Due to spam and off-topic content, these forums are being phased out and replaced with new great books forums. Please join us!
Posted by Bill on February 11, 192002 at 17:06:44:
In Reply to: Are Christians evolving? posted by John on November 05, 192001 at 22:34:44:
Your historical ignorance is absolutely breathtaking.
Gnostisism, the first Christian variant dates from the late 1st or early 2nd century. Just about every variant of Christianity seen today, has historical antecedants going back at least hundreds of years. In some cases, these various opinions go back, in one form or another, to apostolic times.
What does change, is the relative strength of the various parties.
Interestingly, over the past 50 years, there seems to be a collapse towards some type of mushy middle between young earth creationists and atheistic evoluionists, if not in the academic community, on the part of the public, at least in the United States.
Moral relativism is certainly advancing strongly everywhere, and this is one of the many tenents of many of those who support evolution, in its strict naturalistic sense.
So even if in the short term, evolutionists in the United States generate much opposition (partly due to their own arrogance, overreaching, and poor publicity skills), in the long term, their future seems more promising, sort of.
Despite ferocious evolutionists claims to the contrary, their position is also NOT secure because of many trends in a wide variety of scientific fields.
The "evolution" that is relatively secure is the one defined as going from existing life, to the wide variety of variants we currently see or have ever existed.
There is good evidence from the fossil record, supported by genetics and other disciplines that this has and is occurring, at many levels.
Evolutionists are EXTREMELY prone to overstate their current case tho, on several levels. For instance, they have not yet fleshed out a theory to explain rapid evolution (I'll call it Gould type), as opposed to the ulative kind (I'll call it Dawkin's evolution). Smug and self satisfied (evolution is a fact, fact, fact), research into more mysterious areas like the Cambrian lags, even tho it could be helpful in other areas (like fish orders, bats, etc).
On the flip side, they are isted in their opponents who seem quite content to attack evolution on its weaknesses, while conducting almost NO original research of their own. Come to think of it, given this downright stupid strategy of their opponents, evolutionists are probably not to be completely faulted in their own tendancy toward almost unbearable smugness.
BUT, they should not fall prey to this. While secure in their evidence in the biological realm, the situation outside their realm has not been so kind to their underlying philosophy.
Biological evolution, at least of the naturalistic kind, REQUIRES support on the nonbiological, universal level. Here, the situation is FAR MURKIER in terms of evidence.
Origin of life studies have made NO progress in the 50 years since Miller Urey. Actual athmospheric evidence from the early earth, if used in Miller Urey experiments, only produces small amounts of glycene (i.e. THEY DON'T WORK!!). Claims of progress invariably founder on this athmospheric problem in the form of one way or another ignoring it (often case by case, i.e. using it regarding "Mars" rocks, but NOT using it regarding early earth rocks), or unacceptable researcher interference. Abiogenesis seems to come from nowhere. But if this is true, where is evolution's foundation?
Similarly, the universe is now known to have a beginning (1964), and this beginning is firm and does not cycle back (1998). This leaves the existance of an objectively real God BEYOND the scope of scientific disproof.
The fact that God is no longer disprovable in this way may seem like a small issue. But let's not kid ourselves. Eventually, evolution will either be supported by other evidence in the universe around it, or other evidence in the universe around it, may well end up disproving evolution (at least in its naturalistic form).
Everyone who isn't interested in playing games knows this. This is why evolutionists fight SO HARD to keep the godly foot out of the door. The problem they may have, is that whatever the deficiencies of his "supporters", if God IS OBJECTIVELY REAL, his existence IS the most important characteristic of the universe. Ignoring him, then would be the life's work of fools. Ironic if they are arrogant fools to boot.
We'll just have to wait and see won't we?
Post a Followup
READ THE GREAT BOOKS
TERM PAPERS, RESEARCH PAPERS, ESSAYS
DR. ELLIOT'S NORTH AMERICAN GREAT BOOKS TOUR--COMING TO A BOOK
STORE NEAR YOU
[Shakespeare Forums] [Bible Forums]
Great Books Renaissance! myspace.com/americanrenaissance