I’m not a massive fan of endless comments resulting from a post – I feel that everyone’s opinion should be heard, and would like to respond to any questions/comments addressed to me, but don’t really like trawling through enormous lists on other blogs, and don’t see why others should have to suffer with it on mine!
Therefore, I’m responding to this particular comment taken from this post with the hope that I do the comment justice, and don’t end up with loads of comments left on the original post!
“we are forgiven of sin and brought into a relationship with God by faith”
We’ve been here before, you know as well as i do that that sentence has no meaning, it is a collection of nonsense words.
What is the difference between evidence and works?
Evidence is so very different to works – apologies I’d not made myself clear before. Here’s the analogy: a Dad gives his kid a present. The kid may have his eyes closed, and may not want to obey his Dad by opening them, but it doesn’t stop the fact that the present exists. If the kid opens his eyes then he’ll see the present, and can even feel it – there’s the evidence. The Dad wants him to open the present, and it’s the kid actually opening it that’s the faith. Relying on his own works would be the kid reckoning he could get a present without his Dad…which is nonsensical, and that’s the message of the Bible. There’s plenty of evidence for God (which we’ll come onto later), but the faith is in the action of receiving, not in the believing while the kid has his eyes shut…having an open mind to obey his Dad and open his eyes is a separate issue.
I’m calling Her Cloud Beard to lighten the mood. I know plenty about God, i watch the news, read the papers, and i know my history &c.
You say that you know plenty about God but I don’t think you do. The Bible clearly presents God as the most powerful, most awe-inspiring, most scary Being ever…and you choose the name Cloud Beard. If God is real then taking the Mick is the most foolish thing you will ever do.
Intelligent Design is just creationism that bought a new hat and came swanning back into town thinking it could sweep us off our feet and we wouldn’t notice! So no, science couldn’t be used to back it up, because a) it is unscientific (starting as it does with the assumption that the G-man exists) and b) the theory that is deduced from the evidence does not point to, and requires no supernal artisan.
Your problems with intelligent design are good ones, but don’t justify your hatred of it. The conclusion of the theory could be that God exists, but that’s a theory based on the evidence. I could say that evolution is unscientific because it starts with the assumption that God doesn’t exist – our concept of good and evil, and our tendency to want to worship a god or gods should point us away from the theory of evolution.
You haven’t provided any evidence for Him upstairs have you though, a spurious claim about an ovary (singular!). The ‘fact’ that He walked on water? Once before you aeven sked someone to prove that He didn’t rise from the dead!
I’ve asked you to read the Bible but you won’t. I’ve asked you to visit a church and be open to existence of God but you won’t. I’ve asked you to consider the witness testimony of Jesus’ closest friends but you won’t. You’re like the child who refuses to open his eyes – if you open them you’ll see that the evidence is conclusive, but of course you can’t even see it! A future post will come with more detail on this
It is pretty convenient, is it not, that by definition miracles are non-repeatable.
It is also pretty convenient, is it not, that by definition evolution is unobservable and unprovable.
As for ‘irreducible complexity’ you seem to think that because (currently) avian physiology is stumped by birds’ lungs the whole of evolution should be scrapped. This is a silly notion, science would, and does, willingly hold up it’s hands and says ‘okay, right now we can’t answer that but give us some time, it is a gradual growth of knowledge.’
So I’ve given one example where the theory of intelligent design is satisfied with the evidence, but evolution is not. And your response is that evolution is still true, and that one day it will discover the truth behind birds’ lungs. Your blind belief is exemplary, I’m being serious! It took far more than that to convince me that Jesus is God, and now I’ve opened my eyes I can’t believe how much of a fool I was to keep them shut for so long! But seriously, your belief in something you can’t see or prove, and which cannot explain so much, is admirable.
A constant refnining of theory through falsifiability, test, test and re-test. No fundamental truth BUT a realisation that at some point something can be ESSENTIALLY true, true to all intents and purposes.
I pretty much agree that’s why I became a Christian, and why I’m still a Christian.
When a new (possibly anomalous) piece of data surfaces it is included in the body of, the ramifications are noted, any necessary reassessment is undertaken.
Yes, there may be stumbling blocks in some theories, but these are overcome, or they may be, or the may not be (at which point the thoery changes) but science constantly adapts to the data, unlike…
Anomalous results…if a theory is absolutely true then there should be no anomalous results. That’s why I stick to the floor – we don’t see random items falling upwards and discount them as anomalous results. If we did, the theory of gravity would simply be wrong.
…a selectively compiled anthology of mistranslated, mistinterpreted and misused rules for bronze age goat herds is the final word on life, the universe and everything. It is much simpler to take it on faith and easier therefore to abdicate responsibility to ‘im Upstairs.
Is it not absolutely incredible, almost unbelievable that this random list of rules made by goat herds has survived for thousands of years, and is consistently the bestselling book on the planet, and has been trusted as the Word of God by countless Christians throughout history? And actually, over half of the New Testament was written by a medical doctor so I’d retake your Bible course if I were you.
How, might i ask, exactly did Charles Darwin synthesise his Theory of Evolution? Where did it come from? Is he the biggest confidence trickster in history? What about the fact that everyday the weight of evidence (according to Popper’s concept of falsfiability) grows?
The theory of evolution is a fine theory. Some animals look similar to one another (e.g. horses and cows have four legs each), so let’s make a theory that they had a common ancestor. Let’s look at a bit more detail within one family – hey, we can even see particular changes between species that have developed over time. I understand how the theory could be synthesised…but that doesn’t mean it’s right.
Popper’s falsifiability isn’t scientific. Saying ‘I’ll believe something until it’s disproved’ is contrary to the scientific method. I could use the same argument as you have for Christianity, but it’s a weak argument. So I won’t.
Back to the specific discussion. You made a (semi) cogent point about fossils but neglected to address evolutonary genetics.
Evolutionary genetics are fine but don’t show anything beyond one species within a family adapts, which I am happy to accept, and which the Bible backs up. Turning that into ‘reptiles became birds’ is an illogical conclusion.
What about the possibility that a ‘clean’ scientist bankrolled by someone outside the ’science conspiracy’ wanted to have their research published?
Or is EVERYONE in on it? Even the potential christian benefactors?
(sounds like it has potential to be a hollywood blockbuster to me!)
Ha! Me too…although I’m not actually sure what you’re suggesting. ‘Potential Christian benefactors’ – I’m not sure what that means. Christianity means that we are all answerable to the Judge for every one of our actions, and that we deserve, and will receive, eternal punishment if not for the substitution of Jesus Christ in our place. His resurrection is the first, and all we need is faith (i.e. as opposed to our own good works) to join him.