Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
My Darwin Quote Challenge
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Shadow" data-source="post: 68030513" data-attributes="member: 377228"><p>I think firstly, you have to keep in mind that evolution is not inherently atheist and that there is room for a god of the gaps. Science is based on 'methodological naturalism' which means that we look for naturalistic explanations by the scientific method but do not exclude the possibility of a supernatural cause. The exception is if you are dealing with someone who believes in 'metaphysical naturalism' (more widely known as 'scientific materialism') which specifically excludes the possibility of supernatural causes. It is more than possible to accept evolution and still believe that the universe was ultimately created- but it won't be a <em>biblical </em>account of creation. </p><p>It is fair to say that the social implications of saying 'I am a creationist' do factor into people not questioning the consensus view of evolution. We want to 'fit in' and asking difficult questions which challange the beliefs of our peers and question the authority of science are to say the least 'uncomfortable'. But Science can only develop with dissenting views looking for 'better' explanations. </p><p></p><p>The problem for a creationist is demonstrating that it is <em>more</em> than a 'god of the gaps' and that god is a superior explanation to a naturalistic one. This is not simply saying that evolution is a 'popular' idea, but challanging the beliefs which led to it's popularity in that scientific explanations of the natural world are 'superior' to religious ones in so far as they give us the power to change our surrondings. I remember flicking through a copy of the Origin of Species, and noticed that one of the chapters covered 'domestic selection' which would include the ability of farmers to chose cattle or chickens based on their desirable characteristics (or pigeon fanceirs as I think Darwin kept pigeons to observe how these characteristics changed through the generations). Whereas 'Domestic selection' involved man chosing these characteristics, Darwin developed the theory of 'natural selection' to identify the mechanism by which these characteristics would develop without human interference. </p><p>A creationist has to argue that naturalistic explanations are inadequate and that the advance of science either is an illusion or has limits. The latter is easier as it concerns the possibility of future discoveries which may or may not be made an appeals to the idea that the future is a product of free will and is therefore uncertain and not governed by a natural law which mankind is predisposed to the progressive expansion of scientific knowledge of the world. Once you've done that, people will be more likely to accept God as the primary explanation for understanding the origins of the universe.</p><p>Beyond that, you'd have to argue that the evidence for evolution isn't 'evidence' and why the Bible can therefore constitute evidence for an account of creation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Shadow, post: 68030513, member: 377228"] I think firstly, you have to keep in mind that evolution is not inherently atheist and that there is room for a god of the gaps. Science is based on 'methodological naturalism' which means that we look for naturalistic explanations by the scientific method but do not exclude the possibility of a supernatural cause. The exception is if you are dealing with someone who believes in 'metaphysical naturalism' (more widely known as 'scientific materialism') which specifically excludes the possibility of supernatural causes. It is more than possible to accept evolution and still believe that the universe was ultimately created- but it won't be a [I]biblical [/I]account of creation. It is fair to say that the social implications of saying 'I am a creationist' do factor into people not questioning the consensus view of evolution. We want to 'fit in' and asking difficult questions which challange the beliefs of our peers and question the authority of science are to say the least 'uncomfortable'. But Science can only develop with dissenting views looking for 'better' explanations. The problem for a creationist is demonstrating that it is [I]more[/I] than a 'god of the gaps' and that god is a superior explanation to a naturalistic one. This is not simply saying that evolution is a 'popular' idea, but challanging the beliefs which led to it's popularity in that scientific explanations of the natural world are 'superior' to religious ones in so far as they give us the power to change our surrondings. I remember flicking through a copy of the Origin of Species, and noticed that one of the chapters covered 'domestic selection' which would include the ability of farmers to chose cattle or chickens based on their desirable characteristics (or pigeon fanceirs as I think Darwin kept pigeons to observe how these characteristics changed through the generations). Whereas 'Domestic selection' involved man chosing these characteristics, Darwin developed the theory of 'natural selection' to identify the mechanism by which these characteristics would develop without human interference. A creationist has to argue that naturalistic explanations are inadequate and that the advance of science either is an illusion or has limits. The latter is easier as it concerns the possibility of future discoveries which may or may not be made an appeals to the idea that the future is a product of free will and is therefore uncertain and not governed by a natural law which mankind is predisposed to the progressive expansion of scientific knowledge of the world. Once you've done that, people will be more likely to accept God as the primary explanation for understanding the origins of the universe. Beyond that, you'd have to argue that the evidence for evolution isn't 'evidence' and why the Bible can therefore constitute evidence for an account of creation. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
My Darwin Quote Challenge
Top
Bottom