Read a bit more closely. On at least one occasion, probably more, I said that I have the utmost respect for those whose faith runs contrary to scientific findings. I include YECs, Biblical literalists, etc. in this category. However, inventing a phony science to prove the veracity of their faithful conclusions is a sign of weakness of faith.
Those who choose to defend their faith-borne beliefs by touting the findings of “Creationism” necessarily subject themselves to the rigors of scientific method.
If that’s what you consider belittling of faith, then so be it.
I’m still right. I’m still a Christian.
By the way, you do know that ToE does not address the origins of life, right?
“doesn’t address TOE”...Yup, I know it, you know it and so does Kalamata;...the Atheists have made a running jump off the rails of the scientific method and they do claim that it does address the origin of life, pushing forth a kind of abiogenesis notion of how the whole shebang got going.(billions of years, water, protein and amino acid chemical soups, add some lightning, heat and cold and by gum, Frankenstein’s evolution monster arises with the clap of lightning bolts to the cries of “its alive(!!!) from lifeless matter!”
Thus, since the Scopes trial, they have have had a desperate strangle hold on “TOE” and how it was to be presented in the vain hope that something from science can put an end to this “God business” once and for all. These certain folk act as the new inquisition seeking to banish from academe any who veer from the true atheist faith of Abiogenesis forming “somehow” the simplest of life forms and then “magically”, with out any outward transtemporal divine interference, life just “evolves” to what we have today.
If there is anything at all to be considered important from what is argued, I think a process of “de-evolution” has been going on; the whole of creation “groaning under the curse” as the Bible says. I think the patterns evulutionists cite are being read backward....we aren’t springing from the simple, we are falling from the formed into the simple, almost a description of one of the laws of thermodynamics where everything without energy input falls into entropy and decay.
The weakness of your position, even if you hold to “TOE” as one of God’s mechanisms for creation is that you still hold to a faith tautology. The High poohbahs of the Evo world would still view you and Kalamata both as fools because you both brought “God” into the argument and for them it’s just like bringing up Hitler or Nazi to buttress an argument. Once you do so, the argument is is over and you’ve lost.
When you speak of, "inventing a phony science," I must assume you are referring to the new-fangled Lyellian geology and Darwinian evolution, invented in the 1800's as a scheme to "free science from Moses":
"I am sure you may get into Q. R. what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the 'British Critic and Theological Review.' They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems. Eerussac has done nothing but believe in the universal ocean up to the chalk period till lately. Prevost has done a little, but is a diluvialist, a rare thing in France." [Letter to Poulett Scrope, Esq., 9 Crown Office Row, Temple, June 14, 1830, in Charles Lyell, "Life, letters and journals of Sir Charles Lyell Vol I." John Murray, 1881, Chap. XI, p.268]
Prior to the time of Lyell and Darwin, science progressed very well. Since that time, valuable time and resources have been wasted trying to prove Lyell and Darwin correct (e.g., trying to prove the unprovable,) rather than to promote the advancement of science.
Think about it! During the days of Einstein's heroes: Newton; Faraday and Maxwell; they, along with many other brilliant Christians sought to understand the mysteries of God in order to give Him glory. This is Newton from his book on Mathematics:
"The six primary planets are revolved about the sun in circles concentric with the sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. Ten moons are revolved about the earth, Jupiter and Saturn, in circles concentric with them, with the same direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those planets; but it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits; for by that kind of motion they pass easily through the orbs of the planets, and with great rapidity; and in their aphelions, where they move the slowest, and are detained the longest, they recede to the greatest distances from each other, and thence suffer the least disturbance from their mutual attractions. This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another.
"This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God, or Universal Rider; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal. the Eternal of Israel the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present; and by existing always and every where, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where." [Isaac Newton, "Newton's Principia: the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy." Daniel Adee, 1846, Book III, pp.504-505]
If evolutionists had performed like real scientists, and followed the scientific method, like Newton, they would have sought to falsify the works of Darwin and Lyell in the beginning (as some did,) rather than justify their theories in whatever way possible, even fraud. You seldom hear of that by the "establishment" these days, but fraud was rampant among evolutionists from the beginning. Evolution and old-earth "geology" was never about science, but "getting rid of God;" and Western Civilization has suffered the consequence, since. Speaking of fraud, have you ever heard of the Bathybius affair?
"The Bathybius affair was one of the first instances of false evidence being used to support Darwin's theory. It becomes clear that finding such evidence was of utmost importance to men like T.H. Huxley and Ernst Haeckel, and this clouded their judgment. When found out, Huxley admitted his error in 1875, but not whole-heartedly, leaving a measure of doubt in people's minds even in 1879. Haeckel continued to allow fictitious examples of 'Monera' to be used in textbooks for decades afterwards. The Duke of Argyll complained about such lack of integrity in science, that involved a failure to investigate properly, overconfident statements and attempted bullying of critics to gain their silence." [Andrew Sibley, "Bathybius Haeckelii and a 'Reign of Terror'." Journal of Creation, 23(1), 2009, p.123]
Many believe Haeckel's only offense was his fake Embryos (a fraud that even today some defend;) but he was rotten to the core. There has been a lot written in examination of his life, and the consequences for society.
******************
>>bwest said, "Those who choose to defend their faith-borne beliefs by touting the findings of “Creationism” necessarily subject themselves to the rigors of scientific method.
Are you for real? How about subjecting your religion -- evolutionism -- to the rigors of the scientific method? Try it and see what happens to you? I'll tell you what will happen. You will be mocked, ostracized, denied the right to publication, and, if you don't have tenure, will lose your career. If you do have tenure the Darwinian faithful will make your life miserable. The only difference between the tactics of the Inquisitions of the "scientific" orthodoxy of today, in the days of Darwin, and in the days of Galileo, is the method of punishment.
******************
>>bwest said, "If that’s what you consider belittling of faith, then so be it. I’m still right. I’m still a Christian."
Act like one.
******************
>>bwest said, "By the way, you do know that ToE does not address the origins of life, right?"
Baloney. Darwin, like many others in his day, believed in spontaneous generation. As aforementioned in the statement about the Bathybius affair, some deemed the origin-of-life to be important enough to seek evidence for it, a practice continuing until this day.
Mr. Kalamata