Skip to comments.Academic freedom for creation explanation
Posted on 03/19/2009 10:26:55 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
As a freshman, I haven't been at UT-Martin for very long. But some problems are so obvious that they don't take very long to notice.
In my studies I quickly realized that when it comes to the theory of evolution, Darwin is the only one who gets to answer questions-or ask them.
I want to question this theory-to test it; check its credentials. And I want honest, thoughtful answers to my questions, not pre-formulated quips and deflections. But I have learned that if I'm not an evolutionist, my questions don't get credited, or even heard.
When I ask why theories such as intelligent design are discredited so off-handedly, I typically hear, "Because intelligent design involves metaphysics, but evolution is based only on facts." Well, I am not so sure.
Obviously, Darwin observed mutation and selection processes within the finch species of the Galapagos. But was he really seeing the extreme mutation and selection that would be required to make a bird out of a dinosaur?
It seems to me Darwin's idea of increasingly specialized life descending from simple, single-celled creatures, was entirely conjectural.
The theory might have had its roots in meticulous observation, but considering what we now know, the theory no longer seems to adequately explain such things as biodiversity and the origins of life. Never mind that paleontologists have yet to uncover the majority of "common ancestors."
Never mind that textbooks must be rewritten every time a greater understanding of genetics tells us that birds are actually reptilians; that humans are closer kin to sand dollars than ants or bees.
Never mind the leap of faith required to explain how incredibly complex single-celled life could have possibly developed from a floating mass of random proteins and minerals.
The scientific community assures me that evolution will undoubtedly produce answers to all these problems. But in the meantime, nobody else is allowed to say anything. If you ask me, this isn't academic freedom. True academic freedom would look like a variety of scientists, with differing opinions, having open and respectful debates about their ideas.
It would look like evolutionists actually being willing to learn what intelligent design advocates think, instead of dismissing them off-hand as religious fanatics or Creationists.
On April 6, a non-religious, non-political student organization will be hosting Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled" on campus.
If you are an evolutionist, I encourage you to come and see it and prove that reason, respect, and open minds still factor into today's science.
Well, I would like an explanation for that too, but how does something come from nothing? If matter always existed, how did life begin to exist?
Oh, it's definitely based on those fallacies.
If you don't assume that the existence of natural physical laws translates into philosophical naturalism, then there's no need for evolution, long-ages or the big bang.
Unfortunately, I don't believe that you know what a logical fallacy is. Just because you don't think something fallacious doesn't mean it's not.
"Really, stop taking talking points from answersingenesis.com."
Really, stop taking talking points from talk.origins.
Ah, yes...when pressed, the creationist wheels out the heavy artillery: he repeats a contrary point or accusation and then delivers a mightily indignant, “Oh, yeah?”
Really, this is an issue of faith, and you’re not going to take my word for it that your faith is weak. I am a devout Christian and I believe that God would be most disappointed if we didn’t use the brains that he gave us to figure out how he got us here. Evolution is perfectly compatible with Christianity.
Just reflecting your arguments back to you. Apparently you thought them quite good when you proposed them but lacking when they came back to you almost verbatim. Interesting thought processes that the double-minded use.
"Really, this is an issue of faith, and youre not going to take my word for it that your faith is weak."
Really, this is an issue of faith, and you're not going to take my word for it that you are double-minded.
"I am a devout Christian and I believe that God would be most disappointed if we didnt use the brains that he gave us to figure out how he got us here."
I am a devout Christian and I believe that God would be most disappointed if we put the word of men over His Word that tells us how He got us here. (Do you get it yet?)
"Evolution is perfectly compatible with Christianity."
To say the evolution is perfectly compatible with Christianity is to say that faith in philosophical naturalism is perfectly compatible with faith in a supernatural creator. IOW, perfect nonsense.
Think of me as something other than a poet, though I am known to write poems as well as songs.
Think of me as.....a student and a farmer.
Since you brought up logic, let us examine logic. Now, it seems to me that scientific method is a method to serarch for truth by observation and repetition of an experiment. However to make valid an observation and the repeatable outcomes requires one to utilize certain philosophical tools. These tools are reason, logic, mathematics, and First Principles. None of these tools can be proven by applying scientific method. However, even you, will agree that logic is a tool of the scientist. (If not, advise me otherwise, and I will go back to basics). If you say science is the only objective truth, then you have just claimed something(science) is an objective truth not a scientific truth and thus you invalidate your arguement. That arguement defeats itself.
If one states that materialist darwinism is the explaination for logic, truth, and reason, then reason is, itself, completely impossible. The reason is because this makes mental processes (thinking) nothing more than a chemical raction occurring in the cerebral cortex. There is no reason to believe that anythi;ng is true including the theory of materialism. Chemicals cannot evaluate anything.
So the Darwinist, who claims to be the arbiter of truth, reason and logic have made truth, reason and logic impossible by theirdevotion to materialsim. So even if the darwinist and materialist onrare, extrememly rare occasions correct, they give us no reason to believe anything they say, because reason, logic, and truth is made impossible by their very devotion to darwinian evolution. Moreover, the darwinsit assertion makes reason a impossible, but that we should rely on reason alone cannot be justified by darwinian theory. The reason is because reason is made impossible in a darwinan worldview, and requires faith
Either our ability to reason and apply logic and apprehend the truth comes from a dead, brute, materialsit, darwinist world or it came from a prexisting intelligence. If there is another possibility please let me know. To believe either requires faith. We say faith, because it contradicts truth apprehended by scientific method, and in the darwinists world there is no other way to apprehend the truth or use logic and reason.
Materialist darwinists can no more explain reason, logic and truth than it can explain the origin of life. Materialism is just not reasonable.
A tip—when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging! Have a nice day.
Does the conventional "big bang" theory even posit that matter has always existed? They estimate an age of the Universe, so they're implicitly arguing that before that, it didn't exist.
A tip - smugness is no substitute for argument.
Have a great day!
I wish you would answer my questions and address my comments to you rather than pick on GourmetDan. I am only a part-time poet. I really am a farmer/rancher and have done a few other things in my younger days. I am sure I might learn something from you. After all, I get dirt underneath my fingernails almost every day. I am sure you think I have little or no understanding about Darwinian materialism and the theory you are such a devotee to.
So you must determine whether something came from nothing, or everything came from something. The eternal steady state theory and all of its derivitives and distinctives have been abandoned on the asheap of atheistic history.
The other question which you would not address is first life. It is the preeminent problem for the darwinist atheist.
I think that's supposed to be a problem for any "darwinist". Atheism is supposed to be implicit in the label, and "darwinist atheist" redundant.
I was trying to be a little more exacting in my description of that 'darwinist atheist'.
Now that I have addressed a meaningless subject which you put forth to evade my question, will you answer my original question?
What was your original question? Your reply was in repsonse to a post I had made to someone else.
(put forth by cartervt) Then he asked that you account for first life. My question to you is the same. You never addressed these issues.
I think you and I know that the scientific evidence is repleat with methodological scientific inquiry which has proven that the universe had a beginning, so we can dispense inane posturing with ruminations on the Theory of General Relativity, the background radation found by Wilson and Penzias, Hoyls statements regarding the 2nd Law, the objective findings of COBE and WMAP, the law of causality, Kalam's Cosmological Arguement, and so on.
Given your correct assertion that the universe had a beninning I ask you, "If there is no God, why is there anything at all? Why is there something rather than nothing?" Please remember before the BIg Bang, there was nothing, no time, no space, no matter, no energy. Nothing.Who or what decided to bring forth a universe from nothing?
If you would just answer carters question, and my additional question I will not ask any more from you.
I have no absolute proof, nor does anyone else I am aware of.
I do not believe the the scientists who attempt to explain the geo and bio history based purely on the available physical evidence are engaged in some sort of conspiracy to deny God because they have theories that contradict a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.
Perhaps since you brought up 'belief' that there are inherent qualities of the Universe to appear to produce life under the right circumstances, you would expound on how the universe (prebiotic) made of atoms would suddenly bring forth from that dead, material universe consciousness and belief itself. And since you brought up 'their theories' tell us how dead matter brought forth theoretical concepts to squirt forth from previous to conciousness dead, mindless matter.
How does a prebiotic universe bring, one of molecular motion bring forth conscious sentience of self?
I will not ascent to the notion that scientists attempt to explain 'geo' and 'bio' history based purely on the available physical evidence and are engaged in some sort of conspiracy to deny God. I have not made such a proposition.
I ask these questions not to harass but to offer you food for thought. I am not your enemy, I am your friend in regards to searching for truth, where it may lead.
So far the darwinist atheist have propounded, nothing came from everything, non-life produced life, Randomness produces fine-tuning, chaos produces information, unconsciousness produces consciousness and non-reason produces reason. Non can explain any of these six observations via rational thought. In fact rational thought cannot be explained by darwinism.
The preeminent problem for the darwinist is to explain how nonliving chemicals could somehow self-assemble into the first living cell. Upon this hangs the evolution of the universe putting forth life by chemicals.
In short the amount of faith required to be a darwinist, materialist, atheist far exceeds what is reasonably warranted by the hard evidence which science offers now.
I don't expect you to answer this post, but I do hope you will honestly examine these hard questions.
I'll try to honestly examine your questions if you will honestly examine one of mine.
What is the relevance of this in the context of conservative political activism?
If you're implying I need to change my religious beliefs in order to bring them into line with conservative political philosophy, then you need to explain how founding documents and principles of the Republic came to include the writings and ideas of men like Thomas Paine, and what it is exaclty we're supposed to be trying to "conserve".
....We hold these truths self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
If we as a nation perceived life to be created by God and in His image it would be hard to imagine how we would kill 45 million babies, or for that matter, create a political and social system, as well as codifying into law a society vested in death from birth to old age.
But my interest is in truth, and that will serve anyone well whether in science, phylosophy, politics, or law.
I do not imply you need to change your religious beliefs, other than be honest with yourself regarding truth.
The truth is that not everyone shares the creation doctrines of your particular religious beliefs, then or now. Whatever religous differences they had were put aside when it came time to discuss the affairs of the Republic and the politics of the day.
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.