Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:55:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5198 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
>
> > > What I am reacting to is the notion that a belief in God is somehow
> > > anti-intellectual or intellectually compromising.
> >
> > Now *THIS* I can agree with (the reaction, not the notion). It's an
> > impression I've had for a long time in .debate, although I don't think
> > anyone's stated it outright. There are several people who appear to reject
> > out-of-hand anything that involves faith or belief instead of strict reason
> > or logic.
>
> I'm one of those people, so I'll offer something of an explanation. It's not
> that we (allow me to presume to speak for others who share my view on this)
> think an anti-evolutionist is a lesser *person,* but it is almost invariably
> the case that someone who rejects evolution does so for logically falacious
> reasons, such as "the Bible or William Lane Craig or Michael Behe says
> evolution is impossible, so I believe them" or "I can't imagine, after a brief
> period of speculation, how an eye could evolve, so evolution must be false."
> The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of descent with modification via
> natural selection, and no other theory presented to date offers a more
> comprehensive explanation. In addition, most anti-evolutionists I've argued
> with eventually say something like "well evolution can explain A, B, C, and D,
> but not E, so it must be 100% false" or "we don't know where the universe came
> from, so God must have done it" or "Stephen J. Gould and Richard Dawkins
> disagree on evolution, so even scientists know it's false" or "even though
> 99.99999% of scientists accept evolution, this scientist over here rejects it,
> so he must be right." These are not logically sound devices of reason, and the
> zeal with which anti-evolutionists cling to them speaks of a poor logical
> founding.
> My inclination, when faced with someone who demonstrates such a significant
> lack of reasoning ability, is to question that person's reasoning on other
> matters, too. That's not really unfair; if you had a friend who constantly
> made bad financial decisions, would you accept on faith his suggestion that you
> invest in betamax home video? Of course not--you would question his reasoning
> because it flies in the face of logical thought.
> Logic and reason are, from a pragmatic point of view, generally superior to
> intuition or leaps of faith when it comes to deciding real-world issues, such
> as crossing the street or undergoing surgery or investing money. It seems
> fair, therefore, to apply reason whenever possible (and feasible), and people
> who reject reason (such as my coworker who says "the pet psychic couldn't
> possibly have known that my cat liked to have her ears scratched") in favor of
> faith often seem to do so out of ignorance or simple preference. Again, that's
> not to say that spiritual people are unintelligent, but I do believe that they
> often apply reason to their lives in an inconsistent manner.
>
> > This is of course, personal choice and all that jazz, but they
> > also appear to reject and even deride or vilify anyone who *does* feel that
> > belief is a valid premise for anything.
>
> But let's be honest; many Christians (speaking from my own experience, and
> from here on LUGNET, for example) go out of their way to condemn the so-called
> ignorant, prideful, arrogant, willful, blindness of people who for some
> benighted reason don't accept on faith a conclusion based on nothing but
> someone else's personal revelation and testimony. I know, I know--not *all*
> Christians are like that, but neither do all proponents of evolution deride
> those who believe based on faith.
>
> Dave!
Very well thought out and written, Dave!
A few of my thoughts and ideas (that I can guarantee won't be as thought out
nor in any sense a coherent order)...
I find that there are fellow Christians out there who *have* to hit others
over the head with 'The Word!' (for that's what it tells them to
do!--whatever...) I can line up 10 Christian Scholars who say 'Old Earth!'
and I can line up 10 Christian scholars that say 'New Earth'... I say lock
'em in a room...
I'm not a person who will say unequivocably that Evolution (macro) is
outright wrong. I am not a scientist, I don't study this stuff for years
and I do not know it to be true or false. My dabblings into it show that
there is micro evolution and I have seen it via text books and it makes
sense that this is so, to adapt to changes in the environment and the niches
in which the species survives. I have heard that there have been 'macro
evolution' fossils found, but on closer inspection, and with time (as with
the case of the caught fish off the coast of Madagascar, supposedly extinct
for millions of years) have been proven false or erronous or still in
dispute. The research into DNA is inconclusive to prove macro evolution,
even tho the DNA molecules are approx. 90 percent match between us and apes.
I mean, why not--we have bones, skin, hair, eyes, etc... Instead of looking
for what is similar between the species, look at what's different about them.
I have a faith that the universe has a purpose, a destination, and nothing
has a purpose unless there is a rational, intelligent mind behind it.
Naturally, due to entropy (as talked about earlier) things tend towards
disorder and chaos--to derive complex and structured systems takes a
rational push. We are here for a reason. What that reason is, who knows?
Should we endeavour to try and figure it out? Absolutely. Should we get
our knickers in a knot if someone is drawing a different conclusion from the
same inputs? Prob'ly not.
We have the ability to reason. That ability, imho, is given to us by our
Maker. My personal stance is not to put Reason above any other part of my
life--'I think, therefore I am' maybe a good starting point, but it is not
the end all of all of creation.
I hate quoting movies (no, not really) but Star Trek had 2 things to say
about the pursuit of knowledge 'n such...
The first movie, where a giant 'supercomputer' (won't go into details about
whatever...) reached the limit of information--it had gathered all physical
data thru the known galaxy and thought 'is this it? is there no more?' It
takes a leap of logic, a leap of faith, to find that physical data, that the
world that can be measured thru the 5 senses, is not even close to being all
that there is. This is where my leap of faith comes in--I fundamentally
believe that there is something outside the scope of the 5 senses, and that
it isn't like 'all darkness, nothing, and/or insignificant'.
We build newer and more powerful telescopes to probe farther out into the
universe, and are now seeing original energies from the 'Big Bang'. We make
microscopes that 'see' atoms now, and we have the ability to move them
around and place them where we want them. I love science, I love rational
thought processes, I love that we have the ability to do these things. But
seeing super far things, or super small things, only improves our sense of
sight, just as radio 'betters' our sense of hearing. There is nothing
outside the 5 senses that Science can even remotely find out about, and it
is arrogant to say, 'if there is something outside what we can touch, taste,
smell, hear, and see, it's not as important as what science teaches us.'
This is my issue.
Spock said it in ST6-"Logic (rational thought, whatever) is the *beginning*
of wisdom, not the end of it".
There was another quotation attributed to a 'real' person in history (can't
remember who)--"a little knowledge inclineth a man's belief to athiesm, the
continuing pursuit of knowledge inclineth a mans mind to spirituality"
Like the fish swimming, wondering "Where's the water--I can't see it!"
Rational thought is great. It gives us microwave ovens and pictures of the
Horsehead Nebulae. Is it superior to faith? Is it superior to our
emotions? Just because something cannot be measured, quantified, and placed
in a proper place in the periodic table, does that negate the importance of it?
Compassion is something I think about alot--No where in the Darwinist world
does compassion find a place. Survival of the fittest negates compassion.
And yet we have it. Not only do we have it, but we seem to be getting more
of it as humankind evolves--if evolution is the defacto standard.
Love--again does not fit into evolution. Sure some can live without it but
they're missing something.
I know that some evolutionists say that the emotions of fear, trepidation
and such came from a healthy understanding of the ramifications of getting
eaten by a sabre tooth tiger years ago, and we still have the basic sense of
survival in us (hence most phobias like the fear of heights 'n such). Sure
I can accept that hypothesis, but that in no way explains the overall sense
of self, sense of consiousness, sense of being that we humans have. If
evolution is the defacto standard, why not other species? The mouse may be
smart and run thru a maze, the spider may be a great architect when it makes
a web, and dolphins have the ability for communication and they even *play*
:) , but are they conscious? Do they have a soul? I dunno. Again, just
because we can't measure it with our instruments does not mean that it isn't
there or that it isn't important.
My God is not the 'God of the Gap' wherein He is used to explain anything
that we don't know yet. The gap of knowledge gets smaller all the time and
therfore renders that god teeny tiny and not worth worshipping.
My God is God, the creator of all that there is. He is infinite and
therefore outside the scope of us finite beings trying to figure Him out.
Our universe, as scientists say, is finite, which means that it is
quantifiable--it can be measured and researched with out finite minds and
our finite understanding. Try to apply the same finite resources to
something that is infinite is, well, dumb. We cannot apply the same meter
stick that we use to measure our world to try and measure God--it doesn't work.
However, God gave us a soul so we can relate to Him, that we can have His
'laws written on our hearts'--laws of compassion, of love, laws of
righteousness, none of which can be quantified by science and yet are
equally as important, or sometimes of greater importance, as rational thought.
Living without God is like living without anything--it can't happen.
Dave
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) Mabye this seems cold but I feel that this has to do with continuity of the species. Maternal instinct is found in many species to varying degree, as is monogamous relationships. Monogany helps assures fidelity, security and assures the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: Well, super. After I climb all the way up onto my high horse someone comes along with a polite and articulate post (and he's Canadian, of all things!) Some great points follow: (...) "Missing link" (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) "Micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" are creationist terms, not terms used by scientists. That should tell you something right away. Further, in evolution, what you would call "macro-evolution" is nothing more than "micro-evolution" over a (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) I'm one of those people, so I'll offer something of an explanation. It's not that we (allow me to presume to speak for others who share my view on this) think an anti-evolutionist is a lesser *person,* but it is almost invariably the case that (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
