quote:

quote:

evolutionist and evangelical Christian Denis O. Lamoureux proposes an approach to origins that moves beyond the 'evolution-versus-creation' debate. Arguing for an intimate relationship between the Book of God's Words and the Book of God's Works, he presents evolutionary creation a position that asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit created the universe and life through an ordained and sustained evolutionary process. This view of origins affirms an evolutionary understanding of the concept of intelligent design and the belief that beauty, complexity, and functionality in nature reflect the mind of God. Lamoureux also challenges the popular Christian assumption that the Holy Spirit revealed scientific and historical facts in the opening chapters of the Bible. He contends that Scripture features an ancient understanding of origins that functions as a vessel to deliver inerrant and infallible messages of faith.
http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Creation-Christian-Approach-Evolution/dp/1556355815

Lamoureux proposes an approach to origins based on nothing more than his own wishful fantasies. What is his evidence? How is his proposal falsifiable?

Intelligent Design was an ill-informed attempt to put lipstick on the creationism pig and call it science. Based on the allegedly inadequate explanation for the development of 1. the bacterium flagellum, 2. human immune system, and 3. the human blood-clotting system. The evolutionary steps of protein production have been verified in all three processes. So, Lamoureux hasn't a clue about Intelligent Design.

As for the reflection of God's mind in the beauty, complexity, and functionality of nature, how does this preacher raise himself to the level of knowing God's mind? Who the fuck appointed him so all-knowing?

And how does he dare to presume that nature is so functional and beautiful when millions of innocents are killed by hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions; when 40% of human pregnancies end in bloody, twisted natural abortions; and when so many untold millions end their days in suffering and anguish brought on by pathogens, parasites, and/or organ dysfunction?

Nature is functional? You've got to be fucking kidding! Nature is deadly. Something like 98% of species that have ever existed have gone extinct.

I should think God would be embarrassed and outraged to have some idiot preacher assign all that horror to His creation.

Puhleezeee!!!

quote:

Depends on what your definition is for "theory." In science a theory is a best fit model of how things work based upon empirical evidence. There is nothing philosophical about it. It is in fact the antithesis of philosophical. Philosophy is speculative. Science is skepticism that calls for empirical evidence. The scientific model is always subject to change and is therefore anything but dogmatic [until the politicians take hold of it.] Not only is Darwinian evolution by natural selection materialist . . . all science is materialist. Your dichotomy between materialism and idealism is a description of ancient Greek thought. That battle has long gone. The prospect of new and challenging evidence is endemic to the scientific enterprise, and unsurprising. Falsification is endemic to science. In fact, it is at the frontiers of new knowledge where the excitement of science lies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

quote:

Depends on what your definition is for "theory." In science a theory is a best fit model of how things work based upon empirical evidence. There is nothing philosophical about it. It is in fact the antithesis of philosophical. Philosophy is speculative. Science is skepticism that calls for empirical evidence. The scientific model is always subject to change and is therefore anything but dogmatic [until the politicians take hold of it.] Not only is Darwinian evolution by natural selection materialist . . . all science is materialist. Your dichotomy between materialism and idealism is a description of ancient Greek thought. That battle has long gone. The prospect of new and challenging evidence is endemic to the scientific enterprise, and unsurprising. Falsification is endemic to science. In fact, it is at the frontiers of new knowledge where the excitement of science lies.

I basically agree with it. Therefore, science does not prove creationists wrong.

quote:

Nut defendin' creationism. Just sayin' da basic notion of God in nature is nut necessa incompatible wit science an' evolution. Da early scientists were all God fearing men.

There is da idea we have da best of all worlds despite sufferin'. Nut sayin' its twue but if 98% of da species have gone extinct they have had ta exist in da first place. Thanx Nature!

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

and eaven bettur if you speeled it 'creatiOnists'.

I thought he was spelling cretins, the plural noun meaning someone who believes in creationism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
You are assuming that anyone who believes in God doesn't believe in evolution. You are wrong about that.

Where did he say that? I'd like to see the quote of him claiming that because this looks to me like yet another example of that well used stereotype: Christians telling lies about atheists.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
There is da idea we have da best of all worlds despite sufferin'. Nut sayin' its twue but if 98% of da species have gone extinct they have had ta exist in da first place. Thanx Nature!

There were god-skeptics among the natural philosophers of antiquity as there are aplenty among modern scientists.

quote:

The best of all possible worlds despite the suffering? How can you compare when you have only a sample of one?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Could you talk me through that because I was just reading Genesis 1:3-2:3 and it seems an awful lot like water and the earth predate the existence of stars which is a pretty massive cosmology fail.

quote:


I just don't see how the book could have gotten things much more wrong, it talks about a flat earth that sits immovable on a pillar.....

quote:

Science does not have to prove creationists wrong. Creationists are quite adept at doing that on their own. The conflict occurs when politicians attempt to install creationism as an alternative to natural selection in high school science classes under the guise of Intelligent Design. This pseudoscience was rejected in a law suite brought by parents against the Dover, Pa school district. Nevertheless. the Discovery Institute continues its nonscience [stealth religious] attack on Darwinism and is having some success in southern states. They promulgate the false notion that there is no concensus amongst evolutionary scientists and that there are significant gaps in the Darwinian model. It all comes down to Bible thumpers trying to sneak god back into the public classroom via the back door. And then people are dismayed that the United States ranks poorly in science education. It is little wonder with such an anti-science counter culture mucking about in the politics of education and when we were treated to the spectacle of nine Republican Primary Presidential canditates disavowing Evolution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

I really do not understand the hysteria. There are known gaps in Darwinian model, why not to discuss it at schools including the creationism?

Well first of all, "creationism" as the term is being used here refers to a view premised upon the claim that the Bible is literally true. That's religion, pure and simple, and arguably bad religion to boot. But with that caveat out of the way, I think the answer to your broader question lies in a statement you made earlier in the thread:

The debate is actually between major philosophy directions: the evolutionists are materialists, the creationists are idealists.

Philosophy isn't science. So the solution doesn't lie in teaching Idealism in science classes. But I do think it merits being made clear to students that the conclusions which many people draw from science are not in themselves scientific. Rather, they reflect a particular philosophical position regarding the ultimate nature of reality.

K.

quote:

The debate is actually between major philosophy directions: the evolutionists are materialists, the creationists are idealists.

Philosophy isn't science. So the solution doesn't lie in teaching Idealism in science classes. But I do think it merits being made clear to students that the conclusions which many people draw from science are not in themselves scientific. Rather, they reflect a particular philosophical position regarding the ultimate nature of reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
You are assuming that anyone who believes in God doesn't believe in evolution. You are wrong about that.

Where did he say that? I'd like to see the quote of him claiming that because this looks to me like yet another example of that well used stereotype: Christians telling lies about atheists.

Saying that proving evolution is proving creationist wrong implys that they don't believe in evolution. Yet many of them do. Therefore he is wrong about that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creationism
cre·a·tion·ism
[kree-ey-shuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis.
3.
the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow
I have a feeling some want to selectively teach particular theories. The science class in my view should teach primarily scientific method, major (prevailing today) theories should be presented with evidence, and the alternatives can be discussed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

quote:

Science does not have to prove creationists wrong. Creationists are quite adept at doing that on their own. The conflict occurs when politicians attempt to install creationism as an alternative to natural selection in high school science classes under the guise of Intelligent Design. This pseudoscience was rejected in a law suite brought by parents against the Dover, Pa school district. Nevertheless. the Discovery Institute continues its nonscience [stealth religious] attack on Darwinism and is having some success in southern states. They promulgate the false notion that there is no concensus amongst evolutionary scientists and that there are significant gaps in the Darwinian model. It all comes down to Bible thumpers trying to sneak god back into the public classroom via the back door. And then people are dismayed that the United States ranks poorly in science education. It is little wonder with such an anti-science counter culture mucking about in the politics of education and when we were treated to the spectacle of nine Republican Primary Presidential canditates disavowing Evolution.

I really do not understand the hysteria. There are known gaps in Darwinian model, why not to discuss it at schools including the creationism? I think standardizing the education process, and Soviet style technocratism are wrong. After all, our goal is (or should be) independently thinking students. There are of course problems with teachers own education and such.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

I really do not understand the hysteria. There are known gaps in Darwinian model, why not to discuss it at schools including the creationism?

Well first of all, "creationism" as the term is being used here refers to a view premised upon the claim that the Bible is literally true. That's religion, pure and simple, and arguably bad religion to boot. But with that caveat out of the way, I think the answer to your broader question lies in a statement you made earlier in the thread:

The debate is actually between major philosophy directions: the evolutionists are materialists, the creationists are idealists.

Philosophy isn't science. So the solution doesn't lie in teaching Idealism in science classes. But I do think it merits being made clear to students that the conclusions which many people draw from science are not in themselves scientific. Rather, they reflect a particular philosophical position regarding the ultimate nature of reality.

K.

So in your view 1 + 1 may not equal 2? It's just philosophy, so all your beliefs are not caved in stone, just your philosophy....and that does not make what you say true....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
So in your view 1 + 1 may not equal 2? It's just philosophy, so all your beliefs are not caved in stone, just your philosophy....and that does not make what you say true....

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
So in your view 1 + 1 may not equal 2? It's just philosophy, so all your beliefs are not caved in stone, just your philosophy....and that does not make what you say true....

1+1 could = 100. depends on the number base you're using.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

and eaven bettur if you speeled it 'creatiOnists'.

I thought he was spelling cretins, the plural noun meaning someone who believes in creationism.

And people wonder why some athiests are painted as close minded bigots

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
So in your view 1 + 1 may not equal 2? It's just philosophy, so all your beliefs are not caved in stone, just your philosophy....and that does not make what you say true....

1+1 could = 100. depends on the number base you're using.

base 2 is the smallest base we can use and it makes 1+1=10.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)