I want to always be careful to distinguish between darwinism, which I believe is a lie straight out of the pit of hell, and darwinists, which are people who believe in darwinism.
A person can be a fantastic loving Christian and be a darwinist. They are wrong, and they are deceived by Satan himself, but they can be great people.
I heard that, the early Christians believed that they were at war with spiritual forces led by Satan. The term 'pagan' actually meant 'civilian' and it was a term Roman officers used to describe country bumpkin types. The early church used it to describe people they thought had been deluded by Satan. That's why most of them did not retaliate when persecuted, they felt that the persecutors were victims of a spiritual delusion and wanted to help them.
I have to always remember how God continually shows me ways in which Satan has deceived me. When I value materialism or work or ..... over spending time with God -- when I allow various things to capture my heart when it really belongs to the One who IS love -- I am deceived.
We all struggle with that don't we. The things of the world can grow up like thorns around the word and make it hard to bear fruit. My favorite Gospel song is by Terry Talbot, there's a part I think about a lot:
In my final hours of darkness, in the gardens of my search,
temptation has grown around me, like thorns around the Word.
I saw my sin before me and I felt my heart grow numb.
When I cried where is my strength came the answer that change my life.
I AM He he said... (Terry Talbot, I am He)
I believe darwinism and its cousins scientificism and liberal theology and higher criticism, etc., appeal to people out of elitism and pride. It is so appealing to think that we know more than God Himself revealed in His Word. To put ourselves and our human understanding over what He says so clearly.
When I was a new Christian I used to watch Jimmey Swaggart, he used to rant and rave about Secular Humanism. At the time I didn't know what it was really but there is a school of thought among secular atheists and agnostics that they can do religion better then Christians. When I was in college I took a Philosophy of religion class that started out with Secular Humanism and ended with it. There was a lot of talk about sacred places...etc, they really believe that they are superior and not just in the sciences or academics.
Of course true wisdom involves accepting God at His word first. By putting ourselves into the proper context and worldview, we can attain real knowledge and real wisdom. In the case of geology -- we find that oh, you CAN interpret these huge intercontinental formations as being formed in a global flood -- just like God said! Amazing... He is true. Always.
I can't make heads or tails of geology. I've read Henry Morris and he is probably the only one that made any sense of it for me. He was talking about radiometric dating once and said they test decay for weeks, months or years and project it over millions of years, this he said, would not be tolerated in any of the other sciences.
God's wisdom has always seemed like foolishness to the wise of our age. Jesus even said the children of darkness are wiser then the children of light in this age. I think we should be content with the foolishness of God because it's stronger then the fleeting worldly wisdom of the age.
Grace and peace,
Mark
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
Last edited by mark kennedy; 18th January 2009 at 10:45 PM.
That's definitely part of it, they do have a condescending way about themselves. I think it goes back to what Bacon said, 'knowledge is power'. More importantly then being right or wrong I think they like being in control of Universities that have big budgets.
The irony of this statement is profound.
You know, I can live with differences. I don't agree with a lot of my Christian brothers and sisters on a lot of topics, most unrelated to science or creation, but I know that I cannot possibly know their heart and that only God is judge. So I love them as my Christian brothers and sisters regardless; I will argue my side of things with passion, but I will love them no less for disagreeing with me. What I have trouble living with is the knowledge that others, out of supposed piety or humility, judge me based on my honest and prayerful attempts to study the truth of God's word.
Sorry to distract from this thread; do know that I am going to be watching it closely.
Like I always say, tell creationist to put up, or shut up. Let me know when your paper gets into Nature and I will take your ideas seriously, till then your ideas are no more valid than Muslims and Hindus trying to make the evidence fit their ideas.
You know, I can live with differences. I don't agree with a lot of my Christian brothers and sisters on a lot of topics, most unrelated to science or creation, but I know that I cannot possibly know their heart and that only God is judge. So I love them as my Christian brothers and sisters regardless; I will argue my side of things with passion, but I will love them no less for disagreeing with me. What I have trouble living with is the knowledge that others, out of supposed piety or humility, judge me based on my honest and prayerful attempts to study the truth of God's word.
You can live with the differences but the secular community can't and I'm not talking about Christians I have doctrinal differences with. Even if I were I can confront false doctrine and error with a sense of humility being careful that I don't fall into the same one or maybe something worse. The academic and scientific ivory towers have long distorted what is called science and their deep bias against anything theistic is evident and obvious.
I honestly don't care if you decide to take Genesis 1-11 with a grain of salt since poetic prose is sometimes hard to nail down. I do have a problem with the large number of professing Christians who continually contradict the clear meaning of Scripture while neglecting vital Christian doctrine and theism.
Sorry to distract from this thread; do know that I am going to be watching it closely.
I do hope you will take the opportunity to learn somethings about genetics. It's the fastest growing science of our day and as Darwin said, "the origin of species- that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers." With the rise of genetics it is not so mysterious, the variation we see in domestication and in the wild can be traced back to molecular mechanisms that are identifiable and measurable.
They often speak of evolution and species but the real issues are adaptation and hybrids (see my signature). Both Darwin and Mendel asked similar questions, Mendel produced the two laws of inheritance that became the foundation of modern genetics. Darwin produced an argument against special creation that made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist. The trouble is that the former is scientific and the latter is philosophical naturalism that first assumes purely naturalistic causes and all supernatural explanations are rejected without a hearing. Their attitude is no different with regards to the New Testament and New Testament Christians who are influenced by the secular world should be mindful of this fact.
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
Last edited by mark kennedy; 19th January 2009 at 12:41 PM.
Reason: transcript errors
Personally, I think too many Christians have a flawed view of essential doctrine. Thank God that His grace exceeds our ability to understand.
Genetics is definitely a key to evolutionary theory. It provides a measurable, testable and falsifiable foundation for Darwin's theories. I will read your posts in all seriousness, but know this: I expect creationism, if valid, to do more than point to the space between the trees and declare there is no forest.
Personally, I think too many Christians have a flawed view of essential doctrine. Thank God that His grace exceeds our ability to understand.
You mean creationists right? Regardless of what you think of a literal interpretation of Genesis original sin is essential doctrine.
Genetics is definitely a key to evolutionary theory. It provides a measurable, testable and falsifiable foundation for Darwin's theories. I will read your posts in all seriousness, but know this: I expect creationism, if valid, to do more than point to the space between the trees and declare there is no forest.
Ok I get it, your not interested in talking about Mendelian Genetics or Darwinism just condescending to Creationists. I made up my mind not to engage Theistic Evolutionists since they are just pawns in a Darwinian culture war of attrition. Comment on anything you like but I refuse to engage Theistic Evolutionists since I consider them divisive, contentious and I don't appreciate people who make sport of serious study and firm conviction.
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
To add new doctrines to Christianity has always been to divide His people, for some will cling to the old and others will go to the new. Creationism is not an essential Christian doctrine, and never will be, since it is the invention of men.
It won't send you to hell, necessarily, to believe in creationism, but it will be one more stumbling block for those seeking Him.
You mean creationists right? Regardless of what you think of a literal interpretation of Genesis original sin is essential doctrine.
Only a subset of creationists, and not only creationists. In fact, I'm talking mostly about legalism issues that have nothing to do with the interpretation of Genesis.
Ok I get it, your not interested in talking about Mendelian Genetics or Darwinism just condescending to Creationists. I made up my mind not to engage Theistic Evolutionists since they are just pawns in a Darwinian culture war of attrition. Comment on anything you like but I refuse to engage Theistic Evolutionists since I consider them divisive, contentious and I don't appreciate people who make sport of serious study and firm conviction.
Dude, I'm not trying to insult or condescend to you. I will listen to what you say - yes, with a critical ear, but with an open one. I will not prejudge your data. I am just a bit tired of the arguments that equate finding missing pieces in a theory as falsification.
Only a subset of creationists, and not only creationists. In fact, I'm talking mostly about legalism issues that have nothing to do with the interpretation of Genesis.
Alright, I consider myself to be open minded and like to give people a chance to express their views. Creationism has never been tied to legalism, in fact, when it comes to the entrance of sin into humanity Paul is crystal clear that it was the sin of Adam and Eve. He ties this directly to the doctrine of justification by faith so if we evolved from apes then did God create us sinners or what? I'll tell you what, take a good look at Romans 5 and tell me if he was a creationist.
Dude, I'm not trying to insult or condescend to you. I will listen to what you say - yes, with a critical ear, but with an open one. I will not prejudge your data. I am just a bit tired of the arguments that equate finding missing pieces in a theory as falsification.
Data regarding what exactly because I have written extensively on these boards with regards to human evolution for a long time now. My primary arguments are from the peer reviewed scientific literature that evolutionists prize so highly. Things like genomic comparisons, ERVs, comparative anatomy and fossilized primate skulls considered our ancestors that are the size of a chimpanzee's.
I have ran the gambit a hundred times and remain steadfast in the assertion the Mendelian Genetics represents the genuine article of science while Darwinism is a contrived psuedo-scientific contrivance based on naturalistic assumptions of no Creator.
Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware that things have evolved in all their vast array. The thing is that Genetics has left the question of origins open and if evolutionists were being truly scientific they would as well.
Once Robert Frost was asked what inspired his poetry, he said and I'm paraphrasing, 'We know nothing of the ethereal, it is deeper and deeper and deeper into the natural'. That might be fine for someone who does not examine the evidence regarding the historicity of Scripture and determine that it's credentials are impeccable. The Bible is a revelation of human history and if pressed to it's logical conclusion, the origin of natural history as well.
You want to have this discussion then let's talk science or we can talk Scripture, it make no difference to me. It comes down to one thing crayfish, how do we know that we know what we know. If you think I'm talking in riddles then consider this, the essence of the term 'science' is actually knowledge. The problem is that it's a certain kind of knowledge. So that leaves us with at least four possible ways to go: Epistemology, Metaphysics, Theology or quite possible, the actual evidence with regards to human origins.
So ok, what's on your mind?
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
Alright, I consider myself to be open minded and like to give people a chance to express their views. Creationism has never been tied to legalism, in fact, when it comes to the entrance of sin into humanity Paul is crystal clear that it was the sin of Adam and Eve. He ties this directly to the doctrine of justification by faith so if we evolved from apes then did God create us sinners or what? I'll tell you what, take a good look at Romans 5 and tell me if he was a creationist.
Understand, my statement does not equate creationism with legalism. I would think the text was clear about that? Both are mutually exclusive; you can be one without being the other. Although I probably would argue that it's more likely a legalist would be creationist rather than a TE.
I was trying to avoid mentioning specific theologies here because I don't want open up any other cans of worms. I will point out one in particular: I belong to the church of Christ where many don't believe that using musical instruments is pleasing to God. That is hardly essential doctrine, although many of them argue otherwise. Most denominations have one or two of these issues where the legalistic members demand beliefs that are not essential.
As to whether Paul is a creationist or not, I would say that question falls into the same realm as "was Jesus a Republican"? In other words, totally irrelevant, since the word would have no meaning in that time. Without counter-evidence, there is no reason to put your faith against the accepted norms of the time. It is only modern evidence that forces the question.
So ok, what's on your mind?
Believe it or not, I'm not trying to get into any particular discussion here. I am no scientist so I have to trust in my ability to discern the truth from others. My simple method is this: I listen to the argument (from creationist or scientific data), I read the critiques from the opposing side, and I then read the critiques of the critiques. You can judge the honestly of a critique by seeing how completely it deals with all the details of what it is critiquing. Admitting that something your opponent says has merit and you have no answer is a plus; avoiding it or misrepresenting it is a minus. Pushing data that has been proven false, or pushing data as fact that is not, is also a minus. That is how I read most of the arguments on this board, and how I read yours.
I'm not trying to dismiss you offhand or to belittle your efforts.
Linear Mode
