This seemed to be a fairly well-balanced take on the metaphysical underpinnings of the creattion-evolution debate. Since evolution debates on this forum usually do not address this issue, I think this is worth reading.
1 posted on
07/16/2007 12:59:56 PM PDT by
dan1123
To: dan1123
Getting out the popcorn.....
2 posted on
07/16/2007 1:04:55 PM PDT by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: dan1123
3 posted on
07/16/2007 1:08:12 PM PDT by
Kevmo
(We need to get away from the Kennedy Wing of the Republican Party ~Duncan Hunter)
To: dan1123
If an ape falls in the forest, did it evolve?.........
4 posted on
07/16/2007 1:16:51 PM PDT by
Red Badger
(No wonder Mexico is so filthy. Everybody who does cleaning jobs is HERE!.......)
To: dan1123
I understand that most of us want to say much more than this, but then again, most of us are not enlightened: "To let understanding stop at what cannot be understood is a high attainment. Those who cannot do it will be destroyed on the lathe of heaven."
To: dan1123
it seems as if they begin with different metaphysical assumptions about the nature of reality.
That's actually true. The reason the two sides can't debate is because the two sides hold views of the universe that are entirely different and mutually exclusive.
We recognize that our unjustified commitment to naturalism has determined our answer to these questions.
IOW, he has faith that his side is right. Much the way I have faith that my side is right. In short, evolutionism is essentially a religious belief.
8 posted on
07/16/2007 1:20:20 PM PDT by
JamesP81
(Keep your friends close; keep your enemies at optimal engagement range)
To: dan1123
If asked whether or not our world-view is true we can say, Yes, in a sense, but only against my theoretical or metaphysical background. If asked whether or not creationism is true we can say No, in a sense, against my theoretical or metaphysical background. Or just be a pragmatist and say that there is no objective truth.
11 posted on
07/16/2007 1:30:55 PM PDT by
mjp
(Live & let live. I don't want to live in Mexico, Marxico, or Muslimico. Statism & high taxes suck.)
To: dan1123
How handy ... this is the abstract, and according to the link you provided, the full text is not available.
As a result, we do not know how the author "will define creationism," and thus we cannot discuss what he has to say about it.
Sorry, Dan, but your post is nothing more than an invitation to ignorant finger-flapping.
14 posted on
07/16/2007 1:45:08 PM PDT by
r9etb
To: dan1123
Before I lived in the Bible belt, I was firmly convinced that man had evolved from the apes. Now I am of the opinion that the degree of evolution is too small to waste time in argument.
Paraphrasing Descartes, I think, therefor I am evolving.
15 posted on
07/16/2007 1:52:45 PM PDT by
wow
(I can't give you a brain. But I can provide a diploma.)
To: dan1123
I am intrigued at the idea the Naturalism “evolved” from Theist thinking.
To: dan1123
I am intrigued at the idea that Naturalism “evolved” from Theist thinking.
To: dan1123
Evolutionists never seem to fail to make the debate between the evolutionists and *Bible literalists*.
I wonder why they never seem to be willing to just make it *creationists* instead instead of forcing it into such a narrowly defined segment that few indeed (if any) fall into it?
18 posted on
07/16/2007 2:53:01 PM PDT by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: dan1123
The science of metaphysics was completely developed and resolved about 1780.
20 posted on
07/16/2007 3:02:53 PM PDT by
RightWhale
(It's Brecht's donkey, not mine)
To: dan1123
23 posted on
07/16/2007 3:17:23 PM PDT by
LiteKeeper
(Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson