The church has been wrong in the past, for instance, geocentrism. BTW, EVERYONE was wrong about that. It wasn't some looney religious doctrine it was SETTLED SCIENCE. The Stephen Hawkings of the day were certain it was true. And it's possible the church will have to embrace, um, the modern synthesis, at least in part (we'll NEVER have to embrace that it's unguided - see why?). Many already have. Many, including me, embrace the age of the universe. But I know of nothing in science that specifically conflicts with anything in the Bible. Even common descent of man would not disprove that Eve was specially created - you can never show that. There are things that could be shown false but have not - such as history and geography. Augustine struggled all his life to understand Genesis. He switched his interpretation two or three times in his life - not because some scientist was attacking him in the papers, but because some parts of the Bible are just hard to understand. There's nothing wrong in looking at science that is reasonably certain to help with that. Responsible theologians have always done that. I'm beginning to suspect you just want there to be a conflict that doesn't exist because you think it gives you an excuse.

I agree some Christians say this. I think it's a mistake. But Dawkins is doing much more than than just pointing out that the modern synthesis contradicts some religious dogma. He and others specifically say the MS contradicts the Bible and THEREFORE the God of the Bible doesn't exist - even more, that no theistic god exists. At times he seems to say the opposite as well. Which just proves he should stop trying to do philosophy and stick with biology.

I agree with him on the bare facts of evolution. His interpretations of those facts are his and his alone. I specifically said: "in terms of evolutionary theory, you can consider me a Dawkinsian or whatever..." See? In terms of evolutionary theory... don't pull this shyster routine, you know it won't fool me and I'm telling you it won't fool anyone else either. I'll make it easier for you: I hereby, officially, renounce, revile, reject and repudiate any statements made by Dawkins or anyone to the effect that evolution in any guise disproves all possible interpretations of the Christian god. Your god is perfectly safe, never fear. Is that cool? Can I be assured you'll never bother me about what Dawkins says about the appearance of design again?


There must be a special word for this. What is the difference between 'how some people interpret some statements in the Bible' and 'things that are in the Bible'? I'm not trying to be obtuse - as I see it, those two phrases are essentially identical.

Leaving aside 'seriously flawed' (LOL), and I know this is the kind of thing the less polite atheists are always yelling at you, but: if that really and truly is part of your problem here, then your problem is with science and the scientific method. Yes, there's a prejudice towards the prevailing hypothesis. Before you start crowing, consider that in terms of a newly discovered substance which gravity does not affect. Would the first move of physicists be to throw out the entire framework of gravitational physics? Or would they try to account for the new phenomenon in terms of the old theory, pursuant to revising it? Again: if this procedure bothers you solely in biology, this implies you fear the truth of evolution, and regard it as a threat to your beliefs.

Yes it would, because, for one thing, you're not Catholic. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. Suppose I tell you that Phenomenon X, arising from the existence of an omniscient god, is incompatible with an omnibenevolent god. You trot out your objection and I start yelling about some Papal position contrary to yours, and, your protests notwithstanding, start behaving as though some crushing blow to your argument has been delivered - even though it's just what some dude in a funny hat says. Please do not try and tell me this would be all good as far as you're concerned.

YYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSS I thought two threads would have made that perfectly clear?

A conflict between what? I'm just saying that certain highly specific versions of any brand of god are rendered unreasonable by certain facts... it's trivially true, of all gods and in fact of all facts. For example, the god who created a universe in which kettles don't exist is pretty well falsified by the existence of kettles, don't you think?

The kerpent tempted man to make the kettles...it's all there in Kenesis 3: "The serpent tempts the woman to drink from the cup of wisdom". So the Kible isn't saying that no kettles exist, it's saying that kettles is the result of the kerpent tempting man. All men are plagued by this original kettle.

Kod didn't create kettles, he created heat and you can't create heat without making pressureboilers possible. The existence of kettles is just a result of Kod granting man free will.

A universe with kettles will therefore not disprove Kod.

How does one accept micro-evolution but not macro-evolution? Macro-evolution is just the separation between 2 different micro-points spread out over a wide distance. We're ALL transitional species.

Have you read Pletho's posts? Do you really think he's looked into the science behind ANYTHING?

Well, I've never expected to convince Pletho of anything. But others have expressed it as well. I think I'm responding more to NR in my post where I believe he's said in this thread that he accepts microevolution.

nh

I have heard him mention that catholics finally believe in evolution when he was talking to some crazy creationist lady. His real view is likely that there is no coherent or preferred interpretation of the bible partly since nobody can agree with on it and that in itself is a huge piece of evidence that it is nonsense.

The problem there is also no real way to judge who is good at philosophy. That will craig guy that was posted here is considered to be ok by christians but anybody who knows a bit about modern physics can easily tell that what he says is garbage.

Whew, I can start breathing again. Man, that was close.

Have you ever seen a statement like this before?:

First move? Are you kidding?

I didn't realize you disagreed with Dawkins and many, many other scientists that there is appearance of design. I didn't realize you disagreed with Dawkins and many, many other scientists that there is a problem in the fossil record. Obviously, if I discuss those issue with you I shouldn't simply cite them, though I could still use their reasoning as argument. I have no problem if you do the same with any theologian - if I disagree with him, you can certainly adopt his arguments. I think this method is fairly common so I don't know why you're harping on it. And BTW, I've rarely, if ever, just cited Dawkins and others, but have used quotes - citing his name his partly for the purpose of showing I'm not just making up content.


I know of course you deny appearance of design - I didn't know you specifically rejected Dawkins on that issue. That isn't as illogical as it sounds on this forum. I won't say I'll never use someone you disagree with, but if I do it will be to adopt his reasoning.

The Bible doesn't specifically say much if anything about science. When Christians have differing opinions about how science and the Bible fit together it's easy to forget that what's being argued is mostly just opinion, not clear Bible doctrine.


I will say this - I don't know physics at all so I can't comment on the substantive issue. But the very few times I've heard anyone question Craig about his understanding of things like the Big Bang, he has responded with arguments taken from name physicists. One reason I'm looking forward to the Ayala debate is because Ayala is supposed to be an expert on evolution, so Craig certainly won't be able to get away with incorrect science. I would love to see him debate someone who is good at both philosophy and theolgy as well as physics. Unless someone specifically shows he's wrong, I will take his word for it because I'm confident he's very hard working and honest.

BTW, it isn't too hard to know who's good at philosophy. It's a field that has had many, many very intelligent people in it for thousands of years. That Dawkins is mostly an idiot in the field is easily demonstrated - Craig has done it with specifics from The God Delusion. I've seen many opinions from philosophers on the incompetence of Dawkins (Harris and Hitchens, also).

What does "appearance of design" mean? I don't see how anybody can deny that if it is what I think it means.

From an earlier post by me ITT:

Some christians disagree with you strongly. I have heard some claim that you can't really be a christian if you believe in an old earth etc. They certainly may be considered loons and could be a very small minority, but they do exist and seem pretty loud.

The issue with the stuff of his I have read is that he takes something that nobody alive today fully understands and makes arguments based on that. I would doubt a physics theory that did the same thing, I still even have some doubts about inflation for example though I am not an expert on that topic compared to the top people.

Nobody can say Craig is wrong just like nobody can say crazy theories involving time travel are wrong at present. It doesn't mean that those theories or arguments are at all convincing or have a good chance of being correct.

Lol, I have a tough time believing you are objective at all if you think craig is good but all those people are terrible. Craig's cosmology based arguments are terrible. I would say the same thing about an atheist who made similar claims based on cosmology, the other way. I have a tough time taking your word that he is good at other things, but that is just my hunch.

I don't know what you're getting at here.

Do you remember what we were talking about earlier in this very thread?

I would say that there's a problem with the fossilisation process; it's too rare.

Then please do restrict yourself to that, and no more guff about Pope Dawkins, please.

I really don't see how I could reject AoD and somehow not reject Dawkins on that issue, but whatever.

It means what it sounds like, and without getting into semantics I reject it as a faculty of human perception rather than a quality of the universe.

And hey, if NR gets to quote an extract for his pitch, I will too:

You said you agree with RD on the facts but disagree with his interpretation. You don't see the analogy?

I just didn't realize you are an RD heretic. Obviously you have no respect for the office and if I slip up and cite him in a discussion with you, just remind me.

I would say a universe that was not designed would be arbitrary and lack structure. I would also say that if the universe was not designed and we were not designed there would be no reason how rationality could exist. Why do our minds seem to coincide with reality?

If those guys aren't terrible, then why did Bart Ehrman say this:

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_t...nest-to-jesus/

Let's face it. NotReady says he doesn't believe the modern synthesis. NotReady will never say he believes the modern synthesis. It doesn't matter how much evidence has been presented, or how much is produced. It doesn't matter that the modern synthesis is one of the best-supported scientific theories in history with no evidence provided by fossils. And it wouldn't matter to NotReady if every living thing in the history of Earth had been fossilized and found.

Strangely, he doen't seem to apply this to any other field of science (except where they support the modern synthesis, of course) all the while claiming that the fact of the modern synthesis really doesn't matter to him at all.

Even more strangely, he seems sure that four people wrote some things down about the life of Jesus, and that the Bible is a collection of those and other ancient writings. Huh.

There's a larger problem though which AIF never quite got. If the universe is totally undesigned, how could it even be a universe? We know things and can name them because they have at least some minimal order and structure. If something has no order whatsoever, how can it even be a thing?

Wiki:

The Universe comprises everything that physically exists, the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter and energy, and the physical laws and constants that govern them.

It is the existence of forms and laws that gives the appearance of design. If there are no forms and laws what would even appear?

Ah. Well, my point there was that when you say "things in the Bible", you refer by necessity to your interpretation of statements in the Bible, see? And it actually was a question, not a jibe. Maybe you can justify the distinction.

Per my earlier statements, I disagree with anyone who says evolution refutes a designer. Put any name you like in there; I'll be disagreeing.

"Arbitrary"? I'll assume you mean "undirected" or similar; anyway, it's question-begging - to say that this universe is not undirected is to assume design and thus to affirm the consequent. "Structure" is too nebulous to mean anything, unless you want to demand that the existence of matter implies a designer.

That's just a bald assertion. Good luck justifying it.

Because they evolved to approximate it?

Really? From incredulity? In a sphere where no-one knows enough about anything to be properly incredulous? Please.