Poll about evolutionary science

[eldermike]

Werner Von Braun (1912-1977), the father of space science, wrote: "...the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

Thi sums it up for me. Good science acknowledges God, good Theology acknowledges the advances in science.

Where is my answer? Depends on your view of evolution science's role in disproving God.

 

[Morat]

Where is my answer? Depends on your view of evolution science's role in disproving God.

  Could you point out where the Theory of Evolution disproves God? Or even mentions God? I mean, I hear that a lot, but in all my searching through biology textbooks, I don't find God anywhere.

   Now, you might claim that God's absence from evolution is evidence of this 'disproof', but God doesn't show up in my chemistry texts, my physics texts, my geology texts or any of my science textbooks.

   It's almost as if science doesn't talk about God at all. Weird that, huh?

 

 

[blader]

I'm really curious who are the two people who chose "deliberate deception and conspiracy."

 

[eldermike]

Now, you might claim that God's absence from evolution is evidence of this 'disproof', but God doesn't show up in my chemistry texts, my physics texts, my geology texts or any of my science textbooks

He made them all.

 

[FordPrefect]

Evasion!

 

[eldermike]

I posted but did not vote. There is no choice for "it depends"

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by eldermike
This sums it up for me. Good science acknowledges God,

Wrong. The accuracy of science cannot be determined by emotion, philosophy, politics, or religion. Good science cannot be judged on the basis of wheather it acknowledges God or not. The Catholic church tried that 500 years ago. It didn't work then; it doesn't work now.

Where is my answer? Depends on your view of evolution science's role in disproving God.

Science can neither disprove nor prove the supernatural. It is faith neutral. Now if you believe that the supernatural does "something" in the natual world, science can address that "something." It just can address the supernatural.

 

[franklin]

Evolution is the big fairy tale for adults!  The evolutionist's magic wand is rooted in time. Fairy tales come in many forms and many accept mere theories and speculations as a scientific fact and they think that God's word is to be tested by the teachings of "science falsely so called" (1 Tim.6:20). 

 

 

[FordPrefect]

and the creationists "magic wand" is god.

Fairy tales do come in a few forms, they are one form of myth, which come in many forms....

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by franklin
Evolution is the big fairy tale for adults!

+6 Troll Points

The evolutionist's magic wand is rooted in time.

+2 Troll Points (sucessful Two-point conversion)

Fairy tales come in many forms and many accept mere theories and speculations as a scientific fact and they think that God's word is to be tested by the teachings of "science falsely so called" (1 Tim.6:20). 

+6 Troll Points (PAT failed)
-----------
Total: +14 Troll Points

 

[franklin]

Originally posted by FordPrefect
and the creationists "magic wand" is god.

Fairy tales do come in a few forms, they are one form of myth, which come in many forms....

If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a handsome prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the frog takes 40 million years to turn into a prince, we call it evolution.  

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by franklin
If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a handsome prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the frog takes 40 million years to turn into a prince, we call it evolution.  

Strawman: +2 Troll Points

Evolution never says that one organism turns into another organism, no matter how much time is involved. Evolution is about descent with modification. Populations evolve, individuals don't. Furthermore, evolutionary mechanisms are well understood and investigated and are nothing kin to "a fair maiden's kiss."

 

[franklin]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Strawman: +2 Troll Points

Evolution never says that one organism turns into another organism, no matter how much time is involved. Evolution is about descent with modification. Populations evolve, individuals don't. Furthermore, evolutionary mechanisms are well understood and investigated and are nothing kin to "a fair maiden's kiss."

OK Rufus, Let me ask you some questions then about this fairy tale you call a theory...... What is life? Is it just having the right combinations of proteins in just the right order? Is a man nothing more than a collection of substances and chemicals that happened to somehow `become alive`?  Did the human race just come about by accident or the big bang!  Or did a monkey break his tale, fall out of a tree and turn into a man? 

 

[euphoric]

Originally posted by franklin
OK Rufus, Let me ask you some questions then about this fairy tale you call a theory...... What is life? Is it just having the right combinations of proteins in just the right order? Is a man nothing more than a collection of substances and chemicals that happened to somehow `become alive`?  Did the human race just come about by accident or the big bang!  Or did a monkey break his tale, fall out of a tree and turn into a man? 

Complete and utter ignorance of evolutionary theory:  I propose an additional +7 troll pointsbe added to franklin's score.

 

And perhaps an additional +6 troll points for sounding remarkably like an ICR pamphlet.

-brett

 

[Chris H]

Franklin, as a committed evangelical Christian I admire your enthusiasm. I'd be glad to go to church with you and kneel at the alter and pray any time. Wouldn't mind sitting in a bible study and going over God's word in depth either.

As a fan of science I deplore your lack of knowledge. This is not meant as a personal attack but a word of encouragement. Why not go to the library and find out how evolution actually works? If you have legitimate criticism of the theory or questions, post them here. I love a good debate or discussion on this issue.

Hundreds of thousands of trained scientists around the world, including Christian scientists, use evolution every day. It is perhaps one of the most widely documented and best developed of all scientific theories. Do you really think your going to demolish it with a few quotes that don't accurately refect evolutionary science.

With Christian love as a Christian brother

Chris

 

[Sky]

Frankiln,

Please do not attack something you don't understand. This is not an attack on you, just a suggestion to find out more about evolution before you attack it.

 

[chickenman]

franklin learned all he needs to know from someone who knows very little;

dr dino

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by FordPrefect
Well, I tried, and what it did to me was cause me to start on the path towards atheism... I still don't fully understand QP, nor do I fully understand the implications, but I saw enough.

Did you know where your towel was at the time?

On a more serious note, quantum physics actually reopened the door for God to act in the world. Newtonian determinism had many people convinced that God created the world then left it to run on its own. Because quantum mechanics are probable rather than definite, God could act without breaking the laws of physics or even always being noticed. The same happened for free will.

Seeing how much evolution gets distorted in the popular mind, I'm glad that a pop-science version of it hasn't taken hold. It has too many wierd implications that people could insert their own without the public at large noticing.

 

[eldermike]

Wrong. The accuracy of science cannot be determined by emotion, philosophy, politics, or religion. Good science cannot be judged on the basis of wheather it acknowledges God or not. The Catholic church tried that 500 years ago. It didn't work then; it doesn't work now.

Rufus,

I am not suprised that you totally missed my point. I didn't mention anything about proof of God. God requires no proof. What Mr Braun said and I agreed with is that the scientist that dosn't acknowledge the presence of God should be considered as a Theologian who argues against science.

So, to me, your assertion that science cannot be judged in this manner is like saying we must overlook an important issue, that science can reject something as easy to see as God and then asks us to see what ammounts to a 100 story building, that is currently only 3 or 4 bricks, hanging in the sky.

Mr Braun makes a very good point, I would not discount it so quickly. I believe it calls for some serious thought.

Werner Von Braun (1912-1977), the father of space science, wrote: "...the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

Blessings

 

[blader]

Originally posted by franklin
Or did a monkey break his tale, fall out of a tree and turn into a man? 

Yup. That's evolution for ya! Monkeys falling out of trees!