Evolution? How?

Hi Ros,

I don't know how to put it any simpler. I referred to scientists who believed God created the world.

A Deist, by definition, fits this.

I did NOT refer to any scientist who "was a fundamentalist christian".

Yes, fundamentalists DO generally believe God created the world, and so do the scientists I referred to, but that was the extent of the comparison. Any other shared beliefs (or lack thereof) between these scientists and any particular fundamentalist is unknown and irrelevant.

The distinction between that and folks who are 'religious in general' is that not all religious folks believe God created the world. Simple enough distinction?

The group I refer to is the majority of scientists who built the scientific foundation of the technologically advanced world we inherited. An example you have seen me refer to numerous times is Sir Isaac Newton.

Newton believed God created the world.

I have never stated that Newton was a 'fundamentalist' and would never make that claim. He was however a believer in God as creator (as well as a believer in Biblical prophecy. He wrote a large volume on the subject , defining his view.)

The continued attempt by some to smear anyone who believes God created the world as 'unscientific' or those who have 'deemed science to be their enemy' could not be farther from the truth. But that hasn't stopped those who stoop to such ridiculous propaganda.

Even in modern times, a survey by American Men and Women of Science and quoted by a pro-evolution group, the National Center for Science Education, indicates that 45% of those responding do NOT think that naturalistic causes alone are sufficient to explain human origin. (see http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp

The survey was of 1000 members and had a 60% response rate. A listing of the disciplines from which this group accepts members can be found at http://www.gale-edit.com/amws/nomination_form.pdf

Nature in itself is a form of intervention. But which God is intervening? Does it take a creator to allow nature to follow it's course.

Is nature a charade for a better system of creation?

It is hard to think in billions of years of success that the world could have been made "better".

But I see some crude things.. like rocks... creepy insects and dinosaurs.. dinosaurs were hideous freaks of "nature"... nature at it's lowest point.

Scientific nature is much like the old testament.

Science like the old testament. Adherents are fixated on what is "seen". they hide their women in veils... procedures and processes are ritual and tribal in nature. They cannot easily distinguish between what is holy and what is evil because they rely on a set of written principles and assumptions and they do not have a guide within that is "real" and fairly accurate, compassionate and always just... Science worships nature in it's own religious pagan iconic idolatry. They have taken God out of the rightful place in the mind and put nature in it's place.

There is the scientist and then there is science which is only a copy of what is observed. Science is not evil... the evil is in placing science above the creator/giver/maker/designer/nature of our observable physical world.

Many scientists are perceived as mad by the world. That is because scientists are humans too..

A scientist has a body (flesh and bone) and their body is alive (with life/blood). There is also the issue of if a scientist has spirit or not (which is "biblically" not the same thing as the soul). Scientists are presented with the same choices that everyone else has, that the ends and means are ethically balanced.

Jesus has a body (flesh and bone) soul (breath life/blood) and a "spirit" likewise. It is the confusion of what the Bible is claiming the human being is made up of that most people never begin to understand. The Bible teaches the three fold human.. body soul and spirit. God did not make humans to look like him "physically" but the image of God is the spirit NOT the flesh and bone with life. The question should not be if we were created or evolved but what we are?

What are we? Are we the id the ego and the superego? Are we something real or simply an ideal in the mind of a super being?

Once a spiritual traveler reaches up into the spiritual realm and perceives it they in all honesty can no longer deny it in their conscious considerations.

Because science does not KNOW. Yea, they seem fairly certain that we evolved but that is it. They do not know what happened one second before the big bang or what caused it in the first place. So it is like, "shut up and stay stupid like us..."

So because they do not know neither can we?

Evolution is looking at the world and saying well it looks like we evolved so we must have.

They are relying on what they see.

The theists has long speculated over what CANNOT be "seen".

When you look down railroad tracks and rely on your sight for answers you see two rail lines definitely converge somewhere on the horizon. Every time you look down railroad tracks, they converge... This is like looking out into space. We cannot walk out to saturn and check if our "observations" are correct.

Until the probes sent out science did not really KNOW if the planets were not some sort of optical illusions. Smoke and mirrors.

Science has never even ventured out into the universe outside our solar system. They look into their telescopes and rely "mostly" on what they observe with the eye.

But the eye can lie...

The eye tells us through simple observation that the train tracks converge! That they are NOT parallel. THIS IS SCIENCE? You can walk out into the field where the tracks converge and and say Hmmm... they do NOT converge. Thus observation is not a completely solid foundation with which to ascertain "truth". We cannot walk out into the solar system and say yep it is there. This starry night is not just a few well placed mirrors reflecting the earth and sun millions of times. God is not right on the other side of pluto breathing down our necks... We cannot walk out into the sky and tell if our observations are parallel with the truth. Why do the eyes tell us that train tracks converge. Is it the nature of the optical illusion that scientists are enamoured by.

This is what the theist clearly sees. The invisible world of possibilities outside of science. The theist entertains the idea that maybe God is not trillions of miles away but the entire universe is a physical "mirage" and God is closer than our very own breath...

Just to tell you... I have included words in the scriptures below. This verse below is from the King James Bible (the only Bible I quote unless otherwise stated). Any words that I have added to the scriptures I will always place in hard brackets. [ ] The King James Bible does not contain any hard brackets so you will always know that words within them are mine.

The word "flesh" in the scriptures below is not talking about the body type of flesh. (very important to know) It is talking about the body's "five" senses. The ability to see, touch, taste, feel etc... and then thus make perceptions that become "science/religious" doctrines. It is warning us that these "five senses" are not always a worthy guide to true "life". That there is a "spiritual" guide and that we are in every thing to consult this spiritual guide and compare the spiritual with the sensual. This is what makes us "godly" over all other creatures that we can apply reason over instinct..

Romans chapter 8:5-9
5 For they that are after [born] the flesh [five senses] do mind [think about and do] the things of the flesh [five senses]; but they that are after [born] the Spirit [a true heavenly guide] [do mind] the things of the Spirit [God].
6 For to be carnally [physically, five senses] minded is death; but to be spiritually minded [where truth and wisdom are found in the unseen] is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal [five senses] mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law [liberty/love] of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh [unborn spiritually] cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh [five senses], but in the Spirit [reason that transcends what is ONLY from the senses], if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Comment:

Even this verse is scientifically sound.

You either have spirit and see things spiritually and physically or you do not have spirit and you only see things with the five senses.

Nature itself is bound by it's own laws...

Science is only part of the full picture. This does not mean that the body should not be studied or that emotion of the soul is evil... This means that the body and soul should not (because the are visual in nature) become more of a focus to the individual than the spirit. Thus the creator should be the object of our affection and not the "creation". This all makes perfect sense to the theist. Yet science sits transfixed upon the physical world oblivious to the ideas that make us unique and actually the door to our own creation...

In conclusion, The purpose of life is to find and utilize the spirit amidst the confusion and awe of a visually stimulating and distracting physical environment...

Having the "holy" spirit makes us a conductor of the flow of this energy into the world. It is this energy that the ages have been created to contain...

wande wrote-



On the contrary science is attractive because of the certainties it provides for egos who fear chaos.All of its processes are modest things indeed in terms of the universe.One might easily criticise ID for its immodesty.The sheer impertinence of thinking one has a handle on creation is highly immodest and there are people who think that any self-respecting god would consign them to the outer darkness for it.Nevertheless,they also need an explanation to protect them from the chaos.

A truly religious feeling has no such needs and simply stands in awe and wonder fully aware of his/her relative size in the scheme of things.

Hi Wandeljw,

Interesting post.

"....believing in divine creation is not the same as believing that Genesis should be taken literally. Genesis is an allegorical......"

So, if one believes in divine creation, then why would that be in conflict with believing the Genesis account of creation, not as simply an 'allegory'?

It seems to be that believing in divine creation COULD EASILY be reconciled with believing that Genesis should be taken literally, but may NOT be the same as believing Genesis is an allegory.

Perhaps that was not what you meant to say, since it really doesn't make sense. I encourage you to try again.

BTW , there are no cold hard facts of science that I , or anyone I know of, ignore. If you can think of a specific example, I'd be glad to discuss it.

Watch it, your'e gonna get rocks with post-it notes thrown at your face! .............."this rock is 3 billion years old, this is a scientific fact, even though it is impossible to observe billions or even mllions of years"

Guesses become "facts" when your'e talking about macro-evolution.

Seriously, I don't understand these people. If God created nature and its systems, then why couldn't solely naturalistic methods be responsible for the origins of humans?

Some naive person up above wrote



The operative phrase being "that I,or anyone I know of".

You could try widening your horizons mate.

Belaboring the obvious; that you cannot not "put things" in more simple manner has been established for hundreds of pages, in this and other discussions on these boards.


Factual observation does not constitute "smear"; it is factual observation.
The view that God created the world is unscientific, therefore, no one with that view may be deemed to have a scientific view of the world, at least so far as regards the question of creation. This is ontology, not a matter of opinion or semantics.



Denying or obfuscating the truth is an assault on truth; the proposition you forward denies and seeks to obfuscate that which by science in the majority is held to be undisputedly true. The proponents of your proposition have declared themselves to be in opposition to the accepted view of science; science, conversely, holds no view or position regarding your proposition beyond that the foundational elements of that proposition are immaterial to science. The Creationists/IDers have picked the fight, a ridiculous endeavor in and of itself, then compound their inanity through denial of the fact they prosecute the fight they picked.


The ridiculous propaganda does not originate with or attach to science; by definition, such a state or condition of being cannot be. Science is objective, dispassionate, and fact based, a state or condition of being obviating propaganda. Again, this is ontology, not opinion or semantics.



As repeatedly referrenced in this discussion (most recently here), the conclusion you imply that study forces in fact is not inferable, does not pertain, and does not exist.


A perusal of that list validates my point that a vast number of respondents to the cited survey have no qualification in the pertinent fields of study; the views and opinions of one neither experienced nor credentialed in a given field of study are barren ground for seeking to harvest meaningful assessment of or comparison with the views and opinions wholly pertinent to fields in which the respondent has no standing.



Poppycock. The verse is no such thing, it is blatant, transparent tautology. The premise predicate to the proposition, "Spirit", is undefined, hence illicit; a valid proposition may not proceed from an illicit premise. Circularly referential, the proposition presuposes its own conclusion. We've been over this many times, yet religionists here persist in founding their argument on the logical fallacy of Petitio Princpii. Further, it is unestablished there is or need be a "purpose of life"; neither the conclusion nor the summary are of any substance whatsoever, independent of the failure of the proposition to proceed from a valid premise. If one's intent is to argue in forensically valid manner, thus imparting to one's argument substance and crediblity, that one should eneavor to argue in forensically valid manner.

timber wrote-



They are qualified to vote aren't they?My ignorant guess is agricultural food growing areas vote ID and sleazy bars and anything goes vote SD.Roman discipline foundered on the very same rock.

spendius -
Qualified to vote and qualified to offer meaningful commentary on the question at vote are, as you note, not concommitant.

timber-

I never suggested any such thing.I wouldn't dream of suggesting that voters could tell their arse from their elbow although some of them may be up for knowing that they have one of the former and two of the latter.The ones with a college education,say.

spendius
Isnt it dark with your head up there?

@ & to both of you! Well played.

The proprieties at all times---B Fitzgerald

Hi RL,



You said...



(de·ism P Pronunciation Key (dzm, d-)
n.
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.)

So, as we can see from the definition, Deism is NOT "more in line with" conservative Christian / fundamentalist groups".



It's not irrelevant, it's key to the point we're trying to make. Scientific knowledge does not, and can not, conflict with deism. However, scientific knowedge can conflict with strict interpretations of the Bible, and with any account of creation which makes predictions and assessments of physical phenomena.



But you tried to imply it. Like this...



So here we come to the actual "point" you've been trying to make. Finally.



Putting your paranoia regarding "smearing" aside for a moment, there are certain definitions at work here which are undebatable. One being the definition of science, which precludes the assumption of the supernatural (deitiies of any form). So anyone, scientist or not, who assumes the existance of a deity is making an unscientific assumption. It doesn't make them a bad scientist, it just means their assessment of reality is an unscientific one. Nothing more.

There are lots of good scientists out there who are religious in one form or another. But there aren't a lot who are Creationists, or Bible Literalists. And plucking good scientists from history who didn't have the benefit of our present knowledge isn't helping your case any. It's just making you look desperate.

Not often one sees the word "desperate" used with such compassion, charity, and allowance. Downright Christian of you, ros.

I've been away for most of the last 36 hours--does this mean "real life" has yet to answer the very simple question i've posed?

It is worth noting that many, many pages ago i stated that i was willing to stipulate that there are those who believe a deity created the world who nevertheless are able to accept the assumption that the current diversity of life on this planet is a product of the evolution of life forms, of descent with modification from common ancestors.

So, essentially, cosmic origins, the question of whether or not a deity created the world, is nor pertinent to the issue of the reason for the diversity of life forms on this planet. However, it would be very much to the point of this thread to know whether or not "real life" asserts that the present diversity of life forms is a product of a direct creation of those life forms in situ. This is the question upon which i suspect he is attempting to avoid taking a stance.

God has no more obligation to know all things in advance than you or I have to read the last page of the whodunit. This is the defining aspect of free will. (Volition)

So, his free will trumps his omniscience, which in turn circumscribes his omnipotence.

Your point, unless you are capable of reading minds, is pointless.

You have absolutely no idea WHO ACTUALLY RESPONDED or WHAT FIELD THEY CLAIM EXPERTISE IN.

The group they belong to and who issued the survey obviously considered them, as a group, to be educated enough that their opinion in this matter might have some value.

Of course, you know better, right? Without even knowing who responded, or how many folks there actually ARE in each category who were surveyed (all that the list shows is the POTENTIAL fields from which a nomination will be considered) , you have divined how qualified each one was and pronounced "a vast number" of them unqualified.

What a joke.

Care to share with us the EXACT number[/b] that comprises your "vast number"?

Care to share with us what fields the disqualified imposters were from? (Those wretched pretenders! How dare they speak their mind!)

You are a continuing source of entertainment, Timber , as your bluster and your nonsense combine to delight and lighten the hearts of your devoted readers. Keep it up, friend. :wink: