws, principles – of which the establishment of these things can be found in Genesis 1:1-25. Scientists explore the possibilities and limits of genetics – which in Genesis 1:11-25 is expressed in very simple terms.
Here is a little bit of history behind how the Creationist movement 'evolved' , and one thing I noticed that it shows, was that it didn't originate from a purely scientific standpoint, but rather via a means of achieving a Constitutionally legal standing in the public schools by changing the usage of their terms...
In an article Dover in Review by John West makes an interesting observation –
"C. A Similar Rule Applied to Plaintiffs' Own Expert's Publication Would Disqualify Dr. Kenneth Miller's Textbook.
Plaintiffs claim that references to "creation" and "creationists" deleted from pre-publication drafts of Pandas establish the equivalence of intelligent design and creationism. Yet the first two editions of a biology textbook actually published by plaintiffs' expert Dr. Kenneth Miller explicitly affirmed the anti-religious claim that Darwinian theory "required" belief in philosophical materialism: "Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its byproducts... Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us... Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us."
Dr. Miller was quick to point out that later versions of his textbooks removed such anti-religious statements. But if unpublished drafts—never seen by the school board or students—evidence the "real meaning" of Pandas, what should be the significance of language that Dr. Miller actually published? Plaintiffs' attempt to rely on pre-publication drafts of Pandas not only ignores the context in which the constitutional issues in this case arise, but threatens to open a floodgate to lawsuits challenging the "hidden agenda" of textbooks widely used by students today."
Perhaps something similar can be said of how some people want to ignore the centuries-old ground rules of science by embracing the theory of macroevolution with a religious-like faith. It seems obvious to me after reviewing Darwin's Origin of Species that his theories didn't originate from a purely scientific standpoint either.
Then perhaps you can either post or provide links to material authored by Darwin himself where he clearly stated that accepting evolution required a belief in 'philosophical materialism'. The material I read about his views as regarding evolution didn't even deal with any kind of materialism whatsoever.
Seems to me (from what you post) that the only ones postulating this belief about Darwin are the creationists interpreting Darwin's view according to that manner. ... And simply associating the book Pandas to Charles Darwin in that context just won't do.
Then perhaps you can either post or provide links to material authored by Darwin himself where he clearly stated that accepting evolution required a belief in 'philosophical materialism'. The material I read about his views as regarding evolution didn't even deal with any kind of materialism whatsoever...
"philosophical materialism (physicalism) Philosophical materialism (physicalism) is the metaphysical view that there is only one substance in the universe and that substance is physical, empirical or material. Materialists believe that spiritual substance does not exist. Paranormal, supernatural or occult phenomena are either delusions or reducible to physical forces. Materialists are not necessarily atheists, nor do they deny the reality of such things as love or justice, beauty or goodness."
"The theory that matter and energy are the only objects existing within the universe, and that mental and spiritual phenomena are explainable as functions of the nervous system of people. Same as materialism."
With the above definitions in mind and reviewing Origin of Species – I would say that the termisapplicable to Darwin – being how the main thrust of his work was natural selection. He denies the work of a higher power - as seen in the following last paragraph of the introduction of Darwin's Origin of Species – a key phrase I put in bold:
"No one ought to feel surprise at much remaining as yet unexplained in regard to the origin of species and varieties, if he makes due allowance for our profound ignorance in regard to the mutual relations of all the beings which live around us. Who can explain why one species ranges widely and is very numerous, and why another allied species has a narrow range and is rare? Yet these relations are of the highest importance, for they determine the present welfare, and, as I believe, the future success and modification of every inhabitant of this world. Still less do we know of the mutual relations of the innumerable inhabitants of the world during the many past geological epochs in its history. Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgement of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained — namely, that each species has been independently created — is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification."
Now you know and I know that philosophical materialism goes a helluva lot farther than that paragraph Darwin stated.
Also keep in mind that evolution, ALL of it, the entire premise, is not based upon whatever philosophy/religion Darwin may or may not have had. Keep in mind that you have religious people of various persuasions and beliefs ranging from liberal to even conservative (like that judge in Dover PA) who accept the scientific viability and evidence of the evolutionary theory. Or what about all the geological/archeological/astronomical evidence/information that directly counters and contradicts the biblical account? You going to simply label that as 'philosophical materialism', and think that washes it away?
If Darwin's views on philosophical materialism was the main thing Darwin had to go on for the theory of evolution, his theory would have died with him. But it hasn't. Instead, it has grown and matured over the past 150 years, all due to more and more scientific inquiry, research, and discovery of more evidence.
This desperate measure to tie evolution to some secular/so called 'atheistic' philosophy is just that: desperate. First religious authorities tried to ban evolution outright in the schools. That failed. Then they tried the 'equal time' bulls**t, then the 'scientific terminology' routine. (I documented this in that legal document I posted) Hell, some of them even tried to tie Darwinism/evolution with Hitler and the Nazi Master Race philosophy. Can you believe that? (I even remember hearing John Schoenheit doing just that on his tape dealing with evolution) :blink: ... And at the root of it all is the stiff resistance against a theory that dares portray a portion of the Bible as not being true. I oughtta know. I used to believe likewise. I know the mindset.
I've read up quite a bit on Darwin. And for sure, his prime motivation in finding out about biology, zoology, and the evidence that led him to believe that evolution was viable (if not true) _was_ scientific. His trips (as documented in his diaries) on the HMS Beagle shows this plainly. Like any real scientist, who is bound/loyal to neither religious/political motivations. No doubt he wasn't a religious man, and no doubt he was a 'materialist' of some form or fashion. But notice that that was a view that came later in life, and apparently one that _he_ felt being more true than religious teachings about the matter. But also notice that there are those of the religious persuasion who, even tho' they accept the Darwin theory, do NOT accept the materialist philosophy. ... Which causes me to discount the theory of evolution as simply being based upon that brand of philosophy, that it transcends whatever philosophy any of us might hold. _You_ might not accept that, but then again, that is your opinion, and goes no farther than that.
I suspect that this debate will no doubt continue for a good many years more. But I'd be willing to bet even $$money$$ that more and more evidence supporting evolution, and discounting the Genesis account, will continue to mount, creationist song-and-dance notwithstanding.
And if that brings about the unfortunate effect of tearing down and discounting your spiritual beliefs, ........ well, I would have thought that a Spiritual Truth that is (supposedly) immovable would have been a helluva lot harder to crack than that.
Now you know and I know that philosophical materialism goes a helluva lot farther than that paragraph Darwin stated.
Also keep in mind that evolution, ALL of it, the entire premise, is not based upon whatever philosophy/religion Darwin may or may not have had...Or what about all the geological/archeological/astronomical evidence/information that directly counters and contradicts the biblical account? You going to simply label that as 'philosophical materialism', and think that washes it away?...
This desperate measure to tie evolution to some secular/so called 'atheistic' philosophy is just that: desperate...
Darwin's viewpoint pops up intermittently throughout his body of work – not just elsewhere in Origin of Species - as can be seen from this excerpt from Darwin's the Descent of Man, chapter 21, General Summary and Conclusion:
"The moral nature of man has reached its present standard, partly through the advancement of his reasoning powers and consequently of a just public opinion, but especially from his sympathies having been rendered more tender and widely diffused through the effects of habit, example, instruction, and reflection. It is not improbable that after long practice virtuous tendencies may be inherited. With the more civilised races, the conviction of the existence of an all-seeing Deity has had a potent influence on the advance of morality. Ultimately man does not accept the praise or blame of his fellows as his sole guide, though few escape this influence, but his habitual convictions, controlled by reason, afford him the safest rule. His conscience then becomes the supreme judge and monitor. Nevertheless the first foundation or origin of the moral sense lies in the social instincts, including sympathy; and these instincts no doubt were primarily gained, as in the case of the lower animals, through natural selection.
The belief in God has often been advanced as not only the greatest, but the most complete of all the distinctions between man and the lower animals. It is however impossible, as we have seen, to maintain that this belief is innate or instinctive in man. On the other hand a belief in all-pervading spiritual agencies seems to be universal; and apparently follows from a considerable advance in man's reason, and from a still greater advance in his faculties of imagination, curiosity and wonder. I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in God has been used by many persons as an argument for His existence. But this is a rash argument, as we should thus be compelled to believe in the existence of many cruel and malignant spirits, only a little more powerful than man; for the belief in them is far more general than in a beneficent Deity. The idea of a universal and beneficent Creator does not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long-continued culture."
End of excerpt
I don't consider this a desperate attempt to tie evolution to some secular or atheistic philosophy. I'm just making some observations – and just thinking out loud about what was his thinking process. When I consider the evidence [the fossil record, physical laws of science, experimentation by breeding, genetic research, etc.] – I come to a different conclusion on HOW these things came to be. A person's viewpoint is going to come out in their work – it is after all a governor of HOW we process information.
That leads me to your statement: "Or what about all the geological/archeological/astronomical evidence/information that directly counters and contradicts the biblical account?" You need to be more specific. As I said in post #64 – from my viewpoint [pointing out the obvious] I don't see any contradictions between the Bible and true science [the study of the physical world]. But I don't think the purpose of the Bible was ever to promote science or to teach man scientific information – in my opinion the Bible is for those on a spiritual quest. I believe God has left man free to explore this world, to discover things, invent things, to grow, to advance – honoring His gift of the world to man in Genesis 1:28 telling him to fill the earth and subdue it.
As a modern man I am, technologically speaking, more informed than the people of the biblical time period. This of course plays a part in my viewpoint when reading Scripture. Just as the lack of advanced science and technology played a part in the viewpoint of the writers of Scripture. So in Genesis, we find a description of the creation in unscientific terms – so the main idea given is not to declare all the laws of physics, genetics, etc. – but simply that the creation is attributed to God. In Job 26:7 we read "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing." Guess if God told me to write about that – I'd feel I'd have to dress it up for our audience with reference to the gravitational forces He set up in the universe. Or If I had to write Isaiah 40:22 where it reads, "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers…" wouldn't impress most folk today unless I had a satellite picture of the earth next to my text.
Gee Mark, is this your attempt at trying to show how evolution and/or secular viewpoints are likened to a faith-based religion? <_< I think you can do better than that lame attempt.
T-bone,
You still fail to show how evolution is based on materialistic philosophy. If this philosophy did influence his evolutionary viewpoints like you seem to portray (all 'observations' aside <_< ), then the theory of evolution would have died with him, and others like him. Yet the fact that religious people of many different stripes accept evolution is still something you haven't addressed. Have you (or Evan for that matter) utilized your 'sharpened thinking' as far as that goes?
That leads me to your statement: "Or what about all the geological/archaeological/astronomical evidence/information that directly counters and contradicts the biblical account?" You need to be more specific.
Ok, how's this for but one example. In the biblical account (and this addresses both the Young Earth _and_ the Old Earth varieties, as well as any other variation of the biblical account), the sun, moon, and all the stars/planets are formed *after* the 'null and void' situation in Genesis 1:2. After. Which would make the sun, moon, and the stars/planets no older than approx. 6,000 years. (Remember, we aren't utilizing the Genesis account in a figurative/hyperbolic sense, as Creationism teaches that the account is literal). Yet *tons* of information/evidence/facts reveal that the sun, moon, and the stars/planets are all far older than 6,000 years. ... That example alone causes at least a serious question of doubt to be raised about the Creationist account. At the very least! ... Consider that as but one example; I can give others, but I now refer you to what just occurred to me in what you write in your last post as something that actually undermines creationism (as it is officially defined), rather than enhances it:
But I don't think the purpose of the Bible was ever to promote science or to teach man scientific information – in my opinion the Bible is for those on a spiritual quest. ... As a modern man I am, technologically speaking, more informed than the people of the biblical time period. This of course plays a part in my viewpoint when reading Scripture. Just as the lack of advanced science and technology played a part in the viewpoint of the writers of Scripture. So in Genesis, we find a description of the creation in unscientific terms – so the main idea given is not to declare all the laws of physics, genetics, etc. – but simply that the creation is attributed to God. In Job 26:7 we read "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing." Guess if God told me to write about that – I'd feel I'd have to dress it up for our audience with reference to the gravitational forces He set up in the universe. Or If I had to write Isaiah 40:22 where it reads, "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers…" wouldn't impress most folk today unless I had a satellite picture of the earth next to my text.
The reason I believe this undermines, or at the very least puts pause to Creationism, is that Creationism requires a literal interpretation of the scripture. Ie., as it is written. Because once you put it in a figurative sense, Creationism is off the table. There are a good many Intelligent Design advocates who do this, as well as Christians who accept evolution as the physical means of creation. Ie., God did it, but He didn't do it according to the literal Genesis account or He did it via evolution.
By the way, I submit that there is one thing you gotta admit about Darwin's philosophy. He would have never endeavored to manipulate the courts and the law to integrate that philosophy into the public school systems in such a dishonest manner like many Creationists do today with Creationism. For if their attempts are so honest, why would that Dover PA judge chastise them so severely like he did, hmmm?
T-bone, you are correct sir. The theory of evolution supports a materialistic viewpoint, when looked at on its own. Although, science itself when looked at in the same way does the exact same thing. ALL OF IT. The reason is very simple. Science is naturalistic. Meaning, science looks to the natural world, material things (matter, energy), for answers and explainations of the way things are, for no other reason than these are the only materials that they can observe and test. This is what science does. It is seperate from religion and when viewed on its own it is wholely materialistic. You cannot blame a scientist for not considering God in thier equation for life becauce God is not something they can test and observe. God is faith based and science is based on imperical data.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
6
26
15
8
Popular Days
Nov 19
20
Nov 26
19
Nov 17
19
Nov 20
14
Top Posters In This Topic
socks 6 posts
GarthP2000 26 posts
T-Bone 15 posts
potato 8 posts
Popular Days
Nov 19 2006
20 posts
Nov 26 2006
19 posts
Nov 17 2006
19 posts
Nov 20 2006
14 posts
waysider
Remember that old gasoline company jingle:"Put a tiger in your tank!"?
Were they suggesting feline can co-mingle with fish?
Isn't there such a critter as the "tiger shark"?
Food for thought.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA HAHA HA!!!!!!!
wow, that was funny! Garth, you crack me up.
humor aside, puppies raised by a cat is not enough science to get me to question anything except the judgement of people willing to believe with no scientific proof that they are other than what they look like, newborn puppies being nursed by a cat, just because someone suggests it... but then that does show you how when we wish for something to be true, we will look for "proof" anywhere.
(edited for bad oopsie, I forgot the "other than" so it made no freakin' sense.)
Edited by potatoLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Okay Garth. You know I love ya, not that there's much currency in that, but with a litle change we can get a couple packs of Beebo's Nutty Bumpers and get sugared up!
Your other points, I can't really comment on, so I'm trying to dazzle with dishpit. I'm not a creationist if that means that the earth is only a few thousand years old, period. I don't think that's what the bible really says, but frankly I don't think the bible really addresses topics like that. If it did, it should have an index and at least a table of contents. It doesn't. Seriously, I think my main challenge over the years has been coming to an understanding on what it does speak to and where it's true integrity lies.
At the same time, I have a problem with a - call it, a non-intelligent design view of the universe. To me, there does seem to be design, although the intelligence of it doesn't completely compute to me in everything. I sense a purpose I don't completely understand.
One of the pitfalls I think is to take the world as we see it and say "it doesn't make sense. Why is it like this? It could be much better if it was like THIS. Since it isn't like that, I can't believe there's a God or any kind of higher presence involved because it doesn't make sense to me that there's so many inconsistencies".
You may not view it that way, but many do. What I think that does is create it's own gods. Gods who should do things the way we want them, the way we think would work best. When those self-created Higher Powers don't behave as projected, they're denied. If the god of my making can't do a better job than this, it must not exist. It's an odd way to look at life, to me.
I've often wondered why the physical world seems to move the way it does. Granted, there's some serious zig-zags but our world seems to be waddling down a path that's too familiar to be completely spontaneous, IMO. F'instance movement. Things exist, and things that have life tend to have movement. Not always, but a lot of living things have self-generated movement. That movement's all the same kind - living things crawl, walk, step, swim, paddle, push, drag, float, pull, ooze, twist, sway. Movement and transportation is - it seems to be the same kind of thing regardless of the species. I wonder sometimes why alternate forms of transportation haven't evolved. I can imagine much more efficient means of moving from point A to point B but have never seen them or read about them. In the vast world of endless universal possiblities, there seems to have been only one that we see or have ever seen. There could possibly be a design, direction, purpose behind that. ???
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
--------------- chirp
...........................................................chirp
Look! In the sky, so many stars. Stars.......Yeah.
I killed it. Sorry.
------------------------ribbet
So how's about dem Bears?
DA Bears.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
:unsure: Huh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
It appears to me that Darwinism depends more on a philosophical viewpoint than scientific evidence. Imho a lot of the scientific method can be understood as a disciplined approach by observation and experimentation. There's evidence for changes within a species – sometimes referred to as microevolution. Man has taken advantage of that with techniques in domestic breeding. But where is the evidence for macroevolution - where man has been able to produce a totally new species? Where is the proof it occurred naturally overtime – where is the missing link? Has anyone created life in a lab? Going by the basic principles of the scientific method – Darwinism and macroevolution doesn't stack up for me.There's a dispute among some scientists over the scientific validity of Darwinism. Here's a link with some info on the dissent:
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Bingo! The methodology by which evolutionists come by their claims is not philosophically (or theologically) neutral.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
One thing that people don't realize about 'where is the missing link' defense. Ie., there IS no 'missing link'. Ie., evolution all occurs over a progression of time. There is no ONE generation where it jumps from one species/genus to another. And thats where the 'where is the missing link' folks trip up.
And genus is a level above the species. Ie., there are various species within a genus. And this doesn't address categorizations like families and other divisions. Which, as someone else pointed out, are man-made.
Are there missing 'gaps' in the theory of evolution? Yep. But have you noticed that the gaps continue to shrink and/or get filled in as the years and decades go by? And more and more evidence that does this continually point towards the evolutionary process, and away from the 6-day/biblical account of creation. Now many people seem to take this discounting of the biblical account as a sign of moving away from God.
Perhaps you should rethink this approach. Because if the existence/gospel of God is dependent upon the account in Genesis being taken as The factual truth as put in the 1st - 3rd chapters, you are placing your entire faith upon the account in Genesis being rendered as a scientific/factually true account. And even those who utilize the Old Earth Theory (which still depends on the account in Genesis) in the same manner, there are still too many factual flaws to be taken seriously on a scientific basis.
... And that's a m-i-g-h-t-y shaky ground to base one's faith upon, if you ask me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I have to disagree with you saying that more and more evidence points towards an evolutionary process. You're going to have to get more specific – something better than the Brazilian Cat/Dog thing. I think it takes a lot more faith to accept blind chance as the key to the development of species/genus…
…So you're telling me this evolutionary process takes place ever so gradually - over a progression of time – and it must be an awfully long time – because we're not able to observe it happening. What I do see happening is certain groups of people looking at the data and giving their explanation of how they think these things came to be this way. Fine – but when their explanation defies basic principles of physics – it's starting to look more like a faith-based agenda to me. From nothing we get something? From chaos we get order? Simplicity slowly developing into great complexity?...Genetic research is really wasting a lot of intelligence, resources and time – why don't they just go to Las Vegas and kill time until they get a call from the janitor "hey you guys something interesting is happening in the petri dish."
Let's get more specific on the issue – like this excerpt I posted below:
"Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Slowly But Surely...
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4]
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]
And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]"
The above excerpt from: http://www.allaboutscience.org/darwins-theory-of-evolution.htm
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
I don't know if anyone mentioned it before but...how come no fossils or skeletons of 'half evolved' animals etc..? If evolution outside of species existed where are the fragments ?? Where are the remains of wolves with frog legs etc..etc.. ??
They have fossils of barnacles, scallops, oysters (clams) that are (supposedly) millions of years old and they still look like the barnacles, scallops and oysters of today. How come such 'rudimentary' life forms never evolved ?
Just like numerous finds of trees and shell fossils that have been unearthed and found to be sitting UPRIGHT through (supposedly) tens of thousands of years of sediment ! Are they to be thought of as having fossilised 'over time'. Most finds of course have fossils 'layered' sideways and geologists measure the 'levels of sediment' by layer, but what about the fossils found to have expired and been covered over in a standing position....interesting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I love this! I really do!
A well disguised creationist/intelligent design site disguised as an 'objective science' site. Well done, I must say! ... See, this is what you find when you go to their 'About Us' page, and read up on what their agenda _really_ is.
See, the thing blocking them from objectively learning about evolution, and the (yes Virginia) increasing evidence supporting it, is that, at the basis of all their presentation, is still not allowing themselves to question their scripture/doctrine re: the biblical account. Arguments of 'irreducible complexity' and the like scientific sounding phrases are used to attempt to protect the 'integrity of the scriptures' from being challenged by any science, particularly the evolutionary biology variety.
Flawed argument of the false dilemma variety. The reason that you aren't able to observe it happening is the same reason why you don't observe the movement of the continents over the millenia. Ie., its to darn s-l-o-w for direct observation. But via other tests; archeological, geological, and the like variety, geological scientists can conclude that the plates and continents do indeed move.Also keep in mind that the theory of evolution in Darwin's time was far more limited in scope and knowledge, as compared with what we know today. It (if you'll pardon the term) evolves. :)
It isn't a theory 'in crisis', unless you consider the 'crisis' the fact that it isn't a static and complete science. And nobody claimed that it was. And I laugh at the term, as it seems to suggest that the evolutionary scientists are quite insecure in their holding of the idea. ... Funny!
As it always seems to me that its the Creationists who are the ones 'in crisis', what with their desperate measures to include creationism to be taught as a science on school boards across the country. That's why I find it refreshing that the judge in Dover PA ruled like he did.
Anywho, we could go on and on about this, but having been in (and left) the creationist camp, frankly I found that their attempts to 'scientize' the biblical account, ... shall we say, lacking, due to what I explained above. Particularly when time after time, creationist supporters seem to hit this 'invisible wall' where they just will NOT question (as in challenge) the scriptures/central doctrine when that, and evidence/information that supports evolution, collide.
Sorry, but I don't regard that as a really honest way of finding out the facts, do you?
P.S., oh by the way, I do believe I did explain and retract what I said about the catty-dog link, did I not? So please stop trying to use that as a straw man argument against the position of evolution. ... mmm-kay?
And to Cynic,
Then please explain to us all how it is that many Christians (and I'm not just referring to the theologically 'liberal' ones, as the judge in Dover PA clearly illustrates; he was a Baptist, if I recall correctly) accept the evolutionary stance. And please also document where Darwin set up the theory from a philosophical 'there cannot be a creator god' standpoint?
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Here is a little bit of history behind how the Creationist movement 'evolved'
, and one thing I noticed that it shows, was that it didn't originate from a purely scientific standpoint, but rather via a means of achieving a Constitutionally legal standing in the public schools by changing the usage of their terms. Check this segment out:
Bolded emphasis mine.(Segment from the www.pamd.uscourt.gov site, a PDF document. For those not having a PDF reader, here is the HTML version of the page.
Notice that with each succeeding items in bold, they try a tactic to succeed where the previous tactic failed. Ie., they were all tactics with the central emphasis of routing out evolution and putting the biblical account back in its place in the public schools. Tactics that has *nothing* to do with scientific inquiry and discovery.
V-e-r-y interesting & revealing legal history here, as I had no idea how the current Creationist ideas/terms came into usage before.
Now I do. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
The reason I reject Darwinism is not because it challenges the Biblical account of creation – but because it proves to be invalid by the scientific method – observation and experimentation. And if scientists are able to figure out that continents move through the various disciplines of archeology, geology, etc. [i.e. scientific method – especially keen observation skills] – then what do the fossil records reveal? Entirely new species just appear on the scene! Which from my Christian viewpoint suggests creation! Where is the evidence to support this ever-so-slow macro-evolutionary process? Darwin admitted in Origin of Species "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most serious objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution." This excerpt is towards the end of the first paragraph of Chapter 9, On the Imperfection of the Geological Record, and see link below for the entire chapter:
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-09.html
Let's look at it from the experimentation angle. Darwinism's argument is that if artificial selection [scientists using breeding techniques] can make significant little changes in a short time – then large changes could have occurred naturally [natural selection – or really Darwinism's blind chance] over a much longer time-frame. But this is like comparing apples to oranges. There is intelligence and purpose behind artificial selection – which imho indicates that's the way the stuff was started in the first place – God! Usually breeders pick preferred characteristics in species they want to perpetuate or enhance for some reason. Breeders have a very active and purposeful role in the selection process – protecting/isolating preferred characteristics and eliminating undesirable qualities - hopefully reaching their goal at some point along the line of the generations.
I have no desire to "scientize" the Scriptures or prove the validity of the Bible through science – some movement you think every Christian must follow. From my viewpoint, which I've stated earlier as believing there is a harmony of science [the study of the physical world] and Scripture since the author is the same – I don't see a problem between the Bible and true science. When the Bible speaks of things in the physical world – I understand them to be true – even though stated in unscientific terms. When scientists study the evidence that suggests a Big-bang event – I see Genesis 1:1 as a summary statement for the beginning of all matter, energy, space, and time. Scientists base their knowledge on physical constants, laws, principles – of which the establishment of these things can be found in Genesis 1:1-25. Scientists explore the possibilities and limits of genetics – which in Genesis 1:11-25 is expressed in very simple terms.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
In an article Dover in Review by John West makes an interesting observation –
"C. A Similar Rule Applied to Plaintiffs' Own Expert's Publication Would Disqualify Dr. Kenneth Miller's Textbook.
Plaintiffs claim that references to "creation" and "creationists" deleted from pre-publication drafts of Pandas establish the equivalence of intelligent design and creationism. Yet the first two editions of a biology textbook actually published by plaintiffs' expert Dr. Kenneth Miller explicitly affirmed the anti-religious claim that Darwinian theory "required" belief in philosophical materialism: "Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its byproducts... Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us... Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us."
Dr. Miller was quick to point out that later versions of his textbooks removed such anti-religious statements. But if unpublished drafts—never seen by the school board or students—evidence the "real meaning" of Pandas, what should be the significance of language that Dr. Miller actually published? Plaintiffs' attempt to rely on pre-publication drafts of Pandas not only ignores the context in which the constitutional issues in this case arise, but threatens to open a floodgate to lawsuits challenging the "hidden agenda" of textbooks widely used by students today."
Excerpt from http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/dover_in_review_pt_3_did_judge.html
Perhaps something similar can be said of how some people want to ignore the centuries-old ground rules of science by embracing the theory of macroevolution with a religious-like faith. It seems obvious to me after reviewing Darwin's Origin of Species that his theories didn't originate from a purely scientific standpoint either.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Then perhaps you can either post or provide links to material authored by Darwin himself where he clearly stated that accepting evolution required a belief in 'philosophical materialism'. The material I read about his views as regarding evolution didn't even deal with any kind of materialism whatsoever.
Seems to me (from what you post) that the only ones postulating this belief about Darwin are the creationists interpreting Darwin's view according to that manner. ... And simply associating the book Pandas to Charles Darwin in that context just won't do.
Your move.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Perhaps these definitions would help.The following from: http://skepdic.com/materialism.html
"philosophical materialism (physicalism) Philosophical materialism (physicalism) is the metaphysical view that there is only one substance in the universe and that substance is physical, empirical or material. Materialists believe that spiritual substance does not exist. Paranormal, supernatural or occult phenomena are either delusions or reducible to physical forces. Materialists are not necessarily atheists, nor do they deny the reality of such things as love or justice, beauty or goodness."
The following from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/philosophical+materialism
"The theory that matter and energy are the only objects existing within the universe, and that mental and spiritual phenomena are explainable as functions of the nervous system of people. Same as materialism."
With the above definitions in mind and reviewing Origin of Species – I would say that the term is applicable to Darwin – being how the main thrust of his work was natural selection. He denies the work of a higher power - as seen in the following last paragraph of the introduction of Darwin's Origin of Species – a key phrase I put in bold:
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/introduction.html
"No one ought to feel surprise at much remaining as yet unexplained in regard to the origin of species and varieties, if he makes due allowance for our profound ignorance in regard to the mutual relations of all the beings which live around us. Who can explain why one species ranges widely and is very numerous, and why another allied species has a narrow range and is rare? Yet these relations are of the highest importance, for they determine the present welfare, and, as I believe, the future success and modification of every inhabitant of this world. Still less do we know of the mutual relations of the innumerable inhabitants of the world during the many past geological epochs in its history. Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgement of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained — namely, that each species has been independently created — is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification."
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Now you know and I know that philosophical materialism goes a helluva lot farther than that paragraph Darwin stated.
Also keep in mind that evolution, ALL of it, the entire premise, is not based upon whatever philosophy/religion Darwin may or may not have had. Keep in mind that you have religious people of various persuasions and beliefs ranging from liberal to even conservative (like that judge in Dover PA) who accept the scientific viability and evidence of the evolutionary theory. Or what about all the geological/archeological/astronomical evidence/information that directly counters and contradicts the biblical account? You going to simply label that as 'philosophical materialism', and think that washes it away?
If Darwin's views on philosophical materialism was the main thing Darwin had to go on for the theory of evolution, his theory would have died with him. But it hasn't. Instead, it has grown and matured over the past 150 years, all due to more and more scientific inquiry, research, and discovery of more evidence.
This desperate measure to tie evolution to some secular/so called 'atheistic' philosophy is just that: desperate. First religious authorities tried to ban evolution outright in the schools. That failed. Then they tried the 'equal time' bulls**t, then the 'scientific terminology' routine. (I documented this in that legal document I posted) Hell, some of them even tried to tie Darwinism/evolution with Hitler and the Nazi Master Race philosophy. Can you believe that? (I even remember hearing John Schoenheit doing just that on his tape dealing with evolution) :blink: ... And at the root of it all is the stiff resistance against a theory that dares portray a portion of the Bible as not being true. I oughtta know. I used to believe likewise. I know the mindset.
I've read up quite a bit on Darwin. And for sure, his prime motivation in finding out about biology, zoology, and the evidence that led him to believe that evolution was viable (if not true) _was_ scientific. His trips (as documented in his diaries) on the HMS Beagle shows this plainly. Like any real scientist, who is bound/loyal to neither religious/political motivations. No doubt he wasn't a religious man, and no doubt he was a 'materialist' of some form or fashion. But notice that that was a view that came later in life, and apparently one that _he_ felt being more true than religious teachings about the matter. But also notice that there are those of the religious persuasion who, even tho' they accept the Darwin theory, do NOT accept the materialist philosophy. ... Which causes me to discount the theory of evolution as simply being based upon that brand of philosophy, that it transcends whatever philosophy any of us might hold. _You_ might not accept that, but then again, that is your opinion, and goes no farther than that.
I suspect that this debate will no doubt continue for a good many years more. But I'd be willing to bet even $$money$$ that more and more evidence supporting evolution, and discounting the Genesis account, will continue to mount, creationist song-and-dance notwithstanding.
And if that brings about the unfortunate effect of tearing down and discounting your spiritual beliefs, ........ well, I would have thought that a Spiritual Truth that is (supposedly) immovable would have been a helluva lot harder to crack than that.
Don't you? <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
(a snide aside)
I just love seeing an evangelist hard at work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Excellent posts, T-Bone. You helped sharpen my thinking in some areas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Darwin's viewpoint pops up intermittently throughout his body of work – not just elsewhere in Origin of Species - as can be seen from this excerpt from Darwin's the Descent of Man, chapter 21, General Summary and Conclusion:
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-21.html
"The moral nature of man has reached its present standard, partly through the advancement of his reasoning powers and consequently of a just public opinion, but especially from his sympathies having been rendered more tender and widely diffused through the effects of habit, example, instruction, and reflection. It is not improbable that after long practice virtuous tendencies may be inherited. With the more civilised races, the conviction of the existence of an all-seeing Deity has had a potent influence on the advance of morality. Ultimately man does not accept the praise or blame of his fellows as his sole guide, though few escape this influence, but his habitual convictions, controlled by reason, afford him the safest rule. His conscience then becomes the supreme judge and monitor. Nevertheless the first foundation or origin of the moral sense lies in the social instincts, including sympathy; and these instincts no doubt were primarily gained, as in the case of the lower animals, through natural selection.
The belief in God has often been advanced as not only the greatest, but the most complete of all the distinctions between man and the lower animals. It is however impossible, as we have seen, to maintain that this belief is innate or instinctive in man. On the other hand a belief in all-pervading spiritual agencies seems to be universal; and apparently follows from a considerable advance in man's reason, and from a still greater advance in his faculties of imagination, curiosity and wonder. I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in God has been used by many persons as an argument for His existence. But this is a rash argument, as we should thus be compelled to believe in the existence of many cruel and malignant spirits, only a little more powerful than man; for the belief in them is far more general than in a beneficent Deity. The idea of a universal and beneficent Creator does not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long-continued culture."
End of excerpt
I don't consider this a desperate attempt to tie evolution to some secular or atheistic philosophy. I'm just making some observations – and just thinking out loud about what was his thinking process. When I consider the evidence [the fossil record, physical laws of science, experimentation by breeding, genetic research, etc.] – I come to a different conclusion on HOW these things came to be. A person's viewpoint is going to come out in their work – it is after all a governor of HOW we process information.
That leads me to your statement: "Or what about all the geological/archeological/astronomical evidence/information that directly counters and contradicts the biblical account?" You need to be more specific. As I said in post #64 – from my viewpoint [pointing out the obvious] I don't see any contradictions between the Bible and true science [the study of the physical world]. But I don't think the purpose of the Bible was ever to promote science or to teach man scientific information – in my opinion the Bible is for those on a spiritual quest. I believe God has left man free to explore this world, to discover things, invent things, to grow, to advance – honoring His gift of the world to man in Genesis 1:28 telling him to fill the earth and subdue it.
As a modern man I am, technologically speaking, more informed than the people of the biblical time period. This of course plays a part in my viewpoint when reading Scripture. Just as the lack of advanced science and technology played a part in the viewpoint of the writers of Scripture. So in Genesis, we find a description of the creation in unscientific terms – so the main idea given is not to declare all the laws of physics, genetics, etc. – but simply that the creation is attributed to God. In Job 26:7 we read "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing." Guess if God told me to write about that – I'd feel I'd have to dress it up for our audience with reference to the gravitational forces He set up in the universe. Or If I had to write Isaiah 40:22 where it reads, "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers…" wouldn't impress most folk today unless I had a satellite picture of the earth next to my text.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Gee Mark, is this your attempt at trying to show how evolution and/or secular viewpoints are likened to a faith-based religion? <_< I think you can do better than that lame attempt.
T-bone,
You still fail to show how evolution is based on materialistic philosophy. If this philosophy did influence his evolutionary viewpoints like you seem to portray (all 'observations' aside <_< ), then the theory of evolution would have died with him, and others like him. Yet the fact that religious people of many different stripes accept evolution is still something you haven't addressed. Have you (or Evan for that matter) utilized your 'sharpened thinking' as far as that goes?
Ok, how's this for but one example. In the biblical account (and this addresses both the Young Earth _and_ the Old Earth varieties, as well as any other variation of the biblical account), the sun, moon, and all the stars/planets are formed *after* the 'null and void' situation in Genesis 1:2. After. Which would make the sun, moon, and the stars/planets no older than approx. 6,000 years. (Remember, we aren't utilizing the Genesis account in a figurative/hyperbolic sense, as Creationism teaches that the account is literal). Yet *tons* of information/evidence/facts reveal that the sun, moon, and the stars/planets are all far older than 6,000 years. ... That example alone causes at least a serious question of doubt to be raised about the Creationist account. At the very least! ... Consider that as but one example; I can give others, but I now refer you to what just occurred to me in what you write in your last post as something that actually undermines creationism (as it is officially defined), rather than enhances it:The reason I believe this undermines, or at the very least puts pause to Creationism, is that Creationism requires a literal interpretation of the scripture. Ie., as it is written. Because once you put it in a figurative sense, Creationism is off the table. There are a good many Intelligent Design advocates who do this, as well as Christians who accept evolution as the physical means of creation. Ie., God did it, but He didn't do it according to the literal Genesis account or He did it via evolution.
By the way, I submit that there is one thing you gotta admit about Darwin's philosophy. He would have never endeavored to manipulate the courts and the law to integrate that philosophy into the public school systems in such a dishonest manner like many Creationists do today with Creationism. For if their attempts are so honest, why would that Dover PA judge chastise them so severely like he did, hmmm?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Real quick....
T-bone, you are correct sir. The theory of evolution supports a materialistic viewpoint, when looked at on its own. Although, science itself when looked at in the same way does the exact same thing. ALL OF IT. The reason is very simple. Science is naturalistic. Meaning, science looks to the natural world, material things (matter, energy), for answers and explainations of the way things are, for no other reason than these are the only materials that they can observe and test. This is what science does. It is seperate from religion and when viewed on its own it is wholely materialistic. You cannot blame a scientist for not considering God in thier equation for life becauce God is not something they can test and observe. God is faith based and science is based on imperical data.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Excellent point, Lindy! :) That is something that I didn't think of, but it is a valid distinction indeed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
That's why the "science vs. faith" problem poses no problem for me.
Science cannot touch the most important things in life...not just religion.
Science used to be part of philosophy, and a component of a liberal arts education. Used to be.
We've become so mechanistic in our thinking that it just isn't so unless some scientific proof has been put to it...whatever "it" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.