RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: What is Jason ranting on about ?, ?????< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2008,14:57   

I've a lot of respect for Jason Rosenhouse. I admire his dedication  in attending YEC conferences and taking the time to write concise and informative reports while at the same time exposing how they distort ( and in many cases by fraudulent means) mainstream science.

However, as a Chrtistian who supports evolution I'm a bit worried about Jason's recent rantings attacking Theistic evolutionists etc.:

http://scienceblogs.com/evoluti...._ev.php


 
Quote
Seriously, the desperation here is palpable. Theistic evolutionists have made great concessions to achieve their reconciliation of Christianity with evolution. Perspicuity of scripture? Gone. Natural theology? Pointless. Argument from Design? Fuhgeddabout it. The sort of beliefs that are justified by evidence and defended rationally are granted to science. Religious beliefs are justified by recourse to ill-defined “eyes of faith” and the desire of believers to feel at home in the universe (whatever that means). They've conceded about ninety percent of the territory on which science and religion clash. But still a lot of scientists won't even give them that last ten percent. How frustrating that must be for them.



http://scienceblogs.com/evoluti....hp#more


 
Quote
But I do think a remark is in order. If we are to judge them by their best representatives then creationists take their Biblical analysis very seriously indeed. They endorse the young-Earth position because they genuinely believe (with considerable justice) that this is what was intended by the writer of Genesis. I am sympathetic to this view, as I have written before. The arguments I have seen defending alternatives like the day-age theory, the gap theory, or the framework hypothesis are not convincing.


http://scienceblogs.com/evoluti....hp#more

 
Quote
In a number of recent posts I have remarked that when it comes to Biblical analysis, I think the young-Earthers have more going for them than is sometimes acknowledged. I have also commented that I have been generally unimpressed with the more highbrow sorts of Biblical exegesis I have seen with regard to the text of Genesis.


 
Quote
Even worse, Gingerich's points do not make sense. He asks us to see a concordance between God's creation of light in verse three of Genesis with the picture painted by the Big Bang model. Sadly, by the time we reach verse three the heavens (which presumably refers to space) and the Earth have already been created. The Earth even has water on it. I'd say that's a big point of departure between the Bible and the Big Bang.


 
Quote
The young-Earthers make sense. They're out of their minds, but they make sense


and evolutionary scientists then expect Christians to take part in evolution Sunday etc. ?????

I really can't see what Jason's point is in attacking Christians who accept evolution (i.e. mainstream science). I certainly have no sympathy for the YECs who, in my opinion have damaged the church irreparably. Is he perhaps contemplating becoming a YEC ? Certainly any of the testimonys of YECs who were atheists had similar positions to that of Rosenhouse (i.e.they had no respect for TEs).

So can i have some clarrification on this point i.e. It's perfectly acceptable for Christians to accept evolution ??? Wesley: you have not agreed with my points on the clergy letter project. However, it would appear that Dr./Professor Rosenhouse does not accept/has no respect for Christians such as myself who have absolutely no problem with mainstream science.

I certainly have no respect for YECs whatsoever. I think they have damaged the church irreperably. While many may be very sincere people(many of my relatives are YECs/old Earth creationists) they are seriously misguided, often through a lack of knowledge/education. I detest those who are well educated in the movement even more, especially those taking part in the conference that Jason has just reported on.  

Most Christians who accept evolution would, by and large, be TEs

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2008,16:45   

I think that you ought to take this up with Jason.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
clamboy



Posts: 188
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2008,18:26   

I agree that taking this up with Jason is best, but I think you are misinterpreting his words. He is clearly not endorsing YEC as a reflection of reality, but is instead saying that YECists at least have consistency in their perspective, while TEists are a mix of contradictions.

I have some sympathy with that position. Christian YEC says the Bible is the divinely-inspired word of God, perfect and factual, and this perfection is maintained in, say, the King James version. Thus, the evidence we gather to understand the universe must all be interpreted in that light. YECists do this. They are wrong, of course, utterly, but they are consistent in their wrongness.

Christian TE, however, is in a bind. If we are not to trust the Bible on certain details, such as the age of the Earth, the Flood, as well as the timeline of the creation of the universe, why should it be trusted when it comes to Jesus, his miracles, his resurrection, his godhood, and other necessary beliefs if one is to claim the title of Christian? Jason is saying that TEists have conceded huge swaths of land to science, but insist that the supernatural still holds sway in some small patches of earth, and also that the Bible is actually really science-y if you squint a lot. He appears frustrated with TE's insistence on having it both ways.

Again, I sympathize with that view. Why can't Christian TEists simply say, "Indeed there is no reason to view the Bible as an historically accurate record, but I'm just going to go on believing in certain parts of it while I stop wasting precious time trying to force it to conform to science."

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,08:04   

Quote
He is clearly not endorsing YEC as a reflection of reality


I was being facetious.

Quote
Again, I sympathize with that view. Why can't Christian TEists simply say, "Indeed there is no reason to view the Bible as an historically accurate record, but I'm just going to go on believing in certain parts of it while I stop wasting precious time trying to force it to conform to science."


So if this is what non Christians (and by that I mean Agnostics/Atheists) think of Christians who support evolution (mainstream science) what is the point in us taking part in evolution Sunday/the clergy letter project ?????? Someone please clarify ?????? Christians that support science by and large do not see the creation story in Genesis as an historical event. Again, for want of repeating myself, groups such as the NCSE repeatedly say there should be no problem with Christianity and science. It would appear that some people on the Atheist side of the fence profoundly disagree.

As  for cherry picking the bible, YECs do this just as much as every other brand of Christianity.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,10:00   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Sep. 07 2008,08:04)
 
Quote
Again, I sympathize with that view. Why can't Christian TEists simply say, "Indeed there is no reason to view the Bible as an historically accurate record, but I'm just going to go on believing in certain parts of it while I stop wasting precious time trying to force it to conform to science."


So if this is what non Christians (and by that I mean Agnostics/Atheists) think of Christians who support evolution (mainstream science) what is the point in us taking part in evolution Sunday/the clergy letter project ?????? Someone please clarify ?????? Christians that support science by and large do not see the creation story in Genesis as an historical event. Again, for want of repeating myself, groups such as the NCSE repeatedly say there should be no problem with Christianity and science. It would appear that some people on the Atheist side of the fence profoundly disagree.

I'm not sure why you created a new thread here, when your question is pretty much the same one you asked in your previous thread. :angry: That question was answered, but you don't seem to have gotten the message.

The value in Evolution Sunday and the Clergy Letter Project is in showing people who aren't sure that there are many theists who accept the fact of biological evolution. Whether or not that support is logically defensible is another matter.  In general, atheists don't get their backs up until theists try to "wedge" their beliefs into public policy.  In other words, atheists get upset, and understandably so, when religious belief becomes political rhetoric.
 
Quote
As  for cherry picking the bible, YECs do this just as much as every other brand of Christianity.

And the cherry-picking by "every other brand of Christianity" indicates some sort of logical disconnection on the part of theists.  If you acknowledge that the whole of the Bible is open to individual interpretation, how can the Bible form the basis of a cogent, widespread belief system?  The fact that there is a fundamental conflict between science and religion doesn't mean that the two can't coexist, so long as theists recognize that metaphysical concepts aren't a part of science.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,12:47   

Quote
So if this is what non Christians (and by that I mean Agnostics/Atheists) think of Christians who support evolution (mainstream science) what is the point in us taking part in evolution Sunday/the clergy letter project ?????? Someone please clarify ??????


Possibly because evolution is the (lowercase) truth, and it is in the interest of all people to clarify and promote the truth, particularly when vast swarms of supposedly religious people ar promoting lies in the name of religion.

How is this not enough reason?

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,12:50   

Quote
In general, atheists don't get their backs up until theists try to "wedge" their beliefs into public policy.  In other words, atheists get upset, and understandably so, when religious belief becomes political rhetoric.


But have they in the cases that have been highlighted ???? personally I don't think so.

I agree with you Jim re. the clergy letter project and evolution Sunday. However, I feel that Jason appears to be having a go at every theist that accepts evolution, while sating he has more respect for the YECs (something i certainly don't have). I really can't understand his tactics here. If you want Christians to accept evolutionary science and participate in the above events this is not the best way to go about it.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2008,13:12   

Quote
If you want Christians to accept evolutionary science and participate in the above events this is not the best way to go about it.


the reason to accept any science is because it is true, or at least the best explanation for a class of phenomena that we have. Politics and personalities have nothing to do with the substance of science.

The reason for clergymen to support the best ideas of science is that religion has, for centuries, opposed the best ideas of science and made itself look foolish in the process.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
  7 replies since Sep. 06 2008,14:57 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]