In praise of Darwin this Sunday in hundreds of churches!

[shernren]

Let's see what fun we can do with that single, effective sentence AiG quoted from Richard Dawkins ...

The original:

Dawkins added, “Charles Darwin hit upon a truly brilliant idea that elegantly explains all of life on earth without any need to invoke the supernatural or the divine.”

Gwenyfur's comment: That must feel like a kick in the gut for TE's.

What Richard Dawkins could've said:

"Louis Pasteur hit upon a truly brilliant idea that elegantly explains all of disease on earth without any need to invoke the supernatural or the divine.”

What a kick in the gut that must be for Christian doctors!

"Benjamin Franklin hit upon a truly brilliant demonstration that elegantly explains all of lightning on earth without any need to invoke the supernatural or the divine.”

What a kick in the gut that must be for Christian meteorologists!

"Isaac Newton hit upon a truly brilliant idea that elegantly explains how the universe holds together without any need to invoke the supernatural or the divine.”

What a kick in the gut that must be for Christian physicists!

And of course, an issue that is a personal favourite but is almost never discussed,

"The AiG team have hit upon one truly brilliant scientific idea after another that elegantly explain all old-universe evidence in a young-universe framework without any need to invoke the supernatural or the divine.”

What a kick in the gut that must be for Ken Ham! (Except that if Richard Dawkins ever really said it he'd probably grin and congratulate him for turning to the Light side.)




The lesson is that a quote from the enemy camp must be very, very, very, very carefully unpacked and defused before it is taken and utilized in support of your own side.

And my own personal commentary on over-using 1 Corinthians 1:

I wonder if Christians can afford to simply throw out 1 Corinthians 1-2 as proof texts every time the world starts throwing brickbats and insults. "Gee, we're being laughed at, it's because the world is going to hell and we're not!" What I always say in response is that sometimes the world laughs because we're Christian, and sometimes the world laughs because we're plain silly.

Let's examine the context in which Paul writes 1 Corinthians 1 and 2. In 1 Cor 2, he says that he first came to them "in weakness and in trembling". In 1 Cor 1, he talks about how the cross is both repulsive to the Jews and the Greeks. Plug this into the historical context of his first coming to Corinth. What had happened to cause him to go "in weakness and in trembling"? Does that sound like the first thing that comes to mind when we think of Paul, the fearless missionary?

In Acts 17 we find that prior to Corinth, Paul had been in Athens where he debated at length with the Greek philosophers. Then when he first came to Corinth, he was rejected by the Jews of the synagogue. He reached such a low point that God had to appear to him to remind him to not be afraid (18:9), and this is probably what is meant by Paul's "fear and trembling" upon meeting the Corinthians and in coming to them with "nothing but Jesus crucified".

What I gain from this is that we can only claim that people are laughing at us for being Christian, when we have done all we can to make sure that we are not being silly. This is in contrast to some people's approach who say at the first rebuke "This is the foolishness of the cross!" and plow ahead even if the objections are legitimate. When Paul said "this is the foolishness of the cross to the world which is perishing" he said this at the end of a lengthy and certainly sound discourse with the most intellectual of the Jews and the Greeks and failing to win them unanimously. He did not draw back and say "of course they don't understand me, they're perishing!" after a simple initial presentation with initial resistance - he did this after full-blown battles strong enough to leave the Apostle to the Gentiles in "fear and trembling".

And be careful about quoting Scripture ... 1 Cor 1:19 is itself a quote of Isaiah 29:14, which refers to the destruction of wisdom and intelligence not among the people of the world but among God's own people. We must be careful that what we ourselves say is solid before turning the flamethrowers on the world.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Let's see what fun we can do with that single, effective sentence AiG quoted from Richard Dawkins ...

The original:



Gwenyfur's comment: That must feel like a kick in the gut for TE's.

What Richard Dawkins could've said:



What a kick in the gut that must be for Christian doctors!



What a kick in the gut that must be for Christian meteorologists!



What a kick in the gut that must be for Christian physicists!

And of course, an issue that is a personal favourite but is almost never discussed,



What a kick in the gut that must be for Ken Ham! (Except that if Richard Dawkins ever really said it he'd probably grin and congratulate him for turning to the Light side.)




The lesson is that a quote from the enemy camp must be very, very, very, very carefully unpacked and defused before it is taken and utilized in support of your own side.

And my own personal commentary on over-using 1 Corinthians 1:

I wonder if Christians can afford to simply throw out 1 Corinthians 1-2 as proof texts every time the world starts throwing brickbats and insults. "Gee, we're being laughed at, it's because the world is going to hell and we're not!" What I always say in response is that sometimes the world laughs because we're Christian, and sometimes the world laughs because we're plain silly.

Let's examine the context in which Paul writes 1 Corinthians 1 and 2. In 1 Cor 2, he says that he first came to them "in weakness and in trembling". In 1 Cor 1, he talks about how the cross is both repulsive to the Jews and the Greeks. Plug this into the historical context of his first coming to Corinth. What had happened to cause him to go "in weakness and in trembling"? Does that sound like the first thing that comes to mind when we think of Paul, the fearless missionary?

In Acts 17 we find that prior to Corinth, Paul had been in Athens where he debated at length with the Greek philosophers. Then when he first came to Corinth, he was rejected by the Jews of the synagogue. He reached such a low point that God had to appear to him to remind him to not be afraid (18:9), and this is probably what is meant by Paul's "fear and trembling" upon meeting the Corinthians and in coming to them with "nothing but Jesus crucified".

What I gain from this is that we can only claim that people are laughing at us for being Christian, when we have done all we can to make sure that we are not being silly. This is in contrast to some people's approach who say at the first rebuke "This is the foolishness of the cross!" and plow ahead even if the objections are legitimate. When Paul said "this is the foolishness of the cross to the world which is perishing" he said this at the end of a lengthy and certainly sound discourse with the most intellectual of the Jews and the Greeks and failing to win them unanimously. He did not draw back and say "of course they don't understand me, they're perishing!" after a simple initial presentation with initial resistance - he did this after full-blown battles strong enough to leave the Apostle to the Gentiles in "fear and trembling".

And be careful about quoting Scripture ... 1 Cor 1:19 is itself a quote of Isaiah 29:14, which refers to the destruction of wisdom and intelligence not among the people of the world but among God's own people. We must be careful that what we ourselves say is solid before turning the flamethrowers on the world.

He *could* have said and didn't.
Enemy camps? You making this a war???

Scripture is scripture and as a Jew I'm well aware of the Isaiah quote. The NT is 80% quote from the OT. It still doesn't change the fact that worldly "wisdom" will be made foolish. The G-d's own people who were following idolatry

If you believe you need a Savior, what's so hard about having enough faith to believe that He could have spoken the world into being, despite what the wisdom (science) of man says...

Pity really....

 

[Willtor]

He *could* have said and didn't.
Enemy camps? You making this a war???

Scripture is scripture and as a Jew I'm well aware of the Isaiah quote. The NT is 80% quote from the OT. It still doesn't change the fact that worldly "wisdom" will be made foolish. The G-d's own people who were following idolatry

If you believe you need a Savior, what's so hard about having enough faith to believe that He could have spoken the world into being, despite what the wisdom (science) of man says...

Pity really....

But Science doesn't say He didn't speak the Universe into existence. Really, it doesn't say one way or the other. It seems to me that the "worldly wisdom" of our day is the wisdom that pits Science against Christ. You've seen Richard Dawkins and Ken Ham both do it. Look how many people listen to them and take what they say at face value.

 

[Gwenyfur]

But Science doesn't say He didn't speak the Universe into existence. Really, it doesn't say one way or the other. It seems to me that the "worldly wisdom" of our day is the wisdom that pits Science against Christ. You've seen Richard Dawkins and Ken Ham both do it. Look how many people listen to them and take what they say at face value.

As a matter of fact it does...
Go read Darwin's Origin of Species....and any other evolutionary writings. They exclude G-d and in turn man is only a highly evolved animal...

Read the truth of the theory...See exaclty how apposite it is from G-d's word.

 

[ignorant and stupid]

QuoteOriginally Posted by: Hypothetical "The apple hit Newton's head, not Adam's throat" Dawkins "Isaac Newton hit upon a truly brilliant idea that elegantly explains how the universe holds together without any need to invoke the supernatural or the divine.”


What a kick in the gut that must be for Christian physicists!

Just to clarify, Newton was a Christian and did credit God with the creation of everything he discovered. And Newton's findings are not the full scientific explanation, it has been superceeded by more modern theories.

This may well happen to evolution, but it hasn't yet, it is the full scientific explanation and so your comparison isn't really valid.

 

[Willtor]

As a matter of fact it does...
Go read Darwin's Origin of Species....and any other evolutionary writings. They exclude G-d and in turn man is only a highly evolved animal...

Read the truth of the theory...See exaclty how apposite it is from G-d's word.

So do Physics textbooks. So do all Science textbooks. Not one of them cites God as the architect of the field they pursue. But that's not really their place. If I wanted to understand the particulars of God's relation to Science, I'd read theology.

 

[Willtor]

Just to clarify, Newton was a Christian and did credit God with the creation of everything he discovered. And Newton's findings are not the full scientific explanation, it has been superceeded by more modern theories.

This may well happen to evolution, but it hasn't yet, it is the full scientific explanation and so your comparison isn't really valid.

Yes, he was a Christian, and he had as much to write on Revelation as he ever did on Physics. Nevertheless, he placed a clear division between his Scientific work and his metaphysical interpretations of that work. This is one of the things, in my opinion, that made him a better Scientist than Dawkins will ever be (in all likelyhood). He was well versed in Philosophy, and was able to understand the difference between his Scientific conclusions and his Philosophical and Theological conclusions.

God had established Physical Law, and was its enforcer, but one could explore Physical Law without having to clarify every statement with, "but it's really God who is doing this."

 

[notto]

As a matter of fact it does...
Go read Darwin's Origin of Species....and any other evolutionary writings. They exclude G-d and in turn man is only a highly evolved animal...

It's funny that Darwin would refer to the Creator in his conclusions then, isn't it?

Where exactly does Darwin exclude God in Origin of a Species. Please be specific.

 

[lismore]

Dawkins (rightly) attacks faith that is opposed to reason. .

Dawkins is especially after TE's, because their view doesnt make reasonable sense to either side.

He laughs at how they can say the foundations of a belief are allegorical and other parts are true. he also laughs that they have accepted evolution and still decide to tag God on there.

If you sit on the fence all that happens is that you get spike marks on you

 

[lismore]

It's funny that Darwin would refer to the Creator in his conclusions then, isn't it?

Where exactly does Darwin exclude God in Origin of a Species. Please be specific.

Muslims worship a creator, Christians worship a creator, Pagans worship a creator, even some head hunters and cannibals worship a creator.

The fact that you worship a creator proves little. The Lord is a God of revealation:

Hebrews
1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe

Its not acceptable to formulate your own idea of God and to worship your own fantasy. Because God the revealer is not far from any of us.

Acts 17

26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, for he is not far from each one of us.


Now if God made all men from one man, then which 'missing link' is that referring to?

 

[notto]

Muslims worship a creator, Christians worship a creator, Pagans worship a creator, even some head hunters and cannibals worship a creator.

The fact that you worship a creator proves little. The Lord is a God of revealation:

There is only one Creator. As an Anglican and someone who at one time studied to be part of the Anglican ministry at Christs College, what Creator do you think Darwin was referring to?

Regardless, his work did not exclude God as originally claimed. If you can provide evidence that it did, then please provide a reference that shows this exclusion.

By your logic, the Creator referenced in the Declaration of Independence could be talking about something other than the Christian God even though the signers where many protestant (including Anglicans, just like Darwin). Is that your suggestion?

 

[lismore]

By your logic, the Creator referenced in the Declaration of Independence could be talking about something other than the Christian God even though the signers where many protestant (including Anglicans, just like Darwin). Is that your suggestion?

Yes that is my suggestion.

Jesus didnt mention protestant, anglican, this college or that college. Lets see what Jesus said:

John 3:3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again".

The people who penned the declaration of independence could be referring to their own view of 'creator', or 'christian god' .

For example, Thomas Jefferson, kept over 5,000 black slaves, raped many black slave women and supported violence against the indians. By their fruit you will know who's who! Can you follow the light and stay in darkness?

Look at The Israelites, they built a golden calf and said this is the god who brought us up out of Egypt. Was it?

God reveals himself to us, we cant just reinvent him with our own notions and theories.

 

[notto]

Yes that is my suggestion.

Jesus didnt mention protestant, anglican, this college or that college. Lets see what Jesus said:

John 3:3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again".

The people who penned the declaration of independence could be referring to their own view of 'creator', or 'christian god' .

So then to follow the reasoning presented in this thread the Declaration of Independence excludes God. Interesting point of view but one that I disagree with. The Chrisitan signers would be surprised I'm sure.

For example, Thomas Jefferson, kept over 5,000 black slaves, raped many black slave women and supported violence against the indians. By their fruit you will know who's who! Can you follow the light and stay in darkness?

Look at The Israelites, they built a golden calf and said this is the god who brought us up out of Egypt. Was it?

God reveals himself to us, we cant just reinvent him with our own notions and theories.

The 'No True Scotsman' falicy. Not real convincing. It would seem that you are claiming that any time a sinner who is a Christian references the Creator that it may not be the Christian God. That seems kind of silly considering we are all sinners.

As it stands, the claims that Origin of a Species excludes God remain unsupported and in direct conflict with the actual words in the book itself.

 

[lismore]

So then to follow the reasoning presented in this thread the Declaration of Independence excludes God. .

Dont do as they do, do as they say?

Very nice

 

[The Lady Kate]

Dont do as they do, do as they say?

Very nice

No different than the doctrine preached by many self-proclaimed "True Christians" throughout history.

 

[lismore]

No different than the doctrine preached by many self-proclaimed "True Christians" throughout history.

Yes. Sad isnt it?

 

[canehdianhotstuff]

heh technically the bible does contradict itsself on its on creation theory , but thats on a scientific view and thats not how th ebible was intended to be viewed...you nor i know these answers so yeah

 

[Willtor]

Dawkins is especially after TE's, because their view doesnt make reasonable sense to either side.

He laughs at how they can say the foundations of a belief are allegorical and other parts are true. he also laughs that they have accepted evolution and still decide to tag God on there.

If you sit on the fence all that happens is that you get spike marks on you

I don't care if Dawkins laughs at me. That's his Right as an English citizen. I don't believe the things I believe to impress him. Really, I'm just interested in the truth. And if somebody laughs at me (for any reason), then so be it.

 

[shernren]

Just to clarify, Newton was a Christian and did credit God with the creation of everything he discovered. And Newton's findings are not the full scientific explanation, it has been superceeded by more modern theories.

This may well happen to evolution, but it hasn't yet, it is the full scientific explanation and so your comparison isn't really valid.

The reason I chose Newton instead of Einstein is that in fact, Einstein's theories are directly anti-YECistic as well. Most YECs seem to forget that it is mainly Einstein's work that predicts an old but finitely aged universe. Effectively, YECs have to write a new Theory of General Relativity before they can show from cosmology that the universe is young. If I had said that Einstein had kicked God out of the picture it might actually have been true (or at least perceived to be so, by some).

I agree with what you said and it adds to the irony of it. Yes, Newton was a committed (if somewhat heretical) Christian, and some YECs I know have pointed to him to show that "real science is creationist!" And yet the great "evil tide of naturalism" that Carl Wieland and other creationists (relatively) in the know started largely with him, in the area of physics at least. Yes, Newton would give God credit. And yet it wasn't God and philosophy that was causing color, and apples to fall, and the moon to orbit the earth and cause tides - it was forces and light and refraction, phenomena that an atheist can believe in as easily as a Christian.

Even if evolution is superseded by better theories in future, the point remains valid and strong. YECism at times seems to believe that only a supernatural, un-understandable theory of origins can give God credit. They do not see the implication - that any natural theory explaining any observable phenomenon robs God of credit ... even their own "scientifically valid" explanations of old-earth/universe observations. If science can show that the earth is young do we need God to tell us so?

 

[lismore]

I don't care if Dawkins laughs at me. That's his Right as an English citizen.

British citizen. Since 1707 England doesnt exist.

Dawkins in that TV programme didnt say much about Islam. Lots of people from inside and outside Christianity like to put the boot into it.