Chief,
I think I have about exhausted the time I can spend on this topic, but I will definitely PM you my address. I am always looking for interesting things to read/watch. I am going to respond this time (and maybe more, but less immediately in the future) to a few of the comments from above.
The how shows evidence of design. Like you would look at a murder scene and know there is a murderer. It doesn't have to define who, just that it wasn't random chance. In my opinion time and chance requires a great amount of faith without evidence.
I would say that it is a personal choice to see evidence of design in nature- certainly not wrong but not a necessary conclusion. That is the beauty of science, it explains only how things happen in nature, and leaves the observer the freedom to attach whatever meaning they want to it. Strictly speaking, if we were looking for design, there are numerous examples that would not seem to be logical design solutions, but work for the individual organisms. To me Evolution explains those without questioning why a “designer” would have done it this way or that. Again, if you feel that a designer is necessary, evolution does not preclude you from including that in your personal belief system, but evolution does not require the action of a supernatural being either.
The murder scene scenario above is definitely an oversimplification of what we observe in nature, and the questions science tries to tackle.
There are many other examples. I talked with Professors at KU that agreed with me that the textbooks are very slow to change and much is still being taught that should not be.
No disagreement here, science changes so rapidly in some areas that text books are outdated as soon as they are printed. One problem with using the Bible as a reference for science is that it has not changed in 1000’s of years (assuming there were no changes in the oral history of the bible before transferred into the written word, no copying mistakes, or no translational errors throughout its history).
Kale, Two points that come to mind and I mean no harm in addressing them. Even the demons believed in God and His Son Jesus Christ. It is through true repentance and trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ that we are saved. I am not saying that you haven't, I'm just stating what the bible tells us. The bible also says that every man is a liar and that the only truth is God's word. That word will set you free. Every single example of a regenerated believer in the bible reveals that believer as excited and unashamed of the Gospel. We are commanded to go tell others to the end of the earth. It is certainly not to be kept to ourselves.
No harm in stating your beliefs, however that is what they are- YOUR beliefs. I don’t think your intent was to equate me and my belief system to demons so I won’t take offense at that
. I don’t want to deviate this conversation away from the initial topic so I won’t delve into the Bible and it’s various interpretations (both literal and metaphorical). Truth be told, I am sure I am not as well versed in that aspect as you are.
To summarize- (and I think we may just need to agree to disagree) my views are as follows:
Science is (or should strive to be as much as possible given the fact that PEOPLE conduct science with their own personal baggage):
* A secular pursuit. An attempt to espouse one religion’s world view over another greatly reduces the scope of those who can participate in the discussion.
* A naturalistic view- meaning it should strive to describe ONLY what can be observed, tested, and explained using natural laws and leave the supernatural to it’s rightful place- religion.
* A continual quest not for “answers”, but for greater knowledge of our natural world.
* Objective- scientists should not start out with the end in mind. When someone does that, all too often the data is interpreted to find the answer that was being sought, instead of allowing the data to lead us to the answer- whatever that is.
Any application beyond that is a personal choice, but we should not try to impose our personal belief system on the science as a whole as no matter what view that is we will needlessly alienate a large portion of people on earth.
I personally am glad that science and religion occupy different (but for me complimentary) parts of my belief system. Again, that is my personal belief system and will not accommodate everyone. One of my main problems is that people on both sides of this argument misapply science to try to force people to adopt their belief system or be “WRONG”. I can not believe there is one solution that should fit everybody and bristle at any ideology that indicates so. The other main problem I have is the misinformation and down right ignorance regarding this topic among our populace. I think if there were a more calm, frank, and honest discussion on both sides, the turmoil this topic raises would be greatly reduced and we could all go about our daily lives a lot less concerned about this.
Thanks for the intellectual exercise!
