Thread: Square peg/round hole creationist conundrum Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028554
Posted by Duplo (# 15809) on
:
Sorry for potentially flogging a dead horse, but this problem is a first time one for me which I was hoping to avoid for as long as possible...
As a background I'm in my late thirties, and a recent convert to Christianity (approx 5 years ago), I live in N.I and attend a Presbyterian church.
The 'Genesis' question has finally come up in both sermon, home group and my discussions with my Christian friends whom I love dearly and attend the same church. The standard view as you would expect is that evolution is wrong, science is wrong and there is only one answer worth discussing. What makes it a particularly bitter pill to swallow is that the scientific reasoning used by our minister to dismiss evolutionary theory in his sermons is so bad as to be laughable if it wasn't so depressing, that my friends subscribe to this view without applying any element of critical thinking is all the more saddening. The arguments are poor, frankly a straw man argument used to dismiss science out of hand because it doesn’t have all the answers to all the questions ‘right now’, and they have no place in the pulpit IMHO. I mean, ‘explosions destroy things so how could creation come from the big bang’ was possibly one of the more comical moments, alongside ‘information doesn’t have weight so it can’t be a physical thing otherwise your brain or a hard drive would get heavier as you put information into it’
Obvious I subscribe to the theory of evolution and its difficulties for someone who wishes to be a Christian, frankly if I could believe the YE creation position it would make my live a whole lot easier, but I certainly wouldn't be true to myself. Although I’m feeling fairly alone in my faith right now.
So, I'm hoping that there are others who have had the same experience as me and dealt with it successfully, I'm not naive enough to think that there is an easy option but I'm wondering if it is best just to keep my head down and wait for the subject to disappear off the radar, which will mean missing church and home groups for a few weeks, or to state my position in the best and most genuine way I can. I'm not understating things when I say that this isn't quite a crisis of faith but I am at a crossroads as to whether I can continue with this church, but if not where can I go from here?
[ 20. September 2010, 11:39: Message edited by: Duplo ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I have a similar problem in that my Minister, who is a YE creationist. It suprises me how much of what she says in sermons jars with me. The YE creationist stance can colour a person's world view.
We get on well, and I am a Worship Leader at the Church. She is an excellent Pastor and I like her very much.
This is because I keep quiet about what I think and pretty much leave her to get on with it. If anyone asks me what I do think, I tell them.
The thing is with the Methodist Church and Ministers - if you don't like the ideas of the one you have there will be another along shortly!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
<edited because spelling and proof reading are beyond me>
[ 20. September 2010, 11:46: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
I expect that this may well be moved to dead horses, however a century ago there was nothing unusual in believing in both Christianity and Evolution even in Evangelical circles. Indeed even in my youth it was in the UK normal for a Christian to also accept evolution in some form did happen.
There are many better informed shipmates than me on the matter but there are also books such as:
Evolution and Christian Faith: Reflections of Evolutionary Biologist by Joan Roughgarden and The Prism and the Rainbow:Why Evolution is not a threat by Joel W. Martin.
So I would advise you that evolution is not incompatible with Christian belief and you should just spend some time learning to argue with those that believe it is.
Jengie
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
There are lots of churches where belief in evolution is a majority view, and actually YECism is far less widespread in the UK than the US. I'm actually quite surprised that it's the majority view of your church because in my experience even a lot of very evangelical-style churches have views compatible with some form of evolution. As for what to do, I'm afraid I don't really have any advice. I couldn't stand to attend a YEC church - it'd drive me mad.
Posted by Duplo (# 15809) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
As for what to do, I'm afraid I don't really have any advice. I couldn't stand to attend a YEC church - it'd drive me mad.
That's the problem, my family goes there, my best friends go there, the minister is a nice yet newly installed minister who has done pretty well with scripture up to now, however his science is just B-A-D, stuff just copied from an origins website with no thought has to secondary sources or any attempt at checking his facts. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
This is, indeed, a perfect example of a thread which belongs on the DH board, but please do not view this as a demotion or a shutting down. It's a discussion well worth having and I hope it continues in its new home. Fasten your seatbelts and enjoy the ride.
Trudy, Scrumptious Purgatory Host
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Rats, just missed getting the following in on the Purg board...
As with the recent "supernatural" thread, I think it's a question of how much creationism is a hobby-horse, not a dead horse ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I think my church is home to a whole variety of views and these days I'm not sure what my own are. Views also diverge within my immediate family but it doesn't come between us. It's when people start making it a primary aspect of doctrine rather than a secondary aspect that things start getting difficult.
Just now I'm wondering if I can preach through Jonah without giving away my position, mostly because I don't know what it is (and incidentally, found a fascinating and thorough debunking of the oft-repeated story of a 19th-century sailor rescued alive from the belly of a whale, which should be a cautionary tale for all preachers who use anecdotes everywhere of no matter what persuasion).
Increasingly, I think this is an area in which Paul's teachings on conscience and 'food sacrificed to idols' could be very usefully applied today.
[ 20. September 2010, 12:31: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Duplo (# 15809) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
This is, indeed, a perfect example of a thread which belongs on the DH board, but please do not view this as a demotion or a shutting down. It's a discussion well worth having and I hope it continues in its new home. Fasten your seatbelts and enjoy the ride.
Trudy, Scrumptious Purgatory Host
Although having now read the FAQ for dead horses I now hate myself a little bit for being so predictable.
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on
:
Don't worry, Duplo. You've raised an interesting aspect on this subject, worthy of further discussion.
I'm sure the denizens of this fair Board will be along to offer their comments and advice.
Welcome aboard
Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
Posted by Mr Tambourine Man (# 15361) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Duplo:
... I'm wondering if it is best just to keep my head down and wait for the subject to disappear off the radar, which will mean missing church and home groups for a few weeks...
A few weeks, blimey, how long do they plan to discuss this topic for? And what is their purpose in doing this? Is it to:
a) evangelise people v1 (creation = need for a creator = God exists!)
b) evangelise people v2 (evolution supports immorality whereas theistic creation provides a basis for morality)
c)reject the 'devil' (atheist Richard Dawkins supports evolution, ergo it must be wrong).
d)be smug (we Christians are smarter than those scientists, we've got it all sorted here in this book) ?
And remember the words of St Michael of Jackson, "You are not alone". ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
If NI Presbyterians are anything like other evangelical churches in the UK, even the more conservative independent ones, I'd be very surprised if you're alone in your congregation. A few years ago I attended an Answers in Genesis event hosts by a conservative evangelical church in Edinburgh (I work on the assumption that if you want to really know what people you instinctively disagree with believe then you need to go and hear them speak and talk with them). The evening worship following the AiG event was led by the AiG speakers. I sat towards the back, and it was evident that quite a few of the church regulars (ie: people who hadn't been there during the day) were not in agreement with the speakers - there was a good deal of head shaking going on during the address.
As has been noted by others, YECism is a minority position within UK evangelicalism - although one that is becoming more vocal (if not necessarily stronger in terms of number of adherents). Historically, it's a doctrine within evangelicalism that's a mere 60 years old (there are strands of Lutheranism which hold onto a YEC view, and Seventh Day Adventists have believed YEC for a bit longer). Evangelical YECism basically started with Morris and Whitcombe in the 1950s (they took their whole view almost directly from SDAs, though didn't really acknowledge it directly as SDAs aren't really considered 'sound' in many evangelical churches).
If you go back to the turn of the 20th century, the authors of the Fundamentals series of books (from which Fundamentalism derived it's name) were too a man NOT YECists. Most were a form of Old Earth Creationist (eg: that the 'days' of Genesis are long periods of time) and had no issue with the geological timescale. Quite a few accepted that the theory of evolution describes the method God used to create (although, in virtually all cases, considering the creation of humanity to be a special case).
Posted by humblebum (# 4358) on
:
Hi Duplo
I'm also a Northern Irish Presbyterian, and sadly, I can attest to the influence of YECism and the "Answers in Genesis" crowd within N.I. Evangelicalism. (Not within my own home church, thankfully - but we're quite untypical of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland in a number of regards). I help out with Scripture Union camps each summer, and have been very discouraged by the horn locking I've had to do with other members of the teams over this whole area. (I wasn't completely alone in this though, thankfully).
I can only suggest you read up a bit on what various Christians have written on the subject of evolution (as Jengie John suggested - although Francis Collins and Alistair McGrath were writers that also jumped to my mind) - and prepare yourself for some gracious conflict with some of the people in your own church.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As has been noted by others, YECism is a minority position within UK evangelicalism - although one that is becoming more vocal (if not necessarily stronger in terms of number of adherents). Historically, it's a doctrine within evangelicalism that's a mere 60 years old (there are strands of Lutheranism which hold onto a YEC view, and Seventh Day Adventists have believed YEC for a bit longer).
I guess that depends on how you define "evangelicalism", and why that's a meaningful distinction from other forms of Christianity on this question. Christian belief in a young Earth has a fairly ancient pedigree. One could more easily argue that it's the idea of an ancient Earth that's the newcomer to Christian thought.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
Boogie said
"The thing is with the Methodist Church and Ministers - if you don't like the ideas of the one you have there will be another along shortly!
"
If only.
The way things go ministers are invited in tune with the mindset of the congregations to which they minister.
And if the congregations (for whatever reason) dont object to the theology then they get more of the same.
(Possible reasons:
we like his/her pastoral gifts.
he/she is a very likeable person.
we are not theologically minded so cant tell the difference.
Given the shortage of ministers we are lucky to have one at all. )
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
One could more easily argue that it's the idea of an ancient Earth that's the newcomer to Christian thought.
You could argue it, but St Augustine would be on the other side.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
One could more easily argue that it's the idea of an ancient Earth that's the newcomer to Christian thought.
You could argue it, but St Augustine would be on the other side.
This guy?
quote:
They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.
He seems perfectly happy with a brief span of human history (and presumably of the Earth's history as well) and downright offended at the "mendacious" assertion that it's even as old as eight or ten thousand years.
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on
:
St. Augustine, while he may have believed a so-called 'young earth', took the position throughout all of his various theological discourses that when scientific knowledge conflicts directly with the Scriptures, it is scientific knowledge that must predominate. For example:
quote:
"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures."
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As has been noted by others, YECism is a minority position within UK evangelicalism - although one that is becoming more vocal (if not necessarily stronger in terms of number of adherents). Historically, it's a doctrine within evangelicalism that's a mere 60 years old (there are strands of Lutheranism which hold onto a YEC view, and Seventh Day Adventists have believed YEC for a bit longer).
I guess that depends on how you define "evangelicalism", and why that's a meaningful distinction from other forms of Christianity on this question. Christian belief in a young Earth has a fairly ancient pedigree. One could more easily argue that it's the idea of an ancient Earth that's the newcomer to Christian thought.
I was using Evangelical as a term to refer to the particular, fairly modern, branch of the faith that has roots in the 18th century with people like the Wesleys. That also happens to be the same time scale over which our knowledge of the earth, especially geology, provided convincing proof that the earth is significantly older than 10000 years. Before the 18th century, the evidence that the earth is ancient wasn't really understood - so, people like Ussher weren't contradicting other knowledge when they stated that the earth is young. If he'd lived another 100 years, Ussher would probably have recanted and accepted that the earth is much older than his 4004BC date of creation would allow.
With the exception of small parts of Lutheranism, and probably a few small sects, belief in a young earth had almost totally disappeared from the Christian faith by the end of the 18th century. The evidence that the earth was at least millions of years old was simply too compelling. Young Earth theories didn't start to reappear until the mid 19th century with the founding of the SDA (and then, the impetus was more to strengthen the practice of Sabbath observance, as the 7th day of the Creation week) and the mid 20th century when Morris and Whitcombe took the SDA ideas and reworked them into something more palatable to mainstream evangelicals - and even then the emphasis initially seems to be more on authority of Scripture contra the more liberal views gaining ground in the US.
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on
:
Another evolutionist in an evangelical church, here. It is difficult when the subject comes up, as discussions can be quite one-sided; if I state my point of view it is seen as attacking the other's faith, wheras attacking (or just dismissing) scientists is almost a sport. There is also the problem of knowing where to start with some of the unscientific nonsense that is stated as 'fact'.
I have found that keeping my head down and hanging around here helps. However, I have never experienced more than one sermon or house group meeting in a row that has majored on the issue - if your church is taking a theological stand on this you may end up having a very hard time. On the other hand, it could bring your fellow evolutionists out of the woodwork. On no account let it destroy your faith, or let anyone tell you that this is what all Christians believe.
Posted by Duplo (# 15809) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mrs whibley:
On no account let it destroy your faith, or let anyone tell you that this is what all Christians believe.
Thank you, just what I needed.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
He seems perfectly happy with a brief span of human history (and presumably of the Earth's history as well) and downright offended at the "mendacious" assertion that it's even as old as eight or ten thousand years.
On what was the mendacious assertion based? Was it based on a scientific assessment of physical data, or some other mythology? If the latter, how does this prove anything worth saying about Augustine?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
He seems perfectly happy with a brief span of human history (and presumably of the Earth's history as well) and downright offended at the "mendacious" assertion that it's even as old as eight or ten thousand years.
On what was the mendacious assertion based? Was it based on a scientific assessment of physical data, or some other mythology? If the latter, how does this prove anything worth saying about Augustine?
It proves, contra ken, that Augustine was not on the "old Earth" side of the young Earth/old Earth debate. I'm not entirely sure what St. Augustine being on "the other side" (again, using ken's terminology) was supposed to prove, but he quite clearly wasn't.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
St. Augustine, while he may have believed a so-called 'young earth', took the position throughout all of his various theological discourses that when scientific knowledge conflicts directly with the Scriptures, it is scientific knowledge that must predominate. For example:
quote:
"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures."
Well, exactly. It's also important to remember that St. Augustine lived before there were any means to uncover evidence that would shed doubt on a 6,000 year old earth.
There was no study of rock and soil sediments to determine their age. No telescopes. No means to measure the distances to stars or the speed of light and use them to compute the age of the universe. No Carbon 14 dating. No discovery of plate tectonics. No botanists. No palaeontologists who would have taken the trouble to assemble dinosaur bones. There was no scientific method at all and people like St. Augustine wouldn't have known differently.
There are two kinds of creationists: 1) Those who lived in times and places before scientific progress gave presented them with strong evidence that Genesis is something other than factual, literal history; and 2) Those who insist that Genesis is factual, literal history even in the face of overwhelming scientific and other material evidence to the contrary. The first group of people are entirely reasonable.
[ 21. September 2010, 00:09: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
With the exception of small parts of Lutheranism, and probably a few small sects, belief in a young earth had almost totally disappeared from the Christian faith by the end of the 18th century.
Have you a reference for that, Alan? I thought Hutton only went public in 1785. That seems awful fast - am I missing something?
cheers,
L
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
He seems perfectly happy with a brief span of human history (and presumably of the Earth's history as well) and downright offended at the "mendacious" assertion that it's even as old as eight or ten thousand years.
On what was the mendacious assertion based? Was it based on a scientific assessment of physical data, or some other mythology? If the latter, how does this prove anything worth saying about Augustine?
It proves, contra ken, that Augustine was not on the "old Earth" side of the young Earth/old Earth debate. I'm not entirely sure what St. Augustine being on "the other side" (again, using ken's terminology) was supposed to prove, but he quite clearly wasn't.
There was no young earth/old earth debate at that time, in the sense in which it matters, i.e. "old earth" being based on geological and fossil evidence. So you really can't put him on one side or the other of it. That there were people around at the time who thought the earth was older than 6000 years (if there were) is none to the point -- if there were, their belief would with almost absolute certainty be based on something other than geological strata and fossils of extinct animals.
What we DO know about Augustine, however, is what he said explicitly about places where biblical interpretation and physical evidence differ: go with the evidence.
Trying to paint him, then, as a scientific Luddite is wrong-headed.
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on
:
quote:
Well, exactly. It's also important to remember that St. Augustine lived before there were any means to uncover evidence that would shed doubt on a 6,000 year old earth.
Yeah, that was pretty much my point. I tend to believe that Augustine, with his "scientific knowledge trumps the scriptures" ideology, would not believe similarly today.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It proves, contra ken, that Augustine was not on the "old Earth" side of the young Earth/old Earth debate. I'm not entirely sure what St. Augustine being on "the other side" (again, using ken's terminology) was supposed to prove, but he quite clearly wasn't.
There was no young earth/old earth debate at that time, in the sense in which it matters, i.e. "old earth" being based on geological and fossil evidence. So you really can't put him on one side or the other of it.
That was more or less my point. Trying to draft him into "the other [old Earth] side" posthumously based on certain assumptions about how he might have reacted to knowledge unavailable to him at the time is sheer wankery, somewhat akin to posthumous conversion to Mormonism or noted historical figures repenting in the afterlife and accepting Sun Myung Moon as the True Father. Interestingly enough, the dead always seem to have the same general opinion of whoever is speaking for them.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That there were people around at the time who thought the earth was older than 6000 years (if there were) is none to the point -- if there were, their belief would with almost absolute certainty be based on something other than geological strata and fossils of extinct animals.
What we DO know about Augustine, however, is what he said explicitly about places where biblical interpretation and physical evidence differ: go with the evidence.
Trying to paint him, then, as a scientific Luddite is wrong-headed.
I'm not sure that this is at all clear. While Augustine deferred to physical evidence in the present world, he also believed that scripture, simply because it was scripture, was an inherently better historical reference than any other source. From the same link as before:
quote:
But not even thus, as I said, does the Greek history correspond with the Egyptian in its chronology. And therefore the former must receive the greater credit, because it does not exceed the true account of the duration of the world as it is given by our documents, which are truly sacred.
It's not at all clear that a fifth century Roman citizen would have considered radiometric dating, if such a thing could be explained in terms he could understand, to be "physical evidence" or "history". All of which goes back to my original point that "Christian belief in a young Earth has a fairly ancient pedigree", a point I thought would have been fairly uncontroversial, but apparently not.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
"Christian belief in a young earth" is an old belief. "Christian belief in a young earth in the presence of widely accepted scientific evidence of an old earth" is not. When Alan talks about YEC being propounded by Ellen White and her Evangelical followers, he's talking about the latter, not the former.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
For those who are evolutionists in creationist churches:
If you believe in theistic evolution (i.e., that God is behind it), then you could just say that, and maybe add something like "we both believe God created--we just have different understandings of how".
FWIW. I grew up in a fundamentalist church in the US in the 60s and 70s. While it was mostly YEC, there was some allowance for 7 long periods of time, rather than 7 literal days.
And for bonus points ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
: what did God create on the 7th day? (Readers of "Mister God, This Is Anna) will know this.)
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
With the exception of small parts of Lutheranism, and probably a few small sects, belief in a young earth had almost totally disappeared from the Christian faith by the end of the 18th century.
Have you a reference for that, Alan? I thought Hutton only went public in 1785. That seems awful fast - am I missing something?
It was something that I posted from memory. Now I'll have to find time to see which of my books I read it in.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
For those who are evolutionists in creationist churches:
If you believe in theistic evolution (i.e., that God is behind it), then you could just say that, and maybe add something like "we both believe God created--we just have different understandings of how".
I'd also add that for the majority of people, even those who hold most strongly to YEC beliefs, the biggest issue isn't actually the science - the issue is your view of the Bible. It is certainly possible to believe that the Bible is the "supreme authority in matters of faith and conduct" and infallible (to take common phrases from evangelical statements of faith) and disagree about a particular interpretation of Genesis 1-11. Approach it as a question of interpretation, not authority, of Scripture.
A good way I have of looking at it is that because the Bible is the authoritative word of God therefore it deserves to be approached with the highest level of intellectual integrity and skill we can use. Not as an academic exercise, but to best determine the authoritative word for us.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Duplo:The 'Genesis' question has finally come up in both sermon, home group and my discussions with my Christian friends whom I love dearly and attend the same church. The standard view as you would expect is that evolution is wrong, science is wrong and there is only one answer worth discussing. What makes it a particularly bitter pill to swallow is that the scientific reasoning used by our minister to dismiss evolutionary theory in his sermons is so bad as to be laughable if it wasn't so depressing, that my friends subscribe to this view without applying any element of critical thinking is all the more saddening.
Well Duplo you have plenty of support here for a belief in evolution. I am not a young earth believer. Nor am I knowledgeable about Science except in broadest outline. I do know that Science neither proves nor disproves anything concerning origins. To me it is all about how people interpret and theorise about historical evidence. I don't know how old the earth actually is but I am not a believer in evolution which seems to me increasingly untenable.
Though Michael Behe's, 'Darwins Black Box', has been extensively discussed on this DH forum in other threads, it seems few that commented had actually read it. I found a copy recently and found it astounding. He is a biochemist whose analysis of the function of cells, the smallest organic element, left no doubt at all in my mind that the postulated mechanisms of evolutionary theory could not account for things like the behaviour of cells in blood clotting. The oppostion to Behe from experts like Ken Miller seemed to me to be clutching at straws. behe is neither a YEC or a Christian as far as I know.
To me, then, against the tide of most posters here, evolution is a dead cuckoo. That emperor has no clothes. Now that doesn't mean the Earth is only 6000 yrs old though it may be. It does mean that God told us the truth: ie that he made the heavens and the earth elements of which have a complexity that defies all speculation abut possible randomness and left us to speculate how.
Posted by Fëanor (# 14514) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
<snip> behe is neither a YEC or a Christian as far as I know.
Read and be enlightened: http://www.discovery.org/a/10501
(Spoiler Alert: Behe is Catholic)
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The oppostion to Behe from experts like Ken Miller seemed to me to be clutching at straws...
<snip>
To me, then, against the tide of most posters here, evolution is a dead cuckoo. That emperor has no clothes. Now that doesn't mean the Earth is only 6000 yrs old though it may be. It does mean that God told us the truth: ie that he made the heavens and the earth elements of which have a complexity that defies all speculation abut possible randomness and left us to speculate how.
This is a stunning example of truthiness-in-action -- that is, accepting the validity of one's gut instinct without regards to evidence, logic or facts.
Intelligent Design is little more than a categorical confusion -- it attempts to slap a "Science" label on a combination of sloppy philosophy and bad theology.
Then again, I'm biased. I refuse to take seriously anyone who both doubts the efficacy of the scientific method to inform us about the world and its workings with any degree of certainty and either A) interacts with a glow-y box as if someone not immediately present could possibly influence it or B) straps themselves (and possibly their loved ones) into an accelerating multi-ton bundle of partially-electrified metal through which a flammable liquid flows, is vaporized, and periodically explodes. The former points towards schizophrenic tendencies (how can one really be sure one is talking to other people?), and the latter indicates a dangerous foolhardiness.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
Anyone wanting to cite Behe could perhaps peruse this thread and answer the rebuttals of his theories posted on it over a number of years.
Death of Darwinism
I'll bump the still open thread up so that Behe enthusiasts can easily find and quote from the posts they're presumably planning to refute.
To see the whole thread easily and to search through it for mentions of Behe, click the printer friendly view icon just under the board name on the thread.
L.
(bumping threads is something anyone can do - I'm not doing this as a host)
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fëanor:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
<snip> behe is neither a YEC or a Christian as far as I know.
Read and be enlightened: http://www.discovery.org/a/10501
(Spoiler Alert: Behe is Catholic)
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The oppostion to Behe from experts like Ken Miller seemed to me to be clutching at straws...
<snip>
To me, then, against the tide of most posters here, evolution is a dead cuckoo. That emperor has no clothes. Now that doesn't mean the Earth is only 6000 yrs old though it may be. It does mean that God told us the truth: ie that he made the heavens and the earth elements of which have a complexity that defies all speculation abut possible randomness and left us to speculate how.
This is a stunning example of truthiness-in-action -- that is, accepting the validity of one's gut instinct without regards to evidence, logic or facts.
Intelligent Design is little more than a categorical confusion -- it attempts to slap a "Science" label on a combination of sloppy philosophy and bad theology.
Then again, I'm biased. I refuse to take seriously anyone who both doubts the efficacy of the scientific method to inform us about the world and its workings with any degree of certainty and either A) interacts with a glow-y box as if someone not immediately present could possibly influence it or B) straps themselves (and possibly their loved ones) into an accelerating multi-ton bundle of partially-electrified metal through which a flammable liquid flows, is vaporized, and periodically explodes. The former points towards schizophrenic tendencies (how can one really be sure one is talking to other people?), and the latter indicates a dangerous foolhardiness.
And this is a stunning example of how evolution reacts to any criticisim. The derisory and mocking 'laugh all opposition out of court' approach. Design is NOT something that is not opbservable. It is amazingly evident as Behe has shown.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
And this is a stunning example of how evolution reacts to any criticisim. The derisory and mocking 'laugh all opposition out of court' approach. Design is NOT something that is not opbservable. It is amazingly evident as Behe has shown.
So what's keeping you from going onto the thread which I've pointed out to you, and refuting the many detailed posts made taking issue with Behe's claims?
Pretending those don't exist or that you're above answering them would be no better than 'laughing all opposition out of court'
If you think Behe's work stands against the criticism made on that thread then please demonstrate it, and start replying to and refuting the posts which criticise Behe.
thank you,
L.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
And this is a stunning example of how evolution reacts to any criticisim. The derisory and mocking 'laugh all opposition out of court' approach. Design is NOT something that is not opbservable. It is amazingly evident as Behe has shown.
This doesn't even make sense. Is "evolution" a living entity that "reacts" to things now? How does it react to the price of oil? Or to
Science is all about criticism. The biologists, botanists, paleontologists and other scientists who accept the theory of evolution wouldn't if the analysis they perform showed results at odds with it.
All scientists don't think alike. There isn't one big conspiracy amongst scientists. There IS over 120 years of vigorous testing that confirms the basic theory, though it has been refined from Darwin's original writings.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
I would hope that the CoI is better able to accomodate science than NI Presbies apparently are. I'd suggest a change in denomination.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Louise: So what's keeping you from going onto the thread which I've pointed out to you, and refuting the many detailed posts made taking issue with Behe's claims?
I have read the thread and note the attitude of evolutionist believers to Behe. I am not interested in that debate except to say what I said above. Most of the comments critical to him on that thread came from secondary commentary. IOW, few had actually read him at that point as Neil Robbie pointed out. My post was in response to Duplo.
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I have read the thread and note the attitude of evolutionist believers to Behe. I am not interested in that debate except to say what I said above. Most of the comments critical to him on that thread came from secondary commentary. IOW, few had actually read him at that point as Neil Robbie pointed out. My post was in response to Duplo.
So, as usual for you in DH, you'd rather make a nuts assertion and refuse to back it up, while pretending to be more reasoned than everybody else around you.
At least you stay true to form.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
With the exception of small parts of Lutheranism, and probably a few small sects, belief in a young earth had almost totally disappeared from the Christian faith by the end of the 18th century.
Have you a reference for that, Alan? I thought Hutton only went public in 1785. That seems awful fast - am I missing something?
It was something that I posted from memory. Now I'll have to find time to see which of my books I read it in.
OK, I've not found where I read the specific claim about the Christian faith. So, I may be mistaken there ... it's certainly true that by the end of the 19th century belief in a young earth had all but disappeared ... when even the authors of the Fundamentals, the con evos of the day, write on the assumption that the earth is ancient and don't even mention there being any contraversy about that you can bet that young earth ideas were almost non-existant. And, by the time Lyell was touring America to packed audiences in the 1840s I'd expect the majority of Christian thinkers and writers to have accepted that the earth is ancient (ie > 1 million years old, certainly not allowing the 'literal' 4004BC date for creation).
In reference to the speed with which the idea of an ancient earth arose. You're right that Hutton in 1985 presented his ideas to the Royal Society in Edinburgh which was the foundation of modern geology - with the concept of uplift and continual erosion, and the necessity of an ancient earth. But, he was a long way from the first scientist to suggest that the earth is ancient, and even provide evidence for it. In 1778, Comte de Buffon published his calculations (based on cooling rates for hot iron spheres) that the earth was at least 75 thousand years old. Before that Edmund Halley proposed measuring the amount of salt in the oceans and rate of salination to estimate the age of the earth (an approach which was actually impossible), part of the early 18th century of scientific investigations into the nature of the earth - it's size, mass, distance from the Sun and age included. Basically, the ideas of Hutton took off and were accepted almost universally by scientists within only a few years because scientists were already reaching the conclusion that the earth is ancient.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Yeah, that was pretty much my point. I tend to believe that Augustine, with his "scientific knowledge trumps the scriptures" ideology, would not believe similarly today.
Exactly. Read Augustine on Genesis 1, then consider how he would approach the debate between creationism and evolutionism with the range of present teaching. I suspect that he would be on neither as set out above on this thread; rather that he would combine much of evolutionism with intelligent design.
Remember also that less than 50 years ago, there was a serious debate between those who believed in a continuous state universe, and the proponents of the Big Bang theory. The latter group came out on top, with much support from one Stephen Hawking. Now, it's very hard to reconcile Hawking's most recent comments with the Big Bang theory.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I have read the thread and note the attitude of evolutionist believers to Behe. I am not interested in that debate except to say what I said above. Most of the comments critical to him on that thread came from secondary commentary. IOW, few had actually read him at that point as Neil Robbie pointed out. My post was in response to Duplo.
So, as usual for you in DH, you'd rather make a nuts assertion and refuse to back it up, while pretending to be more reasoned than everybody else around you.
At least you stay true to form.
just an appeal to hosts. Are personal remarks and inferences acceptable here?
Happy to back up if by it you mean clarify my belief; what 'nuts' assertion do you mean?
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I have read the thread and note the attitude of evolutionist believers to Behe. I am not interested in that debate except to say what I said above. Most of the comments critical to him on that thread came from secondary commentary. IOW, few had actually read him at that point as Neil Robbie pointed out. My post was in response to Duplo.
So, as usual for you in DH, you'd rather make a nuts assertion and refuse to back it up, while pretending to be more reasoned than everybody else around you.
At least you stay true to form.
just an appeal to hosts. Are personal remarks and inferences acceptable here?
Happy to back up if by it you mean clarify my belief; what 'nuts' assertion do you mean?
Jamat,
You will have to wait for TonyK for that, as I am posting in this thread and have taken issue with you. I've PM'd Tony, but you should be aware that it might take some time to get a response.
thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
[ 22. September 2010, 22:39: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on
:
pjkirk - I read your post to Jamat earlier and felt it might be sailing pretty close to the wind. I left it in the hope that the two of you would be able to sort it out yourselves, but Jamat has asked for a ruling.
So - my decision:
pjkirk - desist from making personal remarks in DH - you've been on the Ship long enough to know that these are only allowed in the Hell Board
Jamat - at least try to answer points made by others or drop that line of argument. Otherwise it becomes very frustrating for the shipmates debating with you ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
Posted by Rex Monday (# 2569) on
:
I'm a bit confused here. Jamat, in two successive paragraphs in the same post, you say:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
[...] Nor am I knowledgeable about Science except in broadest outline.
And in the next paragraph
quote:
Though Michael Behe's, 'Darwins Black Box', has been extensively discussed on this DH forum in other threads, it seems few that commented had actually read it. I found a copy recently and found it astounding. He is a biochemist whose analysis of the function of cells, the smallest organic element, left no doubt at all in my mind that the postulated mechanisms of evolutionary theory could not account for things like the behaviour of cells in blood clotting
If you don't have any knowledge of science "except in broadest outline", how do you find Behe's analysis compelling?
Are you judging it scientifically, or theologically?
R
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
pjkirk - I read your post to Jamat earlier and felt it might be sailing pretty close to the wind. I left it in the hope that the two of you would be able to sort it out yourselves, but Jamat has asked for a ruling.
So - my decision:
pjkirk - desist from making personal remarks in DH - you've been on the Ship long enough to know that these are only allowed in the Hell Board
Jamat - at least try to answer points made by others or drop that line of argument. Otherwise it becomes very frustrating for the shipmates debating with you
Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
Apologies. I indeed worded it poorly. Thank you for the second part as well.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Louise: So what's keeping you from going onto the thread which I've pointed out to you, and refuting the many detailed posts made taking issue with Behe's claims?
I have read the thread and note the attitude of evolutionist believers to Behe. I am not interested in that debate except to say what I said above. Most of the comments critical to him on that thread came from secondary commentary. IOW, few had actually read him at that point as Neil Robbie pointed out. My post was in response to Duplo.
Unfortunately for Neil Robbie, the detailed review and critique of Behe's book duly appeared from Glenn Oldham (see several posts from him on that page). As the thread developed people increasingly linked directly to material by Behe online and then later to his court testimony.
But I look forward to your rebuttals of the points made by Glenn who meets your own criterion of having read that particular book. I will go and post the link on the appropriate thread.
Behe has been the subject of pages of debate on this board with many people making very high quality posts, citing or quoting good critiques of his claims and making good arguments of their own. To try and dismiss that with an airy wave of the hand and without engaging with the critiques made of his claims... Well, that tactic just wont fly.
cheers,
L.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
With the exception of small parts of Lutheranism, and probably a few small sects, belief in a young earth had almost totally disappeared from the Christian faith by the end of the 18th century.
Have you a reference for that, Alan? I thought Hutton only went public in 1785. That seems awful fast - am I missing something?
It was something that I posted from memory. Now I'll have to find time to see which of my books I read it in.
OK, I've not found where I read the specific claim about the Christian faith. So, I may be mistaken there ... it's certainly true that by the end of the 19th century belief in a young earth had all but disappeared ... when even the authors of the Fundamentals, the con evos of the day, write on the assumption that the earth is ancient and don't even mention there being any contraversy about that you can bet that young earth ideas were almost non-existant. And, by the time Lyell was touring America to packed audiences in the 1840s I'd expect the majority of Christian thinkers and writers to have accepted that the earth is ancient (ie > 1 million years old, certainly not allowing the 'literal' 4004BC date for creation).
In reference to the speed with which the idea of an ancient earth arose. You're right that Hutton in 1985 presented his ideas to the Royal Society in Edinburgh which was the foundation of modern geology - with the concept of uplift and continual erosion, and the necessity of an ancient earth. But, he was a long way from the first scientist to suggest that the earth is ancient, and even provide evidence for it. In 1778, Comte de Buffon published his calculations (based on cooling rates for hot iron spheres) that the earth was at least 75 thousand years old. Before that Edmund Halley proposed measuring the amount of salt in the oceans and rate of salination to estimate the age of the earth (an approach which was actually impossible), part of the early 18th century of scientific investigations into the nature of the earth - it's size, mass, distance from the Sun and age included. Basically, the ideas of Hutton took off and were accepted almost universally by scientists within only a few years because scientists were already reaching the conclusion that the earth is ancient.
Thanks Alan, fascinating.
cheers,
Louise
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Duplo:
Sorry for potentially flogging a dead horse, but this problem is a first time one for me which I was hoping to avoid for as long as possible...
As a background I'm in my late thirties, and a recent convert to Christianity (approx 5 years ago), I live in N.I and attend a Presbyterian church.
The 'Genesis' question has finally come up in both sermon, home group and my discussions with my Christian friends whom I love dearly and attend the same church. The standard view as you would expect is that evolution is wrong, science is wrong and there is only one answer worth discussing. What makes it a particularly bitter pill to swallow is that the scientific reasoning used by our minister to dismiss evolutionary theory in his sermons is so bad as to be laughable if it wasn't so depressing, that my friends subscribe to this view without applying any element of critical thinking is all the more saddening. The arguments are poor, frankly a straw man argument used to dismiss science out of hand because it doesn’t have all the answers to all the questions ‘right now’, and they have no place in the pulpit IMHO. I mean, ‘explosions destroy things so how could creation come from the big bang’ was possibly one of the more comical moments, alongside ‘information doesn’t have weight so it can’t be a physical thing otherwise your brain or a hard drive would get heavier as you put information into it’
Obvious I subscribe to the theory of evolution and its difficulties for someone who wishes to be a Christian, frankly if I could believe the YE creation position it would make my live a whole lot easier, but I certainly wouldn't be true to myself. Although I’m feeling fairly alone in my faith right now.
So, I'm hoping that there are others who have had the same experience as me and dealt with it successfully, I'm not naive enough to think that there is an easy option but I'm wondering if it is best just to keep my head down and wait for the subject to disappear off the radar, which will mean missing church and home groups for a few weeks, or to state my position in the best and most genuine way I can. I'm not understating things when I say that this isn't quite a crisis of faith but I am at a crossroads as to whether I can continue with this church, but if not where can I go from here?
Hi Duplo,
I always make a distinction when it comes to Creationism between people who are simply literal believers in the Bible, and I can think of many excellent folk, relatives among them who are, and those who push the bad science and bad archaeology often used to back it up. Pushing the latter things, in my experience encourages all sorts of bad things.
The irony is that people who wouldn't hesitate to denounce other sorts of corruption, sign up for this, I find it intellectually corrupt. If your minister, in a strict denomination, started preaching the joys of fornication, people would soon see the problem, but the slandering of thousands of honest hardworking men and women working for the benefit of us all in scientific research gets a pass and bearing false witness against them and their findings is considered good service to God.
If it were me, this would be a scandal and a deal-breaker to have something so wrong preached from the pulpit. I have a Scottish Presbyterian background and came back to the church, through of all things, historical work on the Covenanters! You can be a lover of science and education and also love the Presbyterian tradition.
But you're not alone! The traditional love of learning and scholarship in Presbyterianism means that there are many non-Creationist Presbyterians. You just need to find some of them, which can be hard in a conservative area, but they will be there, especially if you look a bit further afield.
Also a counter intuitive suggestion, I went for a short time to a big popular modern happy-clappy evangelical church, until I started hearing trendy politicised stuff from the pulpit which I couldn't in conscience agree with. Because I like exclusive psalmody I toddled along to a more traditional older congregation to enjoy the singing and precenting, but because they were more traditional, they took it as read that people had traditional views and never preached on the pseudo-scientific stuff or pried into things like Creationism, just really good Christocentric preaching, so I ended up becoming a regular there for quite a while. By the very nature of Presbyterianism, you must have more than one Presbyterian church round about you. Maybe try one you wouldn't normally think of? It might not work, but if you don't want to go down the confrontational route, maybe a couple of weeks church shopping until they start preaching something more congenial again would do no harm!
L
[ 23. September 2010, 02:32: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Unfortunately for Neil Robbie, the detailed review and critique of Behe's book duly appeared from Glenn Oldham (see several posts from him on that page). As the thread developed people increasingly linked directly to material by Behe online and then later to his court testimony.
Actually I think Behe sums up why this issue is a dead horse.
Having read his book when it came out I have to say that the reactions are ridiculously polarised.
On the one hand I'm not convinced by a lot of the ID stuff and particularly the way Creationists seize upon his arguments without really thinking through all the implications or looking carefully at the science.
On the other hand the critiques are usually equally weak. For example Glenn Oldham's suggestion of the indirect route surely becomes much less likely over very long periods of time? The indirect route is certainly possible but one wonders why 'A' would remain for millions of years until it suddenly becomes useful. Again, I'm not saying impossible, just implausible.
Therefore, ISTM, all of this boils down to competing plausibility arguments rather than hard and fast 'the science proves this' kind of arguments.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In reference to the speed with which the idea of an ancient earth arose. You're right that Hutton in 1985 presented his ideas to the Royal Society in Edinburgh which was the foundation of modern geology - with the concept of uplift and continual erosion, and the necessity of an ancient earth. But, he was a long way from the first scientist to suggest that the earth is ancient, and even provide evidence for it. In 1778, Comte de Buffon published his calculations (based on cooling rates for hot iron spheres) that the earth was at least 75 thousand years old. Before that Edmund Halley proposed measuring the amount of salt in the oceans and rate of salination to estimate the age of the earth (an approach which was actually impossible), part of the early 18th century of scientific investigations into the nature of the earth - it's size, mass, distance from the Sun and age included. Basically, the ideas of Hutton took off and were accepted almost universally by scientists within only a few years because scientists were already reaching the conclusion that the earth is ancient.
My recollection is that Voltaire got involved in the controversy - Voltaire being the sort of chap who had an opinion on everything. He thought these new ideas were all nonsense - that (paraphrased) "ancient geology is like ancient history, full of fantasy". When asked how fossilised sea creatures could be found at the top of mountains, his response was that perhaps some traveller had picked up a fossilised fish by the seaside and it had fallen out of his pocket when he went mountaineering.
Not sure of the period, but Voltaire died in 1778.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Huttons insight wasn't that the earth is ancient (even if in his day 'ancient' meant a lot younger than we'd reckon today). He effectively started with an assumption that the earth is ancient. His insight was that an ancient earth would present a problem (why do we have hills when we can observe them eroding, for an ancient earth shouldn't they have all eroded away?) and he offered a solution - that there are processes that cause new hills and mountains to form, or existing ones to be uplifted. Which neatly solved the problem of marine fossils on mountain tops. And, he also created the science of geology by moving the subject from just the collection of rocks and fossils to a subject that examined processes and mechanisms, in which theory and observation combine.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Can I assume that Hutton did all of this before 1985, which is the year everyone is quoting?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Sorry, the 1985 was my typo. Hotton presented his work to the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1785, although it took a couple of decades before they became widely known (he was not the most eloquent communicator, and it required a friend who did understand him to re-publish his work in a form that more than 3 people could understand).
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Louise: To dismiss thes with an airy wave of the hand well, these tactics just won't fly.
I actually have no idea why there is so much attitude here but FWIW, Oldham's arguments mainly boil down to a matter of his opinions just as mine do of mine. (By the way Hall did discover Mars' moons.)
Oldham says, for instance, that Miller shows how Doolittle's account of the evolution of blood clotting is far more persuasive than you would imagine from reading Behe's book".. His opinion.
He cites Miller's citing of experiments with bacteria and their so called ability to evolve complex systems. To mine Behe disposes of this in short order..
web pagehere
Oldham says "Behe tries to argue that a particular type of complexity is particularly hard for gradualistic evolution to account for."
Behe actually shows that such evolution is mathematically impossible. See Behe's book ch 4 P95,6 where he says speaking of Doolittle's model where the "proensyme and its activator are both required for one step in the pathway, the odds of getting both the proteins together are..'one tenth to the 36th power'. He states:"such an event would not be expected to happen even if the universe's ten billion year life were compressed into a single second and relived every second for ten billion years."
[ 25. September 2010, 00:25: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
Try again
Might work this time.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
OK maybe this time
Posted by Rex Monday (# 2569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
OK maybe this time
That's an old document. If you search for the title in Google, you'll find plenty of responses to it from the time that point out Behe's various mischaracterisations of the arguments - have you read these?
Perhaps the best argument that Behe is so mistaken is that (as was shown at Kitzmiller vs Dover) there's been a huge amount of good science done since then on the evolutionary origins of the systems he describes, and which he hasn't bothered to follow, whereas his approach hasn't been developed at all (least of all by him).
I have no doubt that you find Behe persuasive. I just don't know why, as someone who doesn't understand science, you choose that over the scientists who are actually doing the science. It must be a theological stance, which is fine, but it can't be scientific.
There's lots of science I don't understand (string theory!), and on such points I have no opinion - except when it clearly works. Do I understand what a photon is? Nope. Have I done the double slit experiment? Yep. Do I believe that quantum physics is accurate? Yes I do.
Is that wrong?
R
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
Hi Rex, I wrote a comment in response to your post on the 'Death of Darwinism 'thread.
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
I just don't know why, as someone who doesn't understand science, you choose that over the scientists who are actually doing the science. It must be a theological stance, which is fine, but it can't be scientific.
If you read the Noah's Flood (http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000237) thread, you'll see this is a strong (and most bothersome) trend in Jamat's posting.
As to Jamat's actual reply, I'm only on page 9 of that thread, so I'll get to it when I get to it.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
I just don't know why, as someone who doesn't understand science, you choose that over the scientists who are actually doing the science. It must be a theological stance, which is fine, but it can't be scientific.
If you read the Noah's Flood (http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000237) thread, you'll see this is a strong (and most bothersome) trend in Jamat's posting.
As to Jamat's actual reply, I'm only on page 9 of that thread, so I'll get to it when I get to it.
Which will be never as there are 7 pages only in that thread. What exactly is your problem?
Posted by Duplo (# 15809) on
:
Well, I ended up lancing the boil. The subject came up in a house group session and I sat patiently as everything boiled up inside me and everyone else supported the creationist view until a pause in the conversation led the group leader to turn his eyes to me and a small voice inside made me speak up. So I did, I have to say that I struggled with my emotions at first and I tried not to ramble as everything came out as half testimony, half critique of bad science. In hindsight I am very glad I did as it led to a lot of positive feedback and comments that the other members don't feel they take the time to understand science as best as they should. The same subject is up for debate this wed so will see how things go as more people will be aware of my position. being a square peg in a round hole can be quite liberating
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on
:
Jamat - I'm talking about the 33 page thread that you replied to. Page 12 now.
Duplo - good on ya.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0