Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[_ Old Earth _] Lex parsimoniae and the preclusion of God from science

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Oh absolutely! I'm not denying that... but this, I think, is why a significant proportion of the scientific community regards theories such as intelligent design as unscientific: they are entirely compatible with the evidence, but the conclusions are unnecessarily complex.

They are so compatible with science that the best scientists of a previous generation and the current one (such a Newton, Maxwell and a host of others - see www.nobelists.net for striking examples) were convinced that intelligent design was an axiomatic fact.

Newton in fact said:

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...]

It's interesting to note, too, that there are Christian scientists who agree with this, and consider their faith and occupation somewhat irrevelant to each other in factual terms.

In biological work which is not directly concerned with establishing the truth of evolutionary theory, the theory of evolution itself is an absolute waste of space. It makes no useful predictions, is useless at explaining observable facts, and is in general a waste.

It's great property, which makes it useful to the likes of Dawkins, is that it leads directly to rejection of the existence of God, and if 'Christian' scientists are too dim to see that, then how great is their darkness!
 
barb stop saying that darwin believed in god. he didnt and died never recanting agnostiscm. i find that insulting.

i have shown you time and time again that he was agnostic.

and here is the proof that he didnt believe in god hand in men

The belief in God has often been advanced as not only the greatest, but the most complete of all the distinctions between man and the lower animals. It is however impossible, as we have seen, to maintain that this belief is innate or instinctive in man. On the other hand a belief in all-pervading spiritual agencies seems to be universal; and apparently follows from a considerable advance in man's reason, and from a still greater advance in his faculties of imagination, curiosity and wonder. I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in God has been used by many persons as an argument for His existence. But this is a rash argument, as we should thus be compelled to believe in the existence of many cruel and malignant spirits, only a little more powerful than man; for the belief in them is far more general than in a beneficent Deity. The idea of a universal and beneficent Creator does not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long-continued culture.
He who believes in the advancement of man from some low organised form, will naturally ask how does this bear on the belief in the immortality of the soul. The barbarous races of man, as Sir J. Lubbock has shewn, possess no clear belief of this kind; but arguments derived from the primeval beliefs of savages are, as we have just seen, of little or no avail. Few persons feel any anxiety from the impossibility of determining at what precise period in the development of the individual, from the first trace of a minute germinal vesicle, man becomes an immortal being; and there is no greater cause for anxiety because the period cannot possibly be determined in the gradually ascending organic scale.*
* The Rev. J. A. Picton gives a discussion to this effect in his New Theories and the Old Faith, 1870. I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to shew why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction. The birth both of the species and of the individual are equally parts of that grand sequence of events, which our minds refuse to accept as the result of blind chance. The understanding revolts at such a conclusion, whether or not we are able to believe that every slight variation of structure,- the union of each pair in marriage, the dissemination of each seed,- and other such events, have all been ordained for some special purpose.

and
The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring. Important as the struggle for existence has been and even still is, yet as far as the highest part of man's nature is concerned there are other agencies more important. For the moral qualities are advanced, either directly or indirectly, much more through the effects of habit, the reasoning powers, instruction, religion, &c., than through natural selection; though to this latter agency may be safely attributed the social instincts, which afforded the basis for the development of the moral sense. The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely, that man is descended from some lowly organised form, will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many. But there can hardly be a doubt that we are descended from barbarians. The astonishment which I felt on first seeing a party of Fuegians on a wild and broken shore will never be forgotten by me, for the reflection at once rushed into my mind- such were our ancestors. These men were absolutely naked and bedaubed with paint, their long hair was tangled, their mouths frothed with excitement, and their expression was wild, startled, and distrustful. They possessed hardly any arts, and like wild animals lived on what they could catch; they had no government, and were merciless to every one not of their own small tribe. He who has seen a savage in his native land will not feel much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some more humble creature flows in his veins. For my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs- as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.

Man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen, though not through his own exertions, to the very summit of the organic scale; and the fact of his having thus risen, instead of having been aboriginally placed there, may give him hope for a still higher destiny in the distant future. But we are not here concerned with hopes or fears, only with the truth as far as our reason permits us to discover it; and I have given the evidence to the best of my ability. We must, however, acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system- with all these exalted powers- Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin.

from the descent of man chapter 21

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-21.html

so please im sure if he was a catholic he would be excommunicated for his statement.
 
They are so compatible with science that the best scientists of a previous generation and the current one (such a Newton, Maxwell and a host of others - see www.nobelists.net for striking examples) were convinced that intelligent design was an axiomatic fact.

I'm not convinced that these are temporally appropriate examples, though: Maxwell passed away in the 19th Century and Newton in the early 18th. In their time, the existence of deity was treated as virtually axiomatic, and this is perhaps a reason why we shouldn't consider the opinions of scientists in their time on this issue as scientific... if they treated the belief as axiomatic, then they would not have have tested it or applied to it the scientific method: it was considered self-evident!

Regardless, the belief (or lack thereof) of scientists that God exists is pretty well irrelevant to whether or not empirical evidence (or science) can ever support the existence of such a being

To be honest, it really depends upon how we define science... As I explained in my original post, Occam's razor necessarily avoids the existence of a being like God. And, if we don't use Occam's razor at all then we are, quite frankly, stuck: how do we decide which explanation - out of many that fit the evidence - to accept?
 
I'm not convinced that these are temporally appropriate examples, though: Maxwell passed away in the 19th Century and Newton in the early 18th. In their time, the existence of deity was treated as virtually axiomatic, and this is perhaps a reason why we shouldn't consider the opinions of scientists in their time on this issue as scientific... if they treated the belief as axiomatic, then they would not have have tested it or applied to it the scientific method: it was considered self-evident!

Regardless, the belief (or lack thereof) of scientists that God exists is pretty well irrelevant to whether or not empirical evidence (or science) can ever support the existence of such a being

To be honest, it really depends upon how we define science... As I explained in my original post, Occam's razor necessarily avoids the existence of a being like God. And, if we don't use Occam's razor at all then we are, quite frankly, stuck: how do we decide which explanation - out of many that fit the evidence - to accept?

If you're trying to say that because they were older scientists then they were a pack of idiots as far as this matter is concerned, then your opinion needs revising.

Evolution cannot be tested. It has never been observed (oh yeah, it takes too long, la de da-), it rests on shaky legs (mutation and natural selection), and daily, evidence of the unbelievable complexity of a single living cell continues to emerge.

I see this nonsensical questioning in the same way I would view the sanity of someone who said that the Mona Lisa was produced by an explosion in a paint factory. I wouldn't be permitted to correctly describe my opinion of such an intellect on the forum, it being a christian forum.

Nobody would question the fact that the Enigma code machine was devised by human intellect/s. Yet, we have the DNA CODE, the genetic CODE as it is called, and the decipherment of the code itself and the way it works has produced any number of Nobels.

Why?

Because it originated by chance movement of molecules? The Germans would quite rightly have droppd a bomb or two on the house of anyone who dared say that their wonderful machine (and it WAS wonderful) had originated by an explosion in a machine factory.

Yet here are you questioning whether the code of life itself originated by chance. There are only 2 possibilities: chance, or God.

Choose carefully, for these are issues of life and death.
 
You trying to say that engineers aren't scientists?

Yep. Nothing to be ashamed of. Scientists do research just to gain knowledge. Engineers figure out useful things to do with that knowledge. Two different things.

Some scientists might do engineering, (or an engineer might have taken work to do science) just as an accountant might do project management, but they are two different disciplines.
 
If you're trying to say that because they were older scientists then they were a pack of idiots as far as this matter is concerned, then your opinion needs revising.

I didn't get that from his post.

Evolution cannot be tested.

It's tested every year by undergraduates. So far, always works.

It has never been observed (oh yeah, it takes too long, la de da-)

So far, it always works, as long as we observe. Of course, you can try denying that giant redwoods grow from seeds, because no one has ever seen that happen. But it's a pretty transparent dodge, isn't it?

, it rests on shaky legs (mutation and natural selection), and daily, evidence of the unbelievable complexity of a single living cell continues to emerge.

That, of course, has been observed. The origin of life, however, is not part of evolutionary theory. It just assumes living things, and describes how those populations change.

I see this nonsensical questioning in the same way I would view the sanity of someone who said that the Mona Lisa was produced by an explosion in a paint factory.

Very few creationists play that game any more. As you see, it falls apart by itself.

Nobody would question the fact that the Enigma code machine was devised by human intellect/s. Yet, we have the DNA CODE, the genetic CODE as it is called, and the decipherment of the code itself and the way it works has produced any number of Nobels.

All chemistry. No magic. The "magic" if you want to call it that, is in God making a universe in which such things are brought forth by the earth.


Evidence. And God says He did it that way. One of those should be good enough for anyone. Two pretty much nail it.

Because it originated by chance movement of molecules?

See above. Chemistry isn't a matter of chance.

The Germans would quite rightly have droppd a bomb or two on the house of anyone who dared say that their wonderful machine (and it WAS wonderful) had originated by an explosion in a machine factory.

And maybe now, you're beginning to suspect why we can always identify design in things humans make, and never in things God makes.

You're selling God short here. He's more powerful and wise than you suspect.
 
If you're trying to say that because they were older scientists then they were a pack of idiots as far as this matter is concerned, then your opinion needs revising.

I said nothing of the sort. If you re-read the last couple of posts, I think you'll understand the issue that you have created for yourself: either intelligent design was considered axiomatic or it was not considered axiomatic. If it was considered axiomatic by someone, then it would not have been critically examined by said person and so we should not consider their beliefs to be justified. Axioms are necessarily unjustified. If it was not considered axiomatic, then you were simply incorrect in your post.

Evolution cannot be tested. It has never been observed (oh yeah, it takes too long, la de da-), it rests on shaky legs (mutation and natural selection), and daily, evidence of the unbelievable complexity of a single living cell continues to emerge.

I see this nonsensical questioning in the same way I would view the sanity of someone who said that the Mona Lisa was produced by an explosion in a paint factory. I wouldn't be permitted to correctly describe my opinion of such an intellect on the forum, it being a christian forum.

Nobody would question the fact that the Enigma code machine was devised by human intellect/s. Yet, we have the DNA CODE, the genetic CODE as it is called, and the decipherment of the code itself and the way it works has produced any number of Nobels.

Why?

Because it originated by chance movement of molecules? The Germans would quite rightly have droppd a bomb or two on the house of anyone who dared say that their wonderful machine (and it WAS wonderful) had originated by an explosion in a machine factory.

Yet here are you questioning whether the code of life itself originated by chance. There are only 2 possibilities: chance, or God.

Choose carefully, for these are issues of life and death.

In this thread I have not addressed the idea of evolution. In fact, I fail to see the relevance to this thread of your discource on evolution.


I would, however, like to point out the circularity in your human analogies: when you assert that the Mona Lisa was "designed", for instance, you are correct in one sense. You are, however, assuming that the "designer" of the Mona Lisa was himself designed: if the painter of the Mona Lisa came about entirely by chance himself, then it is obviously the case that Mona Lisa came about ultimately as a result of chance! Likewise if the Enigma code's creators came about as a result of chance then, even though they "designed" the Enigma code, it is perfectly clear that the Enigma code came about ultimately as a result of chance.
Your analogies are relient upon the assumption that the "designers" were themselves designed, and this is the conclusion that you are setting out to prove! Thus, they are circular.
 
You have neatly put your finger - unintentionally, I assume - on what is one of the greatest problems facing evolution. Darwin recognised it himself.

If the human mind is the product of the chance movement of molecules, then the product that mind is also due to the chance movement of molecules.

Therefore, the theory of evolution and all else is the product of the random movement of molecules, and no reliance can be placed upon it.

And so it destroys itself - but not many people realise that.
 
You have neatly put your finger - unintentionally, I assume - on what is one of the greatest problems facing evolution. Darwin recognised it himself.

If the human mind is the product of the chance movement of molecules, then the product that mind is also due to the chance movement of molecules.

Therefore, the theory of evolution and all else is the product of the random movement of molecules, and no reliance can be placed upon it.

And so it destroys itself - but not many people realise that.

cs.lewis said that.
 
You have neatly put your finger - unintentionally, I assume - on what is one of the greatest problems facing evolution. Darwin recognised it himself.

If the human mind is the product of the chance movement of molecules, then the product that mind is also due to the chance movement of molecules.

Therefore, the theory of evolution and all else is the product of the random movement of molecules, and no reliance can be placed upon it.

And so it destroys itself - but not many people realise that.

I think that depends upon how one defines "chance", actually. Regardless, this is off-topic, I believe: whether or not current theories (such as evolution) are correct is not relevant to whether science necessarily precludes God from itself!
 
Therefore, the theory of evolution and all else is the product of the random movement of molecules, and no reliance can be placed upon it.

And so it destroys itself - but not many people realise that.

Ecclesiastes 9:11 I turned me to another thing, and I saw that under the sun, the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the learned, nor favour to the skilful: but time and chance in all.

...

Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles....It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).
Cardinal Ratzinger
Communion and Stewardship:
Human Persons Created in the Image of God
Report of the International Theological Commission

That being said, I would not put reliance on any natural process. As God says, time and chance happens to all things. So we have no confidence at all that nature will support our purposes. But we have His word that it will ultimately support His.
 

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Back
Top