Dan S,
I did not say Polkinghorne was my “favourite scientist” only that he is my favourite author writing about the relation of science and religion, because he understands, and is an expert in, both science - he is a quantum physicist - and theology.

Yes, John Polkinghorne as well as Richard Dawkins (and others) are officially listed as “feauturing” in the film ‘Expelled‘ (I myself have not seen the film), which does not mean they endorse it.

waterboy,
I essentially agree with what you wrote in the second last paragraph of your reply to Dan. I have just finished reading Paul Davies’ “The Goldilock Enigma”, and it occurred to me that if you have not read it, you might want to read at least the “Afterword: Ultimate explanations”. I disagree with Davies’ view of mathematics (a technicality here irrelevant), however these speculations of a professional physicist could be of interest to an atheist (never mind the definition) as well as a Christian.

He finishes the book with this meditative sentence:

“The whole paraphernalia of gods and laws, of space, time and matter, of purpose and design, rationality and absurdity, meaning and mystery, may yet be swept away and replaced by revelations as yet undreamt of”

to which a Christian may add “or interpretations of the Revelation as yet undreamt of.”

Dan

You have avoided dealing directly with my discussion of miracles.
What makes an event'miraculous'is the interpretation of the event as a sign,yet your exposition of miracles seems to be based entirely on the assumption that they represent violations of nature.
What,for example, is the point of God raising Lazarus? Why was the blind man given sight? God clearly allows the rest of us to remain in death.She does not see fit to heal all the blind people in the world,even the Christian ones that you and I might have prayed for.

In fact,to demand the'historicity'of such events is to miss the entire point of the Gospels,trivialise them and turn them into mythical stories of no greater value than the Greek or Gnostic myths.

The point of the Gospels is that the Kingdom of God will be inaugurated by ordinary men and women who speak out prophetically against injustice,who would give dignity and real hope to the'sinner',the unclean and the outcast.Miracles are not required as it is within the power of every human being to'make the world right'.But when people like Jesus do speak out and restore the dignity and hope of even a single person then that is a true miracle, a sign that a new kingdom aligned with God's will is indeed possible and is a present reality(without the need to violate any natural laws).

It is not a change of belief systems,as asserted by evangelicals,that makes a difference but the restoration of dignity and hope that 'converts' the person, satisfies God's will,restores humanity and invokes the kingdom of God.Popular evangelical theology,if that is not an antilogy,is a corruption of Christian theology that diminishes the Church as a whole with its metaphysical dualism, its apocalyptic eschatology and its irrational outbursts against established science.

Contemporary,popular evangelism is simply a culturally idiosyncratic derivative of mainstream Christianity composed with a wide variety of exogenous,superstitious beliefs and customs.As a representative of this sub-culture you do not speak for all Christians.I dont know where you live but here in Australia the evangelical churches are mercifully in a period of steep decline.Thank God!

Dan,

<<...Adam quickly got off on the wrong foot...>>

By eating fruit. Something that would only make sense had he been a mortal with a metabolism. But that wouldn’t have occurred to the primitives who wrote Genesis.

<<If we were just the cogs of a machine in a preplanned exercise, then how could there be meaningfulness to our actions?>>

And how could there be any meaningfulness to a God, if that God was perfect and already knew what was going to happen? A God who creates people knowing in advance that they’re going to fail is ultimately responsible for the failures.

<<I don’t believe fossils were planted in rocks as red herrings.

If I go back to what I said on 22/8...>>

And if I go back to what I said on 2/6/2008 (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7353#115160, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7353#115161), we can see how intellectually dishonest the rest of your response to Grim is.

There are 18 different methods of dating, each working on different clocks and different principals, and all point to the same magnitude of age.

But you don’t need to be a scientist to see that the Earth is ancient. Take, for example, the crumbling deterioration of the Rockies (that have reached their peak height) compared to the Himalayas that are still rising.

<<..remains of animals trapped by the violent action of water and the movement of silt eventually settling into sedimentary rock.>>

In nice neat layers of sedimentary rock?

No. Try putting different soils in a clear container, fill it with water, and then shake it up.

Different layers take different events during different eras over millions of years to form.

Not to mention the deeper you go, the more basic, smaller and primitive the life is. And what a surprise - all the dating methods agree in regards to the approximate age of fossils in each layer.

How did ancient sea creatures get buried deep in limestone thousands of meters thick?
Why are human artifacts only found in the uppermost strata?
Why are no tools or buildings found deep in the strata with dinosaurs?

Continued...

...Continued

How were coral reefs hundreds of meters thick and miles long preserved intact with other fossils below them?

But why would a loving God wipe-out innocent children and animals? Wouldn’t a God simply be able to snap its fingers and start again? Why can’t creationists use magic as the explanation for the complete lack of evidence? Why the need to prove it scientifically?

I think this goes to the heart of the “Scientific” Creationist’s mentality and motives. They are so insecure and feel so threatened, they’ve forgotten that they don’t even need to prove their fables happened.

<<Many claim they don’t see any evidence whatsoever for a worldwide flood...>>

And as I have demonstrated, there isn’t.

<<...on the dating of the fossils, which once again largely boils down to your philosophical preconceptions (bias) as to what parameters should be used in the dating techniques.>>

And these dating methods that support Creationist’s arguments would be..?

That’s right. We established in the thread I linked above that there weren’t any.

<<For no one today was actually around at the time to observe what happened when.>>

And no one had to be.

<<I hope this doesn’t imply you [George] endorse the film too, or you risk entering AJ’s bad books.>>

Firstly, Polkinghorne isn’t a Creationist and wasn’t arguing for Creationism as you have tried to imply (Many who appeared in Expelled were mislead about the motives of the film’s makers). So it doesn’t look like you are echoing Polkinghorne at all. Even I would agree with most of what you quoted.

Secondly, if you are going to make snide remarks about my “bad books”, how about you try rebutting/addressing any, or all of the points I made about the film? Or are you just going to snipe at my comments like a cowardly and bitter person who has been so consistently defeated on this topic?

I challenge you to prove me wrong on any aspect of Expelled... Or stop making ridiculous comments that don’t address anything.

In fact, I challenge you to prove me wrong on anything I’ve said in this thread.

George, I also believe there does not need to be conflict between science and religion. As I see it, scientists are people with a strong curiosity about 'creation'; whether or not there is a creator. (And that can be taken either way.)
For any scientist to state with conviction that God absolutely does not exist, would be most unscientific. As Waterboy points out,
"Scientific theories, however, are not beliefs imposed as absolute truths or as alternatives to metaphysical speculations. Scientific theories are working hypotheses open to be challenged by the application of reason based on sound evidence."
In the absence of hard evidence for or against, one can only accept Russell's Justification: "insufficient evidence, Lord; insufficient evidence."
Dan, I don't really understand why the time frame is important. Is there any reason why the Universe can't be 14 billion years old?
I can accept that a rational person can also be a creationist, but I would have difficulty believing any rational person would still find bishop Ussher credible.

Dan,
You really should learn to read what people write and not misquote them, thus presenting your total miscomprehension of what is being said. My point is that creationists and ID advocates are both in the same ‘camp’ in that they appeal solely to Biblical inerrancy and authority in order to refute a scientific theory (i.e. Darwinism). On the other hand, however, and in the name of science, you attempt to legitimise creationism and ID. This seems more than a little fraudulent when 'bending' science to your own preconceptions or beliefs whenever it suits. As waterboy has aptly pointed out, by all means have a literal belief in ancient “mythical stories” but do not expect science to give an objective endorsement to such literal interpretation.

Also, you ignore an important part of my first paragraph where I draw a similarity in approach to yours and those who cannot draw on any allegorical interpretation of religious texts, but prefer instead a grammatical and syntactical interpretation of their Qur'an or Bible. As Benedict discovered (Regensburg address), the foundation for any religious dialogue relates to the acceptance of hermeneutics (i.e. study of the interpretation of written texts). Modern hermeneutics encompasses not just issues involving the written text, but everything in the interpretative process. Without these 'ground rules', we merely talk past each other. And I quite agree with George where, “It is true that some interpretations of religion and some interpretations of science are on a collision course [and] It is true that "uninterpreted" religion and "uninterpreted" science are mutually irrelevant.” This, unfortunately, is particularly pertinent to your particular standpoint.