Post

Evangelical Evolutionists

Let's not be like the Creationists. They have a mythology they choose to believe. Let them! Even let them teach their children, they will anyway. It really doesn't affect those of us who accept the explanatory power of Evolutionary theory.

Creationists are generally evangelicals, meaning they feel compelled to spread their faith. Since we don't rely on faith to justify evolution's explanatory power of biological processes, we don't need to convert people. Empirically based ideas, or "truth", will prevail ultimately.

Insistence that IP and creationism be removed from all curricula as a national policy is playing the evangelicals game. We know what we know, if others choose not to accept it, why worry? 
porcpuffer porcpuffer 41-45, M 6 Responses Oct 27, 2011

Your Response

Cancel

I'm inclined to agree with you... when the school is not state funded.

The bottom line is that, as a person who lives the scientific theory every day in my job, I can't say with 100% certainty that there is no god or gods. I think the likelihood is vanishingly small, and I choose not to rely on an authoritative source for my beliefs and acceptances. I believe in a world of empirical evidence and reproducible experiments, and theories that are ba<x>sed in the natural world as we perceive it and not on an entire mythology to support it. I think that believing in god or gods is a bit quaint, but essentially harmless.<br />
Or at least I'd like to, but recent events have proven that this is not so. Those who ba<x>se their lives on faith and belief have begun to invade public life in bigger and bigger ways, from the christian right to islamic terrorists, those who want to force their beliefs on those of us who choose a different path have not followed a doctrine of live and let live, but one of evangelical zeal and intolerance. And that is a problem.

Um, Layne, science does not equal depravity.<br />
Science is just science, you know, formulas, theories, proofs...<br />
To equate intelligence and searching for answers with depravity and heresy is...insulting.

LPCP...<br />
Read my other posts. Evolution, like all scientific principles, is a theory. That means it has not achieved 100% explanatory power, which is impossible. Thus all scientific principles will always remain theories.<br />
<br />
Dawkins and other theoreticians have improved on Darwin's original. Newton's mechanics was also revolutionary, it has a lot of explanatory power. Still does. But Einstein improved on it with relativity. So did others like Max Planck, Nils Bohr, and others who developed quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
Since relativity and quantum mechanics are mutually incompatible, we know both do not have 100% explanatory power. But nobody has yet resolved them. Does that make creationism an alternative explanation for the Big Bang?

Evolution, like all scientific principles, is a theory. That means it has not achieved 100% explanatory power, which is impossible. Thus all scientific principles will always remain theories.

And you are okay with this???

Friend listen, you don't have to be a christian if you don't want to, I am not here to convert you..... But what you are putting your full, ULTIMATE trust in is a THEORY THAT CAN NEVER BE PROVED???

How would that work if you were to propose to a lady who said to you that in theory she was a lusting, sexual creature who desired sex at all costs.....are you going to ultimately trust her to be absolutely faithful going into the wedding?

Questions to ponder my friend.... why is it that with all this growing intelligence that man proceeds with is he becoming more and more depraved? is the planet dying off faster and faster?

How can science ever explain the devolution of man's evil heart? How can science explain the prophecy of the Bible unfolding right before our eyes as told by God through men thousands of years ago? Forget that they can't answer how everything with order and complexity came from nothing....they can't even explain evil, prophecy, supernatural spirit sightings,....

Creationism an alternate? No it's common sense. Paintings don't paint themselves...buildings don't build themselves....Automobiles don't come together from oragnic matter and form a complete, functioning and orderly vehicle. There has to be a brain behind something that exists, and it isn't found in the science world.

God gave us science to explore His vast creation, not to disprove it. A scientist who seeks to disprove God is a person who wants to get out from the accountabilty of his maker....like the thief who can't seem to find the police officer.

"How would that work if you were to propose to a lady who said to you that in theory she was a lusting, sexual creature who desired sex at all costs.....are you going to ultimately trust her to be absolutely faithful going into the wedding?"

One can have faith in a PERSON. Nobody is disputing that. You still know that yes, it is physically possible that this person will go and sleep with somebody else -- she's a human being with free will, there's nothing to stop her making that choice -- but you trust that she won't, because she loves you. In fact, that's a pretty good illustration of the difference between science and religion -- science acknowledges doubt, religion manufactures spurious certainty.

that a theory doesn't have 100% explanatory ability just means it explains a lot, but can be refined as more empirical evidence is discovered. I'm ok with that, since I accept it as the scientific method. I say accept since science isn't faith, which belief implies. You accept it or you reject it. If you choose to reject it, and choose to believe God designed the universe and all its creatures &amp; objects, I'm happy for you, if it gives you peace &amp; satisfaction. As you're satisfied with your explanation, so am I with evolution. Our respective choices don't harm each other, or anyone else. But comparing the design of engineered products like cars with organics is comparing apples &amp; oranges. I agree that science says nothing about morality, which is a area where traditional religions like Christianity have a lot to contribute to the human condition. I appreciate the wisdom of Christian morality over post-modern secularist alternatives that advocate race based victimology &amp; social justice. I call myself an atheist since I don't believe in an immanent God who answers prawyers. But I accept an alternate definition of God, who represents the vast unknown and unknowable that science has yet to penetrate &amp; likely never will penetrate. It's a long discussion that I could take to another more appropriat group, dealing with theology &amp; morality.

Beats me why this almighty God created mentally retarded human beings and cripples and deaf and dumb humans.

1 More Response

That Darwin! This is all his fault. It was so simple before. <br />
I love, let's teach them both theories and let them decide:<br />
"Jimmy, 4+3=?"<br />
"Well, what do you believe it is? I think it's 7 but we all have our own way of thinking. You can decide for yourself.' <br />
Oh, and good luck with things like higher education and job prospects and future relationships. We must all think for ourselves after all!

True Quint. But I believe in the power of the market. If creationists choose to disadvantage their kids, they will lose in the competitive marketplace, or figure it out later.

And the rest of us get to pay for their childrearing mistakes....

Explanatory POWER???? Are you kidding? Not one intellectual genius has discovered how everything came from nothing.....not to mention the order and complexity of that everything..... that came from nothing....

No, they haven't and perhaps never will. It may lie beyond the ability of human developed sensory expanding technologies that have helped validate numerous theories explaining natural processes. This atheist is willing to accept as his "God" that of Einstein, for whom God was the vast unknowable not yet and perhaps never subject to scientific rationalization. But I'd guess that's not how you define God.