I'm not sure how many of you follow the very public debate between the "Christian Scientists" at Biologos (an evolutionary apologetics group) and Dr. Albert Mohler of Southern Seminary. Here's a link to Mohler's recent response to their last "broadside (http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/11/09/no-pass-from-theological-responsibility-the-biologos-conundrum/)." Central among the claims of the Biologos people is that they question the authority and sufficiency of Scripture in all matters of faith and practice. This leads them in interesting directions they state that Paul was mistaken about the historicity of Adam and Eve (cf Romans 5:12) and the implications of the Fall in God's garden. Implicitly they question the understanding of the Lord Jesus, who in Matthew 19 refers to Adam and Eve as historical people during His discussion of marriage and divorce.
Questioning both the inspiration of Scripture and the understanding of Jesus Christ of the historicity of Adam and Eve sooner or later brings into question all the doctrines of the Christian faith---since they are based on Scripture as well as the deity of Christ. When does such questioning and denial move us from the position of misinformed believers to the realm of unbelief? If Jesus and Paul were wrong about something as basic to the Christian faith as creation and our "first parents" what else were they wrong about? Moreover, who will judge them, the folks at Biologos? I'd hate to sit in judgment of an Apostle and the Son of God, God the Son.
11 comments:
"If Jesus and Paul were wrong about something as basic to the Christian faith as creation and our 'first parents' what else were they wrong about?"
That's a great question. My answer is if Jeebus was wrong about magical creation, he was probably wrong about everything else.
Therefore the existence of Christianity is completely dependent on denying the strongest basic fact of science, evolution by natural selection.
This is bad news for the religion business, because it means that eventually preachers and pastors will have to get real jobs. Not to worry, it may take a few more centuries for the world to grow up and throw out its ancient superstitions.
http://darwinkilledgod.blogspot.com/
Oh yes... time plus nothing = everything...
It takes greater faith to believe in evolution than it does in Christ the Creator. That's why 75% of Americans despite years of indoctrination by the school system still don't buy the lie. Face it, you're as big as a religionist as you claim that I am.
And you have the state to support you. Really, I love science. You should try science sometime. Objective truth is a wonderful thing. But you my good fellow are mired down in "philosophical" science and its dogma rather than operational science.
Seriously, your faith based religion masquerading as science provides no answers to chemical reactions, surgical procedures, etc... It is a religion that tries to explain existence.
You can console yourself with the destruction of Christianity, Nikita Kruschev did... a church meets in what used to be his home.
Marcus Arelius hated Christianity... he's gone and we're still here...
But, at least you "got one thing right" is Christ is a liar; we're all toast, so to speak.
No worries... His batting average is perfect, God being God.
Here's an idea. You've probably not read the Bible before, although you may know of people who have. Take an hour sometime and read it for yourself. Simply read the gospel of John.
I read your stuff all the time... so that no one can claim I'm so narrow minded I don't try to understand the other person's position. If you're open minded and possess integrity, read John's gospel this week. There are 21 chapters... that's a chapter a day in 21 days. It has been my experience that many of those who subscribe to your religion are so dogmatic that they pay lipservice to having read the "other side's material"... I'd like to think better of you...
Mr. Crosby, thanks for letting me write comments here. If you have seen my blog you noticed I ain't too nice there, but I'm a guest here so I will do my best to show some respect. Sorry in advance if I have a bit of trouble keeping that promise.
That Bible thing is a bit of a problem for me. I've made several attempts to read it, but I never get very far because the gibberish bores me to death. Then of course there's the disgusting parts, the genocide etc. Your Bible god is a violent criminal and I don't much care for those kind of stories. Also, I like to be current. That's why I prefer books about science written in the 21st century instead of books about supernatural magic written several centuries ago.
You wrote you love science. That's great. I suppose, since I'm not interested in your ancient holy book, it would be asking too much to suggest you buy, read, and try to understand my favorite 21st century book about evolutionary biology, but here it is anyway -- Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne who is a biology professor at the University of Chicago, one of the best universities in the world. I once was there to hear a speech by Stephen Gould, the paleontologist.
To be continued.
"It takes greater faith to believe in evolution than it does in Christ the Creator. That's why 75% of Americans despite years of indoctrination by the school system still don't buy the lie. Face it, you're as big as a religionist as you claim that I am. And you have the state to support you."
America's public schools also support the mathematicians. So why would it be a problem for you if those same schools supported the biologists? Could it be because the established truth of biological evolution threatens your career?
I think you're misusing the word "faith". People have faith in things that couldn't possibly have any evidence. Evolution has tons of evidence from many branches of science. The evidence from molecular biology and genetics, for example, is extremely powerful. Every time molecular biologists (who work at universities like Harvard and MIT, these people are bloody brilliant) compare DNA sequences of two different creatures, for example people and chimps, they can see their evolutionary relationship with their own eyes, and they have seen this evidence countless thousands of times, and every single time what they see shows evolution to be a fact. I don't think you have any clue as to how many scientific discoveries you have to deny to defend your religion business. That's why I recommended the book by Jerry Coyne. If thousands of brilliant scientists are making all these important discoveries, never caring about the religious implications or your job, I would think you would want to know what they're up to. Hiding behind your Bible is not going to solve this terrible threat against Christianity because young people are reading the book by Jerry Coyne, and they are not likely to be interested in replacing your older customers.
Perhaps you have nothing to worry about because science education in America is terrible, and a student is more likely to get a bad science teacher than a competent teacher. There is also the problem with Christian harassment of biology teachers who might feel intimidated enough to dumb down their lessons to accommodate the threats.
Your 75% shows just how terrible science education is in this country. (Actually it's a bit worse. The percentage of Americans who completely accept evolution without a god's magic wand is only 16% according to the latest Gallup poll.)
The percentage of biologists who accept and love evolution is about 100% which makes sense considering the overwhelming evidence (that you don't know about) and considering the fact that evolution is the foundation of biology and the strongest fact of science.
Meanwhile your Christ the Creator has exactly zero scientific evidence. It's virtually impossible to find a biologist who invokes Jeebus to explain the diversity of life. I got the entire scientific community on my side. On your side you got one ancient book.
Thanks again for the opportunity to write stuff here.
Sorry, just one more thing.
It's interesting that we completely agree about the religious implications of evolution. The only thing we disagree about is the truth of evolution. Like most Americans you deny it, and like virtually all biologists I love it. At least we agree about something. Also, we're both from the midwest. I'm from Illinois. I have relatives (farmers) who live probably not that far from you in Wisconsin. I also have cousins (mostly farmers) who live in Iowa and South Dakota. We're both Americans, we probably both love our country (even though I frequently ridicule Americans). We have a lot more in common than this one minor difference, which is whether or not evolution is how the world works.
Actually, your 100% of biologists is not true... I know a gentleman who taught in medical school and edited a medical school text book. He's a literal six day creationist... a friend of mine has a PhD in an obscure field relating to biological mathematics. He was doing modeling for mapping cancer cells in an attempt to destroy the cilia which enables a certain type of cell to move from place to place. Kill the cilia the cancer cell doesn't spread. Six day literal creationist... former post doctoral scholar in residence at Cal Tech (a very well respected secular institution). Wrote his PhD thesis on cytoplasm in frog eggs. I can go on but you get the point.
Every PhD in biology I speak with, with credentials from secular institutions, who are believers describe evolution as a dogma and philosophical science that does not factually relate to "how things work."
One thing I'd like to challenge you on... your (self-professed) propensity toward incivility. It's like those folks who yell at people with whom they disagree. It doesn't make them any more persuasive.
Also, unwillingness to engage open mindedly in discourse or examine for one's self another's truth claims, speaks of prejudice.
You're allowed the right to your religion and I'm allowed mine.
By the way, I moved here from L.A. (not for the warmer winters:) But I do know at least one Wisconsin farmer. Say, I forgot to ask. Is it true that Illinois has a professional football franchise in the Chicago area? I've heard rumors over the years. One wonders how they will do tomorrow night...
Yes. They're called the Chicago Bears. I betting for Green Bay to win.
I wrote "The percentage of biologists who accept and love evolution is about 100%"
Please notice the word "about". That's 100% rounded to the nearest percent. Another way to say it is the percentage of biologists who accept the foundation of biology and the strongest basic fact of science is extremely close to 100% and not very close at all to 99%.
If you include only the real biologists (scientists who don't invoke magic to solve scientific problems), the number of biologists who accept evolution is exactly 100%.
But science isn't a democracy. Scientists don't vote on what's a fact. Evolution is called an established truth because of the evidence. I've been studying that evidence for several years. There's so much of it I could never study all of it in one lifetime.
You talked about "truth claims". Biologists don't have to claim evolution is true. The evidence speaks for itself.
I recently wrote in my blog "If all creationists could somehow be forced to read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne there would be no more creationists."
The problem is evolution deniers make no effort to understand what it is they're denying. They know nothing about the molecular evidence. They know nothing about the fossils of whale ancestors recently discovered in Pakistan. They have a very poor understanding of how evolution works.
A quote from Richard Dawkins who also wrote a book you should read (The Greatest Show on Earth):
"It would be so nice if those who oppose evolution would take a tiny bit of trouble to learn the merest rudiments of what it is they are opposing."
Evolution deniers deny evolution for religious reasons. That's not a good reason. If the Bible said the earth is flat, that wouldn't be a good reason to throw out all the evidence that shows the earth is not flat. There's even more evidence for evolution representing more than a century of discoveries thanks to thousands of biologists. You're insulting their hard work and their integrity when you deny those discoveries.
Christians say they are interested in the truth. I have seen no evidence they care about the truth at all. They just want to go heaven (as do Muslim suicide bombers), and if some branch of science threatens their wishful thinking, they throw it out without bothering to know anything about it.
Well, I've got a nice stomach virus... so I'll be brief... a real biologist is defined by objective criteria such as their credentials, not their political beliefs, shoe size, height, weight, gender, or religious beliefs.
I understand that by your religious dogma that a real biologist is one who subscribes to your faith based religion, evolution.
Your subjective view, that is your faith based view is the final arbiter of whether or not they are a real biologist. However, such subjectivism does not determine the validity of their training, body of work, or credentials. It seems that their biologist/evolutionist colleagues are more "open minded" however as one of them received prof of the year at their very secular medical school numerous years in a row despite their "religious beliefs." What is it that their peers knew that you didn't take into account?
As for meeting Christians in search of truth... well, I can't speak for the Christians you've met, as you can't speak for the evolutionists I've met.
If they are human, then they are bound to behave hypocritically from time to time---it's part of the human condition.
No one has to teach a child how to be selfish, how to take a toy from a playmate, or how to lie... or how to be rude. It comes naturally to humanity.
Now, if you want to talk truth, the nature of truth, or engage in any ontological discussion, my email is keithcrosby@yahoo.com...
If you wish to engage in ad hominem attack... Don't bother.
If you want to engage in a discussion (i.e. civil debate) on truth, then email me.
My first question is, "is truth relative?" or put another way, "is truth certain?"
Yeah, what Human Ape said.....
In response to "Is truth relative / certain," the answer is yes on both counts, even though both "yes" answers disagree with each other, because the two words are not synonymous.
I'll explain:
With the traditional modes of human contemplation and willingness to deceive the self and the collective, yes, truth is relative. It's relative to the desires of the one who perceives/creates/realizes that truth. But that truth is a perception of what one wishes it to be.
With the customarily acceptable definitions of "truth," "evidence," and "proof," the question of "Is truth certain?" means that facts exist independent of human thought. 1 + 1 = 2 would be true even if there were no humans to realize it.
The truth that Human Ape and I use is the 1 + 1 truth, whereas the truth that many (most) Christians use is a perception.
You said yourself that "No one has to teach a child how to be selfish, how to take a toy from a playmate, or how to lie...." These all stem from a desire to control the environment, which by extension, leads to the desire to control other animate beings within that environment. (Don't bother disagreeing with this: It's Psychology 101 stuff here.) By the same token, it's not a stretch to imagine either Moses the Magnaimous Huckster or Paul the Sniveling Liar dream up a way to dominate others in their environment, possibly for no other reason than prestige.
For the record, I have read the Bible - twice. Also for the record, evolution is not something that requires "faith." You cannot believe or disbelieve evolution, since, as Human Ape pointed out, it is solid, verifiable fact. You can only embrace or avoid evolution, which in this case is a 1 + 1 "truth."
In essence, those who pretend that evolution is a "theory" (which they have to use a layman's definition of "theory" to do, rather than a scientific definition), are actually avoiding truth.
Facts are bothersome things. Both you and human ape are wrong. In fact, one of the leading evolutionary thinkings, Michael Ruse, says that evolutionary theory is a philosophy. Here's an evolutionary publication that documents his assertions:
NCSE Reports, Volume 13, Number 1, p.20-21 (1993)
He has served as an expert witness against creationism, including the landmark case, Mclean vs. Arkansas.
Here's his bio on wikipedia. If you've done any reading on the matter, you are familiar with his work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ruse
Now you can chant "it's so, evolution is a science all you want..." I can claim to be blond... but that doesn't make it so.
Michael Ruse (born June 21, 1940 in Birmingham, England) is a philosopher of biology at Florida State University, and is well known for his work on the creationism/evolution controversy and the demarcation problem in science. He was born in England, took his undergraduate degree at the University of Bristol (1962), his master's degree at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario (1964), and Ph.D. at the University of Bristol (1970). Ruse taught at the University of Guelph Canada for 35 years. Since his retirement from Guelph, he has taught at Florida State University and is the Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy (2000-present). In 1986, he was elected as a Fellow of both the Royal Society of Canada and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He has received honorary doctorates from the University of Bergen, Norway (1990), the McMaster University, Ontario, Canada (2003) and most recently the University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada (2007). He considers himself both an atheist and agnostic, but believes that "new atheism" is a disservice to science and loathes the term "Humanist."[1]
Along with several other scholars, Ruse delivered the 2001 Gifford Lectures in Natural Theology at the University of Glasgow. His lectures on Evolutionary Naturalism, "A Darwinian Understanding of Epistemology" and "A Darwinian Understanding of Ethics," are collected in the edited volume The Nature and Limits of Human Understanding, (ed. Anthony Sanford, T & T Clark, 2003) ISBN: 0567089479
Ruse was a key witness for the plaintiff in the 1981 test case (McLean v. Arkansas) of the state law permitting the teaching of "creation science" in the Arkansas school system (signed by governor Frank White).[2] The federal judge ruled that the state law was unconstitutional.
What philosophers (including Ruse) say about anything is meaningless because all philosophers are full of you know what. If every philosopher in the world dropped dead tomorrow nobody would notice and nobody would care. They would miss their garbage man who has some value but not a worthless full-of-it philosopher.
Thanks you Mr. Christ Denier. "solid, verifiable fact" is a good way of describing evolution which is the foundation of biology. Denying evolution equals denying all of biology not to mention 150 years of scientific progress.
The real reason I'm here again, the only reason I'm here again, is I just want to say congratulations. Green Bay Packers. Wow. You might be interested to know that about the same time I was last here, I decided to throw out the city of Chicago where I have spent most of my life to become a Packers fan because I like champions. For the same reason I threw out the Cubs last year. I'm a Yankee fan now.
To heck with the origin of species. What's really important is American football. Everything else doesn't matter.
Post a Comment