Quote:
Originally Posted by tiredtoo
[attach] ....The question seems to be the amount of writings that can be attributed to the “Teachings of Jesus”. The number of documents that seem to be directed toward the history of the Jewish people is staggering as is the number of people that to this day continue to use the Bible as a source of their inspiration.
Are these people foolish?....
|
Is not Faith foolishness? That is when it is not based on observed and ever -repeated phenomena which it would be foolish to suppose in NOT going to happen the same in the future, but it is based on claims that were always a bit odd, even when one could regard the Book from which those beliefs were derived as pretty reliable, but increasingly is seen as serious unreliable.
P.s I wouldn't put too much Faith in the views of the ICR on morality with reference to evolution, which views are as wrongheaded as are the supposed scientific arguments they use in support of Creationism.
To avoid any 'claims - no examples' backchat. The very best chance Creationism had to be credible - Irreducible Complexity, was based on the idea that an organism would become unviable while in the process of growing an evolved feature. On the face of it, that is a good argument. The feature neither works as it did nor as it will, so the organism cannot survive. This in fact was shown to be unsound (1) as there are examples of features that have changed from one function to another and yet another in a small step evolutionary process and remained perfectly viable during that process until it had developed a feature which was best adapted to its conditions. I/C collapsed and Creationism with it.
Always happy to look at particular claims.
(1) H. Allen Orr has explained Muller's explanation for "irreducible complexity" in several articles in the Boston Review criticizing Behe's and William Dembski's writings. Orr has emphasized the adaptive possibilities in the Mullerian two-step (i.e. improvement of function at each step). However, the mechanism is more general and does not even require selection, a point that Muller himself made originally, 50 years before neutral evolution was found to be important in molecular evolution.
"An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required."
Orr 1996
"... gradual Darwinian evolution can easily produce irreducible complexity: all that's required is that parts that were once just favorable become, because of later changes, essential. "
Orr 1997
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Faith or Foolish
