Evolution seeks to explain how things came into being but falls woefully short, while tossing sharp criticism at those who place their faith in biblical revelations. It seeks to set itself apart due to particular processes through which it divines information, rather than mere faith in ancient texts.
Unfortunately, evolutionists too often fail to examine their own beliefs with the same critical eye cast upon Christians, Jews, Muslims and others. While they look down their noses upon the faithful, they forget that they also have placed a lot of faith in processes that are fallible. The generation of evolutionists today do not believe the same things as the ones before it. And as science evolves, to discover what it thought it knew yesterday was wrong, a new generation will place its faith in a newly evolved process claiming it is the best that can be done. Such reason is understandable, but the limits of man's knowledge does not create fact or truth. It merely creates "belief." Thus, the LA Times editors are as trusting in the texts of evolution science books as Christians are in the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.
The difference is that Christians need not change their perspectives and beliefs with the shifting sands of time or the gale force winds that blow away old science textbooks with every passing generation. It would be intellectually honest for evolutionists to admit that they, too, have faith in things unseen and theories unproven.
The religious willingly admit that underneath all the reasoning and rationale that underscores our thinking, there is a foundation of faith that is the core of our being and the center of our lives. It guides us, nurtures us and fuels us. It answers questions of life, love, relationships, good and evil that cannot otherwise be rationally explained by any field of science. Our faith in God provides us a guidepost that leads us through life, teaching us to do good, treating others as we would have them treat us, forgiving transgressions easily, and thinking of others above ourselves.
Science would do well to learn from Jesus rather than crucify His followers. After all, if Jesus is truly King of Kings and Lord of Lords — and really did conquer death and plans to return in glory — those who proclaim that anyone who believes in such silliness isn't fit to lead a democratic society of diverse peoples may someday wish they were part of a society of believers who worship a Monarch.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
I guess that part of the delusion you share with the 6 candidates who have so far declared their allegiance to fairydust and moonbeams, is that you're incapable of counting. These 3 republicans and 3 democrats are less than half of the field in this election so far. There are nice, rational candidates like Rudy Giuliani and Bill Richardson to vote for.
And BTW, I don't remember any of the candidates shouting out 'YAHWEH' like some sort of god-drunk freak.
Dave
2 - wdufkin
Bravo
3 - Lee Richards
Mike is a would-be prosecutor who has neither facts, evidence, credible witnesses nor law on his side, so he pounds the table a lot.
4 - SteveS
It's obvious that you put Creationists under the whole Christian umbrella. A slam against Creationism is a slam against Christianity to you, but not to others.
For example, the three Democratic candidates might profess a belief in God, but none have supported Creationism.
And also, dismissing Creationism isn't classified as hatred except in the mind of the paranoid.
5 - SteveS
Example.
From Barack Obama:
"It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain," Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of "faith" would hurt him a national election. "Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels."
Yet you paint a dismissal of Creationism as a slam against him. I can find nothing on Edwards or Hillary about Creationism.
6 - Lee Richards
Just as "Intelligent Design" is thinly-veiled Christian-fundamentalist creationism, so to is this article a sermon, masquerading as political commentary.
Evidently Jesus has revealed to his followers that he desires or needs elective office, now that the divine right of kings didn't work out.
7 - zingzing
this article is just so over the top and ridiculous. as you yourself point out, everybody knows that a bunch of those republicans you so desperately love for one issue or another are just taking christians for a ride. they don't give a fuck about religion. all they want is their four-eight years of earthly power.
8 - zingzing
whoop-when you're not busy making a fool out of yourself, you're busy picking out who is going to make a fool out of you next.
9 - Dave Nalle
Good point, Steve. While only three of the Republicans raised their hand to admit to rejecting evolution, I know for a fact that Ron Paul who didn't raise his hand is still extremely - even frighteningly - religious.
Dave
10 - Lisa R
Stop trying to pull us Jews into your arguements. The Christian concept of creation, god, etc is not the same as the Jewish concepts. We Jews do not believe in the existance of hell, the devil, the Christian concept of sin, etc.
Furthermore, there is no conflict between the story of creation as described in the Tanach (Jewish Bible) and the theory of evolution. One of the greatest Jewish sages once said: Those who cannot reconcile science and religion do not understand one or the both.
11 - duane
I would have to agree with zingzing (#7). All this religious talk from politicos is just condescension and pandering.
A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. --- Aristotle
Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. --Napoleon Bonaparte
Mike, you try to make the same points here as in your previous article about the LA Times. You ignored most of the comments made on that thread, ditched it, and rewrote more or less the same stuff here ("things unseen", "shifting sands," etc.).
Also, in the way of a general critique, you touch upon too many topics, leaving a rather incoherent piece. It starts off fine, with a discussion of presidential hopefuls and their positions vis-a-vis religion. Then you bring it home with your criticism of the LA Times and their statements concerning the same issue.
But then the article devolves to the evolution vs. creationism "debate," then the Big Bang, Satan, Moses, disparaging remarks about evolutionists, the limit's of Man's knowledge, and so forth.
It appears as though the bit about the LA Times is just a red herring, a jumping off point for you to demean science, scientists, and those who look to modern science for answers to scientific questions.
A suggestion: write a few distinct articles in which your points are laid out for the reader, provide some backup information or supporting argument for each point that you're trying to make. Your last two articles are so full of arguable statements that it's almost impossible for the commenters to have a decent discussion, because you're all over the map. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that you write not just to pound the pulpit but to engender some meaningful, focused debate.
Without this focus, your central thesis (which is what?) gets lost in the tangents.
12 - MBD
Nallecon says...
"I know for a fact that Ron Paul who didn't raise his hand is still extremely - even frighteningly - religious."
Frighteningly?
Do you see boogey men everywhere? Do you wear magic glasses that helps you see them?
What has Ron Paul ever said or done to justify your statement?
Are you just throwing shit against the wall to see if it will stick?
13 - MCH
"There are nice, rational candidates like Rudy Giuliani...to vote for."
- Vox Nalle
Since when are serial adulterers "nice and rational"...?
14 - Dr Dreadful
Ah yes, Rudy 'Rational' Giuliani, who against all advice insisted on siting the NYC emergency control center in the largest, most conspicuous, most bombable building in the whole city.
About as rational as stripping naked, smothering yourself in honey, lying down on top of an ant's nest and expecting a good night's sleep.
15 - SteveS
Since the book you link to, Mike, is your own and has nothing to do with the article at hand, I would think that a critical comment on it is appropriate. What one puts on Blogcritics should be available to scrutiny, especially one that is nothing more than a gratituous plug.
EHarmony claims it can match people perfectly based on Christian ideals, much like the claim of your book.
Unfortnately, divorce rates among conservative Christians are significently higher than for other faith groups, and for Atheists and Agnostics.
I know a well-meaning intent is there, Mike, and I give you credit for that, but it's made me wonder....is it possible for a Creationist to fall in love with and live with, an Evolutionist and vice versa?
Or, in a world where disagreement is viewed as hatred, is a higher divorce rate inevitable?
16 - sr
Just what we need. Another blog on creation and evolution. Im sure the comments will add to our fun on Blogcritics.
17 - MBD
Just what we need. Another comment on comments that adds nothing to the other comments.. Im sure your comment will add to our fun on Blogcritics.
18 - Dr Dreadful
MBD, your last comment moves me to comment that commenting about comments on comments that add nothing to other comments isn't worth commenting about. Care to comment?
19 - sr
I new this would be fun especially from my favorite funney men, Laurel and Hardy.
20 - Dr Dreadful
Here's another fine thread you've gotten us into.
21 - zingzing
"Unfortnately, divorce rates among conservative Christians are significently higher than for other faith groups, and for Atheists and Agnostics."
you know why? because they meet, deny themselves sex, marry, have sex... then realize they're no good together.
heh. bite my head off if you think it ain't true.
22 - SteveS
Could be, zingzing. I tend to think it comes from their rigid perceptions of marital roles. They believe in the 1950's model of Father Knows Best where the man rules the castle, and the woman is submissive and stays home. Society turned from this as a rigid example and uses it as a flexible guide in order to accomodate diverse relationships. Not so the ultra-conservative. They cannot bend their roles, and like the tree that cannot bend, in a big gale, it breaks in half.
Growing up in the Bible Belt, that has been what I have seen time and time again. Your mileage may vary.
23 - MCH
"I new this would be fun especially from my favorite funney men, Laurel and Hardy."
- sr
Hey Clavos, look, he spells funny with an "e,"...quick, time to snipe in...
24 - MBD
funney IS funny.
25 - MBD
Did I preempt Clavos?
Sorry.