Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:14:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5343 times
|
| |
|
|
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:
> 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.
"Missing link" examples present two kinds of problems, rhetorical and
mechanical. In many cases the question is posed this way:
Q: Show me the link between the bunf and the tomp
A: Here's a bunftomp.
Q: Okay, show me the link between the bunf and the bunftomp
A: Here's a bunfbunftomp.
Q: Okay, show me the link between the bunfbunftomp and the bunf
Ad infinitum.
That's the rhetorical problem. Specifically, every time a link crosses the
gap between two organisms, you suddenly have two gaps to explain, and
anti-evolutionists are never satisfied until "all" the gaps are filled,
which is of course impossible.
Mechanically, the problem pertains to the scope of the inquiry and the
rarity of fossils. It's just plain hard to find examples of every single
transitional species, but that doesn't mean that the overall pattern can be
identified. If I try to put together a 1000 piece puzzle but 10 pieces are
missing, I can still figure out what the picture is.
> 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.
Fair enough, but consider it from this perspective:
Lacking sensory evidence of a phenomenon, we have no rational basis for
accepting one explanation for that phenomenon in preference to any other.
That's where faith steps in, and for many people, that's sufficient. But
for others, myself included, the preferred course is to say "suspend final
judgment and keep looking."
> Spock said it in ST6-"Logic (rational thought, whatever) is the *beginning*
> of wisdom, not the end of it".
Absolutely! When they differ, reality trumps logic 10 times out of 10.
> 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?
It depends on what scale you're using as a measure. If the question is
"does faith provide provide better medicine and technology?" then the answer
is no. If the question is "in times of uncertainty, does faith provide many
people with greater comfort than does science?" then the answer is yes of
course! Some people--and this is not a value judgment (for any other Daves
who happen to be reading)--can say life ends at death, and the univere will
unfold as it should, and for them it is enough.
> 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.
Some might argue that human progress (if not evolution) can be measured by
the proliferation of compassion and empathy, but that's not really your
question.
Compassion's a tough nut to crack. Every so often you hear about a kid
who falls into agorilla pen and is subsequently picked up and protected by a
supposedly fierce alpha male. A lot can be said for compassion as an
evolved trait for protecting the family unit and then, over time, being
applied to an ever-larger "family" of similar organisms.
But that might be where the two camps part company. To a non-theist, it
is sufficient to attribute such behavior to evolution, but to many theists
these behaviors are proof of a divine hand. For my part, I would suggest
that, if evolution provides an adequate explanation of a behavior (or trait,
etc.) then there's no *need* to posit an outside, intervening force. Such a
force could still exist, but the evidence doesn't require it.
> Love--again does not fit into evolution. Sure some can live without it but
> they're missing something.
Ah, but there's the rub! Snakes and butterflies and slugs and Canadians
do just fine without love, from an evolutionary standpoint. That is, they
survive to pass on their genetic information to a new generation. Granted,
that's not a romantic or especially attractive interpretation, but it's
consistent with the evolutionary model of explanation.
Further, if love helps to ensure the passing on of one's genes--perhaps by
"loving" one's children enough to care for them until they're old enough to
care for themselves--then it, too, is consistent with the model.
> 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.
Wow, that's a cool summation.
> 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.
I see what you're saying, but once again it depends on the assumptions one
is willing to make. Historically, much European investigation into the
natural world took God and the Bible as the assumptions and shoehorned all
observations to fit the assumptions. Unfortunately, this is also the case
with modern Creationism.
I can't speak to something that fundamentally can't be verified (such as
an infinite being), but I must admit that I don't believe in it.
> Living without God is like living without anything--it can't happen.
Again, I understand your point, but you must understand that statements
like that are witnessing and not persuasive argument. In its own venue
witnessing surely has value, but not as much in rhetorical debate; ie, if I
didn't believe before that statement, the statement would do nothing to
change or inspire my belief.
Dave!
(with a few good-natured jabs at our friends to the north)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) BTW, it's bugging me that people haven't detailed the fish yet, just because I used to follow the info on it closely. It was just in the last decade or so that they've caught LIVE ones for scientists. For the longest time, they were just (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
