Pharisaical Science

Heartlander

[Heartlander]

Pharisaical Science

(The separation of an intelligent agent and science in biology)

“Thou shall have no other builder beyond Nature alone.”
“Adhere only to the Natural Law’s that are from Nature alone because to invoke an intelligent agent before mankind is blasphemy!”
- The current biology science academia

A scientific scholar or layman might be eager to respond to this statement but would be quickly shot down by one who adheres only to the Natural Law’s with a familiar cry of, “Blasphemy!” Yes it’s true; evidently biology science has provided us with the true knowledge that there is no intelligence behind our own intelligence, and thus the scientific method used to prove this as a fact. Sound crazy? Government subsidized employees are preaching this at their pulpit right now! (No, the public school bell does not ring on Sundays) Let me now state, my problem is not with ‘evolution’ per se, but with Naturalism.

It is no longer the three R’s, it is now the four F’s: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and – well… reproducing. It is all stated quite clearly in the textbooks that are from the Gospel of Darwin in his famous book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859) and now championed by Dawkins in his book The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design.

A blind watchmaker is one thing but Dawkins is stating that the watchmaker doesn’t just lack sight - this watchmaker lacks intelligence. Science can wax poetic all they want about evolution but if there is not an intelligent driving force behind the emergence of mankind then this must extend into our universe. Dawkins revealed that due to natural selection extending into nature and thus the entire natural world. Either the universe has a purpose or it does not and it was either created by intelligence or blind ignorance. This extends to mankind, our history, intellect, reasoning, being, morality, and purpose.

Now one might argue that this is absurd and that there is an intelligent driving force behind it all, but your argument is not with me, it’s with the current scientific commune. With nature alone as our creator we are able to put it into a test tube, look at it under a microscope, test, and control. Welcome to the world of neo-Darwinism where the tree of life equals the tree of knowledge. The natural world alone holds the key to enlightenment and to introduce anything else is “Blasphemy!”

Our lives, our very existence and being come down to this:

Add matter, heat and stir.
(Check occasionally every few billion years)

Is who we are what we actually see - or what we cannot see; meaning who we really are i.e. our conscience? It seems that our very conscience and being is a supernatural occurrence. There is no logical explanation for nature alone providing mankind with logic other than “we have logic so it must be so!” Thoughts, concepts, and morality are not physical. Engineers, when conceptualizing a new device, are unembodied intelligent designers. Absolute morality (thus right and wrong, justice, and truth) cannot come from nature alone. ‘We are who we are’ and made from ‘something’ that must tie into ‘what we are’. If nature lacks any direction, purpose, intelligence, morality, justice, love, logic, and reason – than what is scientific naturalism telling us?

Post-Modernism says that there is no truth, that all we can hope to do is instill meaning into life by bringing in our own interpretation. This is an elimination of any truth.

The scientific method is limited. Science can collect facts, but these pieces of information cannot tell us what we ought to do. It ignores the very real possibility that something real exists beyond the natural world, and it is thus doomed to look within its own self-defined "closed system" for an adequate ethical base. Unfortunately, none honestly exists, philosophically, except the natural law of nature, "red in tooth and claw"
- In Memorium, Tennyson

Darwin’s only college degree was in theology and his father paid for his degree because Darwin could not stomach medical school. Darwin struggled with the problem of good and evil in the world and could not understand how the two could survive together. I am a Christian and knowing that Darwin received his degree in theology I hope he did not miss this simple but important passage that speaks of Divine purpose, love, free will, justice, and the coexistence or good & evil:

“This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross”
Acts 2:23

Is this just more Blasphemy?

[Alain2112]

Let me now state, my problem is not with ‘evolution’ per se, but with Naturalism.

What church do you go to? In mine we are taught that lying is a Bad Thing, and I really don't believe that Jesus will be please with you for weaseling around like this.

[Heartlander]

I have theistic evolutionist friends and I do not question their faith… but we do have interesting discussions. I question the theory of common descent and I am sincere when I say my problem is with naturalism.

[f.Christian]

g3 ...

evolution, as I have said many times is ANTI-SCIENCE.

The central point of science is the discovery of causes and effects and materialist evolution denies it. It proposes random events as the engine of the transformation of species.

This is totally unscientific, it is an attack on science which in order to expand human knowledge and human health and living standards needs to find the causes and effects of how our Universe functions.

Randomness answers nothing and leads to no discoveries.

In fact it opposes scientific inquiry and is a philosophical know-nothingism.

That is why evolution has been popular with the masses and virtually ignored by scientists.

It is ... pseudo-science (( source )) --- for morons.

With a few words such as 'survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection' it seeks to make idiots think they are knowledgeable.

We see the idiocy of evolution and evolutionists daily on these threads. That is why they all repeat the same stock phrases, throw a few links (because they cannot even understand the concepts being discussed), but never give any facts showing their theory to be what they claim it is - the center of science. If it was, they should have no problem doing so. It is not, that's why they cannot.

sop ...

The theory of evolution is just that - a theory.

g3 ...

It may be a theory, but it is not a scientifically supported theory which is what evolutionists claim it to be. Anybody can have a theory about anything. It is whether a theory is valid that is the point. So you have not given any evidence for your side. All you have done is indulge in rhetoric, but you have not shown that evolution is science or have in any way refuted my statement that evolution cannot in fact be science because of its central proposition that 'evolution just happens'.

Such is not science.

539 posted on 03/13/2003 8:59 PM PST by gore3000

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Alex Murphy]

bump

[FactQuest]

I've struggled with this for years. First being fully indoctrinated on young earth creationism (before it had that name), then being fully indoctrinated with evolutionary naturalism.

Never have fully sorted it out, but I have reached a few conclusions.

I. The Bible is open to some limited interpretation. Day-age, for starters. Which hebrew words are used for "made"? For that matter, look at what leading Jewish theologians say about it, its vastly different that what they teach in mainstream protestant sunday school.

II. Science itself is not anti-God. It is a study of that which God has made, and can provide a multitude of lessons about the nature of God.

III. Science is limited to naturalistic assumptions. Meaning, being based on repeatable experiments, it [i]a priori[/i] excludes the miraculous. Some misunderstand this and conclude miracles are impossible. No, they are just not subject to investigation by science, because they are by their very nature non-natural, non-repeatable.

IV. The Theory of Evolution is a mixture of good and bad science, and advocated zealously by the naturalists. The naturalists seem to think that the T-of-E removes the need for a God. Ignoring the whole question of where did the universe come from in the first place.

V. The two single biggest problems for the T-of-E are macroevolution and abiogenesis.
A) Abiogenesis, that life arose from inorganic material, is, scientifically, a discipline in shambles. A lot of time and energy spent, a lot of speculations made, and so far, nothing but some impossible speculations to show for it. Oddly, the impossibilities are suppressed, the cleverness of the speculation trumpeted, and in some quarters people think its already proven.
B) Macro-evolution - perhaps a bad term. I mean to say, descent with change is proven - children differ from their parents, over time this can lead to changes in a species. But, the assumption or speculation that this accounts for the grand diveristy of all life on the planet has not been proven, and in fact, scientifically, is a huge and largely unsupported leap. Put another way: the fossil record supports this theory very poorly.

[f.Christian]

Thanks ...

A smart God // science doesn't -- can't evolve ...

evolution (( Godless )) is inherently stupid --- impossible !

[f.Christian]

The GOD of the Old and New Testaments claims that HE inhabits eternity, and that there is no God before HIM.

HE also explains that HE created all that there is.

An Entity that is capable of creating the universe around us, and has the power to propel a galaxy 200,000 miles per hour, probably doesn't expect us to put HIM in a neat little box that we can completely understand.

For HIS clear and simple message relating to this, try the Book of Job. You will get HIS perspective on your question.

P.S. The Book of Job, thought by most theologians to be the oldest Book of the Bible, has been acknowledged by literary scholars as one of the finest pieces of literature to date.


256 posted on 04/28/2003 5:10 PM PDT by bondserv