Once again Mr. Heddle, you are being deceitful.

Why do IDists set up a dichotomy between ID and evolution if theistic evolution is a subset of ID? The dichotomy is incorrect, of course, but not for the reason you suggest.

PZ Myers is atheist, and he is entitled to his philosophical opinions. But, he keeps his philosophy separate from the lab.

You accuse me (and others) of leaving out parts of the story? No where in evolution does it say that one must take a purely materialistic stance. One is free to believe in God. One is free to believe that evolution is part of God's plan for man. One is free to believe that we were specially created by God through evolution. That makes JP II's comment irrelevant! It is NOT quote mining.

Oh, and you left out the part where JP II said that evolution is a strong theory (paraphrasing) It's not in your paper, but he has said it elsewhere.

Once again, before you start accusing people of lying, you might want to look in the mirror and make sure you aren't guilty of it yourself.
GCT | 09.02.05 - 9:42 am | #

Actually Mr. Heddle, I've had a sort-of change of heart. Let's take your argument one step further and examine what it really means.

ID, in your estimation, encompasses all YECs, theistic evolutionists, and everything in between. So, who is left? Really, the only ones left out are atheistic evolutionists? So, what really is ID then? Under this definition, it loses all meaning except as an argument against atheism. So, ID is strictly a religious argument, and not a scientific one? Well, I can totally agree with that.
GCT | 09.02.05 - 11:07 am | #

Hi David,

Actually, it's worse than that. In his book, Finding Darwin's God, Miller makes a fine-tuning argument that would get Gonzalez in hot water at ISU. According to reviewer Frederick Crews, this doesn't just make him an IDist, but a creationist:

"Yet when Miller then tries to drag God and Darwin to the bargaining table, his sense of proportion and probability abandons him, and he himself proves to be just another "God of the gaps" creationist. That is, he joins Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, and company in seizing upon the not-yet-explained as if it must be a locus of intentional action by the Christian deity."
Frederick C. Crews, "Saving Us from Darwin, Part II", The New York Review of Books (2001)

GCT,

Hmmm...One is free to believe in God in evolution as you say...then why are the evolutionists so opposed to having ID where a Designer (God) is involved?
Elvis | 09.02.05 - 9:51 pm | #

Elvis,
For the umpteenth time, because it is NOT science. You can believe what you want on your own time, but do not bring it into the science classroom. Actually, don't bring it into science period. Science does not deal in the supernatural (pro or anti.)
GCT | 09.02.05 - 10:46 pm | #

GCT,

The guesswork of evolution (one animal type turning into another) is presented in the classroom as truth. It sounds like it belongs to creative writing as in fairy tales versus science.

Just because there are things such as adaptation that gets kluged into evolution, doesn't make evolution as a whole a correct thing. And, adapting to an evironment does not change one species into another.
Elvis | 09.02.05 - 11:22 pm | #

GCT,

Evolution as you have it does not explain life. Life then falls back on God to inject. Hmmm...with the random chance of evolution, when one animal changes to another where is its mate to make more? Oh, I forget, the randomness always happens to make a male and female, right? So, does having a male and female created fall back on God, too, with evolutionary thought? If an animal did change, why should it? Does that change fall back on God, too?

Perhaps, multiple animals look like each other because they all have a common Creator/Designer.
Elvis | 09.02.05 - 11:49 pm | #

Elvis,
"It sounds like it belongs to creative writing as in fairy tales versus science."

Is that your professional, scientific opinion, or just an argument from incredulity? Simply because you have trouble grasping the concept does not mean that it doesn't happen. Do you completely understand quantum mechanics? I'll bet you don't. Do you simply throw that out as well?

"Just because there are things such as adaptation that gets kluged into evolution, doesn't make evolution as a whole a correct thing. And, adapting to an evironment does not change one species into another."

May I suggest you look up the 29 evidences for macroevolution at talkorigins?

"Evolution as you have it does not explain life."

Do you mean the origins of life? I agree, evolution does not explain the origins of life, nor does it seek to. That is the field of abiogenesis. I've answered the rest of that paragraph in the other thread, I don't feel like re-creating here.

"Perhaps, multiple animals look like each other because they all have a common Creator/Designer."

Yes, that is a possibility. Now do some scientific experiments and try to find evidence for that. Of course, "look like" is a subjective standard. You should probably quantify that. For instance, I think apes look like humans to some degree, but I don't think we look at all like frogs.
GCT | 09.03.05 - 12:43 pm | #

GCT,

Read what Ecclesiastes has to say about trying to explain how and why God does things that we can't comprehend.

Eccl 1:13 - And I set my mind to seek and explore by wisdom concerning all that has been done under heaven. It is a grievous task which God has given to the sons of men to be afflicted with.

Eccl 1:17 - And I set my mind to know wisdom and to know madness and folly; I realized that this also is striving after wind.

Eccl 1:18 - Because in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain.
Elvis | 09.04.05 - 4:08 pm | #

Elvis,
I'm sorry, I don't know what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that we should not seek knowledge?

Do you have any testable hypotheses for your Common Designer/Creator hypothesis? Do you reject all science or just evolution? Were you not going to answer any of those questions?
GCT | 09.04.05 - 7:28 pm | #

GCT,

Solomon was not saying wisdom and knowledge had no value. What we enjoy with technology, medicine, etc, are valuable with the quality of life.

The Ecclesiastes verses speak to knowledge being apart from knowing God, the pursuit to discover how God makes his miracles (so that humans can try to replicate God) is meaningless and inadequate for life.

If you want to test God, that is your problem. I am in no position to put God to the test. I reject evolution the way you describe evolution.

God gave us science - good science. Science used the wrong way may still be classified as science, but it is still bad science.
Elvis | 09.04.05 - 9:05 pm | #

Elvis,
You keep saying, "The way you describe evolution" yet I keep saying that evolution is not mutually exclusive with religion. Evolution is not "testing God" as you say it is. There is no scientific way to test for God or not God. That is not the aim of science.

I think it is also ironic that you would mention medicine. We use evolution to help us learn more about medicine. How about agriculture, would you say that that is important? Evolution helps us with that as well.

Do you similarly reject Cosmology, since it seeks to explain how the universe came about? Is that "bad" science because it delves into the formation of the universe? How about geology? Is that "bad" science because it refutes the Noachian flood? I see that you keep dancing around the issue of how evolution is any different from all those other scientific fields that all use the same exact scientific method to investigate the world; why is that?

Finally, some theistic evolutionists see evolution as the way to learn more about God. They see evolution as God's clues as to how we came to be, where we came from, etc. Do you think God would leave us these clues if evolution were not true? Do you believe God would trick us like that?
GCT | 09.05.05 - 1:19 pm | #

Hello, David,

I think you go awry here, first: "At a minimum, God intervened to imbue man with a soul. However, it is fair to say that if one wants to remain within the most generous pale of Judeo-Christian orthodoxy one also affirms that God did not simply decide one day that a certain primate species had, fortuitously, evolved to a state of readiness, but rather he had in mind, from the beginning, man as he is today (in His image)."

We can argue about whether God had in mind the physical form we have now -- I favor the chaos theory view, that God didn't know the exact form, but let's not argue mathematics -- but it is theological error to claim our physical form is in God's image. We don't know what God's appearance to human eyes would be; we don't know whether God is limited to one physical form. We do know it's foolish to argue whether God as a navel, or an appendix, or needs to brush His teeth.

The vast majority of Christians belong to sects that hold that 'in the image of God' refers to spirit, not body. God's prostate doesn't swell without sufficient ejaculation to cause cancer, the theology holds; and so we know that God's physical body (if there is one) or appearance of physicality is not related to human physical form.

To base an argument on the idea that human physical form must be physically different from all other forms of life as a mirror of God's body is theologically suspect at best, and heresy if extended far enough to deny the facts God's creation exhibits to us.
Ed Darrell | 09.05.05 - 6:23 pm | #

GCT,

God gave us science. Many evolutionists leave God out and life was just an accident. On God and science for example, when people were strapping patients down to do operations or sawing off limbs as fast as possible (Civil War amputations), one just had to look to Genesis to see that God used anesthesia.

The following page lists some other sciences listed in the Bible that God gave us: http://www.clarifyingchristianit...m/ science.shtml
Elvis | 09.05.05 - 7:22 pm | #

Many physicists leave God out when explaining phenomena about the world. Do we invoke God when something falls? Many geologists leave God out when examining rock formations. Etc. etc. etc.

You still have yet to explain what makes evolution different from other sciences and whether you accept those other sciences or not. What are you afraid of? Why won't you answer my simple questions?

As an aside, could you please point out where God talks about anesthesia in Genesis?
GCT | 09.05.05 - 7:31 pm | #

GCT,

Other sciences don't claim unverifiable things to be true like evolution. How many different ways can I say it?

The basics of all science is from God.

Anesthesia first mentioned in the Bible when God put Adam to sleep to pull out a rib to create Eve. See Genesis 2:21.
Elvis | 09.05.05 - 10:07 pm | #

Elvis,
Every argument you've made, I've pointed out how other sciences do the same thing. No one has ever observed the super-continent that Plate Tectonics tells us was present billions of years ago. No one has ever observed a dinosaur. No one has ever actually seen an electron. Once again, what makes evolution different from other sciences?

Genesis says that God created the world in 6 literal days. Many scientific fields contradict that account. Why do you only have a problem with evolution?

When the lightning rod was invented, churches refused to install them because they believed God caused lightning and that those rods were heretical. They soon changed their minds when churches were being destroyed by lightning and other buildings were not.
GCT | 09.06.05 - 6:47 am | #

GCT,

Other sciences do not do the same thing as evolution. They may follow a certain process that may overlap. However, evolution makes claims that are not substantiated like the other sciences. Every argument you make, you keep saying evolution is just like the other sciences, but it's not.

Electrons are seen and used - electricity, electron microscopes, chemical bonding, etc.

Churches by humans and humans are not perfect like God. Humans make mistakes.

How many years did humans think the earth was flat while it is listed as a sphere in the Bible?

By the way, see the Book of Job in the Bible. Job observed dinosaurs. Before the word dinosaur was coined, how did these great beasts get described? See Job 40:15-18. Sounds like a sauropod that is described.
Elvis | 09.06.05 - 7:03 pm | #

GCT,

And, if one uses the scientific method to do anything, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a science.

There are those who correlate the Super Bowl champion (AFC or NFC) to the stock market ups and downs. Two separate items that are not related.

1. Observation of NFC wins to the stock market going up.

2. Hypothesis made for NFC wins to stock market going up.

3. Use the hypothesis to predict the stock market after the Super Bowl.

4. Let other people do it.

Perhaps, a goofy example. But, it just shows that just because one follows a scientific method, it doesn't necessarily equal good science.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4088011
Elvis | 09.06.05 - 8:34 pm | #

"Churches by humans and humans are not perfect like God. Humans make mistakes."

Including in their interpretations of what God says and what God means when he says things? Could it be that your interpretations are wrong, and not evolution?

What unsubstantiated claims does evolution make? Macroevolution is not an unsubstantiated claim. Did you look at the 29 evidences that I pointed you to?

Do you really want to use the Bible as your authoritative science text?

I did not know about any correlation between the NFL and the stock market, but the point is that the scientific method allows one to investigate things in a neutral manner, without a priori assumptions mucking up the works. You seem to be objecting to this process, because so long as one does not choose the a priori assumption of God, then the science is "bad" in your view. Yet, you only apply that standard to evolution, completely ignoring the fact that all science works that way. You also completely ignore and won't address the 6 day literal contradiction with all the different branches of science. Why do you continue to ignore that? It says quite plainly in the Bible that God created the world in 6 literal days, yet many branches of science dispute that notion unambiguously. Why do you have such a bee in your bonnet only over evolution?

All science rejects a priori assumption, including the a priori assumption of God. That is not to say that science rejects God, but science rejects making that assumption as a way of explaining the world. Science is completely neutral on the subject, all science. It's a system that works to explain the things we see around us.
GCT | 09.07.05 - 6:45 am | #

"Every argument you make, you keep saying evolution is just like the other sciences, but it's not."

Yet, you can't tell me how it's not. All you've done is assert that it isn't.

"Electrons are seen.."

No, they are not. No one has ever "seen" an electron. I'm completely sure they exist, but I'm not the one rejecting science.

"How many years did humans think the earth was flat..."

Science can make mistakes, but the scientific method is a way of correcting mistakes through constant gathering of new data, constant testing and retesting, and constant verification. Evolution does all these things, as you would know if you were to look at biological peer-reviewed journals.
GCT | 09.07.05 - 6:50 am | #

David,

What, precisely, about the "image of God" necessitates that God had to have done any physical tinkering with God's material creation?

Your suggestion of God as "genetic engineer" is a lame caricature (IMHO) of a creator-God. Nothing about theistic faith in God as Creator requires that such tinkering had to have occurred. The source of such faith is from God, not from some lame attempt by you or any IDist to derive the same from observations of the material creation. What about God's ability to give faith as a gracious gift or to imbue God's image on God's creation requires belief in this mucking around with a divine screwdriver that you claim is required of a "theistic evolutionist"? I'd submit that you have ignored the possibility that one can be a theist and an "evolutionist" without needing to invoke anything theological in one's understanding of evolution.
Shaggy Maniac | 09.07.05 - 3:43 pm | #

GCT,

As written by another somewhere in this blog, "Never in my years of teaching physics, much more of a science than evolution, was I advised to teach it without skepticism or equivocation—the mere thought makes the mind reel. (The fact that evolution accepts no dissent or criticism is a sure sign of its inferiority complex.) Furthermore, Derbyshire misses the boat (or he outright fabricates) with the assertion that evolution offers a "convincing explanation for all the phenomena we can observe in the life sciences." Far from it. In the infamous case of the bacterial flagellum, evolution may yet provide a convincing argument. But the state of the art at the present is that it does no better than a "might-have, could-have" unlikely chain of events."

God gave us science. So, if one uses the scientific method, there is no problem with the method. The problem may be with what the method is used for - as in trying to correlate things that don't correlate to each other except by coincidence.
Elvis | 09.07.05 - 6:55 pm | #

Elvis,

Care to explain explicitly how your straw-man spurious correlation argument has any relevance to the question of the veracity of evolutionary biology. I suspect you have little if any familiarity with the actual material evidence for evolution.

All you have done is post your assertions that evolutionary science is lacking something apparently present in other natural sciences. By the way, how do you theologically reconcile the inference from atomic theory that we are fundamentally the same stuff as, say, a rock? There is nothing unique about evolutionary science in its inability to say anything one way or another about (G)god(s). The rest of your "god given" sciences are just as vacuous on the God question.

None of which limits in any way one from both practicing good science and being in possession of faith in (G)god(s).

Cheers
Shaggy Maniac | 09.07.05 - 8:11 pm | #

Read the Bible, Shaggy, on humans being made from "the same stuff as, a rock" - See Genesis 3:19. Oh yes, this was written long before your inference from atomic theory.

BTW not even the scientists in the evolution field make the claims that I have seen in these threads about the evidence for evolution. Where are those transitional animals that should number in the millions?

I don't make claims to understand God as I am just a human. Therefore, I can't detail how God enabled life. I just have the faith that God created life, and that life does not just come from rocks without God. And, with all the so called evidence for evolution, neither do I see evolutionists detail how life changes except for the guesswork. See Job 37:23.
Elvis | 09.07.05 - 9:44 pm | #

Elvis,
Behe's arguments are that the flagellum COULD NOT HAVE EVOLVED. In order to refute him, we need only show a possible pathway, thus showing that the evolution was indeed possible. Did it necessarily happen that way? We don't know for sure, but Behe's claim is still debunked by showing ANY possibly pathway.

Evolution has tons of dissent and criticism within the field of biology. What we don't accept is pseudo-scientific garbage that is really just a front for religious arguments being passed off as an actual competing theory. Let's turn this around? Would you want to go to church on Sunday only to find that your preacher/reverend/minister/what-have-you has been replaced by an atheist who will be sermonizing on the contradictions in the Bible?

You still have not answered my question about physics, cosmology, geology, etc. vs. the 6 day literal creation. Why won't you answer that? It's intellectually suspect on your part to accept one field that contradicts the literal text of the Bible, and then complain when you think that another one does. Either you follow the Bible literally, or you don't. So, which is it? I also think that you are avoiding this question because you don't have a coherent answer for it.

As for the transitionals, we have tons. I, once again, suggest you look at talkorigins.org. There are lots of articles about transitional fossils. You may be surprised to learn that there is a robust fossil record.

Finally, you say, "I don't make claims to understand God as I am just a human." Yet, you seem to think you understand well enough to say what God is or is not capable of, and how God has or has not done things on this world. Once again, how can you be sure that your interpretations are correct?

"BTW not even the scientists in the evolution field make the claims that I have seen in these threads about the evidence for evolution."

Back up this claim.
GCT | 09.08.05 - 6:34 am | #

Elvis wrote:

"Read the Bible, Shaggy, on humans being made from "the same stuff as, a rock""

You seem to have completely missed (or intentionally avoided) my point, Elvis. As far as the science of chemistry is concerned, it doesn't matter a hoot what the bible says. Atomic theory tells us that, materially, we are made of the same stuff as a rock. The logical contradiction is that you and other creationists seem to conveniently ignore such implications of sciences like chemistry for no apparent reason, I suppose, other than they don't say anything about common ancestors. The point I am making is that by rejecting evolutionary biology (which, despite your assertions, is very well supported by the available evidence), you are really rejecting all of science even if you don't admit it. This is the point that GCT also seems to be trying to get accross.

My second (theological) point is "so what"? Neither (G)god(s) nor anyone's faith need be threatened by scientific inference since it categorically is not (cannot be)about (G)god. Does the theological faith concept that I am a unique child of God falter in any way because I am, in the view of chemistry, materially just highly organized rock-stuff? Not a bit, thank you.

God-given or not, science says nothing about (G)god. Grow up and get over it.
Shaggy Maniac | 09.08.05 - 10:33 am | #

Shaggy,

You missed the point. Science given by God supports what the Bible has to say. You bring up a point with atomic theory, I gave you the Bible reference, you reject the answer because it was listed in the Bible.

Multiple sciences are referenced by God in the Bible. Just because some humans left God out today doesn't mean that God is not involved.

See a posting further up in this trail for a link to sciences listed in the Bible long before humans began specific studies.

Growing up does not mean one leaves God behind. Growing up means you need more of God in your life. Look outside of these meaningless debates and see the problems the world faces. I forget, if life is an accident and purely built on evolution, then life has no value. However, I view life as God is involved and therefore valuable.

What make you a human being? Why are you just one being instead of multiple beings as each cell is a living thing?
Elvis | 09.08.05 - 6:32 pm | #

Elvis,
Physics, geology, cosmology, etc. do NOT support what the Bible says (ie. the 6 day literal creation.) How do you feel about those sciences? Do you reject them as well as evolution? It's a simple question. Why are you avoiding it? Why won't you answer it? I'm not the only one who wants to know.

The fact is that evolution only excludes God in your narrow definitions of evolution and God. As Shaggy said, science says nothing about God. Get over it.
GCT | 09.08.05 - 9:27 pm | #

Short memory, eh, GCT. I'm not avoiding anything. For how the sciences support the Bible, see http://www.clarifyingchristianit...m/ science.shtml

It's because God gave us science. Get over it.
Elvis | 09.08.05 - 9:49 pm | #

Elvis,
No, not a short memory, since that page says NOTHING about the 6 day literal creation, which is what I have specifically asked you about. Stop sidestepping and answer the questions. Why do you only seem to have a bug in your bonnet over evolution, when the literal genesis account is directly refuted by those other fields of science. In order to be consistent, you should reject those sciences as well.

Second, those are all interpretations of the Bible, and most were made after the fact in order to show that the Bible is consistent with science, not the other way around. How do you know that your interpretations that cause you to reject evolution are correct? Could it be that your interpretations are wrong? Have you ever considered that, or are your interpretations infallible?

Now, stop sidestepping the questions and answer me. Your evasions are annoying and your insistence that you have answered my question is deceitful. Isn't it a sin to lie Elvis?
GCT | 09.08.05 - 10:17 pm | #

"It's because God gave us science. Get over it."

I've been thinking about this comment of yours Elvis, and I have to say that it's not a very strong argument for you to make. It does not matter whether God gave us science or not in the context of what science is able to tell us or not. I, and others, keep telling you that science can not comment on God and you keep replying with this meaningless (in the context of the debate) statement. It does not matter where science comes from when we are debating how science is carried out. So, instead of telling me to "Get over it," perhaps you should be trying to stay on topic.
GCT | 09.09.05 - 12:00 pm | #

GCT,

You should try to stay on topic. You asked for God and science, I gave you references to God and science, then you change/add to the topic. Since you diverge to the 6-day Creation, why is God not sufficient to create the world in 6-days?

Do you believe that God performs miracles? Do you believe that Jesus is God's Son? There are some things that human science just can't explain such as God's miracles - the 6-day Creation, Immaculate Conception, water into wine, feeding thousands on 2 loaves and 5 fish, Jesus back from the tomb, etc. If humans are not able to explain the miracles of God, how do you expect me to provide answers to God's miracles. I do not put myself up on the same level as God. Do you? Perhaps, that is your problem.

I grow weary of your debates in circles. There are more important things in the world. Strong or weak arguments do not make God. God is above us all no matter what you say or do.
Elvis | 09.09.05 - 5:08 pm | #

Elvis wrote:

"Growing up does not mean one leaves God behind. Growing up means you need more of God in your life."

You have no argument from me, though I am sure there are many folks who grow up quite well without God in their lives. Getting over the non-conflict between material science and God may require, if fact, that God is allowed a bigger and broader role in one's life. What you are advocating seems smaller and more narrow. Do you keep your God conveniently locked up in a KJV-sized box?


"Look outside of these meaningless debates and see the problems the world faces. I forget, if life is an accident and purely built on evolution, then life has no value."

It might be a convenient assumption to support your particular faith apology, but your assertion that the lives of evolved creatures are meaningless is just baseless rhetoric. Plenty of people with a whole spectrum of faiths or non-faiths have very meaningful lives and are quite engaged with the state of the world. Enough with the parochial tripe, already.

"However, I view life as God is involved and therefore valuable." By faith I understand my life as a valuable gift from God, and, whether you can believe it or not, I also am quite comfortable recognizing the overwhelming evidence that evolution is a solid scientific explanation of my material origins. It's not either/or, it's both/and.

Let me ask you a question, assuming that you consider yourself a child of God (as do I), how do you reconcile the fact that your life began in a material, mechanistic event (the fusion of an egg and sperm) that is functionally no different from the start of life of, say, a sea urchin? See, you already accept that God is God even in, with, and under material reality. All evolution requires is a deep dimension of time. There is no need to reject God as Creator even in full knowledge of evolution. That's what I'm telling you to grow up and get over.

Cheers,

Shaggy
Shaggy Maniac | 09.10.05 - 3:36 pm | #

"You should try to stay on topic. You asked for God and science, I gave you references to God and science, then you change/add to the topic. Since you diverge to the 6-day Creation, why is God not sufficient to create the world in 6-days?"

Elvis, I am NOT off topic. I asked you a point blank question, which you continually avoid. You say evolution is wrong because it contradicts your literal interpretations of scripture. I gave you examples of other sciences that contradict scripture when taken literally, the 6 day creation story being one example. You have hemmed and hawed ever since. Since you can not answer the question as to why it is OK for physics, geology, etc. to contradict scripture but not evolution, then I am forced to conclude that you don't hold a logically coherent position on that matter. Until you can come up with a coherent argument, you have lost the debate.
GCT | 09.11.05 - 9:59 am | #

GCT,

Don't pick and choose phrases. See the other paragraphs. I've provided you with scriptures about humans not being able to understand everything that God does. If that is hemming and hawing for me to say I don't have the answers to life, then so be it because you continually reject the answer. Now pay attention to some important questions.

Do you believe that God performs miracles? Do you believe that Jesus is God's Son? There are some things that human science just can't explain such as God's miracles - the 6-day Creation, Immaculate Conception, life, water into wine, feeding thousands on 2 loaves and 5 fish, Jesus back from the tomb, etc. If humans are not able to explain the miracles of God, how do you expect me to provide answers to God's miracles. I do not put myself up on the same level as God. Do you? Perhaps, that is your problem.

Is Jesus your Saviour? Or, are some words that fit into a debate or argument that you call logically strung together your comfort? Or, is it your science of evolution? What is the soul? How does the soul fit into evolution?

Who in the world cares about winning or losing a debate on the internet when the discussion is about having Jesus as Savior? If one wins a debate but loses their soul, what good is that? If one wins a debate and turns people away from Jesus, what good is that? I didn't come to David's site to argue. What is important is your soul and where it will reside for eternity.


Shag,

God created all life. So, why should there be objection to other life forms (you used a sea urchin) reproducing? See Genesis chapter 1.
Elvis | 09.11.05 - 10:13 pm | #

Elvis,
"Don't pick and choose phrases. See the other paragraphs. I've provided you with scriptures about humans not being able to understand everything that God does. If that is hemming and hawing for me to say I don't have the answers to life, then so be it because you continually reject the answer."

What answer? Do you or do you not reject physics, geology, etc.?

"Do you believe that God performs miracles? Do you believe that Jesus is God's Son?"

Completely irrelevant. I'm not the one who is injecting religion into the conversation. From the start, I have said that science is religiously neutral. It is you who has tried to make this a religious argument instead of about science.

"There are some things that human science just can't explain such as God's miracles - the 6-day Creation...If humans are not able to explain the miracles of God, how do you expect me to provide answers to God's miracles."

I will tell you that the 6 day Creation did not occur. Science has conclusive evidence that it did not occur in 6 literal days. That is the issue at hand. You believe it did, science says it didn't. Do you reject science?

"Is Jesus your Saviour? Or, are some words that fit into a debate or argument that you call logically strung together your comfort? Or, is it your science of evolution? What is the soul? How does the soul fit into evolution?"

You're drawing a false dichotomy here, as I've already pointed out. It is not Jesus OR evolution. One can have both. Also, the "soul" is a metaphysical concept, not the purview of science.

"Who in the world cares about winning or losing a debate on the internet when the discussion is about having Jesus as Savior?"

The discussion is about evolution and science in general. Please stay on topic.
GCT | 09.12.05 - 6:42 am | #

Elvis wrote:

"God created all life. So, why should there be objection to other life forms (you used a sea urchin) reproducing?"

Again, Elvis, you seem to be avoiding my point or, perhaps, you just don't get it. Let's try a thought experiment...I'll allow, for the moment and the sake of argument, that Genesis contains a literal account of God's creative activity (you pick which account to make literally true, it doesn't matter for the moment). Even if God spoke living creatures into existence or did a little model building with clay, the fact of reproduction as a material, mechanistic event doesn't change. Your individual life got started by the material, mechanistic fusion of an egg and a sperm, just like a sea urchin, a potato bug, a malaria carrying mosquito, you name it. Consider also that there are layers of "chance" involved including the segregation of alleles at meiosis and the combination of gametes. Even if you consider the start of your life by faith to be somehow "miraculous", the point is that it is fully explicable in material terms that include elements of chance. God apparently can work in, with, and under material reality in the case of individuals. If this is true, there is no necessary reason to assume that God is incapable of being Creatore in, with, and under the events of evolution since it is really just a result of reproduction stretched out through time. Is your God somehow bounded by time?

Let me be clear that all of this is a theological argument about the non-conflict between matters of faith and a scientific understanding of the material universe. The science is sufficient to explain the material on its own; I'm simply describing a path to understanding the science from the perspective of faith. If you choose, rather, to keep your understanding of God's creative domain conveniently boxed up in a little story, that is, of course your perogative. Realize, though, that you are requiring a significant denial and ignorance of scientific discovery and understanding in order to preserve the ediface of your pre-scientific faith worldview. Seems like an abdication of the value of what you regard as "God-given" science. Suit yourself, I suppose.

Cheers,

Shaggy
Shaggy Maniac | 09.12.05 - 11:10 am | #