Posted on 12/07/2005 3:31:28 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
Yeo, I agree, but the awkwardly literate person to whom I was posting seems differ.
Not necessarily, but with a high degree of probability, mainly because evolutionary theory is more philosophy than biological science, and immoral people make very poor philosophers. There is a tremendous amount of empirical data supporting this theory...
put a 'to' in there, please.
Nah, not true. Apparently you do not have a grasp of evolution.
In case you didnt see this followup:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1535627/posts
Or unless, of course, that Designer has always been.
Was Copernicus Catholic? Buridan? (Bishop) Oresme? Were the cardinal and bishop funding Copernicus' research Catholic? Did science only become self-sustaining in the Catholic West?
Your sexual frustration is making you bitter.
:-)
Not any more than any other laws. No, of course not. But human laws have authors, which is my point. So why when we observe laws in nature do we presume that they have no author? This is contrary to other lived experiences. The presumption should be otherwise.
"I don't know of any un-authored laws"
Stop anthropomorphizing natural occurrences.
I'm not.
The 'laws' of nature are human descriptions of natural consistencies. We observe something that occurs the same way every time and can be modeled mathematically so we call them 'laws'.
Is the "Law of Gravitation" a law or a consistency, that is, is it a statistical probability? My understanding is that the law admits of no exceptions.
Yes. The question is, do we presume that these laws are the result of a law-giver, as are all other laws? Or do we presume otherwise, against all other experience with law?
Some people will do anything, including play semantic games, to make it look like there 'has to be' an intelligent designer.
It is rational to assume that where there is a law there is a law-giver, and where there is design there is a designer. No one's forcing you to take the side of irrationality. You have chosen it freely.
Maybe you could state for us what you think it is.
I don't know what that means, so I can't answer your question.
...simply because it lorded its power over the great thinkers during its medieval heyday?
By funding their research, as in the case of Copernicus? The evidence you present is selective.
You mean, like common law? The laws of grammar?
September 12, 2005 Clash in Cambridge
Science and religion seem as antagonistic as ever
By John Horgan
In the very first lecture of the Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellowship in June, a University of Cambridge biologist assured the 10 journalists in his audience that science and religion have gotten along much better, historically, than is commonly believed. After all, scientific pioneers such as Kepler, Newton, Boyle and even Galileo were all devout Christians; Galileo's run-in with the Church was really a spat between two different versions of Catholicism. The notion that science and religion have always butted heads is "fallacious," declared Denis Alexander, who is, not coincidentally, a Christian. Other lecturers, who included four agnostics, a Jew, a deist and 11 Christians, also saw no unbridgeable chasm between science and their faith.
As the two-week meeting unfolded, however, conflict kept disrupting this peaceable kingdom. Lecturers and journalists argued over a host of questions: Without religion, would humanity descend into moral chaos? Are scientific claims in some sense as unprovable as religious ones? Can prayers heal, and if so, is that evidence of the placebo effect or of God's helping hand? Why does God seem to help some people and ignore others? By the end of the conference, the gulf between science and religion--or at least Christianity--seemed as wide as ever.
Take the exchange between biologists Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge and Richard Dawkins of the University of Oxford. Morris contended that intelligence is not a freak occurrence but a recurring theme in evolution, appearing in dolphins, parrots and crows as well as in primates. He speculated that any of these species might be capable of discovering God, but we had help--from Christ, whom God sent to Earth for our benefit. Dawkins, by far the most antireligious lecturer, praised Morris's evolutionary views but called his Christianity "gratuitous." Morris retorted that he found Dawkins's atheism "archaic" and asserted that the resurrection and other miracles attributed to Christ were "historically verifiable." After more give-and-take, Morris, crossing his arms tightly across his chest, grumbled, "I'm not sure this conversation can go any further."
Dawkins also challenged the faith of physicist John Barrow, an Anglican. Like several other speakers, Barrow emphasized how extraordinarily "fine-tuned" the universe is for our existence. Why not just accept that fine-tuning as a fact of nature? Dawkins asked. Why do you want to explain it with God? "For the same reason you don't want to," Barrow responded drily. Everyone laughed except Dawkins, who protested, "That's not an answer!"
Disagreement divided believers as well. Physicist John Polkinghorne, a winner of the $1.4-million Templeton Prize, given annually to those who "advance spiritual matters," contended that physicists' understanding of causality is "patchy" and hence allows for a God who answers prayers and carries out the occasional miracle, such as parting the Red Sea. Another physicist and Templeton Prize winner, Paul Davies, discerned tentative evidence of design in the laws of nature but added, "As a physicist, I feel very uncomfortable with a God who intervenes" in human affairs.
Tension was evident not only between speakers but also within individual minds. Nancey Murphy, a philosopher at the Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif., described herself as a materialist who does not view the soul as a "spirit" separate from the body. Yet she believes in phenomena that many scientists might find hard to swallow, such as the resurrection of Christ and, at the end of time, of all humans. When a journalist pressed her to explain how resurrection might work, Murphy acknowledged that at times the discussion between science and religion "breaks down" because they involve "incommensurable schemes" for understanding reality.
Peter Lipton, a Cambridge philosopher, spoke of his struggle to be a practicing Jew in spite of his lack of belief in a supernatural God. "I stand in my synagogue and pray to God and have an intense relationship with God, and yet I don't believe in God," Lipton confessed with a rueful grin. He compared his religious experience with that of someone who gets pleasure and meaning from a novel even though he knows it is not literally true. "Are you having your cake and eating it, too?" asked journalism fellow Shankar Vedantam of the Washington Post. "I'm certainly trying to," Lipton replied.
Half the journalists considered themselves religious, at least when the fellowship began. By the end, the infidels were all holding firm, while at least one believer's faith was wobbling because of the arguments of Dawkins.
Whether the program was all that its sponsor, the Templeton Foundation, hoped for is unclear. Created by investor Sir John Templeton in 1987, the foundation has spent $225 million on publications, conferences and other programs aimed at finding common ground between science and religion. The participants here may not have found that common ground, but they all agreed that spending two weeks on the River Cam pondering the meaning of life--or lack thereof--was jolly good fun.
Like the "evolution" of finch beak size?
Can we conclude from Aquinasfan's remark that he only has sex with non-citizens or that he has never had sex with an American citizen? Assuming he is not she.
But, Aquinasfan, with reference to two of our earlier topics:
1) an unbearable pompous ass
2) not nearly as bright as he thinks he is
3) president of a worldwide Richard Dawkins fan club (one member)
4) victim of the idea that scientific debate consists of sitting in the corner shrieking "all of the smart people are over here with us, and you are an idiot if you aren't with the smart people over here with us...., and oh yeah, what you say is wrong, and I don't have to prove it because all the smart people already believe it (you blithering idiot)!
I did research for a while with a Brit, and they can have an icy wit sometimes, but Dawkins is just an asswipe.
I think he is Carl Sagan's separated at birth twin.
Can we conclude from Aquinasfan's remark that he only has sex with non-citizens or that he has never had sex with an American citizen? Assuming he is not she.
(smile) I've been trying to give Aquinasfan the benefit of the doubt, but it's getting more difficult as s/he continues to dig a deeper hole.
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.