Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution

Scientific American ^ | October 2006 issue | Michael Shermer

[stands2reason]

Was mlc#### the random YELLER?

[stands2reason]

After that post, I clicked on your name was suprised I didn't see the dreaded blue screen....

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Now if this same personage, who does things in an instant; how LONG would it take Him to CREATE all that we find around us???

First off, your examples are from the Christian Bible, which I don't believe in.

Secondly, all your examples are of healing that which exists, not creating that which had not.

[King Prout]

I'm somewhat surprised by my survival, as well.

*shrugs*

[stands2reason]

Accept the fact that the Bible isn't written directly by God, otherwise it would be "In the beginning I created the heavens and the earth."

You shouldn't claim it is when it's obvious it is not.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

How odd. And I truly had not seen your reply.

Great minds. 8>)

[stands2reason]

If God wrote the Bible, why did He talk about Himself in the third person?

Moses wrote Genesis, and your faith is that he was inspired by God.

Only the commandments given to Moses on Mt Sinai were claimed to be actually written by God.

Do you claim that God gave Moses Genesis on tablets?

[Old_Mil]

1. Evolution fits well with good theology.
2. Creationism is bad theology.
3. Evolution explains original sin and the Christian model of human nature.
4. Evolution explains family values.
5. Evolution accounts for specific Christian moral precepts.
6. Evolution explains conservative free-market economics.


Oddly enough, nowhere on this list is the statement "Evolution constitutes irrefutable empiric scientific truth." Wonder why.

[stands2reason]

Sounds like a reasonable hypothesis that wants for some corroborating evidence so as to become a theory.

Did mlc RANDOMLY shout?

Did mlc commonly misconstrue the words of evos?

If you can find a mention of mlc quitting drinking in 76, that'd seal the deal for me.

[Dimensio]

Two different subjects, as you are well aware.

I am well aware. You applied two different standards to two different subjects, and you offered no explanation as to why.

It was not contradictory but it suits your purpose to state otherwise.

That you refuse to explain how your double-standard is not a contradiction leads me to believe that you have no actual explanation.

You will have to carry on without me.

Why? Are you unable to support the numerous unsubstantiated and often false claims that you have made thus far?

[PatrickHenry]

When you folks reach a decision about how to handle the problems we've been discussing, will you let us know? Or will we have to figure it out by the way the science threads are handled?

The least amount of work on your part would be, as I've suggested, to leave the science threads in the news forum, where they rightly belong, and when necessary to admonish disruptive posters to stay off a thread -- regardless of what might be a disruptor's motives. Ditto if the reverse should happen on the religion forum.

For an example of a news thread that involves evolution, you might take a brief look at this:
[Michigan Gov. Candidate] DeVos says he wants intelligent design taught in science classes. This is typical of why the science threads are "news" and shouldn't be banned, or shunted off into a marginal forum.

[js1138]

Oddly enough, nowhere on this list is the statement "Evolution constitutes irrefutable empiric scientific truth." Wonder why.

Possibly because science doesn't prove statements of TRVTH.

Evolution is, however, as well established as the earth orbiting the sun.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Oddly enough, nowhere on this list is the statement "Evolution constitutes irrefutable empiric scientific truth." Wonder why.

Because the article was about evolution's relationship with theology and politics; not about it's relationship with science.

[Dimensio]

Oddly enough, nowhere on this list is the statement "Evolution constitutes irrefutable empiric scientific truth." Wonder why.

It is obvious. Absolutely no scientific claim can be said to constitute "irrefutable empiric scientific truth". Only an individual who has never studied science would not know this.

[stands2reason]

I read the reviews of Hovinds "Blue series"

http://pooflingers.blogspot.com/2005/08/hovind-files-lying-for-jesus.html

Unfortunately, Poe's Law would target anyone who fell for it. (He even did the arthritic Neanderthal bit.)

[Old_Mil]

It is obvious. Absolutely no scientific claim can be said to constitute "irrefutable empiric scientific truth". Only an individual who has never studied science would not know this.

Then the obvious conclusion is that most evolutionists have never studied science, because the vast majority certainly act in this way.

[stands2reason]

Are you suggesting you know better than a Jew when it comes to the OT...

LOL

[Dimensio]

Then the obvious conclusion is that most evolutionists have never studied science, because the vast majority certainly act in this way.

Please provide a reference to support this claim.

[King Prout]

don't hold your breath.

[js1138]

Then the obvious conclusion is that most evolutionists have never studied science, because the vast majority certainly act in this way.

Give an example. Bear in mind that critics of evolution like Behe and Dembski's webmaster (if not Dembski himself) accept common descent as a fact. Common descent is as much a fact as the earth orbiting the sun.

All of the bits and pieces of evolution are facts -- a couple dozen varieties of mutation and DNA change, differential reproductive success, ERVs. There is no phenomenon required for evolution that has not been observed. Evolution has been observed in detail in the laboratory in reproducible experiments.