Who is denying “evidence”? Not me. I am denying what masquerades as “evidence” in theoretical science. I am showing that by their own admission, science is interpreting their findings with a colossal amount of suggestion that most people overlook...or choose (in their haste to disbelieve) to ignore.
If they have to use expressions like “might have” or “could have” or “might not have”.....do you not detect the uncertainty of their interpretation? How can any of that conjecture become a fact, when the next 'discovery' could turn it all on its ear?
As has been mentioned already....if a theory is proven, it ceases to be a theory, and then becomes a fact.
All of what you just said here is completely untrue. The science behind the Theory of Evolution is so substantial and confirming of the model that it would take some absolutely earth-shattering discovery to overturn it. To deny it is credible, puts one a par with the holocaust deniers and the moon-landing conspiracy theorists. Do you also believe those weren't real?
Evolution is not a "theory" in the sense of opinion or speculation. A scientific theory is better described as a "model". The "Theory of Evolution" is the "Model of Evolution", mapped out based upon real, actual, data. It's the same thing as the "Theory of Gravity". Do you consider gravity a whim to be discarded if it disagrees with your theology? I do not.
That is the point of my response to you. Why can't you accept well-established and verified facts? It's not bad science. It's bad theology that is the problem here. It's being wedded to your beliefs, and not allowing them to grow or learn knowledge. Faith based on denialism, is not truly faith at all. It's fear. Faith doesn't fear knowledge. Faith doesn't fear changing what one believes about something. Faith adapts itself to facts.
If that is how you interpreted my post then, you have misunderstood me. I said ‘nature is programmed’.....I did not include human nature in that statement. As I have mentioned many times, humans alone have free will and any ‘natural instincts’ that we may possess can be countered or overridden by the application of free will. We alone have the ability to go against our nature. It is why the word “inhuman” exists.
Are you like the Baha'i whose prophet told them that humans are not part of the animal kingdom?
Human nature, is still nature itself, simply expressed in the human animal form. All animal forms are programmed by nature to self-adapt. In other words, they, as well as humans, can and do reprogram themselves. All animal life has will power, and make choices. They are not blind automatons, programed robots, doing nothing but following code. That notion is completely reductionistic, and false.
From a theological perspective I have taken into consideration that God's word is way more reliable than man's.....which is why humans alone are accountable.
But humans have to interpret it. It does not interpret itself. Nothing does that. You have to interpret it. What makes science more reliable than theological interpretations, which is the true comparison here, is that science is based on testing and confirmation. It's not opinions, like with theologies. It's fact-based. Sadly, I think you don't truly understand what modern science is and how it works.
As intelligent creatures who have a concept of 'past, present and future', we can use our unique faculty of imagination to project present conduct into the future to see possible consequences of our actions...both good and bad.
Now that is in fact speculation. That's not the same as doing science. But sure, based upon the past, we can speculate about the future. But we can't call that fact. We can call evolution fact however, because we have overwhelming verification it happened, is happening, and will doubtless continue to happen. These are facts we are dealing with, and the Theory of Evolution, is a model of those facts which attempts to explain how those facts line up.
Facts are facts. Opinions can't make those go away. Denialism can't make facts go away either. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution, is a model about how the fact of evolution worked to create all the life forms we see. And that model, has be confirmed and verified by multiple branches of the sciences, all confirming the same model is in fact valid.
No theology could hope to have such independent verification. Theology is based upon faith. Science is not.
That is why God does not judge any other creation, but us. Those who possess God's moral qualities are accountable for how they exercise them. Its not like we don't come with an instruction manual.
There are social rules and orders within many animal groups as well as human societies. They "judge" those who don't go along with those rules the same ways we do, just with the resources they have. They censor and correct, or even kill or expel those who don't conform.
What we see in humans, did not begin with us. We simply take what nature gives us through evolution, which is seen in other animals, and adapt and modify it for our requirements, or "environment". Because of our capacities of a larger brain, as well as other evolutionary advantages, we simply take that already-existing adaptation of nature, socialization and morality, and take it to another level of sophistication. That's all.
I might disagree with you on that point, but only because I believe that we are who we are regardless of what culture or genetics we had at birth. A kind and generous person is not made, but is born with that personality.
I believe all humans are born with that kind and generous heart. It's what happens to them after that that is responsible for breaking us and making us defective. But at the heart of every soul born, is goodness. Have you ever met an evil infant?
It might get buried by circumstance, but it was always there. God sees the heart, not the actions....he sees the motivation, not just the performance. He can strip off a layer of unacceptable behavior, put there by circumstance that may mask the real person, but he can’t make “a silk purse out of a sow’s ear”. He will not attract anyone unless he sees a good and genuine heart in the first place. (John 6:44; 65) The apostle Paul is a prime example.
God judges the heart. Yes. Inside every broken human being, is that innocent child, born in God's image. "Except you become as a little child, you will not see God." Children see God. And God, sees that child when God sees us in our errors.
If science can establish that the universe is the product of one almighty “explosion” of unimaginable energy in the dim dark past, then why would I not see that in the opening verse of Genesis 1? I see the creation of 'the heavens and the earth' as a separate act from what came after it.
I can help you here. First, this is an honest answer from you. Denying science is not honest. This is however. You resist the knowledge of evolution because you cannot square it with how you interpret the book of Genesis. That is the truth of this. It's not because you are a scientist yourself and find fault with the science. It's because you have a belief based upon how you read the book of Genesis, and can't square the science with that belief.
Christians do not need to read Genesis as a scientific, factual, historical record. It is not, nor was it really intended to be that. Christians throughout the ages have recognized that to read that literally, is to create all sorts of problems. The real purpose behind the creation story of Genesis is about the sabbath day, which is about God's holiness and distributed justice in the world. It was written by the same priestly tradition that wrote Leviticus 19. It's not about science. It's about the holiness of God and the sabbath day.
All the details of the story have symbolic significance, and communicate truths through those. To try to reduce these to facts, loses and confuses their significance. The 7th day is the focus, not the scentific "how" of what are in the days. There are actually 8 days, or "chunks" of creation crammed into 6 days in order to make it fit the 7th day being the day of rest. To read this as literal history, is to confuse the meaning and lose sight of its symbolic truths.
In other words, a literal reading of Genesis one, is not required for being a Christian. There are many ways it can be read and understood, without needing to read it literally, which leads to such tragic things such as science denialism in order to not let go of one's interpretation they've grown up with, or adopted innocently enough in error.
That it took place millions or even billions of years ago, still does not argue with Genesis. The “days” were clearly not 24 hour periods and they began with earth's preparation and was followed by the introduction of life. So if creation was a lengthy process then science is not arguing with the Bible, but with a YEC interpretation of it.
God carefully prepared this one planet for habitation and slowly, perhaps over many millions of years, he introduced lifeforms in millions of varieties. Most likely microscopic life at first, which is not mentioned in scripture. The first living things on earth, according to Genesis were various forms of vegetation. In order to break down vegetation, bacteria are required. By the time living creatures arrived on the scene, the atmosphere, providing a breathable mixture of gases, vegetation and water supply were ready and waiting to feed and sustain them. All quite logical IMV.
Yet, you deny evolution, calling it "speculative"?
