Posted on 11/29/2004 6:52:41 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Note that there isn't any room for God in science, nor is there room for an invisible Purple People Eater that created the universe either. The fact is that science is a naturalistic explanation of the universe, and the idea of any supreme creator is simply not naturalistic. Nor is it repeatable. Provine's statements are an extension of that argument, but are simply his opinion, and I don't consider that it speaks for anyone but himself, considering that he doesn't logically explain himself (unless you would care to provide some sort of context).
See science can't say anything about a creator, at least at this time, because there never has been any evidence pointing to a creator, and because of the logical difficulties in have someone or something creating the universe (i.e. who created the creator, the "Its turtles all the way down" argument).
So, you're telling me there has to be a whole bunch of mutations, all at once, to make a new species? LOL. That's a good one.
Too bad it's clearly bunk
Oh, yes, clearly. There are no truly intelligent Christians. How some people can seemingly be so bright and fall for such nonsense is the real mystery here.
Most everybody looks atthe world and see something quite different than what you claim to see.
Yes, that's the sad truth. I fail to see your point, though. Is it "majority rule" or something like that?
How do you define "species"? Are horses and donkeys different species? What about lions and tigers?
Natural selection has nothing to do with being "perfect". Its about populations adapting to the current environment. Some populations can't adapt so they die off - others adapt just barely enough to survive and they are far from perfect.
Has there ever been a period in history when evolution occurred faster than extinction?
Do you have proof of such a period occurring, or do you simply assume that it must have occurred because otherwise evolution can't be true?
Why would single celled organisms, over time, evolve into things such as whales or dinosaurs when single cells are more fit to survive, and can in fact easily mutate to remain survivable?
I'm just asking questions here as a layman! :-)
"Nice to see that someone in the press understands what's going on."
Anh he/she had the guts to add his name, as well. /sarcasm
Neither do I. So, other than thumbing your nose at God, were you intending to make a point?
"The Bible claims God as its author."
True, but they don't pass the other tests. As with any book the Bible should be read in its entirety and with consideration to the many literary forms.
"But the Genesis account is to be taken literally. Or is it? I'm confused."
The Creation account is only a few pages. The Bible is not a scientific text. That is not its purpose. The question is whether the brief explanation holds up to what we know about this earth.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/testablecreationsummary.shtml
So any theory which doesn't cover anything and everything (including metaphysics) is garbage? You're going to have a pretty boring run of things until (and perhaps beyond) the discovery of the Grand Unified Theory.
If? bwahahahahaha. It's coming to a school near you. Don't be on the wrong side of scientific history, narby.
You've left out a very vast middle ground, including all of life on Earth. Above you will find a post of mine that spells out some of the assumptions you have to make in order to get to this point.
Ultimately, you are saying that "There Is No God." That's all well and good, but it's not a scientific position.
Or is an infinite regress of designers an acceptable idea?
It's not a necessary idea, so I see no point in arguing for or against it.
Additionally, you only address my point that ID implies perfection. You don't address my point that evolution does not imply perfection. That still stands even if my argument about ID is false.
There's no need to address it -- I have no problem with it. My goal on this thread is merely to highlight the unfounded and incompletely considered assumptions being made by allegedly "scientific" people on this thread.
I concur with Bird [the author he's reviewing] on two of his major controversial arguments. I agree with him that evolution and other prevalent theories of biological and cosmological origins properly belong in science classrooms. [Later in the article he explains why, and it's most definitely not because he sees any value in creationism.] I teach an evolution course for non-majors in biology at Cornell University, and I begin the course advocating creationism in lecture and in the readings. Later, I advocate theistic evolution along the lines of so many religous thinkers from the time of Darwin to the present. Only later in the course do I become a modern evolutionist arguing that the evolutionary process exhibits no sign of purpose whatsoever.That last paragraph is especially wonderful in this context.[skipping]
How can Bird dismantle the basic truth of evolution by descent? Darwin was able to convince most of his contemporary biologists and educated persons who read his Origin of Species that evolution by descent had occurred. He was far less successful in convincing them that evolution had occurred primarily by his mechanism of natural selection. Since his death, the evidence for evolution by descent has accumulated at a rapid rate until at, the present, the rational evidence for evolution by descent is overwhelming.
[skipping more]
Another element of Bird's intellectual dishonesty is the way he uses citations from evolutionists. He quotes Stephen Jay Gould more often than any other person, so we can take him as an example. Gould has written more about evolution for a wide audience than any other evolutionist of recent times. And he has been wildly successful in attracting attention to the issues in modern evolutionary biology. Bird tries to skewer evolution by descent with quotes from Gould (what delightful irony for the creationists). The problem is that to achieve this end, Gould must be cited in such a way as to distort his meaning about evolution. No one reading Gould would ever come away with the impression that he had, in any of his writings, said anything that cast doubt upon evolution by descent.
You've missed my point (I think). I don't argue that there's no God. I agree that science cannot make any such statement. I am arguing that if there is an intelligent designer, then such a designer must have either arisen as a result of natural processes or must have always existed. In the first case, why is it more plausible that an intelligent designer arose by natural processes than it is that a single celled organism did? In the second, I would contend that an intelligent being that has always existed would be recognized as a god (not necessarily the Christian one) by most people. In the first case, ID is pretty much equivalent to abiogenesis. In the second, ID is a form of creationism.
So you honestly believe that there is a group of disinterested scientists working in the biological sciences who, quite without any ideological motivation, have honestly formulated a whole new theory of the origin of species?
No, its simply quote mining and is an old trick. You may impress others with quote mining, but we've all seen this approach before so its just silly to us.
Quote mining usually involves taking a quote out of context or using the quotes of a non-authoritative person for that particular field. It seems very clever to the person doing it but its just sad and pathetic to those who have seen it all before.
First--evolution removes the need for God in that it is taught that evolution is non-directed (Origin of Species). I believe God's actions all have direction. So, one removes the need for the other--if true.
Now,lets examine some of the "theories" of macro-evolution that are taught in the public schools.
1. Stanley Miller Experiment--he did not realize the facts about amino acids. We now know that amino acids most likely could not have survived the atmospheric conditions of the time.
2. Tree of Life--Darwin's theory suggests that it takes great amounts of time for species to change. He writes "it would not act slowsly by accumulting slight, successive, favorable variationss and that no great or sudden modifications were possible." We now know that there was what is called the "Cambrian Period." This is a time where most animals simply "appear."
3. Ernst Haeckel's "Embryo drawings"--this theory--although proven to be a hoax--is still taught in some books.
4. Missing Links--Darwins concluded that the fossil record did not back up his book "Origin of Species." 150 years later, the fossil record seems to go against his theory more than it did then. Did you realize that there are actually labs in Malaysia that produce faked fossils--designed to "prove" evolution.
Anyways, I could get more into detail about these issues, but there are volumes of books on the subject. I would suggest reading Lee Strobel's "Case for a Creator" or other books you will find at Barnes and Noble.
I'm not sure I really understand what you're asking. Could you pose the question using terms that have unambiguous definitions?
As far as education is concerned, I think the numbers of more educated people may be higher, but based on a percentage in comparison to the 18th century, I don't think we measure up. I will say there are MANY more in number and percentage who can barely read now because typically when you learned to read then, you learned to a greater level than what is required now to function in society. AND, of course we are talking about developed nations here.
Just an example of what I mean for evolution:
Evolution states that all organisms arose from some common ancestor. This implies that all organisms should have a common molecular basis for genetic material. We know that humans use nucleic acids as their genetic material. Therefore, evolution predicts that any newly found organism should have nucleic acids as its genetic material. If a new organism is observed that uses some other molecule as its genetic material, this would cause evolution to be found to be false. Give me a similar example using ID as a basic principle.
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.