News-Record.com

Dowd article: "Science provides the facts, he adds, while religion provides the meaning."

This is nothing but warmed over pantheism. The "god" set forth here is simply a way of TRYING to retain some sort of transcendence in a system that virtually makes "god" a non-descript veneer of "meaning" thinly stretched over the physical universe.

He says, "while religion provides the meaning."What meaning? If God is so vague, impersonal and non-revelatroy, how do we KNOW anything about Him: what He is like, what his plan for man is? What concrete, absolute principles of life and morality does the "universe" convey to us? Because this is also humanism, man makes up his own meaning, morality and "plan."

So, as most astute and honest atheists and humanists maintain: why not have done with all this God talk. With Dowd's amorphous "god," who is apparently just along for the cosmic ride, why bother!

Only biblical Christianity offers the full revelation of who Creator really is. He has revealed His will, His Commandments, Himself in his Son. He is personal, immament, and loving - gracious, forgiving, majestic, holy - everything that a God should be!

Evolution schmevolution! Anyone who can buy into a system that cannot prove anything of any significance regarding the ORIGIN of life and the imperatives of genetic replication: organisms reproduce after their kind, making changes ONLY within species; and mutations are generally negative, and cannot account for the incredible differences between species.

There are two viable explanations of created reality: a literal reading of Genesis one, with a rather temporally undetermined "In the beginning," followed by a specific six-day creation period of earth as we know it. This would nicely account for environments being wholly prepared and viable for ALL species. No irreducible complexity problems here.

The other view is called the old-earth CREATION model, in which the POSSIBILITY of billions of years of earth change and development is allowed, but God sovereignly creates life and each major "kind" or species along the way through infra-species, micro-evolutionary adjustments/adaptations.

. In this theistic "framework" approach, Genesis 1 is totally accurate revelation - just not in contemporary scientific lingo. It's purpose being to provide a theological framework for revelation regarding the nature and purpose of creation.

Those who accept this view can have the long time periods, but not the highly problematic evolutionary one-cell-to-man explanation of earth's fawna and flora.

But the Creator in these biblically-based approaches is not the "god" of Dowd and company; but the personal, discrete Being who speaks, creates, loves and redeems - omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Mr. Dowd to appear in this part of the country any time soon. Too many people with the mindset that Nikos expresses would be protesting outside telling everyone going inside how they're going to burn in hell.

looks like rEbeLSnaKe is still reading between the lines :-(
nowhere in nikos post did he mention protesting or hell burning. Christians are the messengers/ambassadors of Gods word. God's revelation to man hosts a very wide variety of promises, blessings, warnings, prophecies etc. and a road map to salvation - why atheists seems to always point out that Christians will relegate you to hell (actually it is God who does the relegation and Christian might point it out) must appease their own self righteousness and try to point to the narrow mindedness of Christians. rsnake i would get no personal satisfaction if you end up in hell but heavens angels would rejoice and Christs work would be honored if you accepted Him as Savior.

He didn't need to mention it Buz. We all know there are a lot of fanatics, Westboro Baptist is a prime example, that would jump at the opportunity to do the very things I was talking about. As a matter of fact there is a group of so-called christians from a local church that protests outside a local abortion clinic on a regular basis so it's no stretch of the imagination to see such people protesting Mr. Dowd's presentation. And don't give me that tired old line "They're not true christians" either. They're out there saying the exact same thing about you. If you don't beLIEve exactly the same way they do then you can't possibly be a "true christian".

First of all, Rebel, protesting is universal across the political spectrum. In my pre-Christian SDS days I protested with the Black Panthers. So what's the big deal about Christians expressing THEIR opinion through the tried and true MO of protesting? (excluding the Westboro MO)

I protested outside local abortion mills for years every Saturday, I and my children. They learned the value of standing up publicly for life and truth. I thank God for the privilege of doing so, and would do it again - even with all the curse words, hurled objects and counter-protests that came with the territory. At least with blogging I don't have to dodge the objects.

Personally though, I wouldn't waste the time of day protesting at this guy's lecture. It's such old-hat, worn-out stuff. All the European philosophers that were into this sort of thing committed suicide or spent their last days in an asylum for the insane.

Another one of you guys just drug out the old Westboro Baptist epithet in a recent blog entry. You might have used some real argumentation to dispute my points, instead of groundless insults.

"So what's the big deal about Christians expressing THEIR opinion through the tried and true MO of protesting? (excluding the Westboro MO)"

It's not just the Westboro nuts Nikos. You have those freaks that started that jesus camp crap and then there's a group of dominionists down in Georgia from what I've heard that want to replace the government with a bible based theocracy complete with OT style torture and stonings. That's the protesting I have a big problem with. At least with the political protesting you don't have nutcases telling you how their god will strike them down in his almighty fury.

"So what's the big deal about Christians expressing THEIR opinion through the tried and true MO of protesting? (excluding the Westboro MO)"

It's not just the Westboro nuts Nikos. You have those freaks that started that jesus camp crap and then there's a group of dominionists down in Georgia from what I've heard that want to replace the government with a bible based theocracy complete with OT style torture and stonings. That's the protesting I have a big problem with. At least with the political protesting you don't have nutcases telling you how their god will strike them down in his almighty fury.

Protesting has its place, folks. Express your views where views make a difference, like when the subject is taxes, cultural or social issues. When it's a democratic type forum, where the majority rules, go for it.

Science is a different beast entirely. No majority rules there. In science, evidence is the basis for everything that is held to be true. Over the centuries, all the evidence that has been examined by trained scientists points to a universe that is a bit over 13 billion years old, and to life that changes over a succession of generations. That is why those theories are taught in science classes, not because some authority figure decided one day to dream up something that was contrary to the Bible. The Bible has nothing to do with science because science only gets its information about the universe from the actual universe.

If you really want to change what science holds to be true, the requirement is very simple, really: discover some evidence that shows the currently accepted explanations to be wrong.

"Science is a different beast entirely. No majority rules there."

Actually university and private science department/establishmentss are FULL of politics and votes: as to whether so-and-so gets tenure, or this or that gets funding, or rival theories being voted on as the official stance of a particular school, etc. There are rival "facts" and theories all over the place.

The myth that science has it all laid out in perfectly aligned piles and drawers is just that - a myth. I understand the nature of the scientific method and all that. My point is that science can become a kind of deity that is worshipped for its unquestionable acuracy and perfection. And besides, the really important issues of life are NOT scientific at all, but moral, ethical, personal, and spiritual. In this area science is WAY over its head. Like, "What do we do with this A-bomb now that we scientists have discovered and produced it?" Hmmmm! morality, absolutes, ethics!!

And Reb, there are extremist types in EVERY area of thought and passion. The America I know is a place where ANYone can demonstrate and voice their
opinion. We're exercising our right of free speech even as we write. Right?
Even if my opinion is the exact opposite of yours, or is even odious to you - we dialog and dispute and argue (civally) so that perhaps wisdom and truth may prevail. If we shut down those we vehemently disagree with we kill the animal for everyone.

Rebel, you just seem to have a nasty attitude toward all conservative Christians, and lump all bible-based advocates in with those on the fringes. This is a fiction. I believe in the ultimate dominion (Kingdom of Christ) on earth, but I certainly do not advocate a return to stoning. I do believe in capital punishment for court-proven first degree murder. But so do a lot of other responsible, educated persons.

So Westboro, and stoning advocates are NOT the issue here. To constantly throw them at us is both unethical and counterproductive. Can't we compare views and evidence rather that pulling the plug with ad hominem nonsense; which wreaks of no sound arguments, or of a need to vent anger (words like "crap" are sure signs).

This subject line is about relegating biblical narrative to the fairy tale bin, while saying that sancta scientia has all the answers. Mr. Dowd retains little or no biblical "meaning," and is content to throw it under the bus. My poisition is that the biblical naratives (Genesis 1-11, et al.) are not mere "meaning" passages, but are fully accurate and scientific, just not expressed in modern science jargon.

Nada to LIFE, and Unicell to Bach just cannot be satisfactoriclly explained scientifically, certainly not through evolution. Perhaps someone has a cogent and widely accepted explaination for nada to first self-replicating cell. Or what existed prior to the so-called Big Bang, or before matter and energy. (Brain circuits are smoking and sparking). Without these explanations we are impelled to bow the knee to a sovereign and all-powerful Intelligent Designer.

"Actually university and private science department/establishmentss are FULL of politics and votes: as to whether so-and-so gets tenure, or this or that gets funding, or rival theories being voted on as the official stance of a particular school, etc. There are rival "facts" and theories all over the place."

Care to document an instance where a reputable college has "voted" on a scientific theory to support, Nikos?

"The myth that science has it all laid out in perfectly aligned piles and drawers is just that - a myth. I understand the nature of the scientific method and all that."

If you understood the scientific method, you wouldn't be talking about science being considered to be laid out perfectly. No one has said that science is "perfect." Only that it is the only method that has proved itself as a means of understanding how the world works.

"the really important issues of life are NOT scientific at all, but moral, ethical, personal, and spiritual."

Perhaps so. How one lives his or her life is a far different matter from how to extend that life. But to discount science because it is still advancing and hasn't supplied all the answers you think it should is a short-sighted and ignorant attitude.

"the really important issues of life are NOT scientific at all, but moral, ethical, personal, and spiritual. Perhaps so. How one lives his or her life is a far different matter from how to extend that life."...........................................
i am not convinced that the manner in which one lives their life does not affect how extended or shortened it may be. some 'how to's" in shortening ones life......
1) smoke -2) don't exercise -3) be stressed - 4) take drugs - 5) over eat - 6) drink alcohol in excess - 7) practice unsafe/immoral sexual activities and etc. - so i believe there is a direct relationship in how one lives their lives, relative to how long they might live.
we are all clay in the Potters hand and He is free to mold us into any form He desires. science can never explain God !!

"But to discount science because it is still advancing and hasn't supplied all the answers you think it should is a short-sighted and ignorant attitude."

I NEVER said or insinuated that science was not a wonderful aspect of human achievement. It is a gift from God, and reflects His universal order and natural law. However, I DO think that humanists try to get a whole lot more mileage out of science than it is capable of producing - like moral and ethical values - which you acknowledged.

"The myth that science has it all laid out in perfectly aligned piles and drawers"

My point here was primarily in relation to evolution; which has had a rather stormy past in terms of holding consistent theories re. transition forms, or how the first cell could have "formed ITSELF." Many of these things are still under considerable debate, as I'm sure you know. Which I have no problem with. I DO realize that this is part of the scientific method. But it still won't save you soul, or imbue you with spiritual joy and peace.

I do not KNOW of a college, specifically, that voted a particular theory. This a blog, not a doctoral dissertation. But you hav eth right to ask. I don't know that "voted" is the right word. Perhaps, "came to an official position on evolutionay theory. Certainly, school systems have done so, which has been in the news for some time now (Kansas, et al.) My point was simply that exact science is not always so exact!

Well, I must go; my wife is sitting across the room chafing at the bit to get to the computer.

"My point here was primarily in relation to evolution; which has had a rather stormy past in terms of holding consistent theories re. transition forms, or how the first cell could have "formed ITSELF." Many of these things are still under considerable debate, as I'm sure you know."

Synonyms 1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

Which definition of theory are you using here Nikos? One thing that I find particularly amusing is how beLIEvers will chastise folks for taking bible verses out of context, but will do the exact same thing when it comes to discussions on evolution. There is a huge difference between an accepted scientific theory and a hypothesis. Evolution is not some sort of "wild guess". It's a verified scientific fact backed up by literally tons of evidence. The only debate in scientific circles is on some of the actual details of evolution. The examples you point to are good examples of some of these details. One more thing Nikos. Every species is a transitional form between the one that came before it and the one that will come after it. That includes humans also.

"Which definition of theory are you using here Nikos?"

This one, from The American College Dictionary: b. "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact."

I realize this is MY chosen definition, but it suits evolution; at least, macro-evolution: which lacks any palpaple explanation of where the universe, with its laws, came from, as well as how a cell could ever "evolve" from ooze and chemicals to become a self-replicating entity. It's one thing for something to transition out of a similar entity, but quite another thing for life to spring from mud. Self-replication REQUIRES all the consituent elements involved in mitosis and miosis: genetic material, a viable cell structure, etc.

"Transitional forms" are a tricky business, as there are so few REAL examples. Personally, I believe in an old earth AND micro-evolution: that is, WITHIN species or "kinds" there were likely transitional forms (eohippus to horse, trilobite to horseshoe crab, et al.; but beyond that, there is just no absolute, consistent, provable evidence for transitions (multitudes would be needed and expected) between major life forms.

"Every species is a transitional form between the one that came before it and the one that will come after it. That includes humans also."

This assumes that the species or kinds of flora and fauna observable today are also temporal stages of development. This is an unsupportable assumption, and requires macro-evolution to be a experimentally provable fact, which it is not.

"The only debate in scientific circles is on some of the actual details of evolution."

I would consider proof that a viable cell could form itself to be a major "detail." There are multiple theories out there, none of which is, or perhaps can be, "proven." The famous amino acid experiments proved absolutely nothing! So we're left with metorites from Mars, or wherever to have conveyed life to earth - all because there has been "0" success in providing even a viable theory as to how cells could have popped up. It remains a burr in the saddle of evolution, and a source of much debate.

Personally, (and many of many six-day Christian friends chide me for this) I believe that the earth is old and that the Genesis 1 account is a format or framework to set forth certain facts regarding WHO created, and that it was orderly and intelligently designed (in stages of many years). I believe that Adam and Eve were specially and uniquely created by God in His image and likeness, and that Genesis 2 and 3 are no longer "frameworks," but factual accounts of primordial human emanation - albeit centered on the theological and spiritual events germaine to the biblical story of redemption (Fall, atonement, etc.).