Reason in the Balance and why Fundamentalists are Beyond Reason

sullivan-county.com ^ | Unknown | Lewis Loflin

[Kerberos]

Your "fact" is in fact a "theory". That's why they call it the Theory of Evolution.

You need to get your facts straight before you start trying to lecture others on theirs.

Then again maybe you should read the whole article.

"The Catholic Church has accepted evolution as science since 1950;"

Evolution is a theory because it passes the test (in multiple scientific fields and thousands of tests) but is not a Law because some of the mechanisms are still under dispute or study.

"Christian fundamentalists just love to bash Darwin's "Theory of Evolution"

"What is more important is Darwin never invented any "Theory of Evolution." He promoted the hypothesis"

[Dataman]

Satan is not a actuall being but does represent human evil.

The author testifies to his own intelligence.

[Taliesan]

The author makes a mess of the relationship between theory and law, not that we were ever going to educate the creos on that point anyway. But I like the treatment of Philip Johnson.

That little muff of theory and law was an aberration. We know this because he nailed Johnson.

[Kerberos]

"The author testifies to his own intelligence."

How so?

[MissAmericanPie]

I wish they would stop this silly whining about Darwinism. The brag use to be that God was dead, now it's Darwin's theory that is dead. To interpret the fact that the theory has failed, is not legitimate, has proven false, as an attack on, or proof that one group is "beyond reason", is itself beyond reason.

Science is not in the business, or, should not be in the business of plugging in a lie, just because they need a handy theory to fill in a hole. Darwinism served a purpose, only as a theory to be disproven, so Darwinism was not useless, it's just become obsolete.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply, unspun! I look forward to your comments when you have the opportunity to look at all of it. Hugs!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for the chuckle, maestro! Hugs!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

My guess is that he's not worried about theological precision.

No doubt that is true; however, it destroys his credibility to speak falsely about the opposing view. It is the same credibility problem Young Earth Creationists have when they try to argue with a scientist without first having done the research to know the language and the theories.

What he's doing with the term "fundamentalism" is using it to describe any set of beliefs which teaches that in case of apparent conflict, its doctrines supersede the verifiable observations and logical conclusions of science.

My rule-of-thumb is this: God does not mistakes, humans do. So if there is a conflict between Scripture and science either I have superimposed my understanding on what the Scripture actually says - or I haven't fully researched the scientific theory.

[longshadow]

verifiable placemarker

[Modernman]

You got me there. I have never heard or seen the name "Adam" spoken or written in any of those languages.

I believe those were the names of people who were considered to be the first humans in various non-Christian creation myths. The Bible is not the first religious book with a creation myth.

[Alamo-Girl]

Great catch! Thank you for your post!

[Modernman]

now it's Darwin's theory that is dead

Huh. Guess I better go tell all those thousands of scientists with phds in biology, genetics, biochemistry etc. to stop wasting their time because their fields are based on a lie. Gotcha. I'm glad you were able to figure this out, while millions of others were not.

[Dataman]

Article: Satan is not a actuall being but does represent human evil.

Dataman: "The author testifies to his own intelligence."

Kerberos: How so?

Are you the author? LOL!

[Kerberos]

"Are you the author? LOL!"

No. Just asking if you would care to expound on your statement.

[general_re]

My rule-of-thumb is this: God does not mistakes, humans do. So if there is a conflict between Scripture and science either I have superimposed my understanding on what the Scripture actually says - or I haven't fully researched the scientific theory.

Or, as someone else recently commented, "Truth cannot contradict truth." ;)

[Alamo-Girl]

Well said, general_re! Thank you for your post!

[man of Yosemite]

I just couldn't get through this article. This person's views are so wacked out.

[Kerberos]

"It was in the same matrix that "predicted" his winning office"

You have a program that interprets bible codes?

[Sloth]

Huh? I'm a pretty foundational Christian, and I see good science as only increasing my understanding and appreciation of God.

Indeed, this author has a twisted sense of what it means to be a "fundamentalist."

[Kerberos]

Isaac Asimov: My objection to fundamentalism is not that they are fundamentalists but that essentially they want me to be a fundamentalist too.

Great statement!!! And essentially, if you really listen to them, they want to pass laws to insure that happens or that you at least are forced to live by their standards.

That's what I have a problem with, that is not consistent with the idea of freedom.