And Science Says Our Gap Theory Is Bad.....

[katabole]

Thanks for the article.

Theoretical physicist Lisa Randall has evidently not read Professor Thomas Nagel's book, 'Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False."

Professor Thomas Nagel is a doctor of philosophy at New York University. Nagel is not an atheist. He is an anti-theist. He does not want God to exist. He wants atheism to be true.

Yet this is what he says.

Nagel believes that the Neo-Darwinian concept of nature is fundamentally flawed. "Humanity cannot take adequate account of this world until we make room for mind and consciousness as equal partners in reality with the physical universe", he says.

Nagel has serious doubts of whether the reality of such features of our world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning, purpose, thought, imagination, morality and values, can be accommodated in a universe consisting at the most basic level, of only physical facts. Facts however sophisticated, of the kind revealed only by the physical sciences.

As a philosopher, Nagel is convinced that physicalism or any kind of reality that claims that there is no mind beyond the physical universe, cannot account adequately for such features of the world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning or purpose.

Nagel goes on to say that, "Consciousness is the conspicuous obstacle to a comprehensive naturalism that relies solely on the sources of physical science. If we take this problem seriously and follow out its implications", he claims, "it threatens to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture."

Nagel claims at the end of his book, that he would be willing to bet that the present consensus of a naturalistic, materialistic, physicalistic universe, will come to seem laughable in a generation or two. However, it may be replaced by a new consensus that is just as invalid.

I am a Gap or Ruin/Reconstruction creationist. That is my creation view which I find to be the most consistent creation view throughout all of Scripture.

If you have not read Nagel's book, I highly suggest everyone to read it. It is about 130 pages long. If you believe in Darwinian evolution, Nagel's book will make you seriously question your worldview.

If you do not believe in Darwinian evolution, Nagel's book should cement the fact that there is indeed a vast, intellectual mind behind the evidence of a physical universe we live in, whom we as Christians call God.

 

[StanJ]

Thanks Katabole. Good post.
I used to be GAP, but when I took a closer grammatical look at 1 and 2 Gen, I realized there was no GAP in time, just stops and start in narration, with more details at each subsequent section until chapter 3 takes up the story of mankind.

 

[River Jordan]

Thanks for the article.

Theoretical physicist Lisa Randall has evidently not read Professor Thomas Nagel's book, 'Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False."

Professor Thomas Nagel is a doctor of philosophy at New York University. Nagel is not an atheist. He is an anti-theist. He does not want God to exist. He wants atheism to be true.

Yet this is what he says.

Nagel believes that the Neo-Darwinian concept of nature is fundamentally flawed. "Humanity cannot take adequate account of this world until we make room for mind and consciousness as equal partners in reality with the physical universe", he says.

Nagel has serious doubts of whether the reality of such features of our world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning, purpose, thought, imagination, morality and values, can be accommodated in a universe consisting at the most basic level, of only physical facts. Facts however sophisticated, of the kind revealed only by the physical sciences.

As a philosopher, Nagel is convinced that physicalism or any kind of reality that claims that there is no mind beyond the physical universe, cannot account adequately for such features of the world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning or purpose.

Nagel goes on to say that, "Consciousness is the conspicuous obstacle to a comprehensive naturalism that relies solely on the sources of physical science. If we take this problem seriously and follow out its implications", he claims, "it threatens to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture."

Nagel claims at the end of his book, that he would be willing to bet that the present consensus of a naturalistic, materialistic, physicalistic universe, will come to seem laughable in a generation or two. However, it may be replaced by a new consensus that is just as invalid.

I am a Gap or Ruin/Reconstruction creationist. That is my creation view which I find to be the most consistent creation view throughout all of Scripture.

If you have not read Nagel's book, I highly suggest everyone to read it. It is about 130 pages long. If you believe in Darwinian evolution, Nagel's book will make you seriously question your worldview.

If you do not believe in Darwinian evolution, Nagel's book should cement the fact that there is indeed a vast, intellectual mind behind the evidence of a physical universe we live in, whom we as Christians call God.

Looks like you're equating Darwinism/Neo-Darwinism with atheism. If so, why? :blink:

 

[Barrd]

Thanks for the article.

Theoretical physicist Lisa Randall has evidently not read Professor Thomas Nagel's book, 'Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False."

Professor Thomas Nagel is a doctor of philosophy at New York University. Nagel is not an atheist. He is an anti-theist. He does not want God to exist. He wants atheism to be true.

Yet this is what he says.

Nagel believes that the Neo-Darwinian concept of nature is fundamentally flawed. "Humanity cannot take adequate account of this world until we make room for mind and consciousness as equal partners in reality with the physical universe", he says.

Nagel has serious doubts of whether the reality of such features of our world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning, purpose, thought, imagination, morality and values, can be accommodated in a universe consisting at the most basic level, of only physical facts. Facts however sophisticated, of the kind revealed only by the physical sciences.

As a philosopher, Nagel is convinced that physicalism or any kind of reality that claims that there is no mind beyond the physical universe, cannot account adequately for such features of the world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning or purpose.

Nagel goes on to say that, "Consciousness is the conspicuous obstacle to a comprehensive naturalism that relies solely on the sources of physical science. If we take this problem seriously and follow out its implications", he claims, "it threatens to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture."

Nagel claims at the end of his book, that he would be willing to bet that the present consensus of a naturalistic, materialistic, physicalistic universe, will come to seem laughable in a generation or two. However, it may be replaced by a new consensus that is just as invalid.

I am a Gap or Ruin/Reconstruction creationist. That is my creation view which I find to be the most consistent creation view throughout all of Scripture.

If you have not read Nagel's book, I highly suggest everyone to read it. It is about 130 pages long. If you believe in Darwinian evolution, Nagel's book will make you seriously question your worldview.

If you do not believe in Darwinian evolution, Nagel's book should cement the fact that there is indeed a vast, intellectual mind behind the evidence of a physical universe we live in, whom we as Christians call God.

Actually, it sounds like a fascinating read.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Darwinism is the "gateway drug" to atheism. "Search your feelings, you know it to be true. "
Darth Vader

Or listen to another evil character---Richard Dawkins who says the same thing.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Yes, I'm back!!!!

 

[Barrd]

Darwinism is the "gateway drug" to atheism. "Search your feelings, you know it to be true. "
Darth Vader

Or listen to another evil character---Richard Dawkins who says the same thing.

I'm sure Dawkins started with just a toke or two of Darwin...but it kept taking more and more for him to get high...

 

[River Jordan]

Except for that inconvenient little fact that most people who recognize the reality of evolution also believe in God. But why let facts get in the way of some really good, emotional rhetoric? <_<

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Statistics you quote, exaggerated they are. Know better, you do.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Gallup poll----42% of Americans believe God created humans in their present state approximately 10,000 years ago. If you add just 9% atheist, you already have less than a majority. So you simply can't say "most."

This is not counting theists who hold to older earth doctrines but are still not evolutionists in a Darwinian sense. Your figures are wrong.

 

[River Jordan]

CJ,

Not sure why you're just focused on Americans, since the question isn't "Are most Americans who recognize the reality of evolution atheists".

Again I refer to this paper: Public Acceptance of Evolution (PDF). There you'll see that in the developed world, the vast majority of the public recognizes evolution as reality. The US is a bit of an outlier, just above Turkey in terms of its denialism. But if we compare that data with the data showing that at most, atheists make up about 13% of the population in the developed world, we reach an obvious conclusion....the vast majority of "evolutionists" are not atheists (13% can't make up a majority).

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Yes, I focused on the United States.
However, you are not being totally honest or perhaps just an oversight, I'll let you explain which.

Your linked study focuses entirely on the United States and Europe and Japan. Yet, you change it, conveniently I might add, to the developed world. Israel, Maylasia, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, may not be the hub of European liberalism, but I think they qualify as developed.

Or is it that your geography privilege is showing? All states matter.

 

[Barrd]

opcorn:

Okay, so all evolutionists are not atheists.
Are all atheists evolutionists?
And why would Christian evolutionists be so dead set against any notion that God had anything to do with evolution?

I'm not sure that you can really call a Liberal a Christian, since they seem to set themselves against Christian values...but that is just my opinion.

 

[River Jordan]

The study focused on countries that have 1) decent, long-running public education, and 2) long-term data sets on their citizens' views on evolution. The countries you listed lack one or both of those things.

Either way, I've provided data to support my position that evolution is not atheism. We can also add in things like The Clergy Letter Project and prominent Christian evolutionary biologists such as Francis Collins and Ken Miller. So where is any data showing that in reality, evolution does equate to atheism?

 

[River Jordan]

Okay, so all evolutionists are not atheists.

Not even a majority are atheists.

Are all atheists evolutionists?

Probably not every single one, but most likely the vast majority are. But I'm quite sure they're also "erosionists" and "ionic bondists" too. Not sure what you think that means.

And why would Christian evolutionists be so dead set against any notion that God had anything to do with evolution?

Who are you talking about?

I'm not sure that you can really call a Liberal a Christian, since they seem to set themselves against Christian values...but that is just my opinion.

Thanks Alabama.

 

[Barrd]

Not even a majority are atheists.

And yet you are only the second evolutionist I've met who is not an atheist.
The majority of them seem to want to compare God to pink unicorns or tell us about how stupid we are to believe in a "sky daddy."

Probably not every single one, but most likely the vast majority are. But I'm quite sure they're also "erosionists" and "ionic bondists" too. Not sure what you think that means.

Every atheist I've ever met, on or offline, has been an evolutionist. In fact, I've had people tell me that evolution has proven that there is no God. I'm not sure how they got to that conclusion, either...but there it is.

Who are you talking about?

I'm talking about folks who get their panties in a bunch at the very suggestion that school kids be told that there may be a Creator, or an Intelligent Designer, behind the universe. Don't you think their quick little minds have made note of the controversy between science and religion? And now, the strange silence...what are we trying to protect them from?

Thanks Alabama.

Seriously, since when do followers of Jesus Christ endorse such things as homosexual marriage or abortion? Things that God has forbidden? How are we to fight sin within ourselves, when we cozy up to it in others?

 

[River Jordan]

And yet you are only the second evolutionist I've met who is not an atheist.
The majority of them seem to want to compare God to pink unicorns or tell us about how stupid we are to believe in a "sky daddy."

The question isn't "Are the majority of evolutionists The Barrd has met atheists?" The question is "Are the majority of evolutionists atheists?"

Every atheist I've ever met, on or offline, has been an evolutionist.

Every one I've met is an erosionist too. Not sure what your point is. Is it that if atheists say something is true, Christians must automatically reject it no matter what?

In fact, I've had people tell me that evolution has proven that there is no God. I'm not sure how they got to that conclusion, either...but there it is.

Most atheists I've met tell me the reason they're not Christians is because of what's in the Bible.

I'm talking about folks who get their panties in a bunch at the very suggestion that school kids be told that there may be a Creator, or an Intelligent Designer, behind the universe. Don't you think their quick little minds have made note of the controversy between science and religion? And now, the strange silence...what are we trying to protect them from?

It's like we talked about earlier....we think you stick to teaching science in science class.

Seriously, since when do followers of Jesus Christ endorse such things as homosexual marriage or abortion? Things that God has forbidden? How are we to fight sin within ourselves, when we cozy up to it in others?

From what I've seen from your posts, for whatever reason you can't grasp the difference between endorsing SSM/abortion, and saying people should be free to make their own choices.

 

[Barrd]

The question isn't "Are the majority of evolutionists The Barrd has met atheists?" The question is "Are the majority of evolutionists atheists?"

You always make me grin, River.
Of course, the question is not "Are the majority of evolutionists The Barrd has met atheists"...
On the other hand, The Barrd's experience is bound to color her thinking. Is this a failing in her?
If it is, it is one she seems to share with most of humanity...

Every one I've met is an erosionist too. Not sure what your point is. Is it that if atheists say something is true, Christians must automatically reject it no matter what?

Again, you make me smile. Erosionist? I don't think I've ever heard the term before. It's fairly obvious what it means, of course. Is there some controversy over erosion?
Truly, with some atheists I've met, if they told me the sun was shining, I'd have to go outside and check...

Most atheists I've met tell me the reason they're not Christians is because of what's in the Bible.

And then they point to Genesis.

It's like we talked about earlier....we think you stick to teaching science in science class.

No one is suggesting that we ought to teach anything else in science class. But we do feel that the kids ought to be free to discuss these ideas about the origin of the universe.
There is a television show entitled "How It's Made", have you ever heard of it? My son loves it.
Don't you think students are curious about how the universe was made? Yet, their teachers are strangely silent on that subject.
Don't you think they notice this silence?

From what I've seen from your posts, for whatever reason you can't grasp the difference between endorsing SSM/abortion, and saying people should be free to make their own choices.

People are not free to make their own choices, though, River. Lots of people think we ought to be free to use marijuana. But we are not. There are laws in place that prevent us from making our own choices about a variety of things.

 

[StanJ]

People are not free to make their own choices, though, River. Lots of people think we ought to be free to use marijuana. But we are not. There are laws in place that prevent us from making our own choices about a variety of things.

Christians are Free, but NOT free to disobey God. His will is NOT for unbelievers, except that He is NOT willing that ANY should perish. Let's be clear that this is a CHRISTIAN forum and as such the discussions involve people who CLAIM to be Christian.

 

[River Jordan]

You always make me grin, River.

Glad I can put a smile on your face.

Of course, the question is not "Are the majority of evolutionists The Barrd has met atheists"...
On the other hand, The Barrd's experience is bound to color her thinking. Is this a failing in her?
If it is, it is one she seems to share with most of humanity...

Well, we should all be aware that our individual experiences may not be representative of anything more than our individual experiences.

Erosionist? I don't think I've ever heard the term before. It's fairly obvious what it means, of course. Is there some controversy over erosion?

There's as much scientific controversy over whether erosion happens as there is over whether evolution happens. True, there is controversy among some of the public over evolution, but it's driven by religion not science.

Truly, with some atheists I've met, if they told me the sun was shining, I'd have to go outside and check...

I have the same opinion of many fundamentalist Christians I've met. Some of them I don't think even know the difference between a lie and the truth.

And then they point to Genesis.

Actually, I've never had an atheist or non-Christian say that their reason for not being Christian is about Genesis. A lot of them cite the barbaric nature of God depicted in the OT, and others cite "problems with the Bible" (e.g., contradictions).

No one is suggesting that we ought to teach anything else in science class.

You are. You are advocating for science teachers "telling their students that there might be a Creator". That's a religious belief, not science.

But we do feel that the kids ought to be free to discuss these ideas about the origin of the universe.

Of course they can. I don't know anyone who has argued otherwise.

There is a television show entitled "How It's Made", have you ever heard of it? My son loves it.
Don't you think students are curious about how the universe was made? Yet, their teachers are strangely silent on that subject.
Don't you think they notice this silence?

It's been a while then since you've been in a science classroom. Teachers do cover the origin of the universe (the big bang model). Just the other day when I was at church working with the youth group, I had a parent approach me on the side and complained that her son was being taught the big bang model in school. When I asked what her issue was, she answered "They should cover all the ideas, not just the atheistic big bag". So I asked what other "ideas" she had in mind, and of course she mentioned creation by God. I then explained that 1) since it was science class, they stick to teaching science; 2) right now there is really only one scientific model for the universe (big bang); and 3) creation by God is a religious belief, not science, and as such doesn't get taught in science class. She actually understood and agreed.

People are not free to make their own choices, though, River. Lots of people think we ought to be free to use marijuana. But we are not. There are laws in place that prevent us from making our own choices about a variety of things.

Again, try and avoid black/white thinking. When someone says "people are free to make their own choices", that doesn't mean "there are no rules whatsoever".

The fact is, not everyone in the US is a Christian. Also, the US government is not a Christian institution, but rather is deliberately secular. Thus, when it comes to SSM, if you and I believe it's a sin (which we both do), we don't marry someone of the same sex. IOW, we are free to live by our religious beliefs. However, a non-Christian gay couple is under no obligation to live by Christian beliefs. Just as you don't want to live under Islamic law, non-Christians don't want to live under Christian law.