Posted on 05/31/2007 4:25:48 AM PDT by Mr. Brightside
The heart of the issue is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason.
The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God.
People of faith should be rational, using the gift of reason that God has given us. At the same time, reason itself cannot answer every question. Faith seeks to purify reason so that we might be able to see more clearly, not less.
Faith supplements the scientific method by providing an understanding of values, meaning and purpose. More than that, faith — not science — can help us understand the breadth of human suffering or the depth of human love...
Ultimately, on the question of the origins of the universe, I'm happy to let the facts speak for themselves. There are aspects of evolutionary biology that reveal a great deal about the nature of the world, like the small changes that take place within a species.
Yet I believe, as do many biologists and people of faith, that the process of creation — and indeed life today — is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him.
It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science.
Biologists will have their debates about man’s origins, but people of faith can also bring a great deal to the table.
For this reason, I oppose the exclusion of either faith or reason from the discussion. An attempt by either to seek a monopoly on these questions would be wrong-headed.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
So - in your mind, geology, biology, and physics mean nothing. We should ignore what those fields of study teach us and rely on your opinion about...what?...software?
Now that's funny.
> So - in your mind, geology, biology, and physics mean
> nothing. We should ignore what those fields of study
> teach us and rely on your opinion
> about...what?...software?
If ANYBODY is ignoring what geology, biology, and physics teach us, it is the Evolutionist. The examples of Evolutionist mispredictions, misinterpretations and outright hoaxes are LEGION.
What never ceases to amaze me is the Evolutionist response to any challenge to his worldview. Almost always, his response is hyperbole, ridicule, ad hominem, but SELDOM does he reply with LOGIC.
Very much like the Liberals and Leftists, interestingly.
Software Engineering is an applied science, as is Electrical Engineering. I was a circuit designer before I was a software engineer. We engineers don’t often invent theories, we apply them and see them working in the real world. We use LOGIC.
It is illogical, tautological, and even SILLY, to devise experiements applying a great deal intelligence and planning in order to prove that no intelligence is necessary to achieve the results of the experiment.
Yet this is what the Evolutionist believes.
If the Evolutionist model is true, we would be able to observe new speciation in nature virtually all the time, without FORCING it by intelligent experiment in the laboratory.
The Evolutionist model predicts new speciation.
However, what we see occuring in nature is NOT new speciation, but EXTINCTION.
Evolutionism tries to have it both ways. It says that the geologic record indicates there was a “Cambrian Explosion” of new life forms at a time when the earth was extremely hostile and was changing rapidly. Too rapidly for such speciation to occur in response to environmental pressures.
Consider. Fossils are created when living things are buried very suddenly in an anaerobic medium under pressure; mud slides, floods, volcanic eruptions, and other catastrophic phenomena. Yet at a time when the most fossils were produced, when the Earth was most violent and subject to sudden environmental change, the Evolutionist wants me to believe that the greatest amount of speciation took place.
At the same time, Evolutionism predicts that speciation takes many thousands of generations over many thousands or millions of years.
In order to address this conundrum, silly theories such as “hopeful monsters” and “puncutated equilibrium” are devised, but they are never proven to be able to occur with or without intelligent direction and purpose in a laboratory.
The Creationist model, on the other hand, predicts extinction as the environment changes, however slowly.
The Creationist model is more consistent with the second law of thermodynamics.
Better minds than mine have explained these things, and you can find many intelligent people with multiple PhDs addressing these things on the creationist side at web sites like www.icr.org
I believe that the reason so many Evolutionists respond to Creationism with such vituperation and ridicule, is that it challenges their assumption that there is no God, that they are their own God, that they make their own rules.
The Theistic Evolutionist has a real problem if he is a Christian, because Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is MEANINGLESS if it does not address both SIN and DEATH. Death is the engine of the Evolutionist’s “natural selection”, nature red with blood in tooth and claw.
You can be an Evolutionist if you want.
But the Creationist model is every bit as valid for consideration, and by my reckoning, even more consistent with the evidence.
Ehm...you may be a great software engineer, but do you know how science works? Contrary to what you might believe, we don't sit around drinking coffee and thinking how best to undermine religion this day. We sit and consider the set of data we have. Build a hypothesis and a theory based on it. Make predictions. And then test those predictions. You know - the scientific method? Mind you - test those predictions. Not whether or not an intelligence exists.
That's how science works and that's how the evolutionary theory's built. Evolutionary theory is not some vast conspiracy to deny the existence of God. It is what it is because it's what the data so far have shown us. And yes, there are questions. Hard but nevertheless valid questions. Rest assured that if they are not addressed in due time, evolution will have to be modified or even discarded. It might be hard to grasp, but yes, scientists do discard ideas that don't work. Unlike some group of people.
And before accusing people of being illogical, do take a look at yourself. Here's some quotes from you.
However, as an engineer and information technologist, I know that randomness does not introduce new information, but rather corrupts existing information. No matter how many iterations you run, and you can run many, many billions in a few minutes, the result of randomness is, well, randomness, and when it is applied to existing information, the result is always deleterious.
a reply
> Actually, computerized evolutionary simulations were performed successfully and published in peer-reviewed journals a few decades ago.
your response
Yes, proving the point that no intelligence whatsoever is necessary to create life or even to drive “evolution”. :rolleyes:
Who's misdirecting here? Must everything be made into a debate of intelligence design? And yes, genetic algorithm can't produce Flight Simulator from a spreadsheet....yet. But then again, it is still in its infancy.
To find out whether something is scientific theory or not, it must satisfy 2 things. First it must be based on observation. And second it must be verifiable. By its predictions, we could either falsify or validate it.
ID could very well fit the first requirement. But can we ever falsify or verify it? If we can't, how is it any different from my claim that a gremlin steals my socks when no one's looking?
ID could be well and good. It could be the answer to the meaning of life for all i care. But by those requirements, it is NOT science. Just like english is not science. We are not insulting it, but the matter of fact is it is not science. Plain and simple. The scientists are not bothered by english lit, but if it starts to make claims that it is science, forgive us if we don't dignify it with a serious discussion.
> And yes, genetic algorithm can’t produce Flight Simulator
> from a spreadsheet....yet. But then again, it is still in > its infancy.
You missed the point.
Is “genetic algorithm” a mindless agent, or was it designed intelligently?
As a scientist, you must have heard of the Heisenburg Principle.
I submit that in your experiment, Heisenburg is having a first-order effect.
The Bible talks about those who “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” and as “ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
And to reiterate the stance of scientists - that is what the evolutionary biologists are concerned with. Does the same genetic algorithm exist in nature? How does it work? Dawkins aside, they don't care a whit about whether it's intelligently designed or not. As a matter of fact, science is ill-equipped to deal with such a question. And as such, it doesn't ask it. It concerns itself with how. It very rarely asks why.
Science acknowledges that such issues are beyond it and delegates it to the realm of philosophy and religion. It is a pity that religion does not show the same respect towards science. ID could be the real answer. Who knows? The main point is it is NOT science. Keep away from science classes!
And I do not understand what you're trying to say regarding Heisenberg principle. Please elaborate.
> You made a comment regarding the feasibility of genetic
> algorithm (in post #22).
No I didn’t. My comment was that random injection and removal of bits from a spreadsheet program would never turn the spreadsheet program into a word processor.
It was the person who responded to that comment who changed the subject saying that there was a “genetics algorithm”.
My response to that was a sarcastic remark indicating that it was SILLY to attribute the results of a carefully crafted genetics algorithm to mindless chance.
> they don’t care a whit about whether it’s intelligently
> designed or not. As a matter of fact, science is ill-
> equipped to deal with such a question. And as such, it
> doesn’t ask it. It concerns itself with how. It very
> rarely asks why.
Good.
Then they and you should not be concerned that there are those of us who believe that DESIGN implies a DESIGNER and that CODE implies an AUTHOR.
But this is NOT the case, because it challenges the Sacred Cow of Materialism, the fundamental premise of which is, “There is no God.” As an aside, Materialism is the basis for Marx’s Communism.
The slightest mention of an Intelligent Designer as an explanation for the otherwise unexplainable brings the ACLU and their minions in PAW and their pet “scientists” into the county and state courtrooms to halt any such mention of Intelligent Design in any Tax-Funded, Government-Mandated, Union-Run school.
And I stand by my premise.
Even if a program could be designed to help Flight Simulator evolve in to Linux, the intelligence and effort required to devise such an engine would be considerable indeed.
Furthermore, the intermediate stages between Flight Simulator and Linux would be neither a simulation nor an operating system and would likely serve no useful purpose.
This is why the Evolutionists have to devise nonsense such as “punctuated equilibrium” and “hopeful monster” scenarios, because nothing else really explains the diversity and sudden appearance of life in the “cambrian explosion” and beyond.
Again - we care not a whit about what you think the right explanation is. It could be Zeus flaunting his thunderbolts or your so called designer. You believe what you believe and although we might not like it, we'd respect it.
It is only when you try to pass it as science are we concerned. Because it is not. Not because we look down upon it. Not because we think our theories are holy. But simply because they are two different animals. If you want to teach it in philosophy or religion classes...fine. There is no way we'd allow it to pass as science however.
A red apple and a tomato are both red, round, and delicious. I like apple and although I don't really like tomatoes, I'd respect people who do. To each his own I say. But if a person then tries to sell a tomato as an apple, forgive me if I say less than kind words about him.
And really...spend some time in the scientific community. We try out a lot of ideas to test things out. We might hold on to a few ideas longer than what is required, but at the end, if they don't work, we toss them out. If evolution is as wrong as you say it is, we would not hold rites to our holy cow to extend its life. We'd heavily modify or maybe discard it.
And the sacred cow of materialism? Just like I said, science is ill-equipped to deal with non-materialistic matter. It is our short-coming, but yeah, it is pretty much the definition. Just like science doesn't concern itself with poetry, it doesn't concern itself with God. Both are beautiful in their own way, but try it as you might, both are not science.
OK, let me see if I’ve got this right.
It’s okay for you to pass off as “SCIENCE” in Tax-Funded, Government-Mandated, Union-Run schools such silliness as “hopeful monsters” and “punctuated equilibrium” and even a long history of FRAUDs like the “Nebraska Man”, “Piltdown Man”, “Java Man, and the “Dino Bird”, but for us to suggest an Intelligent Designer in the same forum is problematic because it is not Materialistic.
Amazing.
Your definition of Science is vastly different from the one I learned; the QUEST FOR KNOWLEDGE (the root for the word “science” is the latin word for “knowledge”) using our FIVE SENSES to investigate what we can Observe and Measure.
It seems the new definition of “science” is whatever fits into a Materialist paradigm, regardless how silly, foolish, nonsensical, counter-intuitive, or fraudulent.
Makes me gladder and gladder every day that we homeschool our children and teach them to THINK CRITICALLY.
What about ID? The main thesis of ID is a designer, that nobody can verify or falsify. It is neither observable nor measurable. There is no experiment that could be devised to test whether the main tenet is correct or not. More importantly, it does not make predictions that could either verify or falsify itself. That by its very definition is NOT science. (Do take a look at your 6th grade science book at the definition of science. Anything that cannot be tested, although it may be a pursuit of knowledge, belongs not in science but philosophy). I'm not debating its merit. I'm simply saying that by its very definition, it is a different animal than science. And to try to pass it for science is sheer folly - if not madness.
Again I would have to repeat myself. I'm not debating whether or not ID is correct. It could very well be the truth. But by its very definition, it does not belong in the realm of science. Science is materialistic, not because it is anti-God, but it is the very definition of it. Anything that is not testable, i.e. materialistic, is outside of science, no matter how correct or beautiful.
As for the silly ideas, let's touch one of them, shall we? I'm no biologist, so forgive me as I blunder along. Punctuated equilibrium is the idea that sometimes evolution exists in a rapid pace as opposed to gradualism of mutation. Let's see how it fits the scientific method. Data - two independent paleontological studies (on pulmonate gastropods and on Phacopsid trilobites) that suggest rapid evolution. Hypothesis - punctuated equilibrium. Species do evolve rapidly in bursts. Predictions - if the hypothesis is correct, we'd have in our fossil records short bursts of mutation in an otherwise stable species. Test - well..collect those records.
So...what's so silly about that? If the fossil records don't show it, it'd be thrown away. If it does, then we are more confident that we are on the right track. You keep claiming it is nonsensical and fraudulent. Do tell me - what is so nonsensical and fraudulent about this particular idea? Even if it really is nonsensical, since it is testable, it fits very well with scientific principles and thus in science classes.
So yeah...until ID can pass muster with the scientific method, keep it away from science classes. And before you go off on a rant again on how it's all a vast materialistic, godless conspiracy, answer this question first. Can we really test ID so at the end of the day we can say, yes ID is correct or not it's not?
What is amazing to me is that you claim you think critically while you hang on to an idea that is not testable and yet keep claiming evolutionary theory, which is tested day by day by the stream of independent studies for 150 years, to be nonsensical. You see a problem here?
Don't go off half-cocked ridiculing the creationist conclusions, but examine the technical explanations that counter the prevailing Evolutionist point of view.
Whether you agree with their conclusions or not, you cannot disagree with their scientific methods that call into question the prevailing Evolutionist interpretation of ALL data scientific.
At that web site, resources can be acquired that explain other phenomena outside of the Evolutionary interpretation.
> Anything that cannot be tested, although it may be a
> pursuit of knowledge, belongs not in science but
> philosophy
Exactly.
But I submit that, even as minerals-to-man Creation cannot be tested or proven, neither can minerals-to-man Evolution.
Nobody was there to see it happen.
Intelligently applied experiments cannot be used to "prove" that "no intelligence was necessary" to drive a process. This is a tautology.
Consider the possibility that someday man will create a completely new life form using completely new genetic information, rather than plagiarizing from the information already extant.
If such a feat were ever accomplished, imagine this announcement to the world.
Finally we see an admission that ID cannot be tested nor proven...thus it is not science. Let us then look at your claim that Evolution also cannot be tested or proven.
If evolution cannot be tested, why is there so many scientific papers devoted into experimental evolution? You want me to cite a few? Here they are, pulling them out of a hat:
McKenzie, J. A., and P. Batterham. 1994. The genetic, molecular and phenotypic consequences of selection for insecticide resistance. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9, 166-169.
Lenski, R. E., M. R. Rose, S. C. Simpson, and S. C. Tadler. 1991. Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I. Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations. American Naturalist 138, 1315-1341.
Elena, S. F., and R. E. Lenski. 2003. Evolution experiments with microorganisms: the dynamics and genetic bases of adaptation. Nature Reviews Genetics 4, 457-469.
I could go on all day here. Never mind that those scientists are the evil spawns of the sacred cow of materialism. The point is, evolution theory has hypothesis that could be tested. And they are being tested every single day, as illustrated by the above papers I mentioned. And if a theory could be tested, it IS proper scientific process (however wrong it might turn out to be).
I took a look at the website you mentioned. And if you want, I could go point by point. But I don't want to fall into the trap of talking too much in too short a space. Let me just limit myself and reiterate what I have been trying to say all along. ID is not a science because we cannot devise an experiment to test the hypothesis. Evolution, however imperfect it is, IS from the simple virtue that it abides by the scientific method.
Let's recap
1. Science is a systematic process of gaining knowledge through the scientific method : observation, hypothesis, prediction, experiment.
2. ID has observation and hypothesis. But no prediction and experiment. (If I'm wrong, do be kind and provide examples). Hence it is not science.
3. Evolution theory has all components of the scientific method. Including the testing as the above papers I mentioned illustrate. Hence it is science.
Conclusion? Keep non science stuff out of science classrooms!!!
PS. If you want to think critically, learn to recognize a few logical fallacies. If A is wrong, it does not necessarily mean B is right. If you want to show that ID deserves respect, show evidence by its own merit, not back-riding on what you perceive to be faults on the evolution side. Attacking evolution does not make ID right. On the same note, accepting evolutionary theory does not necessarily make that person hostile towards a 'designer'. There are plenty of theologists who have come to term with evolution.
And another thing
Intelligently applied experiments cannot be used to "prove" that "no intelligence was necessary" to drive a process.
Do understand that we do not actively engage in trying to "prove" no intelligence was necessary. As a matter of fact, we ask no such questions. As I have said before, such matter is outside the scope of science. We do not ask it. We do not endorse it. We do not hate it either.
With all due respect, Evolution is NOT science, it is a philosophy of origins, it is a lens through which the data is tautologically filtered, it is a conjecture based on assumptions posing as axioms.
Please allow me to quote from another engineer, who explains it better than I can. You can see his white paper addressing Evolutionism in its entirety at Evolution vs, Creation, I highly recommend it.
Similarity does not imply ancestry. Taxonomy involves classifying animals according to their physical or genetic characteristics. There are countless species, and among them there are many similarities, physically and genetically.
One who is an evolutionist tends to look at the similarities and conclude that there must be common ancestries between various kinds of animals.
One who is a creationist tends to look at the similarities and conclude that there must be a common designer and design principles for all the various kinds of animals.
In both cases, the conclusion is based on prior acceptance of either the principle of evolution or creation.
Correlation does not imply a cause-effect relationship. If two life forms "A" and "B" are similar, this does not imply that "B" evolved from "A," any more than it implies that "A" evolved from "B." Evolutionary charts drawn up to illustrate ancestral relationships between all the various life forms are therefore entirely hypothetical and speculative to begin with. And it would be circular reasoning to argue that the charts support evolution.
The important point to keep in mind is that all the animals exist in the present. Fossils also exist in the present. We weren't there to observe either evolution or creation happen. So similarities between species do not demonstrate that either creation or evolution happened.
9. Transitional Forms
The issue of whether or not "transitional forms" exist is not a productive topic to debate in the creation/evolution controversy.
Some evolutionists use similarities between three particular animals to argue that animal A evolved into animal B based on the fact that animal X exists.
Some creationists use the dissimilarities between these same animals to argue that animal A did not evolve into animal X and animal X did not evolve into animal B.
Said evolutionists keep seeking to justify their "transitional forms" on account of the similarities and despite the differences.
Said creationists keep seeking to rule out "transitional forms" on account of the differences and despite the similarities.
Anything is good enough for the evolutionist, and nothing is good enough for the creationist. Neither will ever satisfy the other or a discerning observer.
A scientific theory is validated through experimental observation and/or theoretical evaluation.
Neither party actually observed the origin of animals A, B, or X, so neither party is qualified to argue scientifically from an experimental perspective whether or not animal X is a "transitional form."
Neither party can justify the origin of animals A, B, or X from a theoretical perspective, since no scientific theory exists to explain why animals A, B, or X must exist with their particular characteristics.
It can be concluded that a discussion of "transitional forms" is moot and useless.
Fine.
You can continue to monopolize the Tax-Funded, Government-Mandated, Union-Run Education Collectives.
But remember that Thomas Jefferson, from whom the phrase "separation of church and state" was wrested and perverted to somehow be a part of the Consitution that was written without any of his input, while he was ambassador to France, said, "To compel a man to furnish moneys for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is tyranny and a geat sin."
Frankly, this is getting tiring. I could debate point by point the issues you’ve raised, but I doubt it’d serve any good. And they are besides the point anyway.
If you would go back to all of my previous writings, you’d notice that I never made any value judgment. I never said that ID is a piece of crap, neither have I said that evolution is error-proof and the answer to all of our heart’s desires.
The crux of my argument is simple: ID does not abide by the scientific principle. Evolution theory does - from the simple fact that it has hypothesis that can be tested and are being tested. Not from the virtue that it has no error. Not from the virtue that it answers everything. But, to repeat, from the virtue that it has hypothesis formed from observation which can be and are being tested.
Yes, there are issues involved with evolution. No one has ever denied that. It’s true that data could be interpreted differently as you’ve mentioned. You could form multiple hypothesis from a single data. But the point is, in science, you test those hypothesis. The ones that do not pass get discarded. But the practice of forming hypothesis and then testing them IS science.
At the turn of the 20th century, physicists came up with the concept of ether to understand the constancy of the speed of light. It turned out that it was highly mistaken. Tell me, although it was wrong, can you say that what they were doing was not physics, ie science? Have we not learned a great deal from their mistakes?
If you’re truly concerned that the established scientific community are being stubborn in their ‘belief’ contrary to the evidence, don’t be. Like I said, spend some time in the scientific community. You’d see how many ideas are generated and you’d see how many are discarded in favor of evidence. After all, Newtonian classical mechanics reigned supreme for 200 years. It was displaced in favor of newer, more correct theories in light of new evidence. If evolution is as wrong as you say it is, it WILL be displaced in light of new evidence.
I never did make any value judgment, but considering this is the last time I’d write, let me tell you how idiotic ID sellers are. Note - I said sellers, not believers. If you believe God created heaven and earth as your religious crux, I’d respect that. But those who try to sell it as science, either they are big liars or idiots. Take your pick.
First of, look at what they’re selling. The only thing they have to justify their existence is the so-called ‘faults’ on the evolution side. Since evolution is wrong, ID is right, they crow. And that is truly idiotic. It’s like saying if a shirt is not white, it has to be black.
Secondly, they admitted ID is not science because it cannot be tested. (Look at the icr.org, an ID site) And yet still they tried to sell it as science. I mean...d’uh?
Third, it adds nothing to our scientific understanding. It has no original idea of its own. NOTHING. So a designer created our universe. Whoop-de-da. How does it benefit our scientific world? What cool new things could be derived from that? What new theories could be built based on that? Nothing, nada, zip.
If the only thing that elevates a theory into a scientific theory is the sole fact that evolution is wrong, I think I should demand the school boards for equal time for other theories which I think are cool. The skeptic’s belief that everything originated from a big giant ball of fire. And humans are formed as this fire cool. Or the chinese belief that says that humans are created from the spilled blood of Pang-gu. Or my favorite - the flying spaghetti monster is responsible. Note - all these examples I mentioned are silly. But according to those ID sellers, they qualify as scientific theories (if not for the fact they are not based on Judeo-Christian belief).
I’m sorry if I have to leave on such a harsh note. But this whole ‘ID as science’ thing irritates me to no end. I was religious once and I still do respect religion a great deal. But lately snake oil sellers have tried to use the name of religion to justify every dumb and idiotic things they do. I’m begging you, and all other religious people out there, to please not encourage them. What you have is beautiful - don’t let them taint it with their self-serving causes.
> I was religious once and I still do respect religion a
> great deal.
I am not religious. I do not believe that rituals or regular church attendance or repetitious prayers or unintelligible utterances can save anybody.
My faith is based on a personal relationship with the Living Creator God.
> What you have is beautiful
If Evolutionism is correct, then what I have is NOT beautiful.
If Evolutionism is correct, then Christ’s sacrifice to defeat Sin and Death on the cross is meaningless and Christ becomes a liar for teaching the Genesis account of Creation as fact.
Death, being the engine of Natural Selection, which in turn is claimed by Evolutionists to be the mechanism by which radically new taxa emerge, would have had to have been part of what God declared was “Very Good” at the beginning.
If Death is a part of that which was “Very Good” from the Beginning, then why must Christ, as God manifest in the flesh, sacrifice Himself on a Roman cross to defeat it?
And since Christ taught the Genesis account of Creation to be true, He is made a liar by Evolutionism.
I believe, and Jesus taught, that Death entered the world through the Sin of Adam.
Christ came to defeat Sin and its consequence, Death.
Evolutionism makes Christ a liar and His sacrifice meaningless.
If Evolutionism is correct, then what I have is a lie and my faith is in vain.
That is not beautiful.
A really good post! I could not agree more.
At the forefront of these debates is the different understanding among Christians concerning the creation of man which derives, not from science, but from our understanding of Scripture.
Specifically, we Christians have different interpretations of Romans 5:12–14 and I Corinthians 15:42–48: one side says that Adam was the first mortal man and the other says that Adam was the first ensouled man. Thus, the interpretation among Christians concerning Genesis 1-3 (the origin of man) cuts this way:
Gosse Omphalus Hypothesis which says that Adam was the first mortal man and that God created an old looking universe some 6000 years ago in proper or absolute time.
Old Earth Creationism which says that Adam was the first ensouled man, that the universe is some 15 billion years old in proper or absolute time, that evolution occurred and Adam was ensouled some 6000 years ago in proper or absolute time.
Special Creationism which says that Adam was created some 6000 years ago in some unspecified time and place.
My view – which is akin to Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder's is that we must consider both relativity and inflationary theory – that some 15 billion years from our space/time coordinates is equal to 6 equivalent earth days at the inception space/time coordinates. There is no conflict with Genesis 1.
I go a bit further than Schroeder in asserting that God is the author of Genesis and the only observer of His own Creation and thus we must look at those Scriptures from the inception perspective until Adam is banished to mortality at the end of chapter 3, at which point the space/time perspective changes to Adamic man.
Therefore, I assert that the first three chapters of Scripture deal with the creation not only of the physical realm but the spiritual as well (Gen 1:1, Gen 2:4-5) For Scriptural evidence I point to these:
God created the plants and herbs before they were in the earth (Gen 2:4-5)
God’s curse to Adam was that he would die in the day (Gen 2:17) he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil v that he died at age 930 (Gen 5:5) and that 1,000 years to man (Adamic perspective) should be understood as a “day” to God (Psalms 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8, Epistle of Barnabas, Enoch, et al).
The intersection or “types” in the physical realm and spiritual realm: Temple, Ark, Eden.
Moreover, a Christian believes that the Son of God became enfleshed in the body of a virgin, died on a cross for our sins, resurrected and is sitting at the right hand of the Father in heaven and will come again. That while He was here, He walked on water, raised the dead, made the blind to see, the lame to walk and so on. Since we believe all of this, it is not a stretch for us to believe other miracles, e.g. Jonas and the whale, the Noah flood, the parting of the Red Sea, the burning bush, the plagues on Egypt, Creation week and so on.
For us, reality is God's will and unknowable in it's fulness. Why would we be bothered by the view of anyone whose (false) reality consists of what his senses can perceive and/or his mind can comprehend?
Only if you deem Christianity a materialist doctrine. I think you are making an error of category. Of course, it's the same error that Paul made, so you have a pretty good excuse.
The “engine” of Natural Selection is reproductive fitness - not death.
However, when you have done your duty, get back to me and we will bullshit about things like the Scopes trial and stuff.
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.