Posted on 04/11/2005 10:25:55 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
I stated it later in the discussion, with quotes from the Bible.
No it is stated that way for a reason.
This is Genesis.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
If a god remains both omnipotent and omniscient (and also actively engaged) then free will is an illusion. In the absence of free will, god is irrelevant to us from a practical standpoint because there is nothing for us to decide. Nothing happens that is not precisely what the god wants to have happen. |
We agree entirely. I wasn't trying to prove God, since I believe(know) that is not possible.
Thanks for understanding! I have a major deadline on April 22 and am actually quite worried that I won't have enough waking hours between now and then to get the work done (that's definitely my fault). I really shouldn't be posting today at all; I told myself last night I wouldn't (so much for that).
I could ramble on about these topics all day because I find them of intense interest, so that's why I need to get them out of my head and go! See ya! :)
Which I agree with fully.
My biggest contention, I guess, is the origin of the 'spark' of life. What started it all?
For thousands of years, people across the globe credited the existence of the world to a higher being (or beings).
Barely 150 years ago, Darwin started his theory of evolution and the argument began between the evolution / ID factions.
Scientific theory is supposed to become fact once proven....but 'proven' to who? How much evidence is enough? Who gets to decide?
Why can't it be accepted that something we cannot identify started *life*, then evolution took over from there?
Why can't school teach just the study of organisms without expounding on either theory to the originating *spark*?
(Somebody famous said this once; didn't he?)
It is more correct to say that evolution does not address origins. It addresses the variety of life we see today as well as forensic evidence of past life forms. It does not attempt to answer how life began, only that once it had begun how life changes over time.
Why is it not possible that evo IS the intelligent design? Right along with the laws of thermodynamics, or gravity, or mathematical constants?
This is a very interesting speculation, of course, and the subject of many thought experiments. One could make the same sort of conjecture about gravity or any process we observe in nature.
There is nothing wrong with making this supposition. My point is simply that this is not science's purpose. The purpose of science is to describe the physical world in concrete terms, such that we may make predictions based on earlier observations. Take for example Einstein's theory of special relativity. For the longest time there was no known practical application of Einstein's theory. However, today the system of global positioning system satellites makes direct use of Einstein's predictions. Each satellite contains a very accurate atomic clock, and receiver units calculate position based on the time discrepancies in the signals received from several satellites. Einstein's theory of special relativity does not seek to answer why there is this 'time dilation' effect. One could postulate it is because the Creator made it this way. But again, this is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.
Obviously the universe operates under a strict system of rules or laws.....where did they come from? At least ID has an answer.
Sure, much the same can be said about cosmology. The study of astronomy and cosmology doesn't answer the really big metaphysical question of where the universe came from, just as evolutionary theory doesn't answer the really big metaphysical question of why did life come about. This is not their purpose.
It is this misunderstanding which causes religion and science to be painted as being in some sort of opposition, when they're really not.
Evolution has nothing to do with the originating "spark"...it's about the origin of SPECIES, not life.
And the way it's taught in schools has nothing in particular to do with the origin of life; it's simply teaching that over millions of years various species evolved from other species.
The most amazing thing about the whole debate is one entire side (the creationist/ID side) doesn't have the foggiest idea of what the debate is actually about.
But why DON'T they then??
Could there be a hidden agenda here?
Surely they could get a LOT of folks off their backs, for recent polls show MORE than half believe in Creation over Evolution.
"Time is Nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen at once."
Why can't it be accepted that something we cannot identify started *life*, then evolution took over from there?
Ironically, you've just put your finger on the source of much needless contention. Evolutionary theory does not attempt to identify what started life. Only, as you say, that it took over from there.
Great article. Thanks for posting it.
I think you mean natural selection, specifically. There are some good theories of how biochemistry gets started from the presumed brine of planetary chemistry.
yes, some smart feller
Wouldn't that be Freud? The same one who stated America was a mistake?
Some smart feller.
His only contribution to the world's wisdom was that he focussed on sex.
Freud on the other hand recognized a good racket when he saw it
Freud was a fraud. His ideas were childishly incomplete and his theories lacked background. That's how he came to be so well known in the modern psychological world: as a joke.
As for Neitzsche, his predictions have been echoed through time. Yet not only is Christianity the strongest religion on the planet, but the numbers of the faithful of all faiths ahve only increased since his foolsih words were uttered.
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.