Posted on 06/20/2007 5:24:39 AM PDT by spirited irish
So based on your academic training, what specific issues do you have with evolution? Your entire posting history is confined to this thread, so it must be a concern to you.
I have to assume that you have technical reasons for being skeptical — something of more substance than just a feeling that the scientists specializing in University Studies are backbiters.
I was obviously not attempting to discredit science - that’s an entirely different thing from injecting a needed cautionary note into a discussion that has several times attempted to invoke science as an unassailable defense against God and His work in creation.
I think I was pretty clear in my post back at 305 about that.
As to your comment that a biologist who is a supporter of creationism/ID just doesn’t compute: Why do you believe the two are incompatible?
If you are in the vicinity one of these days, I have a couple of woody shrubs I have never seen before about two decades ago in my yard and I haven't been able to identify them. Black spruce, aspen, paper birch, four kinds of willow, and alder I have figured out. One of the new ones is possibly dogwood and the other I have no idea.
The Biblical typologists and numerologists have a strong case for metaphorical inference.. Right now I'm thinking of Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey.. Jesus was a Spirit, became a Spirit and is now a Spirit..
What I mean is there is a big difference between a biblical literalist and a biblical metaphoricalist.. Amazing that even some of the literal events in the bible are metaphorical in character.. maybe even MOST literal events..
Anyway you seem to have overlooked the metaphoricalists being a type of Creationist.. A NEW classification?.. Maybe..
“the GREAT EXODUS”... LoooL...
I think I was pretty clear in my post back at 305 about that.
As to your comment that a biologist who is a supporter of creationism/ID just doesn’t compute: Why do you believe the two are incompatible?
I don't think you have been clear at all. My defense of science didn't pop out of a blue sky. It was a response to claims like yours (but less politely stated) that science is fraud.
I would say that anyone who claims that fraud is the dominant mode of science has not done any original research. It is, of course, possible to lie about observations and findings, but it's a rubber check, and it will eventually bounce.
You have discussed nothing of substance. Your posts have centered on allegations of personal failings of individuals. You haven't specified any particular incident in which a significant finding was falsified.
Science does not deal with God. It can, however, deal with claims made about the physical world. It can determine, for example, that the earth does move and that the sun does not travel around it. This may or may be contrary to religion, but it is contrary to longstanding teachings of churches.
Science cannot prove that there was never a global flood, but it can determine that the available evidence is inconsistent with anything like that. Science cannot prove common descent, but it can demonstrate that arguments against it, so far, are rubbish.
If you have taken the courses you claim to have taken, you already know these things. If you have something of substance to add to the discussion, feel free.
I did, but it didn't take. The argument is apparently immune to logic, much as the infamous argument over the meaning of "is".
Islamists, being theological conservative monotheists, are clearly "creationists". There's no question on that point. Oh, I suppose you might find the occasional eccentric exception, but quite generally the attribution of the role of Creator to the One God, and attributing to Him the primeval (and possibly continuing) creation of all that is, goes hand in glove with monotheism as such.
Anway I simply did find betty boop's attempted distinction silly, and irrelevant, and gratuitous, and bigoted. I suppose I could pretend I didn't, but it would only be pretense.
bb argued that these creationists aren't creationists essentially because of theological or sociological attributes other than their acceptance of a monotheistic doctrine of creation. As I gave the example before, that's like arguing a tennis player who plays on a grass court qualifies as "a tennis player," but one that plays on a clay court shouldn't rightfully be called "a tennis player". Really it's almost like arguing that a tennis player who drives to the court in a Ford is "a tennis player," but one who drives to court in a Chevy isn't.
If you accept and hold a doctrine of creation, you're a creationist. That's it. What "logic" is there to belaboring the point? Especially when a central point of the argument concerns how some Muslims study the Koran. SO WHAT? BTW, orthodox Jews study Torah the exact same way, down to the rocking back and forth as they recite. Does that make Jews (or the most conservative Jews) inauthentic creationists? OTOH many Islamists, even a seemingly disproportionate number of them, have modern, Western educations in medicine (e.g. al Qaeda #2 Zawahiri) architecture (9-11 plot leader Atta) and the like.
Oh, and it's supposed to make a difference how, as to if a person IS a creationist, they reflected on the matter? That's like if I meet a guy who's a George Bush supporter -- he voted for George Bush twice for Governor and twice for President, he donated to all his campaigns, he energetically answers those he meets who criticize Bush, he wears a "W" button, etc, etc. It's like if I find out (or, more analogous to betty boop, just assume for some cultural reason) that he wasn't, in my opinion, sufficiently reflective or rational in deciding to be a Bush supporter, that I then deny that he's a Bush supporter, or claim he isn't really a real Bush supporter.
On the contrary it's a true and obvious fact that he's a genuine Bush supporter, regardless of how he came to be one.
Brilliant way of putting it.. Lazyness!!.. I have noticed the same in protestant circles.. Lazy and cowardice in action.. John Chapter 10 is all about this type of lazyness, I believe.. Whether RCC, EO, or Reform this is possible..
As I previously posted, many (possibly even a majority) of those you call “Islamists” are in reality secular Communists and socialists masquerading and/or treated by the mainstream media as Muslim fundamentalists. That’s why many of them have no problem murdering innocent people in the name of World Revolution.
You might wrong.. As I can determine Islam is not a religion at all.. its a "GANG".. A tribal government administrated by Shamans(mullahs/Imams) democratically elected by default.. it is Mob Rule like all democracy's..
Sharia Law is very democratic.. and tribal in essence.. the way all democracies are.. Mob Rule by Mobster, a tribal family mimicking a religion(Mafia)..
Thats why the west cannot deal with it.. For most of the west are democracies mimicking a religion(Socialism).. Socialism IS a religion... a secular religion..
The exact reason America is not a democracy.. and the American Constitution does not have the democracy, democratic or democrat in it anywhere.. because of that.. The founders of America knew what MOB RULE was.. The fact remains Islam is very democratic.. and tribal..
So are democracy's(totalitarian).. Democracy is the social disease that causes socialism.. The dictatorship of the proletariat is totalitarian in essence and in reality worked out.. Socialism is NOT DEMOCRATIC...
Again the sociological details (even if we accept your bigoted, blanket version thereof) do nothing to negate the fact that Muslims accept a doctrine of Creation and are therefore creationists.
Typical insecure Church of Darwin fanatics who still don’t realize that they have already been given a life, and who go into absolute conniption fits at the mere hint of living that life more abundantly :o)
Provided you don't distinguish between "here" and "over there".
So then, creationism is the bogyman?.. Whats wrong with God being an artist, say a primitive artist...
Darwin missed the fact that man evolved to believe in God..
Evolved; All the way from a chemical pool, up through iterations of various lifeforms to ultimatly believe in God.. Amazing ain't it?.. Maybe atheists are the very UNevolved..
I guess the test of objectivity is whether you leave the debate wearing spit wads on both sides.
:)
And they are seldom happy when we throw word usage back at them, e.g. randomness v unpredictability, combinatorics v Bayesian probability, and so on.
As long as it remains "us vs them" it's going to be a adversarial proposition.
Sure they do. The same thing scientists use. It's called *science*.
Science is more than sidetracked by fraud and petty tyrants. It's replete with them. Of course, it matters, because it ruins it, wastes time, and casts a pall on the credibility of those who are doing science with integrity.
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.