Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
There is also no other scientific theory that comes close to being as explanatory of what we see in nature as the Theory of Evolution is.

[/ QUOTE ]
Heh. I think I'll stick with mechanics on that one.

[hexag1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because these two subjects have little to do with each other.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad you got my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you are talking out both sides of you mouth. You say in this thread that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with belief in God (I agree with that), but in another thread you say
this :[ QUOTE ]

The universe only makes sense if Christianity is true. All other world views can be reduced to irrationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

These two statements are in contradiction. The theory of evolution by natural selection cannot at once 'have little to do with' belief in God, and at the same time be contradictory to your religious worldview, as you stated in the other thread. This source of this contradiction has two possibilities: (1) your reasoning is wrong, and/or (2) one of your initial assumptions is wrong.
I submit that your belief in God as the creator of the universe is of the second category of errors.

[hexag1]

[ QUOTE ]


No dodge. I've said before I don't think evolution and the Bible are incompatible. Just a small problem with evidence, like there is none.


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think that's really true. You have stated that there isn't a direct contradiction, only a problem with the evidence. But all your objections to the the theory aren't based on evidence, but on religious grounds. This is made clear by the post I linked above, where you said that Dennett's view of Darwinism was : "it's just atheism dressed up as science with no place to go."

What evidentiary issues do you have that Ken Miller doesn't address in his lecture?

[ QUOTE ]

then you must confront the astrophysicists.


[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

What about my question? Are you dodging it?

[/ QUOTE ]

My OP was focused on ID...
I won't dodge the question at all. I think that the cosmological evidence shows no sign of design. Biology shows that a creator as complex as would be needed to create the universe could only arise as a result of a long evolutionary process, which requires the existence of the Unverse to begin with. Therefore there cannot have been a creator.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The theory of evolution by natural selection cannot at once 'have little to do with' belief in God, and at the same time be contradictory to your religious worldview, as you stated in the other thread


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't state that. Before we go any further I should point out that we haven't really defined evolution (Man we need a FAQ). In the thread you cite I specified Darwinism as equivalent to atheism. I haven't made that connection in this thread (we could really use a FAQ).

[hexag1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The theory of evolution by natural selection cannot at once 'have little to do with' belief in God, and at the same time be contradictory to your religious worldview, as you stated in the other thread


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't state that. Before we go any further I should point out that we haven't really defined evolution (Man we need a FAQ). In the thread you cite I specified Darwinism as equivalent to atheism. I haven't made that connection in this thread (we could really use a FAQ).

[/ QUOTE ]

You made the statement in two parts. Above, in this thread, you quoted another poster: "the two have little to do with each other" and agreed with him, and in another thread, you rejected the evolution, because "the world only makes sense if Christianity is true". So you have agreed with another poster that evolution and belief in God aren't contradictory, and in another thread you have said that they are not compatible.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

his is made clear by the post I linked above, where you said that Dennett's view of Darwinism was : "it's just atheism dressed up as science with no place to go."


[/ QUOTE ]

In the thread you reference my main issue with Dennett was his statement that evolution is mindless. That's why I made the statement you quote. And that is different from what I say about the possibility of theistic evolution, which I reject, not on religious grounds, but evidentiary ones, as I made plain in the thread on human evolution.

[ QUOTE ]

I think that the cosmological evidence shows no sign of design.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think almost every astronomer and astrophysicist would disagree with this.

[ QUOTE ]

Biology shows that a creator as complex as would be needed to create the universe could only arise as a result of a long evolutionary process, which requires the existence of the Unverse to begin with. Therefore there cannot have been a creator.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not if God is uncreated, eternal.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So you have agreed with another poster that evolution and belief in God aren't contradictory, and in another thread you have said that they are not compatible


[/ QUOTE ]

Already answered.

[David Sklansky]

Not Ready,

Please go over to my microevolution thread. I took 3-1 that you would agree with at least 90% of it.

[hexag1]

[ QUOTE ]


In the thread you reference my main issue with Dennett was his statement that evolution is mindless.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you take issue with Dennett's statement that evolution is mindless, you are taking on the whole theory. Thats the whole point, its an unguided physical process.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is also no other scientific theory that comes close to being as explanatory of what we see in nature as the Theory of Evolution is.

[/ QUOTE ]
Heh. I think I'll stick with mechanics on that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

By nature I meant the diversity of species in nature and not the whole of the natural universe.