Jump to content

Rob Osborn

Contributor
  • Content Count

    5,283
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rob Osborn

  1. Franktalk:

    I have no problem with God. I do have problems when people try to insert God into science. ANYTIME you put God into the equation it instantly becomes non-falsifiable. ALL of science is based on the assumption that ANY theory must be falsifiable. We are constantly looking for ways/conditions where a/any theory doesn't work.

    There are many more ways where genes "mutate". There are additions, subtraction, recombinations, transpositions, some genes switch themselves on or off at various times, etc., etc., etc.. Most of which have no effect on the survivability of the individual organism. When a group of the same organisms becomes separated from its genetic base, mutations are more noticeable in that group. Given enough time those organism will not be able to reproduce with the parent population. The have become a different species. It works for bacteria. IE drug resistance. It works for plants, insects, animals, mammals, and it works for man.

    I believe the general problem with the evolution/creation debate is in the underlying criteria that one sees as being either scientific or unscientific. For evolutionists, they cannot have any intelligent causation to their theory. In doing so they wrongly apply this anti-intelligent factor as being the basis for scientific principle. Anything of any intelligent origin and/or purpose can therefore be dismissed as "un-scientific". Under this head, all science can "only" be explained by "nature" void of any guided or intelligent cause. Paramount to this principle is that in so doing, science by their nature, has become atheistic and anti-god.

    The creationists and Id'ers on the other hand present the base principle that science can have intelligent causation as part of "why" things happen the way they happen. For this side of the debate, there is nothing wrong in seeing that "nature" by itself, is not a good explanation for the causation of life. In so doing they aknowledge that just as an intelligent scientist can tinker in the lab and create a guided intelligent process, perhaps so too could there be some underlying "intelligent" entity, or causation that has brought about the complexity of life.

    As one can clearly then see, the debate is not really about what is or is not science, but whether or not God should be included in the picture of "why" there is life. Evolutionists say- "NO, he can have no part" while creationsts and ID'ers say "why not, it is a reasonable explanation when all other naturalistic models fail so badly".

    Science should be undeterred by what process can be ruled out based on someones pet agenda or criteris. Science should be unbiased in it's search for truth. If the truth leads us to God, or some intelligent cause, then science, if it is correct, should embrace and support through evidence the cause for God.

    Why is it that man will never find the truth without God? Because, God himself is the author of truth and all roads thus lead back to him. I cherish the day when science can and does embrace God. At that day we shalll more readily find the true answers, the true cause of life, the truth of all of natures laws. Science should not be godless if it wants to find the ultimate truth.

×
×
  • Create New...