Replies

Everything in the Christian construct universe is the result of the moment by moment intervention of a sovereign Creator/sustainer, from the subatomic level upwards. The problem is you see intervention as somehow at odds with what you can observe. I reject utterly the notion that there is some kind of "natural" universe which left to itself chugs along, and only needs "intervention" for a virgin birth, a resurrection, or some other puzzlement.

Our worldviews have no point of intersection at all. I see nothing to be gained by further discussion.

Should you choose not to interact, that will be fine. I am actually delighted by your response as it is usually a sign that a materialist for the first time understands the nature of a true Christian worldview. The real issue here is NOT over some weird literalism by fundamentalists which results in a whole spate of bizarre doctrinal issues, from the age of the earth to how special creation occurred to some goofy "left behind" series of millenial screeds. These are "family feuds" within Christendom and while they can be annoying, are not the REAL cause of all the caterwauling and howling. People just don't get pissed off enough about stuff like that to make the kind of effort and display the kind of emotions you see on these and other boards. The kind of "culture war" you see over "evolution" is really about the conflict of these two worldviews.
The mistake many Christians make is to cede the idea that one can start out legitimately from a materialist base and build a coherent and intellectually satisfying worldview. It cannot be done and leads to alot of the silliness you see in the crevo debates. Again, my contention is that the materialist CANNOT build an intellectually coherent nor a personally coherent worldview on rank empiricism. As a matter of fact, you may be surprised at how selective your statement is that our worldviews have no point of intersection. If you wish, we can discuss my root contention with the empiricist, which is that a materialist borrows from a theistic worldview constantly in both your professional (or "scientific") life and your personal life. This borrowing is usually unaware, but always unacknowledged. My contention is that science, divorced from the metaphysical constructs that Christianity originally provided, simply slits its own throat and becomes nothing more than a statitics keeper. The ability to make meaningful statements about the nature of the universe or the reliability of the data collected is contingent on principles of uniformity. The materialist can only arrive there by climbing onto a big soapbox full of nothing. He only has statistics and a heritage that he is doing his best to stab to death while he is sitting on its shoulders announcing the "results of his research."

If you choose not to respond at all to me in the future that will be fine, although disappointing to me. Should our paths cross, I won't be able to jump into some discussion on potassium argon dating, or "transitional forms" or red shifts or any such crap without asking the question "What are we REALLY arguing about here?"

At any rate, you have been civil to me and your brief response, if curt, was not demeaning or hateful. That beats the hell out of most responses on these threads, from theists or non. Thank you.

Whether the philosophical underpinnings of the materialist or Christian actually provide sufficient underpinnings for science, and the complete life of the scientist doing them is the basis for my posts on all these threads.