Evolution...

#1

therealUT

Rational Thought Allowed?
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
30,347
Likes
4,191
#1
Since it is apparently a pretty hot topic in here, just wondering if anyone else has read Chesterson.

G.K. Chesterson is easily may favorite author (The Everlasting Man, Orthodoxy, The Man Who Was Thursday, etc.). He is credited with being the inspiration that brought C.S. Lewis back to Christianity.

Anyway, here his thoughts on Darwinism are laid out, pretty clearly, from The Everlasting Man.

In fact, people have been interested in everything about the cave-man except what he did in the cave. Now there does happen to be some real evidence of what be did in the cave. It is little enough, like all the prehistoric evidence, but it is concerned with the real cave-man and his cave and not the literary cave-man and his club. And it will be valuable to our sense of reality to consider quite simply what that real evidence is, and not to go beyond it. What was found in the cave was not the club, the horrible gory club notched with the number of women it had knocked on the head. The cave was not a Bluebeard's Chamber filled with the skeletons of slaughtered wives; it was not filled with female skulls all arranged in rows and all cracked like eggs. It was something quite unconnected, one way or the other, with all the modern phrases and philosophical implications and literary rumors which confuse the whole question for us. And if we wish to see as it really is this authentic glimpse of the morning of the world, it will be far better to conceive even the story of its discovery as some such legend of the land of morning. It would be far better to tell the tale of what was really found as simply as the tale of heroes finding the Golden Fleece or the Gardens of the Hesperides, if we could so escape from a fog of controversial theories into the clear colors and clean cut outlines of such a dawn. The old epic poets at least knew how to tell a story, possibly a tall story but never a twisted story, never a story tortured out of its own shape to fit theories and philosophies invented centuries afterwards. It would be well if modern investigators could describe their discoveries in the bald narrative style of the earliest travelers, and without any of these long allusive words that are full of irrelevant implication and suggestion. Then we might realize exactly what we do know about the cave-man, or at any rate about the cave.

G.K. CHESTERTON: THE EVERLASTING MAN
 
#2
#2
What exactly are the scientific credentials of G.K. Chesterson?

He is a christian apologist that grew up studying the occult and playing with ouiji boards. This hardly makes him any kind of authority on evolutionary theory.

I will be more than happy to debate you on the scientific merits of the theory.
 
#3
#3
A theory is not a fact, evolution is stupid.

Creationism! Creationism!
 
#4
#4
From your link:

It is really far more logical to start by saying 'In the beginning God created heaven and earth' even if you only mean 'In the beginning some unthinkable power began some unthinkable process.'

This tells me all I need to know. Nobody, not even christians know how it started...and contrary to what he may assert, the process is beautifully explained.
 
#5
#5
From your link:



This tells me all I need to know. Nobody, not even christians know how it started...and contrary to what he may assert, the process is beautifully explained.

Where and by who?

Most Christians don't claim to have the answer concerning how and by what mechanism everything was created. We just believe it was set in motion by a creator. What or who he, she, or it is, is beyond our thinking, like much of the issues concerning science are.

Like you said "nobody not even Christians know how it started" you are a part of that same group of nobody so please quit trying to be condescending and pretend like science is the proven way! Science is as flawed as religion because in the end we are all human beings and by our nature prone to flaws.
 
#6
#6
Where and by who?

Most Christians don't claim to have the answer concerning how and by what mechanism everything was created. We just believe it was set in motion by a creator. What or who he, she, or it is, is beyond our thinking, like much of the issues concerning science are.

Like you said "nobody not even Christians know how it started" you are a part of that same group of nobody so please quit trying to be condescending and pretend like science is the proven way! Science is as flawed as religion because in the end we are all human beings and by our nature prone to flaws.
science is a religion.
 
#9
#9
The debate of evolution and creation is irrelevant to what's being discussed in this thread... Evolution stems from humans and other animals evolving from lower classes of life. Whether "God" created that form or not. Most Creationists believe that "God" created humans in their human form, or at least that's what the average church-goer is led to believe. That's how and why people argue about the teaching of evolutionary theory in schools. They'd rather study something that was written in one book and has even less evidence than evolution, which theorists provide ample proof for.
 
#11
#11
But the standards of proof for science are much higher than for religion. Religion is about faith; science attempts to use rational mechanism to support its claims about higher reality.

Science also contains faith... faith that as a scientist you will come to a rational conclusion. If, as a scientist, you don't have that faith then chances are lower that you will find what you are looking for. Rational thinking at its finest.
 
#12
#12
KB5252:
Where and by who?

Most Christians don't claim to have the answer concerning how and by what mechanism everything was created. We just believe it was set in motion by a creator. What or who he, she, or it is, is beyond our thinking, like much of the issues concerning science are.

Where, and by whom? Open any science book or talk to any scientist that has the backing of 180 years of independent verification.

Have you ever taken a class on evolutionary theory? I have studied in depth for a year in college. This hardly makes me an expert, but I have a firm grasp of the basics. The evidence is simply overwhelming. What evidence do you have that we the process was set in motion by an omnipotent "creator". Where, and by whom is this "creator" explained?

KB5252:
Like you said "nobody not even Christians know how it started" you are a part of that same group of nobody so please quit trying to be condescending and pretend like science is the proven way!

Where have I said science has proven the way on how life began, or for that matter, even pretended to make such an assertion?
 
#13
#13
But the standards of proof for science are much higher than for religion. Religion is about faith; science attempts to use rational mechanism to support its claims about higher reality.

Yes but science has yet to prove religion wrong. I believe science and religion go hand in hand to a large extent. Science is merely the study of all that is around us which if you are a believer is a creation of God.

As I've said before there are simply too many coincidences in our universe to simply be by chance IMHO.
 
#14
#14
Science also contains faith... faith that as a scientist you will come to a rational conclusion. If, as a scientist, you don't have that faith then chances are lower that you will find what you are looking for. Rational thinking at its finest.

Sorry, wrong again. Faith, by definition, is a belief in the absence of evidence. This reminds me of a quote given by Galileo during his heresy trial:

"The church tells me the earth is flat, but I have seen its shadow on the moon, and it is round, and I have more faith in a shadow than I do the church"
 
#15
#15
Science also contains faith... faith that as a scientist you will come to a rational conclusion. If, as a scientist, you don't have that faith then chances are lower that you will find what you are looking for. Rational thinking at its finest.

except when it comes to man-made global warming, where the conclusion is assumed and the science is made to fit the conclusion.
 
#16
#16
Where, and by whom? Open any science book or talk to any scientist that has the backing of 180 years of independent verification.

Have you ever taken a class on evolutionary theory? I have studied in depth for a year in college. This hardly makes me an expert, but I have a firm grasp of the basics. The evidence is simply overwhelming. What evidence do you have that we the process was set in motion by an omnipotent "creator". Where, and by whom is this "creator" explained?



Where have I said science has proven the way on how life began, or for that matter, even pretended to make such an assertion?

Simple logic and math. 0+0=0 If you start with nothing how can you produce something from it? The Big Bang Theory along with other theories don't account for this problem at least the way I understand it.

Look I don't claim to know all the answers, for as much circumstantial evidence some can show against, others can show the same for.

My reaction to your post that alluded to you being condescending was speaking to the way you discredit God while referencing science to do so. Science is just as flawed my friend and in no way can discredit religion any more than religion can discredit science.
 
#17
#17
Sorry, wrong again. Faith, by definition, is a belief in the absence of evidence. This reminds me of a quote given by Galileo during his heresy trial:

"The church tells me the earth is flat, but I have seen its shadow on the moon, and it is round, and I have more faith in a shadow than I do the church"

Your quote proves you wrong. Galileo had more faith that there IS evidence. Read it again.
 
#18
#18
Sorry, wrong again. Faith, by definition, is a belief in the absence of evidence. This reminds me of a quote given by Galileo during his heresy trial:

"The church tells me the earth is flat, but I have seen its shadow on the moon, and it is round, and I have more faith in a shadow than I do the church"

or by another definition, belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standard of merit,etc.

It seems like that definition would apply to science in some cases.
 
#19
#19
Sorry, wrong again. Faith, by definition, is a belief in the absence of evidence. This reminds me of a quote given by Galileo during his heresy trial:

"The church tells me the earth is flat, but I have seen its shadow on the moon, and it is round, and I have more faith in a shadow than I do the church"
faith is convincing oneself that something is true, with or without evidence.
 
#20
#20
Science also contains faith... faith that as a scientist you will come to a rational conclusion. If, as a scientist, you don't have that faith then chances are lower that you will find what you are looking for. Rational thinking at its finest.

The issue is the mechanism or standard of proof, not the infallibility of science or any particular scientist. Science has produced plenty of just plain doofus ideas, but it's continually questioned its results and tried establish consistency with what's known about the world.
 
#21
#21
The issue is the mechanism or standard of proof, not the infallibility of science or any particular scientist. Science has produced plenty of just plain doofus ideas, but it's continually questioned its results and tried establish consistency with what's known about the world.
I think this probably holds true of religion as well.
 
#22
#22
KB5252:
Simple logic and math. 0+0=0 If you start with nothing how can you produce something from it? The Big Bang Theory along with other theories don't account for this problem at least the way I understand it.

Your simple logic is flawed. If something can't come from nothing, then you have to explain how God came from nothing.

If you say God is eternal and came from nothing by definition, then what's wrong with me saying the universe is eternal and came from nothing?

It is infinitely more honest to say "we don't know" then to say it is all the work of a creator, specifically the christian version, as metaphorically described in the Bible.
 
#24
#24
Your simple logic is flawed. If something can't come from nothing, then you have to explain how God came from nothing.
he owes you this answer no more than you owe him that answer. The problem with your stand is that you have no plausible explanation for the big bang.

Your leap of faith is no different than that of the religious folk and is equally unsupportable, so talking down your nose is probably unwarranted.
 
#25
#25
It is infinitely more honest to say "we don't know" then to say it is all the work of a creator, specifically the christian version, as metaphorically described in the Bible.

no one wants to say "I don't know" so they created religion instead. Most humans have a hard time with concepts they can't explain so there must be some rationalization.
 

VN Store



Back
Top