Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-08-2015, 10:42 AM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(24-08-2015 08:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 10:10 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  What part of "evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God" am I projecting? Consider



I own Collins' book (though it's currently on loan to my parents). He openly ridicules the idea that God needed to "fiddle" with evolution to make it work, in one of the first chapters. So yes, I think you are. Sorry.

You are likely referring to this?

“There are many subtle variants of theistic evolution, but a typical version rests upon the following premises: The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago. Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time. Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.”
― Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

-bolding mine-

That is utterly not the Theory of Evolution.

“At this point, godless materialists might be cheering. If humans evolved strictly by mutation and natural selection, who needs God to explain us? To this, I reply: I do. The comparison of chimp and human sequences, interesting as it is, does not tell us what it means to be human. In my views, DNA sequence alone, even if accompanied by a vast trove of data on biological function, will never explain certain special human attributes, such as the knowledge of the Moral Law and the universal search for God. Freeing God from the burden of special acts of creation does not remove Him as the source of the things that make humanity special, and of the universe itself. It merely shows us something of how He operates.”
― Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

-bolding mine-

That is in no way compatible with the Theory of Evolution. Drinking Beverage

That's a good example, yes. And his arguments for "fine tuning" are the ones I disagreed with, and enjoyed the "response" book The Language of God Decoded which mocked Collins for that viewpoint.

However, the question was whether or not they felt God needed to meddle with the path of evolution, or whether "ongoing Creation" in theistic evolution meant that Creation was not a single event, but something that is still happening by the process of evolution. Collins does not believe God meddles in the process of evolution, but that it happens according to a Great Plan™ that God set up from the beginning, when he ordered the laws of the universe prior to the Big Bang.

Many Believers think that there are things science cannot (and need not) explain about why, since sciences addresses what and how. (The "non-overlapping magesteria" idea.) Collins thinks that the Theory is fine, just thinks there's a Moral Law beyond our grasp, and human soul, as well, which are claims beyond science. I think he's full of shit, but that doesn't mean he doesn't accept evolution as we understand it. It just means he believes in other supernatural bullshit as well.

"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
24-08-2015, 10:46 AM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(24-08-2015 09:08 AM)jennybee Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 08:58 AM)Aliza Wrote:  Can you clarify your question?

The Talmud was written in 500 CE and Rashi (11th Century)--both reference the sun was in existence prior to 4th day of creation. But Genesis was written in 1400 BCE. So how would the writers of the Talmud and Rashi (both YEARS later) know what the Genesis writer(s) meant re: whether or not the sun was in existence before day 4?

I answered in a PM.

.... A really long PM.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
24-08-2015, 10:48 AM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(24-08-2015 10:46 AM)Aliza Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 09:08 AM)jennybee Wrote:  The Talmud was written in 500 CE and Rashi (11th Century)--both reference the sun was in existence prior to 4th day of creation. But Genesis was written in 1400 BCE. So how would the writers of the Talmud and Rashi (both YEARS later) know what the Genesis writer(s) meant re: whether or not the sun was in existence before day 4?

I answered in a PM.

.... A really long PM.

Thumbsup

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2015, 05:18 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(23-08-2015 09:16 AM)Aliza Wrote:  There should be no problem between religion and science. If you can see it, touch it, experiment on it, and actually get data, then how can you deny it? As a theist, my position is simple. Mankind was made to interact with a physical world, so the physical evidence that we see around us must have some relevance. This idea is firmly rooted in my religious education.

Careful now. That's the kind of talk that got Spinoza excommunicated.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
25-08-2015, 05:21 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(25-08-2015 05:18 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 09:16 AM)Aliza Wrote:  There should be no problem between religion and science. If you can see it, touch it, experiment on it, and actually get data, then how can you deny it? As a theist, my position is simple. Mankind was made to interact with a physical world, so the physical evidence that we see around us must have some relevance. This idea is firmly rooted in my religious education.

Careful now. That's the kind of talk that got Spinoza excommunicated.

Yeah, but I'm not a Christian. =D
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2015, 05:58 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(24-08-2015 10:42 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 08:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are likely referring to this?

“There are many subtle variants of theistic evolution, but a typical version rests upon the following premises: The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago. Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time. Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.”
― Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

-bolding mine-

That is utterly not the Theory of Evolution.

“At this point, godless materialists might be cheering. If humans evolved strictly by mutation and natural selection, who needs God to explain us? To this, I reply: I do. The comparison of chimp and human sequences, interesting as it is, does not tell us what it means to be human. In my views, DNA sequence alone, even if accompanied by a vast trove of data on biological function, will never explain certain special human attributes, such as the knowledge of the Moral Law and the universal search for God. Freeing God from the burden of special acts of creation does not remove Him as the source of the things that make humanity special, and of the universe itself. It merely shows us something of how He operates.”
― Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

-bolding mine-

That is in no way compatible with the Theory of Evolution. Drinking Beverage

That's a good example, yes. And his arguments for "fine tuning" are the ones I disagreed with, and enjoyed the "response" book The Language of God Decoded which mocked Collins for that viewpoint.

However, the question was whether or not they felt God needed to meddle with the path of evolution, or whether "ongoing Creation" in theistic evolution meant that Creation was not a single event, but something that is still happening by the process of evolution. Collins does not believe God meddles in the process of evolution, but that it happens according to a Great Plan™ that God set up from the beginning, when he ordered the laws of the universe prior to the Big Bang.

Many Believers think that there are things science cannot (and need not) explain about why, since sciences addresses what and how. (The "non-overlapping magesteria" idea.) Collins thinks that the Theory is fine, just thinks there's a Moral Law beyond our grasp, and human soul, as well, which are claims beyond science. I think he's full of shit, but that doesn't mean he doesn't accept evolution as we understand it. It just means he believes in other supernatural bullshit as well.

We can toss out the constant (or occasional) meddling argument and theistic evolution still isn't the Theory of Evolution (ToE) because theistic evolution makes a special pleading for human attributes they claim are not possible with the ToE.

It is a) an argument from ignorance, and b) incompatible with the ToE.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
25-08-2015, 05:59 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(25-08-2015 05:21 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(25-08-2015 05:18 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Careful now. That's the kind of talk that got Spinoza excommunicated.

Yeah, but I'm not a Christian. =D

Neither was Spinoza. Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
25-08-2015, 06:10 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(25-08-2015 05:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-08-2015 05:21 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Yeah, but I'm not a Christian. =D

Neither was Spinoza. Drinking Beverage

No, I suppose he wasn't. I just googled him and once I did, I realized that I'd learned about him in some former class of mine.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2015, 11:38 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(25-08-2015 05:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 10:42 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  That's a good example, yes. And his arguments for "fine tuning" are the ones I disagreed with, and enjoyed the "response" book The Language of God Decoded which mocked Collins for that viewpoint.

However, the question was whether or not they felt God needed to meddle with the path of evolution, or whether "ongoing Creation" in theistic evolution meant that Creation was not a single event, but something that is still happening by the process of evolution. Collins does not believe God meddles in the process of evolution, but that it happens according to a Great Plan™ that God set up from the beginning, when he ordered the laws of the universe prior to the Big Bang.

Many Believers think that there are things science cannot (and need not) explain about why, since sciences addresses what and how. (The "non-overlapping magesteria" idea.) Collins thinks that the Theory is fine, just thinks there's a Moral Law beyond our grasp, and human soul, as well, which are claims beyond science. I think he's full of shit, but that doesn't mean he doesn't accept evolution as we understand it. It just means he believes in other supernatural bullshit as well.

We can toss out the constant (or occasional) meddling argument and theistic evolution still isn't the Theory of Evolution (ToE) because theistic evolution makes a special pleading for human attributes they claim are not possible with the ToE.

It is a) an argument from ignorance, and b) incompatible with the ToE.

Indeed. "Evolution accounts for everything we observe up to the point where the soul appears by divine fiat" is not scientifically coherent.
(did homo erectus possess a soul? Neanderthals? Denisovans? it's a meaningless qualification that only serves to make us inarticulably special)

Not that I've ever understood how original sin is compatible with a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis in any case.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
25-08-2015, 11:45 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(25-08-2015 05:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  We can toss out the constant (or occasional) meddling argument and theistic evolution still isn't the Theory of Evolution (ToE) because theistic evolution makes a special pleading for human attributes they claim are not possible with the ToE.

It is a) an argument from ignorance, and b) incompatible with the ToE.

I wholeheartedly agree.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: