Why Theistic Evolution Does not "fit".

[hsilgne]

Not just my opinion.

http://amasci.com/freenrg/evolv.txt




God bless,
Eddie

Thanks - Great Link!

 

[japhy]

In The Problem of Pain (chapter 5, "The Fall of Man") C. S. Lewis constructed his own personal origin myth reconciling the evolutionary depiction of human biological development with the Biblical account of the Fall. I found it very interesting to read, and my personal view is similar to the story he developed.

 

[Mallon]

See what I mean?

Seriously, the stench of arrogance here is becoming overwhelming.

What's more arrogant, hsilgne? The fact that some here are better trained in the evolutionary sciences than you and are therefore better qualified to judge its merits? Or, the fact that you think your opinion is of equal value with those who dedicated four years of their lives to earn a science degree?

Just wondering though, how do you clasify those that have earned their PHD in biochemstry who are proponents to creationism?

Non-scientists. I don't know of one PhD creationist who has continued to publish peer-reviewed science papers since devoting themselves to the creation ministry. Do you?
Creationism isn't science. Period. By definition, it can't be.

Is it they cheated their way through university to earn that PHD? They "really just don't understand" like they would if they were as "intellegent and educated as YOU"?

Not at all. Many creationists are intelligent. Behe did some excellent work way back when. But his new attempt to cram God into the (decreasingly) poorly understood complexities of the cell is not just bad science, it's bad theology.

Look, there are intelligent UNEDUCATED people - deal with it.

I agree. I'm not calling you an idiot. I just question your ability to judge the merits of evolution, not having had any training in the science yourself. Some of the things you have said so far would not be said by someone who understands what evolution is. I'm sorry if this offends you. I don't think you're stupid.

Now keep in mind this is only coming from an uneducated clueless layman who has an audacity to look at available evidence and form an oppinion.

You're more than entitled to an opinion. Just don't mistake it as being fully-informed. There's a reason why increased education leads to increased acceptance of the theory of evolution. And no, it has nothing to do with brainwashing or pride.

 

[hsilgne]

What's more arrogant, hsilgne? The fact that some here are better trained in the evolutionary sciences than you and are therefore better qualified to judge its merits? Or, the fact that you think your opinion is of equal value with those who dedicated four years of their lives to earn a science degree?

ar·ro·gant

/ˈær

ə

gənt/

–adjective making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud:

I assumed everyone, including you, knew the definition of arrogance.

Did you skip English class? Too busy in the science room?
See? There's an example for you to grasp. Some evidence for your scientifically briallant mind. I just made an arogant statement. Shall I explain further? Let me know.

I think everyone else can judge for themselves, the arrogant statements being made here as well.

Peace.

 

[Mallon]

I assumed everyone, including you, knew the definition of arrogance.

Did you skip English class? Too busy in the science room?
See? There's an example for you to grasp. Some evidence for your scientifically briallant [sic] mind. I just made an arogant [sic] statement. Shall I explain further? Let me know.

It's funny because you accused me of skipping English class and then posted this.
Still, you didn't really answer my first question...

 

[Parmenio]

I would not deign to give my opinions in an oncology center with the expectation that they be taken seriously by any of the doctors working there, regardless as to how much I'd read on the intertubes. Because they have very special training in that area, and their opinion is worth more than mine. In fact, people pay very good money for their opinions. It is no less so for scientists. If you have a doctoral candidate in a field of biochemistry, I would be more willing to take his word on something related to biochemistry, than a doctoral candidate in Civil War history. All because of training. You want to assert that everyone has the same ability to make scientific judgments, regardless to previous training in scientific fields.

 

[Assyrian]

You obviously have not been reading my posts. Even though God is not mentioned in some scientific paper or journal, what is the point of science? It is used to cure and to kill. It is also used for propaganda purposes. Karl Marx liked Darwin's ideas.

Voltaire really liked Newton's gravitational theory. He used it to argue against the existence of the soul. So what? Just because the enemies of Christianity use science to back up their arguments doesn't make the science wrong.

Originally Posted by Mallon
What's more arrogant, hsilgne? The fact that some here are better trained in the evolutionary sciences than you and are therefore better qualified to judge its merits? Or, the fact that you think your opinion is of equal value with those who dedicated four years of their lives to earn a science degree?

I assumed everyone, including you, knew the definition of arrogance.

Did you skip English class? Too busy in the science room?
See? There's an example for you to grasp. Some evidence for your scientifically briallant mind. I just made an arogant statement. Shall I explain further? Let me know.

I think everyone else can judge for themselves, the arrogant statements being made here as well.

Peace.

Luke 6:40 A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher.

How is it arrogant to think that someone who has been trained in a subject knows more about it than someone who doesn't have any training? You will have to take that one up with the master

 

[hsilgne]

It has been said here in this thread, that a true scientist does not include God in his investigation.

It seems to me, a scientist, in particular a Christian scientist, would do well to include God in all his reasoning.

I mean if you're Christian, you believe there is a God, a creator, so why would you remove that from your reasoning?

How is it arrogant to think that someone who has been trained in a subject knows more about it than someone who doesn't have any training?

It's not so much this "thought", it's the condescending delivery.

Matt. 23: 11 - 12
The greatest among you must be your servant.
Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Luke 6:40 A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher.

Scripture is awesome. Thank you for sharing that. We can learn so much from scripture. Here is some more to contemplate....

Romans 1: 20 - 22
Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools

1 Cor. 1: 25 - 27
For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. Consider your own calling, brothers. Not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong,

 

[KerrMetric]

It seems to me, a scientist, in particular a Christian scientist, would do well to include God in all his reasoning.

I mean if you're Christian, you believe there is a God, a creator, so why would you remove that from your reasoning?

Would you tell me how I write that in a paper and communicate to the atheist/agnostic/Hindu etc etc scientists who need to read my work and either replicate it or build from it?

I've never found the formula for God to put down in an equation - have you?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It seems to me, a scientist, in particular a Christian scientist, would do well to include God in all his reasoning.

I mean if you're Christian, you believe there is a God, a creator, so why would you remove that from your reasoning?

not from the reasoning, but from the final product, the papers, the books, the speeches. It is an accommodation to the group, science for very good reasons doesn't allow supernatural explanations into it's chain of cause-effect reasoning. As KM aptly notes, his output is addressed to many different people, it is to their sensitivities that he doesn't anchor everything he says and does into Godtalk. It doesn't mean he does use the things he has learned from Scripture in his work, it means that he doesn't footnote: God did it. as a scientific explanation.

 

[KerrMetric]

As KM aptly notes, his output is addressed to many different people, it is to their sensitivities that he doesn't anchor everything he says and does into Godtalk. It doesn't mean he does use the things he has learned from Scripture in his work, it means that he doesn't footnote: God did it. as a scientific explanation.

It's not even the sensitivities as much as the fact it would render my writings unscientific and unable to be used in a scientific investigation.

Non-scientists don't seem to realise that the "God did it" would kill pretty much all science and ergo the technological fruits. That is why intelligent people oppose ID in science class. It would kill the concept of scientific investigation for Christians as well as everyone else.

 

[withreason]

Not at all. Many creationists are intelligent. Behe did some excellent work way back when. But his new attempt to cram God into the (decreasingly) poorly understood complexities of the cell is not just bad science, it's bad theology.

Statements such as this ; is the example of the arrogance of your educated mind, “decreasingly poorly understood complexities” it is the work of such men as Behe , “cramming God as you say”, that have set the Ground work for exploring these complexities, whether deemed un-scientific, by his peers or not, pragmatism, seems to be quite selective when a” suggestive” infringement to evolution is introduced in explorations of those complexities, how does the Scientific mind gain understanding without the exhaustive explorations of all purposed theory? When your evolutionary peers label such work as un-scientific, closing the door on exhaustive exploration, you close the door on your own advancement of knowledge.
And then sit back and ridicule those that desire to understand those “decreasingly poorly understood complexities’ as you have stated, and ...of course, I have not read” Darwins Black Box” as you eloquently have pointed out, and, of course….without a PHD, I must be a moron!

 

[hsilgne]

I've never found the formula for God to put down in an equation - have you?

And you won't. So does that mean you remove it from your reasoning? As a Christian brother, I would sure hope not.

not from the reasoning, but from the final product, the papers, the books, the speeches. It is an accommodation to the group, science for very good reasons doesn't allow supernatural explanations into it's chain of cause-effect reasoning. As KM aptly notes, his output is addressed to many different people, it is to their sensitivities that he doesn't anchor everything he says and does into Godtalk. It doesn't mean he does use the things he has learned from Scripture in his work, it means that he doesn't footnote: God did it. as a scientific explanation.

Science is about finding the truth - right? So, as a Christian and a believer in God, what do you care that your peers will ridicule your findings, when you know it's truth? Are you afraid of what they will think and say about you? If so, have you considered what God will say?

It's not even the sensitivities as much as the fact it would render my writings unscientific and unable to be used in a scientific investigation.

Non-scientists don't seem to realise that the "God did it" would kill pretty much all science and ergo the technological fruits. That is why intelligent people oppose ID in science class. It would kill the concept of scientific investigation for Christians as well as everyone else.

Again, what do you care? As long as you are presenting the truth? Isn't that the most important thing?

BTW... I do appreciate that your recent responses are done with some respect.

It's when people have the attitude "you are incapable of understanding me" for whatever reason, that is, IMO - an attitude of arrogance.

 

[Mallon]

It has been said here in this thread, that a true scientist does not include God in his investigation.

It seems to me, a scientist, in particular a Christian scientist, would do well to include God in all his reasoning.

Seems some explaining is in order...
When you're reading a bike repair instruction manual, you will very likely note a distinct lack of appeal to the divine. Nowhere in the instructions will it say, "Step 3: Insert allen wrench into wheel axle and pray for God to tighten the bolt." That would be useless.
Similarly, in science, we do not rely on God to solve our problems for us. When God created the universe, He set it up so that it would operate according to natural cause-effect relationships. When a photon of light enters my eye and hits my retina, this causes the neurons at the back of my eye to fire action potentials which travel to my brain, resulting in my perception of light. Note that, despite the complexity of this system (I left out many steps for simplicity), I did not defect to God's magic to explain the human perception of light. God set up a universe that is internally-consistent and does not require magic to make it run. It operates according to a finite set of natural laws.
But none of this is to say that scientists must deny God. You can't tell one way or another whether the author of the bike manual accepts Christ as his saviour. The natural methodology of science, the processes of uncovering the cause-effect relationships God embedded in the universe, does not prevent one from ultimately believing in God as the Ultimate Cause. But I can see no better reason for believing God directly causes the flagellar motor to run than for believing He turns the engine in my car when I twist the key. God's creation is natural; God is supernatural.
Expecting God to fill the temporary gaps in our knowledge in the universe is just lazy thinking, and dangerous theology.

 

[Mallon]

Statements such as this ; is the example of the arrogance of your educated mind, “decreasingly poorly understood complexities” it is the work of such men as Behe , “cramming God as you say”, that have set the Ground work for exploring these complexities, whether deemed un-scientific, by his peers or not, pragmatism, seems to be quite selective when a” suggestive” infringement to evolution is introduced in explorations of those complexities, how does the Scientific mind gain understanding without the exhaustive explorations of all purposed theory? When your evolutionary peers label such work as un-scientific, closing the door on exhaustive exploration, you close the door on your own advancement of knowledge.

Translation, please.

And then sit back and ridicule those that desire to understand those “decreasingly poorly understood complexities’ as you have stated, and ...of course, I have not read” Darwins Black Box” as you eloquently have pointed out, and, of course….without a PHD, I must be a moron!

Again, not having a PhD doesn't make you a moron. I said that previously here:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30954275&postcount=203
But it does make you unqualified to judge the merits of something you have not dedicated yourself to understanding.
I may have studied the Bible for the better part of my life, but I don't pretend for a moment that I am qualified as a pastor! I respect the many years of hard work that real pastors put into their studies. For me to pretend that my opinion on the subject of, say, Christ's divinity is as informed as theirs would be highly arrogant.

 

[KerrMetric]

And you won't. So does that mean you remove it from your reasoning? As a Christian brother, I would sure hope not.

But where do I put God in my reasoning as to why molecular opacities calculated in a certain prescription are important to my calculation of radiative transfer in a planetary atmosphere?

Science is about finding the truth - right? So, as a Christian and a believer in God, what do you care that your peers will ridicule your findings, when you know it's truth? Are you afraid of what they will think and say about you? If so, have you considered what God will say?

Technical papers are for technical analysis and understanding. It's not a case of ridicule it's a case that it brings nothing to the discussion at hand.

Seems to me that to put God in such a discussion makes it not a work of science but of an appeal to divine explanation that is untestable and unable to produe results. This is supposedly physics not metaphysics.

Again, what do you care? As long as you are presenting the truth? Isn't that the most important thing?

Yes - but the scientific truth does not require me to go off on a God did it rant.

It's when people have the attitude "you are incapable of understanding me" for whatever reason, that is, IMO - an attitude of arrogance.

The problem is that most lay people don't understand the science yet they put their two cents in as to why the science is crap. That is the arrogance present in these discussions.

 

[withreason]

Translation, please.

Again, not having a PhD doesn't make you a moron. I said that previously here:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30954275&postcount=203
But it does make you unqualified to judge the merits of something you have not dedicated yourself to understanding.
I may have studied the Bible for the better part of my life, but I don't pretend for a moment that I am qualified as a pastor! I respect the many years of hard work that real pastors put into their studies. For me to pretend that my opinion on the subject of, say, Christ's divinity "is as informed as theirs would be highly arrogant.

again....you feel in your lable contains within it, the right to exclusion. at the risk of overlooking possibillties of advancement, only do to the merits of your own standards.
Study of the Bible without achieving a Doctorate, or siminary degree, does indeed give you the right to pastor!...it is your duty to do so upon the need of the moment, it would be a neglect of faith to not pastor upon need!
Knowledge is not retestricted to a class Mr Malon; it is embeded within us to seek and assume, if we as "creationist's" without PHDs, (as many gave up there acadimic goals shortly after conversion,) do not take the liberty to continue to excorsise there understanding outside of the limits of the Scientific acadamy, there would be no diversity! there would be an automaton stranglehold on knowledge.
I would think the patterns dictated by history would show a clear example of that risk!

 

[Mallon]

I am sorry, withreason, but for the life of me I cannot understand what you are trying to say. Can you please try breaking up your thoughts with periods and spell-checking your posts? If you're trying to be taken more seriously, you can at least start by using proper punctuation (and spelling my name right). Thanks.

 

[hsilgne]

again....you feel in your lable contains within it, the right to exclusion. at the risk of overlooking possibillties of advancement, only do to the merits of your own standards.
Study of the Bible without achieving a Doctorate, or siminary degree, does indeed give you the right to pastor!...it is your duty to do so upon the need of the moment, it would be a neglect of faith to not pastor upon need!
Knowledge is not retestricted to a class Mr Malon; it is embeded within us to seek and assume, if we as "creationist's" without PHDs, (as many gave up there acadimic goals shortly after conversion,) do not take the liberty to continue to excorsise there understanding outside of the limits of the Scientific acadamy, there would be no diversity! there would be an automaton stranglehold on knowledge.
I would think the patterns dictated by history would show a clear example of that risk!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to withreason again.

 

[withreason]

I am sorry, withreason, but for the life of me I cannot understand what you are trying to say. Can you please try breaking up your thoughts with periods and spell-checking your posts? If you're trying to be taken more seriously, you can at least start by using proper punctuation (and spelling my name right). Thanks.

you must be Joking.....

on second thought; it fits you quite well, not being able to understand what is obviously clear, through some very small obstruction.
And I am sure you will not understand this as well.