Congratulations to the United Methodist Church for signing on to the Clergy Letter Project!
(hat tip to Henry Neufeld.)
Social
Site Search
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Pierce R. Butler on What do Florida public school students learn about climate change?
- David Honig on New Florida Board of Education Chair: “I won’t support any evolution being taught as fact at all in any of our schools.â€
- dhogaza on New Florida Board of Education Chair: “I won’t support any evolution being taught as fact at all in any of our schools.â€
- dhogaza on New Florida Board of Education Chair: “I won’t support any evolution being taught as fact at all in any of our schools.â€
- dhogaza on New Florida Board of Education Chair: “I won’t support any evolution being taught as fact at all in any of our schools.â€
Blog Categories
Facebook Feed
What a beautiful letter!
This is outstanding. As a scientific consultant to the CLP, I proudly congratulate Michael Zimmerman and the organizers of the three resolutions – Daniel Oertel, Al Kuelling and the Kansas East Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church – on a job well done!
As the much beloved Hawkins puts it, “God doesn’t exist”. So why do we need these crazies on our side ?
I agree with you, although from an opposite perspective. True faith in God must reject the Darwinianists view. The United Methodist Church on the whole has rejected their faith, although there are a few holdouts it is void of faith in God’s Word. I was raised in the UMC and still have friends there, but sadly there are very few left that trust God at his Word.
These folks aren’t the crazies. Not all religious folks are crazy, just the very vocal minority. Why does FCS need these moderate folks on their side? To show that ID is a sham, that it is about religion, but not mainstream religion. To show that it is about fundamentalists trying to jam their narrow literalist interpretation of their bible down everyone’s throats.
Speaking of crazies, it looks like one has just joined the discussion. 🙄
Only according to your backwards hillbilly literalist interpretation of your bible. The vast majority of Christians have no problem reading and comprehending their bibles. They see creationism as a falsehood propagated by people like you.
At least Dawkins is honest. He says you cannot believe in Darwinism and God at the same time. Read his book.
Advocatell,
The creation-evolution debate is a social controversy, not a scientific one – the situation can only be improved if more people of faith (the vast majority of the country, hardly a monolithic group of “crazies”) accept the coexistence of science and religion.
People of faith ? Faith in what James ?
Do these guys believe the bible ? When it says whosoever loves the world is a enemy of God ?
Advocatell, I meant theists – mainly Christians, also Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and so forth.
As long as they don’t hold to the bible then fine.
Oh, I see what’s happening here. 🙄
Yet another “concerned” troll.
Dawkins is an atheist. The particular claim he was making was in defense of atheism. Although, nice way of taking it out of context.
The proper interpretation of the Christian bible can be held to just fine. It is the backwards fundamentalists with their literalist interpretation of Genesis that is the problem. I bet they also drink poison and take up serpents to test their faith.
There is little question that exposure to a scientific education reduces the likelihood that a person will believe in God, about 14% of the general population are atheists/agnostics, 48% of doctors, 70% of research scientists, and 93% of National Academy members.
Draw you own conclusions.
Well, I’m not claiming that faith in superstition is either rational or good. I am an atheist. However, I won’t lambaste people who are on the side of science even if I don’t agree with their personal beliefs.
You can’t be an atheist because you can’t justify your absolute negative without exhaustive knowledge, and Zygo, we def. know you don’t have exhaustive knowledge, just read any of your posts, esp. when responding to me on the Beyond Expelled Post.
Once again, I ask FCS
IS SCIENCE THE ONLY MEANS TO ATTAIN KNOWLEDGE?
That science and religion can be compatible is true, but if you define science with an a priori definition that only allows naturalistic interpretations for all phenomena, then of course “science†and religion can’t be compatible at all. But there we go again, here is a perfect example of how relevant my question is:
IS SCIENCE THE ONLY MEANS TO ATTAIN KNOWLEDGE?
This troll is getting extremely annoying. Moderator?
Yes, please Expell me and make me a martyr!
I’ll play along since McChurch actually answered my previous questions (although 2 out of the 3 answers were cop-outs) with response:
“No, science is not the only means to attain knowledge”
but, keeping in mind that there are many different types of knowledge, from scientific, historical, religious, etc.
The issue here is scientific knowledge, in which case, science IS the only way to attain it.
Your answers to my first and second question reflects the core issue of why your particular brand of Christian scripture interpretation, in my opinion, should die in a fire. It’s an oxymoron to say that a Christian can interpret certain portions of biblical scripture as literal, and other portions as metaphorical and then go on to say this gem of an answer:
As the Word of God, Scripture is the ultimate and final authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Thus, nothing gives a Christian the right to ignore God’s Word
The problem here is that through the interpretation itself, some of God’s alleged words and teachings ARE being ignored, whether out of personal convenience, common sense, or codes of morality. By your statement, all Christians are walking contradictions.
The Clergy Letter Project demonstrates yet another interpretation to biblical scripture in which the events of Genesis as more metaphorical than literal, added to an already growing list of biblical teachings which I’m sure even you can agree are metaphorical (fixed, unmoving earth, geocentricism, pi=3, etc).
John McDonald asks:
“IS SCIENCE THE ONLY MEANS TO ATTAIN KNOWLEDGE?”
That depends. It’s the only means for obtaining objectively verifiable knowledge. If, however, one regards his subjective feelings as knowledge, then that’s yet another type of knowledge.
But science is the only system that has a dispute resolution system. If there are competing views about something, science refers the dispute to a testing procedure, which can be observed and verified by everyone. Therefore, scientifically verified knowledge is inherently more reliable than an individual’s personal feelings about something.
Well, fundamentalist whack-jobs also have a dispute resolution system: attack those who dispute their backwards beliefs. In the past, people were murdered as heretics and witches. Perhaps this is the direction McDonald would prefer to go in?
Thank you Karl for your more civil response. My concern is that many, although they might not claim that science is the only means to attain knowledge, do act like it is the only means.
I am convinced that it is not difficult to distinguish metaphorical from literal language in Scripture. The context gives clues as to whether something is literal or non-literal. A basic approach to Scripture interpretation is to read a passage as literal narrative unless that meaning would be absurd. Then one should consider whether the passage is metaphorical in meaning.
Scripture has been misinterpreted to teach a flat-earth, geocentrism, etc. But this is not a fault in the actual teaching of Scripture, but rather in the interpreter.
I agree that Christians are often hypocritical. For this I apologize. The struggle with the sinful nature is difficult, for even though it has lost its power and continues to be eradicated, it still remains to some degree and can be an active although not a ruling principle in the heart.
PatrickHenry:
Please perform an objectively verifiable test using the scientific method that could dictate which actions are “good” and which actions are “bad.” Since you of course cannot, and since science in your view is the only means for objective verification, you have just cornered yourself into saying that objectively verifiable knowledge about morality is impossible. Way to go. You just created moral skepticism. Thankfully, science is not the only means for objective verification.
You know, time was when being a “martyr” meant being horribly tortured to death after having everything you owned confiscated.
Now, it apparently means being banned from a website that you regularly violate the rules of by preaching and spamming.
John McDonald says:
Please perform an objectively verifiable test using the scientific method that could dictate which actions are “good†and which actions are “bad.â€
————
Sure. Take a look at the 20th Century. We had several competing political philosophies. The Bolsheviks, among others, slaughtered hundreds of millions of people, and wherever possible, refugees fled from their system and into those of the West (and not the other way around). That’s the data. I think it’s possible to reach a conclusion.
Similar tests can be derived from the history of various theocracies, when there were alternatives available.
How much divine guidance does it take to figure out whether you want to live in a dictatorial slaughterhouse or a reasonably free nation of laws?
A basic approach to Scripture interpretation is to read a passage as literal narrative unless that meaning would be absurd.
And therein lies the problem: What you may consider absurd, I might consider genius and vice-versa. When you introduce the human element of interpretation into concepts of supposed absolution, you end up with poorly justifiable claims based on, literally, the interpretations of a single reader. What makes you so sure that the events of genesis can’t be metaphorical as well, since I personally find it absurd that one human being can be crafted from dirt, and another from his rib…
You mean, like the creation myth? That’s pretty absurd when taken literally. Talking snakes, trees of knowledge, women being created from ribs, the garden of Eden (which has never been found), ad nauseum.
Please provide another mechanism for objective verification. (Let’s see if McDonald knows the definition of “objective” here.) I’ll give you a hint, “objective” does not mean “scriptural”.
Karl, forgive me for not definining my terms, but what I mean by “absurd” is illogical, esp. breaking the law of non-contradiction. There is nothing absurd (that which breaks the law of non-contradiction) in God forming man’s body from the dust of the earth (matter). That is all that I mean by the term.
Zygo,
The laws of logic are a means for objective verification. Can anything be more certain than something cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same way? BTW, the reason the Garden has never been found is because of the radical change in topography caused by a worldwide flood 🙂 Oh yeah, you can thank that flood for most of your prized fossils as well.
PatrickHenry: Your little scenario does not provide any normative standard because it is only descriptive in nature. You cannot get an “ought” from and “is” Was it right for these killings to take place? Was it right for people to flee? Personal preference doesn’t count in justifying ethical standards.
We are looking for things we OUGHT to do, not things we prefer to do.
John McDonald says:
Your little scenario does not provide any normative standard because it is only descriptive in nature. You cannot get an “ought†from and “is†Was it right for these killings to take place? Was it right for people to flee? Personal preference doesn’t count in justifying ethical standards.
——————
Okay. You say it’s not possible for you to learn anything about morality from the factual experience of the 20th Century. I won’t dispute that you are incapable of arriving at any moral conclusions from such observations. There’s not much point in any further dialogue with you. I’m done here.
Wait… hold on… let me get this right… you think fossils, that take tens of thousands of years to form (outside of your young earth time scale), formed as part of a mythical flood? Hahahahahaha. You kill me. This is great.
Next you’ll tell me that you used a list of begats to discover the age of the earth.
So, what did the dinosaurs eat on the Ark? Or, did Noah decide that dinosaurs were freaks and didn’t deserve to survive the flood? I wonder why your bible doesn’t mention raptors and T-Rexes. For something that existed at the same time as man, you’d think that Genesis would have a warning or two for a creature that would no doubt prey on humans.
There is nothing absurd (that which breaks the law of non-contradiction) in God forming man’s body from the dust of the earth (matter).
At one point in time, someone like you would be saying that there was nothing absurd/illogical about the sun revolving around the earth and that the earth fixed and motionless. I mean, at that time, most people relied on their perception of reality, and from their standpoint, the sun did appeared to be moving around the the earth, while the earth stood still for the most part. Science and mathematics eventually disproved this after all the heresy bullshit, and, like many other former literal interpretations, are now, as you say, metaphorical.
I’m sure we all know for a fact how new human beings are “created” through sexual reproduction, and that the creation of complex multicellular life from “dirt,” let alone an entire planet complete with modern biodiversity and ecosystems in just 7 days is simply not possible as described in the bible. These examples sound pretty illogical to me, so I suppose the eventual direction that this debate will take is the interpretation of what is and is not illogical, which only further discredits the claims of absolute truth on your part since in the end, it will come down to a matter of personal opinion.
Karl, logic is an interesting exercise. There is nothing contrary to logic about the idea of geocentrism itself, but when you add the data, then it becomes apparent that logically this could not work and the idea of geocentrism then becomes illogical. In order for something to be illogical you have to demonstrate how it breaks the law of non-contradiction not just claim that it does.
In the Creation account, you are dealing with God’s power which is ex nihilo. There is no expectation that things would follow a completely naturalistic process. And btw, its six days actually (God ceased His creation work on the 7th day)
Wow. You are completely irrational. You claim that there is nothing contrary to the logic of geocentrism, but that the data doesn’t match up.
The data does not match YEC, period. There is no “interpretation” of physical evidence that would lead to evidence supporting YEC. In fact, all of the evidence points in the opposite direction.
Geocentrism and YEC have just as much likelihood: absolutely none.
Zygo, should I answer these questions, or just send you to AIG? They represent my position very well. But to summarize:
Fossils do not require great stretches of time to form – we have a fossilized hat and a fossilized ham – both of which are only around 50 years old. You just need alot of ground water and minerals – something you would expect in a worldwide flood.
Before the flood, we know that all animals were vegitarian, so dinosaurs also. We suspect also that Noah would have taken dinosaurs in their teens and not senior citizens onboard. They would have been small at this point.
The Bible does record such creatures, such as the Leviathan in the Book of Job. There are other Biblical references as well, e.g. the Behemoth. You also must know that the size of all the extant dino skeletons we have average out at about the size of a sheep. Some were the size of chickens. This is not very threatening, esp. if they were vegetarian before the flood.
If you want to know more, check out http://www.answersingenesis.org
Zygo, i don’t espouse geocentrism dude. I just said the idea itself, taken apart from the mathematical data, is not illogical. Add the math, and it does become illogical. Please take a remedial reading comprehension course.
Sorry, but that would not explain all of the fossils that have been found. As usual, AIG is being dishonest.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What biblical evidence do you have for this? This is the most inane thing I have ever read.
Sea monsters would have been the absolute least concern of early man. Land based dinosaurs would have been far more deadly. You are brainwashed.
Honestly, if you believe this garbage: vegetarian carnivores, dinosaurs coexisting with man, ad nauseum; then we have nothing to talk about. You are either brain damaged, incredibly gullible, or very very confused. Either way, I think you have sufficiently proven to everyone here that you are absolutely ignorant of science or even of natural history. You are not only ignorant, but willfully ignorant. You choose to maintain a world view that forces you to believe the most asinine things, because you must interpret a mystic book written thousands of years ago as literal truth.
I hate to break it to you, but the folks who wrote your bible were sheep herders. Their knowledge of science and philosophy? Negligible. If you want to believe that you bible came from your god, then fine. Just keep in mind that those words passed through the ears of ignorant sheep herders before being written down on scrolls and tablets, or being passed down as oral tradition. Either way, whatever you read in your mystic book should be taken with a large tablespoon of salt. Otherwise, you simply make yourself look like an ass.
I’d love to see where the dinosaur-eating-coconut scenario is explained in Genesis. I seem to have missed that one.
I never claimed you did. YOU need to learn better reading comprehension. You don’t even bother reading what I say, it’s like you pick out words randomly. Please re-read my post again. I did not say that you supported geocentrism, I paraphrased what you said quite accurately. I can’t help it if you can’t read. I think that’s probably why you stick to such silly fairy tales instead of reading things that require actual thought.
The data does not line up for either geocentrism or YEC. In that, get ready in case you miss it again with your complete lack of reading comprehension, your inane belief of YEC and geocentrism are similar. What you probably missed in bible school is something called a comparison. I’d be happy to explain it to you.
That is not to imply that you believe in geocentrism, but rather that the two beliefs, one of which you claim not to have, are equally inane.
Hey bro, just thought you might want to know that not all the inspired writers of Scripture were sheep herders. Take Luke for instance, a doctor and historian. Paul was certainly not a sheep herder, and Solomon happened to be the King of Israel.
As to dinosaurs, Scripture plainly says that land animals were created on day 6, so most were created then (sea dwellers were before this). Since there was no death before sin, all creatures were vegetarian. Gen. 2 and 9 point to this specifically. Sharp teeth do not mean an animal is a carnivore (consider the Panda).
There was no death of humans before sin according to your myth. Genesis said absolutely nothing about animals. It was man who fell from your god’s graces, not animals. They were always base.
Also, sin happened before the Ark. Why do you think Noah had to build the Ark to begin with?
It’s sad when I need to point these sorts of facts out to a thumper.
As for Pandas, Pandas have been and always were omnivores. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the muzzle of a female panda when she gets pregnant. Female pandas eat meat when pregnant, it’s the only way for them to obtain the essential nutrients they need to bring their pregnancy to term.
I never said that sin did not happen before the Ark, but Noah was not given the right to eat meat until after the Ark came to rest, Gen. 9:3. Carnivory in the animal kingdom was a result of sin; we are not told exactly when, after sin, carnivory developed. It may have taken some time.
Your bible says absolutely nothing about when animals were carnivores, or even that there was ever a time that they were not. You are being very fast and loose with your interpretation here.
If you are referring to Genesis 1:29-30, there is a more plausible way to explain that. It is a description of the life cycle, as understood by the primitive writers. Herbivores eat plants, Carnivores (referred to as chayah in Genesis) eat Herbivores. Both herbivores and carnivores ultimately get their food from plants even today.
The reason why I despise this sort of “study” is because people like you try to read waay to far into it, as if there is a secret code. Hence your whole inane idea that dinosaurs ate coconuts, lived alongside man, and were carried on the mythic Ark.
What you just stated is a terrible interpretation of Gen. 1:29,30 and is out of accord with basic hermeneutical principles. In hermeneutics we want exegesis, nor eisogesis. The passage clearly says every green herb was given for food for beast, bird, and creeping thing. The Scripture also teaches there was no death at all before human sin. Thus carnivory did not precede the first human sin.
Look, if you want to interpret Genesis as literal, have at it. However, you are wrong to believe that Genesis occurred literally.
There is absolutely no evidence to back this up. Of course, you may claim that the earth changed during the flood. However, there is absolutely no evidence to support a world-wide flood happening four or five thousand years ago.
Reality paints a completely different picture than your bible stories. Christian mythology makes an entertaining story, but reading this far into them is a sign of serious mental issues, namely delusion.
“Fossils do not require great stretches of time to form – we have a fossilized hat and a fossilized ham – both of which are only around 50 years old.”
I assume you mean this hat:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/fossil_hat.asp
Its a hat encrusted with calcium carbonate, are all fossils made of calcium carbonate?
Either way, your delusion does not belong in a science classroom. You are more than welcome to teach it in philosophy or theology, but your beliefs are anti-scientific.
Sadly, that hat has none of the same properties that even calcium carbonate fossils have. If that hat sat in the calcium carbonate impregnated water for another 10000 or 20000 years, then maybe it would begin to be similar. Of course, this is outside of the time line of McDonald’s crazy belief.
Zygo: Exactly unless all of the original material has been completely mineralized it does even come close to being a fossil.
Captions from my favorite two-panel Science Vs. Creationist comic.
Scientist: “Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?”
Creationist (with Bible in hand): “Here is the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it?”
Seriously, guys, creationists are delusional enough but I can still hold out hope for them. Young Earth Creationist are a special kind of flying-mammal-fecal-matter-insane. Their whole premise is that a book of Bronze Age goat herder myths, stolen from earlier cultures, bastardized over the centuries through rewrite after rewrite, is the inerrent word of their imaginary friend in the sky and trumps all known scientific knowledge and observable reality. Add in the moronic notion that a medieval monk, armed only with a series of “begats” from said bastardized book o’ B.S., calculated when the universe began and there you have it. This “world view” (as they like to call it) sets into motion a whole Rube Goldberg-esque system of more and more elaborate, outrageous, and reality-defying explanations piled one upon the other in order to shoehorn the world into a Bible-shaped hole. I would find the entire thing positively hilarious if it weren’t for the fact that these credulous cretins are trying to force their delusions into public school science classrooms.
Coconut eating T-Rexes, indeed! Bwah-ha-hah-ha!
My minister told a wonderful story (parable) on Sunday about treating everyone you know with dignity and respect regardless of their gender, but he also said that this particular story was not one that is “set in stone” and that he might need to tell another story to give another perspective to how people can learn to respect each other. He said that there is a real problem with stories that are unchanging because most stories, no matter how useful at the time they are told, need to be revised and updated as the people they are told to change and grow and the way we see the world as a civilization changes and grows also.
Most people I know would agree that slavery and polygamy are no longer acceptable. The human genome project now tells us that all humans are essentially indistinguishable genetically regardless of their race and many of our young people see that issue very differently from us older folks.
So stories set in stone will become outdated and those who find the need to cling to them will find the world such a threatening place that they need long titles and rigid ideas of superiority to hide from that change. Its really easy to make fun of these people from our perspective because no one likes to be preached to and told that “only my way is the highway”. But I did learn in church this week that all humans deserve our respect. So Blessed Be to you John. May you find your way and may I find mine.
Ramen!
MaryB
McChurch, with all your talk about logic and illogic, you should seriously stop and re-evaluate your thought processes. Wolf and Zygo bring up a serious point (in between the insults and ridicule) about the trend of adding more and more outrageous and implausible explanations to explain the absurdities of interpreting the events of genesis and other biblical events as literal.
The AIG website you keep quoting actually does much disservice to your Christian faith. It completely trashes the process by which you claim to determine which biblical scripture should be considered literal or metaphorical and replaces it with a die-hard stubborn insistence on a literal interpretation supported up by even more illogical explanations, each more absurd and physically impossible then the last, and an unwillingness to even listen to alternate explanations.
Summary: You know you’re faith is in trouble when the Catholic church is starting to look more progressive then your own (aliens outta nowhere wtf).
The Catholic Church after the 600’s has always found itself in gross error. What’s new? It is not a consistent form of Christianity. I have no respect or regard for its pronouncements. I am Protestant, you know.
The things you consider “implausible” explanations are so only because you deem them to be as a result of your a priori commitments to naturalism. I have no commitment to the idea that all is matter and thsu the supernatural is ipso facto ruled out.
But that brings up a good point. Permit me if you will in all seriousness to try to ascertain exactly where most of you guys stand in regard to your worldview position. I would just like to ask questions. At this point I will not add any of my thoughts, although I may have to ask questions in order to clarify things.
My first question is, what is ultimate reality? What is the ultimate origin of all things? Is it mind or matter/energy, etc.
No form of Christianity has ever been “consistent,” not even yours. Stories and interpretations are always changing as more and discoveries about the physical world are revealed by science, or “naturalism” as you folks like to call it. You, too, have demonstrated this yourself through the implausible explanation of vegetarian dinosaurs in the garden of eden, which is NOT mentioned anywhere in scripture, but added into your interpretation when the majority of your own faithful had difficulty swallowing the explanation that THE MERE EXISTENCE of fossil evidence could be explained by the devil going around and burying them for folks to find. And who could forget how scripture was re-interpreted when man first encountered fossils, let alone when they finally figured out what they actually were… Trust me when I say, with every new discovery that contradicts your bible, a new interpretation will be made, old ones will be rejected/covered up, and your Protestant Christianity, as you now know it, will evolve further with the times. It has before, and it will in the future if it is to survive.
To answer your question, no one, neither science nor religion can definitely say how all things came into being.
This is true, but I’d rather take science’s explanation over the word of a few generations of ignorant sheep herders. 😉
Mc D has simply declared his faith to be immune to rational challenge.He didn’t come to believe in God by taking any state of the world into account. No possible account of the natural world could put his faith in doubt. This is the very epitome of dogmatism as reflected by the majority of fundamental religionist.Their world view is subordinate to a theocratic circular reasoning.
“The Catholic Church after the 600’s has always found itself in gross error. What’s new? It is not a consistent form of Christianity. I have no respect or regard for its pronouncements. I am Protestant, you know.”
Which brings us back to the crux of the matter: this is an issue of warring sectarian versions of Christianity, not a matter of science v. religion. Even among the Presbyterians, James’ PCA rejects evolution in favor of instantaneous creation while the Presbyterian Church-USA does not see a contradiction between God and evolution.
Thank you, James, for reminding us that this is a theological dispute, not a scientific one.
So far only Karl has given a position to my question. although I would like Zygo to clarify exactly what he means by the explanation of science.
I mean an explanation that looks at objective and empirical evidence, not the words in some fairy tale as proof. Just because the writers of said fairy tale managed to incorporate a few dubious historical references into their tale does not mean that the fairy tale can be taken as literal proof.
Unlike science, you have no grounds to claim that your belief constitutes any actual evidence. To the contrary, your belief requires a lack of evidence. It is the difference between believing and knowing.
— Albert Einstein
That quote happens to be in a book I am reading right now! 🙂
Zygo, you don’t have to defend your statements, just make them. I am asking you to state your positions – I am not going to add anything critical. What I would like for you to do is simply say what you hold to be ultimate reality. Is it matter/energy? Is it unknowable? I am trying to ascertain where you guys stand worldview wise.
Mr. McD –
There is no “you guys” where it concerns a worldview. The only common denominator for the FCS is the mission statement below:
Mission
Florida Citizens for Science is a statewide, nonprofit, grass-roots organization made up of those who wish to help our state develop and maintain the highest educational standards. We support science-based curricula, textbooks, testing methods and appropriately trained teachers to provide students with the analytical skills and understanding necessary for the good of our communities, our state, our country and our world. We welcome members with different political views, religions and philosophies, but maintain that the proper focus of science education is the study of the natural world through observation, testing and analysis.
There are Atheists as well as religious people that post here with the common goal of protecting science education.
I wouldn’t claim that ultimate reality is unknowable, but as of right now, it is unknown. I’m completely comfortable with not knowing all of the answers. It is highly unlikely that anyone knows all the answers.
S. Scott – then state YOUR worldview position as regards ultimate reality
Thank you Karl and Zygo for stating your positions.
Next question: What is the nature of the world? Has it always been here, was it created, it is part of God or ontologically distinct from God, has it evolved, etc.
Current evidence shows that our world was formed some 4.5 billion years ago as matter in the young solar system collapsed to form our planet. We can base this observation off of many things: measurements of isotopes, observation of the solar system itself, etc.
If the Earth was created by a god, it went to a lot of trouble to make it look like the planet was not. Why would a god who wants unquestioning faith ensure that every bit of evidence pointed the other way?
Theistic evolution – One would think that I would have sympathy for ID but I do not. It is not science and the people involved are very dishonest.
P.S. – Science cannot prove, nor can it disprove God.
P.P.S. – This is all in response to Mc D. – I also believe that religion is evil. (notice that I did not say “God” , but religion)
However, not all religious people are evil. Just brainwashed.
(sorry about all the posts – I keep hitting submit before I am done0
Based upon my study of world religions, I am in agreement with you: all religions are evil. The religion that comes closest to not being evil is Buddhism. The part of Buddhism that I find evil is the surrender of self and the tendency to not fight under any circumstances — even to defend your own life.
I got a question for you, Church: Why are you asking us these questions when most of us have made it very clear about our positions and worldviews? The answers are already there, and have been repeated many times before. Is this some sort of attempt at derailing the discussion from the original issue (How and why ID and its derivative works are fraudulent pieces of religious propaganda).
To repeat what has been said regarding your second question, I adamantly refuse the claims of YECs. I cannot say exactly how this particular world was created, but there are theories in astrophysics such as accretion that explain the formation of planets such as ours, and have plenty of evidence to back it up based on observations of other solar systems (i.e pattern of rocky and gas giant planetary bodies being found at set ranges from a star)
Thank you all for these answers. Karl, I am not trying to derail the discussion. I just want to know exactly where you guys stand on certain issues. I don’t want to misread or misinterpret what you have written in other places. I believe knowing where we each stand will help us in our discussion.
Anyone else, please feel free to join in and state your positions to the questions.
Next question: what is the nature of man? Does he have a body and a soul, or is he just a physical-chemical thing, etc.?
Your question is biased: “just a physical-chemical thing”?
Ok, sorry bout that, does man have a material body and a non-material soul, or is man just a material body?
Define soul:
The soul would be that faculty of man which is immaterial and includes self-identity and personhood (self-aware, self-active, rational, moral-awareness). It especially includes intentionality, affections, and emotions.
But to make it easier, the question could read – does man have only a material body or is there an immaterial part to man?
There is no evidence to support an immaterial part of man. All personality and faculties are part of the human brain. Consider brain damage patients who have a dramatic change in personality. This cannot be explained by an immaterial soul, as the immaterial soul would not be damaged by a physical injury.
I will be out for a few days…I am sure you won’t miss me. But I’ll be back!
John thanks alot for your insight – Im learning alot from you. Thanks !
That says it all
Hey, did you see this on Dawkins website? I bring it up, becuase the crux of McChurchs’ argument is about the soul.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2580,Is-Science-Killing-the-Soul,Richard-Dawkins-Steven-Pinker-Edge
John McDonald, Director of Student Ministries, Westminster Presbyterian Church Says:
May 15th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
“The soul would be that faculty of man which is immaterial and includes self-identity and personhood (self-aware, self-active, rational, moral-awareness). It especially includes affections intentionality, affections, and emotions.”
Ahhh….so it’s the soul that gets drunk due to the bodies metabolism of ethanol and its effects on the brain? But the way alcohol affects ones self-awareness, self-activeness, ability to rationalize, intentionality, affections and especially emotions is due to maybe the soul getting drunk?
Have I got that right John?
Boy I could tell you about some of my extremely pious relatives getting tipsy at a few weddings 🙂
Better not or they may seriously change their interpretation of ” Thou Shalt Not Kill”
RAmen
Oh and once again there are all those nasty neurotransmiter/modulator chemical imbalances in the brain which can result in extremely unpleasant psychotic behavior (mentioned previously). Perhaps John could explain his contradiction in the context of the God given soul’s reign over rationalization, moral-awareness, affection intentionality, and emotions not being affected by chemical reactions?
ok, I’m back. I will answer Noodle’s questions but first I would like to finish this worldview analysis by asking four final questions:
What is the basis for morality?
Is there life after death?
Is there purpose to life?
Is there purpose to history?
What is the basis for morality?
Philosophy. Many philosophers have derived moral absolutes without resorting to gods or scripture. It is a common fallacy among creationists to believe that a god is required for morality to exist.
Is there life after death?
No one knows the answer to this. In the most technical sense, I’d say “yes”. Hear me out. From death comes life. The ground is teeming with saphrophytic organisms that live off of dead flesh. These organisms contribute back to the food web which eventually comes full-circle. That which is dead shall live again if buried properly (e.g. not embalmed).
Of course, that’s not the answer you were looking for. You want to know if I believe in an afterlife, a magical place where our personalities (which have already been shown to be part of the brain) will somehow live on. If I had to wager a guess here, I’d say “no”. There is no evidence to support an afterlife, and no reason to believe that there is one.
Is there purpose to life?
Whatever purpose one makes of life is the purpose of life. If you want to spend your life evangelizing mythology, that is your purpose. Personally, I’d rather make money, raise a family, leave a lasting legacy, and die a satisfied old man. Of course, I don’t need a bible to give me purpose.
Is there purpose to history?
From history we learn valuable lessons. For instance, look at the Scopes Monkey trial, the Salem Witch Trials, and the Spanish Inquisition. Historically, there is a strong base of evidence for a separation of Church and State, which is why I am fighting so hard to ensure that creationism gets no place in the science classroom.
Allow me to rephrase: Historically, there is a strong base of evidence for what happens when theocracy and religiously driven ignorant people come to control, hence a strong reason for a separation of Church and State.
Is there some reason that I don’t know about as to why McD is being allowed to control this conversation?
How about some questions for him?
Do you have a problem with the Clergy Letter project?
Are you a bible ‘literalist’?
S. Scott –
I’m just giving him enough rope to hang himself.
McDonald –
What makes you think that your mythical story with no evidence to support it is true while as a Christian you claim that the mythical stories with no evidence that others subscribe to are false?
Let me ask a clarification question on the “Is there purpose to history question” – Is history unguided, perhaps even cyclical, or is it heading somewhere, and linear in nature?
S. Scott – I do have a problem with the Clergy letter project because it is impossible to reconcile the teachings of Scripture with an old-earth, evolutionary framework. The Scripture teaches a literal, six day, 24 hour creation period. Adam and Eve were created on the same literal day. Thorns did not occur until after the fall (but we find thorn fossils, so these fossils were after Adam and Eve’s creation, etc.). There is no room for billions of years or evolution in Scripture.
Now, define a “Biblical Literalist” because there are of course poetical portions of Scripture which are not to be interpreted literally but do have a literal meaning behind the metaphors and similes, etc. So do I take every passage literally? No. Do I find a literal meaning in each passage? Yes. Some portions of Scripture are narrative, some poetical, etc. But all metaphors have a literal meaning behind them, and that is what the Biblical interpreter is after.
Do you have any empirical evidence to show that the world was created according to your creation myth? I think I’ve asked you this about a dozen times now.
McD – What makes you so arrogant to think that you know far more about God than the clergy that signed the letter ?
S.Scott:
I have returned from coma, did I miss anything?¿?
LoL!! 🙂 Well, James F. just let us know that the Missouri creationism bill has died! Yay! 🙂
I know you don’t mind Lord since they were about to teach about your brother and his noodly appendages. It’s a good thing that you nipped that one in the bud!
Amen!
😈
Well, Zygo, for starters, why should I have to provide empirical evidence for you on this matter? Are you a logical positivist or something? If I can show that the Scripture is what it claims to be, the very revelation of God to man, then what God says there is authoritative truth. You have already said that science is not the only means to attain knowledge, but then you turn around and demand that everything is to be empirically verified. So which is it? Why should you demand empirical evidence for this when you admit that not all knowledge is attained by science?
S.Scott – I do not presume to know more about God than they, but I do presume to know just as much, and that by reason of my theological education.
Why doesn’t anyone else answer the worldview questions above? Zygo has to feel lonely. At least he is earnest enough to do so.
# John McDonald, Director of Student Ministries, Westminster Presbyterian Church Says:
May 19th, 2008 at 12:43 am
“ok, I’m back. I will answer Noodle’s questions but first I would like to finish this worldview analysis by asking four final questions:
What is the basis for morality?
Is there life after death?
Is there purpose to life?
Is there purpose to history?”
That old creationist tactic we see ad nausea of changing the subject when no answers are forthcoming? Sigh…can’t say I expected anything different!
That’s twice now!
*starts yawning wandering off back into the real world*
…as opposed to that elusive mythical supernatural one….
Yes McD – You were asked the questions first. I believe it’s your turn.
For starters, you want to force this nonsense to be taught in the science classroom. If you want your mysticism and fairy tales to be taught as science, then they have to stand up to the same scrutiny as science. Why should your fairy tales be exempt from scrutiny?
Sadly, you have been unable to come even close to this. Your sad attempt to “prove” that your scripture is real and the revelation of your god is by matching up predictions in the older parts of your bible with stories in the newer parts of your bible. The fallacy of this “proof” seems to fly right over your head.
It is a gigantic leap to go from something not based entirely on empirical evidence (e.g. mathematics which is based on a few axioms) to claiming that your fairy tales are true. Just because something is mathematically feasible does not mean that it directly translates into reality. For instance, I can create a mathematical model that consists of 327 dimensions that explains why beer ferments. Even though this mathematical model is internally consistent (like you claim your bible is) it doesn’t mean that this mathematical model actually describes reality (it doesn’t). It is possible to use mathematics to describe reality, but in order to do so, empirical evidence must be gathered through experimentation. The same is true of the mathematical model of General Relativity that Einstein developed. He didn’t just think of it, prove it mathematically, and claim that’s how it is. He then had to prove it empirically.
You believe that since it is possible to obtain knowledge through means other than empiricism that you can skip empirical discovery. This is completely wrong. I’ll ask you again. Where is your empirical evidence?
Where is your empirical evidence that Darwin actually lived ?
You mean, besides having his body?
Everything that Darwin came up with can still be verified today, outside of taking his word for it. That’s the difference between creationism and real science.
That is not to say that Darwin was 100% correct. Scientists have certainly built upon evolution since his day.
Zygo, you are a logical positivist whether you want to admit it or not. And thus, you need to empirically verify your statement above: i.e. that I think I can skip empirical discovery. This will require that you empirically verify my exact thought in my mind. Have fun with that.
Reason cannot be empirically verified, yet you presuppose it all the time in this blog. You are so inconsistent and contradictory. Why don’t you demand that reason be empirically verified?
And once again, you are in error as to my position. I never said I wanted creationism taught in public schools. I just don’t want a scientific theory such as evolution, which is constantly being discredited by scientific discovery, to be taught as a viable explanation of the biological world.
Zygo, you yourself have not empirically verified whether Darwin’s body exists. Also, perhaps it was not Charles Darwin who wrote Origin of the Species, perhaps it was another man who took that name as a pen name. Please empirically verify all of this before you assume it please. Once again, you act contradictory to your empiricism and logical positivism.
Noodle:
You refer to the mind-body problem. You have three positions:
Strict materialism – thought is identical to a brain process or state
Epiphenomenalism – thought is not identical to a brain state but an effect of a brain state (a ghost in the machine so to speak)
Christian Dualism – the brain affects the soul and the soul can affect the body. There is an interaction between the body/brain and the soul
Clearly, Christian dualism assumes that medicine, drugs, etc. can affect the mind/soul, but the mind can also act upon the body, e.g. a man can choose to starve himself even though his body is calling for more food. There has been an incredible amount of scientific research by Sir John Eccles on the subject and his studies show that there is a difference between the mind and the body.
Lying for Jesus, are you? There has been no scientific discovery that has discredited evolution. Sorry. You are welcome to attempt to provide one, although I would argue that posting links from AIG will get you laughed at.
Even if Darwin had a ghost writer, it does not disprove what he discovered. Unlike your bible, there is evidence for what Darwin wrote outside of his books. There your kooky beliefs and reality differ.
Well, you are trying to weasel out of providing empirical evidence for your fairy tale. I’ll ask again: Where is your empirical evidence?
Yes, the human brain is remarkable. However, your belief that your thoughts come from your soul is ludicrous at best. You have no evidence to support this.
Zygo, I do not operate under the assumption of strict empiricism as you do. You parade empiricism around as if it is the only means to obtain knowledge, and demand that everyone do the same. If you want empirical evidence, you first need to justify what difference empirical evidence would make, since I have already pointed out that strict empiricism leads to the hightest degree of skepticism. Your own epistemological system fails, but then you go off and demand that others submit to its requirements. I think you truly are nothing but a bundle of perceptions as Hume would say.
And please, just so we can all have a good laugh, try to empirically verify the principles of logic. Go ahead now. You are the Empiricism Master…show what you can do with your empiricism…
Right, you operate under blind faith. You don’t need any evidence. If your book says the sky is orange, you make it a point to never look up. Whenever evidence runs contrary to your beliefs, you whine about strict empiricism. You are nothing more than a deipnosophist, you are completely unable to argue the point, and you are wasting the time of everyone here.
Then why are you trolling here?
Oh, now that’s rich John! Since you cannot win by quoting bible verse and attacking science, you are trying to turn this into a philosophical debate. No matter what you say or how you phrase it, religious supersition cannot prevail over science.
Of course not. Why should you when you can use the cop-out goddidit?
Hey McD – You said:
” I do not operate under the assumption of strict empiricism as you do. ”
So prove it already – why don’t you turn off your computer and see if you can still post messages here?
yeeeeowch! S.Scott! and a Touche to you madame!!!
My epistemological system is Scottish Common Sense Realism, which is my ultimate presupposition, and from there I am able to establish the credibility of Scripture’s claim to be the Word of God. Thus your allegation that I operate on blind faith fails. Since I begin with Realism, knowledge is possible and progression can be made. By starting with empiricism however, nothing that you say is really meaningful at all. Like Hume said, all you can arrive at are perceptions. You can go no further.
You started this by criticizing and challenging Beyond Expelled. Now I am here to challenge you. Your entire organization has no epistemological foundation, yet you want to teach “knowledge” to others. So stupid. You support science but cannot accept counter claims by other scientists. Being so biased, I do not think you are scientists at all, but rather propoganda machines for agnosticism and atheism. You are not here to support sound science, you are here to support biased science. Your just Dawkin, Dennett, and Harris “wannabe’s”
Did you use your computer just now? Are computers mentioned in the Bible?
Is the bible familiar with “HOLSH” ?
High above an
Open
Low below an open or above a …
Short or
High below a short?
How did we come up with this formula? Is it in the bible anywhere? Does it work? Does it have anything to do with the bible? Does it have anything to do with science? I’m so very curious? Do you think this formula improves our lives? How do we know this to be true? Does the bible tell us it is true? …
Here is something easier for you – Does the bible say it is OK to re-marry after divorce?
I tell you what – give me an answer to that question from the bible and I’ll find you a completely different answer to the same question from the bible.
This is such a joke.
What makes the joke even funnier is that McDonald is actually serious. “Scottish” Realism indeed. For now on, I am going to read McDonald’s posts out loud using Sean Connery’s accent.
LMAO! 🙂
“There can be only one”
The Bible teaches that one can divorce and remarry only if he or she is the innocent party when adultery (and other gross,heinous immorality) or willful desertion has occurred. Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7 teach these two grounds.
You should embrace Common Sense Realism, for Hume destroyed your empiricism which you so smuggly gloat about.
I thought I would let your name-dropping go for a while… You do realize that Hume would laugh at your “worldview”, don’t you? Hume, like most enlightened people of his time, was at the very least a Deist, and most likely an atheist.
No, no, no … before I go find the passages – let me make a “leap of faith” that first of all it only applies to men. That darn bible doesn’t give women any rights does it? (How did our society come to the enlightenment that women have rights too, without the guidance of the bible?) …
I’ll be right back …
This is not to mention, of course, that Hume would be spinning in his grave if he knew that you were attempting to use his words to promote creationism, something that he considered completely absurd.
I think McDonald needs to read a bit more about Hume.
This passage seems to agree with McD …
“When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. — Deuteronomy 24:1-2 ‘
These passages seem to disagree with McD …
“ Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Matthew 19:6
Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery. — Mark 10:11
Whosoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery. — Luke 16:18
Now tell me about womens rights McD – And what about slavery – what does the bible say about slavery?
How could our society have aboloished slavery without the guidance of the bible?
Oops – forgot one …
“ Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. — Luke 16:18 “
S.Scott – It is a wonderful thing to see you peruse the Scriptures. For this I salute you. Thank you for your earnestness. Now the task of the systematic theologian is to take the data found in the various passages of Scripture and systematize it in an orderly and coherent form. There are several passages of Scripture which teach that divorce for just any reason is sinful. However, there are passages which teach that upon the grounds of adultery or willful desertion divorce is an option (although not demanded) and it is not sinful in this case. As to the rights of women, Exod. 21:10,11 certainly are on the side of the woman, and the bill of divorce of Deut. 24 also serves as a way to protect the right of the woman. 1 Cor. 7:15 plainly says women have the right to divorce in regard to willful desertion. Your objections are ill-founded, but I again applaud you for reading and searching.
S. Scott- as to slavery, the Bible neither expressly condones or forbids it, but does regulate the ethical treatment of slaves and specifically addresses both classes of people, masters and slaves.
Zygo, first Hume would laugh at your empirically based worldview even more. At least Hume interacted with Reid’s criticism; Hume would not need to interact with your empirical epistemology. He had already destroyed that and everyone knew it. Reid attacked Hume from an entirely different angle, that of common sense Realism, and it certainly have Hume a challenge with which to deal. Now, it is Common Sense Realists who will have the last laugh, as Hume confessed himself that he could not live out his own worldview, nor could he prove by his own worldview that there were other people with other worldviews out there in the objective real world or even if there was a real objective world at all. Hume might indeed laught at creationism, but what insult would I fear from a bundle of perceptions which Hume himself declared that he was. No, I believe that it is you sir who needs to brush up on his history of philosophy. Oh yeah, you can’t, because of your empirically based epistemology you can think or study at all.
So how could we make the moral decision to abolish slavery without the bible telling us to?
Did Jesus forget to mention it?
Wow. That was a long ramble of nonsense from McDonald. Has he been reading Wikipedia articles on philosophers to try to keep up? Heh.
Well, duh! The bible and jesus haven’t said anything about outlawing slavery. Should we make it legal again? I mean, with John going on about all morals are derived from the bible and what not.
The bible also doesn’t mention abortion or contraception. The closest it comes to saying something about either is to say that someone who kills a mother and her unborn child should be pushed as if the child had come to term. However, that says nothing about whether or not the mother had the right to abort that child. Interesting indeed.
I find it funny, because most of the so-called Christian morals aren’t actually derived from the Christian bible at all. Strange that one should live by laws not given by McDonald’s lawgiver…
Of course, as I already said, McDonald is in agreement with us that creationism in any of its form does not belong in the science classroom. So, I don’t know why he is still bothering to post here anyway.
Already answered that one zygo, I am here to challenge your attacks on Christianity. Now, the Bible does not have to mention specific moral actions because it gives us general moral principles from which more specific moral acts can be deduced. For example, the Bible says one should not MURDER (not kill, i.e. a mistranslation). The moral principle is the sanctity of human life. Humans in the womb are to be treated with this sanctity, not pulled out to the head and then have their brains sucked out just so that some very selfish mother can go out and enjoy her “sexual freedom.” Contraception is covered by the same general principle. Contraceptive devices that terminate life are sinful. If they merely prevent conception, that is of course different.
In regard to slavery, I would say that the dominion mandate of Genesis 1:28 and the entire creation account requires men to be owned by God but not by other men. The Scripture also obviously teaches monogamy in the very same place, but we find a toleration of the sin of polygamy as culture develops. The same I believe is true of slavery. The Scripture as it records polygamy and slavery is not condoning these actions, for it had already dealt with those issues. Rather it is setting up protective limits to the practices at the time to harness the sinfulness of man.
With all the Q&A going on, I got a question for you, Churchy, that I hope you can answer honestly:
What is it that people like yourself have against the possibility that evolution itself was a mechanism created by God as part of a greater system that we humans do not have the means to perceive as of yet? (Although this point of view plays a significant part with Catholicism’s rational for the acceptance of evolution, many other Christians of other denominations who accept evolution also subscribe to this point of view)
You really do play fast and loose with your supposedly “literal” interpretation. I thought you were a literalist? You claim you bible is very specific when it comes to Genesis and must be taken literally, yet you think it’s okay to generalize such rules?
By definition, all contraceptive devices terminate life. Do you think that egg cells and sperm are not alive? What is the difference between an egg and a fertilized egg, a fertilized egg and an egg after four divisions, after 100 divisions? At which point does it become life? At conception?
When does your bible say life begins? (this ought to make for a great laugh)
No one here is attacking Christianity. You are free to believe whatever you want. However, your particular redneck and backwoods interpretation of Christianity is certainly up for a few chuckles. 😉
John Mc D,
Let me respond to your rantings. You begin by making the most serious mistake of all Christians asserting the Bible is the Word of God. I’d like to give you a list, a litany,some of the deeds that God committed somewhere in the Old Testament. Now remember, God, the Perfect Being, did all of folowing in what is supposedly His book. He created evil (Lam. 3:38, Jer. 26:3, 36:3, Ezek. 20.:25-26, Judges 9:3, 1 Sam. 16:23, 18:10); He decieved (Jer. 4:10, 15:18, 20:7, 2 Chron. 18:22, Ezek. 14:9, 2 Thess. 2:9-12); He told people to lie(Ex. 3:18, 1 Sam. 16:2); He lied (Gen 2:17, 2 Sam. 7:13); He rewarded liars (Ex. 1:15-20); He ordered men to become drunken (Jer. 25:27); He rewarded the fool and the transgressor (Prov.26:10); He delivered a man, Job, into Satan’s hands (Job 2:6); He mingled a perverse spirit (Isa. 19:14); He spread dung on people’s faces (Mal. 2:3)); He ordered stealing (Ezek. 39:10, Ex. 3:22); He made false prophecies (Jonah 3:4. Gen. 5:10); He Changed his mind (Jonah 3:10); He caused adultery (2 Sam. 12:11-12); He ordered the taking of a harlot (Hosea 1:2, 3:1-2); He killed (Num. 16:35, 21:6, Deut. 32:39, 1 Sam. 2:26, Psalm 135:10); He ordered killing (Lev. 26:7-8, Num. 25:4-5); He had a temper (Deut. 13:17, Judges 3:8); He was often jealous (Deut. 5:9, 6:15); He wasn’t omnipresent (Gen4:16, 11:5, 1 Kings 19:11-12); He wasn’t omniscient (Deut. 8:2, 13:3, 2 Chron. 32:31); He often repented (Ex. 32:14, 1 Sam. 15:35); He practiced injustice (Ex. 4:22-23, Joshua 22:20, Rom. 5:12); He played favorites (Deut. 7:6, 14:2, 1 Sam. 12:22); He sanctioned slavery (Ex. 21:20-21, Deut. 15:17); He degraded deformed people (Lev. 21:16-23); He punished a baster for being illegitimate (Deut. 23:2); He punished many for the acts of one (Gen. 3:16, 20:18); He punished children for the sins of their fathers (Ex. 12:29, 20:5, Deut. 5:9); He prevented people from hearing his word (Isa. 6:10, John 12:39-40); He supported human sacrifice (Ex. 22:29-30, Ezek. 20:26); He ordered cannabalism (Lev. 26: 29, Jer. 19:9); He demanded virgins as a part of war plunder(Num. 31:31-36); He ordered gambling (Joshua 14. 2, Num. 26:52, 55-56); He ordered horses to be hamstrung (Joshua 11:6); He sanctioned violation of the enimies women (Deut. 21:10-14); He excused the beating of slaves to death (Ex. 21:20-21); He required a woman to marry her rapist (Deut. 22:28:29); He taught war (Psalm 144:1); He ordered the burning of human feces to cook food (Ezek. 21:3-5); He intentionally issued bad laws (Ezek. 20:25); He excused the sins of prostitutes and adulerers (Hosea 4:14); He excused a murderer and promised his protection (Gen. 4:8-15); He killed a man who refused to impregnate his widowed sister-in-law (Gen. 38:9-10); and He is indecisive (Gen. 18:17).Now, can you imagine anyone saying, “Yes, that’s my book, that represents me; that’s the way I am.” -especially a supposedly perfect being.
It’s not a question of what your personal presupposition are, its a question of “right.” Everyone, Christian or otherwise, has an obligation, to question the truth of what he/she is told/reads and to demand real evidence. Blind obedience leads to disaster my friend. What you believe is irrelevant and immaterial. As is true in a court of law, the evidence, must speak for itself.
I am not concerned with the nature of God;By definition God cannot lie, my concerned is with the Bible and the Bible does.
I have said this many times.Quoting from a work is fruitless unless you first prove the book is valid, truthful and reliable.Reason and evidence clearly shows the Bible fails this test.
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm gets wasted,
God gets quite irate!
I suppose that makes the pr0n industry guilty of mass murder!!!!! Oh the humanity!
OK ,let us sum up shall we?
– McD has said that he does not want Creationism taught in school.
but …
– McD doesn’t want evolution taught in school either. He doesn’t think there is enough evidence for evolution.
So, I am wondering why he keeps asking philosophical questions instead of scientific questions?
McD thinks that there are “holes” in the ToE. He thinks that scientists should know everything that there is to know before they pass what facts they have on to the next generation.
Ummm… I think that’s about it.
He thinks there are holes, but he has yet to provide any.
Another transitional fossil found !
We shouldn’t educate our kids about this though, right?
Great story thanks S Scott!!!!
Zygo, Scripture does indicate that life begins at conception. A sperm and an egg – nothing but matter with alot of coded INFORMATION to build a body. The soul gives life to the body, and that is created by God at conception. Also, it seems strange to be “backwoods” when I live on the beautiful beaches of Fort Walton Beach and Destin. If we are reverting to ad hominem, you seem to be the type that considers solving complex algebraic equations as a night out on the town.
Agent Smith: I can answer all of these misrepresentations of the actions and character of God. They do not phase me. They are rather old and have been answered before. You have stated “Quoting from a work is fruitless unless you first prove the book is valid, truthful and reliable.” You finally get the concept. That is what I have demanded of your empiricial epistemology the entire time I have been here: please show me how your statements which are all derived by your empiricism are valid, truthful,and reliable. Yes, all that you and yours have said is fruitless until then.
S.Scott- you are the awesome! I love Monty Python (Palin’s my favorite)!
@ Jonathan – Thanks! Did you read about the flying fish by any chance?
@GE – LoL . 😉 Great minds think alike!
Ah, then that would make the female body the largest murderer of them all according to your scripture. Most fertilized eggs are rejected long before a woman would even know she was pregnant. It’s part of an evolutionary adaptation to prevent unwanted mutation. Where do those souls go, McDonald? Is that merely part of your god’s will?
A fertilized egg is human in only the way that any other cell is human. Would casting off a flake of skin with thousands of such cells be considered murder? Do you feel that the taking of blood for medical testing is murder? Your line is so arbitrary and ridiculous that it makes me chuckle.
My wife finds such equations hot as well, she sees your “attack” to be a compliment.
Ah. You can take the preacher out of the backwoods, but you can’t take the backwoods out of the preacher.
Your stupidity makes me chuckle, as you cannot even make a distinction between a fertilized egg, which would actually be the human body at the time, and a flake of skin or blood, which would only be a small part of a fully developed human body. And since we are talking about wives, my wife suffered from a blighted ovum and had to have a D@C. Was this a human life? You bet. Why did my child die at this early age? It is because we live in a sin-cursed world. Death is a part of this fallen world. Scripture seems to teach that infants dying in infancy are elect and are regenerated (given a new moral nature) at the point of death or perhaps even before. Their soul, when freed from the confines of the body are immediately infused with knowledge, esp. that of salvation. They are then able to embrace this knowlege of salvation and are redeemed/saved. My first child died at 21 weeks as a result of my wife’s incompetent cervix (again, this incompetency is a result of this sin-curse world). She lived a little over an hour. I believe I will see her again based upon the Word of God. Scripture can make sense of this, but evolution just says grin and bear it – your next.
Your lack of knowledge for recent scientific developments is glaringly obvious with this one, namely cloning. It’s been done before with lower animals (and yes, using skin cells too), and has recently been refined to work with primates (previous attempts used a method that inadvertently removed critical proteins needed for cell division in primate embryos). So technically, all cells, somatic or otherwise, has the potential to become a living and breathing human being if the nucleus is properly extracted and placed within a de-nucleated ovum. If you think about it, a de-nucleated ovum is mostly cytoplasm and a few organelles, and given that we’ve been able to assemble viruses from cellular parts and nucleotides, suppose theoretically we assemble an cellular construct similar to an ovum with no nucleus, introduce genetic material from a skin cell, and create a viable embryo… what then?
I’ll be honest here: given all the asinine behavior from creationist trolls recently, I’m tempted to make fun of your loss, perhaps an abortion joke or three for teh lulz, but then I realized that such behavior is rather despicable, and given that I too know what it’s like to lose a family member, I will instead offer my condolences for your loss. As an evolutionist, is my compassion a summation of neuro chemical interactions within my brain, or is it the same as your own feelings which you attribute to your soul and faith?
Your last sentence was rather insightful regarding your feelings on evolution. You are seeing evolution theory being practiced as a philosophy when it is not. It is a science that is used to understand how a natural mechanism works. If accepting evolution means accepting such a grim and cruel outlook on life, why has much of evolution research been used to COUNTER its effects? Vaccines and other medical innovations keep the weak and the sick alive, and research into gene therapy could give people with genetic defects a chance at a normal and productive life (according to you, we wouldn’t be wasting resources on saving them. Instead, we would be culling them from the population, and yet this doesn’t happen). I still think you are confusing science and philosophy.
Again I ask you, why do you dismiss the possibility that evolution was mechanism created by God? Is it because it is (or rather, has recently become) a Catholic thing?
Other than size and the length of the telomeres in the nucleus, there is little difference between a fertilized egg and a skin cell. An egg is certainly not a human body.
…or because the zygote suffered from a congenital defect that prevented it from developing. From the Mayo Clinic:
To sheep herders, who did not understand genetics or the difficulties involved in meiosis, recombination, or compatible genes; the explanation of sin in the world is certainly an easy way to deal with such a loss. However, we have real answers to these sorts of things now. We do not have to rely on superstition to know why these sorts of things happen. They just do, it is natural.
If being told a comforting lie is better than understanding the truth, then scripture can certainly help cope with such a loss. If that is what it takes for you, I completely sympathize. This sort of thing is hard, and I feel bad that you had to go through it.
However, there is no factual basis for these beliefs.
Yes, cloning can even be natural – twins. I understand this. I am married to one. But even in artificial cloning it seems that death takes place with the removal of a nucleus, and the transfer of the nucleus to produce a “fertilized” egg would be the point where the soul would be created.
The reason I object to Theistic Evolution is because it is completely irreconcilable to the propositions of Scripture. If you don’t want to use Genesis, then try Matt. 19:4. God made male and female from the BEGINNING, not millions of years down the road after the beginning. Scripture cannot be reconciled with evolutionary theory.
Karl, whereas evolution might not be used in a philosophical sense for you, it does seem to be coming very near to a worldview in that evolution is used to answer all of the worldview questions. But it is certainly being using in a philosophical sense by Dawkins, Harris, PZ Myers, and others.
And just from this most recent discussion, we see that you are from scientific discovery of course, forced to reduce man to a physical-chemical thing, but you also must preserve personhood that is self-active and self-aware. How can mere matter do this, unguided at that?
You are making a wild conjecture here. Your bible is silent on this.
Ah, showing that you have not read any of these authors.
I will admit, the PHILOSOPHY of evolution does exist, but this is usually mentioned in jest, or actually advocated by fringe nutjobs (yeah we got our own too) who are ridiculed by us almost as much as creationists. Evolution as a philosophy has not been actually put into practice in human society (and before you go dragging ole Hitler and his eugenics program up, I should remind you that most of his policies, including his so-called eugenics program, were based on Catholic dogma and other interpretations of biblical scripture). Eugenics as a concept is actually advocated in the bible what with all the genocide of pagan tribes, killing of their children and raping of their women to ensure that only God’s chosen people are allowed to propagate.
In summation, yours is a fear of what COULD POSSIBLY BE (to the same degree of possibility that an asteroid will wipe out all life on earth next year. Its possible yes, but highly unlikely), not what has actually happened, although if you want to go dragging some modern instances of ethnic cleansing into the picture, the root cause of all these incidences is almost always good old fashioned racism. A worldview that embraces evolution does NOT advocate the morally reprehensible and apathetically grim view of the world that you claim, as shown by history and current practices of its advocates.
Your rejection of evolution has nothing to do with moral issues and has everything to do with your particular interpretation of those few passages from Genesis. You said yourself that your criteria for determining if a particular scripture is literal or metaphorical is based on logic, but this has shown to be false as well. Your actual process is that you already have a fixed interpretation, most likely taught to you, with no room for compromise. All biblical passages that contradict this interpretation are relegated to metaphors. and vice versa. There is no logic involved other than “this is what I was taught about the relationship between God and man. All the stuff from the bible that contradict this are deemed metaphorical in order to make it fit MY worldview.”
I think it beyond doubt that Dawkins in his “God Delusion” is certainly using evolution as a philosophy.
I will be out of town until Tuesday without internet access. Have a great Memorial Day!
Did you even read “The God Delusion”? It’s an attack on religion, yes, but it does not advocate the use of evolution as a philosophy. Rather, it seeks to explain how can humans still be capable of moral actions without religion from biological standpoint. The only use of evolution in this book is to explain the design of the world as we know it now, which is what’s being debated right now. The summary is, religion does not have a monopoly or authority on morality that people like yourself love to claim. If you really did, you wouldn’t have murderers bombing abortion clinics and gunning down ob/gyn doctors in parking lots and proudly claiming that these actions were justified by God and the bible.
Again, you are assuming that if one denies god entirely, one also denies morality, which is neither historically nor empirically true.
Either you have not read this book, or your reading comprehension skills are below that of a chimpanzee.
So on what basis does Dawkins attack religion? Is it on a scientific basis or a philosophical basis? Or is it on a personal preference basis? Or is it all three?
He attacks religion using philosophy and logic. His use of evolution in the book is merely to explain how life became as complex as it is today, and how it is highly unlikely that life was created by an intelligent being.
So what philosophy does he use to attack religion? What is his philosophy based upon?
Read the book. It’s interesting that you went from criticizing the book implying that you read it to asking questions regarding the book.
It’s interesting that you assume I ask you about the book as if I want to know about it’s contents, when I am really asking you about the book in order to see what your interpretation of it is. I want to know what you think his philosophy is and what he bases it upon.
There really is no need to further interpret what he says: he is very explicit. If you don’t want to read the book, Dawkins has plenty of essays on his website that summarize his stance eloquently.
What does it matter what I believe? You “think it beyond doubt that Dawkins in his ‘God Delusion’ is certainly using evolution as a philosophy.” This shows that either you have not read this book or you were unable to comprehend the book. As with most Young Earth Creationists, you have formed your opinion even before you have read the book, and you have closed your mind and hardened your heart to anything other than your fairy tales. Even if I pull quotes directly out of this book, you will simply go back to whatever talking points that AIG has made about the book. You are unable to read for yourself, your philosophy must be filtered through the propaganda of others.
Hence you think that Hume is some sort of supporter of yours, you sneer at Locke although it is apparent that you do not comprehend what he had to say, etc.
I never said that Hume supported Christianity; I said that he was honest about his empirical philosophy. He knew and taught that empiricism alone cannot deliver epistemologically.
You don’t want to answer my question because you know Dawkins is pushing naturalism as far as it can go. And naturalism is a philosophy, so you stand refuted.
No, Dawkins does not push naturalism as a moral philosophy. He may give a naturalistic perspective about why we have a conscience, feel guilt, and have the ability to be empathetic; this is not the same as a naturalistic moral philosophy, which is utter creationist nonsense. He gives several examples as to how ethics and morals can be and have been derived without religion. Like what I said, if you won’t even bother to read the book, how can we have a discussion on it?
Because Dawkins has nothing new to offer in the way of trying to provide a moral system without a transcendent basis. It’s all been tried before and failed. If all is matter, morals are nonsense.
Just keep repeating that lie if it helps you sleep at night.
So, we have established that you have not even bothered to read a book that you are attempting to criticize. As usual, McDonald, you are talking completely out of your ass. I don’t expect anything different from a YEC, head-in-ass syndrome is par for the course.
When you have had a chance to read the book, I will be more than happy to debate the fine points of it with you. Likewise, when you actually read Hume or Locke, I’d be happy to educate you on proper philosophy. Until then, you are doing nothing more than braying like a donkey, mixing together words you don’t understand to form irrational and incoherent sentences.
Very well, and if you sir would read the Bible I will be glad to help you with systematic theology and hermeneutics.
But please inform me why I should be educated in philosophy by one who’s major was completely in another field? That just doesn’t sound very smart to me, especially when I have already taken both undergrad and graduate courses in the subject.
I don’t think your “education” stuck the first time. The stench of your ignorance of this subject is overwhelming. If you actually did take undergraduate and graduate courses on the subject of philosophy, then please be so kind as to inform me of your alma mater. I want to make certain that no one I knows mistakingly goes there thinking that they will receive a proper education. From what I can tell, your education consists of sticking your head in the sand and blindly yammering about whatever backwards beliefs you were spoon-fed as a child.
Somehow I don’t feel safe giving you this personal information… I mean, what if something snapped in your brain and you went on a killing spree, an evolutionary jihad like your boys over at Columbine…I mean you already have been reading Dawkins and his call to arms for militant atheism….
I’m not the fundamentalist here. From a historic perspective, you are far more likely to snap and go on a killing spree than me. It’s always the fundies that breed the best terrorists.
Seems to me it was the fundies who were shot by your Columbine disciples.
Wow. I am surprised by your ignorance of nearly every subject other than your crazy interpretation of fairy tales. Where, pray tell, did you read that the shooters at Columbine were evolutionists?
Let’s see, fundamentalism has yielded terrorism, crusades, abortion doctor murders, witch burnings, inquisitions, torture, death of children through negligence (“my god will cure my child, I don’t need a doctor”), a world view that dismisses this life for the prospect of an imaginary afterlife, bigotry, hatred, anti-intellectualism, suicide bombings, extreme corporal punishment, self-mutilation, “honor killings”, mass suicide, ad nauseum.
Enlightened people rarely resort to such brutish behavior. You are incapable of rational thought, because you accept a non-objective and incoherent belief system in place of observable reality. You purposefully dismiss observations in this reality if it goes against the mass delusions of your religion. Delusional people are the sorts of people that snap, McDonald.
‘Natural Selection’—Columbine killer’s T-shirt
Not widely publicized is that one of the student killers was wearing a T-shirt that read ‘Natural Selection’. Based on the killers’ own Web site, Gino says we now know that they were deeply committed to evolution. They believed that if they shot or killed people, they would be simply scattering their molecules
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i3/geraci.asp
Nov. 10, 2007
BBC News: “Man Kills Eight at Finnish Schoolâ€
In Finland this week, a teenager killed eight students and then himself at a high school. The shooter was motivated by his “social Darwinist†views.
Eighteen-year-old Pekka-Eric Auvinen opened fire in Jokela High School earlier this week, killing five boys, two girls, and the school’s female principal, then firing on police before shooting himself in the head.
The tragedy was premeditated by Auvinen, who posted a video on YouTube within the past two weeks titled “Jokela high school massacre 11/7/2007.†In the video (which has since been removed), the killer brandished a pistol and “called himself a ‘social Darwinist’ who would ‘eliminate all who I see unfit.’†The video shows the killer wearing a shirt that reads “humanity is overrated†in all-caps.
As is the case during any tragedy, our sympathies and prayers extend to the people and families affected. That said, there is also, sadly, even more reason to conclude that the underlying cause of much school violence, including the infamous Columbine shootings, is students taking Darwinism to its logical conclusion.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/11/10/news-to-note-11102007
Oh, so because he had it on a T-shirt, that must be his reasoning. Does that mean that “Nike” is your rationalization today? Harris was a classic psychopath. He believed that he was better than everyone else, not because he was more evolved, but because he followed his own code. Klebold was the accomplice, a deeply disturbed and violent child. Try reading something other than AIG sometime:
slate.com/id/2099203/
The rest of your comment is straying into this strawman that you have created. Are you even bothering to debate anything anymore, or are you simply attempting sophistry to find a place to hide your god?
That’s the best defense you can offer? Dude you are slammed.
Slammed? Whereas you are quoting a preacher’s opinion of the incident at Columbine, I have provided an article that quotes an expert: a psychiatrist. This expert has done a complete analysis of both of the killers, and has taken it to its logical conclusion. The best your preacher can say is “dem boys dun turned ‘way from Jebus”. Yet, I’m slammed?
They must not have taught you the finer points of debate at your cow college either.
Slammed.
So, apparently you are unable to refute any of my points. I love how in your delusional mind that means that you win.
Go back to reading your fairy tales and leave science to the experts, McDonald.
These comments are now closed. See here for why:
https://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=600