Thomas Moore wrote:
>120 isn't that long considering how long something much more simple to
>see in the geological record, that continents move, took to be accepted
>(and it was rightly rejected at the time, and when the right evidence
>came along).
Let me ask a question. Was continental drift accepted on the basis of
new evidence? Or was it accepted on the basis of accumulating evidence?
What I am driving at is the following. If evidence gathered from some
new technique (Say some kind of an interferometry measurement showed
a relative movement of the continents in accordance with the predictions
of the theory.) tilted the balance in favor of drift theory, then the
two situations you are comparing here would not be analogous.
I think Thomas and I are in substantial agreement here. He writes:
>I don't know of anyone who considers abiogenesis a "fact." But then I
>don't see a preamble to every theory saying that this is the "best
>naturalistic explanation available." Evolution theory is not a "fact."
>The paleontological record of change of life throught time _is_ a fact.
>These data are not just an idea. I do think, though, that the media has
>trouble in understanding how to present information to the masses (what
>scientists call "the cringe factor").
The only problem I have here is that secular scientists tend to look the
other way as simplified versions and explanations of the "facts" are used
to support political causes with which they are in sympathy. They cringe,
but they don't correct.
Thomas complains:
>I think this is also a lie. Rob, here said I was presenting that "Divine
>intervention is still not an answer" as fact. All I did was make a
>statement, and I didn't argue it. Do I have to preamble everything I say
>with the statement "this is opinion" and "this is fact?" If so, I think
>Rob needs to apologize to me for not clearly informing me and the rest of
>us for not clearly telling us with is his opinion and what is fact.
I apologize for accusing Thomas of lying and acknowledge that I have
failed to clearly inform the reflector of what I hold as opinion and
what I hold as fact.
>As for "divine intervention," it is my opinion and the opinion of most
>scientists. "God did it" is not an answer and never will be, not while
>you're doing science. You're more than welcome to insert "God did it"
>any time you want outside science. I can see it now - "why did the
>bridge fall? God did it." It might be true, but it certainly isn't a
>scientific answer.
Phil Johnson has addressed the issue of whether or not science must be
applied naturalism far more thoroughly and ably than I could.
He continues:
>Christianity has a bad track record as well. Even Hitler wrote that he
>was doing what he wa doing for God. Remember witch buring, crusades,
>Northern Ireland, slavery in the US, KKK, etc etc? By your own
>standards, Christians should stop claiming they have the "facts" or
>"truth."
This argument is so simplistic that it is infuriating. Even Hitler
wrote that what he was doing was for God? His whole system was based
on the superman ideas of Nietsche who made the infamous claim, "God is
dead." Ceremonies of the Third Reich were based on ancient pagan ceremonies
and the official "religion" of Nazi Germany was NOT Christianity. Hitler's
whole idea of God was determined by twisted non-Christian philosophies and
was, if anything, the logical extension of Darwinism to human societies.
Not only that, but the secularization of Germany that occurred
as a result of the "Higher Criticism" of 19th century German theologians also
contributed to the rise of German paganism and nationalism.
But the problem I have with this sentiment goes deeper than this.
Moore obviously believes that, because religion is unimportant to him, it
is unimportant. But religions have a tremendous impact on society. Why
do Muslim men treat women as inferiors? Because their religion reinforces
the cultural bias. Why are Hindus so caste conscious? Because their religion
tells them that their caste is an unalterable fact of nature. I could go on
and on, but the point is that religions play a critical role in the behavior
of society. While Christianity does not have a perfect track record, many
of the abuses can be traced to contra-Biblical principles. (Sale of
Indulgences, forbidding the Bible to the laiety etc . . .)
Let me illustrate by making up a conversation between two men, we'll call
them, "Rob" and "Tom":
Rob: "Vitamin C is an important part of the human diet. In fact, I think
it critical that a human being have a regular intake of vitamin C."
Tom: "But Rob, Doris Idleman takes vitamin C everyday, and she's dying of
Leukemia."
Rob: "Yes, but that's in spite of the fact that she was taking vitamin C. Her
condition would be worse if she didn't take vitamin C."
Tom: "How about David Smith? He died because of vitamin C."
Rob: "David died because he ate a kilogram of vitamin C concentrate in an
hour. If you take it according to the directions, vitamin C will provide
a number of health benefits."
Tom: "Well, my family hasn't taken any vitamin C tablets. In fact, we're
slowly phasing out all vitamin C consumption and we haven't seen any
negative effects at all."
Rob: "Okay, but you can't say I haven't warned you. Say, are your gums
starting to bleed? . . ."
Since we have banned the ten commandments from public schools, crime is up
800%. Teenage pregnancy is up. Drug use is up. Divorce rates are soaring.
Test scores are dropping like a stone. (Though SAT scores will soon show
a big improvement because they have "renormalized" the test.) . . .
But, hey, none of this is because we're teaching children that they are
glorified animals and that nothing they do has any meaning or consequence.
In Christ,
robert van de water
associate researcher
UCLA