Orthodox Church and the reading of book of Genesis

[Montalban]

Because the courts have ruled that religion in schools is illegal...

Intelligent Design, in principle advocates an intelligent designer, not who/what that designer is.

Most believe it's God.

It could be a hyper-intelligent super-computer

Or, aliens
Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design

 

[Incariol]

Intelligent Design, in principle advocates an intelligent designer, not who/what that designer is.

Most believe it's God.

It could be a hyper-intelligent super-computer

Or, aliens

I know, it could be, but the courts recognized that in the USA at least, it was just a Creationist Trojan horse.

Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design

Dawkins was speaking hypothetically, since the interview was conducted under false pretenses, the poor man.

 

[Montalban]

We don't read books written by toll-house heretics around here

Whilst I don't agree with him on toll-houses (Azkoul gives a good counter-argument), not everything the late Fr Seraphim Rose is to be taken as gospel.

And he's not a heretic if it's not defined as heresy

 

[Montalban]

I know, it could be, but the courts recognized that in the USA at least, it was just a Creationist Trojan horse.

Fortunately the US courts aren't the ultimate arbiter of truth

Dawkins was speaking hypothetically, since the interview was conducted under false pretenses, the poor man.

He may well be, but Francis Crick wasn't. But the point is still made, that the "Intelligence" doesn't have to be God.

 

[Incariol]

Fortunately the US courts aren't the ultimate arbiter of truth

I know, but I think they were correct in the particular instance of that case in Kentucky or wherever it was.

He may well be, but Francis Crick wasn't. But the point is still made, that the "Intelligence" doesn't have to be God.

Very true, it just isn't often presented that way.

 

[Montalban]

I know, but I think they were correct in the particular instance of that case in Kentucky or wherever it was.

I meant that they don't apply to us here in Oz.

This being an international forum; when talking about courts making decisions, they don't apply to many on this forum. Certainly we share a common law system and our courts can have a 'persuasive effect' on each other.

Very true, it just isn't often presented that way.

I agree. I think most proponents are Christian. Most seem to be evangelical Christian, in particular (Behe is a very notable exception).

Also, a search for intelligence is part of science –forensic scientists – all look for intelligence behind what might otherwise be 'natural' occurances.

Others include those involved with SETI, and cryptographers.

 

[Joshua G.]

winking face or not, you should be ashamed to say that about a holy man.

I don;t think he was saying that for real. I think he was caricaturizing people who get up in arms over the so-called contraversy. I agree he should be ashamed if he truly believes those who believe in Toll-Houses to be heretics, but I didn't get that from his post.

 

[Joshua G.]

If one goes deep enough, I agree. I think though, that most people don't need to approach the issue close enough to worry about it.

I think this is an important point to make. When it comes down to it, I'm not a scientist which I why I don't attempt to argue with other people's science. I have seen too many bad scientific arguments that even I could pick out from armchair scientists in order to prove or disprove their idea to want to join in that silly game. I learn from science unless I don't get it anymore and if does not match up with my faith (or I learn later that it doesnt) then I reject it and my faith remains intact.

I have learned from many people's posts here, but I think that you, proto have done the best at standing your ground while respecting people's faith and not being alarmist. That also helps others open their minds to what youre saying.

Thanks.

Josh

 

[jckstraw72]

I don;t think he was saying that for real. I think he was caricaturizing people who get up in arms over the so-called contraversy. I agree he should be ashamed if he truly believes those who believe in Toll-Houses to be heretics, but I didn't get that from his post.

he spelled it out further in a second post, but edited it after i made my post.

 

[Protoevangel]

and i especially like when evolutionists themselves speak openly and honestly about the insufficiency of the theory:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - leading geneticist Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," in the New York Review of Books, Jan. 9, 1997, pp. 28, 31

and, call me crazy, but i think this one is a good glimpse into the prime motivator behind evolution:

That was a wonderful quote. What's wrong with it?

are you even actually a Christian?

lol. Really?

if you cant see whats wrong with intentionally accepting and teaching faulty science for the sake of justifying atheism, then yes, really. i have no reason to believe you're anything other than a troll. and your faith icon doesnt show that you are Orthodox sooo im not sure you should even be debating in here. normally i dont care about that, but you have done nothing but antagonize in this thread.

You haven't given any reason for it to be considered faulty science.

Incariol,

The quote itself admits to accepting faulty science for the sake of denying "a Divine Foot in the door".

This is the esssnce of anti-Orthodoxy; anti-Christianity. This is what you called "wonderful". Given that, I completely understand jckstraw's concern.


EDIT: In the fever of the argument, I can easily see how one could have missed the implications in the quote. You don't actually accept materialism, not allowing "a Divine Foot in the door", do you?

 

[Joshua G.]

Precisely. One of the effects of scientific advancement is greater technologies and larger data sets that allow more consensus. Over the past thirty years, the weight of evidence behind evolution has grown quite nicely.

But Incariol, when you take a quote like this (that is almost too good to be true, because it so well defines and packages the entire problem with the scientific community):

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - leading geneticist Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," in the New York Review of Books, Jan. 9, 1997, pp. 28, 31

Do you see the problem with what you've said. Of COURSE science backs it up because sometime ago it was decided that this is fact and you don't question it if you want to be considered somewhat intelligent and worthy of a job or grant in science or getting published in anything of notoriety. "the weight of evidence behind evolution has grown quite nicely" because it HAS to.

Since the reformation the weight of evidence behind SS within protestant communities can also be said to have "grown quite nicely" because it has to.

Materialism demands that there is no God or divine cause of anything, certainly not any unnatural beginning. If you go with that then they have to keep digging back and back, further and further andmake up more theories that fit into their evolutionary box that THEY have nailed themselves into. Evolution is assumed by the powers that be. The only data they will accept is data that proves their dogma: evolution. It might tweak the theory or often an alternative theory of evolution, but not by anything that is significant for this conversation.

I don't remember if I said it in this forum, but it seems there is not any difference between the Christian fundamentalist point of view on origins and the evolutionary point of view. They are both dogmatic. They both look for science to fit their dogma. However, the Christian fundamentalist doesn't hide this. The Evolutionary "Scientist" does because he calls himself a scientist yet is just as blindly dogmatic. Which is more sincere and which is in a better spot.

By the way, I am not saying that one must fall in either of two categories. I am also not saying that Evolution is false BECAUSE of the corruption and deceit of the scientific community. It may be shown false for other reasons (scientific or otherwise) but bad behavior and improper method does not make a conclusion false. It does, however, make a conclusion very suspect... and hardly anything we could actually call a conclusion.

 

[Dorothea]

I wonder what mess you are referring to? I found myself there a couple of times in the early 2,000s before my own conversion...

Ben Lomond Crisis - OrthodoxWiki

 

[Dorothea]

Ben Lomond Crisis - OrthodoxWiki

Oops, just saw this, scrolling down reading. Sorry for the duplicate.

 

[Montalban]

We need a morality to guide us in how to apply science.

During WWII the Nazis did some science involving how far people could tolerate cold.

After the war the science was gathered and it was decided that although it could be called 'good' science - in that it was useful, the way the data was gathered (on concentration camp inmates) that they would not use the science.

From a purely utilitarian view point, one might argue that the damage having now been done, we should use that science for the 'greater good'.

I'm glad that they didn't use the science.

The over-arching governing belief system was a moral viewpoint

 

[rusmeister]

Allusions appear to have been made to the Scopes Monkey Trial. I think this essay by a man who was living at the time to be relevant to the general discussion. When the author is GKC, one of the greatest minds of our time, it becomes downright fascinating. And i think it points to the cause of why we have such firm religious belief in evolution today.

Compulsory Education and the Monkey Trial

Reading GKC always raises one's intellect. I always learn something I didn't know and am forced to think about something new. It keeps me from smugness about what I think I know.

 

[Incariol]

Incariol,

The quote itself admits to accepting faulty science for the sake of denying "a Divine Foot in the door".

This is the esssnce of anti-Orthodoxy; anti-Christianity. This is what you called "wonderful". Given that, I completely understand jckstraw's concern.


EDIT: In the fever of the argument, I can easily see how one could have missed the implications in the quote. You don't actually accept materialism, not allowing "a Divine Foot in the door", do you?

I certainly do in science, which is what I think the quote is talking about. On second reading, yes, it does seem more ambiguous. He could be talking about an overall worldview of being against theism, but I think he only means in regards to science.

I think this because I know that despite what a random out of context quote would seem to indicate, scientists actually aren't part of some hateful atheistic conspiracy to destroy Christianity.

Or if we are, I, and nobody I know or have spoken to has gotten the memo.

 

[jckstraw72]

I certainly do in science, which is what I think the quote is talking about. On second reading, yes, it does seem more ambiguous. He could be talking about an overall worldview of being against theism, but I think he only means in regards to science.

I think this because I know that despite what a random out of context quote would seem to indicate, scientists actually aren't part of some hateful atheistic conspiracy to destroy Christianity.

Or if we are, I, and nobody I know or have spoken to has gotten the memo.

if youre not even sure if he's talking about an overall worldview or just science then you dont know that the quote is out of context

 

[Incariol]

if youre not even sure if he's talking about an overall worldview or just science then you dont know that the quote is out of context

No, just strangely hesitant to automatically believe the worst of people when there is a perfectly reasonable alternative, and cognizant of the fact that burden of proof for showing that the quote is in context doesn't rest with me.

 

[Joshua G.]

I certainly do in science, which is what I think the quote is talking about. On second reading, yes, it does seem more ambiguous. He could be talking about an overall worldview of being against theism, but I think he only means in regards to science.

I think this because I know that despite what a random out of context quote would seem to indicate, scientists actually aren't part of some hateful atheistic conspiracy to destroy Christianity.

Or if we are, I, and nobody I know or have spoken to has gotten the memo.

I don't like partial quotes either, without reference which this has. Look it up. I actually read the whole thing today thinking it would give more context to the purposeof the text. It did of course. BUt it becomes very very clear that he is not at all soft on religion. He is very much against a belief in God and I am confident he would say as much to your face ifyou asked him because he says that numerous times here. In fact, he expresses that Sagan, a fellow atheist, is much to tolerant on the subject. I could quote you parts, but it would just be quote bombing. Just read it. It's like a 20 minute read. He is not a friend of Christianity by any means and he would readily adn confidently admit that.

 

[jckstraw72]

thanks Joshua