It’s not a theory, it’s a principle from theology. Anyone with a decent theological education should have encountered it.
In fact Jesus talks about it at one point!
1 Like
What you are saying is that Thesitic science is an oxymoron and therefore so is Thesitic evolution. As I only talk with God in mind (VFA) I cannot talk about science. But you can because you are talking VFB. But what you fail to see is that while you are talking VFB you are denying your Christianity and promoting an atheistic viewpoint.
It does not matter whether you consider evolution to be part of God’s working. You are not saying that (Because that would be VFA!)
IOW this whole thing is a smokescreen to allow you to talk science and argue against me, and accuse me of trying to insert God into science. (even though you claim it is from God)
What a tangled web you weave
Richard
And here we have Richard’s plain statement that a good Christian must demand a return to the dark ages. Nothing matters except the work of the clergy. So we must get rid of all scientists, engineers, and doctors. Businessmen are probably ok as long as they are financing the church, and lawyers are probably ok as long as they are enforcing church law, punishing all the heretics. And no need for government positions no doubt, cause the clergy will provide all the leadership we need.
2 Likes
No argument there! 
If that means a time when God was more respected then yes.
From a Christian point of view, the work of the clergy is important, but as a Non-Conformist I do not see them as having any higher authority than any other eprson on earth.
That would be foolish.
Such people are necessary to keep the world functioning. There is nothing intinsically wrong with applying science. Science is not the devil. What is wrong is when science thinks it is God. (personified)
I am a businessman inasmuch as I run a business. Your logic escapes me. The money I make enables me to live in this world that relies on money. IPOF very little of it ends up in the church coffers.
Civil law has nothing to do with the church and vice versa.
I do not live under any Church Law whatever that might be. In reality there is no such animal. The church does not dictate the way Ilive. Puritans would find my lifestyle unacceptable, but I do not take notice of any strictly human values be they church or otherwise. My behaviour is strictly between me and God (And that is my relqtionship) Neither you or any church can dictate otherwise.
Where have you seen me proclaim this?
I proclaim freedom of choice. That is the freedom to choose whether to follow God or not. With no punishment (or reward) for the decision(s) made.
Christ made it perfectly clear that civil authorities are to be accepted and followed. As long as the state does not interfere with religious freedom it is an essential part of life. I frown on clerics or churches that try and interfere in the running of the state. Superficially govenrnment is for the good of the people. Human corruption aside.
Nope.
Clergy are human, not God. There are dynamics within the functioning of a church that are enevitable but that does not mean that the church gets it right all the time. (eg the Crusades or the Salem Witch trials)
You appear to have a very legalistic view of the church. Even the Decalogue is not absolute. (you only have to look at the raging debate over lawful killing)
The church is not about insisting on a way or life, or a specific view of God. (Maybe it is to some here)
When I criticise some people here for the way they talk about science I am not saying that they should not hold those views, or be participating in scientific endeavour or research. I am saying that science is no more master than the church in deciding what is or is not fact. Or dictating what I must or must not believe. I am also saying that science promotes an atheistic viewpoint and therefore a Christian should not be promoting atheism. (even if they have managed to integrate their faith into their science)
You, clearly, have no idea what a Christian is, (or should be) in terms of social behaviour. A Christian is a servant, not a dictator. A humble servant holds no authority.
If God has the ultimate authority entitled to a God then it would appear that He does not wield it. And I, for one, would not want Him to.
Richard
Here I can agree with you.
However, science does not think it is God. Science does not even say anything certain about God. The view that science is the only way to get reliable information and that science has somehow proven there are no God or gods is a philosophical worldview, comparable to faith (or lack of faith), that distorts what science is and can do. It is definitely wrong and anyone knowing what science is can tell what is wrong in this philosophical worldview, even the atheists should know it.
3 Likes
You must believe in the two non-overlapping magesteria. That is very YEC-like (not that they believe in it, but their failures in critical thinking are similar).
No, you just seem to need to justify talking about science.
I don’t think that either, but there are some here who seem to, or at least give it the qualities of God.: immutable and all-knowing.,
It would also seem that philosophy does not sit well with science because it is too esoteric. From what I have seen, some scientists (here) do not even understand that there is philosophy in scientific understanding. They make proclamations and lay down laws without understanding the consequences or implications of them.
Richard
Right. Absolutely. No argument there! You caught me with your infallible logic. I need to justify talking about the weather, meteorology. 
It has nothing to do with Richard’s elevating himself, thinking that he understands any philosophy or science better than the next guy. There is nothing esoteric and beyond the grasp of just about anyone except you. It has to do with the fact that science cannot talk about philosophy because it is about the physical. Can the physical detect and evaluate the metaphysical, Richard? You really are unbelievable.
1 Like
That was a significant point driven home in a course History and Philosophy of Science. Starting with Aristotle we looked at how science was influenced by the prevailing worldview and how scientists tended to claim more than could be justified. Then science began to become a part, then a dominant part, of the prevailing worldview, so that not just some scientists but people who don’t even really understand science made and keep making claims about science that are really their sometimes personal worldview.
The main point in philosophy of science is that science has to stick to what it can measure and not make pronouncement beyond that. That point was reinforced by statements from prominent Christians to the effect that Christians doing science must exemplify humility by never making metaphysical – including theological – statements.
3 Likes
No, philosophy is about understanding principles and ramifications. What the theory means in relation to other aspects of life and living. The fact that most scientists have difficulty grasping or forming analogies is what I mean.
When I was at school one of the things that was insisted upon at higher levels was to be able to explain things without using the standard jargon or a pre-learned description. It proved that you really understood the principles and workings.
I have tried to compare the evolutionary change to a word game in which o change one letter at a time. It illustates the scope or limitations of a small change as opposed to changing three or four letters at a time which would indicate a braoder spectrum. But it fell on not so much deaf ears as incomprehensive ones. They could not see the comparison. ANdc ould not give another one that would compare to the type of change evolution can accomplish in one go. It seems to me to be a basic understanding. How can you claim a massive change if you do not understand the process to get there? How can you claim time will do it if you do not understand the limittions of the process? What does “a deviation” mean? Adding a pair of wings? or changing the size of a beak. They are not the same.
No. it has to understand what it is claiming in terms of cause and effect. itis not enogh to say that a thunderstorm is formed when the difference in air pressure reaches a certain level. You have to understand what effect moving air has on its surroundings. The effect of varying moisture content, and so on. It is not just the empirical measurements but the interactions.and consequences of those interactions.
Richard
The applicable definition of philosophy for discussions about science is:
a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
Yes, and those interactions and consequences are physical, not ‘esoteric’ and philosophical! They are also measured empirically, physically.
1 Like
That does not apply to evolution.
You cannot physically measure,or view historic evolution in motion.
Richard
I and thousands of others have physically measured DNA divergences levels. There’s also morphological comparison of fossils. What components of this is not “viewing historic evolution in motion”?
~3.3 million years old:
~2.3 million years old:
~1.9 million years old:
Recent:
Show me the motion!
All you are showing is static pictures.
Richard
It’s analogous to watching the hour hand on a clock, Richard, or the precession of the earth’s axis (or any number of other astronomical observations) – it is difficult or impossible to observe in real time. Get real. 
Speaking of pictures, please connect the dots in the correct sequence.
1 Like
I am, And you are not.
Those pictures could be anything. They could hav been miles apart or even years apart. You join the dots as you see fit, just as you see connections in DNA
Two houses made of the same type of brick must be built by the same builder?
One is in London the other in Edinburgh. Still the same builder? Are the bricks from the same quarry? They are identical to all intents and purposes. By your logic they have the same heredity.
Richard
There you go, connecting the dots in the wrong order. Again.
Who is to say?
Prove me wrong!
Richard