RE: what about evolution?

RE: what about evolution? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

gluadys -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 9:22:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Since a soul is not a biological property, there is no need to speculate on its evolution. The human soul is God-given, not biologically derived. Some hold that God imbued a literal Adam and Eve with the first human souls. Some hold that the whole human population was so gifted at an unspecified point in its history. One could just as well ask (as medieval scholars did): when does the embryo develop a soul? So someone who believed in the existence of the soul really wouldn't be an evolutionist in the purest sense of the word, as they would believe a human body came about through natural processes, but in the final estimation was the product of divine attribution. Yes, they would be an evolutionist in the purest sense of the word. That is they understand that evolution is a biological process and only a biological process. They do not conflate biology with any form of philosophical materialism. An evolutionist, in the purest sense of the word, has no problem with theism, or with any other 'ism' since evolution is biology and nothing else. It is the reductionists who hold that "natural" means "without god" who are not evolutionists in the purest sense. They conflate a philosophical perspective with basic science. btw, see also swan42's excellent post on the correct use of "evolution". I am not an "evolutionist". I am a Christian who accepts that the best current scientific theory to explain the diversity of life is evolution. Evolution is not my faith.

pmilst -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 10:12:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cchris We are wasting our time arguing about this to non-believers. The fact is our most important message isn't about science but about spiritualty, and if someone doesn't believe in God then they won't care about the meaning of genesis. My view on the subject, since I am among believers anyhow, is that the Bible is not a technical manual but a spiritual one. Like any book of parables it is open to interpretation. I'm not saying that the Bible means whatever you want it to, only that it isn't a math book. You can look at Revelations and believe that dragons will come from the sea, or that the visions given by God aren't always 'plug slot A into slot B' instructions, but parables to be contemplated over and over again. David himself interpreted the future through coded visions. It wouldn't surprise me if interpreting the past was done in the same fashion. Regardless, this is not an essential issue. We need to stop fighting about where we came from and focus on where we are going; to focus on man's inherent nature as a moral and spiritual being who is a creation of God, whichever way God chose to make him. I believe that this is the essential message we should be spreading and it is the only way to reach someone who is lost and cares only about his own misery. Both the Believer and the Unbeliever can understand this----A donkey and a horse can have a good time and the offspring will be a sterile Jack Ass!!! It doesn't take rocket science to figure out something so common sense.

ianz -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 10:21:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pmilst Both the Believer and the Unbeliever can understand this----A donkey and a mule can have a good time and the offspring will be a sterile Jack Ass!!! It doesn't take rocket science to figure out something so common sense. What are you talking about.

pmilst -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 10:32:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ianz quote: ORIGINAL: pmilst Both the Believer and the Unbeliever can understand this----A donkey and a mule can have a good time and the offspring will be a sterile Jack Ass!!! It doesn't take rocket science to figure out something so common sense. What are you talking about. [/quote Read it again, it is self explanatory. Thanks.[:D]

pmilst -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 10:56:36 PM)
Read the edited version, my science was in some error. The offspring of a horse and a donkey is a sterile Jack Ass. [X(]

unclemonkey -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 11:05:06 PM)
ORIGINAL:cchris quote: Unclemonkey, I believe that the entire Bible is technical truth. That doesn’t answer my question. Do you think the Bible contains ANY literal history? quote: I am sad at the disrespectful tone you decided to take with me, and though I should resent what you said, I don't. I'm only speaking my mind and I can't expect everyone to agree with me, or even like me. That wasn’t a personal attack. Your statement: “I see the natural inclination of all peoples towards virtue” contradicts what the Bible clearly teaches about man’s natural inclination. quote: Call me biblically "incompetant" if you want. I still believe that when the Bible is read, it isn't read as a VCR manual. Nor do I. quote: It is the book of all mysteries, and its message is found in-between the lines. Please answer my question. Do you think the Bible contains ANY literal history? This statement implies that your answer to my question is no, but I would appreciate a straightforward yes or no answer. quote: Christianity then, to me, is the embodiment and galvanization of all virtues that lay dormant in the human heart. That is in diametric opposition to what the Bible teaches about the condition of man's heart. That belief is “new age”, which is not Christian, but rather eastern mysticism phrased to provide it with the illusion of being Christian. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” – Jeremiah 17:9

drj11 -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 11:15:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pmilst Read the edited version, my science was in some error. The offspring of a horse and a donkey is a sterile Jack Ass. [X(] I have to admit, I am a little puzzled by what you are trying to say as well.

pmilst -> RE: what about evolution? (5/13/2008 11:34:00 PM)
In making the statement about the offspring of a horse and a donkey (a mule or Jack Ass), the product of that sexual relation is sterile and can not pass along its genetic DNA. Mutations across species are generally sterile. That stops the mutation (evolutionary) process due to sterility. Believers and Unbelivers alike who approach the issue with fairness of mind, see that mutation can not really endorse or support evolution. Sorry it took so long to explain my thoughts.

blessedinnyc -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 12:03:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud I appreciate the desire for middle ground, but you are assuming that evolutionists accept even the notion that hiumans are "moral and spiritual beings"; by in large, they reduce these notions down to genetics as well. I think it's rare to find an atheist/evolutionist who argues that humans aren't moral beings. It may be the ultimate logical conclusion of a universe devoid of God and absolute truth, but I don't think most evolutionists go about their everyday life thinking that morality doesn't matter. Instead, I think it's illogical to assume that morality matters if absolute truth doesn't exist, but most atheists don't seem to understand this. quote: It really at that point comes down to the conflict between materialism (the material world is all there is) and the idea that there is more to existence than that which is apparent by simply looking at the material world. Again, aside from Nietzsche and a few other philosophers, most everyday atheists haven't explored the logical conclusions of relativism and materialism to their full extent. quote: I am not quite sure how all these statements go together, but I will say this - if you think that there is a "natural inclination of all peoples towards virtue", then you either have an unfamiliar notion of the word 'virtue', or you simply aren't much of a fan of history or current events. Well, man has a tendancy to sin, but I think the evolutionary process- something so well designed that it had to have had an intelligent designer- ultimately encourages a human understanding of morality. How would a species survive if it was ordinary to kill other members of that species? quote: The question really isn’t predicated on whether everyone does agree with Dawkins and Dennett, but whether it makes a difference if every scientist did agree with Dawkins and Dennett. Those who think the ‘consensus’ rules would be consigned to that thinking. The difference, of course, between science and religion is that science is objective; it can be observed. People might disagree about the conclusions, but with more research, it becomes easier and easier to get people to agree on them. You can get most physicists to agree that pi=3.14159+/- .00001. You can probably get 99.5% of geologists to agree that evolution is a pretty consistent theme in the story of life over the past 3.8 billion years. You can probably get 90% to agree that life has existed on this planet for the past 3 billion years. When it comes to religion, you might be able to get 10% to agree in general with Dawkins if you're really lucky- this might be as much as 25% of all atheists in science? The reason, of course, is that the inputs that lead us to our philosophical and religious conclusions are much more subjective. I don't think anyone can run an experiment to see if God is real or not, and what little evidence of God's existence we have comes from math. Instead, my brain chooses to see God as real and to see the Bible as the way God chose to reveal himself to us. Asking me why I see things this way might be like asking an atheist why what he experiences with his five senses is real. There's no objective explanation. So I think comparing a religious consensus to a scientific consensus is sort of like comparing apples and oranges. quote: Do you believe the Bible contains ANY literal history? The Bible, when it's written as a historical account (IE: in Chronicles or Kings) tends to be pretty accurate relative to the archeology we find. But the verse and style are a little different in Genesis. I'm not sure that God intended for us to interpret it as the idea that the earth is 5000 years old. What I get out of it is that: -God created the universe. -God created man and gave him free will. -Man chose to use that free will to rebel against God. -The world (universe) as it is now is that way as a result of our rebellion. For all we know, these events could have happened before the big bang. Augustine claimed that all of mankind was present in Adam when he chose to sin, and thus, we also bear responsibility for that sin. If he was willing to take the notion of Adam as an individual figuratively in order to come up with a consistent theology, maybe we can take the notion of space-time figuratively if science indicates that the world is more that 5700 years old. I don't think the first two chapters of Genesis were meant to be treated as a part of a natural history textbook. quote: That may be true, but don't you agree that there is a significant difference between a well thought out worldview based on metaphysical considerations and revelation, and simply saying, "that's how I feel about it"? One of the tragedies of life is that most people don't spend all the time to figure things out philosophically. Indeed, modern existentialism practically discourages it. Still, the world functions, despite the fact that most people don't care what their purpose is about. I don't think this is an argument you would win with most modern atheists. quote: How do they contend humans evolved a soul? First off, not all people who believe in God are Christians, and not all Deists believe in souls. But second off, why do we view a soul an atomic thing that you either have or you don't have?

swan42 -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 1:23:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pmilst In making the statement about the offspring of a horse and a donkey (a mule or Jack Ass), the product of that sexual relation is sterile and can not pass along its genetic DNA. Mutations across species are generally sterile. That stops the mutation (evolutionary) process due to sterility. Believers and Unbelivers alike who approach the issue with fairness of mind, see that mutation can not really endorse or support evolution. Sorry it took so long to explain my thoughts. Wow the disconnect between premise and conclusion is substantial. One of the significant predictions of evolutionary theory is that species that are closely related may mate and have viable offspring. Species that are very closely related may have fertile offspring. Species that are not closely related do not have viable offspring. Female Ligers (a cross between a Lion and a Tiger) are fertile. The male hybrids are not. As for mutations within a species, women with Down's Syndrome, one of the more significant mutations in people, are quite capable of having children.

unclemonkey -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 1:36:06 AM)
ORIGINAL:blessedinnyc quote: The Bible, when it's written as a historical account (IE: in Chronicles or Kings) tends to be pretty accurate relative to the archeology we find. So you gauge the veracity of historical events provided in the Bible by what archeology has been able to discover? quote: But the verse and style are a little different in Genesis. I'm not sure that God intended for us to interpret it as the idea that the earth is 5000 years old. The entire book of Genesis is written in an historical genre. quote: I don't think the first two chapters of Genesis were meant to be treated as a part of a natural history textbook. Do you think that God judged the world with a flood as described in Genesis? How about Jonah spending three days and three nights in the belly of a fish? Neither of those accounts is from the first two chapters of Genesis. Let’s quit beating around the bush. Do you believe the Bible contains ANY literal history?

gluadys -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 10:07:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pmilst In making the statement about the offspring of a horse and a donkey (a mule or Jack Ass), the product of that sexual relation is sterile and can not pass along its genetic DNA. Mutations across species are generally sterile. That stops the mutation (evolutionary) process due to sterility. Believers and Unbelivers alike who approach the issue with fairness of mind, see that mutation can not really endorse or support evolution. Sorry it took so long to explain my thoughts. No, it does not stop the evolutionary process. It just separates the process into two pathways, each continuing separate from each other. That is the basis of cladisitic speciation. Evolution is not usually about bringing existing species together (though there are examples of this, especially in plants); it is about separating one species into two or more species. Even baraminologists agree that the horse and donkey can produce hybrids because they have a common ancestor i.e. an ancestor that was equine without being either a horse or a donkey. But that species was divided into the several equine species (horse, zebra, donkey) which each continue now on a separate evolutionary pathway. That is the main process of evolution: the separation of one species into several species, each evolving separately. That is how you get biodiversity.

Jhud -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 10:32:30 AM)
quote: Yes, they would be an evolutionist in the purest sense of the word. That is they understand that evolution is a biological process and only a biological process. They do not conflate biology with any form of philosophical materialism. An evolutionist, in the purest sense of the word, has no problem with theism, or with any other 'ism' since evolution is biology and nothing else. Well, no, they wouldn’t be. An evolutionist doesn’t contend human attributes exist as anything other than natural process acting to modify the genome; obviously the soul is a human attribute that lies well outside of such processes, and is thus disregarded from an evolutionary standpoint. quote: It is the reductionists who hold that "natural" means "without god" who are not evolutionists in the purest sense. They conflate a philosophical perspective with basic science. No, they follow evolution to its logical, practical, conclusion. Evolutionary psychologists are fairly consistent in this respect; they ascribe human actions, proclivities, and attributes to genetics and biological processes, and reject the notion that there are non-material aspects that must be factored in – evolutionary theory is inevitably reductionist. quote: btw, see also swan42's excellent post on the correct use of "evolution". I am not an "evolutionist". I am a Christian who accepts that the best current scientific theory to explain the diversity of life is evolution. Evolution is not my faith. That would rather seem to confirm my thesis then.

cchris -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 10:39:28 AM)
unclemonkey, instead of treating me as a brother in Christ, you try to invalidate me as a Christian because I believe in evolution. You have not once touched upon the main theme of this post, that is, to spread the message of God through love instead argument. Don´t you see that if this topic brings such a divide between two Christians, it will never enlighten an non-Christian? Is your need to be right more important than your duty to witness? I am not going to justify my Christianity to you. That is not the purpose of this thread. But I will provide an example of what I mean when I say the Bible is a book of mysteries, and not a math or history textbook. quote: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” – Romans 1:20 You interpret this to say that God didn't use natural phenomena to create the earth. I read it and believe that the power and supremacy of God is manifest in all his creation, and is self-evident. Which of us is right is something only God knows, though we may both believe the other is wrong. Regardless, we must show the secular world that we are united despite differences in doctrine. We believe in the majesty and divinity of Christ, his power to save, and that is enough.

Jhud -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 10:47:55 AM)
quote: You interpret this to say that God doesn´t use natural phenomena. I read it and believe that the power and supremacy of God is manifest in all his creation, and is self-evident, without need of evidence. Which of us is right is something only God knows, though we both believe the other is wrong. Regardless we have to show the secular world that we are unified despite differences in doctrine -- that we believe in the majesty and divinity of Jesus his power to save and that is enough. I don't think anyone thinks God deosn't use 'nautral phenomena'; it's just that the reality is, whether you want to accept it or not, evolutionary theory is frequently utilized not merely as a theory to explain 'natural phenomena', but a means by which to dismiss any explanation other than those which are the product of chance and ordinary forces of nature.

essentialsaltes -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 11:50:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Yes, they would be an evolutionist in the purest sense of the word. That is they understand that evolution is a biological process and only a biological process. They do not conflate biology with any form of philosophical materialism. An evolutionist, in the purest sense of the word, has no problem with theism, or with any other 'ism' since evolution is biology and nothing else. Well, no, they wouldn’t be. An evolutionist doesn’t contend human attributes exist as anything other than natural process acting to modify the genome; obviously the soul is a human attribute that lies well outside of such processes, and is thus disregarded from an evolutionary standpoint. You're trying to cram those who accept evolution into a tiny box labelled 'evolutionists', where people are unable to refer to anything outside of that one theory. This is absurd. It's like saying a chemist can't appreciate the beauty of a statue because it's all just a bunch of atoms. A chemist doesn’t contend physical attributes exist as anything other than the natural properties of a small set of indistinguishable atoms in various combinations; obviously beauty is a physical attribute that lies well outside of such properties, and is thus disregarded from a chemical standpoint. Beauty is disregarded in chemistry, but that does not mean that chemists do not believe in beauty.

Jhud -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 12:06:34 PM)
quote: You're trying to cram those who accept evolution into a tiny box labelled 'evolutionists', where people are unable to refer to anything outside of that one theory. This is absurd. It's like saying a chemist can't appreciate the beauty of a statue because it's all just a bunch of atoms. A chemist doesn’t contend physical attributes exist as anything other than the natural properties of a small set of indistinguishable atoms in various combinations; obviously beauty is a physical attribute that lies well outside of such properties, and is thus disregarded from a chemical standpoint. Beauty is disregarded in chemistry, but that does not mean that chemists do not believe in beauty. Let me be clear, it is evolutionists themselves who want to expand evolutionary theory to encompass all of human experience; I am simply reporting the fact.

swan42 -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 12:50:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jh I don't think anyone thinks God deosn't use 'nautral phenomena'; it's just that the reality is, whether you want to accept it or not, evolutionary theory is frequently utilized not merely as a theory to explain 'natural phenomena', but a means by which to dismiss any explanation other than those which are the product of chance and ordinary forces of nature. Then those using evolutionary theory in this manner should not do so. There are no tools in the toolbox for evolutionary theory to properly address subjects without using nature. It is not the domain space of evolutionary theory to dismiss other explanations.

Jhud -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 12:52:28 PM)
quote: Then those using evolutionary theory in this manner should not do so. There are no tools in the toolbox for evolutionary theory to properly address subjects without using nature. It is not the domain space of evolutionary theory to dismiss other explanations. Then your complaint would be with them; fly, my reformist friend, and God's blessings with taking on the evolutionary establishment.

essentialsaltes -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 1:27:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Let me be clear, it is evolutionists themselves who want to expand evolutionary theory to encompass all of human experience; I am simply reporting the fact. Even if some 'evolutionists' believe this to the absolute extent you're proposing, it is hardly a consensus view. The theory itself makes no statements regarding the existence or nonexistence of souls. Scientists who accept evolution can maintain either position without fear of contradiction from science.

gluadys -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 1:46:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Yes, they would be an evolutionist in the purest sense of the word. That is they understand that evolution is a biological process and only a biological process. They do not conflate biology with any form of philosophical materialism. An evolutionist, in the purest sense of the word, has no problem with theism, or with any other 'ism' since evolution is biology and nothing else. Well, no, they wouldn’t be. An evolutionist doesn’t contend human attributes exist as anything other than natural process acting to modify the genome; obviously the soul is a human attribute that lies well outside of such processes, and is thus disregarded from an evolutionary standpoint. An "evolutionist" (do you mean an evolutionary biologist?) doesn't contend that biological human attributes exist as anything other than natural process acting to modify the genome: the soul is not a biological attribute. Since evolution is a biological process, any study of evolution quite properly disregards the soul. quote: quote: It is the reductionists who hold that "natural" means "without god" who are not evolutionists in the purest sense. They conflate a philosophical perspective with basic science. No, they follow evolution to its logical, practical, conclusion. Evolutionary psychologists are fairly consistent in this respect; they ascribe human actions, proclivities, and attributes to genetics and biological processes, and reject the notion that there are non-material aspects that must be factored in – evolutionary theory is inevitably reductionist. You are attributing solely to evolution what is characteristic of all science: methodological naturalism. Scientists don't study the non-material aspects of anything; it doesn't follow that they necessarily reject the existence of non-material aspects. But qua scientists they remain neutral on that point. Obviously qua human beings they have a diversity of personal opinions. quote: quote: btw, see also swan42's excellent post on the correct use of "evolution". I am not an "evolutionist". I am a Christian who accepts that the best current scientific theory to explain the diversity of life is evolution. Evolution is not my faith. That would rather seem to confirm my thesis then. Not really. Since evolution is purely a scientific matter, a pure "evolutionist" treats it as such and does not conflate it with any philosophy whether theistic, deistic, pantheistic or atheistic. Whenever anyone does, they are no longer speaking as "pure evolutionists". For want of a better shorthand term "evolutionist" will do, as long as it is not assumed to imply an element of faith or religious commitment. However, the term does lend itself to that implication and so is not the best option.

Jhud -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 2:04:08 PM)
quote: An "evolutionist" (do you mean an evolutionary biologist?) doesn't contend that biological human attributes exist as anything other than natural process acting to modify the genome: the soul is not a biological attribute. Since evolution is a biological process, any study of evolution quite properly disregards the soul. Well, this is where it gets a bit dicey, doesn’t it? What is a biological attribute – self-awarenness? One’s will? One’s moral sense? One’s spiritual sense? These things obviously exist - as an evolutionist, how do you think they came to exist? How do evolutionary biologists claim they came to exist? quote: You are attributing solely to evolution what is characteristic of all science: methodological naturalism. Scientists don't study the non-material aspects of anything; it doesn't follow that they necessarily reject the existence of non-material aspects. But qua scientists they remain neutral on that point. Obviously qua human beings they have a diversity of personal opinions. I think frequently scientists conflate “methodological naturalism” and “naturalism”, and as much as they do, they impose on science a metaphysical bent. quote: Not really. Since evolution is purely a scientific matter, a pure "evolutionist" treats it as such and does not conflate it with any philosophy whether theistic, deistic, pantheistic or atheistic. Whenever anyone does, they are no longer speaking as "pure evolutionists". For want of a better shorthand term "evolutionist" will do, as long as it is not assumed to imply an element of faith or religious commitment. However, the term does lend itself to that implication and so is not the best option. I don’t think you have any idea where such a line might be drawn between an imagined ‘pure evolutionist’, and a – what? Tainted one I suppose.

unclemonkey -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 4:34:42 PM)
ORIGINAL:cchris quote: unclemonkey, instead of treating me as a brother in Christ, you try to invalidate me as a Christian because I believe in evolution. I am sorry that you see my response as a personal attack, but I will not sit idly by as false doctrine is promoted in the name of Christianity. The doctrine you espouse is not Christian. It is eastern mysticism with the label “new age”. The insidious part of “new age” is that it is disguised with Christian sounding terminology to deceive the gullible into believing it is Christian. You have the right to believe eastern mysticism if you wish. I won’t even object to you promoting it if you will call it is, i.e. eastern mysticism. My objection is to calling it Christian, which it most assuredly is not. quote: You have not once touched upon the main theme of this post, that is, to spread the message of God through love instead argument. You certainly don’t spread the Gospel of Christ by promoting eastern mysticism in the guise of Christianity. quote: Don´t you see that if this topic brings such a divide between two Christians, it will never enlighten an non-Christian? I do not favor “enlightening” non-Christians with eastern mysticism. quote: Is your need to be right more important than your duty to witness? My duty to witness includes identifying false doctrine. Christian doctrine comes from the Bible and I provided Biblical references for my position on the doctrine you are promoting. quote: I am not going to justify my Christianity to you. I am not asking you to. What I have done is point out an important fact, i.e. the doctrine you are promoting is not Biblical and therefore not Christian. quote: But I will provide an example of what I mean when I say the Bible is a book of mysteries, and not a math or history textbook. How about just providing a straightforward yes or no answer to my question? Do you believe the Bible contains ANY literal history? quote: quote: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” – Romans 1:20 You interpret this to say that God didn't use natural phenomena to create the earth. Could you please cite the post in which I provided that interpretation? I interpret that verse to mean exactly what it says, i.e. that God created the universe in such a manner that His existence as Creator is so obvious that any who deny Him are without excuse. quote: Which of us is right is something only God knows, though we may both believe the other is wrong. That depends on whether or not you accept the Bible as God’s authoritative word. I used Biblical references to support my position. Can you do the same? If so, please do. quote: Regardless, we must show the secular world that we are united despite differences in doctrine. I will NOT tell the secular world that Christianity is united with eastern mysticism. Such compromise is spreading a false gospel, which I will not do. quote: We believe in the majesty and divinity of Christ, his power to save, and that is enough. That depends on which “Christ” you are referring to. New age, the source of the doctrine you are promoting, teaches of a “Christ within each of us”. That is a false Christ with absolutely NO power to save. Now, if you want to get back to the topic of Christian doctrine and evolution please answer my question. Do you believe the Bible contains ANY literal history? Edited to correct typographical error.

cchris -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 5:50:29 PM)
Believe what you want. I'm not going to fight with you. I think you're wrong, that your approach to religion is elitist and caustic, and that you will never help save a lost soul that way. You can and probably always will be abrasive and over-assuming. But that has never been in my hands to change. If you don't want to accept me as a Christian, then you won't and don't have to. You aren't Jesus and you aren't God. Neither are you everyone, though people like you are impossible to avoid. And while you may not see me as your brother, or see that we share a common goal, it is your error, not mine. I know what I believe, and I know when my conscience is uneasy. You don't discourage me. Love, not argument, is the only way to enlighten non-believers. It is the only way to show them that Jesus --the man, son of God-- is and will bring them peace and understanding, whether they believe in creationism or evolution, or even if they aren't sure which to believe.

gluadys -> RE: what about evolution? (5/14/2008 6:07:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: An "evolutionist" (do you mean an evolutionary biologist?) doesn't contend that biological human attributes exist as anything other than natural process acting to modify the genome: the soul is not a biological attribute. Since evolution is a biological process, any study of evolution quite properly disregards the soul. Well, this is where it gets a bit dicey, doesn’t it? What is a biological attribute – self-awarenness? One’s will? One’s moral sense? One’s spiritual sense? These things obviously exist - as an evolutionist, how do you think they came to exist? How do evolutionary biologists claim they came to exist? It's going to be interesting to see what comes of current explorations into brain functions. But what is the relationship between brain functions and moral sense? A reductionist will make the whole mental/emotional/spiritual complex an epiphenomenon of neural activity. A Buddhist will consider the physical body, including the brain, to be a conditioned epiphenomenon of consciousness. Then you have the school of emergence in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I don't know that science will resolve such issues. quote: I think frequently scientists conflate “methodological naturalism” and “naturalism”, and as much as they do, they impose on science a metaphysical bent. Of course. They are, after all, only human. Doesn't make it right nor relieve us of the duty of clarifying the difference.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI