Carelessly criticizing Christians, the LA Times has lost its grip on reality.
The Los Angeles Times editorial board decided recently to join the debate raging between creationists and evolutionists, siding squarely with Darwin and the gang. But the Times did not merely position itself along a spectrum of the controversy. Instead it stood on one end and launched a criticism of creationists that was the most contentious, condescending, and contemptible I have ever read.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Guest
And speaking of being respectful, there is another thread here at Blogcritics about Creationism. CLick over there and read the Creationists screaming (as a counterpoint in a debate) about how non-believers will burn in hell. And they expect that to be a valid response to statistical fact.
27 - Dr Dreadful
Mike, you mischaracterize science, and like all creationists you do so willfully. If a scientist gives you an age for the Earth s/he is not plucking it out of the air but is basing the estimate on observation and data.
To clarify, no reputable scientist claims any longer that the Earth is only millions of years old, because the evidence does not support that hypothesis. Current consensus is that we are looking at an age of 4 to 4.5 billion years, which is a pretty tight window considering the immense stretch of time we're talking about. As someone commented earlier, you can't seriously expect to be given the exact date and time of the Earth's creation. It would be like me expecting you to identify the exact date and time you turned from an embryo into a fetus.
If you feel that 'science supporters' (which I hope we all are, BTW) often take a dismissive tone towards creationists, well, I imagine you would feel a bit exasperated if someone kept insisting that your house belonged to them even after you'd shown them all the deeds, bills of sale etc that proved otherwise - offering as their 'proof of ownership' the statement that they'd read it in a book.
You ask "How can [science] take all info into consideration while discounting some of it?" That's how science works. You take the evidence under consideration, then, if it doesn't support your hypothesis, you discount it. Which is what's been done. The infuriating thing is that creationists keep coming back with the same old discredited 'evidence' and expecting science to consider it as if it were new.
So you didn't like the LA Times editorial's tone. I for one understand their exasperation. And conversely, to insist that the Earth is 6000 years old and brazenly lie about the evidence for that claim is also not, in my opinion, considerate or respectful.
28 - Mike Green
One of the problems in arguing a point with such contentious responses on both sides is that the point can easily get lost.
To clarify:
I am not against science. I specifically believe that the study of God's creation is not only a good thing, it is what God intended. That is my belief. Not a fact.
I do not believe that scientists offer facts regarding the age of the earth and its origin. I believe that scientists offer us hypothesis, theories and accepted jargon that changes when another scientists discovers the previously accepted theory was wrong. Thus, no evolutionist is offering fact. All are merely proffering the accepted opinion of the day. The crux of the evolutionists' argument is that the opinion, hypothesis, theory or whatever one wishes to clal the notion that the earth if several billions of years old (give or take as many billion as you'd like), is that there is complete faith in the PROCESS by which the unknown individuals came to such a conclusion. Other equally unknown individuals chime in as they read the information in peer-reviewed publications.
(I call them unknown because the end result is that their theories live on and are parroted by believers in evolution throughout society who have no idea who came up with the information they spew nor are familiar with the process by which the unknown individual came up with the conclusion that through repetition becomes accepted as fact).
I would remind the scientists that when I speak of evolutionists, I am not referring to simply the scientific community that researches, digs and determines what is and is not relevant to the ultimate conclusion. Instead, I am referring to the societal conglomeration of people who accept the process with which they are unfamiliar, accept the data that emanates from places unknown and derives their opinion not form any scientific process, but rather from repeated propaganda that masquerades as fact because "the scientific community agrees."
When I hear the same worn-out phrases I can easily discern that the individual is not speaking from any knowledge of the process in which that individual has placed his or her faith. Instead, he or she is robotically mouthing off without substantial data to support his or her view.
I readily accept the notion that some scientists believe the world's age has a span between X billion and X billion. I also readily accept the fact that many scientists, including some of those who now accept the billion+ year theory, also accept the notion that the world's age is in the millions.
I also accept the fact that the only facts are that scientists BELIEVE ... not that scientists have proven.
As some have accurately argued, the process is what gives scientists support for their theories. And there is respect for the process, which is flawed since it cannot compute anything exact. To be sure the process itself is evolving and changing. Therefore it seems prudent for scientists to step away from the word FACT and rely heavily upon the words OPINION, BELIEVE, HYPOTHESIZE (guess), etc.
Meanwhile, the evolution parrots who lurk on the blogs and attack religious folks with fervor, do so because they too rely upon the process of scienctific discovery, but fail to understand that process is not a home built upon solid rock. Instead, it is built upon shifting sand, causing the home to be destroyed when the winds of change blow.
But the evolution parrots will inevitably build their next home once again upon the shifting sands and hold fast to the BELIEF that what they have is FACT and TRUTH.
So how is it that students come out of high schools and colleges with a BELIEF that the earth is indeed X billion years old and that it all came into being from a particular theory that isn't based in FACT?
The reason is simply that while the LA Times and others who staunchly believe that creationists are a threat to their belief system, promote theory as fact.
It is as simple as that.
Then I get grief from scientists who charge me with a lack of understanding of science. I find that interesting, since I have both an understanding of science and biblical revelations.
I do not purport to promote that science is irrelevant. But you wouldn't know that from the accusations made. And I do not claim that science has no place in the classrooms, although you would think that listening to the science supporters that lurk here.
My point is consistently that I have a faith in the words of Jesus, which is completely rooted in a belief in the words written in the bible (66 texts compiled into a single book).
The bible, like the processes of science, is prone to scrutiny. And it has anamolies in it. It has contradictions in it. Yet take away all of those items in dispute and Jesus remains.
His words remain. His teachings remain. His anaylsis of life, mankind, relationships, the inner being, death and the hereafter all do not change no matter what you do to the bible.
And since science has sought to prove that jesus never lived, and instead discovered through scientific finds and processes that He did, it stands to reason that even science has some measure of acceptance of some of what the bible purports.
Thus many scientists are also Christian believers.
Now what can you do with the teachings of Christ if you cannot do away with His very existence?
You have to choose either to believe that He existed and the information contained in biblical texts has validity or you can dismiss the very notion that He ever existed all. but you cannot separate the texts of His life and teachings from the belief of His existence. The two go hand-hand.
You can, however, accept that He lived. And discount His teachings. You can accept that He existed and disbelieve He was who He said He was. You can accept that He existed and discount the miracles He performed.
You can do anythign you wish.
But you cannot claim that science has PROVEN the world is billions of years old. You can only claim the process (and please know what that process is) has suggested that the earth is between X number and X number.
But be prepared for a guy like me to ask, if the process suggests the earth is between 4 - 4.5 billion years old, could the earth possibly be between 2-3 billion? And if it could possibly be between 2-3 billion, is it possible for it to be between 1-2? And if that is possible, etc. etc.
In other words, I will scrutinize YOUR process, as you scrutinize mine. My process is biblical texts that have withstood several thousands of years of scrutiny.
I will accept that in the end it is what I choose to believe. Yet, I will point out how significant what I choose to believe is and its influence and relevance in the lives of individuals around the globe.
In the end, evolution parrots will also have to defend the process by which they conclude anything. And in the end that process, too, is flawed. They will have to admit they CHOOSE to BELIEVE that process over any other. And when that process changes, they, too, will change their parroting.
Thus, we can conclude that both evolution science and creationism are two methods of BELIEF. And while I have no problem with evolution being taught in schools, let us not pretend that is the norm. Evolution is a relatively NEW science being taught in schools. It attacked Christianity, which was taught BEFORE evolution.
Evolutionists are the aggressors, not Christianity.
And instead of seeking to install an alternative method of thinking and a scientific belief system to a religious belief system, the evolutionists sought to rid the schools of Christianity.
In that process they also ridded the schools of any foundation of morality, sound judgment, knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, etc.
In other words, in an affort to promote scientific theory as FACT (let's not pretend evolution parrots aren't influenced to believe what they crow isn't absolute INDISPUTABLE fact), evolutionists needed to get rid of any competing ideology.
And once they were successful in removing bibles, prayer, 10 COmmandments, and any vestiges of religious doctrine, dogma or belief form the schools, they found there was a vaccuum in which a plethora of assorted BELIEFS invaded the campus.
Today, the only thing in schools that offer a division between right and wrong are school policies and government laws.
And some scientists and evolution parrots would say that's the way it ought to be. Man decides what is right and wrong. Man decides what is good and bad.
And whoever we elect to lead us can change our society to whatever rules they wish.
Unless, of course, Christians get into office. Then the process must be changed!
29 - Christopher Rose
Aside from the Creationist/Evolutionist debate, there is no point at all in such an argument when there is zero evidence for the existence of any gods at all.
It is sheere foolishness to surrender to the demands of faithists and accept their idea based on blind faith alone.
As I've said before, I wish there were gods, but can not accept the idea any more than anybody would believe that I am the supreme creator and made you all up just last week. Your memories and all human history are some things I created to give you all an interesting back story.
30 - duane
Wow. You're all over the map, Mike. What's bugging you, really? Is it the age of Earth? That's geology and astronomy. Is it Evolution? That's mostly biology. Is it the existence of Jesus? That's mostly archeaology and religion. Is it the teaching of creationism in the classroom? That's government. Is it the lack of civility among those who argue at BC? That's human nature, sociology and psychology.
Why not stop repeating yourself and try to stick with one point at a time. Otherwise, it looks like your throwing up a smokescreen to save you from arguing anything substantively.
31 - duane
That's "you're throwing," not "your throwing." I hate when I do that.
32 - SteveS
My process is biblical texts that have withstood several thousands of years of scrutiny.
Actually no, many have been disproven time and time again, you just dismiss the fact.
I do not believe that scientists offer facts regarding the age of the earth and its origin. I believe that scientists offer us hypothesis, theories and accepted jargon that changes when another scientists discovers the previously accepted theory was wrong. Thus, no evolutionist is offering fact. All are merely proffering the accepted opinion of the day.
It is not opinion gathered from tea leaves. It is opinion gathered from reams and reams of SUBSTANTIATED data correlated against itself and other data that has been proven to be true. There is a huge difference.
We can read a CNN article about a murder and get an OPINION about who did it. We can also analyze DNA, footprints, fingerprints, hairs, blood samples, etc. and get an OPINION about who did it.
Both are opinions, but are as different as night and day.
33 - Mike Green
Interesting comment. Perhaps to some it may seem that I am arguing many points. But in fact, I am steadfastly arguing one main point.
Evolution is a theory that seeks to offer us an explanation of the evolvement of man. In doing so it relies heavily upon geology, archeology, astronomy, etc. In essence all the sciences are wrapped up in a single argument. Even psychology and sociaology are found within the debate.
An evolutionist parrot will attempt tp promote the notion that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, it originated from an explosion, that all nature, species and even mankind is accidental, that there is nothing after death and life has no meaning.
Thus, the evolutionist begins his argument with an inclusion of all sciences.
To state that I am offering a smokescreen is to imply that you have lost sight of my argument, which was to refute the LA Times editors' excorating criticism of creationists, when in fact, those we believe as the editors of the Times do, place their beliefs solidly upon scientific processes with which they are unfamiliar and that change, which ultimately means two things:
1. The LA Times editors have FAITH in a process that is imperfect
2. The one FACT that can be claimed by both sides is that both sides claiming factual evidence of an approximation of the earth's age are wrong.
An approximation cannot stand up to scrutiny. It is merely a guess. And it cannot even be found to maintain the approximate boundaries some purport. Thus BOTH sides of the argument are based upon FAITH, while only ONE side readily admits that FACT.
34 - SteveS
that there is nothing after death and life has no meaning.
Evolution never addresses this.
As I said on the other thread, evolution teaches us the how, religion teaches us the why. Evolution is the same for all of us but religion varies according to the individual and their beliefs.
35 - Christopher Rose
Mike, you are completely incorrect to state, as you do in your para 3 above, that understanding how life has evolved on our planet also means believing that life has no meaning. That is just another faithist construct to attack the evolutionary perspective.
36 - Mike Green
Biblical texts have been disproven?
Your point doesn't stand on its own. Perhaps you have some empirical proof of the theory you proffer? But rather than wait until you come back with data that points to irregularities, contradictions and outright errors in biblical texts, may I offer you the following understanding?
I already know the bible contains such things. What those who point to such things have consistently failed to do is to rid themselves of the person Of Jesus, Yeshua, Christ, Messiah, etc.
Center your argument there and prove He did not exist and substantiate the notion that He never said any of the things within the bible and that His life as chronicled by biblical texts doesn't match, and then I will be most certainly willing to listen and engage in a discussion of such matters.
But if you find that Jesus existed and His words and His life are accurately portrayed in the bible, then toss out whatever else you wish and you cannot shake my faith.
Regarding your opinion of scientific data that isn't gathered from tea leaves, might I suggest that despite reams and reams of data that have supported past scientific theories, such theories have been disproven and revised through a process of gathering more reams and remas of data.
Eventually, someone will get the bright idea of using all those reams of data as filters for making tea.
Sorry. couldn't resist.
In any case, you, sir, or ma'am, also make the false argument that repetitive claims of having data you cannot substantiate will support your premise.
Unfortunately, it supports mine.
You believe in something you have no knowledge of, people you've never met and texts written by folks you've never heard of ... and reamsand reams of information derived form a process with which you are unfamiliar.
Not to mention the fact that you have been convinced by a pile of papers that you have never read.
The sheer volume of collected data and opinion and analysis by folks of which I have no knowledge cannot convince me of anything. But if that is your argument, then I'm sure I could stack all of the supportive books written about the bible, along with all the science that supports biblical history against your reams of scientific data that says everything came from nothing merely by accident.
Whoever has the highest stack wins.
37 - Mike Green
Actually, I do not subscribe to the notion that having an understanding of how life began on earth is tantamount to believing life has no meaning.
My point is that if one subscribes to the particular notion that life originated on earth by accident or without deliberate creation or design, then such a belief offers no meaning for the existence of life outside of an UNintended accident.
And if evolutionists do derive the meaning of life from some other scientific theory, perhaps someone could educate me on what science provides the answer to the meaning of life, and exactly what is that answer?
38 - SteveS
Whoever has the highest stack wins.
Actually, whoever has the most votes wins. I forget, was it in Kentucky or Georgia that the school board decided to teach creationism and the whole community voted them out of office?
I don't have to prove that Jesus existed, YOU have to prove your claim, that he is the Risen Son of God.
The problem, Mike, is the Creationists insistance on teaching Creationism in the public area. It's a religion and we don't want it crammed down our throats. Put your kids in private school, teach them whatever the hell you want and be done with it.
And as for the forthcoming counter argument that you don't want evolution rammed down your throat, evolution is the chosen theory by the majority, so again the solution is for you to put your kid in private school to be free of evolution.
Society in general, and certainly the majority of educated folks do not want Creationism in their lives, why do you insist on beating us over the head with it? We don't want it. Period.
39 - Christopher Rose
Wrong again, Mike. Nobody has said that the development of life on Earth was by accident. I tend to believe, given the complete absence of any evidence of gods, that life is the universe exploring itself.
As such, all life has much in common. That's why it is so exciting when DNA reveals how much is shared by seemingly completely different lifeforms. I swear sometimes I can feel the shared heritage between myself and other non-human genotypes.
Your other point also reveals a further confusion. Science doesn't explain the meaning of anything, it explains how things work. The challenge for a mature species is to supply its own meaning. I hope to live long enough to see humanity attain that blessed state but suspect it may take rather longer than the time available to me.
40 - Mike Green
LOL.
I apologize in advance for not running down the preconceived path.
I absolutely DO send my child to a private Christian school. And I still have problems with a number of the pagan ideas even that school has adopted and indoctinate into my child's head.
That notwithstanding, your argument that majority wins is a hypocritical one if you also adopt the notion that the minority ought to submit to the majority.
If the minority did indeed submit to the whims of the majority, your child would NEVER have been taught the theory of evolution because it did not originate with the establishment of public schools. It was a minority idea.
But the evolutionists fought daily, weekly, yearly ... decade by decade. They fought in communities, on school boards, in the schools and in the courts.
They did not give up and go create schools where evolution could be taught aside from the public venues. No, they did exactly OPPOSITE of what you have advised me to do.
Thus, if you wish your child to be taught evolutionary theory as a FACT that he or she will BELIEVE through a process of FAITH in reams and reams of texts they have never read (nor ever will), then so be it.
I have no problem with that. And when the reams of data change and their children (your grandkids) learn a different evolutionary theory, that is okay by me as well.
I do not despise the teaching of evolution. I simply promote the premise that it ought to be taught to kids as a theory that can never be argued as fact.
If that were taught, you and I would be sipping a cup of coffee comparing discussing our beliefs, not whether one is right or wrong.
If Christians were the rotten people some of us have been cast as being, evolution would have never become established in schools becasue it would have simply been forbidden. Instead, many Christians had no problem with teaching one theory alongside another more widely accepted theory.
Instead, the rotten part comes in when evolutionists sought the backing of the government. And it was GOVERNMENT that took over the textbook industry and forced the schools to adopt only government-approved textbooks while simultaneously moving to rid the schools of biblical texts.
In true hypocritical government style, the schools had to forego prayer, biblical texts and any monument related to Christianity, while prayer continued in legislative venues and bibles remain in judicial courts.
The necessity to paint Christians as the bad guys is understandable, but if science had the wherewithal to check history, the facts would prove otherwise.
41 - sr
Im your typical evolutionist. When my child lay dying, she asked me "What will happen when I die."
I asked her if she wanted the truth. She said "Yes daddy." I said remember when we would take a drive and see various animals lying dead along the road side. "Yes daddy I remember" she said. What do you think happened to them. "Daddy they went to heaven." No sweeheart. We all evolved and when you die we just rot. The good part is your mom and I will have great memories of you. Good bye sweetheart.
Evolution is a trillion dollar business. The day will come soon that the theory of evolution,NOT A FACT, will be shown as the biggest hokes ever perpetrated on mankind. When this happens, evolution being a trillian dollar business, will fall and crumble.
42 - Mike Green
Regarding who said life was developed on earth by accident ...
Perhaps you, sir, did not say it. But that doesn't mean it has not been said by anyone. Indeed, many evolutionists subscribe to the notion that life did indeed form on earth through a process that can only be described in a single term as "accidental."
And, as you readily admit, such a notion requires that man create his own meaning of life. And many people believe that is exactly what man did, culminating in fables that turned into religious dogma.
The individuals who deem themselves more evolved and "mature" as you put it, maintain that they do not subscribe to any specific dogma or religious doctrine or belief, thus lifting themselves above the fray where the rest of us fight over which religion is the right one.
Those who believe in nothing or only themselves, or even perhaps some universal power that no one can yet understand are the ones who believe they are right.
Oh, wait!
It appears we all think we've got the right way of thinking. So I am wrong. No one is above the fray. We all believe something.
I believe I'll go eat lunch.
43 - Christopher Rose
Mike, it's known as the theory of evolution. It's our best attempt at explaining the world we find ourselves on.
Christians do try to prevent evolution being taught but their power is weakening as more people see the light. In the past, Christians used to kill people who spoke "heresies".
Jesus Christ probably did live in the Middle East some 2,000 years ago, but he was human, just like the rest of us. Christianity is clearly false, as there are no gods or anything to suggest their existence. The single god theory is only about 5 to 7 thousand years old but humanity is far older. Faithists ARE the bad guys, because they do all humanity a disservice.
44 - duane
Thank you for consolidating your essential points, Mike.
Thus, the evolutionist begins his argument with an inclusion of all sciences.
This is true in the modern era. Wouldn't you see this as a strength? Problems in science are now approached along seemingly disparate lines of inquiry, with all the implied possibilities for refutation and corroboration. For example, if stellar evolutionary theory predicted that the age of the Sun was 100 million years, but the age of the Earth was 4.5 billion years, then either the theory of planetary formation or the methods of Pb/Pb isochron dating would be called into question. If the Bible implies than mankind is less than 6000 years old, but humanoid bones are dated at over 3 million years, then either the Biblical timeline doesn't tell the whole story or radiometric dating is bogus. If you prefer the latter alternative, then you must be willing to take on the subject of nuclear physics and show the world why it's wrong. Good luck with that.
An approximation cannot stand up to scrutiny. It is merely a guess.
Not true. Approximations arise simply as a result of the measuring process involved. If I asked you your age, you might say 45 or 35 or whatever. I would ask you, "Is that exact?" You would search your memory and say, "I was born at 8:33 AM, August 3rd, 1966." I would ask, "Is that exact?" You would have to relent at some point and say, "No, that's an approximation." Only someone more pedantic and literal than I would then say, "Aha! So you are just guessing at your age!"
Any idea how many stars are in the Milky Way galaxy? The best answer is "a few hundred billion." How would anyone know this?
Do you know the speed of light? according to the US National Bureau of Standards, the speed of light is 299792.4574 +/- 0.0011 km/sec. See the +/- symbol? That shows the uncertainty in the measurements. No one knows exactly what the speed of light is. Would you call it a guess? No one will ever know exactly the value of a quantity that can, in principle, assume any value from a continuum of possibilities.
You can ask, "How many McDonald's franchises are in Chicago?" and get an exact answer, because there is not a continuum of possibilities. It must be some integer value. Someone could simply count them. But if you want to the age of distance of something, you can only approximate it, then report the measurement uncertainty. Does that make you dissatisfied with science? That's the nature of the beast. It's the best anyone can do.
The transcendental number pi is not known exactly. It can't be known exactly. Does that leave you feeling dissatisfied with mathematics?
You seem to have an issue with "facts." The scientific method does not live on facts alone. The facts are, for example, that there are stars of various colors, sizes, distances, luminosities, etc. Them are the facts. It takes "theory" to understand why the facts are what they are. Enter the theories of star formation and stellar evolution.
And just to be clear, the word "theory" has a different meaning when used by a scientist than when used speaking colloquially. A theory is not a guess. A guess is referred to as a hypothesis in science. A theory is a unifying structure, a picture or scenario, sometimes expressed mathematically, that purports to account for a wide range of observed facts. Stellar evolution theory makes sense of the observed facts. Is stellar evolution a "fact"? Stars do evolve, but is the whole theory, with it's hundreds of equations that model a bewildering array of interacting physical processes a bona fide "fact"? No, it's an approximation, or a model.
Theories are not to be confused with facts. That the Moon orbits the Earth is a fact. That the Moon does so because of gravity is a theory, known as Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation (note the improper use of the word "Law" -- it's colloquial), or, to come up to date, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. "Just" theories? Nope.
Theories are subjected over and over to tests and extreme scrutiny. Why? Because scientists are motivated by integrity? Nope. Because scientists are in the business of adding more and more decimal points? Nope. The answer is that scientists, to a large extent, are motivated by ego and ambition, like many other professionals. They want to shoot down the prevailing theory and become famous. That's what Einstein did. If you can show that you've uncovered an error or if you've conceived a better idea than some historically famous science bigwig, you can call your shots after that. So, if you think there aren't thousands of biologists out there gunning for Darwin, geologists who need to toe the party line, astronomers who are intimidated into silence by the graybeards, then you don't understand human nature or the history of science. That's why theories are tested and tested -- someone is hoping to find fault with the theory.
So, would you care to reconsider your statement, "An approximation cannot stand up to scrutiny. It is merely a guess."?
45 - SteveS
I simply promote the premise that it ought to be taught to kids as a theory that can never be argued as fact.
Evolution IS taught as a theory. Those of us who accept it as fact are not the scientists.
If that were taught, you and I would be sipping a cup of coffee comparing discussing our beliefs, not whether one is right or wrong.
No, I would still say you were wrong, but in a friendlier manner.
If Christians were the rotten people some of us have been cast as being
Let's stick with calling them Creationists and not lumping the whole faith in with the extremist views of a minority.
No sweeheart. We all evolved and when you die we just rot.
sr, that's not what evolution teaches. You get false information about evolution from Creationists. Most people who believe in evolution also believe in a soul.
See Mike? Slams and assumptions go both ways.
46 - SteveS
Gravity is taught as a theory too (the theory of gravity, anyone?). Many of us accept it as fact though.
47 - sr
SteveS#45. Most people who believe in evolution also believe in a soul. WHY?
48 - Dr Dreadful
As this (and the other related) thread lengthens, I'm beginning to appreciate why many scientists refuse to debate creationists.
They'll misrepresent science, misrepresent the arguments of scientists and misrepresent their own arguments in order to twist things their way.
The point has been well-made elsewhere that it is only in the question of origins, cosmological and biological, that most creationists seem to have a problem with science. All except the most lunatic fringe now accept that the Earth is a sphere and that whales are not fish, for example, even though the Bible asserts otherwise. Such things are obvious. But when you go beyond the obvious - you can't go to a cliff somewhere on Earth and read, carved into the rock, 'EST. 4,500,000,000 B.C.E.'* - that's when certain Christians of limited imagination and brittle faith start to have problems.
Yes - brittle faith. I've read on cosmology and quantum theory quite a bit, and it does seem to me that the deeper you get the more there seems to be the hand of a designer at work (of course, I'm also broadminded enough to realize that this could just be my anthropocentrism talking). So no, there isn't necessarily a problem with there being a God just because the universe doesn't turn out to have been created in 4004 B.C., as Archbishop Ussher claimed. It's very sad that people feel so threatened in their faith by this concept (or are just scared by the sheer scale of it) that they feel the need to use every means necessary to deny it.
I find more believable a Creator who fashioned the awesome observable universe I see around me with its sublime physical laws, its possibly irreducible quantum intricacy and its immense vistas of space and time, than one who got bored splashing around in the dark by himself a paltry few millennia ago and cobbled together a lump of rock with squabbling things living on it.
To put it bluntly: if the Almighty King of All Creation fashioned the universe as described in Genesis - and made me into the bargain - how come I've got a better imagination than him?
*Or to a glacier in Norway and read the designer's signature in the ice - thanks, Douglas!
49 - handyguy
People often misread the word theory in this context. Calling a scientific idea a theory does not mean it's speculation or an unproven notion. All modern science is described as a set of "theories." Some, like String Theory, are hotly debated among scientists, but some, like evolution, are accepted as established fact by 99% or more of reputable researchers.
In science, a theory is:
"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."
50 - sr
If creation became a proven fact would it put a crimp on your life style? Lets put that in perspective. Would you rather believe in evolution over creation and why.
51 - SteveS
SteveS#45. Most people who believe in evolution also believe in a soul. WHY?
Because most evolutionists in this country are Christians. Does that surprise you? Get out more.
If creation became a proven fact would it put a crimp on your life style?
No, because I am a baptized Christian. I have accepted Jesus into my life. But that doesn't require me to take the Bible literally.
Lets put that in perspective. Would you rather believe in evolution over creation and why.
Because there is nothing to support creationism and there is enough data to support evolution to fill up the library of Congress. Even the Pope (the last Pope) came out in support of evolution.
So I would rather support reality over fantasy because God gave me a brain with which to think for myself.
Next question?
52 - zingzing
"If creation became a proven fact would it put a crimp on your life style?"
oh, hell yeah, it would. i'd be frightened for my imortal soul. hell (and the basic threat of "you don't believe in hell, therefore you will go there,") is a pretty scary thought. but i don't dwell on it. (i'm assuming you are talking about the christian version of creation, because there are lots of versions, and my reaction would differ if another culture's creation myth proved correct.)
if some unknowable being created the universe long ago, i'll probably never know about it anyway.
"Would you rather believe in evolution over creation and why."
not really. evolution doesn't real touch on the afterlife question... but i do have to logically conclude that once i'm dead there isn't much left to do but rot. that doesn't sound too fun. but, whatever. i'm not fooling myself.
53 - Dr Dreadful
Carl Sagan speculated that if there were a creator, he/she/it/they might leave some kind of signature deeply embedded in the fabric of the universe, in such a way that it could be found and interpreted for what it was by a civilization sufficiently advanced to be able to cope with the information in a mature fashion. For example, you might be calculating pi to trillions of decimal places and suddenly come across a recognizable pattern, a regular, logical sequence of digits not explainable by chance - a code.
Or more likely - since we are a mere Stage Zero civilization - something far cleverer than that.
Such a being would be a far cry from the Christian God, so unfortunately that notion ain't going to fly with creationists either.
54 - SteveS
oh, hell yeah, it would. i'd be frightened for my imortal soul.
This type of talk motivates them zingzing, it's what they want to hear. If you don't harm other people and respect others, there isn't much else to change.
You smoke? (rhetorical, don't answer) God doesn't forbid that. You drink? Switch to wine and you're fine. There isn't much to change if you respect other humans.
It's important to point out that the faithful are not the only ones who are moral. They seem to think men are animals who need fear to keep us in line, that if we were free to be ourselves we would be savages, but then want us to believe that we are spiritually made "in God's image", and they don't put two and two together.
Carl Sagan speculated that if there were a creator, he/she/it/they might leave some kind of signature
Wouldn't that imply vanity?
55 - zingzing
"This type of talk motivates them zingzing, it's what they want to hear. If you don't harm other people and respect others, there isn't much else to change."
i'm not a highly moral person. i've been a bad boy in my time. i have never harmed any other person... well, that's not true... and i have done things that caused other people pain out of selfishness. i curse, i blaspheme, i drink copious amounts of liquor and i'm sure most any god would be rather appalled at what i have put in my body... i can be intentionally cruel, i masturbate and have premarital sex at alarming rates... let me see... i have broken several of the commandments... most of them, i would say. i'm sure there's some christian loophole that puts me in hell. but i would have a hard time believing in such a cruel god. merciful? read your bible.
overall, however, i am a very moral person who believes in the dignity and freedom of other people. i just don't apply such things to myself.
56 - zingzing
hmm. i tend to contradict myself. (much like the bible!--blasphemy!)
i dunno how i can explain that.
57 - SteveS
That's not what I mean, but I get your point. There are religions like some of the Native American ones that think you need to take halluceno....halluc... er, peyote in order to have spiritual visions. And most Christians will tell you that the commandment against masterbation was when it was important to populate the earth. Now that we are up to 9 billion, masterbation may end up being a requirement soon.
I am cut off by rude drivers all the time. People swear and shove in malls. People call each other names and hurt feelings in high school. Being intentionally cruel and selfish is common in this country, not that it's right but it's common. And fundamentalists will tell you that the majority of people in this country are Christians so ergo...the majority of those that do this behavior believe in God.
This is my point. Instilling a fear of the afterworld into people in order to get them to modify behavior hasn't worked so far, so let's not give them that one because it's already proven to be a falsehood.
58 - Dr Dreadful
Wouldn't that imply vanity?
Vanity is a human emotion. My cat announces his presence to other cats by occasionally (the little bastard) spraying urine on the front door. That's not vanity, just 'here I am'.
59 - SteveS
Good point and it may even explain that foul odor coming from Polarissima Borealis.
60 - sr
I dont give a hoot about the pope. He's just a dude like us except he wears tons of gold on is head. The vicar for Christ my ass. SteveS next question. Heck if I know. What question would you like me to ask? Carl Sagan was a fool and talked like he had a banna up is rear end. I never made mention concerning a christian God. I just asked a question.
61 - Lee Richards
No one will ever be able to persuade Mike to change his mind;you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reach by reasoning in the first place.
His mind was closed when he decided to accept the revelations of the Bible as the end all and be all. Of course, that's not quite true, because he does pick and choose which parts of "God's holy word" still apply to Christians. Interesting that the Bible is supposed to be our revealed source of truth, knowledge and morals, and show the way to salvation, but Mike says we don't have to actually follow ALL of it anymore (just the parts he likes and agrees with.)
If he were to try ever again to think for himself rather than just blindly believe and follow all of the myths, metaphors, and figurative language of a book filled mostly with fictional characters and symbolic stories, he might see that:
Some statements--facts, scientific theories--can be true or false because they are empirical, observeable, demonstrable, or objective propositions. Since they can be shown to be true or false, they constitute what we know. (And, yes, it does take time, evidence, and a lot of work and thought to separate true from false.)
Some statements are neither true nor false, such as propositions about love, hope, taste. They're not "knowledge" as we generally understand the term;they can't be shown to be true or false propositions that convey the same meaning to everyone.
Some statements give us no way to discern whether they are true or false, such as propositions about gods, man-gods, heaven, supernatural forces. Such statements depend only on faith and are NOT knowledge(although their followers are always convinced they are the highest order of knowledge.) Saying "the Bible says so" is a subjective declaration of belief, without a shred of proof of the proposition.
Confusing knowledge and faith has proven to be one of the most costly mistakes in all human history, and creationists want to replay it again in America. Mike doesn't need any proof what for he believes;his mind was made up without any. He now relies on sophistry to try to disguise that true fact.
62 - sr
Mr. Richards do you think Mike should throw is stupid bible in the trash and get educated as yourself?
63 - Lee Richards
#62:
What Mike does with his Bible is up to him but, yes, I think everybody should get educated.
64 - SteveS
SteveS next question. Heck if I know. What question would you like me to ask?
It was rhetorical. Evolutionists are not anti-God. The majority of evolutionists believe in a God.
We have the Theory of Relativity being taught in school. We have the Theory of Gravity being taught in school. Both are theories, both are unproven. Both are unchallenged in school board battles across the nation.
Only ONE theory is being challenged, and that is the theory that they perceive as conflicting with the story of Creation in the Bible.
The whole motive behind this Creationism drive, sr, is fear. Unfounded fears that a lifelong belief system will be proven false.
Evolution is not anti-God, nor does it teach that we are souless, nor does it delve into any afterlife. It simply covers the 'how' of life, not the 'why'.
65 - sr
SteveS#51. One thing I do know sir is never get into discussions over politics and religion. Does Christions beliveing in evolution surprise me. Of course not. It's called theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism. Sure I should get out more, however, I'm afraid to leave the confines of my cave. I do not call myself a Christian nor am I worthy of being a Christian. Very seldom do I pick up a bible let alone read it. Due to your comment which I sincerely thank you for, I read something from Genesis today. This is from Genesis 2 verse 28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful,and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: In Genesis 2 verse 26 God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Now not being a student of the bible by any means this is what perplexis me. In saying "our," did God tell this to primordial scum that wouldn't know a roll of toilet paper from the library of congress, did he say it to Adam and Eve after they evolved millions of years later and had an understanding of lanquage, or did God tell the scum to stay out of the fruit trees. I know Adam and Eve are just a fantasy and so do you, and I also think the Bible is a fantasy. So my dear sir, why are you a Christian? As for what the pope belives, Frankly Scarlett I dont give a damn.
66 - SteveS
One thing I do know sir is never get into discussions over politics and religion.
But then what do you discuss here at BC?
So my dear sir, why are you a Christian?
There is faith/spirituality, and there is religion. They are as different as night and day. This thread really isn't the place to discuss my theology, but quickly, since I do discuss religion on the appropriate threads here, I was raised a Christian and I do believe in the Christian principles. I also believe that God gave us free will and the ability to think for ourselves.
I think organized religion runs counter to that, so I do not go to a church. I don't pray before every meal, nor do I clasp my hands and pray at night. I don't believe in fire and brimstone and Adam and Eve. I believe these are like psalms or parables for us.
Organized religion is handing your beliefs over to another to shape and mold, and that certainly isn't what ANY diety would want. Organized religion is evil, and always causes oppression and suffering in the world. There is not one instance where it does not.
A person's faith belongs to him and him alone and any society built on faith is a society of oppression. Never has it been otherwise.
And that is why I always fight people who would instill their beliefs in the public square.
I do not believe in Creationism, and I know it for what it is, nothing more than a belief system, which has no place in science or the public school system.
You can tell when a person's faith is their own, or when it is dictated to them by others, for when it is put on trial, it is the latter who feel persecuted and attacked.
67 - sr
Dear SteveS. That was the answer I expected from you knowing you never would answer the questions I asked you. Lets just call it a night. Many years ago this man told me he was about to get in a fight and told the other man just go tell your friends you kicked my ass and I'll tell my friends I kicked your ass. No blood shed. Makes sence to me. Take care my friend and have a great weekend.
68 - SteveS
I believe I answered your questions. If there is one I missed, feel free to point it out.
Where I come from, debate and disagreement do not equal fighting, but then again I'm not a Creationist, so perhaps that's where the lines of communication break down. For them it's pretty clear that disagreement or debate = attack and fighting.
69 - sr
Goodnight Sir.
70 - sr
Another day SteveS. My question as I stated was concerning Genesis,verses 26 and 28 and I wanted you to respond to the question that perplexis me. You know, Adam and Eve and the scum thing. Simple enough dont you think. In other words was this God speaking to scum or did he wait for Adam and Eve to evolve and speak to them. Of course this all depends on your trust if the bible is the word of God or should it be used in your outhouse like a Sears catalog. Of course you may perfer corncobs like me. Except you cant read corncobs doing your duty. Later dude.
71 - MBD
sr…
In #65 you refer to Genesis 2 verse 26. Chapter 26 doesn’t exist.
The last verses in Chapter 2 are 24 and 25:
“24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.”
In #70 you refer to Genesis 26-28. That doesn’t make any sense in this context.
It reads:
“26 Meanwhile, Abimelech had come to him from Gerar, with Ahuzzath his personal adviser and Phicol the commander of his forces. 27 Isaac asked them, "Why have you come to me, since you were hostile to me and sent me away?" 28 They answered, "We saw clearly that the Lord was with you; so we said, 'There ought to be a sworn agreement between us'--between us and you. Let us make a treaty with you.”
Perhaps these references make sense in the bible you wrote.
72 - sr
MBD, Your right dude. My mistake. Genesis 1 verse 26 and Genesis 1 verse 28. Sorry about that to all I have cofused including SteveS. Like I said Im no student of the bible. MBD thank you for pointing this out to me. Sincerely, sr
73 - sr
My comment#65 should be corrected from Genesis 2 to Genesis 1 but still the same verses. 26 and 28. Sorry about that SteveS. Now I understand your confusion. The rest of my comment is still good to go. Thank MBD for pointing this out to me.
Hey blogcritics why dont you correct this for me. Im not about to type this again. If you do I'll send you a free bible and cookies.
74 - SteveS
Oh, sr, now I understand. No, it wasn't the numbers of the chapters that confused me. I didn't know that was an actual question, I thought it was rhetorical.
You are asking me if God was talking to scum or Adam and Eve. This is the question?
The answer is neither, because:
1) Adam and Eve are a parable or a fable, or as you put it, a fantasy. They never existed. We evolved.
2) God never talked to anybody. That part of the bible is no more literal than the whole 6 day thing. It's odd that God talked to everybody in the Bible on an almost daily basis, either by burning bush or by blasting his cliff notes into the mountainside or whatever but then just quit talking to humans?
The answer to your question is none of the above, sr. I am not a literalist. God did not write the bible, humans did. Fallible humans. We can use the Bible to guide us, but not to dictate to us verbatim.
I hope I answered your question now. If you really want to know who he was actually talking to, then you will need to ask someone who believes the bible literally. That would not be me, nor would it be a Creationist, as they only take Creation literally but pick and choose parts of the rest of the bible.
75 - MBD
"Oh, sr, now I understand. No, it wasn't the numbers of the chapters that confused me."
No. It's just everything else.