blogs.dallasobserver.com — Of the 1,019 faculty members to whom the surveys were sent, 464 responded -- and fewer than 1 percent checked off the box marked, ?Modern evolutionary biology is mostly wrong. Life arose through multiple creation events by an intelligent designer, although evolution by natural selection played a limited role.?
Nov 17, 2008 View in Crawl 4
ymegNov 18, 2008
I'm thinking of the CS professors who have no natural science back ground.It would be a bit of a stretch to think there are more Biology professors who do not believe in evolution than a science that deals with a machine.
maneuv3rNov 18, 2008
While the fossil I hold in my hand is Fact, my interpretation of that fossil is entirely subjective.
erossmuNov 18, 2008
Scientology?
kublaikhanNov 19, 2008
I realize that this story is getting old and so there's little chance that people will continue to read as I write my responses, but just for posterity:erossmu: I tried to emphasize that I use the word "illogical" as a synonym for "non-empirical." It's a very imperfect synonym, I realize that - but I did explicitly state my intended meaning. So, yes, philosophy is definitely "illogical" in that sense: it is not an empirical science, it is not mathematics, etc, but rather is non-concrete field of thought and study.The difference between "True" and "true" as I use them is, of course, that the former is capitalized. And I didn't realize that such capitalization would be perceived as some opaque and arcane device and would require explanation, but apparently it does, so let me briefly explain what I was hoping to say: the Bible provides Truth (capital "t"): cosmic Truth, spiritual Truth, moral Truth, etc. It sometimes - rarely - provides truth (lowercase "t"): accurate history, biography, science, etc. So, when I read the first book of Genesis (to choose some arbitrary example), I don't believe - and I don't have to believe - that God truly created the universe in six days (because surely that's not what reliable modern science tells us), and surely I don't have to believe that the plants and animals and astronomical phenomena were created in the given order (because surely that's not what reliable modern science tells us). Instead, I can search the story for its edifying kernel of Truth: God created the universe - and if He used the Big Bang to do it, and then used evolution to create the various species, that's perfectly fine - and He did so out of love. If you don't believe that story, or it just doesn't jive with you for whatever reason, I'm perfectly fine with that; you won't see me knocking at your door on a Sunday morning and trying to preach to you - that's just not my style, and I resent when certain outspoken theists lump me in with that sort as if Christianity is a monolith.Certainly I believe the Bible is open to interpretation and so, as you point out, one consequence of that belief is that any group, however crazy, can interpret it as they wish. And you're right. There is no SparkNotes for the Bible (actually there probably is, but I use "SparkNotes" figuratively here...) - there's no universal, infallible interpretation of it, and we cannot know which reading is correct. So, when I say that the Bible's attacks on homosexuality are outdated and the product of a culturally biased human author, and someone else says those attacks are the verbatim word of God, neither of us has any more evidence for our positions than the other. All I can rely on is my faithful image of God as a loving and "tolerant" (for lack of a better word) Father who would not wish for people of a certain orientation to be persecuted. I have no textual proof to support that, and I don't claim to. And, since I'm not asking you to convert, I don't understand why you would care either way - live and let live, no?TsuruchiBrian: As I explain above, I mean "logic" as a rough and imperfect synonym for "empirical" - and, I think any religious person would be forced to admit that much of religion and spirituality is undoubtedly non-empirical. (That's exactly what faith is, in fact: a "feeling" you have that is not based in any concrete proof.) So Pascal's Wager remains as flawed as ever, at least if you're talking to a logical and well-informed theist - I can't speak for those wacky evangelicals...
notasheepleNov 20, 2008
You guys do understand that "scientists" think that a single cell organism traveled here through space on the backs of crystals, hit the earth and slowly over billions of years, transformed itself into a complex strand of DNA that allowed the "information" of the human race to miraculously build itself into what we know as humans today? Sounds like some sort of conspiracy theory to me. All hail the power of the flying crystal monster!If that theory is indeed true, then where did those crystals/cells originate? I'm really looking for an answer here. PLEASE HELP AND DON'T INSULT!
thekappaNov 22, 2008
Wow... I've gone from vowing never to set foot in Texas three years ago to respecting the state and wanting to move to Austin! Go Texas!
okiepokeDec 8, 2008
And how does evolutionary theory explain the origin of the universe? Intelligent design may not be a "reasonable alternative" in your opinion, but it is an alternative that is a possibility.