With on arm in a cast i am going to avoid capitalization for a while.
this is not a reflection of my education but a reflection of how tired my
left hand becomes. increased spelling errors are a bonus.
You wrote:
>>(GM)I agree whole heartedly with you about the purported statement.
>> It should be condemned. But you can't condemn the innocent because of
>>the guilty.
>
>Thanks for your feedback. But I'm not condemning innocent people. I'm
>merely making some requests.
>1) Please have the courage to recognize the atheistic meaning attached to
>the word evolution.
I don't think there is an intrinsic "atheism" attached to the word
"evolution". There are lots of atheists who believe evolution, this is
true. But there are a whole lot of Christians who will share heaven with
you, praising our Lord for eternity at your side, who also accept
evolution. Thus in my mind, it is real hard to say that evolution is
atheistic.
>2) Please also notice the naturalistic religious philosophy underlying
>evolution.
The philosophy is separate from evolution. A definition since it has
beenover a year since I have discussed this on the reflector. A phase
space is a mega dimensional space in which each point characterizes the
state or characteristics of a system. A 2 unit long DNA molecule has a 2
dimensional phase space in which each point tells you the entire state of
that molecule. Alternatively one can say that this is a list of all
possible configurations of the dna.
phase space
a....
c....
g....
t....
*acgt
each dot represents a complete characterization of one 2-unit dna
molecule. A 3 unit dna molecule has a 3 dimensional phase space and a 3.5
billion dna human genome has a 3.5 billion dimehnsional phase space.
now, to the philosophy. I believe that God, knowing what the phase space
of various lengths of DNA were capable of producing in the way of living
critters, chose to create life based on dna. this represents god's
planning and foresight. He knew that a dna system would eventually create
a physical body quite like ours which would be suitable for implanting his
image in us. this is not an atheistic form of evolution. PC's have god
evolving life by directed mutation created by god himself.
what i have is a theistc, not atheistic evolution. every other TE has
some simiolar way to involve god. if god is involved, then it cannot be
atheistic by the definition of atheism!
>
>Phil Johnson has successfully helped Michael Ruse recognize these points.
>Ruse is one of evolution's heros for testifying before a court in an
>Arkansas remove-creationism-from-the-science-classroom case. The basis of
>Ruse's argument was that Creationism is not science because it rests on
>certain unprovable assumptions.
>
>Take a look at what Michael Ruse admitted about the _unprovable_
>assumptions underlying evolution in a public setting after interacting
> with
>Phil Johnson.
>
[speech where ruse says evolution function as a religion for some is
deleted]
>Are the TE's on this reflector in a state of shock?
no.
>
>So what are we going to do now? Draft a letter to Michael Ruse to
> convince him that Evolution is not a secular religion?
>
>Evolution, as a word, has never been an appropriate vehicle for
>transporting the glory of God to the world. TE is an oxymoron.
>
Your argument is fallacious. money functions as a religion for many in
our society. should we quit giving to the church because of their
religion? i mean we don't want to support their misuse of money do we?
just because they worsip evolution does not mean that my acceptance of the
scientific data and evolution requires me to worship a false god named
evolution or to support their worship. does your use of money support the
greedy man's worship of mammon?
>And it would be embarrassing to renounce TE after so long.
>But it needs to go. Let's not perpetuate a lie even after it's been
>exposed.
>
I have not been embarassed by my intellectual changes during my life. if
believers like you could really provide an intellectual framework which
would fit the data of science into your theological framework, i would
probably change again. but all we christians do is say "you can't believe
evolution" you must give the scientist a reasonable framework for the
data. in geology no one, neither icr nor hugh ross has given a compelling
framework for geology and paleontology.
>Almost everytime I try to introduce an atheist to Jesus, they say stuff
>like, "but what about evolution." Why do they say this? Because they
>suddenly want to change the subject and talk about _science_? No. It's
>because they--even as high school students-recognize evolution represents
>a religious philosophy that competes with Christianity, not one that
> can be accomodated by Christianity. According Ruse, all evolutionists
>know this.
>
i hate to burst your bubble here. they raise evolution for one of 2
reasons: they want to honestly know if belief in christ requires a
rejection of all observational evidence or they want to hear you say
erroneous things about science for their amusement.
>Let's just call ourselves creationists, and then qualify the term as
> needed.
>
>We need to recognize E is atheism, renounce TE, continue doing authentic
>science, or quit--that's up to you, and stop being responsible for
>perpetuating the confusion caused TE is endorsed. It's the sort of
>confusion that would result if someone said, "sure you can have your
>religious beliefs, as long as you don't really believe they're
true."
WAIT A MINUTE. I BELIEVE IN A LITERAL BIBLE. ASK, MY FRIEND DENIS
LAMOUREAUX IF I AM NOT A LITERALIST. :-)
so when you say "sure you can have your religious beliefs, as long as you
don't really believe they're true."
tell me what event in the bible i do not believe. don't ignore this
question in your reply. you have implied that i don't believe the bible.
prove your assertion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm