ALL evos cannot mount a refutation from within the straitjacket of the sensory realm, thus they must cross over into the supernatural realm to do so while maintaining that the supernatural or metaphysical do not exist.
Posted on 09/18/2007 10:23:38 AM PDT by spirited irish
Recommended reading for everyone, especially those, like you, that suspect that everything is NOT an accident.
tactic...”Evolutionary humanists”, “naturalistic scientists”, and great steaming piles of sophistic drivel. Have fun.
Irish..The irony of your claim is simply priceless! Did you not know that the ancient architects of modernity’s Evolutionary Humanism were also the Sophists, along with Democritus, Epicurus, et al? No of course you don’t know this. Your humanist conditioners prefer you to believe that our Founders were evolutionary humanists while the Sophists were Christians.
If government is out of the education business,
how are the leftists/secular humanists going to forcefully indoctrinate the kids into their “value” system against the will of the parents?
/sarc
secular humanism and its supporting belief system, Darwinism (ie, there is no God),
are VERY destructive, evil, and dangerous.
The “Big Bang” was the “beginning” - however, something had to bring it into existance, something that pre-existed this “beginning”. That something would have to be ever-existing without beginning or end.
We've all been brainwashed, and only you know the truth.
ALL evos cannot mount a refutation from within the straitjacket of the sensory realm, thus they must cross over into the supernatural realm to do so while maintaining that the supernatural or metaphysical do not exist.
Darwinism is completely mute on the existence of God.
It simply states that the mechanism by which organisms change over time is explicable by natural causes... and sets out a series of hypothesis about what those causes are and how they work. That doesn’t refute the possibility of the divine.... just the possibility that 6,000 years ago God literaly picked up a piece of mud, blew into it and created the first zebra. Plenty of religious people also believe in Evolution. There doesn’t need to be a conflict there.
Furthermore, evolutionists don’t discount metaphysics, they just maintain that they don’t fit into the framework of science and aren’t needed to explain the process of organisms changing over time.
If you want to know how to build a mouse-trap. You don’t need to consider how you know the wood, hammer and nails are really there or not. Nor do you need some divine being to pick up the hammer for you and pound the nails. Building the mouse-trap works without any of that. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a basic assumption that the hammer, wood or nails are really there...Nor does it discount the possibility that some divine being is guiding your hand in ways you can’t detect as you pound the nails... It just means that you don’t need to include any of that when creating a set of instructions for how to build a mouse-trap.
Then the joke's on them: Unlike either Marx or Lenin, More was well aware that the word "utopia" means nowhere (in Greek)....
Or as one reviewer put it,
“It was More also, whose aspirations toward a more truly Christian way of life are revealed through his plan of Utopia.”
Intellectual laziness runs amok.
There is no joy in debating the ones who target unarmed men while hiding from those holding weapons. There is also no joy in debating the ones who throw spitwads - after all, a person only resorts to spitwads when he has run out of ammunition.
Sigh... how I long for the brisk debate we used to have with those who would meet us eye-to-eye and toe-to-toe.
And More was influenced by Saint Augustine’s, “City of God” when he wrote “Utopia”.
So who was the reviewer? Someone over at Wikipedia?
Indeed. I truly miss those guys.
GunRunner seems a reasonable person though. Less ideological than many hereabouts....
Wonderful! I’m so glad to hear it!
In religious terminology such propositions are called "doctrines". But, not all doctrines of a particular religious belief system are held to be as immutable as you seem to think. Some are debated, sometimes passionately and sometimes esoterically. Others are held as central and are supposed to be as uncompromising as you imply. For instance the Christian doctrine that Jesus is the Son of God is considered central to Christianity. But the competing doctrines about the level of human depravity are debatable.
If you will forgive the use of religious terms applied to science, an honest person would have to admit that the scientist is no different then the theologian in this respect. It has its central doctrines such around the reliability of empirical observation and such, and then certainly has its debated and evolving doctrines as well.
Science and theology are both philosophies. They are similar in many respects. Ironically this is heresy specifically to those who worship science as a kind of god.
The chief differences between science and theology are:
1) Science relies on a system of empirical observation of repeatable experiments.
2) Science is the best method at getting closer to the truth of how controllable natural events occurred. It has known many failures and successes.
3) Theology relies more on reason, personal experience, historical events, but also relies on scientific discoveries.
4) Theology is the best method at getting closer to the truth of God, spirituality, ethics, and the meaning of the universe. It has known many failures and successes.
I say use the right tool for the right job. People who make "scientific" discoveries using theology will often look foolish. Just as people who try to make theological discoveries using science.
Dembski has removed the flagellum from the header of his website.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/
I don’t suppose that has anything to do with a recent speech he gave and the aftermath.
Here’s the site before his encounter at the OK corral.
Evasion?
It seems a preexisting assumption of ancient naturalism that the cosmos has simply always existed, so yes in their case evasion applies. It would also be fair to apply it to nature-religions whose deities did not transcend nature. For they need to evade the big bang if they can. They were already on the run from heat death when it blew up in their face.
However, a religion that claimed that there was an eternal transcendent God from the beginning needs no such evasion. Rather it is the logical conclusion of causality, the only thing left after the riffraff is eaten away.
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.