Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 4:30 PM
34 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (9 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,865 Year: 8,901/19,786 Month: 1,323/2,119 Week: 83/576 Day: 83/50 Hour: 2/20


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123456
7
Author Topic:   Verifying truth in science - is evolution faith-based?
jar
Member
Posts: 30980
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 91 of 104 (397760)
04-27-2007 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Garrett
04-27-2007 4:15 PM


Re: Wow...all I can say is wow.
Whom do you refer to when you say Christianity?

All of Christianity outside the Christian Cult of Ignorance. In fact, I provided you with a link to an open letter signed by over 10,000 US Christian Clergy that support the Teaching of the TOE and oppose Biblical Creationism.

No church I've ever gone to beleives this.

I don't doubt that. The Christian Cult of Ignorance is big in the US and primarily led by Christian Pastors.

You suggest I study A Catechism of Creation for a contemporary view of creation? LOL, from what perspective.

From the perspective of someone searching for truth, of course.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Garrett, posted 04-27-2007 4:15 PM Garrett has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Garrett, posted 04-27-2007 4:38 PM jar has responded

  
Garrett
Member (Idle past 4329 days)
Posts: 111
From: Dallas, TX
Joined: 02-10-2006


Message 92 of 104 (397764)
04-27-2007 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by jar
04-27-2007 4:25 PM


Re: Wow...all I can say is wow.
I'm afraid you're missing the point. The fact that over 10,000 US Clergy signed off on the TOE doesn't support your statement that "Christianity" has abandonded the Genesis account. Further, it certainly doesn't add any validity to the theory itself...I mean they aren't even scientists.

Here is a list of people who are not only christians, but also scientists who support YEC:

Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology

I personally find both of our lists unimpressive and pointless really.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by jar, posted 04-27-2007 4:25 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by AdminWounded, posted 04-27-2007 5:41 PM Garrett has not yet responded
 Message 95 by jar, posted 04-27-2007 5:53 PM Garrett has not yet responded
 Message 96 by Cthulhu, posted 04-27-2007 8:28 PM Garrett has not yet responded
 Message 98 by sidelined, posted 04-27-2007 8:57 PM Garrett has not yet responded
 Message 102 by cavediver, posted 04-28-2007 9:15 AM Garrett has not yet responded

  
AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 104 (397783)
04-27-2007 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Garrett
04-27-2007 4:38 PM


Re: Wow...all I can say is wow.
Could you please replace that list with a link. As you yourself say it is pointless so why waste half a page of thread on it.

TTFN,

AW


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Garrett, posted 04-27-2007 4:38 PM Garrett has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4035 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 94 of 104 (397787)
04-27-2007 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Garrett
04-27-2007 3:12 PM


The major problem with your assertion is that the Creationist model can also be said to be broadly supported by evidence. We all have the same evidence, it's just a matter of interpretation based on presuppositions.

It would be a fascinating excercise for you to present this putative "creation model" and contrast it with biology. You'd be the first ever to put together a coherent model that explains all the facts that you claim are open to "interpretation". Unfortunately, it is probably off-topic for this thread. Perhaps you could propose a new topic by presenting this so-called "model"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Garrett, posted 04-27-2007 3:12 PM Garrett has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30980
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 95 of 104 (397788)
04-27-2007 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Garrett
04-27-2007 4:38 PM


Re: Wow...all I can say is wow.
LOL

There are two major differences between our posts.

A major one is that YEC is simply wrong, false, a lie.

That is FACT.

It really is that simple.

Second, there is NO Creation Science. Not one of the people you mention has ever contributed anything in the realm of Science that is based on the Bible. The Bible has NEVER added anything to man's scientific knowledge or understanding.

If you can present a single scientific advance, a single new scientific insight, that has come from the Bible, we will be happy to consider it.

YEC is just false. It is a lie. Teaching it is simply encouraging ignorance and is, in fact, Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, an act of Hubris and a denial of God's gift of a mind capable of Critical Thought.

I'm afraid you're missing the point. The fact that over 10,000 US Clergy signed off on the TOE doesn't support your statement that "Christianity" has abandonded the Genesis account.

Of course I did not assert that Christianity abandoned the Genesis myths. I even provided you a link to explain the significance of those tales. But they are NOT of scientific or historical merit. From both scientific and historical perspective, they are simply wrong, false, incorrect, flawed, irrelevant.

That they are literally true can only be maintained by an act of willful ignorance. The current Christian Cult of Ignorance does in fact still hold the view that they are literally and factually correct.

I acknowledge that in much of the US Christian Communion, Ignorance is King and Ignorance is King in all churches that support ID, Biblical Creationism and YEC positions.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Garrett, posted 04-27-2007 4:38 PM Garrett has not yet responded

  
Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 4015 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 96 of 104 (397816)
04-27-2007 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Garrett
04-27-2007 4:38 PM


Re: Wow...all I can say is wow.
And how many are named Steve?

Also, how many are in disciplines that are relevant to the ToE, and thus can be expected to know anything about it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Garrett, posted 04-27-2007 4:38 PM Garrett has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-27-2007 8:52 PM Cthulhu has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3883
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 97 of 104 (397819)
04-27-2007 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Cthulhu
04-27-2007 8:28 PM


Project Steve
My opinion - Pretty poor message.

If you're going to bring up Project Steve, you could at least explain the thing a bit, and supply a link.

Better quality, please. I'm seeing dubious input from you in more than one place, and it's starting to irritate the A Moose.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Cthulhu, posted 04-27-2007 8:28 PM Cthulhu has not yet responded

    
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 104 (397820)
04-27-2007 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Garrett
04-27-2007 4:38 PM


Re: Wow...all I can say is wow.
Garrett
Here is a list of people who are not only christians, but also scientists who support YEC:

I am going to take this person from your list if I may

Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics

And here we have one of his publications in peer reviewed Science magazine as per the ICR website
And here we have the abstract from that publication.

Time Scales and Heterogeneous Structure in Geodynamic Earth Models

Hans-Peter Bunge, * Mark A. Richards, Carolina Lithgow-Bertelloni, John R. Baumgardner, Stephen P. Grand, Barbara A. Romanowicz

Computer models of mantle convection constrained by the history of Cenozoic and Mesozoic plate motions explain some deep-mantle structural heterogeneity imaged by seismic tomography, especially those related to subduction. They also reveal a 150-million-year time scale for generating thermal heterogeneity in the mantle, comparable to the record of plate motion reconstructions, so that the problem of unknown initial conditions can be overcome. The pattern of lowermost mantle structure at the core-mantle boundary is controlled by subduction history, although seismic tomography reveals intense large-scale hot (low-velocity) upwelling features not explicitly predicted by the models.

Perhaps you would care to point out the support for a Young Earth Creationism here in these papers. This is of course only the abstract but perhaps you could contact Baumgardner at ICR and see if he would be willing to provide a full article to you for a price. Heck I will even offer to purchase the text within reason.

Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Garrett, posted 04-27-2007 4:38 PM Garrett has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 332 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 99 of 104 (397833)
04-27-2007 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Garrett
04-27-2007 3:12 PM


quote:
The major problem with your assertion is that the Creationist model can also be said to be broadly supported by evidence. We all have the same evidence, it's just a matter of interpretation based on presuppositions.

OK, then can you list, say, half a dozen predictions of this Creationist model that were made, tested, and were supported by the evidence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Garrett, posted 04-27-2007 3:12 PM Garrett has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 100 of 104 (397874)
04-28-2007 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Garrett
04-27-2007 4:22 PM


science and religion
Answer this...where is it that modern science began to flourish. The answer is of course, mainly in Europe which was largely christian.

The interesting thing is that 'modern science' owes heavily from ancient and medieval science. Even more amusingly the Christian scientists ended up learning things that the Greeks, Chinese and Muslims had long ago already learned and codified.

Many historians even support this view saying that modern science owes it's foundation to a belief in a rational creator who maintains a rational creation.

Undoubtedly. Many things have a foundation in religion. However, this is also undoubtedly because of the power that religion had when all these things were founded. Punk rock, for instance has its foundation in relgion - since its foundations were from 1950s rock - a style of music that borrowed from the religious gospel music.

Correlation does not imply causation. Dogmatic beliefs have often hampered scientific inquiry. Would we have learned as much about the world without religion? Who knows. However, we do know there was a period in Christian Europe called the Dark Ages. The enlightenment marked a decline in religious control, and an explosion in scientific discovery. The one, no doubt feeding the other.

Science seems to flourish wherever it is allowed to be, without dogmatic philosphies intruding. The less dogmatic control - the more the discovery.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Garrett, posted 04-27-2007 4:22 PM Garrett has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16095
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 101 of 104 (397893)
04-28-2007 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Garrett
04-27-2007 4:22 PM


Re: Wow...all I can say is wow.
Coragyps....I'm taking a little artistic freedom in that statement...thought that was obvious. The point is that it was the belief by many scientists that God upheld order in the universe that led to their studying of science.

What on earth makes you think that?

Science only requires that there should be order in the Universe, not that it be upheld by God.

This is why some scientists are atheists.

Answer this...where is it that modern science began to flourish. The answer is of course, mainly in Europe which was largely christian.

And what made it start flourishing just when it did? Christianity had been flourishing for a thousand years before ... oh yes, the Renaisance of classicism.

Many historians ...

... none of whom you've named, for some reason ...

... even support this view saying that modern science owes it's foundation to a belief in a rational creator who maintains a rational creation.

Like in Islam?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Garrett, posted 04-27-2007 4:22 PM Garrett has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1806 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 102 of 104 (397903)
04-28-2007 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Garrett
04-27-2007 4:38 PM


Re: Wow...all I can say is wow.
Here is a list of people who are not only christians, but also scientists who support YEC:

You know, what I would find really impressive is a list of agnostic/atheist scientists (preferably of relevant discplines but I'm not too fussy) that support a young Earth...

Actually, forget a list, just one or two would be impressive.

Does anyone outside religious conviction support a young Earth????????????

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Garrett, posted 04-27-2007 4:38 PM Garrett has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18476
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 103 of 104 (397905)
04-28-2007 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Garrett
04-27-2007 4:15 PM


Re: Wow...all I can say is wow.
Replying to your last couple messages:

Garret in Message 89 replying to Jar writes:

That's just silly. You say that since the 1600s "Christianity" has known and acknowledged that Genesis is a myth. Whom do you refer to when you say Christianity? No church I've ever gone to beleives this. There are many denominations with varying beliefs and to stereotype them all into one box is rather foolish...and I'm guessing purposefully misleading.

I agree that Jar overstated the case. Doubts about the creation account in the Bible grew gradually over time, but even during the 19th century, the period of greatest rising doubts, a fairly literal interpretation was very common.

But Jar's point is still valid. What's interesting about the 19th century Christian European view of creation, especially of naturalists (the most common type of scientist during this period), is that the Biblical creation account was held to be probably true in broad outline but not in detail. That modern geology was explained by the great deluge was accepted by most, but they were less certain of the truth of the particular details, such as the days of creation, and the stories of Adam and Eve and of Cain and Abel, and so forth. It wouldn't have particular bothered many 19th century Christians if it had been scientifically discovered that God actually created the sun and moon before vegetation, rather than after as in the Genesis account. Or if it had been scientifically discovered that it actually only rained for 35 days and 35 nights. The expectation of most during this period is that science would largely confirm the Biblical accounts.

But by the time the 20th century was well under way it had become apparent that scientific discovery was coming into ever greater conflict with the Biblical accounts, and it was clear that this process would only continue. While historically there has always been a tense relationship between science and religion, with the formalization of scientific study as an organized field of endeavor and with its unprecedented success in revolutionizing the world both economically and politically (the industrial revolution was just ending), open warfare between science and religion erupted in the United States, culminating in a series of pamphlets titled The Fundamentals that enumerated the unchallengeable beliefs of Christianity.

You're correct that there are many and varied Christian faiths, but I think Jar's primary point is that the severely conservative form of Christianity with which you're most familiar has really only been around for less than a hundred years, and that a great many Christian faiths don't hold to these conservative views at all.

Garrett in Message 90 writes:

Many historians even support this view saying that modern science owes it's foundation to a belief in a rational creator who maintains a rational creation.

I'm going have to repeat the concern Coragyps expressed that you seem at times to be fabricating your arguments. A "God the Creator" who, as Christians concede, can do and has done pretty much what he wants (e.g., the creation, the deluge, the sun stopping in the sky, water into wine, feed a multitude with 7 loaves, resurrection of the dead, answering prayers) is not the basis for belief in a rational universe. The opposite is the truth, and it's why religion all over the world, including Christian religion, serves as a front for all forms of frauds and charlatans from faith healers to mediums.

In other words, instead of a rational understanding of the universe, religion promotes an irrational and/or miraculous perspective. So no, many historians do not claim religion as the basis for the idea of a comprehensible universe.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Garrett, posted 04-27-2007 4:15 PM Garrett has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4814
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 104 of 104 (397911)
04-28-2007 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Garrett
04-27-2007 4:15 PM


Re: Wow...all I can say is wow.
Garret writes:

That's just silly. You say that since the 1600s "Christianity" has known and acknowledged that Genesis is a myth. Whom do you refer to when you say Christianity? No church I've ever gone to beleives this.

Mythology can be used to explain a greater truth, in the same way an allegory. There is nothing that says God can't reveal truths about Himself through mythology. As someone once said when asked about whether he believed it was an actual snake or not replied; "it doesn't matter whether it was a real snake or not, what matters is what the snake said".

I'd suggest that by trying to read the Bible as a science text or as a newspaper you might miss out on what it is really trying to tell you.

Here is a quote that I've used before on this forum written by CS Lewis.

Just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God’s becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth is ... a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other peoples, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology – the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truths, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical.

Edited by GDR, : No reason given.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Garrett, posted 04-27-2007 4:15 PM Garrett has not yet responded

    
Prev123456
7
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019