Posted on 04/23/2009 7:27:24 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
For if we ever begin to suppress our search to understand nature, to quench our own intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a united front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost.
–Stephen Jay Gould
[Y]ou’ve heard me complain about scientific organizations that sell evolution by insisting that it’s perfectly consistent with religion. Evolution, they say, threatens many peoples’ religious views — not just the literalism of Genesis, but also the morality that supposedly emanates from scripture. Professional societies like the National Academy of Sciences — the most elite organization of American scientists — have concluded that to make evolution palatable to Americans, you must show that it is not only consistent with religion, but also no threat to it. (And so much the better if, as theologians like John Haught assert, evolution actually deepens our faith.) Given that many members of such organizations are atheists, their stance of accommodationism appears to be a pragmatic one.
Here I argue that the accommodationist position of the National Academy of Sciences, and especially that of the National Center for Science Education, is a self-defeating tactic, compromising the very science they aspire to defend. By seeking union with religious people, and emphasizing that there is no genuine conflict between faith and science, they are making accommodationism not just a tactical position, but a philosophical one. By ignoring the significant dissent in the scientific community about whether religion and science can be reconciled, they imply a unanimity that does not exist. Finally, by consorting with scientists and philosophers who incorporate supernaturalism into their view of evolution, they erode the naturalism that underpins modern evolutionary theory.
Let’s begin with a typical accommodationist statement—this one from the National Academy of Sciences...
(Excerpt) Read more at whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ...
I still get confused about scripture. You told me what I wanted to hear so I’ll agree with you.
The first humans lived for hundreds of years, and would have been immortal, except for their disobedience of God. - It's the 'scientific' ones that appear to enjoy the caves and short lives.
God brought forth the life. The waters, and the land, only provided a place for it to happen.
Why do living things have to reproduce naturally? Why doesn't God create new living things as needed?
God breathed life into hte nostrils of Adam and Eve- so according to theistic evolution, Adam and Eve apparently were dead matter until God did this act, either that or God’s word ‘didn’t really mean’ God breathed life into their completed bodily forms- There’s plenty of God’s word that Theistic evolutionsits MUST just compeltely throw out hte window in order to get their impossible model of evolution to ‘comply with scriptures’ lol
Wow. So you are TELLING ME what I do and do not have faith in? You sir do not live in my mind.
FWIW, you are reading something into my post that I did not put there.
God gave the command. At God’s command the waters and the land brought forth life.
What was the nature of God’s command, and how did the waters and land bring forth life?
At God’s command stars form. Stars form by gravity and nuclear fusion. Gravity and nuclear fusion are the means God uses to create stars.
ROFL. Good idea.
You said you don’t know how God created, followed with a declaration of your faith in a literal reading of the Bible when it comes to faith and doctrine. I merely pointed that you don’t have faith in God’s creation account in Genesis because you still hold out the possibility that He used Darwinian evolution...even though God has specifically told you in the very first chapter of the very first book of the Bible that He created the Universe and everthing in it in six days.
What's one more philosophical position once you have accepted philosophical naturalism?
No wonder science has gotten lost...
No you told us what you bleeive and don’t beleive— trust us, we’re not tryign to ‘live inside your mind’
What would you want to “replace” naziism with?
Democracy and capitalism.
Amen, Sir Keith!!!
Don’t get me wrong, I do not RECOMMEND rastafari or Voodoo to anybody, I recommend Christianity. What I DO say is that rastafari or voodoo would be an improvement over evolutionism.
At least you're admitting that your problem isn't really with the theory of evolution, but with the concept of science in general.
“I got a taste of a few of those so-called Christians on the last couple of threads.” [excerpt]
¶ This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all [men], as theirs also was.
2nd Timothy 3:1-9
2 Timothy 3:1-9 perfectly summarizes what I think we are dealing with here. Thank you!
“3. God’s time is not our time.” [excerpt]God is outside of time.
I don’t have any problem with science, but it is worth while to note that we wouldn’t have the curiousity that drives us if we were patient with our Lord, and his well revealed plan.
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.