Question for Evolutionists

[Sinai]

D. Scarlatti defined a "creationist" as:


A devotee to the discredited notion of special creation. A quibbler in misplaced teleology. A proponent of "intelligent design."

In what manner (and by whom) has the "notion of special creation" been discredited? How does the belief that God created the universe--including our planet--and life on our planet constitute a "misplaced teleology"? Thank you.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by npetreley
The source you provided lists some denominations. You simply made up the rest. Pure evolutionary logic. No need for real evidence, just make up the supporting "facts" as you go.

*shrug*

If you want to believe that most Christians (as opposed to a minority) take Genesis as literally as you and the rest of your pre-enlightenment crowd do, feel free to add that particular belief to your existing panoply of ludicrous superstitions. In fact the minority of Christians continues to shrink in the face of the total population of the planet, so you really are a voice crying out in the wilderness (and a comically whining one at that).

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by Sinai
In what manner (and by whom) has the "notion of special creation" been discredited?

Methodological naturalism and scientists (notably Charles Darwin) respectively.

How does the belief that God created the universe--including our planet--and life on our planet constitute a "misplaced teleology"?

Goaldirectedness is not a necessary component of the study of biology. In fact many argue it has no place in nature at all. It's kind of irrelevant to pontificate upon the goaldirectedness of chemicals simply reacting to physical laws, wouldn't you say? In that sense the teleological assertions made by creationists of various stripes is misplaced.

 

[Raging Atheist]

Originally posted by flyingpenguin
I take the Bible as literal truth. I can't see how you can take it anyother way? I mean, who are you to decide which parts are true and which are false?

And how can you believe a book that has lies in it? I mean, being a Christian means that you put your faith of salvation in Christ. But if the Bible has lies in it...then how can you trust the words of Christ as told by the Bible?

David

EXACTLY!

Sorry, I've had this debate with some Christians who said they didnt take the Bible literally and said it was meant to be interpretted... I told them they weren't real Christians and they didnt like that... finally... a voice of reason... um... kind of...

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by flyingpenguin
It appears that I fit in with the "quaint pre-enlightenment" crowd....which is fine with me. I take the Bible as literal truth. I can't see how you can take it anyother way? I mean, who are you to decide which parts are true and which are false?

God gave me a brain.  Why would he do that if he didn't intend for me to use it?

And how can you believe a book that has lies in it? I mean, being a Christian means that you put your faith of salvation in Christ. But if the Bible has lies in it...then how can you trust the words of Christ as told by the Bible? 

I dunno.  That's a problem for you, not for me.

 

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Raging Atheist

Sorry, I've had this debate with some Christians who said they didnt take the Bible literally and said it was meant to be interpretted... I told them they weren't real Christians and they didnt like that... finally... a voice of reason... um... kind of...

Y'know, if I tell people who study in a field what they should think, and they don't like it... I generally assume I don't understand the field yet.

 

[Raging Atheist]

It was more a Q&A debate between literal followers and interpretive followers... perhaps the equivalent of asking me, "Yes, but because you say, 'Oh, Jesus!' sometimes, doesnt that make you a believer too?"  Which... yes, I was asked... at any rate, I'm no expert, but I think I understand the field....

 

[Didaskomenos]

Raging,
I'm afraid that building up in your mind the picture that all Christians must believe the Bible in a blind literalism is just setting up a straw man that's easy for a lazy atheist to topple. It's a lot harder to ridicule Christianity once you realize that you can't keep punching holes in something most Christians don't believe in.

 

[Raging Atheist]

Originally posted by Didaskomenos
Raging,
I'm afraid that building up in your mind the picture that all Christians must believe the Bible in a blind literalism is just setting up a straw man that's easy for a lazy atheist to topple. It's a lot harder to ridicule Christianity once you realize that you can't keep punching holes in something most Christians don't believe in.

Yes... which is why I differetiate between literal believers and interpreters... like I did above... um, see? *points up*

 

[Didaskomenos]

Oh, you mean here?

Sorry, I've had this debate with some Christians who said they didnt take the Bible literally and said it was meant to be interpretted... I told them they weren't real Christians and they didnt like that... finally... a voice of reason... um... kind of...

 

[Raging Atheist]

I take it you've never instigated a debate by making an assertion?  Doesn't mean I believe it.  Now who is trying to make a straw man...

Do you care to continue nitpicking a post I've already explained twice now, or are you done?

 

[Didaskomenos]

I'm not in the habit of instigating an argument by making bold,rash statements I don't even believe to see if people jump.

I'm done now.

 

[Raging Atheist]

ah... thats your problem... try this on for size... lets say you're talking to your atheist-friend (yes... an atheist-friend... bear with me...) and the topic turns toward religion...

Friend: "So, Christians believe in the bible, right?"
You: "Yeah."
Friend: "But the Bible also says a guy lived inside a whale, you believe that?"
You: "Of course not, its supposed to be interpretted."

Friend: "But who says what is to be interpretted and what isn't?"

You: At this point you would say its either a personal choice or up to an authority, like a priest or pastor of some sort...

Friend: "Thats way too relative.  No wonder there are so many problems.  At least the literal-believers don't have to worry about what your book is actually saying.  They're the real Christians."
You: At this point you role your eyes at the heathen and change the subject...

Now, I would hardly call that brash, but then I'm all about speaking one's mind, so I can see how that might be considered aggressive by some.  But, HEY, you're friends!

 

[Didaskomenos]

Well, to be honest, your post did not read that way. You said, "EXACTLY" and that didn't seem like you were looking for any answers. I have no problem with a good discussion like the one above. However, once you came to the last statement, which sounds like you're determining which are the "real" Christians, I would not roll my eyes, but "nitpick" your false assumption.

It's not quite so hard as all that to find what's literal and what's not. You've just got to want to know. Most of the time it's obvious: when God said that he wanted to gather Israel under his wings, we get the hint that we don't worship a giant cosmic hen. And yes, it does require work - and faith (some literalists exercise it far too little) - to determine what the truth is in any given situation. But then again, Christianity is not for the lazy.

 

[Raging Atheist]

Originally posted by Didaskomenos

It's not quite so hard as all that to find what's literal and what's not. You've just got to want to know. Most of the time it's obvious: when God said that he wanted to gather Israel under his wings, we get the hint that we don't worship a giant cosmic hen. And yes, it does require work - and faith (some literalists exercise it far too little) - to determine what the truth is in any given situation. But then again, Christianity is not for the lazy.

Tsk... a hen... ... Hes obviously a turkey....

 

 

[Didaskomenos]

Well if, to you, God is merely a projection of your own consciousness and ideals - then your god probably is a turkey!

 

[Raging Atheist]

see, now I was trying to be nice... that was a low-blow...

 

[Didaskomenos]

? I was trying to keep the light mood! No offense intended!

::mutters "Turkey"::

 

[Raging Atheist]

Originally posted by Didaskomenos
? I was trying to keep the light mood! No offense intended!

::mutters "Turkey"::

oh... right... ok... um....

YEAH! Well, YOU'RE A TURKEY! ha HA!

 

[Sinai]

D. Scarlatti defined a "creationist" as:
A devotee to the discredited notion of special creation. A quibbler in misplaced teleology. A proponent of "intelligent design."

Sinai then asked:
In what manner (and by whom) has the "notion of special creation" been discredited?

Response by D. Scarlatti: "Methodological naturalism and scientists (notably Charles Darwin) respectively."

Since the Hebrew scriptures relied on by Christians and Jews for the "notion of special creation" (as you phrased it) indicates that God's special creation was a soul for human beings, what portion of the work of "Methodological naturalism and scientists (notably Charles Darwin) respectively" discredits the existance of a soul in human beings?

Sinai also asked:
How does the belief that God created the universe--including our planet--and life on our planet constitute a "misplaced teleology"? Thank you.

D. Scarlatti responded: "Goaldirectedness is not a necessary component of the study of biology. In fact many argue it has no place in nature at all. It's kind of irrelevant to pontificate upon the goaldirectedness of chemicals simply reacting to physical laws, wouldn't you say? In that sense the teleological assertions made by creationists of various stripes is misplaced."

I agree that science often does not attempt to speculate as to whether something caused something else to happen. For example, proponents of the Big Bang theory may believe that there was a definite beginning of our universe--but may be silent as to what (or Who) caused that beginning to occur--or where the energy or matter that comprises the universe came from. I don't have a problem with science being silent on such points. But I also don't see that it is a "misplaced teleology" for religion to attempt to fill in such gaps by asserting a belief that it was God that caused the beginning to occur and that He created the universe.