View Full Version : Creationism v. Evolution
Although this has been posted on another board here, i thought it best to put this highly rational, yet extremely flammitory statement here for your edification....
What is it that makes completely rational people actually belive in the letter by letter account that is given in the Bible? i'm not saying that the Bible has no value: it is a great book with many stories that are essentially fables that outline the difference between the Christian right (correct, that is...) and wrong. But to believe that simply because it is written it is true is absolutely absurd. Keep in mind that alot of these people are the same ones that don't believe everything they read in the papers...hmmmmmm...
...which brings me to Creationism. Here are a few points that i hope are valid:
1) As a history buff, i immediately have to cast doubt on anything that is not written by a direct witness (and, in turn, keep a watchful eye on those things that were). Last time i checked, Adam was not created until the Sixth Day (i hope I'm right here), so HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THE OTHER 5?????????? Also, Adam apparently did not write the book of Genesis, in fact, we don't know who did (but i'm getting ahead of myself).
2)Many of the Bible faithful like to point to archaeological evidence that proves Biblical events did happen; ergo, the Bible is fact. This only shows that it may have happened, not necessarily that the Bible is the be-all end-all chronicle of that event. Exhibit A is the story of Noah and the Flood. The Epic of Gilgamesh (sorry, can't remember the culture...) was told for centuries before the Noah story ever made its presence. The Epic concerns...A GREAT FLOOD!!!!! Evidence has shown that there may be a great flood before written history. Could it be that Christians adapted someone else's story for their own purposes...? They'd never do that...after all, Saints are nothing like the Roman gods, who are nothing like the Greek gods, etc., etc.
3)What is so contradictory between religion and science after all? Where is it written that the Six days of creation are actually six human days? Where does it say that the six days aren't an evolutionary process in themselves? Am i the only idiot here who thinks this? Am i lucky not to have been struck by lightning?
4) And to the people who think that they can "prove" that God does exist (and there are some -- there was an engineering professor at my school who said he could mathematically prove His existence), i have only this to say -- Thank You. Thank you for removing any logical argument that religion is based on. Now move out of your church. After all, the basis of religion is faith, which means to believe in something that you cannot necessarily prove true. Without faith, you might as well worship 2+2=4.
Ok, so that last one isn't expressly about creationism...so flame me ;)
And my last point (i think) may be peculiarly southern, but those of you who are familiar with the Christian fish on the cars, then the Darwin fish, now may have seen a fish eating the Darwin with the word TRUTH written on the fish. Give me a friggin' break. As a good Darwinist, i propose that we not allow these kind of irrational people have children that they may pass these irrational beliefs to. This train of thought leads to other logic gaps such as:
Guns don't kill people; people with guns kill people.
God created Man in his own image (except for gays, of course)
Playing the Mr. Ed Theme Song backwards...
Tammy Faye Bakker....
...dare i continue????
Whew. i feel better. And let me finish by saying that i do beleive in God, but i also believe that He is disgusted by most of the behaviour that goes on under "His" name.
Forever and ever.
Amen
shiner bock
I do not believe that everything in the Bible is the literal truth; much of it is clearly allegorical. I think some people take every sentence as literal truth because they are afraid of repudating their faith or because their faith is so small that any challenge becomes a personal matter.
In response to your numbered points:
1) I believe the majority of Biblical scholars attribute Genesis to Moses. Could be wrong on this, though.
2) While obviously the Catholic Church "converted" many of the pagan deities into saints, there is archaelogical evidence for some things in the Bible, i.e. a recently discovered stele in the Holy Land provided actual proof that King David was a real personage. Of course, this does not prove the existence of God, but that is a matter of faith, anyway.
3) This is a point that Christians who believe in evolution have made. I believe Genesis should be interpreted solely as an allegory.
4)Actually, you can prove the existence of God mathematically. Consider this statement: If 2 + 2 = 5, then God exists.
Under the formal rules of logic, the conclusion is true since the premise is false. Logically, you can prove anything from a false premise.
(logic has given me many a woe this semester!)
In response, Peyote Coyote, the great thing about logic is that you can prove anything given the right "facts". And isn't that what this argument basically boils down to -- there are more facts pointing to Evolution than Creationism...but then again Creationism is based on faith rather than fact...o jeez, i'm getting a headache.
...for my next trick, i'll try to prove that black IS white, and promptly get killed at the next zebra croossing (apologies to douglas Adams)
BTW, i loathed logic as well when i was in college...kept me out of a math class, though :)
Another of my problems with the Bible is that through the centuries, it was been rewritten by soooooooo many people down through the ages, can we really count on "divine providence" that it is the word of God? I'm sure that a few Benedictine Monks during the Middle Ages put in their $.02 (or 2 gold coins, anyway), along with Matthew, Luke, John, etc., not to mention King James (or even our modern equivalent -- L. Ron Hubbard)
Before i get blasted on this, i know that L. Ron didn't rewrite the bible...just created a religion...
...and with that (un)enlightening post, i'll call it a night...
shiner bock
------------------
"Now its over, I'm dead and I haven't done anything that I want, or I'm still alive and there's nothing I want to do." -- They Might Be Giants
Remember folks, if you hear voices in your head and talk about your invisible buddy, you're a nutcase. If the voices in your head tell you that certain people are evil and deserve to die, and your invisible buddy is infinitely large and can do EVERYTHING, you are a religious fundementalist.
When I grew up, I quit believing in fairy tales and magic genies.
------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson
I must agree with SB in that much of the bible is metaphorical, and is not meant to be taken completely literally. I have known certain people who refused to believe in the dinosaurs, or else said that God scattered fossils around in order to fool non-believers. We're not living in the Dark Ages anymore, and there's no Inquisition to burn heretics. Some here in the Bible belt where I live would undoubtably rather it be otherwise.
Hope you feel better Elijah. I am not a creationist, but I think I can at least explain why creationist hold on to their belief so strongly.
Creation is an idea that came long before the idea of evolution. It and religion are embedded in Western history and culture. That's what makes it so hard to shake.
Going to church on Sunday just makes some people feel good. Without religion, they feel life is empty and meaningless.
Hey Curious George, it was only when I quit going to church (and got a private and more personal relationship with God) that my life stopped being meaningless and empty.
With my mom a Lutheran and my dad a geologist, I got a mix of religion and science growing up. I feel the Bible is a book of morality and a historical account how some people dealt with their world. I've never been a creationist, but take the Genesis story in as much stride as other beginning myths.
------------------
"On the edge of sleep, I awoke to a sun so bright..."
Erm...? What is this? The BBQ pit is the one place where the debate is level-headed and interesting? I guess that's what I meant when I said Hell was filled with interesting people. "BBQ Pit" reminds creationists a little too much of the Fiery Pits.
Hey, this is a place to flame. So allow me.
GODDAMMIT WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH YOU CREATIONISTS? HOW CAN YOU ACCEPT THE BIBLE BLINDLY AND YET CRITICISE SCIENCE WITHOUT EVEN DOUBLE-CHECKING YOUR FACTS?
Aaah.
Creation is an idea that came long before the idea of evolution. It and religion are embedded in Western history and culture. That's what makes it so hard to shake.
*sigh* Yeah yeah, I know. Just like heliocentrism and the Big Bang; the modus operandi of Science is to question everything, and that of the Church is to accept Faith.
It's just frustrating that creationists question Science with such zeal they never apply to the most contradictory of their beliefs. Questioning Science should always be done; but ignorant dismissal and dishonest sophisms merits only contempt.
I get a taste of how Newton and Galileo must have felt.
Oh, geez, I'm gonna get flamed out the door here, but what the hell...
to provide a christian response to SB's original post:
1) If you cast doubt on anything not written by a direct witness, then how can you be so sure of evolution? For that matter, great amounts of our history is written second-and third-hand. Are we to chuck it all? If you're going to be skeptical, you gotta run it both ways.
2) The Archaeological evidence does not prove the Bible to be true, just as the fact that my grandmother hasd never lied to me doesn't >prove< that she someday won't. The point is that the bible is a historically reliable document, used by archaeologists and historians of all persuasions, and held by them to be accurate in its history. Proof? No. Credible? Yes.
3) There is no contradiction between Science and Religion. Many great scientists (Newton, Pascal) were devout believers, and for much of history, the church actively patronized science, just as it did the arts. The percieved dichotomy is of recent vintage.
And the idea that 6 days may mean 6 "eras" or "epochs" possibly lasting millions of years each is >very< common among Christians (Yes even fundamentalists). This view is not inconsistient with the wording of the Hebrew text.
4) I agree with your statement about the existence of God being a matter of faith and unprovable. But you seem to want to have it both ways. You castigate christians for being too ready to believe in something without proof, and then when they say they have proof, you say that evidence invalidates faith. Which way do you want it?
And as to your assertion that the bible was "rewritten," you are at odds with the facts. As a history buff, you are no doubt aware that our whole knowledge of Ceasar rests on a dozen or so manuscripts dating centuries after his death, and that everything we have on Socrates is in about 6 MSS dating centuries after his death. For Jesus, on the other hand, there are >40,000< MSS, some dating to the first century. Doesn't make it true, of course, but it is the best-preserved historical document we have prior to Gutenberg.
As an aside, I reccommend Cecil's column on Jesus. very fair and accurate, I thought.
Gosh, furt, you made a few good points up there. :)
Regarding Science and Religion being at odds: indeed, Science has long been a religious activity, whereby you learned of God's nature by studying His work. I think it's sad Science is always rejected by Religion because it contradicts earlier beliefs.
Boyle said, 'If Reason and Faith are in contradiction, reexamine your Faith'. Note he didn't say discard your Faith, but try to see how the apparent contradiction can be alleviated by closer examination of the roots of your beliefs.
Science is preoccupied with the How; Religion with the Why. When Science tries to say Why, or when Religion tries to say How, this is when bitter conflicts arise.
My response is that Science doesn't even TRY to say why, but religiosos constantly try to say how AND why.
Science is taking ALL the evidence (while constantly updating) and coming to the most plausible conclusion.
Creation Science is making the conclusion, then gathering ONLY the information that fits the conclusion.
As far as historical accuracy goes, the bible is at best a collection of facts and fables collected from older manuscripts from other civilizations and religions, and crudely reworded to follow a certain belief system.
------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson
In response to furt --
1) I will agree that there is no witnessed evidence to human evolution. The only thing that we have to go by is archaeological evidence of humankind's ancestors. However, since the advent of written history, there is evidence of Evolution, if only in less significant than monkeys-to-human ways. The white moth/grey moth incident tht was explained in another thread is one example.
2) I am not doubting that the Bible may be an accurate record of events that did happen, but there are those (obviously not you) who believe that events portrayed in the Bible are *exactly* as they happened, and that the interpretation of why they happened is correct as well. I can believe the *what*, but not always the *why*
3) As for science and religion not coexisting, what about Galileo? Anybody who claimed that the Earth was not the center of the universe was denounced as a heretic. At that time, it would be easier for a scientist to still be a believer than it would be acceptible for a Christian to believe in science.
4) Yes, I do want it both ways...i was a political science major after all ;)
Seriously though, i'll try to explain away my dichotomy. God, in my mind, is something that cannot, and should not, be proven to exist. The Deus Ex Machina/Man Behind the Curtain should stay where they are. I personally feel that something had to get the evolutionary ball rolling. Which, in a sense, could make me a creationist (i can feel the flames now). The difference between believing in God and believing in Creationsim is that with God, there really is no evidence other than personal belief. Sure, we have everything around us, but what else is there? Any logical statement that can be made to prove God exists can be refuted with a negative, and neither can honestly be proven true (see Thomas Aquinas and Aldous Huxley). Creationism, on the other hand, does have evidence against it. However, i don't feel that humankind now is the same as humankind always has been. According to some recent study, humans are getting fatter. Obviously its because we don't do as much manual labor (on the average) as we used to. Isn't this in its own small way an evolutionary process????
To your point about the Bible. OK, so maybe i was talking a little bit out of my area of expertise (i prefer modern military history myself). However, i still feel that my point about different versions of the Bible is valid. For example, ever see a movie that was taken from a book (or vice versa) and see that things were slightly different between the director's interpretation, the writer's interpretation, and your interpretation? Its all about relativity (which is also a great cop-out ;)
And also, if many Christians feel the way you do, why is there such a backlash against Darwin and Evolution on their part? Maybe its just the part of the country i live in, but there are still those (a vocal minority, granted, but still being heard) that believe that Creationism should still be taught in public schools.
Like Elijah was saying, ther really isnt that much of a contradiction between Science and Religion, its just that i can't understand why more people don't see it that way.
I guess i just get frustrated by the "unenlightened" who prefer to take the Bible word-for-word as fact, rather than allegory. Of course, this really is the wrong place to try and fight ignorance in.
too many enlightened people here (which is why i come)
------------------
shiner bock
"Now its over, I'm dead and I haven't done anything that I want, or I'm still alive and there's nothing I want to do." -- They Might Be Giants
SB, we'd better be careful, we're being civil, and this is the internet after all. We'd better start making personal attacks.
1) Agree, no problem.
2) I AM one of those people. I believe the bible to be literally true and accurate, every durn word. However, "believing the bible literally" is often misunderstood. One example is when people miss the imoprtance of intent. If someone asks what I did last night, I say "Bill and I had a couple of beers together," that can be a true statement even if the actual number of beers was 3. I answered the question accurately. In the same manner, If the Bible says "Jesus fed 5000 people," the point of the passage is that there were >about< 5000 people. If there were 5002, that's beside the point.
The other common error is that people think a literal reading means excluding allegory. It doesn't, of course, because Jesus says things like "I am the Door," and nobody thinks he means he's made of plate glass. The only question is which things are intended as allegory, and which are written as history. Some things--the miracles of christ, for instance--are presented as historical events that really happened, and one must accept or reject them on that basis (I accept them). Psalms, on the other hand is poetry, and should be read as such--containing spiritual truths, and not meant to be taken as history.
Of course, some things are somewhat unclear as to whether or not they are allegory, and some Christians disagree. Job, Jonah, and Creation are examples of this.
This is not "my" take on this, BTW, this is literal interpretation as it is taught in conservative/evangelical/fundamentalist seminaries (I know, I went). If someone tells you that they believe the earth is stationary because the Bible says "The sun rose," tell them to talk to their pastor.
3) Galelio: No question, the church pulled a rock on this one. Dead flat wrong. Of course, science has pulled a few too--remember Piltdown Man? Everybody who was anybody in paleontology was saying this was the missing link, the last nail in the creationist coffin. Then it turned out to be a pig. We all make mistakes...
4) Again we agree. The question of God's existence is not a scientific one.
I can think of at least 3 reasons for the current perception that Science and religion are opposed. First, Christians way overreacted to Darwin. (As did many people) Nobody knew what to make of it, it scared the crap out of them to think of Humans and apes were cousins, and it upset everyone's preconcieved ideas. (much like galileo) It took them awhile to figure out that "Y'know, this doesn't >necessarily< go against the Bible." People often believe what they want to believe, and they put words into other people's mouths to back them up. God's is a handy mouth to put words in.
Secondly, there was, and is, the idea loose that a literal 144-hour creation is essential to Christianity. It isn't.
Thirdly, a number of prominent Scientists have been quite aggressively hostile to Christianity. Steven Jay Gould is one currently, There were others in the early 20th century. Understandably, this poisoned the waters a bit.
It should be noted, finally, that almost all of the people who see a conflict are working in evolutionary biology. Many mathmeticians, physicists, and especially astronomers talk about "design" in the universe and the "Miracle" of the big bang, etc.
furt
Member posted 04-30-99 01:12 PM
Oh, geez, I'm gonna get flamed out the door here, but what the hell...
to provide a christian response to SB's original post:
1) If you cast doubt on anything not written by a direct witness, then how can you be so sure of evolution? For that matter, great amounts of our history is written second-and third-hand. Are we to chuck it all? If you're going to be skeptical, you gotta run it both ways.
Furt, there's this thing called Provenance. Not Providence, "provenance." Scan the dictionary for a concise definition.
What it boils down to is that one accepts a certain story as reliable based on the reliablity of the person who told it to you, and on the reliability of the person who told it to him, etc.
In Islam, this procedure created the Hadith which is an explanation of the origins of their practices, not the origin of their religion.
A key point is that a Hadith is not considered valid if there's a gap in the telling, such as "John heard it said that Jack told Jill and then Jill told Harry who then told Sally who then told me."
A valid Hadith would be "John heard Jack tell Jill and then Jill told Harry who then told Sally who then told me."
Now what's the "Hadith" for creationism? None. Thanks for the quick answer.
The "Hadith" for history, especially current history, is pretty well obvious. And, yes, I do realize that those facts can be skewed to different agendas. But at least they get reported.
Anyone interested in this topic will find Megabites of similar meusings here:
http://www.nitcentral.com/discus/
under the catagory the kitchen sink/5 most recent/eating a jeep. Its a discussion similsr to this thats been going on for 6 months now. Check it out, but it'll probobly take you about 10 hours to read the religious musings section that is the whole discussion. Eating a jeep proper is a new discussion about the nature of belief/religion/etc... The above terms will makwe sense when you get there
Lets try that again
www.nitcentral.com/discus/ (http://www.nitcentral.com/discus/)
furt -- i accept your challenge to resort to personal attacks...
you rational christian, you!!!!!
aaahhhhh...flaming at its best.
at least we don't resort to "the freemasons are poisoning the wells"
------------------
shiner bock
"Now its over, I'm dead and I haven't done anything that I want, or I'm still alive and there's nothing I want to do." -- They Might Be Giants
Monty--
Again, I turn the question around: what's the Hadith for evolution? "None. Thanks for the quick answer."
They are both questions for which we do not have eyewitnesses, nor even scientific information in the strict sense of the word (observable and duplicatable). What we have are a bunch of rocks and fossils that our current science tells us are millions of years old. But as I noted, science has made plenty of mistakes, and has often done 180 degree shifts in its explanations of things.
Creationists have a document, with, yes, an unbroken provenance (and, yes I know what it means, let's not condescend) going back thousands of years that has been proven to be a reliable historical record again and again by archaeology.
That doesn't mean it must be believed, but given that we do not have an eyewitness account, intellectual honesty requires that it not be dismissed out of hand. If my grandma says she saw a UFO, I might be a bit skeptical, but I'd also remind myself that she's an intellegent, stable person who's never lied to me before.
It comes down to who you choose to believe. And that, amigos, is faith. Whether it's the Bible or Steven Jay Gould, you're picking who you want to trust. Most people understand this instinctively, except for those who are determined to believe that reason and logic alone will save us all. Of course, rationalism itself is a faith. We have no a priori reason for believing that our reasoning is accurate. David Hume, brains in glass jars, etc, etc.
Again, let me reiterate, creationism is NOT Christianity. There are many, many, many who are one without the other. Heck, the Pope accepts evolution as compatible with the Bible's creation account. I personally am undecided, and if you took me back in a time machine to see the primiordial gook, it wouldn't necessarily affect my faith. If the time machine showed me that Christ didn't rise from the dead, then my faith would be ruined--just as Paul said in Corinthians. But evolution? No big deal.
Shiner Bock: 3) As for science and religion not coexisting, what about Galileo? Anybody who claimed that the Earth was not the center of the universe was denounced as a heretic. At that time, it would be easier for a scientist to still be a believer than it would be acceptible for a Christian to believe in science. Thenfurt: 3) Galelio: No question, the church pulled a rock on this one. Dead flat wrong. Of course, science has pulled a few too--remember Piltdown Man? Everybody who was anybody in paleontology was saying this was the missing link, the last nail in the creationist coffin. Then it turned out to be a pig. We all make mistakes...
No. No. No. No. No!
The (RC) Church did not simply condemn Galileo out of hand for publicly proposing the heliocentric theory. Galileo received support and encouragement from two popes to pursue his studies. He got in trouble with the Inquisistion when he insisted that several of his views be taken as corrections to Scripture. This despite the fact that his own science was wrong. He declared that heliocentrism was "proved" at a time when the Church was willing to accept it as a better hypothesis than the terra-centric theory of Ptolemy--yet it was not proved at that time, requiring another 150 or so years before improved telescopes could discern a stellar parallax. He also insisted that the planets' orbits were perfect circles about the sun--a point which his contemporaries knew to be false.
When Galileo was hauled up in front to the Inquisition, he was let off. Twenty years later when he got hauled up again, a letter was "discovered" in the original case records that ordered him to be silent on the subject. There is some evidence that this letter was a forgery planted by one of the many enemies he made with his frequent harsh personal attacks. It was on the basis of his obvious violation of this (now suspicious) letter that he was put under house arrest.
The Church never condemned the heliocentric theory. The enraged court that convicted him did use a phrase refering to his "heresy" of heliocentrism--but they had gone overboard in their anger because heliocentrism has never been a heresy and has been supported by Catholic scholars since Galileo first made his theories known.
On the other side:
Piltdown man was recognized as and condemned as a fraud (or a terrible error) from its initial "discovery." It was never cpmpletely accepted by the scientific community. Its loudest champions got it into the popular press, but it was never given the stamp of approval by the paeontological or anthropological communities.
Piltdown man--as with the trial of Galileo--has a whole lot more to do with substituting popular mythology for facts than with understanding actual events.
(BTW, I hope that the reference to "pig" regarding the Piltdown man was a shortening of "pig in a poke" or something similar. I hope none of our more impressionable readers took that to mean an actual pig--the hoax was done by marrying human and ape bones.)
------------------
Tom~
Tom:
As I am too lazy to read back in this thread, I am going to guess that the "pig" in question is "Nebraska Man." Back in the Thirties (I believe) a tooth was found in a deposit of fossils from the invasion of North America by Asian animals. That was when camels and cats came over (IIRC) (the camels moved down to South America and became llamas). The tooth looked like that of an anthropoid ape and was tentatively identified as such. A writer of popular science articles thought it would be more interesting to illustrate it as belonging to a Homo erectus type homonid rather than a pongoid ape. Thus Hesperopithecus became viewed as an erly man.
Within six years, the discoverer of the tooth found more. These were associated with a jawbone, and the jawbone was clearly not a primate, but a peccary. The discoverer promptly wrote up his misidentification, and Hesperopithecus disappeared from the literature except for Creationist tracts.
I have never felt that Hesperopithecus deserved to be mentioned in the same breath as Eoanthropus. Piltdown was a conscious fraud (possibly starting out as a joke, but since we still don't know for sure who did it we cannot tell). Hesperopithecus was an honest error, corrected by the same person who announced it as soon as further evidence became available.
------------------
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
"You cannot reason a man out of a position that he did not use reason to reach."
What a nice debate.
I did however, take offense at Furt's characterization of Stephen Jay Gould as "Openly Hostile to Christians". As somebody who has read most of his books, I can say that I have read much about the so-called conflicts between religion and science and never read a harsh word against Christians. I suppose Furt would consider the late Isaac Asimov's and Carl Sagan's writings as hostile. In fact, I would say that Mr. Gould has done more to bridge the gulf between science and religion and to expose this myth of hostility between the two.
What Mr. Gould is "hostile" against was not religion or Christianity but the pseudoscience called "Creationism" (He even testified in front of the Supreme Court on this issue). This distinction doesn't seem to have been made. I would hope that there is not a scientist who would take umbrage at anybody who believes in a God. But what people like Gould have fought against is the anti-intellectual hogwash called "Creation Science".
There are not fossils of sea life on the tops of mountains because of Noah's flood. The Earth is NOT 6,000 years old. Carbon and other methods of dating fossils are somewhat accurate. Man and ape do share obvious inherited traits (We and chimps are 98% identical!). Mammals do have a common ancester. This is the way God made this world and we all have to deal with it. Denying the evidence does nobody any good.
I'm sorry, but if your "religious" beliefs included teaching your children that the sky is pink and grass is orange, I would have to tell you that you are wrong, and yes, I would fight like hell to keep you from teaching this in public schools and would be consider.
The only thing that Gould has been hostile toward is ignorance and anti-intellectualism. Fighting ignorance is an uphill battle at best. I would point you toward Gould's newest book: "Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms."
I would also like to take this oppurtunity to point out another myth of Science vs Religion: Columbus believed the Earth was round, everyone else (The Church) thought it was flat. Of course the real debate was over the size of the Earth, and the Church won that battle.
I'm not too sure what has possessed me to post here today, but here goes. I am a religious man. I believe in god. I realize that that statement alone sets me up to be lambasted by many and thought of as a stupid man. But what's so wrong with that. I wish we were all religious men. I wish we all could follow the words of the bible. The world would be a better place. I believe the words of the bible to be true. Now when I say that I don't mean to suggest that everything in the bible is "true" - meaning factual. No, what I mean is that the bible is truth. It is what the bible represents that is important. It represents a way for humans to live together civilly. Now of course someone will retort "That's nice maury…seems like every war that's been fought was because of religion." You're right. It's unfortunate that even the religious must squabble over fine points and lose perspective of the underlying meaning. But that's human nature.
So what happens when science replaces religion? What happens when you teach children in school that evolution is how we got here? That's fine but what of the consequences? What happens when people think that they are an insignificant particle in this whole massive universe. here only by freak chance? They go on living their life thinking that no matter what they do in life it has no lasting consequence. Crazy things start happening. Maybe they run into their school and shot a bunch of people. (There's a statement that I'll take hell for). But think of it. Did they worry about ending their life? Did they worry about ending the life of others. Now I know that's extreme, but something is wrong with people today. You have to admit, some crazy sh*t is going on. Why? When people (esp. children) don't think anyone is watching over their shoulder, they are more willing to do bad things. They're not afraid of consequences. People inherently know the difference between right and wrong. However, they need to be taught that there is something worse than jail if they do wrong.
With that, I will say one other thing then watch as the beating of Maury begins. Something that has always bothered me about science is the illusion of discovery. Supposedly someone discovered that famous double helix, DNA. Now, did they discover it, or was it already there? We call it DNA, but is it really called something else. Another thing while I'm on this DNA topic. Supposedly we come from chimps because our DNA is extremely similar. If I was in the kitchen making some brownies, I'd mix up a bunch of crap stick it in the oven and voila…brownies. If I wanted to make brownies with nuts, something very similar, but different, I wouldn't expect to keep mixing the same batch after batch after batch until whammo, by some freak chance I suddenly had nuts. Bad analogy, maybe. But the point is, just because something is a lot alike doesn't mean it evolved from the other. It just means they're a lot alike. One other thing for you science types. It bothers me to watch a program aimed at children, (i.e. Bill Nye) and speak of the big bang as fact. A true scientist should always make a distinction between theory and law. Until you have proved the Law of Big Bang, don't speak of it as fact.
Don't forget, these Bible stories came from somewhere. Unfortunately, they became so exaggerated over time that people don't want to swallow the information as truth. In today's society if we don't see it we don't believe it. Back then information was passed by word of mouth. Passed on from generation to generation by storytellers. Not a satellite dish broadcast - "Creation, live at five". These stories were meant to be dramatic, full of metaphor, they were entertaining if anything else. But they had a meaning - a meaning that somehow got lost. Love one another like your brother. Don't kill. Don't covet. Turn the other cheek. Greed is bad. Respect your parents. Do unto others. I ask you, where else do we learn these things today?
So don't be afraid to have a little faith. Admit to yourself that you don't know everything. Admit your shortcomings. Admit that there just might be more to it than you know. Speak to God one night. It will make you feel better. Love your wife. Love your children. Love your mother. Love your father. Love your neighbor. Love a stranger. Love a creationist for heaven's sake. Agree to disagree. Who says we're not both right?
Maury
I believe in god. I realize that that statement alone sets me up to be lambasted by many and thought of as a stupid man.
I don't think of you as a stupid man for believing in God. Faith is an essential part of human condition, and the fact religion was probably invented before fire goes to show how deeply rooted it is in mankind's consciousness.
[The Bible] represents a way for humans to live together civilly.
So does the Torah and the Koran. Why is the Bible privileged in that respect?
[Highschool shootings] Did they worry about ending their life? Did they worry about ending the life of others. Now I know that's extreme, but something is wrong with people today.
Lemme get this straight. You're blaming highschool shootouts and violence on the teaching of evolution in school?
I'm being sarcastic, of course; but I still disagree with your general point: that science leads to people feeling insignificant. If anything, science has taught me how important individual lives are, whereas religion just told me some Tyrant oversaw everything and condemned me based on petty larceny.
Society teaches children to act in despair, not science. While religion provides a "recipe" for social conduct, it also leads to a number of other neurosis. Catholicism is a long guilt trip, and if anything, dealing with that guilt can make you more miserable than being carefree.
Furthermore, is it alright to lie to children so that they grow up "good" members of "society"? I don't think so. You're deterring evolution just because it leads, in your view, to violence. I think that's a poor excuse.
However, they need to be taught that there is something worse than jail if they do wrong.
Again; do you think the value of religion is that it puts fear of Hell in you? That's pathetic. It's a scare tactic not worthy of consideration. It's obvious a notion such as Hell exists to scare believers into obedience, but there is so much such a tactic can bring. It's better to teach, educate and responsibilise people than to beat them into moral submission.
A true scientist should always make a distinction between theory and law. Until you have proved the Law of Big Bang, don't speak of it as fact.
There is no such thing as the Law of Big Bang; it's a theory, but it doesn't mean it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and it's proven by experience.
What about the theory of gravity? Do you disbelieve it because it's just a theory? Still, it has extensive proof, and it holds you to the ground.
Love one another like your brother. Don't kill. Don't covet. Turn the other cheek. Greed is bad. Respect your parents. Do unto others. I ask you, where else do we learn these things today?
You don't learn it, you live it. And I don't need a book to teach it to me.
Who would you rather face? Someone who won't kill you because he fears eternal damnation, or someone who won't kill you because he believes it is fundamentally unethical to do so?
I have my own principles, morals and behavioral code. You know, you don't need to fear God to behave yourself.
Speak to God one night.
I tried, but all I get is an answering machine, and He doesn't return my calls.
Elijah,
You'll have to tell me how you captured those quotes. Unitl then..
1) We stick to the ground because Newton's theory of gravity became Newton's Law of Gravity. A very distintive point according to the scientific method. A typo on your behalf perhaps...if not, my point exactly. There is a very big difference between the two, and unfortunately they are sometimes used interchangeably. I understand there is no Law of the Big Bang. That is my point. There is a theory however.
2) The shootouts may have been a poor example. One that needed more clarification than is easily communicated in a posting. I am not saying evolution=15 dead in a high school. What I am saying is that I see a general pattern going on here and I blame people who don't believe in eternal consequence. You call it a scare tactic unworthy of consideration. You call it that because you don't believe it. I call it living an eternity with the guilt of the horrible thing you did.
3) So where did you get this code you live by? Your parents, your peers, your books? Like it or not, they trickled down from the Bible. And beating people into moral submission? You suggest educating and responsibilising people. With what may I ask. Man's law. That's great, but what is it based on primarily?
The most important thing we all should take from this is a little lesson in humility. I certainly am not an expert in any of these matters. I know what I believe and sometimes I'm not sure I even know that. Who knows, hopefully you science guys will figure it all out and tell us who the hell God is someday. I just pray he's not pissed. Hopefully that was his plan the entire time. He's just waiting for us to figure it all out. Or then again, maybe he's right here in front of our face reading our every word. I've often wondered how this Cecil guy knows all this stuff.
Maury
furt: [[3) Galelio: No question, the church pulled a rock on this one. Dead flat wrong. Of course, science has pulled a few too--remember Piltdown Man? Everybody who was anybody in paleontology was saying this was the missing link, the last nail in the creationist coffin. Then it turned out to be a pig. We all make mistakes... ]]]
No no -- that was Piltdown Pig, the ancestor of Wonder Warthog and Paranoid Punkpig.
[[ The shootouts may have been a poor example. One that needed more clarification than is easily communicated in a posting. I am not saying evolution=15 dead in a high school. What I am saying is that I see a general pattern going on here and I blame people who don't believe in eternal consequence.]] Maury
Someone should have told that to all the people who have been killed by suicidal nuts convicned they were thereby going to a better world. Really, it is lame to foment belief in a fantasy for purposes of social control. People should do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, not because the Spirit in the Sky will reward them or punish them.
[[So where did you get this code you live by? Your parents, your peers, your books? Like it or not, they trickled down from the Bible. And beating people into moral submission? You suggest educating and responsibilising people. With what may I ask. Man's law. That's great, but what is it based on primarily?]]
Logic, plus respect for the dignity and autonomy of humans.
I would also like to take this oppurtunity to point out another myth of Science vs Religion: Columbus believed the Earth was round, everyone else (The Church) thought it was flat. Of course the real debate was over the size of the Earth, and the Church won that battle.
Aye. It's a popular misconception that the Earth was believed to be flat in medieval times, when it was known to be round even back in Aristotle's time.
However, the big argument was over whether the Earth spun around the Sun. I recommend Umberto Eco's The Island of the Day Before for a hilarious discussion on the Earth's movement between a Jesuit and a Paris intellectual.
It reminds me, also, of Aristotle's argument against the rotation of the Earth:
If the Earth spun:
1) There would be a permanent wind from the east;
2) If we jumped, we would land a few feet to the west;
3) The Earth would fall apart under the centrifugal force;
4) Ships would take a longer time navigating eastward.
Since anything can be proven by the bible, laws that are biblically based can be the most dangerous of all. Remember, for every verse, there is an equal but opposite verse.
Using the bible to "prove" any scientific point merely points out your personal prejudices, not your intelligence.
------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson
AAAAUGH! Okay.. I need to respond.. this is just too hard to keep my mouth shut.
"It bothers me to watch a program aimed at children, (i.e. Bill Nye) and speak of the big bang as fact. A true scientist should always make a distinction between theory and law. Until you have proved the Law of Big Bang, don't speak of it as fact."
Whoa... we are talking about KIDS here. There is a certain amount of age appropriateness? Have you ever tried to explain an abstract aspect of life to a six year old? Have you ever read the wonderfully entertaining explanations of God by kids? How about a thirteen year old's view of how the world works? Not until highschool are children even slightly equipped to deal with abstracts such as "science has no answers, only ideas" and then it's still not quite sinking in. There are stages we go through psychologically. I don't care if you ascribe to a stage theory of development or a continuum theory, the fact is, you try to give that kind of info to a kid, and you will end up with a seriously confused kid. In other words, (if I may use a biblical analogy) you will have just given a child who was learning to eat solids, a twelve course meal. Personally, I think that mr Nye does a wonderful job of offering the basics of science to children who are often still in a "rule" stage of development with a need for limits and understandable boundaries. Then, you expect that when they are older, someone will continue to take responsibility for furthering their education within an college setting (wherein there are STILL those who work within the "rule" stage.. we all develop at different rates) and begin to challenge the belief of Proof and Fact.
"Again; do you think the value of religion is that it puts fear of Hell in you? That's pathetic. It's a scare tactic not worthy of consideration."
I find that I agre with this. :0) Anyone who has tried to punish a child can say, that the child will simply try to get away with it later. Punishment often creates shame and guilt, fear of punishment cuts down on self esteem and kills assertiveness... However, if you teach the means of living, then often I think, with the tools and the respect given the individual as a human being, there is more likely going to be a positive change. The bible doesn't go around saying "Everyone who doesn't do as I (God) say, is going to HELLLLLL *evil laugh*" No.. it says "I (God) am Love, and Love is about Grace and even though that is beyond your human comprehension (have you ever really tried to understand how inclusive that concept is? It's beyond my imagination.. limitless) I don't care what you've done, I want you here with Me." Seems to me, the bible does more positive reinforcement than punishment. Saying things like the rich can't enter the kingdom of heaven, but with God everything is possible.. etc.. *F* I'm rambling ain't I? My point is this.. God is the God of second chances and the God of "but" *S* that the word is filled with LAW and then BUT... *S* We are FREE from the law.. not held by it. Why does God consistantly say Do NOT fear? Love and Fear are not the same thing.
"proven by experience."
I seem to be posting this everywhere.. Science has nothing to do with proof. :0) It only concerns itself with disproof. I take my experience, decide on a possible manner of explanation, and then set out to find exceptions to that manner of explanation (a hypothesis) and if I do, then I rearrange my explanation.. if my explanation isn't hit with exceptions for a while, then it might become a theory.. or even a law.. but it's ALWAYS suspect.. people will always try to find the exception to the rule. Or may even just stumble across it without meaning to. Science has no concept of proof (as in answer). Only disproof. *g*
"Like it or not, they trickled down from the Bible."
I have to say that I believe the Bible says differently. And I think, that may just be a bit more ethnocentric of a view than we like to admit. :0) In fact, the bible states that there is an inherant understanding of what is right and wrong. That we are judged according to our knowledge of the law. (being God's law) That if we are ignorant of the law, then we are not judged by it. :0) So, what I'm trying to say, is that the knowledge of good and bad, doesn't come from the bible. It comes from God. (this is for Maury.. I'm using a biblical argument, not a scientific one, therefore I'm not sure I'll be able to argue semantics and hypothesis with the same breath.) And knowledge of God comes from seeing His creation. I realize I'm not using verses. And I'd be wiling to find them if you aren't familiar with the sources that I'm citing offhandedly.
Of course.. I COULD be arguing a manner of interpretation. *sighs* So let me put a disclaimer on this. :0) This is how I've seen a side of the truth, that I'm afraid I can't truly understand. Therefore, I'm not sure any of what I say is really an answer. I mean, really, if you look at it from the correct point of view (meaning, realizign that we are all limited beings with no realy concept of what the world or the universe or God for that matter is about ..like trying to describe an oak tree by staring at a leaf...) then nothing of what I say, is likely to be even remotely correct. *g* Which is nice, because that also means no one else has the answers either.
(I'm taking a chance and entering this one. and JDP? *w* I know you have some amazing ideas on this... )
------------------
Settle within the rushes and listen to the lark
Singing o'er hillock and dale.
Praise to the heavens and making his mark,
From atop our farthest fence rail.
1) We stick to the ground because Newton's theory of gravity became Newton's Law of Gravity.
Sp before that, people just floated around at random?
A very distintive point according to the scientific method.
I bet you don't know jack shit about the scientific method, but for our viewers at home, please explain when a theory becomes a law. For bonus points, explain what a theory is.
A typo on your behalf perhaps...if not, my point
exactly. There is a very big difference between the two,
There really isn't, not in science.
and unfortunately they are sometimes used interchangeably. I understand there is no Law of the Big Bang. That is my point. There is a theory however.
So explain why relativity is referred to as a theory when all its predictions have been borne out (most recently by the Hipparcos satellite, which provided amazingly accurate measurements of gravitational lensing).
The predictions made by the big bang theory are the most accurate we have to date, and explain more things than any other testable hypothesis.
2) The shootouts may have been a poor example. One that needed more clarification than is easily communicated in a posting. I am not saying evolution=15 dead in a high school. What I am saying is that I see a general pattern going on here and I blame people who don't believe in eternal
consequence. You call it a scare tactic unworthy of consideration. You call it that because you don't believe it. I call it living an eternity with the guilt of the horrible thing you did.
Please don't pretend that the entire Old Testament after Genesis is not composed of thousands of people constantly hacking thousands of other people to bits, including women and children. Why, one might begin to think that behavior was acceptable! And please don't pretend that people who do believe in eternal consequence don't also perpetrate these same atrocities (Shiites, Catholics . . .)
Besides, if you're going to believe in stuff you made up and can't prove, shouldn't it at least be pleasant?
3) So where did you get this code you live by? Your parents, your peers, your books? Like it or not,
they trickled down from the Bible. And beating people into moral submission? You suggest educating
and responsibilising people. With what may I ask. Man's law. That's great, but what is it based on
primarily?
So, how did preBiblical societies thousands of years ago decide not to murder and rape each other at will?
Basically, your whole philosophy comes down to "I think we should believe in really unpleasant made-up stuff and teach it to children as a way to force them to behave through fear, mostly because I am generally uncomfortable with real life and the facts of the universe."
------------------
** Phil D. **
"Not only is the world queerer than we imagine,
it is queerer than we can imagine."
--J.B.S. Haldane
You'll have to tell me how you captured those quotes. Unitl then..
Sure thing. Check out http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/ubbcode.html
1) We stick to the ground because Newton's theory of gravity became Newton's Law of Gravity. A very distintive point according to the scientific method. A typo on your behalf perhaps...if not, my point exactly. There is a very big difference between the two, and unfortunately they are sometimes used interchangeably. I understand there is no Law of the Big Bang. That is my point. There is a theory however.
I know I'm being facetious, but... We do not stick to the ground because Newton formulated the Law of Gravity. We did so long before he did.
Now, there was no typo on my part. Science makes a clear distinction between a law and a theory, but scientists tend to throw the terms around without clarifying them.
So, a law is a mathematical affirmation, a mathematical behaviour if you will. A theory is an attempt to describe reality. Just keep this in mind: law is mathematical, theory is physical.
The law of gravity, as postulated by Newton, is this:
F = G*m1*m2/r^2
where F is the resulting force, G a constant called the "gravitational constant" (not to be confused with g), m1 and m2 the masses attracting each other, and r the distance between the two.
That is Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton's Theory of Gravity is that bodies attract one another following the Law of Gravity.
As it turns out, Newton's Theory of Gravity turned out to be wrong when the Theory of General Relativity walked in. It's not that we were wrong all along, but it turned out that Newton's theory was a special case of General Relativity; i.e., it worked in most day-to-day cases, but was inadequate to describe more specific cases, such as the bending of light near a massive object.
2) The shootouts may have been a poor example. One that needed more clarification than is easily communicated in a posting. I am not saying evolution=15 dead in a high school. What I am saying is that I see a general pattern going on here and I blame people who don't believe in eternal consequence. [...]
Again, I reiterate my point: I do not kill fellow human beings because I fear the consequences; I do so because I believe it is unethical to do so. I do not need fear of Hell to behave myself in society.
3) So where did you get this code you live by? Your parents, your peers, your books? Like it or not, they trickled down from the Bible.
It's the other way around. Are you saying Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, and any other civilisation that predated christianism were incapable of behaving themselves, that they had no code of ethics?
Rather, the Bible was built around ethical principles trickled down from previous civilisations. "Thou shalt not kill" is easy enough to formulate and pass down as a sensible law, not necessarely as a God-given order. Of course, it is easier to enforce sense on a primitive community by appending fear of eternal punishment.
If anything, my personal code of ethics was built by an initial reaction of religion. I began asking myself why it was so wrong to have sex outside of marriage, almost as much as killing your fellow man. Why is it wrong not to go to Church?
After some time, I selectively built my own moral standards that endure to this day. My principles are based on introspection, on logic, but also on compassion. They stem from myself and not from some ancient book which condemns homosexuality in the same breath as it tells you what to wear.
Who knows, hopefully you science guys will figure it all out and tell us who the hell God is someday. I just pray he's not pissed.
I sometimes think that God may have imposed Religion on humanity so he can sort out those who do not accept prefabricated ideas and will seek the truth no matter the threat of eternal damnation. Then, he keeps those around Him for His eternal enjoyment.
I know I'd probably do that if I were Him. I'd rather sit with Socrates, Nietzsche, Einstein, Galileo and Newton than have to suffer millions chanting my name for Eternity, when all they had to do to get in was obey principles blindly. If this were the case, lemmings, and not humans, would be God's chosen people. :)
I wrote:
Again, I reiterate my point: I do not kill fellow human beings because I fear the consequences; I do so because I believe it is unethical to do so. I do not need fear of Hell to behave myself in society.
*laugh* Oops, I just exposed myself as a raving Satanist who murder babies. Darn double negatives. :)
Correct statement:
The reason I do not kill fellow human beings is not because I fear the consequences, but because I believe it is unethical to do so.
I probably had the wrong reference with the piltdown man thing, but the point remains; Science regulary finds that what was once settled "fact" turns out not to be true at all. This does not mean that science is bad or invalid, but just that its a little silly to think that we've got it all figured out and our current scientific models are waterproof.
--Elijah: "It's obvious a notion such as Hell exists to scare believers into obedience"
Actually, it's not obvious, especially as many Christians believe in "eternal security," or "once saved, saved forever."
--Sara Alexis "In fact, the bible states that there is an inherant understanding of what is right and wrong. That we are judged according to our knowledge of the law. (being God's law) That if we are ignorant of the law, then we are not judged by it."
Citation, please. You might want to stay away from Matthew 5, Romans 2:12
"The bible doesn't go around saying "Everyone who doesn't do as I (God) say, is going to HELLLLLL *evil laugh*" No.. it says "I (God) am Love, and Love is about Grace and even though that is beyond your human comprehension...I don't care what you've done, I want you here with Me."
You are right in asserting that God is not out looking to waste people for the sheer joy of it, but you are missing the rather clear indication in the Bible that God also cares about Justice. Would God save an unrepentant Hitler?
Citation, please. You might want to stay away from Matthew 5, Romans 2:12
Why? Because these parts of the Bible are not true?
Would God save an unrepentant Hitler?
Would God save a repentant Hitler? Is that true Justice?
I probably had the wrong reference with the piltdown man thing, but the point remains; Science regulary finds that what was once settled "fact" turns out not to be true at all. This does not mean that science is bad or invalid, but just that its a little silly to think that we've got it all figured out and our current scientific models are waterproof.
Well, of course there are questions and contradictions in science; that's exactly what science IS. However, once something has been kicked around for a few decades, the questions are those of refinement, the contradictions those of minutiae. The point is, just because science may be wrong (and this must always be a possibility; if it ain't falsifiable, it ain't a theory) on details, saying "Einstein/Darwin/Gould's work is just theory, so my half-assed explanation of reality is just as valid as theirs" is not a valid criticism of their work.
Romans 2:12 "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law".
However, having scanned the rest of the passage and the posts relating to the above quote quickly, I decline to speculate on which interpretation of the Bible is better supported.
On the issue of whether God is truly a just God. I think sometimes we forget how completely unworthy we all really are of God's love and mercy. A statement by Will Campbell when asked for a 10 word definition of Christianity "We're all bastards, but God loves us anyway" . (Yes, I know that's 8 words, he declined to use his other two words). This was the title of a sermon I heard recently. (aside: the minister commented that he'd gotten flack from three groups of people with respect to the sermon title. There were those who don't think that the word "bastard" is an appropriate word to use, especially in church. There are those who are uncomfortable being called "bastards". And, there are those who don't think that those people who merit the name (as commonly used in the pejorative sense, not with reference to legitimacy) should be loved by God)
Anyway, the point of the illustration was that if God does not love us all, regardless of merit, than he can't truly love any of us, because NONE of us merit God's love. God has to love the KKK member, as well as the black man who the KKK member persecutes. God has to love the men who killed Matthew Shepard just as much as he does Matthew Shepard. God has to love the ax-murderer on death row just as much as Mother Teresa.
As people though, we tend to like to divide other people into groups of "worthy" and "unworthy", forgetting that in God's view we are all unworthy. We like to believe in the power of deathbed conversions for our loved ones who lived "good" lives (at least relative to Hitler) but failed to recognize God. On the other hand, we tend to act suspicious of "Born-again Christians". The more dramatic the change in someone's outlook and behavior, the more suspicious we sometimes are as to whether the person is sincere.
Enough. I could continue, but I'm not sure that I'd be adding clarity to what I've written.
Actually, it's not obvious, especially as many Christians believe in "eternal security," or "once saved, saved forever."
Does that mean I can live a totally amoral life, go around fornicating and blaspheming, and then go to Confession once my health starts to decline? As I understand it, as long as you have time to prepare, you can be forgiven and saved from Hell.
I guess the unlucky ones are the ones who die in a car accident or from a stroke. If given enough advance warning, you get to reevalue your ways out of mortal fear, and voila. It's when you know you're gonna die that you start growing religious, so you are quite willing to repent then. Your passport for Heaven is stamped.
But if all you can say when you get to the Pearly Gates is, "Huh? Where did that truck come from?" and you lived a life of sin, you're not allowed in.
Sounds like a fair gamble... Live a simple life and deny yourself the pleasures of life in the name of sanctity and sacrifice, and be allowed into Heaven, or live your life to the fullest, and hope (pray?) you'll have enough time to call the neighborhood priest.
quote:
-----
I probably had the wrong reference with the piltdown man thing, but the point remains; Science regulary finds that what was once settled "fact" turns out not to be true at all. This does not mean that science is bad or invalid, but just that its a little silly to think that we've got it all figured out and our current scientific models are waterproof.
-----
This illustrates an interesting point. Many scientists believed strongly in the Piltdown man. Too strongly, one might say. However, once the dis-proof was discovered (it was correctly identified as a human/monkey bastard) it was quickly dropped. Does this illustrate the infallibility of Science? The folly of Science? No. But it does illustrate that once disproof of a theory/hypothesis is discovered, science, maybe a little slowly, will admit it's wrong and move on.
Let us contrast this with the folks who still believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Despite centuries of evidence of the ancient age of the Earth, this belief still persists. There are still those who believe that the Earth is flat or hollow. I don't need to explain the evidence against these gems.
It's been a couple of hundred of years that the theory of evolution has been around (the idea did not start with Darwin, he simply refined it) and yet nobody has yet to uncover ANY evidence against, and this smoking gun doesn't seem to be coming soon. If things didn't evolve, the world was certainly built as if they did.
And lets put this absurd "rational thinking breeds killers" idea to rest. Do we forget David Korresh/Jim Jones/that bald cult guy in California (the internet sneakers guys).
Let me also say: Evolution and Religion are not mutually exclusive. Where do these ideas come from.
Creationism vs. Evolution? Man!
All I have to say is, posting to talk.origins about Creationism is just like posting to sci.lang about the Tower of Babel.
(talk.origins was just an example.)
------------------
"If A=B, B=C, and C=D, do not get a job proofreading" --Quid's Theorem
*hmmm*
I have to admit, that my trying to flame is not a very good idea. *L* Sorry if I was rough (and I realize I was overly so, for my own standards if for none others)...
As for the citations, it seems the interpretations along with the rest of the passage have already been left up in the air as to what side you wish to take (no prospect of resolution or understanding I don't believe). And to tell you the truth, I was in the midst of doing something I knew to be wrong (and I apologize) which was singing out dogma and such. To be entirely truthful, my own interpretations of the bible and of the world around me, is not going to change any one else's ideas or interpretations. And I dare say, I'd only be shouting in the wind (I mean.. that IS what flaming is isn't it?). So, I do hope, no one finds this cowardly, but I will take my own post and run with my tail between my legs for cover. I'm not about to change anyone's mind, and I dare say, I hate to simply shout and not expect to understand or be understood. Thank you though, for entertaining my ideas. I do intend to continue to read, this is an amazingly interesting string. But I think I'll keep this mouth of mine shut and hope for the best. Keep up the wonderful ideas guys. I have a lot of respect for the brave that are trudging head long into this conversation.
~Sara
------------------
Settle within the rushes and listen to the lark
Singing o'er hillock and dale.
Praise to the heavens and making his mark,
From atop our farthest fence rail.
Hmm. Traditional good cop/bad cop routine:
"I don't want to kill your loved ones. But if you don't listen to me and do as I say, I will be forced to do it. It will be your own fault."
So God loves us all, but when we're damned because of, say, being raised in the wrong religion, being beaten by your parents until you turn into a serial killer, or dressing as a bat because your parents died before you (sniff), it's not God's fault. He loves you, but you just wouldn't listen.
I call it psychological manipulation. It's the fault of the one who sets the rules, and I don't buy into that tactic.
We believe in a transcendental justice which will make everything right once we die; we do so because we know it doesn't exist on Earth. But is true justice possible?
What if you die, and one day, in Heaven, you run into Hitler hanging out with a few archangels. When you ask him how come he's here, he answers, 'Oh, well, I realised the errors of my way and the Big Guy let me in.' In the meantime, a good Christian accidentally killed his brother and cannot overcome the guilt, so spends his time in Hell because he will not accept the Grace of God. Where is justice in that?
The whole dogma of Christian forgiveness is this: those who do evil are condemned to eternal suffering for the gratification of people who worked hard to attain Heaven; everyone except you, who can be forgiven if you accept God into your heart.
Sounds quite self-serving to me.
The truth is: there is no higher Justice. There is persistence of will, and the formidable strength of the human mind to cling to what they believe is right. This doesn't make the Universe a just place, but it means it's a land of opportunity where you can have your own justice if you work for it, instead of hoping some omnipotent being dispenses it like candy.
Elijah,
Sure thing. Check out http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/ubbcode.html
Thanks.
Maury
SOMEBODY READ 2 Peter 3:8, or Psalm 90
GOD is so far above time it isn't even funny!
I could try and do the math, 75 billon x 365/6 'days' = well God's days are obviously a Heck of a lot longer than our own, remember back in Moses day 75 billion, or however meny, years would be an uninmangionable number, but 7 days, well thats eazy to see.
A Creational-evolutionilist.
------------------
FireTiger
~Feel the Fire~
So let me get this straight.
God, who is infallable and omniscient, is said to have created the world in seven days.
He knows what we think of as days, but his definition means something entirely different. Using this logic, you could prove ANYTHING using the bible. Oh, that's right. They do!
------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson
I see about 5 diffrent types of people, all a mix of the following, one letter, on how serious thhat person is about God's creation of earth, and one number, for the person's level of scientific acceptence of the Theroy of Evolution.
a) God is God and I take His words literaly.
b) The Bible is mostly true but the symbloys used can't be taken literaly.
c) The Bible is a good book, full of stories that tell me how I should try to live.
d) The Bible has no implications now its not practical to me.
e) The Bible is full of rubbish. i am very scientific.
1) Darwin is my god, I take his words as my law.
2) Darwin's theory is probally true, it does not clash with my religous beleifs at all.
3) Darwin's theroy could use work, I have trouble accepting it beacuse it clashes with my religion.
4) Darwin's theroy has no implications now it's not relevent to me.
5) Darwin was full of rubbish. I am very religous.
So who's what, and can this stary over with this at the top?
And Slythe- I find that though there are 'Christians' who misuse God's word, its not fair to say someone can prove anything with the Bible. In fact somethings can not be altered, see the Greatest Commandment, there are no loop-holes.
------------------
FireTiger
~Feel the Fire~
Short answer, NO. (partially because some of us don't WANT to take this argument over again from the top.)
Longer answer, NO. (Partially because some of us don't want to describe ourselves as fitting any of your categories).
Specific answer. I believe that the Bible is the uniquely inspired, authoritative word of God . I have been known to claim A, but then I get myself in trouble because I don't REALLY believe everything should be interpreted literally. That doesn't mean I'm B, because B says the Bible is "mostly true", which implies that some might in fact be false, and I don't like that implication.
And as for your numbers, well, I have a hard time deciding where I belong. 3, 4, &5 all seem equally likely to truly describe me. I don't care to describe myself as very religious, Darwin's theory makes no sense to me in practice, and since I believe the earth was created in 6 24-hour days, what does evolution have to do with me, anyway?
[[I see about 5 diffrent types of people, all a mix of the following, one letter, on how serious thhat person is about God's creation of earth, and one number, for the person's level of scientific acceptence of the Theroy of Evolution.
...
1)Darwin is my god, I take his words as my law.
2)Darwin's theory is probally true, it does not clash with my religous beleifs at all.
3)Darwin's theroy could use work, I have trouble accepting it beacuse it clashes with my religion.
4)Darwin's theroy has no implications now it's not relevent to me.
5)Darwin was full of rubbish. I am very religous.]]
This list, particularly number 1, reveals serious ignorance about science and evolution.
God, who is infallable and omniscient, is said to have created the world in seven days.
He knows what we think of as days, but his definition means something entirely different.
Hm... Not exactly.
If I'm not sadly mistaken, the original Hebrew word used here is "yom," and literally means, "an expanse of time." I believe it was the King James scholars who opted some 3000 years later to render it as "day." Interestingly, the very same word is used in a variety of fashions throughout the Old Testament.
Very specifically:
"...until the fourteenth "yom" of the same month" (Ex. 12:6)
A little more generally:
"In God we boast all the "yom" long." (Ps. 44:8)
And deliberately signifying an "age" or "era":
"Your people shall be volunteers in the "yom" of Your power" (Ps. 110:3)
Even the second chapter of Genesis uses the word in what is an obvious intentional reference to more than one literal day, when it says, "This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the "yom" that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." (Gen. 2:4) Since the chapter before this one details creation as being a "6 yom" process (or at least 2, if you want to interpret "earth" and "heavens" more literally) it's fairly clear that "yom" is, at least in this passage, something OTHER than 24 hours.
Out of respect to the creationist who believe in a more literal, 24 hour interpretation, I feel compelled to add that there certainly are some Biblical arguments that would seem at first glance to support their theory. For one thing, translating it as "era" or "age" would make it the only reference in the Bible where the word "yom," accompanied by a qualifying numeral (or an ordinal, in this case) did not mean a literal, 24 hour day. Furthermore, we are told, "...He spoke, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast." (Ps. 33:9), the language of which certainly would seem to lend itself to a "quick" creation process.
I believe the creationist who does NOT accept the notion of a literal 24 hour day would counter that the ordinals accompanying the word "yom" in this case differ from the others in that they represent positions within a series, rather than days marked against a calendar (the "fourth yom" is different than the "fourth yom of September," in their view). Furthermore, they would contend, the passage in Psalms doesn't necessarily HAVE to mean things happened quickly, any more than "I gave the order to build a bridge and it was carried out" means that it necessarily happened in the twinkling of an eye.
I'll confess to being somewhat apprehensive about posting in a forum specifically designated for venting, rather than seeking to reach understanding; for it truly is not my intent to "flame" anyone, on either side of the argument. There is so much we stand to learn from one another - Science, grounded in the principles of reason and logic and so carefully analytical in its quest for the truth; and religion, guided by precepts of faith and hope, and often zealously dogmatic in its.
Still, there is room within each of us for both heart and head, emotion and intellect, mind and spirit. Perhaps what we ought to seek is the understanding that leads to balance.
Let's try balance, o.k.?
On one side we have Science, which is a never-ending quest to find out what is what, willing to examine all evidence without regard to the source, as long as verification is possible.
On the other side we have Creationism, which is a pre-determined answer, accepting only the evidence that follows the dogma, and believing that others who look elsewhere for answers are doomed to eternal damnation.
Would someone kindly tell me where the "middle" is where we are supposed to meet?
------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson
Slythe~
*S* I have a wonderful place in the middle to meet.
We, don't have the ability to understand even half of what we look at with our scientific principles and ideas. We try to define a universe that is beyond comprehension. But, I believe, it is our nature to try and define our reality. It is a quest that we, as a species, have been attempting for centuries and longer. We "know" as well as we can, according to the information that we are able to gather at this moment in time, until new information is gathered and offered to us to digest and shift our system to accomodate. Therefore, we don't understand what science is trying to make understandable.
We can't comprehend God. I mean, really. I've been under the impression that if we took some understanding of God from every person who ever lived and put it all together, we might get to touch the top of the iceberg. We can't understand how powerful love is, we can't understand how a God who would make a universe we can't comprehend, would exist...let alone be bothered with US... or how we might be judged according to our hearts.. or how there could be a means of making us perfect... or how we might be loved despite ANYthing we've done wrong... or a million other things to sit and think on and never truly understand. *L* Hey! Guess, they are both mysteries to be delved into as best as we can with our incredibly limited view of the world.
How about, a middle ground of we don't understand either one? We can try. And how about; there are things in the universe and beyond that our minds could never come close to comprehending. Let's meet on the "grounds of wonder". It's a wonderful place to stand really.. because you never really do have any answers and you always have something to share. :0) We can enjoy our discussions, have fun with our debates... and figure that everyone is right in a small way. And most of us are wrong. *g* Kinda cuts the pride out of ya and puts ya into a more open frame of mind.
------------------
Settle within the rushes and listen to the lark
Singing o'er hillock and dale.
Praise to the heavens and making his mark,
From atop our farthest fence rail.
So I should pretend that we don't know anything for certain.
Going down that path is very dangerous, because if that is the reason to abandon science and believe in god, it is also a reason to abandon god and believe in Santa Claus, or Shiva, or Scientology. Blind faith in place of reason? I'll tell you what-Why don't all you christians use faith instead of science and see how far you get. They tried it out here in Oregon, and we have a cemetary full of dead children whose parents believed that god, not science, would cure their sick children.
Through science, things are found out. Through religion, people are ripped off, lives are lost, and ignorance is fostered.
------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson
Hmm.... well. No, actually I don't believe that is what I said Slythe. :0)
I said that we might try to consider that things are a bit grander than we could ever suppose. That there is always something to learn about the universe around us. That an answer is only a stop in the long continuum of truth, not the actual truth. Scientific answers are not a means to an end, but a journey unto themselves. That I think, that we can approach both religion AND science with this undestanding of our limited view and the humble comprehension that we are all really time limited, physically limited, and often wrong creatures. It adds a bit of wonder to our discoveries and a bit of .. dare I say, a bit of humility to our "answers".
As far as the faith healing Slythe, I'm not saying that many people have made even many more mistakes. However, how about the Syphillus project? There's a nice graveyard for fourty years of human research there in the name of science. Good people who trusted a doctor and clinic created for their health. (Never heard of it? Let me see if I can site a bit on it here. It is called the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment [you can also site the Monyihan Report and a million others on the crime of using science for one person's own agenda.. one of the more modern and better known of these is the "Bell Curve" which has been used and still is being used, to discriminate against a multitude of races not to mention the african american and the hispanic inter-cultures] "The Tuskegee Syphilis experiment is perhaps the most notorious study on African Americans conducted in the United States. The stated purpose of the federally funded study was to document the untreated course of syphillis in African Americans. ..consisted of 400 sharecroppers who were both poor and illiterate. Although penicillin was used to treat syphilllis [at the time], researchers deliberately failed to inform respondents...neglected to provide [penicillin]...researchers monitored the untreated respondents for 40 years (1932-1972) under the DISGUISE OF A PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE... " etc etc. ~sited Cochran, Donna L. 'African American Fathers Focus on the Family: A group approach to increasing visibility in research'. Social Work with Groups. Volume 20(3) 1997~) There are plenty of mistakes on the side of humans practicing religion and there are plenty of mistakes on the side of humans practicing science. Neither side (if there are really sides in the true extent of things) is proof against it. It's human nature to harm and make mistakes that harm. But we are talking not about what humans have done in the "name of God" or in the "name of science".. we are talking about religion and science.
My dear sir(?), it is my firm belief, that there are answers or vignettes of truth so to speak, in both religion AND science. I think the two may base the majority of their focus in two different sections of logic and thought. And I also think that there is greater overlap than many of us know, or understand. I can't speak for creationists or physists.. I'm neither and know little in either section. I will not pretend to understand dogma or string theory. And I'm sure that there is a middle ground. If not in the findings, then in the attitude of discovery. That, with a manner of approach that takes into account the fact we are often simply children in a world that is more complex and amazing and beautiful, than we could ever even BEGIN to understand, could be our middle ground. There's a childish heart in that. And I think, that we can pass over difficulty and disagreement with more open minds (as I've said before) if we chose to approach our discoveries with the view of our limitations and the acceptance of possibilities beyond our imaginations.
------------------
Growing old is manditory. Growing wise is optional.
I believe the childishness is in the thought that, because there are two sides to an issue , both sides have equal validity. Round Earth vs. Flat Earth, anti seat belts vs. pro seat belts, and so on.
Once the people involved in the syphilis case found out about it, they were outraged and wanted justice from the government that deceived them. The members of that Oregon church, and other religious organizations, still dispute all the facts and protect their leaders and their faith.
As stated before, when science encounters mistakes in the system, other scientists will try to correct the mistake. Not so with religionists.
By the way, the problem with the syphilis program was not the science, it was the government, which at most times is run LIKE a religion, which explains the coverups and the inability to admit to and correct mistakes.
------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson
On one side we have Science, which is a never-ending quest to find out what is what, willing to examine all evidence without regard to the source, as long as verification is possible.
On the other side we have Creationism, which is a pre-determined answer, accepting only the evidence that follows the dogma, and believing that others who look elsewhere for answers are doomed to eternal damnation.
Would someone kindly tell me where the "middle" is where we are supposed to meet?
I'm hardly qualified to be an arbitrator for such matters, I'm afraid... and so much has to do with the willingness of the participants on either side of the argument to listen rationally to the other - and with an open mind.
Creationists - and Christian's in general - ought not be so afraid of science; If there is a God, He is surely more than able to survive the scrutiny of His own creation. Although science is never going to conclusively prove His existance (what need would there be for "faith" if that were true?) neither is it likely to conclusively disprove it. The Bible indicates that man was to "have dominion" over the earth, and a very large part of that MUST come from understanding it in all it's intricacies, and the best path toward that understanding is science. As Slythe said,Why don't all you christians use faith instead of science and see how far you get. Surely God intended both? Just as the scientist re-examines his theories, and refines them in the face of new discoveries, so should the Christian be willing to re-examine his understanding of the tenets of his religion. The truth may well be that it is not the teachings of the Bible that is in question, here... but rather the limited way in which they are understood by fallible human beings.
Perhaps it could also be said that scientists - and evolutionists in general - ought not presuppose the non-existance of a controlling force behind the theories they develop; nor should they be so quick to proclaim as "fact" the conclusions they draw on the basis of the facts they do uncover. What I "deduce" based on the evidence I discover should not always be given the same scientific weight as the evidence itself; and in truth, I think, it is the deduction, not the evidence, that is typically rejected by the creationist (though I find myself sadly compelled to admit there are certainly pockets of "Christians" who reject BOTH out of hand).
Yes, Slythe, I'm sure there are graveyards full of dead children as a result of misguided faith. History is replete with examples of atrocities committed in the name of God - hatred and intolerance, hypocracy and ignorance, prejudice and all manner of scandal have been performed under the guise of "Christianity" or "religion." I cannot begin to tell you how it saddens me to be collectively assimilated by stereotypical association into such a group. I can offer no defence for such misdeeds, except to say that they were often performed by leaders who saw religion as nothing more than a tool to their own ends, twisting it's precepts and stirring up the hearts and passions of people too lazy, too sheep-like, or too ignorant to think for themselves. This is hardly a cultural phenomenon limited to Christianity, though... it manifests itself in nationalism, ethnic discontent, politics, trade unions, and yes, even science. It amazes me how often the Bible is both supported and condemmed by those who've never troubled themselves to try and understand it.
As stated before, when science encounters mistakes in the system, other scientists will try to correct the mistake. Not so with religionists.
I'll have to respectfully disagree. "Religionists" try to "correct" one another's "mistakes" all the time! You've only to listen to the way the Baptist's knock the Catholics who are outspoken against the Protestants who attack the Pentocostals to get a flavor of how far they'll go. ;)
------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-(o)-<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Life is a tapestry.
Each new day brings with it the opportunity to sew by
word and deed within the heart of someone around us.
Let us choose our colors with care.
Slythe: *L* I think, that Jonathon David has stated it perfectly. And if I can add a few things? I am not sure if ALL scientists try to reverse the atrocities of one another (as Jonathon David said within the religious context I would like to expand into the scientific region). The other two studies I cited (the Moynihan and Bell Curve Reports) are still often used to maintain prejudiced views against those not in the majority. Many scientists still believe that there is a "pathology" to an African American family (the Moynihan Report.. Dodson, J (1988) Conceptualizations of Black Families (Ed.) pp.77-91)) And in my own research, I've been finding a multitude of those who refuse to believe that research done with the blatant disregard for the character and provisions of good scientific research, is refutable by concientious research by other scientists. Slythe, I agree. There are people on both sides that refuse to let go of the prejudices and false (and at times, harmful) judgements of their peers. However, I think it might be an overgeneralization to say that all christians do not put any stock in science. Some of the best and most competant scientists I know are christians. There must be a middle ground then. That is, for these professionals to work both with responsibility to their subjects and clients, and with a desire to discover other aspects of their studies they may have missed prior to the time through either human falliacy or through sensitivity of instruments.
:) I really am not trying to say that the church you speak of in OR. is correct in not allowing their children to be healed with the advances we have made in modern medicine. Please, don't misunderstand me. I think that is a tragedy that their children have died. I think there is tragedy any time we, as humans, refuse to see the other side and the benefits of it.
Perhaps the reason I am so intent of speaking of a middle ground sir, is that I am highly interested in science. I also am amazed at how I can have a glimpse into the complexity of the world, the universe, and the rest of God's creation through science. Perhaps then, I have found the middle ground already? However, my middle ground can always be improved upon. And I must admit, I have an interest in what new insights you might have added to the balance of a personal relationship with God and a personal amazement in the wonders of science.
------------------
Growing old is manditory. Growing wise is optional.
*S* I stated one thing wrong as I read over my post that I would like to restate. David, you didn't say that relgious groups fail at times to stop one another. You said the same thing from the other direction. *w* That relgious groups DO often times, try to stop one another. I apologize for paraphrasing you incorrectly.
------------------
Growing old is manditory. Growing wise is optional.
You guys are all too nice to be here in the BBQ Pit! If you're not careful, Lynn'll be in here with her knives chasing you out! <g>
Seriously, it's nice to see a (reasonably) civil discussion of these issues. I appreciated reading . . . most . . . of it.
-Melin
------------------
I'm a woman phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me
(Maya Angelou)
Merlin:
:) Why thank you very much. *L* maybe it is the wrong place to be having this discussion (in this manner *L*).. but it's an interesting discussion no matter where it takes place I would suppose?
------------------
Growing old is manditory. Growing wise is optional.
Wow. I've just discovered this aspect of the Straight Dope site. I spent 30 minutes reading some of this discussion and my eyes hurt terribly, so my response must be short for now.
Science is frequently wrong in it's conclusions about the world around us. But science does two things religion never does:
1: It constantly tries to update and correct any errant conclusions. Because each answer begets new questions, this is an ongoing process that deliniates science from religion. Religion goes out of its way to halt any new learning or discovery. Science has a long history of reversing previous absolutes, it's called modeling. When the facts no longer explain the model, change the model to fit the facts. When's the last time you heard any religious scholar try to reverse something in the Bible through new facts? (Yes, I know, you say the Bible is already correct and is all factual, stop reading this and go to Church). Religion teaches the new recruit (child) to accept what is told to him and refute nothing. Which brings me finally to my second point:
2: Science never says "beleive in me or you will be killed, tortured, excommunicated, chastised publicly (cold fusion notwithstanding), or spend eternity in a miserable and lousy place full of torture and hate, not unlike your high school experience.
Evolution is painfully obvious. Here's a question for our devout readers: God ostensibly created only two people: Adam and Eve. I don't care what race or physiacl attributes they had, but i'd say they did not possess white and brown black and yellow skin. I'm sure they didn't have Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid eyes, having merely two eyes apiece (right)? I assume they weren't at once tall, short, fat, thin, extomorphic, endomorphic, mesomorphic, blond,
brunette, redheadhed, straight haired, kinky haired...you all get the point.
Clearly, by the Bible's own reckoning, humans can evolve.
As did everything else.
God, my eyes hurt.
umm what is one day?
While it is true yowm is the Hebrew
word for day in Genesis we also need to look at it in a whole before we will understand it
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. > And the evening and the morning were the first day.<
This is taken from the KJV (most other versons say the same) the bible says one day is one period of light and night
Just a thought here
------------------
To know Christ and to make Him known to others.
Hike: as you just showed, the Bible also calls one period of light without a period of darkness one day. Which is it? The light or the light with the dark?
Just for fun: let's all rush to an interpretation of the Quran and read Surah 2, verse 80.
Cheers!
-Chip
All I was pointing out is that the Bible shows that one day in creation was the same then as we know today.
Not to poke fun at any one, just because we call the time when a lot of people are up working day and that is when most of them see the sun, it has nothing to do with the day as a whole in what it is called.
It was just a thought
Hey, this is the BBQ Pit, so allow me...
Hike4Fun's sig:
------------------
To know Christ and to make Him known to others.
In the Biblical sense? Isn't that like "pimping" Christ?
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.