Evolution? How?

timberlandko wrote:

......American Fundamentalist Christian(s) have deemed Science to be their enemy. A more surely fatal strategic error cannot be imagined...........

A more misguided analysis cannot be imagined.

Many great scientists who built the scientific foundation of the technological society that we inherited believed that God created the world and that scientific law was understood in the framework of it's establishment by Him. One aptly termed it "thinking God's thoughts after Him".

Any modern evolutionists who seek to ban dissent in the classroom on the basis that those who believe that God created the world 'have therefore somehow become unscientific' have separated yourselves from the company of these great predecessors.

0 Replies

Descartes was a devout catholic just for one.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
......American Fundamentalist Christian(s) have deemed Science to be their enemy. A more surely fatal strategic error cannot be imagined...........

A more misguided analysis cannot be imagined.

He said American Fundamentalist Christians, not religious people in general. And religion in general is not synonymous with Creationism.

I can think of many scientists who believe in a god in some form or another, and many who think that god (whatever their concept of that is) plays a part in the universe. But those beliefs can be a far cry from creationism or fundamentalist christianism.

I don't have a problem with religion in general, or with a spiritual view of the Universe, because those things don't conflict with reality as we know it. However, creationism and many literal interpretations of the bible *do* conflict with reality, and that's where the attacks on evolution and the fear of naturalism arise.

0 Replies

I can't believe I made this post without being challenged:

neologist wrote:

In an attempt to advance some of the earlier statements of this thread, and in the humble assumption I have interpreted them correctly:

The idea that the process of evolution is an ongoing effect of an earlier creation, while intellectually satisfying to a degree, implies that the creator is bound as we are to one directional time.

The assertion that the idea of a creator adds an unnecessary component to the explanation of the history of the universe works well for a deterministic model, but fails to account for this attribute:

Volition

I realize I have proved nothing, though I hope to have inspired thought.

0 Replies

The word "evolutionist" itself is an absurdity, implying a conflict or controversy which exists nowhere but in the minds of the proponents of Creationism/ID. Sould the voters of Kansas somehow prove less competent than were the Pennsylvanians who tossed out the school board biblethumpers there, then the proposition will proceed through the court system, where it has absolutely zero chance. Creationist/IDers are fringies, laughingstocks; while they have managed to draw the spotlight to themselves, in so doing they have ensured the demise of their proposition.

There is as much "controversy" over "evolution" as there is over the theory of electricity. A controversy harking to an earlier comment of mine recently has been reported;

Quote:

Students Ace State Tests, but Earn D's From U.S.

By SAM DILLON
Published: November 26, 2005
After Tennessee tested its eighth-grade students in math this year, state officials at a jubilant news conference called the results a "cause for celebration." Eighty-seven percent of students performed at or above the proficiency level.

But when the federal government made public the findings of its own tests last month, the results were startlingly different: only 21 percent of Tennessee's eighth graders were considered proficient in math.

Such discrepancies have intensified the national debate over testing and accountability ...

... Because of the discrepancies, several prominent educators are now calling for a system of national testing that counts, like those at the heart of educational systems in England, France and Japan ...

Oh, and Neo - don't disbelieve, look around you and have faith Mr. Green

0 Replies

timber, Now that standardized testing has been established in US schools, we have degraded our educational system for our children another notch. American students are now about in last place in math and science, and the future of the world's economy.

We have succeeded in taking away creativity and questions by students to study rote answers on a piece of paper.

China and India will surpass the US economy without any challenge.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

I can't believe I made this post without being challenged:
neologist wrote:
In an attempt to advance some of the earlier statements of this thread, and in the humble assumption I have interpreted them correctly:

The idea that the process of evolution is an ongoing effect of an earlier creation, while intellectually satisfying to a degree, implies that the creator is bound as we are to one directional time.

The idea that any omniscient/omnipotent creator need take any *action* at all is logically absurd. Prescient knowledge and omnipotent power preclude the need to change anything in the system.

If an omniscient/omnipotent creator did put everything into motion, then is is only logical to assume that all the correct designs and anticipated results were put into place at inception, and need not be tweaked.

0 Replies

If you mean by prescient knowledge and omnipotent power that God, by definition, knows all things in advance, then I have failed to communicate my point.

I'll have to come back to this.

0 Replies

rosborne, You mean even god can't make mistakes? LOL

0 Replies

Volition. Without it all things are predetermined.

0 Replies

Quote:

China and India will surpass the US economy without any challenge.

Here comes the built in pessimism.

0 Replies

c.i. , I submit what you believe you observe re the issue of national academic standards testing precisely is the point of the article I cited; at this point, there is no effective, uniform national standard which must be met, in that the individual states establish their own criteria for assessing student achievement within their own educational system. As the article points out, many states report positve results by their own criteria, but when the students of that state are compared objectively with students throughout The US, against the Federal guideline, and against international samples the results are far less complimentary of the students of those states which have self-interestedly and short-sightedly established inadequate standards. But that discussion really isn't pertinent to the discussion at hand on this thread - lets not pursue it here.

0 Replies

timber, Fair enough; but it still rankles.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

If you mean by prescient knowledge and omnipotent power that God, by definition, knows all things in advance, then I have failed to communicate my point.

That's what I meant.

neologist wrote:

I'll have to come back to this.

Ok.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
......American Fundamentalist Christian(s) have deemed Science to be their enemy. A more surely fatal strategic error cannot be imagined...........

A more misguided analysis cannot be imagined.

He said American Fundamentalist Christians, not religious people in general. And religion in general is not synonymous with Creationism.

I can think of many scientists who believe in a god in some form or another, and many who think that god (whatever their concept of that is) plays a part in the universe. But those beliefs can be a far cry from creationism or fundamentalist christianism.

I don't have a problem with religion in general, or with a spiritual view of the Universe, because those things don't conflict with reality as we know it. However, creationism and many literal interpretations of the bible *do* conflict with reality, and that's where the attacks on evolution and the fear of naturalism arise.

The reference I made was to scientists who believed that God created the world. This is what they believed, which is more in line with the conservative Christian / fundamentalist group than it is with folks who are "religious people in general".

0 Replies

You present another straw man, rl; as referrenced in this and prior posts here, Only 0.15% of earth and life scientists subscribe to one of the creation science belief systems ... . It has been established that regardless of and apart from personal religious belief or lack thereof, a statistically insignificant number of scientists credentialed and active in the fields pertinent to the relevant studies support the Creationism/ID proposition. Lets put that in other words; to a point very nearly approaching statistical certainty, nobody who knows what he or she talking about is in support of the proposition you forward. What a dietary scientist may or may not think about electromagnetism, or what a mathematics theorician may or may not think about cancer research, or what an astronomer may or may not think about computer science is wholly irrelevant to the fields foreign to and apart from their own particular area of accredidation and competence.

And what a Creationist/IDer may think about the way things ought to be is as relevant to the way things are as is a bug's intention to pass through a windshield.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The reference I made was to scientists who believed that God created the world. This is what they believed, which is more in line with the conservative Christian / fundamentalist group than it is with folks who are "religious people in general".

I'm not so sure. There are lots of way to believe that god created the world.

How do you know that the scientist(s) you have in mind believed in literal creationism and not simply deism in some form?

Which scientist in particular do you think was a fundamentalist christian who believed in a literal interpretation of the bible (creationism)?

And even if you do manage to find one that fits the bill, remind me again, why does it matter to anything we are discussing?

0 Replies

RL,

Rosborne, timber, and many others have pointed out that believing in divine creation is not the same as believing that Genesis should be taken literally. Genesis is an allegorical, poetic rendering of God's role in creation.

Science has established some cold, hard facts that may be difficult for our human ego to accept. To ignore scientific facts is foolish and impractical.

0 Replies

Genesis was also ripped off wholesale from the Akkadians at the time of the Babylonian captivity--it is not original to the Jews.

0 Replies

wandj, Just who decided that Genesis is allegorical?
I disagree 100% with poetic - except for poetic license.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know