tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129176969483931917.post7310083647670297209..comments2023-03-27T15:05:54.887-05:00Comments on Disevangelists: Review of Julian Huxley and the Idolatry of EvolutionFizlowskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11416466217590061369noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129176969483931917.post-12458918416449748992009-02-05T21:14:00.000-06:002009-02-05T21:14:00.000-06:00Philosobot, I would agree 100% in giving creation ...Philosobot, I would agree 100% in giving creation the description of a story. I can understand the argument of calling it the Theory of Creation as well because "theory" can be used in many different ways. Either way its just a label and I really couldn't care much less what its refered to as.<BR/><BR/>Scriptulicious, "creation in the Biblical sense" to me means God created all. I don't agree that issues of modern day science would require an over extension of the Bible.<BR/><BR/>There are multiple accounts (stories) of creation in the Bible. I never understood why the majority of Christians are so hung up on the first account. I believe they are both accurate but I don't believe that God had to have created the world in six days as we define days.Zeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04359591881376157621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129176969483931917.post-55072066224290043112009-02-05T15:04:00.000-06:002009-02-05T15:04:00.000-06:00Hello Zee,Some of the difficulties with "creation ...Hello Zee,<BR/><BR/>Some of the difficulties with "creation in a Biblical sense" is how difficult it is to pin down a biblical creation model. There are dozens of "creation models" just in the Evangelical church. Honestly, the majority of them fail in the realm of exegesis in that they attempt to address questions of science with the biblical text. As I am sure you agree, it is an over extension of the biblical texts to attempt to burden them with issues of modern science. And should the Young-Earth Creationists be right that their creation model is correct (as literalistic as it is), there is no doubt, then, that the Bible is a failed science. Fortunately, there are approaches to scripture and science that are intellectually light-years ahead of Young-Earth antics. <BR/><BR/>What would you consider "creation in a Biblical sense?" I put this in quotes because this term has such a large and open-ended potential for definition. I have a few ideas on how to answer this question, and I must admit that I find it an extremely intelligent question considering what you know about science. First, though, if you would, explain a bit more about "creation in a Biblical sense."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129176969483931917.post-25577421762996478822009-02-05T15:03:00.000-06:002009-02-05T15:03:00.000-06:00I consider the Biblical account of creation a stor...I consider the Biblical account of creation a story which may or may not have some metaphorical meaning (depending on whether or not you believe in God). But it fails as a scientific hypothesis because a)it adds a supernatural cause, and science can only speak of natural causes, and b) it cannot be falsified. If you find evidence that falsifies creationism, the proponents of creationism would add an ad hoc explanation for the observed evidence. <BR/><BR/>An example of this unfalsifiability happens when you talk about light reaching earth from a distant galaxy, megaparsecs away from earth. If God created the universe 4000 years ago, where (and when) did this million-year-old light come from? Instead of accepting the falsification, the creationist would add another unfalsifiable qualifier like "the speed of light has slowed down over the years".<BR/><BR/>Conversely, evolution could be falsified. For instance, the discovery of a human fossil in pre-cambrian rock would be extremely problematic for theory of evolution.Fizlowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11416466217590061369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129176969483931917.post-19182107897518072572009-02-05T14:16:00.000-06:002009-02-05T14:16:00.000-06:00Would you consider creation in a Biblical sense as...Would you consider creation in a Biblical sense as a hypothesis or theory or something else?Zeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04359591881376157621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129176969483931917.post-76251771677966874662009-02-05T14:06:00.000-06:002009-02-05T14:06:00.000-06:00Zee: Yes, I think we are on the same page. Perhap...Zee: Yes, I think we are on the same page. Perhaps I have a tendency to oversimplify. The application/understanding makes the data useful.<BR/><BR/>So, we can have an observable fact, as when Edwin Hubble discovered a proportionality between the distance of a celestial object and its redshift. But this doesn't mean much to us if not for the theoretical framework of an expanding universe. (I hope I picked a valid example here).<BR/><BR/>~EricFizlowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11416466217590061369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129176969483931917.post-60228897798684750942009-02-05T13:00:00.000-06:002009-02-05T13:00:00.000-06:00According to Wikipedia "A scientific law is a conc...According to Wikipedia "A scientific law is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that is always under the same conditions."<BR/><BR/>The geek in me can't help but find humor in describing Newton's law of gravity as F=mg but your point is still valid. It was originally known as Newton's theory of gravity and since it was changed to Newton's law of gravity it has been superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity. Its now known as an approximation of gravity.<BR/><BR/>I think we are on pretty much the same page as far as laws vs. hypothesis vs. theory. I still don't understand your statement that facts are useless without the conext or context of theory. Am I focusing on the wording too much and you mean that facts are useless without application or understanding?Zeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04359591881376157621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129176969483931917.post-17728901057830099682009-02-05T12:35:00.000-06:002009-02-05T12:35:00.000-06:00I hope I'm phrasing this correctly; where's a scie...I hope I'm phrasing this correctly; where's a scientist when you need one? Scientific law connotes an almost mathematical truth about the subject, like Newton's law of gravity, F=mg.<BR/><BR/>I would equate speculation with hypothesis, not theory. One gathers facts or data or observations and then invents a hypothesis to account for them. Different hypotheses will account for those facts/data/observations differently. Although a hypothesis can never be verified, it must be constructed in a way that it could conceivably be falsified. So, a theory is a hypothesis that, over time, has consistently withstood attempts to falsify it. We can't call the theory a law, but we can speak with some confidence regarding it accuracy.<BR/><BR/>"Conext"... I like it.<BR/><BR/>~EricFizlowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11416466217590061369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129176969483931917.post-84291827477024790872009-02-05T11:47:00.000-06:002009-02-05T11:47:00.000-06:00conext is the new context... all the kids are sayi...conext is the new context... all the kids are saying it these days.Zeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04359591881376157621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129176969483931917.post-39538864328455111622009-02-05T11:46:00.000-06:002009-02-05T11:46:00.000-06:00I don't think arriving at a theory is the goal of ...I don't think arriving at a theory is the goal of science. The goal is to arrive at a law and a theory is a step towards the discovery of law of science.<BR/><BR/>You said, "Facts are quite useless unless they are understood within the context of a theory." My understanding of a theory is that it is a contemplation or speculation. It may be accurate it might not be accurate. Facts are things that actually exist and are reality. I can't seem to put the pieces together to understand your statement that facts are useless without the conext of theory.Zeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04359591881376157621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129176969483931917.post-22659798855640300572009-02-05T11:10:00.000-06:002009-02-05T11:10:00.000-06:00While evolution is a theory, I object to its dismi...While evolution is a theory, I object to its dismissal by fundies as "just a theory", and "not a fact". There is no point in the scientific method at which a theory is elevated to fact. Facts are quite useless unless they are understood within the context of a theory. So, arriving at a theory is the goal of science, not arriving at a fact. And we know a theory is a good one if it accounts for more facts than a competing theory. In the case of evolution by natural selection, no competing theory has *ever* been proffered that accounts for more facts. But, if a theory ever came along that did account for more of the facts, we would cheerfully abandon evolution and go with the new theory instead. We certainly wouldn't accuse the makers of the new theory with charges of heresy. So, the whole "evolution=idolatry" thing is garbage.Fizlowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11416466217590061369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129176969483931917.post-80421298682439771652009-02-05T10:39:00.000-06:002009-02-05T10:39:00.000-06:00There are many gaps in the theory of evolution. I'...There are many gaps in the theory of evolution. I'm not saying that in terms of claiming its false but more that there is still a lot to be discovered. There are also many more gaps in my personal understanding of evolution. I just don't care enough to educate myself deeply in it.<BR/><BR/>Micro evolution and macro evolution are extremely different subjects. The "survivial of the fittest" can be easily applied to micro evolution. Its harder to logically apply to macro evolution in my mind. Did fish grow legs to survive? Doubtful. Did a genetic mutation allowing fish to walk on land happen give them an advantage to get away from preditors? That seems logical to me.<BR/><BR/>Claiming something is idolatry is just an easy way for a Christian to try to put someone down. In most cases its on the same maturity level as, "I know you are but what am I?" and "Better a millstone...".Zeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04359591881376157621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129176969483931917.post-78666123413527826492009-02-05T10:14:00.000-06:002009-02-05T10:14:00.000-06:00Hello Zee,You state that evolution "is a side prod...Hello Zee,<BR/><BR/>You state that evolution "is a side product of a goal which is survival." Feel free to repeat that load and clear for others to read. This is such an important point. It is the extension of survival pressures that leads to reproductive differentials...and this leads to the preservation of favorable genetic mutations...etc. The growth of a lion from cub to lioness as explained by natural mechanics is not idolatry, but it is the same mechanics that on a macro scale lead to evolution. It is odd how the creationist will gladly accept dysteleological growth in the lioness but not on a macro scale. It is overly partial to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129176969483931917.post-88037900376663714002009-02-05T10:03:00.000-06:002009-02-05T10:03:00.000-06:00I think I'm with you on this one. I don't see how...I think I'm with you on this one. I don't see how evolution is idoloty. In terms of a goal for evolution, evolution does not have a goal but it is a side product of a goal which is survivial.Zeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04359591881376157621noreply@blogger.com