Making waves (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, June 21, 2013, 18:22 (3980 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: It ties in with the panpsychist theory which I have been toying with, and of which David is understandably sceptical, though he refuses to be drawn on the equally nebulous subject of how God might possibly have worked his magic.-DAVID: How God does his thing, of course, is nebulous. and I keep repeating your reading of the words in the bible is much too literal.-The suggestion that my reading of the bible is too literal is a poor defence of your attempt to reconcile the bible with evolution. Please reread the followinghw: If God created the evolutionary mechanism, but stepped in to do a bit of separate creating whenever he felt like it, with us as the prime example ... which is perhaps Tony's belief and yours ... the bible would indeed be correct. But separate creation is anti-evolution. Ergo the bible would still be anti-evolution.-DAVID: You have finally hit upon it. What I believe and I think Tony does.-You stated that the bible is not anti-evolution. You yourself believe in the separate creation of humans (and other "kinds"). Does this square with YOUR reading of the biblical version, or not? If it does, YOUR reading of the bible, like your own belief, makes the bible anti-evolution, which specifically argues that humans and chimps (and other "kinds") descend from a common ancestor. Nothing whatsoever to do with MY reading of the bible!
 
DAVID (under "God and Reality"): I am so thankful I reached my conclusions from science alone.-First cause, eternal, conscious (we don't know how) energy deliberately created the universe and mechanisms for life and evolution (we don't know how) in order to produce humans, whom he created separately along with many other species (we don't know how), though others evolved without his interference; he chooses to remain hidden, because he wants to test our faith, and he wants us to learn the lessons of tough love.-I have learned an enormous amount from you about the science that underpins your beliefs, and your arguments are as powerful a case as one could wish for against the dogmas of atheism, but they ALWAYS run up against the problem that science cannot support the dogmas of theism. The conclusions I have listed above are gleaned from your various posts, but I would suggest that not one of them can possibly be reached from science alone.