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 ...
There are a number of presuppositions that are commonly recited, which few people question, but are actually absurd upon reflection. Here are a few non-negotiable presuppositions: 'every single organic being is striving to have as many descendants as it can'; 'far more beings are born that can possibly survive'; 'every single organic being is striving to the utmost to increase in a geometric ratio', etc.
None of those propositions are true. They are absurd. And yet these a priori assumptions are non-negotiable presuppositions of natural selection.
Perhaps you should use a less liberal dictionary?
Miracle \Mir”a*cle\, n. [F., fr. L. miraculum, fr. mirari to
wonder. See Marvel, and cf. Mirror.]
[1913 Webster]
1. A wonder or wonderful thing.
[1913 Webster]
That miracle and queen of genus. —Shak.
[1913 Webster]
2. Specifically: An event or effect contrary to the
established constitution and course of things, or a
deviation from the known laws of nature; a supernatural
event, or one transcending the ordinary laws by which the
universe is governed.
[1913 Webster]
They considered not the miracle of the loaves.
—Mark vi. 52.
[1913 Webster]
3. A miracle play.
[1913 Webster]
4. A story or legend abounding in miracles. [Obs.]
[1913 Webster]
When said was all this miracle. —Chaucer.
[1913 Webster]
What is outside if God created everything?
“They also take the supernatural into account every time they think, when they apply physical laws, when they reason, when they have recourse to logic, to mathematics. None of these things are “observables.””
Programming is math and logic distilled.
That passage does little to persuade me. I'm not a Christian.
Okay. You may have evolved from an ape, but I did not.
Actually, humans are apes, like our cousins the gorillas and chimps. We're the smartest, most upright and hairless member of the ape family.
Our lower back and our knees aren't well-designed for a two-legged species. They're somewhat modified versions of what you would expect to see on a four-legged critter. If you were designing a two-legged species from scratch, you'd probably want to use some other parts for these two areas.
Your contempt for science and scientists does credit to neither God nor Jesus Christ. I think your denial springs out of prideful conceit, not humility and faith.
I am humble enough to accept that if God used evolution to form me from such a lowly creature as an ape or a chimp, then that's how He did it. He gave us the Bible to tell us how to adapt anytime, anyplace -- how to treat each other -- so that we may thrive instead of perish as have and always will those societies of pagans and child sacrificers that ignore God's word. It all seems pretty consistent to me. You, on the other hand, are so prideful that you reserve the right to reject His miracles as you see fit.
Utter nonsense. Journalism.
It is true, however that, 'far more beings are born that can possibly survive'.
Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful -- just stupid).Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
Some of Heinlin’s earlier works remain among my all-time favorites. It was, indeed, sad to read Heinlein’s last several works, and to observe the obvious progressive deterioration of a once-fine mind...
you: Not the best analogy, IMHO. Mathematics is an artificial construct. It is used to quantify, but it is not quantifiable.
In the mathematical Aristotlean paradigm, the mathematician invents the mathematical structures.
In the mathematical Platonist paradigm, the mathematical structures exist and the mathematician comes along and discovers them. For example, pi exists, the mathematician discovered it.
The difference in paradigm affects not only one's view of the math but the physics and cosmology as well. And no doubt (at least in my case) extends to information theory and molecular biology.
For instance, all physical cosmologies (e.g. inflationary, multi-verse, multi-world, ekpyrotic, cyclic, imaginary time) presuppose space and time for physical causation. But in the absence of space, things cannot exist. And in the absence of time, events cannot occur.
Moreover, cosmic microwave background radiation measurements since the 1960's accrue to evidence there was a real beginning of space and time in this universe.
In effect, there was no infinite past to support the plentitude argument that anything that could happen, did. There can be no physical origin for space, time and therefore physical causation itself. All such physical cosmologies are "open."
Conversely, Max Tegmark's Level IV universe is "closed" precisely because it is radical Platonism. The mathematical structures really exist outside of space and time - and what the observer "in" space/time perceives is a manifestation of that reality.
The Platonic paradigm raises the question of why the universe is the way it is. To an Aristotelian, this is a meaningless question: The universe just is. But a Platonist cannot help but wonder why it could not have been different. If the universe is inherently mathematical, then why was only one of the many mathematical structures singled out to describe a universe? A fundamental asymmetry appears to be built into the very heart of reality.
And there is a comparable irreconcilable difference between the natural man and the spiritual man:
For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. – Romans 8:1-9
In the Tegmark metaphor, the frog cannot see what the bird sees. To him, the bird's sense of reality is a delusion. To the bird, the frog's reality is a reduction, a construct. Nor can the bird accept the frog's sense of reality.
A Christian who is also a bird (mathematical Platonist) like I am – may also see the harmony between Scripture and Creation. Indeed, to me, the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics is like God’s copyright notice on the Cosmos.
Like what? What would you have done better?
Not accepting the interpretation of the fossil record that scientists use to support the ToE does not equate to *contempt for science*. The theory of evolution is not all science.
I am humble enough ....
Not if you have to tell people how humble you are.
Further, evolutionary theory doesn't challenge the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, nor any of the spiritual, moral teachings in the Bible, from incest to prohibition on homosexuality. I've argued here that indeed, "Darwinism" reinforces them -- adapt to God's spiritual "environment" via the way of Judeo-Christianity and survive to thrive, or fail to adapt and perish as countless pagan civilizations have perished over the millenia, and will in future ages as well.
Evolutionary theory doesn't challenge God; it challenges man's pride.
What miracles is he rejecting? He was talking about the ToE and human evolution. If that's considered a miracle, then it can't be considered science.
If it's considered science by all standards evos use to define science, then it can't be called a miracle.
You have no right to define *sin*. That’s a religious term and only people who are religious or theists get to define their terms.
Just like evos say that only scientists can define *theory* as scientists use it and that anyone else’s attempts to define theory in that way is invalid.
So I propose that, not being qualified to define religious terms, by default your definition of *sin* is invalid.
Designed a lower back and a knee joint that are meant for a two-legged critter, rather than relying on slightly-modified ones for four-legged creatures.
The flaws in our anatomy are pretty good evidence that we evolved, and were not created. Despite their flaws, they're good enough, which is what evolution really is- not survivial of the fittest, objectively-speaking, but the survival of the better-than-all-the-rest. If we were designed this way, the designer must have missed some pretty obvious flaws that any competent engineer could fix.
So we can’t use science to support Scripture, except when we want to use science to support Scripture?
When Jesus used parables, there was usually a comment like this proceeding it.....”Then he told them many things in parables” or “Jesus told them another parable:”, or “He told them still another parable: “ or using the word *like*.
All that is missing from the creation account. The sentences are declarative in nature, simply statements of fact.
If you say you reject it out of faith, then if would follow that you reject true science altogether and would revert to Dark Ages when Christians were required to believe that the Earth revolved around the sun.
... you have to tell people how humble you are.
It flatters your vanity to interpret my words that way; the reality is that I am telling people like you that humility is advised in the Bible for a reason, and it behooves all of us to remember that. It takes real humility to accept the likelihood that God formed us by way of the lowly ape.
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.