Im not following your statistic…are you saying Theistic evolution is the majority Christian view?
Where do you obtain that statistic from exactly?
[quote=“Klax, post:59, topic:49415, full:true”]
The issue I find with Theistic evolution is always the same…it refuses to accept that secular Science is incompatible with religion and specifically Christianity. The reason for this is obvious, go listen to Neil Tyson and take note when he claims that religion stifles scientific thinking.
My view is that Christian Science (such as that portrayed by Michael Behe, Kurt Wise, Stephen Myer, Andrew Snelling and many others) is a far more consistent mix of philosophical and observational elements that form our beliefs.
As soon as we tear down the philosophical and move it to second place, we lose the driving force behind our inquisitive nature. I do not believe anyone can use a mechanism as the driving force…to me that isn’t logical.
Contrary to some scientists, religion was not the restrictor of scientific study, it was the driving force behind it (I agree with Stephen Myer on this one).
Creationism is incompatible with Christianity and incompatible with science.
- It is incompatible with the existence of a God who is dedicated to the truth, calling God a liar in all the information God sends us from the Earth and sky.
- It is incompatible with the existence of a God who is good and cares about children and innocent people, because it has God designing them to die in agony.
- In order to manufacture an incompatibility with science founded on the procedural ideas of honesty and objectivity, it changes Christianity into religion dedicated to deception both in its deity and its followers.
- Suborning science to theology replaces the methodological ideas of honesty and objectivity upon which science is founded with the methodology of politics, religion, and used car salesmen, which is rhetoric. It promises to return the world to the dark ages of mankind drowning in filth, superstition, disease, ignorance, bigotry and immorality.
1 Like
Christian Science as portrayed by IDers is just the fallacy of incredulity stifling real science. And real Christianity.
1 Like
That’s because theistic evolution has nothing to do with secularism, Adam. It’s about getting your facts straight, recognising that there is such a thing as objective reality, and being honest about what the evidence that we see in creation does and doesn’t support. Nothing more, nothing less. This has been pointed out repeatedly to you but you are not paying the slightest bit of attention to it.
If you are insisting that honesty, objective reality and getting your facts straight are incompatible with Christianity, then you are insisting that Christianity is a falsehood. If that is what you are insisting, then you are not a Christian.
On the other hand, if you are insisting that the people you have cited are indeed getting their facts straight, then you must justify the specific claims that they make where it is being pointed out that they are not.
4 Likes
Most YEC I have encountered have no interest in science. As soon some contrived and fetched explanation allows the precious six thousand years to be safe, the threat is averted and they are done. All that matters is the apologetic. There is little wonder at how the universe and nature unfold. Youth in the church are discouraged from pursuing their innate curiosity. YEC is a driving force for ignorance; and it has contributed nothing to the advancement of scientific understanding.
6 Likes
And the thing I keep asking you is this: The Bible says the earth doesn’t move but secular science says that it does. What do you believe–secular science or the Bible?
4 Likes
No it does not. The bible is not a scientific document. It is observation. By observation, it would appear that the sky moves. The fact that it does not is irrelevant.
Richard
Yes it does say that the earth doesn’t move. In multiple places. e.g. 1 Chronicles 16:30
2 Likes
Which we know because secular science tells us so. To the original audience the sky did move so yes the Bible says the sky moves. It is just not in error when it says so.
1 Like
The biblical writers didn’t believe that the sky moved. They believes that the sun, moon, and stars moved across the firmament/sky. And they believed that the earth didn’t move. This was ancient science, and most of us don’t accept the ancient science in the Bible. But adamjedgar rejects much of modern science, so I’m wondering if he accepts this bit of ancient science.
Aye, the proposition of God is meaningless to science, adds, explains nothing at all. The proposition can still be made of course, the only warrant being Jesus. God belief is Judeo-Christian (unless we count the regression of Islam, the avatars of Hinduism, the sublime Great Spirit) and easily entirely natural. Including Jesus’ and Jesus Himself. And yet.
1 Like
Yes. Half of all Christians are Roman Catholic, and theistic evolution is the official theology of the RCC.
5 Likes
You seem to be saying the very same thing Tyson is saying.
The problem is that your beliefs are dogmatic. That is, you start with the conclusion and reject any evidence that contradicts the conclusion. That isn’t science.
I see just the opposite. Your dogmatic YEC beliefs prevent you from considering certain conclusions.
If you think I am wrong, can you cite the original research being done by Michael Behe, Kurt Wise, or Stephen Meyer? Where are their labs located? Where are their peer reviewed papers? What research grants do they currently have?
Can you name anyone in ID or Creationism that is actively doing original research?
5 Likes
It’s not exactly official doctrine, but several popes have voiced their approval of evolutionary theory. Which makes it the unofficial position.
Additionally, the National Center for Science Education has a document with statements from various other religious organizations/denominations, endorsing evolution.
A picture of one of their labs turned out to be from a stock photography company.
A hallmark of pseudoscience is that it makes no progress.
1 Like
Can I add a question or two to your list, please?
What useful contribution are they making to any area of scientific inquiry?
To what scientific problems is their work providing solutions or foundational information on which to build solutions?
2 Likes
They are usefully contributing foundational information for scientific inquiry in to pseudoscience.
3 Likes
Intelligent Design has been called a science stopper. “Don’t even try to figure this out. Just believe that God the designer did it.”
2 Likes
On a different site sometime in the past I created the following challenge:
"So what if they did get $5,000,000 to spend on a new research facility? What would they spend it on? That is the challenge for this thread. Show us what the ID research program would actually need to do, what equipment would be needed to do this research, and how you would prioritize the money in this laboratory. Show us what a real ID research program would look like.
Now mind you, this money is not to be spent testing evolution. It is meant to study ID, not evolution. Any experiments that test evolution will not meet the guidelines set out in the challenge."
Another scenario I often point to is a scientific conference. I have actually sat through talks about the evolution of specific adaptations. Not once did I see anyone stand up and discuss how ID/Creationism could not explain the data, and then conclude it must have evolved because there was no evidence for ID/Creationism. Every presentation I was at provided evidence or ideas of how those adaptations came about. However, seemingly every time I hear an argument for ID/Creationism it follows the pattern of “claim of evolution being insufficient” followed by “therefore ID/Creationism sans evidence”.
5 Likes