Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:06:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1264 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > There were a fair number of responses, that may be daunting in their scope
> > or time involved. But yes, it was more than a comment in passing and he
> > invited debate on the subject of evolution. If he doesn't want to pursue it
> > further, I don't have a problem with that: no answer IS an answer. :-)
>
> Just to make sure to clarify that; while no answer may in fact BE an answer,
> it ISN'T an answer as it relates to creationism vs. evolutionism, which may
> be what you're implying.
No answer can be an answer when one side finds itself overmatched - slinking
away quietly is an answer (I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case
here).
> The only answer it gives is that Steve doesn't WANT
> to debate the matter further, or if he DOES, he wants to debate other issues
> first. As to WHY, we can inferr, but the fact that he doesn't answer doesn't
> invalidate creationism by any means.
It may mean he can't back up his claims. That doesn't mean others might not
be able to, granted.
>
> > Essentially, he is saying evolution isn't science, but at the same times
> > betrays he doesn't understand what science is, and then equates science and
> > religion as the same thing.
>
> And on another note, isn't science just another form of religion? The only
> difference I find is that the 'faith' we put into the scientific method is a
> LOT more hard to dispute than the 'faith' one might put into Christianity.
Absolutely not. Science is a process for observing and explaining the
universe. The scientific process seems to be the most accurate way of doing
this - because of that I find value in it, not out of any blind faith.
>
> As I stated in another post, the scientific method is based on faith in:
> - our physical experiences (do you have faith in your senses?)
> - our mental experiences (do you have faith in your memory?)
> - the evidence presented by others (and we don't NEED faith in this, but
> admittedly, we DO have faith in this)
> - the 'correctness' of human logic, both in ourselves and in others (do you
> have faith that if A then B, and given A, B is true? Do you not have faith
> that such a conclusion is ALWAYS true?)
Mathematical models have proofs - they do not require faith.
Scientists do not have faith in your senses - that's why they test your
experiments: to see if they can duplicate your work. Lack of faith is the
safest course, in fact.
>
> Anyway, suffice to say, those faiths are indeed subjective. However, I would
> challenge anyone who did not have faith in these to get anything productive
> done... If we doubt reality itself (which we CAN do), then what can we truly
> say about reality? A big fat nothing; save random guesses.
And if they really are crazy but trust their senses....? :-)
>
> > Evolution does not address God. That's one of the things about Creationists
> > that baffles me - they seem to think it does. It neither confirms nor
> > denies God. In any case, what appears random to science presumably is not
> > to God (omniscient). I've mentioned before that my mother was a physical
> > anthropologist and a Christian and didn't seem to have a problem with it.
>
> But that's exactly the problem for creationists. Evolution DOESN'T address
> God.
That's why it drives them nuts, though I don't think they realize that at a
conscious level.
> Just like when Descartes founded his faith in the universe in "I think
> therefore I am"...
Cogito, ergo sum.
> He didn't start out with a 'divine' faith-- moreover, he
> DERIVED a divine faith FROM his faith in himself. And as a result, most
> prominent Christians had a hissy fit over it. Basically, by NOT addressing
> God, it violates creationist theory. Your mother may be an anthropologist
> who believes in the theory of evolution, and at the same time is Christian,
> but is she actually a CREATIONIST?
Who said she was a creationist? You lost me on that one. The point was
that that you don't have to be a creationist to be a Christian.
>
> > Darwin, by the way, studied theology in college. :-)
>
> Well-- living when he did, I'd hope so-- it was kinda one of the fundamental
> courses at the time, or so I'd imagine :)
>
> DaveE
That was his specific area of study (his major, if you will), not just a
random course he took. I don't remember the exact name of where he went:
College of Jesus Christ or something along those lines.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Exactly. It MAY mean he can't back up his claims. But he might also be able to. Can't say one way or the other... As science would be so keen to point out, lack of evidence does not prove a theory :) (...) Check out the other sub-thread on (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Just to make sure to clarify that; while no answer may in fact BE an answer, it ISN'T an answer as it relates to creationism vs. evolutionism, which may be what you're implying. The only answer it gives is that Steve doesn't WANT to debate the (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 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
|
|
|
|
