Re: Dinesh D'Souza : When Science Points To God

Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, Ray Martinez:
On Nov 25, 9:13 am, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 24, 8:16 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 24, 7:49 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------
If you want to know why atheists seem to have given up the scientific
card, the current issue of Discover magazine provides part of the
answer. The magazine has an interesting story by Tim Folger which is
titled ?Science?s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator.? The article
begins by noting ?an extraordinary fact about the universe: its basic
properties are uncannily suited for life.? As physicist Andrei Linde
puts it, ?We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and
all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible.?

Too many ?coincidences,? however, imply a plot. Folger?s article shows
that if the numerical values of the universe, from the speed of light
to the strength of gravity, were even slightly different, there would
be no universe and no life. Recently scientists have discovered that
most of the matter and energy in the universe is made up of so-called
?dark? matter and ?dark? energy. It turns out that the quantity of
dark energy seems precisely calibrated to make possible not only our
universe but observers like us who can comprehend that universe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------

Read it athttp://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/11/24/when_science_p...
orhttp://tinyurl.com/6m82qr

J. Spaceman

Since D'Souza (like aSeanPitmanor Adman) accepts evolution he and
they are confused about the most basic issue in the Creation-ID-
Evolution debate:

Evolution says nature was produced by unintelligent material forces (=
natural agency).

Creationism-ID says nature was created by Mind and His power (=
supernatural agency).

Both is not an option.

Are you saying it is impossible for an intelligent creator to create a
mechanical system that can work without the need for constant
intelligent input and manipulation?  

Sean: Darwinism-evolution says God did not create.

What book are you using? I've never seen this in a
science book.

rich

To evade the
eternal existence of matter, Darwin gave deistic lip service to
Pentateuchal breath at the end of the "Origin" (deliberate corruption
of Theism).

"Create" or "created" or "creation" always means by guided *invisible*
supernatural-intelligent agency (= vertical causation) operating in
reality.

"Evolution" since Darwin always means by unguided natural-material-
unintelligent agency (= horizontal causation) operating in reality.

These are the main, objective and irreconcilable distinctions between
Creationism-ID and Darwinism: involvement or non-involvement of God in
nature. Darwin was the FIRST to remove Divine causation from
scientific explanation (reality). The "Origin" was written as refuting
Creationism (as just defined).

Charles Darwin:

"I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and
dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most
naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained?namely, that
each species has been independently created?is erroneous. I am fully
convinced that species are not immutable" (1859:6).

In the 19th century "independently created" meant real time special
creation and not a single-original species creation event. Science
accepted Darwin's theory. Paradigm change occurred within 20 years of
1859.

I have never seen you acknowledge any of these facts. As fas as I can
tell you accept both mutually contradicting forces operating in nature
which is subjective and sourceless.

Are you saying it is impossible for an intelligent creator to create a
mechanical system that can work without the need for constant
intelligent input and manipulation?

I, and the History of Science, are saying that there are only two
causation choices. Creationists and IDists do not accept unguided
material causation (UMC) operating in nature because UMC says
Intelligent causation does not exist----that is why UMC is
postulated.

Evolution, since Darwin, presupposes automation: nature producing
itself *without any* Divine participation which the literature calls
"interventionism."

Biological mechanical systems (listen closely) *reflect* Divine
power----like IC systems, bat echolocation, or the complexity of life
that lives harmoniously in a rain forest. You cannot describe or
explain nature using our opponents terminology because that
terminology presupposes UMC and the non-existence of Vertical
causation-involvement with nature.

I mean really, according to your
argument here, you'd make God directly responsible for all the evils
of this world.  

My argument does no such thing. We both know how the Bible explains
evil.

Do you really think that if a person happens to be
struck and killed by lightening that God directly zapped that person?
- deliberately?  

The Bible says that the rain falls on the just and unjust alike. This
means bad things happen to all persons----no one is exempt.

Do you believe that when someone goes to Las Vegas
and happens to win a million dollars on the slot jackpot that God
directly caused that to happen? - with deliberate intent?  Or, when a
child gets leukemia and suffers for months or years before dying a
painful death - was the leukemia the direct act of God? Or, do you
believe in at least the appearance of random chance on occasion?

I'll get back to this one.



--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/
\ "rational romantic mystic cynical idealist"

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Letter to the Editor: God set the universal clock
    ... > Without such a force and laws to control it, there would be a state of chaos. ... > But the universe is not in chaos, for all heavenly bodies follow an orderly ... God designed all this and set up laws for the operation of all things ... The non-chaotic aspects of nature are due to the laws of nature. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Methodological Materialism and Philosophical Materialism
    ... scientific explanation for the origin of the laws of nature and the ... the concept of a creator of the universe. ... or the creator is actually the Invisible Pink ... You have not demonstrated that emotional preference for a belief in God ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Dinesh DSouza : When Science Points To God
    ... Darwinism-evolution says God did not create. ... unintelligent agency (= horizontal causation) operating in reality. ... Darwin was the FIRST to remove Divine causation from ... tell you accept both mutually contradicting forces operating in nature ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Methodological Materialism and Philosophical Materialism
    ... scientific explanation for the origin of the laws of nature and the ... the concept of a creator of the universe. ... or the creator is actually the Invisible Pink ... You have not demonstrated that emotional preference for a belief in God ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Methodological Materialism and Philosophical Materialism
    ... scientific explanation for the origin of the laws of nature and the ... emperical research in physics has not come close to ... the concept of a creator of the universe. ... You have not demonstrated that emotional preference for a belief in God ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading