Oh, I've already taken the tour of the "other" museums. But thanks.
Have fun. Tell Ken I said hi, we've met a few times. He's a nice guy and will enjoy chatting with ya.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I’ve been to many evolutionist museums and seen the lies they tell, what’s the big deal if one place gets it right. Does the truth scare you that much?
What truth. If you are claiming that the 'evolutionist museums' are lies, you have to explain why they are lies and you have to include a counterargument to their claims.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even the creators of this museum believe in evolution.
I read one of their articles on where Cain and Abel's wives came from.
They believe it was all incestuous, as that is all the Bible will allow. However, at that time, such unions were not forbidden.
Why is it forbidden now? Because of the problems of inbreeding. What are those problems? Mutated genes that can cause problems are passed on if the choice of genetic donors is too small.
However, they say this was not a problem in the first few generations, as Adam and Eve were created in the likeness of God, so they were physically perfect. It is only through the proceeding generations, as we moved farther from Paradise, that our genetics evolved into fallible dangerous things that they are today.
on the other hand:
quote:So. If the theory of evolution were to undergo some massive changes, I could maybe buy into it. But, as it stands, I just can't. It seems ridiculous to me.
vs
quote:i know that the problems that i have with evolution/creation as a science is that it seems like every class i take there is something that has changed in the theory to make it different. Yet all i get preached at me is that it is "infallable".
Two different people, but the question remains--is Evolutionary science too stagnant for you folks or is it too dynamic?
The big argument I am hearing here is "If Evolution was so sure of itself, then the people working with it shouldn't spend all their time defending it." Dude. They don't.
Lets take the History of the Dinosaur. When I was in grade school up we had books that said the Brontosaurus, the largest cold blooded animal of that time, was so heavy it lived in the swamps all the time to support its own burdensome weight. Today they debate whether this warm blooded creature, small in size compared to so many others, was green or purple.
Watch the original Fantasia. See the dinosaurs killed off by the strange desertification of their wetland habitats. My sixth grade teacher informed me that this was wrong, as they were all killed off by the ice-age. Today we have proof that a meteor impact had a great deal to do with their demise.
If you go to a gathering of scientists, not one will be labeled "Evolutionary". There will be Astronomers, Geo-Physicists, Astro-Physicists, Geneticists, and many other categories, all of whom have proven to them selves that a 6000 year old earth or the spontaneous creation of all the species of plants and animals on the earth just doesn't fit the facts they've seen.
Now, the scientific method states that Dr. A presents his theory and then Dr.B can try to either improve on it or prove it false. If he succeeds, than Dr. C can try to refute the arguments of Dr. B, and possibly reestablish the Theory of Dr. A, perhaps with some adjustments.
Darwin started the chain of thought that has grown into modern Evolutionary Theory. These Creationists have every right, scientifically, to try and prove it false. When that proof is in biology, a biologist has the right, and the duty, to refute that proof. When that proof is in Astro-physics, than an Astrophysicist can refute it.
Where ID/Creationism runs afoul of science is that instead of calmly accepting the arguments made against them and finding counter arguments, they just make the same arguments again, to a different crowd, only louder. Then they attack those who disagree with them instead of attacking their arguments.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jay, could you maybe pick just one argument from that site that you think is good, and quote it here? You never read any of the links we post, so I don't think anyone is going to read yours in great detail and respond to it all. Especially since, judging by your past performance, you will suddenly find that you "don't have the time" to continue the discussion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, as I have pointed out before, it is the THEORY of Evolution, not the Fact of Evolution. The fact that it remains a theory tells us that it is not a complete science.
BTW, when KoM replied to this, he did so not to make any other point but to clarify something that's frequently misinterpreted.
When scientists call something a "theory," that doesn't necessarily mean that they're not sure about it. A "theory" is an explanation -- correct or not -- of observed facts.
KoM's example makes this clearer. It is an observed fact that things fall down at a certain rate. The theory of gravity is an explanation of that fact (and many other facts as well, of course). In the same way, the theory of evolution is an explanation of observable facts -- like the fossil record, DNA inheritance, etc. -- that may or may not be correct, but which is not to be considered incomplete just because it's called a "theory."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to point out a very excellent interview with Dr. Massimo Pigliucci on evolution. For those who aren't really sure about the subject, it should prove to be a very informative interview.
posted
Someone should set up a laptop with a projector outside the Creationism museum and play the video from the ID has crumbled thread, just to give the potential visitors something to think about.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Oh, I've already taken the tour of the "other" museums. But thanks.
Have fun. Tell Ken I said hi, we've met a few times. He's a nice guy and will enjoy chatting with ya. "
Sorry, I live too far away from Cincinatti to make that practical. I can't go there, as I don't have the means.
So, will you debate with me or not? I can't go there, so you'll have to bring their reasoning to me. If you'd be so kind. Give me their reasons, and yours. The ones you find most impressive, most airtight. Give me your best arguements, your best pieces of evidence.
I can't go to the museum. And I'm not talking about going to museums, period. I'm talking about evidence.
Can you please show me some? I can't find any actual statements of anything on the website you've sent. Nothing I can debate. No specific claims, that is.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Someone should set up a laptop with a projector outside the Creationism museum and play the video from the ID has crumbled thread, just to give the potential visitors something to think about.
I made an mp3 version, so something smaller than a laptop would work as well.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a bit of a tangent, by the way, but I've thought a bit about the ID-vs-theistic-evolution issue that was brought up the other day, and I think the following distinction might be useful:
A theistic evolutionist believes that a god did in fact guide the process of evolution to arrive at humanity; insertion of a soul at a specific point in time is optional.
An ID-er belives, in addition, that
a) The process of evolution could not, even in principle, have proceeded without such guidance, and b) It is possible to find specific adaptations which prove this, by being impossible to evolve.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is interesting at how different speakers have better ways of explaining things. Perhaps it was my lack of knowlegd in scientific method of theory and fact, or perhaps i just had teachers that didnt bother explaining it well. But i just spent the last two hours listening to Ken Miller on youtube that is posted on the forum and in general he has explained things in a way that does ease my mind as far as to the state of science.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Good! Hearing speakers who both care, know what theyr'e talking about and are competant to actually explain their points well has that effect.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, as I have pointed out before, it is the THEORY of Evolution, not the Fact of Evolution. The fact that it remains a theory tells us that it is not a complete science.
quote:When scientists call something a "theory," that doesn't necessarily mean that they're not sure about it.
Neither are these statements are correct, I think.
"Theories" in science are things that we cannot logically be certain are true, yet which have consistently held true under extensive testing. They are never certain because it is always possible that the theory will fail to hold true in some experiment in the future, forcing scientists to revise the theory. Newton's theories, for instance, held true through a great deal of experimentation - yet ended up being false, only to be replaced by Einstein's explanations centuries later. Scientists might believe they can be "sure" about their theories, but they can't justify that certainty. Even the most seemingly certain theories have at least some doubt.
It is for precisely that reason that a degree of uncertainty is not a good justification for calling something "not a complete science". There is no such thing as a scientific model that is certain. Thus, if the term "complete science" is meaningful in any way, it must be talking about theories - like the theory of evolution. Although I don't really like the term "complete" to tell you the truth. Science shouldn't be viewed as something that is ever complete. It is a continuing process of refinement. Evolution may need to be refined; that does not mean it isn't well-supported by evidence.
There IS such a thing as fact in science, but the facts aren't the theories. The facts are the data that support and test the theories. Facts include things like fossils that we know have been discovered, genetic similarities that we know exist, microevolution that has been observed to happen in experiments, etc. If creationists have their own theory that is consistent with ALL of these facts, then I don't think it is dishonest of them to create a museum through which to present their theory, and present how they believe it is consistent with those facts. On the other hand, if their theory intentionally ignores a bunch of facts, and if their museum fails to mention that problem while presenting their theory as definitely true, then I think they are clearly misleading people.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: This is a bit of a tangent, by the way, but I've thought a bit about the ID-vs-theistic-evolution issue that was brought up the other day, and I think the following distinction might be useful:
A theistic evolutionist believes that a god did in fact guide the process of evolution to arrive at humanity; insertion of a soul at a specific point in time is optional.
An ID-er belives, in addition, that
a) The process of evolution could not, even in principle, have proceeded without such guidance, and b) It is possible to find specific adaptations which prove this, by being impossible to evolve.
Would you also include in "theistic evolution" folks that beleive in a deity that created the universe and let evolution do its thing without guiding it? To put it another way, does does the term only refer to theistically influenced evolution, or to anyone who is both a theist and believes that the theory of evolution is the best current explanation of how various aspects of biology, etc work?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, I would imagine lots of people fall into that category. Most of the theists I know, anyway. Practically all.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone who believes God guided the process of evolution in the strong sense would be at best a borderline case. In the weak sense, believing that God set the world up so evolution would take place, or guides evolution in the same sense anything in his creation is guided, is usually how theistic evolution is construed.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The philosophy that dkw describes is more specifically known as Deism, but I think it would fall under the umbrella of "theistic evolution."
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: This is a bit of a tangent, by the way, but I've thought a bit about the ID-vs-theistic-evolution issue that was brought up the other day, and I think the following distinction might be useful:
A theistic evolutionist believes that a god did in fact guide the process of evolution to arrive at humanity; insertion of a soul at a specific point in time is optional.
An ID-er belives, in addition, that
a) The process of evolution could not, even in principle, have proceeded without such guidance, and b) It is possible to find specific adaptations which prove this, by being impossible to evolve.
Would you also include in "theistic evolution" folks that beleive in a deity that created the universe and let evolution do its thing without guiding it? To put it another way, does does the term only refer to theistically influenced evolution, or to anyone who is both a theist and believes that the theory of evolution is the best current explanation of how various aspects of biology, etc work?
posted
What kind of self-respecting Creationist museum is open 7 days a week?
---
What dkw is saying isn't really deism at all. There's a really neat bit of theological/philosophical arguing* around the concept of whether God (who is perfect, according to the theology) would set up natural rules that would inerrantly guide development or whether God was constantly a part of everything and the thing that made everything (like gravity) work from moment to moment, or some combination of the the two.
Deism has a god that set the universe running and more or less walked away. What dkw is suggesting (if I read her right) is that God set up natural laws that don't need his intervention to function correctly. This doesn't preclude God's intervention in any other affairs or even the natural rules (cf. miracles).
---
edit: *The stuff about this that I am aware of was around Newton's time, when some philosophers were coming to grips with the concept of persistent natural laws ungirding everything. I really don't know if this dipsute is currently active.
posted
Hmmm...I'm pondering what we mean by "intervention". I think that divine intervention is necessarily misunderstood. "Necessarily" because it is difficult to get our heads around it.
Because we (or some of us anyway) think of God as intentional and personal and in terms of relationship, we sort of get this "person plus super powers" image. Which is useful for relationship thinking but can be an obstacle. We also believe that God is also present in all things, source of creation, energy. Lover, Beloved, and Love Itself.
I don't think of God off somewhere "tweaking" evolution, but that doesn't mean that God is absent from it. God is present in the process.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think deism is a weaker concept; I would not include it in theistic evolution precisely because the phrase would then include all theists, and in that case, why not just use the perfectly good word 'theist'?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was quite careful in my phrasing to not limit the question to Deism, although it would be included in the category I outlined. Along with people who believe that God intervenes in any combination of other ways, just not tinkering with evolution.
edit: KOM, creationists and IDers are also theists, no? It still wouldn't include them.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mmm. I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'intervention'. If I set the cue ball in motion so that my target ball reaches the intended pocket, I would not ordinarily call that intervention.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nor would I. But suppose someone believes that God set the system in motion, and now "intervenes" only in the doings of human beings, not in the physical processes of nature. That person would not be a deist. Would they fit your conception of "theistic evolutionist"?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I go somewhat further than that. I believe that God not only set the system in motion, but is integrated with the system, part of it (sort of), present in the system as it works "normally" and according to natural laws.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So why bother with the distinction? What is it about your god that makes it useful to separate it out as a part of the system?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, thanks. I like your definition of theistic evolutionist better than the one I've normally seen, which is basically "any religious person who also believes in evolution." I never could understand why there should be a term for that. If it's a point of the person's theology that God is guiding evolution, then the term makes much more sense.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
An analogy to gravity occurs to me. In gravitational theory, we might say that a deist believes that a god created special relativity, but doesn't interfere with its working. A theistic gravitationalist believes that their god does occasionally tweak something - Newton would be an example; he knew that planetary orbits were unstable over long periods, and suggested that his god might push the planets back into place occasionally. An IF-er (Intelligent Faller) believes, in addition, that the current situation is impossible in principle without such intervention, and that we can tell where interventions have occurred by identifying sufficiently unlikely falls.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Allow me a little while to respond to that article.
Anyway, here is the article, so everyone can see:
"Can creationists be scientists? by Dr. Jason Lisle, Ph.D., astrophysics, AiG–USA speaker and researcher
First published in Answers Update–USA April 2005
It has been often said that “creationists cannot be real scientists.”
Several years ago, the National Academy of Sciences published a guidebook entitled Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science.1 This guidebook states that evolution is “the most important concept in modern biology, a concept essential to understanding key aspects of living things.”
In addition, the late evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky once made the now well-known comment that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”2
But is a belief in “particles-to-people” evolution really necessary to understand biology and other sciences? Is it even helpful? Are there any technological advances that have been made because of a belief in evolution?
Although evolutionists interpret the evidence in light of their belief in evolution, science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution. Think about it this way: is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how a computer works, how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? No, not at all.
In fact, the Ph.D. cell biologist (and creationist) Dr. David Menton, who speaks at many conferences, has stated, “The fact is that, though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.”3
Nor has technology arisen due to a belief in evolution. Computers, cellular phones and DVD players all operate based on the laws of physics which God created. It is because God created a logical, orderly universe and gave us the ability to reason and to be creative that technology is possible. How can a belief in evolution (a belief that complex biological machines do not require an intelligent designer) aid in the development of complex machines which are clearly intelligently designed?
Technology has shown us that sophisticated machines require intelligent designers—not random chance. Science and technology are perfectly consistent with the Bible.
So it shouldn’t be surprising that there have been many scientists who believed in biblical creation. In my own research field of astrophysics, I am reminded of several of the great minds of history. Consider Isaac Newton, who co-discovered calculus, formulated the laws of motion and gravity, computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope and made a number of discoveries in optics.
Consider Johannes Kepler, who discovered the three laws of planetary motion, or James Clerk Maxwell who discovered the four fundamental equations that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey. These great scientists believed the Bible.
Today as well, there are many Ph.D. scientists who reject evolution and instead believe that God created in six days as recorded in Scripture. Consider Dr. Russ Humphreys, a Ph.D. nuclear physicist who has developed (among many other things) a model to compute the present strength of planetary magnetic fields4 which was able to predict the field strengths of the outer planets. Did a belief in the Bible hinder his research? Not at all.
On the contrary, Dr. Humphreys was able to make these predictions precisely because he started from the principles of Scripture. Dr. John Baumgardner, a Ph.D. geophysicist and biblical creationist, has a model of catastrophic plate tectonics, which the journal Nature once featured (this model is based on the global Genesis Flood).
Additionally, think of all the people who have benefited from a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan. The MRI scanner was developed by the creationist Dr. Raymond Damadian5 who has been featured twice in Creation magazine.
Clearly, creationists can indeed be real scientists. And this shouldn’t be surprising since the very basis for scientific research is biblical creation. The universe is orderly because its Creator is logical and has imposed order on the universe. God created our minds and gave us the ability and curiosity to study the universe. Furthermore, we can trust that the universe will obey the same physics tomorrow as it does today because God is consistent. This is why science is possible.
On the other hand, if the universe is just an accidental product of a big bang, why should it be orderly? Why should there be laws of nature if there is no lawgiver? If our brains are the by-products of random chance, why should we trust that their conclusions are accurate? But if our minds have been designed, and if the universe has been constructed by the Lord as the Bible teaches, then of course we should be able to study nature.
Yes, science is possible because the Bible is true."
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
(oh no. I just finished a very long post and I accidentally clicked out. Damn it, the last hour of work is lost, and it was a lot of work. I'll recreate it when I get back from work, but I work late tonight. This is so depressing, I'd gotten to the end and had already disproven nearly everything in that article.
My frustration is quite great, right now.)
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you have Firefox, going back will save you. Your other option (the one I use when I'm typing a detailed and/or lengthy post) is to do it in Word or whatever and then copy and paste.
posted
rollainm, good idea. I'll do that. And rivka, I don't have Firefox.
I don't have the time to recreate it right now, but I will when I get home from work in seven or eight hours. I'll have time then!
Anyway, as a little preview,(and as something I can type up quickly) notice that all the scientists in the article above are either not in the fields relevent to evolution (nuclear physicist? Wrong field!) or else lived before evolution as a scientific theory was created?
The only exception, the cell biologist, is a little trickier, and I don't have time to deal with him right now, but I will when I have that time.
Anyway, saying any of these scientists being creationists is evidence against evolution is like saying that Einstein's doubt about Quantum physics invalidates that field. It doesn't work.
Also, creationists can obviously be scientists. However, very few of them are in the proper fields, anyway. (the evidence to back my statements up will be brought in my main post, btw. Along with much, much more)
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahh, thanks. I didn't have a good arguement against Menton because I didn't know much about him. But blatant lies tend to get in the way of a man's credibility, don't they?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Menton is the bright spot who came up with 'the eye is too complex' theory (published under the strict peer review of the Missouri Association for Creation): http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/eye.htm
posted
Yep. Here we have material on AiG that is clearly false: he discusses and draws conclusions about a part of a species' anatomy . . . when no fossils of that species have surviving examples of that part of the anatomy.
posted
The entire premise of the article is invalid. Few people say that creationists cannot be scientists. Creationists hold views that are not compatible with certain areas of science because their religious beliefs cause them to presuppose the answers to questions asked by science and those answers tend to not agree with the available evidence.
The problem with assuming one knows the answers without examining the evidence is that when one already thinks they know the answer, they tend to not look very hard for/at the evidence. Think Catholic Church vs heliocentrism. At least the religious zealots in western society don't demand death for heretics any more, but they still won't be very good, say, geologists, if the science tends to disagree with their belief in a 6,000-year-old earth and they are unable to adjust their beliefs to accommodate the evidence.
Outside these areas where such individuals let their theology trump empiricism there is a plenty of room for them to be productive scientists.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Creationists can be scientists in the same way that people who don't wash their hands can be doctors... they may posess many of the skills and sensibilities of the career (scientist/doctor) but they are knowingly deviating from at least one important facet of the career (which likely detracts from their competancy at their given field).
As he said, disbelieving evolution does little in the way of detracting from the work of an astrophysicist and/or nuclear physicist. However, clinging to a belief that is founded on repeatedly/thouroughly refuted bad science should call into question those scientist's findings.
If I created a perfect unified theory of physics but firmly believed that every inhabitant of Ireland was a ninja, then I would fully expect to have my work called into question. (apologies for the bizarre analogy)
Similarly, the fact that the article's author stated "Furthermore, we can trust that the universe will obey the same physics tomorrow as it does today because God is consistent." worries me coming from someone claiming to be a competent Astrophysicist. His field more than others I would expect to accept that the "laws" of physics are almost certainly fluid in certain circumstances/timeframes.
Additionally, I think I am correct in claiming that evolutionary logic is actually being used currently in various computational subroutines (though I think most of it is still in the theoretical/development stage rather than in practical application).
Finally, just a small issue I had with what Xap posted earlier: "Newton's theories, for instance, held true through a great deal of experimentation - yet ended up being false, only to be replaced by Einstein's explanations centuries later"
I think it's misleading to say that Newton's theories were proven false. Most of his theories were proven incomplete. Many/most of Newton's theories (for example on gravity) are still near-perfectly valid as long as you are speaking of things within "normal" bounds (i.e. if you're looking to calculate the trajectory of a ball that is thrown on earth and is not going near the speed of light, then Newton's equations will get you there just fine)
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Genetic algorithms are a large part of modern computer science; nothing untested about them.
If you do not understand evolution, then you cannot explain, for example, why the fossil record shows elephants and cats repeatedly developing large sizes and huge teeth, respectively, and then dying out, to be replaced by smaller/less-sharp-toothed cousins.
You cannot explain how bacteria become resistant to medicines, nor explain how to avoid it.
You cannot explain the stag beetle's huge horns, nor the incredible 22-inch penis of that species of duck, nor the barbed varieties that certain crustaceans sport.
You cannot investigate the mutational path of the HIV virus, and thereby understand how it causes its havoc to the immune system.
Just try breeding for a desired quality without understanding how genetics interact with evolution! And conversely, try learning about genetics without a proper understanding of evolution!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I created a perfect unified theory of physics but firmly believed that every inhabitant of Ireland was a ninja, then I would fully expect to have my work called into question.
If you created a perfect unified theory of physics, I'd fully expect to have your work called into question and for others to see if your work could be duplicated by others. That's how science works.
I don't see how your beliefs about ninjas would either a) make it more important that your work be independently verified than otherwise or b) play any factor in that independent verification.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: To Ecthalion:
Good! Hearing speakers who both care, know what theyr'e talking about and are competant to actually explain their points well has that effect.
He hit it on the nail when he said that few scientists made their discovories friendly to the public and many treated other non-scientists in a snobbish way. One thing about reading Dawkins' ideas on the development of conciousness, and Asimov's Threat of Creationism essay and his ideas of the multi-verse was that they would constantly be belittling everyone that disagreed with them i think if theyd have stuck to just explinations and examples of their work/theories i probably wouldnt have had revervations about them. But i can always assume they get frustrated of no one understanding them and whatnot....
Anyway, on the more recent topic here about theistic-evolution and if evolution is truely necissary to be a scientist.
Today while i was at work i had spent a great deal of time thinking what the problem between most theists and evolution. I later went over the first few chapters of Genesis and i really dont see a big deal. Saying evolution is the best natural explination for the way nature works doesnt seem to contradic anything i read. Even if you are a literalist, and you believe in an all powerful god (which if one is god, i would think one must be all powerful) then evolution shouldnt have any effect on your faith. It is possible, god can do all that we have seen and still have created earth in six days. I also have heard the whole, long day/god of gaps theories and also how the ancient hebrew prophecies and descriptions of events and the way they are worded doesnt necissarily mean actual days, instead can reference specific events that can take up a relatively ambiguous amount of time. They were told in format of days and weeks so that poor people or people not of israelite origin would also be able to comprehend them.
Anyway, my thoughts eventually lead me back to the idea of the watchmaker. If you find a watch in the sand you then would look at it and know there was a watchmaker (paraphrased but im sure youve all heard it before). Well, so you find a watch, you believe there is a watchmaker even though youve never seen him. So after you have a watch what do you do with it? You would most likly discover its use, discover how it works, discover different uses of the mechanisms in it. So with this picture i though how dissapointed the watchmaker woud be if you never wanted to know what it did or how it worked. Since the watch in the analogy is usually significant to nature i almost thought that if god gives people nature he must be very dissapointed if no one finds out how it works. Can you truly appreciate the watch unless you looked inside and saw all the gears and springs and weights?
If ID movement wants us to believe in an "Intellegent Designer" how intellegent would a designer be if he created somthign but did not create a way for it to function? Better yet, since the idea that "Sin" is causing the world to decay (or say, move to a higher state of entropy) wouldnt the ID-er want to create a system that addapts to conditions deteriorating from less than perfect? It seems that if a person believes in god it should be somewhat comforting to know that there is a system in place to keep people from randomly flying into the sun. People dont have many problems with the laws of gravity or motion, what makes them acceptable and evolution not? Gravity makes it possible for us to stay attached to earth, it seems like a better explination that "God holds us down". The arguement i have always heard as to why evolution and god are mutually exclusive was that evolution denies the power of god. I am afraid i dont see the equivilance between nature being able to work on its own, and striping god of all power. Does god really need to not only create a universe but sit and constantly bend his will and (assumably) his energy on keeping it from imploding to prove he has power? It seemed to me that evolution could strengthen your belief that the intellegent designer had some intellegence after all.
I know its not a sound thought by any means, but when you are bored at work you tend to daze off and since the evolution/ID debate has been brought up a few times recently it was fresh on my mind to consider.
As for evolution being a pre-requisite of science, or probably more accurately biology and chemestry, i dont really see that not believing in evolution dictates your ability to perform experiments or research data. However if you want to explain the conclusion to your findings "God did it" may work for you, it just wont work for others. In which case your data and experiments would probably be duplicated and have somone else write the explination for it.
quote:If you find a watch in the sand you then would look at it and know there was a watchmaker (paraphrased but im sure youve all heard it before).
Yes, because watches have that distinctive designed-by-an-engineer look that separates them from most things found in nature, inlcuding, don't y'know, living things.
quote:It seemed to me that evolution could strengthen your belief that the intellegent designer had some intellegence after all.
Except for all those bits that don't quite work right, presumably.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though I disagree with the watchmaker analogy, I do like the direction you took it, Ecthalion.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
