by Carmel 12 Replies latest jw friends
Actually, Michael Behe wrote, "Darwin's Black Box" not "Darwin on Trial." The latter was written by a lawyer (NOT a biologist) named Philip Johnson. Behe's "findings" have been criticised by more than a few, including Ken Miller a microbiologist who wrote "Finding Darwin's God." Interestingly, Behe does in fact believe in some form of evolution, including the fact that humans and the great apes share a common ancestor (sorry hooberus).
Bradley
ok carmel.
last time you came on here you said you're wife was making you into a more gentle mannered man. obviously, she has failed.
please show this post to her................and then explain to her ....her failure.
Don't imagine you can change a man unless he's in nappies. - Jasmine Birtles
Catchya later, smelly!
wait
Well, the Genesis account (or any other religion's Creation account I have come across) is pretty well a no-no for if you take it literally. We can argue this, but I do hope it is not neccesary as I find discussions on the validity of a YEC viewpoint a little repetative, although I rejoice in people's right to hold to such an opinion.
Obviously, if you don't take it (or any other religion's creation account) literally, you can play around far more in trying to fit the metaphorical nature of the account to modern scientific understanding (people who take issue that modern science's understanding changes over time are quite free to, but I'd rather they did so without electricity as this means they are being consistant).
However, such metaphorical shinnagins ignore a very simple point. If Revelation can be a coded description of the endtimes, then why could not Genesis (or whatever creation account) have described creation in a manner that would have been fantastical to the bronze-age goat herd that is meant to have taken the dictation, but that would have snapped into focus as the clear and obvious proof of divine inspiration with the advent of modern science?
Any serious attempt to answer this involves god intentionally withholding proof of its existence, which given the basically caring idiation of god in most religions is inconsistant and hard to defend.
All of this however does not disprove god in any way, but I do hope I don't need to go into the fact that this is impossible in anycase and why. What it DOES do is indicate that any religous account of creation is probably largely made-up to fit the times it was made up in. Note how UFO believers often believe we are the results of genetic experiments.
There's a lot more proof that the Bible is not an accurate or even remotely inspired guide for life (mismatch between human sexual biology at physiological level and Biblical moral codes, for example), but, ignoring it, yes, there could have been a creator.
But there's little direct evidence, and only insistance that 'no, it couldn't have happened any other way' for this.
I'd love to be proved wrong though, so, go at it my little creationist chums.
