[OPEN]Does the Origin theory really matter?[/OPEN]

[stumpjumper]

They like people...

And discussions too!

 

[charityagape]

One reason it personally matters to me, is that if I tell someone who believe's in TE that I believe in a literal Genesis, I'm automatically assumed scientifically stupid.

 

[charityagape]

They like people...

And discussions too!

LOL, yes, but this dicussion in particular, many of yall TE and C both don't go anywhere else but here, so its obviously important to people personally regardless of its importance to the wide wide world.

 

[stumpjumper]

LOL, yes, but this dicussion in particular, many of yall TE and C both don't go anywhere else but here, so its obviously important to people personally regardless of its importance to the wide wide world.

Well I spend most of my time elsewhere actually but, yes, there are people who do spend their time exclusively in certain debates. In fact, I would say that it is generally the norm to stay in a few forums...

I'm abnormal

One reason it personally matters to me, is that if I tell someone who believe's in TE that I believe in a literal Genesis, I'm automatically assumed scientifically stupid.

I certainly wouldn't say scientifically stupid, though. I would just say that they don't accept the findings of science as true.

 

[jereth]

Some may only want enough righteousness to enter heaven. Fine. For them, they can believe in evolution and still attain their goal. They can believe their physical sight (science) and still believe that Jesus' blood cleanses from sin enough to be a child of God. Plenty of folks will get to heaven as by fire. IOW, some barely make it and are called least, others will be called greatest, others in between.

I find this sort of talk to be sinister and insulting. So TEs only "barely make it" into heaven and are called "least". We are second-class Christians, an inferior and substandard group.

What you have done is polarise Christians purely on the basis of their interpretation of creation. This is heinously ungracious, unbiblical and, I believe, unchristian. I find it outrageous that professing Christians can think the way you do (though with the divisive men at AiG influencing YECist thinking in general, it's not surprising).

Please take the plank out of your own eye first, brother.

 

[charityagape]

Well I spend most of my time elsewhere actually but, yes, there are people who do spend their time exclusively in certain debates. In fact, I would say that it is generally the norm to stay in a few forums...

I'm abnormal

LOL, me too, I post in a large variety of forums, though not all at the same time.

I certainly wouldn't say scientifically stupid, though. I would just say that they don't accept the findings of science as true.

And I greatly appreciate that, however, I don't believe that's the norm.

 

[stumpjumper]

And I greatly appreciate that, however, I don't believe that's the norm.

Well...Maybe...

But I already said I'm abnormal

Anyway, I would reccomend Brian McLaren's The Story We Find Ourselves In since I found a lot of good stuff in there...

 

[jereth]

One reason it personally matters to me, is that if I tell someone who believe's in TE that I believe in a literal Genesis, I'm automatically assumed scientifically stupid.

Most of us wouldn't say "scientifically stupid", we'd say something more along the lines of "scientifically naive". Though when things get heated, terms such as "ignorant" do come up...

I understand it can be frustrating to be called "scientifically stupid", but I think we TEs have to endure much worse namecalling, usually to the effect that our faith, or theology, or perception of God is questionable... I'd much rather be called a scientific pleb than sub-christian in some way.

 

[Willtor]

Hm, if someone doesn't think its important, why do the spend time in origins theology?

I think origins theology is very important, as I said. My point was that I don't mind people taking Genesis literally, just so long as they make sure to take it figuratively as well. Once we're into vanities like studying nature, I'll argue for the case of evolution, but not before.

 

[shernren]

One reason it personally matters to me, is that if I tell someone who believe's in TE that I believe in a literal Genesis, I'm automatically assumed scientifically stupid.

Firstly, why would that be offensive? What's wrong with being scientifically stupid? Everybody's stupid some way or another. I may be good with science but I'm horrible with history and geography - I can barely navigate the roads around my place though I've been driving a year, if the trip takes more than 10 minutes' drive I need either a good guide or a map. Besides, you've survived life 13 years more than I have while being scientifically stupid, so it can't be that abnormal or life-threatening a disease after all.

Now if you were a scientist who earns a living from science, then being called scientifically stupid might be quite an insult. But I don't think you are, right? So what difference does it make in your life to be "scientifically stupid"? That's what technology is for, dear: packaging science into scientifically-stupid-people-friendly boxes for blurheads like you and me. We don't need to know squat about semiconductors to use the computer, or electron guns to use the television, or hydrocarbon combustion and differential gears to use a car.

Now, I'm not saying that I think you're scientifically stupid. I think I'm scientifically stupid (or at least not where I want to be yet). But why does it sting so much? It isn't that bad, right? What has happened is that in the Western culture centered around science and technology science has become synonymous with intellectuality. In other words when someone calls you "scientifically stupid" what you really hear is: "you're stupid, fullstop." As I've shown, that really doesn't make much sense, does it? But we've encouraged it by all-but-deifying science (and YECism is a part of it, too - trying to make the Christian faith credible by making it scientifically credible, indirectly bowing down to the powerful image of science). Someone smart is an "Einstein" or a "rocket scientist", a genius is someone who invents some new technology. What would you feel if I said "You're as smart as Picasso!", that wouldn't feel like a compliment at all, would it?

Being scientifically stupid isn't all that bad ...

Secondly, most TEs here actually don't assume outright and immediately that YECs are scientifically stupid. Proof? We bother to try to reason you out of it. By directing you to TO, say, we assume that you understand the methodology of TO and the terms it uses. If I try to show you that radiodecay rates are constant, it means that I assume you know what radioactive decay is, how it works, what an atom is (which is actually brilliant: people weren't even sure that atoms existed two centuries ago). If we really thought you were scientifically stupid, we wouldn't even bother. Of course, there are a few people here who will do just that with a PRATT, swipe it off without giving it a second thought, but by and large most of us are willing to explain the science behind our conclusions. You may be scientifically stubborn in refusing to accept our explanations, but we don't consider you scientifically stupid.

On the other hand, how do you think we feel every time YECs come along and effectively say that we have no right to be Christians simply because we believe in evolution?

 

[artybloke]

The idea that God used evolution to bring life to its present form, puts Him up for ridicule to unbelievers by making Him out to be a liar and a storyteller.

Says a lot about the fundamentalist distrust of the imagination that creationists seem to see no difference between storytelling and lying.

 

[Silent Bob]

One reason it personally matters to me, is that if I tell someone who believe's in TE that I believe in a literal Genesis, I'm automatically assumed scientifically stupid.

Not stupid. Ignorant perhaps, confused maybe, misguided most probably but not stupid.

When however people take time and energy to explain to someone something and they still don't understand no matter how simplistically explained it is then the characterization changes. People like that are either scientifically stupid or willfully ignorant. There is nothing wrong with being stupid as far as some things in life are concerned we are all stupid at some degree, but willful ignorance is something really negative. Time and again I have seen folks who refuse to learn, not because they are unable to but because they do not want to. When these people come back again and again and post falsehoods it becomes apparent that they are completely stupid (and that is something they should look into) because they just post again and again questions that have been answered and points already proven false. As if by repeating some mantra that evolution is false, ridiculous, stupid it will make it so. They are not trying to convince anyone other than themselves, even when they do not know it their faith is beginning to crumble. If it was the other way around they would not come back time and again with the same old outdated arguments they would have accepted that they cannot convince us and either stopped or found new arguments.

Most creationists who are willfully ignorant suffer from the Don Quixote syndrome usually. They perceive TE to be making a liar out of God as Lion of God has put it, and therefore evolution must be defeated even if it is correct. They become blind in their faith that they are right so anything that may prove them wrong is wrong itself. It doesn’t take a 24 yo to point out how dangerous and wrong this line of thinking really is so I wont.

From the TE side creationism is dangerous. For starters it teaches falsehoods and myths as if they are as True as Jesus' words. I have seen how a person's faith can be unraveled from a single introductory course on biology. "Truths" that these people hold all their lives are knocked down by reading a single book with open eyes and when the "Truths" are gone their faith follows. Also IMO TEs do not like creationism because it presents to the rest of the world the reason to believe that Christianity is nothing more than a wacky religious cult. It lets outsiders believe that we are truly gone coo-coo and that Christianity is to be avoided if one wants to keep his/her head. I know this is happening because that was an obstacle I faced before I decided to become a Christian again. Let's face it I DO NOT want to be put in the same group as Hovind and Gish.

 

[vossler]

Firstly, why would that be offensive? What's wrong with being scientifically stupid? Everybody's stupid some way or another. I may be good with science but I'm horrible with history and geography - I can barely navigate the roads around my place though I've been driving a year, if the trip takes more than 10 minutes' drive I need either a good guide or a map. Besides, you've survived life 13 years more than I have while being scientifically stupid, so it can't be that abnormal or life-threatening a disease after all.

Great point!

Now if you were a scientist who earns a living from science, then being called scientifically stupid might be quite an insult. But I don't think you are, right? So what difference does it make in your life to be "scientifically stupid"? That's what technology is for, dear: packaging science into scientifically-stupid-people-friendly boxes for blurheads like you and me. We don't need to know squat about semiconductors to use the computer, or electron guns to use the television, or hydrocarbon combustion and differential gears to use a car.

Again, a wonderful explanation.

Now, I'm not saying that I think you're scientifically stupid. I think I'm scientifically stupid (or at least not where I want to be yet). But why does it sting so much? It isn't that bad, right? What has happened is that in the Western culture centered around science and technology science has become synonymous with intellectuality. In other words when someone calls you "scientifically stupid" what you really hear is: "you're stupid, fullstop." As I've shown, that really doesn't make much sense, does it? But we've encouraged it by all-but-deifying science (and YECism is a part of it, too - trying to make the Christian faith credible by making it scientifically credible, indirectly bowing down to the powerful image of science). Someone smart is an "Einstein" or a "rocket scientist", a genius is someone who invents some new technology. What would you feel if I said "You're as smart as Picasso!", that wouldn't feel like a compliment at all, would it?

Boy are you hitting the nail on the proverbial head here!

I have no problem being scientifically stupid. I realized long ago that I don't have the knowledge, nor do I have the interest, in scientific matters, at least not to the point that I could argue the finer points. That's o.k. it's not required, it is far better for me to develop my walk with my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ than to spend countless hours becoming knowledgeable in an area I have little to no interest in.

Why do we deify science? I suspect it's because we're easily awed by those who can expound on matters that appear complex, especially those that give answers to questions we really want to know. The problem is, those aren't the questions that are most important.

Being scientifically stupid isn't all that bad ...

No, as a matter of fact I'm comfortable with the level of knowledge I possess. Do I wish to have more, sure, but ultimately it isn't going to mean a hill of beans when I go to meet my maker and since it carries little importance to Him I'm not too concerned.

Secondly, most TEs here actually don't assume outright and immediately that YECs are scientifically stupid. Proof? We bother to try to reason you out of it. By directing you to TO, say, we assume that you understand the methodology of TO and the terms it uses. If I try to show you that radiodecay rates are constant, it means that I assume you know what radioactive decay is, how it works, what an atom is (which is actually brilliant: people weren't even sure that atoms existed two centuries ago). If we really thought you were scientifically stupid, we wouldn't even bother. Of course, there are a few people here who will do just that with a PRATT, swipe it off without giving it a second thought, but by and large most of us are willing to explain the science behind our conclusions. You may be scientifically stubborn in refusing to accept our explanations, but we don't consider you scientifically stupid.

For the most part I agree with this, although I have issues with the term "scientifically stubborn"

On the other hand, how do you think we feel every time YECs come along and effectively say that we have no right to be Christians simply because we believe in evolution?

Now here I have some difficulties. Most YECs do not make any such assertions that because you're a TE you have no right to be Christians. That's false, plain and simple. Most if not all YECs, at least the ones I know, will not say anything about your right to be a Christian, some may doubt your Christianity, but few if any actually call into question your right to be one.

 

[RenHoek]

Judging by experience, it seems that the creation/evolution debate matters a great deal to Creationists. They find it difficult to fathom that other Christians can believe in evolution; therefore they keep stirring the pot.

On the other hand, if Creationists stopped their constant agitating, Theistic Evolutionists would probably carry on with life without much further ado. We know what we believe, we don't really care what the others believe; we are happy to go our separate ways and get on with our business. The reason TEs get fiesty is simply because of the way we are constantly hounded by the opposite camp.

In short: leave us alone, and we'll leave you alone!

Have you seen the vast majority of the threads started on this board are from TE's...You with the most of those? Who has the stirring spoon?

 

[RenHoek]

My point is that we will never really know the full details about how life came about... At least, I don't see how full knowledge is possible of something like that and one's theory of Origins makes absolutely no difference in regards to one's current life of faith...

At least, it shouldn't make a difference...

 

[LoG]

Not stupid. Ignorant perhaps, confused maybe, misguided most probably but not stupid.

You must have missed this post and others that are in a similar vain. Either that or willfully blind and ignorant.

Young earth creationists, by demonstrating the pathetic stupidity of Christians and the supposed utter nonsense of the Bible..... Therefore, although atheists know that young earth creationists are morons..... young earth creationists are dupes for the atheists and unwary enemies of the cross of Christ....... young earth creations have robbed the gospel message of its credibility by demonstrating the pathetic stupidity of Christians........From here.

When however people take time and energy to explain to someone something and they still don't understand no matter how simplistically explained it is then the characterization changes. People like that are either scientifically stupid or willfully ignorant.

The part that TE's generally are oblivious to, is that Creationists are not scientifically stupid but choose to look for evidence of God's Word being correct as opposed to the secular scientific interpretation of the the data. When one looks at it from that perspective the view changes dramatically and it becomes obvious that it is all about interpretation. Creationists tend to be more conservative and not indulge in wild speculation as to how diversity of species came about differently than how God tells us it did

As if by repeating some mantra that evolution is false, ridiculous, stupid it will make it so. They are not trying to convince anyone other than themselves, even when they do not know it their faith is beginning to crumble.

This is how i perceive the TE's. There are many more TE's in this forum than there are normally creationists. Having done some checking around I've noted that many of the TE's only frequent the Origins forums in their attempts to prostelize the Creationists and Atheists in their brand of evolutionary theology. By so doing they believe their theology must have merit because they were able to convince one who's faith was weak into siding with them.

They become blind in their faith that they are right so anything that may prove them wrong is wrong itself. It doesn’t take a 24 yo to point out how dangerous and wrong this line of thinking really is so I wont.

Seems that the 24 yo has missed the fact that TE's are just as guilty of that blind faith in evolution as Creationists are in the literal reading of the Word of God. If there had been even one reference in the bible that man came from monkeys we could all go and do something more useful than debate this topic "ad nauseam. That isn't the case.

From the TE side creationism is dangerous. For starters it teaches falsehoods and myths as if they are as True as Jesus' words. I have seen how a person's faith can be unraveled from a single introductory course on biology. "Truths" that these people hold all their lives are knocked down by reading a single book with open eyes and when the "Truths" are gone their faith follows.

There are always those who being weak in the faith are easily misled into believing that man knows better than God. That is unfortunate but one that is augmented by so many older Christians believing the delusion themselves.
My own participation on the Origins forum came as a result of seeing someone recently start a thread questioning why she should believe there was a God if the TE's were correct. In her mind it was only a small step from believing evolution to believing that no god was required for the existence of the universe and the life in it. It was for that reason that I believe TE to be a dangerous theology which as PrincetonGuy put it so succintly:

but when the theory of evolutionCreationism is attacked by the application of pseudoscience and an irresponsible interpretation of the Bible, the consequence is the rejection of the gospel message by multitudes and their eternal damnation to the fires of hell.

Also IMO TEs do not like creationism because it presents to the rest of the world the reason to believe that Christianity is nothing more than a wacky religious cult. It lets outsiders believe that we are truly gone coo-coo and that Christianity is to be avoided if one wants to keep his/her head. I know this is happening because that was an obstacle I faced before I decided to become a Christian again. Let's face it I DO NOT want to be put in the same group as Hovind and Gish.

Christians their Jewish counterparts prior to Jesus were considered to be wacky and coo-coo and as "sheep led to the slaughter" and "fools for Christ". Are TE's attempting to make it sociably acceptable to be a Christian by becoming a part of the world in its belief system? Is there an attempt to push God so far into the backround that He is for all intents and purposes a non-essential aspect of the religion but retaining enough faith that when we come to the Judgement seat, can still say "well I believed in salvation and liked the cute creation story that some misguided prophets wrote in that book they say was inspired by you."

I hope for the sake of your soul that it will be enough.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The part that TE's generally are oblivious to, is that Creationists are not scientifically stupid but choose to look for evidence of God's Word being correct as opposed to the secular scientific interpretation of the the data.

this is a common contention among YECists and it is wrong.

yes, there is a principle in the philosophy of science termed the "underdetermination of theory by the data", so yes, the same data can be interpreted in numerous ways.

however.
there is no data for a global flood
there is no data that can be mis-interpreted as supporting a global flood.

there is no evidence that the world is less than 4.5 billion years old.
there is not evidence that the world is less than 10K years old.

the data will not stretch to allow the Noahic flood or YECism to be valid scientific theories that explain the data and are simply different interpretations.

that is the big point.
to contend that the data is plastic enough to allow YECism to be scientifically valid is to ignore all the data, not to interpret it differently.

 

[RenHoek]

The part that TE's generally are oblivious to, is that Creationists are not scientifically stupid but choose to look for evidence of God's Word being correct as opposed to the secular scientific interpretation of the the data. When one looks at it from that perspective the view changes dramatically and it becomes obvious that it is all about interpretation.

This is the crux of the issue. Interpretation of the Bible and of data.

 

[stumpjumper]

You must have missed this post and others that are in a similar vain. Either that or willfully blind and ignorant.

That post that you quoted was pretty much a flame and should not have been quoted...

Regardless, responding in kind to someone else is not an improvement...

The part that TE's generally are oblivious to, is that Creationists are not scientifically stupid but choose to look for evidence of God's Word being correct as opposed to the secular scientific interpretation of the the data.

I think that the main issue is that TE's don't believe that there is scientific information contained within the book of Genesis. So we would simply take the approach that Creationists are accepting evidence of our biological origin something that was written to be allegorical and philosophical in nature...

This is how i perceive the TE's. There are many more TE's in this forum than there are normally creationists. Having done some checking around I've noted that many of the TE's only frequent the Origins forums in their attempts to prostelize the Creationists and Atheists in their brand of evolutionary theology. By so doing they believe their theology must have merit because they were able to convince one who's faith was weak into siding with them.

Mischaracterizing those who accept the ToE and are Christians by having weak faith is also not an improvement...

There are always those who being weak in the faith are easily misled into believing that man knows better than God. That is unfortunate but one that is augmented by so many older Christians believing the delusion themselves.

This assumes that God verbally inspired the Bible and that we are meant to read it literally. Neither of those are really believed by all that many Christians...

My own participation on the Origins forum came as a result of seeing someone recently start a thread questioning why she should believe there was a God if the TE's were correct. In her mind it was only a small step from believing evolution to believing that no god was required for the existence of the universe and the life in it.

Fortunately that is not a position that is shared by many Christians. Sure there are some issues with reconciling evolution with Christian theism but isn't that what forums like this are for?

What is your main objection to accepting a theistic view of evolution?

I hope for the sake of your soul that it will be enough.

Let's just try and keep to the source of the discussion. Belief about our biological origin really has very little to do with the strength of one's faith. It's generally an epistemological issue...

 

[Silent Bob]

The part that TE's generally are oblivious to, is that Creationists are not scientifically stupid but choose to look for evidence of God's Word being correct as opposed to the secular scientific interpretation of the the data.

No, most creationists are not content to God's word. If they were so certain and their faith so strong they would believe what they believe, accept that the rest will never see it like they do and move on. Creationists however start from the Bible and try to find the data to prove it. They interpret. misinterpret, flat out discard data that do not agree with what they believe God meant, in a vain attempt to make their interpretation of genesis look as if it is supported by science. Their faith is weak, if it was not they wouldn't need science, they wouldn't need data. If you have found your Truth then stop trying to cast pearls especially in secular schools.

When one looks at it from that perspective the view changes dramatically and it becomes obvious that it is all about interpretation.

This is true as far as genesis is concerned, but there is no interpretation short of "Goddidit 5 mins ago exactly as it is" that can address all the data. For every single creationist argument I have seen it takes about 10 minutes to find mountains of data that do not agree with what is being discussed. Then out comes the attack against science and it ends up in a PRATT snowstorm.

There are many more TE's in this forum than there are normally creationists. Having done some checking around I've noted that many of the TE's only frequent the Origins forums in their attempts to prostelize the Creationists and Atheists in their brand of evolutionary theology. By so doing they believe their theology must have merit because they were able to convince one who's faith was weak into siding with them.

You can call us ducks that doesn't make us go quack.

Seems that the 24 yo has missed the fact that TE's are just as guilty of that blind faith in evolution as Creationists are in the literal reading of the Word of God.

No. I have seen one too many evolutionists being corrected and learning when new information presents itself. When it comes to science we follow the scientific method, which means that when we are wrong we do accept it. We do not change subjects we do not alter data when it fits us and we do not shift goal posts. I will not tell you that abiogenesis is a scientific theory, I will not discard intelligent design for no reason, I have NEVER knowingly posted lies or repeated something that I have been shown to be wrong.

If there had been even one reference in the bible that man came from monkeys we could all go and do something more useful than debate this topic "ad nauseam. That isn't the case.

There is not a single reference in the Bible about the existance of gluons and quarcks, the particle/wave duality or the law of supply and demand. The Bible is a manual for our spiritual guidance it was never meant to be the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy.

There are always those who being weak in the faith are easily misled into believing that man knows better than God. That is unfortunate but one that is augmented by so many older Christians believing the delusion themselves.

Do you have any idea how much faith it takes to accept a reality that has no special creation, no warm and fuzzy feeling that we are the centre of the universe? It would be 1000% easier to bury our heads in the sand and accept a geocentric young earth but we cannot. If only we could believe your delusion, life would be so much simpler but it is not.

In her mind it was only a small step from believing evolution to believing that no god was required for the existence of the universe and the life in it. It was for that reason that I believe TE to be a dangerous theology which as PrincetonGuy put it so succintly:

Oh trust me it takes A LOT of faith to be a TE, faith that people who have never had their beliefs challenged can never hope to achieve. It is so much easier to live in the dream world but when the dream world collides with reality those who are not prepared for the shock see their faith crumble. It is unfortunate and it is a consequence of creationism and not science.

Are TE's attempting to make it sociably acceptable to be a Christian by becoming a part of the world in its belief system?

It IS socially acceptable to be a Christian and we are called to be a part of the world. If Christianity could not function in the real world then my friend it is time to seek a new religion. I say it CAN function if only we are willing to listen, learn and think.

I hope for the sake of your soul that it will be enough.

Let me worry about my soul, you worry about your intellectual integrity.