Posted on 03/08/2002 7:55:48 AM PST by JediGirl
"I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag, and to the Saviour, for whose Kingdom it stands, one Saviour, crucified, risen, and coming again, with life and liberty for all who believe."- Dan Quayle, participating in a modified Pledge of Allegiance at the "Reclaiming America" conference in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 1994. Quoted from Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy, by Frederick Clarkson. According to Dan Quayle and the other hate mongers at this conference, only those who believe deserve the right to life and liberty. I guess that means the rest of us can die in chains, just as we did in the Dark Ages. Religious bigotry is at the heart of fundamentalism, and Christian fundamentalism is in turn the heart of the so-called "creation science" movement. In its various forms, creationist bigotry usually incorporates one or more of 3 basic premises:
Every one of these premises is both indefensible and incredibly offensive, yet all of those assumptions are very common among creaionists, for whom it doesn't even seem to matter that their "scientific theory" would be the only theory in the history of science that requires faith in a particular religion. Suggested TacticsEducate Them About Other Religions. Some famous atheists have half-jokingly quipped in the past that "the solution to Christianity is education". While that may be a bit harsh, it is certainly fair to say that creationist misconceptions about the universality of their particular creation myth are best dispelled with information. Concrete information about the true beliefs of humanism (as opposed to the Christian fundamentalist strawman stereotype of selfish hedonists) and the specifics of other religions' creation myths (as opposed to the creationist assumption that they either follow Judaism or they're Satan worshippers) is the best way to break through a creationist's intellectual defense shield of xenophobia and religious egocentrism. Examples follow: "If creation theory has no independent basis, then why do all the world's religions have similar stories of the Creation and the Flood? Why do scientists insist on assuming that all of the world's religions are wrong? Evolution theory is nothing more than an organized assault upon religion." This person confuses "religion" for "Christianity", by blindly assuming that every religion in the world is incompatible with evolution theory. In reality, many of the world's religions are quite compatible with evolution theory (some even provide support for it). Creationists who propose this argument are simply demonstrating ignorance of other religions. This is not surprising; throughout most of their history, Christians were not only reluctant to study other religions, but they actually tried to obliterate them by force, through torture, massacres, and destruction of cultural artifacts such as libraries and temples. Today, Christianity has generally improved upon its heinous past, and many Christians' value systems are quite similar to those of humanists. Such Christians no longer murder and torture "heretics", and some of them have even chosen to open their minds not only to science, but also to the richness and diversity of world history, as opposed to a narrow minded focus on European Christian history. Progressive Christians tend to focus on Jesus' common-sense message of reciprocity, meaning that you should love your neighbour and treat others as you would have them treat you. This is known as the "Golden Rule", and while Christian egocentrics tend to act as though it is their exclusive intellectual property, versions of it are actually found in the ancient writings of virtually all the world's cultures. Of course, in order to live by this rule, they must downplay or refute the parts of the Bible which encourage intolerance and misogynism, sometimes by simply ignoring them and sometimes by arguing that the Golden Rule overrides them. The term "humanist Christian" is often thought of as an oxymoron, but that isn't necessarily the case; humanism and atheism are not synonymous. Humanism is about placing the good of humankind and the good of your fellow human above all else, and a humanist Christian could easily make the argument that the basic principles of humanism are highly compatible with the principles that Jesus tried to outline in the New Testament. However, unlike Jesus or God, humanism makes no value judgement on the basis of religion; it is equally accepting of Buddhists, Taoists, Christians, Hindus, Wiccans, Muslims, and others, including atheists. It is the only system of values which is so broadly inclusive, and therefore, it is the only system of values upon which governments should be based. However, this means it is also anathema to certain Christians (read: right-wing fundamentalist fanatics), who have chosen instead to close their minds, cling to the past, and fight a seemingly never-ending propaganda war against science and humanism (some, like Pat Robertson, still defend the morality of Old Testament atrocities such as the slaughter of Palestinian women and children). I remember once watching one of those "political talk shows" and seeing a Christian fundamentalist explaining that school prayer was necessary in order to introduce "spirituality" to children (for some reason, she felt it was necessary for the state to perform this function, rather than the parents). When queried about the obvious religious bigotry inherent in this approach, and its implications for religious freedom of non-Christians, she confidently replied that since all of the world's religions from Judaism to Islam to Christianity are very similar, sharing the same God, it wouldn't be a serious problem. And if they insisted on being difficult, they could always simply "opt out" (and in so doing, stand apart from the rest of the class, which is a great way to make a child feel welcome). I remember being disgusted at her attitude and amazed at the fact that no one else on the panel seemed to take offense at her arrogance and bigotry. This kind of obtuse navel-gazing ignorance is a classic European cultural mindset which has unfortunately been adopted by many Americans (for example, they know the "yin/yang" symbol, but they have no idea that it is actually derived from the Taoist religion; they think it's just a "Chinese philosophy thing", or that it has something to do with kung fu). I suggest that Christian egocentrists go to the library and borrow a book on the world's other religions before presuming to speak for them. There are billions of Hindus and Buddhists in the world, and none of them would want their children to feel like outcasts for not participating in school prayer to the Christian God. Hindus are even polytheistic, even though Christian egocentrists tend to believe that monotheism is somehow "more advanced" than polytheism (in reality, both monotheistic and polytheistic religions are traceable back to the dawn of recorded history). There are at least five different types of creation myth:
"Let us break through some of the inhibitions that have existed to talk together across the flimsy lines of separation of faith, to talk together, to study together, to pray together, and ultimately to sing together His Holy name."- Senator Joseph Lieberman, speaking at Fellowship Chapel in Detroit while running for Vice President, Aug. 27, 2000 (like many Judeo-Christian bigots, he assumes all faiths share the same God). Quoted from AA News #808.
If you examine the world's various creation myths, you may notice a very interesting fact: many of them are more easily reconciled with biology and cosmology than you might expect. In fact, the "Creation through Emergence" story is startlingly similar to evolution theory, and "Creation from a Cosmic Egg" is strongly reminiscent of Big Bang theory. Moreover, a very common thread in various mythologies is the pre-existent chaos, in which a universe already exists before the "Creation" but it is formless and dark, and the gods merely take this pre-existing matter and transform it into the modern world. This is a sharp contrast to the creationist assumption that creation myths are all predicated upon a supreme being who creates the universe with a mere thought. Does evolution theory represent an "assault upon religion?" Not necessarily. It does, however, represent the scientific conclusion that Biblical fundamentalism has no foundation whatsoever in logic and observation. Creationists interpret this as an attack against "religion" because they think they stand for all of the world's religions, despite their ideological differences and their long history of trying to wipe out those other religions. "The only way to arrive at evolution theory is from a close-minded secular, humanistic mindset." And why is humanism bad, particularly when we speak of science? Humanism, as it applies to science, is the notion that it is possible to understand the universe through the reasoning faculties of the human mind. It is part of the philosophical foundation of science! How can a legitimate scientific theory not be based on a humanistic mindset? The fact that a theory is "humanistic" is hardly a condemnation, but creationists are so accustomed to speaking of "humanism" in a perjorative sense that they instinctively assume everyone else sees the term in the same negative way. The scientific method leaves no room for creationist nonsense. Scientists are supposed to confine their analyses strictly to the bounds of observation and reason. Scientists are supposed to assume that every phenomenon in the universe has a natural mechanism. Scientists are supposed to discount supernatural explanations for observed phenomena. That is the scientific method, in which all phenomena in the universe are grouped into those we understand and those we have yet to understand. There is no third option of supernatural explanations, nor should there be. If supernatural explanations were acceptable scientific explanations for all unknowns, then mankind would never have developed any science at all. Scientists are often accused of being "close-minded" for doing this. The term "close-minded" has a perjorative implication, but it is a relative term. When we say that others are "close-minded", we usually mean that they are close-minded to whatever we're trying to push on them. Scientists are close-minded to the supernatural, but they are open-minded to observations and rational theories. Mystics, on the other hand, are open minded to mysticism, pseudoscience, and the supernatural, but they are close-minded to the scientific method. This contrast of competing philosophies is nothing new, but an increasingly large number of mystics want to upset the balance. They want to force scientists to consider supernatural theories alongside natural mechanisms; in effect, they want to destroy science by removing the scientific method and replacing it with the methods of mysticism. "Evolutionists are just atheists who want to believe that there's no God so that they won't have to obey His laws, even though they know the truth, deep down. In fact, the decay of family values, the explosion of pornography, and the general decline in societal mores can be directly attributed to humanist teachings such as evolution theory and moral relativism, which basically encourages people to follow their own selfish interests instead of obeying traditional values and morals." This is by far the most offensive, arrogant, insulting, and hateful creationist argument in existence: religious bigotry at its worst. If you are a religious person and you don't see what's wrong with this statement, then try asking yourself how you would feel if someone accused all Jews or all Hindus of being immoral and selfish. Try asking yourself how you would feel if someone assumed that all Buddhists were secretly Christians but were feverishly trying to deny the truth to themselves. Do you see the problem? This argument could simply be dismissed as fallacious, on the grounds that morality has nothing to do with the scientific validity of evolution theory. However, that would probably do little to silence the critics, whose attacks on evolution theory often start with this bizarre "moral argument". "We're going to bring back God and the Bible and drive the gods of secular humanism right out of the public schools of America."- Pat Buchanan, at an anti-gay rally in Des Moines, Iowa, February 11, 1996 (it apparently doesn't occur to him that secular humanism is a philosophy rather than a religion, and as such, has no "gods", nor does it occur to him that in order to drive secular humanism out of public schools, they will have to abolish all science classses).
For some reason it is considered perfectly acceptable to hold bigoted views of atheists, particularly in America, where the flames of religious hatred are fanned daily by hate-mongers such as Pat Robertson and the rest of the so-called "right-wing fundamentalist movement". Religious leaders are fond of saying that atheism is every bit as much a religion as Christianity, Judaism, or Hinduism, in an obvious attempt to contradict the secular interpretation of atheism as an absence of religion. But if they truly feel that atheism is a religion, then why don't they treat atheists with the same religious tolerance that most of them preach for the "real" religions? Why is it acceptable to accuse atheists as a group of being amoral, or selfish, or hedonistic, or anti-family, or decadent? If you listen carefully, you will find that anti-atheist hatred positively drips from the mouth of every preacher. Every minister. Every religious television show. If there is a modern Devil according to the fundamentalists, its name is secularism. Secularism is held responsible for everything from violence to divorce, rape, war, drug use, and any other imaginable social problem. It is the convenient scapegoat upon which every societal problem can be summarily blamed, without evidence or argument. Atheists are Public Enemy #1 according to this mindset. If secularism is deemed responsible for everything the fundamentalists consider unpleasant or undesirable, then it's only natural to blame the members of this "cult": the atheists. It doesn't matter that there is no statistical variation in the crime rates between atheists and Christians. It doesn't matter that atheists are actually less likely to divorce than Christians. All that matters is that atheists think differently, and the persistent Crusade mentality of the fundamentalist deems all other systems of thought to be targets of enmity, hatred, and if possible, obliteration. The historical fact is that these religious zealots are throwing stones from glass houses. The history of religion is anything but a noble one, and the union of church and state (which is what the creationists are pushing for, with the agenda to insinuate their religion into the schools) has invariably resulted in widespread oppression and human rights violations. In fact, the union of church and state continues to cause such problems today, as seen most dramatically in the resurgent Islamic fundamentalist governments of the Middle East, where women are being stoned to death for committing adultery or trying to find work. See the Religion and Morality page if you're interested in knowing more about this subject. "You cannot produce one conclusive piece of evidence to prove the theory of evolution, yet you deny creationism! You are clearly being dogmatic." This argument is sometimes accompanied by gratuitous publicity stunts, eg. there's at least one person offering a reward for anyone who can produce a piece of scientific evidence which he regards as conclusive proof of evolution. However, the basic premise falls apart on three levels.
"I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution. My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief."- Kent Hovind (notice how he doesn't realize there's no such thing as "scientific proof")
After being pressed for a full explanation of how to collect the $250,000 reward, he clarified his position: "In order to collect the money you must 'Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.) is the only possible way the observed phenomena (the universe, planets, life and mankind) could have come into existence.' If you want everyone to pay for this silly theory of evolution to be taught then the burden of proof is on you."- Kent Hovind. Notice how he thinks evolution theory deals with the origins of the universe rather than the gradual change of biological structures (gross strawman fallacy), and also notice how he thinks a valid scientific theory must be the "only possible" explanation for a phenomenon (gross misrepresentation of scientific method). In reality, a valid theory is the one which most closely fits the facts, and Occam's Razor is used as a tie-breaker if necessary. Since an infinite number of theories can be generated for any given phenomenon (hence the need for Occam's Razor), it is impossible to fulfill his requirements for any scientific theory, even the theory of gravity. This kind of argument is a classic example of the religious egocentrism that we have sadly come to expect from creationists. It assumes that creationism logically follows if evolution theory cannot be "proven" to their satisfaction. It contains the utterly absurd assumption that if there were no such thing as evolution theory, then a researcher would independently arrive at Biblical creationism, even if he were not schooled in Judeo-Christian thought! In the end, it is a mere rhetorical ploy, barely worthy of rebuttal. As an aside, the tactic of demanding proof and then setting oneself up as the arbiter of that proof is also used by Holocaust deniers. If you are faced with this ploy (on the part of either creationists or holocaust deniers), a good tactic is to simply ask "what would you accept as evidence?" If a subject change is attempted, simply force the subject back to that central question: "what would you accept as evidence?" You may be surprised to discover that when pushed, your opponent will have no answer. He will either become evasive or suggest a nonsensical form of evidence such as "direct observation of the moment of abiogenesis, four billion years ago", as if a time machine could be built for this purpose. Scientific theories are based on analysis of whatever evidence we can obtain, not an obstinate insistence upon particular forms of evidence which we can't obtain. The natural creationist objection is to claim that indirect observations "don't count", but in reality, despite their ignorant expectations, countless scientific observations are indirect in nature. For example, we know that other stars in the universe have planets indirectly (through observation of gravitational perturbations) even though we can't travel there and see these planets for ourselves. We know that the Sun is powered by nuclear fusion indirectly (through observation of its mass, chemical composition, and output) even though we can't observe this process directly. We know about electrons indirectly (through their interaction with other forms of matter and energy) even though they're too small to see, even with a microscope. And finally, we know that life began on Earth billions of years ago (through observation of fossil patterns as well as geographical distribution of modern species) even though we can't travel back through time and watch it happen. |
Psalm, I think that to even label "natural selection" or "genetic variability" as "micro-evolution" can be detrimental to the debate. I formerly used that word but soon found that using it wasn't beneficial simply because people have been spoon-fed to believe that little changes over time add up to big changes over time. It also tends to play into the tactics of those who use the old "bait-and-switch" tactic of changing the meaning of words.
A snip of an article I read puts it much better than I:
Another misused term is 'microevolution', used to describe the observable variations seen within basic types of organisms (for example, the famed industrial melanism of the peppered moth, variation in finch beaks in the Galápagos, antibiotic resistance, etc.). ReMine rightly argues that creationists should not use the term 'microevolution' as this plays into the hands of the illusion encouraged by evolutionists: that given enough time, microevolution adds up to macroevolution. The sort of observable variation evolutionists like to dub as 'microevolution' is due to re-arrangement of existing alleles, or degenerative changes, whereas evolution ('macroevolution') requires the formation of new, complex, information-laden genes to produce feathers on reptiles, for example.
And the sentence on careers was just to illustrate that we are not all rejects from the set of "Deliverence" - we are not mental defectives or morons, despite what we read on FreeRepublic about ourselves
You are absolutely correct! A biology professor at one of our local private universities is hailed as one of the best professors of evolutionary theory in the education system today, even having his work featured on the "Discovery Channel". However, if you didn't come with the same credentials as he, from the same universities, etc., then obviously you had a "bad" education and were dumb in spite of yourself.
Interestingly, I was a roommate with a fellow who graduated from the exact same PhD program as this professor, and were together in all the same classes. The professor's presuppositions of the world were the motivating factor for him staunchly holding on to evolutionary theory as his framework, while my roommate saw problems with evolution. Eventually my roommate subscribed to creation as the better model for explaining biological data (when he became a Christian during his last year of the PhD program).
As an interesting aside, the professor is an avowed atheist (and yes I understand and agree that not all evolutionists are atheists, and vice-versa) who uses his biology classes as an opportunity to try to disprove the Bible (even using the article from TIME quoted in a previous post). He was unable to criticize my roommate's educational credentials because it would be to his own detriment as well, and thus he embarked on a quest to find a way to undercut the creationists' arguments...if you can disprove the Bible then why would one want to believe what it has to say about origins? Or about Jesus?
I found it interesting that he was unable to debate Creationist theory with the evidence of biology and had to switch to an attempt at disproving the Bible using TIME Magazine articles.
...and that's exactly why I say it takes a "degree of faith" to subscribe to the totality of evolution theory - this is an extrapolation (spelling?) not based on verifiable evidence.
But alas, more and more these Creationism/Evolution threads are used as vehicles to bash Christians.
The FreeRepublic "no-bashing" dogma is ignored when it comes to Christian-bashing.
I'm starting to regret doling out cash to a vehicle that's being used this way.
I'd like to hear an orthopedic surgeon argue for intelligent design of the knee! or back.
Nobody has ever attributed life to chance alone. Chance plays a big part and life has evolved to make maximum use of chance -- inter and intra chromosomal recombination during meiosis for instance. You ignore the natural laws and selection.
The job is already done. Faith isn't involved at all. We are in the process of acquiring DNA sequences at a phenomenal rate. The history of each species is written in the genome. Computer mapping of the genomes describes with absolute certainty the relationships between disparate species. Most of the genome is junk. Sequencing the junk proves conclusively that life is related. We are no longer forced to rely (although this is evidence enough for a logical conclusion of relationship between homologous species) on anatomical similarities. Time since two different species had the same common ancestor can be demonstrated based on mutation rates and the relative number of changes in shared sequences. The junk, because it serves only a structural function can change continuously and randomly in a population without penalty (it is already junk). As the map is filled in with more and more species it will become increasingly clear to even the most committed Creationist that all life on the planet is related and that the genomes of each species have changed continuously through time.
New species arise because of the separation and isolation of breeding groups within an ancestral population. There is no disputing this. This was understood before DNA sequencing occurred and was based on the geographical distribution of related living species. The DNA similarities were predicted and have now proven the contention with absolute certainty. Do you consider the Camel and the Llama to be an example of evolution from a common ancestor? The populations were separated about 30 million years ago and it is still possible to interbreed the two.
No I do not. Let's take selection first: how could there be selection for life before there was any life? Clearly there could not be. The first life had to have arisen totally without the help of selection.
Now as to natural law. What do you mean by that? Are you postulating that the wind could have created such an orderly thing as a single cell? Or perhaps heat? Or perhaps gravity? There are no natural forces capable of creating anything as orderly as a cell, none at all.
And now one final question for all the evolutionists. You all speak a lot about natural law as providing the framework for order and materialistic progress. My question to you is: who made those laws?
There was selection for polymers with enzymatic properties facilitating polymerization and replication. Simple repetitive structures in proteins and RNA coupled with lipid membranes and concentration of activity at the interface between imiscible fluids are all selectable prior to the first viable cellular form. The cell organelles for instance are all inclusions (originally just food) or symbionts that have evolved into permanent obligatory constituents (mitochondria, ribosomes, chloroplasts, etc.). Your statement that selection does not operate prior to the first cellular life form is simply false.
"Now as to natural law. What do you mean by that? Are you postulating that the wind could have created such an orderly thing as a single cell? Or perhaps heat? Or perhaps gravity? There are no natural forces capable of creating anything as orderly as a cell, none at all." -- gore3000
Wind, gravity, and thermal gradients all exist, don't they? Therefore the evolution of the first life form must be consistent with the existence of these properties of the physical world. The more important laws, which you should have mentioned if you had actually given this any thought, are the laws pertaining to chemical kinetics. Life is just a set of chemical reactions. It does not violate any known laws. Therefore it must have arisen in a fashion entirely consistent with those laws. Under the right conditions life is inevitable. There are even extremely simple bacteria on this planet that live deep underground in fissures in basaltic rock.
"My question to you is: who made those laws?" -- gore3000
Why postulate the existence of a maker of laws? The laws exist. Beyond that there is only speculation. Postulating an anthropomorphic god who designed the Universe and wrote all the natural laws falls into the realm of the supernatural (i.e., beyond the natural). It is an unsupportable hypothesis: It cannot be proven logically (Hegel demonstrated this). And it cannot be shown by evidence in the physical world. Therefore my answer to your question is simply that the laws themselves have a proven existence. Perhaps the Universe is the be all and end all in and of itself.
Not so fast. Who did the selecting? In evolution you at least have living things doing the selecting, but before there was life you cannot say that. So the question is who did the selecting? What force did the selecting. No, the chemicals that make up life do not mix together to make anything complex without the help of living things. There has not a single protein been found in nature which was not produced by living things. Yes, chemicals mix such as oxygen oxidizing iron and there are lots of other similar chemical reactions. However, there is nothing even closely as complex fashioned as a living species by non-living matter.
"Wind, gravity, and thermal gradients all exist, don't they? Therefore the evolution of the first life form must be consistent with the existence of these properties of the physical world.'
You keep saying "must have" because your belief is that God could not have had a hand in the creation of life, but that is the question we are discussing so must have is not an answer. It is a tautology which says because I do not believe in God, then God cannot be the answer so natural laws must have created life. You are begging the question.
So tell us: what natural laws created life, how did they accomplish it? Give some examples of very complex things which have been created totally by the natural forces which you believe created life.
"Why postulate the existence of a maker of laws? The laws exist. Beyond that there is only speculation. '
I have postulated nothing. You came up with the answer of a maker of the laws, not I.
Regardless, if the universe is just random forces, acting in random ways, achieving random results - how could there be any natural laws at all? What constrains them from acting differently every time? What keeps them in check?
Let me just say this in conclusion - if the universe was not ordered it would not exist. It would have blown up, there would be no life, there would be nothing. It is because there is order in the universe that life and the universe itself is possible. Against this self-evident truth, the atheists in desperation have posited a universe of universes. This of course could not be, because if there were such a universe of universes with all but this one behaving chaotically, at least one of them would have destroyed this universe. So as you can see, there is no way you can get past the question of how did these natural laws arise? Who enforces them? Why are they enforced?
You have been at this long enough to know the answer to these questions by now. Do you have impaired long term memory? Selection is an algorithm that operates with inexorable and indefatigable certainty at all times and places. That doesn't mean it acts constantly in the same direction. The Dodo's ancestors, once capable of transoceanic flight, evolved was selected for flightlessness after it settled on its island home.
Here is a suggestion. Why not get your hands on a copy of Stephen Jay Gould's latest book, "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory?" At 1464 pages it should answer most of your questions and you can refer to it during your frequent memory lapses.
What a novel idea -- science should be taught in science classes and religion should be taught in religious classes.
Creationism and creation science are two different things. Throughout this article, the author blurs the distinction in an anti-christian -- bigoted -- way.
You are being very dishonest. We were discussing abiogenesis, about how life first began. There was no life to select then. Evolution and survival of the fittest (even if true) did not work then. So you are just talking nonsense and being insulting because you have no answer. Again I ask you the question - who was doing the selecting before there was any life? You have no answer because there is absolutely no way life could have arisen from inert matter without a Creator.
Harrison Bergeron: I know exactly what you mean. I bought into the lie of electricity. Nobody's ever seen that either. How does it feel to have God's knowledge? Maybe you can answer the age old question: Can God make a person so heavy with hubris that He, Himself, can't lift that person?
f.Christian states his opinion and you think he is filled with hubris. You state your opinion and you think that you have no hubris? Tell me more about how that can be -- ah...according to Harrison Bergeron.
So, to simply state one opinion constitutes hubris? No, I don't think so. To claim to have "God's knowledge," now there's hubris.
If you believe I'm full of hubris for admitting that I don't know what electricity is made of, then I guess that's a harmless enough belief.
If you believe I'm full of hubris for admitting that I don't know what electricity is made of, then I guess that's a harmless enough belief.
The context of your post was your opinion that had nothing to do with electricity and everything to do with somebodies personal religious faith and hubris. You don't like what they preceive as the teachings of God, so you in *your* certainty imply that they are an arogant self-ordained prophet.
I give this example: People who go to church on Sunday instead of reading a scientific journal during that same period of time have opted for God's knowlegde over man's knowledge. You think that is the hubris of self-ordained prophets -- I think that is an example of people with faith looking for the teachings and knowledge of God.
While I make no claim that you have an anti-religious bias, your statements do communicate an anti-religious bias regardless of their intent.
The pomposity and arrogance drips from your words... to assume one has no faith in God because he's a scientist, what are you, a Moslem or something? How backwards to assume man has no knowledge worth knowing... do you think God gave us intellect for no other reason than to read the bible? Should we ignore scientific journals and the pursuit of reason that will lead to a cure for cancer because, in your mind this doesn't glorify the Lord to your satisfaction?
Too many of you modern day Pharisees confuse having "God's knowledge" with "knowing the mind of God." I don't know of a scientist walking the earth with that level of hubris.
There is no hope for you. I gave you the answer to your question. If you don't know what selection means by now and you won't bother to find out there is nothing more that can be done for you. This has all been explained to you numerous times. Without fail you repeatedly pretend as if you never heard of these things before.
The pomposity and arrogance drips from your words... to assume one has no faith in God because he's a scientist, what are you, a Moslem or something? How backwards to assume man has no knowledge worth knowing... do you think God gave us intellect for no other reason than to read the bible? Should we ignore scientific journals and the pursuit of reason that will lead to a cure for cancer because, in your mind this doesn't glorify the Lord to your satisfaction?
Pomposity and arrogance first originated from your words about f.Christian. I simply called you on it and treated you as you treated f.Christian and his belief and perceptions of God's knowledge. Apearently you don't like that do you.
Now on to your name calling filled judgement of me. Nowhere did I say that man has no knowledge worth knowing. I simply gave an example of what many non hubris people do -- go to church for an hour each week -- and explained that during that one hour, they are opting to spend time using their perceptions, gaining the knowledge of God over spending time using their perceptions, gaining the knowledge of science or objective reason. I never said that believing the knowledge of one -- religion or science -- excludes believing the knowledge of the other and I never said that one can prove the full knowledge of God as they attempt to gain the knowledge of God just as one can never prove the full knowledge of objective reason as they attempt tp gain the knowledge of objective reason. Just look at all the above cr*p your judgement reads into my above statement and how it differs from what I believe.
I'm an evolutionist. I believe in the reliability of the Paleontology of the stratographic record and have argued such here on this forum. My education is in Geology. I believe in teaching evolutionary science in science class and creationism in religion classes. However, I also believe in treating people who attempt to get their base of reality solely through faith with respect, and I treat them no differently then I treat people who attempt to get their reality solely through objective reasoning and I defy you to prove that one of these people has any less hubris than the other. Yet in your "perceptive" judgement. f.Christian has more hubris then you and I'm a whole bunch of names and some kind of science hater.
HAHaaaaaaaa, burn all the science journals, teach creationism in public schools, Bwahaaaa -- yeah that's me. </appropriate tag>
Too many of you modern day Pharisees confuse having "God's knowledge" with "knowing the mind of God." I don't know of a scientist walking the earth with that level of hubris.
Ahh, more names from you. Aren't you able to let the logic and judgement of your words stand on their own merit without insult?
Neither f.Cristian in his quoted statement nor I in any statement, have said we have God's full knowledge. We only refer to God's knowledge as the words or teachings of God and our preceptions of what we think it is. You seem to take us out of context to meet your own needs.
Let me ask you this relevant question: Do you feel that you are fully aware of objective reason, and if you are not, why are your opinions filled with any less hubris than f.Christians perceptions on the knowledge of God?
I like this response. Considering evolutionist theory is but a best guess, the exactness is more important than our own visualized problems with it. Evolution is a fact. Unwinding it is our problem. Creationism is a hoax.
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.