Evidence for God from Science

Hi Folks,

Just thought I rant today... Sorry.. Everywhere I go I see the praise of Darwin. He is 200 years today... He is the founder of the evolutionary theory... He is a liberator.. He is the pinnacle of modern day science... Etc., etc.. Let's celebrate him!!!! Yeee Haw.

I don't get it... Celebrate what?? It's almost like saying, "Hey everybody, I've got an idea forming in my head. You see I think that the way we got here is through random chance mutations (in other words a mistake), we are just another evolved animal (forget equality or the significance of being created in the image of a loving God), there is no God that created us (forget spirituality), and when you die you will simply go back to the ground with no afterlife, never to remembered again... Wow!! Yes, let's celebrate this beautiful idea!! It's so cool to believe that we are insignificant and don't mean anything to anybody. Let's all join the Darwin bandwagon and promote this awesome idea. Onward Darwin soldiers, marching onto war ...

Ah yes, what was is that Dawkins has said? Darwin mafe it possible to to be an atheist? Something along those lines.

It doesn't bother me to be honest. Darwin was a pivotal historical figure and the impact and importance of the theory of evolution, and particularly Natural Selection, deserves a lot of attention even if it is something that has continued to develop and gone well beyond some of what Darwin introduced.

A lot of the hype around him in this regard goes beyond the science and into the philosophy without differentiating between the two.

Sorry guys... I've been sick all week with the flu so I'd thought I would take some of my frustrations out on Darwin (that jerk). Hee hee, sorry no offense..

Gman wrote:Sorry guys... I've been sick all week with the flu so I'd thought I would take some of my frustrations out on Darwin (that jerk). Hee hee, sorry no offense..

Sorry to hear you've been yucky sick. I thought your rave was pretty interesting, lol. Yeah, it's like a religion with some people. Something to believe in that's actually nothing, or something to at least use against Christians (I know not everyone does this, but I have met some personally).

I like what Canuckster said, what we would probaly be mos disturbed about the hype is the philosophy that has been piggy-backed along with it.

It is too bad that science in this case has been hijacked for the purposes of promoting the atheist agenda. It is what, I think, makes people that most fearful of selection and microevolution or science in general.

Sometimes I wonder what history would have been like if the church had reacted differently as well. They were extremely stubborn about their dogma and contributed to the schism between church and science. It is harder and harder to reclaim the truth in this arena because of fear, misunerstanding, and stubborness on both sides.

zoegirl wrote:I like what Canuckster said, what we would probaly be mos disturbed about the hype is the philosophy that has been piggy-backed along with it.

It is too bad that science in this case has been hijacked for the purposes of promoting the atheist agenda. It is what, I think, makes people that most fearful of selection and microevolution or science in general.

Yes, I know what you mean (that science and philosophy are mutually exclusive), but I don't necessarily think the atheist philosophy has been piggy-backing nor hijacking Darwinian evolution given the fact that it (Darwinism) is predominantly based or viewed as antiteleological and methodological naturalism (or that nature is king). These views have been further solidified or engrained into society since the separation of church and state or God and naturalism. In other words, the law forbids any other viewpoint. I would hardly call that hijacking, more like being forced down my throat by the keystone cops, IMO...

Hmm...I guess I mean that we shouldn't be afraid to examine the creation and to see where it leads us...I think many in the CHristian community view science and especially the history of the world as the sole possession of the naturalists and atheists and I think this contributes to the notion that if we accept Old earth we are somehow "compromising". It is seen as "giving in" instead of seeking the truth (as much as we can know it, of course) All truth is God's truth...and there was a lot of the *observations* that Darwin made that were philosophically neutral, his conclusions of course were founded uipon naturalistic principles, but he made many astute observations about the animals and plants of the world.

It's hard to pinpoint where the split is... It seems that the evolutionary theory was born in the theological cradle as it did with Darwin. Darwin as well on various occasions posed theological and philosophical questions on evolution (or to a creator) in his books.. As an example he wrote, “To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes.” Statements like this should probably belong in philosophy classes.

I really think there is a point where science and philosophy naturally intertwine especially when it hangs around the topic of origins. It appears that Darwin himself also wrestled with this problem as well, not that it was intentional or hype, it's practically expected.

Did Darwin become a Christian on his deathbed?
http://www.carm.org/secular-movements/e ... s-deathbed

The reason why everyones makes such a big deal about Darwin is because the scientific method has been sucessfully applied to his theory of evolution.To say that Darwins theory is of no relevance to the scientific community is absolutly ridiculous. There is more dispute amoung scientist about gravity theory than the theory of evolution.

rational skeptic wrote: There is more dispute amoung scientist about gravity theory than the theory of evolution.

If this is the case, then we have some problems. For one, we can see the effects of gravity. For another, no one has observed one species change into another. I'm not saying I'm against evolution, I'm just saying that that seems . . . problematic. Scientists shouldn't be so confident in what they can't observe.

LOL, Oh My Gosh, it sounds like religion! (Sorry, I couldn't help myself. ) I haven't even had my McDonald's Filet-O-Fish yet (on special on Fridays during Lent - that's my public service announcement - you all should go get one . . . or two . . . ) Haven't had any wine either. I wonder what wine would be good with the Filet-O-Fish?

cslewislover wrote:

rational skeptic wrote: There is more dispute amoung scientist about gravity theory than the theory of evolution.

If this is the case, then we have some problems. For one, we can see the effects of gravity. For another, no one has observed one species change into another. I'm not saying I'm against evolution, I'm just saying that that seems . . . problematic. Scientists shouldn't be so confident in what they can't observe.

LOL, Oh My Gosh, it sounds like religion! (Sorry, I couldn't help myself. ) I haven't even had my McDonald's Filet-O-Fish yet (on special on Fridays during Lent - that's my public service announcement - you all should go get one . . . or two . . . ) Haven't had any wine either. I wonder what wine would be good with the Filet-O-Fish?

Gravity, like evolution, is both theory and fact. There is the theory of how gravity works and we can test this theory with the scientific method to prove that it is fact. There is the theory of how evolution works and we can test this theory with the scientific method to prove that it is also fact. The theory of gravity is tested and proven with the exact same scientific method that is used to prove the theory of evolution. If you have "faith" in theory and fact of gravity then you should have no problem having "faith" in the theory of evolution. I don't know how it would be possible to to deny the theory of evoltion but embrace the theory of gravity because the same scientific method used to prove the theory of gravity is fact is used to prove the theory of evoltion is fact.

"For another, no one has observed one species change into another."
This comment tells me that you haven't educated yourself enough on the basic proncipals of evolution. At the bottom is the wikipedia link for evoltion, it will answer that question for you and possible many other questions you have about evolution. I also recommend the book, Science As a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology by John A. Moore, it explainsthe scientific method in a way that everyone can understand.

p.s. I don't think you could pay me enough money to eat any kind of fish from mcdonalds.

rational skeptic wrote: "For another, no one has observed one species change into another."
This comment tells me that you haven't educated yourself enough on the basic proncipals of evolution. At the bottom is the wikipedia link for evoltion, it will answer that question for you and possible many other questions you have about evolution. I also recommend the book, Science As a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology by John A. Moore, it explainsthe scientific method in a way that everyone can understand.

I don't want to repeat everything I've written on other threads regarding this issue, but it sounds like you need to educate yourself regarding criticism of what you're professing. I'm not a professional and I don't go out of my way to spend a ton of time on this issue, but I have read things. I recently attended a debate where one person was a theistic evolutionist. He is working with Francis Collins, too, just to throw a name around. Lol. He said that we have no proof yet of one species changing into another, and I have read other scientists who say the same. So some say yes, some say no. It seems the majority say no. I don't really care what Wikipedia says; I use that resource but they certainly are not the be-all-end-all. I'll try to find some time to look into this issue more, just because it seems to be coming up more intensely, recently, and I'd like to know for myself. But you should also try and read other things that don't coincide with your current point of view. And I still hold to what I've said about evolution: we can surmise much, but see little.

I really like this essay by James Tour (organic and inorganic chemistry) of Rice University; it's just one essay, I know, but it's an interesting read. He seems to sum up things well for a scientist who doesn't mind sticking his neck out a little. http://www.jmtour.com/?page_id=27

rational skeptic wrote:p.s. I don't think you could pay me enough money to eat any kind of fish from mcdonalds.

LOOK. McDonald's Filet-O-Fish is made with a real fish section! A reviewer at Serious Eats likes them. I do, however, scrape off most of the tarter sauce (it's not only fattening, but quite strong tasting). If you did your research and found that the filet's are real filets, would you have said the same thing?



(OK. Why did I put that up? Anyone else drooling? )