Sorry for the incomplete context. I should have said:

"I presume other creatures (not including cats, which evolved on a different planet and were deposited here as a cruel joke by some diety with a sense of humor), not having cognitive abilities to human extent, do not have religious faiths in that they have no imagination."

Also, Hi NBII. Why another name? Senior moments and forgotten passwords? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

WAT
---------------
Alaska - come for the caribou, stay for the pork.

Oh WAT, it's the same name with a "II"... which technically is the same name with a "II"... did I already say that? Senior moment, indeed!!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Comments on some of those references can be found at:
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4408


A discussion (well, 2 posts) regarding the term "Son of God" can be found here:
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2555

What I find interesting is Lewis's attitude of fear and loathing toward the mentally ill, an attitude which he presumes his listeners share. You don't have to believe Jesus was mentally ill to think, "And if he was, so? Does that mean the peacemakers aren't blessed? Does that mean it's a bad thing to feed the hungry and clothe the naked?"

I ac2ally really liked CS Lewis' "Out of the Silent Planet" and "Perelandra" despite the religious overtones (some of them rather simple minded). I never got through "That Hideous Strength" though. I still have it somewhere. Probably should look it up. I saw a one-act stage play on TV a while ago about CS Lewis, as if he were having a conversation with a friend (the audience), discussing his life experiences. I found that fascinating. I didn't agree with a lot of the points he made and conclusions he drew, but he was an interesting person.

I never read the Chronicles of Narnia, either, but I saw the movie recently. That was a disappointment for me.

-ol' 2long

I loved The Screwtape Letters, but the Perelandra trilogy was king of blah, IMO. "Simple minded" is a good description. I never read The Chronicles of Narnia, but I did see the cartoon version of it that was on PBS years ago. I liked the movie well enough, but my SIL, who was the one who wanted to see it, was shocked at all the violence in what was supposed to be a children's story. I wouldn't take kids under 10 to see it.

There was a movie that came out 10 or so years ago about CS Lewis with Anthony Hopkins playing him. I forget the name, but it was a good movie.

It's hard to think of another figure like Lewis who popularized theology, so to speak, in quite the same way. Maybe Bishop Fulton Sheen would come close. I don't look at people like Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, or Jerry Falwell in the same light because I think their appeal is more emotional, in the tradition of the Great Revival or even Jonathan Edwards ("Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"). Lewis's appeal seems more philosophical and intellectual

Actually, if you are looking for Fun Theological Reads, I would recommend American Jesus:How the Son of God Became a National Icon by Stephen Prothero. Prothero has a rather pithy way of putting things, like "This may be difficult to believe, but Jesus has not always been a household name, even in Christian households . . .Christians in the colonies typically focused their piety on the First Person of the Trinity, whom they feared as a distant yet powerful potentate." I found it to be a fascinating book.

MM -


Interesting. Seems pretty dern intuitive to me - and it must be also so to very many people through history in that it's included - in so many words - in just about every organized religion on the planet. But yes, for many it was placed there by someone - usually our parents.

"Johnny!!! STOP HITTING YOUR LITTLE SISTER!!!!!!!!!

How would YOU like it if she was bigger than you and was hitting YOU????"

Need I say more?

Also, interesting reading that you quoted/drew from above. I'd bet that that info is probably compiled/written by believers, right? Care to offer perspective by neutral or non-believers?

WAT

WAT - Okay, there are some things that I agree with and some things I disagree with in what you said in the above quotation. So let's split it apart to hopefully make the responses more germane and cogent to the specific issue.

"This gets to the heart of the matter on two fronts. First, it's the "truth" problem (as opposed to "acceptance"). I see this as requiring a distinguishment between "truth" and faith. There are precious few things that we have absolute "truth" about, there are many things we can have "faith" in."

No argument because it is a, if you pardon the pun, a "true" statement. And as such, it cuts both ways.


"In the body of science, "truth" is not a usable term as it connotes "absolute". Especially in science, there is very little "absolute."

Also a "true" statement to anyone who has studied science.


"Evolution is not presented by science as "truth."

This is where we diverge. Evolution IS presented as truth by a large number of people. They do so by FAITH, not scientific proof. But they reject the "possibility" that things came about by design of a living Creator and substitute random chance. Then, in order to deal with some very big problems that "Science" itself injects, they resort to totally unproven hypothesis to "bridge the gaps," if you will. Thus we get "crazy" ideas like Gould's "Punctuated Equilibrium," made up of whole imaginary cloth, and spoken of as "fact" rather than theory. While many scientists KNOW the difference between theory and fact and tacitly accept and work with theories, while awaiting definitive "proof," the majority people, and certainly the majority of school children are NOT trained scientists and "take the word" of the teacher as "fact." There is NO counterbalancing of theories because someone has gotten it into their heads that ANY mention of God or any other "cause" of "Origins" is somehow "establishing" a "State Religion." That's utter nonsense, but it IS an emotional argument nonetheless (sort of like Ted Kennedy's tirade and personal attack against Judge Alito on Tuesday).

"Rather, it's presented as the best natural explanation so far as a result of applying the scientific process."

Once again we disagree here. What it does is START with the premise that the ONLY explanation for how things, especially life, got here is "natural law" and "random chance." IF one accepts that God cannot exist, then there IS no other possible explanation, even if we can't "prove" how it was done. Part of the problem is that we CAN'T "repeat the process" and, thus, the "scientific method" is pretty much useless for "proving evolution."


"I guarantee you that when an alternative, better explanation comes out of the scientific process, it will replace evolution. Hence, "evolution" is not truth - the scientific process ensures that it's open to revision as more is learned."

Well this is a given. The theory of evolution has had to be "modified" many times because of discoveries that totally disproved a prior position. It's sort of like the idea of "morals" based upon society and it's definition of what is moral or not. Let society change and what was moral becomes immoral, and vice versa. With evolution, the issue can probably never be resolved and it will remain a "theory." But in the meantime, people are taught that theory AS IF it were fact. I know that was true in my science courses. The "famous" biological truth of that time was "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." That "truth" has now been discarded as "not true" as a result of scientific advancement. Yet, once again, there is no "counterbalance" to the "pseudo science/in reality faith" of evolution as THE answer to how things got here.


"If you want to have "faith" in Biblical "truth", have at it. Just recognize that you're mixing, in my view, two words that have no meaning in the scientific process and, in fact, we're back in the two different ballparks. The scientific process considers only natural phenomena and classifying the Bible as the literal "truth" requires acceptance of super natural occurences. Period. Discussions for two differernt venues."

Yes and no. They are both "super natural occurences." In fact, it's quite interesting to see the theories that science postulates that the universe and everything in it came about as result of a Quantum "bubble," in essence, "ex nihilo." Now if THAT isn't faith that sounds almost exactly like "in the beginning God created....," we need to go back an revisit just what "faith" is.


"So, are you being denied introduction of Genesis into public school science classes? Absolutely you are! Because it's not science (unless you live in Kansas - official state motto: "Maybe YOU evolved!")."

I agree, we ARE being "denied" access. In it's place is the "bubble theory" that everything was created out of nothing. Considering the somewhat firmly held tenet of science that Matter cannot be destroyed, it's perhaps a "substitutionary faith" (along the lines of Animism or Gaiaism) to have science proposing that everything we know had it's origin in "nothingness." And that is being called "science" merely because it's a theory that "EXCLUDES" a living God from creating everything out of "nothingness" as per the Genesis account. The bias would NOT seem to be against a "supernatural origin" per se, but against a Living God who DIRECTED the creation by His Will and Word.


"Are you being denied free exercise? Absolutly not. If you want to home school your kids or place them in a non-publically funded school that poo poos evolution in favor of creationism, have at it."

Okay, now we are talking about American schools and American politics, NOT science. I, personally have NO problem if the public schools want to eliminate Creation theory or even the mere mention of God IF we are not coerced and forced to send our children to public schools through force taxation to support ONLY the public schools.

I have no problem with the State mandating school attendance up to some predetermined age, but I DO have a problem with the State saying that while they command that I pay my taxes for schooling, the ONLY school that can receive my funds are the PUBLIC schools who deny anything related to God, much less Creation theory. I would be perfectly happy if we eliminated two things that I think are a blight and huge detriment to our schools; One, the funding of ONLY public schools with our confiscated money and, Two the elimination of the tenure system whereby really cruddy teachers cannot be removed and that promotes mediocrity by stiffling competition for STUDENTS.


"Further, if you want to promote a public school class that discusses creationism, you are free to do so and you will not be denied - as long as it's not presented as science and you also include discussion of other faith based concepts so that you offer sufficient balance to avoid endorsing one faith over others"

I'll not get into this one because it's a red herring to the issue. There ARE only two "camps" of possibility concerning "Origins"...Creation or Evolution, and it does not matter what any religious faith or non-religious faith believes regarding "spiritual matters."

No, No NO!, WAT.

Evolution IS "truth". It really is happening. Theories OF evolution may themselves 'evolve' as hypotheses of the specifics are formulated, tested, and falsified. But evolution is a fact, not a theory (as Carl Sagan once so eloquently stated it).

Sagan also said something else interesting about atheism, which requires proving the negative, that there is no God, and something that cannot be achieved with absolute certainty. And so, people like ol' 2long cogitated about their own perceived lack of belief, and decided 2 relabel himself as an "atheologist" - because my "gripes", such as they are, are with organized religions, not with spir2ality.

elspeth:

Thanks for the forum citations. They were very interesting reads. I did a little further poking around, and found this website. I thought about whether I should quote something from it versus just listing the link, and decided I should probably just list the link, so that others may (or may not) go there themselves if they want. It's an atheist's website, and it IS just a website. But I found the arguments compelling from an objective standpoint. I'm not a historian, I'm a scientist. But the 2 fields have some similar approaches 2 problem solving that I admire, that are "bigger than the individual" (meaning folks like me and my pet beliefs or lacks thereof). Things that someone like Mortarman should oughta understand (like military intelligence and their approaches 2 finding "truth": big sidebar: I once read a book about the Nez Perce` indians by a military historian who ONLY used firsthand eyewitness accounts 2 put 2gether the events of the "Flight of the Nez Perce". fascinating read, and very similar 2 the approach on the website I'm referring you 2 here):

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

I must agree with the central point made on this website (and many others, though not as thoroughly, perhaps), and that is that there is no historical evidence whatsoever that Jesus ever existed. Zip. ALL of the so-called body of evidence consists of non-eyewitness accounts written by people born after Jesus' crucifixion. Does that mean he didn't exist? No, of course not. But it does mean that there's no proof that he did.

Mostly, I found it interesting that this author goes in2 more detail than I'd seen elsewhere about the pre-Christian mythologies from which the gospels appear 2 have been derived. Fascinating stuff. But what does that all mean? Funny, perhaps, but taken metaphorically (with the acknowledgment that you don't mean them that way), I think that many things said by FH and MM and most other Christians and attributed 2 Jesus take on MORE meaning, and applicability, 2 me personally, than the "book of rules" stuff I hear when I feel preached 2.

-ol' 2long

Well, you can't prove that there isn't a Thor, either, and yet millions of Christians have no problem in asserting that he doesn't exist. In fact, wasn't it Sagan who said of theists that he merely believed in one fewer God than we do? Or was that someone else? I tend to think of atheism not a positive assertion that there is no God so much as a refusal to believe in something that hasn't been proven to that person (like the existence of God). So I think you can refer to yourself as an atheist while leaving open the possibilty that something could occur to change your mind-like looking up one night to see all the stars in our galaxy have been rearranged to spell out "I do, too, exist! signed, Thor" to someone standing here on Earth.

Well, 2long, I don't wish to be offensive, but I scanned the site, and found many of its arguments kind of superficial and silly.

I'm quickly approaching an age where recalling events from 40 years ago isn't that big a deal. Could I give a reasonable account of childhood events? I think so ... with the limitation that a child's worldview is not particularly objective. When I'm sixty and seventy, I could expect I would write my memoirs of my youth with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Moreover, we have to project ourselves back to a time when human memory was better trained than it is now, when memorization was part of the Jewish culture in particular. When memory was the culture-bearer.

In the era before the printing press, I would bet that things were copied samizdat-style, without necessarily altering their accuracy.

The discrepancies in the accounts can simply be described in the way you and your Aunt Maude might have different accounts of last Thanksgiving's dinner.

No eyewitness accounts? Well, Matthew and John were disciples (the latter reputed to live to a ripe old age), and however much their accounts may have been messed with, I would expect they had some hand in them, however much they may have been recopied.

Mark and Luke (who nobody claims are "apostles," as the website alleges) were I suppose writing from hearsay -- as in fact, most journalists do, writing accounts as relayed by eyewitnesses. In fact, that's what Luke establishes in the first few verses of his account: that he gathered and sifted through eyewitness accounts.

If you've read many of the works eliminated from the Bible, and I have, I think you will come away congratulating the church fathers on their good sense. Many of them are based on questionable visions and are flakey. Of course, Philip and Thomas were withheld for gnostic influences -- and far from burning them, as the website author claimed, the reason why the Nag Hammadi stuff in the 20th century was no big surprise to scholars was because much of its arguments had been preserved in the arguments of those who were refuting it.

In any case, I don't know how much more historical evidence you would expect to exist from 2,000 years ago. The gospels themselves are pretty hefty accounts -- but people dismiss them precisely because they are the gospels, forgetting that they were originally "historical accounts." In fact, if you read them as a cold outsider, what impresses you about the synoptic gospels is that they don't read like anything else from the period. The authors keep asserting that these are firsthand accounts, and certainly include information that doesn't make them look very good as "heroes."

I don't know why one would expect the Romans to record the execution of an obscure criminal, in a colonial backwater. It's not like they kept complete execution records -- any more than you can expect to verify that someone took a particular book out from the New York Public Library 2000 years from now.

As for places, of course we still have Gethsamane, the Mount of Olives -- the nearby grotto where Jesus allegedly taught. In Bethlehem, the grotto where he was said to be born. Mount Tabor is there. Ephesus, I believe, preserves the rumored home of Mary and John. Good heavens, what would you expect to still be around two millenia later? We don't have the birthplace of Socrates, either -- but does anyone doubt his existence? It seems that there is a good deal of landmarks, some of admittedly questionable authenticity, some not.

It's funny, Tacitus did not witness the events he wrote about, yet they're not subjected to this kind of scrutiny. His hearsay records are thought to be "historical."

In the end, it seems to be "disbelievers" need to have grounds for their disbelief, other than simply saying, "I think it's a load of baloney. I don't believe it because what they are saying is implausible." That would be reasonable. But instead their arguments seem forced. Why don't they just say they don't believe it because they don't want to? It's possible that it's all a fabrication -- although that seems to me far-fetched.

Heavens, how can we prove anything happened before we were born? The stuff they're publishing about Lincoln, rumors based on rumors of rumors, is far more tenuous than this.

I am not being disingenuous, but I am beginning to suspect that you are being purposely obtuse. The vast majority of religions incorporate numerous beliefs in addition to a belief in a supreme being(s)/spirit. Some of these beliefs, such as the golden rule, are things I would completely support; other beliefs I might not agree with, but are harmless. And then there are many beliefs that are very harmful. For example, religions which believe it is right to kill non-believers are NOT FINE, and I resent your statement that I would not make a distinction between the harmless and the harmful.

2long,


This is my TRUTH, too. I am a very spiritual person. I happen also to believe in Christ's sacrifice, but I don't believe in a lot of the dogma that comes with organized religion.

WAT,

About the golden rule being intuitive -- YES, YES, AND YES. If more people listened to that inner voice... we'd have a much more compassionate, kind and caring world.

And I'll take it all further and say that I believe that our PLANET is alive... and crying out... we humans have really mucked up the environment...and the planet is letting us know its displeasure.

Just my thoughts on the matter... from someone who wishes for the seemingly impossible: peace on earth and among people.

AMM:

I suppose that the stakes are just 2 high for this kind of discussion here.

I'm out.

-ol' 2long

???????????????

elspeth - you are certainly free to "think" whatever you want to think, but let's try to stick to generally accepted definitions of terms instead of making up our own. That would seem to make sense, wouldn't it? A "common reference" for discussion is essential. What you "think" is a definition of Atheism is really a definition of Agnosticism. The first is a definitive declaration that a decision HAS been made, "There IS no such thing as ANY God." The second is a "fence sitting position" that waffles on a decision (I know, since that is what I once was). Frankly Agnosticism is like a Wayward Spouse sitting on the fence wanting to "negotiate" keeping "one foot in the marriage and one foot in the affair" because they are "Just not sure." It seems to make to sense to them, but it's really just an excuse to continue their behavior because making a DECISION commits them to a course of action and EXCLUDES the "other" option.




Now don't get me started on the pompous Sagan and his speculations that he consistantly put forth as "fact."

As for Thor, don't be ridiculous, there is NO comparision between the God of Thunder (my historical pantheon of Norse "gods") and the living, breathing, speaking, killed, resurrected Jesus Christ. Odin, Loki, and all the rest are not much different than the pantheon of Greek "gods." NO ONE ever asserted that they were real, live, historical, persons....they were "mental constructs" to describe things like the "forces of nature," not real people, along the lines of the current day "Mother Earth" philosophy.

These attempts to deny the historicity of the person, Jesus of Nazareth, are simply ridiculous to any application of the Historical Method. The ONLY way to claim that he didn't exist is to throw out ALL of history and historical figures. People do that with Christ simply to deny him and for no other reason.

For example:
"In a debate sponsored by the Associate Studenst of a midwestern university, my opponent, a congressional candidate for the Progressive Labor Party (Marxist) in New York, said in her opening remarks: "Historians today have fairly well dismissed Jesus as being historical. ..." I couldn't believe my ears (but I was thankful she said it, because the 2,500 students were soon aware that historical homework was missing in her preparation). It just so happened that I had the following notes and documentation with me to use in my rebuttal. It is certainly not the historians (maybe a few economists) who propagated a 'Christ-myth' theory of Jesus.

As F.F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, as rightly said:

"Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth,' but they do no do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is a axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theories."

Otto Betz concludes that "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus. " (Evidence That Demands A Verdict, Vol.1, p.81) (See the book itself for a detailed discussion of the historical facts and evidences for the historicity of Jesus if anyone is interested in the FACTS)

To put it crudely and bluntly, this 'Christ-myth' assertion would be similar to someone arguing that Isaac Newton didn't exist in history with the intent to reject gravity. The assertion is not only ridiculous based upon an examination of the Historical record that attests to his being a real person (regardless of whether on or not they believe an apple fell on Newton's head) but is ridiculous as a means by which they could try to deny the reality of the TRUTH of gravity by "eliminating" the "revealer" of the truth, thereby claiming the "truth" itself doesn't exist.

Opinion masquerading as scholarship is a "time honored" method used by many, but it is NOT based in facts or truth. It is usually based in a lifestyle bias or in simple ignorance of what the FACTS are and a regurgitation of someone else's opinion without ascertaining what the facts ARE for themselves.

2Long, as a scientist, I would expect better from you. Evolution is NOT a fact, it is a THEORY...and you SHOULD know that. Evolution IS not "proven" and is not "reproduceable," and you know that too. So to assert so strongly to WAT...."No, No NO!, WAT. Evolution IS "truth", " is a "scientific bias" based in FAITH, not in fact.

You know as well as I do that the "scientific method" cannot be applied to the question of "Origins." You also know that there ARE ONLY TWO possibilities for "Origins," and those two possibiities are Creation and Evolution. Neither one of them is "proveable" scientifically. They are "adhered to" by faith, by choice, but not by scientific proof. All that the Evolutionary Model attempts to do is to "explain" why things "are," or "have been," if a Creator God was not involved. The same "method" can be applied to why things "are," or "have been," if one accepts a living Creator who created by His will. But each position on Origins is based in FAITH, not scientific proof.

"Theories OF evolution may themselves 'evolve' as hypotheses of the specifics are formulated, tested, and falsified."

Yes, they do "come up with" new ways to explain things when their previous held "truths" are proven to be false. But the reason for that is that they make, and begin with, the assumption that Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact and they just don't "know enough" yet. Strange, but isn't that the same argument that they use against Creation and "how" God did it?

When scientists begin with a bias that excludes a Creator, then the resultant theory is taught as FACT when, in fact, it is is NOT and has not been proven. That is UNscientific in that it determines the cause BEFORE the facts. That is FAITH, not science.

2Long, you are a geologist and an expert in things "inanimate." My training was in Biology (the study of living organisms). As difficult as it is to "prove" the origin of inanimate things, rocks, stars, universe, etc., it is even more difficult to "prove" the origin of LIFE from nonliving things. ONE thing that Biology KNOWS is that "life begets life." The FIRST obstacle that Evolutionary Theory must address is the formation of LIVING matter from non-living matter. That "obstacle" has never been proven or duplicated in any lab, anywhere in the world. The next hurdle, assuming they could duplicate creating a living "thing" from nonliving, would be the issues of viability, sustainability, and reproduction.

So what results is that "speculation" masquerades as hypothesis based upon the preconceived notion that God does NOT exist and that life did not originate by the purposeful will of a Creator being. In short, the Empire State Building assembled itself from component parts all by "random chance," with no blueprints, no "prefabbed parts," and no builders.



2Long, as a committed "atheologist" I would expect nothing less from you. Blanket acceptance of someone else's opinion and rendering a "verdict" about the Historical Method through denial of it's "scientific method." This "no proof" lie comes from a biased position and not from an objective consideration of the facts. If you'd like to discuss the Historical Method sometime, we can. But I rather suspect that while you claim to be interested in "facts" and "proof" (ala your interesting claims regarding "peer review," and Gould's speculations, among others), the reality is that you approach it the same way that Jim Walker and his fellow atheists approach it (from a bias, bordering on hatred, against religion in general and Christianity in specific). It's "understandable" that the bias exists, because it IS an "either/or" situation....either God exists or He doesn't. Either the world was Created or it wasn't(evolved).

But 2Long, you are a scientist. Committed to "going where the facts take you" regardless of hypothesis. Does a scientist throw out or refuse to consider objective data that CONFLICTS with their predetermined hypothesis, or chosen bias?

This is NOT the level of scholarship and "scientific honesty" that I would expect from you...but it IS expected from a "zealot" bent on "proving their hypothesis" regardless of the facts. I don't think you are "zealot," but I do think you are committed to "naturalistic" explanations for everything and that carries over into your acceptance of OPINION of another who IS a zealot rather than that of scholars in the field of Historical Method.

I was using the term "truth" as an absolute philosphical belief - as in Biblical "truth" for FH. As you know, I agree that evolution is a scientific "fact" - the best scientific (natural) explanation we have at the moment for the development of life on this particular planet. In the absolute, it is not "truth" in that we're not finished learning everything about it. That's all.

FH - there are a lot of things in your prior response that I would like to debate, but I want to work on my taxes. Well, I don't really want to, but I need to see where I stand to see if I have a economic reason to procrastinate.

Nonetheless, I'll address this one portion only:

First - "They do so by FAITH, not scientific proof."

I tried to address this earlier - it's the inappropriate mixing of "faith", science, "proof", "truth", etc. I either failed in my explanation or you failed to objectively consider it ( - or my explanation is faulty or I'm a lunitic, or I don't exist, or I'm a liar. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> ) There is NO FAITH in the scientific process, other than "trusting" that the scientific process works over time to discover the natural explanations of things. Discovered scientific "facts" survive until application of the scientific process displaces them with better knowledge and better supported "facts". What's so hard about this to accept? In science, there is NO ABSOLUTE PROOF. "Proof" exists in mathematics, where absolutes can exist. It also exists in faith - because people choose to accept some things without application of a scientific process, explicitly because these faiths rely on supernatural phenomena.

Next - "But they reject the "possibility" that things came about by design of a living Creator and substitute random chance."

Science rejects nothing natural. Is it possible that the "Creator" can be explained by natural phenomena? I don't know, but if "yes", then the scientific process ought to be able to handle its discovery and understanding. Please suggest something science can examine and study using the scientific process and I bet 2long can insert it someplace in the scientific community for study. Otherwise, or if the answer is "no" to the natural phenomena question, then we're once again outside of the scientific process and non-natural phenomena are not considered.

Repeat after me: "Science considers ONLY natural phenomena. Faith allows the supernatural."

Next - "Then, in order to deal with some very big problems that "Science" itself injects, they resort to totally unproven hypothesis to "bridge the gaps," if you will."

Yes and no. It's the honest application and outcome of the scientific process that "big problems" are revealed. (Only faith seems to have all the answers all the time.) Evolution, for example, has many, but diminishing, "gaps." Heck, it's only been studied since the time of Darwin! Just this morning in the Sunday "Parade" magazine is the story about a possible 10th planet - and discussion that there could be thousands more. You and I were taught there there were 9 planets. I'm open to consider that a tenth could exist. Are you gonna stick to the old knowledge? Science NEVER has ALL the answers - nor does it claim to. Science is not as arrogant as faith to claim to have all the answers right away. That "big problems" are voiced during the scientific process is a demonstration of it working - whether its your "gaps" or new planets. I'm glad you pointed this out for amplification.

Lastly - "totally unproven hypothesis"

Using these three words together demonstrates very well the trouble and confusion that can be introduced to the gullible by folks who do not use proper terminology when discussing the scientific process.

I've already discussed the ideas of "absolute" (totally) and "proof" (unproven). I won't repeat why these are inappropriate terms to use when discussing science. But to use them as adjectives for "hypothesis" take this to another whole level of misunderstanding. In science, "hypothesis" is, BY DEFINITION, an unconfirmed suspicion. So, "totally unproven hypothesis" is thrice redundant. But yes, hypotheses are used as the starting point to explain "gaps", to use your term, or to study possible explanations for things not yet well understood.

Else where in your response, you mixed the "big bang" with evolution inappropriately. The "big bang" is all about physics and evolution is all about biology. Two different topics.

I'm wondering what the goal of this discussion is. No one is going to be "converted." As long as you continue to believe that the planet is only a few thousand years old, distinguishing between science and faith with you will produce no movement. That's OK with me as it may be with you. And maybe this reveals a fundamental agreement that we have: if Genesis is wrong and evolution will someday explain ALL the "gaps", then why believe as literal "truth" anything else in the Bible? Good question.

WAT

WAT, I'm "on the fly" right now, also,as I also have a rather busy schedule of "honey do" things today, so I'll delay a more complete discussion, if needed, until later.

In the meantime let me just give you my OPINION about your argument about "faith" as applied to science as you tried a "Clintonesque" contortion......."it all depends upon what the definition of "faith"(is) is."

I would submit that perhaps an "unbiased" definition could be found in a Dictionary definition. Or are we back to arguing that the definition of "moral behavior" has no absolutes and cannot be "universal" to all, because if we reject the "biblical" definition of moral behavior we are left with making it BE anything we want it to be?

"It all depends upon what the meaning of IS is."

I didn't believe Clinton's twisting of language and I'm pretty sure I don't believe your attempt to modify what "faith" means.



I happen to agree with you, WAT. However, it is the "evolutionists" who refer to things like the "evolution of the universe," and the evolution of planets. They speak of stars "being born" and "stars dieing." The point is simple, they see the entire "process," whether inanimate or animate, as "evolving" by random change and natural "law" only, with NO Creator being involved at any point. The only exception to this are the misguided souls who try to "appease both sides" in offering nonsense like "God 'kick-started it all' and then walked away and left the results, whatever they might be, to random chance and evolutionary 'surival of the fittest.'"




WAT, there is no "arrogance" here. Both evolution and creation are "unproveable by the "scientific method" and are adhered to by FAITH as the "only real explanation" as to how what IS here, got here.

Proponents of Creation do NOT claim to have "all the answers" any more than most evolutionists claim to have "all the answers." It is enough to know that SOMETHING was at the "beginning" and that "something" was either God or "natural processes."

Your reference to the "Parade" story is interesting, but it's not germane to the topic of "truth" or the topic of "faith." IF it turns out that there are more than 9 planets (I'm not even sure Pluto should be classified as a Planet rather than as an asteroid, as an aside. But whether a rock or a planet is irrelevant as it IS a part of the system and it does orbit the Sun no matter what I choose to call it), the TRUTH of the Solar System will merely be established, not changed. That's no different than finding out the Earth is not flat or that the Earth is not the center of the Solar System.

But there IS a difference when science "disproves" a previously held theory or hypothesis....science automatically ASSUMES there is "another" natural cause for the "new direction," modifies the previously held "truth," and does so because they CANNOT and WILL NOT consider creation or Creator as being equally possible as the causitive factor. It stems from a BELIEF, a FAITH, that God does not exist and that ONLY the option of natural causes exists.

But consider this, and perhaps chew on it for a while....

When a scientist forumulates a hypothesis, the progression usually follows along the lines of observation of nature, consideration of how things may have arrived at the object or creature being observed, and part of the thought process goes, "IF the hypothesis is correct, what are the possible outcomes that can be predicted if the hypothesis is correct?"

If a living Creator WERE to create the universe and to create life (self-replicating), what WOULD we expect to see from the careful and planned thought that went into the process to arrive at the "end result?"

While very simplistic, consider it this way. A super-intelligent ant (we can call him "Sagan" or "Gould" or "Hawking" or any other moniker we choose) is examining the real structure known as the Empire State Building and is contemplating how it "got there" in "that specific form." It could have assembled itself by random chance, or it could have been built by something or someone with a plan, the knowledge, the skills, the resources TO build the structure. IF such a being existed, what would they be like and what could we expect to see as a result of their conscious design to apply their will and purpose to "creating" what is before us? "Billions and billions of necessary parts, all arranged in a specfic and precise order......" (I'd love to be able to use Sagan's voice here for tonal quality.... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> )

And just how much about the human architect and builder and fabricators COULD an ant, with an ant's perspective and knowledge, BE able to conceive and understand, much less define?




Perhaps when I have a little more time we can go into this a bit further. But here's just a couple of possible answers to your "wondering."

1. No one is trying to "convert" anyone. We are discussing opposing viewpoints. Others who might be reading can reach their own conclusions.

2. The "theory" HAS been, in the past, taught as the only possible truth. The Scopes trial said, "no, evolution must also be taught," even though the "basis" of the evolutionary argument that the trial was based upon was proven later by science to be factually false, we still adhere to it.

3. The evolutionists now teach the "theory" as truth and forbid any mention of the "alternative" theory. They try to falsely claim that any mention of a Creator is somehow either "establishing" a "State Religion," whereas "Atheisitic" denial of ANY God as the "official State Religious position" is NOT establishing a State Religion of Atheism. They furthermore completely ignore the remainder of the same Article that they are twisting that also states that the the right to free excercise of religion shall NOT be abridged. But they DO abridge it in many ways, for example, in demanding that the resources to pay for a "godless" school system be confiscated from people who want "god" taught and that they cannot apply those same funds to a system they CHOOSE that might well teach creation theory.

So the "goal" of the discussion would seem to be to lay out the differing positions and offer support and/or refutation so that anyone who wants to can review the material and reach their own conclusions.

Evolution has been confirmed over and over by the scientific process. This doesn't mean that all the answers are in - but evolution stands as the best natural explanation for the origin of species on this planet. When a better explanation comes out of the scientific process, it will then become the best explanation.

Creation is unconfirmable by the scientific process simply because it introduces and relies upon unnatural phenomena. Also, Creation cannot be disproven by the scientific process for the same reason.

This is just the way it is. I don't know how else to define it.

If you do not accept this very simple distinction, there can be no further discussion because we're not starting from a common understanding of the groundrules.

If you want to say I practice a "faith" by accepting that evolution is the best, current scientific explanation, OK. But I consider "Faith" more applicable to beliefs outside of the scientific process - involving non-natural phenomena.


I actually think this is a viable hypothesis involving faith. It lines up pretty much with Jeffersonian Deism. But because it involves supernatural phenomena - the kick start - it cannot be proven or disproven - at least not the first part.


I really don't understand what morals have to do with a discussion about the scientific process vs non-scientific (supernatural) processes.

I don't think "moral behavior" has any absolutes - it is what it is and what's moral to me may not be moral to others. I do not know what the "biblical" definition is and mine may or may not align with it. As we concluded previously, what morals are defined as is moot - universal or not. How we as individuals practice our morals is what matters. (Having an authoritative definition that isn't followed is useless and just creates hypocrits.) I choose to follow the Golden Rule - like many, many others, whether they know they're doing it or not. Society will correct our outliers (and our out and out liars).

This logic may be abhorrent to you. Oh well. It kinda goes back to the false conclusion that some claim, that godlessness (as defined by organized religions) equates to hedonism.

By the way, I do believe in a god. It's just not the same one described by current organized religions and is not an autocratic god. I am not so confident to know what my god does and it's likely WAY beyond my level of comprehension.

WAT

FH:

"Now don't get me started on the pompous Sagan and his speculations that he consistantly put forth as "fact.""

Sagan was somewhat arrogant, true. I knew him. But so are you, FH. Sagan was also a very smart man, and he knew what he was talking about.

-ol' 2long