tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post8458694965177975918..comments2023-11-02T04:21:10.340-04:00Comments on The way the Ball bounces: Scientific American - 15 Answers to Creationist NonsenseBallBounceshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776039024486455199noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-89833568623437407182007-08-10T22:37:00.000-04:002007-08-10T22:37:00.000-04:00anon @1:48You mention 'without evidence' and then ...anon @1:48You mention 'without evidence' and then go on to imply that the theory of evolution is on the same level as intelligent design.Science and historical archeology(evidence) support Intelligent Design, but there is no evidence to support the assumptions of the theory of evolution.<BR/>You are free to make a choice on what to believe. That in itself is evidence that supports Scripture.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-15642166503641543332007-08-08T10:38:00.000-04:002007-08-08T10:38:00.000-04:00Brian in Calgary,Thank you for an excellent post. ...Brian in Calgary,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for an excellent post. Modern science is based on the philosophy of atheistic materialism rather than honest scientific investigation. <BR/><BR/> It's like using a stethoscope to look for love, then saying "it's unprovable by our methods and therefore irrelevant to our studies" -- actually that might be an honest response -- what they actually say is "it's unprovable by our methods therefore it cannot exist and it is foolish to suggest it might."<BR/><BR/>At heart, this is a spiritual issue, and dark forces have a stranglehold on the intellect of western man, dressed up as good science.<BR/><BR/>Of course, scientists would poo-poo the notion of there being dark, immaterial forces at work on the planet. But that doesn't stop them from being in their clutches.<BR/><BR/>St. Peter said, "he has delivered us out of darkness, into his glorious light". Christians have an experiential knowledge of this light, and have a way of "knowing" that goes beyond the scientists and their stethoscopes.<BR/><BR/>As for me, I know my Redeemer lives.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again, Brian.BallBounceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776039024486455199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-80424100271876920102007-08-07T21:49:00.000-04:002007-08-07T21:49:00.000-04:00Who is living in a closed system?Actually, human n...<I>Who is living in a closed system?</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, human nature being what it is, people can be closed minded no matter what their position on the issue of Darwinism vs Intelligent Design. Don't believe me? Here's what Darwinist Richard Lewontin of Harvard University said, in part, in his January 9, 1997 article "Billions and Billions of Demons," which is a <A HREF="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=1297" REL="nofollow">review</A> of Carl Sagan’s book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.<BR/><BR/>"<I>We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Lewontin sounds quite closed-minded to me.Brian in Calgaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11143445667558848000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-81547137072622777482007-08-07T14:37:00.000-04:002007-08-07T14:37:00.000-04:00"Many things are possible, but without evidence th..."Many things are possible, but without evidence they are all equally possible and thus all equally useless."<BR/><BR/>There is much evidence for God, including rational, philosophical, moral, and physical. There is much evidence for Jesus Christ, including testimony of those who followed him.<BR/><BR/>I never mentioned a "box of no proof", so please do not put words in my mouth. <BR/><BR/>One of my points is there are different ways of "knowing" things -- epistemology -- and scientists have given science an all-encompassing role it does not deserve.<BR/><BR/>A little humility is in order, instead of the dead-certainty that life on earth must have initiated and developed through purely natural processes.BallBounceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776039024486455199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-60321775710937275222007-08-07T12:48:00.000-04:002007-08-07T12:48:00.000-04:00Most scientists don't care about God, and no scien...Most scientists don't care about God, and no scientist would ever state they are 100% certain of anything. But you are missing the point here anyway. Many things are possible, but without evidence they are all equally possible and thus all equally useless.<BR/><BR/>You have compartmentalized your thinking but saying some things go over here in the rational box, and somethings go over here in the box of no proof, but you give them equal value. Who is living in a closed system?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-24240414560085567792007-08-05T18:57:00.000-04:002007-08-05T18:57:00.000-04:00Good analysis, Richard. They are very close minded...Good analysis, Richard. They are very close minded. It appears they are getting a bit on the defensive as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com