Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
It's my honest impression that religionists who know alot about science merely 'think' they know about science, and scientists who 'know' alot about religion merely 'think' they know about religion. Each side commonly assumes that they understand the opposite stance, when often they do not. This is why many debates fail in the first place. People assume that they understand the other person's view, when they commonly have little to no idea. They present their own view, while failing to understand the other side.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Don't confuse me with the facts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I believe that the multiverse is infinitely eternal and eternally infinite.
It's my honest impression that religionists who know alot about science merely 'think' they know about science, and scientists who 'know' alot about religion merely 'think' they know about religion. Each side commonly assumes that they understand the opposite stance, when often they do not. This is why many debates fail in the first place. People assume that they understand the other person's view, when they commonly have little to no idea. They present their own view, while failing to understand the other side.
That is an excellent point. There is much truth in that.
I think, however, that religion is something more people are exposed to, certainly here in the U.S., than science.
In order to understand religion it is possible to do it with one book and lots of introspection. To understand science is a different animal.
I really do want Creationists and Young Earthers' to step up to the plate and bring in the science as well. Otherwise it fails, as you point out, from the beginning.
I personally spent many years as a Christian (about 40) and I've read and studied a lot of the great apologists and church thinkers. I actually liked studying that. But I also love science.
I don't mean to insult anyone, but I've yet to hear any YECers' here discuss their experience in learning science.
And I would dearly love to hear that. Really and honestly.
That is an excellent point. There is much truth in that.
I think, however, that religion is something more people are exposed to, certainly here in the U.S., than science.
In order to understand religion it is possible to do it with one book and lots of introspection. To understand science is a different animal.
I really do want Creationists and Young Earthers' to step up to the plate and bring in the science as well. Otherwise it fails, as you point out, from the beginning.
I personally spent many years as a Christian (about 40) and I've read and studied a lot of the great apologists and church thinkers. I actually liked studying that. But I also love science.
I don't mean to insult anyone, but I've yet to hear any YECers' here discuss their experience in learning science.
And I would dearly love to hear that. Really and honestly.
This probably isn't fair to people who have spent the better part of a decade on theology degrees and have since moved on to a ministry or an academic position.
I really do want Creationists and Young Earthers' to step up to the plate and bring in the science as well. Otherwise it fails, as you point out, from the beginning.
Difficulty may arise in the fact that Creationism and Young Earth perspectives are not really founded upon science. Their only basis seems to be the bible, which is commonly rejected by scientists.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Don't confuse me with the facts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I believe that the multiverse is infinitely eternal and eternally infinite.
There are lots of people, whether scientist or not, who can claim they know a lot about religion and they will probably be correct. However, it's a far cry to claim that if one knows a lot about religion that one likewise knows a lot about God.
__________________ David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise."
It's my honest impression that religionists who know alot about science merely 'think' they know about science, and scientists who 'know' alot about religion merely 'think' they know about religion. Each side commonly assumes that they understand the opposite stance, when often they do not. This is why many debates fail in the first place. People assume that they understand the other person's view, when they commonly have little to no idea. They present their own view, while failing to understand the other side.
I found it to be an advantge to my study of creationism to have spent some years studying the Yucatec Maya. They were for the most part fine people who welcomed me into their homes and lives. They also worship various gods and assorted spirits few people reading this will have ever heard of, and with the same range of faith and skepticism we find on these BBs. That experience allowed me to approach creationism with a bit of professional tolerance. After some years of studying creationism, however, this tolerance has worn very thin. Very very thin.
Anyone wanting a quick yet thorough review of creationism in America should seriously read;
Numbers, Ronald L.
1993 The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism Berkeley: University of California Press
If you want to do it the hard way, (actually reading creationist claptrap), I suggest that you start with the classic;
Whitcomb, John C., Henry M. Morris
1961 The Genesis Flood Grand Rapids: Baker Book House
If however your interest is in the Christian tradition and the history of the Bible I recommend you start reading;
Blenkinsopp, Joseph
1992 The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible The Anchor Bible Reference Library New York: ABRL/Doubleday
Ehrman, Bart D.
2005 Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why San Fransico: Harper
Friedman, Richard Elliott
1987 Who Wrote the Bible? New York:Harper and Row (Paperback Edition)
For texts particularly relevant to the evo/creato discussion;
Cross, Frank Moore
1973 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel Boston: Harvard University Press
Dalley, Stephanie
2000 Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Revised Oxford: Oxford University Press
Speiser, E. A.
1962 Genesis: Introduction, Translation and Notes New York: Anchor Bible-Doubleday
Over the many years I've been debating CREVO and Young Earth topics I have reached the probably highly controversial conclusion that:
most scientists know more about religion than Young Earthers' know about science.
I would be interested in knowing if this is accurate. If it is then clearly science education is needed.
If, however, it is inaccurate, then the Young Earthers' who do have science backgrounds need to speak up and be heard.
Notwithstanding Ondoher's point (see above), I am inclined to agree. Let me put it this way, I think liberal Christians, theistic evos, agnostics, atheists, whatevers, generally know more about the Bible, its origins, verses in it, than those who loudly proclaim their faith and are keen to argue from the Bible.
In my years of arguing with creationists, I have often been surprised at how many withdraw from a debate (i.e. don't answer a post) when it comes to discussing aspects of the Bible. I have even met one or two evangelists who seemed keen on thumping the Bible, but quickly disappear when questioned on why they chose one interpretation of a verse, rather than another.
I have this impression, the louder a man proclaims his Bible, the less he is likely to know about it.
After some years of studying creationism, however, this tolerance has worn very thin. Very very thin.
Why is that?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Don't confuse me with the facts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I believe that the multiverse is infinitely eternal and eternally infinite.
This probably isn't fair to people who have spent the better part of a decade on theology degrees and have since moved on to a ministry or an academic position.
Oh no offense is intended to theologians. However, if a theologian were to discuss a topic that is part theology/part science then clearly some cross-understanding is necessary.
I think my original contention may be expandable to the idea that most scientists know more about theology than theologians know about science.
Nota Bene: this is not a bad thing per se. Just that when discussions arise on the topic of where science apparently intersects with religion, the only side that seems to be willing to even look at the data on the opposing side is the scientists who likely did so as they grew up in a religious surrounding.
While I personally no longer believe that theology carries as much importance as science, I am not willing to say that is an important point. Just that the debate, when entered into, seems unbalanced.
Again, I would really like to hear from Young Earthers' their experience with science. I am more than glad to expose my experience with religion and my many years of living as a Christian. I hope it can be reciprocated.
Linear Mode
