| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
"Anyone who accepts the principle that the creative designer(s) is smart enough and powerful enough to work through evolution won't have a religious problem with evolution." If I could just say something on a personal note about this. I am a Catholic and the Catholic position is much different than these Evangelicals. The Catholic position is that we do not presume to know what exactly creation looked like or how long it took. It is the job of science to tell us that. Four popes now have come out and said that evolution is true. That does not mean that Catholics are perfect and it also does not mean that there are not dissenters in the church. The official position also states that you are not required to believe in evolution and in a very cynical sort of way they also point out that you don't have to believe in heliocentricity or a spherical Earth either. These issues simply have nothing to do with the true Christian faith. As Dr. Campbell pointed out amazingly these Evangelicals have no problem lying, cheating, stealing, backstabbing, manipulating, ect. but do have a problem with issues that really have nothing to do with Christianity like evolution. Now granted there is a specifically atheist point of view that Catholics would disagree with. Personally I don't have a problem at all being a Christian and a scientist. I have found in my career that if you believe in God then science is even more interesting. Obviously it would be because the universe is incomprehensibly amazing in every respect. If you attribute it as it is in reality to one omnipotent God then how could that do anything but strengthen your faith. Anyway, one man's perspective. -Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dr. David Campbell" <amblema@bama.ua.edu> To: <paleonet@nhm.ac.uk> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 2:18 PM Subject: Re: paleonet YEC&DinoBlood > > Definitely not. They have a scripture alone world view and that's > > basically all there is to it. < > > More of a "my take on selected bits of scripture alone" view. Verses > to the effect of "Do not lie" tend to be neglected, in addition to > questions about whether Genesis was ever meant to be interpreted as a > guide to the time and physical method of creation (as opposed to the > scientifically indetectable purpose and power behind it). It also > varies as to exactly what scripture is in view-there is > antievolutionism among Muslims, Hare Krishnas, assorted cults, etc. > > The 6000 year number (a la Ussher) derives from numerological > assumptions rather than from adding up the Biblical genealogies, which > are not complete, but the numbers in them come to about 6000 years. > > > >> Can they provide an independent scientifically-based date on the > >> 6-10 thousand year age of the Earth? > > There's a big young earth effort currently, billed as the RATE > project, to attack radiometric dating. I don't know of anything that > doesn't just rehash old bad arguments, though there's always a chance > of some new bad arguments. This may lead to renewed claims that they > have scientific evidence for a young earth. > > >>He used the Schweitzer paper, and argued that the fossil record > can't be old at all because of the beautifully preserved veins and, > there you have it, the evidence that dinosaurs were recently buried by > the proverbial Flood.<< > > The Flood also purportedly explains how things are so badly beat up in > the fossil record. Amazing how much you can explain when you're not > constrained by consistency nor by reality. > > In reality, within a period of a few billion years, some things can > happen fast (such as preservation before decay destroys fine > structures). In a six thousand year model, everything has to happen > fast. Lots of things can't happen fast, due to the laws of > thermodynamics. > > > They [young earthers and ID advocates] both agree, however, that a > > creative designer designed the earth and all its inhabitats < > > The real problem lies in the meaning of "designed". As stated, this > is a view held by practically all religions, and rejecting this > assertion is very close to endorsing atheism. Conflict with science > arises from the insistence that this "design" had to take place in a > manner contrary to what the physical evidence indicates. In the > particular case of ID, there is an insistance on miraculous gaps in > evolution. (This is ID in practice-Behe and Dembski have asserted > that gaps in evolution are not necessary to ID in principle, but > practically all the support and rhetoric is antievolutionary). Anyone > who accepts the principle that the creative designer(s) is smart > enough and powerful enough to work through evolution won't have a > religious problem with evolution. Thus, the statement that a creative > designer designed the earth and all its inhabitants is not inherently > in conflict with the statement that the earth formed from debris in a > disk around the developing sun and all its inhabitants evolved in > processes dictated by natural laws. > > In fact, Behe apparently accepts all evolution from the origin of the > cell onward, a position incompatible with young earth and many ID > views, though he doesn't do a good job of repudiating those views nor > of substantiating his doubts about prebiotic evolution. Ironically, > Darwin made practically the same assertion (first cell supernaturally > created and everything evolved from there) in later editions of the > Origin of Species, since he had no clue how a cell could form > naturally. Behe thus does not disprove Darwin. > > > -- > Dr. David Campbell > 425 Scientific Collections Building > Department of Biological Sciences > Biodiversity and Systematics > University of Alabama, Box 870345 > Tuscaloosa AL 35487-0345 USA > >
Partial index: