Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI
- Thread starter Nineveh
- Start date
cur_deus_homo
New member
As aharvey has said, his "beliefs" about ultimate origins of the universe or life are irrelevant to the validity of the science of common descent in evolutionary theory. He could say, for instance, God "poofed" into existence the first single-celled creature which then divided according to the natural laws God infused into the primordial biological processes of life, and then those two divided, and so on... And then the entirely "naturalistic" process described by evolutionary theory lead to the emergence of the diversity of life as we know it. Or he could say that God "poofed" the entire creation into existence, aka the "big bang," and completely "naturalistic" processes lead to the emergence of everything we see today, life included. Or he could say that our "universe" is really just an insignificant "bubble" that emerged from the interaction of an infinite number of other "universes" and there is, in fact, no God and no "beginning" to any of this "stuff" we call the "universe" or "reality."
The point is that no matter the "myth" in which aharvey currently "believes" the science of common descent and the scientific story of evolution is sound, meaningful, and demands our serious attention in trying to figure out how to cure disease and to generally work for fostering the health of humanity and, indeed, all of life as we know it. If someone is a YEC and does science in the pursuit of those same noble goals, then that's fine with me, but I would like to think that the methods they use are the same any other scientist with a different worldview uses. However, I am not so sure this is the case, especially with the likes of those affiliated with ICR.
To say all of this is not even to mention the pure folly of teaching the worldview of creationism as science. To do so would perpetuate the falsity of the conflict thesis of the realtion between science and religion. We'd be much better off if we taught our children how to think critically about these issues, instead of indoctrinating them into believing there are only two grand myths of life's origins. And we'd also be much better off if we taught our children what the heck a worldview is, how myths function, and why they are so important. And then they could attend a philosophy class or two and learn how to piece it all together. And if our teenagers want to debate the truth or falsehood of one myth over another, then let them have at it! What are we so afraid of? That one teenager will hurt another teenager's feelings? Please...
Nineveh
Merely Christian
"irrelevant to the validity of the science of common descent in evolutionary theory"
It seems simple to me...
While the "Degrees" in this forum would love dearly to keep this thread on an evo only topic, this thread was about a museum to begin with. Regarless, I didn't mind giving wide latitude from the begining for the many topics covered along the way. My questions to those who believe evo are rather simple, yet I have gotten no feedback whatsoever. I have a really hard time believing none have even considered what they believe beyond evolution.
"the pure folly of teaching the worldview of creationism"
As of this point in the thread, no one has bothered to address their ideas on origins of matter or the origins of the "origional ancestor/s". Evo doesn't cover that, remember? Yet there isn't much in the way of even guesses from people who hold degrees as to their own beliefs on the topics.
"how to think critically about these issues"
Except the issues of where matter came from and how the matter became arranged to produce an "ancestor"?
It seems simple to me...
While the "Degrees" in this forum would love dearly to keep this thread on an evo only topic, this thread was about a museum to begin with. Regarless, I didn't mind giving wide latitude from the begining for the many topics covered along the way. My questions to those who believe evo are rather simple, yet I have gotten no feedback whatsoever. I have a really hard time believing none have even considered what they believe beyond evolution.
"the pure folly of teaching the worldview of creationism"
As of this point in the thread, no one has bothered to address their ideas on origins of matter or the origins of the "origional ancestor/s". Evo doesn't cover that, remember? Yet there isn't much in the way of even guesses from people who hold degrees as to their own beliefs on the topics.
"how to think critically about these issues"
Except the issues of where matter came from and how the matter became arranged to produce an "ancestor"?
cur_deus_homo
New member
That's the weird, wild nature of message boards.
As for the origin of this thread, I think everything I said in the last paragraph of my last post is highly relevant to this thread. I watch Dr. Kennedy every Sunday morning before I go to church. I agree with him on some social issues, like abortion, but I totally disagree with the overarching campaign of his, "Reclaiming America for Christ," because it is too political in nature, largely because of its involvement in judicial activism. Christianity is about repentance and forgiveness, not about filling the courts of this country with people who are likely to rule in favor of teaching creationism in science classrooms. Dr. Kennedy, in my estimation, has become way too poltical in his religious rhtetoric.
So what? I design and develop databases and client-server and web applications using various techniques and programming languages, but I don't have to know or even care about or even vaguely think about the origins of the languages I use to program something. I don't have to know a darn thing about the old vacuum tube computers to program a web site in Cold Fusion, for instance. If I have any interest in the "origins" of computing, that interest has little, if any, direct relevance to how I do my job today. Same thing is true of doing science (and theory, for that matter) in the biological disciplines.
Hence my referrence to teaching philosophy in high school.
This thread started with a post from you about a group that claimed to have a recent fossil of a mammoth from Florida. It had nothing to do with the "origin of everything" but was clearly pointed at attempting to point toward evidence of a young earth and recent mammoths in FL. I talked with one of the people involved and it was clear to me that their research methods were questionable at best (and no, I have no desire to folloe up), they were your standard YEC wack-jobs.
For what it is worth--I think all the matter came from the big bang 15 billion +/- years ago, and we are here through natural processes. No clue what caused the bang. Nor any real idea of whether or not the math works but all the big shots with "Degrees" seem to be in basic agreement.
Don't like my answer--then get yourself a "Degree" and attack it.
And exactly how it all began has little to do with evolution and the biology behind it (and that is something I do know something about as a result of my (horrors) degrees).
Get some real education for a change and stop depending on AIG etc.
Nineveh
Merely Christian
cur_deus_homo,
And out of all you had to say, you still didn't address the questions, why? Is it really so hard for evos to think outside what evo explains?
Thank you for answering where you think matter came from, any ideas on how it got in a form "natural process" could take over?
I might come back to that statement later.
Why so defensive?
Didn't think I'd need to go back to your earlier statement so soon...
What makes evo any more or less "true" to you than your feelings about how matter came to be?
Real education like: "No clue what caused the bang. Nor any real idea of whether or not the math works but all the big shots with "Degrees" seem to be in basic agreement."?
And out of all you had to say, you still didn't address the questions, why? Is it really so hard for evos to think outside what evo explains?
Thank you for answering where you think matter came from, any ideas on how it got in a form "natural process" could take over?
I might come back to that statement later.
Why so defensive?
Didn't think I'd need to go back to your earlier statement so soon...
What makes evo any more or less "true" to you than your feelings about how matter came to be?
Real education like: "No clue what caused the bang. Nor any real idea of whether or not the math works but all the big shots with "Degrees" seem to be in basic agreement."?
aharvey
New member
The thread started out not about evolution but rather about a museum?
From the very first post:
quote:
Coral Ridge Ministries is teaming up with the Creation Studies Institute (CSI) to launch a national creation outreach. CSIs Executive Director Tom DeRosa, an educator and creation studies authority, has spent many years assembling information, contacts, and artifacts in his study of evidences for creation. CSIs chief aim is to defend and promote creation and to expose the lie of evolution.
cur_deus_homo
New member
I did address your questions by using the analogy of the origins of computers and their irrelevance to the current work of computer programming, and I also addressed your questions by reflecting on the irrelavance of "grand myths" to the validity of scientific methods in the work of discerning biological common descent.
In other words, I addressed your questions by rendering them irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not common descent actually occurred as generally described by evolutionary theory.
I think the burden is on you to show how one particular belief in ultimate origins overagainst another has any relevance to the validity of evolution.
No, it's not, and that's precisely the point! Thanks for making that point for us.
Nineveh
Merely Christian
aharvey,
So it's not about Coral Ridge teaming up with CSI? Odd title for the thread then. Still no thoughts on matter or the first ancestor/s?
cur_deus_homo,
" I design and develop databases and client-server and web applications using various techniques and programming languages, but I don't have to know or even care about or even vaguely think about the origins of the languages I use to program something. I don't have to know a darn thing about the old vacuum tube computers to program a web site in Cold Fusion, for instance."
So basically you don't care where matter came from nor how it got in an "ancestor" form. I guess it's just hard for me to imagine you have never pondered the thought.
"No, it's not, and that's precisely the point! Thanks for making that point for us."
Well, so far, aharvey hasn't, and you simply just don't care. I guess the lawyer is the only one who can even imagine anything outside evo so far...
So it's not about Coral Ridge teaming up with CSI? Odd title for the thread then. Still no thoughts on matter or the first ancestor/s?
cur_deus_homo,
" I design and develop databases and client-server and web applications using various techniques and programming languages, but I don't have to know or even care about or even vaguely think about the origins of the languages I use to program something. I don't have to know a darn thing about the old vacuum tube computers to program a web site in Cold Fusion, for instance."
So basically you don't care where matter came from nor how it got in an "ancestor" form. I guess it's just hard for me to imagine you have never pondered the thought.
"No, it's not, and that's precisely the point! Thanks for making that point for us."
Well, so far, aharvey hasn't, and you simply just don't care. I guess the lawyer is the only one who can even imagine anything outside evo so far...
aharvey
New member
Nineveh,
I've commented on this before. The farther back you go in time, the greater the uncertainty. Events that happened yesterday are better understood than events that happened a hundred years ago are better understood than events that happened a thousand years ago are better understood than events that happened a miliion years ago are better understood than events that happened a billion years ago are better understood than events that happened fifteen billion years ago, etc. Do you not understand this, disagree with this, or not see the relevance to our understanding of evolutionary processes (today to a few billion years ago) vs. the origin of the universe / matter (more like 15 billion years ago)? Getting a degree will make you better equipped to tackle these issues, but it doesn't exempt you from the pull of the recent!
cur_deus_homo
New member
Where did I say "I don't care" about the philosophy / theology of "origins?" And also how can you possibly accuse me of never having pondered these issues when the bulk of my nearly 700 posts on TOL are related to this issue?
Come on...
See above.
Jukia? For the record, I'm an IT professional and a seminarian with the goal of entering a PhD program in theology in the next one or two years.
I am pointing out that ICR is not a scientific organization. It is not possible to do science, an investigative enterprise, when the end results of your investigations are already predetermined.
In science the chips fall where they may. We have to accept the results of scientific investigation whether we like them or not.
aharvey
New member
I was challenging the notion that this was an evolution-free thread, not that it wasn't about a museum!
If you had any familiarity with string theory, you would understand why I don't have any strong opinions about the origin of matter!
As far as the origin of life is concerned, I can easily imagine that, given a billion years or so, and the (insert unimaginably large number) atoms on planet Earth, the flukey conditions needed to get the ball rolling are likely to have occurred somewhere at least once. And there's no reason to assume that the earliest life forms would have looked anything like anything on the planet today; in fact, there's potent reasons to assume it would be like nothing today. An extremely different abiotic environment, no predators, no competitors, no prey...
Nineveh
Merely Christian
"Come on...."
Exactly my thoughts...
You say you gave your thoughts on the questions with:
"I design and develop databases and client-server and web applications using various techniques and programming languages, but I don't have to know or even care about or even vaguely think about the origins of the languages I use to program something. I don't have to know a darn thing about the old vacuum tube computers to program a web site in Cold Fusion, for instance."
So if that isn't your answer, why not give me the simplified version of what you think on those 2 questions?
I believe he has said he has a law degree, if I am mistaken, I am sure to be corrected
Do you believe Christ was the Word?
cur_deus_homo
New member
Since Nin is looking for our thoughts on this, I'd like to recall something I read in Davies's The Fifth Miracle (if I remember correctly) about the replication of "pre-genetic" material and the crystallization of clays. Ah, here's a site that talks about this in detail. I think the chemistry of it all is somewhat tenuous as it might account for the origination of life, but, hey, that's how science works.
cur_deus_homo
New member
No, I don't.
I believe Christ IS the Word.
Nineveh
Merely Christian
This thread was not stared on evo, it was started on CR and CSI teaming up, the topics covered have been very liberal to even that OP. But really do we need this to be part of our discussion?
Yes, I am familiar with "string". I am curious, is it the theory or the data that makes you feel compelled to avoid that explaination?
At this point I would like to ask: is that "flukey conditions" of nature?
Do you have an idea if that would have been on land, sea or air?
I know you have much learning from that point on, but if we may, let's stick to the 2 questions for a minute.