PDA

View Full Version : Religion backs evolution...



Slipnish
October 22nd, 2005, 08:03 PM
Well, the verdict is in, and evolution seems to be the choice of the educated everywhere, including those in the inner sanctum of religion...

<blockquote>We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.</blockquote>

http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm

8,930 folks so far and still climbing...

How do you IDers account for this one???

CliveStaples
October 22nd, 2005, 08:33 PM
How do you IDers account for this one???

This is the worst argument I've ever seen.

So because a bunch of Christians say that evolution is right and good...it makes it so?

I believe that IDers would take issue with the second sentence, not the first.

Now, look, if evolution is true, then it's true. No amount of theological acrobatics can explain away what is actually the case on earth. But evolution is a very small thing, to me; my faith doesn't rest on whether evolution is or is not true. First, evolution has nothing to do with the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Second, the Genesis account is not meant to be scientifically accurate, but to provide theological truths--for instance, that the world did not come from chaos, as the Greeks believed. So I'm not really all that worried about what actually happened when God formed Adam from dirt and breathed into him. I don't care about "six literal days" or a longer time. What is true is true, so why argue about it? Who cares whether the Genesis account is figurative or scientifically accurate? If some part of the Bible is figurative, does that mean that the document is incoherent? Of course not!

That's why this whole debate is rather uninteresting to me. I am not of a scientific bent, and could not care much less about chemistry, physics, and biology. They are good disciplines, to be sure, and I'm glad that someone takes interest in them.

KevinBrowning
October 22nd, 2005, 08:57 PM
evolution seems to be the choice of the educated everywhere,


8,930 folks so far and still climbing...

I'll take this opportunity to educate people about a couple of fallacies.

First, see quote 1 for the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam. The "educated" believe in macroevolution, therefore it must be true.

Second, see quote 2 for the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. The "majority" believe in macroevolution, therefore it must be true.

Dionysus
October 22nd, 2005, 08:58 PM
This is the worst argument I've ever seen.Let me see if I can beat it then. I can't stand to be outdone.

P1 - All penguins are black and white
P2 - Old TV shows are black and white
Conclusion - Therefore, all peguins are old TV shows.


Now, look, if evolution is true, then it's true. No amount of theological acrobatics can explain away what is actually the case on earth. But evolution is a very small thing, to me; my faith doesn't rest on whether evolution is or is not true.I don't think this thread was really directed at you Clive. I think it's more of a response to the Theistic Evolution???? (http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3228) thread where the original poster is adamant that evolution conflicts with his beliefs as a Christian.


That's why this whole debate is rather uninteresting to me. I am not of a scientific bent, and could not care much less about chemistry, physics, and biology. They are good disciplines, to be sure, and I'm glad that someone takes interest in them.Then let 'em. Obviously, this thread isn't your bag, baby. ;)

starcreator
October 22nd, 2005, 08:59 PM
The OT has no divine origin, IMO. Some Christians believe it is Holy but their only substantiation seems to be...because it says it is. I've never seen such circular logic. Jesus never says that we should accept the OT literally, and quite frankly I find it so hard to believe that YE creationists believe in what they believe based on what is truly nothing but blind faith.

And as for what Slipnish said, I think what they said is nonsense. As Clive said, truth is truth...scientific and religious truths cannot contradict, or one is wrong. The phrase "let science be science and religion be religion" is like putting a scientist and a religious scholar down into a room to solve a problem but not letting them communicate. You provide each with only his own information and neither will thus have the full picture from which accurate conclusions can be drawn.

Star

CliveStaples
October 22nd, 2005, 09:14 PM
Let me see if I can beat it then. I can't stand to be outdone.

P1 - All penguins are black and white
P2 - Old TV shows are black and white
Conclusion - Therefore, all peguins are old TV shows.

If you want a worse argument, I'll give you one. You see, your incorrect syllogism still retains much logic. Here's one that doesn't.

P1 Grass is blue.
P2 1+1=3
Conclusion CliveStaples pwns.


I don't think this thread was really directed at you Clive.

Nonetheless, I respond!


Then let 'em. Obviously, this thread isn't your bag, baby.

I would, but I seek converts to my views.


The OT has no divine origin, IMO. Some Christians believe it is Holy but their only substantiation seems to be...because it says it is.

Wrong. Christians believe that the Bible is divinely inspired because they believe that it is divinely inspired, not because it SAYS that it is.


I've never seen such circular logic.

The circularity was your own contruction. The foundation for the beliefs re: divine inspiration of the OT is faith.


Jesus never says that we should accept the OT literally,

...

...

...

W. T. F. ????


and quite frankly I find it so hard to believe that YE creationists believe in what they believe based on what is truly nothing but blind faith.

Blind faith =/= irrational, blind faith =/= wrong.


The phrase "let science be science and religion be religion" is like putting a scientist and a religious scholar down into a room to solve a problem but not letting them communicate. You provide each with only his own information and neither will thus have the full picture from which accurate conclusions can be drawn.

The problem is that science and religion have completely different requirements for belief. Science requires reason alone. Religion requires faith. No amount of proof is enough to establish religious belief--although scientific claims made by supposedly infallible sources, if found to be false, presents a "complication".

KevinBrowning
October 22nd, 2005, 09:30 PM
Jesus never says that we should accept the OT literally,

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." - Mt. 5:17

"As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Mt. 24:37-39

The above are quotes from Jesus. The first gives His general philosophy of the value and meaning of the Old Testament (the Torah and Nevi'im, particularly).

The second is a specific example of Jesus taking the Genesis account of Noah and the Deluge literally.

Zhavric
October 22nd, 2005, 10:24 PM
I'll take this opportunity to educate people about a couple of fallacies.

Actually, you're only going to demonstrate your misunderstanding of Slipnish's argument and fallacies in general.


First, see quote 1 for the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam. The "educated" believe in macroevolution, therefore it must be true.

I never saw Slip's argument as "evolution is true because educated people believe it". His argument in this thread is "evolution has support amongst educated theists. So, you have presented a straw man argument (surprise, surprise...)

... or is it your position that there are no educated theists?


Second, see quote 2 for the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. The "majority" believe in macroevolution, therefore it must be true.

Again, you've ignored Apok's old word of the month: CONTEXT. The context of Slipnish's argument isn't "lots of people support therefor it's true". He's pointing out that evolution is supported by theists / does not conflict with the teachings of the bible.

You have, once again, demonstrated a flawed grasp of logic.

CliveStaples
October 22nd, 2005, 10:39 PM
Again, you've ignored Apok's old word of the month: CONTEXT. The context of Slipnish's argument isn't "lots of people support therefor it's true". He's pointing out that evolution is supported by theists / does not conflict with the teachings of the bible.

No, he's pointing out that Christians are saying that "evolution does not conflict with the teachings of the Bible", which is completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not evolution does, in fact, conflict with the teachings of the Bible. Merely because some (or even most) people think that evolution doesn't conflict with the Bible doesn't make it so.

starcreator
October 23rd, 2005, 02:10 AM
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." - Mt. 5:17

"As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Mt. 24:37-39

The above are quotes from Jesus. The first gives His general philosophy of the value and meaning of the Old Testament (the Torah and Nevi'im, particularly).

The second is a specific example of Jesus taking the Genesis account of Noah and the Deluge literally.

His reference to events of the OT does not mean in the slightest that the OT is of divine origin - it just means that the old testament depicted some events accurately.


... or is it your position that there are no educated theists?

Kevin isn't taking your position, is he Zhav ;)?


No, he's pointing out that Christians are saying that "evolution does not conflict with the teachings of the Bible", which is completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not evolution does, in fact, conflict with the teachings of the Bible. Merely because some (or even most) people think that evolution doesn't conflict with the Bible doesn't make it so.

And Slipnish didn't say this! You're making the same error Kevin has made. Slipnish's point seems to have been that some educated people believe that evolution and the Bible can work. Period. He didn't say this made evolution more likely anywhere. The thread's title is "religion backs evolution", not "religion backs evolution therefore evolution is true".

You're making too many assumptions. Slip didn't claim that this information proved that the Bible and evolution went hand in hand - you assumed that this is what he was claiming. Had he said this, it would have been a fallacy. But for the time being this is unfortunately a demonstration of Kevin's incomplete and inaccurate identification of a fallacy.

Star

chadn737
October 23rd, 2005, 03:01 AM
His reference to events of the OT does not mean in the slightest that the OT is of divine origin - it just means that the old testament depicted some events accurately.

it means that the old testement depicted some events accurately? What type of hogwash is this? Jesus not only used events from the Old Testement, he also time and again refered to OT LAW and PROPHESY. This obviously implies that He believed and accepted these writings as truth. The law and prophesy do not depict events, but command one how to live, and prophesy things to come. If one believes in prophesy and accepts it as true one accepts that it has come from God. If one accepts Holy Law as truth then one accepts it as being of God.

Jesus:

"It is written......" Luke 4:4 in reference to OT

"It is written......" Luke 4:8

"It says......." Luke 4:12


In Luke 4 versus 17-19 he reads prophesy.....no mere depiction of events and then says:

"Today this scripture is fullfilled in your hearing"

If Jesus did not accept these words as divinily inspired prophesy......then there would be no reason to believe that they are true. But He does accept it as God inspired. One can not go around saying this is God inspired scripture, but this part is not. For as it says in 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

If you believe that the NT is God inspired then you cannot discount this verse.

Of course there is also the verse which you ignored that was quoted by KB: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." - Mt. 5:17

He says this specifically of the OT. He accepts the Law and the Prophets as true....as God inspired, throughout the OT Law and Prophesy are mixed with poetry and praise, with history and events. Sometimes what is praise, what looks like a story also contains prophesy. You cannot sepperate one part and say.....this is God inspired but this part is not. It is either one way or the other, either all is of God or non of it is.

CliveStaples
October 23rd, 2005, 06:47 AM
And Slipnish didn't say this! You're making the same error Kevin has made. Slipnish's point seems to have been that some educated people believe that evolution and the Bible can work. Period. He didn't say this made evolution more likely anywhere. The thread's title is "religion backs evolution", not "religion backs evolution therefore evolution is true".

Where exactly did I say that this debate was about whether evolution was true? Where did I claim that Slipnish was making an argument in this thread that evolution was true? Answer: nowhere.

Slipnish asked "IDers" to account for why some Christians think that their religion does not conflict with evolution. I think this is a bad question; the fact that some Christians think that their religion does not conflict with evolution says nothing about whether their religion ACTUALLY DOES conflict with evolution.


You're making too many assumptions. Slip didn't claim that this information proved that the Bible and evolution went hand in hand - you assumed that this is what he was claiming. Had he said this, it would have been a fallacy. But for the time being this is unfortunately a demonstration of Kevin's incomplete and inaccurate identification of a fallacy.

What's the point of including a story about Christians claiming that their religion doesn't conflict with evolution if you aren't using that as part of your argument? It's just coincidence?

starcreator
October 23rd, 2005, 11:41 AM
it means that the old testement depicted some events accurately? What type of hogwash is this? Jesus not only used events from the Old Testement, he also time and again refered to OT LAW and PROPHESY. This obviously implies that He believed and accepted these writings as truth. The law and prophesy do not depict events, but command one how to live, and prophesy things to come. If one believes in prophesy and accepts it as true one accepts that it has come from God. If one accepts Holy Law as truth then one accepts it as being of God.

Though he came to fulfull the myths of the people of the days, it doesn't mean they were of divine origin. Nowhere does Jesus claim that He or the father actually wrote the OT or that He even inspired the writing of the OT. All of his statements simply imply that some of the human written prophecy (spelt with a c ;)) and law is true.


Where exactly did I say that this debate was about whether evolution was true? Where did I claim that Slipnish was making an argument in this thread that evolution was true? Answer: nowhere.

Slipnish asked "IDers" to account for why some Christians think that their religion does not conflict with evolution. I think this is a bad question; the fact that some Christians think that their religion does not conflict with evolution says nothing about whether their religion ACTUALLY DOES conflict with evolution.

But you supported Kevin's pointing out of ridiculous logical fallacies! Kevin pointed out logical fallacies which were not accurate and applied to an argument which Slip did not make. Zhav pointed this out, and you disagreed with Zhav.


No, he's pointing out that Christians are saying that "evolution does not conflict with the teachings of the Bible", which is completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not evolution does, in fact, conflict with the teachings of the Bible.

But we were never discussing whether or not evolution conflicted with the teachings of the Bible. We were discussing the concept of prominent theists accepting evolution with the Bible. Whether or not this is true is irrelevant, and of another debate. Slip was not trying to prove this, and therefore his source did not constitute a logical fallacy.

Kevin has demonstrated an incomplete application of logical fallacies here. I don't know if you agree with him, but if you do, you have incorrectly applied fallacies as well.


What's the point of including a story about Christians claiming that their religion doesn't conflict with evolution if you aren't using that as part of your argument? It's just coincidence?

No, Slip just wanted IDers to express their opinions on the fact that many Christians are now accepting evolution. He made no other argument. You and Kevin seem to have assumed that Slip was using the source in order to prove that the teachings of the Bible and evolution don't contradict, which Slip never claimed here.

Star

CliveStaples
October 23rd, 2005, 03:06 PM
But you supported Kevin's pointing out of ridiculous logical fallacies! Kevin pointed out logical fallacies which were not accurate and applied to an argument which Slip did not make. Zhav pointed this out, and you disagreed with Zhav.

I made a specific and narrowly-tailored counter-argument, which is consistent with my present opinions. Slipnish wrongly uses the opinions of some Christians who believe that evolution is compatable with Christianity (with whom I agree) in order to pressure other Christians into defending their beliefs that evolution is incompatable with Christianity.


But we were never discussing whether or not evolution conflicted with the teachings of the Bible.

What??? Yes, actually, we were!


We were discussing the concept of prominent theists accepting evolution with the Bible.

Which is completely irrelevant except to say that "some Christians think that evolution is compatable with the Bible". The central issue, which Slipnish asks about, is whether or not IDers are correct in their assertion that evolution is not compatable with Christianity.


Whether or not this is true is irrelevant, and of another debate. Slip was not trying to prove this, and therefore his source did not constitute a logical fallacy.

So he was just providing a news brief about Christians? Nope. He asks for a response in light of that fact, which is where the fallacy occurs.

starcreator
October 23rd, 2005, 06:47 PM
I made a specific and narrowly-tailored counter-argument, which is consistent with my present opinions. Slipnish wrongly uses the opinions of some Christians who believe that evolution is compatable with Christianity (with whom I agree) in order to pressure other Christians into defending their beliefs that evolution is incompatable with Christianity.

I should hope that your arguments are consistent with your opinions, but I was not addressing your argument so much as your attacking of Zhav's point. Zhav pointed out that Kevin was incorrectly applying logical fallacies. You quoted Zhav, attempting to defend Kev. This is incorrect, Zhav was correct - Kev was the one employing the straw man fallacy in order to turn Slip's points into fallacies.


What??? Yes, actually, we were!


This is the worst argument I've ever seen.

So because a bunch of Christians say that evolution is right and good...it makes it so?

Your second statement in this thread was a straw man. Slip never said this. You were presenting a counterargument to an argument which was never presented. Slip asks IDers to account for the fact that many theists believe in evolution, you interpret this as Slip stating that evolution is right and good because a whole bunch of Christians say so. Dead wrong.


Which is completely irrelevant except to say that "some Christians think that evolution is compatable with the Bible". The central issue, which Slipnish asks about, is whether or not IDers are correct in their assertion that evolution is not compatable with Christianity.

From which part of his post does he even indirectly imply this? All he has said is what is there - that some theists agree with evolution. Then he asks IDers, who in many cases are evolutionists, to account for it. I'm not saying his thesis was great, but I'm saying his thesis wasn't that "evolution is right and good" because a bunch of Christians say so. This was your interence and was unsupported by his post.


So he was just providing a news brief about Christians? Nope. He asks for a response in light of that fact, which is where the fallacy occurs

Who knows what his intentions were? Maybe he'll post and clarify for us. But from the mere amount of information he gave it is downright illogical to assume that he was saying that evolution is correct because a bunch of Christians say so.

Star

KevinBrowning
October 23rd, 2005, 07:26 PM
Slip has said many times before that he thinks macroevolution is true and intelligent design/creationism is false.

This thread is attempting to support that claim, using the arguments that 1) authorities believe m-evolution and 2) the majority believe m-evolution. He would have no reason to post this information simply for our education, since he is not a disinterested bystander, but an active debater of the subject, and the fact that most scientists believe in m-evolution is common knowledge.

Rather than bicker over whether the opener contained logical fallacies, a better tactic would be to provide an argument supporting the claim that science has a way of confirming the claims of m-evolution.

Slipnish
October 23rd, 2005, 08:28 PM
No, he's pointing out that Christians are saying that "evolution does not conflict with the teachings of the Bible", which is completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not evolution does, in fact, conflict with the teachings of the Bible. Merely because some (or even most) people think that evolution doesn't conflict with the Bible doesn't make it so.


WTF?

Let me see if I understand what you are saying...

No, NVM, I don't think I can...

Lemme restate the argument for you...

The clergy think that the bible and evolution are not at odds. Not scientists, not the population at large, but those who are trained in the actual Word of God.

But to YOU, that doesn't matter.

Glad to know you remain unswayed by any opinion but your own, Clive. /\

Slipnish
October 23rd, 2005, 08:31 PM
Slipnish asked "IDers" to account for why some Christians think that their religion does not conflict with evolution. I think this is a bad question; the fact that some Christians think that their religion does not conflict with evolution says nothing about whether their religion ACTUALLY DOES conflict with evolution.

Not just Christians, but CLERGY. Big difference.


What's the point of including a story about Christians claiming that their religion doesn't conflict with evolution if you aren't using that as part of your argument? It's just coincidence?

My point is, the clergy aren't pushing for ID, but evolution. And, so far as I know, the clergy are the ones with FORMAL training in the understanding of religious texts...

Maybe THEY actually know what in the :censor: they are talking about...

Now, I reiterate my question.

In light of this, the fact that the CHURCH LEADERS CALL FOR THE TEACHING OF EVOLUTION, how do you ID folks account for it?

Slipnish
October 23rd, 2005, 08:38 PM
Slip has said many times before that he thinks macroevolution is true and intelligent design/creationism is false.

Kind of.

I believe in an ultimate creator you would call the Christian God, who designed the whole mess but uses naturalistic processes to do so.

I think ID is a wish and a hope by those driven by religious ideals.

In fact...

BEHE says it isn't science either, unless you change the definition of science:

<blockquote>Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.

The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with local members of the public and the school board.

Behe maintains that ID is science: “Under my definition, scientific theory is a proposed explanation which points to physical data and logical inferences.”

“You've got to admire the guy. It’s Daniel in the lion’s den,” says Robert Slade, a local retiree who has been attending the trial because he is interested in science. "But I can’t believe he teaches a college biology class."

The cross examination will continue Wednesday, with the trial expected to finish on 4 November.</blockquote>

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178

Creationism, as in Young Earth Creationism, is simply stupid with a capital S.


This thread is attempting to support that claim, using the arguments that 1) authorities believe m-evolution and 2) the majority believe m-evolution. He would have no reason to post this information simply for our education, since he is not a disinterested bystander, but an active debater of the subject, and the fact that most scientists believe in m-evolution is common knowledge.

Nope. My argument here is for those who support ID, thus far those who seem to be of a particular religion and conservative nature, please explain to me why those who have formal training in God's word, support evolution and NOT ID, which you guys continue to tell me is science and NOT a religious idea...


Rather than bicker over whether the opener contained logical fallacies, a better tactic would be to provide an argument supporting the claim that science has a way of confirming the claims of m-evolution.

Or perhaps one of you IDers could show me the scientific test for God vs natural mechanism. I've only been asking for a month or so now...

Slipnish
October 23rd, 2005, 08:41 PM
For the record, Zhav and Star are quite correct...

It has nothing to do with the fact that Christians believe it so you should too, but rather how do you account for the leaders of faith accepting evolution and not pusing ID?

Perhaps there is something to that "sciency stuff" after all?

Slipnish
October 23rd, 2005, 08:42 PM
For the record, Zhav and Star are quite correct...

It has nothing to do with the fact that Christians believe it so you should too, but rather how do you account for the leaders of faith accepting evolution and not pusing ID?

Perhaps there is something to that "sciency stuff" after all?

Zhavric
October 24th, 2005, 07:14 AM
Slip has said many times before that he thinks macroevolution is true and intelligent design/creationism is false.

This thread is attempting to support that claim, using the arguments that 1) authorities believe m-evolution and 2) the majority believe m-evolution. He would have no reason to post this information simply for our education, since he is not a disinterested bystander, but an active debater of the subject, and the fact that most scientists believe in m-evolution is common knowledge.

Straw man.


Rather than bicker over whether the opener contained logical fallacies,

Translation: "Please ignore the fallacies I've committed."


a better tactic would be to provide an argument supporting the claim that science has a way of confirming the claims of m-evolution.

We've already done that for you in several threads.


Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails.

Source. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html)

Please stop ignoring evidence.

That being said, it is also very :offtopic:

The opening post stated that there are many theists who back evolution and reject ID. That means that the validity of Evolution / ID is on the back burner and the true subject at hand is examing the apparent fact that many theists accept evolution over ID and why that is. If you are unable to participate in the debate, well... you know the rest.

CliveStaples
October 24th, 2005, 12:42 PM
Your second statement in this thread was a straw man. Slip never said this. You were presenting a counterargument to an argument which was never presented. Slip asks IDers to account for the fact that many theists believe in evolution, you interpret this as Slip stating that evolution is right and good because a whole bunch of Christians say so. Dead wrong.

Slipnish is asking people to account for their own beliefs IN LIGHT OF others' beliefs. That is a faulty approach. IDers arguments that Christianity does not support evolution is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the fact that some Christians/clergy/etc. think that it is. Bringing up the fact that some Christians/clergy/etc. think that evolution is reconciliable with Christianity is a non sequiter.


Who knows what his intentions were? Maybe he'll post and clarify for us. But from the mere amount of information he gave it is downright illogical to assume that he was saying that evolution is correct because a bunch of Christians say so.

The fact that he brought up COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT data and asked people to make arguments IN LIGHT OF that irrelevant data was a bad tactic, imo. Slipnish proves my point right when he says, "The clergy think that the bible and evolution are not at odds. Not scientists, not the population at large, but those who are trained in the actual Word of God. But to YOU, that doesn't matter." See? He's saying that BECAUSE "those who are trained in the actual Word of God" have a certain opinion aboot the Bible that IDers have to somehow make an account of this. Which is bad reasoning.


The clergy think that the bible and evolution are not at odds. Not scientists, not the population at large, but those who are trained in the actual Word of God.

But to YOU, that doesn't matter.

Glad to know you remain unswayed by any opinion but your own, Clive.

For the sake of Grabzor, Slipnish, did you miss the part where I AGREED WITH THE PEOPLE WHO THINK EVOLUTION IS COMPATABLE WITH CHRISTIANITY??? Did you see that? You know, where I said, "My faith doesn't rest on whether evolution is or is not true"?

What OTHERS think about the Bible and what is or is not reconciliable to it has no effect on what actually is or is not reconciliable. That is, just bringing up the fact that people disagree with me does nothing to prove me wrong.


Not just Christians, but CLERGY. Big difference.

Actually, I'm a Protestant, so there isn't a difference between "Christians" and "CLERGY" at all. But nice try.

starcreator
October 24th, 2005, 03:04 PM
Slip has said many times before that he thinks macroevolution is true and intelligent design/creationism is false.

This thread is attempting to support that claim, using the arguments that 1) authorities believe m-evolution and 2) the majority believe m-evolution. He would have no reason to post this information simply for our education, since he is not a disinterested bystander, but an active debater of the subject, and the fact that most scientists believe in m-evolution is common knowledge.

Straw man. What Slip has said in other debates is absolutely irrelevant to this one. he asked, as he said below, for IDers to account for the presence of evolutionist theists. THAT IS ALL. You assumed he had a thesis which, in fact, he did not post.


Rather than bicker over whether the opener contained logical fallacies, a better tactic would be to provide an argument supporting the claim that science has a way of confirming the claims of m-evolution.

But this wasn't at all what the thread was about. Furthermore, we're not "bickering" - Zhav just pointed out with complete accuracy that you inaccurately identified several logical fallacies. Clive seems to have leapt to your defense and he as well was incorrect.


Slipnish is asking people to account for their own beliefs IN LIGHT OF others' beliefs. That is a faulty approach. IDers arguments that Christianity does not support evolution is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the fact that some Christians/clergy/etc. think that it is. Bringing up the fact that some Christians/clergy/etc. think that evolution is reconciliable with Christianity is a non sequiter.


It is amazing, Clive, that Slip actually posted a clarifying post and you did not read it. All he asked us to do was to account for the fact that Christians support evolution. I am not saying it was a great thesis for a debate but you and Kevin misinterpreted it.


The fact that he brought up COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT data and asked people to make arguments IN LIGHT OF that irrelevant data was a bad tactic, imo. Slipnish proves my point right when he says, "The clergy think that the bible and evolution are not at odds. Not scientists, not the population at large, but those who are trained in the actual Word of God. But to YOU, that doesn't matter." See? He's saying that BECAUSE "those who are trained in the actual Word of God" have a certain opinion aboot the Bible that IDers have to somehow make an account of this. Which is bad reasoning.

Yes, in my opinion as well, I think this debate topic was a dead ender :(. There isn't much IDers can say. But Slip never made the argument that the fact that Christians support evolution makes ID illogical, nor did he say that it makes evolution true (which was your fallacy).

Star

Slipnish
October 25th, 2005, 05:58 AM
Slipnish is asking people to account for their own beliefs IN LIGHT OF others' beliefs. That is a faulty approach. IDers arguments that Christianity does not support evolution is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the fact that some Christians/clergy/etc. think that it is. Bringing up the fact that some Christians/clergy/etc. think that evolution is reconciliable with Christianity is a non sequiter.

Swing and a miss Clive.

Actually what I am asking for is how do the ID people account for the clergy's acceptance and urging of evolution.




The fact that he brought up COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT data and asked people to make arguments IN LIGHT OF that irrelevant data was a bad tactic, imo. Slipnish proves my point right when he says, "The clergy think that the bible and evolution are not at odds. Not scientists, not the population at large, but those who are trained in the actual Word of God. But to YOU, that doesn't matter." See? He's saying that BECAUSE "those who are trained in the actual Word of God" have a certain opinion aboot the Bible that IDers have to somehow make an account of this. Which is bad reasoning.

I believe that one was addressed specifically to you, because you were so far afield on this one...


For the sake of Grabzor, Slipnish, did you miss the part where I AGREED WITH THE PEOPLE WHO THINK EVOLUTION IS COMPATABLE WITH CHRISTIANITY??? Did you see that? You know, where I said, "My faith doesn't rest on whether evolution is or is not true"?

Did you miss the point where this thread was aimed at the ID supportive crowd? Did you miss the point that if you think the thread is irrelevant, you DON'T have to post on it? Did you miss the whole point of this thread?

Why yes, I rather think you did...


What OTHERS think about the Bible and what is or is not reconciliable to it has no effect on what actually is or is not reconciliable. That is, just bringing up the fact that people disagree with me does nothing to prove me wrong.

You're right Clive. What the clergy actually think about the bible, ID, and evolution has no bearing on you.

However, I think it poses an interesting question to those that spurn evolution and promote ID. Particularly those like Xanadu, Kevin, and perhaps Apok, though he as been silent in this sort of debate for some time.

What I would like to hear is how THEY account for the churches position to back evolution and NOT ID.

Obviously you feel this is irrelevant.

Dude... Its like your TV. If you don't like what's on, change the channel, and walk away.


Actually, I'm a Protestant, so there isn't a difference between "Christians" and "CLERGY" at all. But nice try.

Everwhat... :wtf:

KevinBrowning
October 25th, 2005, 07:42 AM
You're right Clive. What the clergy actually think about the bible, ID, and evolution has no bearing on you.

However, I think it poses an interesting question to those that spurn evolution and promote ID. Particularly those like Xanadu, Kevin, and perhaps Apok, though he as been silent in this sort of debate for some time.


There are plenty of churches and individual clergy who either agree or disagree with macroevolution. However, what the Bible says is supreme to me. What a certain group of priests says has no effect on my beliefs. And if you'll pay a bit more attention, even the churches that fully accept m-evolution, such as the RCC, also accept ID. They see m-evolution as the mechanism of God's creation. No Christian church accepts unguided, naturalistic m-evolution.

FruitandNut
October 25th, 2005, 10:37 AM
I have already thrown in my two cents worth several times over in other threads and forums, I'll leave you guys to slug it out in the trenches. (We have had about 36hrs of solid rain over here and I don't want to get trench foot.) ;)

starcreator
October 25th, 2005, 02:16 PM
There are plenty of churches and individual clergy who either agree or disagree with macroevolution. However, what the Bible says is supreme to me. What a certain group of priests says has no effect on my beliefs. And if you'll pay a bit more attention, even the churches that fully accept m-evolution, such as the RCC, also accept ID. They see m-evolution as the mechanism of God's creation. No Christian church accepts unguided, naturalistic m-evolution.

I hope you aren't implying that no Christians accept natural selection, as some believe that (just like macroevolution) natural selection is one of God's mechanisms for creation. But you are correct - the majority of Christians who are macroevolutionists believe it under the caveat of ID.

Star

Slipnish
October 25th, 2005, 09:01 PM
There are plenty of churches and individual clergy who either agree or disagree with macroevolution. However, what the Bible says is supreme to me. What a certain group of priests says has no effect on my beliefs. And if you'll pay a bit more attention, even the churches that fully accept m-evolution, such as the RCC, also accept ID. They see m-evolution as the mechanism of God's creation. No Christian church accepts unguided, naturalistic m-evolution.

Oddly, I have that same belief, but it does not encompass mainstream ID.

If you will read the opening statement, the question remains, how do you account for their acceptance of evolution if you believe in the mainstream ideology of ID.

As is proof of a designer???

FruitandNut
October 25th, 2005, 10:25 PM
My slant on intelligent design is that the Almighty set up all the laws and stuff and keeps a weather eye on the tiller; and that what is really intelligent is that some people can understand the principles and believe it to be so.

It is actually the system that is 'intelligent', it adjusts to circumstances. But if you percieve it on a grand scale it is only as intelligent as the Designer wishes it to be. Whether in the micro, or the macro that collectivities of micros produce, it is in the end 'God's Intelligence'. The only loose bit, and the bit that so often goes wrong is when He allows 'one of His designs' a modicum of freedom of will.

DANG! - I'VE GIVEN MYSELF TRENCH FOOT AGAIN.

nanderson
October 27th, 2005, 08:27 AM
Religion Backs Evolution

First of all, it is quite a bit of a stretch to say "religion" backs evolution. What you have here is a list of about 9,000 clergy members who agree with evolution. Last time I checked church membership around the world was in the billions and church leaders were in the millions...so 9,000 clergy members who agree with evolution is not that big of a number at all.

I remember a while back I gave you a list of 400 scientists who viewed ID as valid...you responded by saying that there are thousands and thousands of scientists who disagreed with ID and that 400 was comparatively small. The same is true in this case as well.


If you will read the opening statement, the question remains, how do you account for their acceptance of evolution if you believe in the mainstream ideology of ID.

There is absolutely nothing to account for. 9,000 clergy believe evolution is valid...great! But I can give you millions of church leaders who disagree.

Either way, the amount of clergy supporting a theory does not determine the validity of that theory.

In fact, the creationist movement (which largely rejects evolution) was spearheaded by the church...you are trying to paint a picture that because 9,000 clergy support evolution that all of religion supports evolution and rejects ID...this is patently false and is a very huge stretch.

You are trying to appeal to popularity but there are a few problems with that...

The people you cite are actually in the minority
This is a logical fallacy

Who cares if "so-and-so" believes in evolution! Why does that mean I have to?

You are trying to tell us that we should believe in evolution because it is "popular" among clergy but what you fail to realize is that not only is this a logical fallacy, but a failed attempt at a logical fallacy because the people you cite are in the minority when it comes to the church as a whole.

Zhavric
October 27th, 2005, 08:48 AM
"Evolution is valid because lots of people believe it's valid."

"It's notable that members of the clergy support evolution on the grounds that it does not conflict with god's word as written in the bible."


Apparently, if your name is either Nanderson or Kevin Browning, the second sentence appears identical to the first. I call this phenomenon "theistic dyslexia".

nanderson
October 27th, 2005, 09:04 AM
"Evolution is valid because lots of people believe it's valid."

"It's notable that members of the clergy support evolution on the grounds that it does not conflict with god's word as written in the bible."


Apparently, if your name is either Nanderson or Kevin Browning, the second sentence appears identical to the first. I call this phenomenon "theistic dyslexia".



8,930 folks so far and still climbing...

How do you IDers account for this one???




Actually what I am asking for is how do the ID people account for the clergy's acceptance and urging of evolution.

No, he was telling us that because 9,000 clergy believe evolution to be valid that we should view it as valid. He was also telling us that because 9,000 clergy don't think evolution conflicts with the Bible that we should think this way as well....

Hence the "8,930 so far...how do you ID'ers account for this one"...

He made no attempt to make an argument of why the 2 views are NOT contradictory other than because 9,000 people "say so"...so it could be either an appeal to authority or appeal to popularity, or both.

Even if he did say "It's notable that members of the clergy support evolution on the grounds that it does not conflict with god's word as written in the bible" (which he didn't)...what's the point....a few members of the clergy support evolution...so what...what's the point?

Zhavric
October 27th, 2005, 09:58 AM
Another facet of "theistic dyslexia" is a massive blind spot focused over any phrase / sentence / paragraph that contradicts / threatens / challenges their point of view.

For example, where evryone else saw the following:


<blockquote>We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.</blockquote>

http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm

8,930 folks so far and still climbing...

How do you IDers account for this one???


... Nanderson apparently only saw...



8,930 folks so far and still climbing...


... Curious.

nanderson
October 27th, 2005, 10:16 AM
Another facet of "theistic dyslexia" is a massive blind spot focused over any phrase / sentence / paragraph that contradicts / threatens / challenges their point of view.

For example, where evryone else saw the following:

.. Nanderson apparently only saw...


.. Curious.


No I saw the WHOLE thing. He copied and pasted a paragraph from his link where it was talking about how evolution and the Bible are compatable...THEN HE ASKED HOW WE ACCOUNT FOR THE CLERGY'S POSITION!

He made NO argument as to why the two ARE compatable other than asking US to account the THEIR POSITION. That since there are 9,000 clergy members who give credence to evolution then we should as well....

Here is another one of his posts


You're right Clive. What the clergy actually think about the bible, ID, and evolution has no bearing on you.

He said this to Clive because Clive told him that he believed the Bible and Evolution ARE compatable...therefore what clergy think does not apply to Clive.

Let's read on....


However, I think it poses an interesting question to those that spurn evolution and promote ID. Particularly those like Xanadu, Kevin, and perhaps Apok, though he as been silent in this sort of debate for some time.

What I would like to hear is how THEY account for the churches position to back evolution and NOT ID.

There it is, what I've been saying all along. He wants to know how WE account for the clergy's position....he's telling us that we somehow have to justify what 9,000 clergy members are saying....

He did not say "the 2 are compatable and evolution is true and here is EVIDENCE to support this"

He said "the 2 are compatable and evolution is true and here are CLERGY who agree with me"

It's nothing more that an appeal to popularity/authority

If he wants to debate whether evolution and the Bible are compatable....that's fine, but he did not do this, he pasted a paragraph from this group of 9,000 where they said it WAS compatable and then asked us how we reconcile that there are 9,000 clergy members who support evolution.

Zhavric
October 27th, 2005, 10:42 AM
Translation: "It was much easier to IGNORE the point of Slip's argument and create a straw man based on a few sentences he happened to post around the meat of his op."


My hat goes off to you. You've hit a new debating low. /\

nanderson
October 27th, 2005, 11:02 AM
Translation: "It was much easier to IGNORE the point of Slip's argument and create a straw man based on a few sentences he happened to post around the meat of his op."




Read what was actually written, my goodness!

It is not a straw man AT ALL. He clearly asked us to justify THEIR POSITION!
He clearly said that THAT is what he was interested in...

I take it by your lack of a serious response that you now realize how ridiculous your assertion are....


However, I think it poses an interesting question to those that spurn evolution and promote ID. Particularly those like Xanadu, Kevin, and perhaps Apok, though he as been silent in this sort of debate for some time.

What I would like to hear is how THEY account for the churches position to back evolution and NOT ID.


I have ignore NOTHING. This is what he CLEARLY said in post after post...asking us to justify someone else's position.

Even when he clearly and blatently says it you try to somehow ignore this and blinly hold to your position. The ONLY person ignoring things here is YOU.

In his OP he pastes part of an article by the clergy saying that evolution and the Bible are compatable...in that paragraph the subject of the OP is not stated...THEN, in the last part of the OP he states the purpose of the thread...


8,930 folks so far and still climbing...

How do you IDers account for this one???

There it is! The question posed in the OP and the purpose of the thread...asking ID'ers how we account for the clergy's position.



He NEVER said "the Bible and evolution are compatable and here is proof"

He ONLY said "the Bible and evolution are compatable and here are CLERGY who agree with me"

He then asked us to justify THEIR position.

It's time to open your eyes bud...closing them and stomping your feet won't work. ;)

KevinBrowning
October 27th, 2005, 11:20 AM
The fact that many clergy believe in m-evolution is widely known and undisputed. I can only assume that Slip would post this thread to support the claim that m-evolution is true, considering this fact. Asking the members of ODN to give individual clergy's reason for accepting m-evolution, and then denying that he's trying to make a case for evolution, is simply a sneaky way to disguise the fallacy of appeal to authority. I'm perfectly willing to debate m-evolution based on the evidence (or lack thereof). What Bishop Chuck Darwin says about the issue is irrelevant to me. What is relevant is divine revelation (the Bible) and observable fact, i.e. that animals change, but within limits.

Zhavric
October 27th, 2005, 11:44 AM
The fact that many clergy believe in m-evolution is widely known and undisputed.

http://museumoftolerance.info/albums/Animals/orly.jpg


If it's undisputed then wtf us your problem with it?


I can only assume that Slip would post this thread to support the claim that m-evolution is true, considering this fact.

Way to make an ass of u & me. /\

This reminds me of the time when we showed you a report from weapons inspectors in Iraq who concluded there were no WMD's in Iraq, but you still argued they were there based on nothing. Only this time, clergy members who know more about the bible than you do say the bible & evolution don't contradict one another, but you, the non-clergy, say they do. What are you basing your contradiction on? The years you HAVEN'T spent getting advanced degrees in theology?


Asking the members of ODN to give individual clergy's reason for accepting m-evolution, and then denying that he's trying to make a case for evolution, is simply a sneaky way to disguise the fallacy of appeal to authority.

I think you've invented a new fallacy, Kevin: Appeal AGAINST authority. Though the WMD's was a better example, simply contradicting those who are more knowledgable than you without sources doesn't make for strong argumentation.


I'm perfectly willing to debate m-evolution based on the evidence (or lack thereof). What Bishop Chuck Darwin says about the issue is irrelevant to me. What is relevant is divine revelation (the Bible)

Translation: "Any authority that disagrees with my lamen opinion is wrong regardless of how much they have studied / how little I have studied."

/\



and observable fact, i.e. that animals change, but within limits.

Nope. Sorry. You don't get to make that argument as we've proven in the "Challenge to Evolutionists" thread that you were unable to support the assertion that these limits exist / what causes them / how they function. You may as well have just said "The loch ness monster is real cuz I said so". It would have been equally as "valid".

nanderson
October 27th, 2005, 11:55 AM
Only this time, clergy members who know more about the bible than you do say the bible & evolution don't contradict one another, but you, the non-clergy, say they do. What are you basing your contradiction on? The years you HAVEN'T spent getting advanced degrees in theology?

What an absurd appeal to authority.

"Hey Kev, these guys know more than you, don't argue with what they say"

Come on...you should know better than that....at least...I would hope so...

In any case this is ONLY 9,000 clergy...there are MILLIONS opon MILLIONS of church leaders who disagree with THEM....9,000 is a comparitively small number when compared to all the pastors/clergy/etc that are out there.

In fact you astound me with the 180's you do...you and Slip.

In an ID debate I had a link to more than 400 scientiest who supported ID, you both (I know at least Slip did, not 100% sure if the other person was you zhav) scoffed at that and stated that there are THOUSANDS of scientists who disagreed with ID and that 400 is a comparitively small number...now all the sudden, when it suites your needs, 9,000 is an extremely significant number when compared to millions..come on, that's just absurd.

KevinBrowning
October 27th, 2005, 07:50 PM
http://museumoftolerance.info/albums/Animals/orly.jpg


If it's undisputed then wtf us your problem with it?

For God's sake, you can be so dense sometimes. I said that the fact that many clergy believe it is undisputed. Not that m-evolution itself is undisputed.




The years you HAVEN'T spent getting advanced degrees in theology?

I think you've invented a new fallacy, Kevin: Appeal AGAINST authority. Though the WMD's was a better example, simply contradicting those who are more knowledgable than you without sources doesn't make for strong argumentation.

Zhavric, a certain authority saying something does not make it true. Period. The fact that you still don't understand that appeals to authority is not good debating is flabbergasting. As for trying to belittle my theological knowledge, well, don't get yourself into that one, "hoss". I took you to task about some absurd reference of yours to the Book of Job a few weeks back, and it was met with utter silence. Until you know a heck of a lot more about Christianity and what it believes concerning origins theory, it's understandable for your argument to consist of "OMG, ur not a Doctor of Divinity, therefore teh macroevo is true!1!". However, it's not excusable.

Slipnish
October 27th, 2005, 08:15 PM
You know...

I have a hard time believing so many people are arguing about what I apparently said. Of course it comes as no surprise that the Neo-Con Trio are together on this one.

Okay. Let me explain this and use small words so you can all understand.

What I want the conservatives out there to explain to me, is why these particular church leaders are choosing to back evolution and NOT ID based on the continued assertions I hear regarding the worthiness of ID.

I am NOT saying that church leaders back evo so it must be true.
I am NOT appealing to anything in particular.
I am NOT saying anything about anything being correct OR incorrect.

What I am looking for are the reasons why the neo-cons, who tend to also be the Christian Conservatives out there in ODN land, why they think these church leaders pick evolution OVER ID?

It seems perfectly obvious to me that church leaders would be head over heels for the ID ideology IF it offered a shred of proof about a designer...

But that's just me.

Anyways, its just my thread, and this is just the 3rd time I have had to explain this, but by all means don't stop me from telling you what I am trying to say.

KevinBrowning
October 27th, 2005, 08:21 PM
What I am looking for are the reasons why the neo-cons, who tend to also be the Christian Conservatives out there in ODN land, why they think these church leaders pick evolution OVER ID?

How in the world should we know? Ask them. You have now clearly stated how pointless this thread is. It's not about the truth or falsehood of m-evolution at all, according to you, but why certain people believe what they do, something we can't possibly know.

FruitandNut
October 27th, 2005, 09:18 PM
[B] Apparently, if your name is either Nanderson or Kevin Browning, the second sentence appears identical to the first. I call this phenomenon "theistic dyslexia".
Naaaa! -Intellectual or Comprehending Dyslexia! Even Atheists are prone to getting mutated strains of this condition. I have heard that there is a treatment available for this endemic malady, it goes under the name of 'Reflective Wisdom'.

Slipnish
October 28th, 2005, 05:51 AM
How in the world should we know? Ask them. You have now clearly stated how pointless this thread is. It's not about the truth or falsehood of m-evolution at all, according to you, but why certain people believe what they do, something we can't possibly know.


Nice deflection Kev.

Okay Kev. Why do you THINK these learned folks would give credence to evolution and NOT ID?

KevinBrowning
October 28th, 2005, 08:10 AM
Nice deflection Kev.

Okay Kev. Why do you THINK these learned folks would give credence to evolution and NOT ID?

It's not a deflection. It's a simple fact. I don't know why every single priest who believes in m-evolution does so. Period. I also don't know why every single priest who doesn't believe in it does not do so. I only know why I don't believe in it.

Further, you're still making the mistake that they don't believe in ID. Every Christian believes in ID, whether they believe in m-evolution or not. The ones who accept it believe evolution was the mechanism of God's intelligent design.

Slipnish
October 28th, 2005, 12:03 PM
It's not a deflection. It's a simple fact. I don't know why every single priest who believes in m-evolution does so. Period. I also don't know why every single priest who doesn't believe in it does not do so. I only know why I don't believe in it.

Further, you're still making the mistake that they don't believe in ID. Every Christian believes in ID, whether they believe in m-evolution or not. The ones who accept it believe evolution was the mechanism of God's intelligent design.

I am not making the mistake that they do not believe in ID. What I find interesting is your assumption of this. I happen to be one of those people, Kev. I believe in an ID process, but not what Dembski, Behe, and the rest of those frauds are presenting as proof of anything.

The ID that I, and apparently these clergy believe in, is NOT one that can be tested by science. The reason that I give for this is that they actually understand the process behind the testing that science requires.

SIGH

FruitandNut
November 19th, 2005, 08:45 AM
"Evolution is valid because lots of people believe it's valid."

"It's notable that members of the clergy support evolution on the grounds that it does not conflict with god's word as written in the bible."


Apparently, if your name is either Nanderson or Kevin Browning, the second sentence appears identical to the first. I call this phenomenon "theistic dyslexia".


Hey, Zhav - You AND the Vatican walking hand in hand - where is my camera, I have to click this one!


Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design
Nov 18 11:55 AM US/Eastern


By NICOLE WINFIELD
Associated Press Writer


VATICAN CITY


The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.

The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.

"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

His comments were in line with his previous statements on "intelligent design" _ whose supporters hold that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Proponents of intelligent design are seeking to get public schools in the United States to teach it as part of the science curriculum. Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism _ a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation _ camouflaged in scientific language, and they say it does not belong in science curriculum.

In a June article in the British Catholic magazine The Tablet, Coyne reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said science explains the history of the universe.

"If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly."

Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent.

"God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity," he wrote. "He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves."

The Vatican Observatory, which Coyne heads, is one of the oldest astronomical research institutions in the world. It is based in the papal summer residence at Castel Gandolfo south of Rome.

Last week, Pope Benedict XVI waded indirectly into the evolution debate by saying the universe was made by an "intelligent project" and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order.

Questions about the Vatican's position on evolution were raised in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.

In a New York Times column, Schoenborn seemed to back intelligent design and dismissed a 1996 statement by Pope John Paul II that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis." Schoenborn said the late pope's statement was "rather vague and unimportant." (F&N insert - There are always the old dinosaurs of course!)

Greg3000
November 23rd, 2005, 07:33 PM
Let me argue this in the form of a question, Slipnish. Where do you get the idea of Salvation, God's grace, and our one way to heaven is through Jesus Christ and his sacrifice? We get that from the Bible. And from your opening post I see you believe this. OK. Where do we get the idea that God created the universe in literally 6, 24-hr days about 6 to 10 thousand years ago? The Bible. Now if you believe one thing from the Bible and not the other, where do you draw the line. I see a major discrepancy here.

The Bible says we should not commit adultery. Sadly today, there is little legal government punishment for this sin. Does that mean we can do it. Of course not. But if you dismiss that God created the earth, but accept that he provides Salvation (both from the Bible), why not dismiss God telling us not to commit adultery? Pretty soon, Slipnish, you will find you will only believe what you want to believe about the Bible. What you want or like to hear, you accept. If you practice or believe something the Bible clearly contradicts, you quickly dismiss it. Trust me Slipnish, this way of thinking is the wrong path. At the end of the Bible, God tells us that if any man takes away from His Word, then God will take away that Man's part in the Book of Life. I think that is pretty self explanatory. Yet again, maybe you dismiss that too because it's not what you would want to hear.

Dionysus
November 23rd, 2005, 07:43 PM
...Salvation, God's grace, and our one way to heaven is through Jesus Christ and his sacrifice? We get that from the Bible. And from your opening post I see you believe this.I don't know how you "saw" that. He posted a quote, not necessarily what he believes. Thus, there is no discrepancy. Slipnish has a unique perspective of God and it is not confined to the limitations of Biblical and Christian description.

Greg3000
November 24th, 2005, 08:15 AM
Well maybe you're right and it was a quote.If it was a quote I apologize. But the same goes for the person that stated that quote. If we believe parts of the Bible, where do we draw the line?
If Slipnish believes any part of the true Bible, he should see my point.
And since God wrote every word of the Bible, I think I'm going to trust what he has to say and stive to follow all of it. After all, he is much wiser than any of us.
You sort of took me out of context, I did not use the word discrepency with what I believe Slipnish believed. The discrepency was not Slipnish or his belief of Salvation (he might have been quoting that), its the fact that one can choose to believe and not believe certain parts of the Bible, that problem is the discrepency.

My main point out of all of this is, that accepting Salvation, yet not accepting that God created the universe is impossible, seeing both ideas are from the same book. One can't cut and paste what he wants in the Bible.

Dionysus
November 24th, 2005, 09:02 AM
After all, he [God] is much wiser than any of us.So I've been told.


You sort of took me out of context,No, you presented your argument out of context. You said "I see a discrepancy HERE" with reference to your already incorrect assumption that Slipnish believes in Salvation through Jesus Christ. See here:


Where do you get the idea of Salvation, God's grace, and our one way to heaven is through Jesus Christ and his sacrifice? We get that from the Bible. And from your opening post I see you believe this. Where do we get the idea that God created the universe in literally 6, 24-hr days about 6 to 10 thousand years ago? The Bible. Now if you believe one thing from the Bible and not the other, where do you draw the line.Then you followed with a conclusion based on that false premise (that he accepts one part of the Bible but rejects another.) See here:


I see a major discrepancy here.You did not say "I see a discrepancy THERE" with reference to your clarification here in a later post:


The discrepency was not Slipnish or his belief of Salvation (he might have been quoting that), its the fact that one can choose to believe and not believe certain parts of the Bible, that problem is the discrepency....which is of course, completely untrue. I can believe that there really is a place called Israel and that there really is a race of people called Jews and that there really is a place called Egypt but STILL reject chariots of fire, water into wine and world-wide flood, the last of which there is a phenomenal amount of evidence to the contrary. There is no discrepancy here unless we live by the "be all - end all" standard of Biblical absolutism. Personally, I reject all supernatural claims as being equally absurd.

Greg3000
November 24th, 2005, 09:52 AM
Anyone can believe what they want. If you believe Egypt and Israel were and are real because the Bible says so is all fine, but thats not a moral issue God addresses, thats just a fact. If a person chooses to filter MORAL issues God sets, miracles, things we can't explain etc... then the Bible is useless to that person because it becomes his word, not God's Word.

Dionysus
November 25th, 2005, 07:59 AM
Anyone can believe what they want. If you believe Egypt and Israel were and are real because the Bible says so is all fine, but thats not a moral issue God addresses, thats just a fact.But you didn't say anything about "moral" issues. You limited your statement exclusively to "things we get from the Bible" which, in your examples, were both moral and historical "issues".


See HERE (http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/showpost.php?p=113035&postcount=49)

We get [the idea of Salvation, God's grace, and our one way to heaven..through Jesus Christ] from the Bible... we get the idea that God created the universe in literally 6, 24-hr days about 6 to 10 thousand years ago [from] The BibleThe former being a Biblical doctrine for becoming a Christian, the latter a supposed "historical" account.


If a person chooses to filter MORAL issues God sets, miracles, things we can't explain etc... then the Bible is useless to that person because it becomes his word, not God's Word.Now you backpedal and say that one cannot accept Biblical "MORAL issues" and reject others, but you also say that "anyone can believe what they want" with regards to historical accounts. So which is it? Can we or can we not reject some of the Bible while accepting other bits without "discrepancy"?

sylouette
November 25th, 2005, 09:23 AM
And since God wrote every word of the Bible, I think I'm going to trust what he has to say and strive to follow all of it. After all, he is much wiser than any of us.

Oh Lad...you've been horribly mislead. There is no proof whatsoever of this. However, if you choose to live your life by historical Hebrew myths, poetry and glaring contradictions, so be it for me to stop you.

I'll be waiting at the "pearly gates" when you get there with a huge smile on MY face and a cool damp rag to pat your forehead once you realize that you've just exhausted your entire life with fear of your "Father" possibly giving you the boot once you get there.



My main point out of all of this is, that accepting Salvation, yet not accepting that God created the universe is impossible, seeing both ideas are from the same book. One can't cut and paste what he wants in the Bible.

It's not okay for those of us to be "skeptical" of the bible with all of it's contradictions and discrepencies but it's okay for people such as yourself to overlook those contradictions without explanation. Sure I believe God created the universe and I certainly believe my salvation. But to believe that God wrote every word of the bible is ludacrist. God is perfect in my eyes. The contradictions in the bible is proof to me that he did not write every word of the Bible.