U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution

[Mirorgate 0]

Well science doesn't (and can't) prove there is no God, it just conflicts (in places) with the verbiage of certain religious texts. In essence, the problem is a refusal to accept any deviation from a specific and inflexible concept of God.

Which is kind of why I said that Creationism is a bit like a castle under siege - its an entrenched position that is simply impossible to prove one way or another, but certainly our scientific research has, and continues to provide evidence that constantly chips away at the foundation (you don't see much coming the other way).

Personally I can't see the problem - my beliefs (on that issue at least) are not rooted in the absolute literal truth of the text. As I said, I can't understand why people feel that science threatens faith - if anything science has validated and enriched it. I used the example before about the "flat earth". Perhaps a more useful example to use would have been the archaic idea that the Sun travels around the Earth. People used to believe that (because it validated the idea, from the bible, that the Earth is the center of creation) - we now know its not as simple as that. What we don't know - and can't prove is whether or not the Earth is the center of the universe (the universe being of infinite size and unknown shape and being comprised of multiple dimensions).

Incidentally science is actually older than any of today's major religions, I just thought I'd throw that in there.

well yeah... not sure why either (to the bold). science is fascinating .. but it isnt the be all end all scenario. i view it as kind of a puzzle. how was this done and why... and does my conclusions actually make sense. most times not (not a science major... just naturally curious )

as to your other point about earth being center or some such... the bible is about God after all... not the science of how creation happened. so much information has been lost, maybe there were science texts that just werent as preserved (kept around) as much as the bible.. i can not say for certain since obviously I wasnt there and cant comment in the definitive. but we do have some sciences from the times of the romans , greeks and a few others found here and there.

[rclouse 0]

My point is that for Fundamental Christians they can not EVER accept evolution even if you could prove the science behind it without them having to completely change their understanding of truth. To them truth is synonomous with fact. I was trying to explain earlier to Stina that that is at the heart of this whole debate. We can come up with all the scientific evidence in the world, it won't resolve the internal conflict that these particular Christians have with believing in the Bible as Truth, but not necessarily or entirely factual. It's tricky because then they errantly conclude that if the story of Creation isn't factual, then the whole Bible must not be. I've gotten into numerous discussions with many biblical literalists about this very issue and it always come down to that. If you could ever get one to understand the difference between truth and fact and you've opened up a whole world to them.

That sums it all up just about perfectly. Certain Christians have invested so much into their faith that if you "attack" it, even inadvertently, they'll do everything in their power to support their view.

We've got a guy like this at work. He was a typical juvenile delinquent/stoner until he found religion and turned his life around. He's convinced that Jesus saved him, so everything he reads in that book is the literal truth. To his thinking, where would he be without Christ? And that's great for him, he's a good guy, has a nice family, works with his church to do charity work, etc. But the moment you tell him that maybe the Earth is more than 6,000 years old, he will debate you to no end. Cause he perceives that you're attacking the thing that saved him, the thing that is most "right" in the universe.

I prefer to believe God and science can co-exist.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

My point is that for Fundamental Christians they can not EVER accept evolution even if you could prove the science behind it without them having to completely change their understanding of truth. To them truth is synonomous with fact. I was trying to explain earlier to Stina that that is at the heart of this whole debate. We can come up with all the scientific evidence in the world, it won't resolve the internal conflict that these particular Christians have with believing in the Bible as Truth, but not necessarily or entirely factual. It's tricky because then they errantly conclude that if the story of Creation isn't factual, then the whole Bible must not be. I've gotten into numerous discussions with many biblical literalists about this very issue and it always come down to that. If you could ever get one to understand the difference between truth and fact and you've opened up a whole world to them.

That sums it all up just about perfectly. Certain Christians have invested so much into their faith that if you "attack" it, even inadvertently, they'll do everything in their power to support their view.

We've got a guy like this at work. He was a typical juvenile delinquent/stoner until he found religion and turned his life around. He's convinced that Jesus saved him, so everything he reads in that book is the literal truth. To his thinking, where would he be without Christ? And that's great for him, he's a good guy, has a nice family, works with his church to do charity work, etc. But the moment you tell him that maybe the Earth is more than 6,000 years old, he will debate you to no end. Cause he perceives that you're attacking the thing that saved him, the thing that is most "right" in the universe.

I prefer to believe God and science can co-exist.

I've known quite a few people that fit that description and you're right, they are the most rigid about their beliefs because it gave them answers out of chaos. It makes circles fit into squares and all shades of grey turn into black or white. I got chided earlier in this thread for trying to explain that the story of creation was never meant to be taken as a factual account of how the heavens and earth were created. We're suppose to leave them to believe as they wish - to which I'd say nobody's putting a gun to their head - we're trying to exchange ideas and hopefully have a better understanding of all perspectives. Especially since many Fundamentalists see the argument as Creationism vs. Evolution - God vs. Atheism, which is NOT the case. In fact, the majority of Christians around the world do not see a conflict with accepting the theory of evolution and believing that God was the Master Creator of all things.

Edited August 12, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[incanada1234 0]

When you can prove to me 100% that the big bang happened and evolution followed, I will believe you. Until then, we're just doing a lot of arguing back and forth. All I see when I read about the two subjects is "THOUGHT to have happened" and "COULD have happened" and "MIGHT be what occurred." Not good enough for me. Sorry, God/Bible wins.

[Fandango 1,439]

Why does anyone here have to sh!t on or try to challenge someone's beliefs? None of us know with any certainty, so why does anyone here give a chit if so and so beliefs in Creationism? Seriously, does it really matter?

No matter what you believe, it's a personal choice so it's got nowt to do with anyone else. and who the hell is anyone to try to change anyone's mind?

[incanada1234 0]

Why does anyone here have to sh!t on or try to challenge someone's beliefs? None of us know with any certainty, so why does anyone here give a chit if so and so beliefs in Creationism? Seriously, does it really matter?

No matter what you believe, it's a personal choice so it's got nowt to do with anyone else. and who the hell is anyone to try to change anyone's mind?

Atheists like to feel smug with their supposed superior intelligence on the subject. That, by the way, they can't prove.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

When you can prove to me 100% that the big bang happened and evolution followed, I will believe you. Until then, we're just doing a lot of arguing back and forth. All I see when I read about the two subjects is "THOUGHT to have happened" and "COULD have happened" and "MIGHT be what occurred." Not good enough for me. Sorry, God/Bible wins.

What I can give is some indisputable facts that conflict with the story of Creation if you interpret it as factual. I hope you don't feel that evolution is an attack on your beliefs because it shouldn't be. You and I share the same common truth and that is that God created all things. Where we disagree is how that happened. I believe in the Bible as Truth, but I don't believe that everything that is written in it should be taken literally, nor is everything a factual account. As I mentioned before, the Bible is full of allegory, metaphor and prose. Just look at the Book of Revelation - you'd be kidding yourself if you don't realize that no one takes it literally.

" Therefore, repent. Otherwise, I will come to you quickly and wage war against them with the sword of my mouth." - Revelation 2:16

Does he really have a sword in his mouth? Of course not.

Indisputable scientific facts that contradict a literal understanding of the Book of Genesis:

It is a FACT that the earth, with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a FACT that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period, and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a FACT that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun. There is evidence in the ground, and in cave paintings, and in our own DNA.

[incanada1234 0]

S&J, so how do you decide which parts of the Bible to take literally then? Does everyone get to pick and choose? Boy, that'd be nice and easy, eh?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why does anyone here have to sh!t on or try to challenge someone's beliefs? None of us know with any certainty, so why does anyone here give a chit if so and so beliefs in Creationism? Seriously, does it really matter?

No matter what you believe, it's a personal choice so it's got nowt to do with anyone else. and who the hell is anyone to try to change anyone's mind?

What's the point of arguing about anything? I suppose we could all go to our corners and never try to understand each other's points-of-view.

If a religion dictates that a woman must be circumcised - for those of us who believe that it is mutilation shouldn't challenge that belief?

I'm not sure why you of all people would become defensive about other's religious beliefs.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

S&J, so how do you decide which parts of the Bible to take literally then? Does everyone get to pick and choose? Boy, that'd be nice and easy, eh?

That's a good question. I didn't find out that Adam and Eve weren't factual people until my freshman year in a Catholic HS religion class and I remember my first reaction was anger. I felt like I had been lied to - but that quickly wore off as I began to accept the truth of the story of Creation rather than as fact and then the whole thing became much more meaningful. Before I used to question, "Why the hell did Adam have to eat the apple and I remember thinking how Eve was the bad one because she listened to the serpent, and we'd all be in paradise if she had just followed the rules."

Extreme versions of this sense of literality could have strange results. For example, in Mark 12:1-9, Jesus tells a parable about a man who planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a pit for a wine press, built a watchtower, and then rented it to tenants before leaving for another country. When the harvest came, he sent a slave to collect the rent, but the tenants seized and beat him instead of giving him the owner's share of the harvest. Other slaves were sent, and they, too, were beaten or killed. Finally the owner sent his own son thinking that the tenants would honor him and give him his share of the rent. Instead they seized him, killed him, and threw his body out of the vineyard. If a reader of this story were simply to read the surface level of the text, the entire point would be missed because this is a parable that takes the form of an allegory. In other words, the characters in the story refer to other figures: God, prophets, Christ, etc. A meaningful, dare we say a correct reading of this text, requires more than a literal adherence to the surface level of the words. In that sense of "literal," a surface reading of the text would be anything but a sound reading of the text. An insightful reading would require other judgments about the text to be made, for example, the literary genre of the text, in this case an allegory.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/aageson_biblicaltext.htm

By James W. Aageson

Concordia College

Department of Religion

[Fandango 1,439]

Why does anyone here have to sh!t on or try to challenge someone's beliefs? None of us know with any certainty, so why does anyone here give a chit if so and so beliefs in Creationism? Seriously, does it really matter?

No matter what you believe, it's a personal choice so it's got nowt to do with anyone else. and who the hell is anyone to try to change anyone's mind?

What's the point of arguing about anything? I suppose we could all go to our corners and never try to understand each other's points-of-view.

If a religion dictates that a woman must be circumcised - for those of us who believe that it is mutilation shouldn't challenge that belief?

I'm not sure why you of all people would become defensive about other's religious beliefs.

You want to share opinions......fine..

You want to have an exchange of beliefs...fine

You want to condescend to ppl who don't agree with your view of something that none of us can speak of with any degree of certainty......not fine.

You want to sit here and challenge others' beliefs and talk with expertise on a matter in which you hold no credentials and try to tell others how to interpret summat as subjective as The Bible....not fine

Go back and read your posts just in this thread.

Religion is a very personal choice. No one's going to prove or disprove anyone's ideas because they are faith-based and do not rely on hard core PROOF. So as long as they are not hurting anyone else...such as any religion that preaches infringing on another...what is the big dealio? And what is the objective here to criticize summat that has sweet FA to do with you?

Are you a theologian? A scientist who specializes in the study of evolution? I am really curious if you have any formal education specializing in either of these matters. If not, how can you sit here and then say with any degree of surity 'This wasn't meant for ....' 'that wasn't supposed to be taken literally, it was supposed to...' blah blah blah. What are you looking for? 'Oh Steven_and_Jinky you are so smart! You've shown me the error of my ways! I totally get it now! blah blah blah' ??? Now I'm sure you can come back with a really 'clever' cut and paste of that even tho it was only sarcastic...but whatever!

Does it make you feel superior to condescend to people things such as:

There's a difference between truth and fact - something that many can't seem to grasp.

Is it your job to set us all straight on what is the Truth and what is Fact? Can you not grasp the concept that it's none of your business? Now I'm not even saying how I feel on this particular matter because it's not up for debate....but to be so presumptuous to try to 'teach' people on how to believe in the beginning of the world is just REALLY funny....

Also, I just saw:

Really? And just what is your job here on VJ - making sure to point out when you think I'm wrong? I smell hypocracy.

I will point out when I think you are wrong in your actions...such as 'with all due respect, Stina, the Bible meant it like this...' cos come ON! You're going to reteach us the Bible or you're going to tell us you've sussed the meaning of life? If you feel that this is hypocrisy, so be it! I am more than willing to debate most topics, but a topic so subjective as religion...there is no right and wrong, and for you to assume otherwise and try to imply that you have the 'right answers' is ridiculous. Of course I'm outspoken. I'm even rude at times. I jump to conclusions. I will tell anyone what I think of him or her. But I'm not ever going to tell anyone his or her belief system with religion is wrong and I have all the answers. I don't feel this makes me a hypocrite, but if you can set about to show me otherwise...well then go for it...I welcome the chance to see what you mean.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

but a topic so subjective as religion...there is no right and wrong

??? Christians in this country are in constant debate with one another over religion with such issues as gay marriage, abortion and evolution...holy cow! You're such a friggin hypocrite - where was your outrage when the Christian Right were telling gay people they can't marry? Or that it's against the Bible???

Lisa, if you've got nothing to add to this discussion beyond telling me how wrong I am, I'm just going to ignore your posts. Find another hobby because I'm tired of being yours.

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

Lisa, if you've got nothing to add to this discussion beyond telling me how wrong I am, I'm just going to ignore your posts. Find another hobby because I'm tired of being yours.

duck, incoming

[danae 0]

Well for my 2 cents- I have enjoyed this dicussion, and I have enjoyed reading what Steven has brought it to. His POV is interesting, and he offers it articulately and reasonably.

anyway

[Fuzzness 2]

When you can prove to me 100% that the big bang happened and evolution followed, I will believe you. Until then, we're just doing a lot of arguing back and forth. All I see when I read about the two subjects is "THOUGHT to have happened" and "COULD have happened" and "MIGHT be what occurred." Not good enough for me. Sorry, God/Bible wins.

how hypocritical to question a scientific theory yet blindly follow what is said in a book that has absolutely no proof whatsoever that what it says has actually happened.

you never cease to amaze me