Posted on 11/07/2009 6:08:03 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Sooner or later, students of abiogenesis will encounter Darwin's 1871 letter to Joseph Hooker with his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life. He was returning some pamphlets which triggered the reaction: "I am always delighted to see a word in favour of Pangenesis, which some day, I believe, will have a resurrection." The next paragraph has his "big if" dream: ...
(Excerpt) Read more at arn.org ...
Oh so beautifully said, dear YHAOS!
The problem with that nasty Tree is that it irrevocably binds a man to moral reality whether he likes it or not, and in a manner that he can never possibly evade nor change. It makes him responsible for his acts. This sort of thing can be highly inconvenient for folks disposed to atheism, nihilism, and other assorted disorders of our time.
For this "model" puts the criteria of universal Truth and Justice outside of human hands.
And oh, you are so right to draw the distinction between data and knowledge (or information). Today we are all drowning in data, but who actually understands any of it? The sciences become even more data-driven with the passage of time, and are themselves increasingly divided into narrower and narrower subspecialties. Who can understand anything under such conditions?
It seems the preoccupations with "parts" has blinded us to the Whole.
But I gather "edgy people" don't especially like to contemplate the Whole, let alone be prepared to allow that there's something divine behind it, beyond it, and/or at its very ground.
It seems to me "edgy people" live "on the Edge" largely because they refuse to engage this possibility (which seems to have been universally embraced by humans dating back as far as the records go; that is, until materialist/mechanistic descriptions of the universe began to take hold in the post-Enlightenment period).
As data, "edgy people" cannot be ignored. As information, they are of no help.
Or so it seems to me FWIW.
Thank you ever so much for writing, dear YHAOS!
Again, we disagree. I don’t believe that Christians must seek evidence to support the literal truth of the bible—it is allegorical.
Regarding creation science—it is no more than rationalization. A discipline that begins with a conclusion and collects anecdotes in tenuous support is not science.
And I am a Christian.
How do you explain science saying a dead body can not be brought to life after 3 days? Yet Jesus did, or is that allegory?
Science doesn’t say that, and that’s not allegory.
Science doesn’t say that a body, after 3 DAYS can’t be brought back to life?
Brain damage/death after 4 MINUTES without oxygen, and science doesn’t say 3 DAYS is too long?
Wait, wait, what is a poor misled Christian like me to believe?
God can resurrect a body but I’m silly to believe that the world and all in it can be created in 6 days?
If God creating man in a day, in His own image, is allegory, then WHY is Jesus being resurrected not?
Faith and science are entirely separate and wholly compatible. Evolution does not address origins, and belief in evolution require the believer to be athiest.
You did NOT answer my question. I am now playing ‘devils advocate’ to your lack of Faith in Genesis.
Jesus couldn’t possibly have been resurrected. SCIENCE tells me this.
Just as you claim that SCIENCE tells you that we evolved.
FAITH is FAITH. Now, tell me why Jesus’ resurrection is not allegory. Scientifically speaking of course.
“and belief (I prefer ‘confidence in’ or ‘acceptance of’, as it is not faith based but evidence based)in evolution DOES NOT require the believer to be an atheist”
Indeed it does not.
“there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
Pope Benedict XVI
Sorry—I’m missing your point. Are you denying the resurrection of Jesus on “scientific” grounds?
“..in evolution DOES NOT require the believer...”
Ugghh! You’re correct! How did I miss that?
And I agree with your avoidance of the word “belief”. I usually choose another word, but it slipped out.
All in all, not one of my better posts!
I am saying that I am using your argument. Science says that God did not create the earth and all on it in 6 days. My Faith says He did because His Word says so.
That SAME SCIENCE says Jesus, once dead for 3 days would remain that way. My Faith says He did not. But if SCIENCE is to be trusted and followed, then, yes, HOW did Jesus come back to life?
Prove it to me.
My ensuing silence is because I must depart until tomorrow sometime, not that I decline any further answers.
“But if SCIENCE is to be trusted and followed, then, yes, HOW did Jesus come back to life?”
Perhaps it had something to do with the actions of God, you know, the supreme being...
Do you really want to continue this?
If a miracle is beyond scientific understanding, all things are beyond scientific understanding.
Unless you can explain the resurrection of Jesus the Christ in terms of reproducible science, then reproducible science is useless (other than in enabling one to make useful predictions about the physical world that enable us to live in the technological wonderland we inhabit).
Is that the gist you are getting?
Not at all! The other poster asked for an explanation of the resurrection in terms of science as somehow analagous to the Genesis account.
How about a scientific theory on how God could turn a woman into a pillar of salt? Until someone does explain it scientifically, science is simply NOT to be followed or trusted!
He admitted his error. Metmom also.
I really think you’re confusing me with the other poster.
I think you've put your finger on much of the problem. And, while some find the idea of free will attractive because it strokes their ego, they resent the accompanying obligation of responsibility if it punctures that self same ego by reminding them that there are things greater than themselves. So they deny any greater power than themselves.
Others escape their dilemma by denying free will and embracing determinism, which releases them from all responsibility for their acts. I don't think they really believe it, but I doubt that they care if it lets them off the hook.
It seems the preoccupations with "parts" has blinded us to the Whole.
I want, hope, that you will see that, SCIENCE says Jesus couldn’t come back to life, just as SCIENCE says that the earth and all on it could not have been created in 6 days.
And as you so poignantly pointed out, it did indeed have something to do with the actions of God. God is wondrous and is not bound by physics or science.
But, Glory to God, His Son did rise again. The tomb was open, But He was NOT there.
God DID create this earth and us. Gods Son DID indeed rise from the dead. These two events, as well as ALL the other events described in the Bible that are outside the boundaries of what SCIENCE says can happen, had something to do with the actions of God. Can’t you see that? Our Faith, God’s only Son tells us to BELIEVE what we are told by God, not what our eyes can see.
Just as I reject, emphatically, any possible claim by SCIENCE that Jesus couldn’t rise again, I also reject any claim that God couldn’t create the earth in 6 days. Faith as a child, I would wish that for you.
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.