Some creationists think that Douglas Futuyma provides a "smoking gun," proving a scientific bias against their faith, when he says:
"Evolutionary theory does not admit conscious anticipation of the future (i.e. conscious forethought)."
Futuyma seems to be saying that the theory of evolution has no room for the idea of guided processes - because, as in the rest of scientific explanations discovered to date, the world "works" - things have been successfully explained without resorting to "and then a miracle occurs." To say that evolution works without guidance is to say that it is a natural process, which does not require the intervention of God.
This is, in fact, a true statement about EVERYTHING that science discovers. Every scientific theory deserves the same criticism (God's intervention is not required). Think about this for a moment. This represents a sea-change in how people think about the world. So far, NO process identified to date requires the intervention of a deity to explain what goes on. Not the sun rise, thunder and lightening, crops, birth, death, the creation of the sun, moon, stars or earth. This is not what scientists expected when Western science got started in earnest, just a few hundred years ago.
If this is true (and it is), then why single evolution out for explicit criticism? I suspect because it runs afoul of the way some Christians (biblical literalists) interpret Genesis 1 and 2. If God did not fashion Adam from the mud some 6,000 years ago, then Jesus did not die for our sins (or so their argument goes). Millions of Christian do not share their perspective, but this does not matter to the literalists. It is their way or to Hell with you. What is more, the rest of science will get its turn. Chemistry, geology, cosmology - not to mention anthropology, archeology, history - the list goes on - will have to be heavily "edited" if the goal is conformity with biblical literalism. This is just another reason to resist the ongoing attempt to censor science in the name of piety. You may not care about the theory of evolution, but when they get around to something you do care about, it will be too late.
Of course science has implications for theology. If you believe that God rides a chariot across the sky, pulling the sun, you are in trouble (unless you believe in an invisible chariot, I guess). So, yes, evolution suggests that things happen in a particular way (using natural processes, not requiring God’s direct intervention). You can look at how the world works and see no God, you can see God as the creator, using natural processes to accomplish his purposes, or you can argue for the suppression of science because you disagree with its conclusion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Of course science does not hate God.
But atheists using science as a front for their spew, as over at the Kansas Citizens for site discussion boards, do.
How about you, Greg?
Do you even believe in the Christian God?
I will take a refusal to answer as a no.
Sounds like you might have a bit of a hate issue, Blair.
Yes, I do. And I am worried about the atheists who use science as a front for atheistic arguments and obviously hate believers of all kinds. The discussion over there are full of them. Some of them are board members of that organization.
And of course, we have the best selling expositions of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and the like who make it clear what they would like to do with religion if the had control.
And by the way, I'll take your response as a "no".
Blair, my experience is that it is easier to hate in the abstract. I've met most of the board members of KCFS, and found none who hate Christians. Their concern that Kansas provide solid science education is genuine, and they are trying to actually do something to make a difference.
The issues is not one of hate, but of a conflict of objectives. Many Biblical Literalists want to have their faith validated by science, and to see their beliefs and moral and ethical standards adopted by the larger culture. Since they have not been successful in doing this via evangelism and personal example, some are now turning to the government to enforce their beliefs. I don't think this will work, and I think it is unwise.
Folks like those at KCFS, on the other hand, embrace the idea of a Constitutional separation of church and state, and don't want to see one group's religious ideas forced on the broader culture, especially since these ideas contain numerous errors of fact.
There are folks who think that the world would be better off without religion, but that is not ever discussed nor is the idea ever endorsed at KCFS.
As for me, I do have faith.
I have met them to.
My experience has been quite different. Further, you ignore the many vicious posts by board members who attack all religion, declare atheism to be the only way, and which are never moderated by Jack Krebs.
I note, though, that you still have not answered the question in my first post.
Still waiting.
Blair, I challenge you to give me a url of a vicious post from a KCFS board member. The forum is not KCFS, it is a public forum.
Just go back over Robert Madison's stream of personal attacks on various posters who are theists.
Jack even let him set up individual threads attacking specific persons.
C, FTK, many others.
He is a board member, and you know good and well what I am talking about.
And then there is Liz Craig, who admittedly specialized in making opponents appear in the harshest light possible.
And others who don't use their real names.
Who ya kiddin?
By the way, you still have not answered my question in the first post.
So, couldn't find a vicious post, eh? Want to find the worst? Go look in the "Home for Wayward Posts" thread, where Jack segregates the ones who step over the line, to keep things civil.
There is a strong and deep felt difference of opinion here, but that is as much as I'll grant.
What do you mean I couldn't find it?
You are lying, because you know Madison made specific threads, such as "Christensen is an atheist" and the like.
And he frequently ridiculed FTK.
YOU KNOW THIS! Jack let Madison and Craig get away with all kinds of insults, and you good and well know it.
However, you still have NOT ANSWWERED MY QUESTION IN THE FIRST POST.
When you do that, I will give you the information you claim not to have.
Robert is not a current board member. Liz's comment was her own opinion, and does not represent hate, it is a strategy suggestion (and one that was not adopted by KCFS). I am not sure why calling Christensen an atheist or ridiculing FTK are examples of your concern:
"And I am worried about the atheists who use science as a front for atheistic arguments and obviously hate believers of all kinds."
Both Christensen and FTK gave as good as they got, from what I could tell. I did not read those exchanges as hate, just strong disagreement.
A discussion board will include all sorts of opinions. Both atheists and believers use science to try and bolster their arguments. Free speech is a good thing, and when comments get out of hand, the comments are moved to a separate thread. I've been told I am going to hell - heck, you've told me I'm not a Christian. That seems pretty extreme, especially since the downside is an eternity spent in torment. Seems a bit vicious, don't you think, especially since I am on record both here and at the KCFS forum as stating that I do have faith?
You still have not answered the question in my first post.
Still waiting.
You know, you try the same tactics on FL...how do you like it?
So checking the KCFS website, maybe Robert is a current board member... still have yet to see these vicious posts - unless by vicious, you mean disagree.
It may be that some conservative Christians want a privileged position, whereby they can correct and criticize others without themselves being criticized. Hope it does not happen.
Did you notice the teacher arrested in Somalia for allowing the class to name a stuffed animal Mohamed? Recall that Scopes was arrested for teaching evolution - because it contradicted the Bible. This was less than a hundred years ago, and is what we can expect unless we can get a better handle on this debate.
Yes, Biblical literalists accept certain teaching of the Bible that contradict what we understand about the natural world. They should accept that this is a matter of faith, and move on.
знакомства ради секса Милославское
в [url=http://goooogl]Gooogle[/url] фото мужс интим стрижки
интим услуги обеспеченной леди из краснодара
Post a Comment