Where Theistic Evolution Leads

BeliefNet ^ | May 19, 2009 | Where Theistic Evolution Leads

[GodGunsGuts]

Some readers thought I was unfair in a previous entry explaining the difference between my perspective on evolution and that of my fellow Beliefnet blogger Dr. Francis Collins over at Science and the Sacred. Am I really not being fair? Well, let's test that hypothesis by picking out one idea from Dr. Collins's book and from his website BioLogos. It's his treatment of the idea that somehow a moral law in every heart points us to the existence of God.

Because BioLogos -- or theistic evolution, however we may designate the general approach -- surrenders so easily to naturalism, it must be willing to accommodate Darwinism's explanation of where that moral law comes from...

[GodGunsGuts]

Ok, I have given you every chance to either produce evidence to back up your baseless accusation, or to retract the same. You have done neither. That officially makes you a Liar for Darwin. But I doubt this knowledge will affect your conscience, as you believe it is the product derwood's brain-dead natural selection god.

[freedumb2003]

Thanks AM/RM

Have a blessed day GGG.

[count-your-change]

To say no one person speaks for science is to say no scientist could be quoted since and it has nothing to do with what a prominent scientist has said about his own motivations and unspoken views.

If there really were no conflict Darwinists would not be struggling so hard to to THE authority on all things that make a human, origin, psychology, morality, even the the tendency of humans to worship.

Darwinists are no more immune to this tendency to worship something, someone than anyone else and so it's not surprising that Darwinism has been elevated to a religious dogma.

That is why there is conflict and it won't be defined away anymore than the conflicts between other religious can be defined away.

Atheistic religion? Yes, since anything that functions as a religion and is treated as such is religion. It's not in the eye of the beholder but in the eye of the practitioner.

[freedumb2003]

>>To say no one person speaks for science is to say no scientist could be quoted since and it has nothing to do with what a prominent scientist has said about his own motivations and unspoken views.<<

You certainly can quote anyone you wish. It just doesn’t have much heft.

>>If there really were no conflict Darwinists would not be struggling so hard to to THE authority on all things that make a human, origin, psychology, morality, even the the tendency of humans to worship. Darwinists are no more immune to this tendency to worship something, someone than anyone else and so it’s not surprising that Darwinism has been elevated to a religious dogma.<<

There is no struggle, per se. It is just that Creationists have decided that they want to attack this particular branch of science, despite the fact it is supported by hundreds of scientific disciplines, millions of scientists and billions of artifacts.

Science, when used properly, tells an objective story. The AGW crowd is abusing science. But there was no money to be made from “The Origin of the Species” and the small number of fakers were exposed by the Scientific Method. Religion has no such mechanisms.

>>That is why there is conflict and it won’t be defined away anymore than the conflicts between other religious can be defined away.<<

Facts cannot be wished away.

>>Atheistic religion? Yes, since anything that functions as a religion and is treated as such is religion. It’s not in the eye of the beholder but in the eye of the practitioner.<<

Religion is based in belief. Science is based on facts and logic. As I said, science cannot be swayed by belief in any circumstance. But theories are used as a tool of science to explain phenomenon. Billions of data points studied by millions of scientists over 200 years. The data are overwhelming.

[count-your-change]

Of course I can quote anyone I want just as you can but that’s not relevant to the point. So..So what?

But the conflict will continue as light is shone into the darkness of The Temple of Darwinism and reveals it truly is full of dead men’s bones in every sense of the term.

[freedumb2003]

>>Of course I can quote anyone I want just as you can but that’s not relevant to the point. So..So what?<<

Your point. I just wanted you to know it was meaningless.

>>But the conflict will continue as light is shone into the darkness of The Temple of Darwinism and reveals it truly is full of dead men’s bones in every sense of the term.<<

The so-called “conflict” will continue so long as people who do not understand science challenge those who do.

[count-your-change]

“The so-called “conflict” will continue so long as people who do not understand science challenge those who do.”

I suppose that’s true, but who knows, the Darwinists may be able to do genuine science someday.

[freedumb2003]

>>I suppose that’s true, but who knows, the Darwinists may be able to do genuine science someday.

Millions of practitioners across 200 years with billions of supporting artifacts — how much more “genuine science” do you need?

Or do you also deride physics, chemistry, astronomy and geology? They have less modern support than TToE.

[valkyry1]

//Your point. I just wanted you to know it was meaningless.//

There you go again FD with coming right out the gate with getting at personal attacks on GGG and CYC that have nothing to do with the content of the article and then hijacking the thread as is your pattern.

Since your post history shows you believe you understand science and anyone you find disagreeable does not, why dont you start telling us what science says. You can start with the content of this article.

[valkyry1]

//Millions of practitioners across 200 years with billions of supporting artifacts//

Sounds like someone is trying to imitate Carl Sagan for dramatic effect. Best not to look at those billions of supporting artifacts close up and individually, they crumble under close scrutiny.

[freedumb2003]

>>Sounds like someone is trying to imitate Carl Sagan for dramatic effect. Best not to look at those billions of supporting artifacts close up and individually, they crumble under close scrutiny.

Asserts the lay-person. Do you have opinions on other subjects of which you have no knowledge?

[freedumb2003]

>>Since your post history shows you believe you understand science and anyone you find disagreeable does not, why dont you start telling us what science says. You can start with the content of this article.<<

I started out by making it very clear that this article has all the credibility of WWN’s “bat boy.”

If someone posts astrology and says it is astronomy I will point it out every time.

[valkyry1]

//Do you have opinions on other subjects of which you have no knowledge//

Hasn’t stopped you any has it?

[freedumb2003]

>>Hasn’t stopped you any has it?

As you know by now, I am quite well versed on science. Modern science. Real science.

Your joining ggg in unsubstantiated elementary-school taunts changes that not a a whit.

The fact you don’t understand science does not visit that handicap on the rest of the world.

[metmom]

Millions of practitioners across 200 years with billions of supporting artifacts — how much more “genuine science” do you need?

Millions of practitioners of what? Evolution? Got any stats to back up that there have been millions of practitioners of evolution/Darwinism?

And 200 years for something that has been a theory since 1859 when Darwin published Origin of the Species?

I hope you do science better than you add or subtract.

[metmom]

As you know by now, I am quite well versed on science. Modern science. Real science.

What's your degree in again? What field of scientific research are you engaging in?

[freedumb2003]

>>What’s your degree in again? What field of scientific research are you engaging in?

I said well-versed. And I can parade many scientists who agree that I know of which I speak.

I know science. You have seen scientists on FR state as much.

Your question is like asking someone who thinks 1+1=3 to have someone who justifies their position by saying that the person who knows 1+1=2 is somehow deficient.

Come on MM — this is really below you.

[freedumb2003]

>>Millions of practitioners of what? Evolution? Got any stats to back up that there have been millions of practitioners of evolution/Darwinism?<<

Well, lets look at the numbers. At any given moment there are billions of people on the planet. There are apx. 13 million scientists in the US right now, and you can certainly determine that if even 10% are involved in anthropology that makes it millions in the USA alone. Add to that the number of practitioners across the world and we certainly easily exceed millions.

>>And 200 years for something that has been a theory since 1859 when Darwin published Origin of the Species?<<

Yes — as anyone who knows science knows, a Scientific Theory is the highest and most respected concept in science.

>>I hope you do science better than you add or subtract. <<

And I hope your math skills exceed your argumentation skills. Else I am afraid you will lose your home.