Christians are Afraid of Science

[Gentleman Jim Stacy]

I think the answer to this question is obvious but i digress...

I went to a meeting for kids from around 16 to 18 at my friends church last week since I hadnt been in a while and questions about evolution and science challenging religion came up. All the lady who was running the discussion had to say was "Well, I'd say that whatever science has to say is like monopoly money, and whatever god has to say is like real currency. So at the end of the day, I think id like to have the real thing instead of the fake money and I think all of you would agree with me."

This was a terribly clever analogy, I must say, but didn't even come close to addressing the question. This is the main thing that bothers me about faiths is that there are no answers to anything beyond that you have to have unyielding blind faith in that faith even though you have no reason to. I hadn't church since I went to a meeting similar to that with a muslim friend of mine and realized how similar the religions are, yet the two basically say that if you believe in the other then you are destined to burn in hell for the rest of you life, even though the tenants of the two religions are so similar theyre practically the same thing. so, unfortuantely, I have fallen into the trap of apathy towards organized religion in the last two years and I dont see myself getting out anytime soon. this bothers me because I used to think about god all the time when I was younger and it was something I genuinely believed in, but when people have no retort to simple questions challenging christianity other than an analogy about monopoly, what am I supposed to do?

[Kid Ego]

From DC-Talk: (original quote is old and unknown to me)
Can you see the wind? I've never seen the wind. I see the effects of the wind, but I've never seen the wind. There's a mystery to it.Faith is powerful. Not all christians are afraid of science, either. The subject is over-generalizing.

[D.S. Randlett]

Christians aren't afraid of science, but the stupid ones that make people like me look bad sure are. Why can't the fundies just accept science? I'm sure that God invented that, too.

[Coyote]

Then there are the Jesuits that pointed out that the first bits of Genesis matches up with geology and evolution...I mean, say you're God, and you want to try to explain billions of years of development of the universe, solar system, planet, and life to minds that think that 40 years is a long time....

[Chavez]

My discomfort with religious fundamentalists is best explained by this:

Those Jesus fish on cars are a way of people to demonstrate their faith, no problem with that (except that most people who have them on the back of their car drive like shit). The "Darwin fish" with legs attached comes along, and I thought it was a clever little twist on the whole phenomenon.

Then one day, I see a thing which has a big fish labeled "Truth" EATING the Darwin fish. The implication to me was that not only do Jesus fish people lack a sense of humor, but if you don't believe as they do they will DESTROY you.

Personally, I'd be more inclined to sit back and be smug because I'm going to heaven and you're not, so I can't understand that viewpoint.

[devincf]

There's a mystery to the wind? What kind of caveman said that?

[Sean Bateman]

DC Talk are also known for such profound statements such as:

"Luv is a verb."
"I don't want it (your sex)"
"Word to the father (jesus)"

[CTDeLude]

HAHAHAHA.

Go tell that to the monks who studied different sciences all their life.

Science ultimately gives justification to faith in God anyways. Hell ask astronomers what they believe happened right moments before the Big Bang. They will tell you about the "Entity"

Dr. Evil gives a bad name to doctors everywhere though. wink

[devincf]

Sorry to break the news, but these things in no way give credence to a Christian god. It could just as likely be some Mayan deity.

Or it could just be that the natural human reaction to something we don't understand is to assign it to god. I mean, let's go back 400 years and ask scientists of that time for some explanations of some simple concepts that we take for granted. They're likely to blame them on anything from spirits to faeries to the lord.

[Saucy]

Chavez:
Then one day, I see a thing which has a big fish labeled "Truth" EATING the Darwin fish. The implication to me was that not only do Jesus fish people lack a sense of humor, but if you don't believe as they do they will DESTROY you.Can't believe I'm defending the jackasses who came up with the idea, but I think the "Truth" fish (God) is supposed to be breathing life into the "Darwin" fish (Darwin and... fish... and stuff), not eating it. Unless you've seen a much more violent version than I have, where the big fish is just touching its lips to the little fish.

I've seen a sticker version of these things, but it's a Cthulhu fish. If anyone knows where I can get a metal version of that, holy shit, I'll pay anything.

[Dan Whitehead]

CTDeLude:
Hell ask astronomers what they believe happened right moments before the Big Bang. They will tell you about the "Entity"They watched Barbara Hershey being banged by an invisible demon?

[Coyote]

"I've seen a sticker version of these things, but it's a Cthulhu fish. If anyone knows where I can get a metal version of that, holy shit, I'll pay anything."

Hastur has a magnetic version on the fridge, does that count?

[Kid Ego]

Sean Bateman, Causal Chewer:
DC Talk are also known for such profound statements such as:

<snip>

I never said they wrote it, asshat.

[Saucy]

There is no Coyote, only spoons.:
Hastur has a magnetic version on the fridge, does that count?...I can't tell if you're making a joke, referencing a poster here I've never heard of, or doing some non-Euclidian third thing. But if this magnet is an actual thing and not merely a prop in a Lovecraft joke, yes, I suppose that would at least be a step in the right direction.

[devincf]

Kid Ego fights the future:
Sean Bateman, Causal Chewer:
DC Talk are also known for such profound statements such as:

<snip>

I never said they wrote it, asshat.Uh, then why would you even mention them? I mean, my friend Elliot might rephrase something Aristotle says but I wouldn't say "Elliot says..."

[Kid Ego]

Devin is the Faux Elite:
Uh, then why would you even mention them? I mean, my friend Elliot might rephrase something Aristotle says but I wouldn't say "Elliot says..."They sampled it in a song. I don't know where the original sample came from. The symbolism is what's important. You can't see, feel, touch, hear or smell the wind, but you have faith that it exists because you can see its effects. In the same way, I have faith that God exists in my life because I see the effects He has on it.

[devincf]

That's a faulty metaphor. I can give you the reasons that wind exists and it can be measured. The same can't be said for God.

[Kid Ego]

Devin is the Faux Elite:
That's a faulty metaphor. I can give you the reasons that wind exists and it can be measured. The same can't be said for God.Technically you can give me a list of the effects of wind as your reasons.

<edited to rephrase for clarity>

[devincf]

No, I can tell you how atmospheric pressure systems create wind.

Well, I can't exactly, but a meteorologist could. Wind isn't a mystery, except to those who don't learn about it.

[Kid Ego]

Devin is the Faux Elite:
Wind isn't a mystery, except to those who don't learn about it.In the same way, God isn't a mystery to me because I have learned about and from Him.

[devincf]

No. Wind is not a mystery because it has been scientifically explained and can be measured and quantified.

Sorry to break the news to you, but you can't say that you understand god just because you say so - hell, other religious people might very well disagree with your take on god. A buddhist or a jew or a muslim will disagree with you, and yet they will all claim that god has shown THEM the way.

As opposed to science - when something is proven it can be replicated, and it is inescapable and undeniable fact.

[Sean Bateman]

I am not going on a wild atheistic rant here, but your arguments don't have a lot of substance Ego.

[Kid Ego]

Sean Bateman, Causal Chewer:
I am not going on a wild atheistic rant here, but your arguments don't have a lot of substance Ego.I'm not arguing here, as a matter of fact, I don't talk religion often because I'm (obviously) not good at it. I was originally saying that DCTalk didn't write that quote, like you assumed. I didn't come up with the metaphor about the wind, I'm just saying that it makes sense to me. Whether you believe it's your duty to disprove christianity and the existence of God is something else entirely.

[mastronikolas]

Believing in God is all about faith. The whole point is that you have absolutely no proof about his existence, will probaly never have any proof, yet you are certain that he exists. If you are a real believer, you have no reason to try and convince others or discount their beliefs to make yours seem more real. People that do that are unsure about their faith.

[ghettoJedi]

Exactly, if god could be proven to exist, wouldn’t that kind of diminish the whole faith aspect, which is the fundamental reason for religious beliefs? Science and religion are not exchangeable, as they answer totally different questions. Something both sides should (and usually, does) acknowledge.

As an agnostic, I fail to see why Christians would even like to argue with scientists on scientific ground using the Bible as proof. And the whole creationist debate is just absurd, and it’s inconceivable to me that this even can go on in a country that isn’t a theocracy.

[D.S. Randlett]

But, the debate goes on in a society where anyone can believe what they wish. This may be stupid, but it's better than some of the alternatives I can think of. Mass pogroms? No thank you.

But you can't use the Bible to refute anything scientific. The only thing the Bible can offer is what I see to be a spiritual truth, mixed with an inkling of ancient historical content/context.

It's just that living up to that spiritual truth is way too damned hard for a lot of Americans.

[ghettoJedi]

Ok, maybe I came off wrong. I didn’t mean to say that those views shouldn’t be allowed to be expressed (insert The Obligatory Voltaire Quote here), but a debate requires more than one side. People should just say: “No we will continue to teach evolution, but you can try to change our government system from democracy to theocracy, it’s your democratic right. This conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Good luck.”

[Living Dead Milkman]

Kid Ego fights the future:
In the same way, God isn't a mystery to me because I have learned about and from Him.Honestly, you didn't learn it from "Him". You learned it from some guy who knew some guy who was begat from some guy whose maternal aunt heard some gossip in the market that came from some guy begat from this other guy...

[Angel Red Wings]

I don't understand how hard it is for atheists and hardcore Christians to reconcile science and faith. Maybe I'm being a bit naive, here.

p.s. Dan, your "Entity" reference was brilliant.

edited to add the "p.s."

[Chavez]

ghettoJedi
“No we will continue to teach evolution, but you can try to change our government system from democracy to theocracy, it’s your democratic right. This conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Good luck.”Given that most school board members are elected officials, accomplishing this at the local level can be done fairly easily, especially deep in the Bible Belt. More's the pity.

[Guttenberg Fan Club]

Chavez:
Then one day, I see a thing which has a big fish labeled "Truth" EATING the Darwin fish. The implication to me was that not only do Jesus fish people lack a sense of humor, but if you don't believe as they do they will DESTROY you. I'm certainly more of an evolutionist but I really hate the Darwin Fish. It isn't just a statement of beliefs, it is an open mockery of christianity. It is taking a symbol that means something to a lot of people and reworking it in an attempt to make them look stupid. Not really the right way to approach it.

Not to mention most of us non-religious types really don't like religious symbols everywhere, & it seems a bit hypocritical to adorn our autos with it.

[Donald Wiskerando]

On the back of my car, I have a Darwin fish and a Jesus fish eating each other, a la the Oroboros... and Calvin is peeing on it.

[ShogunAssassin]

Guttenberg Fan Club:
Chavez:
Then one day, I see a thing which has a big fish labeled "Truth" EATING the Darwin fish. The implication to me was that not only do Jesus fish people lack a sense of humor, but if you don't believe as they do they will DESTROY you. I'm certainly more of an evolutionist but I really hate the Darwin Fish. It isn't just a statement of beliefs, it is an open mockery of christianity. It is taking a symbol that means something to a lot of people and reworking it in an attempt to make them look stupid. Not really the right way to approach it.

Not to mention most of us non-religious types really don't like religious symbols everywhere, & it seems a bit hypocritical to adorn our autos with it.I'm particularly fond of the "Science" rocket and the Shark fish. It's true that these symbols are a form of mockery and more than likely an attempt to show superiority, but, Christians mock and proclaim their beliefs as the ultimate truth weather you want to hear them or not. Obviously that's not all christians but a vocal minority. Still, to me that's grounds for ridicule.

[ghettoJedi]

I totally agree with the above post. What someone believes is personal, and not up for mockery (even if people might laugh behind their back), but trying to convince someone else that the earth is 6000 years old and that evolution is a fundamentally flawed theroy is so up for mockery its not even funny. Mockery might not be good though, because while we mock them, they take over public school boards and open up doors better be left shut. It would be a very good solution if the majority of intelligent Christians (creationists or not) took care of this problem from the inside.

[Beavis]

I guess that this would be a good time to mention that many of the great scientists were christians. Of course there will be someone that will be able to refute this, I've come to expect that around here.

My point being that Religion with out Science is blind and Science without Religion is pointless in a way. They both work together, so there is no reason for one to be afraid of the other. Science has the ability to prove Religion likewise Religion gives Science something to prove or disprove if you will.

[Guttenberg Fan Club]

the artist formerly known as beavis:
Science has the ability to prove Religion likewise Religion gives Science something to prove or disprove if you will.You are really reaching here. Gives science something to prove? Please.

And there is no way to 'prove' religion. It's faith that holds religion together. There is NO scientific evidence that has 'proven' any religion.

[Beavis]

Guttenberg Fan Club:
the artist formerly known as beavis:
Science has the ability to prove Religion likewise Religion gives Science something to prove or disprove if you will.You are really reaching here. Gives science something to prove? Please.

And there is no way to 'prove' religion. It's faith that holds religion together. There is NO scientific evidence that has 'proven' any religion.Science can date artifacts, correct? Science can prove that a geologic event such as a major flood has happened, correct? Science can tell us about what happens to the body during a crucifixion, correct? There are alot of things in the Bible for Science to prove. Basically what can be proven would be Biblical events, miracles and what not.

Science can look into historical records in order to show that what is in the Biblical text could/could not and did/did not happen. There are a couple of documentaries out there that go through some of these things.

It may not prove that there is a God, but it doesn't hurt the arguement either.

[Living Dead Milkman]

Guttenberg Fan Club:
the artist formerly known as beavis:
Science has the ability to prove Religion likewise Religion gives Science something to prove or disprove if you will.You are really reaching here. Gives science something to prove? Please.I hate to say this, but, LOL!

Yeah, hey, Monsanto guys, how's the research coming on that whole "Water into Wine" deal?

What's that? It can't be done, huh? Just a load of superstitious baloney, you say? Oh well. Looks like it's time to start burning your bibles.

[Beavis]

How do you know that it can't be done? As you would say, Has there been any scientific research into this? Has anyone actually tried to do it?

[Living Dead Milkman]

the artist formerly known as beavis:
Science can look into historical records in order to show that what is in the Biblical text could/could not and did/did not happen. There are a couple of documentaries out there that go through some of these things.

It may not prove that there is a God, but it doesn't hurt the arguement either.There's nothing in the Bible to be proved or disproved. It's just a bunch of words.

But if we're going to analyze the contents of the bible in light of current scientific knowledge, then a lot of biblical assertions are going to seem pretty bogus.

The bible also claims a lot of "supernatural" interactions, and you don't even need science to wonder how credible any of those claims might be.

[Beavis]

What's wrong with trying to prove the existance of the supernatural?

[Adverb]

the artist formerly known as beavis:
How do you know that it can't be done? As you would say, Has there been any scientific research into this? Has anyone actually tried to do it?As water is made out of hydrogen and oxygen and wine contains complex organic chemicals (made of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfer etc) its pretty safe to say that short of some sort of wacky nuclear fusion that would have left a big smoking crater, yeah, it can't be done.

[Beavis]

Adverb:
the artist formerly known as beavis:
How do you know that it can't be done? As you would say, Has there been any scientific research into this? Has anyone actually tried to do it?As water is made out of hydrogen and oxygen and wine contains complex organic chemicals (made of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfer etc) its pretty safe to say that short of some sort of wacky nuclear fusion that would have left a big smoking crater, yeah, it can't be done.Thanks for the expert documentation there, Mr. Wizard.

[marc]

the artist formerly known as beavis:
What's wrong with trying to prove the existance of the supernatural?Nothing really, but in all of human history the supernatural has never been conclusively demonstrated to exist. Claims of proof are bountiful, but they have always fallen appart under closer examination.

In the relationship of science and religion it has been the history of science demonstrating religious dogma to be wrong, or supplying natural explinations to supernatural claims, (when the event was a real event at all).

[Nelson]

I wonder, hypothetically, which will be more of a kick in the stomach

-believers discovering that their God isn't what they thought It would be...

or

non-beleivers discovering that there is something or someone beyond their five senses?

I'd like to see both reactions.

[Living Dead Milkman]

Nelson (Sing Blue Silver):
non-beleivers discovering that there is something or someone beyond their five senses?Oh, I'm quite sure just about all the "believers" would be in for as much of a shock if that proved to be the case.

[Jacob Singer]

Nelson (Sing Blue Silver):
non-beleivers discovering that there is something or someone beyond their five senses?I'd be thrilled, for one. Atheists don't WANT there to be no God or spiritual realm, we just don't see any evidence for either. If Jesus walks through my front door tonight and watches the Stanley Cup Playoffs, you can bet I'd be a convert.

I'd just like a little more than 2000 year-old anecdotal evidence.

[CTDeLude]

Dan Whitehead:
CTDeLude:
Hell ask astronomers what they believe happened right moments before the Big Bang. They will tell you about the "Entity"They watched Barbara Hershey being banged by an invisible demon?Now that was just a weird movie...

[thomas.galvin]

Jackie Treehorn:
I think the answer to this question is obvious but i digress...

I went to a meeting for kids from around 16 to 18 at my friends church last week since I hadnt been in a while and questions about evolution and science challenging religion came up. All the lady who was running the discussion had to say was "Well, I'd say that whatever science has to say is like monopoly money, and whatever god has to say is like real currency. So at the end of the day, I think id like to have the real thing instead of the fake money and I think all of you would agree with me."

This was a terribly clever analogy, I must say, but didn't even come close to addressing the question.Which, to be entirely honest, doesn't surprise me. It would be difficult for most of you to debate the intricacies of Christian doctrine with me, just as I would be hard pressed to discuss the finer points of the French language. This is not due to a lack of intelligence, or an inability to reason, or our intrinsic worth as human beings, but due to training. The same concept is at work here.

The Church has a wide range of needs, and God has given us a diverse body of people to fulfill those needs. Some people, such as Billy Graham or Luise Pallow, are primarily, even solely, responsible for communicating the truth of God's love. Others, such as Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel, who are focused more on the scientific explanations and archaeological evidence for our faith. All of these people are necessary, but the church is in the unfortunate position of making the few who are willing to serve into jacks-of-all-trades; honest, intelligent people who simply have no love of science are sent to answer questions posed in college classrooms, while born-again physicists, people comfortable with the workings of atoms and universes, are struggling to deal with a person crying on their shoulder. This is a large part of why Jesus said that the harvest was great, but the laborers few, and instructed us to pray for workers.

Biblically speaking, the woman leading your group probably had a pastoral role, meaning she is most at home in ministering to people who already believe, explaining to the members what the church believes, and helping people looking for Godly answers to their problems. To fulfill this role, she doesn't need to be able to debate the tenants of science, compare and contrast the competing theories of evolution, or spell Deoxyribonucleic Acid. Rather, she needs a solid foundation in Biblical doctrine, and an understanding of and compassion for human beings.

You are looking more for someone with an evangelical or teaching role, a group of people which are slightly harder to come by. These are the people tasked primarily with proclaiming the Christian faith to those who do not already believe, to draw out deeper meanings from the scriptures, and defend the faith from those who mock and attack it.

Since I'm coming in a bit late, I'll touch on the Darwin issue, even though you haven't directly brought it up yourself.

Beyond the fairly obvious "fisher of men" analog, the Jesus Fishy came into Christian prominence back when our religion was still an underground, persecuted minority. The Greek word for fish, ichthus, is an acronym for "Jesus Christ, of God, the Son, the Savior." Christians could not safely identify themselves in public, and took to sketching a fish in the dirt in the form of a "secret handshake." Over time, the fish outline has become a symbol of the Christian faith. Since there is now little or no reason to hide our affiliations, though, these fish often have crosses, or even the name "Jesus," contained within them.

In an attempt to mock the Christian faith, a group of people seized this symbol, "evolved" it by giving it legs, and changing the name to "Darwin," author of "The Origin of Species," a text widely used to criticize Christianity as a whole, and particularly our account of creation. It it, quite simply, a parody.

Not to be outdone, however, some Christian groups have created a Truth fish, which eats the Darwin fish, intended to show the triumph of the Gospel's truth. To call this violent imagery, as was done somewhere down in this thread, is honestly reaching for something to be offended at; it does not advocate the extermination of Darwinist, but the triumph of truth over untruth.

And this is, amusingly enough, what has happened.

Darwin observed evolution on a micro level, that is, evolution over a few generations, in a particular location, and of a particular trait. If memory serves, he witnessed a group of bird that, when faced with the loss of one source of food, and the abundance of another, adapted to their environment by developing larger beaks more suitable for eating fruit than seed. He reasoned, quite logically, that the evolution witnessed in this small scale was also responsible for the variety of life now extant on Earth.

Science has concluded, however, that he was in error when he made this extrapolation. Darwin posited that life began at a single point, and through small change upon small change, evolved into the various kingdoms, phylum, classes, orders, families, genusi, and species. He expected, as the fossil record became more complete, to be able to draw a line from the most basic life forms to the most advanced.

As research has advanced, however, it has become fairly apparent that these "missing links" are not going to be found. The slow, gradual compilation of mutation is not responsible for the diversity of life, a point on which modern evolutionary science and scriptural witness are in complete agreement. Rather, we see times of relative stability, interspersed with periods of geologically rapid evolution. Fossil records from the periods surrounding cataclysmic extinctions show that the various phylum, or basic body types, appear almost immediately after nature hits the reset button; these body types appear each time a large portion of terrestrial life is destroyed, are the only body types attested to by the fossil record, and appear much faster than Darwin's chance nutation, survival of the fittest theory would allow.

Another example is the development of the eye. The eye is a remarkable complex piece of work, the result of dozens of mutations, none of which provide any survival advantage without the others. How, then, dies this same mutation appear in such diverse life forms as the human and the octopus? Our closest common ancestor is at the phylum level, meaning we took extremely different evolutionary paths, but share this same, statistically improbable, mutation.

To be honest, I don't see the point in trying to eek out evolutionary details from an account of creation that collapses billions of years into one chapter; the only reason this is an issue is because Darwin's theories, despite his protest to the contrary, have been used to whittle away at Christian doctrine. "See," they say, "we don't need a God! Life can happen all on it's own, and now we have a working theory to show how." Life, they claim, is an accident, the result of chance, competition, and breeding. There is no design, and therefor, no designer.

We have seen, though, that their position is not so sure as they have made it out to be. It is possible, I will admit, that the evolution of life is still the result of some grand coincidence, that we are a statistical anomaly. If that is the case, though, it would seem that nature is a better crap-shoot than anyone in Las Vegas, because the probability of life evolving the way it has, in the manner it has, over the period it has, and the number of times it has, quickly approaches zero.

There are three kinds of people. The first sees a discussion like this, and looks to see what else is on TV tonight. The second believe that there is no God, and hold on to science as the messiah that will deliver them from the foolishness of faith. The third believe that there is a God, and see science either as the beautiful penmanship of God's hand, or a tool wielded by those who want to destroy their faith.

So, as to whether or not we fear science:

Jesus said that they shall know the truth, and that the truth shall set them free. God spoke to man and said "Come, let us reason together." God has no fear of truth, or the discovery thereof. I hope that by reading this, you can see that I am also not afraid to take a stroll through the library.

What I fear, however, are the people who will use inaccurate or incomplete science to chip away at what is, in all honesty, the most important thing in my life. I am a different man now than I was two years ago. I have friends that worked in strip clubs, took drugs like candy, and attempted suicide. I have touch, seen, and read numerous stories of lives that were heading one way, and turned to another, better direction, and despite the sometimes loud protests of people on this board, these stories share a common theme; Jesus Christ.

At the end of the day, I will have blue eyes, 32 teeth, and a heart that sits on the left side of my body whether it was the design of the God I name, an Architect's tweaking of the Matrix, a Wind Fish's dream, or mere happenstance. Whatever the reason, the sun will still rise in the morning, I will still get out of bed, live my day, and come home. The scientific "why" of it all, while interesting, doesn't do anything to change who or what I am.

Jesus, on the other hand, has changed me. I have a God that I can call on by name, that understands me, and loves me. I have a Lord that gives purpose to my life, and a family that is closer than any I have ever known. And, probably more important than any other thing, I know that I am right with God, even though He is holy, and I am not, even though He is righteous, and I am not, even though He is perfect, and I am not.

To me and mine, the question is not "How did we get here," but "Why are we here, and where are we going." If you read some of Josh McDowell's or Lee Strobel's books, you will see that there is compelling evidence for the fact the there really is a God, that He really does care about how we live our lives, and that Jesus Christ really was His Son, who came, died, and rose again. To those of us who believe, Jesus Christ is the focus of our lives, and to see faith challenged, shaken, or shattered due to scientific inaccuracy, as was done as is being done with Darwin's theories, either makes us afraid, depressed, or angry.

We shall know the truth, and therein find freedom. I truly believe this to be the case. I worry, however, about what will happen in the meantime. I worry about men that are so confident as to declare that God is dead, so high-minded as to declare that their lives need none of God's mercy, so confident in chance as to declare that this finely tuned universe needed no designed, and so proud that they believe science, the very art of asking questions, has proved the Christian religion a mere mythology. And I do not fear for myself; I asked these questions long ago, and came to quite satisfactory answers. No, I fear for the people who have honest questions, people that honestly seek after the meanings of life, love, and the universe; I fear that they will be shown colorful charts, impressive theories, and workable numbers, and be inducted into the great temple science, never knowing that these men who claimed to kill God were shown lacking a decade ago.

This is the main thing that bothers me about faiths is that there are no answers to anything beyond that you have to have unyielding blind faith in that faith even though you have no reason to.The answers are out there, if you are willing to look for them. You should understand, though, that science is far less important than God to the vast majority of us, and that if you expect the average minister or church-goer to be able to discuss these topics in-depth, you will likely be dissapointed.

I hadn't church since I went to a meeting similar to that with a muslim friend of mine and realized how similar the religions are, yet the two basically say that if you believe in the other then you are destined to burn in hell for the rest of you life, even though the tenants of the two religions are so similar theyre practically the same thing.Superficially, perhaps, but the fundamentals of our religion are about as different as possible. I'll try to be brief: the Muslim religion teaches that, though acts of submission to the will of Allah, one can earn a place in paradise. Christianity teaches that, although such works are a necessary part of Christian life, human beings are separated from God by our sins, and that no amount of good works can cover over that sin. Christ's death was necessary in order to pay the penalty for our sins; we should have died for our transgressions, but Christ offered to die in out place. Now, a right relationship with God is available to anyone who will believe in Jesus and accept His offer of forgiveness.

[marc]

thomas.galvin:
In an attempt to mock the Christian faith, a group of people seized this symbol, "evolved" it by giving it legs, and changing the name to "Darwin," author of "The Origin of Species," a text widely used to criticize Christianity as a whole, and particularly our account of creation. It it, quite simply, a parody.Incorrect. Origin of Species is in no way used to criticize christianity, anymore than a chemestry book criticizes it or is a parody.

Darwin observed evolution on a micro level, that is, evolution over a few generations, in a particular location, and of a particular trait.again, incorrect. Evolution does not make such changes over a few generations, but a great many generations. What Darwin observed was the variations among finch populations on the different islands.

Science has concluded, however, that he was in error when he made this extrapolation.
total BS. Science has time and again supported and refined evolution.

As research has advanced, however, it has become fairly apparent that these "missing links" are not going to be found. The slow, gradual compilation of mutation is not responsible for the diversity of life, a point on which modern evolutionary science and scriptural witness are in complete agreement. Rather, we see times of relative stability, interspersed with periods of geologically rapid evolution. Fossil records from the periods surrounding cataclysmic extinctions show that the various phylum, or basic body types, appear almost immediately after nature hits the reset button; these body types appear each time a large portion of terrestrial life is destroyed, are the only body types attested to by the fossil record, and appear much faster than Darwin's chance nutation, survival of the fittest theory would allow.A complete and utter bastardization of the concept of punctuated equilibrium, which is part of evolutionary theory and in no way similar to scriptual claims. Your gross misrepresentation bears little resemblence to PE or palentology reality. Gould, long at the forfront of PE, was quite often anoyed at how creationists would misquote him and warp his work to make it into an attack on evolution.

Another example is the development of the eye. The eye is a remarkable complex piece of work, the result of dozens of mutations, none of which provide any survival advantage without the others. How, then, dies this same mutation appear in such diverse life forms as the human and the octopus? Our closest common ancestor is at the phylum level, meaning we took extremely different evolutionary paths, but share this same, statistically improbable, mutation.again creationist pulling up arguments long debunked. The steps in the evolution of an eye are no mystery, and examples of the different stages are easily available in nature.

the only reason this is an issue is because Darwin's theories, despite his protest to the contrary, have been used to whittle away at Christian doctrine. "See," they say, "we don't need a God! Life can happen all on it's own, and now we have a working theory to show how." Life, they claim, is an accident, the result of chance, competition, and breeding. There is no design, and therefor, no designer.no, the only reason this is an issue is because a minority of christians can't seem to accept reality because it interferes with their desire to take a more litteral interpertation of their creation story. The majority of christians see no conflict between their faith and what science has revealed. Evolution makes no more comment on the existance or nature of god than does chemestry, anyone who does use it thus has their own theological ax to grind, and is not representing scientific thought.

If that is the case, though, it would seem that nature is a better crap-shoot than anyone in Las Vegas, because the probability of life evolving the way it has, in the manner it has, over the period it has, and the number of times it has, quickly approaches zero.more bull by misrepresentation. The process is not entirely random, that is why it is called natural selection. The configurations that work better tend to be replicated, those that don't tend to die off. You know the chances of drawing a royal flush in poker? Pretty darn slim. When you draw a hand you know the chances of drawing that exact same hand? The same as that for drawing a royal flush. The chances of a specific end might be small, but the chances of reaching any specific end might be almost inevitable. The universe is a very, very, very big place. Even with incredibly small chances for intelligent life to evolve, the universe is big enough for this to happen many, many times.


What I fear, however, are the people who will use inaccurate or incomplete science to chip away at what is, in all honesty, the most important thing in my life. one thing that I fear is people who use inaccurate or incomplete science to push their theology on everyone else. Especially indirectly and dishonestly such as by evolution denial

To those of us who believe, Jesus Christ is the focus of our lives, and to see faith challenged, shaken, or shattered due to scientific inaccuracy, as was done as is being done with Darwin's theories, either makes us afraid, depressed, or angry.Evolution is not scientific inaccuracy. Christianity is not incompatable with evolution. Why should you invision a god so limited that he could not work creation through evolution?

I chose to limit this to just talk on evolution. Now if you want to talk about the reality of christianity elsewhere we can do that too.

[thomas.galvin]

In an attempt to mock the Christian faith, a group of people seized this symbol, "evolved" it by giving it legs, and changing the name to "Darwin," author of "The Origin of Species," a text widely used to criticize Christianity as a whole, and particularly our account of creation. It it, quite simply, a parody.

Incorrect. Origin of Species is in no way used to criticize christianity, anymore than a chemestry book criticizes it or is a parody.

For one, I wrote that the Darwin fish was a mockery of a Christian symbol, not Origin of Species. Second, do you honestly believe that Darwinism is not used to attack Christianity? It was not intended to be used as such, as I already stated, but that does not change the fact that it is used as a tool to promote atheism. Check out Inherit the Wind for a largely inaccurate view on things.

Darwin observed evolution on a micro level, that is, evolution over a few generations, in a particular location, and of a particular trait.

again, incorrect. Evolution does not make such changes over a few generations, but a great many generations. What Darwin observed was the variations among finch populations on the different islands.

Yes, differences caused by the mutation of a relatively few genes, over relatively few generations.

Science has concluded, however, that he was in error when he made this extrapolation.
total

BS. Science has time and again supported and refined evolution.

Yes, periodic evolution, not Darwinian evolution, as I have already said, at some length.

The majority of christians see no conflict between their faith and what science has revealed. Evolution makes no more comment on the existance or nature of god than does chemestry, anyone who does use it thus has their own theological ax to grind, and is not representing scientific thought.

I'm quite fond of science, and have few problems reconciling the two views of truth science and faith provide me. On the other hand, I spend too much of my time dealing with people carrying theological axes to discount science's use as a weapon.

If that is the case, though, it would seem that nature is a better crap-shoot than anyone in Las Vegas, because the probability of life evolving the way it has, in the manner it has, over the period it has, and the number of times it has, quickly approaches zero.

more bull by misrepresentation. The process is not entirely random, that is why it is called natural selection.

Selection, may I ask, by whom?

The configurations that work better tend to be replicated, those that don't tend to die off. You know the chances of drawing a royal flush in poker? Pretty darn slim. When you draw a hand you know the chances of drawing that exact same hand? The same as that for drawing a royal flush. The chances of a specific end might be small, but the chances of reaching any specific end might be almost inevitable. The universe is a very, very, very big place. Even with incredibly small chances for intelligent life to evolve, the universe is big enough for this to happen many, many times.

You are partially correct. This begins to fall apart, though, when you deal with mass extinctions.

The first time the various phylum appeared, it may have been a stoke of luck. Some sequence of genes had to be present, and it might as well have been these. It could have been pure coincidence that these are the seven best suited for life on earth.

The second time around, though, for these same sequences to randomly appear, to randomly generate these exact same phylum, is much more unlikely. To use your analogy, yes, a royal flush is just as likely as any other hand, but a royal flush, followed by another royal flush, when a royal flush is exactly what you need...

To those of us who believe, Jesus Christ is the focus of our lives, and to see faith challenged, shaken, or shattered due to scientific inaccuracy, as was done as is being done with Darwin's theories, either makes us afraid, depressed, or angry.

Evolution is not scientific inaccuracy. Christianity is not incompatable with evolution. Why should you invision a god so limited that he could not work creation through evolution?

I have not contradicted evolution, I have said that Darwin's theories have been replaced by better, more accurate ones, that they have been consumed by truth, with the good parts used to make truth stronger, and the rest evacuated, just as is implied by the "Truth Eating Darwin Fish" someone took offense to above.

Darwinism is one of the classical methods used to attack Christian faith; if you have not been exposed to that, all well for you. Most Christians, though, have. All I am doing is showing that Darwinism is at least as flawed as my own creation-science view, and that modern evolutionary theory actually leaves much more room for a creator than did Darwin's.In an attempt to mock the Christian faith, a group of people seized this symbol, "evolved" it by giving it legs, and changing the name to "Darwin," author of "The Origin of Species," a text widely used to criticize Christianity as a whole, and particularly our account of creation. It it, quite simply, a parody.

Incorrect. Origin of Species is in no way used to criticize christianity, anymore than a chemestry book criticizes it or is a parody.

For one, I wrote that the Darwin fish was a mockery of a Christian symbol, not Origin of Species. Second, do you honestly believe that Darwinism is not used to attack Christianity? It was not intended to be used as such, as I already stated, but that does not change the fact that it is used as a tool to promote atheism. Check out Inherit the Wind for a largely inaccurate view on things.

Darwin observed evolution on a micro level, that is, evolution over a few generations, in a particular location, and of a particular trait.

again, incorrect. Evolution does not make such changes over a few generations, but a great many generations. What Darwin observed was the variations among finch populations on the different islands.

Yes, differences caused by the mutation of a relatively few genes, over relatively few generations.

Science has concluded, however, that he was in error when he made this extrapolation.
total

BS. Science has time and again supported and refined evolution.

Yes, periodic evolution, not Darwinian evolution, as I have already said, at some length.

The majority of christians see no conflict between their faith and what science has revealed. Evolution makes no more comment on the existance or nature of god than does chemestry, anyone who does use it thus has their own theological ax to grind, and is not representing scientific thought.

I'm quite fond of science, and have few problems reconciling the two views of truth science and faith provide me. On the other hand, I spend too much of my time dealing with people carrying theological axes to discount science's use as a weapon.

If that is the case, though, it would seem that nature is a better crap-shoot than anyone in Las Vegas, because the probability of life evolving the way it has, in the manner it has, over the period it has, and the number of times it has, quickly approaches zero.

more bull by misrepresentation. The process is not entirely random, that is why it is called natural selection.

Selection, may I ask, by whom?

The configurations that work better tend to be replicated, those that don't tend to die off. You know the chances of drawing a royal flush in poker? Pretty darn slim. When you draw a hand you know the chances of drawing that exact same hand? The same as that for drawing a royal flush. The chances of a specific end might be small, but the chances of reaching any specific end might be almost inevitable. The universe is a very, very, very big place. Even with incredibly small chances for intelligent life to evolve, the universe is big enough for this to happen many, many times.

You are partially correct. This begins to fall apart, though, when you deal with mass extinctions.

The first time the various phylum appeared, it may have been a stoke of luck. Some sequence of genes had to be present, and it might as well have been these. It could have been pure coincidence that these are the seven best suited for life on earth.

The second time around, though, for these same sequences to randomly appear, to randomly generate these exact same phylum, is much more unlikely. To use your analogy, yes, a royal flush is just as likely as any other hand, but a royal flush, followed by another royal flush, when a royal flush is exactly what you need...

To those of us who believe, Jesus Christ is the focus of our lives, and to see faith challenged, shaken, or shattered due to scientific inaccuracy, as was done as is being done with Darwin's theories, either makes us afraid, depressed, or angry.

Evolution is not scientific inaccuracy. Christianity is not incompatable with evolution. Why should you invision a god so limited that he could not work creation through evolution?

I have not contradicted evolution, I have said that Darwin's theories have been replaced by better, more accurate ones, that they have been consumed by truth, with the good parts used to make truth stronger, and the rest evacuated, just as is implied by the "Truth Eating Darwin Fish" someone took offense to above.

Darwinism is one of the classical methods used to attack Christian faith; if you have not been exposed to that, all well for you. Most Christians, though, have. All I am doing is showing that Darwinism is at least as flawed as my own creation-science view, and that modern evolutionary theory actually leaves much more room for a creator than did Darwin's.

[marc]

Interesting how your post seemed to be entierly anti-evolution, but when pressed you seem to be saying you do not deny evolution, just 'Darwinism'.

thomas.galvin:

Selection, may I ask, by whom?selection by who lives long enough to reproduce. Perhapps a better term would be Natural Deselection.

Yes, periodic evolution, not Darwinian evolution, as I have already said, at some length.Never heard of someone claiming 'periodic' evolution. Punctuated equilibrium would not be the same thing as it merely calls for differing rates of evolution, not for it to be put on hold periodically


You are partially correct. This begins to fall apart, though, when you deal with mass extinctions.

The first time the various phylum appeared, it may have been a stoke of luck. Some sequence of genes had to be present, and it might as well have been these. It could have been pure coincidence that these are the seven best suited for life on earth.

The second time around, though, for these same sequences to randomly appear, to randomly generate these exact same phylum, is much more unlikely. To use your analogy, yes, a royal flush is just as likely as any other hand, but a royal flush, followed by another royal flush, when a royal flush is exactly what you need...this is very odd.. you seem to be implying that the various phylum came about, then were wiped out in mass extinctions, and then came about again in a new cycle. I do not think anyone would claim that the mass extinctions ever killed off an entire phylum. The species found after a mass extinction were decendents of those that survived the extinction. No need to draw a new royal flush, the sequence is still there, just in a lot fewer varieties than it was before.

Darwinism is one of the classical methods used to attack Christian faith; if you have not been exposed to that, all well for you. Most Christians, though, have. All I am doing is showing that Darwinism is at least as flawed as my own creation-science view, and that modern evolutionary theory actually leaves much more room for a creator than did Darwin's.now I'm confused as to what exactly you mean by Darwinism. And creation-science is a contradiction in terms.

[D.S. Randlett]

Okay, here's the scoop on evolution from the Catholic perspective:

It happened. God is eternal and has no "concept" of time. We can't really say that one "God Day"= a gajillion years. What we can say, however, is that seven, to the ancients, was a number used to convey perfection, or completeness. The deal is though, God only said "it is good" six times. So, you could say that we are currently in that sixth day, waiting for that final judgement, which is where you get into that whole Revelation thing which I won't even go into discussing right now.

Just FYI.

[Adverb]

the artist formerly known as beavis:
How do you know that it can't be done? As you would say, Has there been any scientific research into this? Has anyone actually tried to do it?

Thanks for the expert documentation there, Mr. Wizard.You're right. I wouldn't know a thing about the subject. I'm just two years shy of my Ph.D. in chemistry. Just as lead cannot be turned into gold, water cannot be turned into wine. It never happened; it will never happen. Anyone who interprets the Bible literally is a moron who desperately needs to return to the 15th century.

As I've stated multiple times theres no reason a person can't believe in god and believe the scientific explanations for things. I'd be far more impressed with a god who makes a fairly simple set of rules that allows a universe like ours to run than a god who snaps his fingers and magically makes things appear.

Editted to cut down on the quotes.

[Chavez]

Adverb
the artist formerly known as beavis

Thanks for the expert documentation there, Mr. Wizard.You're right. I wouldn't know a thing about the subject. I'm just two years shy of my Ph.D. in chemistry. Just as lead cannot be turned into gold, water cannot be turned into wine. Actually, I was under the impression that lead CAN be turned into gold....

...it's just that you require a massive power source and a particle accelarator to do it. wink

[Chavez]

thomas.galvin
In an attempt to mock the Christian faith, a group of people seized this symbol, "evolved" it by giving it legs, and changing the name "Mock" - hm. Could it not be a both humourous and legitimate attempt to convey a belief in evolution? "Mocking" to be sure, but it's a fairly gentle poke.

Not to be outdone, however, some Christian groups have created a Truth fish, which eats the Darwin fish, intended to show the triumph of the Gospel's truth. To call this violent imagery, as was done somewhere down in this thread, is honestly reaching for something to be offended at; it does not advocate the extermination of Darwinist, but the triumph of truth over untruth.
Well, one "fish" eating another IS violent imagery, whether it is intended that way or not. Given the oft-inflexible notions of evangelicals (book burnings, bombing abortion clinics, etc (yes, I realize that IS the lunatic fringe, but it's still a significant number of people)), the idea of certain members calling hellfire, damnation, and destruction down on evolutionists is HARDLY strains the imagination.

[Jherek]

The argument between Christianity and evolution is finally settled here

<a href="http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp" target="_blank">http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp</a>

[Saucy]

Finally some fucking sense in this thread.

[Adverb]

Chavez:
Actually, I was under the impression that lead CAN be turned into gold....

...it's just that you require a massive power source and a particle accelarator to do it. wink See my previous post about wacky nuclear reactions.
:p

[Adverb]

Oh, and sorry for dorking this thread up.

[Shaolin Paly]

I know of a ton of Christian types who don't seem to be afraid of science in the least, I guess. Theologians like John Polkinhorne and Thomas Torrance have been incorporating relative physics into their readings and investigations for some time. Wolfhart Pannenberg is closely associated with Frank Tippler (nutcase, sure, but scientist, nonetheless) and has even encouraged the later's quantum mechanism for the incarnation and omega point theory, etc.

There seems to be a whole lot of dialogue between the sciences and certain religious perspectives in some areas and not so much in others. Quantum mechanics, for instance, seems to encourage that sort of thing. I guess it all depends on who you read. In the quantum model, the miraculous is not impossible, only highly improbable, but then so are a lot of things, really.

[Shaolin Paly]

Chavez:
thomas.galvin
In an attempt to mock the Christian faith, a group of people seized this symbol, "evolved" it by giving it legs, and changing the name "Mock" - hm. Could it not be a both humourous and legitimate attempt to convey a belief in evolution? "Mocking" to be sure, but it's a fairly gentle poke.

Not to be outdone, however, some Christian groups have created a Truth fish, which eats the Darwin fish, intended to show the triumph of the Gospel's truth. To call this violent imagery, as was done somewhere down in this thread, is honestly reaching for something to be offended at; it does not advocate the extermination of Darwinist, but the triumph of truth over untruth.
Well, one "fish" eating another IS violent imagery, whether it is intended that way or not. Given the oft-inflexible notions of evangelicals (book burnings, bombing abortion clinics, etc (yes, I realize that IS the lunatic fringe, but it's still a significant number of people)), the idea of certain members calling hellfire, damnation, and destruction down on evolutionists is HARDLY strains the imagination.No offense, man, but none of the evangelicals I know have ever bombed a clinic, burnt a book, or called down damnation on anything or anyone. They're, generally, good neighbors. The percentage of evangelicals who participate in those sorts of behaviors can't be any more than the number of non-evangelicals who force themselves sexually on woodland creatures. Thus, the image of your mother masturbating to Bambi HARDLY strains the imagination, but you probably wouldn't appreciate it on a t-shirt.

[thomas.galvin]

marc:
Interesting how your post seemed to be entierly anti-evolution, but when pressed you seem to be saying you do not deny evolution, just 'Darwinism'.Try re-reading my post, but this time, read what I wrote, and not what you wanted me to write. The discussion I entered was about the appropriateness of Truth consuming Darwinism, and I laid out the fact that this has, indeed, happened. I repeatedly refer to evolution as fact, or at least the best going theory, and periodic evolution (Punctuated Equilibrium is a more common term) as the truth that replaced Darwinism. If that wasn't clear, you have my apologies.

And regarding creation-science: it is basically the belief that God is responsible for the universe and everything in it, but that He carried out this creation primarily through natural, physical laws. We tend to view the biblical account of creation as an allegorical framework, and use science to fill in the details.

[thomas.galvin]

Chavez:
Well, one "fish" eating another IS violent imagery, whether it is intended that way or not. Given the oft-inflexible notions of evangelicals (book burnings, bombing abortion clinics, etc (yes, I realize that IS the lunatic fringe, but it's still a significant number of people)), the idea of certain members calling hellfire, damnation, and destruction down on evolutionists is HARDLY strains the imagination.and as I wrote above, it is also a totally appropriate analogy, both in terms of nature and in terms of the scientific process.

Animals eat one another. The world is not the warm and fuzzy place the kiddie shows make it out to be. If you are tasty and slow, you will soon be consumed. This is, actually, one of the cornerstones of Darwinism: natural selection.

The same is true in the scientific community. New theories consume older ones, taking what is useful as nutrients, and expelling the rest. These new theories, in turn, are consumed by later, better theories, and knowledge evolves over time.

Darwin had a theory, and it was the best theory he could come up with, given the facts at hand. Those who came after him used his theories to spurn their own work, taking what was useful and rejecting what was not, thus improving upon it. Darwinism was the food for modern evolutionary theory, which, while most likely not "The Truth" in and of itself, is at least a step closer to the truth.

If this shocks or offends you, if you honestly believe that this symbol is a threat to a group's physical well-being, you are honestly just looking for something to be offended at.

[Guttenberg Fan Club]

thomas.galvin:
Darwin had a theory, and it was the best theory he could come up with, given the facts at hand. Those who came after him used his theories to spurn their own work, taking what was useful and rejecting what was not, thus improving upon it. Darwinism was the food for modern evolutionary theory, which, while most likely not "The Truth" in and of itself, is at least a step closer to the truth.Evolutionary theory has evolved, but not as you portray it. You take the bits and pieces that fit well for your beliefs and run with them, ignoring all else. The theory has not changed to the point where we no longer believe humans evolved from other creatures or that any living being on this planet (with of course the exception of some one-celled organisms) has not evolved.

Some changes take longer than others. There isn't really a blueprint for these things, you know. Caticlismic events are often the harbingers of drastic evolution, which is one reason why there is so much change in short periods at times. Some changes occur over millions of years (which I think is seven god-years). There is no cut and dry in the evolution of all animals.

[DaveB]

Shouldn't it be a fish that says "New, Improved Theories on Evolution" that eats the Darwin fish, then?

What does Jesus have to do with new evolutionary theories "consuming" older ones?

[ghettoJedi]

Consider this. You manage, very unlikely, to prove that evolution is a seriously flawed theory. How does this give any scientific merit to creationism? Give me a scientific theory for creationism, which can explain what evolution explains and is coherent with a literal interpretation of the Bible. Don’t waste any space to explain why evolution is flawed (as this is assumed). Just present such a theory.

Anyone? Didn’t think so.

[Shaolin Paly]

ghettoJedi:
Consider this. You manage, very unlikely, to prove that evolution is a seriously flawed theory. How does this give any scientific merit to creationism? Give me a scientific theory for creationism, which can explain what evolution explains and is coherent with a literal interpretation of the Bible. Don’t waste any space to explain why evolution is flawed (as this is assumed). Just present such a theory.

Anyone? Didn’t think so.I'm not sure that Genesis was ever meant to be interpreted as blueprint for the evolutionary process. It is a type of literature that attempts to make a type of statement. Trying to apply it literally to the scientific/religious debate over the physical processes involved in creation and/or evolution is probably something like trying to read Catcher in the Rye as a street map of New York City or using The Charge of the Light Brigade as a text on battlefield strategy. I'm not sure that it functions in that way.

Genesis seems more interested in expressing the character, not the process of Creation. It has an eye to demonstrate the position of man in proximity to God within the context of His creation. It's not a manual. Therefore, you can fit all kinds of mechanisms, including evolution, into its understanding without sacrificing the greater purpose of the text, I think. All you need to say is that all things were created/developed over a period of time in an orderly and good fashion by a personal God and that man was/is the pinnacle of that creation. I'm not sure how evolution causes a problem there.

Evolution does not preclude the Creationist perspective, just a type of Creationist perspective. There are plenty of people running around who buy into some concept of "aristogenesis" or guided evolution that they find to be entirely compatible with their respective religious views on creation. I don't think that its a very hard thing to do. So, what's the big deal?

I mean, unless you want to generalize. That is, to say that the majority of Christians of one sort or another have a kneejerk negative reaction to the very thought of evolution. I guess you could say that is true, but the majority of Christians are every bit as average as the majority of non-Christians. Neither group has shown, at their lowest common denominator, a great ability to avoid all kinds of assbrained ideas.

So, maybe it's not about Christians and non-Christians. Smart Christians and smart non-Christians seem to be able to find some sort of common ground for dialogue from time to time. Maybe it's the dumb/mean people, in general, that bug ya on both sides of that particular fence.

That's what bugs me about this type of thread. One little old lady in some youth group somewhere makes a bad analogy and the response is "Christians are afraid of Science". One Christian website (probably a hoax, at that), takes an assbrained stance on an assbrained issue and its "Amazingly Stupid Christians." I don't understand why that is not immediately pegged as bigotted baiting, negative sterotyping. You're making a blanket statement about a billion people on the basis of one encounter with one person. There are many, many well-reasoned, well-educated, well-stated and studied, sincere and considerate Christians out there, as well.

[Chavez]

thomas.galvin
as I wrote above, it is also a totally appropriate analogy, both in terms of nature and in terms of the scientific process.

New theories consume older ones, taking what is useful as nutrients, and expelling the rest. These new theories, in turn, are consumed by later, better theories, and knowledge evolves over time.
Hm, and I thought applying the scientific method WAS an improvement over "the world, it done popped outta nowhere!"; Creationism is NO MORE VALID than the ancient Egyptian, Norse, or Greek creation myths (or pick whichever other religion you chose to name), and just as provable.

If this shocks or offends you, if you honestly believe that this symbol is a threat to a group's physical well-being, you are honestly just looking for something to be offended at.Actually, a group striving not only to maintain their own closed-mindedness and ignorance but to propogate it onto schoolchildren is pretty shocking and fear-inducing to me. I guess I'm just a scared little child.... :rolleyes:

[Chavez]

Adverb
Chavez
Actually, I was under the impression that lead CAN be turned into gold....

...it's just that you require a massive power source and a particle accelarator to do it. See my previous post about wacky nuclear reactions.
Yeah, I saw that - I figured that using the accelarator allowed you to perform the transformation without the nasty mess afterwards. :D

[Chavez]

Palintir
Thus, the image of your mother masturbating to Bambi HARDLY strains the imagination, but you probably wouldn't appreciate it on a t-shirt.Actually, I have one in my closet; I had to overpay on the black market due to local "blue laws." :rolleyes:

[ghettoJedi]

Palintir:
I'm not sure that Genesis was ever meant to be interpreted as blueprint for the evolutionary process. I agree with everything you say in your post. I neither think Genesis should be interpreted literally, and if it isn’t, evolution, or science in general shouldn’t be much of a problem. I guess this is the view most common among Christians.

And the problem is not people interpreting Genesis literally. But, as we all know, that a minority of the people who does tries to limit the teaching of evolution in schools. This is really a question of politics, influence and power, not science or religion. I’ve never been able to fully understand what they gain by this, but someone might be able to enlighten me here? Is it a question of convincing children early on that God exists?