Posted on 06/03/2007 6:46:20 AM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu
And a previous poster claimed evolutionists don't just throw up their hands...and yet your post is proof they are wrong.
Why is it that so many creationists think it does?
You misunderstand. I, for one, understand that evolution itself does not address cosmology...but in the process of discarding the Creator, and accepting the evolution as a complete explanation on how we are here begs the prior question of where did all the here, get here. You're simply ignoring the problems with your world view by compartmentalizing.
If matter from another universe popped into this one, you’re right. One then has to ask where the other universe came from. You task would be to explain where God came from.
You do see the problem with that explanation...and yet the guy making the claim didn't. I realize he's just one evolutionist, and his silly answer is probably only held by a fairly small minority.
You task would be to explain where God came from.
The answer is, God created time, He's not bound within that creation. That is to say, God is outside of time. So, where did all this matter come from? I answered your question, how about taking a shot to answer mine?
You strike me as a reasonable person, so I'm sure you can see that this answer still doesn't address where matter came from in the first place. My point is simply that one is forced to accept that something is eternal. A Christian would, of course, say it's God that is eternal. If one rejects God's existence then one is forced to assume that matter is eternal. Consider your serially osculating universe for a moment. I recall about 20 years ago scientists were saying that it appeared that matter at the far extremes of the expanding universe may have already reached a point that it had exceeded the point where it'd be pulled back into the cycle of oscillation. Rather that matter has already reached that point or that only a small percentage of the entire mass of matter will eventually reach such a point...then the whole oscillating theory blows apart. The reason for this is that if even only a small portion of the total mass is lost on each cycle, but that pattern of cycle is followed back into eternity (which is a very long time indeed!) then the total mass of matter will have already reached a point of insufficient mass to implode, thus breaking the cycle. AND, that's ignoring the problem of where the matter came from in the first place, and what caused the oscillation cycle to begin in the first place.
The question may have no immediate answer, because we don't know whence the big bang banged.
Nor what, or WHO caused that big bang...and again, that's assuming that model is even correct. But you can see that it's crically flawed in any case.
Some Christians might think that atheists are hypocritical for dismissing Christians' explanation for the universe without offering one of their own — but such Christians are missing a lot. For one thing, we don't need to have a final answer to something in order to know that something else definitely isn't the answer.
This is very true, one does not need to have an answer to know another answer is false. Of course this cuts both ways...and at least a Christian admits that they are working with some amount of faith, whereas an atheist denies working on faith, even though they are employing at least as much faith as a Christian...they just don't admit it. Of course it's irrational to assume one can discount God without valid reason...and what I'd read from the article you linked to failed to actually provide anything more than an unsupported conclusion...really just an opinion.
For another, scientists' investigations into the origin of the universe is one that is amenable to arriving at an answer; saying "God did it" not only isn't a real explanation, but is something that closes off the possibility of ever learning anything more.
This statement is only true if it's true...that is to say, it's circular reasoning. If God DID create the universe then it's valueless to say that to accept that fact closes off the possibility of ever learning anything more. Again, this is nothing more than a view built upon faith.
Okay, that's a start.
but in the process of discarding the Creator,
The theory of evolution does no such thing.
and accepting the evolution as a complete explanation on how we are here
The theory of evolution does not pretend to be a complete explanation of how we are here.
begs the prior question of where did all the here, get here.
Yes, but it's not part of the theory.
You're simply ignoring the problems with your world view by compartmentalizing.
The theory of evolution is not a world view. It's simply a scientific theory about how life changes over time. Nothing more, nothing less.
Furthermore, "compartmentalizing" is essential to science. That's why we have different branches of science, like chemistry, physics, biology, and the like. Different theories explain different phenomena. No scientific theory tries to explain everything, nor should it.
And BTW, don't make assumptions about my worldview. I happen to believe in God.
Leave it to the Beeb to portray faith as an ugly, unneeded force.
I was referring to evolutionists, not the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution does not pretend to be a complete explanation of how we are here.
I understand, evolution is only a portion of a worldview...one that typically discounts God as the Creator.
The theory of evolution is not a world view. It's simply a scientific theory about how life changes over time. Nothing more, nothing less.
While you may view it at such a simple level, evolution is a core element of the worldview of many. Stand on a street corner and talk about God and you will find it's not long before someone asks about evolution as a challenge to the existence of God. It is far more than a simple theory for many. It, in fact, approaches the level of dogma for many.
Furthermore, "compartmentalizing" is essential to science. That's why we have different branches of science, like chemistry, physics, biology, and the like. Different theories explain different phenomena. No scientific theory tries to explain everything, nor should it.
I agree with you, but only to a point. Ultimately, we should be seeking truth. Whatever is true will "fit" with the whole. If a carpementalized piece does not fit as part of the whole of truth, then it is not itself true. When one scientific study crosses several areas of knowledge it doesn't get discarded...instead additional experts are sought, additional research is done by those doing the study. A piece can be studied as a piece, but if it can't fit with the whole there is a problem. My point being, one can't allow truth to be buried by over compartmentalizing.
And BTW, don't make assumptions about my worldview. I happen to believe in God.
It is not my intention to put words or thoughts into your (or anyone else's) mouth. But we all make assumptions about what another means and thinks...based, hopefully, upon what one knows about another and that other provides. You would, I suspect, agree that a theistic evolutionist is a minority position, both amongst evolutionists AND theists. So I stand updatated/corrected on a piece of your worldview...but it's impossible to converse without filling in pieces as one goes and correcting as one finds one's assumptions are faulty.
Well, I take "evolutionist" to mean an evolutionary biologist, as in someone who studies evolution. Perhaps you mean something else?
I understand, evolution is only a portion of a worldview...one that typically discounts God as the Creator.
No, the theory of evolution is not a worldview. An atheist may base his wordlview on it in part, but there is no necessary connection between the theory and an atheist worldview.
I agree with you, but only to a point. Ultimately, we should be seeking truth. Whatever is true will "fit" with the whole. If a carpementalized piece does not fit as part of the whole of truth, then it is not itself true.
The theory of evolution will fit either with an atheist or a theistic metaphysics. That's because it does not even attempt to address the question of God.
Simiarly, evolution will fit most cosmological theories. That's because it is unrelated to the question of cosmology. Evolution deals only with how life changes once it exists. How life got here, or how matter got here, are unrelated questions.
When one scientific study crosses several areas of knowledge it doesn't get discarded...
Yes, and evolutionary biology does cross areas of knowledge like zoology, genetics, paleontology and geology. It does not, however, cross into the area of cosmology.
You would, I suspect, agree that a theistic evolutionist is a minority position, both amongst evolutionists AND theists.
No. Most people who accept the thoery of evolution believe in God. Now most evolutionary scientists don't, that's true, but it's also true of most other scientists (chemists, physicists, etc).
As far as believers, in industrialized countries worldwide, most accept evolution.
In the US, most don't, but a large minority, somewhere on the order of 40%, accept evolution.
I am essentially referring to those who hold evolution in a religious sense. For some it's simply just one theory within one area of science...for others it's held at a much higher level...an almost religious level.
No, the theory of evolution is not a worldview.
I didn't say it was, I said it was a PART of a worldview.
In the US, most don't, but a large minority, somewhere on the order of 40%, accept evolution.
A statistic that's pretty amazing given how evolution is taught in most schools...without allowing the possibility of pointing out any difficulties or controversies with the theory...not a very scientific way to teach science, actually.
Geninuine scientific controversies about the details are taught, such as gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium. Manufactured controversies with no scientific basis invented by the Discovery Institute and other pseudo-scientific groups are, rightly, ignored.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.