Posted on 10/17/2008 7:59:18 AM PDT by Soliton
Three antievolutionists have been appointed to a six-member committee to review the draft set of Texas state science standards, and defenders of the integrity of science education in the Lone Star state are livid. "The committee was chosen by 12 of the 15 members of the board of education, with each panel member receiving the support of two board members," as the Dallas Morning News (October 16, 2008) explains. Six members of the board "aligned with social conservative groups" chose Stephen C. Meyer, the director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, Ralph Seelke, a biology professor at the University of Wiconsin, Superior, and Charles Garner, a chemistry professor at Baylor University.
Meyer, Seelke, and Garner are all signatories of the Discovery Institute-sponsored "Dissent from Darwinism" statement. Meyer and Seelke are also coauthors of Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism (Hill House, 2008), which, like Of Pandas and People, is a supplementary textbook that is intended to instill scientifically unwarranted doubts about evolution. A recent review by biologist John Timmer summarized, "But the book doesn't only promote stupidity, it demands it. In every way except its use of the actual term, this is a creationist book." Garner reportedly told the Houston Press (December 14, 2000) that he "criticizes evolutionary theory in class."
Meyer and Seelke also testified in the 2005 "kangaroo court" hearings held by three antievolutionist members of the Kansas state board of education, in which a parade of antievolutionist witnesses expressed their support for the so-called minority report version of the state science standards (written with the aid of a local "intelligent design" organization), complained of repression by a dogmatic evolutionary establishment, and claimed to have detected atheism lurking "between the lines" of the standards..
(Excerpt) Read more at ncseweb.org ...
I do not see where the measurements which lead to the expanding universe model could be explained away by a geocentric, revolving universe, model.
Nevertheless, the precise structure of space/time - the number and types of dimensions is both unknown and unknowable for pretty much the same reason we cannot be aware of the presence of particles or fields which have no discernible affect.
And truly, regardless of the physical cosmology of this world, God will create a new heaven and earth. IOW, the new structure may have little if anything to do with the present one.
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. - Revelation 21:1
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. - John 5:24
But if mathematics can be elegant in its simplicity, imagine how simple "all that there is" is to God the Creator.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. - I Corinthians 13:12
If the only tool in my toolkit were the scientific method, the demonstration would be impossible. For the method confines itself to direct observables, and God is not an “observable” in the direct sense; i.e., He is not amenable to the perception of our five senses, which are directed toward the world exterior to ourselves.
But then, neither is a law of physics per se a “direct observable.” No law of any kind is, nor can be, a direct observable. Laws are known only indirectly, through their effects. Similarly the entire field of mathematics is an intangible; but we find it useful to human purposes all the same.
If God is to be found at all I imagine it will not be via the techniques of modern science. But I do believe the case can be made that clearly He has operated in human history, because He has operated on human souls (who have written about their experiences), such occasions sometimes culminating in tremendous spiritual and intellectual outbursts that have, in the course of human history, transformed the course of human existence personal and social. The historical record is crystal clear on that: a whole lot of cathedrals and universities have been built, a glorious body of art created over several millennia, the discipline of science arose and prospered, and terrible wars fought because people in their own self-understanding were devoted to God and were trying to do His will as they best understood it.
Now I suppose you could say that at least six millennia of human history testifying across all cultures to the “existence” of God hardly constitutes evidence in the scientific sense. To a hard-nosed scientist, I imagine such evidence would be considered squishy at best.
On the other hand, to deny the historical record appears quite reckless to me. It is to sever one’s self from the human past and its genius. It is to say, “Let’s end history, and start all over from scratch!” Which, in effect, is the advice we get with more or less enthusiasm from such intellectual luminaries as Nietzsche, Hegel, and Marx.
But let’s leave aside the historical aspect here, and give testimony to the fact that people do have “felt” experiences of the divine, of the Presence of God, directly in their lives; not “felt” via the physical sensorium, but experienced “internally,” subjectively. I can personally testify that this happens. But what evidence can I give you to clear up any doubt you might have from your side?
Eric Voegelin — whom I admire as the single greatest philosopher of the twentieth century — has written penetratingly on this aspect of the problem in a manner that seems clearly inspired by Plato:
When in the revelatory process the hidden god … lets himself become manifest in visionary and auditory experiences, or in the “sound of great stillness,” or in the meditative probing of the seeker, and thus be known against the background of his unknowability, the man who responds to the presence becomes conscious of his response as an act of participation in divine reality. He discovers the something in his humanity that is the site and sensorium of divine presence; and he finds such words as psyche [i.e., soul], or pneuma [i.e., spirit], or nous [i.e., mind, reason], to symbolize the something. When he participates in a theophanic event, his consciousness becomes cognitively luminous for his own humanity as constituted by his relation to the unknown god whose moving presence in his soul evokes the moment of response. I have circumscribed the structure of the event as strictly as possible…. — Order and History — Volume IV: The Ecumenic Age, 1974May I just mention here that certain professional, proselytizing atheists from the science community (notably, Dawkins, Lewontin, Harris) not only seek to “prove” the “non-existence” of God, but also the “non-existence” of such deeply real human attributes as soul, spirit, and reason itself?
I have been saying for a long time now that in any circumstance when a person shoots at God, seeking to “kill” Him, it is man who always ends up taking the bullet.
We live in an interesting age, LeGrande. Thank you ever so much for conversing with me.
p.s.: I wonder how far we are from actually developing a viable, comprehensive GUT? It seems the more we know, the more we realize what we don’t know….
Truly many of us who have known God by the indwelling Spirit have testified of Him.
Sometimes others demand that we "prove" God to them, often by their own "rules of engagement."
And although it is entertaining to debunk atheism/agnosticism using its own reduced construct of "reality" - the very best that we can do for them is what our ancestors have always done: convey the words of God and our personal testimony. After all, only the Father can give them "ears to hear."
And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching [was] not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. - I Corinthians 2:1-5
Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? - Isaiah 53:1
So the shroud of Turin is a fraud, as is Lourds, Fatima, Stigmatas, and every other supposed physical manifestation of the existence of God?
What is amazing is how SMALL some peoples God is..
Pseudo-gods, Demi-gods, and Idols are some people ever know as God..
You need not be smart to be a God believer.. nor does being a believer make you smart..
Its who you are that counts, not what you believe..
You can be a believer and not have every spiritual or earthly thing correct mentally..
All your children are not smartest but they are your children..
God is huge in some ways yet small in others..
God will bend over and stoop to deal with you.. whoever you are..
Believing in God(the real one) is not the end of wisdom but the beginning of it..
All of the items on your list involve a great disparity of physical manifestations that have many times been acknowledged by independent observers on the scene at the time and/or subjected to analytical tests based on all available evidence. WRT say the Shroud of Turin, the upshot is the claim that it is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ has yet to be dispositively falsified by the techniques of the scientific method, after literally a century and more of trying.
But none of these things is God Himself — whose "existence" you deny. For something that does not "exist," He has certainly generated a huge amount of effects throughout human history, including the items on your little list.
That this has ever been the case would be simply undeniable by any observant, rational person.
As I wrote in my last, God is never seen directly, but only in His effects. The items on your list are some of His effects. None one of them has yet been "falsified" by means of the scientific method.
So, what's your beef?
I believe your rhetoric has shifted. I haven't studied much of the mostly Catholic myths, but I am somewhat of an expert on the shroud. It only took a couple of months to become one. How sad!
I have nothing to add, except my profound gratitude!
These go into the permanent archive.... :^)
To God be the glory!
If you are such an expert on the shroud, would you kindly explain to us the reasons for the evident disappointment felt in certain circles of the scientific community when the last supposedly "dispositive test" was shown to be non-dispositive, owing to the selected test sample being a late addition (i.e., a patch) to the original cloth, and thus of no utility in authenticating (or falsifying) it?
And so now we're back to "square one"....
Jeepers, you guys just can't get a break! LOLOL!
As far as I'm concerned, you can keep on trying. Good luck!
Sure, please show that his test samples came from the shroud. The Vatican says that they can't confirm it and Rogers admitted he couldn't be sure.
s: So the shroud of Turin is a fraud, as is Lourds, Fatima, Stigmatas, and every other supposed physical manifestation of the existence of God?
Are you saying then, that God can be proved using the scientific method after all?
Interesting that the evoatheists accept the existence of gravity as fact when the only way it can be determined is through it's effect on objects around it, but say that the same criteria is not good enough to demonstrate God's existence.
nail....
jello.....
wall.....
That is the question isn't it?
EM fields are real, but they aren't made of anything and waves from EM fields are light and matter. So essentially everything is waves of nothing.
Think about that for a while : )
What exactly do you mean by temporal? Vectors? Tensors?
I agree. It isn't separate.
Laws are simply based on observations. True we can't see the "Law of Gravity", but I can certainly see gravity at work all the time. All the good "theories" are based on direct observations and experimentation. Anything not ultimately based on observation and subject to falsification is merely conjecture, string theory and Religion are two very good cases in point.
Now I suppose you could say that at least six millennia of human history testifying across all cultures to the “existence” of God hardly constitutes evidence in the scientific sense. To a hard-nosed scientist, I imagine such evidence would be considered squishy at best.
I play a game called Go, that is much older than Christianity, and teaches comparable principles.
On the other hand, to deny the historical record appears quite reckless to me. It is to sever one’s self from the human past and its genius. It is to say, “Let’s end history, and start all over from scratch!” Which, in effect, is the advice we get with more or less enthusiasm from such intellectual luminaries as Nietzsche, Hegel, and Marx.
That isn't it at all, the idea is to build on what we have learned. From my point of view the Old Testament is a record of early mans attempt to understand and control the world around him. God was a concept that was invented to explain and help control an unknown and scary world. In essence they were the first scientists starting from scratch.
Obviously they got most of it wrong, but it provided a framework to examine and build on. Just like Newton was ultimately proven "wrong" (or at least not correct in all instances) the framework that he laid down was a necessary stepping stone.
Once we have passed those stepping stones they can be discarded, much like we can discard the belief in God. We know that weather is not dependent on rain dances or sacrificing virgins. We know that a rainbow is water refracting light waves, not a Gods promise to never completely cover the world in water again.
Do we have all the answers? We certainly don't and I hope that we never do.
So, what's your beef?
Indeed, to God be the glory!
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.