Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Finding common ground between God and evolution ("Theory is greater than facts)
Seattle Times ^ | Jan 25, 2005 | Froma Harrop

Posted on 01/25/2005 6:15:41 PM PST by gobucks

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 581-596 next last
To: gobucks

The same people who told you Darwin was an athiest also think Abe Lincoln was gay. :)

Kinda makes you think, doesn't it?


141 posted on 01/26/2005 7:27:49 AM PST by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
I always thought Darwin was an atheist!

He wasn't particularly religious, but he wasn't an atheist. He makes mention of a Creator in his writings.

142 posted on 01/26/2005 7:27:57 AM PST by Modernman (What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease

lol


143 posted on 01/26/2005 7:29:02 AM PST by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
But what if what was made in God's image and man's physical form is merely a vessel? What if the "in God's image" part was what is termed the soul. Or are you suggesting that God has a human-like body? I don't see how he would need one.

Of what use to God are genitals, as he does not reproduce??
Of what use to God are feet, as he has no need to walk??
Of what use to God are eyes, as he knows all, so needs to see nothing??
Of what use to God are ears, for the same reason??
Of what use to God are lungs, for he has no need to take in air??
Of what use to God are arms, as he can move things by his will??
Of what use to God is a digestive system, as he need not eat??
Of what use to God is a circulatory system, as he need not distribute oxygen??

In fact, it seems to me that the only things that God would seem to require, under Christian theology, is thought.

144 posted on 01/26/2005 7:29:05 AM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyM
I am saying, and the Bible clearly indicates, that God made Adam name the animals so that Adam could realize that he was alone.

Oh, the old "read the bible literally but now I need a "liberal interpretation" to get my self out of a corner trick.

145 posted on 01/26/2005 7:29:49 AM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyM

But true.


146 posted on 01/26/2005 7:31:07 AM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

Adam.


147 posted on 01/26/2005 7:31:47 AM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

It is a HUGE, insurmountable leap between people of faith who believe that God lovingly created humans in HIS image for fellowship with HIM, to a murdering madman.

The Spanish Inquisition.

148 posted on 01/26/2005 7:32:03 AM PST by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
Jesus had genitals, feet, eyes, ears, lungs, arms, a digestive system, and a circulatory system. And Jesus is most surely God.

JM
149 posted on 01/26/2005 7:32:51 AM PST by JohnnyM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
God failed his task

Ouch. Your saying this says a lot about you and your antagonism toward your creator.

150 posted on 01/26/2005 7:34:19 AM PST by Theo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: gobucks; PatrickHenry; Strategerist; Finny
In science, theory is a higher level of understanding than facts, he notes. "Theories don't grow up to become facts. Rather, theories explain facts."

In theory, this is correct, however, in practice this is nonsense. Miller's comment completely disregards the Human Factor. In other words, scientific theories rely heavily upon the commonman's faith in the scientific community. That faith is weak at best, and currently it is the fault of weak scientists who put their personal situations ahead of Truth.

For instance, primary- and secondary-school science curricula in this country are polluted with political agenda. Students can clearly see that the extinction of certain species of animals will not affect the earth's ability to be self-sustaining, that rain forests can be replanted, that "old forests" offer no benefit over new forests, and that nuclear power is really the only clean, renewable source of energy currently available.

Undoubtedly, many folks are sucked in by politically-driven science lessons that rely on the "cute, tiger cub factor"; but when they finally realize the Truth they are angry, embarrassed and looking for someone to blame. If they don't entrench themselves in their positions, then the obvious scapegoat will be the Scientific Community as a whole. In other words, they can reasonably conclude that if scientists are misleading folks over one topic, they may be practicing deceit in other areas as well.

Does popular opinion matter, though? The Scientific Community mistakenly believes that if they, who comprise perhaps .05% of the population, know the Truth, then the "opinions" of the other 99.95% of the population are invalid. At the same time, though, the outrage and frustration over the general population's mistrust of Scientists is a regular topic in boardrooms of research organizations and publications across the country. Metaphorically, this dilemma can be compared to the old riddle of "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear the 'Bang!', did the tree make a sound?" What use is a theory that only a small majority trust or believe?

What value is public opinion if it is simply wrong? Public opinion in actual fact is The Force that drives public will; and public will is the force that encourages young people to become researchers, technicians and inventors. Public will is the force that funds education, research and medical innovation.

Perhaps the scientific community will eventually accept the fact that it is their duty to improve public opinion, and will work to root out those within the community who perpetrate myths and half-truths for personal gain, whether to win research grants or acceptance of administrations and social peers.

Persuading public opinion will also require the theorists to abandon the practice of passionately defending any theory that has been officially declared a "Theory". They must eventually realize that in the mind of the average reader some of this over-zealous defense is the equivalent of Shakespeare's "The lady doth protest too much!".

Finally, if the scientific community does desire reparation of its tarnished reputation, it must choose reputable scientists to speak out publically when the NY Times, Scientific American and Science News, for example) print articles like "Air pollution trims fetal growth" that rely on correlation data and indirectly related "rat studies".

Miller is in a better position than most to stem the tide that has bred mistrust throughout the education systems in America and Europe.

151 posted on 01/26/2005 7:35:03 AM PST by TaxRelief (Support the Troops Rally, Fayetteville, NC -- March 19, 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

My friend, it's clear you hate God. Not sure why. Perhaps you are a disillusioned former Christian, or you've been "burned" by Christians.

The truth is, though, that some day your heart may change and you find yourself loving God for his kindness toward you in light of your sinfulness. That change will affect your thoughts about him and his people, and your cynicism will dissipate.

May that day not be too far off.


152 posted on 01/26/2005 7:40:18 AM PST by Theo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
The reading of Genesis that I supplied is not a liberal one but a literal one. But you fail to realize that YOU are the one claiming God failed in His task of providing Adam a helper in the form of animals.

Although the logic that somehow one must read the Bible as all literal or all figurative is severely flawed, but I digress.

JM
153 posted on 01/26/2005 7:41:06 AM PST by JohnnyM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Theo
Ouch. Your saying this says a lot about you and your antagonism toward your creator.

You must not be a Christian. I know that Christians consider it a sin to bear false witness.

154 posted on 01/26/2005 7:43:14 AM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyM
Jesus had genitals, feet, eyes, ears, lungs, arms, a digestive system, and a circulatory system. And Jesus is most surely God.

Are you saying that JC's physical body is a part of God?

155 posted on 01/26/2005 7:44:07 AM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
I am saying the Jesus is God.

JM
156 posted on 01/26/2005 7:44:55 AM PST by JohnnyM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
I don't know a creationist who doesn't believe there has been evolution within the species.

I don't.

Evolution is not merely "change," but "improvement" -- specifically the *increase* of meaningful genetic information through generations. Genetic information absolutely *does* change through generations, and sometimes decreases over generations, but it does not increase in any meaningful way.

I disbelieve in both "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution, if evolution is defined as the meaningful "increase" of genetic information through generations....

157 posted on 01/26/2005 7:45:11 AM PST by Theo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyM
Although the logic that somehow one must read the Bible as all literal or all figurative is severely flawed, but I digress.

No. It is your refusal to read the Bible figuratively in order to make your case against evolution and your insistence on reading it figuratively inorder to reconcile the inconsistencies in the Bible.

158 posted on 01/26/2005 7:45:48 AM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey; Jessarah
We were taught in Sunday school that that was why man had one less rib that women ...

I've read that one in ten humans have an extra set of ribs. Wonder how that figures into the Biblical story?

159 posted on 01/26/2005 7:46:03 AM PST by Modernman (What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyM
er, I meant to say

"I am saying that Jesus is God."

JM
160 posted on 01/26/2005 7:46:34 AM PST by JohnnyM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 581-596 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson