DARWIN VS. GENESIS

Page 13 of 19 [ 296 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 19 Next

What most closely describes your view?

God created all life in its present form within the last few thousand years.	8%	[ 16 ]
God created all presen life within the last few million years.	1%	[ 2 ]
God created all present life withi the last few billion years.	4%	[ 8 ]
Non-human life evolved, but God directly created humans in their present form.	2%	[ 3 ]
All life evolved, but God guided evolution.	20%	[ 38 ]
All life evolved without any supernatural intervention.	65%	[ 122 ]

Total votes : 189

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

13 Nov 2007, 8:51 am

Doc_Daneeka wrote:

In other words, a person who admits supernatural causes is by definition unable to separate divine causation from natural processes. As a divine being can do literally anything, there is no way for a believer to sort unexplained events into the categories 'divinely caused" vs "naturally caused"

Not necessarily. Most people are realists. They assume a direct relationship between objects (including text) and knowledge. As a nominalist, I make no such assumption. What many people believe to be universals are merely words. Only particulars exist.

IMO, empirical research and supernatural belief systems need to be kept at arm's length. My own approach is to turn to the naturalist sciences, without invoking the supernatural, when discussing biological origins. On the other hand, questions of purpose (why are we here?) are issues which can be properly addressed by various religions.

_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute

Elemental
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 4 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 182

13 Nov 2007, 10:18 am

Sand wrote:

Probably what is most significant about evolution that the mechanisms posited are daily used by working biologists to actually modify species for special purposes. It is a useful tool. I have never heard a report of a creationist biologist modifying a species by praying to God. When that occurs, I might have second thoughts.

It's been going on for longer than that, with the selective breeding of dogs, cats and horses.

My view is that God may have created everything. For all we can prove, he created the universe, everyone in it and their memories, five minutes ago. By definition, an omnipotent God could do whatever he wanted without it needing to make sense to us. However, since that possibility cannot be logically proved or disproved, it can't be discussed along with scientific theories, since if faith is proven, it stops becoming faith and becomes knowledge.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

13 Nov 2007, 12:10 pm

Breeders can modify those animals that can breed. What is startling about modern genetics is the possibility to move genes into species without breeding. Corn was modified to generate an insecticide that originated in caterpillars.

LePetitPrince
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,464

13 Nov 2007, 2:01 pm

if god really exists then he would reply in this thread ....but as always , he is always hiding ....he must be really shy.

Bightme
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 17 Jun 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 197

13 Nov 2007, 2:52 pm

LePetitPrince wrote:

if god really exists then he would reply in this thread ....but as always , he is always hiding ....he must be really shy.

Actually, I have already spoken.. :wink:

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

13 Nov 2007, 2:58 pm

Although I have no belief in a super being I sincerely doubt such a super creature would be interested in communicating with such minor creatures as humans. After all, how many humans have made efforts to communicate with amoebas or similar creatures?

Doc_Daneeka
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 3 Jul 2007
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 195
Location: Toronto. But we call it Tarana.

13 Nov 2007, 8:35 pm

nominalist wrote:

Doc_Daneeka wrote:

IMO, empirical research and supernatural belief systems need to be kept at arm's length. My own approach is to turn to the naturalist sciences, without invoking the supernatural, when discussing biological origins. On the other hand, questions of purpose (why are we here?) are issues which can be properly addressed by various religions.

Why is that? Upon which basis do you conclude that religion has anything of value to say concerning why we are are here? The claims of the various religions rest on a foundation which amounts to mere assertion. "We are here because of X, which was revealed to some guy." Why would you take religion to be more authoritative on this matter than the views of a person chosen at random?

_________________
------------------------
ubi dubium ibi libertas

Doc_Daneeka
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 3 Jul 2007
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 195
Location: Toronto. But we call it Tarana.

13 Nov 2007, 8:41 pm

LePetitPrince wrote:

if god really exists then he would reply in this thread ....but as always , he is always hiding ....he must be really shy.

Well, that's not quite true. The monotheistic religions tend to define god as ineffable. Literally ANY situation or action is compatible with god, as defined by christians, muslims, and jews. This is quite convenient for them, as there is no way to demonstrate that god doesn't exist.

Nevertheless, one can't help but note that if this god exists, he/she/it aparently set up the universe to appear as though he/she/it doesn't need to exist.

_________________
------------------------
ubi dubium ibi libertas

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

13 Nov 2007, 8:51 pm

Doc_Daneeka wrote:

I never specified any particular religion or argued that one religion or another contained "truth." I only suggested that supernatural religions (that is to say, religions which teach a belief in the supernatural) should focus on subjects other than the sciences (like ethics).

Doc_Daneeka
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 3 Jul 2007
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 195
Location: Toronto. But we call it Tarana.

13 Nov 2007, 9:19 pm

nominalist wrote:

Doc_Daneeka wrote:

And I never claimed that you specified a particular religion either. My questions revolve around why one would consider the views of any religion to be more valid than the views of of a random person. Please reread my comments in light of the above.

_________________
------------------------
ubi dubium ibi libertas

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

13 Nov 2007, 9:48 pm

Doc_Daneeka wrote:

Sure, but I never said anything about validity. I do not necessarily assume that a supernatural religion is "valid." I do, however, believe that supernaturalist religions should not interfere in the sciences.

Doc_Daneeka
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 3 Jul 2007
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 195
Location: Toronto. But we call it Tarana.

13 Nov 2007, 10:04 pm

nominalist wrote:

Doc_Daneeka wrote:

You did say that "On the other hand, questions of purpose (why are we here?) are issues which can be properly addressed by various religions." My aim was to ask why religions are better equipped to answer these questions than, say, carpenters. Or, for that matter, any random person or idea. Upon which basis would one decide that religion is better able to answer such a question than any random viewpoint?

_________________
------------------------
ubi dubium ibi libertas

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

13 Nov 2007, 10:08 pm

Doc_Daneeka wrote:

I never said "only by various religions." I am a nominalist, and I make a distinction between subjects appropriate for supernaturalistic religions and those appropriate for the sciences.

The issue you raised is interesting, but it is unrelated to what I was saying.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

13 Nov 2007, 10:10 pm

nominalist wrote:

appropriate for supernaturalistic religions and those appropriate for the sciences.

1. there is no such thing as supernaturalistic. there's only things that we can't yet explain.

2. that you decide to categorize things like that shows that you can't make such a determination and therefore cannot say that religion is more appropriate than science.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

13 Nov 2007, 10:17 pm

skafather84 wrote:

1. there is no such thing as supernaturalistic. there's only things that we can't yet explain.

I never expressed an opinion on whether there was such a thing as the supernatural. However, I did define supernaturalist religions as those religions which believe in the supernatural. You are reading into my comments things I never said.

I might similarly refer to the flat earth society as a loose-knit Internet group which believes in a flat earth. However, in defining it as such, I am neither affirming nor denying their premise.

Quote:

2. that you decide to categorize things like that shows that you can't make such a determination and therefore cannot say that religion is more appropriate than science.

Correct, but I never said what you wrote either.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

13 Nov 2007, 10:33 pm

nominalist wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

1. there is no such thing as supernaturalistic. there's only things that we can't yet explain.

I never expressed an opinion on whether there was such a thing as the supernatural.

nominalist wrote:

I make a distinction between subjects appropriate for supernaturalistic religions and those appropriate for the sciences.

so that isn't you expressing that there are situations where supernatural things can occur? i mean saying that there's an appropriate "supernatural = religion" paradigm is expressing an opinion on the supernatural by saying "yes, there is a time and a place."

Page 13 of 19 [ 296 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 19 Next

Jump to:

DARWIN VS. GENESIS Post Reply New Topic

DARWIN VS. GENESIS