...Continued

But congratulations on being the only coherent Creationist on OLO!

Anyway, it’s interesting to note that you still cannot challenge any one of my points. I’d appreciate if you’d at least give it a go if you’re going to continue to make assertions that you don’t appear to be able to back up when challenged.

While you’re at it though, could you also explain to me what one of these problems are with evolution that you mentioned in your post to Waterboy several days ago? They sounded so detrimental that it made me curious as to what they actually were since I am unaware evolution having any more problems than gravity - let alone “detrimental” problems.

Thanks.

Dan,
I’m more than content to suffer the ‘error’ of my observation and would certainly echo Darwin in his observation where, in his sixth chapter of Origins, he asks: "Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?" Darwin, as more than an armchair observer on things ecclesiastical - having obtaining a degree in theology, was able to remind his readers that centuries earlier a geocentric world was intellectually more satisfying to ordinary people, but eventually the realisation came that the voice of the people cannot be trusted to be the voice of God. Throughout his life Darwin held the view that evolution does not supplant creation, but that they supplement each other. He was also an admirer of Paley’s ‘Natural Theology’. So where’s your problem? Things have certainly evolved since then. Understand the ‘spirit’ of the times.

Similarly, a century and a half earlier, Newton was indeed one of if not the finest mind of his time… but he was of his time. You can’t simply pluck Newton out of the historical timeline and then call him one of today’s creationists – if born today he was likely to be a more than brilliant cosmologist.

relda, I can only say you have left me with nothing to say. Cheers.

Thanks Grim, I appreciate your comment and likewise, Cheers.

Dan,

Newton was a Deist and he believed intelligent design. Also, he held to two alternative creation dates, 4004 BCE and 2348 BCE, as being given, a priori. Based on these dates, Newton tried to establish the sequential history of nations:

“Beginning with the genealogy of the Old Testament, the essay [i.e. Newton’s Essay] seeks to establish the date of the creation and in turn discusses the early history of Greece, Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, and Persia. By calculations based upon the data given in the Old Testament and also upon various classical sources” (King 1830, in Hurlbutt 1965)

My observation is that Newton was matching biblical history essentially to its own time period: The civilizations of the time period of the Bible compared to the time period of the Bible. Newton posited an historical self-referencing thesis, rather a geophysical thesis. From what I have read, at least.

On the other hand, your comment on Newton (and Kepler) and Creationism alludes to Newton “vigorously” defending the Creation based on celestial mechanics. Here, I can find neither such formulae nor dissertation. Would you please provide an academic reference or .edu link? Else, do we have run two themes fallaciously blended together?

Besides, Newton didn’t have any Moon rocks to date. ;-)

Sells,

My above post addresed to Dan illustrates that which I have suggested to you before, regarding hard conclusions sitting on a priori assumptions. A cascade of conclusions can be doubtful, where the first domino falls unassessed and not rationalised.

George,

“There were times when the role of religion as ersatz-science was needed and justified. Those times are (or should be) over; and as I said before, I believe that the role of science as ersatz-religion - that some scientists and many non-scientist-fans-of-science still believe in - is also temporary.” - George

I agree with you on these matters too, adding that religion tried to explain the natural universe with some, but, limited success. When better (scientific) methodologies became available, the Church dug itself-in and science countered (when it was safe to do so). Instead of spirituality of the heart “or” discipline of the mind, apart, we had/have Church and Science vying in a turf war, each exclusively wanting heart “and” mind.

Even for a non-theist humanitarian, moral principles can guide the use of science, yet these moral principles are not science (except perhaps to developmental psychologists. e.g., Kohlberg). For some theist humanitarians, Science is a blasphemy: I think this circumstance occurs, because some of the devout cannot see beyond the “literal” scriptures.

Religion sees science as an extension Man’s god-given dominion, over other the Earth. Science (anthropology) sees Religion, as a cultural response to ecology and an aid to socialisation. These opposed positions seem irreconcilable.

Also, I agree with you that Science, in countering Religion runs the risk of being a surrogate for Religion. Raw Science is a process and a community of methodologies. Maybe, Science and Religion both employ “faith” and “intuition” and owing to these commonalities each side all-to-often crosses on the other’s prefecture. Albeit, the notion of the perfect original watchmaker is corrupted by God’s alleged historical interventions being necessary to keep the Design on its course.

Relda,

Discussion with George has led me to believe that Deism acted as an effective interregnum between old religiosity (converting old knowledge) and new science (creating new knowledge). New knowledge was made acceptable to the religious masses through intelligent design. Intelligent design allowed believers to adapt to the New World, while remaining loyal to the Old World, I suggest.