Evolution and you?

[gurneyhalleck1]

You're telling me that I think scientists don't bring an agenda to the table and that they don't have their own prejudices and biases that drive their motives? I never said any such thing? That's why I asked you for clarifications. I said that scientists shouldn't have to have any agenda in any direction except that which they observe empirically. I never said or implied that they are all angels? I merely spoke of how science should work. You seemed to me to be saying that they should all be philosophers and theologians with a, as usual, Chestertonian approach to their craft that encapsulates their work driven by your ethic ideally. That's perfectly fine...unrealistic as all heck, but fine. I don't have a problem with that. And I'm not saying that I'm a naive chap who thinks that scientists are all free of ego and agenda. Far from it. I detest the motives of many scientists I've read about. More often than not I'm disheartened to read of the rampant atheism and unethical behavior of many scientists. Hawking drives me crazy.

I'm disappointed that you can't just explain something with repeating past miscues or disagreements or perceived misunderstandings. It'd be nice to finally start fresh, Rus, but I feel that you can't do that sometimes. You superglue yourself to the past tightly. Yes, I'm a family man, too. My wife is overseas right now and I'm taking care of three children by myself. So I understand. But I'm always willing to explain my thoughts and hopefully come to agreement or at least understanding without believing the worst about you.

I'm personally not real interested in how you classify me. If you think I'm "most people" without the insight, that's cool. I know who I am. I happen to think, as I said, that science should be driven by observation and that religion isn't really the driving force of science. We don't read the Bible as a science text. I don't personally think Noah held every single species of every single animal on a boat nor do I take whales swallowing Jonah literally. Yet I don't look down upon my friends, many in fact, who take these stories stone cold literally. I find them to be bright people, by no means commoners. Just different angle from me.

I have no plans to put you on ignore...I don't cast off people so easily as bothersome or loathsome. I come on here to hear other views, not to rubber stamp my own as eternal dogma for all to read.

On "most people", it seems to be true. You really DO seem unaware that all scientists do interpret their findings through the prism of their worldview, AND at a great many scientists are unconscious of the fact that they do. If I'm wrong, my apologies. But as long as you talk as if their worldview does NOT impact their work, I must assume you to be so unaware. As soon as I see different, then this conversation will change course and I will exclude you from" most people", seeing that you DO understand that.

On the other hand, I so rarely feel that you do understand me and my context that I'm less inclined to try, seeing it as potentially harmful for both of us. Then I'll say to just go back and read more Chesterton when you can (in addition, not instead of Orthodox reading), as a much better stand in, and put me on "ignore". A family man only has so much time for this sort of thing, and on that, I think we CAN understand each other.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Today we know there are thousands, hundreds of thousands sometimes, of each insect on the earth. There are so many millions of varieties of just bugs alone, let alone all the tons of varieties of snakes, varieties of cats and dogs, of lizards, of bears, of every single organism. Would you say that Noah was able to pack the millions of different varieties onto the Ark? That would require one big ark! Or are you saying these species evolved post-fall and it wasn't God's intention that this happen, but rather a result of Adam and Eve's original sin affecting creation? All observable adaptations and changes in organisms over the past millenia are post-Fall and not part of God's design but sin-affected then? Just clarifying.

well, for one, it was a massive ark. two, obviously there were no aquatic animals in the ark (duh). three, they might have all been juveniles. four, it was a miracle so God could make it happen should He desire.

I would also point out that Noah did not have to bring like every kind of dog or cat on the ark. but some kind of dog, that post Fall turned into the various kinds of dogs that we have today. those of us that don't believe in evolution (at least me anyway), believe in microevolution (species changing over time), but not macroevolution (like reptile to dinosaur, dinosaur to bird, etc).

just me thoughts.

 

[Dorothea]

well, for one, it was a massive ark. two, obviously there were no aquatic animals in the ark (duh). three, they might have all been juveniles. four, it was a miracle so God could make it happen should He desire.

I would also point out that Noah did not have to bring like every kind of dog or cat on the ark. but some kind of dog, that post Fall turned into the various kinds of dogs that we have today. those of us that don't believe in evolution (at least me anyway), believe in microevolution (species changing over time), but not macroevolution (like reptile to dinosaur, dinosaur to bird, etc).

just me thoughts.

Yeah, you see this with the alligator/crocodile. They are said to be the oldest reptiles, and I think they were bigger during the dinosaur times. Same with the megaladon (sp?) (prehistoric shark). It was like the size of a whale, but I believe that's where the Great White came from....my kids have a book on sharks (any many other animals, and it talks about this).

 

[Knee V]

well, for one, it was a massive ark. two, obviously there were no aquatic animals in the ark (duh). three, they might have all been juveniles. four, it was a miracle so God could make it happen should He desire.

just me thoughts.

I generally don't like to get into "Noah's Ark" debates, as I tend to find them more or less fruitless. I have a lot of leeway in how I believe that the story can be interpreted, and I don't dogmatically hold to the opinion that it necessarily covered the whole globe as we know it today (although that's not to say that I don't believe that, either). But if it is argued that the number of species of animals on this earth could never fit into an ark that size, I would add one more thought to your list of four thoughts (and I agree: the number of species on this planet could never fit on an ark that size, especially if dinosaurs were there) - how could the Creator of the universe be contained in the womb of Mary?

 

[ArmyMatt]

But if it is argued that the number of species of animals on this earth could never fit into an ark that size, I would add one more thought to your list of four thoughts (and I agree: the number of species on this planet could never fit on an ark that size, especially if dinosaurs were there) - how could the Creator of the universe be contained in the womb of Mary?

great point

 

[gracefullamb]

well, for one, it was a massive ark. two, obviously there were no aquatic animals in the ark (duh). three, they might have all been juveniles. four, it was a miracle so God could make it happen should He desire.

I would also point out that Noah did not have to bring like every kind of dog or cat on the ark. but some kind of dog, that post Fall turned into the various kinds of dogs that we have today. those of us that don't believe in evolution (at least me anyway), believe in microevolution (species changing over time), but not macroevolution (like reptile to dinosaur, dinosaur to bird, etc).

just me thoughts.

It's like Gallifreyan technology- "bigger on the inside than on the outside!"

In all seriousness though, I agree on your points and believing in microevolution but not macroevolution.

 

[Dorothea]

It's like Gallifreyan technology- "bigger on the inside than on the outside!"

Yeah! Didn't you all watch Evan Almighty?

 

[Macarius]

I might suggest an analogy I've found personally helpful in approaching the Old Testament. This is a rather untested analogy (that is, I've poked at it some in my own reflections, and discussed it with a couple of professors and colleagues, but this isn't a tried-and-true Orthodox tradition; its just something I've found useful).

We know, from the New Testament, that Moses (and all those who wrote the Scriptures) wrote principally of Christ. That is, the REAL meaning of the ENTIRE Scripture (Old and New) is Christ and His Gospel. That said, it is fairly evident that the Apostles and other early Christians believed that God had acted and acted in significant ways prior to Christ's earthly ministry. The Old Testament records some of these actions; their ULTIMATE meaning is Christ, though (that is, only with the revelation of Christ do the full meaning of these actions come into focus).

The authors of the Scriptures, though, did not write history as we see it. They didn't have our methodology, our expectations of what constitutes "factual accuracy" or "plausibility" (as all "historical" argument is ultimately probabilistic), nor our (rather unreasonable) understanding of history-writing as an attempt to describe "what REALLY happened." We see history-writing as an attempt to describe the past on its own terms as an end unto itself.

Here's the analogy: the Old Testament is not a photograph (a literal, if partial, record of
"what really happened") but an icon (a theological interpretation of what happened that communicates through symbol).

Note that definition of icon: a theological interpretation of what happened. Immediately, I am stating that something happened. The Old Testament narratives (well, most of them anyway) are not "parables" (purely symbolic stories based on an intentional fiction contrived to communicate a specific message).

Note, though, that by the time of the Old Testament writings we are already dealing not with fact-based eye-witness reports (e.g. a video recording of the event), but rather with a thick (or several thick) layer(s) of interpretation.

It is, then, rather fruitless (though not entirely so) to use the Old Testament for historical reconstruction (to try and "get behind" the text, as if that were possible, to "what really happened"). Indeed, that attempt is contrary to the meaning of Scripture, which is Christ. Instead of historical reconstruction, our approach to the text should focus on Christological reconstruction: exegeting Christ through the imagery and story of the Old Testament (as this is what the Apostles demonstrate as THEIR approach to the Old Testament in the New Testament, and what the Apostolic Fathers and other ECF's did when THEY approached the Old Testament).

Like an icon, there is a clear assertion of "true" reality (on the historical level) behind the "text." Like an icon, this historical reality just doesn't matter (beyond the mere assertion of its existence), NOR can we use the text as we now have it to make claims ABOUT that historical reality. We just don't have access to it; all that we have is the INTERPRETATION of that reality given to us by the Old Testament authors under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - and this interpretation points from the event towards Christ, who is the ultimate aim.

To state the analogy in a straight-forward way: when I look at an icon of Christ, I do not assume that every detail given in the icon literally corresponds to Christ's actual form and appearance. To assert that would force me to face the fact that different icons depict Christ (in his details) in rather different ways (and older icons, even more so). When I look at an icon of Christ, I see instead what the icon is saying ABOUT Christ - this is what makes the icon "true." CHRIST is the Truth - in so much as an interpretation corresponds to and points to Christ, it is true. There is not some "other" truth (e.g. historical accuracy) that we should point to it and demand the icon conform to it. There is one truth. That said, knowing that the symbolic nature of icons prevents me from using them for historical reconstruction does NOT cause me to assert something silly like "Christ didn't exist." Our understanding of the GENRE of icons simply informs how we go about using them.

So it is with the Scriptures. What they say, they say to point us to Christ. We know that God acted in Israel prior to Christ, and that the Old Testament records this fact. We should not demand our standard of history from the Old Testament, nor depend on it (or expect to depend on it) for historical reconstruction. To do so is to use the Old Testament for a purpose for which it was not written, and according to a standard of Truth that is other-than-Christ.

To me, then, the most compelling arguments surrounding evolution deal with how its recognition of death prior to human sin impacts our understanding of the Cross (or is impacted by it). When we are told that God is not the author of death, do we understand this in a strictly chronological sense? Does "death" here refer to ANY definition of death, or merely the capital-D "Death" as the oppressor of humanity and the enemy of God? Does God's use of death as the MEANS of creating life impact our understanding of evolution? How so?

My two cents...

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[gracefullamb]

Yeah! Didn't you all watch Evan Almighty?

I have never seen Evan Almighty, is that referenced in the movie? I just happend to be watching an episode of Doctor Who where the Doctor is explaining about the TARDIS when I read ArmyMatt's post.

 

[Dorothea]

I have never seen Evan Almighty, is that referenced in the movie? I just happend to be watching an episode of Doctor Who where the Doctor is explaining about the TARDIS when I read ArmyMatt's post.

No, the HUGE ARK in the movie with all the animals going in it is shown in the movie.

 

[InnerPhyre]

I believe that God created everything that exists. I also think that organisms evolve due to natural selection and genetic mutation.

 

[Protoevangel]

I might suggest an analogy I've found personally helpful in approaching the Old Testament. This is a rather untested analogy (that is, I've poked at it some in my own reflections, and discussed it with a couple of professors and colleagues, but this isn't a tried-and-true Orthodox tradition; its just something I've found useful).

We know, from the New Testament, that Moses (and all those who wrote the Scriptures) wrote principally of Christ. That is, the REAL meaning of the ENTIRE Scripture (Old and New) is Christ and His Gospel. That said, it is fairly evident that the Apostles and other early Christians believed that God had acted and acted in significant ways prior to Christ's earthly ministry. The Old Testament records some of these actions; their ULTIMATE meaning is Christ, though (that is, only with the revelation of Christ do the full meaning of these actions come into focus).

The authors of the Scriptures, though, did not write history as we see it. They didn't have our methodology, our expectations of what constitutes "factual accuracy" or "plausibility" (as all "historical" argument is ultimately probabilistic), nor our (rather unreasonable) understanding of history-writing as an attempt to describe "what REALLY happened." We see history-writing as an attempt to describe the past on its own terms as an end unto itself.

Here's the analogy: the Old Testament is not a photograph (a literal, if partial, record of
"what really happened") but an icon (a theological interpretation of what happened that communicates through symbol).

Note that definition of icon: a theological interpretation of what happened. Immediately, I am stating that something happened. The Old Testament narratives (well, most of them anyway) are not "parables" (purely symbolic stories based on an intentional fiction contrived to communicate a specific message).

Note, though, that by the time of the Old Testament writings we are already dealing not with fact-based eye-witness reports (e.g. a video recording of the event), but rather with a thick (or several thick) layer(s) of interpretation.

It is, then, rather fruitless (though not entirely so) to use the Old Testament for historical reconstruction (to try and "get behind" the text, as if that were possible, to "what really happened"). Indeed, that attempt is contrary to the meaning of Scripture, which is Christ. Instead of historical reconstruction, our approach to the text should focus on Christological reconstruction: exegeting Christ through the imagery and story of the Old Testament (as this is what the Apostles demonstrate as THEIR approach to the Old Testament in the New Testament, and what the Apostolic Fathers and other ECF's did when THEY approached the Old Testament).

Like an icon, there is a clear assertion of "true" reality (on the historical level) behind the "text." Like an icon, this historical reality just doesn't matter (beyond the mere assertion of its existence), NOR can we use the text as we now have it to make claims ABOUT that historical reality. We just don't have access to it; all that we have is the INTERPRETATION of that reality given to us by the Old Testament authors under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - and this interpretation points from the event towards Christ, who is the ultimate aim.

To state the analogy in a straight-forward way: when I look at an icon of Christ, I do not assume that every detail given in the icon literally corresponds to Christ's actual form and appearance. To assert that would force me to face the fact that different icons depict Christ (in his details) in rather different ways (and older icons, even more so). When I look at an icon of Christ, I see instead what the icon is saying ABOUT Christ - this is what makes the icon "true." CHRIST is the Truth - in so much as an interpretation corresponds to and points to Christ, it is true. There is not some "other" truth (e.g. historical accuracy) that we should point to it and demand the icon conform to it. There is one truth. That said, knowing that the symbolic nature of icons prevents me from using them for historical reconstruction does NOT cause me to assert something silly like "Christ didn't exist." Our understanding of the GENRE of icons simply informs how we go about using them.

So it is with the Scriptures. What they say, they say to point us to Christ. We know that God acted in Israel prior to Christ, and that the Old Testament records this fact. We should not demand our standard of history from the Old Testament, nor depend on it (or expect to depend on it) for historical reconstruction. To do so is to use the Old Testament for a purpose for which it was not written, and according to a standard of Truth that is other-than-Christ.

To me, then, the most compelling arguments surrounding evolution deal with how its recognition of death prior to human sin impacts our understanding of the Cross (or is impacted by it). When we are told that God is not the author of death, do we understand this in a strictly chronological sense? Does "death" here refer to ANY definition of death, or merely the capital-D "Death" as the oppressor of humanity and the enemy of God? Does God's use of death as the MEANS of creating life impact our understanding of evolution? How so?

My two cents...

In Christ,
Macarius

Interesting thoughts Macarius, thank you.

Today, you said something in another thread that I think might be applicable in a roundabout fashion. You said, "(if it was even a "binary" yes or no)?"

How I think that might apply is this: Is the truth of the Holy Scriptures binary, i.e. either about Christ, OR true about how creation may have happened? Is it necessarily one OR the other? Do you think that the Holy Saints and Elders saw it in such a binary way?

I'm not trying to debate you, and I'm not trying to be confrontational. It's just that your post makes me wonder if you see these truths as mutually exclusive.

 

[Macarius]

Interesting thoughts Macarius, thank you.

Today, you said something in another thread that I think might be applicable in a roundabout fashion. You said, "(if it was even a "binary" yes or no)?"

How I think that might apply is this: Is the truth of the Holy Scriptures binary, i.e. either about Christ, OR true about how creation may have happened? Is it necessarily one OR the other? Do you think that the Holy Saints and Elders saw it in such a binary way?

I'm not trying to debate you, and I'm not trying to be confrontational. It's just that your post makes me wonder if you see these truths as mutually exclusive.

I see them as no more mutually exclusive than an icon of a (real, truly existing) saint is mutually exclusive with Christ. The saint is a saint because of how his or her life reveals Christ - how he or she became Christ to the world through theosis. The Scriptures are Scripture precisely because they reveal Christ. None of this excludes the reality of the human person (the saint) whom Christ transformed through the Holy Spirit. In fact, it precisely because that REAL person was so transformed that their life could so fully manifest the one Truth.

I am not denying outright the historicity of the events described in the Old Testament; that would be unwise, as how could I know (from my modernist high-horse) what events are 'plausible' and which are 'implausible' when the very point of the stories is that here God did something supernatural?

What I am trying to do is what I see the Fathers doing: re-orient the emphasis of our perspective back to the one Truth. If we get caught up in modernist style debates about historicity, we, very very subtely, begin to adopt a thesis of truth that is other than Christ. It definitely matters to me that God acted in history, with real people, in a way that (though no one knew it at the time) led towards His self-revelation in the Crucified Messiah. I am not, however, likely to experience an existential crisis if it turns out that the events described in the Old Testament didn't occur EXACTLY as described (where "exactly" is defined by our modernist criteria of historical plausibility). Similarly, I am not traumatized by the differing details in icons that depict Christ (say, for example, the Holy Face icon - there are common features among examples of this iconography, but there are also significant differences; this is true on an even more broad level for icons of the crucifixion).

The high-stakes literalism that undergirds much of the tension and energy surrounding "evolution vs. creation" is entirely a product of a very un-Orthodox set of assumptions about where the Truth in the Old Testament resides, its significance, etc. When we shift away from historical literalism towards a more patristic typological / iconographic perspective, we don't LOSE the "strict" historicity of the OT, but we do gain some perspective on its relative importance (namely, that it isn't terribly important to affirm it in an absolutist sense).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This is an amazing post, Mac. Honestly, you are going to make the most amazing priest ever. I can only imagine how blessed your parishoners are going to be....

I might suggest an analogy I've found personally helpful in approaching the Old Testament. This is a rather untested analogy (that is, I've poked at it some in my own reflections, and discussed it with a couple of professors and colleagues, but this isn't a tried-and-true Orthodox tradition; its just something I've found useful).

We know, from the New Testament, that Moses (and all those who wrote the Scriptures) wrote principally of Christ. That is, the REAL meaning of the ENTIRE Scripture (Old and New) is Christ and His Gospel. That said, it is fairly evident that the Apostles and other early Christians believed that God had acted and acted in significant ways prior to Christ's earthly ministry. The Old Testament records some of these actions; their ULTIMATE meaning is Christ, though (that is, only with the revelation of Christ do the full meaning of these actions come into focus).

The authors of the Scriptures, though, did not write history as we see it. They didn't have our methodology, our expectations of what constitutes "factual accuracy" or "plausibility" (as all "historical" argument is ultimately probabilistic), nor our (rather unreasonable) understanding of history-writing as an attempt to describe "what REALLY happened." We see history-writing as an attempt to describe the past on its own terms as an end unto itself.

Here's the analogy: the Old Testament is not a photograph (a literal, if partial, record of
"what really happened") but an icon (a theological interpretation of what happened that communicates through symbol).

Note that definition of icon: a theological interpretation of what happened. Immediately, I am stating that something happened. The Old Testament narratives (well, most of them anyway) are not "parables" (purely symbolic stories based on an intentional fiction contrived to communicate a specific message).

Note, though, that by the time of the Old Testament writings we are already dealing not with fact-based eye-witness reports (e.g. a video recording of the event), but rather with a thick (or several thick) layer(s) of interpretation.

It is, then, rather fruitless (though not entirely so) to use the Old Testament for historical reconstruction (to try and "get behind" the text, as if that were possible, to "what really happened"). Indeed, that attempt is contrary to the meaning of Scripture, which is Christ. Instead of historical reconstruction, our approach to the text should focus on Christological reconstruction: exegeting Christ through the imagery and story of the Old Testament (as this is what the Apostles demonstrate as THEIR approach to the Old Testament in the New Testament, and what the Apostolic Fathers and other ECF's did when THEY approached the Old Testament).

Like an icon, there is a clear assertion of "true" reality (on the historical level) behind the "text." Like an icon, this historical reality just doesn't matter (beyond the mere assertion of its existence), NOR can we use the text as we now have it to make claims ABOUT that historical reality. We just don't have access to it; all that we have is the INTERPRETATION of that reality given to us by the Old Testament authors under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - and this interpretation points from the event towards Christ, who is the ultimate aim.

To state the analogy in a straight-forward way: when I look at an icon of Christ, I do not assume that every detail given in the icon literally corresponds to Christ's actual form and appearance. To assert that would force me to face the fact that different icons depict Christ (in his details) in rather different ways (and older icons, even more so). When I look at an icon of Christ, I see instead what the icon is saying ABOUT Christ - this is what makes the icon "true." CHRIST is the Truth - in so much as an interpretation corresponds to and points to Christ, it is true. There is not some "other" truth (e.g. historical accuracy) that we should point to it and demand the icon conform to it. There is one truth. That said, knowing that the symbolic nature of icons prevents me from using them for historical reconstruction does NOT cause me to assert something silly like "Christ didn't exist." Our understanding of the GENRE of icons simply informs how we go about using them.

So it is with the Scriptures. What they say, they say to point us to Christ. We know that God acted in Israel prior to Christ, and that the Old Testament records this fact. We should not demand our standard of history from the Old Testament, nor depend on it (or expect to depend on it) for historical reconstruction. To do so is to use the Old Testament for a purpose for which it was not written, and according to a standard of Truth that is other-than-Christ.

To me, then, the most compelling arguments surrounding evolution deal with how its recognition of death prior to human sin impacts our understanding of the Cross (or is impacted by it). When we are told that God is not the author of death, do we understand this in a strictly chronological sense? Does "death" here refer to ANY definition of death, or merely the capital-D "Death" as the oppressor of humanity and the enemy of God? Does God's use of death as the MEANS of creating life impact our understanding of evolution? How so?

My two cents...

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Protoevangel]

I see them as no more mutually exclusive than an icon of a (real, truly existing) saint is mutually exclusive with Christ. The saint is a saint because of how his or her life reveals Christ - how he or she became Christ to the world through theosis. The Scriptures are Scripture precisely because they reveal Christ. None of this excludes the reality of the human person (the saint) whom Christ transformed through the Holy Spirit. In fact, it precisely because that REAL person was so transformed that their life could so fully manifest the one Truth.

I am not denying outright the historicity of the events described in the Old Testament; that would be unwise, as how could I know (from my modernist high-horse) what events are 'plausible' and which are 'implausible' when the very point of the stories is that here God did something supernatural?

What I am trying to do is what I see the Fathers doing: re-orient the emphasis of our perspective back to the one Truth. If we get caught up in modernist style debates about historicity, we, very very subtely, begin to adopt a thesis of truth that is other than Christ. It definitely matters to me that God acted in history, with real people, in a way that (though no one knew it at the time) led towards His self-revelation in the Crucified Messiah. I am not, however, likely to experience an existential crisis if it turns out that the events described in the Old Testament didn't occur EXACTLY as described (where "exactly" is defined by our modernist criteria of historical plausibility). Similarly, I am not traumatized by the differing details in icons that depict Christ (say, for example, the Holy Face icon - there are common features among examples of this iconography, but there are also significant differences; this is true on an even more broad level for icons of the crucifixion).

The high-stakes literalism that undergirds much of the tension and energy surrounding "evolution vs. creation" is entirely a product of a very un-Orthodox set of assumptions about where the Truth in the Old Testament resides, its significance, etc. When we shift away from historical literalism towards a more patristic typological / iconographic perspective, we don't LOSE the "strict" historicity of the OT, but we do gain some perspective on its relative importance (namely, that it isn't terribly important to affirm it in an absolutist sense).

Thank you for clarifying that for me. That was very well said, my friend!

 

[rusmeister]

You're telling me that I think scientists don't bring an agenda to the table and that they don't have their own prejudices and biases that drive their motives? I never said any such thing? That's why I asked you for clarifications. I said that scientists shouldn't have to have any agenda in any direction except that which they observe empirically. I never said or implied that they are all angels? I merely spoke of how science should work. You seemed to me to be saying that they should all be philosophers and theologians with a, as usual, Chestertonian approach to their craft that encapsulates their work driven by your ethic ideally. That's perfectly fine...unrealistic as all heck, but fine. I don't have a problem with that. And I'm not saying that I'm a naive chap who thinks that scientists are all free of ego and agenda. Far from it. I detest the motives of many scientists I've read about. More often than not I'm disheartened to read of the rampant atheism and unethical behavior of many scientists. Hawking drives me crazy.

I'm disappointed that you can't just explain something with repeating past miscues or disagreements or perceived misunderstandings. It'd be nice to finally start fresh, Rus, but I feel that you can't do that sometimes. You superglue yourself to the past tightly. Yes, I'm a family man, too. My wife is overseas right now and I'm taking care of three children by myself. So I understand. But I'm always willing to explain my thoughts and hopefully come to agreement or at least understanding without believing the worst about you.

I'm personally not real interested in how you classify me. If you think I'm "most people" without the insight, that's cool. I know who I am. I happen to think, as I said, that science should be driven by observation and that religion isn't really the driving force of science. We don't read the Bible as a science text. I don't personally think Noah held every single species of every single animal on a boat nor do I take whales swallowing Jonah literally. Yet I don't look down upon my friends, many in fact, who take these stories stone cold literally. I find them to be bright people, by no means commoners. Just different angle from me.

I have no plans to put you on ignore...I don't cast off people so easily as bothersome or loathsome. I come on here to hear other views, not to rubber stamp my own as eternal dogma for all to read.

Hi Gurney,
I appreciate your courtesy.
But still, you repeat back things that I really DON'T mean, in paradigms that I don't hold or express. I don't know how to get around that to achieve understanding.
You say ""scientists shouldn't have to have an agenda..."; I say that they cannot not have a worldview, that they actually cannot do anything at all in a philosophical vacuum. Speaking about "shouldn't have to" is saying that, in the ideal, they rightly ought to hold no worldview. But that is impossible, as expecting that we should all have wings is.

I do not say they need to be deep philosophers. They need not be philosophers at all.
But they need to have the right philosophy. It needs to be oriented in the right direction.
They WILL, as human beings, draw conclusions based on their unconscious philosophy. Why on earth should we trust the consensus of people who as a whole DO see the world radically wrong?

I don't wish to dispute the many details - to put it shortly, a farmer in Kansas with no education is generally more philosophical than many scientists, and therefore capable of being a better scientist than the professing ones.

But if that makes no sense to you, then peace.

 

[Knee V]

I dig it, Mac!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well let's put it this way, what would be your criterion for actually trusting a scientist and being willing to listen to his theories?

Hi Gurney,
I appreciate your courtesy.
But still, you repeat back things that I really DON'T mean, in paradigms that I don't hold or express. I don't know how to get around that to achieve understanding.
You say ""scientists shouldn't have to have an agenda..."; I say that they cannot not have a worldview, that they actually cannot do anything at all in a philosophical vacuum. Speaking about "shouldn't have to" is saying that, in the ideal, they rightly ought to hold no worldview. But that is impossible, as expecting that we should all have wings is.

I do not say they need to be deep philosophers. They need not be philosophers at all.
But they need to have the right philosophy. It needs to be oriented in the right direction.
They WILL, as human beings, draw conclusions based on their unconscious philosophy. Why on earth should we trust the consensus of people who as a whole DO see the world radically wrong?

I don't wish to dispute the many details - to put it shortly, a farmer in Kansas with no education is generally more philosophical than many scientists, and therefore capable of being a better scientist than the professing ones.

But if that makes no sense to you, then peace.

 

[rusmeister]

Well let's put it this way, what would be your criterion for actually trusting a scientist and being willing to listen to his theories?

I generally don't and mostly am not.

As soon as their ideas, be they theories or whatever, touch on what is outside of what they observe, particularly the metaphysical and the philosophical, they, at that moment, stop being scientists and start being men, my democratic and ontological equals.

 

[BobRyan]

Evolution, ye, or nay?

Please give brief reason for or against and how you belief it effects our faith, especially concerning the image of God in us?

Darwin, Provine, Dawkins, Meyers et all agree that blind-faith evolution is flatly incompatible with Christianity.

Turns out - they know a thing or two about the religion of evolutionism that "believes" that an amoeba will one day turn into a horse given enough time and chance on "mount improbable" as Dawkins calls it.

By contrast in legal code the Bible says "for in SIX DAYS the Lord made the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them and rested the seventh day therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy" Ex 20:11.

That is not the way to say "evolution did it" in any text book of science - I have ever read.

No wonder the rise of the religion of evolutionism in Europe results in the decline of Christianity in that same area.

in Christ,

Bob