Welcome Greg to the Forum


(George) #283

@Greg

I am not talking about your profile label. Im talking about your irrational tilting ahainst even God-governed Evolution to the point where you insist we are all Neo-Darwinists!


(Edward Robinson) #284

You didn’t specify that, and I can’t read minds. Your statement was general, and therefore any exceptions to it were properly raised.


(Edward Robinson) #285

Well, of course, you will have to state what you think ID’s “philosophical assumptions” are in order for others to understand why you think they are wrong!

Context: Many critics of ID (e.g., Stephen Barr, Ted Davis) say that ID would be fine if regarded as a philosophical enterprise rather than a scientific one, so you might want to clarify what the wrong philosophical (as opposed to scientific) assumptions are.


(George) #286

@Eddie

If i thought you were going to jump in, i would have happily included a few more qualifiers.


(Edward Robinson) #287

Why not always include qualifiers to general statements, when general statements aren’t accurate without them? Whether or not I’m listening shouldn’t matter; it’s a good intellectual habit to get into.


(Greg) #288

By suggesting that ID’S philosophical assumptions are wrong, you are immediately exerting your own philosophy. Again, if God…we are talking about a real God who, according to the Bible cares for us in even the smallest details in our lives…so this God, if in His complete sovereign will had chosen to intracately create animals according to their kinds, male and female for reproduction and speciated the planet with an incredible array of life and beauty-if this God chose to do this which far better falls in line with Scripture, and you admit that you dont THINK that the philosophical option that places a stake on the premise that irreducibly complex bio machines are so unlikely to have been created by random events in nature, this this can only lead Daniel to a conclusion in line with the philosophy about what youTHINK that bases your argument which will miss the potential fact every time.

The mainstream version of evolutionism is philosophically geared towards the worldview of atheism. It will not allow God into science because it feels that this will make science dealing with the history of our existence less “scientific” But i would suggest that it will not allow God in because it chooses not to allow God in in direct relation to its preconceived system of belief which is largely atheistic.

I understand in present cause/effect scientific endeavors not necessarily inserting God into these equations. This runs parallel with the Biblical narrative of Jesus being tempted by satan who told Jesus to test the laws if gravity by throwing yourself off the cliff so angels will save you. Jesus quotes Dt when he repeats the command, Do not put the Lord your God to the test." Present day cause effect science is a gift from God. Any parent that withholds medicine to their child because they believe God will save them from the fall are disobeying God.

On a completely different note the Bible demands we look to God as a direct Creator of kinds of life forms. And the Bible pretty closely suggests that when mainstream science wants to suggest that they can determine naturalistically events leading to complex life, they are purposefully stiff arming the very God that they know is actually responsible for life.

Ro 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for imagesmade to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

I cannot help to see a pattern of the correlation of moral drift as it coincides with the arrogance in the teaching of evolution that is so strongly founded upon the philiosophy of atheism in our classroms today. Why Christians would want to tether God to this is absolutely baffling.


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #289

Wrong. Evolutionary science is neutral on atheism or theism.

There is nothing wrong with our morals, ethics, and values. Atheism is not taught in our classrooms. Modern science is taught in our schools. Keep your Christian bigotry, intolerance, and injustice to yourself.


(Bill Cole) #290

I do see current claims taught in evolutionary text books that are not grounded in testable science and supporting an Atheistic worldview. I think you should be open to this discussion if you really believe in religious neutrality.

There is a clear gap between whats being discussed here and whats being taught.


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #291

That is false. The atheist viewpoint is not taught in public schools and certainly not in the Miller textbook. I challenge you to look at the textbook and substantiate your claims as this textbook and others have been scrutinized by NCSE and State Department”s of Educatuon. If this is your opinion state it as such otherwise put up fact to bolster your claims of atheism in public education


(Bill Cole) #292

You’re claiming the chickens are safe with the fox guarding the henhouse?:sunglasses:


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #293

70 percent of teachers in public schools are Christians so who are the foxes that you refer to. I challenge you to go through the textbook and find anything that isn’t science.


(Bill Cole) #294

The NCSE is the fox.
Have you read it? If so what does it claim about universal common descent? What does it claim about origin of life? Does it discuss genetic information and its origin and evolution?


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #295

The NCSE is not an authoritative body. It is a secular teacher/scientist professional organization dedicated to the advancement of science education in the United States. It has been around since 1981.

No I haven’t read the entire 9th grade Biology Textbook. Why would I? Miller and Levine have been writing biology textbooks for decades. Each state’s Department of Education approves the curriculum. This is science education at the high school level. I would say the book is very advanced since the time I took high school biology in 1973. You the one who is bitching about it. What do you find wrong with the curriculum, or the textbook? Doesn’t adhere to your creationist/ID viewpoints? Science is neutral on such things as creationism and ID which are religion not science. And your religion is not allow in the classroom. So stay the hell out.


(Greg) #296

Can i ask an honest question? How do you define morals, ethics and values? When the soviets were killing people just because they were people of faith, this did not wound their system of morals ethics and values in one iota. Why is this we ask? Because their values were based upon a feeling they had at the time. My wife tells me that im not much of a feeling guy…like a brick wall. I suppose i need to become more sentimental in some areas of life but basing ethics on feelings makes absolutely no sense.

I would also love to meet you over lunch to discuss these things. I have good acquaintences in some customers who are atheists. One guy would be considered your superhero who has a library of books by renowned atheists and marxists. Weve had great, respectable discussions and he knows that if he had a need ( he is in his 80s and partially disabled) he could call me and know id drop everything to help.

I dont want to word battle you for argument sake. On top of the incredible integrity and love on display by those 1st century followers of Christ who were willing to die upon the premise that they saw Jesus alive on the 3rd day after he was crucified and buried, i can also tell you about experiences in answers to prayer that i could never explain away. This may sound like psychobable to you. Ethics without reference to a supreme sounds like psychobabble to me.


(Bill Cole) #297

So you have no idea if it is making non neutral religions claims.


(Daniel Ang) #298

Yes, Greg, I am “exerting my own philosophy.” So are you. The more important question is: who is right?

Unlike some defenders of theistic evolution I think God has sovereign control over all the happenings of the universe (including in the case of evolution, cosmology, and others), so I affirm what you say here.

We simply have to disagree on this point. I’m not an expert on Old Testament interpretation, but often Young Earth Creationists seem to assume that just because their reading is the most “literal” (i.e. conforming to the assumptions of what a modern reader thinks is literal), they automatically get to claim that they are most faithful to the Bible. In reality, as I have been reading the works of John Walton, for example, there are many nuances that we modern readers miss because we do not live with the same cultural assumptions as the ancient Israelites.

Well yes Greg, I have been following the debate about irreducibly complex machines to some extent, and I haven’t found ID-type arguments to be convincing enough. For an example of this, look at the conversation between Josh and Eric. These arguments are also miscategorized as science when I think they cannot be science. After all I am a scientist, and I think I have a good idea of what science should be like.

This is good Greg. I am glad that you agree on the value of science and medicine in explaining certain things we encounter in our lives. I agree with you that science is a gift from God.

When I read the Bible, I don’t see it as talking in the language of modern science. I see modern science as not trying to constrain or stiff-arm God, but instead discovering how God decided to create the universe. I personally think that a universe that is 13.5 billion years old and fitted with mechanisms that resulted in our current Earth, living things, and humans to be much grander and indicative of God’s glory than one which is 6,000 years old. Of course, I don’t deny that God could have intervened in subtle or direct ways. After all, we both believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ, something that science cannot explain. But I find the rest of science - cosmology, evolution, quantum mechanics, and so on - to genuinely portray the glory of God, even if they are different from your conception of direct, miraculous creation. To me they are almost a miracle in themselves.


(Greg) #299

Thats great that you finally aknowledge this …however, no sooner do you say that you say this:

Do you see the disconnect here? You tell me you agree that your version of science is indeed not objective because it is driven by philosophy, then declare that you know what good science is because you are a scientist! You suggest that ID is unscientific but you base this upon your subjective worldview. Again science in real time problem solving is one thing. Science surrounding how we think God created?? That is wholely another. If you, as a scientist who has a “good idea what science should be like” chooses to find the God, the overseer of naturalistic evolution with God interjecting sporatically, then this is what you typically will find.

On top of the many theological arguments i have mentioned that ALL stear clear of anything to do with how old the planet is…look at my posts- there are MANY theological problems with this idea of evolutionism…, there is a very important one i have not emphasized enough- all of us in all races, creeds, religions etc are prone towards both disobedience to God, and are in many cases simple minded and easily persuaded to make conclusions based on how we were raised or taught. Why do you think companies spend billions on advertizing? Our minds are quite impressionable. We are many times irrational, laden with emotion, and many times downright wrong in our thinking compared to what is ultimately true.

You may be a scientist, but how on earth does that bring me confidence that you are capable, considering the description above is true, to successfully arrive at determining how exactly God created?

Have you given any time to discover how dating methods of say lava of a known age will be off 100s of thousands of years. Have you recognized that along with dating methods that suggest the earth seems billions of years old, so there are many problems associated with this being potentially true as well ? Have you really scrutinized your thinking process that makes you think you are right and others wrong which may have been affected by the whims of mainstream naturalism? And have you really thought through the implications of your stance upon what wholeheartedly amounts to, at least as far as what i have seen coming from theistic evolutionists, liberal theology which if spread very far could arise such apostacy in the church that many will hear and say they believe in a gospel that gives the greatest gift of God Himself, but in reality say and believe towards an end quite contrary to God?


(Daniel Ang) #300

I believe in certain things about science, but I also think they are objectively true. It is not simply a matter of subjective taste. I believe my philosophy of science is objectively true. When I agreed that “I am exerting my own philosophy,” that doesn’t mean that my version of science is not objective. On the contrary, I think it is a faithful, objectively true account of what science is and should be.

I’m certainly not perfect. I probably get some things wrong. But I believe I have a duty to use the reasoning ability and knowledge that God has given me. And while I appreciate your attempts to persuade me about the scientific and theological problems about evolution, I have to say that I’m not convinced.

Yes, I have looked into YEC arguments about the dating of the Earth and found them to be weak. There are numerous other problems with a YEC worldview - such as the distant starlight problem.

How about yourself, Greg? Have you scrutinized your own thinking processes that makes you think you are right? You may not be affected by the mainstream, but you have certainly been affected by the ID and YEC movements. Have you ever reflected on whether what these people are telling you about science and the Bible might not be right?

Yes, I’ve thought a little bit about the implications of my stance. Only by accepting God’s creation through big bang cosmology and theistic evolution can I truly understand how my scientific work is also the Lord’s work (1 Thess. 1:3). My scientific work discovers God’s glory, majesty, beauty, and creativity. It is a form of worship. I pray for the Spirit to guide me everyday I am in the lab. I cannot do so if my work is falsehood, which you seem to think.

I am not a liberal theologian, Greg. I am not. And I think that theistic evolution doesn’t necessarily lead to liberal theology. There are many people who believe in evolutionary science in this forum, such as Josh, and are not liberal theologians at all.

On the contrary, YEC has also led to apostasy within the church. Many young people are taught that you have to believe YEC to be a Christian, and their faith unfortunately does not survive when in college they are confronted with scientific evidence that YEC is not true.


(Greg) #301

Unfortunately, as i have read theological perspectives from many who lean into evolutionism, they are typically ignorant about the Bible and very apostate in their thinking. Their idea about God is more conceptual and not personal. And even the gospel -a statement i have commented about from Josh- was representative of evolution where jesus makes the good man better (evolve) instead of a dead man in Adam recreated back to life in Jesus. (Creation) Pitifully poor theology at its core!

I do not necessarily endorse any young earth parachurch org, but know dozens of people in them. These typically are incredibly fond of digging into Scripture. Not one single person believes that you HAVE TO believe in a young earth to be saved, but like me they all believe that the potential fruits of an evolutionary worldview positions that God as a creator via luck and selection of the strong and disposer of the weak, gives ingredients to sinful men for racial discrimination, gives ingredients for mistrust of the Bible and lesser interest to read, and truly numbs any rationality that God did give us with the inconceivable idea that nature can take a simple celled creature and turn it into things like people with two sexes needed for reproduction. Mind blowing how inconceiveable this is yet godless materialism in the classroom blinds us to how impossible this is! Scientists come along and try to put mathematics to display that perhaps evolution feasible. I equate this to my wife playing hs softball with an over 500 batting average. She got a new coach who had never played a sport in his life. He was a calc teacher in our HS. He took data about bat size, bat thickness, ball size and density, size of player etc and crunched numbers to determine the best size bat for each player that they HAD TO USE. my wifes average when down to 200 until her dad would sneek her favorite bat into the game. Garbage in, garbage out.

When paul was confronted by the philosophers of his day with the seeming illogic of God blaming us for disbelief and hell when ultimately it requires Him revealing His love and grace in such a way that made those irresistably attracted to God…what did Paul do? Did he succomb to the pressure of explaining away the seeming irrationality in the minds of those philosophers in order to keep them interested in God? Absolutely not! This is what Paul said in Ro 9: But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?

Do you think that message was found to be favorable in the minds of these smart men? They would have thrown their hands in the air and huffed and walked away. Yet the firm stance upon the true nature of God and the gospel spread like wildfire.

Theistic evolutionism will keep interest about God for a season, and three seasons later, churches will be turned into restaurants.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #302

@Greg, why exactly are you here?