Posted on 11/07/2004 12:50:19 PM PST by bondserv
...might be a closeted "E" type.........
Well, one DOES need the 'correct' credentials; doncha know!
HE has created an awesome universe in which we can satiate our curiosity.
INDEED!!!
(This IS the Religion FORUM, is it not??)
2 Corinthians 5:17-20
17. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!
18. All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:
19. that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.
20. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us.
We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.
[verse 17 = 'evolution'!]
For us creationists, the answer is always "God made it that way." The only scientific question is, what (if any) natural laws did He set in place to make it happen, and what good for mankind can come from learning how those natural laws operate.
For us creationists, the answer is always "God made it that way."
There is no operative difference between that answer and the answer "just because".
The only scientific question is, what (if any) natural laws did He set in place to make it happen, and what good for mankind can come from learning how those natural laws operate.
Well, there are at least two questions there, but, that aside, the second question doesn't appear to be a scientific question. As for the first question, isn't evolution theory in fact an attempt to understand what are the natural laws that underlie the development of life? How else would one characterize it? Surely you're not suggesting that there are no natural laws underlying the origin and development of life, are you?
You have the right to perceive it as you wish.
"the second question doesn't appear to be a scientific question."
Maybe you're missing the point. Lets take 'splitting the atom' for example. Science found it could split the atom - the question then became what could be done with that information.
"As for the first question, isn't evolution theory in fact an attempt to understand what are the natural laws that underlie the development of life?"
It is an attempt, yes. Whether it is deemed a good and honest attempt is a matter of opinion.
"Surely you're not suggesting that there are no natural laws underlying the origin and development of life, are you?"
My belief is that God created pretty much as scripture states (although probably not in 6 earth days). He has set natural laws in place which keep life going. (Even the bonding of protons and electrons into atoms is important to sustaining life.)
If you prefer to believe that life evolved from non-life, that is completely up to you. I do not.
On the other hand, suppose you believed that no harm would come to you if you grabbed a metal fork with your bare right hand and pushed it into a live electrical outlet while lying naked in a puddle of water on a concrete floor? Now there's a belief that could get you into some trouble! Or suppose you believed that no harm would come to you if you leapt off the top of the Sears Tower without a parachute or a bunjee cord or some other life-saving device? Again, a belief capable of resulting in unfortunate consequences.
The fact is, people of sound mind who are inclined to believe the Biblical account of creation and to reject the theory of evolution, almost never reject Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism or Newton's theory of gravitation (if they do, they rarely live to tell others about it). And note that these two theories are only approximations to truth, just as evolution theory is still only an approximation to truth.
MEGoody, you questioned whether evolution theory was a "good and honest attempt" to understand the natural laws that underlie the development of life. Surely you know that thousands of very smart, very well-educated people have spent their lives attempting to understand how life began and developed, and almost all of them have concluded that some version of evolution theory best accounts for the evidence that they've so far encountered. It seems to me to be deeply misguided (and almost paranoiac) to suggest that all (or even a small percentage) of these people are somehow engaged in an enterprise which is a sham, an enterprise not concerned with finding out what's true but rather with pushing an ideological agenda of some sort. I'm not saying that that's your view, but that's the impression I'm getting of your view.
It has for a long time been clear to me that views on non-scientific matters are rarely changed by evidence and argument. At some stage in its development, the brain settles into a comfort zone with some memetic operating system and, from then on, what counts as evidence is determined by the parameters of that operating system. Try to imagine changing the world-view of an islamic extremist, for example. Having structured his brain using bits and pieces of the koran, he's made himself immune to evidence and arguments which might, under more favorable circumstances, have indicated to him that he's mistaken.
Fortunately, most scientists aren't like that. It's truth that they're most interested in, and they follow the evidence wherever it leads, attempting to provide reasonable arguments as they go. Scientific investigation is one of the noblest of endeavors that our meager little existence affords us. We'll soon be gone, as will all traces of our having been, but the effort that will have been made to understand who and what we are will have been a worthy use of our moment of sunlight.
Best regards ...
You are certainly free to hold that view if you so choose. That's the whole point. In the end, it's about what we choose to believe.
That's an error. In the end, it's only about what we choose to believe as long as what we choose to believe doesn't kill us! I wouldn't urge you to try it, but that was the point of my fork example or my leaping off the Sears Tower example. Only beliefs that have little adverse impact on our survival can afford to be irrational.
Hmmm. . I'd have to disagree. We all chose what we will believe. If what we believe kills us, we still made the choice to believe it. (Example: The homocide bombers).
But you do touch on an interesting question, viz., the degree to which our beliefs are rationally chosen. While you might find it odd, I tend to think that lots and lots of our beliefs are not rationally chosen. That was my point when I referred to the influence of our brain operating systems. Those systems (there are several, as you probably know) provide for a wide variety of beliefs about ourselves and the world. Most of those beliefs are not so much chosen as discovered (they're features of the operating system...and sometimes they're bugs!).
Alfred North Whitehead wrote that "civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking of them." While I hesitate to augment the thought of such a luminous intellect, I would add that it's important to ensure that the operations are rationally based before consigning them to the care of the unconscious.
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.