tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post4078410456100687003..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Judge Jones at Southern Methodist UniversityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67712132932219134002009-09-26T13:25:55.949-07:002009-09-26T13:25:55.949-07:00"What about answering the question Dr. H? Wha..."What about answering the question Dr. H? What came first - your faith in God or your belief in ID?"<br /><br />I was a Christian-evolutionist (before there was an "ID"). I had no ax to grind with evolution except that its claims did not seem to square with science.<br /><br /><br />"Do you really think that observers here really accept that you practice some form of 'pure science' that isn't somehow influenced by you religious belief?"<br /><br />Do I use religious arguments? No, that would be the evolutionists. Amazing -- evolutionists ignore the religious arguments that are in plain sight for all to see, and instead divine hidden motives where there are none. If evolutionists are so opposed to religion driving science, then why don't they attack the overwhelming abundance of such influence in their own evolutionary theory?<br /><br />The bottom line is that evolutionists are not genuinely opposed to religion influencing science. Quite the opposite, they actively promote it. Then they blame skeptics for precisely what they themselves are doing.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7580925305079637942009-09-24T22:02:43.757-07:002009-09-24T22:02:43.757-07:00Cornelius: "Is assigning motives the best evo...Cornelius: "Is assigning motives the best evolutionists can do?<br /><br />What about answering the question Dr. H? What came first - your faith in God or your belief in ID? And why are so many (the large majority in fact) of ID proponents born-again Christians? Isn't it reasonable to assume that there may in fact be a correlation here? Or is it just an odd coincidence?<br /><br />Do you really think that observers here really accept that you practice some form of 'pure science' that isn't somehow influenced by you religious belief?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5078293304509026262009-09-24T16:17:56.689-07:002009-09-24T16:17:56.689-07:00"OK. Let me see then"
Is assigning moti..."OK. Let me see then"<br /><br />Is assigning motives the best evolutionists can do?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85970295464223196032009-09-23T09:01:39.188-07:002009-09-23T09:01:39.188-07:00Cornelius: "No, my religion does not drive m...Cornelius: "No, my religion does not drive my science. My religion (unlike the metaphysics underlying evolution) does not dictate the form of the answer, so I am free to evaluate the evidence scientifically."<br /><br />OK. Let me see then - did your acceptance or belief in ID come before or after your conversion to born-again Christianity? And how about the other 99% of ID proponents who all just happen to be born-again Christians? Bizarre coincidence? I suspect your answer will be that being born-again makes you a better scientist right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-448674024208327402009-09-21T15:27:48.918-07:002009-09-21T15:27:48.918-07:00"So what religion is driving the science of t..."So what religion is driving the science of theists who accept evolution?"<br /><br />Well that's a long story in the history of thought. There are more than a dozen different metaphysical threads in evolutionary thought that mandate evolution. You can see www.DarwinsPredictions.com, as well as books such as *Science's Blind Spot*.<br /><br />"Take someone such as Steve Matheson, he has an excellent blog - Quintessence of Dust - where he states in no uncertain terms his support of evolution"<br /><br />All kinds of people "support" evolution for all kinds of reasons (social, financial, etc). They are not the reason why evolution is a religious theory. It is a religious theory because the consensus of leading evolutionists is that it is a fact, and their reasoning entails metaphysical premises. Without those premises it is not possible to show evolution to be a fact (not even close).<br /><br />"How can you claim to be the only impartial observer when so many qualified scientists who actually work with the evidence on a daily basis disagree so strongly?"<br /><br />Most life scientists do not "work with the evidence" any more than astronomers work with the evidence for geocentrism. In fact, most life science research owes nothing to evolution.<br /><br />I can claim to be impartial because I do not hold religious beliefs that mandate evolution be true or false. I'm not saying it has no implications--of course it does. But I don't have rigid metaphysical commitments (eg, god would never create mosquitos) as do evolutionists.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17201348316982321612009-09-21T13:31:02.043-07:002009-09-21T13:31:02.043-07:00So what religion is driving the science of theists...So what religion is driving the science of theists who accept evolution? Take someone such as Steve Matheson, he has an excellent blog - Quintessence of Dust - where he states in no uncertain terms his support of evolution - http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2007/08/introducing-me-on-common-descent-and.html - (he's an NCSE Steve), and he's as big a critic of anti-evolution organisations as anyone;<br />http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2007/12/talking-trash-about-junk-dna.html<br />http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2008/02/talking-trash-about-junk-dna-lies-about.html<br />http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2008/01/talking-trash-about-junk-dna-lies-about.html<br />http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2008/02/talking-trash-about-junk-dna-lies-about_21.html<br /><br /><br />What exactly is driving his science? How can you claim to be the only impartial observer when so many qualified scientists who actually work with the evidence on a daily basis disagree so strongly?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47472019042083721592009-09-21T12:52:44.382-07:002009-09-21T12:52:44.382-07:00"Mr Hunter, I would very much like to know wh..."Mr Hunter, I would very much like to know whether you think religion drives your science."<br /><br />No, my religion does not drive my science. My religion (unlike the metaphysics underlying evolution) does not dictate the form of the answer, so I am free to evaluate the evidence scientifically.<br /><br /><br />"Do you think that religion drives the science of the people at AIG and ICR?"<br /><br />Yes, it does. That is not controversial.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19736885125640752212009-09-21T12:21:07.309-07:002009-09-21T12:21:07.309-07:00That naturalism is religion is so patently obvious...That naturalism is religion is so patently obvious. Although we all agree that phenomena all respond according to law, it is nothing more than a religious assertion that the law is natural and unintelligent. We can not test or observe whether the law is natural or it finds its origin and existence in the mind of God.Daniel Mannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13952453459481872105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66001093030983945702009-09-21T12:11:02.638-07:002009-09-21T12:11:02.638-07:00Mr Hunter, I would very much like to know whether ...Mr Hunter, I would very much like to know whether you think religion drives your science. I mean you are associated with a religious anti-evolution 'think tank' whose stated goals are ideological opposition to what they regard to be 'scientific materialism' (damn that atheistic atomic theory and the godless periodic table!). Do you think that religion drives the science of the people at AIG and ICR? As your goals are remarkably similar, and so are a lot of your arguments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40084248225320157212009-09-21T06:06:57.375-07:002009-09-21T06:06:57.375-07:00Judge Jones deemed his own life more important tha...Judge Jones deemed his own life more important than a single court decision. The cult of Darwin is dangerous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com