The AAAS responds to "Expelled"

The AAAS "Statement" is dated 18 April 2008. Why is this being presented as if it were "new" news? What is the date of the video?

Science and religion are incompatible in many ways. It is simply not truthful of AAAS to pretend otherwise.

Take Francis Collins as an example. He believes that we can detect evidence of a Moral Law. He believes that miracles are compatible with science. His position is that science reveals a universe that is fine-tuned for life. And he believes that, "... humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature." I think most of those beliefs conflict with science.

Sure, there probably are religious beliefs that don't obviously conflict with science but most religions have some core tenets that are incompatible. At the very least the video should acknowledge that there are conflicting views on this subject.

It troubles me that a scientific organization would resort to anecdotal evidence from biased sources to buttress its case. Why didn't they interview former believers who became atheists after studying science? Wouldn't that be just as "scientific"?

Did you not like the video?

Larry Moran said: Science and religion are incompatible in many ways. It is simply not truthful of AAAS to pretend otherwise.

Take Francis Collins as an example. He believes that we can detect evidence of a Moral Law. He believes that miracles are compatible with science. His position is that science reveals a universe that is fine-tuned for life. And he believes that, "... humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature." I think most of those beliefs conflict with science.

Sure, there probably are religious beliefs that don't obviously conflict with science but most religions have some core tenets that are incompatible. At the very least the video should acknowledge that there are conflicting views on this subject.

It troubles me that a scientific organization would resort to anecdotal evidence from biased sources to buttress its case. Why didn't they interview former believers who became atheists after studying science? Wouldn't that be just as "scientific"?

"We were... especially disappointed to learn that the producers of an intelligent design propaganda movie called 'Expelled' are inappropriately pitting science against religion,"

PZ says it best, as usual:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/08/will_we_ever_stop_running_away.php

non-practicing agnostic said: PZ says it best, as usual: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/08/will_we_ever_stop_running_away.php

PvM said:

"...or the atheist who believes that science can disprove religious faith, the existence of a God."

Oh, please. How can someone "disprove" that an entity for which no hard evidence exists....exists?

I know of no atheists who are working to "disprove" the existence of a God. Only atheists who are asking, "Where's your evidence?, Where's your proof that some celestial being exists? Prove it!"

You can't "disprove" something for which there is no hard evidence of its existence -- who in their right mind would even bother with "scientific" proof that Santa Claus doesn't come down your chimney on Dec. 25th carrying presents after disembarking from his flying reindeer-driven sleigh? Or that the proverbial "Invisible Pink Unicorn" doesn't exist?

As a proud atheist, I really must also take issue with your phrasing..."an atheist who believes"....that word "believe" really sticks in my craw. The reason I am an atheist is that I choose to utilize hard facts and evidence to make judgments. Not "beliefs." Not "faith."

Speaking for myself, I don't feel that I need to, or should "tolerate" those who choose to be guided by myth, faith, belief, invisible deities, Invisible Pink Unicorns, or any other such nonsense. In this day and age, we need the cold hard truth, the facts and nothing but the facts, more than ever. Therefore, I have about a nanoseconds worth of tolerance for those who suggest we need to "respect" the utter nonsense that "guide" the vast majority of people on this planet. Because letting one's life be guided by "faith" is perhaps the primary reason why we have so many problems on this planet.

Biomusicologist said: PvM said: "...or the atheist who believes that science can disprove religious faith, the existence of a God." Oh, please. How can someone "disprove" that an entity for which no hard evidence exists....exists?

Speaking for myself, I don't feel that I need to, or should "tolerate" those who choose to be guided by myth, faith, belief, invisible deities, Invisible Pink Unicorns, or any other such nonsense.

I really hate garbage like this. The only way to ensure that science and religion remain compatible, or that they are 'non-overlapping magisteria,' is to remove from the repertoire of religion every assertoric statement it makes.

Since the observable world (the world studied by science) is made up of physical objects composed, ultimately, of microphysical particles, we can be certain that the only objects that are capable of interacting causally with the physical world are also physical. This is known as the the principle of the causal closure of the physical. Since there are no physical events that are not causally accountable to physical causes, even if there were a non-physical realm (made of mind-stuff or God-stuff or whatever), that world would not be causally connected to this world. This is the reason that lead (effectively all) philosophers of mind to dismiss the mind/body dualism of Descartes, and to adopt the physicalism that now reigns supreme in modern philosophy and science.

A God that answers prayers is one who violates the laws of physics, and is therefore a God who is scientifically impossible. A God who created the universe and guides evolution is, once again, a God who causally interacts with the physical world, and who is scientifically impossible. The same goes for a God who gives you strength, a God who helps you appreciate Beethoven, or a God who lowers gas prices.

Once we understand that a God who fits into the world that science has revealed to us cannot interact with us, the claims of religion become nothing more than claims of worldview, claims of how you can choose to view the events in the world if you so choose. There are no legitimate questions with factual answers that can be answered by religion. However, religion can tell you that a magic man cares about you, and that might make you feel better. Or it might tell you that God has a plan for you, and that might ease your sorrows. However, these claims are no more true than are the claims of the optimist or the pessimist.

Chapman said: I really hate garbage like this. The only way to ensure that science and religion remain compatible, or that they are 'non-overlapping magisteria,' is to remove from the repertoire of religion every assertoric statement it makes. That seems to be a bit rash

Since the observable world (the world studied by science) is made up of physical objects composed, ultimately, of microphysical particles, we can be certain that the only objects that are capable of interacting causally with the physical world are also physical. This is known as the the principle of the causal closure of the physical.

A principle or a known fact? I am not really sure that this is a scientific position.

A God that answers prayers is one who violates the laws of physics, and is therefore a God who is scientifically impossible.

Again this is somewhat circular. Why could laws of physics not be broken? And why would answering prayers require laws of physics to be broken? Your assertions presume more than they should be able to do. Of course, if you define God to be impossible, as you seem to do based on a metaphysical principle, then of course, God does not and cannot exist. However, one could equally hold a metaphysical position that God can indeed interact with our world and even if this were to require suspension of laws of physics. Either one seems to suffer from the same shortcomings when it comes to science and faith, one asserts that the natural is all there is, a position on which science can not really make any statements, the other one that the supernatural can interact with the natural, another position on which science has little bearing. Perhaps you should have stopped with your first sentence.

Chapman said: I really hate garbage like this. The only way to ensure that science and religion remain compatible, or that they are 'non-overlapping magisteria,' is to remove from the repertoire of religion every assertoric statement it makes.

Since the observable world (the world studied by science) is made up of physical objects composed, ultimately, of microphysical particles, we can be certain that the only objects that are capable of interacting causally with the physical world are also physical. This is known as the the principle of the causal closure of the physical.

A God that answers prayers is one who violates the laws of physics, and is therefore a God who is scientifically impossible.

Chapman said: I really hate garbage like this. The only way to ensure that science and religion remain compatible, or that they are 'non-overlapping magisteria,' is to remove from the repertoire of religion every assertoric statement it makes.

Since the observable world (the world studied by science) is made up of physical objects composed, ultimately, of microphysical particles, we can be certain that the only objects that are capable of interacting causally with the physical world are also physical. This is known as the the principle of the causal closure of the physical.

A God that answers prayers is one who violates the laws of physics, and is therefore a God who is scientifically impossible.

I had a reply that apparently went missing as soon as I hit 'submit.' I'll try to be brief in my response.

We know that the observable world is the physical world. Our bodies and minds, trees and rocks, the furniture of the world is physical. In adopting a position of methodological naturalism (a position all scientists adopt), scientists attempt to explain observable phenomena (physical phenomena) through physical mechanisms. Were this impossible, because there seemed to be an explanatory gap between physical 'effects' and the phenomena we were trying to explain, it would make sense to introduce non-physical (supernatural, or whatever you please) causes into our ontology. However, science is able to do just fine without such things. The world that we are causal part of can be explained in physical terms.

Why could laws of physics not be broken? While it is, of course, logically possible for the laws of physics to be different, or to be suspended, it is not physically possible. Were the laws of physics physically contingent, they would not be laws. If your argument is that God can interact with the world by breaking the laws of physics, then your argument is that your God interacts with the world only insofar as scientists are dead wrong about their explanations of the world.

I have not defined God as impossible. I am simply saying that were this a world in which non-physical forces interacted causally with the world, it would be a bizarre coincidence that we can explain everything we can without taking them into account. Further, were this that sort of world, physicists, chemists, biologists, and all other scientists all the way up the ladder of supervenience would be completely wrong in almost everything they thought about the world in which we live.

I'm sure I don't need to point out to you that if your God can only interact with the physical world (read: if your God is only relevant to us physical beings) if scientists are wrong about everything they think, then religion and science are most certainly in conflict, because religion is calling scientists either incompetent or liars.

A small problem:

The laws of nature are not rules that things must obey; they are simply descriptions or explanations of how they in fact do behave. Events that supposedly violate natural laws may injure the vanity of the scientists, but they simply can't outrage Nature. Which is the problem with PvM's question above "Why could laws of physics not be broken?" Law is a metaphor, and it's risky to draw conclusions from metaphors without paying attention to their limits.

What does happen with some regularity is that what we had thought were laws of nature turn out to be inadequate descriptions of the world. When that happens, the proper response is to amend our understanding of natural laws. Of course, although they wouldn't constitute violations of natural law, events that don't match up with our understanding of how things work could all turn out to be evidence that a deity were acting in the world, though most garden-variety miracles don't literally involve exceptions to F=ma or something of that kind but are instead rare or remarkable events such as people recovering from illnesses who were expected to die.

This is actually an old (old on the internet, anyways) video, as has been noted before, and there was a small 'discussion' on Larry Moran's blog where we hashed over much of the points that will surely come up here. While the video is clearly intended to sell compatibility between science and religion, if you actually listen to what the people in the video actually say, you'll find some interesting generalizations that do *not* mesh with a simple 'religion and science can be compatible'. I hope no one minds me egotistically quoting myself :) :

First we have Alan Leshner with the comment that most mainstream religions do not have problems with evolution, and then he lists the [much of] Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. This is wrong on its face, of course, as it's clear that a literal, modern interpretation of many of the holy texts on which these faiths are based conflict with evolutionary accounts and, most importantly, are held to by believers. It's an untrue blanket statement which is the first bit implying NOMA.

He goes on: "...different domains of the world. Science only has to do with the natural world. Religion of course has to do with a belief in the origins of everything that we have and the questions and the deep meaning of life."

That was the first very explicit account of NOMA. Next is Francis Collins: ""I believe that science is the way to understand the natural world and the faith is the way to understand questions that science can't answer like "why are we all here?" "... and does it matter?"[...]"

(end quote)

I'll add here that I fully recognize that Francis Collins is making a personal statement about his own beliefs, but thought I should include it as he is making claims about what faith is and what science is. It supports the idea that thinking that "why are we all here?" isn't something science could answer is supportive of science and religion being (sometimes) compatible.

However, it would seem to poison the very subject being discussed by making the idea of 'science' even fuzzier. Science clearly answers much of that question already, and at the very least addresses it, beginning with evolution and the origin of the cosmos. Just to head off the rebuttal that Collins was addressing a different sense of 'why': 1) He has many ideas that one could call incompatible with science, so this is not necessarily so clear. His insertions of faith-based ideas into recent human evolution, for example, could be seen as reflecting this less compatible viewpoint (God of the gaps, unscientific reasoning that opposes naturalistic exploration). 2) The other sense is not necessarily so obvious to most people, and this is an advocacy/public outreach video. The message again seems blurred to me and poorly executed and I can easily see it giving people the impression that science and religion are compatible in the general sense because they're in separate domains.

Maybe I should go about my point differently this time, though. Watch this video twice (or three times). The first time, watch it as a list of personal opinions. You'll find it's easy to pick out Collins doing so *if* you're listening for it, not quite as easy for the others. The second time, watch it as an advocacy video advocating an idea of NOMA. You'll find quite a bit supporting this idea and might (like me) find yourself forgetting that Collins is making purely personal statements and not ones supported *in general* by the AAAS. Maybe even watch it a third time without any special focus and see what you get out of it. I get this: 'science and religion are compatible because they're in two separate domains. Lots of religious people accept evolution. (note: we know that this may be an exaggerated point, as there's also quite a few who like to introduce religiously-based limits on it) Please ignore the fact that our blanket statements about what religion and science are conflict with the viewpoints of a huge number (I'd say a majority) of the religious.'

I won't link to the discussion on Sandwalk, but you can easily find it by searching that blog for 'religion aaas'

Evolution and religion look at different questions. Religion looks at the question of whatever evolution doesn't look at, and evolution looks at the question of the other stuff that's left over. The two are entirely compatible.

Shirakawasuna said: Please ignore the fact that our blanket statements about what religion and science are conflict with the viewpoints of a huge number (I'd say a majority) of the religious.'

Biomusicologist said: Therefore, I have about a nanoseconds worth of tolerance for those who suggest we need to "respect" the utter nonsense that "guide" the vast majority of people on this planet. Because letting one's life be guided by "faith" is perhaps the primary reason why we have so many problems on this planet.

This "discussion" is nugatory in the absence of a useful operational definition of religion.

Very clearly (as PvM surely knows by now), some religious faiths are rather substantially founded on assertions directly testable using real-world techniques and evidence. Those assertions aren't just false, they are ludicrously false, violating nearly everything known about everything, and all the inter-relationships among all human knowledge. They are absurd.

So if we very carefully extract everything asserted by every religious faith that can actually be tested in the Real World (the magisterium of science), does enough of substantive utility remain of any faith worth even bothering with? Seems to me we're left with a kind of nebulous preference for extracting some hazy overall pattern of direction and purpose to our lives, even if the effort of projecting such a purpose isn't easy or straightforward.

But if we're satisfied with the operational definition of religion as the projection of our preferences onto a reality that doesn't support them but can't be proved NOT to have them, they there's no conflict here. Science can, in this view, tell us in some great detail the Will and approximate methods of the gods (if they exist).

Science can (and does, in spades) document the extent to which we all comfortably kid ourselves, see what isn't there, remember what didn't happen, and use confirmation bias to plow our way through life. Maybe we can regard science as the effort to neutralize these "weaknesses", and religion as the effort to glorify these "strengths".

Chapman said: This is known as the the principle of the causal closure of the physical. Since there are no physical events that are not causally accountable to physical causes,

A God that answers prayers is one who violates the laws of physics, and is therefore a God who is scientifically impossible.

Once we understand that a God who fits into the world that science has revealed to us cannot interact with us,

His position is that science reveals a universe that is fine-tuned for life.

Science and religion are incompatible in many ways. It is simply not truthful of AAAS to pretend otherwise.

Chapman said: This is known as the the principle of the causal closure of the physical. Since there are no physical events that are not causally accountable to physical causes,

I believe virtual particles are commonly accepted to be uncaused. That is, physical events do not cause virtual particles.

386sx said: Evolution and religion look at different questions. Religion looks at the question of whatever evolution doesn't look at, and evolution looks at the question of the other stuff that's left over. The two are entirely compatible.

It is good that this video was done by AAAS. It is important that the public understand that there are people who agree that religion and science explain two different spheres. One morality, and the other the natural/materialistic world. It has been said that their are 1,000 religions in the world. It is hard to believe that people who understand science would find conflict with their world view. There are people who have not seen this video, and it would be good for them to.

I hope this is not too off topic, but the Creations Science Association for Mid-America has another crazy newsletter that asks "Should Evolutionists Be Allowed to Roam Free in the Land?"

It can be found here: http://www.csama.org/csanews/nws200809.pdf

This one tops the other. Here is the scariest section:

􀁹 Evolutionists are largely incompetent
􀁹 They are largely unproductive leaches on the productive
members of society, else they are totally destructive.
􀁹 Where they have achieved, or even sought, political power
they have virtually always been extremely dangerous to any
opponents of their religion, even while pretending they do
not have a religion, or pretending they are Christian.
􀁹 They make it perfectly clear that they are at war and intend
to remain at war with Christians and any other opponents of
their religion.
􀁹 Even where they have not achieved the power that their
philosophical cousins (communists and Nazis) held, if you
pay attention, they tend to make it clear that they believe
Christians, and any other opponents of their faith, ought to
be eliminated.
Clearly then, “evolutionists should not be allowed to
roam free in the land.” All that remains for us to discuss is
“What should be done with evolutionists?” For the purposes
of this essay, I will ignore the minor issue of Western-style jurisprudence
and merely mention possible solutions to the
“evolutionism problem,” leaving the legal details to others:
􀁹 Labor camps. Their fellow believers were high on these.
But, my position would be that most of them have lived
their lives at, or near the public trough. So, after their own
beliefs, their life should continue only as long as they can
support themselves in the camps.
􀁹 Require them to wear placards around their neck, or perhaps
large medallions which prominently announce "Warning:
Evolutionist! Mentally Incompetent - Potentially
Dangerous." I consider this option too dangerous.
􀁹 Since evolutionists are liars and most do not really believe
evolution we could employ truth serum or water-boarding
to obtain confessions of evolution rejection. But, this
should, at most, result in parole, because, like Muslims,
evolutionist religion permits them to lie if there is any benefit
to them.
􀁹 An Evolutionist Colony in Antarctica could be a promising
option. Of course inspections would be required to prevent
too much progress. They might invent gunpowder.
􀁹 A colony on Mars would prevent gunpowder from harming
anyone but their own kind, in the unlikely event they turned
out to be intelligent enough to invent it.
􀁹 All options should include 24-hour sound system playing
Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris
reading Darwin's Origin of Species, or the preservation of
Favored Races by Means of Natural Selection. Of course
some will consider this cruel & unusual, especially since
they will undoubtedly have that treatment for eternity.

Larry Moran said: Science and religion are incompatible in many ways. It is simply not truthful of AAAS to pretend otherwise. Take Francis Collins as an example. He believes that we can detect evidence of a Moral Law. He believes that miracles are compatible with science. His position is that science reveals a universe that is fine-tuned for life. And he believes that, "... humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature." I think most of those beliefs conflict with science.

Sure, there probably are religious beliefs that don't obviously conflict with science but most religions have some core tenets that are incompatible. At the very least the video should acknowledge that there are conflicting views on this subject.

It troubles me that a scientific organization would resort to anecdotal evidence from biased sources to buttress its case. Why didn't they interview former believers who became atheists after studying science? Wouldn't that be just as "scientific"?

most of Christianity accepts evolution

Robin said:

Larry Moran said: Science and religion are incompatible in many ways. It is simply not truthful of AAAS to pretend otherwise. Take Francis Collins as an example. He believes that we can detect evidence of a Moral Law. He believes that miracles are compatible with science. His position is that science reveals a universe that is fine-tuned for life. And he believes that, "... humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature." I think most of those beliefs conflict with science.

I disagree with this assessment. A belief or opinion that there is a findable Moral Law, that the universe is fine tuned, and that humans are unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation is not specifically in conflict with science. Such premises ONLY conflict with science if the person bases and biases scientific results on such opinions, or (worse imho) ignores scientific findings in order to hold such beliefs. I don't see this as the case with Francis Collins. His work is not directly tied to his beliefs and he does not put down or argue against science outside his domain of expertise. He can certainly hold the opinion that science may one day find Moral Law, but since he's not ignoring or trumping up science studies concerning such proposition, there's no conflict. One is welcome to disagree with him and such does not change the nature of his scientific research or other areas of science.

Sure, there probably are religious beliefs that don't obviously conflict with science but most religions have some core tenets that are incompatible. At the very least the video should acknowledge that there are conflicting views on this subject.

The key to understanding this, I think, is to understand the nuance of what constitutes "science" and "religion". "Science" is really only a methodological approach to unraveling and understanding how something occurs within the natural world. Religion (in theory) is a faith-based, philosophical approach to unravelling and understanding man's place and purpose in life. The only conflict, then, is when some people try to use science to define man's purpose in life or when some people try to use religion to define how something occurred. It's really that simple. There is, for example, no actual conflict with science in believing a religious tenet that establishes that there have been people raised from the dead in and of itself. Science cannot establish that people cannot be raised from the dead. Science merely establishes the biological underpinnings concerning how life works. Could there be a natural explanation for some folks apparently coming back to life after having been pronounced dead? Certainly. Can science definitively establish that there is no such thing as the "soul"? No. That "miracles" do not happen? No. Such issues are outside the limits of science. Problems only arise if one takes either science or religious belief beyond the realm of what they can and cannot establish. For example, if one believes that God created man uniquely and acknowledges there's no way of knowing exactly how such could be done, that's fine. But if one believes that God creating man uniquely contradicts evolution, then that person's religious beliefs are in conflict with science.

It troubles me that a scientific organization would resort to anecdotal evidence from biased sources to buttress its case. Why didn't they interview former believers who became atheists after studying science? Wouldn't that be just as "scientific"?

Because switching from literal belief to atheism isn't really the issue. The issue is one of understanding the boundaries around science and the boundaries around religion.

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."

H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Religions change over time and space, and each person's religion is unique. To say that Christians can not accept evolution and still be Christian is obviously false, whether atheists say it or fundies say it. An important key to all this conflict is that Biblical Literalism is not only illogical in some many ways, it is also quite antisocial.

tsig said: Once you start allowing for miracles where do you stop? If god can just reach in and change things when he wants how can you know that the results of your experiment are real and not god's thumb on the scale. Unless you have some insight into the mind of god how can you tell what is miracle and what is not?

most of Christianity accepts evolution

This is nonsense.....only the Roman Catholic church accepts evolution universally.

I wrote a blog years ago about this matter:

http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/7413

Blog: Science vs. Religion

Two thoughts on the conflict between science and religion.

I think the only religious viewpoint that is consistent with the scientific method is agnosticism. Even atheism has a dogma ("There is no God.") that science cannot confirm.

The battles between religion and science began because religious leaders, seeking to increase their power over their followers, made up various claims about the physical origins of the universe that could not be confirmed in their time and could, eventually, be challenged by the advances of science thousands of years later, thus damaging the credibility of religion. Religion invaded territory that belonged only to science, and science has been fighting ever since to win back its rightful place. It would have been far better for Bible based religions if the first eleven chapters of Genesis had never been written!

Even atheism has a dogma (“There is no God.”)

*sighs*

I guess there's no point reading your blog if you don't even understand the terms you're using.

Naked Bunny With a Whip comments on.... Even atheism has a dogma (“There is no God.”)

ben said:

most of Christianity accepts evolution

This is nonsense.....only the Roman Catholic church accepts evolution universally.

Since more than half the world's Christians are Roman Catholic, you're wrong.

Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory. ... Our responsibility as Christians is to deal seriously with the theories and findings of all scientific endeavors, evolution included, and to enter into open dialogue with responsible persons involved in scientific tasks about the achievement, failures and limits of their activities and of ours. The truth or falsity of the theory of evolution is not the question at issue and certainly not a question which lies within the competence of the Permanent Theological Committee. The real and only issue is whether there exists clear incompatibility between evolution and the Biblical doctrine of Creation. Unless it is clearly necessary to uphold a basic Biblical doctrine, the Church is not called upon and should carefully refrain from either affirming or denying the theory of evolution. We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction and that the position stated by the General Assemblies of 1886, 1888, 1889 and 1924 was in error and no longer represents the mind of our Church.

A powerful video addressing how science and faith can work together without damage to either.

Science and non-faith can work together without damage to either. Why is the AAAS addressing religion? Shouldn't they be working to advance science, not to advance religion?

I should have qualified my comments by saying “within Protestantism most adherents are YEC” and by a huge margin as well now.

Chapman said: Since there are no physical events that are not causally accountable to physical causes...

Biomusicologist said: I know of no atheists who are working to "disprove" the existence of a God. Only atheists who are asking, "Where's your evidence?, Where's your proof that some celestial being exists? Prove it!"

wamba said: A powerful video addressing how science and faith can work together without damage to either. Science and non-faith can work together without damage to either. Why is the AAAS addressing religion? Shouldn't they be working to advance science, not to advance religion?

mplavcan said: The religiously grounded, anti-science propagandists have effectively forced the AAAS to do this.

“Look what you made me do” is usually not a valid defense strategy.

"We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction."

All structures reflect their foundation. If God’s creating work is the basis for all subsequent theology—and it is—then everything built upon the Genesis foundation will conform to its original dimensions.

Although we certainly shouldn’t regard science as a threat to our faith--the One who authored our Bible is also the Author of science—-it’s entirely another thing to regard Darwinism as “scientific knowledge” and then allow it to lord itself over the Bible. What would Choong’s Christianity look like? Certainly not like Christianity! All structures reflect their foundation. If God’s creating work is the basis for all subsequent theology—-and it is—-then everything built upon the Genesis foundation will conform to its original dimensions. What are the dimensions of evolution? Sin and death from the get-go! How then do we understand the Fall if sin and death were part of God’s original order? And what are we being redeemed (to be bought back) into? Sin and death? Go figure! John Whitmore writes, “There is a danger of becoming so indoctrinated by evolutionary thinking that we become closed to Christianity.” (Bruce Malone, Search for the Truth, p.45) Source: Daniel Mann, quoted at Dwayna Lits' "Lighting The Way Worldwide" http://lightingtheway.blogspot.com/2007/11/is-redeemer-presbyterian-nyc-teaching.html

"Further, the statement noted, more than 11,000 Christian leaders in the United States have signed a letter affirming that evolution does not conflict with religious faith."

For example, the biblical historical claim of how the first humans were created in Gen. 2:7 (Adam) and Gen. 2:21-22 (Eve)—clearly created with NO animal ancestors at all— plainly contradicts the evolutionary historical claim that the first humans evolved into existence from a non-human “common ancestor” of humans and apes.

I think the situation is absolutely clear. Not only is evolution clearly incompatible with the Bible, but evolution is clearly incompatible with Christianity itself.

They UNDERSTAND that two diametrically opposed historical claims about the very same Earth event (the origin of humans, for example) cannot BOTH be historically true at the very same time, and that a rational choice to accept one and reject the other IS required.

FL said: It's equally clear that the quoted Presbeterian statement is flat-out wrong. Not rationally sustainable at all. For example, the biblical historical claim of how the first humans were created in Gen. 2:7 (Adam) and Gen. 2:21-22 (Eve)---clearly created with NO animal ancestors at all--- plainly contradicts the evolutionary historical claim that the first humans evolved into existence from a non-human "common ancestor" of humans and apes.

I think the only religious viewpoint that is consistent with the scientific method is agnosticism. Even atheism has a dogma (“There is no God.”) that science cannot confirm.

The no-gun-to-the-head answer is “that’s a stupid question”. So zero is just a useful stand-in for “not-applicable”.

Agnostics on the other hand contend that “There is a God” cannot be proved. This is a stronger statement than the default non-answer of atheism.

To be fair to FL here, 1) he didn't lie like pretty much every creationist who posts here does, like, every other sentence, and 2) he presents the beef between his religion and MET succintly. If you can't take seriously (i.e. literally) certain claims in the Bible because they contradict observed fact, how can you tell up front which pieces to take seriously?

FL, can you answer these for me:
1) What do you think about other internal and external contradictions in the Bible? I'm not interested in specific cases, just in how you approach such claims generally.
2) It's clear your religion contradicts MET. So what? Many people who call themselves Christian see no contradiction, and most people aren't even Christian. So what's your goal?

Before responding to Ben and Jackelope King, I need to ask:
Is anybody going to rationally challenge what Daniel Mann specifically said, or do you choose to go ahead and concede his main point?

If you can’t take seriously (i.e. literally) certain claims in the Bible because they contradict observed fact, how can you tell up front which pieces to take seriously?

ben said:

For example, the biblical historical claim of how the first humans were created in Gen. 2:7 (Adam) and Gen. 2:21-22 (Eve)—clearly created with NO animal ancestors at all— plainly contradicts the evolutionary historical claim that the first humans evolved into existence from a non-human “common ancestor” of humans and apes.

Unless one accepts, like hundreds of millions of Christians do, that many or even most of the events depicted in the bible are not "historical claims" but metaphor, allegory, and myth. Who put you in charge of deciding what others believe?

Jackelope King said: Or you can conclude, as I and millions of other Christians do, that these examples from the Bible aren't meant to be taken literally, and that the idea that we're descended from other animals does not in any way contradict the core of Christian values and beliefs in forgiveness, kindness, brotherly love, and the like. That evolution could indeed be the means by which mankind came about doesn't take away from that. Religious scholars throughout history have interpreted and re-interpreted the meaning of scripture. The Bible very powerfully and very beautifully serves to describe man's relationship with God: it's not a history textbook or a science textbook.

FL said: [deleted OT blather about sectarian conflicts] So here we have the AAAS preaching that evolution does not conflict with religious faith. Yet that's all it preaches; the AAAS statement simply IGNORES the existence of clear long-standing public incompatibilities between evolution and Bible, evolution and Christianity, and makes zero attempts to resolve them or even merely ADDRESS them. The AAAS merely offers a link to the "Clergy Letter Project", and the actual "Clergy Letter", upon examination, makes zero attempts to address (for example) the two extremely important incompatibilities already cited above. What a mess.

FL said: No rational person can deny that a clear rational contradiction exists here between these respective historical claims. That is very much a fundamental incompatibility. For as Daniel Mann comments,

All structures reflect their foundation. If God’s creating work is the basis for all subsequent theology—and it is—then everything built upon the Genesis foundation will conform to its original dimensions.

No escaping that one folks. The Bible's historical claim WRT human origins clearly contradicts the evolutionary "common ancestor" historical claim of human origins.

So, FL, tell us again how one must reject reality in order to accept Jesus Christ as one's savior, and tell us how the makers of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" were doing The Lord's work by deceiving people and slandering scientists as being evil, conspiratorial Commu-Nazis, and blaming them for every evil in the 20th Century?

Aquinas and Anselm, and Pope John Paul II

FL, you pretty much solved your own problem. Consider:

1) You have faith in the truth of the Resurrection, i.e. a dead body didn't stay dead.

2) In practice you know (w.r.t. wearing a seat-belt, crossing the street, running with scissors, drinking drano, getting crucified, etc.) that dead bodies stay dead.

So how do you resolve the contradiction?

Wow! As a militant agnostic, I never thought I would say this, but I agree completely with FL (and Daniel Mann) on this. However,we definitely come out with opposite conclusions about where the weight of the evidence lies. If Genesis is not correct, the rest of the Bible is pretty much moot.

With regard to Jackelope King's assertion that "beliefs in forgiveness, kindness, brotherly love, and the like" are core Christian values, this is 1) contradicted by the available evidence and 2) not specific to any one group.

Anglicans/Episcopalians generally have no problem with evolution:

A Catechism of Creation

Also, there are even more denominations that accept evolution.

As a matter of fact, The National Center for Science Education has a special section listing all the various denominations that accept evolution.

(Of course, within any denomination I'm sure you can find some who refuse to accept evolution.)

Naked Bunny with a Whip said: Even atheism has a dogma (“There is no God.”) *sighs* I guess there's no point reading your blog if you don't even understand the terms you're using.

FL says: Okay. Can we talk about this for a while? It’s clear that the official 40-year-old Presbyterian statement baldly asserts that there exists no incompatibility “between evolution and the Bible.” “We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction.” It’s equally clear that the quoted Presbeterian statement is flat-out wrong. Not rationally sustainable at all.

GuyeFaux says: FL, you pretty much solved your own problem. Consider: 1) You have faith in the truth of the Resurrection, i.e. a dead body didn’t stay dead. 2) In practice you know (w.r.t. wearing a seat-belt, crossing the street, running with scissors, drinking drano, getting crucified, etc.) that dead bodies stay dead. So how do you resolve the contradiction?

GuyeFaux asked: FL, can you answer these for me: 1) What do you think about other internal and external contradictions in the Bible? I'm not interested in specific cases, just in how you approach such claims generally. 2) It's clear your religion contradicts MET. So what? Many people who call themselves Christian see no contradiction, and most people aren't even Christian. So what's your goal?

The census of David is described in 2 Samuel 23:8 and 1 Chronicles 21:5. Comparison of these two verses shows that: 800,000 = 1,100,000 500,000 = 470,000

The number of generations between David and Joseph (inclusive) is given in both Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Comparing these two chapters shows that: 27 = 42

GuyeFaux said: FL, you pretty much solved your own problem. Consider: 1) You have faith in the truth of the Resurrection, i.e. a dead body didn't stay dead. 2) In practice you know (w.r.t. wearing a seat-belt, crossing the street, running with scissors, drinking drano, getting crucified, etc.) that dead bodies stay dead. So how do you resolve the contradiction?

Tex said: Wow! As a militant agnostic, I never thought I would say this, but I agree completely with FL (and Daniel Mann) on this. However,we definitely come out with opposite conclusions about where the weight of the evidence lies. If Genesis is not correct, the rest of the Bible is pretty much moot. With regard to Jackelope King's assertion that "beliefs in forgiveness, kindness, brotherly love, and the like" are core Christian values, this is 1) contradicted by the available evidence and 2) not specific to any one group.

Jennifer Miller @ 1:38 I, ahem, believe that, ahem, God created the world, but I think he did it through evolution. There's no, you know--he's not any less powerful to me that it happened naturally. I am a scientist and I look for those natural causes.

SkepitcalBill said:

Jennifer Miller @ 1:38 I, ahem, believe that, ahem, God created the world, but I think he did it through evolution. There's no, you know--he's not any less powerful to me that it happened naturally. I am a scientist and I look for those natural causes.

Jennifer Miller is a scientist? The same Jennifer Miller who testified as a biology teacher at Dover? Could somebody please produce a list of papers she's had published in peer reviewed journals, please. Also, it is strange that the video from April of 2008, but this is being presented as if it's news.

Tex said: Wow! As a militant agnostic, I never thought I would say this, but I agree completely with FL (and Daniel Mann) on this. However,we definitely come out with opposite conclusions about where the weight of the evidence lies. If Genesis is not correct, the rest of the Bible is pretty much moot.

Tex said: Wow! As a militant agnostic, I never thought I would say this, but I agree completely with FL (and Daniel Mann) on this. However,we definitely come out with opposite conclusions about where the weight of the evidence lies. If Genesis is not correct, the rest of the Bible is pretty much moot.

FL said: For example, the biblical historical claim of how the first humans were created in Gen. 2:7 (Adam) and Gen. 2:21-22 (Eve)---clearly created with NO animal ancestors at all--- plainly contradicts the evolutionary historical claim that the first humans evolved into existence from a non-human "common ancestor" of humans and apes.

Robin said: The problem of course with the concept of miracles is that such explanations are (usually) presented in a context that appeals to 'purpose' or 'significance'. In other words, someone is miraculously healed of cancer that baffles the understanding of all oncologists who review the case and such is taken as a sign of God's mercy and/or that God has some purpose in intervening. Such superstitious thinking is completely illogical and defines the methodological naturalistic foundation of science. Again though, it depends on the boundaries one sets on religion and religious concepts.

However, he said that the nature of the surveys used meant that undetected factors, perhaps in the lifestyle or upbringing of religious people, such as stable family life and relationships, could be the cause of this increased satisfaction.

As a proud atheist, I really must also take issue with your phrasing…”an atheist who believes”.…that word “believe” really sticks in my craw. The reason I am an atheist is that I choose to utilize hard facts and evidence to make judgments. Not “beliefs.” Not “faith.”

Chapman said: We know that the observable world is the physical world.

Why could laws of physics not be broken? While it is, of course, logically possible for the laws of physics to be different, or to be suspended, it is not physically possible.

Were the laws of physics physically contingent, they would not be laws.

If your argument is that God can interact with the world by breaking the laws of physics, then your argument is that your God interacts with the world only insofar as scientists are dead wrong about their explanations of the world.

I'm sure I don't need to point out to you that if your God can only interact with the physical world (read: if your God is only relevant to us physical beings) if scientists are wrong about everything they think, then religion and science are most certainly in conflict, because religion is calling scientists either incompetent or liars.

PvM said:

Tex said: Wow! As a militant agnostic, I never thought I would say this, but I agree completely with FL (and Daniel Mann) on this. However,we definitely come out with opposite conclusions about where the weight of the evidence lies. If Genesis is not correct, the rest of the Bible is pretty much moot.

That's a pretty religious position to take and it may come as no surprise that such a position need not be without its complications. In what aspect does Genesis have to be correct? Some consider it to be a historical description, others have come to appreciate it for different reasons. Now I understand why militant agnostics may hold such a position, after all it's easier to attack a strawman rather than deal with the many flavors of faith.

Argumentum ad Bold. The new Argumentum ad CAPSLOCK?

First of all, science does not set out to refute religious claims. Science reaches its own conclusions without regard to religious implications. A science teacher can and should teach students about strongly supported ideas in science (such as evolution). When the subject of religion comes up, the teacher should explain firmly that while science does investigate empirical claims, it is not the goal of science to evaluate the truth of religion in general.

Second, I have also read that Bibilical literalism is a relatively recent phenomena. It gained popularity in the southern U.S. in the early 20th century. See history of the creationist movement in America.

Third, evolution is hardly the only challenge for Biblical literalism. Galileo was also a problem. The question of how the Bible should be interpreted, and whether God would require sophisticated interpretation from His creation will continue to be matters of debate for religiously inclined individuals. Personally, I decided that the whole matter was a bit messy to be "obviously true" and came to be an agnostic. This had nothing to do with evolution!

FL said: Okay. Can we talk about this for a while? It's clear that the official 40-year-old Presbyterian statement baldly asserts that there exists no incompatibility "between evolution and the Bible."

"We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction."

It's equally clear that the quoted Presbeterian statement is flat-out wrong. Not rationally sustainable at all. For example, the biblical historical claim of how the first humans were created in Gen. 2:7 (Adam) and Gen. 2:21-22 (Eve)---clearly created with NO animal ancestors at all--- plainly contradicts the evolutionary historical claim that the first humans evolved into existence from a non-human "common ancestor" of humans and apes. No rational person can deny that a clear rational contradiction exists here between these respective historical claims. That is very much a fundamental incompatibility. For as Daniel Mann comments,

All structures reflect their foundation. If God’s creating work is the basis for all subsequent theology—and it is—then everything built upon the Genesis foundation will conform to its original dimensions.

No escaping that one folks. The Bible's historical claim WRT human origins clearly contradicts the evolutionary "common ancestor" historical claim of human origins.

Btw, I'm bringing up Daniel Mann because, in the process of responding to a Presbyterian missionary (Ron Choong of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City) who seems to be clearly evangelizing for evolution, Mann brings up an even deeper and heavier incompatibility---an incompatibility that goes right into the heart of Christianity. As quoted on Dwayna Litz' "Lighting The Way", weblog, Mann responds thoughtfully and precisely--and inescapably.

Although we certainly shouldn’t regard science as a threat to our faith--the One who authored our Bible is also the Author of science—-it’s entirely another thing to regard Darwinism as “scientific knowledge” and then allow it to lord itself over the Bible. What would Choong’s Christianity look like? Certainly not like Christianity! All structures reflect their foundation. If God’s creating work is the basis for all subsequent theology—-and it is—-then everything built upon the Genesis foundation will conform to its original dimensions. What are the dimensions of evolution? Sin and death from the get-go! How then do we understand the Fall if sin and death were part of God’s original order? And what are we being redeemed (to be bought back) into? Sin and death? Go figure! John Whitmore writes, “There is a danger of becoming so indoctrinated by evolutionary thinking that we become closed to Christianity.” (Bruce Malone, Search for the Truth, p.45) Source: Daniel Mann, quoted at Dwayna Lits' "Lighting The Way Worldwide" http://lightingtheway.blogspot.com/2007/11/is-redeemer-presbyterian-nyc-teaching.html

I think the situation is absolutely clear. Not only is evolution clearly incompatible with the Bible, but evolution is clearly incompatible with Christianity itself.

And that brings us back to the AAAS statement, doesn't it?

"Further, the statement noted, more than 11,000 Christian leaders in the United States have signed a letter affirming that evolution does not conflict with religious faith."

So here we have the AAAS preaching that evolution does not conflict with religious faith. Yet that's all it preaches; the AAAS statement simply IGNORES the existence of clear long-standing public incompatibilities between evolution and Bible, evolution and Christianity, and makes zero attempts to resolve them or even merely ADDRESS them. The AAAS merely offers a link to the "Clergy Letter Project", and the actual "Clergy Letter", upon examination, makes zero attempts to address (for example) the two extremely important incompatibilities already cited above. What a mess. ****** I guess that's what I'm starting to admire about some of the atheist guys these days. They're no longer afraid to speak out and show courage, precisely at the point where the Presbterians and the AAAS show cowardice. Seeking truth appears to be more important to some of them, than maintaining the usual political-alliances with theistic evolutionists. They UNDERSTAND that two diametrically opposed historical claims about the very same Earth event (the origin of humans, for example) cannot BOTH be historically true at the very same time, and that a rational choice to accept one and reject the other IS required. That puts them way ahead of both the AAAS and the Presbyterians. FL

FL said: As quoted on Dwayna Litz' "Lighting The Way", weblog, [Daniel] Mann responds thoughtfully and precisely--and inescapably.

What are the dimensions of evolution? Sin and death from the get-go! .... Source: Daniel Mann, quoted at Dwayna Lits' "Lighting The Way Worldwide" http://lightingtheway.blogspot.com/2007/11/is-redeemer-presbyterian-nyc-teaching.html

FL said: After all, science has clearly observed that once humans are dead, they do not rise again from the dead. They stay dead, and once buried in a tomb or grave, they stay buried and dead. They don't come out of their burial places. In fact, the bodies decompose inside the graves, and that's the end of that. That is observed fact, period. Therefore, since the biblical historical claim of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ clearly "contradicts observed fact", we CANNOT take the biblical historical claim of the Resurrection as literally historically accurate and true, any more than we can take the biblical claim of the first humans originating with NO animal ancestors to be literally historically accurate and true.

Thus we have to clearly reject BOTH biblical historical claims if we are going to be rationally consistent and scientific and aligned with observed facts (though nobody has actually observed and confirmed this specific "common ancestor of humans and apes" that humans are supposed to have evolved from, of course.) We must therefore dismiss Jesus's Resurrection from the dead as a Non-Literal "metaphor", "allegory", or other polite synonym for "historically false." Of course, "If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins" (1 Cor 15:17), but hey, that verse is probably nothing more than some low-carb metaphor or allegory as well, certainly not meant to be taken as literal actual real-world truth. Right, fellow Christians?

So, you have raised a very powerful point there GuyeFaux; you've asked a most intriguing (and rationally inescapable) question. My sincere thanks. FL

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7] (St. Augustine, “De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim”

The Bible itself speaks to us of the origins of the universe and its makeup, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationship of man with God and the universe…Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made, but how to go to heaven. --Pope John Paul II, Scientific Research and Man's Spiritual Hertiage, address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 3, 1981.

FL said:

Aquinas and Anselm, and Pope John Paul II

So please explain to us what THEIR positions were, specifically regarding the two following incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity: 1. The biblical "zero ancestors" historical claim of human origins (Gen. 2:7 and Gen. 2:21-22) versus the evolutionary "common ancestor" historical claim or human origins. 2. "What are the dimensions of evolution? Sin and death from the get-go! How then do we understand the Fall if sin and death were part of God’s original order? And what are we being redeemed (to be bought back) into? Sin and death?" (Daniel Mann) ****** And it probably wouldn't hurt to tell us what Aquinas, Anselm, and Pope John Paul II said in answer to the following question: "If you can’t take seriously (i.e. literally) certain claims in the Bible because they contradict observed fact, how can you tell up front which pieces to take seriously? ****** FL

Tim Hague said: I think one of the issues many non-believers have is - how do you tell the difference between what is myth and fable in the bible and what isn't? If the genesis accounts are myth or fable, what about original sin? If original sin (or 'ancestral sin') is a myth or a fable, why did Jesus have to die to atone for it (and the rest of our 'sins')? If Moses was a myth or a fable, if Noah was a myth or a fable, if the 'son of god' was a myth or a fable, if the resurrection was a myth or a fable, if if if... ? You can continue this way with the rest of the bible.

Take one example from above - original sin. There are multiple interpretations of this within christianity. Islam has it that the whole concept is an invention of those who call themselves christians (Paul gets most of the credit I understand). So - where should I start in sorting out the myth and fable from what actually happened? If the morality in the bible actually predates the bible, and christian morality changes over time (both of which I understand to be the case), then what does 'sin' even mean? A violation of a 'changable moral rule'? What am I supposed to make of that?

Some questions: Do you believe the genesis account is correct?

Do you believe the claim that Jesus was the son of God is correct?

If you believe one and not the other, how do you distinguish between the two?

PvM said: Hi Jennifer, I am a scientist too who believes in God and like you I have no problem reconciling faith and science. I apologize that some of the participants on this thread have a rather limited understanding of the concept of scientist. ...

Mr. Schmidt examining Jennifer Miller: (Dover trial) Q. Are you employed by the Dover Area School District? A. Yes. Q. In what position? A. Biology teacher. ... Q. Ms. Miller, let me ask you a few questions about your own educational background. Where did you receive your own undergraduate degree? A. Elizabethtown College. Q. When did you receive the degree? A. 1993. Q. What was your major? A. Biology. Q. Did you attend any postgraduate courses? A. Yes. Q. Did you receive a degree? A. Yes. Q. In what? A. I have a master's of education. Q. From what institution? A. Penn State.

Thanks for allowing us to clarify that the PvM and (first) the AAAS propaganda video is falsely holding up Jennifer Miller as a scientist.

1) You have faith in the truth of the Resurrection, i.e. a dead body didn’t stay dead. 2) In practice you know (w.r.t. wearing a seat-belt, crossing the street, running with scissors, drinking drano, getting crucified, etc.) that dead bodies stay dead. So how do you resolve the contradiction?

Altenberg 16, AAAS & The Dorak Affair
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00185.htm

Scoop said: Altenberg 16, AAAS & The Dorak Affair http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00185.htm

FL said: After I responded, [GuyeFaux] asked,

1) You have faith in the truth of the Resurrection, i.e. a dead body didn’t stay dead. 2) In practice you know (w.r.t. wearing a seat-belt, crossing the street, running with scissors, drinking drano, getting crucified, etc.) that dead bodies stay dead. So how do you resolve the contradiction?

The correct answer, is, you don't. You cannot. [snip] So the incompatibility remains. The clash remains. The “reconciliation” isn’t there.

FL said: More later.

FL said: Okay, let's go back to GuyeFaux and some others. GuyeFaux's question was: If you can’t take seriously (i.e. literally) certain claims in the Bible because they contradict observed fact, how can you tell up front which pieces to take seriously? After I responded, he asked,

1) You have faith in the truth of the Resurrection, i.e. a dead body didn’t stay dead. 2) In practice you know (w.r.t. wearing a seat-belt, crossing the street, running with scissors, drinking drano, getting crucified, etc.) that dead bodies stay dead. So how do you resolve the contradiction?

The correct answer, is, you don't. You cannot. Why not? Because, as you said earlier, you can't take Bible historical claims literally if they contradict observed fact. Hence the clash remains. Therefore what you wind up doing, (rationally speaking) is rejecting the historical claim Resurrection of Jesus (which the New Testament presents EXCLUSIVELY as a literal historical claim, btw). You don't actually have any reconciliation that's even possible, given your earlier statement. And here's the real deal GuyeFaux: the same clash exists whether the historical claim on the table is the Bible's account of human origins or the Bible's account of Jesus's resurrection. Both of the biblical claims are presented as straight-up historical narrative by the biblical writers---NOT allegory metaphor nor parable, please check this yourself---and the Bible claims therefore have to stand or fall on that basis (that is, as actual history). Afterr all, you don't wanna give up on that "observed facts" requirement you mentioned because you are indeed a rational person. Furthermore, any claim of "ABC is allegory" has to be rationally supported by the textual/contextual data, NOT merely asserted out of thin air with zero evidential support. And with these two Bible claims, NO claim of allegory can be sustained because the textual/contextual evidence just ain't there. So the incompatibility remains. The clash remains. The "reconciliation" isn't there. More later. FL

FL said: Okay, let's go back to GuyeFaux and some others. GuyeFaux's question was: If you can’t take seriously (i.e. literally) certain claims in the Bible because they contradict observed fact, how can you tell up front which pieces to take seriously? After I responded, he asked,

1) You have faith in the truth of the Resurrection, i.e. a dead body didn’t stay dead. 2) In practice you know (w.r.t. wearing a seat-belt, crossing the street, running with scissors, drinking drano, getting crucified, etc.) that dead bodies stay dead. So how do you resolve the contradiction?

The correct answer, is, you don't. You cannot. Why not? Because, as you said earlier, you can't take Bible historical claims literally if they contradict observed fact. Hence the clash remains.

Since this blog is about evolutionary biology and not about theology, I'm going to restrict my comments regarding FL's assertions above to the creation account presented in Genesis.

I am an elder in the PC(USA) and I am a scientist. Consequently, I have two records that must be consistent, or must at least not contradict one another -- the scriptural account of how the world came to be and the scientific data. There are multiple approaches to interpreting scripture, but they are not all equally valid -- a valid interpretation should be consistent with objectively obtained evidence. Thus, the overwhelming evidence for modern evolutionary theory and the success of that theory rule out certain interpretations of scripture as incorrect, including the literal interpretation for which FL advocates. Once one understands the Genesis creation narrative to be theological rather than historical or scientific, there is no contradiction between evolutionary biology and Genesis.

It's long been clear to me that the Genesis 1 account was NOT intended to be a historical record -- you can find a good discussion of this point based on content and context here.

Because, as you said earlier, you can’t take Bible historical claims literally if they contradict observed fact. Hence the clash remains.

I notice that FL is extremely careful to use the adjective “historical” to modify every statement in the bible. Even allegorical tales like Noah, and the Garden of Eden, are modified with “historical”, at the expense of any and all rational sanity. As far as FL is concerned, ANY story that begins “once upon a time” is actual physical natural history, if it’s found in his bible.

Furthermore, any claim of “ABC is allegory” has to be rationally supported by the textual/contextual data, NOT merely asserted out of thin air with zero evidential support. And with these two Bible claims, NO claim of allegory can be sustained because the textual/contextual evidence just ain’t there.

I notice that FL is extremely careful to use the adjective “historical” to modify every statement in the bible. Even allegorical tales like Noah, and the Garden of Eden, are modified with “historical”, at the expense of any and all rational sanity. As far as FL is concerned, ANY story that begins “once upon a time” is actual physical natural history, if it’s found in his bible.

Furthermore, any claim of “ABC is allegory” has to be rationally supported by the textual/contextual data, NOT merely asserted out of thin air with zero evidential support. And with these two Bible claims, NO claim of allegory can be sustained because the textual/contextual evidence just ain’t there.

Flint said: I notice that FL is extremely careful to use the adjective "historical" to modify every statement in the bible.

These literalists live in an air-tight, self-contained universe that consists primarily of their holy book, their axioms of dogma, and medieval scholasticism. Notice how he also uses “textual/contextual evidence” (exegesis and hermeneutics) along with “reason” to justify his assertions.

There is no contact whatsoever with an external world; and the word “evidence” is used in a way that has no correspondence with how it is used in science or law.

It does make me wonder how “all or nothing” literalists like FL deal with the status of Christians who have never read the modern bible.

apples filled with knowledge,

Just curious, but concerning this “literal historic event” the bible writers claim, did two angels appear at the tomb or just one? Did three women show up (Mary Magdeline, Mary (mother of James), and another women), two, or just one?

did two angels appear at the tomb or just one?

Recommended Procedures in Dealing With Bible Difficulties: In dealing with Bible problems of any kind, whether in factual or in doctrinal matters, it is well to follow appropriate guidelines in determining the solution. This is most easily done by those who have carefully and prayerfully studied the Bible over a number of years and have consistently and faithfully memorized Scripture. Some guidelines are as follows: *** 1. Be fully persuaded in your own mind that an adequate explanation exists, even though you have not yet found it. The aerodynamic engineer may not under-stand how a bumble bee can fly; yet he trusts that there must be an adequate explanation for its fine performance since, as a matter of fact, it does fly! Even so we may have complete confidence that the divine Author preserved the human author of each book of the Bible from error or mistake as he wrote down the original manuscript of the sacred text. *** 2. Avoid the fallacy of shifting from one a priori to its opposite every time an apparent problem arises. The Bible is either the inerrant Word of God or else it is an imperfect record by fallible men. Once we have come into agreement with Jesus that the Scripture is completely trustworthy and authoritative, then it is out of the question for us to shift over to the opposite assumption, that the Bible is only the errant record of fallible men as they wrote about God. If the Bible is truly the Word of God, as Jesus said, then it must be treated with respect, trust, and complete obedience. Unlike all other books known to man, the Scriptures come to us from God; and in them we confront the ever-living, ever-present God (2 Tim. 3:16-17). When we are unable to understand God's ways or are unable to comprehend His words, we must bow before Him in humility and patiently wait for Him to clear up the difficulty or to deliver us from our trials as He sees fit. There is very little that God will long withhold from the surrendered heart and mind of a true believer. *** 3. Carefully study the context and framework of the verse in which the problem arises until you gain some idea of what the verse is intended to mean within its own setting. It may be necessary to study the entire book in which the verse occurs, carefully noting how each key term is used in other passages. Compare Scripture with Scripture, especially all those passages in other parts of the Bible that deal with the same subject or doctrine. *** 4. Remember, no interpretation of Scripture is valid that is not based on careful exegesis, that is, on wholehearted commitment to determining what the ancient author meant by the words he used. This is accomplished by a painstaking study of the key words, as defined in the dictionaries (Hebrew and Greek) and as used in parallel passages. Research also the specific meaning of these words in idiomatic phrases as observed in other parts of the Bible. Consider how confused a foreigner must be when lie reacts in a daily American newspaper: "The prospectors made a strike yesterday up in the mountains." "The union went on strike this morning." "The batter made his third strike and was called out by the umpire." "Strike up with the Star Spangled Banner." "The fisherman got a good strike in the middle of the lake." Presumably each of these completely different uses of the same word go back to the same parent and have the same etymology. But complete confusion may result from misunderstanding how the speaker meant the word to be used. Bear in mind that inerrancy involves acceptance of and belief in whatever the biblical author meant by the words he used. If he meant what he said in a literal way, it is wrong to take it figuratively; but if he meant what he said in a figurative way, it is wrong to take it literally. So we must engage in careful exegesis in order to find out what he meant in the light of contemporary conditions and usage. That takes hard work. Intuition or snap judgment may catch one up in a web of fallacy and subjective bias. This often results in heresy that hinders the cause of the Lord one professes to serve. *** 5. In the case of parallel passages, the only method that can be justified is harmonization. That is to say, all the testimonies of the various witnesses are to be taken as trustworthy reports of what was said and done in their presence, even though they may have viewed the transaction from a slightly different perspective. When we sort them out, line them up, and put them together, we gain a fuller understanding of the event than we would obtain from any one testimony taken individually. But as with any properly conducted inquiry in a court of law, the judge and jury are expected to receive each witness's testimony as true when viewed from his own perspective-unless, of course, he is exposed as an untrustworthy liar. Only injustice would be served by any other assumption-as, for example, that each witness is assumed to be untruthful unless his testimony is corroborated from outside sources. (This, of course, is the assumption made by opponents of the inerrancy of Scripture, and it leads them to totally false results.) *** 6. Consult the best commentaries available, especially those written by Evangelical scholars who believe in the integrity of Scripture. A good 90 percent of the problems will be dealt with in good commentaries (see Bibliography). Good Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias may clear up many perplexities. An analytical concordance will help establish word usage (e.g., Strong's, Young's). *** 7. Many Bible difficulties result from a minor error on the part of a copyist in the transmission of the text. In the Old Testament such transmissional errors may have resulted from a poor reading of the vowels; Hebrew was originally written in consonants only, and the vowel signs were not added until a thousand years after the completion of the Old Testament canon. But there are also some consonants that are easily confused because they look so much alike (e.g., [d, daleth] and 1 [r, resh] or " [y, yod] and 1 [w, waw]). Besides that, some words are preserved in a very old spelling susceptible of misunderstanding by later Hebrew copyists. In other words, only a resort to textual criticism and its analysis of the most frequent types of confusion and mistake can clear up the difficulty (for bibliography on this, cf. Introduction). This takes in confusion of numerals also, where statistical errors are found in our present text of Scripture (e.g., 2 Kings 18:13). *** 8. Whenever historical accounts of the Bible are called in question on the basis of alleged disagreement with the findings of archaeology or the testimony of ancient non-Hebrew documents, always remember that the Bible is itself an archaeological document of the highest caliber. It is simply crass bias for critics to hold that whenever a pagan record disagrees with the biblical account, it must be the Hebrew author that was in error. Pagan kings practiced self-laudatory propaganda, just as their modern counterparts do; and it is incredibly naive to suppose that simply because a statement was written in Assyrian cuneiform or Egyptian hieroglyphics it was more trustworthy and factual than the Word of God composed in Hebrew. No other ancient document in the B.C. period affords so many clear proofs of accuracy and integrity as does the Old Testament; so it is a violation of the rules of evidence to assume that the Bible statement is wrong every time it disagrees with a secular inscription or manuscript of some sort. Of all the documents known to man, only the Hebrew-Greek Scriptures have certified their accuracy and divine authority by a pattern of prediction and fulfillment completely beyond the capabilities of man and possible only for God. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason L. Archer, 1982, p15-17.

As we said; air-tight and self-contained.

Thus, when considering a worldwide flood, FL ignores babylonian flood myths (as evidence of allegory) in the same way that he ignores geology.

Notice how he also uses “textual/contextual evidence” (exegesis and hermeneutics) along with “reason” to justify his assertions.

FL said:

Notice how he also uses “textual/contextual evidence” (exegesis and hermeneutics) along with “reason” to justify his assertions.

Hey Mike, that's like saying "Most science-minded people make use of the scientific method to explore natural phenomena and justify their hypotheses." If you don't have a problem with the latter statement, you ought not have a problem with the former. FL

Even someone as biblically ignorant as I am can see the powerful moral lessons the biblical fables are meant to teach.

"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, (Greek, "mythos", i.e. "myths"), when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty." 2 Pet. 1:16

FL said:

Even someone as biblically ignorant as I am can see the powerful moral lessons the biblical fables are meant to teach.

To which the Apostle Peter offers the classic response,

"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, (Greek, "mythos", i.e. "myths"), when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty." 2 Pet. 1:16

The neighbors of the Christians--the Greeks--were (and remain) the world champions at inventing fascinating myths and clever non-historical fables. So Peter wanted the Christians to know that "yeah we know what they do and how they do it, but that is NOT what is going on with the Scriptures---we are talkin' straight in-your-face actual factual history, NOT imaginary clever fables masquerading as history." Biblical "Fables"? In this context, such labeling is the voice of skepticism, the voice of atheism. But The Bible has its own voice, it's own self-testimony. Its self-testimony is simply that it relates accurate and true historical events. FL

FL said:

Notice how he also uses “textual/contextual evidence” (exegesis and hermeneutics) along with “reason” to justify his assertions.

Hey Mike, that's like saying "Most science-minded people make use of the scientific method to explore natural phenomena and justify their hypotheses." If you don't have a problem with the latter statement, you ought not have a problem with the former. FL

FL blabs:

Biblical “Fables”? In this context, such labeling is the voice of skepticism, the voice of atheism. But The Bible has its own voice, it’s own self-testimony. Its self-testimony is simply that it relates accurate and true historical events.

A voice that we hear but cannot verify the validity of is not a voice that would be acceptable in either a court of law or a science journal. Which is exactly why Creationism loses in courtrooms and among most scientists. The Bible and its passages are not in themselves evidence for anything. You might as well call all courts of law and all scientists athiests, then.

The Bible is either the inerrant Word of God or else it is an imperfect record by fallible men. Once we have come into agreement with Jesus that the Scripture is completely trustworthy and authoritative, then it is out of the question for us to shift over to the opposite assumption, that the Bible is only the errant record of fallible men as they wrote about God. If the Bible is truly the Word of God, as Jesus said, then it must be treated with respect, trust, and complete obedience. Unlike all other books known to man, the Scriptures come to us from God; and in them we confront the ever-living, ever-present God.

We make the point that rational people use reality as the arbiter of disagreement, while FL uses the bible to determine the meaning of the bible, according to the rules of interpretation implied by the bible.

And by the test of reality, the bible is filled with fables intended to impart moral lessons. How does FL counter this? By quote-mining the bible!, extracting a single phrase out of a context utterly irrelevant to the point being discussed, and assigning it a new meaning clearly unintended by its author!

We begin to get some insight about how creationists view their world. Which does not mean what they think it means!

In the case of parallel passages, the only method that can be justified is harmonization.

In other words, intellectual dishonesty is excused in defending scripture. THAT is what "harmonization" really is!

But as with any properly conducted inquiry in a court of law, the judge and jury are expected to receive each witness’s testimony as true when viewed from his own perspective-unless, of course, he is exposed as an untrustworthy liar. Only injustice would be served by any other assumption-as, for example, that each witness is assumed to be untruthful unless his testimony is corroborated from outside sources.

That is simply not the truth, FL, and differences in witness testimonies are often enough to get a whole case rejected by the jury, resulting in a "not guilty" verdict.

FL said:

Thus, when considering a worldwide flood, FL ignores babylonian flood myths (as evidence of allegory) in the same way that he ignores geology.

Babylonian Flood myths? Not a problem. The Epic of Gilgamesh, for example, is NOT evidence that the Genesis Flood historical claim is "allegory." But if Eric wants to examine that topic further to make sure it's not evidence of allegory, then be my guest, of course. FL

scientist n. A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical.

In truth, this whole heap of shinola starts from this one single not-truth:

"Once we have come into agreement with Jesus that the Scripture is completely trustworthy and authoritative, then it is out of the question for us to shift over to the opposite assumption, that the Bible is only the errant record of fallible men as they wrote about God."

Well, that assumes that Jesus did think that. Being human, he wasn't totally consistent about it. Consider Mark 2:27. But of course, that's only a cop-out. The real problem is so complete an reliance on Jesus's authority on matters of fact. He has no such authority.

Jesus was not the only Son of God, of the same substance as God in his own person, and he never claimed as much, no matter what his followers later said. Indeed, although the record is untrustworthy, spotty and compromised, the best we can say at this distance is that he said the exact opposite, several times. (John 14:28, most clearly). He appears to have thought that he was the Messiah of Israel as prophesied, for example, in Isaiah 9:6-7; but in this he was wrong, and at his trial denied it himself (John 18:36 and parallels).

Therefore Jesus was human, fully and entirely human, notwithstanding the greatness of his moral teachings. He was subject to the same fallacies and imperfections that humans all display. He could only deal with the world as he knew it, and he had almost none of the data we take for granted. Most of his intellectual world consisted of his extremely deep and detailed knowledge of the Jewish scriptures, although there is interesting evidence that he had studied Greek philosophy as well. He had no information to contradict his implied belief, the common belief among Jews of his day, that the Jewish scriptures were and are completely authoritative and factual. In this, as with his claim to Messiahship, he was mistaken. The mistake is completely pardonable, and indeed inevitable - but it was a mistake.

Therefore, neither Jesus nor any other person in the Bible is to be taken as authoritative when they assert the inerrancy of the scriptures. They were humans and subject to error. The scriptures are what they are, a collection of documents written originally by human beings, various in intent, content and provenance, to be accepted according to their consonance with other data.

What other data? Firstly, evidence of fact that can be repeated and observed by anyone equipped with the necessary senses takes precedence over any text. Such evidence plainly contradicts the Genesis account of the creation. Genesis must therefore be treated as, at best, allegory, myth or legend. It has a value, but it is not fact. Many other biblical assertions about, for example, middle eastern history are not supported by the other evidence. Where the evidence is not conclusive, no conclusions should be drawn. Where the evidence clearly contradicts the Bible, however, the Bible must yield: there was no world-wide flood; languages have many different roots, and did not originate in a single event; the exodus from Egypt did not take place as reported; the power and wealth of Solomon's kingdom was wildly exaggerated. And so on.

What about morality, rules of conduct? Again, the Bible's word must be assessed critically. The Bible says (Deuteronomy 7:1ff; Joshua 6) that genocide is right and justifiable. It is horribly, obscenely wrong. But when Jesus spoke of how humans should behave, his words ring like pure gold, to me. I do my best to do as he said, not because I think he was God, but because I think it's the best way to live. On the other hand, when Paul wrote about total submission to rulers, or the proper behaviour of slaves, or how celibacy is better than marriage, he was talking through his hat. I'll ignore that, while believing that he got some other things right - like that we should grow up and put away childish things.

Biblical inerrancy is a refuge sought by people who are terrified of the task of assessing their actions, the actions of others, and the world in general without some sure authority. But that's the attitude of a child. There is no authority for fact other than the empirical evidence. There is no authority for morality other than the outcome in terms of human weal or woe. Until we understand that, we have not grown up, we have not put aside childish things. Biblical literalists should grow up.

Ms. Miller, let me ask you a few questions about your own educational background. Where did you receive your own undergraduate degree? A. Elizabethtown College. Q. When did you receive the degree? A. 1993. Q. What was your major? A. Biology.

@FL:

I think the situation is absolutely clear. Not only is evolution clearly incompatible with the Bible, but evolution is clearly incompatible with Christianity itself.

LOL.

gotta love FL.

really loves to paint himself into corners.

go man, go.

frankly, it hardly matters whether or not anyone agrees with you. You're doing my cause the biggest favor you could possibly imagine by continuing to assist in the marginalization of your superstitious nonsense.

And, what do you think of Dr. Wells, who earned a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology from Berkley, co-authored at least three papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals, and taught biology at California State University in Hayward?

Scientist, or not?

(Of course, PandasThumb authors will say not).

Dr. Wells...
Is he the Moonie?

tresmal said: Dr. Wells... Is he the Moonie?

FL said: ..." So here's the general rules I try to follow on that score.

Recommended Procedures in Dealing With Bible Difficulties: In dealing with Bible problems of any kind, whether in factual or in doctrinal matters, it is well to follow appropriate guidelines in determining the solution. This is most easily done by those who have carefully and prayerfully studied the Bible over a number of years and have consistently and faithfully memorized Scripture. Some guidelines are as follows: *** 1... Even so we may have complete confidence that the divine Author preserved the human author of each book of the Bible from error or mistake as he wrote down the original manuscript of the sacred text. *** 2. Avoid the fallacy of shifting from one a priori to its opposite every time an apparent problem arises. The Bible is either the inerrant Word of God or else it is an imperfect record by fallible men. ... then it is out of the question for us to shift over to the opposite assumption, that the Bible is only the errant record of fallible men as they wrote about God... [snip] 5. In the case of parallel passages, the only method that can be justified is harmonization. That is to say, all the testimonies of the various witnesses are to be taken as trustworthy reports of what was said and done in their presence, even though they may have viewed the transaction from a slightly different perspective. When we sort them out, line them up, and put them together, we gain a fuller understanding of the event than we would obtain from any one testimony taken individually. But as with any properly conducted inquiry in a court of law, the judge and jury are expected to receive each witness's testimony as true when viewed from his own perspective-unless, of course, he is exposed as an untrustworthy liar. Only injustice would be served by any other assumption-as, for example, that each witness is assumed to be untruthful unless his testimony is corroborated from outside sources. (This, of course, is the assumption made by opponents of the inerrancy of Scripture, and it leads them to totally false results.)...[snip] 7. Many Bible difficulties result from a minor error on the part of a copyist in the transmission of the text. In the Old Testament such transmissional errors may have resulted from a poor reading of the vowels; Hebrew was originally written in consonants only, and the vowel signs were not added until a thousand years after the completion of the Old Testament canon. But there are also some consonants that are easily confused because they look so much alike (e.g., [d, daleth] and 1 [r, resh] or " [y, yod] and 1 [w, waw]). Besides that, some words are preserved in a very old spelling susceptible of misunderstanding by later Hebrew copyists. In other words, only a resort to textual criticism and its analysis of the most frequent types of confusion and mistake can clear up the difficulty (for bibliography on this, cf. Introduction). This takes in confusion of numerals also, where statistical errors are found in our present text of Scripture (e.g., 2 Kings 18:13). [snip] Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason L. Archer, 1982, p15-17.

So that's the answer to that one question. I know it's kind of lengthy, yes, but those are the rules I've found helpful for me, in my study of the Bible. FL

FL said:

Just curious, but concerning this “literal historic event” the bible writers claim, did two angels appear at the tomb or just one? Did three women show up (Mary Magdeline, Mary (mother of James), and another women), two, or just one?

Multiple questions there. To save time, let's just point you to a source that answers the first question and then let readers google the rest of the questions for themselves. (Or visit the library for scholarly resources such as Dr. Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.)

did two angels appear at the tomb or just one?

http://www.ankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/editors-choice/EC1W0305B.pdf http://www.rationalchristianity.net/angels_tomb.html Therefore, no contradiction WRT your "angel" question.

Robin said:

FL said:

Just curious, but concerning this “literal historic event” the bible writers claim, did two angels appear at the tomb or just one? Did three women show up (Mary Magdeline, Mary (mother of James), and another women), two, or just one?

Multiple questions there. To save time, let's just point you to a source that answers the first question and then let readers google the rest of the questions for themselves. (Or visit the library for scholarly resources such as Dr. Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.)

did two angels appear at the tomb or just one?

http://www.ankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/editors-choice/EC1W0305B.pdf http://www.rationalchristianity.net/angels_tomb.html Therefore, no contradiction WRT your "angel" question.

Sorry...not valid sources. John Angerberg is not a biblical scholar - he's a TV Evangelist. Rational Christianity is an Apologetics site. Apologetics is a form of illogical philosophy that engages in question begging in order to establish a biblically authoritative premise. Nevermind that the person running the site, "India", is not a biblical scholar either. If those are the sources you rely upon, it is no wonder that you have no ability to discern truth vs fiction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ankerberg http://www.rationalchristianity.net/faq.html Site FAQ About me Permissions About this site "Who are you, anyway? My name is India. I'm a stay-at-home mother of one daughter and two cats. :-) I'm not a pastor, theologian or even a seminary student, just an ordinary person with a website."

Jackelope King said: 2 Pet. 1:16 FL

Jackalope King said:

FL said:

2 Pet. 1:16

FL

Wait just a minute there, FL. Taken literally, what Peter said was that they (the Apostles) had not spoken figuratively when describing Christ. Nothing more. If you're going to read the Bible literally, then you'll need to do so here as well. By your own standards, you're reading this verse incorrectly.

FL said:

Recommended Procedures in Dealing With Bible Difficulties: If the Bible is truly the Word of God, as Jesus said, then it must be treated with respect, trust, and complete obedience. Unlike all other books known to man, the Scriptures come to us from God; and in them we confront the ever-living, ever-present God (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason L. Archer, 1982, p15-17.

So that's the answer to that one question. I know it's kind of lengthy, yes, but those are the rules I've found helpful for me, in my study of the Bible. FL

I could go on and on and on as I have made a hobby of depunking Christian apologetics. It doesn't hurt that I have a background in biblical Theology and Ancient Religion and I have a sister who is a biblical scholar who works for Navpress. I'll resist the urge to clog the board with continued lengthy rebuttal however. Sorry 'bout getting carried away.

FL said:

Notice how he also uses “textual/contextual evidence” (exegesis and hermeneutics) along with “reason” to justify his assertions.

Hey Mike, that's like saying "Most science-minded people make use of the scientific method to explore natural phenomena and justify their hypotheses." If you don't have a problem with the latter statement, you ought not have a problem with the former. FL

Robin said: I could go on and on and on as I have made a hobby of depunking Christian apologetics. It doesn't hurt that I have a background in biblical Theology and Ancient Religion and I have a sister who is a biblical scholar who works for Navpress. I'll resist the urge to clog the board with continued lengthy rebuttal however. Sorry 'bout getting carried away.

Robin said: If those are the sources you rely upon, it is no wonder that you have no ability to discern truth vs fiction.

Taken literally, what Peter said was that they (the Apostles) had not spoken figuratively when describing Christ.

Program Note:

There are about two or three PT posters who made some other points in this thread that I have not yet responded to. Throughout the day, I will be attempting to get them in as well.

Again, this thread--and my responses--presuppose that you've seen the AAAS video or read the accompanying AAAS letter (the topic of this specific thread) and especially read the letter's specific claim that evolution is compatible with Christianity.

That's what I am focussed on right now (actually that one claim is a major focus both online and offline for me),
and I am grateful for all the PT posters who are responding along those lines.

Now, I'm also grateful to see some evolutionary discussion partners from the excellent CARM discussion forum appear here (where I post under the name Mellotron -- because I grew up in the Progressive Rock era.)

However, that doesn't change my focus here in this thread. Nor does it alter my temporary hiatus from CARM until September, so I can spend more time elsewhere (and PT happens to be one of those elsewheres at the moment.)

So you can try to change the subject if you'd like--and if you're permitted to do so--but I for one will not be responding, my apologies to you.

It's pretty involved just trying to stay up with the PT folks who are replying on topic, and that's where I am at for today. But if you'd like to contribute on topic, CARM evolutionist comrades, please be my guest.

FL

Program Note: …

That’s what I am focussed on right now (actually that one claim is a major focus both online and offline for me), and I am grateful for all the PT posters who are responding along those lines.

So you can try to change the subject if you’d like–and if you’re permitted to do so–but I for one will not be responding, my apologies to you.

FL said: Again, this thread--and my responses--presuppose that you've seen the AAAS video or read the accompanying AAAS letter (the topic of this specific thread) and especially read the letter's specific claim that evolution is compatible with Christianity.

"FL" aka Mellotron ran away from this discussion, claiming he'd be busy for a while.

Looks like it was a ruse.

Eric said:

FL said: Again, this thread--and my responses--presuppose that you've seen the AAAS video or read the accompanying AAAS letter (the topic of this specific thread) and especially read the letter's specific claim that evolution is compatible with Christianity.

Which letter? There are two: a Christian one and a Jewish one. I'm guessing you probably don't think the Jewish opinion is relevant to biblical literalism though. After all its not like they wrote the bible. Oh wait...

derwood said: "FL" aka Mellotron ran away from this discussion, claiming he'd be busy for a while. Looks like it was a ruse.

Ms. Miller, let me ask you a few questions about your own educational background. Where did you receive your own undergraduate degree? A. Elizabethtown College. Q. When did you receive the degree? A. 1993. Q. What was your major? A. Biology.

according to most scholars, 2 Peter is a forgery anyway.

The External Evidence The external evidence regarding 2 Peter is not conclusive, but it is noteworthy. The common view by those who hold to pseudonymity is that 2 Peter was not written until the second century because of its late attestation in the writings of the early church fathers. However, Green notes significant manuscript evidence which would suggest an even earlier date for 2 Peter: "The recent discovery of the third-century Papyrus 72, including both Epistles of Peter and Jude, sheds light on the use of this Epistle in Egypt. The Coptic mother tongue of the scribes concerned, together with the variant text types embodied in the MS [manuscripts] indicate a considerable history of the use of these letters in Egypt before the third-century papyrus in which they are embodied." In addition, the 2nd century Sahidic and the 4th century Bohairic versions of the Bible included it, as did Clement of Alexandria’s Bible (ca. 200). The Apocalypse of Peter, which most scholars hold as later than 2 Peter, makes use of 2 Peter. The struggle over 2 Peter began early in church history. “II Peter was disputed up to the time of Eusebius. It was quoted less and discussed more by the Church Fathers than any other single book of the New Testament.” The earliest certain reference to ii Peter is in Origen, whom Eusebius (H.E. vi. 25) refers to as having said that Peter left one acknowledge epistle, and ‘perhaps also a second, for it is disputed… .’ Farther back than Origen it is not easy to trace. Robert Picirilli has shown that 2 Peter is clearly a possible source for several allusions by the early church fathers. If and when the similarities between 2 Peter and the Fathers are a possible twenty-two times, “the level of likelihood ranging from merely possible to highly probable” is high that 2 Peter is Peter’s. He summarizes the external evidence well, by saying that: One cannot dogmatically affirm that there are certainly no allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers; the common material is too obviously there… . [The] authenticity of 2 Peter will have to be debated on grounds other than whether the Apostolic Fathers knew it and alluded to it. The Internal Evidence The internal evidence for the authenticity of 2 Peter is plentiful and powerful, and yet, not without its problems. The book clearly intends its readers to believe Peter to be its author, for it includes personal references to Peter’s life. The epistle opens with the name “Simon Peter” as the author (1:1), it mentions the immanency of his death foretold by the Lord (1:14), and the author claims to have been an eyewitness to the Transfiguration (1:16–18). However, some see these references as evidence against authenticity under the guise of pseudonymity. Barnett is an example of such opinions: “This zeal of the epistle for its own authenticity creates more doubt than confidence and other data fail to support its claim.” Strachan agrees: “They do not nearly amount to evidence that the writer is the Apostle himself.” Perhaps a more balanced approach is suggested by Tenney, who says: “While the external evidence for the genuineness of II Peter is not so clear and convincing as it is for other books of the New Testament, the internal evidence creates at least a presumption of authenticity.” The assertion seems unfounded that the use of the names Simon, along with Peter (in 2 Peter 1:1), is an attempt by a pseudepigrapher to verify his “authenticity.” Any attempt by a pseudepigrapher to emulate Peter’s writing would not have differed from 1 Peter’s salutation where the name “Simon” is absent. Neither would the writer have adopted a primitive Hebrew form of the word. Many assume that the statement in 2 Peter 1:14, of the immanency of Peter’s death, is dependent upon the narrative recorded in John 21, where Jesus tells Peter how he will die. If it can be shown that 2 Peter used John 21, it would require too late a date for the epistle to be genuine because the gospel was written after Peter’s death. However, this assumption is unnecessary. There is no basis to Bauckham’s remark that “Second Peter is fictionally represented as written shortly before Peter’s death” (emphasis added). Peter himself heard the remark made by the Lord (as did John) and was only commenting on it in 2 Peter, as John did in John 21. When it is remarked in 2 Peter 1:15 that the author will make every effort after his departure to ensure their remembering, some critics see here an attempt by “pseudo-Peter” to make 2 Peter a part of the testamentary genre. If so, the readers would have allegedly expected that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphal. Bauckham agrees and then ups the ante: "In Jewish usage the testament was a fictional literary genre…. Second Peter bears so many marks of the testament genre that readers familiar with the genre must have expected it to be fictional, like other examples they knew. If they knew that it came from the Petrine circle in Rome, then they might trust its author to have made a good job of reporting the essence of Peter’s teaching, but they would not expect Peter to have written it. At any rate the presumption would be that he did not… . [In 2 Peter] Petrine authorship was intended to be an entirely transparent fiction." The problem is that the statement can be explained without such hypotheses. Moreover, as Guthrie states, “It is difficult, if not impossible, to state what such readers would expect… . [If] such knowledge was widespread and the practice was acceptable, it still does not explain the long delay in attestation (emphasis added).” Some have thought Peter’s desire to preserve “these things” for their remembrance to be a reference to the gospel of Mark, to a lost letter, or to perhaps a letter never written, but this seems unlikely. It is not necessary to go outside 2 Peter for the letter in question. Kelly gives the best solution: "Almost certainly the reference is to the epistle itself. The [future] tense is admittedly difficult … [but] in employing the future the writer is either looking forward to the sections he is about to draft or (more probably) placing himself in the position of his readers when they receive and study his tract." One of the clearest personal allusions to Peter in 2 Peter is his reference to his presence on the Mount of Transfiguration (1:16–18) as validation of his eyewitness authority. To Peter the mount was “sacred,” for he was one of the few who got to witness the event. Green observes how: "It is interesting that the roots of both skenoma (tabernacle) and exodus (decease, verse 15) should occur in the Lucan account of the transfiguration, to which Peter goes on to refer. If 2 Peter is a pseudepigraph, its author must have been sophisticated in the extreme to produce so delicate a touch." It is remarkable to note Bauckham’s response to these personal allusions: “Apart from the Transfiguration tradition and other Gospel traditions, there is little material in 2 Peter which could plausibly be regarded as specifically Petrine tradition deriving from the historical Peter.” But this does not deal with the fact that this material is present in 2 Peter, giving evidence of the historical Peter!What else must the author do to validate himself? What could Peter have done that he did not do if he were to have written 2 Peter? There is nothing in these personal allusions that deny authenticity. Second Peter’s reference to the death of the fathers (3:4) is asserted to be a reference to New Testament fathers—the apostles. Thus it is concluded that Peter could not have written it himself because all the apostles would not yet have died. The problem is that the phrase the fathers is consistently used in the New Testament to refer to Old Testament fathers alone, “and it is clear from the context (Genesis and the flood) that this is what is meant here.” The fact is that “Nowhere else in the New Testament nor the Apostolic Fathers is [the Greek word for fathers] used of Christian ‘patriarchs’ and the more natural interpretation would be to take it as denoting Jewish patriarchs.”

“Thank you, PT children, for faithfully showing up here in Sunday school where I will instruct you on what to believe and how to properly read the scriptures.”

In Greek, Apology is the technical term for a legal defense in a court case and, in a religious setting, "apolegetics" came to mean the attempt to show that belief was defensible, i.e. not irrational or immoral. The kind of moves one observes in Christian apolegetics--harmonizing the contradictions in sacred writings, for example--also occur in other religions such as Buddhism, though, of course, the Buddhists had a different name for the practice. It's a long stretch to call apolegetics a branch of philosophy since philosophy is about trying to find out what is the case or what is the best, not advocating for a dogma derived from authority.

While I'm being pedantic, let me also make a couple of points about myth and allegory. First, the Bible contains very little myth if by myth you mean stories about the doings of the gods and the origins of things. After Genesis, what you mostly encounter is legend, which doesn't mean, I hasten to add, that the stories are accurate narratives or even reflect anything that actually happened. Second, once people start treating their myths as allegories, the age of myth is drawing to a close. One constructs an allegorical interpretation of an old sacred story because it is embarrassing if taken literally. Thus the Stoics interpreted the tales about Zeus and Hera as allegories about astronomical phenomena because they didn't want to accuse the Gods of incest. And Jewish and Christian exegetes cooked up allegorical explanations for the doings in the Garden of Eden because the literal story is obviously absurd. The allegories inevitably turn out to be forced and unconvincing--the appropriate response to a myth is another myth, but we don't do myths anymore, except, perhaps, in the Department of Anthropology.

Which letter? There are two: a Christian one and a Jewish one.

I have come to the conclusion that folks who find Christian Apologetics persuasive have little attachment with reality and truth. If that is FL’s basis of knowledge, I’ll pass on discussing anything further with him (her, it?)

I understand, but I always maintain that people have to deal with the evidence.

Dr. Stile's famous mountain of evidence hasn't convinced the other scholars. I'm not familiar with the debate about II Peter, but I've had to deal with lots of analogous philological debates in each one of which both sides were able to educe similar mountains of evidence. If you aren't used to scholarly arguments, it's easy to be snowed. The natives may be impressed. I'm not a native.

My point is not that II Peter is a forgery. I haven't an opinion on the question, though I expect the most accurate conclusion is that we don't know and we aren't going to find out, just as we're never going to be able to say anything very much about the historical Jesus if there ever was such a person. The evidence is mighty shaky, especially when you consider the propensity of even non-religious writers to cook up frauds during that age. The Greeks were notorious liars, and the Christians presumably learned more than a language from 'em!

If you're a believer that's one thing. You're playing a different game from those of us who operate from secular principles and ask different questions. I'm not looking for evidence for miracles. I'm interested in comparative religion, specifically the typical ways in which religions create themselves by producing sacred histories. Of course the dead don't rise. I don't need philology to teach me that. Whether II Peter was written by Peter or not is just not a very important issue for me.

FL said: Clearly Dr. Stiles has refuted your belief that 2 Peter is a forgery, and it don't look like anybody can salvage that skeptical belief at all. FL

the fact that you claim Christianity and modern evolutionary theory are incompatible tends to fall apart when you consider, well, Christian biologists who seem to have no trouble accepting both

"OUR notion of evidence is, it’s something which can indicate that we are wrong and must change our conclusions."

"Of course the dead don’t rise. I don’t need philology to teach me that."

FL,
You've made four posts (one very long) after your "I only want to discuss the AAAS letter" and none of them actually addressed that letter.

We're still waiting...

Eric said: FL, You've made four posts (one very long) after your "I only want to discuss the AAAS letter" and none of them actually addressed that letter. We're still waiting...

FL said: ... Again, this thread--and my responses--presuppose that you've seen the AAAS video or read the accompanying AAAS letter (the topic of this specific thread) and especially read the letter's specific claim that evolution is compatible with Christianity. ... So you can try to change the subject if you'd like--and if you're permitted to do so--but I for one will not be responding, my apologies to you.

the fact that you claim Christianity and modern evolutionary theory are incompatible tends to fall apart when you consider, well, Christian biologists who seem to have no trouble accepting both

Christians would tell you that your claim is NOT self-evident, in light of the biblical historical testimony that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

FL, You’ve made four posts (one very long) after your “I only want to discuss the AAAS letter” and none of them actually addressed that letter. We’re still waiting…

FL, I'm not picking a fight with you. If you aren't a Christian, the notion that Christ rose from the dead is obviously false, just as if you aren't Shinto, the notion that the Sun Goddess was lured from her cave by the sound of laughter is false. Absent faith, there just is no reason to believe in such things. I'm not disputing your right or the right of a Shintoist to believe in anything whatsoever. I simply reserve my own right to view the proceedings with light irony.

By the way, you don't have to accept the Humean argument about miracles to opt out of the miracle business. The problem is this: if you are going to believe New Testament stories about the risen Christ, why aren't you just as obligated to believe the innumerable miracle stories of other faiths since they to are also attested in various old books. For that matter, miracles are reported all over the world every day. If I have to take the word of a couple of shepherds that they saw the Virgin Mary, why don't I have to take the word of people in Luzon that they saw a faith healer raise the dead or that Tom Cruse has purified my Thetan? Once you go down that road, there's no stopping short of adopting the principle that my crazy story is better than your crazy story. Since even the most fervent Christian has to accept the fact that human beings are credulous in a bad sense--after all, a lot of their credulity is mobilized in favor of non-Christian religions--it's more logical to assume that what one finds in the New Testament is not the one and only exception to the rule, but just another case of people believing what it suits 'em to believe.

Historically, the miracles that matter are the ones that are backed up by superior worldly force. In that respect, the crucial Chistian miracle occurred at the Mulvian Bridge, not on Calvary because the reason there are a half a billion or a billion Christians is not that there's any reason to believe a particular dying god story but because the Emperor Constantine decided to co-opt a Hellenistic sect.

Once again, FL votes hundreds of millions of fake Christians off the island.

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. (1 Cor. 15:17)

Christians would tell you that your claim is NOT self-evident, in light of the biblical historical testimony that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

Flint, you’ll provide evidence (using your own definition, of course), that 2 Peter is a forgery, and that Dr. Stile’s mountain of contrary evidence and reasonings is refuted.

The problem with your reasoning is that FL has set himself up not as the arbiter of whether Christianity and science can be reconciled, but of who is and is not Christian and what Christianity is and is not. You see, it is for him to decide, and the hundreds of millions of Christians who disagree with him, well, they aren’t Christians at all.

If you say you’re a Christian, then belief in the literal historical Resurrection of Jesus Christ is simply NOT negotiable.

And, what do you think of Dr. Wells, who earned a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology from Berkley

ROFLMAO

I was in grad school with Wells at Berkeley (he in MCB, and I in Zoology).

His PhD was bought and paid for by Rev. Moon.

seriously.

his work was unoriginal, and essentially nothing more than grunt work for the lab he was in. There was a tremendous row amongst the various biology depts. about his even being accepted as a student to begin with, but having your own funding provided by a "rich uncle" certainly can carry you far.

his published papers?

utter crap, and nothing he ever published ever actually supported the notion of Intelligent Design or creationism empirically.

You might consider Wells little more than a tool of a religious cult.

it takes more than publishing a crap paper in "Revista di Biologia" to be a scientist, and Wells is no scientist.

...unless you somehow consider Mooneyism to be a scientific endeavor?

Ben, there’s no use lying to you—when it comes to God, way too much is at stake.

Mike Elzinga said:

Ben, there’s no use lying to you—when it comes to God, way too much is at stake.

There’s the terror of hell fire (essentially Pascal’s wager) we mentioned earlier. It is one of the most effective mind-paralyzing tools in the literalist arsenal of control tactics. The mere entertainment of the possibility of contrary evidence is immediately banished from the mind. It still has nothing to do with the AAAS letter.

If you say you’re a Christian, then belief in the literal historical Resurrection of Jesus Christ is simply NOT negotiable.

FL said:

Robin said:

according to most scholars, 2 Peter is a forgery anyway.

Well, let's see what that link you provided (and thanks for providing it!) says about that particular opinion.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=708 The Internal Evidence The internal evidence for the authenticity of 2 Peter is plentiful and powerful, and yet, not without its problems. The book clearly intends its readers to believe Peter to be its author, for it includes personal references to Peter’s life. However, some see these references as evidence against authenticity under the guise of pseudonymity. Barnett is an example of such opinions: “This zeal of the epistle for its own authenticity creates more doubt than confidence and other data fail to support its claim.” Strachan agrees: “They do not nearly amount to evidence that the writer is the Apostle himself.” Perhaps a more balanced approach is suggested by Tenney, who says: “While the external evidence for the genuineness of II Peter is not so clear and convincing as it is for other books of the New Testament, the internal evidence creates at least a presumption of authenticity.”

Oooooooooookay, let's stop there. Whole lotta strong material there, and might as well leave the rest for the readers.

That guy (Dr. Wayne Stiles) is just a pure Energizer Bunny of scholarly rebuttal, providing strong citations and evidences all over the place without stop. Goodness gracious, even. Where is the skeptical refutation for all this evidence, Robin?

(Betcha it ain't coming from NavPress, hmmm?) Bottom Line: Robin, your link has literally unleashed a TON of scholarly, well-supportable reasons why 2 Peter is NOT a forgery.

I can understand that you don't want to "clog the board with continued lengthy rebuttal", and rest assured that I don't want to clog the board either, but boy.....you sure cited the wrong link that time!! Clearly Dr. Stiles has refuted your belief that 2 Peter is a forgery, and it don't look like anybody can salvage that skeptical belief at all. FL

FL said:

I have come to the conclusion that folks who find Christian Apologetics persuasive have little attachment with reality and truth. If that is FL’s basis of knowledge, I’ll pass on discussing anything further with him (her, it?)

I understand, but I always maintain that people have to deal with the evidence. FL

• Death
• DNA
• Fossil fuels
• Nuclear weapons
• Outer space
• Egypt
• Dry land

(The last post was directed towards FL, I forgot the salutaion.)

I think you're all equally loopy.

*applause*

see, FL?

you're an unwitting tool ...

for rationalism.

So in general, how do you deal with the fact that your actions contradict your faith?

...but using a slur to describe a man’s religion is okay.

1. Accuse scientists of belonging to a religion called Darwinism.
2. Slur Darwinism by associating it with Mao, Hitler and Stalin.

SkepitcalBill said:

tresmal said: Dr. Wells... Is he the Moonie?

On Pandas Thumb, observing that somebody did not commit perjury is worthy of the bathroom wall, but using a slur to describe a man's religion is okay.

FL claims:
Bottom Line: Robin, your link has literally unleashed a TON of scholarly, well-supportable reasons why 2 Peter is NOT a forgery. I can understand that you don’t want to “clog the board with continued lengthy rebuttal”, and rest assured that I don’t want to clog the board either, but boy.….you sure cited the wrong link that time!! Clearly Dr. Stiles has refuted your belief that 2 Peter is a forgery, and it don’t look like anybody can salvage that skeptical belief at all.

Only in your own mind, FL. You'd believe the world was flat if you thought your salvation depended on it. And think the "round earth theory" was refuted as well. Guess what? You can "refute" something, but never disprove it. Arguments alone count for nothing in science. In the end, all you have is faith, and you look for excuses to cling to it.

Actually, I'd accuse "Peter" of plagiarism, because it looks like he copied ideas off of the Epistle of Jude. Or maybe Jude copied off of 2 Peter. In any case, both are unoriginal works, full of repetition and references to earlier Jewish works, including some highly questionable sources.

The count is now 7 off-topic messages, 0 on-topic messages since FL insisted that he was going to stay on topic.

And yes FL, I'd be delighted if you stopped talking about how non-literalists aren't real Christians and just posted on the topic instead.

Eric

but using a slur to describe a man's religion is okay.

so if you were a Catholic, and I labeled you such, that would be a slur.

fascinating.

As I mentioned, and apparently you are blissfully unaware (shocker), Wells is indeed a disciple of Rev. Sun Myung Moon.

you could have easily verified this for yourself.

here's a question for you:

is the good Reverend the head of a cult, or not?

...and when you're done answering that one, here's the biggie:

if you don't think Moon is head of a cult, then you must think he really is the second coming of Christ, as he claims.

so, when's the rapture?

Ichthyic said: And, what do you think of Dr. Wells, who earned a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology from Berkley ROFLMAO I was in grad school with Wells at Berkeley (he in MCB, and I in Zoology). His PhD was bought and paid for by Rev. Moon. seriously. his work was unoriginal, and essentially nothing more than grunt work for the lab he was in. There was a tremendous row amongst the various biology depts. about his even being accepted as a student to begin with, but having your own funding provided by a "rich uncle" certainly can carry you far. his published papers? utter crap, and nothing he ever published ever actually supported the notion of Intelligent Design or creationism empirically. You might consider Wells little more than a tool of a religious cult. it takes more than publishing a crap paper in "Revista di Biologia" to be a scientist, and Wells is no scientist. ...unless you somehow consider Mooneyism to be a scientific endeavor?

hell, I even used to have lunch with the guy, which caused me no end of flak. This was before I even knew what a "creationist" even was. He used to talk about how he would like to resolve his "internal conflicts" surrounding the reconciliation of science with his religious ideology. Even then, it was obvious it was all a complete scam. My own prof (normally VERY reserved) used to heckle him whenever he tried to talk about this shit during any presentation he was making at the time (we often did "presentation lunches" where various students would present their thesis, or some hot topic, for shredding.

I'd attribute Wells to being the largest influence in motivating me to learn about the anti-science movement in the US.

OTOH, without trying to godwin the thread, that's rather like attributing Hitler as being a motivating factor in learning about the dangers of fascism.

oh, I could go on and on about Wells, but that would be torture, and I rather disagree with the current administration about the efficacy of it.

Instead, I'll let others speak for me:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/08/the_politically_incorrect_guid.php

...finally, do note that Wells is not primary author on the latter papers you cited.

do you understand what that means?

of course not.

I'd ask that you respond to my questions to you (about Moon), but I can already tell it's absolutely a waste of time.

You're hung up on some crusade to play pin the tail on the donkey, except all you have is a blindfold on.

And yes FL, I’d be delighted if you stopped talking about how non-literalists aren’t real Christians and just posted on the topic instead.

"What are the dimensions of evolution? Sin and death from the get-go! How then do we understand the Fall if sin and death were part of God’s original order? And what are we being redeemed (to be bought back) into? Sin and death?"

"If the genesis accounts are myth or fable, what about original sin? If original sin (or ‘ancestral sin’) is a myth or a fable, why did Jesus have to die to atone for it (and the rest of our ‘sins’)?"

I don't understand how FL manages to keep making his feet ever smaller as he paints himself into an ever tighter corner...

but carry on, it works for me.

FL, please explain why the AAAS is wrong to rebuke the makers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed for lying, slandering and working general inequities in Christ's name, and please explain how one must reject the reality of "descent with modification" in order to accept Christ's salvation even though all that is required to accept Christ's salvation is to have faith in Christ ties directly in with the AAAS rebuking the makers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed for lying, slandering and working general inequities in Christ's name.

Or, are we to presume that you are wasting our time yet again with your pompous, street-corner proselytizing?

FL said: How then do we understand the Fall if sin and death were part of God’s original order? And what are we being redeemed (to be bought back) into? Sin and death?" I've checked all the previous posts in this thread, and I see that you have not resolved nor even engaged Mann's specific argument. (Nor have the Presbyterians apparently, if SWT happens to be reading this post. Also I would call this to the attention of Mplavcan's theologian friend, should that person get a chance to read this.) Furthermore, the poster Tim Hague asked a related question in an earlier post, a very important inquiry:

"If the genesis accounts are myth or fable, what about original sin? If original sin (or ‘ancestral sin’) is a myth or a fable, why did Jesus have to die to atone for it (and the rest of our ‘sins’)?"

These two items, by themselves, clearly demonstrate that the AAAS claim is incorrect unless those two items get resolved. The AAAS never engages these specific problems at all in its letter/video. Neither does the "Clergy Letter" cited by the AAAS. No attempt at all. Nada. So would you mind engaging and resolving these two specific issues now, Eric? Take your time, of course, but please provide support for your response. Thanks in advance. FL

FL said: How then do we understand the Fall if sin and death were part of God’s original order? And what are we being redeemed (to be bought back) into? Sin and death?" I've checked all the previous posts in this thread, and I see that you have not resolved nor even engaged Mann's specific argument. (Nor have the Presbyterians apparently, if SWT happens to be reading this post. Also I would call this to the attention of Mplavcan's theologian friend, should that person get a chance to read this.) Furthermore, the poster Tim Hague asked a related question in an earlier post, a very important inquiry:

"If the genesis accounts are myth or fable, what about original sin? If original sin (or ‘ancestral sin’) is a myth or a fable, why did Jesus have to die to atone for it (and the rest of our ‘sins’)?"

These two items, by themselves, clearly demonstrate that the AAAS claim is incorrect unless those two items get resolved. The AAAS never engages these specific problems at all in its letter/video. Neither does the "Clergy Letter" cited by the AAAS. No attempt at all. Nada. So would you mind engaging and resolving these two specific issues now, Eric? Take your time, of course, but please provide support for your response. Thanks in advance. FL

SkepticalBill: If a man goes to Med school, gets his MD, then makes a career of maliciously undermining legitimate medical research, promoting homeopathy with bogus research and performing unnecessary surgeries is he a doctor?

tresmal said: SkepticalBill: If a man goes to Med school, gets his MD, then makes a career of maliciously undermining legitimate medical research, promoting homeopathy with bogus research and performing unnecessary surgeries is he a doctor?

FL, please explain why the AAAS is wrong to rebuke the makers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed for lying,

Jackelope King: Interesting. I'd like to discuss your post point by point. Will begin tomorrow.

FL

FL said:

FL, please explain why the AAAS is wrong to rebuke the makers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed for lying,

No Stanton. Discuss the AAAS theological claim. Thanks.

FL said: Jackelope King: Interesting. I'd like to discuss your post point by point. Will begin tomorrow. FL

FL said:

FL, please explain why the AAAS is wrong to rebuke the makers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed for lying,

No Stanton. Discuss the AAAS theological claim. Thanks.

“What are the dimensions of evolution? Sin and death from the get-go! How then do we understand the Fall if sin and death were part of God’s original order? And what are we being redeemed (to be bought back) into? Sin and death?”

I’ve checked all the previous posts in this thread, and I see that you have not resolved nor even engaged Mann’s specific argument.

And as I’ve said before, suddenly the Genesis creation story makes sense as an allegory for the beginning of man’s relationship with God. By being aware of our own sins, and knowing better (since we understand good and evil and can choose between them of our own free will), we choose how we will honor our relationship with God.

Stanton said:

tresmal said: SkepticalBill: If a man goes to Med school, gets his MD, then makes a career of maliciously undermining legitimate medical research, promoting homeopathy with bogus research and performing unnecessary surgeries is he a doctor?

More importantly, should people respect this person as a doctor even though he works hard to ruin the careers of his peers?

Mike Elzinga said:

And as I’ve said before, suddenly the Genesis creation story makes sense as an allegory for the beginning of man’s relationship with God. By being aware of our own sins, and knowing better (since we understand good and evil and can choose between them of our own free will), we choose how we will honor our relationship with God.

You make some excellent points, Jackelope. The allegory can also extend to emerging human awareness of what we now refer to as natural laws and their consequences as well as emerging realizations that human relationships have consequences also. If that early emergent awareness of nature happened to be anthropomorphized into deities, this is perfectly understandable. The point is that humans at some time in their history began to recognized that there is some kind of “larger picture” that they are related to and that there are behaviors and obligations that make life easier if they are followed, and which make life miserable if they are not. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is itself a nice allegory.

Seriously, the desperation here is palpable. Theistic evolutionists have made great concessions to achieve their reconciliation of Christianity with evolution. Perspicuity of scripture? Gone. Natural theology? Pointless. Argument from Design? Fuhgeddabout it. The sort of beliefs that are justified by evidence and defended rationally are granted to science. Religious beliefs are justified by recourse to ill-defined “eyes of faith” and the desire of believers to feel at home in the universe (whatever that means). They've conceded about ninety percent of the territory on which science and religion clash. But still a lot of scientists won't even give them that last ten percent. How frustrating that must be for them.

Mike Elzinga said:

And as I’ve said before, suddenly the Genesis creation story makes sense as an allegory for the beginning of man’s relationship with God. By being aware of our own sins, and knowing better (since we understand good and evil and can choose between them of our own free will), we choose how we will honor our relationship with God.

You make some excellent points, Jackelope. The allegory can also extend to emerging human awareness of what we now refer to as natural laws and their consequences as well as emerging realizations that human relationships have consequences also. If that early emergent awareness of nature happened to be anthropomorphized into deities, this is perfectly understandable. The point is that humans at some time in their history began to recognized that there is some kind of “larger picture” that they are related to and that there are behaviors and obligations that make life easier if they are followed, and which make life miserable if they are not. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is itself a nice allegory.

Seriously, the desperation here is palpable. Theistic evolutionists have made great concessions to achieve their reconciliation of Christianity with evolution. Perspicuity of scripture? Gone. Natural theology? Pointless. Argument from Design? Fuhgeddabout it. The sort of beliefs that are justified by evidence and defended rationally are granted to science. Religious beliefs are justified by recourse to ill-defined “eyes of faith” and the desire of believers to feel at home in the universe (whatever that means). They've conceded about ninety percent of the territory on which science and religion clash. But still a lot of scientists won't even give them that last ten percent. How frustrating that must be for them.

Mike Elzinga said:

And as I’ve said before, suddenly the Genesis creation story makes sense as an allegory for the beginning of man’s relationship with God. By being aware of our own sins, and knowing better (since we understand good and evil and can choose between them of our own free will), we choose how we will honor our relationship with God.

You make some excellent points, Jackelope. The allegory can also extend to emerging human awareness of what we now refer to as natural laws and their consequences as well as emerging realizations that human relationships have consequences also. If that early emergent awareness of nature happened to be anthropomorphized into deities, this is perfectly understandable. The point is that humans at some time in their history began to recognized that there is some kind of “larger picture” that they are related to and that there are behaviors and obligations that make life easier if they are followed, and which make life miserable if they are not. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is itself a nice allegory.

Seriously, the desperation here is palpable. Theistic evolutionists have made great concessions to achieve their reconciliation of Christianity with evolution. Perspicuity of scripture? Gone. Natural theology? Pointless. Argument from Design? Fuhgeddabout it. The sort of beliefs that are justified by evidence and defended rationally are granted to science. Religious beliefs are justified by recourse to ill-defined “eyes of faith” and the desire of believers to feel at home in the universe (whatever that means). They've conceded about ninety percent of the territory on which science and religion clash. But still a lot of scientists won't even give them that last ten percent. How frustrating that must be for them.

Mike Elzinga said:

And as I’ve said before, suddenly the Genesis creation story makes sense as an allegory for the beginning of man’s relationship with God. By being aware of our own sins, and knowing better (since we understand good and evil and can choose between them of our own free will), we choose how we will honor our relationship with God.

You make some excellent points, Jackelope. The allegory can also extend to emerging human awareness of what we now refer to as natural laws and their consequences as well as emerging realizations that human relationships have consequences also. If that early emergent awareness of nature happened to be anthropomorphized into deities, this is perfectly understandable. The point is that humans at some time in their history began to recognized that there is some kind of “larger picture” that they are related to and that there are behaviors and obligations that make life easier if they are followed, and which make life miserable if they are not. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is itself a nice allegory.

FL said:

And yes FL, I’d be delighted if you stopped talking about how non-literalists aren’t real Christians and just posted on the topic instead.

Yes, Eric, let's you and I slow the tempo down a bit (though you have no answer for 1 Cor. 15:17, of course), and let's return to the issue of the AAAS letter and its theological claim. A major item that I mentioned earlier (and which you had no answer for) was Daniel Mann's response. A very important reason why the claim of AAAS letter (that evolution is compatible with Christianity) is flat-out wrong.

"What are the dimensions of evolution? Sin and death from the get-go! How then do we understand the Fall if sin and death were part of God’s original order? And what are we being redeemed (to be bought back) into? Sin and death?"

I've checked all the previous posts in this thread, and I see that you have not resolved nor even engaged Mann's specific argument. (Nor have the Presbyterians apparently, if SWT happens to be reading this post. Also I would call this to the attention of Mplavcan's theologian friend, should that person get a chance to read this.) Furthermore, the poster Tim Hague asked a related question in an earlier post, a very important inquiry:

"If the genesis accounts are myth or fable, what about original sin? If original sin (or ‘ancestral sin’) is a myth or a fable, why did Jesus have to die to atone for it (and the rest of our ‘sins’)?"

These two items, by themselves, clearly demonstrate that the AAAS claim is incorrect unless those two items get resolved. The AAAS never engages these specific problems at all in its letter/video. Neither does the "Clergy Letter" cited by the AAAS. No attempt at all. Nada. So would you mind engaging and resolving these two specific issues now, Eric? Take your time, of course, but please provide support for your response. Thanks in advance. FL

Thanks, folks.

FL said: A major item that I mentioned earlier (and which you had no answer for) was Daniel Mann's response. A very important reason why the claim of AAAS letter (that evolution is compatible with Christianity) is flat-out wrong.

"What are the dimensions of evolution? Sin and death from the get-go! How then do we understand the Fall if sin and death were part of God’s original order? And what are we being redeemed (to be bought back) into? Sin and death?"

I've checked all the previous posts in this thread, and I see that you have not resolved nor even engaged Mann's specific argument. (Nor have the Presbyterians apparently, if SWT happens to be reading this post. Also I would call this to the attention of Mplavcan's theologian friend, should that person get a chance to read this.) Furthermore, the poster Tim Hague asked a related question in an earlier post, a very important inquiry:

"If the genesis accounts are myth or fable, what about original sin? If original sin (or ‘ancestral sin’) is a myth or a fable, why did Jesus have to die to atone for it (and the rest of our ‘sins’)?"

These two items, by themselves, clearly demonstrate that the AAAS claim is incorrect unless those two items get resolved. The AAAS never engages these specific problems at all in its letter/video. Neither does the "Clergy Letter" cited by the AAAS. No attempt at all. Nada. So would you mind engaging and resolving these two specific issues now, Eric? Take your time, of course, but please provide support for your response. Thanks in advance. FL

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2:16-17)

Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:4-5)

Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: “Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life." (Genesis 3:17)

Peter Henderson said: I notice Ken Miller now claims he is not a theistic evolutionist but instead "an evolutionist who is a theist"

Myths have their own charms, but logical consistency is not one of them. In its most common interpretation, the Eden story accounts for the origin of moral evil. But evil is already in evidence in the serpent before Eve eats the fruit. It doesn't do to claim that the serpent is an animal and therefore innocent. After all, like Adam and Eve, the serpent is punished for its transgression, which would have been unjust if it had acted innocently. The text tries to finesse this problem by explaining that "the serpent was more subtle ('aruwm) than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made." (Gen. 3.1) I don't know much Hebrew, but I doubt if you can solve this insolvable problem with a magic word like 'aruwm that would have to mean "morally responsible" and "not morally responsible" at the same time. Square circle. No wonder the Christians, no doubt in the true spirit of scriptura sola, felt obliged to claim what the story represents as a talking snake was actually Satan, even though that name doesn't appear in the text and it was earthly snakes, not angels, who took the fall for tempting Eve. Of course pushing the problem of the origin of evil back one step to at fallen angel doesn't solve the problem either. It just relocates it since either God, who created Satan, is responsible for his creation's immorality or Satan, an innocent being, somehow managed to act immorally on his own nickle even though he was perfectly innocent to begin with. Eventually one is driven either to the Manichean notion that good and evil are eternal cosmic principles or go the Star Wars route and talk about the dark side of the Force. Come to think of it, maybe we should just leave it at talking snakes!

Even if a snake could talk, how would it hear the answer? ;)

Henry J said: Even if a snake could talk, how would it hear the answer? ;)

Myths have their own charms, but logical consistency is not one of them.

Of course pushing the problem of the origin of evil back one step to at fallen angel doesn’t solve the problem either. It just relocates it since either God, who created Satan, is responsible for his creation’s immorality or Satan, an innocent being, somehow managed to act immorally on his own nickle even though he was perfectly innocent to begin with. Eventually one is driven either to the Manichean notion that good and evil are eternal cosmic principles or go the Star Wars route and talk about the dark side of the Force.

The Bible seems sufficiently old from our point of view, but it is good to remember that both the Jews and the Greeks were newcomers relative to the much older Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations. The morality reflected in Genesis is notably different than what you encounter in, say, the Gilgamesh epic; and even that originally Sumerian work belongs to the Bronze Age and doesn't necessarily give us much insight into neolithic ethics, not to speak of what cave men believed. Obviously there are myths about the origin of death and suffering all over the place and at all eras; but the Persian, Jewish, and Christian notion of evil isn't universal; and myths about the origin of evil developed in a single region in historical times from earlier tales about struggles between creator gods and watery chaos or heroes and dangerous monsters like Gilgamesh's opponent Huwawa. The the Christians had to exercise a great deal of creativity to read a recognizably moral interpretation on a simple folk tale about the bad consequences of violating an apparently nonsensical prohibition--the Jews never got so neurotic about the whole thing. No original sin. No Satan in the garden. Just a talking snake.

…–the Jews never got so neurotic about the whole thing. No original sin. No Satan in the garden. Just a talking snake.

tresmal said: SkepticalBill: If a man goes to Med school, gets his MD, then makes a career of maliciously undermining legitimate medical research, promoting homeopathy with bogus research and performing unnecessary surgeries is he a doctor?

Jim Harrison said: ...the serpent is punished for its transgression, which would have been unjust if it had acted innocently.

Henry J said: Even if a snake could talk, how would it hear the answer? ;)

I need more information to answer your question. Has he lost his license to practice medicine?

Has he lost his license to practice medicine?

since it was an analogy to practicing science, it's hardly relevant.

you really don't like answering questions that make you uncomfortable, do you.

you're an utter waste of time, like 99.999% of the trolls on PT these days.

Mike Elzinga said: The question tresmal ask was not that difficult to understand;

Regardless of a dictionary definition, common usage for "scientist" refers to a vocation, and is separate from "teacher" which is itself a vocation. I don't think that refering to somebody as "a teacher" instead of "a scientist" is any sort of slight at all.

For those of you who may be curious as to why some people continue to post here while being outnumbered, the motive is not to convince us of their correctness, but to witness. Just what they are witnessing for, I don't really know. Is it to show how the religious impulse can easily keep one from fully committing to the search for truth?

One problem with the AAAS statement that the majority of Christians accept evolution is that those who don't accept evolution get to see themselves as martrys.

The best approach is just to say that science proceeds independently of religion. It may also be necessary to explain why science cannot evaluate the possiblity of supernatural agents.

SkepitcalBill said: Meanwhile, most of you do not consider Dr. Wells a scientist, nor the 31,000 scientists, many of whom mere meteorologists, who signed a petition stating that global warming is squishy science?

"One problem with the AAAS statement that the majority of Christians accept evolution is that those who don’t accept evolution get to see themselves as martrys. "

WallyK said: Regardless of a dictionary definition, common usage for "scientist" refers to a vocation, and is separate from "teacher" which is itself a vocation. I don't think that refering to somebody as "a teacher" instead of "a scientist" is any sort of slight at all. For those of you who may be curious as to why some people continue to post here while being outnumbered, the motive is not to convince us of their correctness, but to witness. Just what they are witnessing for, I don't really know. Is it to show how the religious impulse can easily keep one from fully committing to the search for truth?

One problem with the AAAS statement that the majority of Christians accept evolution is that those who don't accept evolution get to see themselves as martrys.

The best approach is just to say that science proceeds independently of religion. It may also be necessary to explain why science cannot evaluate the possiblity of supernatural agents.

SkepitcalBill said:

Mike Elzinga said: The question tresmal ask was not that difficult to understand;

The question I asked is not difficult either. Why is it that you all are standing behind Jennifer Miller in her claim (not under oath, in this video) that she is a scientist? (Under oath during Dover, she made no such claim that I can find). Meanwhile, most of you do not consider Dr. Wells a scientist, nor the 31,000 scientists, many of whom mere meteorologists, who signed a petition stating that global warming is squishy science?

Stanton said: Jennifer Miller may not possess a Doctorate degree, but she has made a thousand fold more contributions to Science and Education than "Dr" Wells will ever make.

Lastly, what do you mean by "squishy science"? I hate to break it to you, but, you will not win over anyone knowledgeable in science if you make up terms and never bother to define them precisely.

Meanwhile, most of you do not consider Dr. Wells a scientist, nor the 31,000 scientists, many of whom mere meteorologists, who signed a petition stating that global warming is squishy science?

It may also be necessary to explain why science cannot evaluate the possiblity of supernatural agents.

SkepticalBill: The point was, is someone who acts in a way that is contrary and hostile to the philosophy,ethics and purpose of medicine a doctor just because he has jumped through all the requisite hoops to earn that title? Everybody else here got it so I don't think I was that incompetent in making that point. To improve the analogy, I would have this man go through his medical training from the start with malicious intentions. That is he would have earned his MD the same way Wells earned his Phd; in bad faith.
As an aside, let me note that when the best you can do is (nit)pick around the edges of an opposing argument, it's time to concede the point and move on.

SkepitcalBill said: Squishy science used in article on global warming

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

SkepitcalBill said: Squishy science used in article on global warming

Perhaps it may be pertinent to point out that the terms "scientist" and "teacher" do not display the property of perfect nesting that is found in the morphology of living organisms, and which is so strong an argument for their common descent.

That is, one may be a scientist or a teacher, or both, or neither. Ms Miller is, by any reasonable definition, both. She teaches and does science, in the sense of accepting its principles, practising its methods and improving its understanding. She is, I believe, a teacher rather than a researcher, but she is a scientist nevertheless.

Dr Wells was a researcher once. But his field had nothing to do with evolutionary theory, and he has not done any science in years. On the contrary, he attacks science, and is impervious to material evidence that his attacks are unsound. He therefore cannot be said to be a scientist. As to whether he is a teacher or not, I leave that exercise to others.

An evolution themed blog is probably the worst place to use a petition signed by scientists as a means of persuasion.
Have you heard the one about the petition signed by 500 scientists questioning Darwinism?

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine From SourceWatch This article is part of the Nuclear spin analysis project of SpinWatch (UK) and the Center for Media and Democracy. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war. The OISM is located on a farm about 7 miles from the town of Cave Junction, Oregon (population 1,126). Located slightly east of Siskiyou National Forest, Cave Junction is one of several small towns nestled in the Illinois Valley, whose total population is 15,000. Best known as a gateway to the Oregon Caves National Monument, it is described by its chamber of commerce as "the commercial, service, and cultural center for a rural community of small farms, woodlots, crafts people, and families just living apart from the crowds. ... It's a place where going into the market can take time because people talk in the aisles and at the checkstands. Life is slower, so you have to be patient. You'll be part of that slowness because it is enjoyable to be neighborly." The main visitors are tourists who come to hike, backpack and fish in the area's many rivers and streams. Cave Junction is the sort of out-of-the-way location you might seek out if you were hoping to survive a nuclear war, but it is not known as a center for scientific and medical research. The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences.

Skipped most of this thread but Wells isn't a scientist. He does no research and has no institutional affiliation.

He is a propagandist for a nonXian cult that believes Rev. Moon, a divorced excon is Jesus Christ the second.

tresmal said: An evolution themed blog is probably the worst place to use a petition signed by scientists as a means of persuasion. Have you heard the one about the petition signed by 500 scientists questioning Darwinism?

SkepitcalBill said:

Mike Elzinga said: The question tresmal ask was not that difficult to understand;

The question I asked is not difficult either. Why is it that you all are standing behind Jennifer Miller in her claim (not under oath, in this video) that she is a scientist? (Under oath during Dover, she made no such claim that I can find). Meanwhile, most of you do not consider Dr. Wells a scientist, nor the 31,000 scientists, many of whom mere meteorologists, who signed a petition stating that global warming is squishy science?

*chuckle* Wow! A whole bunch of people signed a petition! I’ll believe whatever they believe if there are 31,000 of them! Arguments from popularity are awesome!

Eric said: If a group of scientists' opinions aren't going to persuade you, why did you bother asking our opinion in the first place? Were you just picking a fight or did you have some point to the question? Perhaps you should be content that your definition of 'scientist' doesn't match everyone's here and move on - ask something substantive. Maybe (gasp!) related to the topic of the thread. eric

tresmal said: An evolution themed blog is probably the worst place to use a petition signed by scientists as a means of persuasion. Have you heard the one about the petition signed by 500 scientists questioning Darwinism?

raven said:

*chuckle* Wow! A whole bunch of people signed a petition! I’ll believe whatever they believe if there are 31,000 of them! Arguments from popularity are awesome!

Sure. 20% of the US population believes the sun orbits the earth. This is 60 million people in the USA alone. Even more think the universe is 6,000 years old and the old Jews kept dinosaurs for pets. You could find 31,000 people to sign a statement that the earth is flat or that they were abducted by UFO aliens who have nothing better to do than stick probes up human's rear end's.

And what about the fact that no one has ever fallen off the edge of our supposedly disc-shaped world? Mr McIntyre laughs. "This is perhaps one of the most commonly asked questions," he says. "A cursory examination of a flat earth map fairly well explains the reason - the North Pole is central, and Antarctica comprises the entire circumference of the Earth. Circumnavigation is a case of travelling in a very broad circle across the surface of the Earth."

So, then only Antarctic explorers and penguins are at risk of falling off? Ah so.

But at least that explains why the oceans don't drain off the edge. ;)

(Well, until global warming melts the... uh oh.)

Henry

Global warming, bah! Haven't you heard about the enormous thermostat recently found in Antarctica?

Three Days ago, FL said: Jackelope King: Interesting. I'd like to discuss your post point by point. Will begin tomorrow. FL

Jackelope King said:

Three Days ago, FL said: Jackelope King: Interesting. I'd like to discuss your post point by point. Will begin tomorrow. FL

FL's silence really does speak volumes.

Jackelope King said: Okay, time for a study break anyway. So death is nicely squared away. Now let's look at sin. Romans 5:13 tells us pretty clearly that without God's law, there is no sin. And when you boil it down, what is sin, even from the beginning in Eden, but turning away from God? This fits nicely with Romans 5:13. And, as we're taught, the most important element in sin is that it's a choice we make to turn away from God. And without choice, or free will, it's impossible to sin (again sparing animals, and even further suggesting that "death" as per Romans 5:12 is spiritual, not physical, death). So when Eve chose to disobey God and eat the fruit, she made a choice. The fact that she and Adam eat from a tree of knowledge of good and evil is also symbolic, as it can be interpreted as a metaphor for becoming aware of morality, and perhaps through this understanding coming to be aware of the law alluded to in Romans 5:13. And as I've said before, suddenly the Genesis creation story makes sense as an allegory for the beginning of man's relationship with God. By being aware of our own sins, and knowing better (since we understand good and evil and can choose between them of our own free will), we choose how we will honor our relationship with God. Even more interestingly, according to Romans 5:13 (and if you're familiar with the original texts for Genesis), this rules out the possibility that Noah's flood was Global, but that's for another day.

Four days ago, FL said: Jackelope King: Interesting. I'd like to discuss your post point by point. Will begin tomorrow. FL

I think that’s exactly how I see the Genesis story. As a Christian who accepts science (and thus evolution) it’s good way of showing how it relates to the rest of the bible without taking a literal meaning from it. However, YECs will not accept any such explanation. I am also sick and tired of arguing with some Atheists who think the same way i.e. Christians who accept evolution are “wishy washy” (PZ Meyers) inconsistent etc. Do Atheists not realize that those Christians who accept evolution (and who will be signing the clergy letter project/taking part in evolution Sunday)are, by and large, Theistic Evolutionists ???? I notice Ken Miller now claims he is not a theistic evolutionist but instead “an evolutionist who is a theist” (I’m not sure what the difference is ?). I admire both Jason and PZ as science writers. However, I sometimes get the feeling that they have more respect for the YECs than for Christians that accept science, especially when they start writing stuff like “the desperation of Theistic evolution”:

Dan said:

Four days ago, FL said: Jackelope King: Interesting. I'd like to discuss your post point by point. Will begin tomorrow. FL

Yesterday while driving I chanced upon a bicyclist stretched out on the road. I administered CPR, someone else having already called an ambulance. The situation didn't look promising. The medics took him away, so I don't know how the story ends. But the story certainly brings home the fragility and preciousness of life. Let us all hope (and pray if you pray) that FL and his family are enjoying good health, and that his silence is the result of a bad Internet connection rather than of illness, incarceration, or other incapacity.

FL’s silence really does speak volumes.

On the side of "death", it helps if you read the whole of Romans 5:12, which says that "death spread to men" (emphasis mine). Read literally, it means that death must have existed elsewhere prior to the rise of man.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all men sinned--

death spread to men

By your own Biblical Literalist standards, death must have been a part of of God's original design.

Animals would not be affected by the fate which befell Adam and Eve.

19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

What are the dimensions of evolution? Sin and death from the get-go! How then do we understand the Fall if sin and death were part of God’s original order? And what are we being redeemed (to be bought back) into? Sin and death?

And we can take it a step further, reading to Romans 5:13 "for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no loaw." It's impossible to sin if you are not aware of God's laws, which exempts animals together, and people who had not been introduced to God.

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 1 Cor 15:22.

The two chapters in Revelation show that after sin is vanquished, death, pain, and sorrow will also be vanquished. If this is the restoration of the creation, we are left a plaguing question about death if we believe in evolution. Why is death being done away with? If God originally intended death to be an integral part of his creation, then God should allow death to continue into eternity.

14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

"Death" refers clearly to physical death, but not to physical death alone; as in verse 12, spiritual death, condemnation, is also involved. By using the image of death "reigning", Paul emphasizes that death was both universal and inescapable. -- Douglas Moo, Romans NICNT

I guess it is too late to note that a Christian need not be bound by anything the Bible says, and therefore won't have any trouble reconciling his views with evolution. People like FL seem always to overlook this most basic point.

Since life ("life everlasting in the Kingdom of Heaven") is obviously not to be taken literally either

21 Martha said to(T) Jesus, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 But even now I know that whatever you ask from God,(V) God will give you." 23 Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." 24( Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day."

When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out." 44 The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, "Unbind him, and let him go."

On physical death's relation to sin, the Bible is silent

Science Avenger said: I guess it is too late to note that a Christian need not be bound by anything the Bible says, and therefore won't have any trouble reconciling his views with evolution. People like FL seem always to overlook this most basic point.

I guess it is too late to note that a Christian need not be bound by anything the Bible says, and therefore won’t have any trouble reconciling his views with evolution.

Third question: who gives a flying dog turd what anyone does, or believes, in their church, as long as they don't force others to join them?

Tim Hague said:

Jackelope King said: Okay, time for a study break anyway. So death is nicely squared away. Now let's look at sin. Romans 5:13 tells us pretty clearly that without God's law, there is no sin. And when you boil it down, what is sin, even from the beginning in Eden, but turning away from God? This fits nicely with Romans 5:13. And, as we're taught, the most important element in sin is that it's a choice we make to turn away from God. And without choice, or free will, it's impossible to sin (again sparing animals, and even further suggesting that "death" as per Romans 5:12 is spiritual, not physical, death). So when Eve chose to disobey God and eat the fruit, she made a choice. The fact that she and Adam eat from a tree of knowledge of good and evil is also symbolic, as it can be interpreted as a metaphor for becoming aware of morality, and perhaps through this understanding coming to be aware of the law alluded to in Romans 5:13. And as I've said before, suddenly the Genesis creation story makes sense as an allegory for the beginning of man's relationship with God. By being aware of our own sins, and knowing better (since we understand good and evil and can choose between them of our own free will), we choose how we will honor our relationship with God. Even more interestingly, according to Romans 5:13 (and if you're familiar with the original texts for Genesis), this rules out the possibility that Noah's flood was Global, but that's for another day.

Thanks for the response Jackelope. I see that we have gone from just one sin mentioned at the top ('turning away from God') to 'being aware of our sins' in the plural later on. Can you clarify if there is just the one sin or not. I'm also not sure about what the phrase 'turning away from God' actually means. Is this a lack of worship? Lack of belief? Literally turning your back on a physical entity? Are good and evil absolute terms, or are they relative to the circumstances in which we find ourselves? My original question asked about the relationship between original sin and Jesus' death on the cross. I'd also be interested in how you interpret this as it wasn't mentioned in your reply.

And as I've said before, suddenly the Genesis creation story makes sense as an allegory for the beginning of man's relationship with God.

Why be a Christian at all?

Well, it could be because you find the teachings of Jesus the Galilean profoundly moving and as close an approach to ethical perfection as any that have ever been uttered. Love one another, forgive, do good, show mercy, treat all humankind as your neighbours, do as you would be done by, return good for evil, feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, clothe the naked, care for the sick, the aged, the infirm. Deal justly, by all means, but look to your own vices before presuming to correct others. All that, and much more.

Why would you do that? Because living that way makes life better for everyone.

Pity, mind you, that the majority of those who call and have called themselves Christians haven't met those standards of conduct, nor, in general, has the Church itself. The word "Christian" has, as a result, only a very loose connection with acting in that way.

So I really don't think that Jesus would have given a toss for what I believe, or what I call myself. It's what I do that he would have been concerned with. I'm a bit with him there.

How would you rationally distinguish a Christian who’s “not bound by anything the Bible says” from a non-Christian?

ben said:

How would you rationally distinguish a Christian who’s “not bound by anything the Bible says” from a non-Christian?

A Christian tells me "I am a Christian." A Non-Christian tells me "I am not a Christian." In other tellings of the story, the Christian is sometimes a Scotsman.

Why be a Christian at all? Well, it could be because you find the teachings of Jesus the Galilean profoundly moving and as close an approach to ethical perfection as any that have ever been uttered. Love one another, forgive, do good, show mercy, treat all humankind as your neighbours, do as you would be done by, return good for evil, feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, clothe the naked, care for the sick, the aged, the infirm. Deal justly, by all means, but look to your own vices before presuming to correct others. All that, and much more.

My perspective is that the term “Christian” applies to anyone who follows Jesus’ commendment(s) and who models his or her life choices on Jesus’ teachings.

I don’t see where the ‘allegory boundary’ is. Why should the Garden of Eden be allegorical, but God himself not?

Second question: How would you rationally distinguish a Christian who’s “not bound by anything the Bible says” from a non-Christian?

tresmal said:

Eric said: If a group of scientists' opinions aren't going to persuade you, why did you bother asking our opinion in the first place? Were you just picking a fight or did you have some point to the question? Perhaps you should be content that your definition of 'scientist' doesn't match everyone's here and move on - ask something substantive. Maybe (gasp!) related to the topic of the thread. eric

tresmal said: An evolution themed blog is probably the worst place to use a petition signed by scientists as a means of persuasion. Have you heard the one about the petition signed by 500 scientists questioning Darwinism?

Take it easy Eric, I'm on the evolution side. My point was to draw comparison with SkepticalBill's petition of 31,000 "scientists" with a certain bogus creationist petition of some years back that claimed to support the idea of a scientific controversy about evolution. IIRC the bulk of the signers were not scientists, the majority of those who were, were in completely unrelated fields, and all but three or four of the remainder were fundies.

FL said:

Second question: How would you rationally distinguish a Christian who’s “not bound by anything the Bible says” from a non-Christian?

Just repeating the question, no hurries.

FL said:

Second question: How would you rationally distinguish a Christian who’s “not bound by anything the Bible says” from a non-Christian?

Just repeating the question, no hurries.

FL said:

My perspective is that the term “Christian” applies to anyone who follows Jesus’ commendment(s) and who models his or her life choices on Jesus’ teachings.

Jesus's teachings come straight from the Bible, and according to Science Avenger, a Christian need not be bound by anything the Bible says. FL

I don’t see where the ‘allegory boundary’ is. Why should the Garden of Eden be allegorical, but God himself not?

nothing whatsoever in your argument supports your opinion that “death” means ‘physical death.’

All of your quotations and argument could easily support Jackelope’s original argument that death means spiritual death.

, but FL, you ignored the key point: Romans 5:13. You even posted it, but you failed to address it. Without the Law, there is no sin.

I took those from the teachings of Jesus, which are recorded - or at least, stated - in the Bible. I think those I listed are right, because they work better than the alternatives to construct a decent, civilised, gentle society. But Jesus also said that divorce could only be granted in the case of the wife's adultery. (Tripe.) He said we should take no thought for tomorrow. (Nonsense.) He said that feeling lust was as bad as indulging it. (No, it isn't.) He said that most people would go to hell. (In that case, God's a monster.)

So what I am applying is my own conscience. It's right because it feels right, not just because Jesus said it, and certainly not just because it's in the Bible.

The Bible is what it appears to be: a collection of documents of varied content, intent and provenance, mostly by unknown hands, compiled at unknown dates, translated at least once (and often uncertainly), selected, edited, redacted and revised by persons known, surmised and unknown, who were usually applying their own agendae. It has no authority save that which I give it, at the prompting of my own conscience. It is the fallible product of fallible human beings, and no more.

So how would I distinguish a Christian from a non-Christian? Didn't Jesus say how? Wasn't it something about the fruits they produce? (For the record, this is another of his ideas that seems fair to me.) So, I'd say a Christian was someone who acts charitably, forgives, is gentle, shows kindness to others, does not judge, does as he would be done by, treats all people as his neighbours... and so on, and a non-Christian is someone who doesn't. I don't think believing or not believing a text comes into it. And here's the thing: I don't think Jesus did, either.

Well, not finding an answer to the question 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" (almost, but not quite) I guess I'll skip the inevitable train wreck at the end of this thread and head for a new one.
Sigh...

FL said: In Genesis 2 and 3, Did Adam die ONLY "spiritually" after his sin or did Adam ALSO eventually die physically after his sin? Adam eventually died physically, of course, and all who came after Adam physically died also.

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:16-17)

FL said: Let's see now. A Christian need not be bound by anything the Bible says. Got it. Question: Given that criterion, why be a Christian at all?

Second question: How would you rationally distinguish a Christian who's "not bound by anything the Bible says" from a non-Christian? FL

FL said: Jesus's teachings come straight from the Bible, and according to Science Avenger, a Christian need not be bound by anything the Bible says.

This thread demonstrates an important point about how logic works. From contradictory premises, any conclusion can be validly inferred. (Proof on request) Which accounts for the infinite, or merely interminable, fertility of theological argument. With Euclid, you always get to a QED because the axioms are consistent; but there will never be a last word about the the Garden of Eden. An incoherence, profound in both senses of the word, lies at heart of the story.

FL, your dogmatic assertions are no more credible just because they happen to be supported by how YOU interpret certain passages in the Bible. I'd love to see you argue with a Hindu, who would approach reality from his own religious assumptions and thus be as unmovable as you, but just as irrational from a scientific perspective.

As I said several days ago, the passages in the Bible you cling to are not evidence for anything, let alone against evolution. But the fossils, the genetic sequences of organisms, the way those organisms can be classified into nested groups, and the way those organisms are distributed around the world, all are clear evidence for evolution. So if I were forced to choose between evolution and Christianity, evolution would be the obvious choice. Fortunatly, people like PvM don't have to blindly follow your path, but seek to reconcile the ethical and spiritual teachings of Christianity with the findings of modern science. They do this because they recognize what should be obvious to everyone, including you: That the passages of the Bible have NO empirical support whatsoever and thus believing in any of it is simply a matter of faith, nothing more. And there is a difference between faith and stupidity. PvM has faith, keeping his eyes and mind open to real facts, and I respect that. You have stupidity, being the victim of your own cowardice as well as those scam artists that call themselves Creation scientists, and I will never respect that.

FL said: Your problem is NOT that you're saying "spiritual death" per se, for that is half-correct. Your problem IS that you're arbitrarily attempting to LIMIT the "death" to "spiritual death only" at a time when: (1) you have ZERO biblical evidence for doing so and (2) the Bible evidence clearly supports a reading of "spiritual death AND physical death"----both aspects, NOT one or the other----in both the Genesis and the Romans passages. (Also in 1 Cor. 15 as well.)

FL says: Once again, the salvation and eternal life that Jesus Christ offers to all, is literally able to OVERCOME death, whether it be physical death or spiritual death, and those who accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior will experience his present and future salvation, experience eternal life both now and continuing onwards in the afterlife.

Science Avenger said:

FL said: Jesus's teachings come straight from the Bible, and according to Science Avenger, a Christian need not be bound by anything the Bible says.

No, Jesus' teachings came straight from Jesus. The Bible merely proports to be a record of said teachings, just like Plato's writings proport to be a record of Socrates teachings. Would you say someone cannot follow Socrates while dismissing Plato's writings as inaccurate?

Science Avenger said: Would you say someone cannot follow Socrates while dismissing Plato's writings as inaccurate?

Robin said: A much better articulation of the points I attempted to raise as well. Nicely put Science Avenger.

chuck said: Well, not finding an answer to the question 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" (almost, but not quite) I guess I'll skip the inevitable train wreck at the end of this thread and head for a new one. Sigh...

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2:16-17) (SWT therefore states that) The clear, literal meaning of the bolded text doesn’t include “eventually.” Since Adam and Eve did not suffer physical death in the day that that ate from the tree, physical death is not indicated.

Jesus’s teachings come straight from the Bible, and according to Science Avenger, a Christian need not be bound by anything the Bible says.

No, Jesus’ teachings came straight from Jesus.

Jesus quoted Scripture as the basis for his own teaching. His ethics were the same as what we find already written in Scripture: Matthew 7:12; 19:18, 19; 22:40; Mark 7:9, 13; 10:19; 12:24, 29–31; Luke 18:20. -- Dr. David Livingston, AIG

He knew the Scriptures thoroughly, even to words and verb tenses. He obviously had either memorized vast portions or knew it instinctively: John 7:15. He believed every word of Scripture. All the prophecies concerning Himself were fulfilled, and He believed beforehand they would be. He believed the Old Testament was historical fact. He believed the books were written by the men whose names they bear. He believed the Old Testament was spoken by God Himself, or written by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, even though the pen was held by men. He believed Scripture was more powerful than His miracles. He actually quoted it in overthrowing Satan. He will judge all men in the last day, as Messiah and King, on the basis of His infallible Word committed to writing by fallible men, guided by the infallible Holy Spirit. In all the details of His acts of redemption, Jesus was subject to Scripture as God’s Word. He obeyed it. It was His authority, the rule by which He lived. He came to do God’s will, not His own, and not man’s. Note how all of His life He did things because they were written—as if God had directly commanded. ---Taken from Dr. David Livingston, AIG (see the following link with footnotes and Scripture refs) http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0406scripture.asp

Why did Jesus have to literally suffer and die in order to provide the Atonement for an allegorical Fall?

FL said: Hey, I need to repeat a question here. No hurries, of course, but I am sincerely interested in getting an answer for it, since it seriously damages the AAAS's theological claim that evolution is compatible with Christianity:

Why did Jesus have to literally suffer and die in order to provide the Atonement for an allegorical Fall?

FL

Imagine that. Jesus Christ was in fact bound by what the Bible says. Do you think His professed disciples are NOT likewise bound by what the Bible says??

FL said: A couple more responses. First, SWT:

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:16-17) (SWT therefore states that) The clear, literal meaning of the bolded text doesn’t include "eventually." Since Adam and Eve did not suffer physical death in the day that that ate from the tree, physical death is not indicated.

Whoa whoa there. "The clear, literal meaning of the bolded text" does NOT exclude the concept of "eventually" either.

Oh, yeah? Well, why is a raven like a writing-desk?

Poe wrote on both of them.

Science Avenger said:

Robin said: A much better articulation of the points I attempted to raise as well. Nicely put Science Avenger.

Thank you, and amazingly I managed to make my point without mentioning my alma maters or classmates even once. ;) FL is sadly typical of a huge chunk of our society who seem more interested in worshipping the Bible than in worshipping Jesus. Jesus, what we know of him, had a lot of interesting things to say. He said them independently of whether or not legends about talking snakes are literally true. That anyone needs this explained to them truly boggles the mind. Eric hits the nail on the head. Absolutely knowledge mandates absolute accuracy in the source. Make one tiny hole in that dike and all that absolute certainly runs out.

FL said: You honestly have NO biblical evidence with which to rationally reject the reconciling explanation that Adam died spiritually the same day that he ate the forbidden fruit BUT he died physically much later-----because it took time for his originally perfect, sinless physical body to succumb to the physical death resulting from that sin-caused spiritual death.

He believed every word of Scripture.

He believed the Old Testament was historical fact.

FL said: Why did Jesus have to literally suffer and die in order to provide the Atonement for an allegorical Fall?

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts. We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

FL said: I pointed out that,

Jesus’s teachings come straight from the Bible, and according to Science Avenger, a Christian need not be bound by anything the Bible says.

So Robin says,

No, Jesus’ teachings came straight from Jesus.

Let's both be clear about this. Where are Jesus's teachings recorded and located? In the Bible, right? Furthermore....

Jesus quoted Scripture as the basis for his own teaching.

His ethics were the same as what we find already written in Scripture: Matthew 7:12; 19:18, 19; 22:40; Mark 7:9, 13; 10:19; 12:24, 29–31; Luke 18:20. -- Dr. David Livingston, AIG

Yet Science Avenger says that a Christian need not be bound by anything the Bible says. Do you agree with Avenger's claim, Robin?

Just a concluding footnote. It's not about worshipping the Bible. It's about following Jesus's example. You call yourself a Christian, you're supposed to be following Christ's example, right?

So think about His example a little bit. He knew the Scriptures thoroughly, even to words and verb tenses. He obviously had either memorized vast portions or knew it instinctively: John 7:15. He believed every word of Scripture. All the prophecies concerning Himself were fulfilled, and He believed beforehand they would be.

He believed the Old Testament was historical fact.

He believed the books were written by the men whose names they bear.

He believed the Old Testament was spoken by God Himself, or written by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, even though the pen was held by men.

He believed Scripture was more powerful than His miracles.

He actually quoted it in overthrowing Satan.

He will judge all men in the last day, as Messiah and King, on the basis of His infallible Word committed to writing by fallible men, guided by the infallible Holy Spirit.

In all the details of His acts of redemption, Jesus was subject to Scripture as God’s Word. He obeyed it. It was His authority, the rule by which He lived. He came to do God’s will, not His own, and not man’s. Note how all of His life He did things because they were written—as if God had directly commanded. ---Taken from Dr. David Livingston, AIG (see the following link with footnotes and Scripture refs)http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0406scripture.asp

Imagine that. Jesus Christ was in fact bound by what the Bible says. Do you think His professed disciples are NOT likewise bound by what the Bible says?? FL

I have discussions with other folk about the difference between the bible and the events, people, places, etc referenced within it, and as you note a good deal of people feel that the bible is far and away the focus of what is important. I too am at a complete loss to understand such a perspective.

Mike Elzinga said:

I have discussions with other folk about the difference between the bible and the events, people, places, etc referenced within it, and as you note a good deal of people feel that the bible is far and away the focus of what is important. I too am at a complete loss to understand such a perspective.

From what I have seen of some of our local characters, from visits to some of their churches, and from religion programs that are currently on a few of our cable TV channels, it probably has its roots in the paralyzing terror they are programmed to experience whenever they have the slightest thought that their dogma is not absolutely the one true dogma. Many of these "teachings" are derivatives of Calvinist dogma. The TV programs are curiously disturbing. Young adolescents and teens are wailing and groaning, rocking back and forth or sprawled out on the floor as a preacher harangues them with guilt and fear. They break for a couple of rock concert type bands and then go back to the hell-fire and brimstone shtick. It all looks pretty sweaty and cultish. I would not be surprised if FL comes from one of these cultish religions and is himself one of those preachers.

FL is actually a pastor, I believe.

CJO said: FL is actually a pastor, I believe.

There’s really nothing to prevent the gullible and irrational from becoming ordained I guess.

Robin said: I don't know what the entire mindset is - that such people have become convinced that the bible *IS* the word of God? - but whatever it is, it has distorted the value that one can find in anything, nevermind the bible. It robs the person of the ability to apply critical analysis.

The world of religion is full of “false prophets” (profits?) from the “reverend” Jim Bakker to the “reverend” Kent Hovind. There’s really nothing to prevent the gullible and irrational from becoming ordained I guess.

Mike Elzinga said: On the other hand, from a broader perspective of basic animal behavior and evolution, it is simply an alpha male from one territory truculently entering the territories of other alpha males in order to piss on their pissing posts.

Mike Elzinga said: Ms. Miller has done infinitely more (literally) to advance the understanding of our universe than Wells or any of the gassy crap bags at the “Discovery” Institute have or ever will do.

Biomusicologist said: PvM said: "...or the atheist who believes that science can disprove religious faith, the existence of a God." Oh, please. How can someone "disprove" that an entity for which no hard evidence exists....exists? I know of no atheists who are working to "disprove" the existence of a God. Only atheists who are asking, "Where's your evidence?, Where's your proof that some celestial being exists? Prove it!" You can't "disprove" something for which there is no hard evidence of its existence -- who in their right mind would even bother with "scientific" proof that Santa Claus doesn't come down your chimney on Dec. 25th carrying presents after disembarking from his flying reindeer-driven sleigh? Or that the proverbial "Invisible Pink Unicorn" doesn't exist? As a proud atheist, I really must also take issue with your phrasing..."an atheist who believes"....that word "believe" really sticks in my craw. The reason I am an atheist is that I choose to utilize hard facts and evidence to make judgments. Not "beliefs." Not "faith." Speaking for myself, I don't feel that I need to, or should "tolerate" those who choose to be guided by myth, faith, belief, invisible deities, Invisible Pink Unicorns, or any other such nonsense. In this day and age, we need the cold hard truth, the facts and nothing but the facts, more than ever. Therefore, I have about a nanoseconds worth of tolerance for those who suggest we need to "respect" the utter nonsense that "guide" the vast majority of people on this planet. Because letting one's life be guided by "faith" is perhaps the primary reason why we have so many problems on this planet.

Jesus quoted “scripture” (the Septuagint) not the bible.

FL is actually a pastor, I believe.

"One clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school board meeting any day!"

FL said: But that's okay--at least we're talking about it. That's more than you can hope for at many mainline/liberal churches!!!!! FL

Robert O'Brien said:

FL said: But that's okay--at least we're talking about it. That's more than you can hope for at many mainline/liberal churches!!!!! FL

Many of those churches are Christian in name only.

FL said: If believing in evolution leads to a person believing that a Christian need not be bound by anything the Bible says, then that's all she wrote in terms of incompatibility.

Mike Elzinga said:

Robert O'Brien said:

FL said: But that's okay--at least we're talking about it. That's more than you can hope for at many mainline/liberal churches!!!!! FL

Many of those churches are Christian in name only.

And as we noted earlier, that attitude is called bigotry.

Robert O'Brien said:

Mike Elzinga said: On the other hand, from a broader perspective of basic animal behavior and evolution, it is simply an alpha male from one territory truculently entering the territories of other alpha males in order to piss on their pissing posts.

Ethology is the modern day equivalent of inspecting bird droppings for omens.

By the way, I do not care if you respect my views because I certainly do not respect yours.

Science Avenger said:

FL said: If believing in evolution leads to a person believing that a Christian need not be bound by anything the Bible says, then that's all she wrote in terms of incompatibility.

Exactly. Now if you can only accept how easy a position that is to take. You act as if, if one only has one source for a person, he must accept that source as 100% accurate with regard to that person. The highly plausible hypothesis that Jesus was indeed a real man (as I do), but that the Bible is not an accurate depiction of him, is discarded out of hand, as if it were obviously absurd. Consider Your Bible worship exposed. Jesus would not approve.

You’ll also notice that FL has never mentioned which passage in the Bible...

FL said: Anyway, it's clear from here that Mann's main question and all the other incompatibilities and problemsthat were brought up earlier, WON'T won't get resolved by the evolutionists at this discussion board.

Nor will I get an Biblical-data-supported answer as to exactly how a literal suffering and atoning death of Christ is warranted by an allegorical, non-historical Fall.

GuyeFaux's original perceptive question will go unanswered likewise.

Robert O'Brien said: Anyway, I refer you to the following, hayseed: Kurt Gödel's Ontological Argument That's the sort of argument that can't be fit in an Erlenmeyer flask.

Eric said:

Robert O'Brien said: Anyway, I refer you to the following, hayseed: Kurt Gödel's Ontological Argument That's the sort of argument that can't be fit in an Erlenmeyer flask.

The ontological argument commits a category mistake. Even if it didn't, it cannot identify any traits of the necessary being so it suffers from the same problem as Pascal's wager: it proves the existence of all contradictory Gods (and Satan!) at the same time. :)

Mike Elzinga said:

Robert O'Brien said:

FL said: But that's okay--at least we're talking about it. That's more than you can hope for at many mainline/liberal churches!!!!! FL

Many of those churches are Christian in name only.

And as we noted earlier, that attitude is called bigotry.

Flint said:

You’ll also notice that FL has never mentioned which passage in the Bible...

But what if he could? Would it matter? If Jesus were quoted directly as saying "someday someone will discover the principles of biological descent, the very understanding of which will bar them from heaven forever", would you choose FL's relentless ignorance just to be safe?

Robert O'Brien said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Robert O'Brien said:

FL said: But that's okay--at least we're talking about it. That's more than you can hope for at many mainline/liberal churches!!!!! FL

Many of those churches are Christian in name only.

And as we noted earlier, that attitude is called bigotry.

Where bigot is defined as "one who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain." Incidentally, their acceptance of common descent is not what marks them as CINO.

Well, since there’s clearly a role for clergy in this ongoing origins and science-education debate, I reckon that maybe it might be worthwhile for a clergyman with a straight collar to get involved as well. That’s currently the direction I’m hoping to increasingly move towards next year.

Obviously there needs to be some kind of quality control in the selection of religious leaders, but given the fragmented and warring history of religion, the possibility of that happening is essentially zero.

I also note that FL didn't bite when called on the infallibility of Jesus himself. So I'll ask: FL, do you recognise that people may divorce for other causes than the adultery of the wife, or don't you? And do you think that the remarriage of divorced people constitutes adultery?

Here's a prediction: If you answer at all, you'll force some existential meaning on the plain words stated at Mark 10:2-10 and Luke 16:18. The alternative, accepting the words literally and acting on them, would make it far more difficult for your church to get the paying customers in. My bet is you won't do that. Congratulations if you do. It at least makes you consistent. Inhuman, unreasonable, foolish, ridiculous and cruel, but consistent.

Do you think that some of the people who heard Jesus' words at Mark 9:1 have not died yet, and are still walking around? Same prediction: you'll force some metaphorical meaning on those words. It will, most likely, be the same meaning that you have denied when discussing death in the context of the Fall - you'll say that Jesus meant spiritual death (whatever that might be), not, you know, ordinary common-or-garden death, as in that ceasing-to-have-a-metabolism thing.

And here's what I find most comical of all: having forced that metaphorical meaning on those words, you'll still insist that the Bible must be read literally.

How about the statement at Matthew 7:13? Most of humanity is hell-bound, said Jesus. And at Matthew 13:40, what Jesus meant by "hell" is unambiguously specified in his own words. Do you believe those words, or not?

A slightly different prediction for this one: you won't say. Either Jesus is wrong, or this loving heavenly father he spoke of is fixing to torture most of us for eternity. This sets up a cognitive dissonance that you won't be able to face, so you'll simply ignore it. Again, congratulations if you do resolve it by accepting what Jesus said. As I said before, at least it's consistent. But a further question, if you can manage it: why would you worship a monster like that?

Apologies to other people. I realise that this is not of any interest to people who are reality-based. I like to think I am too, but I have to admit that what passes in some peoples' minds for reality has an unhealthy fascination for me.

Are you serious? There is a great deal of quality control. There are special schools, there are oral exams, test sermons, apprenticeships, you name it. And all of this superstructure exists to weed out both those who don’t tell the flock what they want to hear, or don’t use entertaining-enough phrasing and oratory in the process. Using the right words is absolutely critical.

Mike Elzinga said:

Robert O'Brien said: Where bigot is defined as "one who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain." Incidentally, their acceptance of common descent is not what marks them as CINO.

Indeed; it's because they don't have your self-righteousness. Yeah, we already knew that.

Robert O'Brien said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Robert O'Brien said: Where bigot is defined as "one who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain." Incidentally, their acceptance of common descent is not what marks them as CINO.

Indeed; it's because they don't have your self-righteousness. Yeah, we already knew that.

You mistake quality control for self-righteousness.

What are the dimensions of evolution? Sin and death from the get-go! How then do we understand the Fall if sin and death were part of God’s original order? And what are we being redeemed (to be bought back) into? Sin and death?

Evolution results in sin and death. I don't like sin and death. Therefore, evolution doesn't happen.

Terrorism results in sin and death. I don't like sin and death. Therefore, terrorism doesn't happen.

Jackelope King said: Tim, my apologies for missing your post. Why should the Garden be allegorical but not God Himself? (Ignoring the slippery-slope fallacy for a moment.) That's up to the reader, the individual Christian to decide. It's faith. That's why there are so many different types of Christianity out there. It's what's kept Biblical scholars debating for centuries. It's what makes the fundamental messages of Christianity so accessible to so many people. The Bible is a book assembled by committee over hundreds of years from texts written over thousands of years by hundreds of different writers in several different languages and then translated a couple of times to boot. It's a wonderful book, but it isn't the end-all be-all of Christianity or the world. Christians can take inspiration from it and learn lessons from it. You needn't take the Bible for anything more than it is, and that doesn't diminish its message or its impact in the slightest.

Mike Elzinga said: ...The basic fantasy behind this is the heroic defender of the faith taking up his sword and shield and proceeding into battle against multiple enemies. Points are won for the deft turn of phrase (i.e., word games) that, in their own minds anyway, turns the enemy’s arguments back on themselves and confounds the enemy into speechlessness and shame. More points are won as the religious warrior “confounds” multiple enemies simultaneously. The warrior, in the minds of his adoring followers, then leaves the battlefield declaring “victory” while imagining the “followers of Satan” howling with pain, guilt, frustration and total defeat. Many of these fantasies are a standard part of the fundamentalist sectarian literature, including alegories like Paul Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, C.S. Lewis’s writings like the Tales of Narnia, and others like the “Left Behind Series”. These allegories are based on interpretations of various passages from their bible about the spiritual journeys of religious heroes and prophets.

Eric said: Interesting Campbell-lite analysis Mike. I'd only add that there aren't any real enemies. The ID warrior tends to see evil giants where there are only windmills.

FL said:

Jesus quoted “scripture” (the Septuagint) not the bible.

I'm tempted to ask Robin, if the Septuagint just happens to be the Greek Old Testament (hence Bible), but I think I've read enough already.

You'd just deny that one as well, I strongly suspect. Besides, you said you agreed with Science Avenger's claim, and such agreement pretty much settles the issue anyway.

(What issue? The issue of whether evolution is compatible with Christianity. If believing in evolution leads to a person believing that a Christian need not be bound by anything the Bible says, then that's all she wrote in terms of incompatibility. )

Dave Luckett said: I also note that FL didn't bite when called on the infallibility of Jesus himself. So I'll ask: FL, do you recognise that people may divorce for other causes than the adultery of the wife, or don't you? And do you think that the remarriage of divorced people constitutes adultery? Here's a prediction: If you answer at all, you'll force some existential meaning on the plain words stated at Mark 10:2-10 and Luke 16:18. The alternative, accepting the words literally and acting on them, would make it far more difficult for your church to get the paying customers in. My bet is you won't do that. Congratulations if you do. It at least makes you consistent. Inhuman, unreasonable, foolish, ridiculous and cruel, but consistent. Do you think that some of the people who heard Jesus' words at Mark 9:1 have not died yet, and are still walking around? Same prediction: you'll force some metaphorical meaning on those words. It will, most likely, be the same meaning that you have denied when discussing death in the context of the Fall - you'll say that Jesus meant spiritual death (whatever that might be), not, you know, ordinary common-or-garden death, as in that ceasing-to-have-a-metabolism thing. And here's what I find most comical of all: having forced that metaphorical meaning on those words, you'll still insist that the Bible must be read literally. How about the statement at Matthew 7:13? Most of humanity is hell-bound, said Jesus. And at Matthew 13:40, what Jesus meant by "hell" is unambiguously specified in his own words. Do you believe those words, or not? A slightly different prediction for this one: you won't say. Either Jesus is wrong, or this loving heavenly father he spoke of is fixing to torture most of us for eternity. This sets up a cognitive dissonance that you won't be able to face, so you'll simply ignore it. Again, congratulations if you do resolve it by accepting what Jesus said. As I said before, at least it's consistent. But a further question, if you can manage it: why would you worship a monster like that? Apologies to other people. I realise that this is not of any interest to people who are reality-based. I like to think I am too, but I have to admit that what passes in some peoples' minds for reality has an unhealthy fascination for me.

But, as I said, the probability of this happening is essentially zero. It’s just one of my pipe dreams.

Dan said: On multiple occasions, FL refers to what he calls Daniel Mann's argument:

What are the dimensions of evolution? Sin and death from the get-go! How then do we understand the Fall if sin and death were part of God’s original order? And what are we being redeemed (to be bought back) into? Sin and death?

This is not an argument. It's not even a meaningful claim. If I asked the question "What are the dimensions of acceleration?" The answer would be "length per time squared". If I asked the question "What are the dimensions of my house?" the answer would be "40 feet by 90 feet". But "What are the dimensions of evolution?" What does that mean? Does "dimensions" mean "consequences," "principles," "presuppositions"? As best I can read meaning into Mann's rambling statement, it means as follows:

Evolution results in sin and death. I don't like sin and death. Therefore, evolution doesn't happen.

(The first sentence happens to be false, but even if it were true it would be irrelevant.) To see precisely how silly this is, compare it to this identical "reasoning":

Terrorism results in sin and death. I don't like sin and death. Therefore, terrorism doesn't happen.

Flint said:

But, as I said, the probability of this happening is essentially zero. It’s just one of my pipe dreams.

But religious organizations in fact DO all the things you list - all the good things as well as all the bad things. The implication is that religion acts more as a lens, or an enabler, or a rationalization, allowing people to justify whatever they choose to focus on. So a lot of people are into peace and altruism and feel good about themselves when they help others, and religion provides them an avenue. And a great many other people are into authoritarian power trips, or the search for nonexistent certainty, and religion enables these as well. So I can't really blame religion per se. Rotten people like FL or O'Brien will find religion a useful rationalization for remaining ignorant and authoritarian, but they'd be rotten people in ANY organization. It's the people who matter, not the vehicles they choose to express their natures.

All this talk from FL about the Bible and he still has not produced one single shred of evidence to support his claim that it is the Word of God, let alone that evolution is not compatible with belief in God or Jesus. If this is what motivates Creationism, it doesn't stand a chance. I could write a book, claim it as the Word of God, and defend it just as well as FL defends the Bible. The reason I don't is that I am not a liar.

Interesting Campbell-lite analysis Mike. I’d only add that there aren’t any real enemies. The ID warrior tends to see evil giants where there are only windmills.

But religious organizations in fact DO all the things you list - all the good things as well as all the bad things.

Flint said: The implication is that religion acts more as a lens, or an enabler, or a rationalization, allowing people to justify whatever they choose to focus on.

That’s been my experience too, especially as religion seems (IMO) less determinative of behavior than culture.

What are the dimensions of evolution? Sin and death from the get-go!

Robin said: It's not so much the Mann is saying that he doesn't like sin and death - it's more (I think) that he feels that sin and death can't be a part of God's original plan. Of course it seems to me that contradicts the very story of A&E. Clearly Eve listening to the serpent and eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is Sin, so clearly Sin was designed from the get go. It may not have been actualized until Eve acted - or perhaps until the serpent acted; isn't guile a sin? - but it was still there to be actualized.

All of which reinforces a point made on this site several times: to the fundamenalist, arguments are made, won, and lost based on exegesis and hermeneutics, not facts and physical evidence. In other words, word games and mind-wanking instead of real work.

Robert O'Brien said: You don't apprehend it [Godel's ontological argument]; just say so.

Eric said: Hmm...your use of nonsensical one-liners makes me think you're a Bobby sockpuppet. But you spell better, so maybe not.

Robert O'Brien said: You don't apprehend it [Godel's ontological argument]; just say so.

Oh I understand it. I also understand that one of Godel's premises is a category error. Existence cannot be a property of 'perfection' or 'goodness,' otherwise the ontological argument also proves the existence of perfect unicorns, perfect fairies, Glenda the Good Witch, etc... But perhaps that escaped you.

Gomer, I am not interested in what you think you learned in philosophy 101.

I am not interested in what you think you learned in philosophy 101. Read this, repeatedly, if necessary:

By the way, I do not care if you respect my views because I certainly do not respect yours.

Mike Elzinga said: Why should anyone here be reading anything you post, let alone reading it repeatedly? What point are you trying to make?

Robert O'Brien has caused trouble elsewhere:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/plonk.php

(((Robert O'Brien

Stupidity, Stupidity, Stupidity, Stupidity, Trolling, Wanking

Automatically Junked

This fellow has an awesome reputation all over the web as one of the dumbest commenters ever. I concur. Has a stupid blog, too. Banned at numerous sites. Mocked everywhere.)))

The ontological argument has as one of its premises the proposition that existing things are more perfect than non-existing things. This notion is quite problematic since it often seems that nothing is as good as you think it is going to be. Indeed, if you buy the idea that existence is a predicate and rather tends to spoil a beautiful possibility, you can easily come to accept the anti-ontological argument:

I have a concept of a being more perfect than any other. However, nothing that actual exists is as good as you think it is going to be. Therefore, if God existed, he would not be more perfect than any other, which contradicts the original premise. It follows that there is no God.

QED

Jim Harrison said: The ontological argument has as one of its premises the proposition that existing things are more perfect than non-existing things. This notion is quite problematic since it often seems that nothing is as good as you think it is going to be. Indeed, if you buy the idea that existence is a predicate and rather tends to spoil a beautiful possibility, you can easily come to accept the anti-ontological argument: I have a concept of a being more perfect than any other. However, nothing that actual exists is as good as you think it is going to be. Therefore, if God existed, he would not be more perfect than any other, which contradicts the original premise. It follows that there is no God. QED

He apparently believes the accounts in his holy book are the definitive history of the universe.

(But I did try a similar stunt on the CARM board not too long ago. It actually turned out pretty good as people on all sides seemed to understand that I was genuinely remaining respectful and thoughtful to everybody despite the volatile and dangerous topic.)

FL said:

"Hey Dave, not ignoring you, but like Robin indicated, "Jesus and divorce" might be "inappropriate" for trying to hash out and drag out in this thread.

For the record, adultery and also abandonment-by-unbelieving-spouse (the latter item was mentioned in one of the Pauline books) are the two grounds for divorce mentioned in the NT, I believe."

We were speaking of the rubric, the actual words of Jesus, not other words. And it's not about divorce, as such, it's about whether you truly accept his actual words. You want us to accept all the words of Scripture as literal. I want to demonstrate that you don't do that yourself, most likely.

"And you might recall that Jesus's own opposition to divorce in Matt. 19:4-6 was directly rooted in the Genesis creation account."

Yes, so it was. I know where Jesus got his take from, and I said he was wrong. I don't accept some of his words. I get to do that, because I'm not a "bible-believing" Christian. You say you are one. Frankly, I doubt you. I think that you, too, are picking and choosing, only you can't bring yourself to admit it.

"So Dave, that's what I really want to stick with, if you know what I mean. The Big Incompatibility."

I know you'd like to do that, FL, but the problem for you is that there's a much larger incompatibility.

True, I am making an assumption out of charity. For all I know, you really do believe that only the wife's adultery is grounds for divorce, that most people are going to burn in actual real hellfire for eternity, and that some of the people Jesus addressed two thousand-odd years ago are still alive. But in charity I don't think you think those things. The first is palpably and grossly callous and unjust; the second is that plus being hideous beyond words; and the third is flat-out insane. I don't think you're crazy or depraved enough to believe those things.

Now, I might be wrong. You might be actually be barking mad, rather than just a little odd. But there's only one way to know. Tell me, FL, do you believe these words of Jesus, or not?

Why do I ask? Why, to cut to the chase. See, here's the thing: if you don't believe them, you've got nothing more to talk about, because your whole literalist schtick falls apart. And if you actually do believe them, we've got nothing more to talk about, because I don't talk to crazy people.

That he wants to make sure that we understand that he’s mean-spirited and has nothing but contempt for people who do not share his points of view?

Mike Elzinga said:

That he wants to make sure that we understand that he’s mean-spirited and has nothing but contempt for people who do not share his points of view?

It’s also pretty clear he has no idea what he is talking about. He is just faking deep knowledge and mysterious inscrutability in an attempt to taunt. Definitely Bathroom Wall material.

FL said: Dan: I do not believe that God created a largely sinful universe at all. ... [YOU] chose to believe in evolution.

Robert O'Brien said:

Eric said: Hmm...your use of nonsensical one-liners makes me think you're a Bobby sockpuppet. But you spell better, so maybe not.

Robert O'Brien said: You don't apprehend it [Godel's ontological argument]; just say so.

Oh I understand it. I also understand that one of Godel's premises is a category error. Existence cannot be a property of 'perfection' or 'goodness,' otherwise the ontological argument also proves the existence of perfect unicorns, perfect fairies, Glenda the Good Witch, etc... But perhaps that escaped you.

Gomer, I am not interested in what you think you learned in philosophy 101. Read this, repeatedly, if necessary: This seems to treat existence as just another property of individuals, such as whether they are wearing red suits or have white beards. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) criticized the ontological argument by stating that existence is not a predicate. That is, existence is not a property of individuals in the same way that being short or red is. It is certainly true that we have to be careful here. If we can arbitrarily add existence as a defining property for an individual, there seems to be no limit to what we can prove to exist. For example, we might define a unicorn as follows: Definition: A unicorn is a four-footed beast resembling a horse having a horn on its head and existing. Thus unicorns exist. By definition. However, this is a parody of Anselm's argument, and doesn't stand up under close examination. Any good mathematician will allow you (within reason) to define your terms any way that you like. So there is nothing wrong with the definition. Can we really show that unicorns exist using this argument? The answer is no. Our definition of a unicorn would only seem to imply that all unicorns exist, or equivalently, that for all x, if x is a unicorn then x exists. However, this statement is trivially true, because it is vacuously satisfied. Anyway, the form of the ontological argument that we have used does not explicitly assume that existence is a predicate. It assumes that the modal status of an individual (the Eiffel tower, say, or the number 17) can be regarded as a property. A number between 16 and 18 exists necessarily, whereas the Eiffel tower exists contingently, and the distinction between the two can be regarded as a property of each. The statements [See http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology1.html] are both true in the domain of natural numbers because natural numbers are Platonic objects. (The latter is also true vacuously.) Both these statements are reasonable mathematically, and parallel to Axiom 2. Therefore Axiom 2 cannot be easily dismissed.

Robert O'Brien said:

Jim Harrison said: The ontological argument has as one of its premises the proposition that existing things are more perfect than non-existing things. This notion is quite problematic since it often seems that nothing is as good as you think it is going to be. Indeed, if you buy the idea that existence is a predicate and rather tends to spoil a beautiful possibility, you can easily come to accept the anti-ontological argument: I have a concept of a being more perfect than any other. However, nothing that actual exists is as good as you think it is going to be. Therefore, if God existed, he would not be more perfect than any other, which contradicts the original premise. It follows that there is no God. QED

You don't apprehend it; just say so.

FL said: Just short shots here and there: ********

He apparently believes the accounts in his holy book are the definitive history of the universe.

True, Mike. After all, they are!! Well, you are certainly welcome to believe whatever you wish. ********

And you might recall that Jesus's own opposition to divorce in Matt. 19:4-6 was directly rooted in the Genesis creation account (he even quotes Genesis's claims as historical fact in order to trump and defeat the historical (Mosaic) argument being offered by his opponents the Pharisees. IOW, Jesus accepted the Genesis creation account as historically accurate---(another item for his followers to consider.)

But THE issue here remains evolution's incompatibility with Christianity, contra the AAAS letter. From the proven incompatibility of Gen. 2:7 and Gen. 2:21-22 with the "common ancestor" claim, to the evolutionists' public (and published) denial of humanity being created in the image of God (Nature, June 2007), to evolutionists' Death-Before-Adam position which clearly and permanently contradicts the key NT passage of Romans 5:12-17, (which Mann's question also pointed to), there exist these heavy incompatibilities.

FL said: Just short shots here and there: ********

He apparently believes the accounts in his holy book are the definitive history of the universe.

True, Mike. After all, they are!!

And you might recall that Jesus's own opposition to divorce in Matt. 19:4-6 was directly rooted in the Genesis creation account (he even quotes Genesis's claims as historical fact in order to trump and defeat the historical (Mosaic) argument being offered by his opponents the Pharisees. IOW, Jesus accepted the Genesis creation account as historically accurate---(another item for his followers to consider.)

But THE issue here remains evolution's incompatibility with Christianity, contra the AAAS letter. From the proven incompatibility of Gen. 2:7 and Gen. 2:21-22 with the "common ancestor" claim, to the evolutionists' public (and published) denial of humanity being created in the image of God (Nature, June 2007), to evolutionists' Death-Before-Adam position which clearly and permanently contradicts the key NT passage of Romans 5:12-17, (which Mann's question also pointed to), there exist these heavy incompatibilities.

Robin said:

Robert O'Brien said:

Eric said: Hmm...your use of nonsensical one-liners makes me think you're a Bobby sockpuppet. But you spell better, so maybe not.

Robert O'Brien said: You don't apprehend it [Godel's ontological argument]; just say so.

Oh I understand it. I also understand that one of Godel's premises is a category error. Existence cannot be a property of 'perfection' or 'goodness,' otherwise the ontological argument also proves the existence of perfect unicorns, perfect fairies, Glenda the Good Witch, etc... But perhaps that escaped you.

Gomer, I am not interested in what you think you learned in philosophy 101. Read this, repeatedly, if necessary: This seems to treat existence as just another property of individuals, such as whether they are wearing red suits or have white beards. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) criticized the ontological argument by stating that existence is not a predicate. That is, existence is not a property of individuals in the same way that being short or red is. It is certainly true that we have to be careful here. If we can arbitrarily add existence as a defining property for an individual, there seems to be no limit to what we can prove to exist. For example, we might define a unicorn as follows: Definition: A unicorn is a four-footed beast resembling a horse having a horn on its head and existing. Thus unicorns exist. By definition. However, this is a parody of Anselm's argument, and doesn't stand up under close examination. Any good mathematician will allow you (within reason) to define your terms any way that you like. So there is nothing wrong with the definition. Can we really show that unicorns exist using this argument? The answer is no. Our definition of a unicorn would only seem to imply that all unicorns exist, or equivalently, that for all x, if x is a unicorn then x exists. However, this statement is trivially true, because it is vacuously satisfied. Anyway, the form of the ontological argument that we have used does not explicitly assume that existence is a predicate. It assumes that the modal status of an individual (the Eiffel tower, say, or the number 17) can be regarded as a property. A number between 16 and 18 exists necessarily, whereas the Eiffel tower exists contingently, and the distinction between the two can be regarded as a property of each. The statements [See http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology1.html] are both true in the domain of natural numbers because natural numbers are Platonic objects. (The latter is also true vacuously.) Both these statements are reasonable mathematically, and parallel to Axiom 2. Therefore Axiom 2 cannot be easily dismissed.

GAAAAAAHHH!!! Not only is this O'Brien clown plagiarizing, he's plagiarizing the idiot Alvin Plantinga! This guy's idea of philosphy is 'well a circular argument is the best since a circle is a perfect, complete shape.' Clearly "Gomer" here is used to pretending that he's educated in philosophy. For some of us who are actually educated in the discipline, however, such plagiarism, nevermind the subject matter, speaks for itself. Oh...and what's really funny is O'Brien seems completely unaware that this piece by Plantinga doesn't even address Eric's point, but whatever...Clearly Mr. O'Brien doesn't understand Plantinga, Goedel, or Anslem. Pity...

Robin said: Oh...and what's really funny is O'Brien seems completely unaware that this piece by Plantinga doesn't even address Eric's point, but whatever...Clearly Mr. O'Brien doesn't understand Plantinga, Goedel, or Anslem. Pity...

Eric said: Robin, I didn't realize he was plaigerizing, thanks for picking up on that.

Eric said: Robin, I didn't realize he was plaigerizing, thanks for picking up on that. His post actually does address my point - but doesn't solve it. It just adds a turtle to the stack. The original form of the argument commits the error of treating "exists" as a property like "blue" (O'brien's right about that). Godel punts it back a step by saying contingency/necessity is a property like blue, and then further along saying that necessity includes physical existence. But you still have the same issues. Original problem 1: just because I describe an entity as existing doesn't make it so. New problem 1: just because I describe an entity as necessary doesn't make it so. Original problem 2: multiple contradictory entities can be proven using this argument. New problem 2: multiple contradictory entities can still be proven using this argument. The typical theist dodge that there can be only one necessary being is circular in that it lists as a premise one of the things it is trying to prove (monotheism).

I also find it wierd that biblical literalists use the ontological argument. Literalists generally believe that Jesus was perfect, and that Jesus died and no longer exists as a physical entity (though he might again). Those two statements AND the ontological proof can't all be true at the same time. Something's gotta be wrong - the bible story taken literally, the proof, or Jesus' perfection.

Robert O'Brien said:

Mike Elzinga said:

That he wants to make sure that we understand that he’s mean-spirited and has nothing but contempt for people who do not share his points of view?

It’s also pretty clear he has no idea what he is talking about. He is just faking deep knowledge and mysterious inscrutability in an attempt to taunt. Definitely Bathroom Wall material.

When it comes to mathematics (which includes Gödel's ontological proof), I most certainly know what I am talking about. Not all of us settle for the low road of biology, yokel.

Robin said: Ahh...ok. Thank you. Just curious, but what determines necessity? Clearly God is not necessary in any objective sense, or at least no more so than unicorns, so on what basis is necessity determined?

I must apologize. O’Brien didn’t plagarize Plantinga since he referred to his source for the statement. Chris Smalls, it seems, copied a great deal of Plantinga in his little essay on the subject and O’Brien merely quotes Smalls. My apologies for the plagiarism accusation.

I also find it wierd that biblical literalists use the ontological argument. Literalists generally believe that Jesus was perfect, and that Jesus died and no longer exists as a physical entity (though he might again). Those two statements AND the ontological proof can’t all be true at the same time. Something’s gotta be wrong - the bible story taken literally, the proof, or Jesus’ perfection.

Eric said:

Robin said: Ahh...ok. Thank you. Just curious, but what determines necessity? Clearly God is not necessary in any objective sense, or at least no more so than unicorns, so on what basis is necessity determined?

Perfection determines necessity. You've identified the parallel flaw between the old and new ontological proof. Both assume in the premises that the property you're considering (before: existence, now: necessity) is part of what it means to be perfect. The concept of God is as a perfect being (so the story goes), therefore, he must have that property. As I said, Godel just adds a turtle to the pile. Instead of Perfect -> Exists its now Perfect -> Necessary -> Exists. The modal argument also mistakes a very useful philosophical construct (the alternate universe description of modality) for reality. As concepts, contingency and necessity can be conveniently described and manipulated by thinking about possible universes: contingent = exists in at least one; necessary = exists in all or none. But this is not the only way one can define necessity and contingency, and the fact that this is a useful way of thinking about 'contingency' and 'necessity' does not mean that there really are alternate or parallel universes. Eric

Robin said:

Robert O'Brien said: Gomer, I am not interested in what you think you learned in philosophy 101. Read this, repeatedly, if necessary: This seems to treat existence as just another property of individuals, such as whether they are wearing red suits or have white beards. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) criticized the ontological argument by stating that existence is not a predicate. That is, existence is not a property of individuals in the same way that being short or red is. It is certainly true that we have to be careful here. If we can arbitrarily add existence as a defining property for an individual, there seems to be no limit to what we can prove to exist. For example, we might define a unicorn as follows: Definition: A unicorn is a four-footed beast resembling a horse having a horn on its head and existing. Thus unicorns exist. By definition. However, this is a parody of Anselm's argument, and doesn't stand up under close examination. Any good mathematician will allow you (within reason) to define your terms any way that you like. So there is nothing wrong with the definition. Can we really show that unicorns exist using this argument? The answer is no. Our definition of a unicorn would only seem to imply that all unicorns exist, or equivalently, that for all x, if x is a unicorn then x exists. However, this statement is trivially true, because it is vacuously satisfied. Anyway, the form of the ontological argument that we have used does not explicitly assume that existence is a predicate. It assumes that the modal status of an individual (the Eiffel tower, say, or the number 17) can be regarded as a property. A number between 16 and 18 exists necessarily, whereas the Eiffel tower exists contingently, and the distinction between the two can be regarded as a property of each. The statements [See http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology1.html] are both true in the domain of natural numbers because natural numbers are Platonic objects. (The latter is also true vacuously.) Both these statements are reasonable mathematically, and parallel to Axiom 2. Therefore Axiom 2 cannot be easily dismissed.

GAAAAAAHHH!!! Not only is this O'Brien clown plagiarizing, he's plagiarizing the idiot Alvin Plantinga! This guy's idea of philosphy is 'well a circular argument is the best since a circle is a perfect, complete shape.' Clearly "Gomer" here is used to pretending that he's educated in philosophy. For some of us who are actually educated in the discipline, however, such plagiarism, nevermind the subject matter, speaks for itself. Oh...and what's really funny is O'Brien seems completely unaware that this piece by Plantinga doesn't even address Eric's point, but whatever...Clearly Mr. O'Brien doesn't understand Plantinga, Goedel, or Anslem. Pity...

Robin said:

Robert O'Brien said: You don't apprehend it; just say so.

Translation: "Well, I really don't have a response, so I'll make a boastful evasion." Snnnnoooorrre...Sorry O'Brien, but given that the ontological argument is just so much fallacious reasoning and since you have no capacity to defend it, your bluff has no validity. I'd suggest taking it back to those folks on the net who are impressed that you can copy such big words...

Ontological arguments are the most powerful testimony for how far desire can push the intellect to believe patently absurd things.

Science Avenger said: Ontological arguments are the most powerful testimony for how far desire can push the intellect to believe patently absurd things.

Science Avenger said: Ontological arguments are the most powerful testimony for how far desire can push the intellect to believe patently absurd things.

Mike Elzinga said:

Science Avenger said: Ontological arguments are the most powerful testimony for how far desire can push the intellect to believe patently absurd things.

It is also one of the topics used in those “intellectual games” that pseudo-intellects play in their attempts to impress and intimidate others. Quantum mechanics, relativity, thermodynamics, and cosmology are some of their other favorites. Boring.

Mike Elzinga said: Whenever they do this, they stumble into one of the problems they are never able to answer, namely, how are they able to detect the supernatural. What evidence do they have for the supernatural? How does any natural evidence connect to the supernatural? Is the evidence supernatural? If so, how do they connect to it?

Mike Elzinga said:

Science Avenger said: Ontological arguments are the most powerful testimony for how far desire can push the intellect to believe patently absurd things.

It is also one of the topics used in those “intellectual games” that pseudo-intellects play in their attempts to impress and intimidate others. Quantum mechanics, relativity, thermodynamics, and cosmology are some of their other favorites. Boring.

If you think all actuaries do is look at actuarial tables O'Brien, then add actuarial work to the many things on which you ignorance has been demonstrated. Glancing at Wiki definitions can't substitute for actual knowledge, despite how much people like you and Sal Cordova wish it could.

Robert O'Brien said:

Mike Elzinga said: Whenever they do this, they stumble into one of the problems they are never able to answer, namely, how are they able to detect the supernatural. What evidence do they have for the supernatural? How does any natural evidence connect to the supernatural? Is the evidence supernatural? If so, how do they connect to it?

How does one detect e^i(pi)? How does one detect a martingale? A narrow empiricism is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Robert O'Brien said: A narrow empiricism is the hobgoblin of small minds.

I am a statistician

Mike Elzinga said:

I am a statistician

That seems improbable, given the fact that all you seem to be capable of doing is taunting, name-calling, and cutting and pasting the writings of others. Perhaps you could use your “superior intellect” to explain to us poor “mathphobes” just why it is permissible to conflate the meaning of the word “existence” as it is used in mathematics when talking about mathematical objects and their interrelationships with the word “existence” as it is use in talking about things like the Hawaiian Islands or electrons or electromagnetic radiation. I claim you can’t do it. Your reputation precedes you.

Mike Elzinga said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Science Avenger said: Ontological arguments are the most powerful testimony for how far desire can push the intellect to believe patently absurd things.

It is also one of the topics used in those “intellectual games” that pseudo-intellects play in their attempts to impress and intimidate others. Quantum mechanics, relativity, thermodynamics, and cosmology are some of their other favorites. Boring.

Apparently I forgot pseudo-math.

Science Avenger said:

Robert O'Brien said:

Mike Elzinga said: Whenever they do this, they stumble into one of the problems they are never able to answer, namely, how are they able to detect the supernatural. What evidence do they have for the supernatural? How does any natural evidence connect to the supernatural? Is the evidence supernatural? If so, how do they connect to it?

How does one detect e^i(pi)? How does one detect a martingale? A narrow empiricism is the hobgoblin of small minds.

As opposed to answering legitimate questions with moronic ones? Then again O'Brien, I yield to you as the expert on what it's like to have a small mind.

Robert O'Brien said: How does one detect e^i(pi)? How does one detect a martingale?

Robert O'Brien said:

Mike Elzinga said:

I am a statistician

That seems improbable, given the fact that all you seem to be capable of doing is taunting, name-calling, and cutting and pasting the writings of others. Perhaps you could use your “superior intellect” to explain to us poor “mathphobes” just why it is permissible to conflate the meaning of the word “existence” as it is used in mathematics when talking about mathematical objects and their interrelationships with the word “existence” as it is use in talking about things like the Hawaiian Islands or electrons or electromagnetic radiation. I claim you can’t do it. Your reputation precedes you.

I suggest you learn the difference between contingent beings and necessary beings.

Robert O'Brien said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Robert O'Brien said:

Mike Elzinga said: I claim you can’t do it. Your reputation precedes you.

I suggest you learn the difference between contingent beings and necessary beings.

Q.E.D. (yet again)

If you were not such a low-watt bulb, you would have realized without me holding your hand that the existence of Hawaii is contingent. By way of contrast, if God exists then He necessarily exists.

Actually it is easy to detect e^i(pi), martingales and other objects in the universe, physical or conceptual. One need only recognize “I’m hungry” as the basis of rationality. For “I’m hungry” is the basis for everything. It also reveals that such concepts as biblical Gods, sin, ontological arguments, and hobgoblins are but figments of the imagination.

I agree with St. Thomas the vast majority of philosophers theistic and non theistic that the ontological argument just doesn't work. It might be a way of understanding a god you already believe in, but it is quite unconvincing to if you don't believe or if, like me, you think that confusing abstract notions about formal absolutes with anything anybody ever worshiped is just a category mistake. For various reasons, I don't believe in the Gods of the philosophers; but I'm damned sure none of 'em are named Yahweh or Allah even if they do exist in some sense.

Eric said:

Robert O'Brien said: How does one detect e^i(pi)? How does one detect a martingale?

With my eyes? I personally find my nose is not discriminating enough to use my sense of smell to detect mathematical relations.

Robert O'Brien said:

Mike Elzinga said: Q.E.D. (this is really getting boring)

Then stop engaging me dimbulb. I have no patience for pseudomaths.

Robert O'Brien said:

Mike Elzinga said: Q.E.D. (this is really getting boring)

Then stop engaging me dimbulb. I have no patience for pseudomaths.

Robert O'Brien said:

Robin said: Actually it is easy to detect e^i(pi), martingales and other objects in the universe, physical or conceptual. One need only recognize "I'm hungry" as the basis of rationality. For "I'm hungry" is the basis for everything. It also reveals that such concepts as biblical Gods, sin, ontological arguments, and hobgoblins are but figments of the imagination.

Quit while you are behind, dimbulb.

Robert O'Brien said: I suggest you learn the difference between contingent beings and necessary beings.

Robert O'Brien said:

Stanton said: You do realize that this forum/blog is to discuss evolutionary biology, and not math or pseudomath, right?

I do indeed. If I had not been engaged by people who think they understand Gödel's ontological argument, but don't and by people who think they can read, but can't (really, how much brain power is required to click on a link and see who the author of an excerpt is) then this exchange would have passed away already.

Robert O'Brien said:

Eric said:

Robert O'Brien said: I suggest you learn the difference between contingent beings and necessary beings.

Godel's ontological argument has been unconvincing to logicians for 30+ years. So, you've either not kept up on philosophical research since the 1970s, or you're a bad logician, or you're intentionally using arguments you know to be false. The fourth option is that you have some additional material that answers his critics. Lets just say, though, I'm not waiting on that last possibility with bated breath. In any event, bringing up Godel's proof here and now is about as convincing as the magnetic field decay argument. Unles you've got something new to add, there's no reason to take it out of the dustbin.

Dumb ass, Tell that to C. Anthony Anderson, Alonzo Church's student. Also tell it to Dana Scott, Gödel's student, who stated it was logically sound.

Dumb ass, Tell that to C. Anthony Anderson, Alonzo Church’s student. Also tell it to Dana Scott, Gödel’s student, who stated it was logically sound.

Mike Elzinga said:

Dumb ass, Tell that to C. Anthony Anderson, Alonzo Church’s student. Also tell it to Dana Scott, Gödel’s student, who stated it was logically sound.

But you are no judge of this since you yourself can’t explain it. That means you don’t understand it. So you seem to be mixed up about who is the dumb ass.

Robert O'Brien said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Dumb ass, Tell that to C. Anthony Anderson, Alonzo Church’s student. Also tell it to Dana Scott, Gödel’s student, who stated it was logically sound.

But you are no judge of this since you yourself can’t explain it. That means you don’t understand it. So you seem to be mixed up about who is the dumb ass.

I don't teach remedial students, sorry.

And just what was the reason you waltzed in here and jerked the thread off the rails?

Robert O'Brien said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Dumb ass, Tell that to C. Anthony Anderson, Alonzo Church’s student. Also tell it to Dana Scott, Gödel’s student, who stated it was logically sound.

But you are no judge of this since you yourself can’t explain it. That means you don’t understand it. So you seem to be mixed up about who is the dumb ass.

I don't teach remedial students, sorry.

… but you are not remotely a logician.

You want us to accept all the words of Scripture as literal.

The Bible must be taken literally unless the context indicates otherwise. -- Ross, "Ten Major Simimilarities Between Calendar-Day and Day-Age Creationists."

The Bible is inerrant in all disciplines of scholarship. The universe was both transcendentally and supernaturally created. Naturalism cannot explain the origin of life. Naturalism cannot entirely explain the history of life, nor can theistic evolution. Naturalism cannot entirely explain the geophysical history of the earth. Naturalism cannot explain entirely the astrophysical history of the universe and solar system. Genesis 1 is both factual and chronological in its content. It describes God’s "very good" creation in the space of six days. Adam and Eve were a literal couple created by God just thousands of years ago. All human beings owe their descent to Adam and Eve. ---astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross

The Bible must be taken literally unless the context indicates otherwise. – Ross, “Ten Major Simimilarities Between Calendar-Day and Day-Age Creationists.”

GuyeFaux said:

The Bible must be taken literally unless the context indicates otherwise. – Ross, “Ten Major Simimilarities Between Calendar-Day and Day-Age Creationists.”

Does "context" include or exclude reality?

Anyway, that position is (briefly):

The Bible must be taken literally unless the context indicates otherwise. – Ross, “Ten Major Simimilarities Between Calendar-Day and Day-Age Creationists.”

Mike Elzinga said: What evidence do you have that makes you right?

GuyeFaux said:

The Bible must be taken literally unless the context indicates otherwise. – Ross, “Ten Major Simimilarities Between Calendar-Day and Day-Age Creationists.”

Does "context" include or exclude reality?

Robert O'Brien said: I am a statistician and I know what actuaries do bubba. It's pretty boring no matter which way you look at it.

Stanton said:

Mike Elzinga said: What evidence do you have that makes you right?

Because FL said so, that's his evidence.

FL said:

You want us to accept all the words of Scripture as literal.

Hey, that's not quite true. Instead, I share Dr. Hugh Ross's position. Yeah, he's an Old Earth Creationist and I'm a YEC not an OEC---but that's okay, because it's actually going to take all three forces (YEC OEC and ID) to defeat Darwinism.

Stanton said:

FL said:

You want us to accept all the words of Scripture as literal.

Hey, that's not quite true. Instead, I share Dr. Hugh Ross's position. Yeah, he's an Old Earth Creationist and I'm a YEC not an OEC---but that's okay, because it's actually going to take all three forces (YEC OEC and ID) to defeat Darwinism.

Explain to us again how Creationism/Intelligent Design is a science, and how Creationism/Intelligent Design explains the diversity of life, and the mechanics of the diversity of life better than the Theories of Evolution. Oh, wait, you never bothered to do that before.

FL can't answer and won't answer. He knows he can't resolve the inconsistencies to be found in scripture, not even those within the rubric of Jesus's quoted words. He can't even think about it. Oh, he might talk knowingly about "context" as if it gave him a way of denying the plain meaning of the words, but he can't really think about it. He'll try every evasion and misdirection known to man, as above, and finally he'll either flee or he'll pull his trump card: he'll say that he leaves such things to God, and shut thought down completely.

Real thought about it would mean coming face-to-face with those inconsistencies, like a God who loves us but is going to torture most of us for eternity. He knows that way lies madness, and (give him his due) he's not actually mad. So he just can't go there.

I'm sorry for him. Making no-go areas out of parts of your own mind is a sad and inadequate reaction to the real glory of the Universe. It demeans, cripples and impoverishes him. And evangelising - which is what he's doing here - means brutally exposing those disabilities to people outside his sect, and sometimes they call him on them. No wonder he gets more and more angry with these people. They're not only denying revealed truth, they're actually hurting him. It's righteous anger, of course. Any other sort would be a sin.

Righteous anger. Hmm. If it's righteous, shouldn't it be acted on?

Oh dear.

Mike Elzinga said: It is intriguing how the word evidence always goes right over their heads unnoticed. There is nothing in their neural systems that responds to that concept.

They have no idea what evolution is, but they know they hate it and want to kill it and anyone who understands it.

Pinky: Gee, Brain, what are we going to do tonight? Brain: The same thing we do every night. Try to take over the world!!!!

FL said:

They have no idea what evolution is, but they know they hate it and want to kill it and anyone who understands it.

Oh, that's just the beginning, Mike.....

Pinky: Gee, Brain, what are we going to do tonight? Brain: The same thing we do every night. Try to take over the world!!!!

Darth FL

FL said: Just short shots here and there: ********

He apparently believes the accounts in his holy book are the definitive history of the universe.

True, Mike. After all, they are!!

Stanton said:

Mike Elzinga said: What evidence do you have that makes you right?

Because FL said so, that's his evidence.

FL said:

You want us to accept all the words of Scripture as literal.

Hey, that's not quite true. Instead, I share Dr. Hugh Ross's position. Yeah, he's an Old Earth Creationist and I'm a YEC not an OEC---but that's okay, because it's actually going to take all three forces (YEC OEC and ID) to defeat Darwinism.

Dale Husband said:

FL said:

You want us to accept all the words of Scripture as literal.

Hey, that's not quite true. Instead, I share Dr. Hugh Ross's position. Yeah, he's an Old Earth Creationist and I'm a YEC not an OEC---but that's okay, because it's actually going to take all three forces (YEC OEC and ID) to defeat Darwinism.

No, what would defeat Darwinism, scientifically speaking, is disproving it, not using the masses' fear of God, Satan, or the "Christian" cult leaders to mislead them. And you can't disprove evolution with strawman type arguments, either! Seriously, FL, do you EVER tell the TRUTH?!

Earlier I said: No, what would defeat Darwinism, scientifically speaking, is disproving it...

Dale Husband said:

Earlier I said: No, what would defeat Darwinism, scientifically speaking, is disproving it...

And a common response of anti-evolutionists is that evolution is NOT falsifiable.

[...] (certainly not a species, they admit). So they move the goalposts to suggest a larger limit, maybe a genus or a family, ignoring the fact that all the designations of taxonomy are HUMAN inventions, not objectively supported. What we call a "family", a "class" or a "kingdom" is entirely arbitrary.

If you have an opinion why this particular word is more difficult than other similar words (e.g. experience), please let me know. I am aware that it is akin to asking to explain the universe and give two examples.

I hope you don’t mind me taking the evidence in discussion. You have presented essentially the same argument many times before.

The song "You've Got to be Carefully Taught" is from "South Pacific", Rogers and Hammerstein. A great song, and a great musical.

Mike Elzinga said: The vast majorities of children are curious about the natural world and are very excited about dinosaurs and animals and all sorts of things. This curiosity continues if it is not stymied by punishment, fear, or other negative emotions.

Fear seems to be the primary leverage fundamentalist sects have on their followers.

As I type this, I have in front of me a letter written by a woman to the editor of our local newspaper. It’s a long letter full of anguish and fear of what will happen to children exposed to evolution. In fact it is grotesquely maudlin in its tone. The list of damages evolution will cause children is long and includes “confusion, stress, racism, promiscuity, STD’s, suicide, murders, homosexuality, discouragement and despair, atheism, malnourishment, drug education, addictions,” the list goes on. She wants the “hurtful courses out and God back in” and return to the children “the sweet mystery of life”.

My apologies for sounding like a stuck record.

Mr O'Brien, could you provide a link to any forum where you 1) garner any respect whatsoever from the other participants; 2) construct any substantial argument in your own words; or 3) engage in conversation of any kind without peppering your contributions with tepid insults ("hayseed", "dimbulb", etc.) that probably wouldn't even get the Beav in trouble with Ward and June?

You seem to think very highly of your own intellect, but refuse to provide any evidence you have one.

FL said: ... Instead, I share Dr. Hugh Ross's position. Yeah, he's an Old Earth Creationist and I'm a YEC not an OEC---but that's okay, because it's actually going to take all three forces (YEC OEC and ID) to defeat Darwinism. ...

Dave Luckett said: The song "You've Got to be Carefully Taught" is from "South Pacific", Rogers and Hammerstein. A great song, and a great musical.

Stanton said:

Science Avenger said:

FL said: If believing in evolution leads to a person believing that a Christian need not be bound by anything the Bible says, then that's all she wrote in terms of incompatibility.

Exactly. Now if you can only accept how easy a position that is to take. You act as if, if one only has one source for a person, he must accept that source as 100% accurate with regard to that person. The highly plausible hypothesis that Jesus was indeed a real man (as I do), but that the Bible is not an accurate depiction of him, is discarded out of hand, as if it were obviously absurd. Consider Your Bible worship exposed. Jesus would not approve.

You'll also notice that FL has never mentioned which passage in the Bible where Jesus specifically stated that a person is automatically disqualified from accepting salvation simply because he or she accepts the fact that "descent with modification" has been occurring in the real world for millions of generations. And you'll also notice that FL has also never mentioned which passage in the Bible where Jesus specifically stated that a person is automatically disqualified from accepting salvation if he or she did not interpret the Bible literally, especially if it means rejecting reality in order to do so.

Robert O'Brien said:

Jim Harrison said: The ontological argument has as one of its premises the proposition that existing things are more perfect than non-existing things. This notion is quite problematic since it often seems that nothing is as good as you think it is going to be. Indeed, if you buy the idea that existence is a predicate and rather tends to spoil a beautiful possibility, you can easily come to accept the anti-ontological argument: I have a concept of a being more perfect than any other. However, nothing that actual exists is as good as you think it is going to be. Therefore, if God existed, he would not be more perfect than any other, which contradicts the original premise. It follows that there is no God. QED

You don't apprehend it; just say so.

SWT said: Hmmmm ....

FL said: ... Instead, I share Dr. Hugh Ross's position. Yeah, he's an Old Earth Creationist and I'm a YEC not an OEC---but that's okay, because it's actually going to take all three forces (YEC OEC and ID) to defeat Darwinism. ...

It was correctly noted above that the way to overturn evolutionary theory is through scientific evidence, not through philosophy or theology. Even so, for the sake of discussion, let's say that somehow the forces of YEC, OEC, and ID managed to "defeat Darwinism." Obviously ID, which is just a cover for creationism in general, fall by the wayside immediately as the old argument from design that is used by YEC and OEC alike. We're then left with YEC and OEC, and two interesting questions (at least interesting to me): 1) You're left with two accounts with significant incompatibilities, even though each account is claimed to be historically accurate and the result of correct readings of scripture. How will these incompatibilities be resolved to establish which belief is correct? 2) The complete Bible as used by Christians has been available for nearly two millenia. Since YEC and OEC are based on readings of the Bible with no extrascriptural evidence, why hasn't this incompatibility already been resolved? Seriously, isn't a dozen centuries long enough to work out which proposed "historical" account is correct?

Eric Finn said: I am having problems with classification. In which folder should I store a document in order to find it two months later. In fact, I hated biology at school, because it consisted almost entirely of learning classifications. I hope things have changed since. I find it interesting to ponder what the limits of biological evolution might be. Random mutations and natural selection are strongly coupled. We are not going to see flying elephants on the planet Earth. Multiple simultaneous mutations are indeed improbable, but pieces of DNA duplicate frequently and move around creating potential for altered proteins. "Irreducible complexity" was thus predicted some 90 years ago using evolutionary theory. Regards Eric

Dale Husband said: Now it seems that, based on the analysis of DNA and protein sequences from the various organisms, that the whole concept of "kingdom", handed down to us from Carolus Linnaeus, has become meaningless.

Silly.. thats right after the statement that the Universe is only 6000 years old.

Dale Husband: Thus I would say that Darwin’s theory of evolution, supported as it is by scientific evidence rather than theological argument, is the main thing keeping our civilization from imploding from religious fanaticism, keeping that evil in check.

I now propose that this system be abandoned completely. Even today, biologists have a tendency to create sub-divisions within the established groups to make finer distinctions among organisms, such as sub-phylum, sub-order, or even sub-species.

Shouldn't "clades" be in the spell checker?

FL said:

You want us to accept all the words of Scripture as literal.

Hey, that's not quite true. Instead, I share Dr. Hugh Ross's position. Yeah, he's an Old Earth Creationist and I'm a YEC not an OEC---but that's okay, because it's actually going to take all three forces (YEC OEC and ID) to defeat Darwinism. Anyway, that position is (briefly):

The Bible must be taken literally unless the context indicates otherwise. -- Ross, "Ten Major Simimilarities Between Calendar-Day and Day-Age Creationists."

So that's my position WRT "biblical literalism." It's NOT a gig of "accept all the words of Scripture as literal" but instead it's what Ross said. Btw, here are the rest of those similarities. Doesn't mean that OEC's and YEC's agree on everything (Ross has also written "Ten Major Differences" as well, and there's more than just ten), but honestly this is some good stuff. At least there's some worthwhile common ground there for YEC's and OEC's to discuss and work on.

The Bible is inerrant in all disciplines of scholarship. The universe was both transcendentally and supernaturally created. Naturalism cannot explain the origin of life. Naturalism cannot entirely explain the history of life, nor can theistic evolution. Naturalism cannot entirely explain the geophysical history of the earth. Naturalism cannot explain entirely the astrophysical history of the universe and solar system. Genesis 1 is both factual and chronological in its content. It describes God’s "very good" creation in the space of six days. Adam and Eve were a literal couple created by God just thousands of years ago. All human beings owe their descent to Adam and Eve. ---astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross

Consider accepting these statements in your own study of the Bible and Genesis. You can't go wrong! FL :)

Ooooo! I love it when the OEC nutbags and the YEC nutbags duke it out to see whose bag is nuttier. *goes to get popcorn*

Wolfhound said: Ooooo! I love it when the OEC nutbags and the YEC nutbags duke it out to see whose bag is nuttier. *goes to get popcorn*

The Bible must be taken literally unless the context indicates otherwise. – Ross, “Ten Major Simimilarities Between Calendar-Day and Day-Age Creationists.”

Henry J said:

Dale Husband: Thus I would say that Darwin’s theory of evolution, supported as it is by scientific evidence rather than theological argument, is the main thing keeping our civilization from imploding from religious fanaticism, keeping that evil in check.

Missing preposition inserted where I suspect you wanted it. Henry

Robert O'Brien said: FL, I believe you mean well, but please step into the 19th century and abandon the absurdity that is YEC.

You notice how none of the trolls on this thread have made any effort to say whether or not they approve of how "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" promotes the idea that there should be, if not already, conflict between religion and science, and, they haven't spoken on whether or not they agree with Ben Stein's statement of "science leads us to killing people"?

Dale Husband said:

Robert O'Brien said: FL, I believe you mean well, but please step into the 19th century and abandon the absurdity that is YEC.

Look who's talking! Why don't YOU step into the 21st century and abandon Creationism altogether! Until you do, you are no better than FL.

Robert O'Brien said:

Dale Husband said:

Robert O'Brien said: FL, I believe you mean well, but please step into the 19th century and abandon the absurdity that is YEC.

Look who's talking! Why don't YOU step into the 21st century and abandon Creationism altogether! Until you do, you are no better than FL.

Sorry, but the evidence proffered for common descent is inferior to the evidence for a billions-year-old earth. And the mathematics and statistics I use situates me in the 21st century.

Stanton said: You notice how none of the trolls on this thread have made any effort to say whether or not they approve of how "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" promotes the idea that there should be, if not already, conflict between religion and science, and, they haven't spoken on whether or not they agree with Ben Stein's statement of "science leads us to killing people"?

Dale Husband said: Have you REALLY examined the evidence for common descent? I think not. If you think fossils are the only evidence, you couldn't be more wrong.

Robert O'Brien said:

Dale Husband said: Have you REALLY examined the evidence for common descent? I think not. If you think fossils are the only evidence, you couldn't be more wrong.

Ah, yes, there is genetic commonality, endogenous retroviruses, and "nested hierarchies." Whoopty [expletive] doo!

Dale Husband said:

Robert O'Brien said:

Dale Husband said: Have you REALLY examined the evidence for common descent? I think not. If you think fossils are the only evidence, you couldn't be more wrong.

Ah, yes, there is genetic commonality, endogenous retroviruses, and "nested hierarchies." Whoopty [expletive] doo!

Good, then you can no longer claim that the evidence for common descent is "inferior" to that for a billions year old Earth. Indeed, the concept of "inferior" when it comes to evidence is meaningless. You could say the evidence is "insufficient" to establish commen descent beyond a reasonable doubt, but you'd still by lying.

So, Robert O'Brain: If common descent is not true, how do you explain things like "genetic commonality, endogenous retroviruses, and “nested hierarchies.”" Inquiring minds want to know! LOL!!!

Robert O'Brien said: I can say it and I will say it. The evidence for theories in the physical sciences is superior.

Dale Husband said: If common descent is not true, how do you explain things like "genetic commonality, endogenous retroviruses, and “nested hierarchies.”" Inquiring minds want to know! LOL!!!

Robert O'Brien said:

Dale Husband said: Please tell me you were joking here:

Robert O'Brien said: I can say it and I will say it. The evidence for theories in the physical sciences is superior.

No, I was quite serious, lunkhead.

Dale Husband said: Biology is not a physical science?

No, it is a life science, lunkhead.

Robert O'Brien said:

Dale Husband said: If common descent is not true, how do you explain things like "genetic commonality, endogenous retroviruses, and “nested hierarchies.”" Inquiring minds want to know! LOL!!!

Genetic commonality is easy: same designer.

Robert O'Brien said:

Dale Husband said: If common descent is not true, how do you explain things like "genetic commonality, endogenous retroviruses, and “nested hierarchies.”" Inquiring minds want to know! LOL!!!

Genetic commonality is easy: same designer.

Actually, Physics and Chemistry would be classed by me as "parent" sciences that lack a historical element because they deal solely with the scientific laws that define the interactions between matter and energy, not with past events. And all scientific laws must be tested and confirmed by the scientific method. I define Geology, Biology, and Astronomy as "children" sciences that incorporate physics and chemistry and all their laws, but have a historical element. In "natural history" the physical and chemical laws would be applied to deep time to both propose and test hypotheses. Nothing that violates any of the known scientific laws would be accepted as scientific, not even in the historical element of the "children" sciences. So when people claim that "natural history" and "science" are two completely different things, they express only their incredible ignorance. I hope that clears up your confusion, Robert O'Brien.

Sorry, but the evidence proffered for common descent is inferior to the evidence for a billions-year-old earth. And the mathematics and statistics I use situates me in the 21st century

Stanton said:

Robert O'Brien said:

Dale Husband said: If common descent is not true, how do you explain things like "genetic commonality, endogenous retroviruses, and “nested hierarchies.”" Inquiring minds want to know! LOL!!!

Genetic commonality is easy: same designer.

Then explain why all of the current proponents of "Designed" life have never bothered to formally identify "Design" in living and extinct organisms, or even formally propose a method to identify "Design" in living and extinct organisms.

Robert O'Brien said:

Dale Husband said: If common descent is not true, how do you explain things like "genetic commonality, endogenous retroviruses, and “nested hierarchies.”" Inquiring minds want to know! LOL!!!

Genetic commonality is easy: same designer.

It's funny that Robert opposes YEC and fails to apply the same arguments to a position of ID which is far less 'scientific' than YEC since YEC makes scientific claims which are just plain wrong, ID fails to make any positive predictions.

Robert O'Brien said: I don't teach remedial students, sorry.

Like most Creationist trolls, O'Brain runs away whenever he is refuted by simple logic. Some progress! The entertainment he provides only goes so far before it gets tedious. Please ban him!

Flush.... Clean up cycle commencing
Flush.... Clean up cycle completed

Stay on topic please