So is it Evolution or Creation

by Punk 85 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  BurnTheShips

  I'm not a scientist.

  I'm a construction worker that has an interest in the world around me.

  Great!

  I just hate having to wade through these half page pastes. Why don't you read it, distill it for us relevantly, maybe provide a brief excerpt, and then provide a link?

  than pretending to be the source of some great wisdom, dissenting from the worldwide scientific community.

  Do you think that those that study molecular biology are part of some conspiracy to destroy faith in the Bible or in God? Must they perform some dark ritual to gain entrance to the scientific world?

  Projection?

  Burn
• 

  Brother Apostate

  nvr,

  The theory of evolution, in regards to its components, is more of a belief system, rather than a theory based on what is observed.

  Giraffes necks, human eyes, and other items of irreducable complexity point to a design, which requires a designer. The "falsifiable" definition of scientific methods is a recently introduced definition. Just as scientific theories change frequently, so do scientific definitions. The assumption that mutations will lead to the survival of the fittest, or that mutations in a population result in anything other than minor adaptions to the environment over time, have been shown to be in error. The presence of "living fossils", too, demonstrates the inadequecy of the currently held neo-darwinian evolution theory to pass the litmus test of veracity.

  Rather than debate with armchair scientists on teh internetz, I'll borrow your style and post for you some information that may enlighten you as to what you may not know about the "theory of evolution" as it is currently taught:

  For starters.

  You might also want to read this:

  http://www.weloennig.de/NaturalSelection.html

  If you wish to understand both sides of the arguments for and against evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest, intelligent design, etc, I'd recommend checking these sites periodically:

  http://www.evolutionnews.org/

  http://www.discovery.org/csc/

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/archive/

  http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/

  You can google for more.

  Or take a look at this video if you're not into reading (or can't comprehend what you read):

  http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5521410965822202656

  Or if you like a hard copy to read, I'd suggest Behe' Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

  BA- Enjoy!
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Aww Geeez.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Aww Geeez.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Aww Geeez.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Oh well, at least there is emphasis.

  Sorry for the reposts.

  Burn
• 

  MsMcDucket

  ...and now for the rest of the story. More theology news.

  The atheist delusion

  Theologian John Haught explains why science and God are not at odds, why Mike Huckabee worries him, and why Richard Dawkins and other "new atheists" are ignorant about religion.

  By Steve Paulson

  Pages 1 234

  • Share
    • Email
    • Digg
    • Facebook
    • Del.icio.us
    • Reddit
    • My Yahoo
  • Print
  • RSS
  • Font: S / S+ / S++

  Dec. 18, 2007 | Evolution remains the thorniest issue in the ongoing debate over science and religion. But for all the yelling between creationists and scientists, there's one perspective that's largely absent from public discussions about evolution. We rarely hear from religious believers who accept the standard Darwinian account of evolution. It's a shame because there's an important question at stake: How can a person of faith reconcile the apparently random, meaningless process of evolution with belief in God?

  The simplest response is to say that science and religion have nothing to do with each other -- to claim, as Stephen Jay Gould famously did, that they are "non-overlapping magisteria." But perhaps that response seems too easy, a politically expedient ploy to pacify both scientists and mainstream Christians. Maybe evolutionary theory, along with modern physics, does pose a serious challenge to religious belief. To put it another way, how can an intellectually responsible person of faith justify that faith -- and even belief in a personal God -- after Darwin and Einstein?

  That's the question John Haught has set out to answer by proposing a "theology of evolution." Haught is a Roman Catholic theologian at Georgetown University and a prolific author. His books include "God After Darwin," "Is Nature Enough?" and the forthcoming "God and the New Atheism." He's steeped in evolutionary theory as well as Christian theology. Haught believes Darwin is "a gift to theology." He says evolutionary biology has forced modern theologians to clarify their thinking by rejecting outdated arguments about God as an intrusive designer. Haught reclaims the theology of his intellectual hero, Jesuit priest and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who died more than half a century ago. Teilhard believed that we live in a universe evolving toward ever greater complexity and, ultimately, to consciousness.

  Haught is an intriguing figure in the debate over evolution. He was the only theologian to testify as an expert witness in the landmark 2005 Dover trial that ruled against teaching intelligent design in public schools. Haught testified against intelligent design, arguing that it's both phony science and bad theology. But Haught is also a fierce critic of hardcore atheists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, who claim that evolution leads logically to atheism. He says both sides place too much faith in science. "Ironically," Haught writes, "ID advocates share with their ideological enemies, the evolutionary materialists, the assumption that science itself can provide ultimate explanations."

  (This is an excerpt.) http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/12/18/john_haught/
• 

  Superfine Apostate

  you can't reduce evolution to natural selection, which indeed acts as a sieve. but there's also a great deal of mutation, which indeed creates new things.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposon
• 

  Brother Apostate

  but there's also a great deal of mutation, which indeed createsnew things.

  Mutation has never "creatednew things", rather, mutations occuring within a kind cause it to adapt to it's environment, such as beak length, size, etc within finches.

  But a finch, no matter how many mutations occur, over billions of years, will still be a finch.

  It's coloration, its beak, its legs, etc may adapt, yet it will always be a finch, begat by finches, and begetting finches.

  You might also want to read this for starters:

  http://www.weloennig.de/NaturalSelection.html

  BA- Correcting the incorrect.