Why creationists reject evolution

[medley]

The Bible was written for people with that type of understanding of things. It isn't so hard to understand that. You don't give a college style textbook to first graders.

 

[Jet Black]

Does the fact that something can be interpreted a different way make the first way incorrect?

at least one of the ways is invalid and will not fit the evidence.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

If I remember correctly the only verse that was not literal, (that you have mentioned) is Job 38:14

It is changed like clay under the seal,

where it is clearly implied that it is a metaphor.

When obvious words are used such as “like” or “as” it is a similie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Similie). When they are not it is a Metaphor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor). If a person says “Life is a jagged little pill” they don’t mean it literally, it’s a metaphor that holds deeper meaning.

To rationalize the parts of the bible that are in obvious error in light of our current scientific knowledge theists argue that the bible is speaking metaphorically in these areas. Flat earth and geo-centric universe are two of the most obvious at this point.

What I’m trying to get you to understand is that the parts that you have taken literally may be metaphorical. Now that we have a better understanding of the universe through the objective eyes of science your biblical interpretation can be refined to become more in line with truth just as the church did when we realized the earth was spherical.

This brings me to my second point. You still have not been able to tell me the precise reason you interpret parts of the bible and take others literally. Where is the line and why have you drawn it there? I’d really like to know.

You say that I interpret the Bible to fit my worldview. In certain respects, that is correct. But what else do you suggest? I have a bias, as does everyone.
This is essentially what is happening in the Creation/Evolution debate. We both have the same evidence, but we interpret it different ways.
Does the fact that something can be interpreted a different way make the first way incorrect?

You are missing a very important caveat. While you are interpreting the evidence in order to make it fit your biblical literalist worldview, science is set up to evaluate the evidence as objectively as possible. Even the majority of religious scientists agree that the Theory of Evolution is correct.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

If the Bible claimed to be a literal science book, then this thread might have a purpose.

If you took the time to read the posts you would have realized that the thread is aimed at those here that do take the bible as a literal science book and use it as an excuse to reject modern scientific theories and findings.

 

[Edx]

If the Bible claimed to be a literal science book, then this thread might have a purpose.

I think youve walked into an unfamiliar room, dear.

 

[jckstraw72]

es possible

 

[RightWingGirl]

You mean where it's clearly implied that it's a simile, right?

Yes

 

[Erock83]

You are missing a very important caveat. While you are interpreting the evidence in order to make it fit your biblical literalist worldview, science is set up to evaluate the evidence as objectively as possible. Even the majority of religious scientists agree that the Theory of Evolution is correct.

Ok here is a good empirical example of what I was talking about yesterday. Instead of using the word correct. IMO it would be more tactful and less abrasive to someone belief to say that most religious scientist believe the ToE to be a more sound explanation.

One Love.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Ok here is a good empirical example of what I was talking about yesterday. Instead of using the word correct. IMO it would be more tactful and less abrasive to someone belief to say that most religious scientist believe the ToE to be a more sound explanation.

I can’t worry about every word I’m saying when the recipient can find a way to take offense no matter what. You may think “more sound expiation” to be less offensive than “correct” but the next guy may think that your wording implies that you think science is “more sound” than belief in god. It doesn’t matter what I say. If someone wants to take offense they will. No offense, but I will spend my effort trying to be accurate instead.

 

[Erock83]

I can’t worry about every word I’m saying when the recipient can find a way to take offense no matter what. You may think “more sound expiation” to be less offensive than “correct” but the next guy may think that your wording implies that you think science is “more sound” than belief in god. It doesn’t matter what I say. If someone wants to take offense they will. No offense, but I will spend my effort trying to be accurate instead.

Sounds good to me I’m just linguistically critical today

*lights and horns*

Language police please pull over

 

[jonesdon]

...

What?

Yes, faith (for religion) is a gift -- just as our talents & skills are for science, art, logic, sports, etc.. Some have it (in various degrees) -- and some don't!

I don't take much from centuries old quotes as they are easy to misinterpret (like the Bible & the Qur'an) as well as to be taken out of context for the era as well as the specific situation. So, what are YOU trying to say, Nightson?

P.S. Wow, as the newest kid on the block -- this msg. board really moves! I can't get on several times a day to keep up!

New kid,
DJ from San Jose

 

[FlameProofHeretic]

So what is it? Where is the point where you stop interpreting the bible through the wisdom of scientific knowledge (shpereical earth, heliocentric solar system) and start denying science because of the literal words of an ancient text that has been translated, recompiled countless times, and proven to be in need of interpretation

when they think they can actually sow doubt in peoples minds to get them to convert

 

[FlameProofHeretic]

Yes, faith (for religion) is a gift

Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.


"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith.
I consider the capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile."
Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

Muslim suicide bombers must be gifted with a whole lot of faith

 

[FlameProofHeretic]

I can’t worry about every word I’m saying when the recipient can find a way to take offense no matter what. You may think “more sound expiation” to be less offensive than “correct” but the next guy may think that your wording implies that you think science is “more sound” than belief in god. It doesn’t matter what I say. If someone wants to take offense they will. No offense, but I will spend my effort trying to be accurate instead.

I would be offended if you tried to sugar coat it.

 

[Nightson]

So, what are YOU trying to say, Nightson

That I don't understand the words that are coming out of your mouth.

 

[jonesdon]

To Nightson: OK, which word(s) don't you understand? Do you rely only on quotes to respond for you? Or, are these quotes just added automatically? P.S. Others seem to understand.

To FlameProofHeretic: Yes, the definition sounds fine. The same applies to artistic appreciation and ideas from our imagination. I am trying to say that we know things beyond logical proof and/or material evidence.

Perhaps, the evolution-creation issue is neither a science nor a religious question, but, rather one of philosophy? We are talking about concepts beyond the human experience. For example, an argument of causality would indicate that some being prior (or greater) than the physical universe would be needed to cause it. Even Dawkins is backing himself into the cause of the cause of the "first" Big Bang!

DJ from San Jose

 

[Nightson]

Alright you make sense now.

Perhaps, the evolution-creation issue is neither a science nor a religious question, but, rather one of philosophy?

No, it isn't. It's amatter of reality and those who don't want to look at reality.

We are talking about concepts beyond the human experience.

Umm... no we aren't.

For example, an argument of causality would indicate that some being prior (or greater) than the physical universe would be needed to cause it.

Aside from having nothing to do with evolution.... Which would logically need something greater than itself to create it, which would then logically require something greater to create it, ad infinitum.

 

[Dannager]

Perhaps, the evolution-creation issue is neither a science nor a religious question, but, rather one of philosophy?

Except it's not an issue of philosophy. Creationism is a philosophical concept, but evolution is not. It is fact and scientific theory. There is no philosophy. There is no "maybe" about evolution. It happened, it's happening, it will continue to happen.

 

[jonesdon]

Alas, reality (or fact)! Perhaps, it is time to return to the centuries and many previous wide-spread views on reality (or fact). But, this would fill a message board in itself!

I would expect, in this modern era when thinking outside the box is encouraged, that we should be open to receiving inputs from other disciplines than just science. Perhaps, our large science tree right in front of us is too big to see the forest?

Are concepts & ideas (or art or mystic appreciation) not real? I consider these to be beyond human (physical) experience or understanding. I must admit that I am lacking in the mystical & artistic areas of appreciation. Perhaps, I can compensate with my philosophy. We may just have a difference in our definition of reality (or fact)?

The First Cause that would have started things (even back to where Dawkins is going), also, could have infused a human soul at a later time -- with unique intellect & will (choice) -- to a village of monkeys. Males called "Adam" and females called "Eve". I have not seen a good scientific proof of the development of these humanly unique qualities. This development would be beyond the human experience. This is the evolution-creation connection.

Yes, this First Cause would be that "ad infinitum", by definition, that you refer to -- which, also, is beyond human experience. But, is defined, and quite necessary, in the discipline of mathematics.

Dannager -- You must believe in only black & white -- evolution (science & physical) vs. creation (philosophical & ideas)? There is no metaphysical? Perhaps, we, too, have a difference in definition of "reality" (or facts). This difference is OK -- as, in mathematics, we can define different systems which are consistent within themselves (e.g. non-Euclidean)! My system just seems to have a wider perspective -- a larger forest -- in using different disciplines. And, arguing across such systems, with different fundamental definitions, is fruitless. Both can be right (or wrong)!

DJ from San Jose

 

[TheInstant]

Are concepts & ideas (or art or mystic appreciation) not real? I consider these to be beyond human (physical) experience or understanding.

Why do you consider concepts, ideas, and art (I'm not sure what you mean by mystic appreciation) to be "beyond human (physical) experperience or understanding"?