CPF

I thought it was time to satrt a fresh thread for this, I hope you don't mind. It will probably take two post's so bear with me.

Thank you I will.

Well I don’t know of a single proponent of I.D that does not believe that evolution occurs, it is the mechanisms that I feel are in dispute. I think the big dispute, and one that the Pope may agree with, though it really doesn’t matter, is the micro vs. macro evolution debate. Darwinists claim that the same mechanisms that allow species to adapt to their environs are also used to build complex living systems from the ground up, via genetic mutation and natural selection. I don’t disagree with the entire theory, in fact I think it is incredibly useful and beneficial when properly applied, but there are many things that myself and other supporters of I.D do disagree with and that is where the debate lies. One major problem (and it exists on both sides) is that many times arguments are based on “straw men” of what the opposition actually believes, these slight distortions allow opponents of one view or another to appear to refute a viewpoint quite thoroughly, the only problem is that it is not an accurate assessment of the opposing view to begin with. I think both sides need to really study the opposing viewpoint in order to avoid these situations and thus have a much more fruitful debate. The Pope’s argument seems to presuppose that the Darwinist’ brand of evolution is truth, while those in the I.D camp feel the “jury is still out” on that assumption. I don’t reject the ToE because it removes God from the equation, in fact I don’t even reject all of it. The parts I do reject, I reject based on the scientific evidence that points to it’s incredible unlikelihood. I think if there were not a competing viewpoint I would have a hard time accepting the ToE based upon it’s “removal of God from the equation” but because there is, in my opinion, a viable alternative I certainly don’t need to reject it on a philosophical basis, there are plenty of scientific reasons to reject it.

I don’t know where you are coming from with the “majority of Christians” comment. I think I have a good pulse on the Evangelical Christian community as I am part of it and I can safely say that the overwhelming majority of those Christians do not subscribe to the ToE.

I suppose I was a bit thoughtless in my treatment of the Vatican, and subsequently the many Catholics that find solace in it’s authority. This is why I should take time to ruminate about my response before I offer one, sometimes emotion gets the best of me. I do really disagree with the majority of Catholicism’s teachings, but I could be far more tactful in how I express that disagreement. Perhaps you feel the same way about you’re comments having had some time to think things through, perhaps you do not, either way it does not excuse what I wrote and I apologize to anyone reading along that I might have offended.


Originally Posted by CPF I believe that everyone makes assumptions based on their particular worldview and that those assumptions influence what we find to be viable. At the end of the day though, two diametrically opposing views cannot both be right. One is right and the other is wrong or they are both wrong and it has nothing to do with the particular philosophy of those that support one theory or the other.



Does the fact that my view of God and subsequently the world is “narrow” somehow dictate whether or not it is viable? While you claim your worldview does not exclude God, it certainly does not leave a whole lot of room for him either; isn’t that a bit “narrow”?

Well as I have said before, as well as offered examples, I do not contort the Bible to fit my views. Just because I don’t immediately allegorize any biblical passage that even hints at the supernatural does not mean I am somehow “contorting” it. As I have said, some passages are obviously meant to be taken literally. Now, we can debate whether or not they are a true depiction of God but I don’t think we can debate whether or not they are a biblical depiction of God. As far as science is concerned; I don’t think any contortion is involved, the evidence for a designer is, in my opinion obvious, there is no need to “ “contort” anything.

Exactly, you would welcome a God created in your own image that is molded perfectly to the way you think he/she/it ought to be. What if God does not operate that way? What if he/she/it is sovereign and requires you to acquiesce to who he/she/it is and not the other way around? By the way I’m not sure you are intentionally trying to be offensive, but your treatment of the Christian view of God here, as well as elsewhere in this post are disrespectful and unnecessary.

Well it certainly excludes the existence of a God that has any control whatsoever over creation. As far as it being compatible with Christianity in it’s current form; I think this quote says it all:

"The doctrine of evolution is a newly invented system, a newly concerted doctrine, a newly formed dogma, a new rising belief, which places itself over against the Christian faith, and can only found its temple on the ruins of our Christian confession." Dr. Abraham Kuyper, "Evolution" speech delivered in 1899.

The fact is that the majority of those that hold to materialism of any kind have absolutely no use for God, as famed evolutionist Richard Dawkins attests in his comments.:

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: ‘For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither care nor know.’ DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. River out of Eden (1995) p.133

Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.6


Do you think that there are any evolutionary scientists that are simply interested in grant money or is this a phenomena reserved for I.D scientists only? Do you have any solid evidence of this or are you simply relying on your keen sense of “suspicion”? I’m sorry if I’m being a bit facetious but I am really growing tired of this brand of ad hominem attack being substituted for good solid debating practices.

More to follow

__________________
There is a way which seems right to a man, but the end of it is the ways of death.

CPF

Oh I think that there are many “ToE-ers” who “care” a great deal.

For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was no evolution at all. It made a nonsense of the central point of evolution. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.249

Catholicism's "net" is not limited to moral considerations, if only because Catholic morals have scientific implications. Catholic morality demands the presence of a great gulf between Homo sapiens and the rest of the animal kingdom. Such a gulf is fundamentally anti-evolutionary. The sudden injection of an immortal soul in the time-line is an anti-evolutionary intrusion into the domain of science.
More generally it is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims. Richard Dawkins You can't have it both ways: Irreconcilable differences? Skeptical Inquirer July 1999 pp.62-64

Darwin applied a consistency philosophy of materialism to his interpretation of nature. Matter is the ground of all existence; mind, spirit, and God as well, are just words that express the wondrous results of neuronal complexity. Stephen Jay Gould Ever Since Darwin (1979) p.13 �*

Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable Arthur Keith The Antiquity of Man (1915) p.vii

The explanations given in olden times were accepted by the generations among whom they were promulgated. The followers of Charles Darwin are to-say seeking to answer the same questions for their generation. The ancient seekers after truth differ from their modern successors in only one respect. It was permitted to them to suppose that supernatural forces were at work in the world-forces which could be perceived only by the eye of faith. The modern seeker refuses to accept any explanation which involves the action of a supernatural agent, even as a last resort. Arthur Keith The Religion of a Darwinist (1925) p.62

Now none of these statements in any way detracts from the veracity of the ToE, they are simply the philosophical viewpoints of some proponents. In the same way the ToID is done no harm by the particular philosophical viewpoints held by it’s supporters.

Well it would be helpful if you could recall the article, but on the surface the argument seems logical, though I have pointed out to you that many I.D scientists have attempted to be “published”, only to hit a brick wall of evolutionary bias.


Originally Posted by CPF I don't think you could possibly be more wrong. I am nothing now like I was before I accepted Christ as my Savior. I don't think the same I don't act the same, my values are completely different. I was an atheist and I can tell you personally that my views could not be more different now than they used to be.



You weren’t talking about me? I could have sworn you said, and I quote:

“In other words, I think if you were an atheist, very few of your views would change, and the same goes for me if I was a devout Christian.”

How am I suppose to interpret those comments as being directed at anyone BUT me? I could give you reams of testimonies that are similar to mine, in that a radical change has occurred in a person who has become a Christian.

Well I am certainly not ashamed to admit that I rely on God. The Christian faith is all about reliance on God, we recognize that his way is better than our way and thus acquiesce to it. I can see how this could be interpreted as weakness by those that have not experienced it. Sometimes a person has to be convinced they are lost before they can be found.

Originally Posted by CPF I don't interpret the Bible to accommodate myself, if I did I would be a far more liberal Christian. I try to interpret the Bible literally, unless it is obviously meant to be interpreted otherwise.



What “majority of Christians” are you speaking of? Could you be a bit more specific?


Originally Posted by CPF A metaphor for something greater? What could be greater than the God of the universe, the one who spoke everything into existence and who holds it all together by his infinite power, stooping down to enter his own creation as a man. Humiliating himself by allowing the very ones he came to save to ridicule him, spit upon him, beat him and ultimately kill him, all in order that God's justice might be appeased, that man's debt might be paid. So that we may come into a right relationship with the one who loves us enough to offer his only Son as a sacrifice for our redemption, as well as the one who was willing to come and be that sacrifice. Tell me Patters what could possibly be greater than that?



I have to admit I have really struggled with how to respond to your comments here. I am sure that if I had responded right away my comments would have been emotionally driven and antagonistic. I don’t have a desire to go in that direction so I have chosen to try to understand why you have responded in such a way as opposed to rebuking you for it. I understand that you do not put much stock in the Christian message so I see how you could interpret Christ’s actions as being egotistical but I think you are missing the point. He didn’t come and die in an effort to somehow “lord” his greatness over us, he did it because he loved us and saw no other alternative. Christ did not wish to die on the Cross (thus his pleas to his Father in the garden of Gethsemane) he chose to die on the cross in an act of obedience to his Father and out of his great love for us. You see justice and mercy do not coexist well together, yet God is both perfectly just and boundlessly merciful. The question is how do you satisfy perfect justice (sin’s penalty of death) while at the same time showing mercy? Justice demands the penalty must be paid, if mercy is given then justice cannot be fully met. The answer of course is that the penalty was paid but instead of being paid by us it was paid by Christ. He had to first be made human in order to pay the penalty imposed on humans by their sin. Second he had to be free of the curse of sin, thus the virgin birth. Third he had to live a sin free life, which the Biblical account attests he did. And finally he had to pay the penalty in our place, being the perfect sacrifice, able to take all the sin of mankind upon himself and bear it to the grave, thus satisfying God’s perfect justice completely and allowing Him to administer his boundless mercy to us if we simply place our faith in his Son. I’m sorry but I fail to see the egotism in this. What I see is a monumental act of “love, humility, and charity”, the very things that you seem to find admirable.


Originally Posted by CPF I don't need you to respect the message, just hear it and make a decision. I don't respect many of the things you have to say but I certainly respect your right to say them. Take care.

Do we? Do you really respect my right to express my religious belief in a public forum? It seems to me that we live in a society that preaches this form of “hyper-tolerance” where absolutely everything is supposed to be “tolerated”, everything that is BUT the Christian worldview. That is the one thing that can be attacked with zealous impunity. I can be called a “bigot”, “bible thumper”, “fanatic” etc. and it is generally accepted, but turn that type of antagonism on any other deeply held worldview and see what happens. Are you sure we (meaning the opposing worldviews) “understand each other”? Take care

__________________
There is a way which seems right to a man, but the end of it is the ways of death.

Patters

CPF,

I do respect your opinion and for that reason I pull no punches. This discussion won't get any easier, since we're coming from two very different places, but if I thought you were a blowhard, I would not waste my time.

I think we need to get something clear. As in any subject that I'm not an expert on, I rely on the preponderance of evidence. At this point, I've read a reasonable amount of I.D. literature online have read the ToE rebuttals. I find the rebuttals very convicing. That doesn't mean I could sit with Dembski and effectively defend my point of view, just as I would doubt that you could do the same with a ToE expert.

***

You said, "One major problem (and it exists on both sides) is that many times arguments are based on 'straw men' of what the opposition actually believes, these slight distortions allow opponents of one view or another to appear to refute a viewpoint quite thoroughly, the only problem is that it is not an accurate assessment of the opposing view to begin with."

Can you provide an example or two of that? The problem I see is that when scientists attempt to explain things in layman's terms, they oversimplify. This is probably true in any endeavor, not just science.

***

As far as the majority of Christians favoring evolution, I should have done my homework. At least in the United States, according to Gallup, most believe in Creationism, though some believe in both!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../1507582/posts

That said, I'm not sure what it proves, if anything. I made the claim while talking about the Vatican's stand on evolution.

***

You asked, "Does the fact that my view of God and subsequently the world is 'narrow' somehow dictate whether or not it is viable? While you claim your worldview does not exclude God, it certainly does not leave a whole lot of room for him either; isn’t that a bit 'narrow'?"

Right now, I'm still convinced that you embrace I.D. because it supports your view of the Bible, and you have not approached it objectively. I have seen far more responses by ToE-ers to I.D. than the other way around. Articles like these neatly lay out the the ToE response to ID. I have yet to find an article written in layman's language that does the same for ID.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...EDF&sc=I100322

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

I don't dispute that ToE has not solved every riddle, but it seems to me with whatever the IDers throw out, ToE comes up with an excellent response. What do you think is the strongest point in ID? Is there one aspect of ID that you think is especially convincing? Is there something that ToE-ers do not have an effective response to? And can you lead me to articles where ID-ers respond to the issues raised by the ToE community?

***

After I said, I would genuinely welcome it if God existed, you said, "Exactly, you would welcome a God created in your own image that is molded perfectly to the way you think he/she/it ought to be. What if God does not operate that way? What if he/she/it is sovereign and requires you to acquiesce to who he/she/it is and not the other way around? By the way I’m not sure you are intentionally trying to be offensive, but your treatment of the Christian view of God here, as well as elsewhere in this post are disrespectful and unnecessary."

I do believe the God portrayed by many evangelicals as egomaniacal. While that is disrespectful, I do not mean it antagonistically. If God is exactly as you describe, I would disagree with Him on many issues. Therefore, He would not be God from my point of view; he would simply be a powerful entity. When you die and go to heaven, just hypothetically, what you think if God said, "You know CPF, the liberal Christians are right. Bush was evil, the war in Iraq was sinful, homosexuality is okay, etc.," would you change your beliefs or would you stand up and say to God, "Sorry, I don't agree with you"?

***

As far as Darwinism not being compatible with Creationism, I agree, but my point was that one can still believe in God, as the Catholics do, for instance.

***

As far as grant money goes, of course there are opportunists on both sides, but it seems to me it's mostly the ID-ers who are making the ad hominem attacks on ToE-ers, and attempting to use the courts and political process to present their views rather than working through peer review and developing ways to test their theories. Until ID makes its case before scientists (most of whom I believe are honest and sincere), it will be junk science.

***

As far as my comment that, "I think IDers want to prove God exists. I don't think ToE-ers care either way," I am referring to a view of God that requires Creationism. I don't think ToE-ers are concerned with God, but I do think ID-ers are. I don't think a ToE-er would back off evidence that God or even Creationism exists.

***

CPF: I don't think you could possibly be more wrong. I am nothing now like I was before I accepted Christ as my Savior. I don't think the same I don't act the same, my values are completely different. I was an atheist and I can tell you personally that my views could not be more different now than they used to be.
Patters: I wasn't talking about you, but I think what I said applies to most people.
CPF: You weren’t talking about me? I could have sworn you said, and I quote:
“In other words, I think if you were an atheist, very few of your views would change, and the same goes for me if I was a devout Christian.”

I actually wasn't talking about you, and should used the word 'one.' You had already told me that finding Jesus changed you dramatically, but I don't think that's true for most people. It may be true for people of your specific branch of Christianity.

You said, "I could give you reams of testimonies that are similar to mine, in that a radical change has occurred in a person who has become a Christian."

We each have moments of truth in our lives, but one is not superior to the other. For some the moment of truth is Jesus, for others it's Allah, for still others it's mathematics, sexuality, parenting, or cancer. What I mean by that is that many people have some event in their lives that compels them to develop a worldview, and just because your event was finding Jesus doesn't make it more valid than someone else's event. What you found is a worldview with which you can achieve self-acceptance. That is true for each of us.

***

When I said, "The majority of Christians believe there is more in the Bible that is meant to be interpreted metaphorically than you believe. Otherwise, they would be more conservative," you asked what majority I was referring to.

You don't think a majority of Christians share your views, do you?

***

As far as your explanation of what Jesus did for us, I really don't see why he "had" to do any of those things. Why did we have to be forgiven? What would have happened if we weren't forgiven? Would God have hurt us? If so, why?

***

As far as your point about respect, I talked about that in the first paragraph. As far as your comment, "I can be called a 'bigot,' 'bible thumper,' 'fanatic,' etc. and it is generally accepted, but turn that type of antagonism on any other deeply held worldview and see what happens." It's probably true that gays, blacks, women, and other groups are more vocal when they are called insulting names. You have to turn the other cheek, which is really a very good thing.

All_Around_Brown

Darwinism and creationism are very much compatible.

One explains the beginning of life on earth. The other explains the great variety of life forms we see 4 billion years later.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

wistahpatsfan

You must mean ID and not creationism. As I understand it, creationism states that the universe was created in six days as it is today. On the 7th day, God rested and on the 8th day he started another parallel universe. He's up to 312,000 universes.

All_Around_Brown

hey...don't criticize me. here

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Harry Boy

Wish I was educated.

This is me in the 6th grade

All_Around_Brown

OK...get some

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Harry Boy

GOD:
The "egg heads" are so over educated that they could go out and sit on a beach somewhere and spend eternity "arguing religion" and at the end of time they would be right back where they started.

"I'm right"
"oh no, I'm right"

Thank God I spent 4 years in the 6th grade

wistahpatsfan

With all due respect, Boy, I have a hard time believing a teacher would put up with you for four years.

This is a pretty exhausting discussion, but it's more of a mental exercise rather than an attempt to decide who's right or wrong. Kinda like arguing which color is the best.