Churches urged to back evolution

British Broadcasting Corporation ^ | 20 February 2006 | Paul Rincon

[PresbyRev]

Rather, not worthy of my reply.

[P-Marlowe]

Rather, not worthy of my reply.

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: (1 Peter 3:15 KJV)

[metmom]

All God did to create the universe and everything in it was to speak. God using power natural to Himself is not magic. Magic is what men use in the form of spells and charms to manipulate nature for their own benefit and is expressly forbidden by God in the Bible.

Religion on the other hand worships a supernatural entity that not only breaks those laws but supposedly created them along with life, the earth and the universe.

What does it matter if God on occasion manipulates the natural order of things that He set up, from time to time? He has the perogative to do so whenever He pleases. And that is not called magic but miracles, which is not the same thing. Miracles are used to verify the existance and power of God to unbelieving people and, to the best of my knowledge, are almost always beneficial to people.

[freedumb2003]

Since this has become an attempt to kick at a moving goal, we can just agree to disagree...

The goal is fixed. TTOE posits than man evolved from lower life forms as a result of a myriad of factors over a very long time. We have direct evidence showing points along the way. This is a "theory" because of the evidence which has been scientifically evaluated. The details of the theory change over time as new scientific evidence comes to light, but the general theory has not changed.

CRIDers believe that faith-based mythology is a substitute for scientific analysis and reasoning and posits that a supernatural force jumped in and magically made everything appear at once (including ancient bones just to fool us). ID is an attempt to say that things changed over time but at certain moments an external supernatural force jumped in and magically filled in the blanks to give evolution a leg up.

Evolution is science based, CRID are mythology based.

There -- goalposts are fixed.

[whattajoke]

Like donh said, your little list of scientists who signed that incredibly deceptive and weak "statement against evolution" which was actually no such thing. For example, you listed a few guys, I checked the 1st biologist you listed, Stanley Salthe.

While I believe him to be a complete left wing Ivy league liberal fruitcake (these are the guys you're in bed with?), a 30 second perusal of his personal site makes it quite clear that he fully accepts evolution - just has a couple oddball questions about the mechanism.

Then again, to expect you to check your work, or to actually read the original thread this list was on, is a bit much. Same ol' same ol.

[freedumb2003]

All God did to create the universe and everything in it was to speak. God using power natural to Himself is not magic. Magic is what men use in the form of spells and charms to manipulate nature for their own benefit and is expressly forbidden by God in the Bible.

Interesting theological point. How does an external observer tell the difference between God's Miracles and a Shaman's magic? Both defy physical law.

What does it matter if God on occasion manipulates the natural order of things that He set up, from time to time? He has the perogative to do so whenever He pleases. And that is not called magic but miracles, which is not the same thing. Miracles are used to verify the existance and power of God to unbelieving people and, to the best of my knowledge, are almost always beneficial to people.

So what is the point of science if God can arbitrarily step in and undermine it? And who says magic isn't beneficial?

If someone is on a plane and God just swats it out of existence, what is the point of aerodynamics? Don't say that God is always benign because we see Him killing many -- directly or by proxy -- in The Old Testament.

[freedumb2003]

No it isn't.

A logical fallacy formed with the intent to deceive is a lie.

An accidental one might not be, but once pointed out and run again becomes a knowing lie.

[freedumb2003]

Since you obviously don't believe that the Bible is true in any literal sense, how is it that you supposedly encounter this "risen Christ" person "in the Word". You even capitalized "Word" as if it were some kind of holy reference. By "Word" you obviously don't mean that book of fables, the Bible, do you? What "Word" are you referencing?

Much of the Bible is written allegorically. Jesus spoke in parables because the people of that time were not equipped to deal with direct evidence.

The further back you go in the Bible, the more allegorical it becomes.

The Bible is a source of spiritual truth, not historical truth (lthough there are certainly many recordings of historical events obseved by the authors). Why are there so few (if any) artifacts from the time of Christ? Such an important even as His Life and Death should have many direct evidenciary artifacts.

IMHO, it is because Jesus wanted us to operate from Faith, not Facts.

That is why the Creationist myth belongs in theology/mythology and Evolution belongs in science.

[metmom]

The author is God regardles of who held the pen. II Tim 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,...

Now you are certainly free not to believe or accept that the Bible is God speaking to us. That's what the free will part is all about, but I doubt you will be convincing any Christians of anything different. Christians certainly recognise that various men *wrote* the Bible, as in holding the pen and putting words on paper, but it's more a matter of dictation, as it were. The author of a book is not required to write every word with his own hand, as far as I know, to still be considered the author.

[darbymcgill]

MIGHT have won a small victory on my accidental truncation.

Your truncation, and questionable attempt to classify it as accidental is defined as the fallacy of suppressed evidence. You intended to trick us into thinking you were challenging for a flat out lie, when in fact you knew better and tried to hide behind a strawman laced post.

You can chose to constantly redefine fallacy, argument, lie or your point, so let's just call you the winner and you can define that word as you will as well.

[freedumb2003]

Now you are certainly free not to believe or accept that the Bible is God speaking to us. That's what the free will part is all about, but I doubt you will be convincing any Christians of anything different. Christians certainly recognise that various men *wrote* the Bible, as in holding the pen and putting words on paper, but it's more a matter of dictation, as it were. The author of a book is not required to write every word with his own hand, as far as I know, to still be considered the author.

Perfect. You make an elegant and succinct argument on why evolution should be taught in science and creation taught in religion/theology.

[The_Reader_David]

Well, that was Nikolai Tesla's theory. Acacia wood is apparently a good insulator, and separated the layers of gold--basically a Leyden jar with acacia wood instead of glass. I think the cherubim on the top were supposed to provide a spark gap.

(There are Jewish legends not recorded in the canonical scriptures about sparks emanating from the Ark.)

Tesla proposed it was charged with static electricity, but I'm not clear on the details.

[PresbyRev]

I'm not going to play your proof texting game. Your questions were not sincere - you were baiting. Please get off your pious horse. It doesn't fly.

If you are sincerely seeking answers to the questions that a dead fundamentalism cannot address, try reading:

The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart by Peter J. Gomes

Reading the Bible Again for the First Time by Marcus Borg

and, Being Presbyterian in the Bible Belt by Ted V. Foote and P. Alex Thornburg

Blessings

[freedumb2003]

You can chose to constantly redefine fallacy, argument, lie or your point, so let's just call you the winner and you can define that word as you will as well.

Your snake oil won't sell. Tell you what: I will grant you that my follow-up missed "1/2" my original intent. It wasn't intentional (by my own definition, which you are willing to accept) so therefore goes down as an "error." If I were to repost using the same mistake, I would be guilty of a forced logical fallacy (=lied)

So where did you point out a logical fallacy in any Evo post? Do you think you get to skip out on my challenge because I forgot to add the "or" clause? Show me in your response where you met the Logical Fallacy 1/2 of the challenge since you have deemed it so substantive as to actually try to use it as a way out of the corner you painted yourself into.

You people make it all too easy.

[Quark2005]

While I believe him to be a complete left wing Ivy league liberal fruitcake (these are the guys you're in bed with?)

To be fair, the ACLU did have our backs in the Dover case (politics makes for strange bedfellows - one should always remember that). An irrelevant point nonetheless. (Though I was a little skittish about that case - seems the voters of Dover made the right decision without the courts' help - but that's for another thread.)

...a 30 second perusal of his personal site makes it quite clear that he fully accepts evolution - just has a couple oddball questions about the mechanism.

While Salthe's criticisms of Darwinian evolutionary theory seem a little cranky to me (his section on thermodynamics is extremely wacko), it should be noted that challenges to Darwinism have always been welcome when they actually have scientific substance. Lynn Margulis, for example, proposed that lateral gene transfer and symbiosis lend a larger role to evolution than natural selection. While this is not believed to be the case, her work remains renowned and her contributions to organelle heredity theory (i.e. origins of mitochondria, chloroplasts) remain as an important contribution to the field. Likewise, statistical considerations (i.e. genetic drift) are now realized to contribute to evolution. Evolution has come so far since Darwin's time that it's hardly proper to call it 'Darwinism' in this day and age.

The whole reason that evolution is referred to as a 'theory' is not because we don't know whether or not it happened, but because we don't understand exactly how it happened in every individual case. A theory is an explanation that fits all observable facts; a criterion that evolution fits very well. This awesome post at talkorigins.org makes this point very well, IMO.

[csense]

Logical fallacies -- espcially non sequiteurs and strawmen as well as misrepresenting BASIC facts -- repeatedly posted when they have been demonstrably and clearly exposed move from "misunderstanding" to "flat-out-lie."

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that in logic, the opposite of truth, is lying. It is not. In fact, the concept of lying is nowhere to be found in logic...only in the minds of amateur logicians like yourself.

I said:
That said, I'm proud to announce that those on my side of the aisle, generally do not engage in intimidation campaigns, parading about with liar lists and such.

You said:
"All Evo's are Athiests/Nazis/Athiest Nazis" isn't intimidation??????

I wasn't aware that Atheist was an undesireable character trait. Be that as it may though, the key word here is campaign, and any reasonable person reading these threads, would agree that there is an organized effort to impugn the dignity of adversaries.

As I said, a corrected misrepresentation posted a second time is a lie. A purposeful non-sequiteur is a lie. A strawman is a lie.

Whatever you say...

I said:
I'll let the reader decide whether Ichneumon, lied, misrepresented, or proffered the truth.

This is a very esoteric discussion between competing camps about the evolutionary source of vestigal organs. It is analagous to a discussion about what the implications of St. John contradicting St. Timothy. Posting up support for St. John that may be contreverted elsewhere is NOT lying. It is impossible to post up every side of some of the more interesting debates in the Evo community, which includes some well-read Creos who at least are arguing on a science plane.

I have no idea what you're rambling on about here...especially given your peculiar use of the term "esoteric" in relation to a public debating forum....and neither do I care.

And even by your own last line in the post you admit that you can;t tell whether Ichneumon posted up something he knows to be true, which could quickly degenerate into battling experts.

I admitted no such thing, which is part of your problem: reading comprehension. Other than that, one doesn't need to be an expert to judge whether he represented the research correctly. Logic and reason will suffice, which is probably why it eludes you.

[metmom]

I'm really wiped tonight and have a long day tomorrow so I'm going to answer the easiest of your questions first and give some more thought to the rest.

So what is the point of science if God can arbitrarily step in and undermine it?

Because God doesn't always step in and *undermine* it. I would also say that perhaps *overriding* it would be a more accurate term than *undermining*; God does not work against Himself. The point of science is to learn more about the world in which we live and use it to better our lives. Just because God is capable of intervening, and does, doesn't invalidate science or the need for it. Science is a useful tool and has provided many benefits but it doesn't need to be thrown out just because it can occasionally be overridden.

The other point about God being benign: God is good but that is not the same as being benign. Only evil need be concerned about facing His judgment because He is also just and that is part of being good.

[freedumb2003]

Logical fallacies -- espcially non sequiteurs and strawmen as well as misrepresenting BASIC facts -- repeatedly posted when they have been demonstrably and clearly exposed move from "misunderstanding" to "flat-out-lie."

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that in logic, the opposite of truth, is lying. It is not. In fact, the concept of lying is nowhere to be found in logic...only in the minds of amateur logicians like yourself.

OK, let's all do reading comprehension. I specifically said that when it is purposeful (OK, I will help you: with the intent to deceive) or repeated when exposed is when it becomes a lie. A simple mistaken impression is just that. Intent to decieve or repeating an exposed fallacy is a lie. Which is exactly what I said in my post.

I said: That said, I'm proud to announce that those on my side of the aisle, generally do not engage in intimidation campaigns, parading about with liar lists and such.

You said: "All Evo's are Athiests/Nazis/Athiest Nazis" isn't intimidation??????

I wasn't aware that Atheist was an undesireable character trait. Be that as it may though, the key word here is campaign, and any reasonable person reading these threads, would agree that there is an organized effort to impugn the dignity of adversaries.

To suggest that Evolutionists are any less Christian is an affront, period. It is a put-down and you are disingenuous for suggesting otherwise. And lets not forget the "Nazi" thing, which you KNOW has been used (and skipped in your rebuttal).

If someone posts a lie on a thread, then it is wrong to let that stand. I issued a challenge that is as of yet unmet: Show me a lie or even a logical fallacy from an Evo (for you followers at home I won't forget this part again). 1,300+ posts and no one can find one.

As I said, a corrected misrepresentation posted a second time is a lie. A purposeful non-sequiteur is a lie. A strawman is a lie.

Whatever you say...

OK, I say so. Or is deceit anything other than a lie where you come from? If not, what role does deceit play in your version of morality?

I said: I'll let the reader decide whether Ichneumon, lied, misrepresented, or proffered the truth.

This is a very esoteric discussion between competing camps about the evolutionary source of vestigal organs. It is analagous to a discussion about what the implications of St. John contradicting St. Timothy. Posting up support for St. John that may be contreverted elsewhere is NOT lying. It is impossible to post up every side of some of the more interesting debates in the Evo community, which includes some well-read Creos who at least are arguing on a science plane.

I have no idea what you're rambling on about here...especially given your peculiar use of the term "esoteric" in relation to a public debating forum....and neither do I care.

OK, I will use little words. Ichneumon was responding to posts about vestigial organs by citing references. The rebuttal references suggested different theories about vestigial organs. This was merely debate about one small part of the whole TTOE and the battling references were at least on a scientific level (as opposed to the CRIDer myth vs. TTOE science discussion). OK, you can now reference me as an Evo liar. I used big words in this explanation.

And even by your own last line in the post you admit that you can;t tell whether Ichneumon posted up something he knows to be true, which could quickly degenerate into battling experts.

I admitted no such thing, which is part of your problem: reading comprehension.

Ahem: "I'll let the reader decide whether Ichneumon, lied, misrepresented, or proffered the truth.

Other than that, one doesn't need to be an expert to judge whether he represented the research correctly. Logic and reason will suffice, which is probably why it eludes you.

IOW you can't actually engage the argument, so you leave with a thinly veiled "only smart people like me can see this. In fact I am so smart I don't even have to tell you my logic. I am so smart that the very implication that this is what I say it is replaces any actual argumentation."

I love it. End with an ad hominem instead of a real argument. I like it when CRIDers reinforce their own inadequacies since, as usual, you can't debate straight up.

[darbymcgill]

Show me in your response where you met the Logical Fallacy 1/2 of the challenge since you have deemed it so substantive as to actually try to use it as a way out of the corner you painted yourself into.

Ok, although we've been through this once, I will try again because I like you.

In post 815 D makes reference to an assertion made by P in a previous post. Although never addressing the actual facts of P's argument, D attempts to falsify it by calling him a liar and added that he was arrogant and delusional. D also makes a potentially erroneous assumption that P claims to be God.

There was obviously someone on the thread that recognized this abuse, outside the posting rules of FR and logical debate. In post 854 the Mod recognized and made note of the fallacious posts.

Later in a noble act of contrition D makes a concession (later clarified as not applicable) in 1029 that she may have been a bit accusatory.

And finally, someone else must have passed along another abuse complaint since another Mod appears to recognize the adhominem had exceeded acceptable limits and issues a global smack down in 1059.

I'm sure you are aware that adhominem attacks are a logical fallacy. I know that D is aware of this fact since I've posted this to her on numerous occasions, and as documented in the first Mod slap down.