Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

[_Buffalo]

It doesn't discredit the God of the Bible, again a phrase wrought with differing conceptions. There is nothing unreasonable about understanding the God of the Bible creating through the operation of created principles, evolution being some of them, which we partially understand in scientific laws.

Your conceptual problem follows you into evolution as well. Evolution occurred for sure but the naturalistic and metaphysical consequences of that are still reasonably debated and not fully understood. For example, I am fascinated by Simon Conway Morris' idea of convergence. He provides a compelling case for convergence in, "Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe". This isn't ID or creationism, it is decrying them as well as their equivalent fundamentalists like Dawkins. The idea is opposite Stephen Jay Gould's idea that evolution would show a different movie if you rewound the tape. Morris argues we are inevitable, that implies purposeful and your article doesn't disprove that, it is actually perfectly consistent with the idea. Of course I don't accept that as proof in a way analogous to how you utilize evolution against God but as an illustration of how feeble it is to say unicellular organisms combining and evolving through complex ways disprove a creator God, or the God or the Bible.

my regards, mikwut

There is neither evidence for nor necessity of any divine tinkering to explain the diversity (and existence) of life on earth.

It does indeed discredit the God of the Bible, who claims to have created the fish, and great creatures of the sea, livestock, etc. We can see that these animals evolve on their own, naturally. Claiming that God had anything to do with it holds the same weight as claiming that god is responsible for each gust of wind. God is completely superfluous. The real causes are known. There is no gap big enough in which to squeeze Yahweh into the process.

You might wish to back a god who is less falsifiable - ideally completely unfalsifiable. That would be a good strategy for believers going forward.

[_mikwut]

Hello Buffalo,

There is neither evidence for nor necessity of.....

I just gave some, you might reject it for possibly valid reasons you haven't articulated but there is indeed evidence.

any divine tinkering to explain the diversity (and existence) of life on earth.

I just gave you evidence for "creation" as in intention and originator, now you have switched to "divine tinkering" a different conceptual issue, you have a habit of this. Just saying so doesn't it make it so. I am unaware of science explaining in an efficient or final cause type way the origin of the laws of the universe.

It does indeed discredit the God of the Bible,

There you go again with that singular conception. It discredits your singular conception of the God of the Bible, I already granted you that.

who claims to have created the fish, and great creatures of the sea, livestock, etc.

In a an obviously metaphorically descriptive, even symbolically articulated way. We know that because chapters 1 and 3 are different. It is story not a treatise - that is so utterly obvious to most as to make your statement trivial and naïve.

Claiming that God had anything to do with it holds the same weight as claiming that god is responsible for each gust of wind.

Interesting, that's the same point I made to you regarding gravity. No theist I know claims that god is directly responsible for each gust of wind, he is claimed to indirectly by being the intentional originator of the laws that bring about gusts of wind and gravity. That is why your statement makes more sense from my perspective, what your saying is equivalent to claiming God doesn't exist because he isn't responsible for each gust of wind. Your making a category mistake.

my regards, mikwut

[_Buffalo]

Hello Buffalo,

There is neither evidence for nor necessity of.....

I just gave some, you might reject it for possibly valid reasons you haven't articulated but there is indeed evidence.

any divine tinkering to explain the diversity (and existence) of life on earth.

I just gave you evidence for "creation" as in intention and originator, now you have switched to "divine tinkering" a different conceptual issue, you have a habit of this. Just saying so doesn't it make it so. I am unaware of science explaining in an efficient or final cause type way the origin of the laws of the universe.

It does indeed discredit the God of the Bible,

There you go again with that singular conception. It discredits your singular conception of the God of the Bible, I already granted you that.

who claims to have created the fish, and great creatures of the sea, livestock, etc.

In a an obviously metaphorically descriptive, even symbolically articulated way. We know that because chapters 1 and 3 are different. It is story not a treatise - that is so utterly obvious to most as to make your statement trivial and naïve.

Claiming that God had anything to do with it holds the same weight as claiming that god is responsible for each gust of wind.

Interesting, that's the same point I made to you regarding gravity. No theist I know claims that god is directly responsible for each gust of wind, he is claimed to indirectly by being the intentional originator of the laws that bring about gusts of wind and gravity. That is why your statement makes more sense from my perspective, what your saying is equivalent to claiming God doesn't exist because he isn't responsible for each gust of wind. Your making a category mistake.

my regards, mikwut

Philosophical conjecture is not evidence. The downgrading of God from creator of everything, including each species to creator of merely the general laws of the universe, is merely an apologetic argument, not to be found in any of Yahweh's founding texts.

I'm also not sure how contradicting versions of the creation story proves it's supposed to be allegorical - all that proves is that they contradict. That's true throughout scripture. As theology and mythology evolves, contradictions will be evident.

Sorry for the scant replies - I'm juggling many projects at once. More later.

[_mikwut]

Hello Buffalo,

Philosophical conjecture is not evidence.

That has been my point from the beginning, you are the one claiming your philosophical understandings of evolution disprove God.

The downgrading of God from creator of everything,

Another term with multiple conceptions and meanings where you assume only one narrow conception is at play. In my belief God is the creator of everything. I am not downplaying that at all. I am still not clear by what you mean by that?

including each species to creator of merely the general laws of the universe,

If God is the author of a convergent evolution as one of the laws of the universe he is the creator of each species.

is merely an apologetic argument, not to be found in any of Yahweh's founding texts.

We all apologize or defend something your doing the same. The word isn't pejorative. Your view isn't view from nowhere. There isn't any difficulty or unnecessary demand on interpreting the scripture just how I have done so. I think you suffer from a narrow conception that you can't seem to broaden.
Or at least accept the rationality in others.

I'm also not sure how contradicting versions of the creation story proves it's supposed to be allegorical - all that proves is that they contradict.

If one accepts the text as scripture it is clear evidence that it isn't intending for it to be taken in the literal fashion you are attempting.

That's true throughout scripture.

If one thinks their conceptual framework is the lone ranger I would think your right, but not when that is fact not true.

As theology and mythology evolves, contradictions will be evident.

A meaningless truism. Do you think me pointing out that the planets don't have circular orbits somehow discredits science? I don't.

Sorry for the scant replies - I'm juggling many projects at once. More later.

No problem, first things always first.

my regards, mikwut

[_moksha]

It would be best to keep an eye on these new yeast organisms and see what they are up to. If acculturated correctly they may help Glenn Beck establish a new viewing audience which would be on the rise.

[_Quasimodo]

It would be best to keep an eye on these new yeast organisms and see what they are up to. If acculturated correctly they may help Glenn Beck establish a new viewing audience which would be on the rise.

More importantly, what will they do to our bread?

[_bcspace]

Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

God and science are not in opposition, God being the ultimate scientist. God has certainly not come out against Evolution, even in LDS doctrine.

[_Themis]

God and science are not in opposition, God being the ultimate scientist. God has certainly not come out against Evolution, even in LDS doctrine.

God may not have but the church certainly has. They tend to keep more quiet about it now though.

[_bcspace]

God and science are not in opposition, God being the ultimate scientist. God has certainly not come out against Evolution, even in LDS doctrine.

God may not have but the church certainly has. They tend to keep more quiet about it now though.

Must be why I haven't heard of a single example......

[_Themis]

Must be why I haven't heard of a single example......

No, I think you know several examples but don't want to admit what they are saying.

http://www.cs.gmu.edu/~sean/stuff/Evolution.html