I wasn’t talking about the Sumerian comment, but the conspiracy theory part. And they ARE prone to conspiracy theories about how their religion is being oppressed, about conspiracies against it and to prepare for the Antichrist.
Not to mention the periodic attempts to portray Darwin ( or Dawkins, or anyone else with a well known association with evolution ) as evil. And then trying to use that claim as an argument against evolution. The idea that someone might base their beliefs on facts, on evidence and logic is foreign to them.
Which quite a few believers do. Those are the ones who don’t claim that Satan put the evidence there, or that the scientists are lying and it doesn’t exist.
Creationists don’t really think, they feel. They feel that evolution is wrong, so it is. They feel their god is right, so he is. There is nothing in creationism that could withstand the scrutiny of a child, much less an educated adult.
Make no mistake: the argument against ID and Creationism has already been won by science. Fringe extremists who shout on the sidelines to be heard are not there to promote or encourage debate any more than bitching about losing in a footrace is going to make you the winner.
I think what Creationists and are trying to do is create enough people who question science to fake an educated opposition, when in fact they are simply trying to use any means necessary to convert people to their wrong way of thinking. They are so afraid that others would not only not believe in their god, but act on that and have laws and policy reflect that disbelief.
The way it works is like this: Creationism is one facet of a simplistic, fairly literal interpretation of the Bible (filtered through a bunch of doctrine dogma, but trying to be literal, in some way).
Other facets of that same approach include lots of stuff about the nature and character of God, the framework of his dealings with humans, his intent for us, etc. As well as stuff about our nature as spiritual beings, in need of redemption. All of these themes are quite inseparably intertwined and interdependent.
So the problem is that once you start picking at one piece, the whole lot starts to come unravelled, because it is all based on the notion that the whole Bible is absolutely and unequivocally true in as literal a sense as possible.
But people get really very emotionally invested in the whole thing (it is, after all, about life and death - eternal bliss or eternal peril) - so evolution can’t possibly be allowed to be true, either because of simple denial, wishful thinking and hoping, or just because it has already been concluded to be at best a complete waste of time, and at worst, a temptation to fall into heresy.
For this particular flavour of Christianity, it is absolutely necessary for evolution to be false.
And the reason it’s this topic and not some other thing such as the existence of the soul, is because uniquely here, scientific endeavour has amassed a vast pile of evidence.
I’m preparing a three-week series on reconciling science and religious faith to be delivered soon. What I have come up with is that there is a conflict when
Scripture is interpreted literally in today’s context instead of the historical context of the author who wrote their part of the assembled Bible;
only one explanation of the world (or anything else for that matter) can be tolerated;
the authority of Scripture trumps all else (on every subject, by erroneous conclusion) because it comes from God (never mind those wrong-headed Muslims and their holy book that came from God through Gabriel in its entirety);
the truthfulness of Scripture (and the resulting faith in it) needs to be validated by science.
#4 is particularly egregious as it contradicts one of the central tenets of Christian faith: the apparent truth of Jesus, God, Resurrection and Scripture is the result of the grace of God. They are accepted as articles of faith without the need of external validation. Indeed, external validation destroys the gift of Grace that many anti-science Christians claim as their source of faith even as they attempt to validate their faith through Creationism and Intelligent Design.
Scripture was never written as a scientific explanation of everything in the universe. Science was never developed as a way of proving the existence of God. Scripture is concerned with the emotional, spiritual relationship we have with God, creation and each other. Science is a way of thinking, observation and action that organizes ideas and conclusions into a coherent view of ourselves and everything we can perceive. Religion deals with our spiritual lives, science with our physical lives.
In my studies, I had to learn in agonizing detail all of the events and protein actors that are involved with gene expression and with various biochemical pathways. There were times, though, when I sat back and looked at cell function as a whole and understood how evolution was responsible for the pathways and mechanisms we see today. I was also filled with awe at the complexity and mystery of how cells and organisms came to be. I am filled with that same awe I receive the consecrated Sacraments during the Eucharist.
What I experience during the Eucharist does not obligate me to believe that God whipped up cells and organisms 6000 years ago to look like they do today, nor does my understanding of complex cellular function obligate me to reject the existence of God because I cannot rationally prove God exists. It is hubris to believe that the rationality needed to piece together complex cellular function is sufficient to reject spiritual experiences, and it is hubris to believe that faith alone is able to explain the complex physical interactions in the universe. Both science and religious faith rest on a foundation of leaps of faith, but they diverge quickly because they ultimately address two different parts of human life and experience.
Vlad/Igor
Cradle Episcopalian, Medical Technologist, MS in Biochemistry
Since you pointed me out, I’ll take a stab at it. For most of us science is faith based - though we don’t want to admit that, a small number of us have seen a atom or molecule, first hand, but we take on faith that the science that shows us a picture of them is real. Most of us will never be able to prove E=mc^2, we take that on faith. Even very renown scientist take other fields of science on faith as they can’t check everything. They are really trusting in man, in scriptures God says that men are (lesser) gods, which does give them the ability to define reality to those who submit to them.
Another way to put it, if you want to get from point a to b using science you might build a car, If you want to do that using faith in God you send your request into God and wait for him to provide the transportation. Let me assure you that the second method does work better then the first.
I don’t expect you to comply, as you don’t understand what God shows us in what we call ‘evolution’. It is our own journey on display, as we are created as a single celled orgasm, we evolve, being born out of a liquid environment in the womb into a air one, how we become warm blooded (giving) instead of cold (selfish).
God does talk to us via creation, but man has perverted His message IMHO.
As a person who left everything to follow Jesus, IMHO the issue is 2 separate ‘gods’ one the true God who created everything, the Lord of Heaven and Earth and who loves us so much He is willing to die for us and wants us to know the absolute truth, and the God that man submitted too who has a vested interest in us not knowing the true God. This is what is called spiritual warfare, and this is what you are up against. The very Word of God states they can’t dwell together:
Scripture is timeless, the OT is as valid today as it was back when man first wrote it. Those events in the OT are happening today, there are people living in the land of slavery (Egypt) throughout the world, there are exoduses going on right now, and people entering the land of milk and honey.
There is a single truth of the world, IMHO science is directly opposite it.
If God really loves us he will tell us the truth, if He does not love us then it doesn’t matter (and just to add if there is no God then it doesn’t matter either)
Muslims follow instruction by a angel, Christians follow instruction by God, who has higher authority?
This is exactly what God tells us and warns us not to do. He says (paraphrasing) you can’t figure this stuff out, but if you trust me I will reveal the truth of my Word.
Isn’t it just amazing that your god tells you exactly what you already believe-you don’t come across coincidences of that magnitude very often, y’know.
Actually He does not, He constantly challenges my beliefs and shapes them more and more to His own. If you look at my history in this board I believe you will see a evolution in kanicbird.
And those ‘coincidences of that magnitude’ happen more and more frequently and actually grow in magnitude.
Well, that pretty much blows everything out of the water, I guess. There is only one God, and to assume that science exists outside of God is to misunderstand the extent of Creation. I use God given intellect and curiosity to explore Creation, and I do so using science. You missed the part where I said “…it is hubris to believe that faith alone is able to explain the complex physical interactions in the universe.”
I don’t recall hearing about a small band of Palestinians trying to flee Egypt recently. Yes, there are themes, ideas and teachings that are timeless. They are God’s word regarding our spiritual lives and our path to salvation. However, it is wrong to think that a book written by men 2000 years ago who could not possibly conceive of the world in 2009 could convey the exact word of God then and have it make sense to us now. We must wrestle with Scripture in order to find those bits of timeless Words that are sown within the words of human authors written millennia ago. The fact that Scripture contains the Word of God does not mean it can be applied directly and literally to September 2, 2009. It requires Reason to do that, in balance with Tradition.
Again, you ignored where I said “…Scripture was never written as a scientific explanation of everything in the universe. Science was never developed as a way of proving the existence of God…Religion deals with our spiritual lives, science with our physical lives.” With your way of thinking, there’s only one way to exit a building: defenstration.
Well, God’s word, delivered by the Archangel Gabriel is the same as the Word incarnate. Neither has authority over the other. It is a question of what path you are called to the One God.
So, what does God have to say about antibody/antigen reactions? I really need to know, because I have to have an immunoassay built in the next two weeks, and I’m not getting reproducible calibration curves. Where does Scripture discuss p-chem concepts, so that I can get this method to work?
I have faith that I am accepted and loved by God as I am, warts and all. So, yes you’re right that I want to be acceptable and loved, and I create faith de novo et de nihilis to capture that feeling. I can live with that if it means I can go through life not being cynical or surly.
But, please explain to me how my faith affected my thesis experimental data and its partial support of my hypothesis? Or would faith in the correctness of my hypothesis blind me to the truth found in the data? How does my faith affect my ability to be objective when I am aware of the intensely subjective nature of my spiritual faith? Does the fact that I had ecstatic experience years ago taint me forever, so that my research or other intellectual efforts are worthless? Am I allowed to be human at the same time that I engage in an intensely intellectual vocation?
Specialization existed long before there was science. I suspect there were people in primitive tribes who were better spearhead makers and specialized in that, letting others hunt. I don’t think either method of getting a car would work very well - leaving it to those engineers and factory workers who design and build it is much better. Specialization began when Cain and Abel chose different professions, right?
Science works on the same principle of specialization. Just as it takes no faith to realize that Bob Dylan writes better songs than I do, it takes no faith when reading a paper by someone who does semiconductor physics, which I know from nothing. Your assumption that science works by faith is exactly my point, since it is mapping the way you work into a field where such things are inappropriate and not used. For you, testing God is wrong. For us, testing even the most God-like scientist is right. Nobel prizes do not get you excused from peer review.
