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 ...
He created what was needed at the beginning.
Since then sin has destroyed much of what was created. - Eventually sin will destroy what is left, as Peter so eloquently stated in his third epistle.
You mean the ability to reproduce naturally and to evolve.
I understand that some people don't care to find out how the world works beyond "God did it."
Thankfully, scientists like Hooke, Darwin, Newton, Einstein (and thousands of others) were willing to explore how the world around us works, and we are all better off for it. The reason we can communicate with each other over the Internet, I can take a trans-continental airplane flight, and the doctor knows which antibiotics to give me to treat my disease is because scientists had a curiosity about God's plan, and wanted to figure out how it works.
If only you understood how many people are dying because of the use of unnatural substances like antibiotics. We have far more effective substances that are natural, and the bacteria cannot become resistant to them.
By any account, man has always been curious.
There is no ability to evolve. God put the DNA in the cell to prevent Satan’t attempts to ‘evolve’ his perfect creatures.
Definately!
Bacteria can evolve to become resistant to antibiotics? I don't remember reading that in the Bible.
Bacteria don’t need to evolve to become resistant - its built in, and turns on in response to the toxin, and will also turn off later if the use is terminated.
More important is that they are not capable of resisting Alicin, nor the essential oils of quite a number of plants like oregano, camphor, and Tea Tree. But the billionairs don’t make any money off of them.
I'm sure there are instances of people being harmed by the improper administration of modern medicine, including antibiotics. It is laughable to suggest, however, that that modern, i.e. scientific, medicine has cost more lives than it has saved, or that it is even a close question.
Take, for instance, the vaccinations that have effetively wiped out a host of diseases that plagued the world. Those diseases were conquered by applying scientific principles to their study, not by throwing up our hands and saying "God did it."
We have far more effective substances that are natural, and the bacteria cannot become resistant to them.
I agree that there many effective "natural" treatments for disease. But, guess what? The effectiveness of those treatments is only demonstrated through scientific study.
So they devolved to become resistant. Got it.
If only you were not so blind to the obvious.
The natural cures have been with us from the beginning, and no study is needed. Just a proper diet will provide the natural protection, and there is no need to get sick.
Use unnatural substances, and inevitably you will become ill; some quicker than others, but all will get their chance.
Not!
agreed. you worded it better than I.
Who turns it on? How? Why? Why not turn it on from the start? Doesn't seem very intelligently designed.
That is an interesting assumption. Maybe there is no need for compromise, because when a theory fails, science just goes on to the next one, with out ever bringing up how wrong they were on the first one.
Anyone remember watching for the first Mars flyby waiting breathlessly for the cameras to reveal the canals we had studied so diligently, as they were beautifully illustrated in our text books. All the countless hours of Scientific observation of the Planet Mars evaporated with the first picture. How could Science been so wrong, and never have to apologize?
Nebraska Man, an entire village was constructed in our text books, illustrating the daily life of the Nebraska Man, all to be cast aside and forgotten, never to be explained how the enormous mistake was made, all from a single pigs tooth. No apology or Scientific explanation here either.
It is great to never have to say you are sorry.
Now we have the madness called Global warming, for which we will all be sorry, but the Scientist, will just have to hypothesize a new theory, and they won't have to say they are sorry? Cool huh?
Really? How do you demonstrate that a "natural cure" is effective? Do we just take the village priest's word for it, or would it be a good idea to apply the scientific method to test whether something is an old wives tale, or actually effective?
Just a proper diet will provide the natural protection, and there is no need to get sick.
Could you please explain the proper diet that will provide the natural protection against the bubonic plague? How about smallpox? Or what about malaria?
As near as I can your disagreement is with methodological naturalism. If you don't really want to discuss it, but just vent, then "evolutionism' is as good a term as any, but ranting about restafari and voodoo and "evolutionism" isn't going to change anything.
Pot, kettle, black.
This is apparently a bedrock position of yours now. But how does DNA "prevent" evolution?
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.