Inventor of mehanism.
Posted on 11/01/2005 7:43:16 AM PST by Diamond
BOSTON Michael Behe is a respected professor of biochemistry noted for his research into the structure of nucleic acid. He is also the author of "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," a book, published in 1996, that put him squarely on the map in favor of an anti-evolution concept known as intelligent design, causing deep tensions between Behe and his fellow faculty members at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Two months ago Lehigh's Department of Biological Sciences, where the 53-year-old Behe has taught for 20 years, publicly repudiated his views in a notice on its Web site, saying that they had "no basis in science."
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
I don't "go after" Christians; I try to correct statements that are blatantly false and historically inaccurate. I love and adore Christians.
Coulda fooled me. But now we've got that cleared up, peace be with you, USCB, and go in peace. See you later on.
Not necessarily. Even if evolution were true, there had to be a first man and woman.
and the absolute "base" of scripture is flawed.. and if the base is flawed the rest is in jeopardy of being mere "literature" or even a "tall tale".. or even a yarn of wishful thinking for "simple" people to answer complex issues of this life
That's only true if you assume that the first chapters of Genesis were intended to be literal, scientific descriptions of how the World was formed. I don't make this assumption. Upon what basis do you make it?
The transportation is what evolution is all about.. The bible is about what the spirit(s) is about..Apples and oranges really,p> I couldn't have said it better myself. This is precisely why there is no inherent conflict between the evolution and the Bible.
Unless "the god of the bible" is mentally challenged like all his believers.. and posed a simple story for simple people.. You know a yarn that they could grasp.. Must be so.. at least for me..
It wasn't a yarn. The first chapters of Genesis are a story that conveys the essential spiritual truths using certain symbolic and allegorical language in a simple way that an unsophisticated an uncultured group of herders could understand. I don't understand why some Christians are so resistant to this notion.
The "Yarn" of evolution is way too convoluted for me.. but then I could care less where my transportation came from..
You're aboslutely right: from a spiritual standpoint, the details of how God shaped man's body are irrelevant. He could have used evolution or any other means; it just plain does not matter. Whey then do you insist on denying the science of evolution?
Bringing up deists and freethinkers in this context only feeds the creationist myth that you can't be an orthodox Christian and accept evolution. I would therefore urge you to refrain from doing it.
Inventor of mehanism.
No. "Survival of the fittest" is an output result, not an input specification. This has been explained to you before. You need to become more familiar with what evolutionary theory actually is.
There is no way to evade the fact that the Founding Fathers were Creationists, in the sense that they believed in a Creator and His creation, His design and Self-revelation thereby, and his sustaining of the universe. Most of them were Christians of one stripe or another who had no problem accepting the Biblical account as historical, and even the 'freethinkers' such as Jefferson and Franklin, who rejected special revelation, accepted a literal creation according to the oldest American primary meanings of the words, "creation" and "creationism".
The recent tactic of anonymous PC dictionary editors to narrow the definition by inserting the factor of Biblical literalism is just that; a transparent tactic designed to shape culture. It appears to be working.
Cordially,
No one has ever said here that TJ was a Biblical literalist, so where is the lie? You think it is a lie because when you see "creationist" you think, "Biblical literalist". (Have you ever thought about why when you see the word, "creationist", you think, "Biblical literalist"?) The nub of our disagreement here is our respective uses of the term "creationist". You insist on using the term with its much more recently contrived connotations, which is your prerogative, and I prefer the older, primary meaning, according to the etymology of the words. I think that's all there is to it. Wouldn't you agree?
Cordially,
Perhaps because Jesus Christ (and even his enemies) accepted these accounts as factual and historical? Was he an unsophisticated goat-herder, too? In the context of Creation, for example, what is "symbolic" and "allegorical" and "spiritual" about male and female? What is "allegorical" about Noah?
Here's a hypothesis for you: what if the first eleven chapters of Genesis were essentially diaries, or family histories of the participants themselves, engraved on tablets, which were saved and eventually translated by Moses? There is some support in the structure of the texts for this theory.
Moses apparently bought into the historial thing, too. He did make the six days of creation part of the Ten Commandments. Or was it God who did that?
Cordially,
The dictionary definitions are posted on this thread. I did not write the Webster's 1828 Dictionary, the 1847 BUCH tr. Hagenbach’s Hist. Of Doctr. II., the 1872 LIDDON Elem. Relig. iii. 102., the GRAY Nat. Sc. & Rel. 89, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1969, The Oxford Dictionary of the English Language (1971), or The New World Dictionary of the American Language, 1980. But you are certainly entitled to use your Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, 2003, your Merriam Online, and whatever others you can find. The definitions are there for everyone reading this to see.
... is so imprecise that it embraces everyone except atheists, including myself.
Even if that were stipulated, what is the logical connection between (wholly assumed) imprecision, and your accusation of the moral turpitude of lying on my part? The mere fact that I refuse to use a word in the way that you insist I use it?
Cordially,
Did I hear "predictive power"?
Behold...the Predictive Power of the ToE:
"Some things changed in some ways sometime; some thing may change."
Uh yeah, whatever.
The Theory of Evolution through natural selection has made many predictions that have been born out including the fact that in genes under high selective pressure the majority of mutations would be CONSERVATIVE mutations (i.e. those that do not actually change which amino acid gets incorporated into the protein that the gene codes for).
Just one of THOUSANDS of predictions that have been substantiated from this highly useful theory.
Learn something.
Thanks for learnin' me sumthin'.
What's the prediction on what species changes will result from these conservative mutations?
Wait...is the answer: "Every species change that has occurred and will occur"?
No. Nothing changes, that is why selective pressure allows them.
OK. I am not a biologist and am perplexed by your posts.
Essentially, from what I gather: Selective pressure acts to bring about conservative mutations which result in no fundamental changes.
...and the ToE predicts this...?
Do you think this buttresses the ToE?, because in my small mind it doesn't seem to...
So do I, and so does the Catholic Church, believe it or not. It's just that the Ancient Hewbrews often used symbols and allegorical devices even in their historical writings. To quote the venerable Pius XII:
"The first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents."
In the context of Creation, for example, what is "symbolic" and "allegorical" and "spiritual" about male and female?
Nothing. The stories contain symbolic and allegorical elements, but they also contain literal facts as well.
What is "allegorical" about Noah?
I believe Noah was a historical figure, but I don't believe in a global flood.
Here's a hypothesis for you: what if the first eleven chapters of Genesis were essentially diaries, or family histories of the participants themselves, engraved on tablets, which were saved and eventually translated by Moses?
Absurd. Geology, physics, archeology, and a simple examination of the style of writing falsify this hypothesis.
There is some support in the structure of the texts for this theory.
I don't see it.
Moses apparently bought into the historial thing, too. He did make the six days of creation part of the Ten Commandments.
No he didn't. He said we have to rest for one of our days because God rested on one of his. Nothing in the text says that God's days are the same length as human days.
Who cares. You frauds have been telling us for years there is no conflict between Evolution and the Bible. So what's the beef. If that were the case you should have none. Cover your butt - it's a shame to show it in public...
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.