August 27, 2008

Science

(Part 3) We have already seen that Darwinists assume as a matter of first principle that the history of the cosmos and its life forms is fully explicable on naturalistic principles. This reflects a philosophical doctrine called scientific naturalism, which is said to be a necessary consequence of the inherent limitations of science. What scientific naturalism does, however, is to transform the limitations of science into limitations upon reality, in the interest of maximizing the explanatory power of science and its practitioners. It is, of course, entirely possible to study organisms scientifically on the premise that they were all created by God, just as scientists study airplanes and even works of art without denying that these objects are intelligently designed. The problem with allowing God a role in the history of life is not that science would cease, but rather that scientists would have to acknowledge the existence of something important which is outside the boundaries of natural science. For scientists who want to be able to explain everything-and "theories of everything" are now openly anticipated in the scientific literature- this is an intolerable possibility.

The second feature of scientific naturalism that is important for our purpose is its set of rules governing the criticism and replacement of a paradigm. A paradigm is a general theory, like the Darwinian theory of evolution, which has achieved general acceptance in the scientific community. The paradigm unifies the various specialties that make up the research community, and guides research in all of them. Thus, zoologists, botanists, geneticists, molecular biologists, and paleontologists all see their research as aimed at filling out the details of the Darwinian paradigm. If molecular biologists see a pattern of apparently neutral mutations, which have no apparent effect on an organism's fitness, they must find a way to reconcile their findings with the paradigm's requirement that natural selection guides evolution. This they can do by postulating a sufficient quantity of invisible adaptive mutations, which are deemed to be accumulated by natural selection. Similarly, if paleontologists see new fossil species appearing suddenly in the fossil record, and remaining basically unchanged thereafter, they must perform whatever contortions are necessary to force this recalcitrant evidence into a model of incremental change through the accumulation of micromutations.

Supporting the paradigm may even require what in other contexts would be called deception. As Niles Eldredge candidly admitted, "We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing it does not." Eldredge explained that this pattern of misrepresentation occurred because of "the certainty so characteristic of evolutionary ranks since the late 1940s, the utter assurance not only that natural selection operates in nature, but that we know precisely how it works." This certainty produced a degree of dogmatism that Eldredge says resulted in the relegation to the "lunatic fringe" of paleontologists who reported that "they saw something out of kilter between contemporary evolutionary theory, on the one hand, and patterns of change in the fossil record on the other." Under the circumstances, prudent paleontologists understandably swallowed their doubts and supported the ruling ideology. To abandon the paradigm would be to abandon the scientific community; to ignore the paradigm and just gather the facts would be to earn the demeaning label of "stamp collector."

As many philosophers of science have observed, the research community does not abandon a paradigm in the absence of a suitable replacement. This means that negative criticism of Darwinism, however devastating it may appear to be, is essentially irrelevant to the professional researchers. The critic may point out, for example, that the evidence that natural selection has any creative power is somewhere between weak and non-existent. That is perfectly true, but to Darwinists the more important point is this: If natural selection did not do the creating, what did? "God" is obviously unacceptable, because such a being is unknown to science. "We don't know" is equally unacceptable, because to admit ignorance would be to leave science adrift without a guiding principle. To put the problem in the most practical terms: it is impossible to write or evaluate a grant proposal without a generally accepted theoretical framework.

The paradigm rule explains why Gould's acknowledgment that neo-Darwinism is "effectively dead" had no significant effect on the Darwinist faithful, or even on Gould himself. Gould made that statement in a paper predicting the emergence of a new general theory of evolution, one based on the macromutational speculations of the Berkeley geneticist Richard Goldschmidt. When the new theory did not arrive as anticipated, the alternatives were either to stick with Ernst Mayr's version of neo-Darwinism, or to concede that biologists do not after all know of a naturalistic mechanism that can produce biological complexity. That was no choice at all. Gould had to beat a hasty retreat back to classical Darwinism to avoid giving aid and comfort to the enemies of scientific naturalism, including those disgusting creationists.

(*Copied Source)

28 comments:

  1. "it is impossible to write or evaluate a grant proposal without a generally accepted theoretical framework."

    That was one of my points HERE

    ReplyDelete
  2. Okaaaay.....

    The problem with allowing God a role in the history of life is not that science would cease, but rather that scientists would have to acknowledge the existence of something important which is outside the boundaries of natural science.

    No, that's not the problem: the problem is that there is no evidence for any such God (so far). Why should scientists, or anyone else, "acknowledge the existence" of something for which there is no evidence? And if God did exist, and were "important", that implies that He would have some effects on the history of life. If this were true, then the effects would not be outside the boundaries of natural science: they could be studied, just like any other effects.

    If molecular biologists see a pattern of apparently neutral mutations, which have no apparent effect on an organism's fitness, they must find a way to reconcile their findings with the paradigm's requirement that natural selection guides evolution. This they can do by postulating a sufficient quantity of invisible adaptive mutations, which are deemed to be accumulated by natural selection.

    Uh, this guy obviously wasn't paying attention in junior high science class. Neutral mutations are those which, by definition, are invisible to natural selection, because they have no effect on the phenotype: the point mutations in cytochrome-c that provide such good corroboration of macroevolution are a case in point. Natural selection does not guide everything that happens in evolution.

    Similarly, if paleontologists see new fossil species appearing suddenly in the fossil record, and remaining basically unchanged thereafter, they must perform whatever contortions are necessary to force this recalcitrant evidence into a model of incremental change through the accumulation of micromutations.

    Now I'm sure this guy was spending his science classes in the cafeteria. There are no contortions necessary: the speed of evolution can change, depending on selective pressures. If an organism functions very well in its way of life, then change will be selected against: sharks are a good example of a design basically unchanged in more than 200 million years. But if change can improve reproductive success, for instance if an organism can be more efficient, or if the environment is changing, or if a new niche for a different way of life opens up, then evolution can be rapid. A good example of this is the evolution of mammals from reptiles, which happened in a few tens of millions of years.

    As Niles Eldredge candidly admitted, "We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing it does not."

    Ah, yes, punk eek (punctuated equilibrium) rears its ugly head. I don't want to get too far into this, because it is beyond the scope of our debate here, but in brief: Gould and Eldredge came up with the hypothesis that life does not always evolve at a steady pace, but more often evolves rapidly to a point and then stays more or less the same for a long time, as we see in sharks, for instance. The response in the scientific community was underwhelming: no one has ever claimed that evolution always proceeds at a certain pace, so many scientists just said "so what?". Even Darwin never believed that evolution was always gradual.

    The utility of punk eek is still debated. Some think that it might help explain why some species seem to appear out of nowhere in the fossil record: perhaps the initial steps of their evolution happened in such a brief timespan that we are unlikely to find any record of the changes. By "brief", of course, we are talking about something on the order of a million years or so, which is a very short window, geologically speaking, one which is simply invisible in many strata.

    In any case, punk eek provides no evidence for creationism, and neither Gould nor Eldredge saw it as such: it is purely a debate about the relative speed of evolution, not about the fact of evolution.

    The critic may point out, for example, that the evidence that natural selection has any creative power is somewhere between weak and non-existent.

    The critic is wrong: the combination of mutation, which provides variation, and natural selection, which selects those variations that work, is most certainly creative: it produced us and all other living things. This creativity can be demonstrated in the lab, seen in the field, and inferred from the fossil record. I know, it's hard to imagine that such small changes, most of which are deleterious, can ever result in evolution. But we are dealing with changes spread out in time and space: unimaginably large amounts of time, and huge numbers of individuals at a time. As Dawkins said, our statistical intuitions are not equipped to cope with such huge numbers, and thus make evolution seem unbelievable.

    That is perfectly true, but to Darwinists the more important point is this: If natural selection did not do the creating, what did?

    Not just natural selection, but mutation and built-in constraints.

    "God" is obviously unacceptable, because such a being is unknown to science.

    At last, a true statement!

    "We don't know" is equally unacceptable, because to admit ignorance would be to leave science adrift without a guiding principle.

    Huh? A scientist who cannot say "We don't know" is not a good scientist. I know a few scientists, and every one of them will say "I don't know" if he or she doesn't know. This sounds like projection to me, from someone who is uncomfortable without a "guiding principle" for every circumstance: in short, a believer.

    The paradigm rule explains why Gould's acknowledgment that neo-Darwinism is "effectively dead" had no significant effect on the Darwinist faithful, or even on Gould himself. Gould made that statement in a paper predicting the emergence of a new general theory of evolution, one based on the macromutational speculations of the Berkeley geneticist Richard Goldschmidt. When the new theory did not arrive as anticipated, the alternatives were either to stick with Ernst Mayr's version of neo-Darwinism, or to concede that biologists do not after all know of a naturalistic mechanism that can produce biological complexity. That was no choice at all. Gould had to beat a hasty retreat back to classical Darwinism to avoid giving aid and comfort to the enemies of scientific naturalism, including those disgusting creationists.

    Uh, no, not really. It wasn't the "paradigm rule" that ended Gould's brief flirtation with Goldschmidt's macroevolutionary hypothesis: it was the fact that it was not supported by the evidence. Gould was a firebrand, and not terribly humble, but he was a good scientist, and eventually saw the hopelessness of Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster": it is simply too unlikely that huge changes in one generation will produce successful offspring. That is definitely taking punk eek too far. And no, this whole debate had nothing whatsoever to do with the evolution of complexity: it was only about the speed of evolution.

    Creationists love to quote-mine Gould, which infuriated him so much that he even corresponded, near the end of his life, with his arch rival Dawkins, and agreed that it was a waste of time to publicly debate creationists. Not because they were afraid of losing; but because public debates are a circus, not science. Moreover, creationists have a bad habit of claiming, when real scientists do debate them, that merely having a debate proves that their ideas have merit: otherwise, why would scientists debate with them?

    And Dan: I would rather hear from you what you think than read all this creationist c/p. I can find that all over the web, and since you are not responding to our criticisms here, it is becoming an exercise in futility, at least for me.

    cheers from starry Vienna, zilch

    ReplyDelete
  3. Zilch:

         So, what was that question that you said that I didn't answer? Oh, yes. You say that I am not really interested in that question. Well, I stated that Reynold was not really interested in an answer to a question because he had "poisoned the well" and he asked and he asked what reason he would have to keep harping if didn't really want an answer. Any reason you can compose in your mind why I don't want the question applies equally well to Reynold. And since you accused me of refusing to answer, I must keep asking for the question. I'll stop asking for the question when I see the question. So, if you're avoiding dialog because "it's for your own good," it is also for your own good just to provide that question.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "We have already seen that Darwinists assume as a matter of first principle that the history of the cosmos and its life forms is fully explicable on naturalistic principles."

    Wrong. Atheists claim this, Darwinists can be believers too, remember.

    "This reflects a philosophical doctrine called scientific naturalism, which is said to be a necessary consequence of the inherent limitations of science."

    Methodological naturalism is a rule of science: we cannot conclude supernatural causes for natural phenomena, or we open ourselves to "Zeusdidit" arguments.

    Philosophical naturalism is a worldview, held by all atheists.

    Scientific naturalism is a simple acceptance of methodoligical naturalism: science cannot comment on the supernatural. It doesn't conclude the supernatural doesn't exist: merely that anything involving it is inexplicable (part of the definition of supernatural) and therefore unscientific.

    The rest of the first paragraph is based off of the false premise that Scientific naturalism denies the supernatural.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rant Master Zilch,

    "of something for which there is no evidence?"

    First there is plenty of evidence, just nothing you will accept based on your presuppositions. Second, There is a apparent avoidance of God, so any evidence that did exist would be labeled inconclusive because it just doesn't support the current paradigm. We are stuck in a perpetual search for big foot or the Loch Ness Monster called evolution.

    I guess it would be save to say "everything" can be explained as long as it points to the overall paradigm, outside of it would be pointless. Got it.

    "and since you are not responding to our criticisms here"

    Funny how yours is the first comment and you make this claim? Plus, that seems unfair, I am addressing everything I have knowledge about or a counter point for. Proof one is this comment here. I thought it would be great to post the points and talk about them in sections. I agree at first I wanted to post everything before everyone jumped down my throat but at each post when a comment is posted I do respond.

    Something also I observed:

    "Uh, this guy obviously wasn't paying attention in junior high science class."

    "Now I'm sure this guy was spending his science classes in the cafeteria."


    I really thought you were above these type of attacks Zilch. I will remain disappointed I guess.

    Where is our Zilch?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Pointing out that the person you copied this useless, tendentious, unfounded blabber passed the science classes in the cafeteria, well, it is just stating the obvious. But I actually disagree with zilch. The guy did go read science stuff searching things to take out of context to advance his point.

    Liar, fallacious person I might add. This is NOT ad hominem, but an accurate description of a person given his writings.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  7. But I actually disagree with zilch. The guy did go read science stuff searching things to take out of context to advance his point.

    Maybe he did, GE, but not until after junior high. I will stick to my contention that he wasn't paying attention in junior high science, because I know that evolution is in the curriculum, and he sure doesn't know his evolution.

    I really thought you were above these type of attacks Zilch. I will remain disappointed I guess.

    Where is our Zilch?


    Sorry, Dan, even your Zilch sometimes gets a bit hotheaded in the defense of truth and justice. But even our Dan does too, occasionally:

    I thought you would be able to see the fallacies and bias at that blog. This is like trying to convince a pedophile at a police convention that raping children is wrong.

    So we're like pedophiles at a police convention? I don't know about you, but on my godless atheistic scale of values, pedophiles rate somewhat lower than goof-offs. Of course, this is your blog, Dan, and you make the rules. In fact, you are the god (small "g" god, of course!) of the blog. But I appeal to your fair-mindedness (and I do believe that you are fair-minded): is my gentle fun-poking really that objectionable?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Zilch,

    We both know the "like trying to convince a pedophile at a police convention that raping children is wrong." was merely a comparison.

    For example:

    You look like a "fish out of water"

    Do you really think I just called you a fish? Really?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dan- yes, strictly speaking, you are correct: I claimed that Johnson actually played hooky from science class; you said that we were like pedophiles. I used a direct assertion, you used a simile. But think about it: would it really have been more polite of me to say "Johnson was obviously just like the class goof-off, who spent all of eighth grade science sleeping, passing notes, and shooting spitballs"? No, it's the tone that counts, not the form. And judging by his writing, I will say this: perhaps Johnson was paying attention in science class, perhaps he wasn't, but it obviously didn't sink in.

    Dan- I, and others here, have spent a fair amount of time and effort debunking what Johnson says. Leaving aside for the moment stuff about the existence of God, because there are believers who do understand evolution: Johnson makes many particular claims about what evolutionary science says that are simply incorrect. I pointed these out in my first comment in this post, and you have said nothing at all about them. That's what I meant when I complained that you are not responding to our criticism, in reference to your previous posts of Johnson's stuff.

    And if you said that I look like a fish out of water, I would take that as a sign that you are coming around to our way of thinking. Biologically, we are in the same clade as fish: that means we are on the same branch of the Tree of Life that fish are. We still have a great deal in common with fish, things that would be hard to explain if we weren't related. I'd much rather be compared to a fish than to a pedophile.

    cheers from fishy zilchy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Zilch,

    "I pointed these out in my first comment in this post, and you have said nothing at all about them."

    Squeaky wheel does get the grease. Sometimes I overlook things, sorry.

    "I'd much rather be compared to a fish than to a pedophile."

    Understandably, I just use pedophiles to shock the conscience and to show the absurd logic. Effective because it seems to be the only 'absolute truth' that even atheists agree with.

    "And if you said that I look like a fish out of water, I would take that as a sign that you are coming around to our way of thinking"

    You are hilarious. I have always wondered how many billions of fish died before they grew lungs to survive out of the water. What determination. And the real stretch of the imagination is that they did it it pairs. (to be able to reproduce)

    Wait let me guess fish back then did it asexually. What a great story...um any proof?

    I guess one can equate you bad body odor to the fish though. You might be on to something.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dan, Dan, Dan...

    Understandably, I just use pedophiles to shock the conscience and to show the absurd logic. Effective because it seems to be the only 'absolute truth' that even atheists agree with.

    So, you rap my knuckles (in cyberspace) for having the temerity to claim that Phillip Johnson "wasn't paying attention" in science class. But when you lambaste us, it's okay, because it's the only way to reach us degenerate atheists. Tut, tut, Dan: didn't someone once say something about motes and beams? I'm sure you know what I mean.

    You are hilarious. I have always wondered how many billions of fish died before they grew lungs to survive out of the water. What determination. And the real stretch of the imagination is that they did it it pairs. (to be able to reproduce)

    This is precisely why you, and Johnson, should do your homework: sure, it's legitimate to disagree with someone, but at least learn what they are saying first, so you don't end up criticizing a position they don't hold. I'll explain what's wrong with this paragraph, but that doesn't excuse you from going out and doing some reading.

    1) I am hilarious? I'm flattered- thanks.

    2) How many fish died? Billions is probably a little low: just off the top of my head, I would say gazillions of fish have died in the last half a billion years. Fish die, just like people do. But I think you are imagining that evolutionary science says something like this: fish with gills flop up onto land, and promptly die, because they have no lungs. Miraculously, though, thank Darwin, a boy fish and a girl fish are born with lungs. Amazingly, they meet, and after a very brief courtship start a happy family of amphibians on land. Is this how you imagine science describes the evolution of lungs?

    Puleeze, Dan, do some reading. Lungfish evolved long before amphibians, and some are still living today. Some (such as the African ones) still have gills as well. The ability to breathe air is an obvious advantage for survival in mud holes that dry out in summer.

    And you don't need to have a whole lung at once to have an advantage: lungs evolved gradually from swim bladders. And you don't need a boy and a girl fish with the same mutation: a single mutation can be passed on and gradually spread through an evolving population, if it is beneficial. You see, a mutation which leads to a new, advantageous form, is almost always just a very small change (hopeful monsters are probably vanishingly rare), so it does not represent a new species. You don't get a new species until you've had a fair amount of evolution, often in a population that has become isolated from the original one in some way.

    3)Determination: no, the fish were not determined to evolve lungs. It just happened that those that did evolve lungs were successful in their new habitats. Not that the fish without lungs are not also successful with gills: there's no progression here, just taking advantage of opportunities. And there are fishy opportunities, and froggy ones, and mousy and manly ones too.

    Now, Dan, all of this information is easily available on the internet. I have read the Bible at least four times: now it's time for you to do some reading too. As I've said before, TalkOrigins is a good place to start. If you want more suggestions, I'd be happy to give you some.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Zilch: excellent explanation of the Fish-Amphibion transition. I'll never understand why I keep seeing it presented as a problem for evolution when it's far easier to understand than so many other hurdles evolution has overcome.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "The problem with allowing God a role in the history of life is not that science would cease, but rather that scientists would have to acknowledge the existence of something important which is outside the boundaries of natural science."

    Are you suggesting that there are no Christian scientists??

    Until science reveals evidence of a Creator, it simply wont attribute physical facts to said Creator - beyond which, it makes no comment on whether said being exists or not.

    And this is exactly as it should be.

    Why?

    I'll bet Christian evangelists would be rioting in the streets if science equally considered all deities as having created life on earth. The Christian God would be a peer to the Muslim God - to Buddah, Yaweh and the multitude of deities from other religions.

    Simply put, those Christians who assert scientists are "afraid" of admitting God may exist betray their intellectual dishonesty; they want science to allow the possibility of their God being real, but not the others.

    ie. Christian bigotry

    ReplyDelete
  14. Whateverman,

    "I'll bet Christian evangelists would be rioting in the streets if science equally considered all deities as having created life on earth."

    It already exists, it's called Intelligent Design which could include even aliens. Of course, it's not even considered by scientists though.

    I would love to see ID go away and replaced to the more accurate Biblical Creation, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  15. First, science isn't considering ID because ID makes no testable predictions. It's not science.

    Second, science doesn't consider any God as explanative of causality. Christian activists aren't interested in getting scientists to accept God as an explanation for the natural world - they're trying to get scientists to accept the Christian god as such.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Christian God is just a byproduct. The universe was "created" by the "Creator" we just happen to worship that same God.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Zilch,

    I appreciate the "story" it would make a good bed time tale because it made me sleepy.

    All kidding aside, you mentioned all these thing happening without any observable proof just the end result. Science?

    Thanks for the talk origins website I never have seen it before. If you haven't noticed it is on the rebuked list. I cannot trust a website that takes such a dedication to deny a Creator.

    I have a new one and I believe God placed them on this earth just to confuse evolutionists. Try to explain the platypus in evolutionary terms, it's amphibious that lives in a river, lays eggs(monotremes), feeds it young with milk like a mammal, it has a bill like a duck that also, like a shark, senses electromagnetic signals put out by muscles of other animals, tail like a beaver, claws like a reptile, fur like a polar bear (it's waterproof fur keeps it from getting "waterlogged."), poison like a snake, it stores the food in small pouches within its cheeks (Squirrel?), webbed front feet propel it through the water (it "rows" through the water with its front legs).

    "What a grand design, it does what it does and it does do fine.
    (chorus) It's designed to do what it does do. What it does do, it does do well. Doesn't it? Yes it does. I think it does. Do you? I do. Hope you do too. Do you?" (Song by Buddy Davis)

    ReplyDelete
  18. All kidding aside, you mentioned all these thing happening without any observable proof just the end result. Science?

    Yep, science. At least following my definition- I realize that pvblivs, and most creationists, won't agree. But there is a great deal of evidence for the evolution of fish from amphibians: many transitional fossils (here's a sampling), DNA analysis, comparative anatomy, the usual stuff. But why do I bother? You've already said, in so many words, that you won't accept any evidence that goes against the Bible.

    And where did you see anything about "denying a Creator" on Talk Origins? They are just doing what scientists do: presenting the data and the models. I don't remember reading anything there about "denying a Creator" at all- if you know of something, please let me know. What they do deny is Young Earth Creationism, and they do support evolution, which goes against some Christians' (not all, of course) interpretation of the Bible.

    And Dan- yes, the platypus is a funny and amazing creature. If you want to know about its evolution, I suggest you google it yourself: there's all kinds of fossils, and features that show it to be descended from a primitive branch of the mammals: it still has some reptilian features, such as egg-laying, and, well, being monotrematic (you can look up what that means). As you say, they are quite specialized in other ways.

    But what do you see to be the problem for evolutionists? Sure, it's a queer beast, and there remains a lot that is not known about it, but it doesn't violate what we know about biology or evolution. If God had wanted to confuse evolutionists, He could have done a much better job of it: by giving humans, say, a different genetic code than all other living things, or even by planting a couple of dinosaur footprints next to a caveman's.

    No, if God really created life, He did it in such a way that it looks very convincingly as though it evolved. Why He would do such a thing is a mystery to me.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Zilch said: "if God really created life, He did it in such a way that it looks very convincingly as though it evolved. Why He would do such a thing is a mystery to me."

    To me, as well, though it's resulted in me turning away from institutionalized theism (and towards deism).

    I've been recently asserting that prosletizing biblical interpretation as a way of understanding the natural world is simply displaying a lack of faith (by the self-identified faithful).

    If God actually did create life here as the Bible states, there's no need to be offended by people who believe differently; there's no need to worry about secular education "preaching" Darwinian Evolution. Faith, by definition, is belief even in the face of contrary evidence.

    If you actually have faith, why do you feel the need to teach other people about it? Why do you want to change secular society to reflect your belief system? Isn't squashing the opposition merely an indication that you don't entirely trust God to keep society on the straight and narrow?

    If fundamentalists have the faith they claim to, there would be no need to convert anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Whateverman,

    The difference is you deny the God of the Bible. We believe that Moses, and others, did what they did and Jesus rose from that grave to save us. It is absolutely truth or a lie. God was reaching out to save His creation. You deny this. You consider God to be a liar.

    You cannot believe for what moment that evil doesn't exist and that God cannot or will not be active in changing this situation to eradicate evil once and for all. You believe this creation we have right now is not fallen and good? Please tell me you at least believe that evil is prevalent here? God is very active in our lives if our free will will understand Him.

    In your heart you fully understand there can only be one God and a tree or a bird or a clay pot is not a god. The Creator of the universe is in full control.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dan said: The difference is you deny the God of the Bible.

    No, I deny your religion's interpretation of the Bible. There's a huge difference.


    We believe that Moses, and others, did what they did and Jesus rose from that grave to save us. It is absolutely truth or a lie. God was reaching out to save His creation. You deny this.

    No, I deny your (selectively) literal interpretation of the Bible.

    Assuming Jesus was real, the lessons taught back then were both cultural and limited to civilization at that time. Additionally, Christianity has been all too willing to take texts of questionable origin, label them as having come from divine sources, and lump them all together into something called "The Bible"

    It's far more likely that the writers were human, describing supernatural events. And given that there are multiple translations, all with language that differs significantly (example: http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-6.htm), and differences between NT and OT - I don't see how you can rationally assert the Bible isn't muddied by human influence & fallibility.

    I deny your interpretation of the events.



    You consider God to be a liar.

    See above. Additionally, up to this point I've considered you a theist interested in reason and logic. This may in part be due to your willingness to quote other people when making an argument, but I choose to ignore that for now.

    By telling me what I think and feel and do (ie. considering God to be a liar), you're suggesting that I be less friendly in these discussion. Please stop.




    You cannot believe for what moment that evil doesn't exist and that God cannot or will not be active in changing this situation to eradicate evil once and for all.
    Why, yes: I can. Reason #1:

    1) Look up the definition of Deism. I am a deist. The definition generally explains what I think God is doing about evil (aka. nothing)

    2) Christian history is rife with examples of governmental & Church leaders providing guidance to the unwashes masses through the dogma of Evil, Satan and Hell. At best, it puts the notion of "sin" in questionable light; at worst it reveals indeed that "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"

    3) Christian doctrine asserts that God is omnipotent, omniscient and ever-present. If God wanted to eradicate evil, he would do so. Instead, it appears he's very much willing to let us destroy ourselves.

    And according to Christianity, Satan has his claws firmly in today's modern society. If so, this again disproves the idea that God "{sic} can and will be active in changing this situation to eradicate evil once and for all"



    You believe this creation we have right now is not fallen and good? Please tell me you at least believe that evil is prevalent here?

    Society is far from perfect, but do I think evil is prevalent? It depends on how you define the word. If you take it to mean "the absence of good", then I'll agree. The world is an evil place (mostly because we're all self-centered beings).

    If you take it to mean "going against the Bible" or "acting against Christian values", then I'll concede evil is everywhere, but add that this is not necessarily a bad thing. The Bible is not the sole source of morality or God's word. It does not close the book (heh) on what God meant or wants. It is imperfect. As such, things which contradict it are not necessarily bad.

    A very silly example: women in western society today are not being forced to cover their heads. This is sin (re. evil) according to the Bible, yet humane and fair and morally correct in humanistic terms.

    If you take "evil" to mean "of the Devil", then no - society is not swimming in evil. The devil is a Christian tool (just as Sin is) to scare the Bronze age into behaving properly. He does not exist.




    God is very active in our lives if our free will will understand Him.

    I'm not so sure he's that active. In my experience, he may be talking to each of us in some way. But I see no evidence that world events are shaped by him. He appears to be conspicuously absent from the material world.

    You're free to believe otherwise - I have nothing to counter it with if you do so. However, it's notable that you have no standing to tell me I'm wrong, either.

    It's your faith, not mine.

    In your heart you fully understand there can only be one God and a tree or a bird or a clay pot is not a god.

    Other than finding no reason for God to hide in my ashtray, I can't really tell WHAT or WHERE he is. He may be everywhere, he may be the absent creator, he may be watching, he may be standing next to me as I type this - influecing my words. I simply don't understand his nature.

    Again: you're free to believe differently.


    The Creator of the universe is in full control

    And, according to my experience, all too willing to not control anything.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Whateverman,

    "I deny your religion's interpretation of the Bible."

    Fair enough and wise. The mere fact there are different denominations negates the one true way as talked about in Jeremiah 32:38-40. I hold no particular denomination but that doesn't mean I throw the Bible away just because man says things must be a certain way.

    Proverbs 3:5-6 and 1 John 2:27 comes to mind.

    "I deny your (selectively) literal interpretation of the Bible."

    I try very hard to use proper exegesis method of interpretation but I do fail at times. It takes just a moment to become a Christian, but an entire lifetime to live as one.

    As far as the different translations, there is a sliding scale so I take all of them into account and not trust any 'one' thing that man has done. I stay close to literal and conservative as possible. The translations start from very conservative and literal translations like Young's Literal, Darby then to KJV then on up to the top of the more modern and liberal translations like NLT, NASB, and the most liberal New Jerusalem Bible (NJB). You might want to read a more conservative translation to understand God's Word, but that is just my advice.

    "By telling me what I think and feel and do (ie. considering God to be a liar), you're suggesting that I be less friendly in these discussion. Please stop."

    My apologies, you are correct I misunderstood your belief structure and assumed a great deal. I will stop. I now understand you are a deist not an atheist. My mistake.

    "If God wanted to eradicate evil, he would do so. "

    Are you claiming He won't?

    And according to Christianity, Satan has his claws firmly in today's modern society. If so, this again disproves the idea that God "{sic} can and will be active in changing this situation to eradicate evil once and for all"

    Please see this post for my response.

    "If you take it to mean "the absence of good", then I'll agree."

    Again, please see the above post.

    A very silly example: women in western society today are not being forced to cover their heads. This is sin (re. evil) according to the Bible, yet humane and fair and morally correct in humanistic terms.

    Remember back in the Old Testament days we were in "Old Covenant Messianic Kingdom of David"

    After Christ died on the cross and was resurrected he sat on the throne as High Priest and began the New Covenant or 'Christ's New Covenant Church Kingdom'

    We need to make a distinction between the three types of laws in the Old Testament. The first type is ceremonial. These are the laws governing the temple worship and the way we are to approach God. They have to do with the layout of the temple, the ways a person must be purified, the sacrificial system. We don’t sacrifice animals today because Jesus has come, the perfect sacrifice. He, in his death on the cross, fulfilled the ceremonial law.

    The second type is civil law. These laws covered the specific laws for the nation of Israel. They are about taxes, charging interest, punishing sin. The civil law has been fulfilled by Christ in that God’s Kingdom has been extended to all nations, transcending national identity. We are no longer bound by the laws of Israel.

    The third type is moral law. The Ten Commandments fall into this category. These are laws that transcend the civil and ceremonial laws. Yes, Jesus fulfilled the moral law, just as he did the other two, but we are now free to follow this Law. They are still in effect, because they are a reflection of God’s moral character, and that does not change.

    On a side not the dietary guidelines in Leviticus 11 are still "in effect"
    because it is repeated and continued in the NT. Plus the fact that 'clean' and 'unclean' foods hasn't changed.

    A fantastic rule is you follow the OT unless it's NOT repeated or continued in the NT.

    "He may be everywhere, he may be the absent creator, he may be watching, he may be standing next to me as I type this - [influencing] my words. I simply don't understand his nature."

    This post might help in that area.

    I do wish you no ill will, abrasive as I might be at times. Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dan wrote:
    "A fantastic rule is you follow the OT unless it's NOT repeated or continued in the NT. "

    Read this sentance through a few times. If this is a correct statement, why bother following the OT at all? Just follow the NT.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Quasar,

    Valid point I just meant since the OT describes thing in great detail we can follow them because they are repeated in the NT. Like clean and unclean foods and such.

    Another great example is what it says in Matthew 22:39 "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"

    But what does this truly mean? Does that mean we are to love them no matter what they do because we are sinners also? Do we coddle them in their sins, tell them God loves them no matter what? Nope Jesus was clear when he said this. He was telling us what the standard was. The way to show your love to your neighbor is to warn them and their sins will take them to hell.

    The only way you can show your love to your neighbor was outlined in Leviticus 19:17-18 "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD."

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dan said much, and ended with this: I do wish you no ill will, abrasive as I might be at times. Take care.

    It's unfortunate that I don't actually have enough time to respond to all of it. I'm writing to apologize for this; you put a lot of thought into what you wrote, and that makes me feel Like I owe you some response.

    I'll continue to hover here for a while. I'm sure we'll have other chances to discuss these topics and others.

    Have a good weekend, Dan...

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thanks for clearing that up Dan: it's good to see it was a sematical error and not a logical one. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Quasar,

    Atheists claim the Bible throughout is semantically in error.

    Are you getting any sleep?

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>