Posted on 12/26/2003 9:43:24 PM PST by rhema
I read with interest Gregory Korgeski's Dec. 13 counterpoint decrying creationism and fundamentalism. After learning that no "reputable" scientists endorse creationism, I learned that fundamentalists who take their sacred texts literally are dangerous to the well-being of society.
These arguments are self-serving in that they admit no evidence to the contrary. In Korgeski's thought, being a creationist makes you disreputable and being a fundamentalist makes you a likely menace to society.
I was raised in a church that taught that the Bible was mostly mythology, that there were no miracles, and that evolution was true. Seeing no need for religion, I left the church and took up the study of science.
As a chemical engineering student at Iowa State University I was required to study organic chemistry. I studied the complexity of molecules in the body that made life possible. That study convinced me that evolution was impossible and that life had to come from an intelligent designer.
The church led me away from belief in God and science led me to it. I became a Christian and began to study the Bible for myself. Now I am a "fundamentalist" preacher.
My fundamentalism means that as a Christian I am committed to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. These teachings are so rigorous that they show me my sins and failings. However, they offer forgiveness as a free gift of God's grace through what Christ did for me on the cross. But what about these "dangerous" fundamental teachings? Let me explain just a few of them to those who find us "fundamentalists" to be dangerous.
Jesus and his apostles taught us to not take revenge, but turn the other cheek when attacked (Matthew 5:39). Jesus taught his followers to pay their taxes (Matthew 22:17-21).
The apostle Paul taught all Christians to pray for their civil leaders, whoever they may be (1Timothy 2:1, 2). . . .
< snip >
Back to Korgeski's article -- I wonder, given the lack of any authoritative text, the lack of a supreme "law giver," and the lack of any rational explanation of how moral guidance "evolved" from random processes, how Korgeski can take it upon himself to give his readers moral guidance. At least we fundamentalists have a source of moral guidance outside of the fickle "self."
Bob DeWaay is pastor of Twin City Fellowship in Minneapolis.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
If the truth be known, those that refuse to acknowledge God through His creation have issues with Him. They remind of of Satan's fall as an angel. The same problems that troubled him, trouble those that believe in evolution - pride, more important than God, want to believe they are wise ... . See the parallel?
Thank God for a spell checker here since I always suffer from "flying fingers". This gives the nay sayers one less thing to criticize.
If the truth be known, those that refuse to acknowledge God through His creation have issues with Him. They remind me of Satan's fall as an angel. The same problems that troubled him, trouble those that believe in evolution - pride, more important than God, want to believe they are wise ... . See the parallel?
Thank God for a spell checker here since I always suffer from "flying fingers". This gives the nay sayers one less thing to criticize.
The complexity of the physical world does not prove that God exists.
That's the reason belief in God is called "Faith."
Actually, the complexity by mere human reason alone, should lead one to God since Supernatural design took place. The evidence points one to God since it cannot be explained by evolution.
Yeah, evolutionists keep coming up with new "theories" but they don't pan out. There is always a new crop to take their place when even an evolutionist can no longer defend it. And on and on it goes. It's pride on not being wrong and thinking they know more than God that keeps them going - similar to the fall of Satan.
I's no surprise our country at large and academia in particular rejects the Judeo Christian God in all forms.
Actually, the complexity by mere human reason alone, should lead one to God since Supernatural design took place. The evidence points one to God since it cannot be explained by evolution.
Yeah, evolutionists keep coming up with new "theories" but they don't pan out. There is always a new crop to take their place when even an evolutionist can no longer defend it. And on and on it goes. It's pride of not being wrong and thinking they know more than God that keeps them going - similar to the fall of Satan.
I's no surprise our country at large and academia in particular rejects the Judeo Christian God in all forms.
Only a Tool of the Devil would say something like that!
Organic chemistry is a difficult subject. I would not look for God there.
In reading through biology texts describing and illustrating the general design of the animal kingdom, it became quite apparent to me that the theory of evolution has far more appeal than the fantastic belief that life just suddenly appeared on Earth a few thousand years ago. That and the evidence dug up by archaeologists and the genetic mapping correlating with the morphology of life forms convinced me that Evolution is an extremely powerful concept.
What the author said about his upbringing that the miracles were taught as myth in his Church surprises me. Most churches teach the miracles. Many do not stress them but rather preach the moral concepts which is what religion is really all about. I would more believe that Moses sought refuge from the rabble on a mountain for the night, carved the Ten Commandments into tablets, and then came down and told his quarreling following to stop the childishness behavior because higher authority told him so. Most of the ideas I have read in the Bible that make any sense are examples of rules for decent behavior seeking to make a stable society. The miracles are for the children. The revelations are for the mad. Organic chemistry is for the tough minded.
My degrees are in chemistry and chemical engineering as well, and I have to agree with this sentiment. I don't have any theological problems with the notion that all life evolved from single-celled organisms that swam in a prehistoric goop, but I have a lot of scientific problems with it. It's been my experience that chemists in general are pretty skeptical of the claims of the hard-core evolutionists. They make a good case when talking about the big picture but do a lot of hand-waving when it comes to the details.I'm comfortable with the idea of, say, chimps and gorillas evolving from a common ancestor but the notion that complicated mechanisms such as blood clotting and vision "just happened" is a real stretch on the molecular level.
Just my experience -- other chemists' mileage may vary.
90+% of scientists in general and 99+% of scientists in the field of biology accept evolution as the explanation for how modern life came to be. Are you saying they're not "intelligent"?
There is NO way that the complexity we see "evolved" randomly out of chaos no less. It defies the very laws of science they worship in place of God.
You sort of "forgot" to explain why evolution would allegedly "defy the very laws of science". What do you know that 99% of biologists don't know?
If the truth be known, those that refuse to acknowledge God through His creation have issues with Him.
Nonsense. The vast majority of those who accept evolution do so because that's what the vast preponderance of the evidence indicates. And the vast majority of atheists don't believe in a God not because they are "refusing to acknowledge God", but because they honestly consider him to be a myth.
Do you "refuse to acknowledge Santa Claus" because you "have issues with Him"? Or do you just happen to believe that he isn't real, and thus are hardly "refusing" to face him.
They remind of of Satan's fall as an angel. The same problems that troubled him, trouble those that believe in evolution - pride, more important than God, want to believe they are wise ... . See the parallel?
What I see is that you're trying to demonize those who disagree with you, so that you don't have to try to deal with the fact that their beliefs are based on rational analysis. It's so much easier to just tell yourself that they're wretched sinners too scared to see what's "obvious" to you, eh?
And yet, there are many mechanisms which can bring about astounding complexity. An intelligence doing intentional design is only one of them.
It was always so strange that the professors teaching it seemed blind to the silliness of the only argument they had at the time (by A.I. Oparin) that it was just a property of matter to organize itself into life, no need for God here, nothing to see, keep moving...
As usual, if something seems silly, one must first ponder whether one has understood it properly.
Your summary (and probably grasp) of Oparin's thesis does it a gross injustice. Nor is it the "only argument" in abiogenesis. Finally, the field has progressed immeasurably since Oparin's 1924 pamphlet...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.