Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reasons for Creationist Persistence
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 151 of 220 (395828)
04-18-2007 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Buzsaw
04-17-2007 9:41 PM


Re: Pride
Excuse me, Buz, but what the hell are you talking about!? And why are you quoting somebody else and falsely claim those words to be mine?
I do not recall ever having written any of what you attributed to me, nor could I find any of it in the message that you are allegedly responding to.
I have no patience with false accusations. Straighten up this mess that you just made. Turn to, mister!
Edited by dwise1, : cleaned up HTML

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Buzsaw, posted 04-17-2007 9:41 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-18-2007 8:38 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 152 of 220 (395868)
04-18-2007 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by dwise1
04-18-2007 1:08 AM


Re: misattribution
Buz in Message 149 is really responding to ReverendDG in Message 142.
His post attributes RevDG's comments to dwise1 in Message 143.
___

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by dwise1, posted 04-18-2007 1:08 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 153 of 220 (395869)
04-18-2007 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Buzsaw
04-17-2007 8:54 PM


Re: small reminder Buz -- creo not equal to IDer
Buzsaw writes:
Everyone from Percy and Jar to YECs have referred to themselves as creationists in that they believe in a supreme god who somehow have been involved in the process of creation.
This excerpt from Wikipedia characterizes how we use the term creationism at EvC Forum:
Wikipedia on Creationism writes:
Creationism has come to be most strongly associated with the branch of Christian fundamentalism in which the book of Genesis is held to provide absolute truths about the creation of kinds of life and often, in more literal faiths, the age of the universe and of the earth.
Another way of looking at is that here at EvC Forum, and at all other venues where this debate takes place, creationism is just the short form for Biblical creationism. I have advised Jar a couple of times in the past that his preferred definition of creationism, though legitimate, is not the one we're using here. Certainly the name of this site (EvC stands for Evolution versus Creationism) would make no sense if we used Jar's definition, since evolution is not in opposition to his definition.
Discussion of definitions should be confined to threads designated for that purpose. In all other threads, the definition of creationism is as I've described.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Buzsaw, posted 04-17-2007 8:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 154 of 220 (395878)
04-18-2007 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Buzsaw
04-17-2007 9:08 PM


Energy And Cucumber Sandwiches
Colossians 1:
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Colossians 1:15-20 is where I got this from. Read it and you will have to conclude that it includes all energy, imo.
What is there in this passage that means that I have to believe that "no energy was ever created"; and yet I can still believe that cucumber sandwiches were created?
---
I might add that your position is theologically unorthodox: God can create as much energy as he wants, he's omnipotent.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Buzsaw, posted 04-17-2007 9:08 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Pete OS
Junior Member (Idle past 6099 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 04-26-2007


Message 155 of 220 (399126)
05-04-2007 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
04-06-2007 1:34 PM


don't be too hard on us
I am writing in without having read all 11 pages (I got to about 4). I wish to answer the original question from the standpoint of a laymen creationist (ie, not Morris or Ham or anyone on their perspective staffs).
I am an evangelical Christian who until very recently did not accept evolution. After a YEC speaker came to my church and did a 12 part series, I decided to investigate for myself the claims of evolution. What I quickly learned was that I had been ignorant of most of the actual evidence for evolution. Having learned predominantly from opponents in the past, I did not actually know what evidence biologists (often Christian biologist) actually believed there was. I am aware of my own limitations in biology, so I still will not make claims on my own understanding of evolution, but I am about 85% convinced now that it did take place.
I will now tell my own personal experience as a creationist. While it is antidotal, I think it is normative of at least a sizable population of Christians. We deny evolution because we are ignorant of the facts, and it is very very important to us. "Ignorant" is a word with a lot of negative connotations, but the truth is I am ignorant of about 99% of what there is to know. I don't know anything about celebrities, cars, Latin, Nebraska, or 2nd century Chinese history. But I also don't care about those things. I am (or was) ignorant about real evolutionary biology, but I do care very much that the Bible is true. It is pretty much nonnegotiable for us conservatives.
But it doesn't stop there. We have these organizations of scientists who are not ignorant (or so we suppose). AiG, Morris, Johnson, Behe, etc. And they are very good at getting their resources distributed. And much of it is very convincing, especially to us who are untrained to understand a good deal of it, and are ignorant of the expansive literature on the subject. We are told it is a theory in crisis, that "hundreds" of biologists are being persuaded every day that it is false, etc. They are good Christian men, who talk about Jesus; are we are predisposed to believe what they say.
So please, don't be too hard on us. We aren't stupid. We aren't even THAT biased (though we are biased of course). We are just not in a good position. And furthermore, we CARE more then the average Joe Shmoo who lives in America, who is more interested in Football than science. So when we show up at their door to argue the point, we have our pamphlets and small fact books in hand, and at that moment we do indeed "know" more then them, even though what we believe might be false. But since they have no answer to our claims, we are all the more encouraged that we are right. I know many hard working, honest, kind, young earth creationist. There problem is not their honestly. The problem is that they usually study theology, not biology, unless it is coming from AiG.
For some reason too, we have an over abundance of engineers in our midst. A lot of engineers seem to think they are as competent to do scientific research in another field as an actual scientist in that field. Perhaps because they had to take some science courses (at least a few intro courses such as physics and chemistry). In general, engineers are very intelligent people, just as intelligent as most scientists. We might confuse that with actual knowledge in a field. I am an engineer. I have a master's degree from Stanford University in Electrical Engineering. And yet I will admit that I didn't REALLY understand the scientific method until after I had that degree. I personally don't think education in America teaches students how science works or how to do science very well. Instead it tends to just present the results. Likewise, my last biology course was in high school. I will say this though for us engineers. Most of us must have taken Thermodynamics. I did, and for that reason I never understood the creationist objection to evolution using the second law.
Now as an evangelical Christian who accepts evolution I plan on trying to help others who may be struggling with this issue. I don’t expect vast droves of Christians to be persuaded, but I will at least attempt to get them to examine the evidence clearly and help them see it is not just a matter of presuppositions, atheism, or conspiracies. But likewise the evolutionary community needs to be patient with us. Stop all the sarcasm and ridicule and offer your evidence with humility and patience. I recognize that you receive the same treatment from us, and we need to stop as well. Poor treatment from you only reinforces our belief that you are motivated by immorality and a lack of love for God. Poor treatment from us only reinforces for you that we are motivated by ignorance, bigotry, and close mindedness. I think it would do both sides good to be more patient with each other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 04-06-2007 1:34 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Nighttrain, posted 05-04-2007 4:23 AM Pete OS has replied
 Message 157 by Nighttrain, posted 05-04-2007 4:24 AM Pete OS has not replied
 Message 158 by RickJB, posted 05-04-2007 4:49 AM Pete OS has not replied
 Message 159 by Woodsy, posted 05-04-2007 7:28 AM Pete OS has replied
 Message 160 by Percy, posted 05-04-2007 9:20 AM Pete OS has replied
 Message 161 by jar, posted 05-04-2007 10:15 AM Pete OS has not replied
 Message 162 by nator, posted 05-04-2007 11:17 AM Pete OS has replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 156 of 220 (399132)
05-04-2007 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Pete OS
05-04-2007 1:41 AM


Re: don't be too hard on us
Hi, Pete, some of the most patient people I have ever encountered are here at EvC.They explain the 'facts' at length and frequently. However, coming up against what can only be called stupidity, time after time, can wear down the best intentions. Here we have the best-educated generations in history, and the best that a lot of religious posters can do is parrot some site they visited. Whatever happened to checking your facts? We have books on every subject known to man, and many are set up on the Internet. So excuses for ignorance are pretty paltry. Same with honesty that you mention. Where is the honesty in re-distributing lies? If a poster is too lazy to research his/her material, why should she/he be offended if the correct information is indicated? Why depart in a huff because the posts are shown for what they are? Staying with sites that merely 'tickle your ears' won`t expand your knowledge or correct misconceptions.
Some engineers are regarded on debate sites like these as being as ignorant as--um--creationists. Put the two together and you have entrenched ignorance. Visit sites like Panda`s Thumb, Talk Origins, Aetiology and see how they regard engineers. Even creationist biologists like Behe get a towelling. One would think if biology is beyond an engineer`s ken, he would at least grasp the essentials of geology. While geology might have passing relevance to evolution, it sure gives creationist dogma a shaking.
Keep up with the search as the world needs more earnest seekers. Who knows, maybe one day we might meet on an atheist bench. :-p

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Pete OS, posted 05-04-2007 1:41 AM Pete OS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Pete OS, posted 05-04-2007 12:59 PM Nighttrain has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 157 of 220 (399133)
05-04-2007 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Pete OS
05-04-2007 1:41 AM


Re: don't be too hard on us
Hi, Pete, some of the most patient people I have ever encountered are here at EvC.They explain the 'facts' at length and frequently. However, coming up against what can only be called stupidity, time after time, can wear down the best intentions. Here we have the best-educated generations in history, and the best that a lot of religious posters can do is parrot some site they visited. Whatever happened to checking your facts? We have books on every subject known to man, and many are set up on the Internet. So excuses for ignorance are pretty paltry. Same with honesty that you mention. Where is the honesty in re-distributing lies? If a poster is too lazy to research his/her material, why should she/he be offended if the correct information is indicated? Why depart in a huff because the posts are shown for what they are? Staying with sites that merely 'tickle your ears' won`t expand your knowledge or correct misconceptions.
Some engineers are regarded on debate sites like these as being as ignorant as--um--creationists. Put the two together and you have entrenched ignorance. Visit sites like Panda`s Thumb, Talk Origins, Aetiology and see how they regard engineers. Even creationist biologists like Behe get a towelling. One would think if biology is beyond an engineer`s ken, he would at least grasp the essentials of geology. While geology might have passing relevance to evolution, it sure gives creationist dogma a shaking.
Keep up with the search as the world needs more earnest seekers. Who knows, maybe one day we might meet on an atheist bench. :-p

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Pete OS, posted 05-04-2007 1:41 AM Pete OS has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 158 of 220 (399134)
05-04-2007 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Pete OS
05-04-2007 1:41 AM


Re: don't be too hard on us
Hi Pete,
Just popped out of my usual lurking cheetah mode to complement you on a good post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Pete OS, posted 05-04-2007 1:41 AM Pete OS has not replied

  
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 159 of 220 (399141)
05-04-2007 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Pete OS
05-04-2007 1:41 AM


Re: don't be too hard on us
That was a very interesting, helpful and clear post. Thank you for that.
What puzzles me most is that evangelical leaders feel justified in lieing to their followers. Even though their mistakes are pointed out, they continue to spread misinformation. I would be grateful if you would give us some idea how they find themselves able to do this, and what they hope to gain by it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Pete OS, posted 05-04-2007 1:41 AM Pete OS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Pete OS, posted 05-04-2007 1:03 PM Woodsy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 160 of 220 (399146)
05-04-2007 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Pete OS
05-04-2007 1:41 AM


Re: don't be too hard on us
Pete OS writes:
Now as an evangelical Christian who accepts evolution I plan on trying to help others who may be struggling with this issue. I don’t expect vast droves of Christians to be persuaded, but I will at least attempt to get them to examine the evidence clearly and help them see it is not just a matter of presuppositions, atheism, or conspiracies.
Perhaps I can interest you in starting with Rob. (click on the link for a list of threads in which he is participating)
But likewise the evolutionary community needs to be patient with us. Stop all the sarcasm and ridicule and offer your evidence with humility and patience. I recognize that you receive the same treatment from us, and we need to stop as well. Poor treatment from you only reinforces our belief that you are motivated by immorality and a lack of love for God. Poor treatment from us only reinforces for you that we are motivated by ignorance, bigotry, and close mindedness. I think it would do both sides good to be more patient with each other.
I understand what you're saying, put placing it in the context of this thread's topic, creationists don't persist in advocating the teaching of creationism at school board meetings or the passing of laws requiring some treatment of creationism in public schools because they're treated poorly by evolutionists at discussion boards. It must stem from something else.
Laws affecting the teaching of evolution have been struck down in federal court several times, most recently in Dover, Pa., but advocacy for creationism before school boards, text book publishers and legislatures continues. This persistence isn't because of ill treatment by evolutionists, who wouldn't even give creationism a second thought were it not for these efforts. I don't think it matters much to most evolutionists what religious beliefs others might happen to hold. What they care about are misrepresentations of science, and they care even more about efforts to actually teach our children these misrepresentations. Creationists engage in these efforts not because of evolutionist misbehavior but because science contradicts evangelical religious beliefs and so is viewed as a threat to faith which must be confronted, and so that is what creationists do.
Where you could probably make the greatest contribution is by explaining how you reconcile your religious beliefs with your scientific understanding, but even great lights like Francis Collins (he of the Human Genome Project) have attempted this and fallen considerably short. Wikipedia includes a summary of his book (The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief), and it all makes perfect scientific sense until you arrive at point 6 ("But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature.") This has no supporting scientific evidence whatsoever and leaves us wondering where the reconciliation is. Perhaps you could take us through your own reconciliation.
If it helps, I'm a deist myself, of the Martin Gardener variety. While I believe in a deity (I even know what he looks like, his picture's on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel), I also understand I have no scientific support for that belief. I believe on faith, which by definition means not having reasons for what you believe. I believe, I don't know why, I know it makes no rational sense, but I believe nonetheless, and that is that.
Oh, and I'm also an engineer!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Pete OS, posted 05-04-2007 1:41 AM Pete OS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Pete OS, posted 05-04-2007 1:07 PM Percy has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 161 of 220 (399168)
05-04-2007 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Pete OS
05-04-2007 1:41 AM


Re: don't be too hard on us
Welcome Home.!

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Pete OS, posted 05-04-2007 1:41 AM Pete OS has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 162 of 220 (399185)
05-04-2007 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Pete OS
05-04-2007 1:41 AM


Re: don't be too hard on us
quote:
AiG, Morris, Johnson, Behe, etc. And they are very good at getting their resources distributed. And much of it is very convincing, especially to us who are untrained to understand a good deal of it, and are ignorant of the expansive literature on the subject. We are told it is a theory in crisis, that "hundreds" of biologists are being persuaded every day that it is false, etc. They are good Christian men, who talk about Jesus; are we are predisposed to believe what they say.
But are they really "good Christian men" if they lie, distort the evidence, misquote scientists, and fail to correct their errors even when they are publically shown to be wrong?
I mean, the whole idea of Creation "science" is just a crass attempt at dressing up biblical literalism in a lab coat and getting it to hold a beaker in it's hand to make religion appear scientific.
There is no reason to do this other than to make their extreme version of Christianity more palatable to people in a modern age where science provides us with so many answers to questions that previously were attributed to "Goddidit".
The only conclusion is that they are completely deluded or believe that "Lying for Jesus" is perfectly fine.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Pete OS, posted 05-04-2007 1:41 AM Pete OS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Pete OS, posted 05-04-2007 1:09 PM nator has not replied

  
Pete OS
Junior Member (Idle past 6099 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 04-26-2007


Message 163 of 220 (399207)
05-04-2007 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Nighttrain
05-04-2007 4:23 AM


Re: don't be too hard on us
Nighttrain writes:
However, coming up against what can only be called stupidity, time after time, can wear down the best intentions.
Well, I didn't mean to imply it was going to be easy
Nighttrain writes:
Whatever happened to checking your facts? We have books on every subject known to man, and many are set up on the Internet. So excuses for ignorance are pretty paltry.
At this point I would like to separate the leaders of the creation movement from everyday believers The laymen simply aren't going to check their facts, they wouldn't know how if they wanted to. Even if they had the time and energy to go to a library and check out scientific journals, they probably wouldn't know what they were reading anyway. But as for the creationist leaders, I agree, they have no excuse for not checking their references and at least responding to refutations to their claims.
Nighttrain writes:
If a poster is too lazy to research his/her material, why should she/he be offended if the correct information is indicated? ... Staying with sites that merely 'tickle your ears' won`t expand your knowledge or correct misconceptions.
I agree completely.
Nighttrain writes:
Some engineers are regarded on debate sites like these as being as ignorant as--um--creationists. Put the two together and you have entrenched ignorance. Visit sites like Panda`s Thumb, Talk Origins, Aetiology and see how they regard engineers.
Hey(!), watch it. I'm an engineer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Nighttrain, posted 05-04-2007 4:23 AM Nighttrain has not replied

  
Pete OS
Junior Member (Idle past 6099 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 04-26-2007


Message 164 of 220 (399208)
05-04-2007 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Woodsy
05-04-2007 7:28 AM


Re: don't be too hard on us
Woodsy writes:
What puzzles me most is that evangelical leaders feel justified in lieing to their followers. Even though their mistakes are pointed out, they continue to spread misinformation. I would be grateful if you would give us some idea how they find themselves able to do this, and what they hope to gain by it.
When you say evangelical leaders, I'm assuming you mean the leaders of the creationist movement itself. When I hear evangelical leaders I'm thinking of the more prominent pastors like John MacArthur, John Piper, maybe even Rick Warren. They might take a hard line on creationism but they will admit it is scriptural and admit ignorance in the science. They themselves will trust that to the creation science leaders.
But as for creation science leaders, I must admit being puzzled myself. It would be foolish for me to think that by studying the issue for six months, I now understand evolution better then Ken Ham who has been studying it for decades. Likewise Daune Gish, who has a real Ph.D. in biochemistry from Berkeley. But as for people like Ham and Morris; all I can say is that I don't think they are lying, and I think they truly believe what they are saying. I also think they truly believe they are fighting for the cause of the faith (to bring lost people to Jesus and to bring up our own children in the faith) by defending the Bible, and therefor the creation story. In his book, “Finding Darwin's God” Kenneth Miller relates a conversation he had with Morris the day after a debate with the man. I'm afraid I don't have the text in front of me so I will have to paraphrase the story and quote. Miller thought he had so uprooted Morris's claims the night before, that it must be obvious to Morris that he was wrong. So he asked him if he (Miller asked Morris) REALLY believed this stuff. He was halfway expecting Morris to admit with a wink that it was partly a show for money. Morris replies (and this is really foggy in my mind so don't quote me on this), “you know science can be wrong. . . somethings are just to important to be left to science...” I think this might characterize a lot of the staff at ICR and AiG. I close this by noting that Morris has denied that what he is quoted as saying in the book was actually how the conversation unfolded.
Now as for people Daune Gish; after reading some about his methods, and the multiple year long debacle over bullfrog and chicken proteins, I think maybe he is just spreading false information. He certainly doesn't go out of his way to verify his facts. I don't know the man personally, so this is stepping out on a limb, but I think he really enjoys the fame he has among conservative Christians on the lecture and debate circuit. Convincing untrained and ignorant audiences who already agree with you is fairly easy, and that has probably made him very confident over the years.
Hovind and Baugh? I hesitate to call anyone a scam artist without solid proof, but with the way they push their materials for sale and promote their phony degrees... All I have to say: lots of ego and little actual training or research.
The ID movement people are slightly different, and don't seem to have a consistent party line. It seems to me that most accept an old earth. Likewise, I think many (at least Denton) agree that evolution took place! I read about two thirds of “Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals who find Darwinism unconvincing” and it appeared to me that a good many of the contributing authors agreed that evolution had taken place, they were just attacking the supposed naturalism of it all. While I'm sure with enough training I will find this unconvincing as well, but at this point I had no issue with them. All I have been convinced of is that evolution has taken place, not HOW. Indeed, all I have really been convinced of is that all mammals and reptiles share a common ancestor. I haven't gotten around to studying any evidence for anything previous to this moment in history. We can save the whole naturalism discussion for another time. I think the way Iders set it up is false dichotomy, I think I side more with Kenneth Miller on this point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Woodsy, posted 05-04-2007 7:28 AM Woodsy has not replied

  
Pete OS
Junior Member (Idle past 6099 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 04-26-2007


Message 165 of 220 (399209)
05-04-2007 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Percy
05-04-2007 9:20 AM


Re: don't be too hard on us
Percy writes:
I understand what you're saying, put placing it in the context of this thread's topic, creationists don't persist in advocating the teaching of creationism at school board meetings or the passing of laws requiring some treatment of creationism in public schools because they're treated poorly by evolutionists at discussion boards. It must stem from something else.
I didn't mean to imply they are driven solely by their treatment from evolutionists. I was just saying it wasn't helpful. As I have articulated in replying to a few others above, I think they are truly driven to defend the Bible as it is an important cornerstone in their faith in Jesus Christ. And within their culture, accepting it as literal is the only option.
But you bring up a good point about the whole public school thing. In a way, the creationist simply don't fight fair. Instead of trying to dialog with scientists (and yes, they claim the scientist are biased against them and won't print them in peer-review journals), they take a back door through politics and local populations. That must be very frustrating to the scientific community. If quack medicine practicers were to try to push some homemade remedy into our public schools nurse's office, circumnavigating the medical community and using their propaganda on local school boards, I would be irate. But I will say this; I have read a few pages on AiG where they discuss there mission to reach the general population. As silly as this sounds to us, they truly believe mainstream scientists are closed minded and/or protecting their career, and that only the general population will truly be receptive to the TRUTH.
Where you could probably make the greatest contribution is by explaining how you reconcile your religious beliefs with your scientific understanding
If you mean whether I can prove God via science or elsewhere, then you are right that I can't and I thank you for giving me the out with Collins even before you finished your sentence If great minds like his, or indeed, all the great minds throughout history have failed then I have nothing to offer. Personally, I still have faith (not just a belief in; but a trust in) Jesus to save me from my sins. And as far as God's existence, beginning to believe in evolution did not change my belief in God at all. I have no philosophical hang-ups over God creating me from slime (as so many creationists like to ridicule). Its a more exciting story to unravel anyway. I would agree with you that I have no real scientific support for my faith, though I wouldn't go as far as to say it is completely without evidence. My evidence for believing in Jesus is not only from my own relationship with him, but from the changed lives of people around me who come to know Jesus. Attitudes change, addictions are dropped, tempers are subdued, and in general I see people who after coming to peace with God and likewise with themselves, become loving and at peace with others. Now, Gardener and especially Michael Spencer will take me to task for those statements because I have not actually set up a controlled study on the matter.
If your asking how I reconcile my views of science with my views of inerrancy of the Bible...well, if you have seen a few other threads I have started such as “How Literal is Genesis” in the Faith and Belief forum; you can see I haven't arrived at that yet. It has only been a handful of months since I started concerning myself with it.
Edited by Pete OS, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Percy, posted 05-04-2007 9:20 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by RAZD, posted 05-04-2007 2:01 PM Pete OS has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024