The theory of evolution is an intelligent design for a universal system of constant creation. The belief in a living, single, universal, omnipresent unity to the whole universe requires evolution. My faith is uncertain at times and I am certain that human consciousness is fallible but I will not believe in a dead God. I do know that the EPR thought experiment does describe the ground of being for a living unity of the universe.
Again, evolution is intelligent design for constant creation.
I'm reading the Dalai Lama's "Becoming Enlightened" and there's a remarkable passage that I think applies to this Creationism/Evolution discussion and that the fundies may want to consider. He's discussing what a believer should do when reason/reality contradicts his/her scripture and His Holiness says that - obviously - that scripture cannot be read literally. It can only be read symbolically or allegorically.
Thus Genesis explains the relationship between Man and God and the "why" of Man's condition. The creation myths are written as such because in 800 BC that was the best "science" of the day. If Josiah and his priests had had access to 21st century physics, etc., the story would have been literally different but the underlying message would have been the same.
Faith/belief, by definition, is to accept without proof or substantiation – often in spite of contradicting facts or disproof.
Science (the study of the physical and natural world and phenomena, especially by using systematic observation and experiment) is to deduce from available data and experimentation.
Since the universe is still expanding, one would have to conclude that god is never going to get this finished. When a theory is supported by thousands and even millions of pieces of evidence it becomes as incontrovertible a fact as any in science. Remember, that the gaps are being filled in every day. Those who believe in ID worship gaps. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
Actually, the question would be how did SALT water fish survive? Because all that rain would have diluted the oceans to the point where it would be seriously desalinated.
Ocean mammals (dolphins, whales, etc...) would likely drown without the buoyancy of pure salt water to reach the surface.
And let's not forget about Australia. Koalas, kangaroo's... a microcosm of species not found anywhere else.
@Cheryl - certainly we should avoid imposing worldviews on other people, for reasons too many to mention.
But we need objective science standards. Let disbelievers preface every statement with "Science says, but the Bible proves wrong, that ..." if they wish; that's fine. So long as a child understands what science shows us, the child doesn't have to believe it (...does anyone REALLY believe in quantum physics???) but the child DOES have to know what the basic concepts are, in order to get a state-sponsored certification of having graduated from high school.
In chapter 1 of Genesis, God creates animals and people both male and female and tells them to be fruitful and multiply. Along with the other days of creation, one gets the impression that these animals and people were created out of nothing.
Then God rested on the 7th day.
Then, in chapter 2 of Genesis, God creates just a man, and does so from existing matter. He waits some time before making a woman, also from existing matter. They are not "fruitful" until after the expulsion from Eden.
So does it really sound like Adam and Eve were the people created in chapter 1?
(I have to correct my previous comment. I was referring to the expulsion from Eden, which is after chapter 2.)
Yes, I agree that Creationism is not a scientific theory, or indeed, science at all. However, I can't help but be troubled by the idea that progressives would do something that we hate seeing the religious right do--try to make everyone else or the whole society conform to their worldview.
We cannot force every school or homeschooler to use the same curriculum or materials without hurting ourselves as well.
If anyone wants to read a recommended post by Jerry Coyne, go to http//scinceblogs.com/pharyngula/ or PHARYNUGULA , This fits in perfectly with the interview.
17. Principle of Evolutionary Creation. Creation is not a one time process.
The process of creation is continuous, directed and evolutionary. Creation and evolution are two sides of the same coin. The proper term that should be used is "Evolutionary Creation". from the Existence of God is Self-Evident 2006 by Master Choa Kok Sui (my teacher)
@ Mugsy
To use Nels' point of the angels crying, tears contain salt.
"@Mugsy: couldn’t the aquatic mammals keep swimming around on the surface ’til they found Mt. Ararat?"
How do they reach the surface swimming in fresh water?
The theory of evolution is an intelligent design for a universal system of constant creation. The belief in a living, single, universal, omnipresent unity to the whole universe requires evolution. My faith is uncertain at times and I am certain that human consciousness is fallible but I will not believe in a dead God. I do know that the EPR thought experiment does describe the ground of being for a living unity of the universe.
Again, evolution is intelligent design for constant creation.
I'm reading the Dalai Lama's "Becoming Enlightened" and there's a remarkable passage that I think applies to this Creationism/Evolution discussion and that the fundies may want to consider. He's discussing what a believer should do when reason/reality contradicts his/her scripture and His Holiness says that - obviously - that scripture cannot be read literally. It can only be read symbolically or allegorically.
Thus Genesis explains the relationship between Man and God and the "why" of Man's condition. The creation myths are written as such because in 800 BC that was the best "science" of the day. If Josiah and his priests had had access to 21st century physics, etc., the story would have been literally different but the underlying message would have been the same.
@Mugsy: couldn't the aquatic mammals keep swimming around on the surface 'til they found Mt. Ararat?
Faith/belief, by definition, is to accept without proof or substantiation – often in spite of contradicting facts or disproof.
Science (the study of the physical and natural world and phenomena, especially by using systematic observation and experiment) is to deduce from available data and experimentation.
I mean@Nels, maybe he peeled onions.
Since the universe is still expanding, one would have to conclude that god is never going to get this finished. When a theory is supported by thousands and even millions of pieces of evidence it becomes as incontrovertible a fact as any in science. Remember, that the gaps are being filled in every day. Those who believe in ID worship gaps. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
"how did fresh-water fish survive?
Actually, the question would be how did SALT water fish survive? Because all that rain would have diluted the oceans to the point where it would be seriously desalinated.
Ocean mammals (dolphins, whales, etc...) would likely drown without the buoyancy of pure salt water to reach the surface.
And let's not forget about Australia. Koalas, kangaroo's... a microcosm of species not found anywhere else.
@Nels: he peeled onions.
@Cheryl - certainly we should avoid imposing worldviews on other people, for reasons too many to mention.
But we need objective science standards. Let disbelievers preface every statement with "Science says, but the Bible proves wrong, that ..." if they wish; that's fine. So long as a child understands what science shows us, the child doesn't have to believe it (...does anyone REALLY believe in quantum physics???) but the child DOES have to know what the basic concepts are, in order to get a state-sponsored certification of having graduated from high school.
@Gene, maybe Noah also gathered DNA samples.
@ Harry and Charles, all I want to know is what did God do to make all those angels cry for so long? What's the theory on that?
Hmm...wonder what the bible guy would say. Probably something as intelligent as "God must have intervened.."
In chapter 1 of Genesis, God creates animals and people both male and female and tells them to be fruitful and multiply. Along with the other days of creation, one gets the impression that these animals and people were created out of nothing.
Then God rested on the 7th day.
Then, in chapter 2 of Genesis, God creates just a man, and does so from existing matter. He waits some time before making a woman, also from existing matter. They are not "fruitful" until after the expulsion from Eden.
So does it really sound like Adam and Eve were the people created in chapter 1?
(I have to correct my previous comment. I was referring to the expulsion from Eden, which is after chapter 2.)
Yes, I agree that Creationism is not a scientific theory, or indeed, science at all. However, I can't help but be troubled by the idea that progressives would do something that we hate seeing the religious right do--try to make everyone else or the whole society conform to their worldview.
We cannot force every school or homeschooler to use the same curriculum or materials without hurting ourselves as well.
How does Noahx' Ark take care of hundreds of thousands of species who were not included because they weren't known by the ancients?
Or maybe so much rain diluted the salt water?
@ Harry
God must have intervened to allow them to survive. Or, maybe they evolved.
Maybe Noah had a big fresh-water tank in the hold of the ark?
Under the Noah's ark scenario....how did fresh-water fish survive?
"Creationism is NOT a theory."
Correct. Fairy tales are not "theory", they are literature.
Creationism is NOT a theory.
If anyone wants to read a recommended post by Jerry Coyne, go to http//scinceblogs.com/pharyngula/ or PHARYNUGULA , This fits in perfectly with the interview.
17. Principle of Evolutionary Creation. Creation is not a one time process.
The process of creation is continuous, directed and evolutionary. Creation and evolution are two sides of the same coin. The proper term that should be used is "Evolutionary Creation". from the Existence of God is Self-Evident 2006 by Master Choa Kok Sui (my teacher)