I'm reading The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth.Science cannot confirm or disconfirm supernatural phenomena. Creationists don’t like that as they think that scientists should just grandfather in stories from the Bible just because they are stories from the Bible. They might have done that in the 1700s but that won’t work now . A scientist nowadays will ask for confirming evidence before they’ll accept phenomena as real
Darwin was an abolitionist and he thought the intellectual differences between the so called races was due to education and culture . A typical of 19th century man of his social class would have thought lower class people weren’t worth listening to . Darwin learned from any one who would teach him . The man who taught him taxidermy was Black. His 19th century classist upbringing showed as he never named him in any of his writings but he did mention him.Trade between Europeans, Middle-Easterns and Africans of goods and people had been going on for centuries before the one to the US. I was not saying it was all based on the belief that one race was superior or on religious grounds. In most cases, it was Africans who sold Africans, so it wasn't being done for either of those reasons but probably purely for money. As in most situations, there are multiple sides to it.
The theory of one race being more evolved was around long before Darwin, Darwin's father wrote on it as well. Often the two views of both science and religion were entwined. Each one bolstered the other.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...e6aef0-5aeb-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html
Darwin simply made it popular
Darwin, race and gender
"he still divided humanity into distinct races according to differences in skin, eye or hair colour. He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy."
He also wrote flattering things about women too.
"the formation of her skull is said to be intermediate between the child and the man” Darwin 1871
It gave people a reason to keep slavery or mistreatment of other races as well as women going for 'real reasons', scientific ones.
Just because the Bible never mentions certain things, does not mean it's unbiblical. Everybody believes in some kind of "science." Science literally means knowledge. With that being said, science that does not conflict with Scripture is profitable. In fact, the Bible IS itself, a scientific book. Take for example, the marine biology, which I study in college. The Bible does say that large sea creature like dolphins and whales, including the one that ate Jonah, and maybe colossal squid, and other large creatures or species of the sea that are not specifically mentioned in the Bible, were all created on the 5th day of creation. But the idea of man evolving from an ape in and of itself contradicts scripture and makes the nature of man and even Jesus connected to slime amoebas."Science" automatically rejects any accounts of supernatural events in the Bible from the outset. That is the philosophy which naturalistic science is founded and built upon.
It seems to me that Christian/Theistic evolutionists tend to reject a supernatural worldview in general. It's not so much a persuasion of evidence, as a general alignment with the modern metaphysical worldview of naturalism.
Darwin was an abolitionist and he thought the intellectual differences between the so called races was due to education and culture . A typical of 19th century man of his social class would have thought lower class people weren’t worth listening to . Darwin learned from any one who would teach him . The man who taught him taxidermy was Black. His 19th century classist upbringing showed as he never named him in any of his writings but he did mention him.
He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy.
Darwin's views on gender, too, were utterly conventional. He stated that the result of sexual selection is for men to be, “more courageous, pugnacious and energetic than woman [with] a more inventive genius. His brain is absolutely larger [...] the formation of her skull is said to be intermediate between the child and the man”
YEC as a scientific reality failed in the mid 1700s when geology started to become more understandable .
I don’t trust creationist sources for info I can look up myself as they have a serious reputation for lying and omitting important details
This is pretty funny because 1700's 'old-earth' Geology was fundamentally wrong about earth history. Even today's mainstream geologists will admit that Uniformitarianism is nonsense. And that pseudoscience was being pushed by evolutionists right up into the mid-20th century.. (see the Missoula Flood controversy)
This is where someone will chime in about the virtues of SCIENCE(tm), in that it is always correcting itself with new evidence. What they don't understand is that the corrections must only be considered if they ultimately conform to the greater metaphysical narrative of natural causes producing the earth and everything in it. That is the way it has always been.
It is no different then the idea of YEC's constantly arguing and debating the causes and mechanisms associated with the global flood of Genesis. They are proceeding exactly the same as Evolutionists, only the YEC's philosophical "box" is a plain reading of Genesis, while the Evolutionists philosophical box is an Earth produced by natural processes. Neither ideological camp is capable of thinking outside of their boxes.
The difference is that YEC's have no problem admitting their metaphysical biases, while Evolutionists will only reluctantly admit their own, and only when you've backed them into a corner on it. However to an unwitting public, Evolution is only presented as an unimpeachable data-driven truth of reality, (which is a total falsehood)
The incorrect creationist version of evolution to a Tee. Sea creatures didn’t evolve into humans . No mainstream biologists will ever tell you that . He’d the real lineagespecificallythe idea of man evolving from an ape in and of itself contradicts scripture and makes the nature of man and even Jesus connected to slime amoebas.
Therefore, the idea that sea creature have evolved into humans is out of the picture. (snip)
.
This is pretty funny because 1700's 'old-earth' Geology was fundamentally wrong about earth history. Even today's mainstream geologists will admit that Uniformitarianism is nonsense. And that pseudoscience was being pushed by evolutionists right up into the mid-20th century.. (see the Missoula Flood controversy)
An extinct lineage of lobefins evolved into fishopods . Some of those fishopod lineages evolved into amphibians . An amphibian lineage evolved into the Reptilomorphan lineage. One of the reptilomorphs lineages ( the synapsida ) evolved into mammals . And mammals evolved into several lineages including Primates. Humans evolved from the great ape lineage.
Darwin was an abolitionist and he thought the intellectual differences between the so called races was due to education and culture . A typical of 19th century man of his social class would have thought lower class people weren’t worth listening to . Darwin learned from any one who would teach him . The man who taught him taxidermy was Black. His 19th century classist upbringing showed as he never named him in any of his writings but he did mention him.
Which ^ is exactly what we mean when we say "evolutionists believe man evolved from seas creatures." Just because we don't use the whole tree, you know very well what we mean.
you know that languages evolve too. What darwin meant by race we would probably call a subspecies. I happily admit that if creationists, flat earthers and geocentists had any evidence for their claims then I would change my mindVery true.
Everyone has a bias, only most won't admit it!
We happily admit our bias is God's word.
Yet, they base everything on a foundational belief themselves... that being science confirms/disconfirms everything.Again mainstream scientists will tell you that they cannot confirm or disconfirm supernatural phenomena. It is out of the realm of science.
Yet, they base everything on a foundational belief themselves... that being science confirms/disconfirms everything.
Science needs to remain within the limits of its expertise then, and not criticize that which it can't comprehend.When it comes to natural phenomena science works to figure out what’s going on . Bronze Age holy books , don’t work so well
I didn't say anything about the supernatural. I said that science's foundational belief is that science confirms and disconfirms everything. But, that can't be proved, so what's the difference in that and belief in the supernatural foundational belief?No, that's common superstition people have about scientists, but it's very false. Scientists will be the first to tell you that science is limited to learning about the physical universe, and cannot even consider the supernatural, either to affirm or deny.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?