Evolution as a necessary socio-political creation story

[Cis.jd]

Are you saying the moon is not a light source for the earth?

yes, it's not. It's a reflector. The light is the sun's light that is being bounced off of it.

 

[Platte]

yes, it's not. It's a reflector. The light is the sun's light that is being bounced off of it.

The source of the moons light is the sun. But it is the light from the moon that allow you to see the moon. By the way, they call it moonlight. And the point is that the earth has 2 great lights. A greater light to rule the day and a lesser light to rule the night. That is indisputable

 

[Cis.jd]

The source of the moons light is the sun. But it is the light from the moon that allow you to see the moon. By the way, they call it moonlight. And the point is that the earth has 2 great lights. A greater light to rule the day and a lesser light to rule the night. That is indisputable

Lol no. It is the sun's light that allows you to see the moon. If the sun left and the moon stayed would there be that "lesser light" to rule the night?

 

[Platte]

If the sun stayed and the moon left would there be that "lesser light"? That is the question.

 

[Aussie Pete]

But we know what v16 is referring to with those two great lights. What else could they be other than the sun and moon? You know the moon isn't exactly a light of it's own, the sun is still a source of that light additionally.. the other planets and stars are bigger than the moon they only appear smaller in our sky due to their distance, so how would it be technically another great light when it's only big to us on earth not our solar system?

Now if someone came to you and said that the moon being just a reflector is a lie and that it is an independent light, and you know he is factually wrong you just contradict your stance on the Bible being authoritative when it comes to natural science.

God made man in his image, but that is spiritual.. not the physical.

But we know what v16 is referring to with those two great lights. What else could they be other than the sun and moon? You know the moon isn't exactly a light of it's own, the sun is still a source of that light additionally.. the other planets and stars are bigger than the moon they only appear smaller in our sky due to their distance, so how would it be technically another great light when it's only big to us on earth not our solar system?

Now if someone came to you and said that the moon being just a reflector is a lie and that it is an independent light, and you know he is factually wrong you just contradict your stance on the Bible being authoritative when it comes to natural science.

God made man in his image, but that is spiritual.. not the physical.

Did Jesus look normal? He was so undistinguished that Judas had to point Him out to the Temple guards. So what does Colossians 1:15 mean? No one has seen God at any time, yet Moses saw God's back. Who is the "angel of the Lord" in the OT? Most scholars say it is the pre-incarnate Christ. And if we are in God's image spiritually, how can that be if we evolved?

 

[Cis.jd]

Did Jesus look normal? He was so undistinguished that Judas had to point Him out to the Temple guards. So what does Colossians 1:15 mean? No one has seen God at any time, yet Moses saw God's back. Who is the "angel of the Lord" in the OT? Most scholars say it is the pre-incarnate Christ. And if we are in God's image spiritually, how can that be if we evolved?

Everything you just said here has no relevance or even a connection at all to what you've quoted or to each other. I referenced Gen 1:16 and with that my post to you was if you believe the moon itself is an independent light or that it just reflects light and this is your response? Deep down you know you are fighting to admit to yourself that everything you are reading sounds correct.

And if we are in God's image spiritually, how can that be if we evolved?

Because we evolved physically/biologically.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Everything you just said here has no relevance or even a connection at all to what you've quoted or to each other. I referenced Gen 1:16 and with that my post to you was if you believe the moon itself is an independent light or that it just reflects light and this is your response? Deep down you know you are fighting to admit to yourself that everything you are reading sounds correct.


Because we evolved physically/biologically.

Your argument is absurd. When did man receive the spirit that makes him in the image of God? If Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God and has always existed, how can that be evolution?

I ignored your statement about the moon. The statement in Genesis is vague. I have lights on my car. At night, they are powered by the battery, if they are switched on. If not, they certainly reflect the lights of oncoming traffic or even streetlights nearby. I see no problem with the moon reflecting the sun and being called a light.

 

[Cis.jd]

Your argument is absurd. When did man receive the spirit that makes him in the image of God? If Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God and has always existed, how can that be evolution?

You didn't understand anything I said. I never said man "received any spirit", i'm saying the whole "created in the image of God" doesn't apply to our physical natural bodies but our spiritual one, you think God has nipples, a rectum, a belly button, etc like your actual body does when creation happened? It's your arguments that is absurd and illiterate.

I ignored your statement about the moon. The statement in Genesis is vague. I have lights on my car. At night, they are powered by the battery, if they are switched on. If not, they certainly reflect the lights of oncoming traffic or even streetlights nearby. I see no problem with the moon reflecting the sun and being called a light.

You ignored it because you do not want to admit that you do not agree that the moon is an independent light as to what Gen 1:16 describes. Your analogy of your car lights is completely sad because it is a completely uneducated description of what reflecting light is. Get a flash light and point it at a mirror or any surface, the light that bounces off that surface is what you call "reflected light" not energy generated by a source.

 

[The Barbarian]

What this means is that a teaching form of Evolution was necessarily required as an interpretation of historical origins. It had to be an Evolutionary history and there was simply no room for debate on this issue.

Guess how we know you haven't spent any time among biologists. There's fierce debate about many things in biology in general and evolution in particular. Would you like to learn about some of the controversies?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The teaching of Evolution is a 'rationalizing' of world history that was a necessary requirement of post-Enlightenment / modern society.

All of mass society was being organized on the basis of rational social science. 'Reason' was to replace 'Dogma' in every facet of social planning, from the political technology of government, to the economy, social relations, and most importantly public education. The modern world was to be an enlightened scientific society and so all bodies of knowledge and understanding had to be filtered through an epistemological bottleneck of rationalism and empiricism and methodological naturalism. In the Age of Enlightenment, this was the new intellectual order of the day.

What this means is that a teaching form of Evolution was necessarily required as an interpretation of historical origins. It had to be an Evolutionary history and there was simply no room for debate on this issue. This is because the belief in Evolution is essentially applied historical rationalism; the belief that events progress in an orderly way based on uniform laws of nature. Before any of the particulars of Evolution were known, it was already concluded that world history must be a 'rational' history; a history that unfolded in a methodically natural way. Under the philosophical rules of Enlightenment, there was simply no other option.

The other important thing about the teaching of Evolution, is that, like all other aspects of a mass industrial society, it requires the administration and organization of a managerial class of 'experts' to interpret and promote it to mass society. The teaching of Evolution makes an "enlightened" managerial elite the gatekeepers of reality for a modern society. Just as modern society is said to be organized on the highest principles of social-science and enlightened political technology of liberal democracy. Evolution requires the management of a widespread academic, scientific, and media bureaucracy, the same type of bureaucracy necessary for promoting liberal democratic ideology (i.e., the ideology that rejects any source of authority apart from that socio-political bureaucracy)

Evolution, too, meets the needs of a pluralistic secular state. Evolution is a belief that can be syncretized with Christianity, eastern religion, masonic Deism, and Atheism. It is a creation story for all faiths, and thus the best suited historical narrative for an inclusive modern liberal democracy.


As for the actual science of Evolution. These are distantly secondary considerations to the primary political and philosophical *requirement* that Evolution be taught as the official origins story within a modern liberal society. It is a political necessity.


This is why, as one scientist stated:

“In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin!”​

This is because when you question Evolution, you are really tapping into an ideology that lies at the heart of the age of Enlightenment and modern society itself. We are ruled by this ideology and this ideology is hammered into us by a mass media from the cradle to the grave. Like the riot at Ephesus in Acts 19 and the Cult of Artemis , the entire mystical order of society, and especially its elite priesthood class, is threatened when you target its central ideology. This is why so many people seem to go crazy when they detect even the slightest hint of dissent from a belief in Evolution. There is an entire managerial class throughout all sectors of society who instinctively recognize the belief in Evolution as a kind of mystical cornerstone to their entire ideological worldview.

This is also why younger generations will continue to be taught the social myth that Evolution was simply the result of disinterested scientists who only cared about following the facts. We have to be raised up inside the ideology and can never be allowed to see it from the outside. This is why creationists are so particularly loathed in society and in their portrayals in mass media... whether they realize it or not, they are poking at the heart of modern ideology.

The spanner in the works is that Jesus is a creationist. I respect the authority of one who raised Himself from the dead over all theorists who try to explain how everything came into being other than being created from nothing through the Word of God.

 

[The Barbarian]

This is why, as one scientist stated:

“In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin!”​

​

He was pretty stupid for a scientist. Lynn Margulias, for example, is a prominent biologist and criticizes Darwin on a number of points. That quote has never, so far as I've seen, been accompanied by a checkable source for the quote. I'm pretty sure why.

The spanner in the works is that Jesus is a creationist.

Actually, He never said anything about Genesis being a literal history, or about the age of the Earth, or about whether evolution is true.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

​

He was pretty stupid for a scientist. Lynn Margulias, for example, is a prominent biologist and criticizes Darwin on a number of points. That quote has never, so far as I've seen, been accompanied by a checkable source for the quote. I'm pretty sure why.


Actually, He never said anything about Genesis being a literal history, or about the age of the Earth, or about whether evolution is true.

Jesus referred to Abel as a real person of history, and because he and Cain were the sons of Adam and Eve, then it is clear that Jesus knew Adam and Eve as real people as well. At the beginning of the book of John it clearly states that Jesus, being the Word of God, was present at the creation and was responsible for it. Seeing that Jesus is validated because He raised Himself from the dead after three days, I accept His version of the events. Until someone else comes along and proves that he has risen from the dead after three days in the grave, I will go with Jesus and accept that He is not a liar, and that the Holy Spirit is not a liar when He inspired the writer to the Hebrews when he said, "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear" (Hebrews 11:3).

You are quite free to believe what you like about how the universe came into being, but for me, I go with Jesus and the Holy Spirit, so unless you can show that you died and came back to life after three days in the grave, I choose not to believe you.

 

[The Barbarian]

You are quite free to believe what you like about how the universe came into being, but for me, I go with Jesus and the Holy Spirit

Even creationists admit that God created all things. They just aren't very happy with the way He did some of it.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Even creationists admit that God created all things. They just aren't very happy with the way He did some of it.

It is interesting that the only account that mentions God is the Bible. Without the Bible we wouldn't have any clue that God even exists, and so we are left with the pagan notions about how the universe and world came into being, and these notions are full of bizarre myth. It is interesting that some pagan accounts of the formation of the world include some form of evolution. So it could be argued that evolution is more of a pagan concept than a Biblical one.

 

[The Barbarian]

It is interesting that the only account that mentions God is the Bible. Without the Bible we wouldn't have any clue that God even exists,

God says otherwise:
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

so we are left with the pagan notions about how the universe and world came into being,

I don't think you're a pagan. I'm just pointing out that you and God differ on this issue. Since pagan accounts of creation have some kind of god poofing living things into existence, it could be argued that YE creationism is more of a pagan concept than a Biblical one.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

God says otherwise:
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I don't think you're a pagan. I'm just pointing out that you and God differ on this issue. Since pagan accounts of creation have some kind of god poofing living things into existence, it could be argued that YE creationism is more of a pagan concept than a Biblical one.

The ancient Greeks didn't have the Torah and therefore knew nothing about the God of the Bible. But they had an altar, among all the others, to the Unknown God. So, without the Torah, all that would be known about who or what created the cosmos was that it might have been brought into being by an unknown God, or by a process of evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

The ancient Greeks didn't have the Torah and therefore knew nothing about the God of the Bible.

God says otherwise.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I believe God.

 

[FireDragon76]

The spanner in the works is that Jesus is a creationist. I respect the authority of one who raised Himself from the dead over all theorists who try to explain how everything came into being other than being created from nothing through the Word of God.

Jesus wasn't a biologist. He was a 1st century Galilean peasant. What Jesus say is authoritative to how it pertains to how we should live our lives, not biology.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Jesus wasn't a biologist. He was a 1st century Galilean peasant. What Jesus say is authoritative to how it pertains to how we should live our lives, not biology.

It seems that you are basing your view on information other than the Bible itself. If you believe that Jesus was nothing more than a 1st Century Galilean peasant, then you would have no real idea of how the universe came into being, and Evolution would be your only explanation.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The theory of evolution is based upon hundreds of billons of observations and the objective interpretation of those observations. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion, sociology, or politics. The Bible says absolutely nothing about the theory—a theory that is totally irrelevant to the Christian faith. However, when Christians at the lower end of the intelligence and education spectrum argue against the theory, they make themselves, the Bible, and the Christian faith appear to unbelievers to be a religion of the intellectually handicapped. I am a conservative, evangelical Christian, and I have seen, and continue to see, the irreparable harm that anti-evolution teaching is doing to our faith.