 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
DrSnug
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 12/16/2002 8:17 AM (GMT -6) |   | I have recently been trying to decide whether science and religion should be integrated or distinctly taught. I've read books by creationist authors, but given their obligatory bias and lack of scientific evidence, frustration soon ensues for anyone who tries to think rationally and resist the trend of ad hominem attacks on scientists. Unfortunately for creation scientists, their only ammo is to attack what isn't creation-based theory. These pseudo-scientists are more interested in coy bets (like a $250,000 reward for proof of evolution, when what you really have to do is recapitulate the big bang in a lab) and syllogisms than scientific evidence. Why is it so hard for Christians to accept that evolution is simply a chance mechanism that functions in organismal survival? Only when the philosophy of origins is threatened should we be worried about our children learning about the mechanisms of evolution for it is at this point that the scientific method can no longer answer questions. I hope that all of you will take the time to read the link I've added (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html) and maybe even challenge your faith concerning many other questions like the plausibility of the flood and other objections to genesis stories on the website.
At this point, I guess I don't think that creation science should be taught in our public schools (no, not even intelligent design theory) because it is not science. You cannot test it with the scientific method. But you also cannot test whether the laws of physics were initiated with the big bang. I hate to think that Christians would be afraid of the science of nature just because there are some who interpret its evidence a-theistically. Science is the study of our worlds and can only be interpreted by the physical laws we understand. The rules of philosophy and religion are logic and rationale whereas the testability of evidence governs scientific theory. So why do Christians fear that their children will turn out to be atheists or that our society will further degenerate without the incorporation of creation "science" in our classrooms? We should embrace scientific evidence for what it is. Let those who are atheists interpret the evidence as the man who wrote the link aforementioned does. At least he tries to address what he believes with logic and a genuine search for the truth. I like this article because the author addresses the biggest caveats of his beliefs the best way he knows how and doesn't use personal attacks for his arguments. Not all scientists are out to fool the world. They are not all pawns of Satan who nightly make sacrafice to burning crosses. Of course God won't make sense if you try to explain His existence with the laws He created for this world. Be reasonable and open minded towards science, and by that I mean that you should be able to be reasoned with. Well, that's all I have to say for now, but I'll be back!
Peace out, peoples.
"I solemnly swear to tell the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth; so help me God." | | Back to Top | | |
 |
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 12/16/2002 8:37 AM (GMT -6) | | yeah, I agree! What is your stance on Evolution?
"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught | | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 12/19/2002 7:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Dr. Snug
I would love to debate these issues with you, but first we must get some terms straight. I will do so by excerpting a mock conversation from the jr. high level book, What’s Darwin Got to Do With It? A Friendly Conversation About Evolution. After you give me the okay on these definitions, we will have a more fruitful discussion about the evidences for creation. Until then I highly recommend you investigate a site alongside your TalkOrigins investigations. It is a site put together by doctorate holding scientists, professors and the like… enjoy ( http://www.trueorigins.org/index.htm )
· Creationist: Before we get started, we’ve got to clear up some terms. Words can be used a lot of different ways.
· Evolutionist: That’s what we have dictionaries for.
· Creationist: This is a little trickier than that. like, how would you define the word “adult?”
· Evolutionist: Mature. Responsible. Grown up. Why?
· Creationist: So, when you (as a mature, responsible grown-up) want something to read, do you shop at an adult bookstore?… I don’t think so. We have the same problem here. “Evolution” and “creationism” are both wagon words.
· Evolutionist: Wagon words?
· Creationist:Yeah, you know, loaded with other stuff that comes along when you pull the handle [of a wagon].
· Evolutionist: How do you mean?
· Creationist: Well, take “evolution.” Some people talk as though all it means is “change over time.” If that were all it meant, I’d buy it.
· Evolutionist: You mean I win already?
· Creationist: No, of course not. All I’m saying is that nobody in their right mind questions that some animals have changed some through the course of their existence on earth. What I find, though, is that when I grab the [wagon] handle, all sorts of other things come along with it. Things like a belief that an unguided, purposeless process can cause the accumulation of minor changes and cascade them into major complex innovations.
· Evolutionist: What about “creationism?”
· Creationist: Well, I prefer to be called a design theorist. My major point is that some things in the natural world are so complex that it seems more likely that they were designed rather than arose by chance. Unfortunately, when I pull this handle… you find that you’re also stuck with defending a geologically young earth… and the idea that everything we see on earth was created in six calendar days.
· Evolutionist: So you’re saying that the terms are too broad?
· Creationist: Yeah. I’ve seen people use “evolution” to refer to something as simple as minor changes in bird beaks. I’ve also seen people use the term to mean the sponatanious appearance of life… its unguided creation of major innovations (like the birds themselves)… and its purposeless progression into incredible complexity (like the human brain).
· Evolutionist: And I’ve seen people use the term “creationism” for everything from a strict literal reading of Genesis… all the way to the idea that God started the ball rolling and then let nature take its course. Yeah, I guess you’re right – the terms are too broad.
· Creationist: May I suggest that we use these terms so that we don’t end up pulling more than we want?
This Term… will mean this.
Creation or Creation-scienceThe belief that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old, and that all biological life forms were created in six calendar days and have remained relatively stable throughout their existence. Intelligent Design or Design TheoryThe belief that the earth and biological life owe their existence to a purposeful, intelligent creation. DarwinismThe belief that undirected mechanistic processes (primarily random mutation and natural selection) can account for all the diverse and complex living organisms that exist. Insists that there is no long range plan or purpose in the history of life (i.e., that changes happen without intent). Micro-evolutionRefers to minor variations that occur in populations over time. Examples include variation in moth population and finch beaks, and the emergence of different breeds of dogs. Macro-evolutionRefers to the emergence of major innovations or the unguided development of new structures (like wings), new organs (like lungs), and body plans (like the origin of insects and birds). Includes changes above the species level, especially new phyla or classes. [species and classes are a hot – debatable – topic.] Common DescentThe theory that all currently living organisms are descended from a common [or a few common] ancestor.
SeanG!"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen." ~ An adaptation of Hebrews 11:1
Edited by - SeanG on 12/20/2002 12:47:44 AM | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:25 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|