Posted on 06/09/2006 6:16:57 AM PDT by tomzz
You can't help but notice that there is a very vocal sort of a little clique of evolutionists on FreeRepublic, and there has always been a question in a lot of people's minds as to whether or not the theory of evolution is in any way compatible with conservatism.
This new book ("Godless") of Ann Coulter's should pretty much settle the issue.
Ann does not mince words, and she has quite a lot to say about evolution:
"Liberals' creation myth is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is about one notch above scientology in scientific rigor. It's a make-believe story, based on a theory which is a tautology, with no proof in the scientists laboratory or the fossil record, and that's after 150 years of very determined looking. We wouldn't still be talking about it but for the fact that liberals think evolution disproves God....
It gets better from there, in fact a lot better. Ann provides a context for viewing the liberal efforts to shut down everything resembling debate on the subject in courtrooms and makes a general case that it is the left and not the right, which is antithetical to science in general. Anybody interested in this question of American society and the so-called theory of evolution should have a copy of this book
There certainly is an issue when it comes to definitions. Have you heard of the "logical positivist" approach to science?
"Does he also ascribe a certain amount of objective, direct observation to astrology? He should."
Why should he?
Because astrologists make it their practice to directly observe the skies and write down what they see.
What would be the obvious or positive evidence for angels pushing the planets around? We used to think we needed them for the universe to make sense. OK, some people still seem to.
To the extent Darwinists, or evolutionists rule out intelligent design, or consider it unscientific, they make themselves no better scientists than anyone else.
The question is not whether we can rule it out, but whether we can rule it in.
It is clear both sides consider the other to hold preposterous views, which in turn generates a certain amount of invective.
There are things true of both sides, but it's the differences that matter. One side is engaged in a systematic investigation of nature. One side is placating a supernatural entity. This latter activity may not be necessary and in any event is not very instructive.
Have you heard of the fallacy of equivocation? When you make up your own definition of a word and don't make it clear how differently you are using it, you mislead others and perhaps yourself.
Click on my profile for guidelines on the Religion Forum.
Here you posit specific entities, namely angels and planets. There may be some people who infer this is the case: that angels are responsible for planetary motion. They may be right. But to answer your question we would need to determine precisely what form an angel would take before we could determine what constitutes positive evidence. We know there is positive evidence for intelligent design. In every case it entails organizing matter so that it performs specific functions.
The question is not whether we can rule it out, but whether we can rule it in.
And the issue today is that Darwinists are inclined to invoke the law of the land in order to rule it out.
One side is placating a supernatural entity.
I consider myself to be on the side of which you speak, but your understanding may be skewed. Investigating the handiwork of God is not a way of placating Him. It is simply a process undertaken by virtue of the curiosity with which I was endowed from birth. It involves a systematic investigation of anything and everything available to reason and senses. As for your use of the word "supernatural," the term is meaningless except insofar as it means what you want it to mean. IOW, it is not a scientific term.
The astrological calendar was created on the basis of direct observation and sprinkled with imaginary tales, just like Darwinsim.
The ID/OEC/YEC movements collectively have done a very poor job making a case for this.
And the issue today is that Darwinists are inclined to invoke the law of the land in order to rule it out.
Occam's Razor. If you don't need it, out it goes.
Investigating the handiwork of God is not a way of placating Him. It is simply a process undertaken by virtue of the curiosity with which I was endowed from birth.
Every flavor of ID or creationism I've ever seen is about punting on understanding anything except that HE did it, period.
I consider the definition of science to be "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." This is not a definition I have made up.
Intelligent design is a theoretical explanation of organized matter that performs specific functions. There is nothing mystical, religious, supernatural, or suprstitious about it, any more than there is anything mystical, religious, supernatural, or suprstitious about your inmost secret thoughts, for which I have little if any "positive evidence."
Good article! Mushy source, sometimes, but they got this one right.
Ah yes, the Christians. We have a virtual monopoly on victimizing others, just ask nearly anyone in the media or academia.
1. Creationism is literally a belief that God created the universe.
For the record, my Spiritual leaning is that God the Father has revealed Himself through Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit, through Scripture and through Creation. I expect them all to agree and have never been disappointed.
WRT Genesis, my Spiritual leaning is that God is the author and observer – that we must consider inflationary theory and relativity when examining the age of the universe. And when we do, it is clear that a week of equivalent earth days at the inception space/time coordinates is equal to approximately 15 billion years from earth’s space/time coordinates.
Also, I perceive that Genesis speaks to the creation of both the spiritual realm and the physical realm. For instance, the Tree of Life is in the center of both the Garden of Eden and Paradise (Gen 2 and Rev 2), the plants were made before they were in the earth (Gen 2) and the waters (Gen 1:2) are not H2O but rather the waters spoken of in Scripture (Jer 2:13, John 4, etc.) Therefore, the calendar for Adamic man begins when Adam is banished to mortality in Genesis 4.
BTW, according to a number of Judeo/Christian beliefs, that Adamic calendar is set for 7,000 earth years – the last 1,000 years (Christian) are Jesus’ reign on earth (Rev). The current Jewish calendar date (counting from Adam) is 5766 – but there is a 240 year dispute over the time the Jews spent in captivity in Babylon.
The posters on one side cannot ‘see’ what the other side sees. Below is a copy of my post from another thread which might help to explain why that is so:
Christ is alive, not dead. We know Him personally. I’ve known him for 46 years already and am very much aware of being alive in timelessness while yet in the flesh, temporally bound (Col 3:3)
Likewise, because we know Him personally, Spiritual knowledge is the most certain knowledge we possess. It trumps all sensory perception, reasoning and other forms of “how we know what we know and how sure we are that we know it.”
Those who do not have “ears to hear” cannot understand any of this. For them, Spiritual knowledge does not exist.
And some who do have “ears to hear” – like doubting Thomas – have more confidence in their own sensory perception and reasoning than in what little Spiritual knowledge they allow by their own willfulness.
But for those of us who were blessed with “ears to hear” and surrender to the Spirit’s leading (Romans 8) – reality itself is God’s will and unknowable in its fullness.
Therefore, we do not question miracles, we understand parables. Truly, the Scriptures are not just text-on-paper but are alive in us.
No presence or absence of historical evidence, empirical evidence, reasoning or mathematical proofs can diminish Truth to us. It is pointless to try.
When we observe things in the physical Creation we rejoice over His faithfulness. We see Him in the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics, in cosmologies, in the fabric of space/time, in the mysteries of quantum mechanics, in the persistence of the will to live in biological systems, in language, the archeological record, the geologic record and indeed the cosmos. Truly, as the Psalmist said:
You're absolutely correct that a TE is a creationist, A-G, but as any number of such can tell you, TEs are rejected by the entire rest of "their own kind" because they aren't anti-E. The split is not on theism versus atheism, although it is a very common anti-E tactic to pretend that it is.
It comes down to science versus anti-science.
Of a truth, theistic evolutionism is rejected by young earth creationism. Further, the doctrine equally (or perhaps even more so) - viscerally rejects day-age and day-gap doctrines and all other doctrines which are not YEC.
In theology, this is to be expected. If the person believed the other theology to be correct, he would change.
Moreover, the believer is apt to argue for his own doctrine as if his life depended on it - because, in many of these doctrines, it does.
IMHO, the dispute is more about doctrine than science v religion.
The hand of Providence is invisible, and is thus outside of the limited scope of science. The observed mechanisms of evolution are not incompatible with Providence -- how could they be? -- they are only incompatible with certain interpretations of scripture that are chosen to create such needless conflicts.
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.