Political Science

[Raz]

Re: Political Science

I think I understand. Essentially you do not dispute evolution, or the evolution of life. You simply posit that there is a divine hand that set it in motion.

If so, that's fine. But it certainly doesn't disprove that life evolved. It is simply a belief that cannot be proved or disproved, and that has no bearing on reality.

We agree - and disagree. A theistic creation is very different from an atheistic "creation". The difference is not so much of evolution as of origin.

If life is nothing more than a cosmic accident I fail to see how it has any meaning. And I'm at a loss to explain the origin of thought - especially of those creatures of higher sentience, not to mention man - apart from the existence and impartation of a Creator. Synapses and neural pathways aren't enough.
There is no doubt that Richard Dawkins is a brilliant man but the idea of memetics seems a bit much for me, and possibly even Dawkins himself.

It is one thing to observe life and the evidence for evolution, powerful though it may be, and yet believe that it originated, i.e., came into existence completely by accident through unplanned, undesigned, unasisted abiogenesis. I'm not aware that any scientific endeavor has yet produced life from inorganic molecules.

As to "bearing on reality": you and I have very different views of reality. In my view the existence of God has every bearing on reality as Dostoyevsky's maxim implies.

[Raz]

Re: Political Science

Present archaeological, scientific proof that I didn't go to the moon last night and hold a big party with my friends.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If I claim I went to the moon, and you claim you were resurrected, the burden of proof is on us to prove our claims, not up to everyone else to disprove our claims.

I make no claim that I was resurrected. I do indeed, however, make a claim that Jesus of Nazareth was Resurrected. It is a claim that has been passed down through two milleniums from those who were eyewitnesses of His Resurrection.

This claim is not at all scientific; it is faith based. But it is based upon a reasonable faith - not blind faith. It is similar to twelve of your peers judging your guilt of a crime through accumulated evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Lets do an analogy to your "moon party" last night.

Give me absolute power of life and death as that possesed by an ancient autocrat and I'll issue a bench warrant for your partygoing friends.
I'll ask each one of them if your story is true - that you held a party with them on the moon last night.

If they agree and back up your story I'll then ask them if they were willing to bet their lives on it because I don't accept it or believe it.
After I have the first one stripped naked and thrown to be eaten by lions I'll bet everything I own that the rest of your friends will rat you out.

That's what the apostles faced - yet not one of them ever denied the Resurrection, even facing death - sometimes a horrible, torturous death.

I believe you have incorrectly phrased the situation. This is not about Atheists VS Evangelicals, this is about Science VS anti-science. Science is about gaining knowledge and understanding of the world and universe around us. It uses the scientific method to gather and build on previous knowledge to achieve this goal. I have yet to see another method that can remotely come close to building an accurate knowledge base of the universe around us.

Without the benefits that science has given us, the civilization that we now live in would not be possible. The science denialists have offered no reasonable alternatives to accumulate accurate knowledge, and have at times reverted to claims that are factually wrong and have been debunked decades ago. While there is no movement by scientists to force theologians, priests, ministers... to teach science in churches, synagogues etc, there has been a large movement from the anti-science people to teach false, anti-science information in science classes in our schools. Trying to build a future nation and civilization from a base of non-knowledge that was gathered through irrationality and has infiltrated the schools to be passed on to future generations, will be impossible.

I'm not in any way anti-science so I find little or nothing you wrote here to disagree with. And being Orthodox I'm not at all sure I want Christianity or Creationism offered even as an elective. I'm certain that neither should be a required course in any public school.

But there is another side to this issue.

If you can get a majority of the voters in my state to condone procured abortion and homosexualist marriage then I can live within such laws or move to another place. The problem for me becomes acute when you seek to force me to be a participant through either (a) paying one of the bottom-feeders of the medical profession to kill a preborn child, or (b) jail me or sue me for violating the "civil rights" of a homosexualist couple when I refuse to rent an apartment to them because I cannot recognize their "marriage".

Most of these "rights" have been obtained through an activist judiciary that has circumvented and usurped the legislative power of our republic, or rather, what's left of it.

[shiny!]

Re: Political Science

If life is nothing more than a cosmic accident I fail to see how it has any meaning.

Life without meaning can still be meaningful:

"In the greater scheme, in the big picture, nothing we do matters. There's no grand plan, no big win....

... If there's no great glorious end to all this, if ... nothing we do matters ... then all that matters is what we do. 'Cause that's all there is. What we do. Now. Today...

... All I want to do is help. I want to help because I don't think people should suffer as they do, because if there's no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world."

(from Angel, episode "Epiphany", written by Tim Minear)

[Shakespear]

Re: Political Science

The real mystery is how a highly intelligent politician got himself into the position of suggesting that the two estimates are of equal value, or that theologians are still the best interpreters of the physical world.

No mystery to me. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. It was the gradual process of reshaping the American 99% to look the other way and focus on none issues as though they were a matter of life and death issues. End result is politicians like him. Now that the 99% are fleeced the issue he is commenting on is as mute as if one were to ask why do we need water to exist.

If there was even an ounce of attention and energy spent on why it is that this country is being dragged into the debt hell decade after decade, one could argue that the American experiment succeeded. Listening to this politician I realize that far too many of the politicians (at least publicly) don't have the brains or the will to cut through the bull because they know that the crowd will simply run them over if they try. This reminds me of the crowd gathering at Victoria's Secret on Black Friday to buy what "They must have." The politician would be the one trying to tell them that they don't need half the junk they are about to buy. The experiment succeeded, for the 1%.

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnu6yZKo7u8"

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...11/how-run-con

The grifter class is the 1% and they are damn good at it despite all the info to expose them. I suspect it is exactly BECAUSE so much information is available that they get away with it.

[flintlock]

Re: Political Science

Yeah, it just seems to me that politicians like Rubio try to play both sides of the fence and not offend anyone. "I don't know" would have been a better answer. Not many blunt and fully honest politicians out there for a reason. It doesn't work.

[don]

Re: Political Science

Historically ruling elites have used Race, Religion and Gender as trump cards in slicing and dicing the sheeple for a very long time.

[Woodsman]

Re: Political Science

Is there such proof that it did?

[Woodsman]

Re: Political Science

"Evangelicals can no more change facts on the ground in the academy than the academy can change the beliefs of evangelicals."

I used to think so, but I'm not as convinced. Consider the following from the Liberty University web site:

http://www.liberty.edu/academics/art...x.cfm?PID=6627

----------------------

David DeWitt, Ph.D. Director, Center for Creation Studies Chair, Department of Biology & Chemistry Professor of Biology

Office: Science Hall 111 Phone: (434) 582-2228 dadewitt@liberty.edu Education B.S. Michigan State University Ph.D. Case Western Reserve University Courses taught CRST 290 Creation Studies CRST 390 Creation Studies BIOL 400 Biology Seminar BIOL 415 Cell Biology Professional Memberships Creation Research Society Society for Neuroscience Virginia Academy of Sciences Biography Dr. DeWitt is a biochemist and neuroscientist whose passion is to defend creation using The Word of God. When not pointing out the flaws in Darwin's theory, Dr. DeWitt is investigating the inner workings of the brain. He recently received a large NIH grant to support his research on the causes of Alzheimer's disease. He and his wife Marci have three children. ----------------------------------------------------

And from the Big Paleontologist on Campus - a "young Earth creationist - there's this gem:

"Because numerous boundary-crossing taxa would have to migrate from their North American pre-Flood habitats to board the Ark and return to their same continent of origin in the post-Flood world, it is unlikely that the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary reflects the Flood/post-Flood boundary."

http://works.bepress.com/marcus_ross/11/

[don]

Re: Political Science

The banner logo of the Creation Research Society, found on the top of each page at their website, is:

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them...

Apparently there are scientists that can reconcile this worldview with real-world discoveries.

[Raz]

Re: Political Science

The banner logo of the Creation Research Society, found on the top of each page at their website, is:

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them...

Apparently there are scientists that can reconcile this worldview with real-world discoveries.

"One day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day". (2 Peter 3:8)

There are two creation narratives in the book of Genesis. A careful reading clearly shows that the sun wasn't created until the Fourth Day.
So how then can anyone claim dogmatically that a "day" as referenced in the book of Genesis is a twenty-four hour rotation of the Earth on its axis (around the sun)?

This is the foolishness of fundamentalsm: first decide what you wish to believe, and then force various texts to support it - while carefully ignoring others.

[Raz]

Re: Political Science

Is there such proof that it did?

Even if there were clear, scientific proof of the Resurrection it would still be rejected by the overwhelming majority of atheists and unbelievers living today. (St. Luke: 16:27-31)

As some will never believe a certain jury verdict some will never believe the witness of the Church no matter what. We all have a natural desire to be accountable to no one but ourselves, and the overwhelming majority of men will always prefer to be their own god, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

[cmalbatros]

Re: Political Science

Spontaneous , random creation of life is possible - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/sc...pagewanted=all
Given the size and age of the universe and delving into quantum physics multi-universe theories anything and everything is possible.

[BadJuju]

Re: Political Science

in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

The Bible isn't evidence of a single thing except that humanity likes to create its own jailer.

[Raz]

Re: Political Science

The Bible isn't evidence of a single thing except that humanity likes to create its own jailer.

Thank you. That's clear confirmation of what I said, that most people wish to be accountable to no one, or even any ethical code but one of their own making.

[Raz]

Re: Political Science

Spontaneous , random creation of life is possible - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/sc...pagewanted=all
Given the size and age of the universe and delving into quantum physics multi-universe theories anything and everything is possible.

From the article:

"Dr. Sutherland’s proposal has not convinced everyone. Dr. Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University, said the recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.” He said that cyano-acetylene, one of Dr. Sutherland’s assumed starting materials, is quickly destroyed by other chemicals and its appearance in pure form on the early earth “could be considered a fantasy.” Dr. Sutherland replied that the chemical is consumed fastest in the reaction he proposes, and that since it has been detected on Titan there is no reason it should not have been present on the early earth.

If Dr. Sutherland’s proposal is correct it will set conditions that should help solve the many other problems in reconstructing the origin of life. Darwin, in a famous letter of 1871 to the botanist Joseph Hooker, surmised that life began “in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts.” But the warm little pond has given way in recent years to the belief that life began in some exotic environment like the fissures of a volcano or in the deep sea vents that line the ocean floor."

Interesting, since Genesis states that life was first created in the oceans.

Anything is "possible". But going from an ameba to Einstein purely by accident is a bit much for me.