Borgfree,
There are millions of facts that have been accumulated that support the theory of evolution. Whether there is a God involved in this, or not, is another question.
There is no proof whatsoever, for the concept of special creation. Basicly, special creation posits that "God did it." And there is no need for further proof. Special creation is a theory with no way of proving it right or wrong. It is simply specualation, and not open to proof or disproof.
Many Christians Preachers at war with Natural Science
by D wiltshire 35 Replies latest jw friends
-
larc
-
borgfree
Larc,
I am sure there are many facts that are claimed to support evolution. I just do not personally trust scientists any more than I do theologians. Over my life time I have seen scientists change "facts" many times.
I suppose, if I were very knowledgeable in the field of science and evolution, I would have fewer doubts about their findings, but based on my very limited knowledge, I just cannot accept, simply because a scientist says so, that some of their findings are legitimate.
I cannot believe, for example, that such prouncements, like the rock being found in Alaska, or wherever it was, is a chunk of Mars. I do not believe there exists any technology that proves that "fact" no matter how sure the scientists are that it is a piece of Mars. I have used that example before, but there are many pronouncements like that, that have had to be changed over the years.
Scientists are no more infallible than the Pope.
As a Christian, I believe that creation testifies to the existence of the Creator. I have, and I am sure you have, marveled at the vast amount of life forms and the huge variety of other life on this planet and the beauty of the awesome universe.
I think we might be like a computer chip that argues that there is no proof that a human exists, let alone that some human has any control over such a marvelous "being" as the computer.
Just my thoughts.
Borgfree
-
logansrun
Borgfree,
I cannot believe, for example, that such prouncements, like the rock being found in Alaska, or wherever it was, is a chunk of Mars. I do not believe there exists any technology that proves that "fact" no matter how sure the scientists are that it is a piece of Mars. I have used that example before, but there are many pronouncements like that, that have had to be changed over the years.
What do you think, scientists just pull this out of their asses? Do you even try to comprehend why they would make such statements? We have Martian rocks here on the planet Earth that were collected from probes that were sent to Mars and came back. All that is needed is to compare the composition of the rock found in Alaska with the Martian rocks collected already. What is so "unbelievable" about that?
Can you explain to me how your television or computer work? I doubt it. I can't tell you all the details or science behind every mechanism involved, but we don't think it's a miracle. Just because you can't comprehend something doesn't mean that it's not true.
I take great exception to your implications of scientists as "changing facts" and that they are no better or any more trustworthy than theologians. I hate to say, but anyone that has taken just a couple introductory science courses in college or watches the Discovery channel will know how ludicrous this statement is. You seem to have a very poor grasp of the scientific method. For instance, scientists hardly ever proclaim that a finding is a "fact." On the contrary, findings are held to be more or less probable and always provisional. Religion, on the other hand, is generally static in nature and is totalistic in it's outlook (eg, "the Bible is the word of God and that's that!). Do yourself a favor and educate yourself in science before you make outrageous claims.
Bradley
-
Abaddon
borgfree;
I am sure there are many facts that are claimed to support evolution. I just do not personally trust scientists any more than I do theologians. Over my life time I have seen scientists change "facts" many times.
A very wise and healthy attitude.
Please realise however that science is a fluid system based upon and responsive to the world around it. If new facts are discovered that don't fit the theories, the theories get changed.
Religion and theism are static systems based upon an unchanging book. If new facts are discovered that don't fit the theories, the facts are challanged or they have to make changes in their theories, even though what the theory is based on (the book) is the same.
This is a big difference. Which honestly do you think is a better choice for guiding your life?
I suppose, if I were very knowledgeable in the field of science and evolution, I would have fewer doubts about their findings, but based on my very limited knowledge, I just cannot accept, simply because a scientist says so, that some of their findings are legitimate.
I cannot believe, for example, that such prouncements, like the rock being found in Alaska, or wherever it was, is a chunk of Mars. I do not believe there exists any technology that proves that "fact" no matter how sure the scientists are that it is a piece of Mars. I have used that example before, but there are many pronouncements like that, that have had to be changed over the years
Here you set an unreasonable requirement; you are not 'very knowledgeable in the field of science and evolution', but you say you 'do not believe there exists any technology that proves that "fact" no matter how sure the scientists are that it is a piece of Mars'.
Well, you can have your cake and eat it;
Bwah! I don't understand, bwah! I can't accept what you say.
That's fine as a choice - it's not MINE, but you're welcome to it.
I think you'd be wiser to actually learn a bit about it though. If you can't have an informed opinion, get one.
Scientists are no more infallible than the Pope.
Of course they aren't. But you don't have the knowledge to evaluate their arguments, and rather than seeking to get the tools to evaluate their arguments...
As a Christian, I believe that creation testifies to the existence of the Creator. I have, and I am sure you have, marveled at the vast amount of life forms and the huge variety of other life on this planet and the beauty of the awesome universe.
... you cling to your old beliefs even though you admit you can't evaluate the truth of what scientists say. Is that reasonable? You have basically, without knowing about it, decided science is wrong, and are now buying a book that you know will at least in part tell you what you've already decided to believe.
That's not learning. That's reinforcement.
-
borgfree
Abaddon,
I am leaving now for work, but will take just a moment to reply to the last statement you made, I will take more time, when I can, at work, to answer more.
and are now buying a book that you know will at least in part tell you what you've already decided to believe.
I really do not know anything about the book or the author.
Borgfree
-
D wiltshire
Here are a few sites that have some info about Howard Van Till.
-
D wiltshire
Here an interesting quote:
"I have a dream that some day the forgotten doctrine of Creation's functional integrity will be recovered; that it will once and for all displace all variants of the God-of-the-gaps perspective; that the empirically derived confidence in the concept of genealogical continuity will no longer give apologetic advantage to the proponents of antitheistic naturalism; and that the whole enterprise of scientific theory evaluation will no longer be distorted by counterproductive entanglement with the authentically religious debate between theism and atheism. When that happens, the declarations of atheistic purposelessness offered by Jacques Monod, William Provine, or Richard Dawkins and company will have to be defended on their religious merit alone. They will have lost the services of science, once held hostage by strident preachers of materialism, and once held in distrustful suspicion by a misguided portion of the Christian community."
Howard J. Van Till is Professor of Physics at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan
-
borgfree
Abaddon,
Religion and theism are static systems based upon an unchanging book. If new facts are discovered that don't fit the theories, the facts are challanged or they have to make changes in their theories, even though what the theory is based on (the book) is the same.
This is a big difference. Which honestly do you think is a better choice for guiding your life?
If the Creator of everything, gave a book for His creatures to live by, wouldn't you expect it to be unchangeable?
If new facts are discovered that do not fit the theories it wouldn't prove the book wrong. It might prove the theories wrong. I agree with what D Wiltshire said above:
Christians should be leading the way to find out about God’s handiwork the universe instead of spouting off ridicule at Scholars that know far more about which they worked very hard to learn about.
I think that evolutionists should do the same. I do not think anyone on earth knows everything.
There are all kinds of people claiming to be Christian, some are very hard line in demanding that we believe exactly what has been taught for centuries, others try to be open to testing old beliefs and arriving at the truth.
It seems to me both sides could discuss the subject without either side saying "you are stupid", "you don't know what you are talking about", "first study all of the material on the subject before you comment" I think this example is what I am talking about:
Here you set an unreasonable requirement; you are not 'very knowledgeable in the field of science and evolution', but you say you 'do not believe there exists any technology that proves that "fact" no matter how sure the scientists are that it is a piece of Mars'.
We all know there are billions of planets, asteroids, comets, and other objects in the universe. Am I to believe the scientists can prove, that rock, came from Mars, rather than from earth, or any one of those billions of orbiting objects? Can the scientists prove that the minerals in that rock are found only on Mars? I think common sense would tell us they cannot, whether we have read all of the science books or not.
Of course they aren't. But you don't have the knowledge to evaluate their arguments, and rather than seeking to get the tools to evaluate their arguments...
I agree, I still think there are areas where we can just use logic to determine whether something is believable or not.
... you cling to your old beliefs even though you admit you can't evaluate the truth of what scientists say. Is that reasonable? You have basically, without knowing about it, decided science is wrong
I was raised from birth on the teachings of the bible. Yes, I cling to them, and have faith in the God of the bible. I have never had an interest in studying evolution, however I will remain open to change, if the facts prove that I should change. You are wrong about my opinion of science. As a JW student in school I loved science, and in fact, had a desire to be a scientist. Of course that did not meet with the approval of the WT org.
Borgfree
-
borgfree
Logansrun,
Sorry, your post has not been showing up on my screen.
Just because you can't comprehend something doesn't mean that it's not true.
I agree, I still claim my right to my opinion.
I take great exception to your implications of scientists as "changing facts" and that they are no better or any more trustworthy than theologians.
I think I am remembering correctly, that it was scientists, who told us bacon was very bad for us, for some reasons, then it is not bad for us. Coffee was very bad for us then it wasn't. Milk, same thing, and many other food items and medicines, etc. I could be wrong but I do think it was scientists who were making those decisions.
Do yourself a favor and educate yourself in science before you make outrageous claims.
I intend for my comments to be opinions and thoughts rather than outrageous claims.
Borgfree
-
hillary_step
Hello,
I really enjoyed your post David.
The problem with all religions and it has to be said, many bad scientists, is that they start with conclusions and then seek to fit together a vast and challenging jigsaw puzzle by filing the pieces to make them fit their picture.
Science, unlike bad scientists is about discovery, proof and growth. It is just at the beginning of its journey into tapping into the roots of this great cosmic mystery that we all seem to be a part of. Its attraction, is that it will always be based on provable fact, and even when in error, by definition it must retrace its steps and correct the error, a discipline not demanded of religion unfortunately. Religion has had many thousands of years to walk along the road of conscious discovery but has continually hampered itself by living in the past and adhering, often brutally, to traditions and conceptions that fit comfortably within its boundaries. It has failed mankind badly.
We are at the beginning of a new age, a renaissance of knowledge and awareness, but we are all in some way or the other living within the confines of social cocoons established by others for others. Times are changing and religions like the WTS for example, need to realize this in order to survive the Tsunami of knowledge that is poised over them. An example of this is seen in the WTS complete silence with regard to recent discoveries of the antiquity of conscious man on this planet. No longer can they attack Carbon 14 methods of dating, as other methods of dating have been enhanced in recent times to provide definite proof that Genesis cannot be relied on with any sort of accuracy. The Bible is clearly not a book of science, or chronology. In recent literature the WTS has begrudingly admitted this, but then as is common with the proud and arrogant, go on to say that nevertheless, it does not contradict 'true' science ( i.e. science that agrees with the WT ). YEC show a similar fickle attitude when it comes to presenting scientific fact. The silence of the WTS and such religions to these recent scientific discoveries, speaks volumes.
We will die without the answers to most, if not all of the questions that nag us regarding our existence and perhaps post-existence. If one believes in a God it must be supposed that he either intended it this way, or that the journey is the destination. If we do not believe in God, we must suppose that at some stage these answers might unravel from factual discovery. Either way, it is as well to keep our minds firmly open to any eventuality and not begin with conclusions.
Best regards - HS