Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Revelation 911; The Grammarian; SpookBrat; Alamo-Girl; P-Marlowe; betty boop; Dust in the Wind; ...

Well....this is certainly discouraging.


2 posted on 01/18/2006 3:11:50 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: xzins
<< Well....this is certainly discouraging. >>

Why? Pope, imam, rabbi, Mormon elder, guru... what relevance to a Biblically-oriented Christian?

Dan
Biblical Christianity BLOG

11 posted on 01/18/2006 3:44:22 PM PST by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: xzins; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; PatrickHenry
Facchini said he recognized some Darwin proponents erroneously assume that evolution explains everything. "Better to recognize that the problem from the scientific point of view remains open," he said.

You wrote: "Well....this is certainly discouraging."

But I'm not discouraged! All Facchini is asserting here makes perfect sense to me. First he says that Darwin proponents "erroneously assume" that their theory "explains everything." Obviously it does not. For one thing, it does not explain the origin of biological life, nor can it pinpoint its first emergence with any precision, nor can it explain or account for how natural processes -- for instance, DNA -- can be as "information rich" as they manifestly appear to be.

And so, "Better to recognize that the problem from the scientific point of view remains open."

Second, Facchini definitely suggests that science alone cannot explain life in general, let alone how individual human beings actually experience it. If so, his observation rings deeply true to me.

The issues involved here seem not to have at all been plumbed for their deep seriousness and importance to the future prospects of the human race. But then, in Pop Kultur, such issues tend to be dismissed.

But that is not Facchini's fault. He's simply an observer here. And he gets the main point. And passes it along to us.

Well, FWIW, my two cents. Thanks so much for the ping, xzins!

39 posted on 01/18/2006 6:18:59 PM PST by betty boop (Dominus illuminatio mea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: xzins
Well....this is certainly discouraging.

Well... not to me. As much as I'd like to see a counter to the Dawkins of of the world, Intelligent Design ain't it. Unfortunately.

49 posted on 01/18/2006 7:42:53 PM PST by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: xzins; jwalsh07; ralice; onedoug; BibChr; BlackElk; Blzbba; Buggman; JCEccles; Alex Murphy; ...

Whenever this subject comes up, I think of the point of view of these men of science:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo8_xmas.html


52 posted on 01/18/2006 9:44:14 PM PST by ntnychik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: xzins
Well....this is certainly discouraging.

I got this ping this morning, and I haven't read through the whole thread yet.

However, as a YEC, I do say that creationism is not science. One cannot empirically prove the existance of a creator. That being said, I also believe that science is not the only begetter of Truth, and that science classes should have to affirm this as they teach.

94 posted on 01/19/2006 5:54:29 AM PST by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson