The stages of evolution

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Postby Vega » Sun May 27, 2001 5:00 pm

I'm sorry. This isn't meant to insult anyone. But I find the whole *debate* extremely stupid.<BR><BR>It originates with the fact that physical science wrongfully became part of the church doctrine in the West. That should never have happened. So when people found out the earth was round and there were dinosaurs it was pretty much herecy, because it conflicted with the 'set-in-stone' church doctrines about such things. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-rolleyes.gif"border=0><BR><BR>So.. what was even more sad is that these 'clever' scientists turned the whole thing around and said that if the church is wrong about such simple things it's wrong about everything it teaches. And such other silly nonesence - like if science can't detect or prove something it doesn't exist. Any true scientist will tell you that the tiny spec of knowledge which we have (that we think so great) is swimming in a sea of ignorance of a dozen more questiond for every one answered. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif"border=0><BR><BR>I believe every word the Bible says. I also don't see what the evolution got to to with religious beliefs. God made us. HOW He did it , in the end we don't have to know, it was a great miracle. <BR><BR>ALSO - just because something has been 'explained by science' doesn't mean it's not a miracle. That goes for the rest of Creation and also for the evolution. My faith, and I'm as Conservative and Traditionalist as they come - I'm Orthodox - is not challenged by the fact that we may have animals as distant relatives. Our body is an elaborate machine which can 'bear' our immortal soul - we need to be that complex to make this amazing connection. Also some other silly scientists may mix with their findings the ideology that everything happens by pure accident. To me that's pure nonesence, everything happens for a purpouse in God's providence, anything good can only happen with His help. I think the mystery of owr own creation is deeper and more wonderful than any of us can imagine. They may find as many 'missing links' as they like, but that will never tell us <b>what it was like</b> when the human soul was born in the human body and beheld his Creator with the sight that the human race has lost after the Fall. <BR><BR>And as for Evolution and othr THEORIES - it's a theory, it's definition would change as we get more information - these things aren't set in stone. Now the idea of mutation, rather than the survival of the fittest, is more popular in scientific circles as the more influential factor in the emergence of new species. They may know HOW thingd happen, but they'll never really have the 'scietific' answer to WHY. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR><BR><BR><b>There is no conflict between science and religion</b>, only when one infringes into the sphere of the other (and this is equally perilous when science does it to religion as the opposite)<BR><BR><BR>Vega
User avatar
Vega
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1144
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 5:52 pm
Top

Postby Annael » Sun May 27, 2001 7:22 pm

My gripe is with others forcing thier views on others. It is true that God can create things the way he wants, and the way I think it happened has no relevence as to how it did. It is also true that this theory is being espoused as fact, as one site said, how it happened is a theory, that it did happen is a fact.<BR><BR>In science classrooms across the nation(US), young minds are being filled with the idea that evolution is the real story and anything else is just pretend.<BR><BR>Then evolutionists say that you can't expect them to actually prove that what they are saying is true, you just have to assume it is because they say so.
User avatar
Annael
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 3:54 pm
Top

Postby podge&rog » Sun May 27, 2001 9:25 pm

For a country prepared to take the life of an individual on the basis of burden of proof ( no doubt you find ths practice abhorrent too...at least I hope so), your interpretation of "fact" vs "theory" is laughable. I refer you to my previous posts on the subject as well as those of others less indoctrinated with fanciful stories about spurious, supernatural nonsense.<BR><BR>What started out as an interesting thread has become little more than a pointless circular argument. Thankfully it at least seems clear that there at least a few people capable or rational, reasoned thought.<BR><BR>Feel free to believe as you will, you have every right to do so - even if some of us regard it as little more than a syllogistic bunch of @rse!!<BR><BR>BTW. Don`t bother...I for one am not prepared to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.<BR><BR><BR><BR>
User avatar
podge&rog
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue May 01, 2001 9:12 pm
Top

Postby Annael » Mon May 28, 2001 6:29 am

Just because we have different philosphies on life, doesn't mean yours is superior, just different. I for one don't believe that death is the worst thing that can happen. Fear the one that can kill the soul.<BR><BR>Thank you so much for your post who's main point was to insult me.
User avatar
Annael
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 3:54 pm
Top

Postby podge&rog » Mon May 28, 2001 11:12 am

I didn`t intend to insult you.. Your argument is fundamentally flawed and you seem intent upon disregarding all the points made earlier by myself and others and base your assumptions upon a collection of stories, fables call them what you will.<BR><BR>You postulate God as cosmic designer. Any designer capable of constructing the dazzling array of living things we see today would have to be intelligent and complex beyond all imagining. And complicated is just another way of saying improbable - and therefore requires explanation. Either your god is capable of designing worlds and all the other things variously attributed to him, and therefore demanding of explanation. Or he is not, in which case he cannot provide an explanation.<BR>
User avatar
podge&rog
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue May 01, 2001 9:12 pm
Top

Postby Vega » Mon May 28, 2001 12:21 pm

Why would HE need to give anyone an explanation? What a strange idea. Why are WE so eager to have everything explained away. Is is because it gives us the illusion of having power and control over things? Does it make us feel safer? Knowlege and wisdom are two different things - we may lust for one, but we eternally lack the other.<BR><BR>You see it is in the nature of freedom and free will that there will never be complete proof one way or the other. Anyway proof is often not something objective the same bunch of *facts* can have different meaning and implications. <BR><BR>One person says - 'An angel appeared to me', the second says -'you've had a halusination'.<BR><BR>The second may say - 'I've found proof that love is a bunch of hormones', and the first may say - 'what you're talking about isn't love'. Or - 'I've found out that we got here by evolution, therefore Bible is a myth and there is proof there is no God', and he may be answered 'You are speaking of hypothesis which are not relevant to my salvation'. <BR><BR>We as humans tend to have a two-dimentional attitude to reality, which means most of the time Reality for us is what we think it is as opposed to what it IS. In the end the only reliable information comes from experience - the little choices we make and what they lead to, all determined bywhat we Want in the End. The problem is that a lot of us don't really know, and it's pretty much trial and error. God happens to know us, what we want and what makes us happy a LOT better than we do - nothing is hidden from Him. The problem always really lies in the fact that we always think WE know better.<BR><BR><BR>Vega
User avatar
Vega
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1144
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 5:52 pm
Top

Postby JRRTfanatic » Mon May 28, 2001 12:26 pm

Annael - I like the way you think - up to a point. Your questioning of evolution is admirable - questioning is what science is based on. I ove the way that you won't be shouted down. I like the way that you want to suggest an alternative view of the way life came about on Earth. But you get half way there and don't seem to be able to go that further step. You consistently fail to offer up any evidence that disproves Evolution as a theory (it is just a theory, and can therefore be disproven given the right evidence). Until you offer up such evidence I can't see why your claim that Evolution should not be taught in schools can be realistic. Your concept is sound (and one that I like), but you do yourself a disservice by not offering your own evidence - you make yourself look unreasonable, when I don't think this is the case. Anyone can dismiss evidence, and point out the holes in it, but that in itself proves nothing. You have to give your side of the story, AND back it up with evidence.
User avatar
JRRTfanatic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 841
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:47 am
Top

Postby Beleg » Mon May 28, 2001 1:20 pm

JRTfanatic, I don't doubt that Annael can well speak for himself, but perhaps it is helpful for another someone to say that his own impression is that Annael has objected to evolution being taught as the only credible theory, indeed that it is more than theory, it is Truth. Teaching that which is credible should always be pursued in the Academy, IMHO, and evolution is certainly credible. What it is not is certain, and therefore should always be taught on that premise. I can assert that school districts in my own area teach the subject as Gospel and it is for this approach that I have home-schooled my own children (and I have taught them the theory of evolution). I am not convinced that undirected evolution suffices as an explanation of the variation in species we can observe. That is because I do not accept that order spontaneously arises from chaos. If order does arise spontaneously, then that order was implicit in the prior chaos and evolutionary theorists are put to the test of explaining what that prior implicit order was, why it existed and how chaos was so ordered that explicit order arose from it.<BR><BR>At least, this is the substance I take from Annael's argument and I have seen no defender of evolution state what doctrine of evolution either answers the question or rebuts it as being either irrelevant or unnecessary. So the objection stands and the origin of life is still unexplained, at least by the standards of undirected evolution. The theory of directed evolution is now being built. It is nowhere complete nor more than intelligent speculation at this point. No Churchman is required to believe it (but then, no Churchman is required to believe or disbelieve evolution either). However, the possibility of rejoining creationism with evolution appears to lie in some conjunction growing out of the researches in this area and so it is to this kind of thinking that my attention is currently turned. I will await more acute thinkers' investigations and results before I consider whether this promise can be bourne out in the sequel. I would suggest that this is a properly sceptical and reasonable position for anyone to take, but if folk wish still to be partisan in this arena of conversation, then we will rehash the arguments advanced already (and well-done here in this thread) with which no one really dissents and which have limned mainly the limitations on current knowledge without resolving the conflicts imposed by insisting on pure undirected evolution on the one hand and pure creationism on the other.
User avatar
Beleg
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3905
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 1999 8:28 am
Top

Postby Annael » Mon May 28, 2001 1:23 pm

Thank you fanatic.<BR><BR>One problem with what you are wanting is that there is no absolut proof either way. Another problem is that I would have to demonstrate why I believe the God of Abraham exists. Once again, there is no definative proof, but there is evidence. This evidence is much like the evolutionist's evidence, interesting, but not conclusive. If you cannot see God's proof of His existance, the world, why would you believe man's?<BR><BR>As far as dinoes go, I have seen a picture with a dinosaur print with a human print inside of it. This would lead people to believe that people and dinoes existed at the same time. From what I understand, this is not the way it is supposed to be.<BR><BR>It is futile to try to force my views on others. I was just trying to point out that evolution is not one of the more essential parts of biology and that it is not as unquestionable as many make it out to be.<BR><BR>I will do some research and post some Christian evidences. If it can be shown that God could exist, then it can be shown that Biblecal account of Creation could have happened.
User avatar
Annael
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 3:54 pm
Top

Postby Vega » Mon May 28, 2001 3:22 pm

>>> pure creationism on the other. <<<<BR><BR>I still don't understand what the problem is, what would be impure creationism? <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif"border=0> <BR><BR>You know, in soviet union the 'scientific' agruments agaist religion, against the existense of God more correctly, were even more militant and blatant. Orthodox Church was made into a scapegoat for for every misfortune and practically annihilated. Of course Russia IS a special case, but the thinking of the ideological attack is similar to here. It all stems from the 'Enlightnment' thought, which itself had historical causes. Now, reaping it's results we are indeed morally free to be limitlessly selfish, free from the best hopes and aspirations and longings that we could ever had. We believe in progress, we trust in our own puny wisdom and give in to our cheap lusts. <BR><BR>Our minds are too small to comprehend so many things we have a limited imagination and little faith. We don't even suspect owr own full potential, and without God we will never realise it. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR><BR>As for Evolution - as long as it stays in the sphere if science and not ideology or religion, I don't have a problem with it. If we did evolve as the theory says - we underwent a most increadible change in a VERY SHORT amount of time. Science will never have all the answers, and if it pretends it does - there is something terribly wrong. <BR><BR>The attitude 'There is a scientific, rational explanation for everything', is only adopted by people who like to think that 'everything is under control'. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-rolleyes.gif"border=0><BR><BR><BR>Vega <BR><BR>p.s. EVERYONE believes in <i>something</i><img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0>
User avatar
Vega
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1144
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 5:52 pm
Top

Postby runes » Mon May 28, 2001 3:26 pm

here's where my self-elected mod duties come in...i kinda lost track of the topic after my questions were answered, so i just wanna say, i don't want any flaming going on!
User avatar
runes
Mariner
 
Posts: 5509
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2000 12:00 am
Top

Postby Gargoyle » Mon May 28, 2001 10:20 pm

I would just like it to be noted that I have actually for once stayed out of an Evolution thread and haven't responded to rebuke any of the wonky cliches tossed out like the "overlapping footprints" or "never took a physical chemistry class in my life but claim to know what entropy is about".<BR><BR>Pretty proud of myself. Now I'm going back to see if there are any new Buffy the Vamp Slayer threads posted...
User avatar
Gargoyle
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 851
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 1999 1:00 am
Top

Postby Falkeep » Mon May 28, 2001 10:57 pm

Runes wrote:<BR><BR>"<i>here's where my self-elected mod duties come in...i kinda lost track of the topic after my questions were answered, so i just wanna say, i don't want any flaming going on!</i><BR><BR>Aren't shutting the barn doors after the horses have already esacaped? And anyway, this was nothing... you should see what went back and forth in Kel's "Bterayal" thread. We had some SERIOUS flaming going on in there.
User avatar
Falkeep
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:32 pm
Location: College Station, Texas
Top

Postby Pestilence » Tue May 29, 2001 3:20 am

LOL, Gargoyle <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0><img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0><BR><BR>My personnal favourite is that old chestnut: 'Grand Canyon formed during the great flood!!!!'
User avatar
Pestilence
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2000 9:10 am
Top

Postby podge&rog » Wed May 30, 2001 6:25 pm

No science doesn`t know everything, but that doesn`t mean yhat it knows nothing.<BR><BR>BTW. If evolution doesn`t happen and natural slection is just a theory perhaps you`d care to explain the necessity for sex?<BR><BR><BR>Evolution not an importat part of biology. Laughed, I thought I`d never start.
User avatar
podge&rog
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue May 01, 2001 9:12 pm
Top

Postby Fatty_Bolger » Fri Jun 01, 2001 3:41 pm

Sex was created by the devil, of course, to make humans sin.<BR>Adam and Eva didn't have sex before the Fall. Normally, they would've lived eternally, both of them, together, the only 2 humans.<BR>
User avatar
Fatty_Bolger
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1543
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2000 3:15 pm
Top

Postby Jester_RM » Fri Jun 01, 2001 3:49 pm

So, "be fruitful and multiply" refers to Adam and Eve doing their math homework?
User avatar
Jester_RM
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1765
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 3:56 pm
Location: Central Oregon
Top

Postby Annael » Fri Jun 01, 2001 4:47 pm

God said that one of Eve's punishments was that child birth would be painful. God did not say that now she would have to give birth. Evidently they were to have children and die before eating the fruit. There was a tree of life, and that one Adam and Eve did not eat of it. <BR><BR>Even before the curse, Adam and Eve were not immortal. It might be nice, that if you are going to make biblical comments to read the Bible first.
User avatar
Annael
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 3:54 pm
Top

Postby Gargoyle » Fri Jun 01, 2001 4:49 pm

While licking the apple juice off of his fingers Adam exclaims, "Oh, I get it! It wasn't 'be fruit full...' " <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0>
User avatar
Gargoyle
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 851
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 1999 1:00 am
Top

Postby runes » Fri Jun 01, 2001 5:25 pm

childbirth is painful because there is a baby coming out of you.
User avatar
runes
Mariner
 
Posts: 5509
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2000 12:00 am
Top

Postby Annael » Fri Jun 01, 2001 6:12 pm

Very observant runes.<BR><BR>Once again, I ask that people actually read a scripture before they try to use it, Gargoyle.<BR><BR>Telling jokes based on other's religious beliefs, reflects poorly on the individual doing it.
User avatar
Annael
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 3:54 pm
Top

Postby Gargoyle » Fri Jun 01, 2001 6:41 pm

<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-rolleyes.gif"border=0> Sheesh, tough room.<BR><BR>I find that those not able to joke and laugh at themselves and their beliefs are ultimately insecure in said beliefs...<BR><BR>Feel free to make all of the Darwin jokes you please, it won't offend...
User avatar
Gargoyle
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 851
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 1999 1:00 am
Top

Postby Annael » Fri Jun 01, 2001 7:14 pm

To answer the question for the need for sex outside evolution,<BR><BR>Perhaps it's so that the human race will continue to exist after the first generation dies out. In case you haven't noticed, people are not immortal!
User avatar
Annael
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 3:54 pm
Top

Postby podge&rog » Fri Jun 01, 2001 9:42 pm

Absolutely first class, a deeply profound response to my inquiry. However, I was referring to the presence of sexual reproduction within whole manifest diversity of life, not just human reprodction, but by contrast to asexual reproduction.<BR><BR>Perhaps your immediate focus onto sex in the perjorative sense, says more about your mind set than mine, maybe not. - A salient point, not a cheap jibe.<BR><BR>What explanation would you feel best explains its presence. Given that God in his infinite wisdom (no disrespect intended.), might not have forseen the unfortunate incident in Eden, but have prevented the problem ever arising.<BR>Surely parthogenetic humans (+ others) would not be beyond his skill. Why all the messing around finding a mate, not to mention PMT and the messy business of sex.<BR><BR><BR>Might I also make a plea for something more concrete than "well he`s God...QED". <BR><BR>Contrary to what you may have inferred I do not hold your beliefs in contempt. Darwins ideas are probably as fundamental to my world view as your faith in Christ is to you. Therefore allow me the same vehement determination to defend my side of the argument as you have, eloquently, yours.<BR><BR>If I have had cause to make you feel otherwise, I apologise. I would like to contiue this debate and hope that any further instances of "flaming", be taken as nothing more than a little misplaced dedication to the cause.<BR><BR><BR>Again, may I say, nothing of the above is intened to be inflammatory, patronising or disparaging.
User avatar
podge&rog
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue May 01, 2001 9:12 pm
Top

Postby Annael » Fri Jun 01, 2001 10:33 pm

Why would parthenogenetic reproduction not also create mutations the same way as reproduction using opposite sexes?<BR><BR>I must admit that I am no biologist. I had to look up the term parthenogenesis in the stinkin dictionary. I thought that the mutations occured in the gametes themselves. I would think that in parthenogentic reproduction, some sort of replication of the parental genes would have to take place. Wouldn't the mutation take place during that reproduction?<BR><BR>If mutations do occur, and the mutated life is viable, then that exact mutation can reproduce itself. If what I am saying is true, then the reproduction you are talking about would more readily create the world you ascribe to.<BR><BR>Why God chose sexual reproduction? Perhaps its because he preferse diversity. The offspring are a mixture of the two parents, different, but also the same. Perhaps he had in mind the Man and Wife as the basic unit for a family and for life. To make both a Man and Woman necessary, he gave each 1/2 the key to life. Neither can do it on his/her own, only together can they produce life. Only together can they create a family.(The family the way God intended it, many things in this world are not as God intended it. Can you blame him for giving people the choice not to follow his will? If people really have that choice, then surely some would not be doing things the way He intended it)
User avatar
Annael
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 3:54 pm
Top

Postby Kelannar » Fri Jun 01, 2001 11:26 pm

A quick scan of this thread prompted me to an insightful thought:<BR><BR>Has anyone actually read Darwin's book, "The Origin of Species"? Actually, that's not the complete title. The complete title is something like "the origin of the species and the differentiation of the races," or something like that. That's right - the RACES. Darwin was an unabashed racist. His book was used to argue that blacks, asians, etc, were genetically inferior. It was used that way because Darwin argued it himself. Words like "negroid" are quite common in his book.<BR><BR>Anyway, this is just an oberservation. Do those who claim to hold Darwin's ideas as "fundamental" really believe it all? How far is one willing to go in accepting evolution? Will one REALLY rule out the question, perfectly scientific in the ABSTRACT, that certain isolated peoples like the Australian aboriginies, are less "evolved"? Or more evolved? etc...<BR>
User avatar
Kelannar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2000 9:30 pm
Top

Postby Sauron_the_Maia » Sat Jun 02, 2001 2:38 am

I cleave to the Theory of Evolution, Kellanar; and yes, while Darwin's book was indeed what got the ball rolling in the nineteenth century, I hardly think the purported racism of the book's author could be used in any way so as to discredit evolutionary thought as it stands in the year 2001. Indeed, the majority of Americans and Europeans who lived 150 years ago harbored at least some degree of racist attitudes.<BR><BR>Right. So, what's your point? I take it you're in the Creationist camp. Well, I've got some tricks up my sleeve, and this whole debate shall be reopened soon enough once I get the gumption to gather the latest information existing in my references.
User avatar
Sauron_the_Maia
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon May 07, 2001 9:09 pm
Top

Postby Sebastianthepox » Sat Jun 02, 2001 3:57 am

Yep, Kel, sure have. And Darwin's treatise on earthworms. And the Bible (I used to teach a course in Bible study). And the Koran (or Q'r'n, if you prefer) in English translation. And a large number of Buddhist texts. Ditto Hindu texts. And a wide variety of creation myths including some from the Oz Aborigines, NZ Maoris, Pacific islanders, ancient Greeks, Sumerians, Egyptians, Etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum. But so what?<BR><BR>The difference between the religious view and the evolutionists' view is that you can actually hypothesise about life and forms of life from an evolutionary viewpoint and expect to have those hypotheses either confirmed or rejected. A religious view of creation doesn't permit this. The term "creation science" is thus a conflict of terms because the very foundation of science is that all knowledge is provisional. A scientific "fact" is accepted as long and only as long as it is useful. It can be retained or replaced or discarded or applied in circumscribed circumstances only. An example is Newtonian physics; it is still used where it is a good approximation (e.g. space travel), but everyone recognises that it has been subsumed into a larger framework provided by Einsteinian relativistic physics. (And yes, I recognise that relativistic physics has not yet been fully reconciled with quantum physics. But at least people can work toward this without being burnt at the stake.) How can "Creation Science" move forward in this way? If everything was created once and for all and for a particular purpose, what else can be said about it?<BR><BR>On second thoughts, don't bother responding to this post. I probably won't be back to this thread. It is totally off topic as far as LOTR is concerned.<BR><BR>PS. The OZ aborigines, like all the rest of us, are neither more evolved or less evolved because their isolation has never been absolute. There has been a flow of genes into (and out of) Oz ever since its first settlement by humans. On-going external contact is evidenced by the introduction of the dingo 4,000 years ago. Now, I'll admit that the Tasmanian Aborigines lived in close to absolute isolation since the flooding of what is now called Bass Strait perhaps 12,000 years ago. But this is an insufficient period for any large, long-lived animal (i.e.humans) to evolve enough to constitute a separate species. (And there is a viewpoint that suggests the Tas. Aborigines were in decline anyway, because their numbers were so few that their continued existance as a viable breeding population was marginal.) Lots of animals have races, e.g. the Oz magpie, but this is of no significance in terms of values.
User avatar
Sebastianthepox
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2001 6:17 pm
Top

Postby Beleg » Sat Jun 02, 2001 8:02 am

Podge&rog: are you saying that you do not believe in God because He did not create the world you want Him to have done? Hmmm, so you assume He exists, look at the results, decide you don't like him and thus decide He doesn't exist after all. Perfectly normal reductio ad absurdum, except that your analysis would have to be complete in order to be a valid reductio, wouldn't it?<BR><BR>How do you know that this is not in fact the best of all possible Universes? How do you know that a world where everyone is precisely happy at all points is even possible, or if possible, better than what we have? I don't think you can know, except as a thought experiment. Perhaps others have had this thought and have set up little Utopias to test whether or not humans can create what God chose not to. In each and every case, they failed, even when supported from outside, which strictly speaking is cheating. If the experiment is to be valid, it will have to work from within its own assumptions and on its own speed. It would also be cheating to change the outside influences in order to cause the experiment to fail. Only detailed analysis of the various attempts could show this and the proof would be distressingly material. I say distressingly because the whole point of the experiments was to show that material realities are not sovereign and need not be contended with. People operating solely from a changed worldview could accomplish the transformation.<BR><BR>Well, they can't and it is not for lack of trying. America itself is current the laboratory experiment in seeing whether an ordered society can long exist entirely dispensing with foundational axioms, but as a constantly integrated (in the mathematical sense) function. On the evidence, this appears to be just a larger version of the same chimera prior Utopians were pursuing, and all out of an inability to handle authority. That is what I believe is the real source of refusal to accept God. It makes most people morally unfit to be soldiers: they simply can't take orders because they insist on stopping to fully analyze every order. As if everyone was a general and there were no privates. You do see the stupidity of that approach, if it's put in such a bald fashion, yes?<BR><BR>Evolution is taught today as a blind operation which needs no direction, but will occur naturally. I said above that I deny that order arises spontaneously from chaos. I need no further argument to deny evolution as it is currently taught, but to be useful, the premise I state here needs to be included: If evolution is a useful model for how life develops, and if evolution has operated in a rational way (it has), then it follows that evolution is the plan playing out in Time as designed by Someone. You can now have useful arguments about what kind of Someone is required in order for such a Plan to work, and you can also have useful arguments about what kind of Plan is in operation and perhaps where that Plan is now headed. That would be the scientific way of approaching the whole issue, yes?<BR><BR>I have a ten-volume set of works by an Anglican priest on Dogmatic Theology. It was written between 1905 and 1925. Don't be put off by the word 'dogmatic'. It only means that the theology under discussion is about the data of the Catholic religion. There is also Pastoral Theology, for instance, which deals with how bishops, priests and deacons should apply the day to day business of being ministers in the Catholic religion. It is also secondary to the fundamental data of Dogmatic Theology, which must be prior: you must know what you're talking about before you go about the business of talking about it, if you want to end up making any sense.<BR><BR>This set of works I refer to has extended references to evolution, which was then quite the rage and in its earliest development. Herbert Spenser is more often referred to than Darwin, as it happens, but the citations to evolutionary works are legion throughout the books. This is because the theory has much to recommend it as an explanation of how life appears to work. In no place did Fr. Hall (the author) ever say that evolution was false on its face. He argued that evolution fills in the blank left by the Bible as to how God created the world. There is nothing in the full theory of evolution that requires that the system it describes be uncreated or undirected, at least as Fr. Hall sees it (and as I see it). That is simply a Naturalistic premise, assumed from the first and imposed on the rest of the system. <BR><BR>Now, if you want to pursue the Naturalistic hypothesis, go ahead. I think that in the end this will prove a dead end for analysis because it will not logically impose order on the system that is evolution. There will be no philosophical underpinning for the orderly facts that evolution exhibits and thus later generations are going to notice this. This lack, of which evolutionists are still so oblivious, has had emotional freight for scientists in the field for reasons of which the urge to hypothesize evolutionally is only a part and it is not at all clear that later generations will operate under the same degree of blinkeredness. They will have no emotional baggage to defend, so they won't defend it.<BR><BR>I say this: the Catholic religion has stood for 2,000 years, in the face of repeated and deeply thought out attacks on it, philosophically, theologically and just plain meanly. It is Catholic doctrine that the Holy Spirit inheres in His Church and that this is why the Church has stood. Well, I also say that it is the Truth that the Church exhibits, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, which has repelled these attacks and is why people rightly turn to Mother Church sooner or later. The Truth is there, that fundamental Truth that underpins all other truths and against which all other truths must be measured. Certainly, people can cite stupidities that Churchmen have committed over the ages. One can cite the experience of Galileo and such. It was pointed out above that the Church spoke outside her authority and competence to say this or that scientific theory is or is not correct. The Church is not licensed to speak on such matters as being beneath her notice and commission and when she so spoke, she erred. This does not impeach her authority to speak on matters of faith, about which she has never been wrong and about which she will never be wrong. It is a calumny to apply past errors of this type to current Churchmen and I suspect that the motive is to impeach any Churchman from ever presenting an opinion or casting an hypothesis about evolution and thus rule out any input that does not proceed from a Naturalist philosophy. That again is bigotry and false conservatism.<BR><BR>I do not know the exact answer to how the controversy between evolution and creationism will work out, but I firmly believe that the answer is a conjoining of the two. I firmly believe that evolution is subsidiary to creation and a consequence of creation and that a proper theory of evolution will have to contend with the rational facts in all respects, not just the ones that are convenient to a Naturalist doctrine. That is a needlessly narrow conception of the data and one which impedes students from fully understanding, accepting and building on the data for the betterment of mankind.
User avatar
Beleg
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3905
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 1999 8:28 am
Top

Postby runes » Sat Jun 02, 2001 10:04 am

i think it's a pretty unfair statement to say that things that feel good -ala SEX are bad and made by the 'devil'.<BR><BR>That is one of my problems, it's like God is just trying to piss us all off.<BR><BR>2 people do something wrong, and they screw the rest of the world for hundreds of years. Something feels really good, but we are sinners. Sounds like a pretty malicious thing to do.
User avatar
runes
Mariner
 
Posts: 5509
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2000 12:00 am
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests