I have been busy and cannot respond to every post to me. I just don’t have the time at my disposal:
By all means tell me I’m wrong. (my quote)
You’re wrong. Perhaps in ways you don’t think you are, however. (your quote)<
You may have overlooked the fact that this invitation was to someone else as part of a lengthy conversation up to that point. A conversation I did not have the heart to continue.
Heads up- it is never a good idea within polite society to introduce yourself to someone or initiate a conversation by telling them they are wrong… even if you feel you have a right to do so. Chances are you will get a bad reaction, particularly if it cuts across someone else’s conversation and comes across as a high handed authoritarian put down. This is just a tip for the future.
Naturalists are not atheists. One had to do with belief in God, the other looks for causes consistent with known processes and laws of physics. Atheists may be naturalists, or they may have other metaphysical beliefs that do not involve a specific god. Naturalists may be atheists, or they may be theists.<
If you refer back to my original comment (to someone else) I did not say that all naturalists are atheists. However, historically many atheists have been at the cutting edge of modern evolutionary thought and evolutionary though proceeds along the lines of naturalistic/materialistic assumptions. We could even include Marx and Freud as they themselves adopted an evolutionary model in their own respective fields.
Charles Lyell, an early proponent of evolutionary theory was apparently a deist and this provided the basis of his naturalistic philosophy. Although deism is not atheism per se it could possibly be described as a form of practical atheism (methodological naturalism) for all intents and purposes as regards scientific method.
This from a recent book on evolution’:
‘It is a fundamental principle of modern evolutionary thought that all explanations must ultimately be materialistic, that is to say all explanations must be based upon accepted laws of chemistry and physics.’
and also that:
'Charles Lyell developed the essential points of his whole uniformitarian theory after only a few years of geological observations in England and before his first major geological tour on the European continent.”
So I would maintain that methodological naturalism in the realm of scientific theorising is a form of ‘practical atheism’ even if proponents are de facto atheistsper se themselves. This has been particularly apparent in the historic promotion of evolutionary theory.
Thomas Huxley has been described as the fiercest propagandist for Darwin’s evolutionary ideas, earning the title “Darwin’s Bulldog”. As a self confessed ‘agnostic’ he also rejected Christianity outright. Some have intimated he intentionally set out to undermine Christianity if not destroy it altogether.
Evolutionary theory has evolved, and there is a lot of work in looking at how these things come about. In fairness, does intelligent design have mechanism or evidence that could further our understanding? All I have seen is rhetoric and mathmatical models based on conjecture.<
I am not advocating that proponents of ID have the very last word in science but I think that there is some value perhaps yet to be found in their research. ID itself proposes an evidential approach to apologetics along these lines. I am interested in presuppositional arguments but I do not hold that they have the last word either.
Evolutionary theory has evolved, and there is a lot of work in looking at how these things come about. In fairness, does intelligent design have mechanism or evidence that could further our understanding? All I have seen is rhetoric and mathmatical models based on conjecture.<
Research being done by those in the ID community may yet. Particularly if it is throwing up findings which challenge the hitherto held positions Evolutionary creationists i.e. by throwing up questions which they have not as yet been able to answer. I don’t consider this to be rhetoric. As research continues my guess would be that someone may have to change their position at some time in the not too distant future.
Ironically, it is the literal- historical understanding of the Bible that places the tightest limits on how it is to be understood, as, for example, the temple building interpretation of Genesis is compatable with young earth, old earth, and intermediate earth views of age. The literal-historical view limits it only to young, though is inconsistent as it ignores the three-tiered earth, flat earth, and geocentric views that the Bible describes.
Most importantly, my focusing on the materialistic aspects, it tends to relegate theologic truths and teaching to the back burner in pushing the agenda that pays the bills.<
Yes, and not only paying the bills but holding down a job in many cases. This a huge pressure.
What I find most valuable is that the ID community are providing sound reasonable and scientific arguments that say Christians do not have to adopt an evolutionary framework when reading scripture. They are providing strong evidential reasons which run counter to the evidential reasons that theistic evolutionists promote in telling Christians that they must adopt an evolutionary framework. I will leave readers to consider which is the most restrictive.
And I quote:
Evolutionary creationists ‘accept that natural selection and other evolutionary mechanisms, acting over long periods of time. eventually result in major changes in body structures. Some people call this macroevolution’
Deborah Haarsman, Biologos
However, Suzan Mazure in 'the altenberg’16 ’ wrote:
‘There are hundreds of other evolutionary scientists (non creationists) who contend that natural selection is politics not science, and the we are in a quagmire because of staggering commercial investment in a Darwinian industry built on an inadequate theory’
If those at the top end of Biologos cannot fully define and clarify their own position regarding some of the questions central to the evolution debate then ‘I don’t see how it is an issue of pure’rhetoric’ .
…
Partially correct, though unchanged classic evolutionary theory as proposed by Darwin has not been held by anyone for the last 100 years, as it has evolved with new knowledge. Current theory will no doubt continue to change as time goes on. That is what happens in science.<
I know. I was using that term as a cover-all. One has to speak in broad terms sometimes, particularly when one does not know the other person, and this was in the context of the changing scientific ideas in the conversation (i.e the conversation I was having with another person) to which you allude.
When one is in discussion like this one has to give an attentive ear to where the other person is coming from and build a rapport of some kind. Your cutting across in such a way was not at all helpful in this respect.
This is the downside of barging in on someone else’s conversation (even though you may have the right). Things can often be taken out of context.
This being said, perhaps we here in England may seem far more unnecessarily genteel.
Regarding evolution as a theory whether it be Darwinian or neo-Darwinian embracing common descent through natural selection, I have yet to see the silver bullet. Perhaps you could provide me with one
