 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: No evolution please, we're British
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
I'd reckon that a proselytizing creationist would merely be a subset of a proselytizing Christian.
In other words, they would expect that once you become a Real Christian [tm] then the Holy Spirit would lead you to believe that the Bible is True [tm] and therefore Genesis is literal history. It's an all or nothing package. I've never come across an individual who proselytizes for a singular Biblical interpretation apart from the entire faith.
But your Real Christian [tm] credentials would definitely be in jeopardy if you continued to believe in evolution after you'd been saved.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrs whibley
Shipmate
# 4798
|
Posted
Thanks ToujoursDan, that's pretty much what I meant. There is an implication that if you are a Real Christian you will sign up to x, y and z - and if you don't, well, how can you be sure of your salvation?
--------------------
I long for a faith that is gloriously treacherous - Mike Yaconelli
Posts: 942 | From: North Lincolnshire | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
TD, my understanding is that the original point that Calleva Atrebatum was making - and trying to get us to discuss - is that the general impression is that in Britain it is rare and a bit esoteric for a person to take the line that one of the marks of a 'Real Christian' is that they believe that you can't be taking scripture seriously unless you ignore prevailing scientific, geological, palaeontogical etc argument and insist that Genesis 1 is a simple historical account of what happened.
On the other hand, in other parts of Christendom, a lot of people take this position. Why this difference?
Can anyone suggest explanations - is it sufficient just to condemn all of us over here as time-serving, half-hearted, compromising, Laodicean Christians who can't see the truth? Or why is it that some of the faithful feel insecure about this and the rest of us don't?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Enoch quote:
Britain it is rare and a bit esoteric for a person to take the line that one of the marks of a 'Real Christian' is that they believe that you can't be taking scripture seriously unless you ignore prevailing scientific, geological, palaeontogical etc argument and insist that Genesis 1 is a simple historical account of what happened.
I meet many Americans, Australians and Germans who feel similar. Like me and the British you mention, they disregard no confirmed scientific data and many of them are respected Scientists in their chosen field. This notion that to be a non-evolutionist you must have had your brain removed or had a blindfold for Christmas is laughable!
TD quote:
But your Real Christian [tm] credentials would definitely be in jeopardy if you continued to believe in evolution after you'd been saved.
I have never seen any Creationist say this so can only presume that it comes from insecurities and maybe the constant rewrite/ update of the 'truth' among evolutionists.
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
...they disregard no confirmed scientific data and many of them are respected Scientists in their chosen field.
I really don't think that there is anyone who genuinely understands the biological issues who believes in YEC (unless they also believe in Gosse's Ompahalos theory, which almost no-one does). If there is I have certainly never read anything they have written, and trust me, I've read a lot of YEC stuff.
Old-earth creationists, yes. Even the IDiots (the problem with them is more theological than scientific). But not YEC. "Creation Science" (TM) really is somewhere between a myth and a propaganda tool.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
I ... can only presume that it comes from insecurities and maybe the constant rewrite/ update of the 'truth' among evolutionists.
What constant rewrite and updates? The general picture of the development of life on Earth is fundamentally no different now than when Darwin penned Origin. We've cleared up some details, in particular a vast amount of new information on the function of DNA and how it allows inheritance to function in the manner Darwin knew it had to. And, we've got a much larger collection of fossils and living species to study that has allowed many gaps in the evolutionary sequence to be filled, admittedly the resulting story is often much more complex.
On the other hand, 60 years ago practically no one except a handful of Lutherans and the Seventh Day Adventists accepted that the 'truth' consisted of a creation over six 24h periods a mere 6-10 thousand years ago. We have seen far more rewriting and updating of the 'truth' presented by Creationists than that produced by scientific research.
[ 05. January 2011, 11:07: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
But your Real Christian [tm] credentials would definitely be in jeopardy if you continued to believe in evolution after you'd been saved.
I'm not sure this is the case in con evo circles in the UK (or so I've heard). There seems to be much more willingness to view creation v evolution as a secondary issue on which Christians can legitimately disagree. For example one incredibly conservative independent evangelical church I know of had a creationism pastor whose assistant and successor was a theistic evolutionist....apparently that kind of 'live and let live' approach isn't unusual. The local independent Christian school likewise teaches both creationism and theistic evolution. IME you really have to get into the outer fringers of UK evangelicalism before people start arguing that only YECs are Proper Christians.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
AC quote:
What constant rewrite and updates? The general picture of the development of life on Earth is fundamentally no different now than when Darwin penned Origin.
Maybe the updates that mean that 90% of the best 'evidence' presented in 1925 is now dismissed by 21st Century evolutionists.
AC quote:
And, we've got a much larger collection of fossils and living species to study that has allowed many gaps in the evolutionary sequence to be filled, admittedly the resulting story is often much more complex.
Indeed, because you still have micro-evolution and you actually need evidence of macro-evolution. There is none.
Quoting what Cults have said re Creation is no challenge to what Creations have believed, which is simply what God stated via Moses, zilch needs to be altered, ever.
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
AC quote:
What constant rewrite and updates? The general picture of the development of life on Earth is fundamentally no different now than when Darwin penned Origin.
Maybe the updates that mean that 90% of the best 'evidence' presented in 1925 is now dismissed by 21st Century evolutionists.
Yeah? And, what evidence would that be?
quote:
because you still have micro-evolution and you actually need evidence of macro-evolution. There is none.
There is no difference between so-called 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution', it's one and the same thing. Evidence of evolution of one species into two or more different forms (one of which may be extinct) is evidence for evolution.
None of which addresses the second point in my post, which is the rapidly changing description of 'truth' presented by the modern heresy known as Young Earth Creationism or Creation Science.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Enoch:
quote:
I wouldn't, though Toujours Dan, reckon much to the Guardian as having the ability either to conduct a sound survey of religious belief or write a sensible article about it.
I guess you didn't read either article. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
The Guardian didn't do the survey. A thinktank called "Theos" did. Both the BBC and Guardian articles I linked to refer to the same survey.
I have significant doubts about the methodology and the questions used in this survey. There were four main questions: - Q1. Young Earth Creationism is the idea that God created the world sometime in the last 10,000 years. In your opinion is Young Earth Creationism: Definitely true/Probably true/Probably untrue/Definitely untrue/Don't Know
- Q2. Theistic evolution is the idea that evolution is the means that God used for the creation of all living things on earth. In your opinion is Theistic evolution etc etc
- Q3. Atheistic evolution is the idea that evolution makes belief in God unnecessary and absurd. In your opinion is Atheistic evolution etc etc
- Q4. Intelligient Design is the idea that evolution alone is not enough to explain the complex structures of some living things, so the intervention of a designer is needed at key stages. In your opinion is Intelligent Design etc etc
It is not clear whether respondents were informed in advance that they were going to be given four options and what those four options wouild be. But without that knowledge they may well be uncertain about how to respond to the earlier questions in particular. E.g. did they know there was a choice between "theistic evolution" and "atheistic evolution"? This may partially explain a problem with the figures. As they are phrased all of the options are mutually exclusive, but no less than 161% of the sample said that one or other was Definitely or Probably true which means that many must have voted in more than one camp.
Worse, the question on Atheistic evolution is inaccurate and uniquely loaded. Firstly Atheistic evolution is the position that God was not behind evolution (compare theistic evolution), and was not necessary for it to happen. Secondly, this is the only question which replaces a simple process definition with consequences for other beliefs, and it does it in such a way that is pejorative about those other beliefs (why doesn't the question on YEC add that it makes much of science to be a lie, for example?). This question alone seems designed to turn people away from responding to it favourably.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Actually, there is lots of evidence of so-called "macro evolution" in bacteria, viruses, fruit flies, etc. So-called "macro evolution" would be harder to observe in reptiles, mammals, etc., because their lifespans are long.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
quote:
But your Real Christian [tm] credentials would definitely be in jeopardy if you continued to believe in evolution after you'd been saved.
I'm not sure this is the case in con evo circles in the UK (or so I've heard). There seems to be much more willingness to view creation v evolution as a secondary issue on which Christians can legitimately disagree.
Yes, that was my experience, in the days when I used to hang around in creationist circles.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crśsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Actually, there is lots of evidence of so-called "macro evolution" in bacteria, viruses, fruit flies, etc. So-called "macro evolution" would be harder to observe in reptiles, mammals, etc., because their lifespans are long.
Technically it's not the lifespan, it's the span of a generation (the time from birth/hatching/etc. to full reproductive maturity) that's the critical factor, but the main point holds.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
quote:
But your Real Christian [tm] credentials would definitely be in jeopardy if you continued to believe in evolution after you'd been saved.
I'm not sure this is the case in con evo circles in the UK (or so I've heard). There seems to be much more willingness to view creation v evolution as a secondary issue on which Christians can legitimately disagree.
Yes, that was my experience, in the days when I used to hang around in creationist circles.
This may be more true on this side of the Atlantic and with more fundamentalist groups. I went to a well respected con evo school and had my faith questioned by friends when I opened my mouth on this topic. YMMV.
Crśsos: thanks for the correction.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
This may be more true on this side of the Atlantic and with more fundamentalist groups. I went to a well respected con evo school and had my faith questioned by friends when I opened my mouth on this topic. YMMV.
UK evangelicalism has its share of faults, but I don't think its possible to exaggerate how different it is from some forms of American evangelicalism.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crśsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
quote:
This may be more true on this side of the Atlantic and with more fundamentalist groups. I went to a well respected con evo school and had my faith questioned by friends when I opened my mouth on this topic. YMMV.
UK evangelicalism has its share of faults, but I don't think its possible to exaggerate how different it is from some forms of American evangelicalism.
Is that some sort of corrollary to Poe's Law?
For those unfamiliar with the term, Poe's Law states "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
I have no idea how that follows from Yerevan's post, Croesos. Feel free to be more verbose?
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
I haven't the foggiest either. I could list in detail at least ten major ways in which British and American conservative evangelicalism differ noticeably if that answers whatever Croesos happens to be saying.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
I have no idea how that follows from Yerevan's post, Croesos. Feel free to be more verbose?
Verbosity is not sufficient unless it has some explanatory power mixed in as well. But I would like to hear the explanation as well.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crśsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Yerevan stated that he(?) didn't "think its possible to exaggerate how different [UK evangelicalism] is from some forms of American evangelicalism".
Poe's Law states that it's impossible to exaggerate evangelicalism/fundamentalism to a degree that that satire/exaggeration/hyperbole is obvious to all.
It was mostly about how certain things seem to be beyond the ability to exaggerate.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
Yerevan's post says that two things are very different.
Poe's law says that you can't make a parody which somebody wouldn't call the real thing.
Both use the word exaggerate, but that's pretty much the only similarity.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crśsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
Yerevan's post says that two things are very different.
Poe's law says that you can't make a parody which somebody wouldn't call the real thing.
Both use the word exaggerate, but that's pretty much the only similarity.
Not just that they are very different but that they are so different that it is literally impossible to exaggerate such differences, in the same way Poe's law postulates that it is literally impossible to exaggerate the extremism of fundamentalists to a degree that it no longer resembles some kind of real world fundamentalism.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
Yerevan used some hyperbole, oh noes! Note that he didn't say that American evangelicals are all crazy fundamentalists whereas UK evangelicals are all perfectly sane little lambs, etc....
One could easily say that it's literally impossible to list the differences between Greek Orthodoxy and Calvinism and it would still just be a bit of hyperbole and not a value judgement.
So, like I said, they share a word and that's it.
I'm finding it hard to see this as something more than an attempt at scoring points.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
TD quote:
So-called "macro evolution" would be harder to observe in reptiles, mammals, etc., because their lifespans are long.
What a shame, yet as you would insist that most fossils are NOT laid down by the great water event of 4,400 years ago and are spread over the millions/ billions of years your faith requires, then why can't you show macro-evolution among them?
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
Huh? He is talking about within our lifespan, or within human history.
The whole fossil record attests to so-called "macro" evolution.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Alan quote:
There is no difference between so-called 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution', it's one and the same thing.
As I said earlier.....
Micro evolution evolution is the observed variation with in a kind of animal. It is the fact that dogs produce a variety of dogs, cats produce a variety of cats and roses produce a variety of roses. These increases in variety usually represent a loss of information, rearranging of existing information through the generic recombination, or Natural Genetic Engineering. In Natural Genetic Engineering, DNA is rewritten by an organism to adapt to specific environmental conditions. This has been observed and it is no problem for creationists sense it is restricted to the genetic range of individual kinds of animals.
Macro evolution is amoeba to man evolution. This has never been observed, but it is assumed to occur. It is a result of the failure to see the limits to micro evolution. It is assumed that repeated occurrence of micro evolution, produces macro evolution, It also assumes the addition of new genetic information. The real result of repeated occurrence of micro evolution would be a deterioration of the kind of animal. This would ultimately lead to extinction.
The chemicals that are alleged to have formed life, supposedly resulted from the eroding rocks by water. Macro evolution would actually be rock to a man. Furthermore based on the Big Bang it is really subatomic point to man.
Evolutionists routinely give examples of micro evolution, to convince people of macro evolution, but there are no examples of macro evolution.
Website
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
We are all very familiar with the distinctions that people make between the two, like the site you linked.
Those distinctions, as said prior, are bullshit.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
DNA evidences macro-evolution as defined by that site, but from a quick glance, that site doesn't seem to have considered DNA development evidence.
Your sites would be a whole lot more convincing if they had pages on how to contact the site owners and about the site. The ones that tell you about the authors and their credentials, for example.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Pj and Curiosity,
Please see This Scientist and should your patience/ time be limited begin at 9 mins 30 seconds which will lead to video 2/2.
[ 06. January 2011, 23:49: Message edited by: ByHisBlood ]
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
I'll glance at it later, but from looking at his wikipedia page, I'm rather unimpressed so far. Answers in Genesis? P. Chem? It would be nice if the YEC community could put forth a reasonable sounding, published, biologist. Only problem of course is that they all find YEC to be silly.
I will be responding in a more creationism-centric thread though, as this part of the debate doesn't belong here. It's the same shit happening yet again.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Alan quote:
There is no difference between so-called 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution', it's one and the same thing.
As I said earlier.....
Macro evolution is amoeba to man evolution. This has never been observed, but it is assumed to occur. It is a result of the failure to see the limits to micro evolution. It is assumed that repeated occurrence of micro evolution, produces macro evolution, It also assumes the addition of new genetic information. The real result of repeated occurrence of micro evolution would be a deterioration of the kind of animal. This would ultimately lead to extinction.
The chemicals that are alleged to have formed life, supposedly resulted from the eroding rocks by water. Macro evolution would actually be rock to a man. Furthermore based on the Big Bang it is really subatomic point to man.
Evolutionists routinely give examples of micro evolution, to convince people of macro evolution, but there are no examples of macro evolution.
Website
As I said earlier, this assertion is completely false, very poorly written and parts of it are completely nonsensical.
I have to laugh at this bit:
quote:
This would ultimately lead to extinction.
Well, over 99% of all the animal species that has ever existed in the 4.6 billion years of earth's existence ARE extinct, but the less than 1% have continued to evolve. So there is a bit of truth in this, but not much.
quote:
The chemicals that are alleged to have formed life, supposedly resulted from the eroding rocks by water.
This statement makes no sense at all. No mainstream biologist makes this assertion. The current model (which, BTW, has been around since 1924. They should really update their website.) presupposes that the Earth's atmosphere was composed differently than now: methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water (H2O), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and phosphate (PO43-).
Life began from organic (Carbon based) compounds catalyzed by lightening or another energy source to form amino acids, which formed proteins, which became increasingly complex until they were able to self-replicate. As life developed further it became aerobic (though anaerobic live continued to exist) and introduced molecular oxygen into the atmosphere which slowly transformed it into something like ours today.
quote:
Macro evolution would actually be rock to a man. Furthermore based on the Big Bang it is really subatomic point to man.
Nope. See above. This isn't macroevolution even by the definition creationists use. This shows no understanding of what evolution is whatsoever.
[ 07. January 2011, 00:31: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
And to highlight the absurdity to this statement:
quote:
Macro evolution would actually be rock to a man.
Beyond the fact that this is a very poorly written sentence, you won't a single scientist who would make this assertion. So called "macroevolution" even as defined by most creationists is the evolution of one species into another; which creationists deny happened (except when the obviously limited number of animals in the Ark were suddenly transformed into the estimated 50 million species that exist today, and were somehow magically transported to places like Australia, Antarctica, the Amazon and Greenland instantly and were able live in intact habitats that somehow weren't rendered sterile by a 40 day flood of saline water, which we all know poisons soil.)
So while no scientist believes rocks turned into humans creationists do. In Genesis, God formed Adam from the dirt and they believe this is literal history, as opposed to myth-story. But they haven't produced any fossil (or other scientific) evidence that this ever occurred.
[ 07. January 2011, 00:49: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
I will be responding in a more creationism-centric thread though, as this part of the debate doesn't belong here.
hosting
Precisely so and thank you.
ByHisBlood and the rest of you who are replying to him/her, please take your derails about micro/macro evolution and other creation vs evolution talking points to the main thread 'Death of Darwinism'. Feel free to cut and paste your off-topic posts from here across or if you prefer, you can start a new sub-thread in micro/macro evolution.
This thread is for discussing the question 'Is creationism influential in British Christianity?' Please stick to the topic.
ByHisBlood, this is the second time you've derailed a thread here from its specific subject onto general creation/evolution controversies. Please learn to take that stuff to the general thread or to start new threads for new topics. Taking every opportunity to have a swipe at 'the other side' does not help matters, it's a recipe for derailing threads (this goes for both camps)
thanks!
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
[ 07. January 2011, 02:00: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
Yerevan used some hyperbole, oh noes! Note that he didn't say that American evangelicals are all crazy fundamentalists whereas UK evangelicals are all perfectly sane little lambs, etc....
One could easily say that it's literally impossible to list the differences between Greek Orthodoxy and Calvinism and it would still just be a bit of hyperbole and not a value judgement.
So, like I said, they share a word and that's it.
I'm finding it hard to see this as something more than an attempt at scoring points.
Yes, I used some rather tongue-in-cheek hyperbole. Big wow. I'm not clear as to why this requires several posts of in-depth analysis from Croesos. I used hyperbole to stress that UK and US evangelicalism are very different, and that it is therefore wrong to assume that UK evangelicals will respond to issues in the same way as US ones. None of which is terribly controversial. If Croesos would like me to expand on this by discussing the differences in detail I have (just about) got the patience to do so. Otherwise there's nothing more to add. Shall we all get back to the point of the thread?
[ 07. January 2011, 12:04: Message edited by: Yerevan ]
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
PS I'm a girly by the way
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Just so you all know as it was on a different thread, BHB has been planked - so no need to bother following that derail.
cheers,
L.
Dead Horses Host
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calleva Atrebatum
Shipmate
# 14058
|
Posted
Interesting reading - and, yes, I didn't really want to start a thread about evolution/creation debates (I am aware of the arguments) I was just interested in the state of the debate in UK churches. And why YEC has never caught on here (the UK) in the way it has in the States - as I understand it the Scopes trial was viewed as a kind of quaint 'oh those funny Americans and their ways' news item by the British press.
--------------------
Offence is taken, it is not given.
Posts: 159 | From: Kent | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
And why YEC has never caught on here (the UK) in the way it has in the States
I think its partly an issue of class. I understand (hopefully American posters will correct me if I'm wrong) that the rise of US fundamentalism was to some extent a populist reaction against university-educated urban elites who were perceived as out of touch with 'ordinary folk'. I think that class dimension was/is missing in the UK. There isn't really a discernible class difference between liberal and evangelical Christians here. The leaders of both movements were/are usually middle class, urban-based and university-educated. Anglican evangelical leaders in particular were/are very often Oxbridge-educated. So there isn't the same tendency towards anti-intellectual obscurantism.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
But there is an anti-science snobbism.
The person I'm thinking of is an English graduate who *can't do maths* and doesn't do science. That's not unusual, in my experience. I found as a science graduate I am expected to know about history, literature, art and music plus other culture, but anyone who has studied those subjects can see no need to have any understanding of science or engineering and not be regarded as ignorant.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Although long in the tooth (1978 vintage) this 1978 Tyndale lecture has something to say about pond differences.
It contains this rather good quote
quote:
One reason why Britain did not experience a
Fundamentalist controversy in the 1910's and 1920's akin
to the bitter battle in America lay in the more
widespread acceptance of biological evolution by
thinking evangelicals before the beginning of the century.
And whatever their professed attitude to philosophical
evolutionism, many evangelicals displayed a cast of mind
that reflected an evolutionary approach to historical
development, including biblical history
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
[Post interrupted by lunch]. There's also an educational element. With the exception of a very small number of 'independent Christian' primary schools the UK doesn't have a conservative evangelical educational sector. Conservative evangelicals attend the same schools and universities as everyone else, including elite universities (Oxford and Cambridge have the largest and most conservative Christian Unions in the country and several big student-orientated con evo churches). There isn't really an scope for educationing young people within a creationist bubble.
quote:
But there is an anti-science snobbism.
I don't think that has anything to do with religion though. Personally I was just as much of a scientifically illiterate Arts grad when I was an atheist as I am now ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
[ 09. January 2011, 13:23: Message edited by: Yerevan ]
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
I think its partly an issue of class.
Indeed. Where there are creationist movements in the UK I think they tend to be the black-led churches or Muslims, both groups who are at the receiving end of the British class system.
It's as much about media access as class (not that those are independent). If you know that you are constantly misrepresented in the press, it's not such as stretch to think that God's creation is being misrepresented in the press as well.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mrs whibley
Shipmate
# 4798
|
Posted
'My' creationists are white, and technically British although a couple are the offspring of missionaries and therefore born and educated abroad. Social class is a mixture.
--------------------
I long for a faith that is gloriously treacherous - Mike Yaconelli
Posts: 942 | From: North Lincolnshire | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
The creationists I know are middle class white British.
I'm not saying that they aren't. I'm merely suggesting that US fundamentalism is closely linked to a contrast between perceived elites and self-identified 'ordinary folk', creating a particular kind of anti-intellectualism. Those self-identified 'ordinary folk' may in fact be quite well off, so 'class' probably wasn't the right word for me to use. I don't think that dynamic exists in the UK, because the majority of British Christians of all stripes, including creationists, are comfortably middle class and quite often (secular) university educated. And I do think that that dynamic fuels creationism. Creationism can of course exist without it...its just strengthened by it. Hence creationism is much more of a force in the US than it in the UK.
Well thats my theory anyway...
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Previously quoted by Barnabas 62 from a Tyndale Lecture
"And whatever their professed attitude to philosophical evolutionism, many [UK] evangelicals displayed a cast of mind that reflected an evolutionary approach to historical development, including biblical history"
That's an interesting, and for once, relevant, tangent. Can any shipmates tell me whether the sort of preachers who proclaim Young Earth Creationism also lack any sense that, as described in the scriptures, the history of Israel demonstrates a development in peoples' understanding of God's personality? Would they, for example, regard suggesting the following as straightforwardly orthodox or dangerous heresy?
- that even if one has a high view of biblical authority, the various books of scripture are not all the same, and are affected by the time and circumstances when they were written.
- that scripture is not simply the voice of God, but the books also demonstrate the personalities, concerns and characters of their writers.
- that the prophets proclaimed new understandings of how God called his people to live that it would have been difficult to reach from reading the Torah alone.
- that Judaism after the exile is very different from Judaism as practised in Judah under the later kings.
- that it is relevant to understanding what Jesus was saying, and which elements were innovation and which were not, to know a bit about Judaism as it was by the C1.
There are plenty of other examples one could give.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
I don't think that dynamic exists in the UK, because the majority of British Christians of all stripes, including creationists, are comfortably middle class and quite often (secular) university educated.
I believe(*) the majority of Christians in southern England, at least, are in black-led churches. If they are middle-class they are not what one would call comfortably so.
(*) source: Robert Beckford, theologian and reader in black theology.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
There's an awful lot of very white southern England for me to find that statistic convincing. If you were just talking London, OK, but Southern England includes Kent, Sussex, Surrey and Hampshire at the very least, and if you then consider Dorset, Wiltshire, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, I really question that statistic. (I used to live in Salisbury diocese and don't remember many black led churches in that area).
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
I believe(*) the majority of Christians in southern England, at least, are in black-led churches.
I would also be quite surprised by that, even accounting for London.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
South London maybe, if you allow majority-black churches, whether black-led or not. But not even the whole of greater London, never mind the whole south of England.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2 3
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
