What is so offensive about the knowledge??..

[MySavior]

Good night all. Feel free to leave me any messages or suggestions, I will read and consider them all. God Bless

 

[lucaspa]

I have read Darwin' "survival of the favored races", a good bit of Stephen Gould & dabbled in a myriad of other Evil-outioary works, but they all say essentially the same thing & they are all against God & His literal creation; Gould by far one of the most openly virulent writers useing Evilution as a means to deny God.

Really? Did you miss these somehow in Origin of the Species?

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

Also: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.

Can you tell us, Obediah, how these are "against God"?

As for Gould, have you ever read his NOMA essay?

Or better yet, how about this response to Phillip Johnson's book Darwin on Trial

"Johnson encapsulates his major insistence by writing: 'In the broadest sense, a 'creationist' is simply a person who believes the world (and especially mankind) was *designed* and exists for a *purpose*." Darwinism, Johnson claims, inherently and explicitly denies such a belief and therefore constitutes a naturalistic philosophy intrinsically opposed to religion.
"But this is the oldest canard and non sequitor in the debater's book. To say it for all my colleageues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists. ...
"Forget philosophy for a moment; the simple empirics of the past hundred years should suffice. Darwin himself was agnostic (having lost his beliefs upon the tragic death of his favorite daughter), but the great American botanist Asa Gray, who favored natural selection and wrote a book entitled Darwiniana, was a devout Christian. Move forward 50 years: Charles D. Walcott, discoverer of the Burgess Shale fossils, was a convinced Darwinian and an equally firm Christian, who believed that God had ordained natural selection to construct a history of life according to His plans and purposes. Move on another 50 years to the two greatest evolutionists of our generation: G.G. Simpson was a humanist agnostic, Theodosius Dobzhansky a believing Russian Orthodox. Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs -- and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature's factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap."
SJ Gould, Impeaching a self-appointed judge. Scientific American, 267:79-80, July 1992.

Care to point out to us how this is against God?

Or this:

"We live with poets and politicians, preachers and philosophers. All have their ways of knowing, and all are valid in their proper domains. The world is too complex and interesting for one way to hold all the answers." Stephen Jay Gould in the essay "William Jennings Bryan's last campaign" in Bully for Brontosaurus, 1991, pp. 429-430.

"The lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise -- science in the empirical constitution of the universe, and religion in the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives. The attainment of wisdom in a full life requires extensive attention to both domains -- for a great book tells us that the truth can make us free and that we will live in optimal harmony with our fellows when we learn to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly....
"We may, I think, adopt this word [magisterium] and concept to express the central point of this essay and the principled resolution of the supposed 'conflict' or 'warfare' between science and religion. No such conflict should exist because each subject has a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority -- and these magisteria do not overlap [non-overlapping magisterium, or what Gould calls NOMA for short]. The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). " "Evolution and the Church" by Stephen Jay Gould in the March 1997 issue of Natural History.

Now, can you point specifically to something written by Gould that would convince us that your view is correct?

 

[lucaspa]

Hi everyone,

My reading/study of evolution is coming along well. I am learning much! I discussed this with my girlfriend. At first she was very scared. She thought I was telling her Iwanted to be an Atheist. I told her there is still God! I told her I have been talking to a bunch of smart people who are telling me Evolution may be how God did it. She was interested after a while. After I finish reading Origin of Species and Voyages of The Beagle we are going to take them back to the library and check them out again for her. I bet she will catch on very fast. She is much smarter than I am but also was raised YEC. God bless everyone here!!

When you go back to the library, why don't you check out 2 recent books:

Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller
Can a Darwinian be a Christian by Michael Ruse.

Miller says this at the end of his book. Maybe your girlfriend will be interested.

"I find a way [at the end of his class on evolutionary biology] to make it clear that I do not regard evolution, properly understood, as either anti-religious or anti-spiritual. ... There are always a few who find me after class and want to pin me down. Usually they ask me point-blank, 'Do you believe in God.' And one-on-one, I carefully tell them, "Yes" Puzzled, they ask what kind of God? Over the years, I have struggled to come up with a simple but precise answer to that question. Eventually I found it.
"I ask my inquiring students to reread the final chapter of Darwin's On the Origin of Species. ... I hope to make the point that my beliefs do not depend upon a flaw of evidence or logic in The Origin. ... What kind of God do I believe in? I believe in Darwin's God." Finding Darwin's God, pg 291-292.

 

[lucaspa]

Wow, Lucaspa, that is a great quote, and one that I think applies to Young Earth Creationism in general. Here is a strong Christian whose faith is being shaken NOT by a book about an old earth or evolution, but by a YEC book opposing those ideas.

Yeah. The Oomphalos argument really pushed Kingsley over the edge. He was among the first clerics to accept evolution. However, he soon wasn't alone. By 1884 the new Archbishop of Canterbury --Frederick Templeton -- had accepted evolution and that acceptance caused no stir among the Anglican clergy. Only 25 after Darwin first published Origin and Christians had accepted evolution. It would take the scientific community until the 1940s to reach such a consensus.

"It seems something more majestic, more befitting him to whom a thousand years are as one day, thus to impress his will once for all on his creation, and provide for all the countless varieties by this one original impress, than by special acts of creation to be perpetually modifying what he had previously made.'' http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/creation/final-effort.html

 

[lucaspa]

The strange thing to me is that if it has been found to be bad or not true then why are so many people believers and that their is a young earth? Once something is found to be false everyone knows and stops whtever they thought, right? Like a flat Earth??

If you are serious about this there is an essay by Hiram Berry in a book entitled Is God a Creationist? that will answer it. Remember, there is still a Flat Earth Society out there. Not everyone gave up flat Earth.

In short, what creationists have done is tied the statements of ultimate meaning in their lives -- God exists, God created, they are saved -- to a very testable idea about how God created. The statements of ultimate meaning are not testable. But when they are tied to testable ideas, then the trouble begins.

So, if you show that God did not create that way, these people then hear you saying "there is no God because He did not create the way we say He created". That is why they won't give up a young earth.

If you want the longer version I scanned the essay and can either post it or e-mail it to you.

 

[lucaspa]

I do promise to read and try to understand what I am reading, the best I can. If I do have questions, please do not make fun of me. I graduated High School but was not a great student. I am not book smart but enjoy information. I do like to read.

I don't think I am speaking only for myself, but it certainly applies to anything I post. If you don't understand it, keep asking until you do! The point is not to confuse you or overwhelm you, but to explain and discuss.

As to "what you believe", notice that Arikay as an atheist does NOT want you to give up your faith in God. So, your faith and belief in God is not on the table! As Vance said, none of this is a salvation issue. If you walk away from this and have stopped being a Christian, then we as a group of evolutionists have done something wrong.

 

[Brimstone]

Hi! Question..What is so offensive about the knowledge that God did it all?

There is nothing offensive about it. It’s just that “knowledge that God did it all” isn’t really knowledge at all.

 

[lucaspa]

Also-I was reading and watching things from Dr. Ken Hovind. People at church were sharing them and to me he seems very smart. I was reading in the other threads here though that people were laughing. Christians were even laughing. Really Really surprised me. He is a Dr. is he not a smart science person?

I'm afraid not. Hovind uses a fake "Dr." (in Divinity, not science) to try to gain respectability so he can "argue from authority". You are supposed to believe him because he is a Dr. Not because what he says is true when compared to the universe, but because he says it. And it is working with you, isn't it?

The only "authority" in science is the physical universe. Here, I'll give you the best summary of the scientific method I have come across. If you have any questions, be sure to ask:

"...what we learned in school about the scientific method can be reduced to two basic principles.
"1. All our theory, ideas, preconceptions, instincts, and prejudices about how things logically ought to be, how they in all fairness ought to be, or how we would prefer them to be, must be tested against external reality --what they *really* are. How do we determine what they really are? Through direct experience of the universe itself.
2. The testing, the experience, has to be public, repeatable -- in the public domain. If the results are derived only once, if the experience is that of only one person and isn't available to others who attempt the same test or observation under approximately the same conditions, science must reject the findings as invalid -- not necessarily false, but uselss. One-time, private experience is not acceptable." Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, pg. 38.

 

[Bushido216]

Either you are quoting from some online source, or have some amazing typing speed to be able to sit through quoting all these passages from these books.

 

[lucaspa]

OK again if anyone wants to leave a list of books (not to difficult of level I will read them.

Look, if you are reading Darwin we don't have to worry about difficulty level! Darwin was a clear writer for his time but his prose style is long-winded and somewhat stilted now.

OK, here are some books for you if you are interested:

Evolution:
Origin of the Species (of course)
Evolution by Mark Ridley
Evolutionary Biology by Douglas Futuyma. These are textbooks and will tell you everything you wanted to know, and some you had no idea of, about evolution and the evidence behind it.
Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett (ignore Dennett's atheism and concentrate on his discussion of Darwinian selection)

The Biblical Flood: A Case History of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence by Davis A. Young
Genesis and Geology by Gillespie

Evolution/creationism:
Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller Great data refuting the new intelligent design.
Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism by Phillip Kitcher. Good philosophy of science discussion and creationist positions.

Creationism and theology:
Is God a Creationist? edited by Roland Frye. theological problems with creationism

Science and religion:
The Fire in the Equations by Kitty Feguson
Religion and Science by Ian Barbour
The Fourth Day by Howard Van Till

 

[lucaspa]

Either you are quoting from some online source, or have some amazing typing speed to be able to sit through quoting all these passages from these books.

I have my own FAQ files. Did you think TalkOrigins was the only one with them?

 

[Bushido216]

Not anymore...

 

[lucaspa]

There are NO transitional fossils; Stephen Gould readily admitted this & created another theory to explain away the need for the missing fossils.
Pan-spermia is yes the origin theory of alien depositing life on earth; of course it is very scientific u know

Others have put the bodies in the coffins and put the lids on. I'm just going to add a few nails to the coffins.

I have a thread a few pages back listing transitional fossil series. http://www.christianforums.com/t43227

Why don't you post on that thread, read the papers, and show us how they are not transitional series.

From Gould:

"Punctuated equilibrium is neither a creationist idea nor even a non-Darwinian evolutionary theory about sudden change that produces a new species all at once in a single generation. Punctuated equilibrium accepts the conventional idea that new species form over hundreds or thousands of generations and through an extensive series of intermediate changes. But geological time is so long that even a few thousand years may appear as a mere "moment" relative to the several million years of existence for most species. Thus, rates of evolution vary enourmously and new species may appear to arise "suddenly" in geological time, even though the time involved woudl seem long, and the change very slow, when compared to a human lifetime." Stephen J. Gould, Science and Creationism, A view from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd edition, pg 29, 1999. www.nap.edu

"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study [Note: almost never, not never. Again, cases of fine transitions of one species to another are known.].
"For several years, Niles Eldredge ... and I have been advocating a resolution of this uncomfortable paradox. We believe Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield *exactly* what we see in the fossil record."
"Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record.
"All major theories of speciation maintain that splitting takes place rapidly in very small populations. The theory of geographic, or allopatric, speciation is preferred by most evolutionists for most situations (allopatric means 'in another place'). A new species can arise when a small segment of the ancestral population is isolated at the periphery of the ancestral range. Large, stable central populations exert a strong homogenizing influence. New and favorable mutations are diluted by the sheer bulk of the population through which they must spread. They may build slowly in frequency, but changing environments usually cancel their selective value long before they reach fixation. Thus, phyletic transformation in large populations should be very rare - as the fossil record proclaims.
"But small, peripherally isolated groups are cut off from their parental stock. They live as tiny populations in geographic corners of the ancestral range. Selective pressures are usually intense because peripheries mark the edge of ecological tolerance for ancestral forms. Favorable variations spread quickly. Small, peripheral isolates are a laboratory of evolutionary change.
"What should the fossil record include if most evolution occurs by speciation in peripheral isolates? Species should be static through their range because our fossils are the remains of large central populations. In any local area inhabited by ancestors, a descendent species should appear suddenly by migration from the peripheral region in which it evolved. In the peripheral region itself, we might find direct evidence of speciation, but such good fortune would be rare indeed because the event occurs so rapidly in such a small population. Thus, the fossil record is a faithful rendering of what evolutionary theory predicts." SJ Gould, The episodic nature of evolutionary change. In The Panda's Thumb, 1980, pp.179-185.

 

[Cantuar]

Other books on evolution that may be easier for someone without a lot of science background are "Evolution: the Triumph of an idea" by Carl Zimmer, which is the companion book to the PBS TV series Evolution (well worth seeing if you can) and "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr.

In the meantime, if it hasn't been posted already, this is the website for the PBS Evolution series:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

well Darwin said very slowly; Gould in 1980 said in great saltations (as there were no fossil records to support Darwinian theory), saying that for millions of years a dino's layed eggs & dino's hatched then in a great saltation a bird hatched & flew off from the dino egg; this is why the fossil record according to Gould does not show ANY transition fossils!

I'm fed up with pussyfooting round this particular troll. I'm sure Obediah isn't for real; I'm sure a fundamentalist Christian would be able to spell Obadiah.

Obediah - Your statement is a lie. Hence you are a liar. How does it feel to lie for Jesus?

You accuse other Christians of not being "real" Christians. How does it feel to stand in judgement over your brothers and sisters?

You make claims of anti-Christianity from scientists of whom many are Christians. How does it feel to break the Ninth Commandment?

 

[LorentzHA]

Others have put the bodies in the coffins and put the lids on. I'm just going to add a few nails to the coffins.

I have a thread a few pages back listing transitional fossil series. http://www.christianforums.com/t43227

Why don't you post on that thread, read the papers, and show us how they are not transitional series.

From Gould:

"Punctuated equilibrium is neither a creationist idea nor even a non-Darwinian .

Lucaspa-

As usual very interesting. I take posts like this for my own use and study, I thank you for that-and I know others do the same. As far as you posting this for Obediah to read and LEARN from, that may be a mute point. Others have told him many things, here and in other threads -he seems to have an, "evidence be ******" attitide. His posts almost convey, "OK so those are the facts but no one is going to change what I THINK." I guess we have to try though, and I am sure MySavior as well as the rest of us can learn from it. I just hope you are not holding your breath that he (Obediah) is going to "get it". I have not ruled his comprehension of material as an obstacle.

 

[lucaspa]

Lucaspa-

As usual very interesting. I take posts like this for my own use and study,

That's what they are meant for. And perhaps a resource for the next time you encounter the same creationist argument.

Will Obediah learn from it? Probably not. His attitude seems to be as you describe it. However, he is the one that made the claim so he is the one I address the information to.

And if I had been holding my breath for creationists to change their minds, well I would be looking like this by now:

thank you for that-and I know others do the same.

You are all welcome.

I have not ruled his comprehension of material as an obstacle.

That post was addressed to MySavior, if you noticed. Altho the rule applies to Obediah and anyone else. However, it was MySavior who was saying that he had little education in science. I particularly didn't want him to be intimidated and know he is to keep asking until he understands. As you are, too.

My graduate mentor kept telling me: "There are no stupid quesions, only stupid answers."

I found at least one case to disagree with that, but that was extraordinary. The graduate students were taking Physiology with the medical students. They still had dog labs to study cardiology then, so we got into groups, each group with its own dog. The grad students, of course, were all in one group. The instructor told us how to inject pentobarbital into the right femoral vein to anesthetize the dogs. One of the medical students raised his hand and asked whether we shouldn't also inject the left leg to be sure that side of the dog also was anesthetized. The instructor rolled his eyes and said "No, that isn't necessary." One of the Pharmacology grad students went up to the questioner and asked him his name. When it was given, the grad student made a big production of pulling out his notebook and writing the name down. The medical student asked why the grad student wanted his name. The grad student replied loudly so the whole room could hear him: "So I will never have you as my doctor. I don't want any doctor that thinks dogs and people have two separate circulatory systems -- one for the right side and one for the left. I don't want you to ever touch me!"

Now that was a stupid question -- for a medical student!

 

[lucaspa]

Not anymore...

You might want to start your own FAQ files. I'm sure you've noticed that you will encounter the same arguments and claims again and again. It saves a lot of time writing the same refutations again and again.

We educate our creationists one at a time. But that doesn't mean we have to write everything in each post from scratch.

 

[LorentzHA]

We educate our creationists one at a time.

I like it! I can visualize this on a billboard .

I am trying to educate a couple of them myself here in Texas right now. I am using the info I am learning here paired with common sense.

Gotta run, more later.

 

[Bushido216]

You might want to start your own FAQ files. I'm sure you've noticed that you will encounter the same arguments and claims again and again. It saves a lot of time writing the same refutations again and again.

We educate our creationists one at a time. But that doesn't mean we have to write everything in each post from scratch.

That would require reserves of time and patience I don't have.