Hey BroJoe....
I hadn’t been on in a while, I see where others have joined the fray.
I’ve included them on this post so I can clarify a few things.
1. Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior
2. As noted earlier by YHAOS, if Genesis isn’t true and Adam didn’t sin, then I don’t need a savior.
3. Based on 1 & 2 you know then that I believe the Book of Genesis to be an accurate historical account written under Divine Inspiration.
4. I came late to the party on this, I didn’t accept Christ until 7 years ago at age 51. The last (approximately) 4 years of my life have been devoted to understanding this whole debate better and I’ve come to a lot of very strong conclusions.
Having said that let me respond to some of what you’ve proclaimed:
****Sorry if I misunderstood. I thought I was “debating” a Creationist / ID’er, whose purpose in life is to get “Creationism” by some other name taught in public science classes.****
You are debating a Creationist. I don’t want it taught in public schools because it is my belief that they will not do it correctly or with much conviction.
I believe the theory of evolution is a farce. It is not science even though it masquerades as such. It is not provable by the scientific method and is therefore not science and incidentally...Irradiating a bunch of fruit flies in a laboratory in order to create “new species” (remember that men decide what is and is not a new species) is not macroevolution....they, in the end, are still fruit flies.
The Theory of Evolution was widely accepted precisely because it was a way to remove God from the equation. He told us about that in Romans 1. If there’s no God, then there’s no accountability....and who wants to be accountable?
I ignored God (at my peril) for 51 years. I won’t do that anymore.
The argument that you have made throughout this long-running debate we’ve got (other then the one about me being a liar) is that science deals with the natural world.
I’ve said I’m ok with that, others have eloquently pointed out that this is an arbitrary definition and I agree, the root of the word science is knowledge....but I’m still fine with it. The problem, as I’ve stated, is that science does not, as you claim, admit it when the answer to a problem may not lie in the natural/physical realm.
More and more scientists are looking at the theory and saying that it is built on presuppositions and pre-conceived notions that cannot be validated anywhere except in their own worldview.
Here it is in a nutshell:
Teach the theory in science class if you want but have the courtesy to do this......
Teach the problems with the theory (believe me when I say that these are plentiful and God doesn’t even need to be mentioned) and admit that, under the current constraints of science, it’s the best you can come up with.
That used to be what was known as teaching critical thinking...you know, teaching everything and letting the students process the information and come to their own conclusions.
I’ll end this with two quotes. This first one is from a famous evolutionist:
“A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.”
Charles Darwin in the Introduction to Origin of the Species.
“There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe them”
George Orwell
Thank God for common sense. Which evidently you have in spades, schaef21. Thank you so very much!
To God be the glory!
The funniest one I ever saw in this vein was from a 1928 evolution book full of essays by top-knotch evolutionists. It was an empirical laboratory demonstration of evolution: the evolution of amoebas. Now, have you ever heard about amoeba evolution experiments since then? But back then it was offered to the public as convincing hands-on laboratory proof. And then it quietly disappeared.
The argument that you have made throughout this long-running debate we’ve got (other then the one about me being a liar) is that science deals with the natural world.
He said something further than this: "a scientific theory on the origins or evolution of life, by definition, must be a materialistic - natural theory." This means that a "scientific theory" of mind would be a reduction of your thought processes to purely materialistic-naturalistic ones. In other words, when science faces something it does not understand, the proper response is not to simply say 'I don't know', but to offer the public some rationalistic fairytale. And, of course, to insist that it be believed as a fact, on pain of being cast out with the science-deniers.
Actually, I can’t take credit for that observation, but I subscribe to the idea just the same.
”3. Based on 1 & 2 you know then that I believe the Book of Genesis to be an accurate historical account written under Divine Inspiration.”
Fundamentally correct, but that’s a complicated concept, schaef21. The creators of the KJV were commissioned with the task to produce a translation of the Hebrew and Greek (with some Aramaic) texts that was both elegant in form and faithful to the original meaning (see Alister McGrath, In The Beginning). Apparently they were successful because no less a master of literature and language than Thomas Jefferson himself once remarked that he believed the KJ Bible to be the greatest work in all English literature. That means the Bible as translated in the KJV is meant to be read at many levels (as does all of our literature): literally, metaphorically, allegorically, and historically. Which is simply another way of saying that if one is sincere in wishing to be open to the Spirit of God’s word that is how the Bible can be read and understood successfully. Some of our scientific friends, who worship Science as though it were a religion, perfectly well understand how to read the literature of Western Civilization, but still insist nonetheless that God’s word must be read as though it were a chemical formula in an experiment, or, failing that, we must accept the Bible as no more than a collection of myths and fairy tales. They know better. Their sincerity is bankrupt.
”You are debating a Creationist.”
Anyone of the Judeo-Christian belief, by definition, is a Creationist. Within that broad category, there is room for some difference.
Thanks for your posts. They are a revelation.
This is an extraordinarily important point, because outside the question of what we teach in public school science classes, this whole debate is (imho) over nothing more than each of our personal opinions. And everyone is entitled to their opinions, right, wrong or indifferent.
I've said many times here, that if you want to teach Creationism or Intelligent Design, or Young Earthism, in your home school, or your religious school, or your private school, that is no one's business but yours and the school's. It falls under the Constitutional protection of the free exercise of religion.
It's only in the public schools where the Constitutional restriction on "establishment" of religion comes into effect.
In short, you can teach your own kids whatever you wish, but you can't teach my kids your religion in the public schools.
Schaef21, if we agree on that much, then the rest of this discussion is a very friendly debate, imho. ;-)
The Theory of Evolution was widely accepted precisely because it was a way to remove God from the equation. He told us about that in Romans 1. If there’s no God, then there’s no accountability....and who wants to be accountable?"
Here you suggest another very important point: words like "evolution," and "species," and "scientific method," are all just that -- words, utterly dependent on precisely how we define them. So you and I can say the same word, mean two different things by it, and not really agree as much as we might think.
Take, for example, the word "species." It is a totally arbitrary definition, where the line between species is usually drawn at the ability to successfully interbreed. So we consider a horse and a donkey are two different species, because their offspring -- a mule -- cannot reproduce.
Horses and cows, of course, cannot interbreed at all, so that seems pretty clear. But consider the case of your delightful giraffes, where six subspecies never interbreed in the wild, even when they come in contact with each other, but can be forcibly interbred in captivity. So, is it one species, or six? Depends on your definition.
But to your point here: micro-evolution verses macro-evolution. Scientists say there is no difference -- that macro-evolution is nothing more than micro-evolution continued on and on for millions of generations.
Is it micro-evolution or macro-evolution that produces:
Six sub-species of giraffes which can be forced to interbreed successfully, but would not otherwise?
Horses and donkeys which can be forced to interbreed, but produce only non-reproducing offspring?
Horses and cows which cannot under any circumstances be forced to interbreed?
To me this all seems obvious. Why not to you?
Finally, on "removing God from the equasion," I've said before, by definition that's what science is and does. And it has been that way since ancient times. There was never a time (that I know of, certainly) when the word "science" included acts or miracles of God. These have always come under another category of philosophy, like metaphysics and theology.
So evolution did NOT remove God from science. God was never part of science, EXCEPT in the sense I've expressed here many times: God is the beginning, the end and the reason for everyting.