Posted on 09/20/2005 5:35:52 PM PDT by curiosity
Most adult Sunday school classes don't raise eyebrows, but my church is planning to hold one that's sure to. It's called "Evolution for Christians," and it will be taught this winter by David Bush, a member of the church I lead, Fairfax Presbyterian. David is an articulate government retiree who has been interested in this topic for nearly two decades, teaches a class on theories of the origins of life every five years or so, and once again has really done his homework. His view is that science and religion answer two different sets of questions about creation, with science answering the "how" questions, and religion answering the "why" ones. "With a little bit of wisdom and tolerance on each side," he tells me, "I think they can complement rather than contradict each other."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
It totally blows my mind that this law of physics is repeatedly perverted by creationists. Its main application is to kinetic theory and heat flow, in systems "simple" enough where heat energy and entropy can be quantified, where evolution even potentially fits into it is totally beyond me.
One day when I get around to making an About page I think I'm going to dedicate it to the Preservation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Really? Can you give an example of how bias has lead to unwarranted conclusions about evolution?
Nope, that's not a scientific truth, and nope, that's not what evolution says.
You know, it's usually a good idea to learn about something before you crticize it.
So evolution says that religion is not "truth" at all, apart from moral/ethical teachings traditionally couched in "mythical" or "parabolic" language. Does that sum it up?
Say, why don't we turn to science for ethical and moral truth as well? Since G-d is a myth and we need some sort of objective standard (to prevent all our ethical beliefs being mere individual hang-ups or subjective societal toboos. I'm sure you can find truth in a test tube somewhere.
You know, it's usually a good idea to learn about something before you crticize it.
I know that "evolution" is said to be irreconcilable with "intelligent design" (which is mere theistic evolution with direct Divine interference) but not with a purely naturalistic mechanism guided providentially. Personally, I don't see the difference.
I also note that (at least according to most evolutionist apologists) while evolution cannot co-exist with Genesis, it doesn't seem to contradict any other "miracle" of the Bible (the parting of the Red Sea, the resurrection of various dead people, donkeys talking, etc.). Some of your own fellows on this forum are very loud about evolution not contradicting anything in religion other than the creation account of Genesis. But if you're going to grant the possibility of talking donkeys, how can you insist on a naturalistic origin?
I also know that it is a violation of logic to insist that the coming-to-be of the universe followed laws that did not exist until the universe had come into being. But then, if you're going to give us "Providential design" and every other miracle outside Genesis 1-10, what are you complaining about?
18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
Nope. Try again. Here's a hint. Evolution is only concerned about the physical world. It has nothing to say about anything else.
Say, why don't we turn to science for ethical and moral truth as well?
Because science cannot provide it. Science only deals with the physical world.
I know that "evolution" is said to be irreconcilable with "intelligent design" (which is mere theistic evolution with direct Divine interference)
Wrong again. "Intelligent design," as the term is used by its advocates (and it's a misnomer, I'll grant you), is the proposition that some features of biology are too complex to have evolved in a Darwinian manner.
An occaisional divine intervention, such as a non-random mutation here or a fortuitous extinction there, is perfectly compatible with the Darwinian view of evolution. It's not required by the Darwinian model, but it does not contradict it.
I also note that (at least according to most evolutionist apologists) while evolution cannot co-exist with Genesis,
It coexists just fine, so long as you don't impose too literal an interpretation, which is unreasonable on textual grounds anyway.
I also note that (at least according to most evolutionist apologists) while evolution cannot co-exist with Genesis, it doesn't seem to contradict any other "miracle" of the Bible (the parting of the Red Sea, the resurrection of various dead people, donkeys talking, etc.).
Hey, you finally got something right! Evolution is about how life changed over time. It has nothing to do with virgin births, the parting of seas, etc.
But if you're going to grant the possibility of talking donkeys, how can you insist on a naturalistic origin?
Because there is strong scientific evidence pointing toward a largely (but not necessarily completely!) naturalistic origin of species, whereas there is no evidence against the story of Baalam's ass.
I also know that it is a violation of logic to insist that the coming-to-be of the universe followed laws that did not exist until the universe had come into being.
I agree, but this has nothing to do with evolution.
But then, if you're going to give us "Providential design" and every other miracle outside Genesis 1-10, what are you complaining about?
We are complaining about a excessively literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1 because such an interpretation flies in the face of scientific evidence.
There is no scientific evidence against anything else you cite.
An occaisional divine intervention, such as a non-random mutation here or a fortuitous extinction there, is perfectly compatible with the Darwinian view of evolution. It's not required by the Darwinian model, but it does not contradict it.
So you've got two groups of "theistic evolutionists," both of whom admit the possibility, not only of mere "providential" guidance of a purely naturalistic process, but even of Divine intervention, but who disagree about whether certain phenomena are to "irreduceably complex" to have originated via neo-Darwinian mechanisms.
So . . . what are you two groups fighting about, again???
What do you know about the text of Genesis that you didn't pick up from higher critics? Do you know about the codes in the Torah? Do you know about molad tohu?
I also note that (at least according to most evolutionist apologists) while evolution cannot co-exist with Genesis, it doesn't seem to contradict any other "miracle" of the Bible (the parting of the Red Sea, the resurrection of various dead people, donkeys talking, etc.).
Hey, you finally got something right! Evolution is about how life changed over time. It has nothing to do with virgin births, the parting of seas, etc.
Ahem--it is about how observed changes in life over time are retrojected into the remote past in order to explain how the world (or "life," if you prefer) came into existence. This retrojection is based on the assumption of uniformitarianism, the theory that natural physical laws have always been exactly as they are now. But you see, if you're going to assume uniformitarianism, you can't grant talking donkeys or conceiving virgins. And if you are going to grant them, you can't insist that the world could only have come about via a purely naturalistic process because "that's the way the world works." In other words, it is dishonest to say the donkey may have talked but that a fully formed world could not have been created. A uniformitarian theory that insists the creation process could not have differed from the processes of a fully created universe cannot say that Balaam's ass may have differed from every other ass that has existed.
But if you're going to grant the possibility of talking donkeys, how can you insist on a naturalistic origin?
Because there is strong scientific evidence pointing toward a largely (but not necessarily completely!) naturalistic origin of species, whereas there is no evidence against the story of Baalam's ass.
See above.
I also know that it is a violation of logic to insist that the coming-to-be of the universe followed laws that did not exist until the universe had come into being.
I agree, but this has nothing to do with evolution.
So this has nothing to do with your assumption that vegetation could not have been created prior to the creation of the sun because nature as it operates after the completion of its creation will not allow vegetation to exist without sunlight (and therefore that Genesis 1 is mythology)? Sounds like an illogical assumption to me. Why should this pre-solar vegetation be any more mythical than Balaam's ass?
But then, if you're going to give us "Providential design" and every other miracle outside Genesis 1-10, what are you complaining about?
We are complaining about a excessively literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1 because such an interpretation flies in the face of scientific evidence.
Evidence interpreted in light of the uniformitarian assumption, which you disregard with all other Biblical miracles.
There is no scientific evidence against anything else you cite.
You hear that, wideawake? There is scientific evidence that Genesis 1 is non-literal (when this evidence is interpreted in light of the uniformitarian assumption), but then this assumption is discarded and therefore there is no scientific argument against anything else!
You might want to read his #254.
Then there's the business that some things are allowed so long as there's an intelligence in charge. Creationists will say that (since that's their point), but no law of physics reads like that.
The closest you can come is Maxwell's failed thought-experiment that entropy could be reversed if the right kind of demon controlled the right kind of doorway. It was a historically interesting exploration but the answer came back "It doesn't matter!" Even a demon can't thwart the Second Law.
You have to Know the Hebres for the Gap Theory. A friend who knows Hebrew told me this over 20 years ago and I never heard it since, until today.
There is no Scriptural support or statements to indicate the the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Some guy, somewhere, worked backwards through the geneologies given in the Bible starting with the birth of Christ and calculted this based on ages given from some Bible verses. This was his own idea and is not stated anywhere in the Bible. Evolutionists who think that all Christians believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old are mistaken.
The oil reserves and mineral deposits could have simply been created as they are, part and parcel for having the Earth well stocked for man's use.
Sensei Ern addressed some of your questions in the previous post (# @84) I had not spent a lot of time considering these questions because, in all honesty, I've never run into them in an evolution discussion. I thought Sensei Ern made some good points and will have to give the matter some more thought.
I certainly cannot see God creating the Earth with fossils already in place, thus suggesting and supporting evolution if it didn't happen. To my way of thinking, that would be deceitful. The fossils exist, there is no doubt about it. I believe dinosaurs existed. There are fossils to um..."prove" it. (In as much as you can "prove" anything in science.) This all lends support to the Gap Theory and doesn't support the 6,000 year old Earth idea. It's possible that the Flood could have been the reason that so many fossils exist and could answer the questions about animals that seem to have died instantly in the middle of doing something, i.e. mastadons which still had grass in their mouths.
Great post. Where did you get that list of definitions. LOL
Post(#284) Duh, typing too fast and didn't catch it proofreading.
Interesting.
I bust my butt finding and posting a series of links for you (that would be understandable by a layman such as yourself) so you might just understand a bit of how this universe works and you don't even have the courtesy to acknowledge them. Yet you say great post to a bunch of claptrap that has been refuted time and time again here.
If you want to stay ignorant, it’s certainly your choice.
:-)
First, I clearly recognized that as satire and got the humor behind them. Second , I did check out a number of those sites even though I didn't acknowledge them. I am familiar with a lot of the material as I took a great deal of science while getting my degree. I've had at least a year (2 semesters) of Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Astromony, Meteorology, and Calculus. I also had one semester each of Limnology and Oceanography. This was all at two different SUNY colleges, not Christian unversities, where I got my BA. Now granted, it has been a while since I've had some of these courses and I have forgotten some of what I've learned with the passage of time but I am planning to go back and take some courses when time permits. If that is that what you call remaining ignorant then there are a lot of ignorant people out there.
Fair enough. Thank you for looking.
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.