Evolution vs. Creation - Rehash

There are fundamental axioms in most (all?) fields of study. For example if you didn't accept that 1 + 1 = 2, and that 1 != 2, all the math beyond that would be useless. Fortunately for me those axioms are things I can get my head around to a great degree of confidence. (Though they have entire math courses where you assume those are NOT true, crazy stuff.)

My problem with apologetics is that the axioms are too large and complicated to be taken for granted in all the cases I've seen. It would be the scientific equivalent of making string theory an axiom. You just can't take things that large for granted and produce high confidence results.
 
Werbung:
Okay, maybe I should be more specific: let's use the Christian example again. I'll simply cite an extract that I've taken from a book which purports to lay out the traditional theological perspective.

http://dongstyle-ltd.livejournal.com/83378.html#cutid2

From this it's evident that such a practice of apologetics doesn't serve as a bridge but rather walls. It reminds me of a quarreling married couple- both parties know that they're not entirely right but they won't back down because they feel the other won't and don't appreciate their position.

Also, who said that reality was something that most people were able to comprehend? At some point we're going to have to admit that the models with the greatest power are well and truly out of reach of most people. Fundamental axioms that pander to the lowest common denominator be damned if they're only going to foster harmful misguided practices.
 
Good point, Dong. I think a lot of evaluating any type of apologetics goes back to applying the "if" principle to the basic axioms that are being presented as fact.

Now, in order to get some value out of a set of apologetics that utilize a collection of basic "facts" that I do not hold to be true, my approach shifts from looking for new knowledge that might better inform me and turns more toward looking for things that will help me be able to dialogue with someone who does hold those aximos to be absolute truth. Thus, I still find some value in the apologetics, just not anything I could actually incorporate into my own general understandings and mindset.
 
Here's a slightly...tangential angle: in most philosophical and philosophically-related pursuits people tend to ask if they believe something is true. One rule of thumb posed was also to ask of any a priori assertion "what is this true of?"
 
Andy D said:
As a Christian, I have no problem whatsoever with the Turkana Boy. There is a lot about how man came to be that is not explained in either the Bible or in the Theory of Evolution. I tend to see most of science as reinforcing the Bible as opposed to projecting doubt on it.
Click to expand...
.
male31-male-smiley-whistle-smiley-emoticon-000073-large[2].gif
.
.​
 
framed said:
My uncle has written a few books on fundamental christian apologetics, that I've read for no reason other than to know thy family. What I've noticed is that they tend to take a certain set of assumptions as a priori-fact and derive understanding based on those facts.
Click to expand...
.​
“Once beliefs are formed, the brain begins to look for and find confirmatory evidence in support of those beliefs, which adds an emotional boost of further confidence in the beliefs and thereby accelerates the process of reinforcing them, and round and round the process goes in a positive feedback loop of belief confirmation.”
.​
 
FourBear said:
This argument really never will end:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/06/kenya.fossildebate.ap/index.html

Instead of insisting that developments like the Turkana boy are killing their faith, why can Evangelicals and others find a way to incorporate and interpret these things into their faith? It has been done before, but with much difficulty (think heliocentric vs. geocentric).
Click to expand...
The best dressed secularist speculations in support of evolution theory are far from actually supporting evolution with irrefutable scientific arguments and facts.
 
framed said:
While religious freedom is a good thing, one of the down sides is it definitely encourages belief (and a general way of thinking) contrary to evidence. I honestly cant understand with the mountain of evidence to support evolution how educated people can continue to disbelieve it completely.

We've witnessed evolution in the lab, we have dinosaur bones, we have DNA evidence of evolution, and on and on and on. While theres always room for a scientific theory to (cough) evolve over time, similar to the theory of gravity we have the basics of evolution down. Disbelieving is just denying the reality in front of you, and not a healthy way to think.
Click to expand...
Secularists deny evidence of a universal flood, evidence of God's creation of the universe and life on earth, and evidence of a young earth while promoting unproven speculations as if lawmakers are wrong not to ban all teaching of evidence contrary to their speculations.
 
Werbung:
mark francis said:
Jim-Bakker.jpg
Secularists deny evidence of a universal flood, evidence of God's creation of....
7043.gif
Click to expand...
.
.​
 
Back
Top