Posted on 06/02/2003 1:46:54 PM PDT by Heartlander
Sultan must be watching while we're getting ready to play.
That was not directed at you specifically but at all of you generally.
Once again General, I find myself speaking to you through the indirection of unspuns's cite of you.
If evolution "turned out to be true," then it must have been because it was God's choice of method, not man's. Don't forget, man is only "part and participant." As such, he can never constitute, specify, or determine the whole of which he is part and participant. You need God for that. If you care about Truth at all, that is.
I am well aware of that, General. The knowledge thereof does not exactly make me leap for joy.
Well, the "populist take" on Darwinist evolution forces one into an identical position. With all due respect, General.
This is true, balrog666. But one hopes that mankind can gain by experience and practice in this world, such that he can articulate better understanding of the Truth of God as he goes along. That is, as he gains in experience, insight, and understanding. I think that sort of thing comes under the "law" of evolution, too.
Don't forget you have the great Greeks and Christianity to thank for laying the bases of modern science. Mankind has progressed quite a bit from these origins, and on these foundations -- wouldn't you agree?
FWIW.
The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.
Of course, we are still a long, long way from scientific verification of evolution, whether Erasmus' or Charles' or anyone's. (And if whatever kind of evolution becomes demonstrable, it would be someone else's more well-rounded theory set, not these men's broad-brush hypotheses.)
BTW, bb, (PH would get a kick out of this) wasn't Charles' daddy an alchemist? --into the occult, this family?
Mmmmm. Perhaps I should clarify - I'm not at all sure that changing one's understanding of God's nature is necessary, but it is difficult to avoid changing our understanding of the nature of God's interaction with the physical world. Perhaps the story of Genesis is intended to fulfill different functions at different times. Everyone seeks answers about where they came from, and why they're here, and so Genesis provides comfort to a comparatively simple people with a story of their beginnings in terms that they can understand. But then, as we gradually spread our own wings and begin to explore the wondrousness of the universe, we still see Genesis as valuable for its deeper meaning, illustrating as it does the nature of good and evil, and of God's love for his people. The story doesn't change in the interim, and God doesn't change, but our understanding of its significance changes as our understanding of the nature of God's universe changes. I don't think it's beyond the pale to suggest that God is perfectly capable of tailoring His message to His audience - Genesis provides a simple and understandable tale to a simple people, and a deeper meaning to sophisticated, worldly people like us.
It was passages like this that convinced me that Wolfram doesn't have a very good understanding of biology.
As per the Bible, more meaningful than the issue of "literal" reading vs. what is seen, is the issue of the contextual and Spirit conveyed regard of the truth vs. what is seen. In the case of the latter conflict, the former condition trumps.
So it would appear.
Don't forget, man is only "part and participant." As such, he can never constitute, specify, or determine the whole of which he is part and participant. You need God for that. If you care about Truth at all, that is.
Alas again - Truth-with-a-capital-T does not appear to be in the offing in this life. Until we are provided with a glimpse of it, all of our explanations are doomed to remain ad hoc explanations, subject to revision and expansion as necessary - including the story of our origins, and the story of who we think God is. Not what God is, but who we think God is, in our limited and imperfect way.
How old do you believe the Earth is?
...which is not necessary, whether he had it or not, for all I know. Life without the will to live on some level is pretty lifeless, as are the tenets of evolution, of course. Will ex nihilo is quite the paradox. Think science will solve that one?
Think Commander Data knows?
Why, BB - I do believe you're just as dismayed as I am at the number of people on both sides who seem hell-bent on setting faith and reason in opposition ;)
Well, the "populist take" on Darwinist evolution forces one into an identical position.
Hmmm. I'm not sure I'm familiar with the "populist take". Can you elaborate a bit?
By the time it gets to the gut, isn't that pretty much what it is? In fact we need bacteria to break stuff down to the point that it can be used by our bodies.
I'm merely suggesting that this whole "alive" versus "not alive" thing is a bit more complex than it might appear to be at first blush... How complex is complex enough to be alive?
Agreed, alive vs. not alive isn't as simple as just a question of complexity if you'll excuse the pun. But we shouldn't consider it just a question of biology either. There is a structure (actually several) to life independent of any given realization.
The question of how complex is interesting. I recall reading that a theoretical minimal cellular genome would need some hundreds of genes. Granted that some cellular structure is also required, but even so that's not very complex.
On the flip side, there may be a maximal complexity to life. Beyond a certain level of complexity, systems would appear patternless to us, one could justifiably call them random. I don't think we'd consider such a thing alive.
But you said that people aren't functionally the same ... so even though I am alive, and you appear to be structurally similar, I can't say that you're alive by this process you seem to be developing.
I don't think I'm being that unclear. In the context of IBM employment, people are different in essential ways - they do different things, have different skills. This is completely unrelated to comparing them structurally as living organisms, then they are essentially the same - heart maps to heart, lung to lung, brain to brain and so on. So in comparing IBM to a CPU, it's the differences between people that count, not their similarities. And in that context, the people and other components of IBM come together in far more and more complex ways than the transistors and lines on a silicon chip.
And there is so much that has been related to us of this, that what the willing don't know won't hurt ultimately hurt us. (Of course that requires decision and faith.) Here again, that deep, satisfying breath....
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.