tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-988682599247963883.post6180735541405359893..comments2018-01-25T16:08:03.730-08:00Comments on Peaceful Dissonance: "Observational Science" and the BibleAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14168059350570206901noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-988682599247963883.post-65340794389038209882014-07-06T03:18:54.693-07:002014-07-06T03:18:54.693-07:00Daren, I have also had troubling personal experien...Daren, I have also had troubling personal experiences, especially since I became a Christian. Indeed one of them was a spiritual experience that lasted about 45 days, and at the time I thought it would last forever, I was told afterward after a string of coincidences, all of the things I must do because of the experience. It was for me, the worst thing I will probably every experience, and I know it was from God because basically what He told me to do after it, I would never have considered doing, at gunpoint, for the twelve years before the experience. It's only long afterward did I realize that the experience itself, was a manipulation by God. If I had not done as I was told to do by Him, I would not have been at a certain place, at a certain time, for an event to occur which would likely only occur at one time in history. I was there at that precise moment, because of the terror I had to face.<br /><br />Since that time I have been through many trials, spiritual trials. I have grown stronger at each step, and can see the direction I am being led to.<br /><br />Why do I tell you these things? Well, all people experience bad things, even Christians, and I can now see going through the pain I have had to go through, the eternal and good reasons why those things happened. I can tell you that only a person that goes through something like that can actually tell you that God uses bad things in order to make a work in us.<br /><br />I encourage you not to be put off by the way the world is, at this time.<br /><br />(I am going to write a new blog in a day or so about long ages and young ages, I watched two debates with Hugh Ross, Ken Ham, and Kent Hovind, and I am convinced that the young-earth position has been something I have neglected to study properly because of my many years of disinterest in it. I hope you will see that a Christian can be open-minded, I hope you'll read the blog. Thanks for your comments, Daren, and those are nice pictures of birds did you draw them yourself?)the wizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15600753010687590952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-988682599247963883.post-14069387792189815602014-07-02T08:32:01.874-07:002014-07-02T08:32:01.874-07:00Yes perhaps more research on design could lead to ...Yes perhaps more research on design could lead to more persuasive arguments for the teleological argument but the Discovery Institute needs more models other than computer simulations and theories like complex specified information. They actually receive quite a bit of funding from Christian organizations so it remains to be seen how successful a case could be made. I have problems with current explanations but guess we ll just have to wait and see. <br /><br />My personal reservation from accepting Christ is that I now find I have huge problems holding on to any religious faith in particular. I will admit it does not have anything to do with science and more with some troubling personal experiences. Irregardless, I will consider further. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14168059350570206901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-988682599247963883.post-5067796547766155982014-07-02T07:15:50.464-07:002014-07-02T07:15:50.464-07:00Hey thanks for the comment.
Remember that Im not...Hey thanks for the comment. <br /><br />Remember that Im not insinuating that all creationists think there is a deliberate attempt by the academic establishment to silence the idea of a divine Creator. Unfortunately, many creationists do, Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis for example. His opposition of mainstream science, demarcation of science into "two types" sounds exactly like what a crackpot conspiracy theorist would do. Bear in mind that Ken Ham has far more political/religious power than you think, and his denial of mainstream science will have profound ramifications on the spread of Christianity and children who grow up under the YEC umbrella will be extremely resentful when they realise how YECs misrepresent science to suit their interpretation of sacred scripture. <br /><br />As for your analogy for the murder case I can see where you are coming from. The thing is that current evolutionary theory can posit the mechanism by which diversity of living organisms can take place via natural processes. Although it rules out supernatural intervention it is not really the realm of science to teach the supernatural since by definition supernaturalism falls into the realm beyond empiricism and human inquiry. I will make a post evaluating intelligent design (will try to be as fair as possible) in the near future. <br /><br />The thing is Lyell, Hutton and Darwin lived in a time when creationism was the dominant narrative, and went against mainstream opinion because they believed their theories fit the evidence from the fossil record and species distribution better. Even devout creationists such as Carolus Linnaeus, Swedish naturalist and founder of taxonomy as mentioned in my post, noted striking anatomical similarities between humans and apes for example, so much so that he placed humans and apes under the same "family" level although he insisted we werent related to them. Another creationist, geologist William Smith observed how well sorted fossils were from one strata to the other and using this fact plotted the first geological map of Britain. <br /><br />You are right in saying critical thinking is important in evaluating whether evolution is true but could it be scientists used critical thinking to reject ID and accept evolution, leading to their opposition to intelligent design? I think it is hubris to dismiss entire sections of evolutionary biology and paleontology for example. Of course they could be wrong but how wrong could they get? Perhaps intelligent design could explain the evidence, but as of now it lacks predictive and explanatory power evolution has. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14168059350570206901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-988682599247963883.post-80479807237268107952014-07-01T04:01:48.071-07:002014-07-01T04:01:48.071-07:00"One of the greatest obstacles to me converti..."One of the greatest obstacles to me converting to the Christian faith is this. Apparently I am supposed to abandon most of my pre-existing acceptance of mainstream scientific views.."<br /><br />I don't see a conspiracy, I would say that I would DESCRIBE a picture of fourth-dimensional events, that only occurred ONCE in history, and can't be taken back, as leading to a chain-of-events we can only "know" from the viewpoint of hindsight, a chain of scientific investigation that was exclusive.<br /><br />Tell me Daren, if there are two suspects in a murder case and you disallow the conclusion that Bob could have done it, and you only have "Jane" left as the only other possible murderer, logically, what do you do if you find evidence that Bob done the murder? That's right - you conclude that this evidence is evidence that Jane did it, because you have guaranteed that there is only one suspect.<br /><br />When we look back at Lyell, Hutton, Darwin, and the things they said, and we look at the acceptance of evolution, it's easy to forget that most of the evidence back then, was already knowledge yet people didn't conclude evolution happened. If the evidence of an evolution was so striking, why was there already name-tags for such evidence as homologous structures? It was common knowledge, and the fossils to. <br /><br />So science was naturally going to accept a natural explanation of origins because that's what science does - explain things according to that philosophy.<br /><br />Now imagine if history was different, could you, "bank" on evolution being overwhelmingly true in the eyes of scientists? Not likely, if they had been exposed to critical thinking, the picture would be very different. To argue otherwise, you argue from ignorance, you only know of one history that occurred, for all you know, science itself could have much more persuasive arguments for design, if they had focused their efforts on design, but instead all of that time has been spent on evolution. is it then fair, logically, to say that if all that time was spent on design, that things would have looked the same, today? We can say many things by hindsight!<br /><br />We don't think scientists are up to a conspiracy, we just think they're misled and human the same as everyone else. you yourself read the scientific data innocently enough, but I still think all your knowledge would be unencumbered if you did not "know of" the evolution philosophy. Think about it, how would a knowledge of malaria change if you disposed of millions of years and molecules-to-man? Your scientific knowledge wouldn't even change, because evolution is just a philosophical-gloss.<br /><br />You can accept evolution and embrace Christianity. I would say you should, but obviously it's hard to marry the two because of all the contradictions. I suspect if you go through all the science you "know" and delete, "evolution" from your mind you'll see that the facts still make sense. It will still make sense that bats have bones like that as opposed to the horses forelimb, WITHOUT homology, for example, because those bones still do the job they were meant to do.<br />the wizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15600753010687590952noreply@blogger.com