- This topic is empty.
- Posts
The Truth About Evolution
By Duncan Long
============
Back in the 1700 and 1800s when science was bringing mankind into the modern era with the
advances in medicine, physics, and mathematics which paved the way for the industrial and
information revolutions, scientists generally had a profound belief in God and often searched for
their answers to problems with an eye toward finding out how the Creator had designed his
creation and what rules governed it. Religion and science had little trouble coexisting (except for
an occasional squabble from time to time) since both the scientists and religious thinkers were
basically exploring different sides of the same coin.
This started to change in the late 1800s when Charles Darwin proposed what would become
commonly known as the theory of evolution or the survival of the fittest.
=================================================================================================Yes it seems that Darwin certainly has amassed a following. Some of his adherents are so loyal to his teachings that they just simply deny anything that remotely speaks of a creator.
It seems that we as people do indeed follow. Whether we follow God through his prophets, or man-made-science through their prophets, we are like sheep and we follow.
I personally have no problem with science when it is conducted or taught in a truthful way.
I just think that many people use science for their agenda and pre-defined beliefs thereby inhibiting truth.
I am just not willing to sign up for the religious side of science. The one that says in the beginning there was nothing and nothing exploded and became this really little something that grew to be a really really big something and then formed all kinds of things like bananas and people who could acknowledge the existence of the universe.For me, I have a faith in God and I love science when it is not being used in a religious fashion.
I think both are important. One exercises my faith and heart, and the other my mind. But both lead me to give glory to the creator of all.Science and Faith can co-exist. After all it did once, so why not now?
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 20 2009,06:43) The one that says in the beginning there was nothing and nothing exploded and became this really little something that grew to be a really really big something and then formed all kinds of things like bananas and people who could acknowledge the existence of the universe.
Which kinds of bananas?
Hey you found much better pictures than I did the last time t8 started on his all-banana posting diet!
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 20 2009,23:43) The Truth About Evolution
By Duncan Long
============
Back in the 1700 and 1800s when science was bringing mankind into the modern era with the
advances in medicine, physics, and mathematics which paved the way for the industrial and
information revolutions, scientists generally had a profound belief in God and often searched for
their answers to problems with an eye toward finding out how the Creator had designed his
creation and what rules governed it. Religion and science had little trouble coexisting (except for
an occasional squabble from time to time) since both the scientists and religious thinkers were
basically exploring different sides of the same coin.
This started to change in the late 1800s when Charles Darwin proposed what would become
commonly known as the theory of evolution or the survival of the fittest.
=================================================================================================Yes it seems that Darwin certainly has amassed a following. Some of his adherents are so loyal to his teachings that they just simply deny anything that remotely speaks of a creator.
It seems that we as people do indeed follow. Whether we follow God through his prophets, or man-made-science through their prophets, we are like sheep and we follow.
I personally have no problem with science when it is conducted or taught in a truthful way.
I just think that many people use science for their agenda and pre-defined beliefs thereby inhibiting truth.
I am just not willing to sign up for the religious side of science. The one that says in the beginning there was nothing and nothing exploded and became this really little something that grew to be a really really big something and then formed all kinds of things like bananas and people who could acknowledge the existence of the universe.For me, I have a faith in God and I love science when it is not being used in a religious fashion.
I think both are important. One exercises my faith and heart, and the other my mind. But both lead me to give glory to the creator of all.Science and Faith can co-exist. After all it did once, so why not now?
Those who would follow blindly anything are indeed being mindlessly religious. What that has to do with evolution as a scientific theory I'm not sure. Social Darwinism? They were clearly a bunch of deluded crackpots, religious in their outlook.Faith and science are diametrically opposed means of determining data. Science can be demonstrated to work withing the empirical world while the history of religious 'revelation' tells us that faith does not produce any knowledge not already determined by a scientific process.
As a means of modeling reality (which is all science really seeks to do) the scientific method has become fitter than faith as a means of finding out stuff. That is the nature of evolution!
Stuart
Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 21 2009,00:22) Quote (t8 @ Aug. 20 2009,06:43) The one that says in the beginning there was nothing and nothing exploded and became this really little something that grew to be a really really big something and then formed all kinds of things like bananas and people who could acknowledge the existence of the universe.
Which kinds of bananas?
The word bananas encompasses all bananas, and excludes oranges and water melons and many other things.Quote (Stu @ Aug. 21 2009,07:05) Yes it seems that Darwin certainly has amassed a following. Some of his adherents are so loyal to his teachings that they just simply deny anything that remotely speaks of a creator. It seems that we as people do indeed follow. Whether we follow God through his prophets, or man-made-science through their prophets, we are like sheep and we follow.
I personally have no problem with science when it is conducted or taught in a truthful way.
I just think that many people use science for their agenda and pre-defined beliefs thereby inhibiting truth.
I am just not willing to sign up for the religious side of science. The one that says in the beginning there was nothing and nothing exploded and became this really little something that grew to be a really really big something and then formed all kinds of things like bananas and people who could acknowledge the existence of the universe.For me, I have a faith in God and I love science when it is not being used in a religious fashion.
I think both are important. One exercises my faith and heart, and the other my mind. But both lead me to give glory to the creator of all.Science and Faith can co-exist. After all it did once, so why not now?[/quote]
Those who would follow blindly anything are indeed being mindlessly religious. What that has to do with evolution as a scientific theory I'm not sure. Social Darwinism? They were clearly a bunch of deluded crackpots, religious in their outlook.Faith and science are diametrically opposed means of determining data. Science can be demonstrated to work withing the empirical world while the history of religious 'revelation' tells us that faith does not produce any knowledge not already determined by a scientific process.
As a means of modeling reality (which is all science really seeks to do) the scientific method has become fitter than faith as a means of finding out stuff. That is the nature of evolution!
Stuart
Science has been wrong many times and so have so-called religious revelations.Truth is not found in any one field.
Integrity and other qualities helps to determine truth.
Lack of integrity and increase bias is found in both fields.
If a man has an agenda, then he might think nothing of using either science or religion to promote it. Truth has nothing to do with this sometimes.Look at the evolutionary propaganda in Germany before and during WWII. Evolution was used as to support an agenda. Today, evolution is espoused by many who abhor the idea of a righteous God.
Then we have Catholics who burned people at the stake for believing things that were contrary to the Catholic religion. In many cases those that were burned at the stake were right. e.g., Giordano Bruno.
In my opinion, they are all nutters. Anyone who turns a blind eye to truth is unreasonable. Doesn't matter whether that is done in the name of science or religion.
Any thinking person can see this, but a biased person might support religion over science or science over religion. Both are wrong. Either field isn't flawed, people are.
I agree with T8,
Truth is absolute, there is only one “version” of it. Both adherents to religion and science have turned blind eyes to whatever truths do not match their dogma. An unbiased view of a fact will always add to our perception of absolute truth but very few from either side have shown the ability to do so. Science has done the better job of making apparent the more outlandish claims of the “religious” however some of the “scientific” crowd has been just as closeminded as the worst of the “religious” offenders. The advantage of having been around for a few years is I've seen scientific dogma come and go, but each time the latest “revelation” is presented as absolute truth (until the next revelation replaces it).I believe that true “religion” and true “science” will always be in harmony, but personal bias prevents nearly all of us from ever seeing it.
My opinion- Wm
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 01 2009,15:52) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 21 2009,07:05) Yes it seems that Darwin certainly has amassed a following. Some of his adherents are so loyal to his teachings that they just simply deny anything that remotely speaks of a creator. It seems that we as people do indeed follow. Whether we follow God through his prophets, or man-made-science through their prophets, we are like sheep and we follow.
I personally have no problem with science when it is conducted or taught in a truthful way.
I just think that many people use science for their agenda and pre-defined beliefs thereby inhibiting truth.
I am just not willing to sign up for the religious side of science. The one that says in the beginning there was nothing and nothing exploded and became this really little something that grew to be a really really big something and then formed all kinds of things like bananas and people who could acknowledge the existence of the universe.For me, I have a faith in God and I love science when it is not being used in a religious fashion.
I think both are important. One exercises my faith and heart, and the other my mind. But both lead me to give glory to the creator of all.Science and Faith can co-exist. After all it did once, so why not now?
Those who would follow blindly anything are indeed being mindlessly religious. What that has to do with evolution as a scientific theory I'm not sure. Social Darwinism? They were clearly a bunch of deluded crackpots, religious in their outlook.Faith and science are diametrically opposed means of determining data. Science can be demonstrated to work withing the empirical world while the history of religious 'revelation' tells us that faith does not produce any knowledge not already determined by a scientific process.
As a means of modeling reality (which is all science really seeks to do) the scientific method has become fitter than faith as a means of finding out stuff. That is the nature of evolution!
Stuart[/quote]
Science has been wrong many times and so have so-called religious revelations.Truth is not found in any one field.
Integrity and other qualities helps to determine truth.
Lack of integrity and increase bias is found in both fields.
If a man has an agenda, then he might think nothing of using either science or religion to promote it. Truth has nothing to do with this sometimes.Look at the evolutionary propaganda in Germany before and during WWII. Evolution was used as to support an agenda. Today, evolution is espoused by many who abhor the idea of a righteous God.
Then we have Catholics who burned people at the stake for believing things that were contrary to the Catholic religion. In many cases those that were burned at the stake were right. e.g., Giordano Bruno.
In my opinion, they are all nutters. Anyone who turns a blind eye to truth is unreasonable. Doesn't matter whether that is done in the name of science or religion.
Any thinking person can see this, but a biased person might support religion over science or science over religion. Both are wrong. Either field isn't flawed, people are.
That was surprisingly balanced, I thought.Science is of course more than one field, just as there are multiple religions.
To me the important thing about the scientific outlook is quite simply it's ability to change based on the facts and evidence. If a theory or perceived fact is proved wrong, the scientific method permits us to improve our understanding of the universe, instead of dogmatically clinging to an inaccurate fact or outright falsehood.
The important thing about “truth” is not what it is, but how people approach it when it is in fact false. You can dogmatically cling to what is false, or you can amend your world view and admit error.
Clearly, T8, you believe in an all powerful God who was also the creator who created the universe (and by implication everything in it today).
My question is very simple – would you amend your truth if God told you (directly) that it did not create the universe in the way that you believe?
Come to that it doesn't matter which of your beliefs it was – but even if they were beliefs about God of the most fundamental nature – would you change them if God told you otherwise?
It is a deceiving god that bible believers worship. It says so in the bible! Why would that god be the one to consult?
…unless the god has been deceiving about the question of whether it deceives.
Another paradox to go with the omniscience and omnipotence paradoxes.
Stuart
Quote (Douglas @ Oct. 02 2009,07:18) Clearly, T8, you believe in an all powerful God who was also the creator who created the universe (and by implication everything in it today). My question is very simple – would you amend your truth if God told you (directly) that it did not create the universe in the way that you believe?
Absolutely I would.If God told me that the sun doesn't rise, I would probably have to take his word for it.
Of course it turns out that the sun doesn't rise. It just appears that way from our earthly perspective.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 05 2009,19:56) Nice one Stu. You demonstrate the bias we talked about here, clearly.
Just reading scripture t8, if that is what you call bias.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 05 2009,19:58) Quote (Douglas @ Oct. 02 2009,07:18) Clearly, T8, you believe in an all powerful God who was also the creator who created the universe (and by implication everything in it today). My question is very simple – would you amend your truth if God told you (directly) that it did not create the universe in the way that you believe?
Absolutely I would.If God told me that the sun doesn't rise, I would probably have to take his word for it.
Of course it turns out that the sun doesn't rise. It just appears that way from our earthly perspective.
And if god's word told you that you could see all the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain the Middle East (including the ancient Kingdoms of Tonga and Egypt) would you have to accept that too?Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 05 2009,19:58) Quote (Douglas @ Oct. 02 2009,07:18) Clearly, T8, you believe in an all powerful God who was also the creator who created the universe (and by implication everything in it today). My question is very simple – would you amend your truth if God told you (directly) that it did not create the universe in the way that you believe?
Absolutely I would.If God told me that the sun doesn't rise, I would probably have to take his word for it.
Of course it turns out that the sun doesn't rise. It just appears that way from our earthly perspective.
Perhaps many other truths people cling to and vehemently protest the veracity thereof also are only such because they appear that way from a human or earthly perspective.First, one must ask the right questions, not being blinded by the illusion of knowledge.
Almost anyone who was asked would say the sun rises every day but you're quite right; it doesn't really. And yet the misconceptions that that simple “truth” alone caused for the human race are quite profound.
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 05 2009,20:25) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 05 2009,19:58) Quote (Douglas @ Oct. 02 2009,07:18) Clearly, T8, you believe in an all powerful God who was also the creator who created the universe (and by implication everything in it today). My question is very simple – would you amend your truth if God told you (directly) that it did not create the universe in the way that you believe?
Absolutely I would.If God told me that the sun doesn't rise, I would probably have to take his word for it.
Of course it turns out that the sun doesn't rise. It just appears that way from our earthly perspective.
And if god's word told you that you could see all the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain the Middle East (including the ancient Kingdoms of Tonga and Egypt) would you have to accept that too?Stuart
Absolutely. You do not understand visions from God.He can take a person to a place (perhaps a higher dimension) and give you a view of all.
If you take everything to be physical, then physical is all you will understand. There are realms beyond what you can see. Even in the physical there are things you cannot see.
But, you two, all we have is our earthly perspectives. There is no other knowledge. There is religious 'revelation' but that is fiction sold by people who want power or are deluded. Such 'knowledge' is only in the brain of he who imagined it, and it has no epistemological merit.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 06 2009,11:55) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 05 2009,20:25) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 05 2009,19:58) Quote (Douglas @ Oct. 02 2009,07:18) Clearly, T8, you believe in an all powerful God who was also the creator who created the universe (and by implication everything in it today). My question is very simple – would you amend your truth if God told you (directly) that it did not create the universe in the way that you believe?
Absolutely I would.If God told me that the sun doesn't rise, I would probably have to take his word for it.
Of course it turns out that the sun doesn't rise. It just appears that way from our earthly perspective.
And if god's word told you that you could see all the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain the Middle East (including the ancient Kingdoms of Tonga and Egypt) would you have to accept that too?Stuart
Absolutely. You do not understand visions from God.He can take a person to a place (perhaps a higher dimension) and give you a view of all.
If you take everything to be physical, then physical is all you will understand. There are realms beyond what you can see. Even in the physical there are things you cannot see.
With god, anything is possible.Any old nonsense that any deluded individual wants to dream up is what god can do.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 06 2009,11:58) But, you two, all we have is our earthly perspectives. There is no other knowledge. There is religious 'revelation' but that is fiction sold by people who want power or are deluded. Such 'knowledge' is only in the brain of he who imagined it, and it has no epistemological merit. Stuart
True up to a point but don't underestimate the variety of perspectives people have – or the advancement of human knowledge.With respect to perspective, it's only a matter of point of view. There are people who flick a light switch, get in their car or on an aeroplane without a second thought for all the human effort and work to figure out the knowledge that makes those things possible. There are people (only a few I suspect) who actually think about the world around them and try to understand it and what makes it work.
With respect to the advancement of human knowledge, much of it arises accidentally – but with people who pay attention and are willing to entertain new ideas. Very easy for people to ignore or overlook something just because it seems trivial or isn't part of their world view. A few though, look and question – and sometimes it results in a big advance for human knowledge.
Certainly there are dead ends, but it isn't a good reason not to keep an open and interested mind, without constraining what one takes an interest in or investigates.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
