evolution in church

[Naraoia]

You should see the posts I delete before posting.

I don't think that counts.

 

[AV1611VET]

You should see the posts I delete before posting.

As I probably mentioned somewhere in the talks, we also gave a presentation to most of the church leadership and staff a couple of months ago (this is a large church), covering many of the same issues. They were very receptive, more so than the laypeople in the class.

Did you have Q&A afterward?

 

[Jamin4422]

Did you have Q&A afterward?

There were people wanting to fight with him. But he kept insisting this was not his opinion but what science has to say about it.

 

[sfs]

Did you have Q&A afterward?

With the staff? Yes. The first two questions were about feathered dinosaurs. As one guy (well, one minister) told me afterwards, he didn't have much problem with all of this evolution stuff, but feathered dinosaurs? Why hadn't anyone told him about feathered dinosaurs before?

 

[AV1611VET]

There were people wanting to fight with him. But he kept insisting this was not his opinion but what science has to say about it.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[sfs]

There were people wanting to fight with him. But he kept insisting this was not his opinion but what science has to say about it.

Huh?

 

[CabVet]

Why am I not surprised?

Jamin (err Jazer) did not see the video. There was no such thing.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Jamin (err Jazer) did not see the video. There was no such thing.

I believe it was Jazer's attempt at comedy. It can be confusing for normal people when creationists try to be humorous because most of what they say is already hysterical. (For more information see Poe's Law: Poe's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

[Jamin4422]

Why am I not surprised?

Perhaps you would be surprised if someone actually came up with something original.

 

[USincognito]

Dr. S, have you thought about posting this to NatSci on TWeb? I think you'd get some interesting comments there.

 

[juvenissun]

Our church has been running an adult education class about science and faith, and we just did two classes devoted primarily to evolution. If you are interested in our approach to dealing with the subject (or if you are really bored and have a lot of time to kill), the classes have been videotaped; the two classes on evolution are here and here, and the other classes can be found here. (Viewing requires a password, but the password is provided on the web page.) I don't agree with everything that is said in all of the talks -- not surprising, since they were designed to present more than one perspective.

This is one thing your church believe:

Humanity

We believe that human beings were created by God but we have alienated ourselves from Him and we are in need of reconciliation.

What did you say about the origin of human? Did you just present your data to them and confused them?

 

[CabVet]

This is one thing your church believe:

Humanity

We believe that human beings were created by God but we have alienated ourselves from Him and we are in need of reconciliation.

What did you say about the origin of human? Did you just present your data to them and confused them?

Did you watch his entire video? Come back when you do.

 

[juvenissun]

Did you watch his entire video? Come back when you do.

No, I did not.

It is a very simple question. If he could not answer that with a few words, then the video is not worthy to watch.

 

[CabVet]

No, I did not.

It is a very simple question. If he could not answer that with a few words, then the video is not worthy to watch.

The answer is in the video.

 

[sfs]

It is a very simple question. If he could not answer that with a few words, then the video is not worthy to watch.

Juvenissun, my talk was mostly about the origin of humans. Your question was, "What did you say about the origin of humans?" What I had to say about the origin of humans constitutes the video. In the video, I give some examples but do not spend much time on evidence for human common descent, summarize data about the change to hominid brains and mental capacities and describe various Christian views (acceptable to an evangelical audience) on the origin of our humanity and the connection, if any, with the Bible.

 

[juvenissun]

Juvenissun, my talk was mostly about the origin of humans. Your question was, "What did you say about the origin of humans?" What I had to say about the origin of humans constitutes the video. In the video, I give some examples but do not spend much time on evidence for human common descent, summarize data about the change to hominid brains and mental capacities and describe various Christian views (acceptable to an evangelical audience) on the origin of our humanity and the connection, if any, with the Bible.

My question is on the consistency between your teaching and the faith declared by your church. Are they NOT consistent? Are you giving your class a message which directly contradict to the declared faith of the church? (Note, this does not say your knowledge is wrong. It is simply that you can interpret what you know in an entirely different direction, i.e. against evolution.).

I can see that some church people will have a very different response when they considered the evolution process of animals and the evolution process of human.

 

[CabVet]

My question is on the consistency between your teaching and the faith declared by your church. Are they NOT consistent?

I can see that some church people will have a very different response when they consider the evolution process of animals and the evolution process of human.

I see no conflict between his video and what is said about his church in the website.

I do see a lot of conflict between his video and what you seem to believe. Maybe you are mixing things up.

 

[verysincere]

My question is on the consistency between your teaching and the faith declared by your church. Are they NOT consistent? Are you giving your class a message which directly contradict to the declared faith of the church? (Note, this does not say your knowledge is wrong. It is simply that you can interpret what you know in an entirely different direction, i.e. against evolution.).

I can see that some church people will have a very different response when they considered the evolution process of animals and the evolution process of human.

There is no problem with "consistency". What you think is contrary to the Bible is only contrary to YOUR INTERPRETATION and TRADITIONS concerning the Bible. Those of us who found our way out of the YEC denial of the scientific evidence discovered that the Bible says nothing to deny evolution. Only YOUR INTERPRETATION is threatened by the facts.

Have you EVER learned about the harmony between Genesis and the theory of evolution from anybody but hostile anti-evolution sources?

If your faith is in your TRADITIONS, you have every right to worry that the evidence for evolution threatens your faith. But those of us who care what the scriptural evidence says and what the scientific evidence demonstrates have come to realize that we have nothing to fear in educating ourselves to the facts. (You need to ask yourself: How small is your God? Is your God truly threatened by the facts of evolution? As for me, I praise God for the incredible adaptive and diversifying powers of evolutionary processes. I don't have to fear the facts. But TRADITION has to fear the truth!)

 

[sfs]

My question is on the consistency between your teaching and the faith declared by your church. Are they NOT consistent?

As far as I know, they are consistent. The ministers of the church seem to agree. What do you think is inconsistent about the two?

Are you giving your class a message which directly contradict to the declared faith of the church?

No. Why do you ask?

(Note, this does not say your knowledge is wrong. It is simply that you can interpret what you know in an entirely different direction, i.e. against evolution.).

I'm not able to interpret what I know in a direction against evolution. Maybe a creationist could, but I've never seen one do it -- I've just seen lots of them ignore what I know, i.e. the evidence.

 

[Skaloop]

I don't believe psychology is science, per se.

Why not? Psychology is scientific in that it involves experimentation and hypotheses. Psychiatry, on the other hand, is along the lines of medicine more than science; it's about treatment rather than experimentation.