Everyone welcome

[lucaspa]

I say take the Sticky Thread and ignore it! Let's welcome anyone who wants to post here. Theistic evolution is not like creationism, which has to hide in the dark and prevent any other ideas and evidence from coming in that will contradict it!

Let the light shine in. If we can't answer reasonable questions with reasonable answers, then theistic evolution has problems and should be changed.

Instead of bringing Christians together, segregating creationism and theistic evolution simply guarantees to drive Christians apart.

So ... screw the rules. I say anyone is welcome. Creationists, atheistic evoluitionists, theistic evolutionists, Raelians, panspermists, etc.!

 

[Null-Geodesic]

I agree. Boards created for a specific group become shelters where they can post slurs against other posters without fear. Check out Theology Web's Cosmogony forum where Jonathan Safarti of AIG (Socrates on TWeb) insults anyone who disagrees with him then gets them banned because they respond on that board where they are not allowed. OF course it doesn't help that the forum owner supports AIG openly.

 

[herev]

here, here

 

[gluadys]

here, here

And hear, hear! as well.

 

[Crayman]

So lets talk evolution then.



I am a freshwater ecologist by trade and so I bump into the concept of evolution on a daily basis when looking at the distribution and habitat preferences of the animals that I study, and having studied them for some time now have come up against the inescapable conclusion that their current morphology (body structure) and the niche they occupy is the result of eons of small changes (some of which we can document by finding traces of common ancestors etc..)
Now the strict Creationist's would have us believe that all of these animals, the geological history and the fossil record we have uncovered all popped out of nothing a few thousand years ago (which I have to admit that if we believe God created matter out of nothing, and then formed the universe is within the realms of possibility) however personally I believe that the first chapter of Genesis doesn't refer to a specific day/night timeline but rather tries to point out to us that the creation process was ordered and sequential in nature.

What are your opinions?

Cheers

Crayman

 

[Didaskomenos]

I agree. Boards created for a specific group become shelters where they can post slurs against other posters without fear.

Umm, yeah! You mean you guys are willing to throw away our ability to deride creationists in ways not allowed if they were around? I say let's allow them to post, as long as we can ridicule them without apology. All in favor...

Note: this post is in jest.

 

[herev]

Umm, yeah! You mean you guys are willing to throw away our ability to deride creationists in ways not allowed if they were around? I say let's allow them to post, as long as we can ridicule them without apology. All in favor...

Note: this post is in jest.

It's always important to read the fine print

 

[lucaspa]

Some ideas don't deserve sanctuary. CF does not offer sanctuary to the ideas of Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons. As all of us have noted, creationism is dangerous to Christianity. It is heresy at best and false idol worship (and thus not Christianity) at worst. And yet there is a place where this heresy can be propagated and innocents initiated into it without challenge.

"For nothing is so mischievous as the apotheosis of error; and it is a very plague of the understanding for vanity to become the object of veneration. Yet in this vanity some of the moderns have with extreme levity indulged so far as to attempt to found a system of natural philosophy on the first chapter of Genesis, on the book of Job, and other parts of the sacred writings, seeking for the dead among the living; which also makes the inhibition and repression of it the more important, because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy but also a heretical religion. Very meet it is therefore that we be sober-minded, and give to faith that only which is faith's." Francis Bacon. Novum Organum LXV, 1620 http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm

 

[seebs]

I don't think creationism in general is necessarily all that harmful. Creation Science is pretty nasty stuff, and appears to have the expected results -- Creation Scientists show some signs of the generalized taint one expects from continued wallowing in sin.

But... Most creationists are just accepting a working theory about the world and not worrying about it, since it doesn't matter.

 

[Crayman]

Just remember everyone amongst all the dennounciations of Creationism, that these people are part of the Body of Christ as well, they just have different views on the orgins of the planet to us - a realitively small thing compared to the things we most likely have in common (ie the contents of the Nicene Creed), and as such we must treat their ideas with the respect we wish our ideas to be treated. After all it is through discussing things that we all learn.
Crayman

 

[herev]

Just remember everyone amongst all the dennounciations of Creationism, that these people are part of the Body of Christ as well, they just have different views on the orgins of the planet to us - a realitively small thing compared to the things we most likely have in common (ie the contents of the Nicene Creed), and as such we must treat their ideas with the respect we wish our ideas to be treated. After all it is through discussing things that we all learn.
Crayman

well, I'm just liking you more and more--fresh air, so what brand of methodism do you fall into? I'm a United Methodist here

 

[Didaskomenos]

Let this thread always be remembered as the one where lucaspa shed his cool academic exterior for one of activism in the cause of Christian "orthodoxy"! I like this new side of you, man!

Seriously, I understand the reasoning behind not condemning our creationist brothers and sisters. But lucaspa has a point as well: creationism isn't just bad science - it's anti-science, and that is a detriment to our witness. Creationism isn't just a bad interpretation - it's based on dangerous hermeneutical principles that subject to ridicule our Scriptures and the Truth they testify to. Creationism isn't just another view of the Bible - it's an oh-so-slippery slope into idolatry of the Bible. Given the Nicene Creed as their foundation, the forums should subject every topic to as much honest criticism as possible, rather than shielding it from evaluation by giving it an untouchable cave to thrive within.

That said, what honestly searching individual would trust creationism over TE? I fully believe, as a former YEC, that if a person really wants to know the truth, they're going to find it. At least our Origins Theology forum will give them a chance to see creationism falsified.

 

[Crayman]

I was a Methodist in South Africa (they only have one type there [that I know of]) but I am now in Australia where the Methodist Church merged with the Prepertarians and a couple of others (now called the Uniting Church) and I dont really like the result.
At the moment I worship in an Anglican Church because my fiance is Anglican, its been a bit of an eye-opener really, but they are good people and I am learning alot about a side of christianity I hadn't had any prior contact with.

As for didaskomenos - you are right Creationism has many many flaws in its 'logical reasoning' and I am radically opposed to the view (I consider the view sloppy thinking in many regards) - I just wanted make the point that we need to bear in mind that motto (WWJD) before replying in too much heat.

Cheers
Crayman

 

[herev]

I was a Methodist in South Africa (they only have one type there [that I know of]) but I am now in Australia where the Methodist Church merged with the Prepertarians and a couple of others (now called the Uniting Church) and I dont really like the result.
At the moment I worship in an Anglican Church because my fiance is Anglican, its been a bit of an eye-opener really, but they are good people and I am learning alot about a side of christianity I hadn't had any prior contact with.

As for didaskomenos - you are right Creationism has many many flaws in its 'logical reasoning' and I am radically opposed to the view (I consider the view sloppy thinking in many regards) - I just wanted make the point that we need to bear in mind that motto (WWJD) before replying in too much heat.

Cheers
Crayman

Pretty sure South Africa is part of the British Methodist. Good to meet you.

 

[Crayman]

Pretty sure South Africa is part of the British Methodist. Good to meet you.

You are most likely right, the British were heavily involved in SA for quite some time ,and they were part of the commonwealth. Good to meet you too herev.
Cheers
Crayman

 

[Didaskomenos]

As for didaskomenos - you are right Creationism has many many flaws in its 'logical reasoning' and I am radically opposed to the view (I consider the view sloppy thinking in many regards) - I just wanted make the point that we need to bear in mind that motto (WWJD) before replying in too much heat.

No disagreement there, Crayman. You realize I was strictly kidding in my first post up there, right? I am all for letting our love for one another be the brightest beacon of our faith.

I did bristle when I read, "we must treat their ideas with the respect we wish our ideas to be treated." We're watching out for our fellow and future Christians, and so the love of Christ and respect for each other as children of God must be apparent. However, false and harmful ideas aren't to be treated with respect. They are to be shown the door as quickly and decisively as possible, and so I agreed with lucaspa's objection to a forum in which we ourselves aren't allowed to bounce the false ideas.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Hiya everyone!

Although I'm not sure why there is a seperate forum needed here. Are they tossing us TE's into the BBS equiv. of a leper colony?

 

[Crayman]

No disagreement there, Crayman. You realize I was strictly kidding in my first post up there, right? I am all for letting our love for one another be the brightest beacon of our faith.

I did bristle when I read, "we must treat their ideas with the respect we wish our ideas to be treated." We're watching out for our fellow and future Christians, and so the love of Christ and respect for each other as children of God must be apparent. However, false and harmful ideas aren't to be treated with respect. They are to be shown the door as quickly and decisively as possible, and so I agreed with lucaspa's objection to a forum in which we ourselves aren't allowed to bounce the false ideas.

I didn't mean to imply criticism of your post in particular, rather I was reacting to a number of threads that were anti-creationism and seemed in danger of becoming a bit personal (also its my first day on the discussion forum and so I freely admit I might be putting my oar in where there are already too many).

I did realise you were kidding on that first post - and I wasn't reacting just to your comments, but my thought is that it is difficult to change someone's mind if they feel threatened. I am not saying however that you need to water down your opinion or embrace theirs, rather I was merely pointing out that there is usually more than one way to say the same thing, and the non-threatening approach will often have a better result, if of course your aim is to challenge those who have a view you think is wrong.

Lastly you are quite right, it is dangerous to allow a harmful idea to continue unchecked (I think I was a bit vague in my original response) I was just trying to comment on methods, not the need for the response.

Here is part of a post that I made in another thread that sums up my position.

"...I am a biological scientist, and I subscribe to a theistic evolution view of history (the world evolved as per the direction and purpose of a loving intimately involved Creator - our God). And I must admit I have never yet seen a compelling well documented argument supporting creationism. That doesn't mean there isn't one out there, and if there is, I for one would love to hear it.

I don't necessarily see why creationists and straight evolutionists (as opposed to those of us who are theistic evolutionists) need to be at odds with each other. I think the problem lies in both side thinking that they are describing the process from the same position. We are both looking at the same process but from different angles. The creationist's biblical perspective is more concerned with who and why, and it is not a scientific argument (the account in Genesis doesn't have chemical formulae and instructions on how to make a good mountain) and science is concerned with the what and how and when (it isn't concerned with who and why, and nor should it be) both are valid frames of reference and both bring something unique to the table.

The problem lies in that the questions we are all asking have become clouded by a contest of ideologies, both sides are trying to prove the other wrong - science is trying to refute theology and the theology of the creationists is trying to disprove science. If creationists had stayed in the realm of pure theology I would have little problem with their concepts, however they seem to have attempted to corrupt science to suit their ideological goals. In much the same way (mainly in response to creationism) science has began to see evidence supporting evolutionary forces as disproving all Christian theology (part of the maxim of if a part is incorrect then the whole must be suspect) as such they subject Biblical passages to the Scientific Method and of course the Bible doesn't withstand that sort of scrutiny. Its all kind of self defeating really - we should all work together science & theology to look at who, why, where, when and how, then we will begin to glimpse the real picture."

Well I hope that sheds some further light on what I am about

Cheers

Crayman

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I would put a dividing line between creationism per se and the demonstrably false arguments often put forward in support of it.

The difference, in my view, between a CO forum and, say, a WoF (Word of Faith) forum is that some of the errors of the first are matters of demonstrable fact; of the latter, theological opinion.

This is why I was uneasy about the setting up of the CO forum. A place where one person can tell another that, say, the few inches of moon dust prove that the moon is young, and no-one can actually point out the demonstrable errors within the calculation behind this false statement.

But, then again, I suppose inerrancists feel the same about the Liberal Churches forum, where they can't respond with Scripture against the "demonstrably false" statements made there

I agree with what's been said before - YECs who value truth above YEC (and I believe we should always value truth above all else) generally end up seeing the error of it. But the most exasperating feature of YECism, IME, is the willing ignorance of many of its adherents; if I've heard "I don't know much about science, but I know my bible and I don't really want to hear your scientific arguments" once, I've heard it a thousand times in one permutation or another.

This is valuing a currently held belief over truth, and is dangerous.

 

[Underdog77]

Umm, yeah! You mean you guys are willing to throw away our ability to deride creationists in ways not allowed if they were around? I say let's allow them to post, as long as we can ridicule them without apology. All in favor...

Note: this post is in jest.

I was for it until Herev pointed out the fine print.