Christians and Evolution - A resource for those in question
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-08-2015, 12:38 AM
RE: Christians and Evolution - A resource for those in question
(25-08-2015 05:51 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(25-08-2015 08:39 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  She was the head of the theatre/speech department. Dr. D. "Pete" Richardson.

I think almost every LC student took her for Intro to Speech.

Edit to Add: Oh, wait, I don't think she started there until after 2001.

Quote:She was the head of the theatre/speech department.

I'm curious. You mentioned your mother is quite religious yet she is the head of the theatre/speech department. I was a theatre/dance major in college and all the theatre people I would hang around with (and still do) were pretty much heathens of one sort and another. They cursed and swore like sailors. Some of the filthiest and most profane jokes I've ever heard were at theatre cast parties after a show. Not only that, everyone slept with everyone. There were quite a few atheists. It was great!

If your mother is the head of the theatre department at LC how the hell does she deal with the nonconformist theatre crowd ? Or is she simply unaware of what the students are up to.

Or...... maybe Louisiana's theatre crowd is more conservative than the California theatre crowd I would hang around with.

So, what gives?

Louisiana College is a private, Christian university, despite having the state's name in its name. She did, however, get her degrees from Louisiana Tech (BA and MA) and her PhD from LSU, and knows lots of the heathens. She just started teaching at LSU-A (Alexandria; the main campus is in Baton Rouge) this week, so I'm curious to see how the more-secular students will relate to her. So far, she reports that they're responding well to her humor. She really is an amazing teacher... she just believes a lot of very socially conservative/evangelical Christian tripe.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2015, 07:25 AM
RE: Christians and Evolution - A resource for those in question
(25-08-2015 04:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-08-2015 10:09 AM)Zoebion Wrote:  New post up. Trying to help my peeps understand evolution.

post

"An organism has no idea "how" it needs to mutate in order to survive, so essentially, its just the organisms that do mutate in beneficial ways that survive better than those that do not."

I suggest you edit that so that it is correct. Something like:

"An organism has no idea what mutations might be beneficial nor do any organisms have any control over mutation; so essentially its just the organisms that have the good fortune to have beneficial mutations whose progeny survive better than those that do not."

N.B. Mutations in the germ line do not affect the organism - only its progeny.

*it's

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WillHopp's post
26-08-2015, 08:36 AM
RE: Christians and Evolution - A resource for those in question
(25-08-2015 03:13 PM)morondog Wrote:  I liked that post, very readable, very straightforward and a lovely plain "these are the facts" approach to killing one of the biggest bugbears that those YECs love to throw around...

I have a slight worry though, that's over the planned next post... "How God fits in to evolution"... I trust that that is where we shall do battle. Prepare thyself, Godboy Evil_monster

Thanks.

No, it's not going to be about how God "fits in" since neither God nor His "hand" in nature can be empirically proven or disproven. It's going to be more along the lines of the metaphysical/theological perspective of things.

But I'm still sure we will have much to discuss.

Lol @ Godboy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Zoebion's post
26-08-2015, 08:39 AM
RE: Christians and Evolution - A resource for those in question
(25-08-2015 04:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-08-2015 10:09 AM)Zoebion Wrote:  New post up. Trying to help my peeps understand evolution.

post

"An organism has no idea "how" it needs to mutate in order to survive, so essentially, its just the organisms that do mutate in beneficial ways that survive better than those that do not."

I suggest you edit that so that it is correct. Something like:

"An organism has no idea what mutations might be beneficial nor do any organisms have any control over mutation; so essentially its just the organisms that have the good fortune to have beneficial mutations whose progeny survive better than those that do not."

N.B. Mutations in the germ line do not affect the organism - only its progeny.

Yeah I went back and read it again and I could've explained it better. I'm the only set of eyes on this before I post it, so this type of feedback is helpful. I'll change it latter today when I'm at my computer.

Thanks Chas
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2015, 02:13 PM
RE: Christians and Evolution - A resource for those in question
(26-08-2015 08:36 AM)Zoebion Wrote:  No, it's not going to be about how God "fits in" since neither God nor His "hand" in nature can be empirically proven or disproven. It's going to be more along the lines of the metaphysical/theological perspective of things.
Zoebion, I'm sure your first source of inspiration is the scriptures, but I'm just wondering, in an approach of being totally honest.

When you formulate your ideas on how god fits in metaphysically/theologically do you review your ideas and make sure they are not able to be evaluated empirically or statistically?

Because if empirical or statistical analysis could be performed then you know this would conflict with your ideas of god, so to me it seems to be a reasonable double check to be performed before you go public with your ideas.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2015, 02:38 PM
RE: Christians and Evolution - A resource for those in question
(26-08-2015 02:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-08-2015 08:36 AM)Zoebion Wrote:  No, it's not going to be about how God "fits in" since neither God nor His "hand" in nature can be empirically proven or disproven. It's going to be more along the lines of the metaphysical/theological perspective of things.
Zoebion, I'm sure your first source of inspiration is the scriptures, but I'm just wondering, in an approach of being totally honest.

When you formulate your ideas on how god fits in metaphysically/theologically do you review your ideas and make sure they are not able to be evaluated empirically or statistically?

Because if empirical or statistical analysis could be performed then you know this would conflict with your ideas of god, so to me it seems to be a reasonable double check to be performed before you go public with your ideas.

Fair question.

The simple point I was trying to make is that theology and science are two different fields. Science deals with the physical realm and empirical evidence, and isn't equipped to make metaphysical claims. Theology deals with the metaphysical.

Part of what I will be advocating is a form of the non-interventionist objective divine action model by Robert John Russell (I am going to go into detail about what it entails).

A simple explanation of the model is that though divine action is not visible through the lens of science, it is visible through the lens of faith. Thus, its not meant to "prove" that God exists. Belief in divine action isn't based in natural science, but in theological reflection drawn from scripture, etc.

I'm not saying that it's immune from critique, but that the objections are going to have to come from theology, not science, since the view accepts all the findings of modern science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2015, 03:01 PM (This post was last modified: 26-08-2015 03:26 PM by Chas.)
RE: Christians and Evolution - A resource for those in question
(26-08-2015 02:38 PM)Zoebion Wrote:  
(26-08-2015 02:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Zoebion, I'm sure your first source of inspiration is the scriptures, but I'm just wondering, in an approach of being totally honest.

When you formulate your ideas on how god fits in metaphysically/theologically do you review your ideas and make sure they are not able to be evaluated empirically or statistically?

Because if empirical or statistical analysis could be performed then you know this would conflict with your ideas of god, so to me it seems to be a reasonable double check to be performed before you go public with your ideas.

Fair question.

The simple point I was trying to make is that theology and science are two different fields. Science deals with the physical realm and empirical evidence, and isn't equipped to make metaphysical claims. Theology deals with the metaphysical.

Part of what I will be advocating is a form of the non-interventionist objective divine action model by Robert John Russell (I am going to go into detail about what it entails).

A simple explanation of the model is that though divine action is not visible through the lens of science, it is visible through the lens of faith. Thus, its not meant to "prove" that God exists. Belief in divine action isn't based in natural science, but in theological reflection drawn from scripture, etc.

I'm not saying that it's immune from critique, but that the objections are going to have to come from theology, not science, since the view accepts all the findings of modern science.

With that definition, the metaphysical can have no effect on the physical.
How do you tell the difference between the undetectable and the imaginary?

So when you say "A simple explanation of the model is that though divine action is not visible through the lens of science, it is visible through the lens of faith.", does that mean that faith alters our brains to be able to sense the metaphysical?
Do you see the contradiction?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
26-08-2015, 03:01 PM
RE: Christians and Evolution - A resource for those in question
Hey Zoebion

What are your opinions concerning the historicity of events described in the Bible. e.g. the whole Adam thing - doesn't that drop the old spanner in the gearbox re evolution?

Noah's Ark? There should be population bottlenecks for every species if it actually happened? Is it purely allegorical? What do we learn from the story?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
26-08-2015, 03:37 PM
RE: Christians and Evolution - A resource for those in question
(26-08-2015 02:38 PM)Zoebion Wrote:  
(26-08-2015 02:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Zoebion, I'm sure your first source of inspiration is the scriptures, but I'm just wondering, in an approach of being totally honest.

When you formulate your ideas on how god fits in metaphysically/theologically do you review your ideas and make sure they are not able to be evaluated empirically or statistically?

Because if empirical or statistical analysis could be performed then you know this would conflict with your ideas of god, so to me it seems to be a reasonable double check to be performed before you go public with your ideas.

Fair question.

The simple point I was trying to make is that theology and science are two different fields. Science deals with the physical realm and empirical evidence, and isn't equipped to make metaphysical claims. Theology deals with the metaphysical.

Part of what I will be advocating is a form of the non-interventionist objective divine action model by Robert John Russell (I am going to go into detail about what it entails).

A simple explanation of the model is that though divine action is not visible through the lens of science, it is visible through the lens of faith. Thus, its not meant to "prove" that God exists. Belief in divine action isn't based in natural science, but in theological reflection drawn from scripture, etc.

I'm not saying that it's immune from critique, but that the objections are going to have to come from theology, not science, since the view accepts all the findings of modern science.

Hi Wobegon Big Grin

Glad you’re here, I like your brother much, he’s a good guy (who still owes me a beer).

The bolded sentence above is going to be somewhat problematic with many Christians who are attempting to use the scientific method to prove their theology, no doubt you’ve already encountered this.

IMO the biggest obstacle that I see with keeping theology and science separate is the very cornerstone of the religion, i.e the Bible/scripture. Had the Bible ben more Zen-like or Deepak Chopra-like it would be totally open to theological interpretation. But scripture delves deeply into the corporal and the observable. It makes claims that we can test and observe (take the Noahtic flood as an example).

In other words the horses left the stable the moment pen was put to papyrus. I don’t see how you can disassociate yourself from the very basis of the religion and agree with science when science clearly disagrees with scripture.

My two cents.

Welcome back.

FC

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
26-08-2015, 03:47 PM
RE: Christians and Evolution - A resource for those in question
(26-08-2015 02:38 PM)Zoebion Wrote:  I'm not saying that it's immune from critique, but that the objections are going to have to come from theology, not science, since the view accepts all the findings of modern science.
Sure. I actually like your position more so that those that try to prove god, you know, by pointing out gaps in scientific knowledge and saying "you can't explain that so it must have been god."
I'm happy that we both think that is a ridiculous position.

But my current thinking (putting my cards on the table here rather than try to bait you into a pre-set trap) is that many of the successful religious make sure that they don't make testable claims. e.g. When the Catholic church came up with the idea of transubstantiation, I'm sure they did some reviews prior to publication to make sure that their claim would never be testable. The bread and wine becomes Jesus body and blood however if you test the stomach contents you will only find bread and wine.

It's the opposite of science because they have to make testable claims. But religious claims need to not be testable.
So when a scientist makes a claim, before they publish it, I'm sure they do a proof read, an initial assessment. Does this claim provide testable criteria, does this claim provide reasonable falsifiable criteria? How reliable is the evidence or observations cited in the claim? Am I disclosing the assumptions I have made? Am I disclosing the known alternatives to my claim etc?

I would assume before you present anything regarding claims of god that you also to some prior checks of your own work. Is this consistent with your interpretation of scripture? Is this consistent with your beliefs of god being x, y, z? Is this claim untestable? Is this claim statistically unverifiable?

I'm just wondering if you take the testable, statistical aspects into account before you publicly present any god claims?

I guess my interests aren't necessarily to prove you wrong but to understand the thinking processes that goes into god claims.

This could be described as the religious method as opposed to the scientific method.
The reason why I accept scientific claims is because I (somewhat) understand the scientific method, I see how they distinguish truth from fiction, I see the challenges they have in putting together a claim and I see how claims can be challenged and how other scientists are rewarded for successfully refuting scientific claims.

What goes into the religious method? How can I assess for myself the degree of trust I can put towards religious claims?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: