A Leauki's Writings
The Word is "Lie"
Published on June 16, 2008 By Leauki In Religion

What opponents of evolution (and other theories) don't understand is that science is not about finding the truth (that is best left to philosophy professors) but about finding out something useful about this world.

The predictions of theories can be used in engineering and other fields. Applications of the theory of evolution have been used successfully in such diverse fields as medicine and (yes) computer science. Evolution is solid, a tool that we can use to advance.


For a good article about the difference between a scientific theory and Creationism and the utter stupidity (and, I want to add, sacrilege) of believing in "Intelligent Design", see Steven Den Beste's essay about the human eye.

http://denbeste.nu/essays/humaneye.shtml

The vertebrate retina is a terrible design. The optic nerve comes into the eyeball at a certain point, and the nerve fibers spread out across the surface of the retina. Each individual nerve fiber reaches its assigned point, burrows down into the retina through several layers of epithelial cells, and ends with the light receptor itself pointing away from the lens of the eye, which is the direction from which the light must come. As a result, incoming light strikes the surface of the retina and must penetrate through multiple layers of inactive cells and then through the body of the nerve itself before it reaches the active point where it might be detected. This both diffuses and attenuates the light, decreasing the efficiency of the retina in accomplishing its function.

For a rationalist and atheist like Steven Den Beste, extrapolating from the existence of the human eye to a "designer" is illogical, because there is no evidence for design but plenty evidence for evolution.

For me, personally, saying that the human eye has been "designed" is blasphemy. I do not think it is all right to claim that G-d would intentionally create a faulty design or was incapable of doing better. (Plus I agree with Steven's thinking as well. There is evidence for evolution in the human eye, but no evidence for design.)


But the problem here is not the fact that some people are not capable of understanding complicated science and are thus forced to make up fairy tales that make them believe that they are as clever as scientists (and even cleverer since scientists don't "know" the truth), but the fact that those some people sometimes have the power to take away knowledge from the rest of us.

There are MANY countries in the world where Creationism is taught instead of evolution. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the majority of the world teaches Creationism to some extent, replacing biology or "adding to" biology in schools.

But what does that do for those societies?

Are they leaders in science based on learning something that is a "theory" just like evolution and a "better "explanation?

It's not enough to change the rules to allow Creationism (or "Intelligent Design") to become science, because what is science is not a decision made by man. It's ultimately a desicion made by nature (or G-d, if you will). Because science is something we can use to create.

When we look at the world and compare societies, we see that countries that teach evolution create technologies, whereas countries that teach Creationism, do not have the workforce to be leading in any field of technology.

Teaching Creationism causes stupidity. That's the problem.

And it doesn't help if "Christian" fundamentalists in the west blame Islam for it and pretend that teaching "Christian" Creationism will give better results, because the Creationism of Islam IS the Creationism of Christianity. It's word for word, letter for letter the same legend.

And it's phony. It's phony and stupid and a big lie.

    * Why does the birth canal run through the middle of the pelvis?
    * Why does the backbone run down one side of the trunk instead of through the middle where it would be more balanced?
    * Why does the ankle attach at one end of the foot instead of in the middle?
    * Why are there toes?
    * Why is it that nearly every part of the brain is as far as possible from the piece of the body with which it is associated?
          o Why is the motor control center for the right side of the body on the left side of the brain, and vice versa?
          o Why is the vision center at the rear of the brain, as far from the eyes as possible -- and on the opposite sides?
    * Why is it that fully 90% of the genetic material we carry around is useless?
    * Why do we share a single canal through the neck through which we both breath and swallow?

Biology has explanations for these oddities. Creationism does not. "It was G-d's will" is not an explanation, it's an excuse for incompetence.

(Why are some people born with a mechanism that destroys the beta cells in the pancreas, causing Type 1 Diabetes that is ALWAYS deadly within a few months without treatment? Would an "intelligent designer" design his subjects like that?)

Richard Dawkins called evolution the "blind watchmaker" because evolution does not "see" what it produces, it merely tries out what happens with the stuff it finds. I find the term "incompetent designer" appropriate for a god who designs things like us. And I cannot pray to an incompetent designer. How could I?

Teaching Creationism has never helped a society and is bringing down many.

 

Dear Creationists,

I do not want the western world to become a second "Islamic" world.

Do you not understand that?

 


Comments (Page 4)
42 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last
on Jun 18, 2008
e don't need embryonic (destroying life) cells when we can very well use adult stem cells (without destroying life)


Please do some research so you can learn why embryonic stems cells are used as opposed to adult stem cells.
on Jun 18, 2008
Okay almost 3 years, it just seems like 4.


well....if you're wrong there.........how many billions of years have we been here?   

Good, just out of curiosity ask him if he thinks astrology is a science too.


and that's an intelligent question to ask? Com'on Stubby don't you know the answer to this question?

No there's only a problem when the supernatural is used to explain the natural world, the scientific field is not relevant.


My mantra:

The Christian Scientists use the same evidence as the secular scientist. They just have a diff interpretation or world view at their foundation. Same Science, same evidence diff interpretation...get it?

Stubby says:

If your son uses Christian science in his thesis he will rightfully not get published and not get his Ph.D so I sincerely hope he can explain this to you.


KFC responded:

He won't. He's not dealing in origins. It should't even come up. But you're right. He would never get published. No disagreement there.


and then Stubby replies:

Or I might not be surprised that you still don't get it.


what don't I get?

as far as this...from KFC

You may want to take a look back at history and see how many really good reputable scientists were believers. And yet they made incredible discoveries. Imagine that! You might be surprised.


again, what don't I get? Are you telling me I'm wrong? If so, please explain.





on Jun 18, 2008
Your personal religious beliefs do not constitute science.


Actually it's a two way street...Religious belief does constitute knowledge of science. Take for example that the Holy Bible stated that the earth is a sphere long before we had scientific empirical knowledge of that fact.

And empirical science constitutes religious belief...

Creationists believe that empirical science will never discover any data which can concusively contradict Scripture. So far, we haven't been proven wrong.


The idea that scientific analysis of natural phenomena is the only valid path to knowledge is central to the closed mindset to the philosophy of Naturalism or Scientism. Belief in a Creator God is regarded as unscientific.

The Evolutionist viewpoint offers only a naturalistic explanation of the material universe whereas the Creationist viewpoint goes further and acknowledges the existence of an unseen and supernatural Creator, called God.






on Jun 18, 2008
Please do some research so you can learn why embryonic stems cells are used as opposed to adult stem cells.


This is directly from my son tonight which is pretty much what I've read from diff publications out there.

Embryonic and adult stem cells are defferently different. Molecular
biologists prefer embryonic stem cells because of their "potential"
usefullness as they can be manipulated to turn into anything (unlike adult
stem cells). But as far as I know, no productive break throughs have been
made yet. There are far too many variables and unkowns to deal with
when dealing with embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells have been
relatively more sucessful in preclinical trials. But still, stem cell
research has a long way to go.

I don't do stem cells. Its a hot topic in science, but they're messy.
If you can get something to work for you, then you'll get a few high
profile publications out of it for sure. But there are a bunch of people
out there all working on the same stuff. I prefer my projects where I
know that I'm the only one in the world doing my project. That ensures
that nobody will publish my work before I can get to it.


and now I remember way back why he decided to choose this field he's in. It was because he wouldn't be dealing with the stem cell issue. He didn't want to be pulled into this issue knowing as a Christian he couldn't take part in the embryonic stem cell research.


on Jun 18, 2008
This is the same Ken Ham who believes that he has evidence that dinosaurs were contemporaneous with the earliest humans, yes? Groups of organisms that are separated by over sixty million years of (gasp!) evolution (or just time, if it makes you feel better)?


Ken Ham is not the only one who suggests that dinosaurs were contemporaries with humans. The Bible suggests that this is true by describing what many people believe to be a dinosaur. The suggestion that these "groups of organisms are separated by over sixty
million years of evolution (or time) indicates the presupposition that
evolution is in fact true.

the Bible is a book of moral instruction and spiritual comfort, not a guide to understanding how the world works (what makes electrons orbit an atomic nucleus, why grass grows on your lawn, et cetera).


Furthermore....the Bible IS in fact a guide to understanding how the world works. For example, the Bible is the first in world history to explain that the earth hangs in space. Another example, the Bible is the first in world history to explain that individuals are "knit" together in the womb (versus the homunculus hypothesis, or any other previous heldscientific beliefs).

Science is not concerned with the abstract notion of truth. Science is interested in discovering things about the natural world using a combination of empirical, experimental, and historical analyses. Science is about truth. It is about discovering certain facts or truthsthat can systematically describe the world around us. Even Richard Dawkins states that the Bible (and Christianity) makes scientific claims.








on Jun 19, 2008

and that's an intelligent question to ask? Com'on Stubby don't you know the answer to this question?

The author of "Darwin's Black Box" Michael Behe whom coined the term "irreducible complexity" stated under oath in the Dover trial that he believes astrology qualifies as a scientific theory, it does not. Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh university so I think it is a reasonable question to ask your son.

The Christian Scientists use the same evidence as the secular scientist. They just have a diff interpretation or world view at their foundation. Same Science, same evidence diff interpretation...get it?

again, what don't I get? Are you telling me I'm wrong? If so, please explain.

If your interpretation includes the supernatural then it can't be tested and potentially falsified so it's not science. Again if your evidence for something or your interpretation of evidence can never be proven wrong no matter what new evidence in discovered it does not qualify as science. If your son decides to interpret some unknown neurological function as gods will, that would be Christian science. Christian science is an approach to science that allows for the un-testable and therefor un-falsifiable supernatural explanation to explain the natural world. It is therefore not science because it can never lead to new knowledge about the natural world.

A Christian scientist is in most cases a scientist whom just happens to be a Christian. If they use the scientific method correctly they can be every bit as productive as an Atheist scientist. What I mean by correctly is they must be secular scientist. Being a secular scientist says nothing about your religious beliefs it simply means that you keep your religious beliefs separate from your work as a scientist. Just as all those historical Christian scientist that made all those incredible discoveries did.  

Please say you understand this.

on Jun 19, 2008
Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh university so I think it is a reasonable question to ask your son.


ok, better explanation. I'll ask but I do know that he's not a Behe fan. Michael Behe is a theo-evolutionist.

If your interpretation includes the supernatural then it can't be tested and potentially falsified so it's not science. Again if your evidence for something or your interpretation of evidence can never be proven wrong no matter what new evidence in discovered it does not qualify as science. If your son decides to interpret some unknown neurological function as gods will, that would be Christian science. Christian science is an approach to science that allows for the un-testable and therefor un-falsifiable supernatural explanation to explain the natural world. It is therefore not science because it can never lead to new knowledge about the natural world.


You can only prove positive results. Negative results is not something you can make a conclusion on. It just means you haven't found it yet. Later with better techniques what you thought was a negative can now be proven. Just because you have never seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I remember my son talking about some protein that was thought to be but could not be proven. Much later with better technology it was proven to be a positive. So lo and behold it was there after all.

Much of what we're discussing is more of a theological battle not a scientific one.

A Christian scientist is in most cases a scientist whom just happens to be a Christian. If they use the scientific method correctly they can be every bit as productive as an Atheist scientist. What I mean by correctly is they must be secular scientist. Being a secular scientist says nothing about your religious beliefs it simply means that you keep your religious beliefs separate from your work as a scientist. Just as all those historical Christian scientist that made all those incredible discoveries did.
Please say you understand this.


Yes, I understand this. In fact, my son might as well be secular for all intents and purposes because he does not share his faith much and to some not at all. It doesn't hamper his research mostly because it's just not an issue.

The only thing I'm not sure you quite understand Stubby that although we all can work in the secular world quite well most of the time, we cannot completely separate ourselves from our Christ centered life. Like you must have heard that when we come to Christianity it's a matter of Christ in us and us in Christ. It's not like that with other religions. You don't hear "in Buddha" or "in Mohammed" It's like a very close partnership (like a marriage) and every decision we make in the secular world has to be made with that in mind and what is best for the other partner.

on Jun 19, 2008
It's good for me, because I learn a lot reading the Bible and translating. And I assume we are entertaining lurkers. But what's in it for you?


Same here.

Although I have no way of knowing whether or not they are correct, your translations are most interesting btw. Thank you.

Since all the books of the Holy Bible are inspired by God, they are a great help to the Church in her mission. To me, it's a kind of letter from Almighty God from which I'm able to learn what it has to teach, for theological research as well as for teaching and reproofing others.

That's what happened with those verses we've been discussing and which you translated. The Blessed Trinity is the true and spiritual understanding of Genesis and Isaias.

This is the same Ken Ham who believes that he has evidence that dinosaurs were contemporaneous with the earliest humans, yes?


It's my understanding there have been fossils found with both dinosaur and human footprints together.

Also, KFC help here, isn't there a biblical passage about man walking with beasts meaning the dinosaurs?

The suggestion that these "groups of organisms are separated by over sixty
million years of evolution (or time) indicates the presupposition that
evolution is in fact true.


Ya, good catch KFC....funny how they do that...this sort of thing happens in the classrooms full of unwary children....our children are indoctrinated that "groups of organisms are separated by over sixty million years of evolution (or time) is a proven fact, when it ISN'T and not even close.

After 150 years of excavations, millions of fossils have been found enough certainly for a thorough analysis of the fossil record. Sorry Evlutionists dreamers, the buried evidence points against Evolution theory. The geological column is a theoretical model...and nowhere on earth has a complete sequence been found.

The fossil evidence is consistent with sudden burial...and the field evidence is fully consistent with the idea of an enormous flood of world-wide proportion.

This absolutely confounds Evolution theorists.   











on Jun 19, 2008
It's _Creationism_, not _Christianity_ that holds science back.

Want examples for that? Look at any majority Muslim country that doesn't teach evolution and instead relies on "Islamic science" (which happens to teach EXACTLY the same, word for word, as the Bible about creation, and, like you, they also take it literally).


We know Islam's been around ever since 650AD...that means Muslims have been here too for at least that long...now,

I'm curious, Leauki, would you name some significant scientific contributions made by Muslims?


The one instance (book of Joshua) about the sun being stopped in the sky is very contraversial and has many meanings too long to go into here but suffice it to say it's sort of like saying the sun sets and rises. We know it doesn't but it's a way of speak so to speak.


I have an explanation of this from NASA scientists that's a bit long. I may post it separately or here if Leauki doesn't mind.



on Jun 19, 2008

Actually it's a two way street...Religious belief does constitute knowledge of science. Take for example that the Holy Bible stated that the earth is a sphere long before we had scientific empirical knowledge of that fact.


There were many legends that states the one (earth is a sphere) and many legends that stated the other (earth is flat). Statistically, some of them had to get it right.

on Jun 19, 2008

Although I have no way of knowing whether or not they are correct, your translations are most interesting btw. Thank you.


You are welcome.

But note that I do not lie when I translate and my Hebrew is not _that_ bad. I think you can safely assume that my translations are correct enough for our purposes.

At the very least I can detect whether the word "Elohim" appears in the text or whether a different name for G-d is used.


Since all the books of the Holy Bible are inspired by God, they are a great help to the Church in her mission.


I would assume so, yes.


To me, it's a kind of letter from Almighty God from which I'm able to learn what it has to teach, for theological research as well as for teaching and reproofing others.


Yes, I totally agree.



That's what happened with those verses we've been discussing and which you translated. The Blessed Trinity is the true and spiritual understanding of Genesis and Isaias.


You still see the trinity in those verses?

I cannot see it. In most cases G-d's name is a singular and in all cases the verb form singular. And in the one case where G-d's name looks like a plural, it's the wrong plural for a trinity.

I know a guy from Latvia named "Arnolds". That is really his name, with the "s" and everything. If I would tell you about him, I would say "Arnolds is the man", not "Arolds are the man". And in the next sentence I might make it clear: "The man is our boss."

Would you assume from those three sentences that anything suggests that Arnolds is three-in-one or anything like that?

Now add to that the idea of two different plurals (which doesn't exist in English but does in Hebrew), perhaps "Arnolds" is any number of people named Arnold whereas "Arnoldis" is a specific number inherent to that Arnold (like a trinity, for example), and note that the word "Arnoldis" never appears in the text about the boss.

Note that also that Arnolds has now three names: "Arnolds", "the man", and "boss". Another original statement might refer to him as "underpaid" as well, making him potentially four manifestations of the one person.

Sometimes Arnolds would tell the team what to do: "Let us work on project Marabou" he would say. Still no hint for a trinity of Arnolds.

So where do you see it?

on Jun 19, 2008

I'm curious, Leauki, would you name some significant scientific contributions made by Muslims?


I found that a relevant and excellent question. And then I realised that it could not be answered in a short comment, so I wrote a blog entry about it:

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/315536/Science_and_Maths_in_Islamic_Countries

The history of the middle east of the last 1500 years is a most interesting subject and something I know too little about.
on Jun 19, 2008

if Leauki doesn't mind.


I don't mind. Would welcome it.

But note that there is also an explanation for how evolution fits into Genesis: G-d could have created a world that LOOKS and BEHAVES in every way as if it had existed for billions of years and animals (and man) that LOOK and BEHAVE in every way as if they had been the result of evolution.

If science has an explanation for how the sun (could have been perceived to have) stopped in the sky, G-d causing that stop is not needed, just like G-d is not needed for animals to have evolved.

If you show us how NASA can explain something the Bible claims happens because G-d wanted it to happen, you have replaced faith with science.

Personally, I don't believe that there is a difference between acts of G-d and phenomenons of physics; which is also the view of Maimonides (who was not a liberal scholar).

If something happens because of physics, it happens because G-d wanted it to happen; because G-d made physics.
on Jun 19, 2008
At the very least I can detect whether the word "Elohim" appears in the text or whether a different name for G-d is used.


That's what happened with those verses we've been discussing and which you translated. The Blessed Trinity is the true and spiritual understanding of Genesis and Isaias.


You still see the trinity in those verses?

I cannot see it. In most cases G-d's name is a singular and in all cases the verb form singular. And in the one case where G-d's name looks like a plural, it's the wrong plural for a trinity.


There is no doubt the theoretical issues of the Trinitarian formula that Christ was true God and true man is difficult to understand.

But again, we can look to Sacred Scripture for guidance. For example, take Exodus 3:14 for the most exact and comprehensive name of God....

"God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you."

This is what we might call Almighty God's proper name, "I AM WHO AM". I understand this translated from the Hebrew, phonetically, would be ehyey asher ehyeh.

This is a mighty significant term becasue it is the same one by which Christ designated Himself, when He told the Jews of His existence before Abraham was born, who had died 20 centuries previous to that occasion.

The rendering of "I AM WHO AM" in the Catholic Douay Rheims Bible (the Septuagint translation) means I am being itself, eternal, self existent, independent, infinite, without beginning, end or change, and the source of all other beings.

The name of God held most sacred among the Israelites during their priest and Temple days, before 70AD, was J H V H, designated as the tetragramon by Josephus. It was uttered once a year and then by the High Priest on Yom Kipper Day, when he offered a male lamb for sacrifice, as an atonement for the sins of Israel. Individuals were forbidden to utter the sacred J H V H.

Catholic don't use the name Jehovah...It was Petrus Galtinus in 1500 who gave the pronouncable and preposterous hybrid, Je Ho Vah which is not the Hebrew lost name of the God of Israel.

Consider this. If Jews were to ponder the spiritual significance of losing the most sacred name of the God of Israel, a step would be made towards the "I AM" who claimed to be their Messianic Lord.






on Jun 19, 2008
I know a guy from Latvia named "Arnolds". That is really his name, with the "s" and everything. If I would tell you about him, I would say "Arnolds is the man", not "Arolds are the man". And in the next sentence I might make it clear: "The man is our boss."

Would you assume from those three sentences that anything suggests that Arnolds is three-in-one or anything like that?


From this I would easily understand that you are speaking of "one man" who can be personally identified by his name (arnolds), his position (a boss) and where he's from (Latvia).

The linguistic part of the Blessed Trinity isn't really that difficult to understand ..that there is One God in Three Divine Persons, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Rather, it's the theoretical and spiritual understanding of the Triune God that's so difficult.



42 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last