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 ...
Apparently there's no way this could simply be another of a long history of disagreements between theology and science, brought about by inconsistencies between physical evidence and theological dogma.
I would think that you would be citing modern day evolutionary theory that is based on all the accumulated knowledge we have gained since Darwin lived. Please bring yourself into the modern ages. Thanks.
Not necessarily, but in almost all cases in science it is true. New models are developed and tested and when found in error, the models are improved. It is the process that got us out of the dark ages instead of still believing that the sun revolves around the earth and the earth is flat.
Actually, it is just an approximation. A more complicated formula is needed for exact calculations.
Actually, it is 32'/second2
Case in point. Thank you.
CW: Science must assume that there is some order. If there were not some order, you could not even depend on the sun rising each morning. False argument.
How is that a *false argument*? MrB's statement was that the basis for science that the universe is orderly, reasonable, and discoverable, has it's roots in the Judeo-Christian view of creation, not that there wasn't order. You didn't even address the comment he made.
If the statement is false, please provide sources to back up your contention and demonstrate where that worldview came from.
Who would that be? Sources?
More hyperbole, I see. Thanks again.
He makes the assumption that since science is based on assuming order, that this assumption is based on theology. That is the false argument. It is based on logic and necessity and I gave an example to show the point.
His viewpoint is that an ordered universe is a given in all worldviews, it’s not, I’ve studied this, he obviously has not, he’s ignorant, but assuming an air of superiority,
thus, acting like any liberal that you’ve ever argued with.
The Judaeo-Christian worldview led to modern science. Eastern philosophy and Islam inherently could not.
http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Early-Modern-Science-Islam/dp/0521529948
CW: has already been replaced ...
They have? When?
Next time you quote someone, try not to so blatantly misrepresent what they state when their quote can be found up page where people can easily see the whole text.
More misrepresentation. Thanks, again.
Is this the seven days is seven days or seven days is seven thousand years? Is this the Genesis that says that animals were created before Adam or the Genesis that says that Adam was alone so God created animals for his comfort? Is this the view that accepts that man was created from dirt but cannot accept that man may have come from mud?
Do you disagree with assesments that trace philosophies of science back to Aristotle?
Next time you quote someone please do not add words to their post.
Next time you quote someone, try not to so blatantly misrepresent what they state when their quote can be found up page where people can easily see the whole text.
We were talking about science (which your posts have shown you to be lacking in basic knowledge) not philosophy. OTOH, which worldviews do not hold that it is an ordered universe?
I almost spilled my coffee when I saw you blatantly misrepresenting me in your post claiming I was misrepresenting another! Of course, the only way you could make your point as true was to misrepresent what I posted since I did not misrepresent the other as you claimed!
No, it's not a false argument. That's exactly what Issac Newton concluded about the universe based on his Judeo-Christian belief as taught by the Bible that God is a god of order, not of disorder.
It's interesting that the Enlightenment followed on the heels of the Protestant Reformation and that science has fared best in those countries which were by and large Protestant Christian in nature and continues to do so even today. Atheistic environments are no friends to intellectualism or science. A brief overview of 20th century history bears that out.
There's absolutely no reason to believe that science would not continue to do as well under a Christian world view today as it did then. Religious belief does not stifle intellectual pursuit or capabilities. Atheism is not inherently more conducive to intellectual pursuit than religious belief. It is not inherently more rational or logical.
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.