Conflict of interests

I'm aiming this post toward the "Faith and Belief" message board. Hopefully it'll end up there.There's something that's been bugging me for a while, since I've been involved online in arguing in the evolution vs. creationism debate for a couple of years now.I am strongly in favor of good science education, promoting evolution, etc. I don't believe that accepting evolution has to conflict with religious beliefs, including Christianity.However, when I first accepted evolution, I had many challenges to my faith. Some people were very helpful in explaining evolution to me, but at the same time they put pressures on me, both directly and indirectly, to give up my belief in the supernatural and in Christianity in particular.I'd liken this experience to taking a stroll through a minefield.I am satisfied both emotionally and intellectually with my choice to both remain as a Christian and accept science fully. However, there are many people who try to trip up Christians who don't know how to argue back with them or who try to get them to reject their faith, or try to force them to choose one or the other.I've actually met two different people online who have told me straight up that's their goal, to get Christians to give up their faith. I've seen more than one person move from devout Christian to weak Christian to agnostic as they went through the same learning process.I want to help promote science and acceptance of evolution and long ages, etc. On the other hand, I don't want to send people off into this dilemma either.I feel that my faith is ultimately stronger for having been tested, but others may not be so lucky. There are many who are actively trying to "deconvert" Christians who are making the transition from creationist to evolutionist. They are trying to weaken and undermine the faith of these people at a time when they are especially vulnerable to being influenced in that way and could use guidance and support.When you give up something like creationism, which preachers have over-emphasized as important, then you begin to question everything you've ever believed. In itself, that's a good thing! This is productive and in my opinion ultimately leads to stronger faith once things are sorted out. However, when you have atheists and others coming in at this time deliberately trying to push people then it becomes much more difficult for someone in this situation.My conflict of interest comes in, in that I want to promote evolution and good science, and at the same time, as a Christian I don't want to help cause others to stumble in their faith.I'm just interested in knowing if others have similar feelings or not.

personally, i have not had the same experience. but then i was a nerdy little kid first, and a christian second.as a child, i wanted to be a paleontologist later in life. so needless to say, biology and especially geology interested me from a very early age. when i became a christian, retaining my understanding of scientific things became kind of hard. keeping my faith in science, as it were, was like walking through the same minefield.except it wasn't a matter of faith: i KNEW they were just simply wrong. i'd seen enough geology and biology to know creationism was a lie, and i'd just kind of laugh about it. i never saw any IMPORTANT problems between creation and evolution.and now i have more and more knowledge of the bible, and i'm starting to understand where the problem is: they're reading wrong. creationists HATE me because i tend to out-bible-quote them, and put the contextual knowledge behind it. they love to say "the bible says such and such" and i can usually correct them...

Are you implying that creationists see what they want to see in the bible?Anyway, I gave up my faith not because of science but because of the realization that you just don't need the metaphysical or the supernatural for the world to make sense. I came to this realization when I was in junior year of high school. I don't exactly remember how, but I do remember clearly that it struck me really hard, that the world wasn't as magical as I had believed.I was raised up in a fundamentalist christian family. When I was little, just like every kid in the world, I was starving for knowledge. I kept asking my parents and other people the why, what, and how and the usually responses that I got was "goddunit." As you can imagine, growing up being exposed to nothing but "goddunit" as the answer to everything made me into a kind of person that always tried to shape the world and the evidence the way I wanted to make them fit my "goddunit" world view. I was completely oblivious to the vast knowledge that was out there waiting for me to learn them. Why? Because "goddunit" was always good enough. I even thought, for a very long time, that I knew better than most of my teachers and PhD people out there simply because I knew the "truth," that "goddunit."This is the reason why I resent religion so much nowadays. It did a lot of damage to me when I was younger. It took me years to get out of that mindset. This is also the reason why it bothers me so much when seeing people like the rat talking. Even though he's a lot older than me, he reminds me of me when I was younger, always trying to come up with fantastic explanations to try to support the "goddunit" theology.

---

For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

​

Why? Bush is a right wing nutcase.

imply? i thought i said outright they just make stuff up most of the time. but looking over it again, i guess imply would be the word. i really should stop wording things so passively.i've had whole conversations on this board that go:them: "the bible says..."
me: "book, chapter, verse?"
them: *no reply*lather, rinse, repeat. i don't believe the world to be magical in any sense of the word. i just think there's more to it. i consider faith an addition on top of knowledge. actually, i find divine motivation to be quite an interesting topic of debate. i'm currently studying the torah, nevi'im, and ketuvim (or, collectively, the old testament). i'm paying attention to what sort of picture the various sources are painting of god, and it's quite challenging to the standard christian views. i have a new idea, but if and when i feel like discussing it, i'll post a separate thread here. (having some causal relationship problems: do the changes in the text's rendering of god follow the people, or vice-versa?) i know the exact feeling. i have a friend, an ex-g/f actually, who's a fundamental christian. her attitudes about religion are a lot like mine used to be, and it annoys me to no end when we ctually talk about it. because i know and believe differently now. she used to complain we (another christian friend of mine, and i) would treat her like a child, but she doesn't do that anymore. i think she figured out why.but yes, nothing gets under our skin like seeing the way we used to be.

Actually, I think Bishop Sims (the Episcopal Bishop of the Atlanta Diocese) summed it up pretty well. Speaking specifically about the issue of Evolution vs the Genesis account of creation he said, "Insistence upon dated and partially contradictory statements of how as conditions for true belief in the why of creation cannot qualify either as faithful religion or as intelligent science."Religion deal with the questions of WHY, not How. IMHO, religion and science are not mutually exclusive but rather support each other. The more we learn about the hows involved in this universe we live in, the more in awe of the GOD that created it I become.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Its quite interesting that the evolutionist theory rests on the dating of a rock to date the age of the fossil, imprint, etc...I have no problem with rocks dating old (who cares)(God always was)(its all about the age of the fossils)(When did the genesis event occur), the problem appears to be the delusion evolutionist believe, that they can date a rock to date the age when the fossil was imprinted, the age of the fossil, since TOE is just based off this assumption, its time to replace TOE and embrace the ID which is based on facts, and not delusions, etc...Like ID and TOE agree on micro-evolution, and all the other basics, its quite obvious that its a common creator, not a common ancestor, and TOE should be laid to rest, so the religion of secular humanism, is not being taught to our children as if its fact, when its obvious the Evolutionists are not dating the fossil imprint, fossil, but the age of the sediments that imprinted the fossil, buried the fossil, etc...

Ok, well, show us why this is a bad assumption.Pretend that I have an item, and a large stone. Your job is to get the item into the middle of the stone without leaving any marks on or in the stone whatsoever. What do you do?It's impossible to get something into a stone without leaving marks from breaking, drilling, etc. The only way that you could find a fossil in a stone is a process where soft material surrounding a fossil hardened into stone. That would make the fossil at least as old as the stone.That's not an "assumption", as you put it - it's a conclusion from simple logic.

Crash, The bible says all lifes substances were destroyed that remained on the earths surface during the biblical flood, this supports your imprint, whose substances were imprinted beneath the biblical sediments of the world flood deluge of the Genesis Biblical Flood, that said these fossils were destroyed, for which is the fossil record, etc...P.S. Its quite hard to preserve fossils, if they are not buried by sediments, as the sediments solidify, why would not the fossil be entombed within the sediments, they are not going anywhere, they became pressed into the fossil imprints, etc...Its no different than when someone is buried in a coffin, your saying the person in the coffin(fossil)is the same age as the sediments that surrounds the coffin, TOE Makes no sense, when you think of it in context, which is why its time to replace TOE with ID, etc...

We can already find an example of what I meant in this thread. They're everywhere!

jar writes:

quote:

---

Religion deal (sic) with the questions of WHY, not How. IMHO, religion and science are not mutually exclusive but rather support each other.

---

The problem is that religion claims to answer all questions, and by definition cannot. At least the claims of science are repeatable, debatable, and testable. Religious claims are immune to objective analysis and need to be accepted without criticism.I'd have to say there have been many more instances in which religion and science have come into conflict rather than supporting one another. I know wishful thinkers like our dear departed DarkStar like to talk about the fruitful union of religion and science, but I have no idea what that would entail. It seems to me that neither concept would benefit from such a cooperative effort, and a slew of historical facts can be cited to back me up on this.regards,
Esteban HambreThis message has been edited by MrHambre, 09-30-2004 07:29 AM

Yes, Whatever. The fossil must predate the sediment solidifying into stone.That's what we're dating. How long ago the sediment matrix became stone. The fossil must be at least as old as that, because you can't put a fossil into the middle of a solid stone.So, where's the faulty assumption in assuming that a fossil can't get into a sedimentary rock after the sediment has solidified?

Since the thread appears to be returning to the topic already this can just be a little riminder.whatever, crash, the dating of fossils is NOT the topic of this thread.whatever,you've been over that fossil dating ground before. Bring it up in the wrong thread again and you will be suspended.Keep bringing it up without listening to replys and the same may happen.

quote:

---

personally, i have not had the same experience. but then i was a nerdy little kid first, and a christian second.

---

I was always both, but for the longest time I didn't know how to tell the difference between junk and real science.

quote:

---

as a child, i wanted to be a paleontologist later in life. so needless to say, biology and especially geology interested me from a very early age.

---

I've always liked animals and wanted to be a Biologist. I like other types of science too.

quote:

---

when i became a christian, retaining my understanding of scientific things became kind of hard. keeping my faith in science, as it were, was like walking through the same minefield.

---

That's interesting. I've heard plenty of creationists tell me that they were "former evolutionists." so maybe it does go both ways so to speak. I always thought that if they had ever really understood evolution, the evidence in favor of it, etc. that they couldn't just decide not to accept it anymore without a large amount of cognitive dissonance.Now that my eyes have been opened by facts and evidence, there's no way I could ever go back to being a creationist!

quote:

---

except it wasn't a matter of faith: i KNEW they were just simply wrong. i'd seen enough geology and biology to know creationism was a lie, and i'd just kind of laugh about it. i never saw any IMPORTANT problems between creation and evolution.

---

That's good. I feel that rather than using miracles, the supernatural usually works through natural processes. I believe miracles are possible of course, or I wouldn't be a Christian. I just think they're rare.There are so many things that have gone on in the last few billion years on this planet that the YECs would say never happened. I was watching Walking with Dinosaurs one afternoon and I thought to myself "If the YECs were correct, this prehistoric world and ecosystem never would have existed." I had similar feelings when I watched a show about ancient cartilagenous fish being diversified at a certain period of time (may have been the Devonian).They want to smash everything into a ridiculous 6,000-10,000 year window. Thankfully I was never really a YEC, but I listened to both YECs and OECs. Even OECs often deny a lot of things that went on in the past, such as the elegant transitions from land mammals to whales, etc.The world of a creationist is so much poorer and duller, the worlds science tells us of are so much more rich and interesting.

quote:

---

and now i have more and more knowledge of the bible, and i'm starting to understand where the problem is: they're reading wrong. creationists HATE me because i tend to out-bible-quote them, and put the contextual knowledge behind it. they love to say "the bible says such and such" and i can usually correct them...

---

Great! I think if people making the transition from creationist to evolutionist were more grounded in their faith, then it would be easier for them to make that transition, but unfortunately most people really aren't as smart about that stuff as they need to be.I found myself on a crash course so to speak about various theological concepts that I never took much time to think about when I was suddenly bombarded with anti-Christian arguments.

quote:

---

personally, i have not had the same experience. but then i was a nerdy little kid first, and a christian second.

---

I was always both, but for the longest time I didn't know how to tell the difference between junk and real science.

quote:

---

as a child, i wanted to be a paleontologist later in life. so needless to say, biology and especially geology interested me from a very early age.

---

I've always liked animals and wanted to be a Biologist. I like other types of science too.

quote:

---

when i became a christian, retaining my understanding of scientific things became kind of hard. keeping my faith in science, as it were, was like walking through the same minefield.

---

That's interesting. I've heard plenty of creationists tell me that they were "former evolutionists." so maybe it does go both ways so to speak. I always thought that if they had ever really understood evolution, the evidence in favor of it, etc. that they couldn't just decide not to accept it anymore without a large amount of cognitive dissonance.Now that my eyes have been opened by facts and evidence, there's no way I could ever go back to being a creationist!

quote:

---

except it wasn't a matter of faith: i KNEW they were just simply wrong. i'd seen enough geology and biology to know creationism was a lie, and i'd just kind of laugh about it. i never saw any IMPORTANT problems between creation and evolution.

---

That's good. I feel that rather than using miracles, the supernatural usually works through natural processes. I believe miracles are possible of course, or I wouldn't be a Christian. I just think they're rare.There are so many things that have gone on in the last few billion years on this planet that the YECs would say never happened. I was watching Walking with Dinosaurs one afternoon and I thought to myself "If the YECs were correct, this prehistoric world and ecosystem never would have existed." I had similar feelings when I watched a show about ancient cartilagenous fish being diversified at a certain period of time (may have been the Devonian).They want to smash everything into a ridiculous 6,000-10,000 year window. Thankfully I was never really a YEC, but I listened to both YECs and OECs. Even OECs often deny a lot of things that went on in the past, such as the elegant transitions from land mammals to whales, etc.The world of a creationist is so much poorer and duller, the worlds science tells us of are so much more rich and interesting.

quote:

---

and now i have more and more knowledge of the bible, and i'm starting to understand where the problem is: they're reading wrong. creationists HATE me because i tend to out-bible-quote them, and put the contextual knowledge behind it. they love to say "the bible says such and such" and i can usually correct them...

---

Great! I think if people making the transition from creationist to evolutionist were more grounded in their faith, then it would be easier for them to make that transition, but unfortunately most people really aren't as smart about that stuff as they need to be.I found myself on a crash course so to speak about various theological concepts that I never took much time to think about when I was suddenly bombarded with anti-Christian arguments.

I've gone from anti-evolutionist to neutral on the issue. I can now easily accept both evolution and my faith though there are still some kinks in both evolutionary and religious paradigms (such as the flood)that I haven't worked out.But like you said, it wasn't easy for me to be accepting. I always thought trusting in God on faith alone was kind of a cop out and that everyone should believe because there was all this evidence and the greatest piece of undeniable evidence was the creation. I said on this website a few months ago that if I accepted evolution I would quit believing in God. And I wasn't kidding. 2 months ago I finally accepted evolution as a good possibility and consequently accepted the idea that God might not exist as a possibility. It was one of the most depressing times of my life.I questioned everything I believed, which as you said, is a good thing. God sort of allowed my faith, which rested on human arguments to be completely destroyed and rebuilt in complete trust in Him. In the end I've come out of it with a much stronger faith than before, a more humble attitude about what I know, and a greater understanding of the life God has created for us to live.So for me, this experience like all others was good for me. But as you say, at the time when a person is questioning everything they can easily be led astray by arguments against God based on unprovable premises. One of my friends has become somewhat of an agnostic as a result of this. For her sake I'm glad I've had all these debates on here because I would never be able to understand her viewpoint otherwise. What has helped me is to go back and read through the Bible with evolution in mind and see what does and doesn't make sense. I've only found a couple of passages that don't make complete sense, but I've found many more that make much sense. Viewing ourselves in light of evolution is a very humbling thing to accept and helps us see the dichotomy between the physical and the spiritual. Science deals with the How of the physical things, but the Bible deals with the why and how of the eternal things. The Bible is not a science textbook, so any scientific information should only be there to prove its authenticity.Its also helpful to look at the mistakes the religious establishment has made in the past. The Jewish establishment believed the prophecies of the first and second coming of Christ were one in the same. The Catholic church thought the earth was flat and the solar system geocentric... etc...I feel like I'm rambling a bit... kinda tired, but I hope I made some sense.ETA: there's a little book called The Luminous Web that I thought was really helpful. You might want to read it and recommend it to other Christians.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 09-29-2004 03:49 PM