Posted on 04/11/2009 10:22:27 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
>>
My hatred is towards the words and theories that seek to destroy the foundations of the Bible and my God who wrote it through His servants. God said that He created Adam first, and wrote nothing of evolving Adam from an animal. To believe otherwise is to call His word false.
Human Evolution and the God of the Bible are not compatible. And, yes, I hate Human Evolution and I am not ashamed of it. I do not hate Human Evolutionist, I hate the false religion they have been taught. <
Good clarification. If you believe that evolution destroys the foundations of the bible then I understanding your feelings on the matter.
I could explain why I believe in evolution - it came from studying science. I could tell you about my personal conversion. I could explain in detail how I see much of the creation story as a parable appropriate for what the people of the say could understand with their limited math and science.
But that would miss the point.
We don’t have to agree on evolution. And you get to feel about it however you feel.
The question we do need (meaning we in the greater sense) come to a conclusion about is the implication of disagreeing.
I would hope we agree that in religious matters we can leave the government and most part science out - people are entitled to choose their religion and practice it in public whether its praying quietly even in a public school or a town deciding to have a Christmas tree.
Likewise, I would hope that we agree in matters of science and science education policy should be determined by the scientific consensus. For quite some time a strong consensus among the people who study it, say the evidence points to the gradual development of man, not creation and that’s what the schools should teach.
I shall await answers to my questions, else I will for sure get lost in the conversation.
But thank you for your interest.
Please read the whole thing as it also addresses TToE. Thank you and I hope you had a blessed Easter!
From: http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-3.htm
It continues to amaze me how many “educated” people do not understand what Science* is or what is meant by the term “scientific method.” The statements of Nobel Prize physicist Percy W. Bridgman1 shows that such ignorance shows no regard for academic stature when he states, “No working scientist, when he plans an experiment in the laboratory, asks himself whether he is being properly scientific, nor is he interested in whatever method he may be using as method.” What arrogance!2
One of the best descriptions and explanations of the current concept of scientific method is interestingly found in the Appendix E of Frank Wolfs’ website .3
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
But in order to realize whether this is a valid concept or not, we need to understand what Science really is. Here is a typical dictionary definition of Science: “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation [scientific method], and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.”4
Science on the other hand is an interesting definition in that it previously has applied to those fields of study which utilize the scientific method. For physics and chemistry, this is easy, but when we get into archeology, psychology, geology, environmental studies, and so on, the use of scientific methodology becomes less applicable but yet aren’t these still Science? What about archeology where even though one can not perform repeatable experiments we can yet validate hypotheses?
Let’s say that I am an archeologist and that I hypothesize that an ancient culture “X” existed based upon a piece of pottery that I had found and I further hypothesize various characteristics of this culture. Later it is found that I was correct in my hypothesis through continued validation from other findings. I then hypothesize that any culture that can make such pottery will have a high lead content in their remains. Again this is found to be true. These hypotheses have now become theories as they have been verified yet they did not follow the definition of scientific method nor could they. This is Science.
Some may say that in archeology, we use carbon-14 dating (or similar process) which does follow the scientific method. Though archeology does utilize some aspects of other sciences that do follow the scientific method, this is archeology’s use of physics. It is the physics that is following the scientific method in this case, not archeology.
The scientific method is fine for experimentation but it is inadequate in determining what is Science. In the past if a discipline could not be subject to the scientific method, it was not Science. Therefore, I would like to propose that the scientific method should only be applied to experimentation when appropriate and not be used in the determination of what is or is not science, nor should it have any application in defining what is a hypothesis, theory, fact, or law.**
In terms of the definition of what is or is not a Science, we need to find a definition that is timeless and few could argue against. One of the best way to understand the current definition of something is to look at its history (ignorance of the past will lead to mistakes of the future5) but I will leave that for a book on the subject because even though it is engrossing reading, it can get lengthy. I would like to propose that we define Science as the “the field of study which attempts to describe and understand the nature of the universe in whole or part.”* Though simple, it is an encompassing and elegant definition, as we will see.
Therefore those fields of study which attempt to describe and understand the nature of the universe on a “whole” scale such as physics and chemistry would fit our definition but so would those fields which study it in “part” such as biology whose field has been limited to only those life forms on Earth. Archeology attempts to describe and understand the fossil and archeological record (a part of the universe) and this understanding includes what its function, purpose, state of existence, etc. was. The archeological example previously given also shows how a hypothesis, theory, and fact can develop in the field of archeology...all without using the scientific method.
See? I got confused because I was awaiting J2099’s answer to my prior question.
I do hope my provided definition of science is helpful. And Mr. J2099, I do await your answer.
I hope you, also, had a blessed Easter.
And to both of you, please do keep in mind that I have advanced no statements, belief or otherwise, on any theories nor belief systems. I have asked questions to clarify your earlier posts.
Your answers cheerfully awaited.
So we really cannot be all that surprised how far ‘out’ on a limb some will go, as we are told there is nothing ‘new’ under the ‘sun’. And this ‘knowledge’ has been being preached since that snake whispered into the woman's ear....
You really have not answered my question. It was quite explicit and, I assure you, represents no "trap." Thanks in advance for answering.
>>There is simply not enough proof for Human Evolution in order to teach children in school that it is a fact. It is merely an educated guess at best. No one can legitimately exclude it as being part of religion because if it is true, it disproves the Bible and that is a very serious matter that involves religion. Hiding this does not make it go away. Human Evolution’s teachings prove the Bible wrong and it is undeniable, and it’s religious context is unavoidable.<<
We know we disagree about whether evolution is the most likely explanation (since theories are never “proved” in science, unlike math).
The question I was addressing was whether we let the scientific community and the consensus therein determine how science is taught. I think science should determine science education.
Now when it comes to how to use science, I see an important role for ethics, and morals, which for me come from religion. But when we teach kids what the modern scientific theory on something is, we ought to tell them the truth.
And the truth is, whether one agrees or not, the scientific community is firmly convinced that men developed from simpler creatures.
Actually you have advanced several things. You ask questions, then supply your own answers about the person. Or you think you are clever by putting a question mark at the end of your assertion, or posing it as several questions.
I can recap.
To you, I asked by what criteria is something like Evolution not science and other aspects OK science. You then asked for a definition of science, which I provided. The original question is still open.
To J0299, I asked the question to clarify if the RCC is not to be hated for their teaching then what is being hated? Is it the teacher? I am still not clear.
I hope this helps. I get lost thread swimming sometimes, too.
Starting with your words.
I could explain why I rejected belief in evolution - it came from studying science, particularly the evolutionary sciences.
>>Starting with your words.
I could explain why I rejected belief in evolution - it came from studying science, particularly the evolutionary sciences.
<<
And we are unlikely to convince each other but we should be able to agree in what areas we will rely on scientific consensus and what areas we will reserve for religion.
>>
It is neither the Roman Catholic church, nor is it any teacher of Human Evolution. It is the theory of Human Evolution which I hate. That is your answer just as I posted before.
I am still a little confused, but OK. Your posts seemed to have so much antipathy, I was sure you hated proponents of Evolution.
Good to know I was wrong.
Hate is a bad enough thing that we get from the left — I certainly don’t like it from our side.
“Why did God make us look like apes rather than, say, dogs or horses?”
Because God anticipated that it would be ridiculous for Mr. Rogers to have asked repeatedly, “Won’t you be my *neigh......bor.” Bob
>>God created Adam and animal separately according to the Bible. Both cannot be correct, one is wrong, which is it?
You are begging the question and providing a false dichotomy. Both are, indeed, right. Evolution is the method by which God created Man. We have billions of evidential points that tell us so. This is not a question of inventing a theology — it is following the facts where they lead.
Why does this disturb you so? God is very powerful — He can certainly use any mechanism He wishes. He chose to provide us with a wonderful Universe full of vast mysteries, but all which operate on consistent rules to be discovered by His Children.
Well, back onto the plane for me. We are going to be flying over that mess in the south — wish me luck!
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.