Having taught comparative religion at the university level, I am well aware of the distinction between a 'theist' and a 'deist'. Evidently, you are not.

A deist is someone who believes that God created the universe and its natural laws and has never intervened since that time. A theist is someone who believes that God can and does from time to time intervene. Since Darwin postulated that God directly intervened in the natural order at some point in time to create the first life forms, that would make him a theist.

Astonishing. Evidently you are arrogant enough and presumptuous enough to think that anyone who is a Christian would agree with your claim that 'Darwin is undoubtedly in hell right now'. What of the many millions of Christians who have no trouble accepting the factuality of evolution?

Christians who believe in Darwinism are, I think, wrong. But it is certainly possible to believe in some sort of theistic evolution and be a Christian. That is not why Darwin is not in heaven. He renounced his faith.

And besides all that, there is a major logical contradiction between your two statements that 'Darwin died a theist' and 'Darwin is undoubtedly in hell right now'. If he died a theist, would not his sins be forgiven?

Theism takes many forms, not all of them Christian. Darwin was certainly no Christian.

Christian intellectuals--and there are a goodly number of them, though you'll probably never meet them on the Fray-

Now my feelings are hurt.

;-)

Now don't sulk. You surely have your moments.

I'd scarcely even consider myself an intellectual. Bookishness aside, I'm first and foremost a force of nature.

Jesus never lifted a sword, but the religion founded in his name conquered the Roman Empire.

And led to the Crusades and the Inquisition, the burning of "witches," heretics, and homosexuals, etc. Even if you're inclined to differentiate between Christians and "Papists," would you be similarly inclined, then, to absolve Christ while putting Rome's crimes on the shoulders of Augustine and Aquinas?

We can argue the relative merits of religion and religious ideas, and that has its place. My point is thta calling intellectuals harmless puppeteers is misleading. Ideas are more powerful, in the long run, then militaries.

Charles Darwin died a theist. But his theories became the intellectual underpinning for militant naturalism and atheism still with us today.

But need they be that, necessarily?

No.

thelyamhound:

Darwin is undoubtedly in hell right now.

That doesn't sound like a very Christian viewpoint. If he accepted Christ as his savior, wouldn't even your theology hold that he was "saved?"

Absolutely. But the best evidence we have is that he died unrepentant apostate. If he did have a "deathbed conversion" and we just don't know about it, of course I would expect him to be in heaven.

LeRoy_Was_Here:

The Encyclopedia Britannica: "Evolution, or the idea of common descent, is as well-established as the facts that the Earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the Sun."

Oh, that's what the dictionary says? Well, I guess that proves it then.

LOL!

A doctor who believes that germs and viruses are intelligently designed must presumably also believe that God (or the intelligent designer, if you really prefer) is STILL happily designing new germs and new viruses to throw at us, his supposed Lords of Creation. Why would He be doing that? To punish us for our sins? Did God create the new H1N1 influenza virus? Or was it, more likely, the consequence of how we are interacting with the environment, specifically, with the conditions that exist in giant hog farms in Mexico?

I think it's really funny when pompous blowhards like you start insulting people's views and don't even bother to take five minutes to find out what those views actually are. Because if you had, you would have found out that even the most hard-core of young earth creationists ( I am not one) believe in the version of evolution that you are here talking about.

Of course viruses mutate and develop drug resistance, of course species hybridize, of course genetic material recombines in new ways to create new varieties of life forms. Nobody denies that - you can see this type of "evolution" in your own kids' faces. What we doubt is the extrapolation of the observed genetic recombination into a universal theory that attempts to account for the appearance of biological life and complexity in the first place.

Ironically, your own example argues against that. Flu viruses reproduce so quickly that there have been more generations of viruses lived and died since the discovery of antibiotics than there could have been generations of eukaryiotic cells in the last 2 billion years. And yet in that time that we have been able to observe them, the flu virus has not evolved into a new form of life. There have been endless varieties as different strains develop drug resistance and whatnot, but every season the same basic virus, still the same enough to qualify as influenza, is all you have.

Now of course this does not, in and of itself, disprove macroevolution. But it is very telling that in the cases where we actually can observe thousands and millions of generations of evolution, nothing fundamentally new has ever appeared.

Most of them will readily concede that microevolution--not just evolution within species (or within genus; it's telling, I think, that when confronted with studies showing actual observed speciation events, the levels at which taxonomic change have to occur to provide evidence for macroevolution become ever higher), but also evolution in organisms simple enough in structure that significant changes can occur without measurable increase in genetic information--IS settled science.

The intelligent design position is not that genetic material cannot be recombined. It is that genetic material cannot come into existence by accident.

Of course you can breed different kinds of dogs. But what you end up with is dogs that have lost certain genetic information that allows the recessive genes to express. You haven't created new genetic information this way. "Speciation" in this manner does not even start to provide evidence for macroevolution. Macroevolution must have a mechanism for actually creating genetic information. You can endlessly recombine existing material all you like; that does not offer an explanation for where the genetic code came from in the first place.

Of course you can breed different kinds of dogs. But what you end up with is dogs that have lost certain genetic information that allows the recessive genes to express. You haven't created new genetic information this way. "Speciation" in this manner does not even start to provide evidence for macroevolution.

In fact, it's not even an example of speciation; the necessary change in alleles doesn't occur with selective breeding. A breed isn't really comparable to a species as regards being genetically distinct. The example I had in mind was an analysis of a geographically split population of mice wherein one population changed alleles within some small number of generations. I'm not familiar enough with the case to comment much more than that; JGC's your poster for more information on that.

You can endlessly recombine existing material all you like; that does not offer an explanation for where the genetic code came from in the first place.

Given that we share 90+ percent of our DNA with flatworms and considerably more with our anthropoid cousins, I'm not sure that "new" genetic material is even something one need explain so much as "altered" genetic material. Of course, we still have to account for he original genetic material, at least when dealing with the question of origin of life. But evolution is an explanation for biodiversity and the particular "advancements" of certain species. Abiogenesis isn't an unrelated field of speculation, but it's not the same field of speculation.

In fact, it's not even an example of speciation; the necessary change in alleles doesn't occur with selective breeding. A breed isn't really comparable to a species as regards being genetically distinct. The example I had in mind was an analysis of a geographically split population of mice wherein one population changed alleles within some small number of generations. I'm not familiar enough with the case to comment much more than that; JGC's your poster for more information on that.

Actually, dog breeders do on occasion create new breeds that cannot readily reproduce for phenotypic reasons with other dogs, which is pretty much exactly the same thing as what you are describing. This process is actually pretty common in nature.

The problem is still the same. No new genetic material is created. A stock "mutt" variety contains an astonishing amount of genetic potential for diversification that only shows itself in isolated breeding environments in all animals. These can hybridize so much that the separate lines no longer normally "attract" to each other. But nothing new that did not already exist latently in the genetic code of the parent critters is actually created.

Darwin's famous finches are a good example of this. There are about a dozen different species of them that do not readily interbreed in nature, primarily because of phenotypic differences. But they are all actually fertile together. If they are artificially inseminated, they produce offspring that resemble the parent species - and their offspring are viable and fertile.

Given that we share 90+ percent of our DNA with flatworms and considerably more with our anthropoid cousins

This is a popular myth, but it is nonetheless false. We share 83% of our DNA with the great apes and only about 40% with flatworms.

Of course, we still have to account for he original genetic material, at least when dealing with the question of origin of life. But evolution is an explanation for biodiversity and the particular "advancements" of certain species. Abiogenesis isn't an unrelated field of speculation, but it's not the same field of speculation.

And of course I agree. There are a great number of Christians who accept the theory of common descent (the venerable C.S. Lewis might be the most famous). But philosophic naturalism requires a belief in abiogenesis and nothing but blind chance and random processes to explain the origin and development of life. And that is a position that simply cannot be defended on the basis of the observation that the flu virus mutates to develop resistance to drugs.

But philosophic naturalism requires a belief in abiogenesis and nothing but blind chance and random processes to explain the origin and development of life. And that is a position that simply cannot be defended on the basis of the observation that the flu virus mutates to develop resistance to drugs.

Well, again, I can't defend the tenets of philosophical naturalism, since I'm not a philosophical naturalist; I certainly wouldn't suggest that said observations on viruses demand belief in philosophical naturalism (not that you care any more for my views on the matter, but let's at least call me what I am, and refrain from calling me what I'm not). If you'll note, I've mostly been arguing against the philosophic naturalist on this particular sub-thread (you'll note is was HIS post to which I first responded on the matter of a doctor's foundational beliefs, and even chastised him for his facile understanding of creationists' position on microevolution).

Nonetheless, I can understand why the ideology of a medical practitioner might be relevant in certain situations. If I'm looking to treat a sinus infection or a cold, well, no, it's not relevant. If I'm looking to treat my depression, or if I were single and getting an STD screening, I might feel more comfortable knowing that, to whatever degree a doctor failed to be wholly objective, his or her subjective stance would be likely to match mine. I don't see that as a primary directive in selecting a physician, but it's hardly out-of-bounds to take it into consideration.

Well, again, I can't defend the tenets of philosophical naturalism, since I'm not a philosophical naturalist; I certainly wouldn't suggest that said observations on viruses demand belief in philosophical naturalism (not that you care any more for my views on the matter, but let's at least call me what I am, and refrain from calling me what I'm not).

I know you are not. I was attempting to explain my position.

Nonetheless, I can understand why the ideology of a medical practitioner might be relevant in certain situations. If I'm looking to treat a sinus infection or a cold, well, no, it's not relevant. If I'm looking to treat my depression, or if I were single and getting an STD screening, I might feel more comfortable knowing that, to whatever degree a doctor failed to be wholly objective, his or her subjective stance would be likely to match mine. I don't see that as a primary directive in selecting a physician, but it's hardly out-of-bounds to take it into consideration.

Yes, in much the same way that a man who wanted help overcoming his same sex attractions would not be well served by a doctor who instead insisted on trying to convince him not do to so but instead to accept them as natural or whatever.

But the question presented was about a believer in intelligent design and his ability to develop vaccines for the flu virus.

Yes, in much the same way that a man who wanted help overcoming his same sex attractions would not be well served by a doctor who instead insisted on trying to convince him not do to so but instead to accept them as natural or whatever.

Or vice versa.

But the question presented was about a believer in intelligent design and his ability to develop vaccines for the flu virus.

Yeah, I agree that was weird.

are two different animals.

for doing all the stuff you described above? No. This means you are not limited by them.

But if you refuse to follow liberal orders - pay for myriad of their programs, obey millions of government rules and regulations - you may well go to jail.

I win.