bcuzbcuz Posted June 8, 2014 Author Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) I think almost everything can be religious. I even take my work religiously (literally). But, besides this point, my complaint is in the semantics of the word and using it correctly according to morals. The problem we see in society is that when we begin assuming we are but mere animals it then feeds to the sinners and justifies to them being safe when sinning and being morally corrupt because they believe, according to natural carnality, that they are just following their natural animal instincts. This is one of my main beefs with evolution in general. I dont care what any wisecrack says, Darwinian evolution is atheism and no part of it can include God. I have had many a debate and discussion with BYU professors over this issue and everytime we have both concluded that Darwinian evolution has no place for God in its theory and it must exclude him by very nature of its premise it is built upon. Darwinian evolution thus strengthens this false teaching that we are but just the extension of evolved animals. As it does such, the lines get blurred with morals and law and everything gets questioned- everything from sexuality and morals to intelligence and instincts. Evolutionary theory causes us to not look to God as our Creator. Let me just state this- there really isnt such a thing as an atheist creationist or an atheist intelligent design believer. But, on the other hand, you will find categorically that pretty much every atheist also believes in evolution. See a connection? No, I don't see the connection. The connection you draw is entirely of your own construct. (Not saying that your construct is not the same as others, just that it is a construct you wish to highlight) You use a terminology laden with negative connotations. You see "animals" as sinners, morally corrupt, carnal, followers of their natural animal instincts. Humans can by their society define proper societal behavior. Religion attaches terms like sinners, carnality, morally corrupt. But your everyday cow, or dog or pigeon or sea lion do not sin, act carnally, behave corruptly or have morals at all. They and all the animals of the water, sky and land do not have any of those definitions. When an eagle kills, it does so without any definition of "sin". When a tiger copulates, it does so without any definition of "morals", corrupt or otherwise. A swan that mates for life or a bull elk that collects a harem does so without any carnality attached. Only man attaches such "values". Man, however, chooses to attach those words to behaviors, define them as "animal instincts", when actually, nothing could be further from the truth. Cows, dog and cats are devoid of the morals you champion. Edited June 8, 2014 by bcuzbcuz
cdowis Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) Darwin certainly had serious questions about God, but remained an Anglican all of his life. He was buried in Westminster Abbey as was Newton. Dawkins claims to be an atheist.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins I find your logic.... flawed. Perhaps someone can help you figure it out. You might start with google, with such results as http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10303223/Richard-Dawkins-admits-he-is-a-cultural-Anglican.html Edited June 9, 2014 by cdowis
Rob Osborn Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 I obviously have no problem with LDS morals, and fully agree the idea hat just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. Where have I ever said it is OK to act without morals? Incorrect Darwinian Evolution is not Atheist, it's not Theistic either.IE; What is Atheistic about giving birth? Humans, of whatever religious beliefs, have been doing it for a very longtime now. Science is Agnostic for a variety of reasons. I've give ample examples as to why. Mainly because God is an infinity. OTOH scientists can and do believe anything they want. That is where where you are wrong. Morality is not a subject for science, except to the extent that it provides a reproductive advantage to the individual. I'm well past the reproductive age. So evolutionarily I'm of no value. I get to spoil my Grandkids rotten then send them home to their parents. That doesn't make me have no value to my family, friends, and my God. Who give a rats behind what an Atheist believes about God? BTW Darwin was an Anglican. Darwinian evolution is atheistic. Its just how it is. There is no place for God in Darwinian evolution. The very moment you include God in how life emerged and became complex is the very moment it is no longer Darwinian evolution.
Rob Osborn Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 No, I don't see the connection. The connection you draw is entirely of your own construct. (Not saying that your construct is not the same as others, just that it is a construct you wish to highlight) You use a terminology laden with negative connotations. You see "animals" as sinners, morally corrupt, carnal, followers of their natural animal instincts. Humans can by their society define proper societal behavior. Religion attaches terms like sinners, carnality, morally corrupt. But your everyday cow, or dog or pigeon or sea lion do not sin, act carnally, behave corruptly or have morals at all. They and all the animals of the water, sky and land do not have any of those definitions. When an eagle kills, it does so without any definition of "sin". When a tiger copulates, it does so without any definition of "morals", corrupt or otherwise. A swan that mates for life or a bull elk that collects a harem does so without any carnality attached. Only man attaches such "values". Man, however, chooses to attach those words to behaviors, define them as "animal instincts", when actually, nothing could be further from the truth. Cows, dog and cats are devoid of the morals you champion. Perhaps you misunderstood. When we view ourselves as "animals" some people then feel justified in just doing what is natural such as an animal would do void of having any moral law.
changed Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) That's what the fossil record shows: more complex organisms developing from simpler ones.I think there is still quite a bit of debate between what the fossil record shows - gradualism, vs. punctuated equilibrium... at least I'm a fan of Eldredge and Gould's work. Edited June 9, 2014 by changed
thesometimesaint Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 I find your logic.... flawed. Perhaps someone can help you figure it out. You might start with google, with such results as http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10303223/Richard-Dawkins-admits-he-is-a-cultural-Anglican.html Is a cultural Mormon a Mormon?
thesometimesaint Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 Perhaps you misunderstood. When we view ourselves as "animals" some people then feel justified in just doing what is natural such as an animal would do void of having any moral law. Some people view themselves as Napoleon does that excuse their behavior?
thesometimesaint Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 I think there is still quite a bit of debate between what the fossil record shows - gradualism, vs. punctuated equilibrium... at least I'm a fan of Eldredge and Gould's work. Neither one challenges the premise of descent with modification over incredible time periods.
bcuzbcuz Posted June 10, 2014 Author Posted June 10, 2014 I think there is still quite a bit of debate between what the fossil record shows - gradualism, vs. punctuated equilibrium... at least I'm a fan of Eldredge and Gould's work.What the fossil record doesn't show is tthat the earth is only 10,000 years old or younger. It doesn't show that chunks of earth were placed here from some unknown planet with fossil bits already implanted. What the fossil record doesn't show is that death only showed up, here on earth, sometime around the Biblical garden of Eden. The fossil record does not show that mankind and dinosaurs co-habited the earth at the same time.The fossil record puts paid to the idea that Noah's flood wiped out dinosaurs. Scientists may quibble over how many years the Jurassic period took, compared to the triassic, but the fossil record shows that the Jurassic and triassic and the Cretaceous periods lasted millions of years. 100's of millions of years. Definitely longer than 6 "one thousand year" days.
thesometimesaint Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Darwinian evolution is atheistic. Its just how it is. There is no place for God in Darwinian evolution. The very moment you include God in how life emerged and became complex is the very moment it is no longer Darwinian evolution. Non Sequitur.
Gray Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Darwinian evolution is atheistic. Its just how it is. There is no place for God in Darwinian evolution. The very moment you include God in how life emerged and became complex is the very moment it is no longer Darwinian evolution. Evolution doesn't challenge theism per se - and it's especially not challenging to more mature theologies.
thesometimesaint Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Evolution doesn't challenge theism per se - and it's especially not challenging to more mature theologies. I don't know about the maturity of any theologies.
Rob Osborn Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Evolution doesn't challenge theism per se - and it's especially not challenging to more mature theologies.I wasnt aware of a Darwinian evolution model that included God? Is there such a thing and if so, could you point me to the peer reveiwed paper claiming such?
thesometimesaint Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 I wasnt aware of a Darwinian evolution model that included God? Is there such a thing and if so, could you point me to the peer reveiwed paper claiming such? Science can not posit any God or Godlike force and still be science. OTOH scientists are free to believe or not believe in God as they choose. IE; Number Theory explains how 2+2=4. It makes no claims about any God. Individuals that use the fact that 2+2=4 can believe or not believe in God as they choose. Except the acolytes of Creationism.http://gawker.com/watch-creationists-talking-about-creationism-1520841986
Gray Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 I wasnt aware of a Darwinian evolution model that included God? Is there such a thing and if so, could you point me to the peer reveiwed paper claiming such? It certainly doesn't exclude God. Chemistry doesn't posit that God interferes in chemical reactions, but that doesn't mean you can't believe in God and chemistry at the same time.
Rob Osborn Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 It certainly doesn't exclude God. Chemistry doesn't posit that God interferes in chemical reactions, but that doesn't mean you can't believe in God and chemistry at the same time. The problem with Darwinian evolution and God is that they are wholly incompatible. The very second you include God into the "must" part of why life is here its no longer Darwinian evolution.
Rob Osborn Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Science can not posit any God or Godlike force and still be science. OTOH scientists are free to believe or not believe in God as they choose. IE; Number Theory explains how 2+2=4. It makes no claims about any God. Individuals that use the fact that 2+2=4 can believe or not believe in God as they choose. Except the acolytes of Creationism. http://gawker.com/watch-creationists-talking-about-creationism-1520841986 So, has your science proven who God is? What definition does your science give for God? Why is your science hostile to God? Why is your science atheist?
thesometimesaint Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) So, has your science proven who God is? What definition does your science give for God? Why is your science hostile to God? Why is your science atheist? Science don't deal with God, or the lack there of, at all. Science gives no definition of God. A belief in a God defines a person as an Theist. A belief there is no God defines a person as an Atheist. Science is not a person. Science is Agnostic. Science has no beliefs about God one way or the other.. Science is merely a tool. IE; Build a car. That car has no thoughts about God one way or the other. It can be used for good and/or evil. That is no reflection on the car or God, just the person using it. My science is not hostile to God. I'm perfectly comfortable with my beliefs about God. Galileo was perfectly comfortable with his beliefs about God. Newton was perfectly comfortable with his beliefs about God. Darwin while he did have serious questions about God remained an Anglican to the end of his life. The list of scientists that are Theists is long encompassing every religion there is, including the LDS. My knowledge that the sun doesn't really set doesn't mean I believe there is no God Nor does it mean that I can't enjoy their beauty. It just means that I know the sun doesn't really set. That it is just my perception. Why do you insist on telling other people what they believe? If they did it to you you'd rightly tell them they are being a jerk. Edited June 12, 2014 by thesometimesaint
bcuzbcuz Posted June 12, 2014 Author Posted June 12, 2014 So, has your science proven who God is? What definition does your science give for God? Why is your science hostile to God? Why is your science atheist?Science is not hostile to god, it just doesn't care. In mathematics, I don't need god to prove that 2+2=4. In polio vaccine, I don't need god for the vaccine to work. God, or any mention of god, or gods, does not belong in a science class. My GPS works without having to call on god. Gravity works without having to involve god.Your beliefs about god belong in Sunday school, not in a regular school classroom. Science is not atheist, science takes no stand on the issue. If you want to call science A-theist, that is your privilege,, but calling it so doesn't make it so.
thesometimesaint Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Science is not hostile to god, it just doesn't care. In mathematics, I don't need god to prove that 2+2=4. In polio vaccine, I don't need god for the vaccine to work.God, or any mention of god, or gods, does not belong in a science class.My GPS works without having to call on god. Gravity works without having to involve god.Your beliefs about god belong in Sunday school, not in a regular school classroom.Science is not atheist, science takes no stand on the issue. If you want to call science A-theist, that is your privilege,, but calling it so doesn't make it so. He can call a banana a rutabaga for all that it really matters. Though I suggest that when asking for a banana don't call it a rutabaga.
bcuzbcuz Posted June 12, 2014 Author Posted June 12, 2014 He can call a banana a rutabaga for all that it really matters. Though I suggest that when asking for a banana don't call it a rutabaga.I know what you mean. A rutabaga is called a swede in the UK, but ask for a swede here in Sweden and you'll get the long-legged, blond, blue-eyed kind.
Rob Osborn Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Science don't deal with God, or the lack there of, at all. Science gives no definition of God. A belief in a God defines a person as an Theist. A belief there is no God defines a person as an Atheist. Science is not a person. Science is Agnostic. Science has no beliefs about God one way or the other.. Science is merely a tool. IE; Build a car. That car has no thoughts about God one way or the other. It can be used for good and/or evil. That is no reflection on the car or God, just the person using it. My science is not hostile to God. I'm perfectly comfortable with my beliefs about God. Galileo was perfectly comfortable with his beliefs about God. Newton was perfectly comfortable with his beliefs about God. Darwin while he did have serious questions about God remained an Anglican to the end of his life. The list of scientists that are Theists is long encompassing every religion there is, including the LDS. My knowledge that the sun doesn't really set doesn't mean I believe there is no God Nor does it mean that I can't enjoy their beauty. It just means that I know the sun doesn't really set. That it is just my perception. Why do you insist on telling other people what they believe? If they did it to you you'd rightly tell them they are being a jerk. So, you cant really claim then that God is not part of science if it is truly Agnostic. You cant have it both ways. If you say its agnostic but then say God cant be part of it then you are being atheistic, not agnostic.
Rob Osborn Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Science is not hostile to god, it just doesn't care. In mathematics, I don't need god to prove that 2+2=4. In polio vaccine, I don't need god for the vaccine to work. God, or any mention of god, or gods, does not belong in a science class. My GPS works without having to call on god. Gravity works without having to involve god. Your beliefs about god belong in Sunday school, not in a regular school classroom. Science is not atheist, science takes no stand on the issue. If you want to call science A-theist, that is your privilege,, but calling it so doesn't make it so. If one discusses the creation and how life rose on this planet you cannot rule out an intelligent cause. That intelligent cause may indeed be a person like us- a God. If science is about finding the truth and it just so happens that the reason life is here is because of God then science has everything to do with that intersection point of truth.
Gray Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 The problem with Darwinian evolution and God is that they are wholly incompatible. The very second you include God into the "must" part of why life is here its no longer Darwinian evolution. It depends entirely on your concept of God, and what you think it means to say that God creates things. If you imagine God to be a bearded man with Play Doh hand sculpting each animal, then you will find evolution entirely incompatible with your faith. If your view of God is more nuanced, then there is no difficulty reconciling the two.
thesometimesaint Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I know what you mean. A rutabaga is called a swede in the UK, but ask for a swede here in Sweden and you'll get the long-legged, blond, blue-eyed kind. That's why I used it as the example. Languages can be fun at times.
Recommended Posts