Biblical contradictions.

Jet writes:

---

Please refer me to the post where I stated that "my views" should be taught as science.

---

You're just playing semantic games. By "your views" I obviously meant Creationism.The question is, if science is based upon building frameworks of understand around bodies of information and evidence, while your approach is based upon revelation, prayer and reflection, then how can you claim your views, ie, Creationism, should be taught as science?--Percy

Your association of evolution with Adolf Hitler has two problems:

• You've already conceded a theory's validity is not a function of the morality of those who accept it, and so your signoff cannot be construed as a valid debating point.
  ​
• It is offensive and inflammatory.

On a scale of offensiveness, characterization of ignoring scientific evidence and theory as ignorant and narrow minded, an intellectual assessment in what is hopefully an intellectual debate, doesn't even register on a scale that associates acceptance of evolution with Adolf Hitler, which is a moral assessment.As has already been pointed out, Hitler also said, "By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." Quoting can go both ways, and to the degree that Hitler was an evolutionist he was also a Christian.It's okay to keep the Hitler quote if you delete the "Darwinian Evolutionist" part, or perhaps you could change it to "Darwinian Evolutionist and Christian." But your Jastrow quote by itself is really all you need. You've got some line breaks in it that you might want to eliminate.--Percy

Jet writes:

---

There is enough information in the book of Job alone to justify teaching Creationism.

---

When asked how you knew something was so, you said through reading the Bible, through prayer to God for understanding and enlightenment, and through doing so daily.So using your example of the book of Job, if your interpretation of it is based upon revelation, reflection and prayer, how can that qualify as science, since science is based upon evidence?--Percy

Thank you - much appreciated!--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator

Jet writes:

---

If science is based solely on a hands-on, physical type of "evidence"...

---

I just said evidence, plain old evidence. Evidence is that which is apparent in some way to the five senses. Evidence could be something you can hold in your bare hands, or it could be ancient photons from a distant galaxy impinging upon the eye, or even just on optical sensors.Anyway, the original question was, if your interpretations are based upon revelation, reflection and prayer, how can that qualify as science, since science is based upon evidence?--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 05-28-2002]

Jet writes:

---

I do not attempt to interpret the Bible, per se, as the Bible interprets itself quite nicely.

---

Isn't this different from what you said earlier? I asked how you know you have the correct interpretation of the Bible, and you said study, prayer, etc.While the Bible may have no trouble interpreting itself, humans have much difficulty with Biblical interpretation, as there is a wide variety of opinion. How do you decide whose interpretation is correct?--Percy

This is beside the point, but I'll address it in the name of accuracy:

xxx writes:

---

At the end of the book of Job (chapter 38-41) is an amazing and very revealing piece of literature, for it claims to be the direct word of God proclaiming the wonders of his creation to Job and his friends. If this segment of writing is what is says it is, then we would expect to find some pretty amazing scientific insight. And that's exactly what we find:

​

"Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades? Can you loose the chords of Orion?" Job 38:31

---

If you ask anyone what this passage means in an astronomical sense, they would not say it means that the Pleiades are moving together while the stars of Orion's Belt are moving independently. This is yet another example of ambiguity being the father of many thoughts.Also significant is that the Pleiades are not "bound together" as you stated. Even the observations of Trumpler make this clear when he likens them to a flock of birds.The Pleiades is a cluster of relatively young stars formed from the same stellar nebula. They are in relative close proximity to each other right now, but their actual motions are not "bound together" except by normal gravity, and the cluster will cease to be within 250 million years or so as the individual stars gradually scatter their separate ways.But the original question wasn't whether a particular interpretation of Job yields an observation consistent with modern astronomy, but rather how interpretations based upon revelation, study, reflection and prayer can be considered scientific.--Percy

Jet writes:

---

The argument you are attempting to use is circular.

---

I think you must mean repetitive, not circular. It could only be circular if in successively addressing points I return to my original argument. If you peruse the messages you'll see I ask the same question in about the same words in each one.

---

Through intense study of Gods' Holy Word, mingled with fervent prayer, and accepting the guidance and revelation that is provided by the Holy Spirit, the erroneous interpretations that abound are made self evident.

---

And yet different interpretations abound! Millions of humble souls study the Bible, pray, accept the guidance and revelation of the Holy Spirit, only in the end to arrive at a variety of conclusions.Something must be amiss with your approach, and hence the question that I keep repeating. How do you decide whose interpretation is correct?--Percy

Philip writes:

---

After absolute Gospel interpretation is ‘reached’, the Bible becomes non-cantankerous debate regarding the details: i.e., YEC vs OEC vs ToE vs ToM (theory of mega-mutants), etc.; wherein everyone has a different perspective.

---

Both YECs and OECs cite the Bible as a fundamental source. YECs cite Genesis 1-2 in support of an the earth only a few thousand years old, while OECs cite the very same Genesis in support of an earth billions of years old.How do you decide whose interpretation is correct?--Percy

Jet writes:

---

In a previous post, I offered you some verses from Job that clearly point out a scientific understanding of some stars/constellations that science has only recently been able to verify. Rather than accept something that is obvious to even the novice student, you choose rather to dismiss it out of hand.

---

Actually, I provided a detailed answer in message 168 of this thread, and you haven't yet replied. But I felt your Job quote was a side issue. The important question was how interpretations based upon revelation, study, reflection and prayer rather than evidence could be considered scientific.

Percy writes:

---

Millions of humble souls study the Bible, pray, accept the guidance and revelation of the Holy Spirit, only in the end to arrive at a variety of conclusions.

---

Jet replies:

---

This is a rather vague statement. Are you attempting to suggest that "Millions of humble souls study the Bible, pray, accept the guidance and revelation of the Holy Spirit", only to arrive at different conclusions as to how creation occurred and who the Creator is?

---

I thought the topic was the Bible and science. The different conclusions I refer to are YEC, OEC, ID and any sub-varieties or hybrids.So one person studies the Bible, prays, accepts the guidance and revelation of the Holy Spirit, and in the end concludes the earth is 5000 years old and had a vapor canopy.Someone else does precisely the same and concludes the world is 10,000 years old and the flood was fed from glaciers.The people from Reasons to Believe do the same, ie, study, pray, accept the guidance and revelation of the Holy Spirit, and conlude the earth is billions of years old.Michael Behe does the same and concludes that many microbiological structures must be due to an Intelligent Designer.How do you decide which Biblical interpretation is correct?--Percy

This brings us back to my original point from many posts ago, that the various viewpoints of Creationism are personal and subjective rather than evidence based and thus have no place in science class.I know I keep hitting on this rather narrow point, but it's at the very center of the debate. The only reason for the public Creation/Evolution debate is evangelical efforts to teach Creationist views in science classrooms. Absent these efforts there would be little public attention paid to these private religious beliefs.So your characterization of Creationist views on origins is extremely significant, since any Creationist concessions that their views are personal and religious rather than objective and scientific is tantmount to a concession of defeat.--Percy

I think I said at the outset, if not in this thread then in a very similar one, that my interest in the Creation/Evolution debate stems from Creationist efforts to have their views represented in public school science classrooms. Creationism exists solely to legitimize as science an inherently religious viewpoint. I probably have nothing worthwhile to disagree about with those who do not support these efforts.So would it be correct to say that you do not want Creationist views taught in public school science classrooms? If so then I'm surprised, because I thought the point of many of your posts, for example the one about Job, was that the Bible contains scientific information, which is traditional Creationist fair.--Percy

Oh, I see. Your view is that while Creationism isn't scientific, neither is evolution.But why do you think evolution is rooted in religious beliefs? Many Creationists accuse evolution of being inherently atheistic, and it's not uncommon for new members to think that evolutionists don't believe in God. How can there be an atheistic philosophy rooted in religious beliefs? I wish Creationists would make up their minds.--Percy

Jet writes:

---

Are you seriously suggesting that one creationist speaks for the entire body of creationist thinking?

---

No, I'm lamenting that no Creationist can!You can ask any evolutionist the simple definition of evolution, and he'll tell you, in his own words of course, that it is descent with modification and natural selection. You can ask any Christian, or even me, the simple definition of Christianity, and he will tell you, again in his own words, that it is the saving grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. But ask a Creationist the simple definition of Creationism and you could get any number of contradictory answers.I would love to be in the audience if two different Creationist groups ever petition at a public school board meeting at the same time. Imagine the board's reaction as IDers and YECs both claim to represent the Creationism that should be taught in science class.

---

They prefer to think of evolution as being purely scientific even though it cannot possibly hope to exist within a truly scientific realm.

---

This is a funny statement to make given that that is exactly where it is firmly ensconced.

---

Everyone should be familiar with the terms "Mother Earth", "Father Sky", and "Spirit Winds" along with numerous other references which are the result of, or extensions of, earlier pagan beliefs in evolutionary thought.

---

The possibility of species evolution only arose in the early 19th century, and it's a pretty safe bet these phrases predate that century, and their relationship to evolution is probably apparent to no one but you. You'll have to explain why you believe the existence of these phrases means that evolution has pagan roots.--Percy

Except for you pinning the evolutionist adjective on them, these ancients have no relationship whatsoever to evolutionary theory.In order to make your point, I think you have to show how the early developers of evolutionary thought drew upon the ideas of those you mention and incorporated those ideas into evolutionary theory.Another question would be what concepts in modern evolutionary theory can you demonstrate are pagan in origin?--Percy