Expelled

060810_evo_rank_02.jpg


YAY We beat Turkey
 
Oh, please don't get me wrong. I am not saying that science isn't valid, or that I think that ID or Creationism should be taught in public schools. I also agree that science doesn't and can't probably answer questions as to the origin of life. I do believe there are limits to bo our religous and our scientific knowledge.
I also don't think that science is the reason why the conversation has changed. I think that the way we look at the world does though. Of course a Christian would have to say that something super, extra or un-natural had to be at work for Jesus to walk on water, or be raised from the dead. I was more pointing to the fact that some believe that objective/absolute truth exists, and in post modernity there are more and more who do not believe this. This affects BOTH science and religion.
 
mia, I was really talking on a foundational philosophical level of moral relativism v moral absolutes.

I remember taking a philosophy class from Dr. Bob Kane my freshman year... Contemporary Moral Problems (I think that was the title) where we read his book "Through the Moral Maze: Searching for Absolute Values in a Pluralistic World." As I remember he argues for moral absolutes based on Kantian concepts and addressed the issues with regards to absolutes in a world of growing relativism.
 
THEU
I appreciate your posts.

I agree that moral absolutes are hard to identify in fundamental characteristics of the objective universe. On the other hand, what we label many moral absolutes are found in nearly every culture. But the notion of moral absolutism has been under a mighty assault by post modernism, I agree.

Post modernism also holds that science is but one cultural product among many that holds no absolute right to "the truth" compared to any other product, say, tooth fairy belief. The end game is there are no truths. Of course this is a self negating argument, that no one practices in fact.

Science ignores this position and continues to unearth better and better explanations of reality. One cannot practice science and not believe in reality. To that end, post modernism has not influenced science.

Post modern criticism has rightly oriented science to the biases inherent in large enterprises undertaken by humans. No institution is immune to that.

My own opinion is that very little of the world is seriously impacted by so-called post modernist thinking.
 
^
^
^
Here, Here. I don't understand why so many Christians are obsessed with this issue. Since when did Christians feel the need to prove that with which it takes "faith" to believe in anway.
 
Here's a site called "Answers in Genesis". Whether you find them representative of creationists, I don't know, but the following is taken from their site:

3.

The Bible records the genealogies from Adam to Christ. From the ages given in these lists (and accepting that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth around 2,000 years ago), we can conclude that the universe is only a few thousand years old (perhaps just 6,000), and not millions of years old (see also The earth: how old does it look? especially under Jesus and the age of the world). Thus, dinosaurs lived within the past few thousand years.

So, were dinosaurs on the Ark?

In Genesis 6:19–20, the Bible says that two of every sort of land vertebrate (seven of the “clean” animals) were brought by God to the Ark. Therefore, dinosaurs (land vertebrates) were represented on the Ark.

The Link

I'm not trying to show how laughable this site is, just that my statements are assuredly not "ridiculous generalizations" of creationists. They are specific, and if they are ridiculous that's not of my doing....
 
Nivek, the distinction isn't lost on me. My point was that science and religion are not in fact at heads over anything other than church supplied dogma. The fact is there is room in science for a creator. The conflict which this movie is focused on is manufactured by folks who have a purpose other than "outing" science.
 
Good thing I popped on here so I could find out what I believe.
biggrin.gif


Seriously, it may well turn out that the Genesis account is an allegory. But I've also heard the theory (and tend to agree with it) that a planet created by God could be created complete with sign of age, just as presumably the first human was created as a full-grown adult.

Ultimately we don't know, and the comment about dinosaurs on the ark makes a lot of assumptions. Other than some passages in Job that talk about dinosaur-like animals (which if you don't believe God spoke those words, you have to assume that at some point a human being saw something resembling what is described), the Bible doesn't make any claims about dinosaurs one way or another.

BTW, addressing the point about the literal 24-hour day, the problem is that the comment about our lives being like sands (i assume he's referring to the statement that with God a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day) has nothing to do with the Genesis account. It refers to God's patience and willingness to wait for mankind to repent, and the idea that God doesn't work on a timeline as we do. To an eternal being, it's certainly true that time becomes meaningless. But that doesn't mean that any reference to time in the scripture automatically is called into question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top