We’ve been reading Charles Darwin all wrong

[Hans Blaster]

Yes, it is of importance.

Who are you talking to? Me? If you are replying to someone use the "reply" button.

Probably not to you personally, but to me and to others it would be. This is Christian Forums where there are Christians communicating and atheists come, as they may, of course, and they go to a few forums on the site to argue their positions to exclude God and most Christians do not stay at those forums where there is such argument, and atheists remain to argue together that their positions are right, without inclusion of God. Bringing this up again is not against any law, and I would do such not caring who it offends, because I can discuss God being neglected where I see it in discussion in any forum on this Christian Forums site.

Gods are not ignored in science, they are irrelevant. The science of Darwin has nothing to do with your god.

And Darwin himself was making errors. With not giving place to God he made conclusions that were just plain wrong, that selection happening naturally would explain new species, and new genera, and with more time new families, and new orders, and so on, from at least certain of any gene pools. He was quite mistaken. So neo-darwinism came in place of that, with mutations happening enough to provide for an explained evolution. But is that getting closer to truth? You can't know not knowing if God is involved or not. Explanation for what we all have now does not justly exclude God.

When there is even the slightest scintilla of evidence for a god in the evolution of species we'll bother talking about it, until then the religious beliefs of scientsits are irrelevant to their scientific work.

God's purpose for us as our very Maker is something right for us, that is not invasive. Of course we should want things that are right for us.

Also, I should add, your sentences are hard follow and your meaning unclear. I assume this is some sort of religiously soaked cant that makes no sense to the rest of us.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can't know not knowing if God is involved or not.

That was a very long-winded way to say "Because I wanted to reply on this three year old thread".

I thought of you, Warden, as soon as I read this line.

In your belief as a deist, you do know, don't you?

Wouldn't your answer be:

"Yes, I can know: God was not involved."

 

[AV1611VET]

When there is even the slightest scintilla of evidence for a god in the evolution of species we'll bother talking about it,

But he has to be "in the evolution of species" ... right?

If He isn't the god of evolution, then science isn't interested, I take it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I thought of you, Warden, as soon as I read this line.

In your belief as a deist, you do know, don't you?

Wouldn't your answer be:

"Yes, I can know: God was not involved."

Well, since God created everything... then my response to your question of "Wouldn't your answer be:" no.

I just don't accept the literalist approach to the Bible as you and your ilk do, and especially not as you do.

 

[AV1611VET]

I just don't accept the literalist approach to the Bible as you and your ilk do,

I take it you don't accept the theistic evolution approach either.

... and especially not as you do.

Ya -- because I claim no science was involved.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I take it you don't accept the theistic evolution approach either.

Reread the sentence above the one you quoted.

Ya -- because I claim no science was involved.

You also reject reality and make God out to be deceptive. But yeah, sure, let's just go with that.

 

[AV1611VET]

You also reject reality and make God out to be deceptive.

Either that, or I include the kingdom of God as part of reality.

Something science does not.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Either that, or I include the kingdom of God as part of reality.

But you don't though.

Something science does not.

And as I've asked many, many, many times before... HOW can science do that?

 

[AV1611VET]

And as I've asked many, many, many times before... HOW can science do that?

Cause and Effect

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Cause and Effect

Which tells science that there is no way to study God or to factor God into anything scientific.

Fail from you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which tells science that there is no way to study God or to factor God into anything scientific.

Ya ... science is myopic.

I'd say cause-and-effect is about as close as you can come to finding God without having to use your heart.

Fail from you.

Nope.

Science is SOL.

Short on luck.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ya ... science is myopic.

I'd say cause-and-effect is about as close as you can come to finding God without having to use your heart.

And there's the nub.

Nope.

Science is SOL.

Short on luck.

Nope, it's a fail from you. You're SOL.

 

[FredVB]

Who are you talking to? Me? If you are replying to someone use the "reply" button.

Gods are not ignored in science, they are irrelevant. The science of Darwin has nothing to do with your god.

When there is even the slightest scintilla of evidence for a god in the evolution of species we'll bother talking about it, until then the religious beliefs of scientsits are irrelevant to their scientific work.

Also, I should add, your sentences are hard follow and your meaning unclear. I assume this is some sort of religiously soaked cant that makes no sense to the rest of us.

Well, that blasphemy has to be answered, God is most certainly relevant. Even with evolution, nothing would go anywhere, God is needed. Oh, what god? The only explanation for the universe starting, there was the Creator, without there being necessary existence nothing would ever exist. The Creator is the adequate explanation and there is no other adequate explanation.

 

[BCP1928]

Well, that blasphemy has to be answered, God is most certainly relevant. Even with evolution, nothing would go anywhere, God is needed. Oh, what god? The only explanation for the universe starting, there was the Creator, without there being necessary existence nothing would ever exist. The Creator is the adequate explanation and there is no other adequate explanation.

OK. So what?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well, that blasphemy has to be answered, God is most certainly relevant. Even with evolution, nothing would go anywhere, God is needed. Oh, what god? The only explanation for the universe starting, there was the Creator, without there being necessary existence nothing would ever exist. The Creator is the adequate explanation and there is no other adequate explanation.

This is a science section, not a "blasphemy section."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, that blasphemy has to be answered, God is most certainly relevant. Even with evolution, nothing would go anywhere, God is needed. Oh, what god? The only explanation for the universe starting, there was the Creator, without there being necessary existence nothing would ever exist. The Creator is the adequate explanation and there is no other adequate explanation.

Saying "God did it" answers everything and thus answers nothing.

 

[SelfSim]

Well, that blasphemy has to be answered, God is most certainly relevant. Even with evolution, nothing would go anywhere, God is needed. Oh, what god? The only explanation for the universe starting, there was the Creator, without there being necessary existence nothing would ever exist. The Creator is the adequate explanation and there is no other adequate explanation.

You make the error of conflating causation with control. Controlling agents gain self-control via evolution and learning, and this is also how they can control some aspects of themselves and their environment. The causal laws of physics are how we gain that control .. ie: by making use of their predictive capacity.

A 'Creator', is not the only controlling Agent in the Universe .. more like that's just another human model created to deny the evidence of our own causal, self-controlling nature.

 

[FredVB]

Well, that blasphemy has to be answered, God is most certainly relevant. Even with evolution, nothing would go anywhere, God is needed. Oh, what god? The only explanation for the universe starting, there was the Creator, without there being necessary existence nothing would ever exist. The Creator is the adequate explanation and there is no other adequate explanation.

OK. So what?

So what about which thing? I was answering several points.

This is a science section, not a "blasphemy section."

This is Christian Forums. You can talk exclusively about science in here and theories even used as science. But there is not any welcome to blaspheme God or insult faith in God that believers here in these forums have.

Saying "God did it" answers everything and thus answers nothing.

It does answer adequately when we see other things that are supporting faith, and especially what supports Christian faith, and the universe that includes us is exactly with the separate parameters exactly such that enable us and the universe that can permit any life at all, be it ever so rare in the universe. Atheists here have no explanation for how the universe started, so this is our answer that really is good enough. With you not taking it, as most of the atheists here will not, you have nothing.

You make the error of conflating causation with control. Controlling agents gain self-control via evolution and learning, and this is also how they can control some aspects of themselves and their environment. The causal laws of physics are how we gain that control .. ie: by making use of their predictive capacity.

A 'Creator', is not the only controlling Agent in the Universe .. more like that's just another human model created to deny the evidence of our own causal, self-controlling nature.

Causation relates to control. There are the evidences we with faith would see that the necessary existing one is not mindless, unlike us who would inexplicably have minds without adequate cause in that case, but that one that is the causation is intelligent, and caring, and with such even personable, we with faith can see evidence for that. Such one is rightly called God, and could, and would, have involvement in any evolution that ever happened, which I do not debate with the atheists here, for there to ever be so good a world, which with my faith I believe had been a perfect world. There would be such fine tuning called for that would be involved.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This is Christian Forums. You can talk exclusively about science in here and theories even used as science. But there is not any welcome to blaspheme God or insult faith in God that believers here in these forums have.

No one blasphemed your god. Not I or anyone else. The topic is Darwin. That you don't understand that science never works with gods one way or another is not my problem, it's your problem.

 

[AV1611VET]

We’ve been reading Charles Darwin all wrong.

That's okay.

As I understand it, he wrote it wrong.

I mean, after all, he's considered the Father of Evolution in academic circles.

He has a capital named after him, is buried in a prominent cemetery, and has his face on a unit of currency.

And as the slogan goes:

"With a name like Smuckers, it has to be good!"