[PatrickHenry]

Everybody be nice.

[presently no screen name]

What difference does it make when God created the universe--10,000 years ago or 10,000,000,000 years ago

It makes a HUGE difference. Who do you believe when He created the universe, some scientist or The Creator?

And what difference does it make how God created life--spoken word or natural forces?

It makes a HUGE difference. One either believes The Word of God or they don't. If one doesn't believe The Ever Living, All Righteous. Almighty God when He said He spoke the Universe into existence, then they do not follow His teachings and, therefore, is not a Christian. They can 'claim' to be Christian but it doesn't make them one. They discount His Word for their 'own truths'; self-righteousness, pride - saying they know more than The Creator.

Being a Christian doesn't mean believing there is a God, it means believing IN HIM and His Living Word and following His teachings.

[NewLand]

This trash does not even deserve the light of day. Example; not one mention of Jesus Christ, Lord and Saviour of all Christians and the only reason we even have Christianity.

There are numerous passages in scripture to refute all of this. Keep this kind of nonsense in the category of 'agenda driven science fiction'.

[NewLand]

PING...amateurs at work.

[Liberal Classic]

An excerpt from: Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective
by Dr. Roger C. Wiens

Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

It would not be inconsistent with the scientific evidence to conclude that God made everything relatively recently, but with the appearance of great age, just as Genesis 1 and 2 tell of God making Adam as a fully grown human (which implies the appearance of age). This idea was captured by Phillip Henry Gosse in the book, "Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot", written just two years before Darwin's "Origin of Species". The idea of a false appearance of great age is a philosophical and theological matter that we won't go into here. The main drawback--and it is a strong one--is that this makes God appear to be a deceiver. However, some people have no problem with this. Certainly whole civilizations have been incorrect (deceived?) in their scientific and theological ideas in the past. Whatever the philosophical conclusions, it is important to note that an apparent old Earth is consistent with the great amount of scientific evidence.

As Christians it is of great importance that we understand God's word correctly. Yet from the middle ages up until the 1700s people insisted that the Bible taught that the Earth, not the Sun, was the center of the solar system. It wasn't that people just thought it had to be that way; they actually quoted scriptures: "The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved" (Psalm 104:5), or "the sun stood still" (Joshua 10:13; why should it say the sun stood still if it is the Earth's rotation that causes day and night?), and many other passages. I am afraid the debate over the age of the Earth has many similarities. But I am optimistic. Today there are many Christians who accept the reliability of geologic dating, but do not compromise the spiritual and historical inerrancy of God's word. While a full discussion of Genesis 1 is not given here, references are given below to a few books that deal with that issue.

As scientists, we deal daily with what God has revealed about Himself through the created universe. The psalmist marveled at how God, Creator of the universe, could care about humans: "When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have set in place, what is man that You are mindful of him, the son of man that You care for him?" (Psalm 8:3-4). Near the beginning of the twenty-first century we can marvel all the more, knowing how vast the universe is, how ancient are the rocks and hills, and how carefully our environment has been designed. Truly God is more awesome than we can imagine!

Source

[BIGLOOK]

The world didn't begin 10,000 years ago. Evidence abounds but then who believes creation has ceased?

[stultorum]

Christians and conservatives should NOT accept evolution as evolution is simply anti God, anti Christians and anti Western Culture.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Have you seen this thread?

1. Evolution fits well with good theology. Christians believe in an omniscient and omnipotent God. What difference does it make when God created the universe--10,000 years ago or 10,000,000,000 years ago? The glory of the creation commands reverence regardless of how many zeroes in the date. And what difference does it make how God created life--spoken word or natural forces? The grandeur of life's complexity elicits awe regardless of what creative processes were employed. Christians (indeed, all faiths) should embrace modern science for what it has done to reveal the magnificence of the divine in a depth and detail unmatched by ancient texts.

Of course, ID doesn't dispute evolution or an ancient age of the universe (that's why IDers aren't creationists). It merely says that some intelligent guidance of fifteen billion years of evolution is a demonstrable fact. But anti-ID evolutionists reject this apparently because they regard religion as philosophical speculation which should not be mixed with demonstrable fact. It isn't very honest to portray this little intra-evolutionist tiff as a "fight against creationism."

We know where evolutionists stand on the first eleven chapters of Genesis. I'm wondering where they stand on, say, Exodus, chapters three and four, and chapter 20 and following? It is my understanding that evolutionists claim they only want creationists to give up the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Surely they don't want to add the accounts of Divine Revelation to that, do they? But if they refuse to consider the very possibility of the objective facticity of revelation (since they regard religion as subjective philosophical speculation), then aren't they wanting to do away with the literal interpretation of a lot more than just Genesis 1-11?

2. Creationism is bad theology. The watchmaker God of intelligent-design creationism is delimited to being a garage tinkerer piecing together life out of available parts. This God is just a genetic engineer slightly more advanced than we are. An omniscient and omnipotent God must be above such humanlike constraints. As Protestant theologian Langdon Gilkey wrote, "The Christian idea, far from merely representing a primitive anthropomorphic projection of human art upon the cosmos, systematically repudiates all direct analogy from human art." Calling God a watchmaker is belittling.

So Mr. Shermer says that believing that G-d created the universe by somehow taking a personal hand in it is belittling, but he nevertheless believes that G-d created the world? Granted this latter is only his personal opinion, since all religion is (of course) subjective philosophical speculation and there is no such thing as objective Revelation (which is why Mr. Shermer attacks other evolutionists who believe that G-d created the universe through evolution even though that is what he himself claims to believe).

Very well. G-d used evolution to create the universe (according to Mr. Shermer). This is not "intelligent design." Michael Behe says that G-d used evolution to create the universe. This is. I get it. [/sarcasm]

But let us say that G-d guided evolution without "interfering with the creation" (as opposed to guiding evolution by "directly interfering with creation"). The non-ID Theistic evolutionists assure us (do they not?) that they have no quarrel with anything else in the Bible. Why would a G-d who had not interfered with the evolutionary process (by which He created the world according to Mr. Shermer) suddenly begin interfering constantly once that non-interfered-with creation process was complete? Why would Eve have to be removed from Adam's side (by "direct Divine interference," no less)? Why would a talking snake suddenly waddle in (before its legs were taken away)? Why would Adam and Eve conceive and give birth to five children within a matter of minutes? Why would angels call down fire and brimstone on Sedom? Why would a bush burn and not be consumed (in violation of natural laws that G-d refused to interfere with while the universe and its laws were evolving, even though He was using this process in order to create)? What about the three million people who heard the voice of the invisible, incorporeal, non-incarnated G-d with their own ears?

Why would G-d interfere and open a donkey's mouth so that it would speak? Why cause an ax to float on water? Why see to it that every Jew could come into the various courtyards of the Beit HaMiqdash and yet there would be room for everyone, and that everyone could pray aloud yet no one could hear what anyone else was saying?

Then you have those Notzerim. They actually claim that the G-d who refused to "directly interfere" in the evolution process by which he created the universe (unlike IDers, who believe he did so interfere) dared to encloth himself in human flesh (after a virgin gave birth, no less). Moreover even the most anti-supernatural, anti-ID chr*stians insist that this J*sus did all these magic tricks and they were 100% real. Then (they say) he returned to life after being executed and actually supernaturally reappears every time a priest recites correcty performs the rituals. Now slap me silly and call me Obadiah but I detect a whiff of hypocrisy here when these same Notzerim start bawling and crying about the "J*sus Seminar" or The DaVinci Code.

So the problem is, if you're going to believe all this other stuff, what's the point of insisting on a purely naturalistic origin of the universe (while insisting that G-d is the one Who did it, even though that's exactly what those "creationist" IDers say)? A purely naturalistic process created this world full of talking donkeys and magical flesh cookies? Jeepers.

Of course, I suppose it's theoretically possible that evolutionists who say their only quarrel is with the first eleven chapters of Genesis and have no other problems whatsoever with the rest of the contents of Judaism or chr*stianity are lying to us . . . or perhaps just ignorant.

3. Evolution explains original sin and the Christian model of human nature. As a social primate, we evolved within-group amity and between-group enmity. By nature, then, we are cooperative and competitive, altruistic and selfish, greedy and generous, peaceful and bellicose; in short, good and evil. Moral codes and a society based on the rule of law are necessary to accentuate the positive and attenuate the negative sides of our evolved nature.

Evolution explains how sin was brought into a thitherto absolutely perfect world (in which people didn't even die) by the eating of a fruit??? Cool.

4. Evolution explains family values. The following characteristics are the foundation of families and societies and are shared by humans and other social mammals: attachment and bonding, cooperation and reciprocity, sympathy and empathy, conflict resolution, community concern and reputation anxiety, and response to group social norms. As a social primate species, we evolved morality to enhance the survival of both family and community. Subsequently, religions designed moral codes based on our evolved moral natures.

That sounds suspiciously like a denial of the notion of Divine Commandments (decrees) delivered to humanity via revelation. So now Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy have to join Genesis as "profound allegories?" Whaddaya gonna do with that J*sus feller?

5. Evolution accounts for specific Christian moral precepts. Much of Christian morality has to do with human relationships, most notably truth telling and marital fidelity, because the violation of these principles causes a severe breakdown in trust, which is the foundation of family and community. Evolution describes how we developed into pair-bonded primates and how adultery violates trust. Likewise, truth telling is vital for trust in our society, so lying is a sin.

Well, not that I have a stake in chr*stian morality, but now I'm confused. First evolutionists only wanted Genesis 1-11 de-literalized (chr*stian evolutionists only want the "old testament" de-literalized). But still (they say), even though He didn't "interfere," G-d nevertheless actually created the world via evolution (as opposed to IDers who say He created the world by "interfering" with evolution). But now they're telling us our morality wasn't given to us by supernatural revelation? Perhaps G-d "used" natural human societal evolution to give us His "decrees" (without actually interfering, of course!)? Sounds an awful lot like the universe is creating G-d here instead of the other way round. Hegel, anyone?

I wonder what the late JPII would have thought of evolutionists quoting his words on evolution to imply that Divine Revelation is as unnecessary to chr*stianity as a six day creation?

6. Evolution explains conservative free-market economics. Charles Darwin's "natural selection" is precisely parallel to Adam Smith's "invisible hand." Darwin showed how complex design and ecological balance were unintended consequences of competition among individual organisms. Smith showed how national wealth and social harmony were unintended consequences of competition among individual people. Nature's economy mirrors society's economy. Both are designed from the bottom up, not the top down.

Not being interested in Adam Smith (or John Locke, or Thomas Jefferson, or Thomas Paine, etc.) what do I care what explains free market economics? Oh well. Maybe social conservatives will eventually wake up to how the economic conservatives are using them. But at any rate I find this concept of "spontaneous order" very interesting (especially when it encompasses "spontaneous objective meaning"). But remember, G-d actually did all this through evolution without actually interfering with it. So I guess G-d created free market economics too?

And I notice that Mr. Shermer does indeed believe in design, so long as it is "unintended." So G-d created the universe via evolution even though He didn't intend to? Maybe this is the real sticking point between ID Theistic evolutionists and anti-ID Theistic evolutionists.

So when will this "gxd" being spontaneously and unintentionally created by the universe be complete? I suppose for right wing evolutionists, though, we passed the "omega point" a little over two hundred years ago. Coincidentally, it didn't stop when Hegel thought it would either.

PS: All this being the case, maybe some of you anti-ID Catholics can explain to me how J*sus pulls off this "transubstantiation" business? Perhaps that's an "unintended consequence?"

[highlander_UW]

You've really got to be kidding. So I'm supposed to take the word of Michael Shermer as to what is "good theology"? Let's see what his credentials are, shall we?

Dr. Michael Shermer is the Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine and the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society.

Dr. Shermer received his B.A. in psychology from Pepperdine University, M.A. in experimental psychology from California State University, Fullerton, and his Ph.D. in the history of science from Claremont Graduate School. He worked as a college professor for 20 years (1979–1998), teaching psychology, evolution, and the history of science at Occidental College, California State University Los Angeles, and Glendale College. Since his creation of the Skeptics Society, Skeptic magazine, and the Skeptics Distinguished Lecture Series at Caltech, he has appeared on such shows as 20/20, Dateline, Charlie Rose, Tom Snyder, Donahue, Oprah, Sally, Lezza, Unsolved Mysteries, and more as a skeptic of weird and extraordinary claims. source: http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/meet_michael_shermer.html

Well, maybe it's his experience on Sally or Lezza that qualifies him in theology...although for what sort of religion I can only speculate...but it isn't Christianity.

[sauropod]

1. Evolution fits well with good theology. Christians believe in an omniscient and omnipotent God. What difference does it make when God created the universe--10,000 years ago or 10,000,000,000 years ago? The glory of the creation commands reverence regardless of how many zeroes in the date. And what difference does it make how God created life--spoken word or natural forces? The grandeur of life's complexity elicits awe regardless of what creative processes were employed. Christians (indeed, all faiths) should embrace modern science for what it has done to reveal the magnificence of the divine in a depth and detail unmatched by ancient texts.

I agree with this. I think the whole crevo debate is an enormous red herring.

[spunkets]

"3. Evolution explains original sin and the Christian model of human nature."

I just saw this was posted on the religion board, but it came from "Scientific American". ...

There is no such thing as original sin. That concept was declared doctrine by the Council of Orange awhile back and is due primarily to the thoughts and efforts of Augustine. They made certain claims which contradict the words of Jesus in John 9 and their first claim directly contradicts Ezekiel 18, the very chapter cited by the Council as a justification. The Jews never believed in original sin also, the concept was foreign to them.

[Old_Mil]

1. Evolution fits well with good theology.
2. Creationism is bad theology.
3. Evolution explains original sin and the Christian model of human nature.
4. Evolution explains family values.
5. Evolution accounts for specific Christian moral precepts.
6. Evolution explains conservative free-market economics.


Oddly enough, nowhere on this list is the statement "Evolution constitutes irrefutable empiric scientific truth." Wonder why.

[fabian]

the grasping for odd reasons to believe a theory devoid of the facts is bizarre. An honest and objective view of both side shows the lack of evidence for evolution. And it was originally proposed as a tool to try and create a doubt about the creator. I think the proponents don't believe that, but they are being unwittingly used by the darkside.

[Heartlander]

From telicthoughts :

Now, I realize that some might view this as a parody. But I see no hint of that. In fact, Shermer writes, "Because the theory of evolution provides a scientific foundation for the core values shared by most Christians and conservatives, it should be embraced."

On the other hand, others might take issue with Shermer's argument. But I see something else. Y'see, when Shermer speaks of "evolution," he is talking about the findings of modern science. In other words, this hardcore skeptic, writing in the pages of Scientific American, has felt compelled to concede that modern science supports conservative Christianity!

With the backing of science and evolution, perhaps some public school board out there may one day begin looking for ways to more explicitly re-introduce family values and specific Christian moral precepts into the curriculum, along with some specific advocacy of conservative free-market economics, since these are not rooted in religion, but instead are derived from science and its understanding of evolution.

Who needs the Wedge when you can just cite Shermer and Scientific American?

Oh, the irony.

[SoldierDad]

He states that evolution explains (fill in the blank), but then provides zilch as evidence for his position. Just making the claim isn't proof.

[b_sharp]

Can lead a horse Placemarker

[BLS]

I am a Christian. Some might even call me a "Bible Thumper" whatever that is.

I do not believe the earth is only thousands of years old. There exists hard, proven archeological evidence against that being possible.

But I will say that a year to us is nothing to God.

[mware]

It is called the Theory of Evolution. Theories change and are dismissed as new information is discovered.

Given the concept that we must ACCEPT all theories, we would still believe in Spontaneous Generation instead of Biogenesis.

[SirLinksalot]

What's most astonishing about this article is its proud display of ignorance.

Shermer thinks he's explaining to Christians what's good about evolution for their religion !

What he's really doing is showing that he doesn't know what he's talking about: he thinks he can make Christians happy by showing how they might dispense with God. Now he's stepping into the realm of philosophy and theology.

The second most astonishing thing is that Scientific American considered this publishable !!

This isn't just Shermer speaking. When will the establishment discover that they're not making any sense--and they're certainly not making any points in debate-- speaking about things of which they know so little?

In my own opinion, Shermer's attempting to subtract GOD from
Christianity, just as Darwinism [Shermer's creed] is mechanized, atomized, random creationism.

[Conservative til I die]

I found this article condescending and dismissive of my beliefs. And I say this as neither a creationist or evolutionist.