View Single Post
Old 05-05-2006, 09:51 PM   #120
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Sorry, but you're gonna have to read the thread. That's like, rule number one with good debating...
You can cut a newbie some slack once in a while.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Guardian
i haven't read all the thread, it will take to long, but please, tell me why you think that evolution is the right thought action. i would like to know.
Basically we came up with these (I'm assuming you are some type of Christian; most of the people that have issues with or question evolution are):

* It doesn't conflict with religion in the sense that it denies it; some of the things it has shown true have forced the reevaluation of doctrine or scripture, but it has never been used as a proof for the nonexistence of God by a rational scientist (that proof cannot exist). It simply ignores god, whether he's there or not. It doesn't matter to evolutionary theory because god is a random being - there is no ability to predict his actions and thus he cannot be taken into account. There is no reason for religion and evolution to be exclusive. This has been shown by several major religions (CoE, Catholicism) accepting that evolution can be true. Christianity's god did not give people rational minds for no reason, nor did he restrict their use in the intellectual persuits. It stands to reason (heh) that he meant for people to use that which he had given them. Aquinas argued that you could see god in all things, and indeed you can - the more you know, the greater the impressiveness, you might say. Good stewardship of the cognitive prowess and all that.

* It's a good model. It is scientifically valid and it has predictive powers that have been shown to be correct in all cases in which it can be applied meaningfully. It's been used in evolutionary programs to create better bot AI for players to fight in games (I think that Quake III did this, not sure though) and it worked. It's as valid as any other science, and you don't go about picking and choosing what sections of biology, physics, chemistry etc you want to believe - it doesn't matter whether you think it's true or not. It's there, and it has a lot of evidence to support it.

* And the last thing I already posted here about why ID fails religiously (it denies that god is completely good in defining him as a being capable of lying - an act fundamentally against his nature. This is also taken care of by Aquinas, if you're interested in that type of thing):

Quote:
I think the question that should be asked the proponents of ID is this: do you trust God to tell you the truth? Faking the evidence is exactly what God is accused of by those who hold to ID/Young Earth creationism/etc, and I don't understand how they can truly have faith without the absolute trust that comes from knowing that he will not lie to you. My opinion is that God does not lie. If he did, what reason would you have to believe him on anything else? You'd be stuck with Pascal's Wager, and that has severe problems with an omniscient god.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,