Do creationists accept biology?

[YoursTrue]

Another dodge and a false claim to boot. See above.

You really are funny.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Einstein died. He said his time was up. Wonder why or how he, with all his expertise in scientific thought, believed he was at the end of his "naturally selected" existence, hmmm? But he wanted to know the unknowable.
"I want to know God's thoughts – the rest are mere details." But as he lay there dying in Princeton Hospital he must have understood that these were secrets that God was clearly keen to hang on to." BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon
Perhaps you think the article was, um, puffed and fabricated, huh? Einstein said he wanted to know God's thoughts. God evidently did not allow him to "know his thoughts." He died anyway.

You do realize that when Einstein said "God" he did not mean "God" in the way that you think about him at all, don't you? He was far more of an atheist than a Christian.

Again, that is a fluff piece. It is not of much value. His use of the word "God" was more poetic than literal. Tell me, what are the beliefs of a person that said this:

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. "

 

[Subduction Zone]

You really are funny.

But honest.

 

[Astrophile]

It wasn't too long ago that some countries had people drawn by horses, disemboweled, strangled, and more. List of people hanged, drawn and quartered - Wikipedia

What has that got to do with it? And, by the way, the countries that had people hanged, drawn and quartered were Christian countries; it is only now that Christian belief is declining that civilised countries have abolished the death penalty.

 

[tayla]

Do creationists accept biology?

I mean the observations, findings etc that are not explicitly within the field of evolution?

Michael Behe is a micro-biologist and proponent of intelligent design. He accepts science in general and biology in particular (except for the claims he rejects).

I think Christians generally accept science including biology, rejecting only those particular details that contradict their claims. A few are flat earthers, but most agree with Galileo and Newton; even Einstein. Certainly they use cell phones and fly on airplanes and drive cars and use computers, so they do accept the science that provides the foundations for such things. And they go to the doctor and take medicines and have surgeries.

Probably very few know much about the underpinnings of biology (and of physics from which biology is depends) such as quantum field theory and the standard model, or Einstein's two theories of relativity. Biology depends on the electric forces and quantum mechanics, so, even if they don't realize it, they depend on all kinds of science even when they eat food.

But in rejecting evolution, they neglect to explain how an intelligent designer or creator God can even interact with the physical without violating the natural laws and without some experimenter noticing the divine intrusion.

 

[YoursTrue]

You do realize that when Einstein said "God" he did not mean "God" in the way that you think about him at all, don't you? He was far more of an atheist than a Christian.

Again, that is a fluff piece. It is not of much value. His use of the word "God" was more poetic than literal. Tell me, what are the beliefs of a person that said this:

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. "

Of course I realize that Einstein did not understand God as I understand God. Nevertheless, it is said he wanted to know the mind of God. Which is, in my opinion, as a believer in God, impossible. Except for what God allows me to know. I understand Einstein's thinking. A while back I would have agreed with him. I learned a long time ago in the short sequence of life as it stands now, that no one but God can reveal himself to a person.

 

[YoursTrue]

Michael Behe is a micro-biologist and proponent of intelligent design. He accepts science in general and biology in particular (except for the claims he rejects).

I think Christians generally accept science including biology, rejecting only those particular details that contradict their claims. A few are flat earthers, but most agree with Galileo and Newton; even Einstein. Certainly they use cell phones and fly on airplanes and drive cars and use computers, so they do accept the science that provides the foundations for such things. And they go to the doctor and take medicines and have surgeries.

Probably very few know much about the underpinnings of biology (and of physics from which biology is depends) such as quantum field theory and the standard model, or Einstein's two theories of relativity. Biology depends on the electric forces and quantum mechanics, so, even if they don't realize it, they depend on all kinds of science even when they eat food.

But in rejecting evolution, they neglect to explain how an intelligent designer or creator God can even interact with the physical without violating the natural laws and without some experimenter noticing the divine intrusion.

Allow me to say something here. I certainly do not claim to understand all that there is on the earth in reference to how it got here. I believe that God made man from the earth, and that He is higher than any other force of nature, therefore is in a position to break any force. Let me make something clear here. Do I believe that God made two-headed snakes? No. I believe those things are mutations. How or if God made let's say more than one type of alligator I don't know. The process of life is complicated, as microbiologists understand. Insects are alive. And then they die. Just like humans. They come about by natural means. Then they die.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course I realize that Einstein did not understand God as I understand God. Nevertheless, it is said he wanted to know the mind of God. Which is, in my opinion, as a believer in God, impossible. Except for what God allows me to know. I understand Einstein's thinking. A while back I would have agreed with him. I learned a long time ago in the short sequence of life as it stands now, that no one but God can reveal himself to a person.

I don't think that is the case. He was speaking metaphorically and wanted to better understand the universe.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't think that is the case. He was speaking metaphorically and wanted to better understand the universe.

OK, that's what you think. I think he thought about what he knew about religion and made his decision based on that and his thinking about life and the universe. Even if he was speaking metaphorically, or poetically, he should have realized he couldn't possibly know what God knows. But since that was not his context, anything goes. But I think he was commenting on his thoughts of life around him, and knowledge of religious beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, that's what you think. I think he thought about what he knew about religion and made his decision based on that and his thinking about life and the universe. Even if he was speaking metaphorically, or poetically, he should have realized he couldn't possibly know what God knows. But since that was not his context, anything goes. But I think he was commenting on his thoughts of life around him, and knowledge of religious beliefs.

If you read his letter he though that your sorts of beliefs were childish superstitions.

 

[tayla]

He is higher than any other force of nature, therefore is in a position to break any force.

If God can break any force or violate the laws of nature, scientists can detect this. If the forces of nature act erratically and unexpectedly everytime God intervenes, scientists can detect this. But they never have. Perhaps God is not intervening in the universe anymore?

Also, any interaction in the universe leaves residual markings that can be observed. For example, stars emit light and this light travels for billions of years. Later, scientists on earth see the light. If God intervened in the universe, scientists should be able to see weird things from time to time, things unexplainable except by assuming that the forces of nature were broken.

There is no evidence of anything like this. No matter where scientists look, they see the laws of nature operating perfectly with no exceptions.

In other words, if God exists, he has absolutely no interaction with this physical universe.

 

[Yerda]

But in rejecting evolution, they neglect to explain how an intelligent designer or creator God can even interact with the physical without violating the natural laws and without some experimenter noticing the divine intrusion.

How would an experimenter notice divine intrusion?

 

[tayla]

How would an experimenter notice divine intrusion?

For example, if God directed evolution, then every point at which a change occurred should leave behind some evidence of non-physical tampering. There should be weird unexplained things at the microbiological level.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you read his letter he though that your sorts of beliefs were childish superstitions.

Not saying he did not. BUT I am also saying/discerning that he must have known there COULD BE an outside force greater than himself with intelligence higher than his own. Based on his own statements. That you don't agree with me is par for our discussion. But now that you bring it up, I'm saying that since he declared he wanted to know God's thoughts, he already knew somehow there could be/must be someone higher in thought and power than himself. Even if he did not believe in the Bible or any other religion. (He wasn't that dumb.)

 

[YoursTrue]

For example, if God directed evolution, then every point at which a change occurred should leave behind some evidence of non-physical tampering. There should be weird unexplained things at the microbiological level.

As I was examining, thinking about things, experiments trying to emulate life emerging had to have a catalyst added to the mix. And it seems it's the same with water. H20 combining to make liquid water needs more than 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen. It ain't so easy.

 

[YoursTrue]

If God can break any force or violate the laws of nature, scientists can detect this. If the forces of nature act erratically and unexpectedly everytime God intervenes, scientists can detect this. But they never have. Perhaps God is not intervening in the universe anymore?

Also, any interaction in the universe leaves residual markings that can be observed. For example, stars emit light and this light travels for billions of years. Later, scientists on earth see the light. If God intervened in the universe, scientists should be able to see weird things from time to time, things unexplainable except by assuming that the forces of nature were broken.

There is no evidence of anything like this. No matter where scientists look, they see the laws of nature operating perfectly with no exceptions.

In other words, if God exists, he has absolutely no interaction with this physical universe.

I do not agree. God is the one that keeps the mechanics working in the universe. Does he allow bad or threatening things to happen? Yes, he does. Does that mean he cannot change things? No, he can. I believe mankind has only been in existence for about 6,000 years. Please do not include the earth in that time period, I believe the earth is much older.

 

[YoursTrue]

For example, if God directed evolution, then every point at which a change occurred should leave behind some evidence of non-physical tampering. There should be weird unexplained things at the microbiological level.

You know what I find as odd in that? Mutations. For instance, scientists have noted that there are genetic proclivities to certain diseases. How do you explain that? As simple mutation???

 

[YoursTrue]

But honest.

S.J. Gould was honest in his evaluation of substance, insofar as I have read.

 

[Subduction Zone]

S.J. Gould was honest in his evaluation of substance, insofar as I have read.

And he was one hundred percent behind the theory of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And the question of what difference does it make has not been answered yet.