OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 28, 2014, 09:36:15 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?
Yes - 54 (15.7%)
No - 133 (38.6%)
both metaphorically and literally - 158 (45.8%)
Total Voters: 345

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 344670 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,422


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1530 on: October 09, 2009, 11:30:16 PM »

The burden of proof is on the macro evolutionists. I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith.

But my description of the scientific community regarding the issue is accurate. Just ask them whether or not they consider theistic evolution a viable theory. You will discover that they don't.

Macro evolution is essentially synonymous with Darwinian evolution, that's why I used the term.

Selam

Sometimes I think I'm the only who reads my posts.

Clarification please?

If you are making fun of me, at least let me know why. Huh
Ukiemeister asked you for proof of the assertions you made, and you offered nothing in reply but mere restatements of your arguments and more assertions without proof.  I'm sorry, but when you make assertions in a debate such as this, you need to be prepared to back up your statements with citations from outside sources, not just pass us off to some vague, "ask the scientific community yourself, and you'll find that my words are accurate."  You did not engage any of the specific points Ukiemeister brought up; therefore, he's quite justified in complaining in a roundabout way that you didn't read his post.

Again, the burden of proof is not on me. I won't allow the macro evolutionists to bias the debate by assuming they have nothing to prove and I do.
But YOU have made a number of assertions on THIS thread.  The burden of proof is on YOU to defend the assertions YOU have made HERE.  To wit, those assertions are as follows:
  • Theistic evolution is the least tenable of the three competing theories:  theistic evolution, creation/intelligent design, and atheistic evolution.
  • The evidence for macro evolution has merit only within an atheistic framework.
  • Theistic evolution is a scientifically naïve and ignorant position to hold.
For these assertions that YOU have made on THIS thread, YOU and only YOU bear the burden of proof, not the so-called advocates of "macro evolution".

Again, you avoid the arguments I have previously stated and levy your own assertions.
No, I haven't avoided your arguments; rather, I've sought to show the shoddy logic made present in your arguments.

I've defended and explained my assertions repeatedly. Feel free to disagree, but don't say I've only made assertions without defending them. Perhaps you need to go back and read my posts again.

Thanks.

Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,968


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1531 on: October 09, 2009, 11:34:21 PM »

I've defended and explained my assertions repeatedly. Feel free to disagree, but don't say I've only made assertions without defending them. Perhaps you need to go back and read my posts again.

Thanks.

Selam
Yes, I've read your posts on this thread many times.  Your assertions still remain undefended.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2009, 11:34:39 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1532 on: October 09, 2009, 11:50:11 PM »

^^ oops. Sorry about not getting the quote thingy right.

Gebre,

From your comments, I surmise that you feel that the theory of Evolution is somehow affected by the tacking on of a qualifier like "atheistic" or "theistic", when in fact the theory of Evolution has nothing to say about God; is not in any way interested in expressing views about any diety whatsoever; and isn't the slightest bit moved by the personal beliefs - atheistic or theistic -of those who accept the theory as a valid explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.

I respectfully disagree with you. As I have pointed out many times, the ostensible evidence for the theory of evolution only has validity within an atheistic presupposition. In other words, since the existence of God is denied prima facie, then there is no other possible explanation for the existence of humanity besides evolution.

The existense of God isn't denied by the theory of Evolution - where do you get such an idea?

Quote
To allow for the possibility of intelligent design immediately undermines the evidence for evolution, and thus the evolutionists must cling to an atheistic presupposition.

Clearly, considering the numbers of those who accept the proposition of theistic evolution, you are incorrect. No evolutionist must cling to an atheiostic presupposition. That is the goal post you have set; one ignored by those who hold to theistic evolution.

Quote
Certainly there may be theistic evolutionists sparsely scattered amongst the scientific community (BTW, thanks for providing the names of a few of them), but as I said, they are not taken seriously by the majority of evolutionists.

Seriously, regarding what? Just who are these people not taken seriously by in the scientific community - 40% of which claim to be theists? (Looking for the source.) They are well-known and respected scientists who happen to be theists. If other scientists who are atheists disgree with their religious choice, that has nothing to do with their standing as rerputable scientists in the scientific community.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2009, 11:52:47 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,422


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1533 on: October 09, 2009, 11:53:23 PM »

As I stated above, legitimate science is based on the rigid criteria of the scientific method.

Unfortunately, modern explorers of science, both scientists (A.F. Chalmers - a physicist) and philosophers (K. Popper, T. Kuhn, I. Lakatos, P. Feyerabend and other) arrive to the conclusion that the "scientific method" as a universal set of rules simply does not exist. See A.F. Chalmers, "What Is This Thing Called Science?", Hackett Publishing Co., 1999 (3rd ed.), ISBN ISBN: 0-87220-452-9.

I know that Popper was a strong critic of logical positivism. But doesn't science nevertheless attempt to adhere to the scientific method as the most objective basis of testing a theory? Obviously though, as with the theory of Darwinian evolution, the scientific method is sometimes abandoned (or at least muchy less rigidly adhered to) because it poses a threat to the theory.

Is there any set of universal rules apart from the scientific method that science uses today? I'm not a scientist, so I don't know.

Selam  

Popper tried to replace positivism (or inductionism) with what later was called "falcificationism," i.e. the idea that one can offer any statement, which does not necessarily come from direct observation and inductionist logic, and that this statement will hold until or unless it is falsified. Yet, in the 1950-s - 1960-s another philosopher, an American called Willard van Orman Quine, began to attack this idea, reviving an old thesis proposed in the 19th century by a Belgian chemist called Pierre Duhem, stating that if you do not want your hypothesis or theory to be falsified, you can always prevent it from being falsified by "shifting the blame" to an unlimited number of "auxillary assumptions" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem%E2%80%93Quine_thesis). To solve the "Duhem-Quine paradox," T.S. Kuhn offered a very radical alternative to both inductivism and falsificationism, known today as a theory of paradigm shift. On the other hand, Imre Lakatos (+1974) tried to defend Popper's falsificationism by offering a very peculiar theory of "partial falsificationism," beter known as the "theory of research programs" (I wrote about that in a previous post in the "Science changes again" thread). Lakatos was especially concerned by the apparent lack of objective criteria of "progress" in Kuhn's vision of science. But his "research programs" triggered a wave of criticism for exactly the same reason, i.e. his attempts to explain, which research programs are more "progressive" (and also, just what is the difference between science and pseudo-science), were very far from convincing. The current trend in philosophy of science is, according to A.F. Chalmers, that there are very many different "scientific methods," each applied with bigger or smaller degree of productivity in this or that field of exploration of nature.

Thanks for the explanation Heorhij. I won't pretend that I completely understand everything you said.

Is Hempel's model of the scientific method still considered valid by most sceintists today, or has it become anachronistic?

It seems that if there are different scientific methods, then objectivity is ultimately the casualty.

My opinion is that secular science is most objective when it operates not from skepticism or positivism, but when it simply begins with curiosity and wonder. This seems to be both an objective and neutral starting point. Thus, in seeking explanations and an understanding about the universe, the best approach is to abandon theistic and atheistic presuppositions, and simply approach the question with wonder, allowing the evidence to speak for itself. And these presuppositions must never be allowed to creep in along the way. Even in the face of evidence, until a theory is proven beyond any doubt, a true secular scientist must remain neutral.

Now personally I believe that the best scientific approach is to acknowledge the existence of a Creator and then proceed to understand the creation. Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, and many others were able to develop and prove their revolutionary theories because they saw inherent design in the universe and acknowledged the Creator behind the design.

Anyway, I'm not a scientist. You know more about these things than I do. I appreciate the information, but maybe you could simply it for a layman such as myself? Embarrassed

Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,968


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1534 on: October 09, 2009, 11:57:56 PM »

My opinion is that secular science is most objective when it operates not from skepticism or positivism, but when it simply begins with curiosity and wonder. This seems to be both an objective and neutral starting point. Thus, in seeking explanations and an understanding about the universe, the best approach is to abandon theistic and atheistic presuppositions, and simply approach the question with wonder, allowing the evidence to speak for itself. And these presuppositions must never be allowed to creep in along the way. Even in the face of evidence, until a theory is proven beyond any doubt, a true secular scientist must remain neutral.
"Theistic" and "atheistic" presuppositions?  What are these presuppositions?
Logged
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #1535 on: October 10, 2009, 12:00:39 AM »

How exactly does the possibility of intelligent design immediately undermine the evidence for evolution?

If God, at the formation of the Universe, designed the natural laws that would dictate its initial creation and its evolution into the cosmos we see now, how does that undermine evolution?  There is an element of intelligent design.  Sure, it isn't this constant tinkering some believe in, but initial design by a Creator is just as "intelligent".
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,422


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1536 on: October 10, 2009, 12:01:41 AM »

^^ oops. Sorry about not getting the quote thingy right.

Gebre,

From your comments, I surmise that you feel that the theory of Evolution is somehow affected by the tacking on of a qualifier like "atheistic" or "theistic", when in fact the theory of Evolution has nothing to say about God; is not in any way interested in expressing views about any diety whatsoever; and isn't the slightest bit moved by the personal beliefs - atheistic or theistic -of those who accept the theory as a valid explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.

I respectfully disagree with you. As I have pointed out many times, the ostensible evidence for the theory of evolution only has validity within an atheistic presupposition. In other words, since the existence of God is denied prima facie, then there is no other possible explanation for the existence of humanity besides evolution.

The existense of God isn't denied by the theory of Evolution - where do you get such an idea?

I made no such statement!

Quote
To allow for the possibility of intelligent design immediately undermines the evidence for evolution, and thus the evolutionists must cling to an atheistic presupposition.

Clearly, considering the numbers of those who accept the proposition of theistic evolution, you are incorrect. No evolutionist must cling to an atheiostic presupposition. That is the goal post you have set; one ignored by those who hold to theistic evolution.

As I said, there are many people who believe in theistic evolution. But you will find few if any theistic evolutionists amongst the biologists of higher academia and such.

Quote
Certainly there may be theistic evolutionists sparsely scattered amongst the scientific community (BTW, thanks for providing the names of a few of them), but as I said, they are not taken seriously by the majority of evolutionists.

Seriously, regarding what? Just who are these people not taken seriously by in the scientific community - 40% of which claim to be theists? (Looking for the source.) They are well-known and respected scientists who happen to be theists. If other scientists who are atheists disgree with their religious choice, that has nothing to do with their standing as rerputable scientists in the scientific community.

You are making my same point in a way. As I said earlier, atheistic evolutionists arrogate to themselves the sole authority of scientific consensus, and I won't accept that.
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1537 on: October 10, 2009, 12:04:44 AM »

^^ oops. Sorry about not getting the quote thingy right.

Gebre,

From your comments, I surmise that you feel that the theory of Evolution is somehow affected by the tacking on of a qualifier like "atheistic" or "theistic", when in fact the theory of Evolution has nothing to say about God; is not in any way interested in expressing views about any diety whatsoever; and isn't the slightest bit moved by the personal beliefs - atheistic or theistic -of those who accept the theory as a valid explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.

I respectfully disagree with you. As I have pointed out many times, the ostensible evidence for the theory of evolution only has validity within an atheistic presupposition. In other words, since the existence of God is denied prima facie, then there is no other possible explanation for the existence of humanity besides evolution.

The existense of God isn't denied by the theory of Evolution - where do you get such an idea?

I made no such statement!

Quote
To allow for the possibility of intelligent design immediately undermines the evidence for evolution, and thus the evolutionists must cling to an atheistic presupposition.

Clearly, considering the numbers of those who accept the proposition of theistic evolution, you are incorrect. No evolutionist must cling to an atheiostic presupposition. That is the goal post you have set; one ignored by those who hold to theistic evolution.

As I said, there are many people who believe in theistic evolution. But you will find few if any theistic evolutionists amongst the biologists of higher academia and such.

Quote
Certainly there may be theistic evolutionists sparsely scattered amongst the scientific community (BTW, thanks for providing the names of a few of them), but as I said, they are not taken seriously by the majority of evolutionists.

Seriously, regarding what? Just who are these people not taken seriously by in the scientific community - 40% of which claim to be theists? (Looking for the source.) They are well-known and respected scientists who happen to be theists. If other scientists who are atheists disgree with their religious choice, that has nothing to do with their standing as rerputable scientists in the scientific community.

You are making my same point in a way. As I said earlier, atheistic evolutionists arrogate to themselves the sole authority of scientific consensus, and I won't accept that.

 Huh
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,422


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1538 on: October 10, 2009, 12:05:05 AM »

How exactly does the possibility of intelligent design immediately undermine the evidence for evolution?

If God, at the formation of the Universe, designed the natural laws that would dictate its initial creation and its evolution into the cosmos we see now, how does that undermine evolution?  There is an element of intelligent design.  Sure, it isn't this constant tinkering some believe in, but initial design by a Creator is just as "intelligent".


I keep repeating myself, but here I'll explain it again. The OSTENSIBLE EVIDENCE for evolution crumbles once the possiblity for intelligent design is allowed.

Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,968


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1539 on: October 10, 2009, 12:11:57 AM »

As I said earlier, atheistic evolutionists arrogate to themselves the sole authority of scientific consensus...
Proof?

I keep repeating myself, but here I'll explain it again. The OSTENSIBLE EVIDENCE for evolution crumbles once the possiblity for intelligent design is allowed.
Repeating the same undefended thesis ad nauseum isn't going to make it true.  So I ask again:

Proof?
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,422


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1540 on: October 10, 2009, 12:13:54 AM »

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I don't have time to debate the issue of evolution with you. I have made my points, and I am beginnig to get weary of repeating myself. For those of you who wonder why theistic evolution is not a tenable theory, and for those of you that think Darwinian evolution is a proven fact, I will recommend some reading maetrial:

The Philosophy of Natural Science  by Karl Hempel

Darwin on Trial  by Phillip Johnson

The Soul of Science by Percy and Thaxton

Epistemology by Dr. Wynn Kenyon

The Universe Next Door by James Sire

Peace to you.

Selam
« Last Edit: October 10, 2009, 12:14:11 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,968


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1541 on: October 10, 2009, 12:25:13 AM »

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I don't have time to debate the issue of evolution with you. I have made my points, and I am beginnig to get weary of repeating myself. For those of you who wonder why theistic evolution is not a tenable theory, and for those of you that think Darwinian evolution is a proven fact, I will recommend some reading maetrial:

The Philosophy of Natural Science  by Karl Hempel

Darwin on Trial  by Phillip Johnson

The Soul of Science by Percy and Thaxton

Epistemology by Dr. Wynn Kenyon

The Universe Next Door by James Sire

Peace to you.

Selam
Gebre, rather than refer us to a list of books for us to read, why don't you cite pertinent quotes from these works to defend your points?  Otherwise, you're just asking us to do what you're too lazy to do yourself.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,741


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #1542 on: October 10, 2009, 12:44:52 AM »

The burden of proof is on the macro evolutionists. I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith.

But my description of the scientific community regarding the issue is accurate. Just ask them whether or not they consider theistic evolution a viable theory. You will discover that they don't.

Macro evolution is essentially synonymous with Darwinian evolution, that's why I used the term.

Selam

Sometimes I think I'm the only who reads my posts.

Clarification please?

If you are making fun of me, at least let me know why. Huh

Forgive me, but I really don't have time to read through 32 pages of this debate. As I've stated earlier, I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith. I have also pointed out the logical doubts I have about macro evolution, as well as the moral problems that the theory produces. But no one has addressed these things; so I really must move on now unless my points are fairly addressed. I'm not trying to be rude. Free will means feedom of belief, so believe whatever you want. You all are still my brothers and sisters. Smiley



Selam

Of course, Gebre.  We are your brothers and sisters in Satanic deception.

May my brothers and sisters in rational ignorance also be blessed.

Dear Brother,

These kinds of comments are really not productive, either to the discussion at hand or to Christian charity and brotherhood.

Selam

Gebre,

To be honest, I'm only reiterating how any discussion with you will be not productive.  In another thread you called evolution a demonic deception.  In other words, even if you didn't intend it, you considered those who accept its fact as demonically deceived people, even though I am a "brother in Christ" to you.

As for names of theistic evolutionists, Riddikulus beat me to it.

Perhaps if we can describe them for you.  Dr. Kenneth Miller PhD, a Catholic who is a professor in cell biology has been entrusted by both atheistic and theistic evolutionists to testify in various court cases in the defense of evolutionary science.  His appearance won these court cases, and in fact, he is now probably considered one of the best teachers of evolution.  He even wrote a book (actually he also wrote another book as well) highlighting the teaching of evolution, the refutation of people like Behe and his book "Darwin's Black Box," and his own religious beliefs and why believes in God, especially in Christianity.  This book is called "Finding Darwin's God," and it's actually quite an easy read for the average mind.  His other book, I forget the name, highlights the court cases he fought in, and the fraudulence of the Intelligent Design movement.  I haven't read that second one, but there is a link to the documentary earlier in this thread or the other one about "Expelled."

Dr. Francis Collins MD, a convert from atheism, a Christian, a man who found the gene linked with cystic fibrosis, BRCA genes for breast cancer, and the one who lead the completion of the Human Genome project.  He wrote a book, "The Language of God," talking about the fraudulence of the Intelligent Design movement, and why he believed in Christ as His Lord and Savior.

Dr. Theodosius Dobzhansky PhD, a Russian Orthodox Christian, and the SECOND most important figure in evolutionary science, second ONLY to Darwin!  He is the founder of the synthetic division of evolution, combining the field of genetics with evolutionary link, and linking evolution to the rate of mutation, the one who turned evolution to a FULL-BLOWN fact.  He is quoted by Riddikulus in her signature with the famous quote, "I am a creationist and an evolutionist."

These three theistic evolutionists are very very very well-respected by both atheists and theists alike in their contributions to the science of evolution.  They will take their hats down for these three men, especially the last one.

Gebre, this is what I mean by rational ignorance.  Since you even say so yourself, that you're not a scientist, then you don't even know what you're talking about to begin with.  You call something a demonic deception when you don't even know about it.  You should be ashamed of yourself for judging others.  Your half-ass apology was not an apology in the other forum.  You continue to believe evolution is a demonic deception, and I take offense to that.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1543 on: October 10, 2009, 01:05:53 AM »

^ I don't know how I forget to mention Theodosius Dobzhansky! Shame on me!  Shocked

Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #1544 on: October 10, 2009, 01:13:00 AM »

The burden of proof is on the macro evolutionists. I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith.

But my description of the scientific community regarding the issue is accurate. Just ask them whether or not they consider theistic evolution a viable theory. You will discover that they don't.

Macro evolution is essentially synonymous with Darwinian evolution, that's why I used the term.

Selam

Sometimes I think I'm the only who reads my posts.

Clarification please?

If you are making fun of me, at least let me know why. Huh

Forgive me, but I really don't have time to read through 32 pages of this debate. As I've stated earlier, I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith. I have also pointed out the logical doubts I have about macro evolution, as well as the moral problems that the theory produces. But no one has addressed these things; so I really must move on now unless my points are fairly addressed. I'm not trying to be rude. Free will means feedom of belief, so believe whatever you want. You all are still my brothers and sisters. Smiley



Selam

Of course, Gebre.  We are your brothers and sisters in Satanic deception.

May my brothers and sisters in rational ignorance also be blessed.

Dear Brother,

These kinds of comments are really not productive, either to the discussion at hand or to Christian charity and brotherhood.

Selam

Gebre,

To be honest, I'm only reiterating how any discussion with you will be not productive.  In another thread you called evolution a demonic deception.  In other words, even if you didn't intend it, you considered those who accept its fact as demonically deceived people, even though I am a "brother in Christ" to you.

As for names of theistic evolutionists, Riddikulus beat me to it.

Perhaps if we can describe them for you.  Dr. Kenneth Miller PhD, a Catholic who is a professor in cell biology has been entrusted by both atheistic and theistic evolutionists to testify in various court cases in the defense of evolutionary science.  His appearance won these court cases, and in fact, he is now probably considered one of the best teachers of evolution.  He even wrote a book (actually he also wrote another book as well) highlighting the teaching of evolution, the refutation of people like Behe and his book "Darwin's Black Box," and his own religious beliefs and why believes in God, especially in Christianity.  This book is called "Finding Darwin's God," and it's actually quite an easy read for the average mind.  His other book, I forget the name, highlights the court cases he fought in, and the fraudulence of the Intelligent Design movement.  I haven't read that second one, but there is a link to the documentary earlier in this thread or the other one about "Expelled."

Dr. Francis Collins MD, a convert from atheism, a Christian, a man who found the gene linked with cystic fibrosis, BRCA genes for breast cancer, and the one who lead the completion of the Human Genome project.  He wrote a book, "The Language of God," talking about the fraudulence of the Intelligent Design movement, and why he believed in Christ as His Lord and Savior.

Dr. Theodosius Dobzhansky PhD, a Russian Orthodox Christian, and the SECOND most important figure in evolutionary science, second ONLY to Darwin!  He is the founder of the synthetic division of evolution, combining the field of genetics with evolutionary link, and linking evolution to the rate of mutation, the one who turned evolution to a FULL-BLOWN fact.  He is quoted by Riddikulus in her signature with the famous quote, "I am a creationist and an evolutionist."

These three theistic evolutionists are very very very well-respected by both atheists and theists alike in their contributions to the science of evolution.  They will take their hats down for these three men, especially the last one.

Gebre, this is what I mean by rational ignorance.  Since you even say so yourself, that you're not a scientist, then you don't even know what you're talking about to begin with.  You call something a demonic deception when you don't even know about it.  You should be ashamed of yourself for judging others.  Your half-ass apology was not an apology in the other forum.  You continue to believe evolution is a demonic deception, and I take offense to that.

God bless.

We can add Bishop Alexander (Mileant), of blessed memory, to the list. Before becoming a bishop, he used to work with NASA.

I have already quoted extensively from his work in this thread, quotes which have gone unanswered.

"So, everything that we are going to say about synchronizing the Holy Scripture with modern scientific discoveries is based on the axiom of truth and validity of two revelations — natural and supernatural: the Lord makes Himself known to man either directly, through spiritual enlightenment, or indirectly, through nature.

Since the Source of both revelations — internal or supernatural, and external or natural — is one, their contents must be in complete harmony, complementing each other. If "conflicts" between the judgments of scholars and theologians sometimes arise, it is always the result of faulty interpretation — whether of scientific data or of the true meaning of God’s word.

The Holy Scripture (or Bible) is the written result of the spiritual enlightenment that God conferred upon His chosen ones, the Prophets, to reveal religious and moral truths to man. It always has been and always will be the main source of everything that concerns faith and morality. Science is not qualified to discuss these things. Its task is to perceive the structure of the universe and its physical laws. Religious representations about the origin of the universe do not flow directly from any physical laws, but rather come through induction and spiritual enlightenment, the depth and quality of which depend on the spiritual sensitivity, maturity, and cultural level of one thinker or another, and will always be subjective. Therefore the accuracy of their conclusions must be tested by the word of God.

When attempting to harmonize religious truths and scientific data, one must take into account that these areas of knowledge use different sources and pursue their own specific goals. In science, the source of truth is observation and experimentation. They spawn scientific hypotheses and theories, suggest models and patterns on the basis of some observations or other, and predict the course of events, which in turn must be tested by experiment. If repeated observations do not concur with the theory’s predictions, the theory will be thrown out and replaced by a new one. Science must be based solely on unquestionable, proven facts. Everything that goes beyond the limits of an experiment, that is impossible to check by the scientific method, dares not claim to be science, but belongs to the realm of assumption, philosophy, or metaphysics.

It is distressing when, in their struggle with religion, half-educated people, using the authority of science, make unfounded claims that "science has proven such and such," when in fact they are citing unproven assumptions that often go beyond the limits of science.

Similarly, it is sad when shallow theologians who build their "scientific" conceptions on the incorrect interpretation of some word or another in the Bible hostilely attack harmless scientific findings. Thus, for example, the Roman Catholic inquisition judged Galileo’s teachings about the earth’s rotation around the sun. It seemed to its hierarchs that if God created everything for man, then the earth must be located in the center of the universe, and all the heavenly bodies must rotate around it. It is, of course, a completely arbitrary opinion, not based on the Bible, for being in the center of Divine care has nothing to do with the geometric center of the universe.

Thus, the Holy Scripture’s objective is to reveal religious and moral truths necessary for man to save his soul. It is mainly about the non-natural and the invisible, about God the Creator and the Provider of the world, about the point of our existence, about right and wrong. It does not attempt to teach people astronomy, cosmology, zoology, or any other science. Only a handful of issues that border on both the physical and the spiritual — for example, about the beginning of the observable universe and life on Earth, or the origins of man’s spirituality, thanks to which he is fundamentally different from other living beings — interest science and religion simultaneously. And here, in attempting to reconcile the word of God with scientific discoveries, one needs a comprehensive education, a profound understanding of the bounds of competency of both sources of knowledge, as well as a reluctance to judge. Otherwise, the best-meant efforts to reconcile religion and science will be nothing more than failed and miserable "attempts with faulty methods."

As we will see later, some of the interdisciplinary questions that interest science and religion equally, when studied thoughtfully, give us the ability to more deeply understand a number of parallel patterns that operate in the physical and spiritual worlds.

Thus, religion and science are concerned with different questions, have their own specific goals and use different methods. Science strives to answer the question "how?" while religion asks "why?" Religion attempts to turn the believer’s gaze to the heavenly world, while science chains it to the mortal."

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/creation_man_a_mileant_e.htm#_Toc67449465
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,422


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1545 on: October 10, 2009, 01:38:34 AM »

The burden of proof is on the macro evolutionists. I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith.

But my description of the scientific community regarding the issue is accurate. Just ask them whether or not they consider theistic evolution a viable theory. You will discover that they don't.

Macro evolution is essentially synonymous with Darwinian evolution, that's why I used the term.

Selam

Sometimes I think I'm the only who reads my posts.

Clarification please?

If you are making fun of me, at least let me know why. Huh

Forgive me, but I really don't have time to read through 32 pages of this debate. As I've stated earlier, I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith. I have also pointed out the logical doubts I have about macro evolution, as well as the moral problems that the theory produces. But no one has addressed these things; so I really must move on now unless my points are fairly addressed. I'm not trying to be rude. Free will means feedom of belief, so believe whatever you want. You all are still my brothers and sisters. Smiley



Selam

Of course, Gebre.  We are your brothers and sisters in Satanic deception.

May my brothers and sisters in rational ignorance also be blessed.

Dear Brother,

These kinds of comments are really not productive, either to the discussion at hand or to Christian charity and brotherhood.

Selam

Gebre,

To be honest, I'm only reiterating how any discussion with you will be not productive.  In another thread you called evolution a demonic deception.  In other words, even if you didn't intend it, you considered those who accept its fact as demonically deceived people, even though I am a "brother in Christ" to you.

As for names of theistic evolutionists, Riddikulus beat me to it.

Perhaps if we can describe them for you.  Dr. Kenneth Miller PhD, a Catholic who is a professor in cell biology has been entrusted by both atheistic and theistic evolutionists to testify in various court cases in the defense of evolutionary science.  His appearance won these court cases, and in fact, he is now probably considered one of the best teachers of evolution.  He even wrote a book (actually he also wrote another book as well) highlighting the teaching of evolution, the refutation of people like Behe and his book "Darwin's Black Box," and his own religious beliefs and why believes in God, especially in Christianity.  This book is called "Finding Darwin's God," and it's actually quite an easy read for the average mind.  His other book, I forget the name, highlights the court cases he fought in, and the fraudulence of the Intelligent Design movement.  I haven't read that second one, but there is a link to the documentary earlier in this thread or the other one about "Expelled."

Dr. Francis Collins MD, a convert from atheism, a Christian, a man who found the gene linked with cystic fibrosis, BRCA genes for breast cancer, and the one who lead the completion of the Human Genome project.  He wrote a book, "The Language of God," talking about the fraudulence of the Intelligent Design movement, and why he believed in Christ as His Lord and Savior.

Dr. Theodosius Dobzhansky PhD, a Russian Orthodox Christian, and the SECOND most important figure in evolutionary science, second ONLY to Darwin!  He is the founder of the synthetic division of evolution, combining the field of genetics with evolutionary link, and linking evolution to the rate of mutation, the one who turned evolution to a FULL-BLOWN fact.  He is quoted by Riddikulus in her signature with the famous quote, "I am a creationist and an evolutionist."

These three theistic evolutionists are very very very well-respected by both atheists and theists alike in their contributions to the science of evolution.  They will take their hats down for these three men, especially the last one.

Gebre, this is what I mean by rational ignorance.  Since you even say so yourself, that you're not a scientist, then you don't even know what you're talking about to begin with.  You call something a demonic deception when you don't even know about it.  You should be ashamed of yourself for judging others.  Your half-ass apology was not an apology in the other forum.  You continue to believe evolution is a demonic deception, and I take offense to that.

God bless.

And yet those of us who don't accept evolution are to passively accept your accusation that we are deceived? People who dare to raise logical questions about the validity of evolutionary theory are often ridiculed and disparaged in the manner that you are doing to me. But I offend you? You insinuate that I (and by extension the Ethiopian Orthodox Church) am ignorant and deceived because I don't believe in macro evolution. But somehow I am not supposed to be offended, but you are. Wow. Good luck with that attitude. You are offended that I think evolution is a demonic deception. I am offended that an unproven theory is passed off as factual science without any tolerance for competing ideas.   

I am not judging others, I am assessing the issue. You make things way too personal my friend. Try to make your arguments without personally insulting me. What someone believes about evolution has nothing to do with whether or not they are a Christian, and I have never made any such insinuation.

Thanks for the information abou these theistic evolutionists. I may try to read more about them in time. But the reality is that every side can trot out their particular "guys" to support their own views. The fact remains that theistic evolutionists are a small minority within the scientific community.

You assert evolution is a Full Blown Fact. The burden of proof is therefore upon you. I accept the teachings of my Church (which by your judgment is "rationally ignorant" in regards to this issue). Forgive me if I side with the EOTC teaching over your subjective opinion.

Selam
« Last Edit: October 10, 2009, 01:46:15 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,422


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1546 on: October 10, 2009, 01:48:44 AM »

The burden of proof is on the macro evolutionists. I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith.

But my description of the scientific community regarding the issue is accurate. Just ask them whether or not they consider theistic evolution a viable theory. You will discover that they don't.

Macro evolution is essentially synonymous with Darwinian evolution, that's why I used the term.

Selam

Sometimes I think I'm the only who reads my posts.

Clarification please?

If you are making fun of me, at least let me know why. Huh

Forgive me, but I really don't have time to read through 32 pages of this debate. As I've stated earlier, I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith. I have also pointed out the logical doubts I have about macro evolution, as well as the moral problems that the theory produces. But no one has addressed these things; so I really must move on now unless my points are fairly addressed. I'm not trying to be rude. Free will means feedom of belief, so believe whatever you want. You all are still my brothers and sisters. Smiley



Selam

Of course, Gebre.  We are your brothers and sisters in Satanic deception.

May my brothers and sisters in rational ignorance also be blessed.

Dear Brother,

These kinds of comments are really not productive, either to the discussion at hand or to Christian charity and brotherhood.

Selam

Gebre,

To be honest, I'm only reiterating how any discussion with you will be not productive.  In another thread you called evolution a demonic deception.  In other words, even if you didn't intend it, you considered those who accept its fact as demonically deceived people, even though I am a "brother in Christ" to you.

As for names of theistic evolutionists, Riddikulus beat me to it.

Perhaps if we can describe them for you.  Dr. Kenneth Miller PhD, a Catholic who is a professor in cell biology has been entrusted by both atheistic and theistic evolutionists to testify in various court cases in the defense of evolutionary science.  His appearance won these court cases, and in fact, he is now probably considered one of the best teachers of evolution.  He even wrote a book (actually he also wrote another book as well) highlighting the teaching of evolution, the refutation of people like Behe and his book "Darwin's Black Box," and his own religious beliefs and why believes in God, especially in Christianity.  This book is called "Finding Darwin's God," and it's actually quite an easy read for the average mind.  His other book, I forget the name, highlights the court cases he fought in, and the fraudulence of the Intelligent Design movement.  I haven't read that second one, but there is a link to the documentary earlier in this thread or the other one about "Expelled."

Dr. Francis Collins MD, a convert from atheism, a Christian, a man who found the gene linked with cystic fibrosis, BRCA genes for breast cancer, and the one who lead the completion of the Human Genome project.  He wrote a book, "The Language of God," talking about the fraudulence of the Intelligent Design movement, and why he believed in Christ as His Lord and Savior.

Dr. Theodosius Dobzhansky PhD, a Russian Orthodox Christian, and the SECOND most important figure in evolutionary science, second ONLY to Darwin!  He is the founder of the synthetic division of evolution, combining the field of genetics with evolutionary link, and linking evolution to the rate of mutation, the one who turned evolution to a FULL-BLOWN fact.  He is quoted by Riddikulus in her signature with the famous quote, "I am a creationist and an evolutionist."

These three theistic evolutionists are very very very well-respected by both atheists and theists alike in their contributions to the science of evolution.  They will take their hats down for these three men, especially the last one.

Gebre, this is what I mean by rational ignorance.  Since you even say so yourself, that you're not a scientist, then you don't even know what you're talking about to begin with.  You call something a demonic deception when you don't even know about it.  You should be ashamed of yourself for judging others.  Your half-ass apology was not an apology in the other forum.  You continue to believe evolution is a demonic deception, and I take offense to that.

God bless.

We can add Bishop Alexander (Mileant), of blessed memory, to the list. Before becoming a bishop, he used to work with NASA.

I have already quoted extensively from his work in this thread, quotes which have gone unanswered.

"So, everything that we are going to say about synchronizing the Holy Scripture with modern scientific discoveries is based on the axiom of truth and validity of two revelations — natural and supernatural: the Lord makes Himself known to man either directly, through spiritual enlightenment, or indirectly, through nature.

Since the Source of both revelations — internal or supernatural, and external or natural — is one, their contents must be in complete harmony, complementing each other. If "conflicts" between the judgments of scholars and theologians sometimes arise, it is always the result of faulty interpretation — whether of scientific data or of the true meaning of God’s word.

The Holy Scripture (or Bible) is the written result of the spiritual enlightenment that God conferred upon His chosen ones, the Prophets, to reveal religious and moral truths to man. It always has been and always will be the main source of everything that concerns faith and morality. Science is not qualified to discuss these things. Its task is to perceive the structure of the universe and its physical laws. Religious representations about the origin of the universe do not flow directly from any physical laws, but rather come through induction and spiritual enlightenment, the depth and quality of which depend on the spiritual sensitivity, maturity, and cultural level of one thinker or another, and will always be subjective. Therefore the accuracy of their conclusions must be tested by the word of God.

When attempting to harmonize religious truths and scientific data, one must take into account that these areas of knowledge use different sources and pursue their own specific goals. In science, the source of truth is observation and experimentation. They spawn scientific hypotheses and theories, suggest models and patterns on the basis of some observations or other, and predict the course of events, which in turn must be tested by experiment. If repeated observations do not concur with the theory’s predictions, the theory will be thrown out and replaced by a new one. Science must be based solely on unquestionable, proven facts. Everything that goes beyond the limits of an experiment, that is impossible to check by the scientific method, dares not claim to be science, but belongs to the realm of assumption, philosophy, or metaphysics.

It is distressing when, in their struggle with religion, half-educated people, using the authority of science, make unfounded claims that "science has proven such and such," when in fact they are citing unproven assumptions that often go beyond the limits of science.

Similarly, it is sad when shallow theologians who build their "scientific" conceptions on the incorrect interpretation of some word or another in the Bible hostilely attack harmless scientific findings. Thus, for example, the Roman Catholic inquisition judged Galileo’s teachings about the earth’s rotation around the sun. It seemed to its hierarchs that if God created everything for man, then the earth must be located in the center of the universe, and all the heavenly bodies must rotate around it. It is, of course, a completely arbitrary opinion, not based on the Bible, for being in the center of Divine care has nothing to do with the geometric center of the universe.

Thus, the Holy Scripture’s objective is to reveal religious and moral truths necessary for man to save his soul. It is mainly about the non-natural and the invisible, about God the Creator and the Provider of the world, about the point of our existence, about right and wrong. It does not attempt to teach people astronomy, cosmology, zoology, or any other science. Only a handful of issues that border on both the physical and the spiritual — for example, about the beginning of the observable universe and life on Earth, or the origins of man’s spirituality, thanks to which he is fundamentally different from other living beings — interest science and religion simultaneously. And here, in attempting to reconcile the word of God with scientific discoveries, one needs a comprehensive education, a profound understanding of the bounds of competency of both sources of knowledge, as well as a reluctance to judge. Otherwise, the best-meant efforts to reconcile religion and science will be nothing more than failed and miserable "attempts with faulty methods."

As we will see later, some of the interdisciplinary questions that interest science and religion equally, when studied thoughtfully, give us the ability to more deeply understand a number of parallel patterns that operate in the physical and spiritual worlds.

Thus, religion and science are concerned with different questions, have their own specific goals and use different methods. Science strives to answer the question "how?" while religion asks "why?" Religion attempts to turn the believer’s gaze to the heavenly world, while science chains it to the mortal."

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/creation_man_a_mileant_e.htm#_Toc67449465

I agree 100%.

Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #1547 on: October 10, 2009, 01:59:34 AM »

And yet those of us who don't accept evolution are to passively accept your accusation that we are deceived? People who dare to raise logical questions about the validity of evolutionary theory are often ridiculed and disparaged in the manner that you are doing to me. But I offend you? You insinuate that I (and by extension the Ethiopian Orthodox Church) am ignorant and deceived because I don't believe in macro evolution. But somehow I am not supposed to be offended, but you are. Wow. Good luck with that attitude. You are offended that I think evolution is a demonic deception. I am offended that an unproven theory is passed off as factual science without any tolerance for competing ideas.   

I am not judging others, I am assessing the issue. You make things way too personal my friend. Try to make your arguments without personally insulting me. What someone believes about evolution has nothing to do with whether or not they are a Christian, and I have never made any such insinuation.

Thanks for the information abou these theistic evolutionists. I may try to read more about them in time. But the reality is that every side can trot out their particular "guys" to support their own views. The fact remains that theistic evolutionists are a small minority within the scientific community.

You assert evolution is a Full Blown Fact. The burden of proof is therefore upon you. I accept the teachings of my Church (which by your judgment is "rationally ignorant" in regards to this issue). Forgive me if I side with the EOTC teaching over your subjective opinion.

Selam

Actually Gebre, whiile I cannot speak for the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, most Eastern Orthodox priests I know believe in some form evolution. I actually know of an Orthodox priest who was a Chemical Engineer prior to becoming a priest, and has lead fascinating discussions about creation on a molecular level.

Science does not try to prove that God does not exist; rather science proves HOW God's creation exists.

Furthermore to insinuate that evolution is a demonic deception IS a judgment. It is saying that those who believe in evolution are deceived by the devil. Then you have the nerve to say that those who accept evolution do not have any tolerance for competing ideas? Pot meet kettle my friend.

Perhaps you should read some of your own statements before posting them.

Also, no one has ever said that evolution is anything more than a theory. Even Scientists will admit they don't know exactly how the world was created.

Having said all this, if you reject evolution, how do you explain dinosaurs?

Seriously, I want to know.
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1548 on: October 10, 2009, 02:07:14 AM »

The burden of proof is on the macro evolutionists. I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith.

But my description of the scientific community regarding the issue is accurate. Just ask them whether or not they consider theistic evolution a viable theory. You will discover that they don't.

Macro evolution is essentially synonymous with Darwinian evolution, that's why I used the term.

Selam

Sometimes I think I'm the only who reads my posts.

Clarification please?

If you are making fun of me, at least let me know why. Huh

Forgive me, but I really don't have time to read through 32 pages of this debate. As I've stated earlier, I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith. I have also pointed out the logical doubts I have about macro evolution, as well as the moral problems that the theory produces. But no one has addressed these things; so I really must move on now unless my points are fairly addressed. I'm not trying to be rude. Free will means feedom of belief, so believe whatever you want. You all are still my brothers and sisters. Smiley



Selam

Of course, Gebre.  We are your brothers and sisters in Satanic deception.

May my brothers and sisters in rational ignorance also be blessed.

Dear Brother,

These kinds of comments are really not productive, either to the discussion at hand or to Christian charity and brotherhood.

Selam

Gebre,

To be honest, I'm only reiterating how any discussion with you will be not productive.  In another thread you called evolution a demonic deception.  In other words, even if you didn't intend it, you considered those who accept its fact as demonically deceived people, even though I am a "brother in Christ" to you.

As for names of theistic evolutionists, Riddikulus beat me to it.

Perhaps if we can describe them for you.  Dr. Kenneth Miller PhD, a Catholic who is a professor in cell biology has been entrusted by both atheistic and theistic evolutionists to testify in various court cases in the defense of evolutionary science.  His appearance won these court cases, and in fact, he is now probably considered one of the best teachers of evolution.  He even wrote a book (actually he also wrote another book as well) highlighting the teaching of evolution, the refutation of people like Behe and his book "Darwin's Black Box," and his own religious beliefs and why believes in God, especially in Christianity.  This book is called "Finding Darwin's God," and it's actually quite an easy read for the average mind.  His other book, I forget the name, highlights the court cases he fought in, and the fraudulence of the Intelligent Design movement.  I haven't read that second one, but there is a link to the documentary earlier in this thread or the other one about "Expelled."

Dr. Francis Collins MD, a convert from atheism, a Christian, a man who found the gene linked with cystic fibrosis, BRCA genes for breast cancer, and the one who lead the completion of the Human Genome project.  He wrote a book, "The Language of God," talking about the fraudulence of the Intelligent Design movement, and why he believed in Christ as His Lord and Savior.

Dr. Theodosius Dobzhansky PhD, a Russian Orthodox Christian, and the SECOND most important figure in evolutionary science, second ONLY to Darwin!  He is the founder of the synthetic division of evolution, combining the field of genetics with evolutionary link, and linking evolution to the rate of mutation, the one who turned evolution to a FULL-BLOWN fact.  He is quoted by Riddikulus in her signature with the famous quote, "I am a creationist and an evolutionist."

These three theistic evolutionists are very very very well-respected by both atheists and theists alike in their contributions to the science of evolution.  They will take their hats down for these three men, especially the last one.

Gebre, this is what I mean by rational ignorance.  Since you even say so yourself, that you're not a scientist, then you don't even know what you're talking about to begin with.  You call something a demonic deception when you don't even know about it.  You should be ashamed of yourself for judging others.  Your half-ass apology was not an apology in the other forum.  You continue to believe evolution is a demonic deception, and I take offense to that.

God bless.

And yet those of us who don't accept evolution are to passively accept your accusation that we are deceived? You are offended that I think evolution is a demonic deception. I am offended that an unproven theory is passed off as factual science without any tolerance for competing ideas. 

Gebre,
Nothing in science - even the most robust of theories, is "proved". Newton's laws and the laws of hydrodynamics have not been proved, either.

"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."

Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953
 
"If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part."

Richard Feynman (1918-1988).
 
"A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration."

Bertrand Russell, Grounds of Conflict, Religion and Science, 1953.
 
"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven."

Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.
 
What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms 'proof' or 'prove' in this article. 

continued... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

Quote
I am not judging others, I am assessing the issue. You make things way too personal my friend. Try to make your arguments without personally insulting me. What someone believes about evolution has nothing to do with whether or not they are a Christian, and I have never made any such insinuation.

You must admit that calling evolution a demonic deception is pretty personal to those of us who accept the theory as the valid explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.  Such speech isn't helpful, is it?

Quote
Thanks for the information abou these theistic evolutionists. I may try to read more about them in time. But the reality is that every side can trot out their particular "guys" to support their own views. The fact remains that theistic evolutionists are a small minority within the scientific community.

If you wish to ignore the facts, that is your prerogative, however statistic (if only I could find them) say otherwise.

Quote
You assert evolution is a Full Blown Fact. The burden of proof is therefore upon you.

Selam

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution - The Scientific Case for Common Descent. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,968


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1549 on: October 10, 2009, 02:26:44 AM »

I am not judging others, I am assessing the issue. You make things way too personal my friend. Try to make your arguments without personally insulting me. What someone believes about evolution has nothing to do with whether or not they are a Christian, and I have never made any such insinuation.
Look who's talking about making or taking things way too personal. Roll Eyes  Why don't you try to read someone's arguments without being personally insulted?

Thanks for the information abou these theistic evolutionists. I may try to read more about them in time. But the reality is that every side can trot out their particular "guys" to support their own views. The fact remains that theistic evolutionists are a small minority within the scientific community.
That fact is that you need to prove this fact.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,250


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #1550 on: October 10, 2009, 02:55:29 AM »

I'm coming in late to this discussion, so hopefully I won't put my foot in my mouth. But fwiw, there was a poll done in the 1990's, and it was found that scientists who believed in a personal God had remained fairly steady since a similar poll had been taken in 1914 (and published in 1916). In both polls the number of scientists who believed in a personal God was about 40%. However, the numbers for so-called "elite" scientists* were far more atheistic in the recent poll, with less than 10% of the participants believing in a personal God. I first read about these polls in a Michael Shermer Book (I think it was How We Believe), though a quick search of Google brought up some pages with the relevant information.

* In the recent poll, "elite" meant that the participant was a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2009, 02:58:53 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,422


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1551 on: October 10, 2009, 03:00:01 AM »

The burden of proof is on the macro evolutionists. I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith.

But my description of the scientific community regarding the issue is accurate. Just ask them whether or not they consider theistic evolution a viable theory. You will discover that they don't.

Macro evolution is essentially synonymous with Darwinian evolution, that's why I used the term.

Selam

Sometimes I think I'm the only who reads my posts.

Clarification please?

If you are making fun of me, at least let me know why. Huh

Forgive me, but I really don't have time to read through 32 pages of this debate. As I've stated earlier, I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith. I have also pointed out the logical doubts I have about macro evolution, as well as the moral problems that the theory produces. But no one has addressed these things; so I really must move on now unless my points are fairly addressed. I'm not trying to be rude. Free will means feedom of belief, so believe whatever you want. You all are still my brothers and sisters. Smiley



Selam

Of course, Gebre.  We are your brothers and sisters in Satanic deception.

May my brothers and sisters in rational ignorance also be blessed.

Dear Brother,

These kinds of comments are really not productive, either to the discussion at hand or to Christian charity and brotherhood.

Selam

Gebre,

To be honest, I'm only reiterating how any discussion with you will be not productive.  In another thread you called evolution a demonic deception.  In other words, even if you didn't intend it, you considered those who accept its fact as demonically deceived people, even though I am a "brother in Christ" to you.

As for names of theistic evolutionists, Riddikulus beat me to it.

Perhaps if we can describe them for you.  Dr. Kenneth Miller PhD, a Catholic who is a professor in cell biology has been entrusted by both atheistic and theistic evolutionists to testify in various court cases in the defense of evolutionary science.  His appearance won these court cases, and in fact, he is now probably considered one of the best teachers of evolution.  He even wrote a book (actually he also wrote another book as well) highlighting the teaching of evolution, the refutation of people like Behe and his book "Darwin's Black Box," and his own religious beliefs and why believes in God, especially in Christianity.  This book is called "Finding Darwin's God," and it's actually quite an easy read for the average mind.  His other book, I forget the name, highlights the court cases he fought in, and the fraudulence of the Intelligent Design movement.  I haven't read that second one, but there is a link to the documentary earlier in this thread or the other one about "Expelled."

Dr. Francis Collins MD, a convert from atheism, a Christian, a man who found the gene linked with cystic fibrosis, BRCA genes for breast cancer, and the one who lead the completion of the Human Genome project.  He wrote a book, "The Language of God," talking about the fraudulence of the Intelligent Design movement, and why he believed in Christ as His Lord and Savior.

Dr. Theodosius Dobzhansky PhD, a Russian Orthodox Christian, and the SECOND most important figure in evolutionary science, second ONLY to Darwin!  He is the founder of the synthetic division of evolution, combining the field of genetics with evolutionary link, and linking evolution to the rate of mutation, the one who turned evolution to a FULL-BLOWN fact.  He is quoted by Riddikulus in her signature with the famous quote, "I am a creationist and an evolutionist."

These three theistic evolutionists are very very very well-respected by both atheists and theists alike in their contributions to the science of evolution.  They will take their hats down for these three men, especially the last one.

Gebre, this is what I mean by rational ignorance.  Since you even say so yourself, that you're not a scientist, then you don't even know what you're talking about to begin with.  You call something a demonic deception when you don't even know about it.  You should be ashamed of yourself for judging others.  Your half-ass apology was not an apology in the other forum.  You continue to believe evolution is a demonic deception, and I take offense to that.

God bless.

And yet those of us who don't accept evolution are to passively accept your accusation that we are deceived? You are offended that I think evolution is a demonic deception. I am offended that an unproven theory is passed off as factual science without any tolerance for competing ideas. 

Gebre,
Nothing in science - even the most robust of theories, is "proved". Newton's laws and the laws of hydrodynamics have not been proved, either.

OK. I wonder why people are so concerned with me providing proof for my views? Science is concerned with verification, falsification, and evidence, even if nothing can technically be proven.


"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."

Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953
 
"If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part."

Richard Feynman (1918-1988).
 
"A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration."

Bertrand Russell, Grounds of Conflict, Religion and Science, 1953.
 
"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven."

Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.
 
What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms 'proof' or 'prove' in this article. 

continued... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

Quote
I am not judging others, I am assessing the issue. You make things way too personal my friend. Try to make your arguments without personally insulting me. What someone believes about evolution has nothing to do with whether or not they are a Christian, and I have never made any such insinuation.

You must admit that calling evolution a demonic deception is pretty personal to those of us who accept the theory as the valid explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.  Such speech isn't helpful, is it?

There is a big difference between saying, "Evolutionists are of the devil!" and saying that I believe that macro evolution is a demonic deception. We all have to try not be personally insulted when others disagree with us. Look, we are all deceived about a lot of things. I am not God, and I surely don't know everything. In fact I know very little in the grand scheme of things. But I believe certain things are demonic deceptions, such as Pentecostalism, Islam, Racism, justifications for abortion, macro evolution, and many other things. That does not mean that I think those who believe in these things are worshiping satan. I simply think they are deceived, just as you all think I am deceived in my views of evolution. If my Church teaches an age of the earth that clearly precludes the possiblity for macro evolution, and others beleive in a theory that contradicts the teachings of my Church, then I would be disingenuous if I didn't say that I think they are demonically deceived. But I too am probably demoncally deceived by certain things. That's why I try hard to understand what my Church teaches, so that I can be more spiritully enlightened and less deceived.

Quote
Thanks for the information abou these theistic evolutionists. I may try to read more about them in time. But the reality is that every side can trot out their particular "guys" to support their own views. The fact remains that theistic evolutionists are a small minority within the scientific community.

If you wish to ignore the facts, that is your prerogative, however statistic (if only I could find them) say otherwise.

I do not wish to ignore the facts. Actually, I may simply be ignorant and unaware of a great paradigm shift that has taken palce within the scientific community away from atheistic evolution to theistic evolution. I will gladly accept the facts if you give them to me.

Quote
You assert evolution is a Full Blown Fact. The burden of proof is therefore upon you.

Selam

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution - The Scientific Case for Common Descent. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

But nothing can be proven, as you said above.
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,422


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1552 on: October 10, 2009, 03:02:19 AM »

I'm coming in late to this discussion, so hopefully I won't put my foot in my mouth. But fwiw, there was a poll done in the 1990's, and it was found that scientists who believed in a personal God had remained fairly steady since a similar poll had been taken in 1914 (and published in 1916). In both polls the number of scientists who believed in a personal God was about 40%. However, the numbers for so-called "elite" scientists* were far more atheistic in the recent poll, with less than 10% of the participants believing in a personal God. I first read about these polls in a Michael Shermer Book (I think it was How We Believe), though a quick search of Google brought up some pages with the relevant information.

* In the recent poll, "elite" meant that the participant was a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

Thanks for that info. I was trying to think of the name of that organization. So let's see what percentage of the National Academy of Sciences holds to theistic evolution.

Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1553 on: October 10, 2009, 03:08:57 AM »

The burden of proof is on the macro evolutionists. I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith.

But my description of the scientific community regarding the issue is accurate. Just ask them whether or not they consider theistic evolution a viable theory. You will discover that they don't.

Macro evolution is essentially synonymous with Darwinian evolution, that's why I used the term.

Selam

Sometimes I think I'm the only who reads my posts.

Clarification please?

If you are making fun of me, at least let me know why. Huh

Forgive me, but I really don't have time to read through 32 pages of this debate. As I've stated earlier, I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith. I have also pointed out the logical doubts I have about macro evolution, as well as the moral problems that the theory produces. But no one has addressed these things; so I really must move on now unless my points are fairly addressed. I'm not trying to be rude. Free will means feedom of belief, so believe whatever you want. You all are still my brothers and sisters. Smiley



Selam

Of course, Gebre.  We are your brothers and sisters in Satanic deception.

May my brothers and sisters in rational ignorance also be blessed.

Dear Brother,

These kinds of comments are really not productive, either to the discussion at hand or to Christian charity and brotherhood.

Selam

Gebre,

To be honest, I'm only reiterating how any discussion with you will be not productive.  In another thread you called evolution a demonic deception.  In other words, even if you didn't intend it, you considered those who accept its fact as demonically deceived people, even though I am a "brother in Christ" to you.

As for names of theistic evolutionists, Riddikulus beat me to it.

Perhaps if we can describe them for you.  Dr. Kenneth Miller PhD, a Catholic who is a professor in cell biology has been entrusted by both atheistic and theistic evolutionists to testify in various court cases in the defense of evolutionary science.  His appearance won these court cases, and in fact, he is now probably considered one of the best teachers of evolution.  He even wrote a book (actually he also wrote another book as well) highlighting the teaching of evolution, the refutation of people like Behe and his book "Darwin's Black Box," and his own religious beliefs and why believes in God, especially in Christianity.  This book is called "Finding Darwin's God," and it's actually quite an easy read for the average mind.  His other book, I forget the name, highlights the court cases he fought in, and the fraudulence of the Intelligent Design movement.  I haven't read that second one, but there is a link to the documentary earlier in this thread or the other one about "Expelled."

Dr. Francis Collins MD, a convert from atheism, a Christian, a man who found the gene linked with cystic fibrosis, BRCA genes for breast cancer, and the one who lead the completion of the Human Genome project.  He wrote a book, "The Language of God," talking about the fraudulence of the Intelligent Design movement, and why he believed in Christ as His Lord and Savior.

Dr. Theodosius Dobzhansky PhD, a Russian Orthodox Christian, and the SECOND most important figure in evolutionary science, second ONLY to Darwin!  He is the founder of the synthetic division of evolution, combining the field of genetics with evolutionary link, and linking evolution to the rate of mutation, the one who turned evolution to a FULL-BLOWN fact.  He is quoted by Riddikulus in her signature with the famous quote, "I am a creationist and an evolutionist."

These three theistic evolutionists are very very very well-respected by both atheists and theists alike in their contributions to the science of evolution.  They will take their hats down for these three men, especially the last one.

Gebre, this is what I mean by rational ignorance.  Since you even say so yourself, that you're not a scientist, then you don't even know what you're talking about to begin with.  You call something a demonic deception when you don't even know about it.  You should be ashamed of yourself for judging others.  Your half-ass apology was not an apology in the other forum.  You continue to believe evolution is a demonic deception, and I take offense to that.

God bless.

And yet those of us who don't accept evolution are to passively accept your accusation that we are deceived? You are offended that I think evolution is a demonic deception. I am offended that an unproven theory is passed off as factual science without any tolerance for competing ideas. 

Gebre,
Nothing in science - even the most robust of theories, is "proved". Newton's laws and the laws of hydrodynamics have not been proved, either.

OK. I wonder why people are so concerned with me providing proof for my views? Science is concerned with verification, falsification, and evidence, even if nothing can technically be proven.


"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."

Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953
 
"If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part."

Richard Feynman (1918-1988).
 
"A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration."

Bertrand Russell, Grounds of Conflict, Religion and Science, 1953.
 
"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven."

Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.
 
What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms 'proof' or 'prove' in this article. 

continued... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

Quote
I am not judging others, I am assessing the issue. You make things way too personal my friend. Try to make your arguments without personally insulting me. What someone believes about evolution has nothing to do with whether or not they are a Christian, and I have never made any such insinuation.

You must admit that calling evolution a demonic deception is pretty personal to those of us who accept the theory as the valid explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.  Such speech isn't helpful, is it?

There is a big difference between saying, "Evolutionists are of the devil!" and saying that I believe that macro evolution is a demonic deception. We all have to try not be personally insulted when others disagree with us. Look, we are all deceived about a lot of things. I am not God, and I surely don't know everything. In fact I know very little in the grand scheme of things. But I believe certain things are demonic deceptions, such as Pentecostalism, Islam, Racism, justifications for abortion, macro evolution, and many other things. That does not mean that I think those who believe in these things are worshiping satan. I simply think they are deceived, just as you all think I am deceived in my views of evolution. If my Church teaches an age of the earth that clearly precludes the possiblity for macro evolution, and others beleive in a theory that contradicts the teachings of my Church, then I would be disingenuous if I didn't say that I think they are demonically deceived. But I too am probably demoncally deceived by certain things. That's why I try hard to understand what my Church teaches, so that I can be more spiritully enlightened and less deceived.

Quote
Thanks for the information abou these theistic evolutionists. I may try to read more about them in time. But the reality is that every side can trot out their particular "guys" to support their own views. The fact remains that theistic evolutionists are a small minority within the scientific community.

If you wish to ignore the facts, that is your prerogative, however statistic (if only I could find them) say otherwise.

I do not wish to ignore the facts. Actually, I may simply be ignorant and unaware of a great paradigm shift that has taken palce within the scientific community away from atheistic evolution to theistic evolution. I will gladly accept the facts if you give them to me.

Quote
You assert evolution is a Full Blown Fact. The burden of proof is therefore upon you.

Selam

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution - The Scientific Case for Common Descent. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

But nothing can be proven, as you said above.

OK, Gebre, now that you have "proved" that you don't really wish to look at the issues, I'm going to call it a day.
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,422


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1554 on: October 10, 2009, 03:11:22 AM »

And yet those of us who don't accept evolution are to passively accept your accusation that we are deceived? People who dare to raise logical questions about the validity of evolutionary theory are often ridiculed and disparaged in the manner that you are doing to me. But I offend you? You insinuate that I (and by extension the Ethiopian Orthodox Church) am ignorant and deceived because I don't believe in macro evolution. But somehow I am not supposed to be offended, but you are. Wow. Good luck with that attitude. You are offended that I think evolution is a demonic deception. I am offended that an unproven theory is passed off as factual science without any tolerance for competing ideas.   

I am not judging others, I am assessing the issue. You make things way too personal my friend. Try to make your arguments without personally insulting me. What someone believes about evolution has nothing to do with whether or not they are a Christian, and I have never made any such insinuation.

Thanks for the information abou these theistic evolutionists. I may try to read more about them in time. But the reality is that every side can trot out their particular "guys" to support their own views. The fact remains that theistic evolutionists are a small minority within the scientific community.

You assert evolution is a Full Blown Fact. The burden of proof is therefore upon you. I accept the teachings of my Church (which by your judgment is "rationally ignorant" in regards to this issue). Forgive me if I side with the EOTC teaching over your subjective opinion.

Selam

Actually Gebre, whiile I cannot speak for the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, most Eastern Orthodox priests I know believe in some form evolution. I actually know of an Orthodox priest who was a Chemical Engineer prior to becoming a priest, and has lead fascinating discussions about creation on a molecular level.

Science does not try to prove that God does not exist; rather science proves HOW God's creation exists.

Furthermore to insinuate that evolution is a demonic deception IS a judgment. It is saying that those who believe in evolution are deceived by the devil. Then you have the nerve to say that those who accept evolution do not have any tolerance for competing ideas? Pot meet kettle my friend.

Perhaps you should read some of your own statements before posting them.

Also, no one has ever said that evolution is anything more than a theory. Even Scientists will admit they don't know exactly how the world was created.

Having said all this, if you reject evolution, how do you explain dinosaurs?

Seriously, I want to know.

Dear Handmaiden,

I am very aware that many Eastern Orthodox priests believe in evolution. There may even be OO priests who believe in evolution. I imagine that there are even many Ethiopian Orthodox Christians who believe in evolution, although I am not one of them. But I can only adhere to the teachings of my Church.

As far as being judgmental and such, please see my response to Riddikulus above.

Regarding your comment that "no one has ever said evolution is more than a theory..", well it seems that others disagree with you. Someone earlier on this thread said that macro evolution is a FULL BLOWN FACT (their caps).  But then Riddikulus said that no theory can be "proved." So it seems even evolutionists cannot agree on whether their theory is fact or not.

Your question about the dinosaurs: the answer is God created them. What's the difficulty? Huh

Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,422


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1555 on: October 10, 2009, 03:15:05 AM »

The burden of proof is on the macro evolutionists. I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith.

But my description of the scientific community regarding the issue is accurate. Just ask them whether or not they consider theistic evolution a viable theory. You will discover that they don't.

Macro evolution is essentially synonymous with Darwinian evolution, that's why I used the term.

Selam

Sometimes I think I'm the only who reads my posts.

Clarification please?

If you are making fun of me, at least let me know why. Huh

Forgive me, but I really don't have time to read through 32 pages of this debate. As I've stated earlier, I accept the teachings of my Church by Faith. I have also pointed out the logical doubts I have about macro evolution, as well as the moral problems that the theory produces. But no one has addressed these things; so I really must move on now unless my points are fairly addressed. I'm not trying to be rude. Free will means feedom of belief, so believe whatever you want. You all are still my brothers and sisters. Smiley



Selam

Of course, Gebre.  We are your brothers and sisters in Satanic deception.

May my brothers and sisters in rational ignorance also be blessed.

Dear Brother,

These kinds of comments are really not productive, either to the discussion at hand or to Christian charity and brotherhood.

Selam

Gebre,

To be honest, I'm only reiterating how any discussion with you will be not productive.  In another thread you called evolution a demonic deception.  In other words, even if you didn't intend it, you considered those who accept its fact as demonically deceived people, even though I am a "brother in Christ" to you.

As for names of theistic evolutionists, Riddikulus beat me to it.

Perhaps if we can describe them for you.  Dr. Kenneth Miller PhD, a Catholic who is a professor in cell biology has been entrusted by both atheistic and theistic evolutionists to testify in various court cases in the defense of evolutionary science.  His appearance won these court cases, and in fact, he is now probably considered one of the best teachers of evolution.  He even wrote a book (actually he also wrote another book as well) highlighting the teaching of evolution, the refutation of people like Behe and his book "Darwin's Black Box," and his own religious beliefs and why believes in God, especially in Christianity.  This book is called "Finding Darwin's God," and it's actually quite an easy read for the average mind.  His other book, I forget the name, highlights the court cases he fought in, and the fraudulence of the Intelligent Design movement.  I haven't read that second one, but there is a link to the documentary earlier in this thread or the other one about "Expelled."

Dr. Francis Collins MD, a convert from atheism, a Christian, a man who found the gene linked with cystic fibrosis, BRCA genes for breast cancer, and the one who lead the completion of the Human Genome project.  He wrote a book, "The Language of God," talking about the fraudulence of the Intelligent Design movement, and why he believed in Christ as His Lord and Savior.

Dr. Theodosius Dobzhansky PhD, a Russian Orthodox Christian, and the SECOND most important figure in evolutionary science, second ONLY to Darwin!  He is the founder of the synthetic division of evolution, combining the field of genetics with evolutionary link, and linking evolution to the rate of mutation, the one who turned evolution to a FULL-BLOWN fact.  He is quoted by Riddikulus in her signature with the famous quote, "I am a creationist and an evolutionist."

These three theistic evolutionists are very very very well-respected by both atheists and theists alike in their contributions to the science of evolution.  They will take their hats down for these three men, especially the last one.

Gebre, this is what I mean by rational ignorance.  Since you even say so yourself, that you're not a scientist, then you don't even know what you're talking about to begin with.  You call something a demonic deception when you don't even know about it.  You should be ashamed of yourself for judging others.  Your half-ass apology was not an apology in the other forum.  You continue to believe evolution is a demonic deception, and I take offense to that.

God bless.

And yet those of us who don't accept evolution are to passively accept your accusation that we are deceived? You are offended that I think evolution is a demonic deception. I am offended that an unproven theory is passed off as factual science without any tolerance for competing ideas. 

Gebre,
Nothing in science - even the most robust of theories, is "proved". Newton's laws and the laws of hydrodynamics have not been proved, either.

OK. I wonder why people are so concerned with me providing proof for my views? Science is concerned with verification, falsification, and evidence, even if nothing can technically be proven.


"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."

Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953
 
"If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part."

Richard Feynman (1918-1988).
 
"A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration."

Bertrand Russell, Grounds of Conflict, Religion and Science, 1953.
 
"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven."

Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.
 
What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms 'proof' or 'prove' in this article. 

continued... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

Quote
I am not judging others, I am assessing the issue. You make things way too personal my friend. Try to make your arguments without personally insulting me. What someone believes about evolution has nothing to do with whether or not they are a Christian, and I have never made any such insinuation.

You must admit that calling evolution a demonic deception is pretty personal to those of us who accept the theory as the valid explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.  Such speech isn't helpful, is it?

There is a big difference between saying, "Evolutionists are of the devil!" and saying that I believe that macro evolution is a demonic deception. We all have to try not be personally insulted when others disagree with us. Look, we are all deceived about a lot of things. I am not God, and I surely don't know everything. In fact I know very little in the grand scheme of things. But I believe certain things are demonic deceptions, such as Pentecostalism, Islam, Racism, justifications for abortion, macro evolution, and many other things. That does not mean that I think those who believe in these things are worshiping satan. I simply think they are deceived, just as you all think I am deceived in my views of evolution. If my Church teaches an age of the earth that clearly precludes the possiblity for macro evolution, and others beleive in a theory that contradicts the teachings of my Church, then I would be disingenuous if I didn't say that I think they are demonically deceived. But I too am probably demoncally deceived by certain things. That's why I try hard to understand what my Church teaches, so that I can be more spiritully enlightened and less deceived.

Quote
Thanks for the information abou these theistic evolutionists. I may try to read more about them in time. But the reality is that every side can trot out their particular "guys" to support their own views. The fact remains that theistic evolutionists are a small minority within the scientific community.

If you wish to ignore the facts, that is your prerogative, however statistic (if only I could find them) say otherwise.

I do not wish to ignore the facts. Actually, I may simply be ignorant and unaware of a great paradigm shift that has taken palce within the scientific community away from atheistic evolution to theistic evolution. I will gladly accept the facts if you give them to me.

Quote
You assert evolution is a Full Blown Fact. The burden of proof is therefore upon you.

Selam

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution - The Scientific Case for Common Descent. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

But nothing can be proven, as you said above.

OK, Gebre, now that you have "proved" that you don't really wish to look at the issues, I'm going to call it a day.

You must have missed my statement above:
"I do not wish to ignore the facts. Actually, I may simply be ignorant and unaware of a great paradigm shift that has taken palce within the scientific community away from atheistic evolution to theistic evolution. I will gladly accept the facts if you give them to me."

But it does seem we are at a philosophical impasse for now. Thanks for the discussion, and have a blessed day. Smiley

Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1556 on: October 10, 2009, 03:28:57 AM »

And yet those of us who don't accept evolution are to passively accept your accusation that we are deceived? People who dare to raise logical questions about the validity of evolutionary theory are often ridiculed and disparaged in the manner that you are doing to me. But I offend you? You insinuate that I (and by extension the Ethiopian Orthodox Church) am ignorant and deceived because I don't believe in macro evolution. But somehow I am not supposed to be offended, but you are. Wow. Good luck with that attitude. You are offended that I think evolution is a demonic deception. I am offended that an unproven theory is passed off as factual science without any tolerance for competing ideas.   

I am not judging others, I am assessing the issue. You make things way too personal my friend. Try to make your arguments without personally insulting me. What someone believes about evolution has nothing to do with whether or not they are a Christian, and I have never made any such insinuation.

Thanks for the information abou these theistic evolutionists. I may try to read more about them in time. But the reality is that every side can trot out their particular "guys" to support their own views. The fact remains that theistic evolutionists are a small minority within the scientific community.

You assert evolution is a Full Blown Fact. The burden of proof is therefore upon you. I accept the teachings of my Church (which by your judgment is "rationally ignorant" in regards to this issue). Forgive me if I side with the EOTC teaching over your subjective opinion.

Selam

Actually Gebre, whiile I cannot speak for the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, most Eastern Orthodox priests I know believe in some form evolution. I actually know of an Orthodox priest who was a Chemical Engineer prior to becoming a priest, and has lead fascinating discussions about creation on a molecular level.

Science does not try to prove that God does not exist; rather science proves HOW God's creation exists.

Furthermore to insinuate that evolution is a demonic deception IS a judgment. It is saying that those who believe in evolution are deceived by the devil. Then you have the nerve to say that those who accept evolution do not have any tolerance for competing ideas? Pot meet kettle my friend.

Perhaps you should read some of your own statements before posting them.

Also, no one has ever said that evolution is anything more than a theory. Even Scientists will admit they don't know exactly how the world was created.

Having said all this, if you reject evolution, how do you explain dinosaurs?

Seriously, I want to know.

Dear Handmaiden,

I am very aware that many Eastern Orthodox priests believe in evolution. There may even be OO priests who believe in evolution. I imagine that there are even many Ethiopian Orthodox Christians who believe in evolution, although I am not one of them. But I can only adhere to the teachings of my Church.

As far as being judgmental and such, please see my response to Riddikulus above.

Regarding your comment that "no one has ever said evolution is more than a theory..", well it seems that others disagree with you. Someone earlier on this thread said that macro evolution is a FULL BLOWN FACT (their caps).  But then Riddikulus said that no theory can be "proved." So it seems even evolutionists cannot agree on whether their theory is fact or not.

Your question about the dinosaurs: the answer is God created them. What's the difficulty? Huh

Selam

If you read the pages that I gave you, you might have a better understanding of what science is.
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1557 on: October 10, 2009, 03:32:51 AM »

I'm coming in late to this discussion, so hopefully I won't put my foot in my mouth. But fwiw, there was a poll done in the 1990's, and it was found that scientists who believed in a personal God had remained fairly steady since a similar poll had been taken in 1914 (and published in 1916). In both polls the number of scientists who believed in a personal God was about 40%. However, the numbers for so-called "elite" scientists* were far more atheistic in the recent poll, with less than 10% of the participants believing in a personal God. I first read about these polls in a Michael Shermer Book (I think it was How We Believe), though a quick search of Google brought up some pages with the relevant information.

* In the recent poll, "elite" meant that the participant was a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

Thanks for this information, Asteriktos. Are the polls comparative, do you know? I can't even remember where I read about this. My searches were obviously not worded correctly, because I got nothing of any help at all - nada!  laugh
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1558 on: October 10, 2009, 03:33:46 AM »



Everything in this phenomenon makes God's creative power show up in majesty, whatever you might understand by that "creative power". If God programmed DNA to evolve into a variety of animals, he created the best self-generating program of all time!

In Christ,   Alex

Therefore, mutation and creativity might not be mutally exclusive?
Yes. Christians should look at the world as a creative miracle from God. Saying that evolution follows a deterministic path, and forgetting that God wanted the world to be as it is (and not that the world just evolved on its own) is more important then formulating a theory on past events and passing them for science. In other words, while I'm a day-age theorist, I feel nearer to the attitude of my creationist brothers and sisters, because they can "sense" the beauty of the world as a project of God, where nature just obeyed to the divine will - or divine "program" if you want; the same concept of st. Augustine's principia seminalia. That's why I don't like the word "science" when applied to the origins of the world. Science should keep her attention to how the world WORKS, i.e. its laws, to improve our lives in this time, and shouldn't worry too much of those past events nobody of us has witnessed. Scientists, if they could, they would even try to look INTO the Big Bang. That attitude from science is atheistic in itself--- it's a way to show the universe not as a miracle, but as a complex of lucky combinations which led up to life... the same attitude that leads many scientists to embrace the multiverse theory in order to get rid of the anthropic principle. Heliocentrism moved our Earth from her central role to a peripheric role, and it did so for a right motivation (after all, it's the sun - God's representative among the stars - we must revolve around, and not the contrary), but now scientists try to minimalize further the "central" role of humanity which made Earth special and unique among the other planets, and the other possible universes.
So, I don't believe in niether in random nor in deterministic mutations: I believe in creative mutations programmed by God in His eternal will.

I will also answer to a previous question: is humanity "evolving"? My answer is NO. All changes that humanity is passing are less important then they might be if we were turning into a new species. I am sure the General Resurrection will occur long before we could change into anything different from our biological ancestors 200000 years ago. We are biologically the model of quasi-perfection that God wanted to create, and we will just be restored in our primordial conditions in the end of time.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1559 on: October 10, 2009, 04:15:43 AM »



Everything in this phenomenon makes God's creative power show up in majesty, whatever you might understand by that "creative power". If God programmed DNA to evolve into a variety of animals, he created the best self-generating program of all time!

In Christ,   Alex

Therefore, mutation and creativity might not be mutally exclusive?
Yes. Christians should look at the world as a creative miracle from God. Saying that evolution follows a deterministic path, and forgetting that God wanted the world to be as it is (and not that the world just evolved on its own) is more important then formulating a theory on past events and passing them for science. In other words, while I'm a day-age theorist, I feel nearer to the attitude of my creationist brothers and sisters, because they can "sense" the beauty of the world as a project of God, where nature just obeyed to the divine will - or divine "program" if you want; the same concept of st. Augustine's principia seminalia. That's why I don't like the word "science" when applied to the origins of the world. Science should keep her attention to how the world WORKS, i.e. its laws, to improve our lives in this time, and shouldn't worry too much of those past events nobody of us has witnessed. Scientists, if they could, they would even try to look INTO the Big Bang. That attitude from science is atheistic in itself--- it's a way to show the universe not as a miracle, but as a complex of lucky combinations which led up to life... the same attitude that leads many scientists to embrace the multiverse theory in order to get rid of the anthropic principle. Heliocentrism moved our Earth from her central role to a peripheric role, and it did so for a right motivation (after all, it's the sun - God's representative among the stars - we must revolve around, and not the contrary), but now scientists try to minimalize further the "central" role of humanity which made Earth special and unique among the other planets, and the other possible universes.
So, I don't believe in niether in random nor in deterministic mutations: I believe in creative mutations programmed by God in His eternal will.

I will also answer to a previous question: is humanity "evolving"? My answer is NO. All changes that humanity is passing are less important then they might be if we were turning into a new species. I am sure the General Resurrection will occur long before we could change into anything different from our biological ancestors 200000 years ago. We are biologically the model of quasi-perfection that God wanted to create, and we will just be restored in our primordial conditions in the end of time.

In Christ,   Alex

I don't know of any Christians who believe in evolution who are not in awe of the beauty of God's Creation. Perhaps I'm misunderstaning, but you seem to be wishing to downplay the emotional and spiritual appreciation of those you don't agree with, without really knowing what their attitudes actually are. 
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,968


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1560 on: October 10, 2009, 05:07:05 AM »

The issue of macro evolution is one of the many reasons why I am so grateful to belong to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Our Fathers have taught that according to Scriptural chronology (derived most notably from the Book of Jubilees, which is part of our canon) the earth is only about 7,000 years old. This time frame precludes any possibility for the process of macro evolution. As an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian, I embrace the apostolic Faith and Teaching of my Church; and therefore I don't have to worry about being deceived by the vagaries and vicissitudes of secular science.
Gebre, since you're posing here fundamentally the same argument that jckstraw72 has advanced against evolution, I think the same question can be asked of you that many have asked of jckstraw72.  What makes you believe you should trust the Scriptures and your Fathers to be infallible authorities on things scientific?  Why should you trust them, who quite likely knew just about as much nothing of modern science as our EO Fathers, over those men and women who actually study and conduct research in science as their life work?
« Last Edit: October 10, 2009, 05:16:49 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1561 on: October 10, 2009, 05:11:44 AM »

I tend to downplay your "sense of miracle" because I can't understand how a deistic approach to creation can exhalt one's love and praise for God. I prefer to say that God created man as beautiful as it is because he wanted us to be precisely as we are, both physically and spiritually, and the same for plants, animals, landscapes, stars, planets... I see God as an artist who creates his peace of art according to his personal creativity, and so I praise his personal activity in the universe as our sculpture (which feets also the image of God "forming" us out of clay). A strict evolutionist theory seems to have God choosing us among the billions of species in the world rather then imposing nature to develop on a certain path to have man formed exactly as He wanted us. I don't know if I can explain... it is difficult, I know. Sorry for my linguistic limitations, which in this case aren't due to my knowledge of English but to my skill to express in words what my mind conceives in a mystical manner.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1562 on: October 10, 2009, 05:13:37 AM »

I tend to downplay your "sense of miracle" because I can't understand how a deistic approach to creation can exhalt one's love and praise for God. I prefer to say that God created man as beautiful as it is because he wanted us to be precisely as we are, both physically and spiritually, and the same for plants, animals, landscapes, stars, planets... I see God as an artist who creates his peace of art according to his personal creativity, and so I praise his personal activity in the universe as our sculpture (which feets also the image of God "forming" us out of clay). A strict evolutionist theory seems to have God choosing us among the billions of species in the world rather then imposing nature to develop on a certain path to have man formed exactly as He wanted us. I don't know if I can explain... it is difficult, I know. Sorry for my linguistic limitations, which in this case aren't due to my knowledge of English but to my skill to express in words what my mind conceives in a mystical manner.

In Christ,   Alex

Deistic? Oh boy.
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,250


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #1563 on: October 10, 2009, 06:29:31 AM »

Riddikulus

The beginning of this blog post provides a pretty detailed overview of the two polls. Also, in searching Google Books, I found the passage I was thinking of in the Michael Shermer book How We Believe.
Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #1564 on: October 10, 2009, 06:53:15 AM »

Regarding your comment that "no one has ever said evolution is more than a theory..", well it seems that others disagree with you. Someone earlier on this thread said that macro evolution is a FULL BLOWN FACT (their caps).  But then Riddikulus said that no theory can be "proved." So it seems even evolutionists cannot agree on whether their theory is fact or not.
Gebre, the only person on this thread who has ever used that phrase is you. I have completed a thorough search of this thread, and the first time the phrase shows up is in this post:

You assert evolution is a Full Blown Fact. The burden of proof is therefore upon you. I accept the teachings of my Church (which by your judgment is "rationally ignorant" in regards to this issue). Forgive me if I side with the EOTC teaching over your subjective opinion.
After this, it occurs only in your posts and quotes of your posts. Perhaps your fabricated assertions would be better off in a place where they can't be so easily verified.

Your question about the dinosaurs: the answer is God created them. What's the difficulty? Huh
No one here asserts that God did not create the dinosaurs. But how do you explain the fossil record and other paleoherpetological issues in a time frame of only 7000 years?
« Last Edit: October 10, 2009, 06:54:59 AM by ytterbiumanalyst » Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1565 on: October 10, 2009, 07:10:34 AM »

Riddikulus

The beginning of this blog post provides a pretty detailed overview of the two polls. Also, in searching Google Books, I found the passage I was thinking of in the Michael Shermer book How We Believe.


Many thanks, Asteriktos.
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,741


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #1566 on: October 10, 2009, 08:13:36 AM »

Gebre,

I didn't really insult you.  I just called you what you thought of yourself.  You said "I'm not a scientist," therefore, you are ignorant of the information we're presenting to you, and furthermore, you remain to keep your eyes closed to the information.

Read this article here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Quote
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml

Now, I haven't called myself "demonically deceived."  But if you feel "ignorant" is an insult, then you've only insulted yourself.

God bless.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2009, 08:25:25 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,741


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #1567 on: October 10, 2009, 08:17:37 AM »

So you're saying I'm a deist?
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1568 on: October 10, 2009, 08:27:14 AM »

Evolution and deism are very similar in that God gives a beginning to the universe, which develops on its own. The only difference with deism is that you believe in a Saviour, but concerning creation, you are very similar.
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,741


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #1569 on: October 10, 2009, 08:31:25 AM »

I forgot to mention Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Catholic priest, geologist, and paleontologist, who helped with the finding of Peking man.  He also wrote many books on his religious beliefs intertwining them with evolution.  In fact, he even believed evolution had an "omega point," i.e. that man evolving to be like Christ.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,741


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #1570 on: October 10, 2009, 08:36:15 AM »

Evolution and deism are very similar in that God gives a beginning to the universe, which develops on its own. The only difference with deism is that you believe in a Saviour, but concerning creation, you are very similar.

Evolution is a process programmed in nature just as the separation of oil and water is programmed in nature.  Are you saying that God is the one who separates oil and water apart, and not their proper natures which God programmed into them?
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1571 on: October 10, 2009, 09:30:27 AM »

The issue of macro evolution is one of the many reasons why I am so grateful to belong to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Our Fathers have taught that according to Scriptural chronology (derived most notably from the Book of Jubilees, which is part of our canon) the earth is only about 7,000 years old. This time frame precludes any possibility for the process of macro evolution. As an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian, I embrace the apostolic Faith and Teaching of my Church; and therefore I don't have to worry about being deceived by the vagaries and vicissitudes of secular science.
Gebre, since you're posing here fundamentally the same argument that jckstraw72 has advanced against evolution, I think the same question can be asked of you that many have asked of jckstraw72.  What makes you believe you should trust the Scriptures and your Fathers to be infallible authorities on things scientific?  Why should you trust them, who quite likely knew just about as much nothing of modern science as our EO Fathers, over those men and women who actually study and conduct research in science as their life work?

we believe the Church should be trusted on Scripture. Genesis is Scripture. Why do you believe scientists should be trusted on Scripture before the Church?
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1572 on: October 10, 2009, 09:32:15 AM »

I forgot to mention Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Catholic priest, geologist, and paleontologist, who helped with the finding of Peking man.  He also wrote many books on his religious beliefs intertwining them with evolution.  In fact, he even believed evolution had an "omega point," i.e. that man evolving to be like Christ.

God bless.

come on now -- Fr. Seraphim deals with him extensively -- that man was hardly a Christian, if at all. He said that evolution saves Jesus Christ. He said that evolution is the light which illumines all things, all theories, all beliefs and that everything in life must conform to evolution. He has replaced Jesus as the light with evolution. And Dobhzansky approvinly quotes him on it! Both are barely Christian if at all. Dobhzansky was a deist by belief although he remained officially Orthodox.
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #1573 on: October 10, 2009, 10:29:53 AM »

Gebre,

You asked me to simplify what I wrote about Popper, Kuhn, and Lakatos. Here's another version of what I wrote - maybe it will be smoother and less technical. I am not sure that it will be helpful because others, notably Riddikulus and Mina, made great points that contribute into this discussion a lot better than mine. But I'll still try. Again, the whole point here is that there is no such thing as one universal scientific method.

Early scientists were mostly positivists and "inductivists," meaning that they thought that science begins with factual observations ("unlike non-science, science is derived from facts"), and that conclusions in science are made by induction - if something is true in this situation and in that and in that, then this something is true in all situations. As you yourself correctly stated, Popper challenged this approach, based on two reasons: 1. Factual observations are still "theory-laden," i.e. even to observe something, you must already have a concept, a theory, a framework (Kantian "category") in your mind, and 2. Induction is, strictly speaking, wrong from the point of view of the formal logic. Popper attempted to replace the inductivist approach to science with a "falsificationist" approach, which means that actual science may begin not from observations, but from a rather voluntaristic statement that may not, per se, correspond to factual observations. However, this statement must be falsifiable, meaning that if evidence is found that there exists something incompatible with the made statement, or with logical deductive predictions that follow from this statement, it must be withdrawn. If my hypothesis is that all swans are white, and then suddenly someone finds just one black swan, I take my hypothesis back and begin to think about another hypothesis.

While Popper's ideas are universally recognized as interesting, some practical observations contradict them. Duhem in the 19th century, and Quine in the 1950-s wrote that scientists actually do not always wish to take back their hypotheses when they seem to be falsified by others. For example, the hypothesis that the Earth moves could be "falsified" in the 16th and 17th century because of the so-called tower phenomenon. Throw a stone from the top of the tower, and it will land near its foot - hence, the Earth does NOT move. However, scientists like Galileo objected to that, saying that in fact the stone moves forward together with the moving Earth (implying what we call an "auxillary hypothesis" of inertia). Another example may be that when medical researchers found that stress, high blood pressure, high blood sugar etc. can cause certain diseases, this seemed to "falsify" Robert Koch's hypothesis that every human disease is caused by a microorganism or an infectious agent. Yet, proponents of the Kochian idea said, well, it's just that our methods, technologies are imperfect, so we fail to see the infectious agent, but it is there. And in many cases they turned out to be correct: for example, we now know that Helicobacter pylori is the cause of peptic ulcer and (more recently) a retrovirus is the cause of the chronic fatigue syndrom. So, falsification is not a panacea either, it does not seem to really work as science progresses.

Challenging Popper, Thomas S. Kuhn developed a theory of "paradigm shift." According to Kuhn, science develops in cycles. It always begins with a revolutionary - visionary person stating something that is accepted as a "paradigm" (central notion): for example, that unless a body is acted upon by some forces, it keeps moving without acceleration or deceleration. (That's the famous first law of Newtonian mechanics: note that it was not a record of any factual observation and it could be "falsified" VERY easily at the time of Newton). Then comes a period of what Kuhn called "regular science." It means that a growing number of scientists begin to develop the paradigm, looking at various situations where this paradigm can be applied. They do not produce any new paradigms and, moreover, they develop a "tunnel vision" in that they refuse even to recognize anything that does not fit the paradigm they re developing. That leads to stagnation and crisis. Then, during the crisis, a next visionary enters the scene and announces a totally different paradigm - and the cycle repeats.

Imre Lakatos was not satisfied by what he viewed as "subjectivism" in Kuhn's paradigm shift theory, and tried to develop his own theory of science, known as the theory of research programs. According to Lakatos, science is, indeed, moved forward by paradigms. Yet, these paradigms do not change each other arbitrarily. Rather, a paradigm, or a "hard core" statement, gives rise to a "research program," i.e. a network of people working on this paradigm (again, much like "normal scientists" in Kuhn's account), developing its "protective belt" - a large and growing number of auxillary statements, hypotheses, theories, etc. Several "research programs" work in parallel, and some of them become "progressing," i.e. their "protective belt" is being challenged, partially falsified, and changing, while their "hard core" (which, importantly, gives rise to the protective belt) remains the same.

I do not know Karl Hempel's works, - thank you for pointing out that they exist; I will certainly lok into that. However, I hope the examples above illustrare the idea that the mere notion that there is, or even should be, some unique, well-defined, "one-size-fits-it-all" "scientific method" is simply unsustainable. We do not quite know how science develops, why it makes progress. Diferent philosophers explain this quite differently. Studies of some very famous scientists' personal journals indicate that their methods (in the philosophical sense) differed greatly, and that they, in their pursuit, often violated the neat "scholarly" rules of "THE" scientific method.

And again, most importantly: yes, NOTHING in science is ever "proven." And yet, science exists and makes progress and continues to serve the humankind.

Best wishes,

G.
 
Logged

Love never fails.
sodr2
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 121


القديس الانبا رويس


« Reply #1574 on: October 10, 2009, 11:32:10 AM »

I'm not going to waste time reading 33 pages of this... but it seems to me that Gebre doesn't believe in evolution... and people are criticizing him for this?

Microevolution (or speciation) is pretty much scientific, but the idea that all living things came from one life source seems kinda farfetched to me.

Our genetic similarity to a chimp happens to be over 98%. That could perhaps be coincidence, the result of common descent or some other alternative. What's wrong with sticking to this 'other alternative' being God created us this way?
« Last Edit: October 10, 2009, 11:42:29 AM by sodr2 » Logged

"Happiness depends on the relationship between man and God." Pope Shenouda III
Tags: science Theory of Evolution evolution creationism cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.296 seconds with 75 queries.