 |
|||||
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
 |
|
|||
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
A new, 21st Century oxymoron.
Great lead paragraph!
I doubt if individual conscience would exist if imerfection didn't exist. There would be no one to ask the question.
Why is our genome littered with nonfunctional junk DNA?
Another thing that scares me about scientists, a group not to be confused with science.
In which case our construction of Darwinism can be counted on to be reliable.
Ultimately, either view comes down to faith. Whatever teaching you believe will be your dominant view. How long will it take science to take evolution to its logical conclusion and find that beyond there is a kind of spiritual evolution that will give them hope, alone as they are, in the Holy of Holies.
Idiot alert! Even the most wacko darwinists (Gould, Dawkins, Eldridge, etc.) admit the fossil record fails to support them. It would be nice to see a review by someone with a little knowledge on the subject, instead of whatever left-wing ideologue is available today at the Times.
Well, this is a lie. Do I smell a whiff of desperation? Here's the 1996 Magisterium, and here's a relevant excerpt:
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.
But all you really have to know about this hit-piece which, not incidentally, is full of lies and mischaracterizations is:
Jim Holt writes a column about philosophy and science for Slate.com.
What we have here is just another Leftie Atheist book reviewer who has no allegiance whatever to the truth.
It's interesting that the author uses these term. Is there any background on the author?
Alvin Plantinga makes a philosophical assault on Darwinism, claiming that it is self-undermining. Suppose the Darwinian theory of evolution were true. Then, Plantinga submits, our mental machinery, having developed from that of lower animals, would be highly unreliable when it came to generating true theories. (As it happens, Darwin himself once confessed to the same ''horrid doubt'' about his theory in a letter: ''Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind?'') In other words, if our belief in Darwinism were true, then none of our theoretical beliefs would be reliable -- including our belief in Darwinism. Theism, by contrast, escapes this difficulty: if we are made in the image of God, the ultimate knower, then divine providence can be counted on to have supplied us with reliable cognitive faculties.Ah, but many creationists on these threads have claimed that we are "fallen" - all human imperfections are explained by The Fall. Therefore, any inabilities we may have are explained by Original Sin. So Plantinga's argument fails.
Such is only a tie that's made by those who have an anti-intelligent design agenda.
The intelligent designer of the ID theory can as easily be an advanced race elsewhere in the universe. It does not have to be a "god."
The proposition, quite simply, is that the ID math model says there's too much complexity on earth for the allowable time in which all this complexity is supposed to have arisen.
That which cannot be proven or disproven, even in theory, must be excluded from any discussion of objective reality, or else the floodgates of meaningless mush are opened. It is impossible to prove or disprove that an silent, transparent, impalbable gerbil is sitting on your shoulder, and any time you waste cogitating upon the issue is taken away from issues upon which you might actually form some meaningful conclusions.
