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 ...
==7. I am not saying He created it through evolution, I am saying it is not my place to tell Him how He does things.
You are right, it is God’s place to tell us how He created the Universe. Those who compromise with the Evos allow men to contradict God’s account of creation in Genesis.
==8. I do believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible in matters of faith and doctrine.
Not exactly...you don’t have faith in God’s account of creation in Genesis, as reaffirmed by Jesus Christ (the Creator) Himself in Matt. 19:4.
Maybe you better read Genesis again.
God did not create life out of nothing. At God’s command the Oceans and the Land brought forth life.
Thus scripture is perfectly compatible with the notion that (at God’s command) life originated from non living material; quite possibly by natural means.
Just as when Genesis says that God created the Sun, does that mean that gravity and nuclear fusion were not the means that God used? Those are the means that God uses to create stars that we observe forming. Did God not create those stars also?
First, #6 is a bold strawman, in that nobody here has ever made that assertion, and also borders on nonsequitur, due to the fact that God said clearly in his word that he didn't allow any evolution to take place.
Second, #7 is merely a paraphrase of #6.
Third, if #8 is a true declaration of your belief, then you must see that #6 is a daring lie, in that anything but special creation would make the doctrine of the "kinsman redeemer" a lie.
Are you then admitting that your post #55 was simply a very rash mistake? Most of those listed have simply invented a god to believe in that fits their other beliefs.
Science is nothing but human impatience with God's plan.
Reading minds is a form of "making it personal." Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
That is in direct contradiction to what Genesis says.
God never commanded the oceans to bring forth anything. The first life he created didn't even live in the oceans.
I was using the term in a logical sense, i.e. one statement made the other a lie.
Nevertheless, the term when used in religious debate hits deeply and therefore often precedes a flame war. For that reason, I insist posters use terms which do not imply a motive.
God never commanded the oceans to bring forth life? Maybe you need to read your Bible.
Genesis 1:20 And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens.”
If you're going to seriously talk about destroying it, you have to be prepared to have constructive suggestions for something to replace it with. If you don't you're wasting everyone's time.
If all this is going to be bitching about the other side doing what you aren't willing to give up then it's pointless.
Could you translate that into a known language?
Creation wisdom placemarker:
“DNA is there to prevent evolution.”
“Science is nothing but human impatience with God’s plan” (which is apparently for humans to live in caves and die early).
I gave these up for Lent a long time ago and it was such a liberating experience I haven’t stopped LOL.
Truly you have confirmed my statement that God did not create life “from nothing”, but called for the water and the land to bring forth life, completely consistent with life forming from unliving matter by natural means, just as stars form by natural means by the will and for the glory of God.
There is no “natural means” of bringing forth life.
Life has never occured ‘naturally;’ it only comes from living things. The essence of life is separate from the material universe, and comes from the relm of God.
The soul is not the essence of life.
The soul is immortal.
Life is transient.
Given up on the waters not bringing forth life then? I guess you didn’t know the Bible as well as you assumed.
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.