Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sept 10, 2008 — Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
You can do that with theology. In fact in the history of the traditional church that is exactly what happens. And it happens in many churches today. The members of the church decide and weigh what are valid beliefs and doctrine. They then enforce these doctrines and beliefs on those who wish to be part of that church. There's a litmus test. That's a good thing. People are free to leave and worship elsewhere.
When a church controls the state, as the Roman church once dominated state powers, then those beliefs become part of government policy. I don't think that's a good thing.
But it seems like you're putting a higher standard on religion than you're putting on science. Certainly not all scientists who study evolution believe in exactly the same way. As you pointed out, it's consensus, but it's not uniform consensus. If a scientist dissents from the consensus what happens to his belief? Is it banned from the textbooks because it goes against the consensus? Are schools not allowed to present it because it goes against the consensus?
It's true that nobody can produce evidenct the God did not create man. This is call "proving a negative" and is generally impossible in nearly all cases. If we make that acceptable as the basis for validation of scientific theory then anyone who can come up with any hypothesis, no matter how improbable, they can get demand that it be accepted and taught as viable theory. We don't let people do that, for good reason.
Well yes and no. It depends on whether or not you accept an objective source as valid or not. If scientists were to accept the bible as an authoritative source of information (fat chance I know but play along) then it would be fairly easy to validate hypotheses. But alas even among those who call themselves Christians there are those who don't believe that the bible is an authoritative source of information. Or they believe that there are other authorities besides scripture whose opinion holds as much weight.
I think the central issue is this: Who gets to decide the beliefs that influence society, culture, laws and morals? As it stands now science wants exclusive control over this area. And no religion should have exclusive control either. But they should have an opportunity to present information on a specific subject if they can present a coherent theory that's consistently based upon a source of objective information. But I expect that, like evolutionary teaching, it will have to go through the court systems before becoming legal to teach something that was legally taught 80 years ago.
Religion is objective. I can objectively look at the Mormon church, the Roman church, or a Lutheran church and systematically categorize and explain the beliefs of those churches. I can gather statistics on membership. I can gather statistics on income. I can gather demographic information. I can list church addresses and phone numbers.
Theology and religion are different. A certain theological position can officially be embraced and endorsed by a religion. But personal theological understanding IS subjective. In fact it's dangerous to blindly accept the objective theological position of a religion without ever having a subjective experience....the "knowing" that it's true. It's as equally dangerous for scientists to embrace the consensus opinion without "knowing" that it's true. Science is science because it's objective and subjective. An objective position should be able to be subjectively proven. I should be able to add 2 and 2 for myself before accepting the notion that 2 plus 2 equals 4. If not than I'm guilty of the same thing as the religionist, blind faith based upon a consensus of opinion.
If religion is objective, why do they all have different beliefs? Religion can be studied objectively, but studying a relion is not the same as holding the beliefs of that religion.
You've submitted that scientific theory can be based on your specific religious beliefs because those beliefs are objetive. If they are objective, why don't all religions hold exactly those same beliefs?
If evolution is purely objective than why don't all evolutionary scientists have the same belief? Evolutionary theories can be studied objectively, but studying a theory is not the same as holding the beliefs of that theory.
If evolutionary theory is objective, than why don't all evolutionists hold these exact same beliefs?
Religion is not objective, and does not try to be. The study of religion can be objective, but that will not make religion objective.
Keep thinking that Bud...
I can't help it if you don't understand the difference between religion and theology. Religion is objective. Theology is subjective. A religion is a religion because it's codified and structured. It's objective. But somebodys personal experience with God is, their theological experience, is (usually) subjective.
You sure go out of your way to defend marxism ...
anti-Marxist
You're assuming that the goal of evolution is the rise of a sentient, tool-using species. You're viewing a scientific theory through the prism of what it's done for us humans.
But natural processes, like evolution, don't have a goal.
Dinosaurs were an incredibly succesful group of species that lasted for tens of millions of years and filled essentially every ecological niche available. the fact that they did not evolve into something humanlike doesn't in auny way undermine the Theory of Evolution.
How coherent or useful do you think a scientific theory would be based on the premise that we can't really be sure matter or energy even exist?
I didn't try to silence you, I just merely pointed out that you didn't tell the whole story ...
Let us read what your brilliant scientist writes about you ...
--------------------------------------
Creationists have capitalized on scientific disputes among biologists on the details of the evolutionary process by pretending that serious students of the subject are themselves in doubt about evolution. Evolutionary study is a living science; as such it is rich with controversy about particular issues off detail and mechanism. Creationists have extracted published statements in those controversies and used them dishonestly to suggest that biologists are in doubt about the fact of organic evolution.
All religion agrees on a basic principle: There is a power higher than man. Well, almost all religion. The church of Satan believes differently. But that's not the consensus. But then again you're lumping all religion into one category. It's the same as if I lumped all scientific disciplines into one category. Do biologists seriously consider the input of astrophysicists when setting up experiments or publishing data? No, they're peer reviewed by peers, those in the same discipline.
Hey it’s simple. Evolution explains life. This is a subset of creationism which explains both matter and life.
LOL
You posted a short opinion by the author that started with "Another way to ....". It was obvious that you left out the 'rest of the story'.
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.