I recommend that you stop categorizing Christian scientists, who are everywhere around you on this site, as Satan-deceived and untrustworthy.
The reason why Creationists are allowed to participate is to provide an exchange of information and views … not to have someone stand up on a stool and preach the gospels to evil scientists.
So in other words, every time you present your “solid case,” virtually everyone everywhere vehemently disagrees with you. Faced with that situation, most rational people would say to themselves, “Self, everyone everywhere seems to think my idea is wrong. Is it possible that I am wrong?”
Obviously, you are not most people …
Are you genuinely saying that no one has ever, in the months you have been posting, responded with any valid logic or facts which would cause you to adjust any points of your case? And that therefore, somehow, everyone else’s position isn’t “objective science, but a religion instead”?
I’m sorry you have been failed so badly. I hope that at least you can understand your own position.
Sorry, I meant to debate Darwinism is illogical it you do not agree on a definition first.
a Natura non facit saltum
In order to do a salto you get the in small training steps. It does not mean that you can’t make one, just that you get there in small steps.
Randomness is unknowable and Randomness creates.
if you are in control of a system randomness is your friend as it is a fair system to create change. It is actually highly predictable as if you look at radioactive decay, you know the event to be totally random, but you have certainty that it will happen.
The negative interpretation of certain terms used to describe evolution appears your personal problem. Just keep your cool and don’t worry. If someone declares evolution to be a random and purposeless process, just ask them how they justify themselves and their ability to argue. However you bark against the wrong tree if you think that people here explain evolution in an irrational way to explain away God. Like Dredge you make the mistake to think of science or evolution of the domain of atheism because they use their ill-conceived concepts of the two try to forge that division. Don’t give them that justification
You’re not making any effort to understand these points, hence your incoherent comments.
The topic of this thread is Darwinism which is exactly what I am addressing. There is no God and no BioLogos in Darwinism, so from what position are you arguing pro-Darwin and against me?
What does BioLogos even stand for? Evolution is God-less by definition, from day one to today.
See above… Once you accept God, then the whole Evolution thing becomes utterly irrelevant. What are you saying? That God uses the evolution mechanism to create us? Who cares? It’s like saying the iPhone is made in China - whatever province - of ‘x’% Malaysian components, etc. when in fact what matters is that Apple created the iPhone in response to ‘y’ succession of events.
See above. Some counterarguments have helped me refine mine, and I thank those people for their thoughts. Feel free to present yours.
Not happening. Let’s discuss after you read this: http://nonlin.org/gradualism/ (just so I don’t repeat myself).
You miss my point. Once again, read this first http://nonlin.org/random-abuse/ and then let’s discuss.
Well, yes, that’s exactly what I (and many others) have stated here and elsewhere. [quote=“NonlinOrg, post:149, topic:35756”]
Who cares? It’s like saying the iPhone is made in China - whatever province - of ‘x’% Malaysian components, etc. when in fact what matters is that Apple created the iPhone in response to ‘y’ succession of events.
[/quote]
I won’t speak for anyone else here, but I tend to agree with you here, as well. I can’t say that the origins of humanity are not important, but the origins issue pales in comparison our sin, Jesus Christ’s ultimate sacrifice on our behalf, and His victory over death through His resurrection. Here we can find community regardless of differing views on science.
Why would someone drive 12 hours[**] all the way to the BioLogos meeting room… filled with people who believe in Jesus and in his father, and argue about Godless Darwinism as though we were promoting Evolution-without-God?
It’s virtually inconceivable that someone would want to waste that kind of time … unless, Atheism is really all they know how to talk about.
Note: For the purpose of this thread, I am using the term “Hours” in the same way Genesis uses the term “Days”.
I dare say you don’t believe me. If you were able to find a creationist who could explain genetic data, your (lack of) belief would have a basis in reality.
It appears from that that you lack that acceptance as otherwise you would not make such a fuss about it 
It makes you look a bit like Don Quixote. And regarding the I-phone, it would have implications if you buy it even if you knew is was built using slave labour for the sake of profit.
Evolution is your enemy that you make of it as may be science because you perceive it as the domain of the atheists, thus fuelling your existentialist angst. In the absence of proof, faith is the only way to overcome angst. Only if you can see the love in the natural selection that has shaped the garden we live in you can appreciate the skills of the Gardener who gives every plant a chance to prove its value before weeding it out. And even the ones he weeds out are not wasted but are recycled into the soil. And despite all the efforts of garden designers, nothing beats the beauty of the wilderness of the woodlands.
is the core of your problem. The definition itself,“evolution”, represents the slow unfolding of a script. Looks like you do not believe in the author.
Just found another jewel of yours
Indeed, people here tend to argue pro Darwin, not Darwinism. Ism’s are to be avoided in any case. Now, one could say biology needs Darwinism, as every science subject should teach how people try to use scientific findings against mankind to further their own political agenda. After all, we learn only from the things we get wrong.
Yes, but this would require me to spend a lot of time constructing counterarguments and assembling evidence for no purpose. I’ll let others tackle that Sisyphean task …
Hear, hear!
-isms and -ists are used far more to obfuscate than to illuminate.
For example, how can someone who studies explicitly non-Darwinian evolution, such as drift, be classified as a “Darwinist”?
It depends on the goals of the system one is in control of. Randomness in some systems can be almost immediately catastrophic, causing not just loss of control, but destruction of system.
“Ism’s are to be avoided in any case.”
Then you’d better exclude the theist position which derives from theism and the creationist position from creationism, the latter which BioLogos is built to oppose. Oops, better not avoid ideology anymore? Maybe a better approach to ideology by BioLogos is needed.
Stop, go back to the first post, 13 days ago. If you actually face what Darwinism is NOT, then the conversation could likely be more edifying.
Don’t forget, some people out there say, “I can’t think of any examples [of ideology] detriment[al] to biology” (Curtis Henderson). So, I brought up Lysenko, but Curtis appears not to think Lysenkoism was “detrimental to biology” because for him, apparently, ideology has no punching power and is therefore impotent, even when used widely among evolutionary biologists, a few of who still aggressively use the term “Darwinism” against religious theists.
To deny this is really to miss the gripe of these people who are not really “creationists”, but who are simply trying to find a new exegesis of Scripture given the post-Darwinian, Extended Evolutionary Synthesis era. BioLogos sadly appears to defending Darwinism sometimes against these people, when it really should stop that practise entirely.
To a person who has seen ideology used by plenty of biologists, such a statement as Henderson’s unfortunately (as otherwise he appears to have his package together in order) displays ignorance, even when wrapped in noble hope for a better conversation.
You folks continue to entertain anti-Darwinists for little reason, when BioLogos should be as anti-Darwinism as they are, i.e. when Darwinism is not pretended as synonymous with evolutionary biology. Who named the title of the thread anyway - was it Dredge or someone at BioLogos? For the ideology averse, the question just translates as, “Why does biology need evolutionary theory?” which would be too absurd.
Please allow me to portray the scenario accurately. The actual quote, should you have taken the trouble to check was:[quote=“cwhenderson, post:10, topic:35756”]
Personally, I do feel there is a portion of ideology associated with the theory of evolution, but I can’t think of any examples of detriment to biology.
[/quote]
You may notice the words I used were “I can’t think of any” and NOT “there are not any” examples. I must confess ignorance regarding Lysenkoism, which I have not rectified in the last two weeks. I would expect an individual with a broad knowledge of both science and philosophical issues as you possess would be careful about making unfounded assertions as you did.
Your point point about ideology is well-taken. I do believe that authors select thread names, but not 100% sure.
Sort of like calling a physicist a Newtonist, or a airplane pilot a Wrightist.
If randomness destroys your system I would say you were not in control of the system.
You will not be able to remove the ism as in theism or atheism as in the absence of ultimate truth you have to postulate a fundamental belief on which you base your worldview on which to build a coherent view of reality. Several ism’s in your worldview are bound to create incoherences.
Enough poetry, Cervantes.
Good choice.
If this is true, then…
There is no God and no BioLogos in quantum mechanics.
There is no God and no BioLogos in e = mc2
There is no God and no BioLogos in meteorology and weather forecasts.
There is no God and no BioLogos in petroleum geology.
There is no God and no BioLogos in organic chemistry.
And so on throughout the scientific disciplines.
But your assertion is not true. The fact that a scientific discipline takes no position on theological matters does not mean that the theologically inclined, such as BioLogos supporters, cannot reconcile the domains of science and theology.
The Big Bang theory makes no assertions about God, but Christian astronomers assert that it was God who spoke the universe into being. Thus the Big Bang can be regarded as a scientific observation of what God revealed in the Scriptures.
Meteorology makes no assertions about God, but Christian meteorologists assert that it reflects God’s care for His creation. Thus meteorology can be regarded as a scientific observation of what God revealed in the Scriptures.
The theory of evolution makes no assertions about God, but Christian biologists assert that it was God who authored life and created man in His image. Thus the theory of evolution can be regarded as a scientific observation of what God revealed in the Scriptures.
Richard Dawkins makes a gross philosophical error when he insists that science excludes the existence of God. Why are you in philosophical agreement with Dawkin?
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.