Do the majority of Physicians reject Darwinism?

[Real Sorceror]

Wrong, the facts support both ID and creationism.

Your problem is that when you read things in a textbook or paper you can't tell the difference between a fact and an author's conclusion.

ID has been destroyed, completely and utterly. Irreducable complexity is a smoking pile of rubble. I suggest you abandon it quickly and move on.

 

[bob b]

ID has been destroyed, completely and utterly. Irreducable complexity is a smoking pile of rubble. I suggest you abandon it quickly and move on.

As Mark Twain once said, "the reports of my death are greatly exaggerated".

Irreducible complexity is alive and well. The arguments against it have no merit because they are not arguments against what Behe said.

You seem to be easily influenced by evolutionary story telling.

 

[Gerald]

The Controversy, i.e. all sides.

"Just the facts, maam".

Now, I would like see that done with regard to supernatural phenomena.

But whenever you ask supernaturalists to pony up evidence supporting their claims they run away.

I wonder why that is; it isn't like the non-supernaturalists are going to burn them at the stake or something... :chuckle:

 

[Real Sorceror]

As Mark Twain once said, "the reports of my death are greatly exaggerated".

Irreducible complexity is alive and well. The arguments against it have no merit because they are not arguments against what Behe said.

You seem to be easily influenced by evolutionary story telling.

Heres a lecture by Ken Miller that I'd encourage you to watch. The first hour is especially interesting. He directly addresses and disproves Behe's arguments and discredits ID as a whole. I know its long, but I think you'll enjoy it.

 

[bob b]

Heres a lecture by Ken Miller that I'd encourage you to watch. The first hour is especially interesting. He directly addresses and disproves Behe's arguments and discredits ID as a whole. I know its long, but I think you'll enjoy it.

Thanks, I will listen when I have time.

You should also read Behe's response, because Miller can be very clever aand persuasive on the surface.

I have one of his books and have read much of his other written material on evolution, etc..

Miller claims he believes in God, but his writings reveal it is not the God of scripture.

Bishop Spong claims he believes in God also, but the only part of the creeds he accepts is that Jesus suffered on the cross and died.

The belief that separates Christians from "pretenders" is that Jesus rose from the dead. If you don't believe that then you are not a Christian as St. Paul defined it.

 

[Real Sorceror]

Thanks, I will listen when I have time.

You should also read Behe's response, because Miller can be very clever and persuasive on the surface.

I have one of his books and have read much of his other written material on evolution, etc..

Yes, he is a very good speaker, but he also brings the hard evidence and backs up all his cliams.

Miller claims he believes in God, but his writings reveal it is not the God of scripture.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

Bishop Spong claims he believes in God also, but the only part of the creeds he accepts is that Jesus suffered on the cross and died.

The belief that separates Christians from "pretenders" is that Jesus rose from the dead. If you don't believe that then you are not a Christian as St. Paul defined it.

So in other words, you would prefer to hear a ToE argument from a Bible loving Christian than from anyone else?

 

[Punisher1984]

Miller claims he believes in God, but his writings reveal it is not the God of scripture.

Bishop Spong claims he believes in God also, but the only part of the creeds he accepts is that Jesus suffered on the cross and died.

The belief that separates Christians from "pretenders" is that Jesus rose from the dead. If you don't believe that then you are not a Christian as St. Paul defined it.

And this affects his scientific credibility how? He could believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care so long as it doesn't bias his research.

Listen to his scientific ideas and critique them with your own scientific knowledge if you wish, but don't discount his ideas because he doesn't believe in the same "god" you do.

 

[bob b]

So in other words, you would prefer to hear a ToE argument from a Bible loving Christian than from anyone else?

A person who is not a Christian can be convinced of all sorts of theories about how we got here that are not true.

This is less true of Christians, but "theistic evolution" has become the usual compromise for weak Christians. They believe in the supernatural as far as Jesus rising from the dead is concerned, but balk at believing that God could create life in the manner and time frame in which He said that He did in Genesis. The reason they do this is because they are under the impression that there is "overwhelming" scientific evidence to the contrary. After all, as Hitler's minister of propaganda said, if you tell a lie often enough most will come to believe it (particularly if the truth is suppressed as it is in our society these days).

 

[Real Sorceror]

A person who is not a Christian can be convinced of all sorts of theories about how we got here that are not true.

I don't believe religious affiliation provides any special protection from false theories.

This is less true of Christians, but "theistic evolution" has become the usual compromise for weak Christians.

Well, for starters, you view TE as a compromise made by the weak willed. This is simply false, or at best an over generalization. I am not weak-willed, nor did I make any sort of "compromise" when I accepted TE.

They believe in the supernatural as far as Jesus rising from the dead is concerned, but balk at believing that God could create life in the manner and time frame in which He said that He did in Genesis.

I disagree entirely. I and other TEs believe God is fully capable of the things described in Genesis, but that He chose other methods.

The reason they do this is because they are under the impression that there is "overwhelming" scientific evidence to the contrary.

I think you make too many assumptions, bob.

After all, as Hitler's minister of propaganda said, if you tell a lie often enough most will come to believe it (particularly if the truth is suppressed as it is in our society these days).

Evoltionists aren't Nazis, bob. Evo scientists are just trying to explian what they observe. Their is no sinister motive, hidden or otherwise.

 

[bob b]

I don't believe religious affiliation provides any special protection from false theories.

Only in the sense that the truth is written in scripture and must be suppressed by a person in order to accept materialistic-based theories like Darwinism.

Well, for starters, you view TE as a compromise made by the weak willed. This is simply false, or at best an over generalization. I am not weak-willed, nor did I make any sort of "compromise" when I accepted TE.

I didn't say "weak-willed". I said weak Christian. Darwinists can be very strong willed.

I disagree entirely. I and other TEs believe God is fully capable of the things described in Genesis, but that He chose other methods.

This illustrates that you prefer the theories of men to what scripture teaches.

I think you make too many assumptions, bob.
Evoltionists aren't Nazis, bob. Evo scientists are just trying to explian what they observe. Their is no sinister motive, hidden or otherwise.

Their motive is to convince others that they and those like them are right and scripture is wrong. This is why if they have not completely abandoned Christianity that it is correct to call them weak Christians. They prefer the theories of men to the clear teaching of scripture. Many continue down this path, like Bishop Spong, and end up rejecting almost all of scripture in favor of a materialistic-based theology.

 

[Real Sorceror]

Only in the sense that the truth is written in scripture and must be suppressed by a person in order to accept materialistic-based theories like Darwinism.

Uh-huh. You might have missed it, but earlier I asked why you refer to ToE as "Darwinism". I don't know anyone who still holds to Darwin's original hypothosis. I also don't know any evolutionists who refer to themselves as "Darwinists".

I didn't say "weak-willed". I said weak Christian. Darwinists can be very strong willed.

And a weak Christian is anyone who doesn't take all of scripture as a real historical account, correct?

This illustrates that you prefer the theories of men to what scripture teaches.

Well...yes. I prefer our current observations of the universe over someone's 2,000 year old observations, especially when the older ones are subject to doubt.

Their motive is to convince others that they and those like them are right and scripture is wrong.

Be honest, bob. Thats not what scientists are trying to do. They are just explaining what they observe. If there where convincing, empirical evidence for the divine, scientists would report on it and take it into account.

This is why if they have not completely abandoned Christianity that it is correct to call them weak Christians. They prefer the theories of men to the clear teaching of scripture.

Is that how you think? You use scripture as the standard and assume that reality will match?

Many continue down this path, like Bishop Spong, and end up rejecting almost all of scripture in favor of a materialistic-based theology.

Explian what you mean by "materialistic". If you mean that they prefer to trust in things that can be felt with the five senses, well, whats so wrong with that?

 

[bob b]

Uh-huh. You might have missed it, but earlier I asked why you refer to ToE as "Darwinism". I don't know anyone who still holds to Darwin's original hypothosis. I also don't know any evolutionists who refer to themselves as "Darwinists".

I do. But actually, there are many "flavors" of evolution, as we have seen with physicians who are theistic evolutionists. Some would call me an evolutionist because I believe that creatures change over time, in some cases sufficiently that scientists identify them as separate "species" (another "loosey-goosey term). I also believe that some changes can occur very, very rapidly.

And a weak Christian is anyone who doesn't take all of scripture as a real historical account, correct?

Pretty much, although the real weak Christian is the one who wants to "spiritualize" everything that doesn't agree with what the atheist scientist is saying.

Well...yes. I prefer our current observations of the universe over someone's 2,000 year old observations, especially when the older ones are subject to doubt.

If by " observations" you mean the raw data not the conclusions that is reasonable. But that is probably not what you mean.

Be honest, bob. Thats not what scientists are trying to do. They are just explaining what they observe. If there where convincing, empirical evidence for the divine, scientists would report on it and take it into account.

Scientists don't deal with the divine. They try to explain what they measure according to "natural" law. This works very well except when one tries to extrapolate back in time to explain origins: how things got the way they are today.

Is that how you think? You use scripture as the standard and assume that reality will match?

I have found that scripture works better regarding ultimate origins far better than does extrapolation into an unknown past by natural law only.

For example, there can be no "natural" way for a mathematical "singularity" to physically exist, just as the mathematical concept of infinity cannot be realized in a materialistic universe.

Explian what you mean by "materialistic". If you mean that they prefer to trust in things that can be felt with the five senses, well, whats so wrong with that?

Nothing in our efforts to explain the materialistic world around us.

But trying to explain how the materialistic world came into existence is a "horse of a different color" and assuming known "materialistic" mechanisms is somewhat unrealistic.

And it is beginning to look that the same holds true for how cells came into existence, since the discoveries about their amazing complexity has been far outstripping efforts to explain how this could possibly be due to known "materiualistic" phenomena. (See "cell trends too" thread)

 

[Real Sorceror]

I do. But actually, there are many "flavors" of evolution, as we have seen with physicians who are theistic evolutionists. Some would call me an evolutionist because I believe that creatures change over time, in some cases sufficiently that scientists identify them as separate "species" (another "loosey-goosey term).

Well I'm glad you can at least accept that.

I also believe that some changes can occur very, very rapidly.

Like what?

If by " observations" you mean the raw data not the conclusions that is reasonable. But that is probably not what you mean.

Actually, thats exactly what I meant.

Scientists don't deal with the divine. They try to explain what they measure according to "natural" law.

They don't deal with the divine becuase they lack evidence. Its not something that can be tested or reliably observed. If it where, scientists would have a dozen acredited fields of study concerning it.

This works very well except when one tries to extrapolate back in time to explain origins: how things got the way they are today.

Agian, like the supernatural, ultimate origins is not something that can be easily tested, and therefore uo-theories tend to be weak.

I have found that scripture works better regarding ultimate origins far better than does extrapolation into an unknown past by natural law only.

Well of course you would. Its easier to accept something thats spelled out before you. However, the easiest solution is not always the correct one.

For example, there can be no "natural" way for a mathematical "singularity" to physically exist, just as the mathematical concept of infinity cannot be realized in a materialistic universe.

I suppose not.

Nothing in our efforts to explain the materialistic world around us.

But trying to explain how the materialistic world came into existence is a "horse of a different color" and assuming known "materialistic" mechanisms is somewhat unrealistic.

Agreed.

And it is beginning to look that the same holds true for how cells came into existence, since the discoveries about their amazing complexity has been far outstripping efforts to explain how this could possibly be due to known "materiualistic" phenomena. (See "cell trends too" thread)

Its already been very thoroughly demonstrated to me that "irrudicibly" complex things are not as irrudicibly complex as they appear. Although, realistically, you can only break things down so far before you're left with practically nothing.

 

[bob b]

Its already been very thoroughly demonstrated to me that "irrudicibly" complex things are not as irrudicibly complex as they appear. Although, realistically, you can only break things down so far before you're left with practically nothing.

Evolutionists have not been able to solve even something as simple as a mousetrap, and when it comes to something like cells they are really handwaving all over the place.

I wish I could find a transcript of the Miller talk at Case.

My dialup just won't cut it for a video, and besides it is much easier to handwave in a video than in the transcript, where one can cut out the fluff and concentrate on analyzing the few scraps of meat.

 

[Real Sorceror]

Evolutionists have not been able to solve even something as simple as a mousetrap

A mousetrap is not alive. It doesn't change or adapt.

... and when it comes to something like cells they are really handwaving all over the place.

I wish I could find a transcript of the Miller talk at Case.

My dialup just won't cut it for a video, and besides it is much easier to handwave in a video than in the transcript, where one can cut out the fluff and concentrate on analyzing the few scraps of meat.

Are you unable to view the lecture I posted earlier?

 

[Johnny]

Their motive is to convince others that they and those like them are right and scripture is wrong.

Yes, the evolutionist's motives are to discredit scripture and to prove themselves right.

I think I've found a picture of Bob b: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y113/paulbubel/tinfoil-hat.jpg,

 

[Punisher1984]

Their motive is to convince others that they and those like them are right and scripture is wrong.

No, their motive is to understand science for what it is, not what society says it should be.

This is why if they have not completely abandoned Christianity that it is correct to call them weak Christians.

Weak Christian, or a different brand of Christian? Whether you like it or not, religion evolves to include all manner of worldviews (Christianity is no exception).

They prefer the theories of men to the clear teaching of scripture. Many continue down this path, like Bishop Spong, and end up rejecting almost all of scripture in favor of a materialistic-based theology.

So? If evidence contradicts the teaching of an ancient document, go with the evidence. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?

And so what if they become materialists? I have a lot of materialistic beliefs and I do just fine, so why shouldn't they be just fine too?