Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
Thank you Dear Sister in Christ, for yet another insightful — and right to the point — essay-post!!
Dear brother in Christ, as you know Satan's greatest triumph consists in convincing people that he does not exist.
But he does. He tempts us to sin for he knows that will divide us from Christ — Who is Logos Alpha to Omega, our Savior and final Judge.
He is the jealous, implacable enemy of mankind. He seeks the destruction of souls. And judging from the present state of affairs in our culture, he is awesomely good at it.
The second great lie he tells is that there is no such thing as sin. And yet the entire Creation is groaning under its weight....
Pusillanimous pastors take note: Is revenue more important than saving souls? Isn't that the Church's job? If so, you'd better be talking about SIN from your pulpits. "Cafeteria Christians" might not like it; but faithful Christians will.
Thank you so much for writing, dear TXnMA — and for your very kind words.
Outstanding observation, dear CityCenter! And oh so true.
Thank you so very much for writing!
Evidently, "mocking" must be in the eye of the beholder. For I don't see anything in what C. S. Lewis wrote here that "mocks" science. I think he's seeing things from a much bigger "picture" than you are.
I'm a Christian. I don't "mock" science. Rather I think science is one of the most glorious human activities in the world. I don't even "mock" Darwinism. To critique it for its shortcomings is not to "mock" it; it is to take it seriously.
FWIW.
The former pastor of my church recently did the opening remarks for an all-city church prayer meeting. He is someone who doesn’t shy away from calling a sin a sin and presenting the all but forgotten concept of personal holiness to Christians. Was somewhat sad and amusing to see the reaction he got.
Seems that the more there appear to be sides taken in the debate, the more each side tries to freeze the image to what they want to reject. The little jibes get tossed in as efforts to marginalize and thus ignore anything that might, MIGHT, point to a more complex explanation of what the whole Universe is really like. It is far easier to criticize a narrowly framed image than to consider what might be plausible in the larger image being rejected.
And just to be open here, I am one who believes that the true dimensional reality of the Universe God has created is from one perspective much more complex than 4D spacetime, while from another perspective far more elegant in process than we have yet to discover. As an example, I would point to the notion that gravity in our 4D continuum may be a shadow effect of a force manifesting in a fifth or sixth dimensional continuum. The deposition of certain crystalline structures hints at this 'higher dimensions effecting' (kind of like a precipitant) our 4D spacetime.
The point that information (Shannon, successful communication) is the difference between life and non-life/death in nature was underscored by Wimmer's creating the polio virus in the laboratory.
He began with the information content (genome sequence available even on the internet) which he merely facilitated the communication of via physico-chemical synthesis.
And it reminds me, too, of the joke about the scientists who tell God they can now create life, and God tells them to get their own dirt ... kind of saying the processing system is built into the background state to which information streams for processing. I sometimes use the analogy of radio waves carrying information but needing a radio receiver to process the encoded information so that it can then be further processed by a 'listener'.
Electromagnetic waves are an elegant carrier, but receivers and 'decoders' are required to realize the created/intended encoded messages.
The natural-science of evolution: is evolution a valid theory which accurately describes how life on earth has come to be what we see today?
The philosophy (or call it "metaphysics", "ontology" or "atheism") of materialism: is the material natural universe all there is, or is there a super-natural, spiritual realm within or beyond it? Those of us here defending science (aka "methodological naturalism") are generally not interested in defending atheism (aka "metaphysical naturalism"), and yet that is the issue on which many attack "Darwinism". Atheistic-"Darwinism" is said to cause and result from every socialistic wickedness known and therefore should be rejected in favor of... of... of... well, why not go all the way and say: young earth creationism?
My original question in this (still unanswered) is "why is this News/Activism?"
The disagreement over literal interpretion of the Book of Genesis is older that Darwin himself, much less ToE. There's nothing remotely "new" about it. As far as being a subject of political activism, even the Founders had theological disagreements. Thomas Paine particulary had some unkind things to say about the Bible, and I imagine he and John Adams would have some serious difference of opinion on the matter. But you won't find those debates in the records of the Continental Congress or the Constitutal Convention. Trying to make it a criteria for drawing political lines is something that not only avoided, but specfically warned against.
Ah, but there's the rub, dear brother in Christ: It seems to me that Darwin's theory requires the rejection of the "larger image." If Darwin's theory is seen as premised in methodological naturalism, the "larger image" cannot be captured by the methods that mindset or predisposition imposes: the presupposition that all causes in Nature are natural causes (i.e., material and/or physical, local causes whose instantaneous results are susceptible of observation, technically augmented as necessary).
Also final causes are banished from methodological naturalism, because they appear to act "from the future," and this cannot be.
And yet a biological function really cannot be described without reference to an end, purpose, or goal — that is, a final cause.
Aristotle further clarified that the final cause is the cause for which all the other causes in Nature — formal, material, efficient — exist in the first place. It is a peras, a Limit, without which nothing could be as it is, or reason even be possible.
But I disgress. To get back to the main point, if, on the other hand, Darwinism is seen as premised in metaphysical naturalism, it seems to me it turns Nature into the "god." The Judeo-Christian God is simply banished. This is definitely a religious attitude, though a rather perverted one, to my way of thinking.
Why one would assume that God must be evicted in order for science to be conducted properly flies in the face of human historical reality. Such great scientists as Newton and Einstein (among many others) were motivated by ideas of the divine, of the transcendent; and many great scientists were even in religious orders — e.g., Gregor Mandel ("father" of genetics) and Georges LeMaitre (who "discovered" the Singularity).
I believe you are surely right, dear brother in Christ, to point out that our concepts respecting time dimensionality are still very crude:
...the true dimensional reality of the Universe God has created is from one perspective much more complex than 4D spacetime, while from another perspective far more elegant in process than we have yet to discover. As an example, I would point to the notion that gravity in our 4D continuum may be a shadow effect of a force manifesting in a fifth or sixth dimensional continuum. The deposition of certain crystalline structures hints at this 'higher dimensions effecting' (kind of like a precipitant) our 4D spacetime.Along those lines, I think you'll enjoy this article: Time as an Illusion, by Paul. S. Wesson. It's one of the most thought-provocative scientific papers I've read in recent times.
Thank you so much for writing, MHGinTN!
What do you think needs to be done to correct that? Do we reject any scientific theory that can't be reconciled to everyone's theology, or do we choose an "official" religion of science, and declare that all theories must be consistent with those religious beliefs and doctrines?
As an example, it is still possible to navigate the earth with Ptolemaic geocentricity. But to navigate the solar system one requires Newtonian physics and heliocentricity. And to leave the solar system, one needs Einstein's General Relativity.
Those who cling to Darwin's explanation as dogma are like those ancient navigators. That an explanation worked in a limited scope does not mean it is informed, accurate, transportable or applicable to a greater scope.
Darwin had no knowledge of modern physics or mathematics. Information theory, grounded on Shannon's mathematical theory of communications, is a branch of Math and not a Science discipline. Shannon's theory dates to the mid-1940's but information theory did not expand and prosper for two decades. The expansion now is exponential.
In their 1953 abiogenesis experiment, Miller and Urey did not have the benefit of Shannon's insights or even the insights of Crick and Watson whose structure of DNA discovery also dates to 1953.
And neither team had yet to understand the full relevance of the encoding of the information content, i.e. DNA/RNA. Indeed, the exploration of genomic information continues.
Truly, when the mathematicians and physicists were brought to the microbiology table they had much to say and a different methodology, e.g. "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence" v "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." And of course the emphasis for them is on the theory whereas the emphasis for the biologists was on the data, i.e. observations (Pattee, et al)
Because of these fundamental differences, there has been significant resistance to their observations (Rosen, Yockey, et al). But the mathematicians and physicists prevail and will continue to prevail.
At the root they have raised the importance of information (successful communication, Shannon) and autonomy and function.
Those who cling to Darwin's explanation bend like pretzels to ignore the obvious existence of biological function - probably because it suggests purpose or design whereas the century old dogma requires everything happen by blind chance. And yet, mathematically, function cannot be ignored (Rosen et al.)
Nor will those outside the math and physics discipline address the rise of autonomy in nature. Indeed, the very existence of the encoding suggests a necessary toggling between autonomy and non-autonomy to gather and extend even the most rudimentary information content (Rocha, Pattee, et al).
Also perhaps feeding the resistance to their observations, there is no known natural origin for information (successful communication), autonomy, function or even inertia.
Bottom line, to me the ones who treat Darwin's theory like dogma are exactly like those who still cling to a geocentric model of the "universe."
Thank God there are very few of the latter and hopefully that fact means the number of the former will also diminish.
(And I do love the 'dirt' joke!)
If humans don't act within the confines of their instincts, then communism and pacifism should work, right?
Not that I am, FRiend.
My comment refers back to post #134 where YHAOS copies & pastes a listing of 27 quotes from FReepers allegedly "mocking" Christians, with YHAOS special emphasis on the words "demonic possession".
I merely pointed out that if those quotes were seriously "mocking" Christians, then the quote about CS Lewis you refer to even more seriously mocks science.
Indeed, let's look at that quote again:
The quote goes on to equate these "lies" with the "fiendish aim" of "another spirit" for which "compromising priests" are serving its "diabolical purposes".
I'd call that a mocking of science far greater than any mild chiding of certain Christian beliefs by posters on Free Republic.
betty boop: "I'm a Christian. I don't "mock" science.
Rather I think science is one of the most glorious human activities in the world.
I don't even "mock" Darwinism.
To critique it for its shortcomings is not to "mock" it; it is to take it seriously."
So, does that mean you disavow the use of CS Lewis' words in the article here?
If so, then I commend you, FRiend.
One of the reasons this disagreement is so ancient is because there are two creation stories in Genesis with two very different names for the creator. In fact, one name is plural, the other is singular.
Regardless of the reasons, the history of attempts at a political solution to that disagreement have proven to be bloody, destructive, and unsuccessful.
I regret and apologize for using the word "non-traditionalists" since it misrepresents what and who we're talking about.
I almost posted an immediate retraction, but then thought, well, let's just see what response it gets.
Your response, MHGinTN, is pretty mild...
I absolutely despise that word "fundamentalist".
It drives me crazy when I hear news reporter-idiots talking about suicide bombers as "Muslim fundamentalists", and then in the next sentence about "Christian fundamentalists" opposing abortion, or evolution.
So I was looking for another word, and "traditionalists" works pretty well, I think, as being both accurate and non-pejorative.
So, now, if "traditionalists" deny, say, evolution, what does that make those who agree with it, non-traditionalists?
So that was the word I chose, and now regret.
The reason is that in one sense not one of us is a real traditionalist, but in another sense all of us are.
Genuine traditionalists, people who seriously live their tradition 24/7-365 from birth to death are my wonderful Pennsylvania Dutch neighbors -- old order Amish and Mennonites.
For them, tradition is reality, and all the rest of us are modern, in their word: English.
So, if you're sitting at a computer or smart-phone reading this, then you are not "traditional" in their sense.
In another sense, we are all traditionalists, since we refuse to buy into the Madonna anthem: "we are living in a material world, and I am a material girl."
So I have to conclude that it's not a matter of "traditionalist" versus "non-traditionalist", but rather of more-traditional versus less-traditional.
Or, you might even think of it the way I do my Amish neighbors, among whom there are no "new order" Amish.
There are, however, what I call Old-Order, Older-Order and Oldest-Order, who do, by the way, get along well with each other, and amongst whom families sometimes move and change identification.
Bottom line: "non-traditional" in today's usage means Madonna's "material girl", and that's not who I intended.
I intended to mean "less-traditional", or perhaps even Older-Order as opposed to our Oldest-Order Young Earth Creationists.
And no, they don't mock each other.
;-)
I really don't care if someone wants to call me "fundamentalist" for loving God, believing Him and trusting Him. If that's how they meant it, I take it as a badge of honor.
As to my personal understanding of God's words in Genesis, I see that God is the only observer of Creation and is speaking from the inception perspective. For that reason, I very strongly agree with Jewish Physicist Gerald Schroeder in pointing out that - when one considers the big bang and inflationary theory (General Relativity) - that approximately 15 billion years from our space/time perspective is equal to approximately one week in equivalent earth days from the inception space/time perspective.
There is, of course, much more that I could/would say on the subject - the only part relevant to this discussion is that the observer perspective of Scripture changes to Adamic time (space/time coordinates) at the top of Genesis 4 when Adam is banished to mortality.
By 141 years Jefferson anticipates the detection of the cosmic microwave background radiation signaling the beginning of the universe. Amazing!
He continues: “On the contrary, I hold, (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the universe, in its parts, general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition. . The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces; the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere; animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles; insects, mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth; the mineral substances, their generation and uses; it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe, that there is in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a Fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their Preserver and Regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regeneration into new and other forms.”
. . . . . Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, in 19 volumes, Memorial Edition, edited by Albert Ellery Burgh, Vol 15, pg 425
Thanks for your comeback, and thanks for the scientific data and the support you offer. Most appreciated.
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.