Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by PurpleMountains
All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history – their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people – those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinism’s tenets.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
To be a scientist, at least since St. Augustine, you need to be willing to interpret scripture in the light of facts.
Intellectually I can understand rejecting the world for a vision you read in a book, but in practice I have no interest in doing so.
If I had grown up in family that taught me that doubting the literal word of scripture would subject me to eternal punishment, and if I found myself in a position to lose all my friends and family by accepting the findings of science, I would probably stick with friends and family.
I'm not certain how outnumbered we really are. I suspect it's more the case that most reasonable people don't want to argue with idiots, because reasonable observers can soon become confused about who is which. ;-)
[[There is nothing on this planet more grating than a catty “Christian” who tries to make a cheap shot in a snide way.]]
Suyre their is- a ‘chatty evo’ that takes cheap shots whenever evidence is presented that refutes their wild claims. Grating? Oh Heck yeah!
Somehow, that just doesn't have quite the same perjorative ring as "self-imposed ignorance".
I do my best not to debate religion. But I see nothing inherently wrong with self-imposed ignorance. I know very little about Hinduism, Taoism, Scientology, and a thousand other isms and ologies. There just isn’t time to study everything.
What I object to is people who cannot present a clear definition of evolution demanding to have an influence over how it’s taught.
I have yet to see an evolution critic who could argue the affirmative for evolution — a simple prerequisite for engaging in debate.
It would be fun to see a thread where the usual suspects switched sides.
"If the species adapts in the wrong direction, we should find evidence of it in the fossil records. We don't. All we find is evidence of species that adapted in the right direction."
Erik, I get the sense that you are actually trying to think logically, and that you're not used to it, and that it's tough for you.
So, if I dance logical circles around your argument, how are you going respond? Can you maintain your logical facade, or will you just blow up, like some of our other posters?
Well, here goes:
Evolution 101: in every generation are born some with minor physical changes.
Some of these changes are neutral, and neither benefit nor harm the individual.
Many of the changes are harmful, and those individuals do not survive as well.
A small number of changes benefit the individual, who then survives to pass the changed genes on to the next generation.
In your example, an animal which moves north from a warmer to colder climate will have some offspring with shorter hair and some with longer hair. The shorter haired will not survive as well, the longer haired will survive better. In due time, over many generations, the longer hair and other cold adaptive changes will add up to a new species.
Time marches on, now the climate changes again, warming up quickly this time, and now our longer haired animals find themselves "adapted the wrong way," and become extinct. They are then replaced in the fossil record by their shorter haired cousins, who never left the warmer climate.
This is basic evolutionary theory. What is your problem with it?
What *facts*?
Should Scripture be interpreted in light of the current interpretation of the data which is more likely to be wrong than not?
That still doesn’t qualify *science* as an accurate tool to interpret Scripture with.
I'm of the same opinion with regard to people who submit that the scientific method as it is currently accepted and practiced is flawed, but can't articulate exactly what it needs to be replaced with.
OK so answer some questions....
What is your interpretation of the creation account in the Bible?
Do you think that creation and ID should be taught in schools alongside evolution as most of the parents in this country want?
Do you think that the government should be in the position of determining school curriculum or should it be in the hands of the local school boards?
Do you agree with the lawsuits keeping creation and ID out of schools?
Brief answers without rewording my questions will do.
St. Augustine spoke of the harm caused to religion by people who insisted the earth is flat.
In time, the church was damaging religion by insisting the sun revolves around the earth. Took centuries to recover from that fiasco.
And possibly you can tell us all which scientific theory involving the origin of species has provided YOU with "real tangible proof"? Do you want to clue us what that "proof" is?
The point is that one cannot be taken seriously when under the color of science he disputes the supernatural because science limits its own inquiry to the natural (methodological naturalism.)
Under the color of science, he cannot seriously respond to something he excluded from his domain of inquiry in the first place.
That pretty much makes "creation science" non-sequitur.
1: not literal.
2: Depends on in which class and which creation account.
2a: Most parents want? Most people voted for Obama - does that mean you support him because of that?
3: local school boards should not be promoting religion.
4: You mistyped out of science class as out of school - common mistake.
And a question of my own if I may - are you ever going to apologize for spreading false rumors about me?
Saying that something is excludes from inquiry is not the same as denying that it exists. This is not a trivial distinction. Most thoughtful believers have accepted the fact that religious mysteries are beyond human understanding. I believe the Bible pretty much says this is the case.
The question is whether science can address phenomena which are not regular and consistent. Long experience suggests that science cannot.
Even non-religious claims of the paranormal (ESP, and such) cause problems. When science applies the methods useds to study physical phenomena, the paranormal phenomena disappear. You can draw the conclusion that the phenomena do not exist, or you can conclude that the methods of science cannot study them.
The biggest problem, in my not so humble opinion, is that in areas where science can operate and in which science can obtain reliable knowledge, some people deny that knowledge.
Can you show this to be true? Can you show me examples of animals that grew shorter hair after moving to a colder climate?
I believe you cannot show this in the fossil record. Otherwise, it would be filled with MOSTLY wrong adaptations. Instead, we see a record of MOSTLY right adaptations.
I don't believe the adaptation is random, which is the unerpinning of Darwinism. I believe the adaptation is deliberate, rising from some inner programming we do not understand yet.
The examples of correct adaptation outnumber the examples of incorrect adaptation, which lends credence to the ID theory.
True proponents of ID do not subscribe to creationism, just that there are mechanisms or programming that guides nature.
Most importantly, God is Spirit. He is not within the domain of science which limits itself by methodological naturalism to that which is natural. Nature is but a subset of "all that there is" - and "all that there is" is God's creation, it is not God the Creator of it.
Moreover, it is not enough to know the Scripture - the text - one must know the power of God to receive the words of God. One must have "ears to hear." Jesus Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. - I Corinthians 1:24
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. – I Corinthians 2:13-14
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. - Galatians 2:20
You (and all evos) need to read up on what people really believed about the sphericity of the earth in history and quit blaming religion for “damaging” science by stating that the sun revolves around the earth.
That only cuts into your credibility and puts you in a position of looking like all you’re interested in doing is driving the wedge between religion and science deeper than ever by perpetuating myths.
Flat Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
Scientific mythology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_mythology
If we’re going to get into that sort of thing, I could point out that it was the scientists of Simmelweis’ day who were opposed to his suggestion of handwashing between doing autopsies and childbirth. Many women and children would have survived if they had followed the OT proscribtion of dealing with dead bodies.
How do I know they’re false?
Correction.... *damaging religion*
The only damage to religion is occurring from those who use myths to beat it with, like the myth that the *church* (whichever one that is) teaches a flat earth and that creationists believe it.
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.