OMG
Because when people as smart as Dan Graur believe in scientifically impossible fables of spontaneous origins there’s got to be a reason. And that reason is, of course, religion, or more politely, metaphysics, which has been commandeering science for centuries and no less so today. That is why Dan Graur’s non scientific Slide 18 in his talk at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution this month—the only slide that really mattered—was not met with gasps in Chicago, but with chuckles. As Paul warned Timothy, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”
Religion drives science, and it matters.
So, let us summarize the OP:
ReplyDelete"Evolution is really just religion. And now, I shall quote a Bible verse, the upshot of which is that not only is evolution a religion, it's the wrong one."
Way to undermine yourself, there, Cornelius. Anyway, feel like honestly discussing that Biola doctrinal statement yet, instead of throwing out another weak evasion? Yeah, probably not...
For those who wondered what the Biola doctrinal statement says, here's the first paragraph.
Delete"The Bible, consisting of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, is the Word of God, a supernaturally given revelation from God Himself, concerning Himself, His being, nature, character, will and purposes; and concerning man, his nature, need and duty and destiny. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are without error or misstatement in their moral and spiritual teaching and record of historical facts. They are without error or defect of any kind."
Sounds more trustworthy than any evolutionist's explanation of why man exists and what his destiny is. And the Bible certainly has fewer errors and misstatements of historical facts than evolutionary doctrine.
So what's your point, didymos?
That paragraph is fine. But what about these two?
DeleteThe existence and nature of the creation is due to the direct miraculous power of God. The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of kinds of living things, and the origin of humans cannot be explained adequately apart from reference to that intelligent exercise of power. A proper understanding of science does not require that all phenomena in nature must be explained solely by reference to physical events, laws and chance.
Therefore creation models which seek to harmonize science and the Bible should maintain at least the following: (a) God providentially directs His creation, (b) He specially intervened in at least the above-mentioned points in the creation process, and(c) God specially created Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God). Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms.
In light of these, Hunter's constant assertions that he has no bias against evolution ring pretty hollow.
awstar said:
Delete"Sounds more trustworthy than any evolutionist's explanation of why man exists and what his destiny is."
Actually, it's just a pile of delusional, authoritarian BS, and evolutionary theory isn't concerned with "why man exists and what his destiny is", at least in the way that you're imagining destiny.
Trustworthy? Come on now, you just like it because it boosts your ego to believe that a 'God' created this entire universe so that 'he' could then specially create you in 'his' image, and that 'he' did so in order for you to have purpose now, and for eternity in heaven. Tell me, what will be your purpose in heaven, for eternity?
You also said:
"And the Bible certainly has fewer errors and misstatements of historical facts than evolutionary doctrine."
What's mind boggling is that you're not joking. And hey, you say "fewer errors and misstatements" but the biola doctrinal statement says "without error or defect of any kind". Which is it?
"And hey, you say "fewer errors and misstatements" but the biola doctrinal statement says "without error or defect of any kind". Which is it?"
DeleteThe last i checked "zero" is "fewer" than "some"
Yeah, I know, but, you're the one who said "fewer", biola says "without error or defect of any kind", which is the same as saying none, and I don't see where anyone said "some" until you said it and put in within quote marks.
DeleteSo, are you going to answer my questions, or just play games?
LOL! Cornelius continues on his roll, moving from his dumb "ToE doesn't predict transitionals" face plant to an equally inane rant about a single humorous slide.
ReplyDeleteOn the outside chance you really are clueless CH and not being your usual dishonest self, the slide in question was a bit of levity that also illustrates a serious scientific point. Designed things can use whatever materials the designer wants to produce a close to optimum design right off the bat, while evolution is constrained to modifying whatever is already around in any kludge fashion it can to be functionally 'just good enough'.
Of course the slide has nothing to do with religion, just like CH's rants have nothing to do with science or honesty.
Evolution; selecting between intelligently designed objects since the beginning.
ReplyDeleteNow we agree! :D
Well said, Dr Hunter!
ReplyDeleteThis is yet another example of Cornelius' fine arguments. Hopefully he has another post waiting in the wings to push this down.
ReplyDeleteLet's break this down shall we?
P01. Belief in scientifically impossible theories are religious
P02. Evolutionary theory includes spontaneous origins
P03. Evolutionarily theory is a scientifically impossible theory
C01. Belief in Evolutionarily theory is religious
Notice any problems?
P02. Evolutionary theory includes spontaneous origins
This is a strawman of Darwinism.
P03. Evolutionary theory is a scientifically impossible theory,
Cornelius, why don't you tell us what you really think? Oh, you just did, as we've gone from scientifically unlikely, to scientifically astronomically unlikely to scientifically *impossible*.
Furthermore, of all of the philosophies of science, past and present, which have you "selected" as part of your argument? In which way does it suggest evolutionary theory is *impossible*?
Scott, according to you, since we can't rely on inductive reasoning, nothing is ever impossible and everything is always impossible, and ;ajwn w e 2 34
ReplyDeleteJohn,
DeleteEven if that was the case, which it isn't because that's a false dilemma, have you heard of the Tu quoque fallacy? You just committed it.
Um, I was just wondering if anyone noticed the irony of the leg shape of the Intelligently Designed table....
ReplyDelete