War, or peace with science and Christians?

[~candice~]

So....are you a believer in I.D. or the TOE? I seriously can't tell by reading your posts. And welcome back to Worthy, btw.

Welcome back?

[Believer112]

I believe in normal science. I'm opposed to origin science. Man has always wondered about his origin. Bible believing Christians believe God as their creator. What alternative does a non believer have? A non believer (Darwin) would have to look into areas that are anti God.

The belief system behind evolution

Despite what many evolutionists claim, creationists are not the only ones whose belief systems affect their interpretation of the data. Rather, both sides are biased. While the Lerner report pretends that evolution is not 'anti-religious', it is important to realize that the leaders of evolutionary thought were and are ardently opposed to the notion of the Christian God as revealed in the Bible see A Who's Who of evolutionists and How Religiously Neutral are the Anti-Creationist Organisations? Stephen Jay Gould and others have shown that Darwin's purpose in promoting evolution was to find an alternative to the idea of a divine designer see Darwin's real message: Have you missed it? Richard Dawkins applauds evolution because he claims that before Darwin it was impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, as he says he is.⁶ This quote by the atheistic evolutionary geneticist Richard Lewontin of Harvard is very revealing about his a priori commitment to materialism, regardless of whether the facts support it! Kansas State University immunologist Scott Todd asserted:

'Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.'

7

That is, never mind the facts nature is all there is. Naturalism is king! So the opposition to creation has nothing to do with the facts, but with the fact that creationists refuse to play by the self-serving rules of the game formulated by materialists. This contrasts with what most people might think, e.g. double Noble laureate Linus Pauling: 'Science is the search for the truth.'

So how do Lerner et al. try to get around the charge that evolution is really pushing the religion of humanism? After all, the first two tenets of the Humanist Manifesto II (1973), signed by many prominent evolutionists, are:

1. Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
2. Humanism believes that Man is a part of nature and has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

The current version, Humanist Manifesto 2000, was signed by the prominent evolutionary propagandists Richard Dawkins, E.O. Wilson, Richard Leakey, Molleen Matsumara and Daniel Dennett. The answer is in the next section.

http://creation.com/...wrence-s-lerner

Edited December 29, 2010 by Believer112

[MorningGlory]

Welcome back?

Yes.

[~candice~]

Welcome back?

Yes.

Uh, I must be short, cause this is flying over my head. What was the previous username? He has only just registered.

[Guest JacobLewis]

Laryngeal nerves, exactly. Embarrassingly, this is not the first time I confused these two terms.

Science does not exclude miracles on principle, miracles simply have not been observed under scientific conditions. I see no reason to believe that they occur based on ancient texts (not to say that I suspect that all ancient texts are inaccurate, only the ones that oppose my understanding of the universe). In fact, if the laws could be suspended they would cease to be laws.

As for our jaw myosin gene, I say that it is corrupted not because it is missing a base, but because the mutation that it underwent in humans was deleterious to the actual muscle. It's really a mute point, the truth is it adapted and was passed on because a weaker jaw muscle was beneficial, but it is missing a base, some of the nucleotides have no matching counterparts on the double helix.

While I resent the acronym TOE (being facetious) I am a firm believer in Darwinian evolution, and to be more specific, of a more Dawkinese persuasion, which is to say that i do not agree with the proposals of Gould regarding punctuated equilibrium.

As for how the anatomical structure of the eye and the path of the laryngeal nerve discredit intelligent design (either the psuedo-science or the biblical creation account):

The human eye is built inside out causing the mind to do a large amount of what would otherwise be unnecessary work to render the photons that do make it onto it's rods and cones into a true perception of the physical world.

One of two laryngeal nerves in mammals leaves the brain, takes an unnecessary detour into the chest where it makes a u-turn and heads back to the larynx. In giraffes this detour takes the nerve up to 15 feet out of the way for no good reason, at least not until you examine the evidence for evolution that clearly explains how this came to be.

I was originally vague so that anyone truly curious could research it themselves, but my blunder in identifying the correct nerve would have hindered the research. You should look up the details though, its fairly fascinating. Dawkins wrote on both of them in length in his most recent book "The Greatest Show on Earth", in which he also points out that an engineer would do far better at arranging the millions of veins, arteries and nerves etc that crisscross and tangle through the human body. I find no fault in this logic.

[Guest JacobLewis]

I forgot, i was also confused by the 'welcome back'. ???

[Guest JacobLewis]

Science does not exclude anything based on man's ability to control it. It is the purpose of science to not exclude any concept on principle. As I stated miracles are excluded from science because they cannot be observed and verified.

The point in using the term "corrupted" is to illustrate that the genes were mutated through a deletion to make them weaker. I don't believe a divine engineer would have used this method, rather than creating a distinct DNA strand that creates weaker myosin without a missing base.

And as i stated I was kidding about the acronym, you should really relax a bit, you seem a little uptight.

I am familiar with cyt-c. Recent interesting developments in molecular genetics involve sperm producing boule and daz genes common in nearly every animal.

I have no desire to quarrel over terminology such as "corrupted". My grasp of genetics seems to suffice in my applications and "corruption" and "mutation" essentially mean the same thing, although "mutation" is probably best in most cases.

[Guest]

Science does not exclude anything based on man's ability to control it. It is the purpose of science to not exclude any concept on principle. As I stated miracles are excluded from science because they cannot be observed and verified.

The point in using the term "corrupted" is to illustrate that the genes were mutated through a deletion to make them weaker. I don't believe a divine engineer would have used this method, rather than creating a distinct DNA strand that creates weaker myosin without a missing base.

And as i stated I was kidding about the acronym, you should really relax a bit, you seem a little uptight.

I am familiar with cyt-c. Recent interesting developments in molecular genetics involve sperm producing boule and daz genes common in nearly every animal.

I have no desire to quarrel over terminology such as "corrupted". My grasp of genetics seems to suffice in my applications and "corruption" and "mutation" essentially mean the same thing, although "mutation" is probably best in most cases.

Dear One

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 1 Corinthians 2:9-11

Your Understanding Of Science

The Presuppositions of Science

One presupposition held by many scientists is that "the scientific method is the sole gateway to the whole region of knowledge" (Pearson, cited by Clark, p. 201). In other words, science allegedly has absolute authority. Science says that truth is discovered empirically, while the Bible says that man can't find ultimate truth on his own (1 Cor. 2:9-11; Rom. 11:33). It is here that one of the fundamental conflicts between science and Scripture is found. Science holds that only that which is observable and testable is true. Christianity holds that ultimate truth is found only in God's revelation.

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller?

Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? Romans 11:33-35

Is Corrupted By The Philosophy Of The Big TOE

The Peril of Scientism

As Christians we accept the facts of science. What we do not accept are the interpretations of those facts offered by some scientists. There is no conflict between the established facts of science and the Bible, though scientists often make unproved assumptions (such as the theory of evolution) that do conflict with Scripture. Although the Bible is written in everyday language and doesn't use modern scientific terminology, that does not mean it is scientifically inaccurate. Indeed, many of the world's greatest scientists have accepted the authority of the Bible, such as Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Lister, Pasteur, Kelvin, and others.

The conflict between science and Scripture comes when science steps outside the realm of that which is observable and reproducible and speculates on origins, values, and destinies. At that point science has ceased to be science and instead become a religious viewpoint, since those things are not subject to observation and experimentation.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

And Although You May Speak Lab Talk You Have Needlessly Mixed In Gibberish

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20

Unless That Is, You Intended To Corrupt Both Science

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20

And Truth

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 2 Peter 3:10

You

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:17-18

See

Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. John 14:1-3

Yet

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:17-18

No?

For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring. Isaiah 44:3

Love, Joe

[nebula]

Laryngeal nerves, exactly. Embarrassingly, this is not the first time I confused these two terms.

<snip>

One of two laryngeal nerves in mammals leaves the brain, takes an unnecessary detour into the chest where it makes a u-turn and heads back to the larynx. In giraffes this detour takes the nerve up to 15 feet out of the way for no good reason, at least not until you examine the evidence for evolution that clearly explains how this came to be.

I was originally vague so that anyone truly curious could research it themselves, but my blunder in identifying the correct nerve would have hindered the research. You should look up the details though, its fairly fascinating. Dawkins wrote on both of them in length in his most recent book "The Greatest Show on Earth", in which he also points out that an engineer would do far better at arranging the millions of veins, arteries and nerves etc that crisscross and tangle through the human body. I find no fault in this logic.

I am familiar with the laryngeal nerve argument.

What I find amusing is how these scientists will see something that makes no sense to them and automatically assume it is imperfect without having first tested to see if their better solution really is better!

Here is an example: the ureters are connected to the bottom of the bladder and not the top. This made no sense to anatomists either. Fortunately, an experiment was done to see what would happen if the ureters actually were attached to the top. What they discovered is that the urine back-flows up the ureters rather than filling up the bladder!

So when I saw Dawkins' presentation on the laryngeal nerve, I began to question his and the others' assumption. In what you read, did they perform an experiment to determine how well the larynx would function had the nerve attached directly to the larynx instead of looping down and back up?

I will tell you this much, the larynx partly functions by being raised and lowered. (You can see this in guys, it is what is called "the Adam's apple".) In case you did not know, the larynx is attached to the trachea (wind pipe). So by the nerve running up the trachea to the larynx, it enables the nerve to move with the raising and the lowering of the larynx. Now, if the laryngeal nerve were to have a more direct attachment, it would be wedged between muscles that constrict and expand to create the movement of the larynx as well as other neck and speech movements. In other words, it might become pinched by the muscles, which would defeat purposes, would it not?

As for how the anatomical structure of the eye and the path of the laryngeal nerve discredit intelligent design (either the psuedo-science or the biblical creation account):

The human eye is built inside out causing the mind to do a large amount of what would otherwise be unnecessary work to render the photons that do make it onto it's rods and cones into a true perception of the physical world.

I saw your explanation on the other thread after I responded on this thread.

I did not understand your explanation, as you claimed the "wires" send light signals back to the lens, and things like that.

There are no neurons attached to the lens.

As for this explanation, I don't get it either.

What do you mean by "inside out"?

The mind does no work until after the action potential is sent through the optic nerve. So what does the build of the eye have to do with the work the mind does?

(not to say that I suspect that all ancient texts are inaccurate, only the ones that oppose my understanding of the universe).

Translation: if I don't get it, it must be wrong?

[Guest]

Muddy Rivers

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

>>>>>()<<<<<

.... (not to say that I suspect that all ancient texts are inaccurate, only the ones that oppose my understanding of the universe)....

Translation: if I don't get it, it must be wrong?

Double

And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: Isaiah 29:11

Blind

And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. Isaiah 29:12

Test

Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Ephesians 4:18

Yes?

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10:13

Yes?

For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring. Isaiah 44:3

~

Praying!