Finding common ground between God and evolution ("Theory is greater than facts)

Seattle Times ^ | Jan 25, 2005 | Froma Harrop

[WildTurkey]

He is not a Christian nor does he believe the Bible

Just because I don't believe in YOUR interpretation of the Bible ...

[Ichneumon]

Ok, again, what you are describing is evidence not facts. Theories explain evidence, which when the evidence holds up in testing and research becomes fact, facts then help validate theories, which eventually, in very very few cases become what is know in science as a Tautology, or truth.

Wow... Who messed up *your* education?

In the scientific method, theories never "graduate" to "truth", and "tautology" is another thing entirely (try a dictionary). Sheesh.

If you studied the scientific method you would know this.

ROFL! Don't presume to teach your granny to suck eggs, son.

[WildTurkey]

You forgot the one about Angels holding the planes aloft.

[JohnnyM]

I have disdain for the Word of God. Its ok to admit what your actions have testified to.

JM

[anguish]

God said be fruitful and multiply. He did not want "population control".

You understand, of course, that if all species indeed were fruitful and multiply (and did not die), the world would by overpopulated in notime. You see, a pair of fruitflies would easily take up all earths biomass in months with their offspring if they could not die.

[JohnnyM]

haha ooops.

It should read: "You have disdain for the Word of God. Its ok to admit what your actions have testified to"

JM

[ohioWfan]

Do you have scientific evidence that there were fruitflies in the Garden of Eden?

[WildTurkey]

It should read: "You have disdain for the Word of God. Its ok to admit what your actions have testified to"

I think it is you and O that have disdain for the meaning of God and have become obsessed with a man-written document ...

[anguish]

Do you have scientific evidence that there were fruitflies in the Garden of Eden?

That's in the theology department, not science.

[WildTurkey]

Do you have scientific evidence that there were fruitflies in the Garden of Eden?

I will concede you this one and say that, for arguments sake, there were no fruitflies in the Garden of Eden.

[ohioWfan]

Right.......but if you use fruitflies and their reproductive methods to question the Genesis account of Creation, don't you think the basis of your argument should be sustainable scientifically?

[anguish]

Right.......but if you use fruitflies and their reproductive methods to question the Genesis account of Creation, don't you think the basis of your argument should be sustainable scientifically?

It was merely an example (though I imagined that in a world without evolution, all animals were created from 'scratch'); the same is true with millions of species.

[ohioWfan]

But it was an example without merit, since you know neither whether any insects which multiply rapidly were in the Garden of Eden, nor how long Adam and Eve were there, making your argument invalid.

[anguish]

But it was an example without merit, since you know neither whether any insects which multiply rapidly were in the Garden of Eden, nor how long Adam and Eve were there, making your argument invalid.

That brings forth two questions - (1) did God create those species later and (2) was not the Garden of Eden designed to be viable?

[Ichneumon]

My problem with evolution is that it's junk science.

Oh? Please demonstrate your level of knowledge on this subject by trying to support this claim.

But there's enough doubt about the General Theory of Evolution so biology books should present it as a theory, not a fact.

They do.

I don't see why that is so difficult to accept.

It isn't.

I have no problem with teaching kids about evolution, which is now an important part of modern intellectual history. But it really should be taught as a theory.

The theory part of evolution is a theory. The fact part of evolution are facts.

Of equal interest is the effect that evolutionary theory has had on politics and other fields. It was largely responsible for the euthanasia movement under the early Communists

Darwin's book on evolution ("Origin of Species"): 1859. Marx's book on communism ("Communist Manifesto"): 1848. What's wrong with this picture?

and under Hitler, for instance.

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Hitler's own handwritten notes, drawing an outline of his philosophy:

Hitler divided his study into five sections:

1. The Bible
2. The Aryan
3. His Works
4. The Jew
5. His Work

Under the first section, "The Bible -- Monumental History of Mankind", he lists these topics (among others): "2 human types-- Workers and drones-- Builders and destroyers", "Race Law", "First people's history (based on) the race law-- Eternal course of History".

So it seems that Hitler was actually basing his racial view of mankind on *Biblical* foundations.

Nazi SS belt buckle, with motto "Gott mit uns [God is with us]":

Nazi propaganda paper:

The headline reads, "Declaration of the Higher Clergy/So spoke Jesus Christ". The caption under the cartoon of the marching Hitler Youth reads, "We youth step happily forward facing the sun... With our faith we drive the devil from the land."

It was also responsible for the widely held view that Africa and Asia were full of "lesser breeds," a commonly held view a hundred years ago.

Uh huh... And this view was not "widely held" before 1859? Go pull the other leg now..

[Ichneumon]

So anyone know if this guy's book "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution" is any good?

I haven't read it, but I've heard good reviews from science-literate people whose judgment I trust.

[JohnnyM]

anguish, I dont know.

I cant give you information about every little detail before the fall. Its just not possible for me to do.

There are a lot of things in the Bible that science cannot explain. Are we to then say these things did not happen for that reason. I dont know where you stand in regards to Jesus, but if you are a Christian, than science and the Bible will butt heads in many areas. Science says a dead person cannot come back to life, meaning no resurrection. Using the logic of many Christian evolutionists on this thread, this could not have happened, and is therefore not true.

JM

[ohioWfan]

That brings forth two questions - (1) did God create those species later and (2) was not the Garden of Eden designed to be viable?

Viable in the sense that it could sustain itself? Is that what you are asking? (Forgive me if that seems like a stupid question, but I'm not sure what you mean by 'viable' with regard to a place).

[Ichneumon]

"In science, theory is a higher level of understanding than facts, he notes" That whole line, unfortunately, couldn't fit in the title.

So why did you lie about what he said by misleadingly "condensing" it to, "Theory is greater than facts"?

My agenda? Gee whiz. I don't have an agenda ...

I find that very hard to believe, considering how you've misrepresented what was actually said.

[ohioWfan]

Added note........the Garden of Eden was designed to be eternal, and had Adam not chosen to sin, would have been.