relda,
I agree with everything you wrote so there is no point in “quarreling“ whether “ironic” is the proper description of Schönborn’s faux pas. He clearly confused the scientific theory (theories) of evolution with the ideology of evolutionism with its metaphysical presuppositions about the non-existence of a Creator, where only the latter is clearly incompatible with the Church’s teachings (and actually with practically any Christian position) because of its metaphysical claims outside the realm of science. On the other hand, I agree that it is an irony that both Dawkins and Schönborn think that neo-Darwinian theory leads or would lead to the non-existence of God.

waterboy,
>> It is not as simple as saying that evolution and creation are "compatible". They belong in entirely different domains.<<
Exactly because of that, they are compatible, i.e. “able to exist or occur together without conflict“. Your excursion into history only shows that “Church people” (the same as many of their contemporaries) were not aware of this distinction. The conflict arises only between certain interpretations of scientific findings and certain interpretations of the meaning and metaphysical underpinings of, for instance, Christianity.

>>Evolution says that humans are just another variety of animal.<<
This, of course is true in the same sense as “physics says that humans are just another variety of physical bodies.” Until recently science had no idea about the extra that made a piece of organic matter into a living organism, neither about the extra that made an animal into a conscious human. Today science has a much better understanding of the former but not much of the latter.

Christian religion did not have to say much about the first extra (and still does not), whereas the second extra was, and still is, referred to as the soul, made in the image of God, concepts that can be interpreted this way or that way, but they certainly are not part of (natural) science. Nevertheless, this Christian way of seeing humans is compatible (not in conflict, though not reducible to) the scientific understanding of humans as representing the (present) top of Darwin’s evolutionary tree.

George

As ever, your contribution to the thread is insightful and thought-provoking.

My point about the 'compatibility' of evolution and creation sought to refute any suggestion that the two 'theories' are 'complementary' hypotheses within the field of science. Representing creation as science misses the whole point of the Genesis stories, diminishing and discrediting the theological endeavour in the process.

My problem with 'creationism' is not whether it is good or bad science (Im obviously inclined to the view that it is either bad science or not science at all) but rather that it is very bad theology.

Genesis says that we were 'formed' out of dust and into something that could be called an 'image of the divine'. As you have said our being is physical which makes us one with the common dust of this cosmos. Then there is the 'extra' that gives all the qualities of life and humanity. What can love possibly mean to a stone?

You speak of the soul and so too would I but for the popular distortion of that word to mean disembodied spirit. Here perhaps we differ to some extent but I regard body and soul as indivisible. Each is but an incomplete metaphor for what it means to be human. Neither, in itself, is adequate but in juxtaposition they work together to point towards the fullness of all it is to be an 'image of the divine'. The Divine act of creation provides a model of how we might engage with the rest of creation from our 'privileged' circumstance of being human. We are actors in the cosmic drama as God was an 'actor' in 'creating'.

Reducing the creation story to 'science' is like reading romantic novels but never actually falling in love

Waterboy,
George has beaten me to it. Religion and science are certainly distinguishable, but as Einstein suggests, they are in some sense inseparable. Each is an enterprise, more or less, of every human being who asks why and how in dealing with existence. As you might suggest, neither is subservient to the other but both integral to a certain reality. The demands of either are great enough to keep most (if not all) from daring to profess competence in both.

There need be no conflict between religion and science, but where religions make empirical claims about the world we live in, conflict will be inevitable because that's precisely what science does, and generally, science's explanations will contradict those offered by the supernatural. "Creation science" costs religion its credibility and a philosophical stance of "scientific materialism" costs science its innocence. The poetry, as expressed in the metaphysical, where man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles also God's relationship with what he has created. This is not an affront to empiricism but serves as an inspiration to not only discover but also create.

George,
I’ve enjoyed sharing with you the ironic. :)

Dan,

Forget about confuting, you weren't even able to refute any of my arguments in that last post! Play the ball not the man.

<<Others on this thread such as Runner as well as many scientists say evolution is laughable.>>

No they don't and you know it.

Give just one example of what these “many” scientists find laughable...

You can't. Because there is nothing laughable about evolution.

As for Runner though, he doesn't know the first thing about evolution, so pointing to him as an example is futile. Especially since he was (and always has been) unable to give any evidence or reasoning for his opinions.

But I guess that's why they call it “Blind Faith”.

<<So who decides where the joke is?>>

Each individual for themselves.

So where is the joke? Put it this way... Every argument that Creationists have ever put forth has either been debunked, or shown to be a misconception or a gross over-simplification. You should know this by now.

<<Now you claim victory in ‘debunking’ previous arguments in discussions on this issue.>>

Yep! Definitely and definitively.

You seem to forget that our posting history is easily accessible...

Dan S de Merengue:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=49018&show=history

AJ Philips:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=49348&show=history

I challenge you (or anyone else for that matter) to find one single argument of yours that I have not yet been able to debunk... Or at least bring into serious question.

Of course, I really don't want to start sounding too cocky here. The only reason I'm pointing this out is because I find it very sad that you have not yet been able to recognise that the Creationist arguments you put forth don't hold up.

<<When did OLO appoint you as an adjudicator?>>

You've tried this “adjudicator” argument before... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6784#106235

It didn't work then, and it's not going to work now.

As I said back then, you've tried to refute my arguments, but you haven't yet confuted one of them. And the same applies to now. So I'll ignore the facetious tone in the rest of your second paragraph.

Continued...

...Continued

<<You say real scientists don’t debate creationists at risk of legitimising their ideas. I suppose that means that you can’t include yourself as a real scientist>>

You've got that right. And you're well aware that I have never claimed to be a scientist.

<<In reality, scientists have debated the issue...>>

Yes they have. Although most avoid it.

<<Although debating with you, AJ, does pose its challenges. For instance, how am I supposed to respond when you are contradicting yourself so clearly...>>

Ahhh... Such a desperate attempt to avoid the real Creationist dilemma here in regards to all the transitional fossils.

Nice side-step!

In my first point, I said that there is “not much sparsity”. I didn't say there was “no sparsity”.

So no, there's no contradiction there.

<<You start your post with this sentence addressed to me, “Not one of the points you've made on this thread so far is in anyway accurate.”>>

Hmmm... Yes, a bit of a sweeping statement there. My apologies. I was more referring to your last few posts.

<<But before you consider your response, can you think carefully whether you really want to enter into debate, because you’ve already said that real scientists don’t enter this debate.>>

Again, I've never said I was a scientist.

The reason that I bother to debate you though (other than the fact that I enjoy it), is because it would be a tragedy if someone who was uneducated in this area were to read your posts and think that you actually have a point.

Common sense and truth must always win in the end, and so far, they have.

<<But after that, their evidence is forged in the same manner as all other scientists, by logic and observation of the material world.>>

No it's not. Try listing one bit of logic... Your 'letters in the sand' analogy fell over.

Try also, listing one single observation... And I don't mean an observation that doesn't yet have a full explanation either. That would be using the “God must've done it” reasoning. And even YOU know how unhelpful that is.

AJ,
So Runner doesn’t use a lot of words. He still gives his opinion. This time he was pretty accurate. I personally know a number of scientists who might not actually laugh at evolution, they’re too polite. They just have a quiet chuckle.

I am more than happy for anyone to check out my history and that of our previous discussions on this topic. Anyone can have a look at how well (or otherwise) you have ‘debunked’ the creationist arguments. Let them be the judge. It will save you the trouble of adjudicating your own posts for yourself.