More Active Posts
Front Page
The End Times
 |
 89 Comments |
Conservative Christian pundits are on a future-defining, existential-question-posing spree this week over Christianity’s future as a relevant force in American religious and political life, thanks largely to a New York Times story and a big oops from seeker-friendly megachurch guru Bill Hybels.
Pushing the discussion toward its philosophical nadir is David Kirkpatrick’s piece in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine. It has set off riotous debate over whether the Religious Right’s grip on GOP politics is weakening. The heirs apparent of the Dobson-Robertson-Falwell triumvirate, the article says, are guys like Rick Warren and Bill Hybels — guys who believe wholeheartedly in the adage “Mix religion and politics, and you get politics.”
GetReligion’s Terry Mattingly argues Kirkpatrick’s story points more to a solidifying of the battle lines already within Christianity. It’s less about politics and more about doctrine, he says. He lists three questions: Are biblical accounts of the resurrection of Jesus accurate? Is salvation found through Jesus Christ alone? Is sex outside of marriage a sin? Then he promises the answers from guys like Hybels will be “much more interesting than the political questions that change from decade to decade.”
A discussion has since materialized over Hybel’s recent admission that his Willow Creek Church, widely considered the most influential in the country, may have misunderstood what people are looking for inside its walls. It’s led to a Willow paradigm shift that Hybels calls the “wake-up call of my adult life,” and conservatives especially are asking about the implications.
The Hybels model has been to equate church participation with personal growth. But now Hybels said the data indicates that his church may have put “millions of dollars” programs that haven’t done much of anything. On a 10-point scale, non-Christians — the apple of Hybels’ seeker-friendly eye — ranked Willow at the top. Growing Christians were less smitten.
Nonetheless, Willow Creek Pastor Greg Hawkins responded to critics, saying that while they as church leaders goofed, this wasn’t going to detract one iota from their seeker-friendly model. He said Willow still “is not just seeker-focused. We are seeker-obsessed.”
Bob Burney, a pastor and radio host, sums up the frustrations of conservative Christians that Hybels will encounter the more people take their cues, religious or political, from him: “It looks like someone still might not get it.”
 |
Topic: Front Page, The Nation |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
Off-key
“Mix religion and politics, and you get politics.”
That’s a great adage! Did Jesus ever mix religion and politics? So then why do we?
Can religion stay out of politics when the secular encroaches on areas that traditionally have been under the purview of the church? After all, the apostles died for reasons beyond mere theological disputes. What say you?
Read through the epistles and see how many admonishions you find to go be a culture warrior versus how often the church is exhorted to get its own internal spiritual act together. The second is constant; the first is nonexistent.
Two directives to church leaders: 1. Stay out of politics. 2. Teach the folks what’s right and what’s wrong. That said, Christians are to inform every thought, every action with Jesus and the Word. If you are a Christian citizen in a democratic republic, then religion and politics mix.
I share BT’s concern. I’d prefer to stay out of “politics”, but when an issue or topic that has been a Biblical matter for millenniums is suddenly declared to be a secular or political issue, I can not slink away.
“Mix religion and politics, and you get politics.”
Weird to read World report this as if it isn’t their mantra as well!
Stephen: The problem with that is that we ARE the government (government by the people) in this thing known as a Republic; in other words we are REQUIRED to fight the political (and cultural) battles. The government IS OUR JOB (also the job of people who disagree with us).
You cannot ’separate’ the way you do and view politics from faith - in a republic. If we lived as slaves in a tyranny, as the early Christians (and pagans as well) did, I suppose it would be different; there we would have no voice in the government or the culture.
But because the government IS our responsibility in the American Republic, we need to exercise our duty to organize and attempt to do the right thing (as in abortion, marriage, etc.).
Otherwise we are neither good citizens of the Republic nor are we good Christians.
So the Church should both attempt to influence the culture - and for us in the American Republic - the political dimension - as well as to work internally to better represent the Bride of Christ. The two go hand in hand, it would seem to me.
I am not sure why you seem to think that a Christian in a Republic should be passive and retreating from demonstrable evil, whether it is in the culture, in politics, or in the Church.
Let’s all apply the Dominion Mandate. Genesis 3:16.
Marie, was that a typo, or is your comment relevant in some way I cannot conceive?
If by politics you mean partisan politics, then yes, Christians should stay out of politics. If by politics you mean the governance of the nation, then Christianity and politics ought to mix. Even the governors of the land are required by Christ to honor the LORD.
Consider how John the baptist confronted Herod, who had taken his brother’s wife. John rightly called the king to public repentance for his public sin. In our day, people would be crying foul and calling this a crime against the separation of church and state.
Drill, I agree entirely that there is a difference between how one should act as a christian citizen versus as a christian subject. But simply because politics becomes a sphere of activity for the christian does not mean it should become interwoven with the church. Christians should most certainly be deeply and actively involved in politics [in fact, everyone should be], but political discourse has no place in the church, whose primary mission absolutely must remain to save people from the world, not to change its sinful culture.
abortion, evolution and homosexuality
How many married people get abortions? Ok some, but very few. So how is this a threat to the family? If people were getting married to start a family, they surely wouldn’t start with an abortion.
The last 15 years has seen an explosion on the evolutionary sciences. Remember, Darwin DIED in 1882. It’s a brand new world, a brand new world.
Evolution is not only NOT going away, but expanding even more. It is no longer deniable. That’s just the way it is.
biological sciences
biology
coevolution
convergence
cultural evolution
divergence
ecotypic evolution
enation theory
endosymbiosis hypothesis
gastraea theory
heredity
morphology
natural history
serial endosymbiosis theory
adaptation
convergence
creative evolution
divergence
emergence
extinction
mosaic evolution
natural selection
parallel evolution
selection
speciation
variation
analogy
homology
biogenetic law
orthogenesis
Gays - too many young today have a beloved brother,sister, son or daughter who is gay that no amount of preaching will get them to turn against. They will only turn against the preaching that wants to divide families and force family members apart.
We need to keep the church and religious institutions mostly clear from politics, though individual Christians have every right to a strong voice in the public square on such issues as abortion, eugenics,pornography, and homosexual marriage.
The left is suffering the illusion that there has been some sort of political “crack up” among evangelical and orthodox Christians. Of course Christians individuals vary to some extent on political issues, however, when it comes to core issues, especially abortion and homosexuality they are unified. Together conservative Christians number about twenty-million; consequently they have enormous influence on American politics.
The trolls on this Christioan blog plumping for hedonistic pansexuality are whistling Dixie.
…but political discourse has no place in the church…
Given this sentiment what would you do in a case such as this:
(The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany
By William Shirer :237)
History seems to show that when timid and prissy Christians refuse to soil themselves with involvement in the body politic, the increasingly pagan body politic comes to them.
We need to keep the church and religious institutions mostly clear from politics, though individual Christians have every right to a strong voice in the public square on such issues as abortion, eugenics…
Given that view, how would you judge this case:
I was going to edit that down to the relevant portions like: “With the authority of his office, a Catholic bishop invoked the wrath of God on those who were killing the innocent.” but pressed return by mistake and posted the whole thing, sorry about the length.
Evolution is not only NOT going away, but expanding even more. It is no longer deniable. That’s just the way it is.
People either stupid or ignorant enough to believe in the Darwinian creation myth have been saying that denying it is like denying gravity and so on for well over a century. The simple fact is that until theory emerges from all the hypotheses which can be used to trace a trajectory of adaptation which can be verified empirically time and again it’s not going to be treated as an equivalent form of scientia/knowledge, because it isn’t.
…simply because politics becomes a sphere of activity for the christian does not mean it should become interwoven with the church.
I tend to agree. It’s important to point out that the Founder’s rationales for the separation of church was largely Christianity itself.
But how would this notion of separation apply in this case:
(National Socialism and Christianity: Can They Be Reconciled?
by Wilhelm Pauck
The Journal of Religion, Vol. 20, No. 1. (Jan., 1940) :15)
As the State encompasses more and more as it did in that case the possibility of separation seems to deteriorate because the very notion of such a separation came from Jewish prophets that could condemn their own king/god, Christians who stood against the State based on a higher/separate law, etc. Separation of church and state isn’t a pagan tradition because Nature based religions do not tend to support insights that separate things such as higher or “unalienable” forms of law and so on.
Non sequiturs disregarded (e.g., #12 — the bullets are pretty, but didn’t do much for cogency), in imagined disintegration of a mostly imagined political hegemony apparently is news to those who want to create news. The next big shift that keeps the shift keys a-popping. In short, blah blah blah.
Christians, if there are as many of them as Solon estimates, will acheive major victories in the culture wars when they stop divorcing each other, stop marginalizing parents who struggle to raise families on their own from the church, stop sacrificing family to the next rung up at work, stop consuming the pornography that degrades the gifts we were given, stop patronizing the alternative reproduction industry, and continue in a concerted effort to enfold and support both unwanted children and the mothers who didn’t want them.
Then the dectractors of this “agenda” might begin to see how irrelevant they already are in the face of a victory that’s already been won {:~)
MYNYM, those are excellent case studies!
Since Reinhardt called for a reformulation of the Scriptures to match with Nazi principles, the first case seems to be one of heresy and the rising up of false doctrine, purportedly from within the church. As such, it would most certainly be essential that it be strongly spoken against from the pulpit, but for solely for reasons of orthodoxy, not politics.
In the second case, I disagree with Pauck. The confession of the church must surely be actualized, but how that confession is to be particularly actualized by an individual is a matter of personal leading and not of church doctrine. Contra Pauck, the church’s purpose is not to speak definitively to the political, social, or cultural problems of its day (though certainly the Christian citizen must do his full duty with respect to them). The corporate body is called to witness to the justification and sanctification of sinful hearts, not to divert its spiritual focus by condemning the sinful acts of unredeemed men.
The comment by Mattingly criticizing Hybels and Warren sheds some light on the thinking of the religious right.
First, they view sexual issues as central to the Christian faith as the resurrection and the propitiatory death of Christ. Propitiation and the Resurrection are central to the Christian faith; sexual ethics is not.
Second, I doubt whether guys like Dobson trust in Christ alone for salvation. If they did, they would focus more on Christ’s return than on trying to build the New Jerusalem with their own hands. The morality czars generally fail to conduct themselves according to historic Protestant theology. Their religion is a man-centered moralistic religion, not a God-centered confessional Christianity. It’s high time that these frauds answer the tough theological questions. If only we still burned heretics at the stake.
Sexual ethics may not be the center of Christian theology, but they are still an essential part of Christian practice, without which doctrine is meaningless.
Trr,
It was a typo, sort of. I knew I should have got my lazy bottom off the computer chair and looked up my verse. I MEANT to quote Gen. 1:28, sorry to be such a moron:
“Then God blessed them and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
The application being, let’s have dominion in every area of creation. Including the political sphere.
MYNYM post 16,
it does sound like MYNYM is interested in prolonging this discussion into another 800+ post effort.
I merely note the following:
1) the demographic denominational majority of Christians do not interpret the Bible in such a way as to preclude evolution: one can be a Christian and accept evolution
2) Collins has presented an evangelical Christian approach to understanding and accepting evoluton which is fully consistent with the scientific model
3) no individual in this blog has ever produced any supporting evidence for Young Earth Creationism which can with stand scientific review
4) all YEC who have posted in this blog have eventually in some form or another finally admitted that thier position is basd on Genesis 1 and is not science
To all but the hard core rear guard forces, the evolution war is effectively over.
I do suggest the real challenge to conservative Christian thinking regarding science comes not from evolution, but from recent efforts in astrophysics. It appears that it is increasingly difficult to reconcile a strict-interpretationalist model on the new findings in astrophysics.
P.S. there are some forms of Old Earth Creationsim which may still be supportable, but interestingly very very few posters in this blog support a form of OEC which is sustainable.
DR
Could you elaborate on that thought?
Marie post 22,
but does that mean that Christians should have dominion over other humans?
Yes, It was God that gave man dominion over the all the earth - not just part of it.
They say you can try to take the church out of politics but you can never take the politics out of the church
#18: In regards to your three paragraph post.
First paragraph. I didn’t understand it. I think you were just rolling around words to hear their sound.
Second paragraph: Truthful, honest, and insightful. No way to disagree with a single word.
Third paragraph: Didn’t get it.
Score, one out of three, but that one was a homerun. Thanks.
Sorry. That first paragraph was crippled by typos and writing past my bedtime. In essense it was trying to say that articles like this are reporting disintegration of a religious-political dynamic that was mostly imagined to begin with. They keep pundits in business but not much more.
Apologies,
SG
Could you elaborate on that thought?
Sure. No good theology is based on sexual ethics - they are simply not a key piece of the Christian faith.
They are, however, a key piece of Christian practice (the day to day life Christians are commanded to live).
Because faith without works [practice] is dead - see James 2:16-24 - that makes them a vital part of Christianity, even though they are not key to Christian theology.
Thus living in deliberate sexual sin (violating Christian sexual ethics) not only shows that one has a poor grasp of how the Christian life should be lived, it is also an indication of sick and dying - and therefore meaningless - faith.
Having the right theology is useless if you don’t put it into practice - as Wesley said [paraphrase]: “Daemons are the most orthodox of beings [they know what is true about God], and yet they be but devils.”
Xion asked; “Did Jesus ever mix religion and politics?”
Yes, and often.
1. By today’s “everything is politics and politics is everything” mindset, the answer is; YES he did!
2. Remember, the Saducess, Scribes, Pharisees, and others with whom Jesus tangled often, were NOT just religious leaders. In that theocratic culture, they were every bit as political as they were spiritual leaders.
3. Jesus mixed His faith with politics so much so that the civic and political leaders of his day felt deeply threatened and could not get Him off their minds. They held many meetings on how to deal with Jesus.
We should follow in His footsteps and show our compassion and values at all levels of human concern.
Joel Mark post 30,
but lets consider.
True, in Jesus’ day, the Saducess, Scribes, Pharisees, and others were both religious AND political leaders: the two were intertwined.
So it becomes a fair question of:
1) was Jesus involved in the political activities of his times
or
2) was Jesus conerned that the politiicans of his day (Saducess, Scribes, Pharisees, and others) were acting in the religious sphere
And when I look at Matthew 22:21 [KJV]:
“21 They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”
it seems to me that Jesus is explicitly addressing a divide between the political power and the religious power.
The genius of Western Civilization, based largely on Christian principle, is a separation of the realms of politics and religion. Musing is right that Christ’s view that we render unto Caesar is his and unto God what is His. The Catholic church ran into deep trouble in the Middle Ages when it aligned itself politically with the ruling monarchs and aristocracy, just as the religious left and right often gets over involved with politics.
However, individual Christians have every right to take positions based on their core values in the public square. Richard John Neuhaus puts the matter as follows:
The reality is that, for millions of voters—evangelical, Catholic, and other—the number-one moral and political issue is the defense of the unborn. Join that to the defense of marriage and family and it seems certain that we are talking about no less than twenty million people. That is more than enough votes, or decisions not to vote, to decide a presidential election….
MYNYM’s point that some Christian religious leaders opposed Hitler is valid, though this was an extreme political situation. Normally it is wise for church leaders as such to stick with what they do best, bring people to conform their lives to Christ. If they do this well, then many political problems are mitigated.
Christians, unlike Muslims, know the wisdom of largely separating church and state matters.
Evangelical Christians:
Get into politics. The more you do, the more people in middle America will love you and want to be just like you.
solon post 32,
I think we need to mark this on the calendar. I agree with virtually your entire post!!
In particular I agree with:
“The genius of Western Civilization, based largely on Christian principle, is a separation of the realms of politics and religion.”
“However, individual Christians have every right to take positions based on their core values in the public square.”
Thanks for the post solon.
What strikes me is I read about these Christian political movements, is that I get a picture of God on the sidelines, a spectator from Heaven, watching us fight it out down here on battlefield Earth. The righteous are battling the unrighteous for the culture of America. If the righteous lose, we will suffer a horrible fate, our country will be a godless Babylon. If the righteous win, we will have one thousand years of peace, a country of smiling Christians behind the white picket fences of gingerbread houses.
But it seems that the true battle for Earth is much broader and wider than that, God having authored his battle plan before the beginning of time, now in full control of its execution. The horrible fate is not that America will “go to hell in a hand basket”, but that individuals will perish for eternity in the real Hell, long after America is inconsequential. The wonderful victory is not an America full of smiling people behind picket fences, but eternity lived with God in the new heaven and new earth, enabled only by the sacrifice of Christ.
The point is not that a Christian should not participate in the Democracy. The question is what message is the world hearing from the church? What is the church communicating is most valuable and precious to it? Is it that the abortionists and homosexuals must be stopped? Or is it the eternal, transcendent story of Christ?
The question is not whether Jesus mixed faith and politics or not. Of course he did. Of course Jesus was deeply interested in whatever impacted human beings for good or ill. Of course Jesus combined vital interests in matters of faith, politics, and many other matters of human concern.
Rather, the question is how did he do it and with what priorities and values guiding Him?
MUSING:
Yes, Jesus was concerned that the politicians of his day (Saduccess, Scribes, Pharisees, and others) were acting unjustly and hypocritically. And He spoke up on that concern. He cared. But no, Jesus did not object to the Saduccess, Pharisees and Scribe being involved in the religious sphere. He was critical of the poor values and attitudes that they brought to that involvement.
And when Jesus said; “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s,” he was answering a question about taxation. He had an opinion about taxation and gave it a voice in public. He was maintaining that the things of God mattered more than the things of Caesar. He was also maintaining that we had obligations in BOTH arenas. He was specifically saying that we should be involved and concerned in both fields.
1) the demographic denominational majority of Christians do not interpret the Bible in such a way as to preclude evolution: one can be a Christian and accept evolution
Given that the term evolution can be used to mean anything from any biological change conceivably possible to the unfolding of every single embryo that exists, you haven’t specified much. In fact, even the most fundamentalist Christian can accept evolution if what is meant is a general: “Let the earth bring forth life…” as that is a part of the text. As I already pointed out, historically American fundamentalists supported the notion of evolution:
(The Post-Darwinian Controversies
by James Moore :72-73)
One can be a Christian and do many things, the fact that Christians can do or do one thing or another may have little bearing on whether or not it is true. For example, those fundamentalists should have looked at the empirical evidence with respect to mankind because it clearly falsifies Darwinian notions of evolution, the pattern of empirical and historical facts is such that it left Darwinists searching for evidence to cherry pick:
(Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution
by David Stove :7-9)
Collins has presented an evangelical Christian approach to understanding and accepting evoluton which is fully consistent with the scientific model
That’s always been the case, fundamentalists and evangelicals have always believed that evolution comports with Christianity. That’s because much of it does.
all YEC who have posted in this blog have eventually in some form or another finally admitted that thier position is basd on Genesis 1 and is not science
The truth is more important than science, as the history of science shows those who view science as a way to a total view of the truth fall into patterns of scientism soon to be followed by socialism, eugenics, totalitarianism, etc. Science itself tends to prove that it is an incomplete view of the truth.
To all but the hard core rear guard forces, the evolution war is effectively over.
It seems that you believe in the grand myth of Progress and therefore simply imagine history that way without bothering to look at actual historical evidence. That’s typically the Darwinian way, the myth of Progress is fused to the creation myth and therefore anyone who questions the creation myth is against progress and so on. At any rate, what you imagine to be so based on Darwinian thinking does not comport with historical and empirical evidence.
MYNYM’s point that some Christian religious leaders opposed Hitler is valid, though this was an extreme political situation.
But perhaps it only became an extreme political situation because people were “separated” from politics as patterns noted in this article seem to indicate:
(Nazis and Church
Groping for Issue
The New York Times, Feb. 14, 1934, pg. 4
by Otto D. Tolischus)
MYNYM’s point that some Christian religious leaders opposed Hitler is valid, though this was an extreme political situation.
But perhaps it only became an extreme political situation because people were “separated” from politics as various patterns noted in this article seem to indicate:
(Nazis and Church
Groping for Issue
The New York Times, Feb. 14, 1934, pg. 4
by Otto D. Tolischus)
I’m not sure what the answer is but I know that some people seem to be in love with an abstraction when it comes to the notion of separation. They are essentially Platonists on the issue as they seem to have a Platonic attitude about politics while at the same time viewing themselves as higher and purer for it. Given that they seem to love an abstraction it’s worth questioning how it all plays out in the real world.
MYNYM, this is not an issue of Platonic idealism or abstraction. Historically, given the fallen nature of men the involvement of religion in state affairs leads inevitably to the establishment of some branch of religion and curtailment of the free exercise of religion by other branches. The American founders by and large understood this well.
Also, most preachers and priests lack refined judgment of many matters of state. Contemporary examples would be the Catholic church position against the war in Iraq and the mainline Protestant churches that favor the minimum wage, while lacking the nuts to declare unwed mothers-most of whom are poor- to be in a state of sin.
On matters of serious morality such as the protection of the unborn and the defense of marriage and the family, serious Christian churches and millions of conservative Christians can and do take firm positions in opposition. I am, also, reasonably sure that in the unlikely event an extreme and vicious totalitarian government and many Christian Americans be willing to would fight and die opposing it.
My imperfect understanding of history is that pastors played an important role in the American Revolution. Obviously an example of the church being involved in politics. On the other hand, the church wasn’t politically involved in pre-war Germany and is criticized to this day for its anemic response to Nazism. I’m not convinced the church can avoid politics as the secular will encroach on the religious to the extent the church is in retreat.
BTW, Rdean. As to my unintelligible 3rd paragraph. What Eaton wrote.
MYNYM, this is not an issue of Platonic idealism or abstraction.
The case can easily be made, that seems to be why it comports well with the transcendent “otherworldiness” of some of the fundamentalists that you will tend to agree with. To the point that they fall into a pattern of belief in which the spiritual world of the Forms is better than and more important than the world that they live in they will agree with Platonists.
Also, most preachers and priests lack refined judgment of many matters of state.
Philosopher kings refined by their view of transcendence are those who should govern, after all.
Historically, given the fallen nature of men the involvement of religion in state affairs leads inevitably to the establishment of some branch of religion…
The issue is not whether religion or a pattern of beliefs will be involved but what religion will be involved, the Founders generally understood that. For example, Franklin argued for the necessity of a “publick religion” based on “primitive Christianity,” in other words a general pattern of belief drawn from Christianity. So he said, “Whoever shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world.” One can believe that while also arguing that highly specified forms of Christianity be disestablished, i.e. supporting the separation of church and State is not the separation of Christianity and State or all “religious” belief and State.
An interesting contrast, an apparently sarcastic comment here: “If the righteous lose, we will suffer a horrible fate, our country will be a godless Babylon.” as compared to what Franklin argued:
(America’s God and Country
by William J. Federer :246-249)
In prophetic language a metaphor for a perversion of wisdom and the wealth it brings is the Whore of Babylon that goes babbling on through language/civilization. It seems to me that it’s easy to say that you don’t care if Lady Liberty symbolically looks more and more like an ancient whore but less easy to actually live in a civilization which begins to try to bring “order out of chaos” by force and manipulation. Out of many one… such things call for the wisdom celebrated by Solomon in proverbs that calls her name in the square, symbolically speaking.
My imperfect understanding of history is that pastors played an important role in the American Revolution.
Alexis de Tocqueville said:
Some political scientists have gone so far as to note that early American attitudes towards the Christian religion focused so much on its utility with respect to civilization that it may have been that some believed it was useful, not actually true.
An interesting contrast:
Benjamin Franklin as cited in: (America’s God and Country
By William Federer :246)
Compared to:
(The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany
William L. Shirer
(Simon and Schuster) 1990 :240)
Another example, another Founder said:
–Samuel Adams
A sample of the culture of the Weimar Republic with its questionable questions:
(Androgyny, Spectatorship, and the Weimar Photomontages of Hannah Hoch
by Maud Lavin
New German Critique, No. 51,
Special Issue on Weimar Mass Culture (Autumn, 1990), :62-86)
At the same time it seems that a “general dissolution of principles and manners” began to undermine Liberty and Samuel Adams was proven correct, as the Founders often have been.
#37: it clearly falsifies Darwinian notions of evolution
Let me point out the list of new fields based on evolution I posted in #12. Many of them even have the word “evolution” in the description.
These are not made up courses being taught at universities (except for Bob Jones and other low ranked tier 4 Christian schools). Darwin died in 1882. Perhaps a bit of study is in order. Gee, I wonder how widespread the light bulb was in use when Darwin died? We’ve come a long way baby.
Wow MYNYM — you have really done some research there! I sometimes have a vague sense that we are just re-living many battles and issues that have been fought and dealt with before. We are all just the “children’s children’s children” of our ancestors, so why wouldn’t we have the same inclinations? I wish I had time to read more history.
I suspect that many conservative leaders and politicians are secretly not religious believers, but feel that religion is necessary to keep the peasants from running amok with pitchforks and flaming fagots.
In contemporary day, Karl Rove comes to mind. I am not some of the people cited in #44 escape that cynical conclusion.
Let me point out the list of new fields based on evolution I posted in #12. Many of them even have the word “evolution” in the description.
Given that the word evolution can be used to refer to an unfolding of events and is not the equivalent of atheism, it’s not apparent how you think it conflicts with Christianity. The theological arguments that Darwin used to justify treating his own imagination as evidence may conflict with or undermine Christianity, the notion of “change” does not. In fact, the notion of change relies on a point of transcendence by which to see it.
Perhaps a bit of study is in order.
Indeed, especially if you believe that citing the number of times scientists use a word is better than specifying it conceptually and citing facts, logic and evidence which verify its meaning.
The notion that the unspecified word usage and jargon of scientists is evidence with bearing on fundamental truths reminds me of Chesterton’s criticism of eugenicists:
(Eugenics and Other
Evils: An Argument
Against the Scientifically Organized Society
By G.K. Chesterton
(With Additional Articles by his
Eugenic and Birth Control Opponents
Edited by Michael W. Perry :19)
Similarly, it seems that all one need do is murmur the term evolution and you will believe that everything you only think that you are thinking thanks to natural selection is therefore verified.
Gee, I wonder how widespread the light bulb was in use when Darwin died? We’ve come a long way baby.
Actually the light bulb is a good historical example of how the scientific establishment stifles progress:
(Alternative Science: Challenging the Myths of the Scientific Establishment
by Richard Milton :19)
Gee, I wonder how widespread the light bulb was in use when Darwin died? We’ve come a long way baby.
Is one supposed to assume that Darwin had something to do with the light bulb simply because the creation myth that he imagined is progressive? Or is one supposed to assume that science inevitably leads to progress and include all the progress brought about by technology developed by creationists and those who believe in using intelligently designed technology to transcend Nature? Even half-witted naturalists have recognized that engineers tend to criticize the Darwinian way of imagining things, yet engineers who can’t rely on imagining things about Nature and instead have to actually implement things in Nature have more to do with “progress” than others.
Ironically, very little progress has been made in the minds of Darwinists:
(Darwin, the Indelible Stamp: Four Essential Volumes in One
Edited by James Watson)
That’s the same Watson recently condemned for racist claims. (I would provide a link but apparently it won’t post with it.) For despite the victory of Creator based views over naturalism those who believe in Nature based paganism in modern times still seem to tend back towards tribalism and Darwinism, for all their talk of progress. It’s ironic that those who self-define as “enlightened” tend to focus on intelligence without real knowledge of its nature. They have to be blind to the real nature of “intelligence” and sentience given their ridiculous attempts to reduce it to things like natural “selection,” yet then they also often assume it as the transcendent measure of all things. In the case Watson referred to, would Africans be better off with more communities of simple minded people trying to follow the teachings of Christ or highly intelligent warlords warring with each other, struggling over resources with only the fit surviving? There are too many layers of metaphoric idiocy to go through in a mind like Watson’s. I’d agree with him that Darwinism does shape his random brain events, which leaves his metaphoric Mommy Nature to select his thoughts through natural selection.
Let me point out the list of new fields based on evolution I posted in #12. Many of them even have the word “evolution” in the description.
Given that the word evolution can be used to refer to an unfolding of events and is not the equivalent of atheism, it’s not apparent how you think it conflicts with Christianity. The theological arguments that Darwin used to justify treating his own imagination as evidence may conflict with or undermine Christianity, the notion of “change” does not. In fact, the notion of change relies on a point of transcendence by which to see it.
Perhaps a bit of study is in order.
Indeed, especially if you believe that citing the number of times scientists use a word is better than specifying it conceptually and citing facts, logic and evidence which verify its meaning.
The notion that the unspecified word usage and jargon of scientists is evidence with bearing on fundamental truths reminds me of Chesterton’s criticism of eugenicists:
(Eugenics and Other
Evils: An Argument
Against the Scientifically Organized Society
By G.K. Chesterton
(With Additional Articles by his
Eugenic and Birth Control Opponents
Edited by Michael W. Perry :19)
Similarly, it seems that all one need do is murmur the term evolution and you will believe that everything you only think that you are thinking thanks to natural selection is therefore verified.
Gee, I wonder how widespread the light bulb was in use when Darwin died? We’ve come a long way baby.
Actually the light bulb is a good historical example of how the scientific establishment stifles progress:
(Alternative Science: Challenging the Myths of the Scientific Establishment
by Richard Milton :19)
Gee, I wonder how widespread the light bulb was in use when Darwin died? We’ve come a long way baby.
No thanks to the charlatanism that often takes place in peer reviewed circles, etc.
Is one supposed to assume that science inevitably leads to progress and include all the progress having to do with technology developed by creationists, theists, ID types and those who believe in using intelligently designed technology to transcend Nature? Even half-witted naturalists have recognized that engineers are those who tend to criticize the Darwinian way of imagining things, note that engineers can’t rely on imagining things about Nature and instead have to actually implement things in Nature have more to do with “progress” than others.
Ironically, very little progress has been made in the minds of Darwinists:
(Darwin, the Indelible Stamp: Four Essential Volumes in One
Edited by James Watson)
That’s the same Watson recently condemned for racist claims. For despite the victory of Creator based views over naturalism those who believe in Nature based paganism in modern times still seem to tend back towards tribalism and Darwinism, for all their talk of progress. It’s ironic that those who self-define as “enlightened” tend to focus on intelligence without real knowledge of its nature. They have to be blind to the real nature of “intelligence” and sentience given their ridiculous attempts to reduce it to things like natural “selection,” yet then they also often assume it as the transcendent measure of all things. In the case Watson referred to, would Africans be better off with more communities of simple minded people trying to follow the teachings of Christ or highly intelligent warlords warring with each other, struggling over resources with only the fit surviving?
Random Name, you suspect???
What you actually mean is that you “judge” nameless people as if you know their deepest motives. Actually, you just could not even keep your crystal ball judgmentalism nameless. You harshly judge the deepest motives of a man with whom you disagree but have never even met.
Random, your suspicions betray only your own mindset. Why can’t you just speak for yourself rather than try to presumptively gaze into the very hearts of people you don’t know at all?
Your judgmental comment above runs rather smoothly with much of the partisan poison that polarizes public discourse today.
Did you like my alliteration?
MYNYM: Are you a cyborg?
By the way, unlike many fellow conservatives, I have NEVER judged President Clinton for going to church carrying a Bible during the Lewinski scandals. Nor have I sought to judge or presume his motives. I always stuck only with the actual facts and issues and that was far more than enough to advocate reasonably for his impeachment and resignation or removal from his high office of public trust.
mynym post 37,
I have always used evolution in the strict scientifc sense:
the descent of all organisms from a common ancestor with mutations being selected for by natural selection.
And again the demographic denominational majority of Christians do not interpret the Bible in a strict-interpretationalist sense. As such there need not be a conflict between the Bible and evolution for the demographic denominational majority of Christians.
I truly enjoy your semantic effort here, however,
mynym post 37,
but your comments here:
“Collins has presented an evangelical Christian approach to understanding and accepting evoluton which is fully consistent with the scientific model
That’s always been the case, fundamentalists and evangelicals have always believed that evolution comports with Christianity. That’s because much of it does.
all YEC who have posted in this blog have eventually in some form or another finally admitted that thier position is based on Genesis 1 and is not science
The truth is more important than science, as the history of science shows those who view science as a way to a total view of the truth fall into patterns of scientism soon to be followed by socialism, eugenics, totalitarianism, etc. Science itself tends to prove that it is an incomplete view of the truth. ”
Would appear to be disingenuous.
Collins, as has been quoted in this bg many times is an evangelical Christian who:
1) accepts an old earth
2) accepts traditional evolution as the model for the development of the complex variety of organism
As I read your post it would appear that your are distorting Collins’ position.
You might want to read Colins’ “The Language of God” to get his take on tbis issue.
And yes every YEC, based on your comnets including yourself, eventually uses Genesis to justify their belief in a young earth and their presonal interpretation of creationism. The point to note is that a basing this belief on Genesis rather than the scientific process is by defintion not scientific.
Based on discussions so far, it does not appear that one can believe in a Genesis based YEC AND accept the scientific model.
mynym post 37,
you stated:
“To all but the hard core rear guard forces, the evolution war is effectively over.
It seems that you believe in the grand myth of Progress and therefore simply imagine history that way without bothering to look at actual historical evidence. That’s typically the Darwinian way, the myth of Progress is fused to the creation myth and therefore anyone who questions the creation myth is against progress and so on. At any rate, what you imagine to be so based on Darwinian thinking does not comport with historical and empirical evidence.”
No, I base my understanding of the objectvie world based on evidence. Progress as a concept is an interesting one which I have not raised: what do you mean by progress?
I suggest that the battle is over except for the hard core read guard forces because:
1) the hard core YEC group is dwindling
2) the objective evidence for evolution is increasing every day. There are some interesting questions in evolution: as I have noted many times before, whether it happens is not one of them
3) the real challenge to the YEC mode was and increasingly appears to again be in astrophysics. The most recent discoveries of the devleopmental path of the universe and the size of the universe would appear to be at the point of providing a serious challenge to traditional creationist conclusions
But it will be fun to continue mynym.
So:
1) do you seriously suggest that the world is 10,000 years or less old
- based on what evidence
2) do you seriously suggest that evolution (descent of the complex life forms from a common ancestor through mutations undergoing natural selection) does not occur?
- what is your evidence?
And your thoughts here?
#49: especially if you believe that citing the number of times scientists use a word is better than specifying it conceptually and citing facts, logic and evidence which verify its meaning.
Many of the discritiptions are self evident. Those I didn’t bother looking up. Others I looked up just because they had such unusual titles:
For instance: endosymbiosis hypothesis
The transition between eukaryotes, cells with nuclei, and prokaryotes, cells which lack nuclei, is considered by many biologists to be the most profound change in evolutionary history. In an attempt to describe the way in which this gap was bridged, scientists have proposed the serial endosymbiosis theory (SET). The term “endosymbiosis” specifies the relationship between organisms which live one within another (symbiont within host) in a mutually beneficial relationship. The SET states that the evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotes involved the symbiotic union of several previously independent ancestors. According to the theory, these ancestors included a host cell, an ancestor of mitochondria, an ancestor of chloroplasts, and, more controversially, a prokaryote that brought with it the structures that today provide cellular motion.
I’m not a biologist, but I bet another biologist could make sense of this.
I suspect a botanist would be more interested in this:
ecotypic evolution
(From a paper by a “junior professor)
My interests are in evolutionary ecology and evolutionary genetics, and most of my research is conducted in natural plant populations. I have a strong ecological focus to my research, as I am interested in mechanisms of natural selection and ecotypic differentiation in variable environments. My research addresses the evolution of phenotypic plasticity, dispersal, dormancy, and parental effects. Studying the evolution of these complex characters is intriguing since it requires investigating different levels of selection in variable environments, and it requires consideration of the coevolution of suites of traits, some of which influence fitness in more than one generation. My interest in dispersal and dormancy, moreover, extends to their influence on population demography, population genetic structure, and the manner in which they determine the selective environment experienced by an organism. I have conducted fieldwork in the lakeshore dunes of Michigan and Indiana, forests and sand plains of New England, wadis of Yemen, and old fields of Kentucky.
The point I was making was that Darwin may have had the “profound” insight, but compared to where scientists are today, they were baby steps. To ridicule science is a joke. That is why scientists don’t bother with the IDers. They don’t have time to laugh at clowns. They are busy with something “serious”.
rdean post 56,
an excellent post.
It would appear as I observe the posts that among certain posters there is a simplistic perspective on the kinds of mutation and evolution which did and can occur. Many seem to be fixated on sngle point mutations, even forgetting that in many cases there are two chromosomes.
The reality is, as you are suggesting, much more complex with any number of large payload genetic information transfers plausibly occurring. And these large payload transfers are not always limited by the simplistic advances possible with single point mutations.
Thanks for posting this informtion!
Sorry to bust in here, but I just now got around to reading this thread. I want to chime in on the earlier politics/religion discussion.
I agree with drill.
It is our duty to be involved with the political process. I’d even argue that it is acceptable for Christians to engage in partisan politics.
Example: If you believe that God blesses those who make godly decisions, and withhold blessings from those who don’t,
(on a national,state, community, or personal level) then wouldn’t it make sense to actively promote the political philosophy that you believe will bring about those blessings?
I don’t propose a theocratic fascist style form of governance, but doesn’t it make sense to shift the ability to make those moral decisions back to the state and local level? Luckily our system is set up so the market in conjunction with the bill of rights ensures that no one will be left out, and no religious endorsement or repudiation can legally occur.
Political philosopy plays a big role in how much influence you have on your community’s standard of morality.
That said…Politicians shouldn’t be allowed to make speeches during church services, like those candidates in a certain party tend to do so often.
The perfect mixture of religion and politics can be summarized in the following sentnece:
Jesus told the fishermen to cast their nets on the right side of the boat.
Coincidence?..I think not!
Roger Williams served as governor of the Rhode Island colony.
He was optimistic that people could be reasonable.
I think he was disappointed.
I am not running for President. If drafted, my first acts in office will be to pardon myself, and then resign.
(The main offense to pardon myself for will be for telling the same old jokes over and over again.)
#50
I have been accused at times of being “condescending.” I don’t think of myself as being such, but I figure if there is so much smoke, there probably is some fire burning. So probably I am.
However, I am usually willing to acknowledge a true master at work; in this case, Joel Mark.
I have heard hints on this web site that Joel has ties to the White House? Is this true? (I am not suspecting anything; I am asking. Sometimes a question is just a question.)
Karl Rove has been described as a master political operative. Various “dirty tricks” have been ascribed to him. I don’t know him personally. I don’t know what he believes or what his values are. So my suspicions are just that–suspicions–my wondering is just that–wondering.
The current Republican administration wraps itself in a mantle of religious values. In practice, its behavior strikes me as manipulative and cynical, including its treatment of its so-called “base” of religious conservatives.
My suspicion, not an accusation, is that Karl Rove has been the mastermind behind much of the political maneuvering of this administration. This suspicion makes me wonder–would a person who acts in this way continue to be a sincere religious person, or a cynical operator who holds the “base” in some contempt.
I really don’t know the answer, but it seems like an obvious (and reasonable) question to me.
My suspicion is that Joel Mark has not let a doubt enter his mind for at least a decade. My other suspicion is that Joel Mark will die a bitter, disillusioned old man.
If I turn out to be wrong in this regard, I can deal with it.
Random
Either you haven’t read all of Joel Marks posts, or you are trying to get something started. Either way, you aren’t correct. Joel Mark doesn’t deserve your condemnation, nor does he deserve the accusations which you have hurled his way.
Whatever your reason for this OUTBURST, I hope you calm down, it isn’t appropriate.
Victoria:
1) Read Joel’s post to me.
2) Please direct me to a post where Joel Mark expresses any doubt about anything. I will read it with interest.
As far as I can tell both you and Joel believe you are in touch with God and receive word through his book, which both of you believe you know how to interpret correctly, as opposed to the other people here who also believe the same thing, though at times they interpret the word of God differently. (I don’t believe in God; but if I did, I would believe he would get a good deal of amusement out of these arguments.)
3) Just for the heck of it (especially, as I don’t believe I will get a serious answer from Joel), how about if you answer my question, which is a serious one, and which I have posted at least four times on worldmagblog.
(I did once get a serious answer from NJLAWYER, which came perilously close to my “supposing”.)
a) Is Karl Rove a serious Christian?
b) Is being a serious Christian compatible with the cynical manipulation of the voting public (including the conservative Christian “base”) compatible with being a serious Christian.
You may include a Bible verse or two in your answer, but I would like a serious “mundane world” answer as well.
This is not an “Outburst” but a serious question. (I really think the word “outburst” is one you ought to keep packed in your portmanteau.)
#47, Randon Name questioned the sincerity of “many conservative leaders and politicians.”
Is this because Randon Name does not have a case to make against conservatives on the issues? If all he has is to gaze into their hearts and question their sincerity of faith, that’s really weak.
What good is there in “suspecting” that people we dco not even know are secretly not religious believers? I don’t even know if Karl Rove claims to be a religious believer, let alone whether he is faking it.
Random Name is being judgmental toward people he does not like AND whom he does not even know. That’s really weak.
Judging the deep inner motives of people you don’t even know is no way to have an intelligent discussion on a blog like this.
I neither question nor do I claim that Karl Rove is a “serious Christian.” That’s between him and God and between him and those who know him.
Victoria, thanks for your kind comments.
Victoria wrote to Random; “Either you haven’t read all of Joel Marks posts, or you are trying to get something started.”
Maybe it’s both, Victoria.
Random
Joel Mark doesn’t doubt what he believes about the Bible, and that would include other Believers on this blog, and you can include me in that group as well. Judging Joel isn’t your problem, its your distain for his beliefs that comes between you and the TRUTH which God has given freely to all men, if they desire it and seek to know HIM. Christ offers Salvation to every man, but man must seek Him.
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Revelation 3:20
The Bible is my source, God’s Word is a light unto my path. I believe the Word of God with all my heart. I can only speak for myself, and I believe that Joel and many others believe that God’s Word is infallible.
I am not acquainted with Karl Rove in such a way as to answer this question fairly, I cannot comment on his walk with the LORD.
Being a COMMITTED Christian is all important, my walk with Jesus Christ as He would have me walk with Him is my desire. My life doesn’t need to be compatible with anyone except the LORD, I don’t answer to anyone except Him, then my husband.
I recently cited Einstein’s comment that insanity is doing the same thing over and over an expecting different results.
I don’t know what result Joel and Victoria expect to produce in me by repeating the same criticisms of me for being skeptical of Karl Rove, of wondering whether there is a disconnect between his supposed Christian beliefs and supposed cynical actions.
I don’t know what effect Victoria believes she is going to produce by quoting Bible verses and reaffirming her religious beliefs over and over to people who don’t share them.
Perhaps Joel and Victoria are playing to their audience, which frequently applauds them. Perhaps they are reassuring themselves, against a few doubts that may be lapping feebly against their doubts.
I am mostly amusing myself. As I realize this is a less than particularly constructive activity, I have set a deadline to get my butt out of here for at least six months. I will donate the money I promised to donate in honor of the winners of my contest. I will by my aunt a new computer and new printer and help her sell her calendars (which all contain decent pictures). I may sell some flash drives with “Jesus Saves” on them even though TJ doesn’t approve, perhaps to Christians, perhaps to sarcastic atheists.
I will spend time with my family, and help raise my granddaughter to be a decent, ethical atheist.
I will encourage her to love her two mommies, and her sperm donor dad whom she knows and who plays a role in her life like an uncle. I know this may not be the ideal family structure in the world, but there are a lot of worse examples.
I will make out my will. I will test out (on paper first) the investment ideas llama considers so wonderful so maybe there will be a little more money for the will to dispose of. I don’t believe in spoiling children with great bequests, but my daughter is not in great danger in that regard.
I will cultivate our garden in the woods. I will become more active in our local organic farming group. I will work locally and think globally (but not too much, as when I think too hard, my brains run out my ears and drip onto blogs).
Some of the evangelical Christians reading this should also spend less time posting messages (even if Scriptural) on blogs and more time enriching the lives of their families and their fellow church members.
On second thought…
#64: I believe the Word of God with all my heart.
That’s great. Will share it with the rest of us.
But please, don’t point to the Bible. That was written by people. Please do research on the history of who wrote the Bible and see what conclusion you come to. If you still feel people, for whatever reason were inspired, fine, but even then, it’s ok to have your own thoughts. God would not disaprove. Proof? If you believe that God made us, then he also gave us free will and the ability to think for ourselves. There is not requirement to follow the exact words of primative people dead thousands of years. We can be better than that.
RDEAN - 66
There is no reason why I shouldn’t….. I believe what the Bible says -
Not long ago, I wondered why people continue to post on worldmagblog when their words do not change the minds of others. The people who answered had fairly sensible answers because they were the people who generally post fairly sensibly anyway. These were Christians; there are a number of fairly sensible Christians.
The people I am really interested in didn’t bother to post an answer. So, this week I will take my job as a pest more seriously and pester people.
I will start with you, Victoria. No matter how many posts you make stating that you believe what the Bible says, no one (on worldmagblog) who doesn’t believe what the Bible says seems to change his or her mind? Why do you continue to post when it has no effect?
I will ask this of everybody who argues with me here, so prepare your answer. This is an open book exam, so you can quote the Bible if you want.
_______________________________________
The TROLL - all the boring attempts at nothing -
_______________________________________
RDEAN: “I’m not a biologist, but I bet another biologist could make sense of this.”
So you’re convinced of “evolution” even though you don’t even understand what it is. Perhaps if you could understand the difference between empirical evidence and imagining things then you wouldn’t use the term evolution as a pollution of language leading to a proto-Nazi form of “biological thinking” in which the nature of language itself is denied. For instance:
(The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the
Psychology of Genocide
by Robert Jay Lifton :129) (Emphasis added)
Also noted here:
(Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in
Germany’s Crimes Against the Jewish People
by Max Weinreich
(New York:The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) :33)
Note that G.K. Chesterton’s criticism of eugenicists applies equally well to you given how easily you are taken in by a bit of scientific charlatanism. You don’t understand what biologists are saying in the least and yet you’re so thoroughly convinced that no one may question them! Note that it’s not as if eugenics is now history given that biologists like Dawkins still fall into biological thinking:
The problem is that Hitler is not some character who just happened along divorced from the eugenics movement, instead the intellectual elite that he presided over was the product of it.
In contrast to a philosophy of naturalism which leads to futile attempts at “biological thinking” what is found at the root of Life are telic thoughts, telic language and clear symbolism of teleology:
(There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
by Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese :127-129)
Ironically, all of the biological artifacts of coding/language that biologists imagine things about are apparently defined by something outside a Nature based/pagan attitude to imagery, i.e. a spirit/meaning to things. Note that the creationist Werner Gitt already specified some fundamental distinctions having to do with information/codes, see: (In the Beginning Was Information by Werner Gitt)
That is why scientists don’t bother with the IDers.
That’s ignorant. Perhaps you don’t bother to read the texts of IDists or anyone else critical of the hypothetical goo typical to the term “evolution” and that results in your rather limited perspective on it.
No, I base my understanding of the objectvie world based on evidence. Progress as a concept is an interesting one which I have not raised…
You raise it when you say that creationists are dwindling away without citing any evidence that is actually so. It has always been the Darwinian way, to simply imagine what seems like a “natural” progression and then claim your own imagination as evidence that it is so. Darwinian thinking: “If I couldn’t imagine a sequence of events that seem like a natural progression to me then my theory would absolutely break down. See how I can always imagine something?! My own imagination seems overwhelming to me!” To those adhere to “evolution” as a metaphysical system which explains progress and so on it seems that it is the be all, end all, which makes the term itself an “evolving” form of equivocation. When evolution is that sort of be all, end all to a person it doesn’t really make sense to try to reason with such a mind until it admits to the true nature of language itself. If it cannot then its own words and symbols and signs aren’t an artifact of intelligence by intelligent design, instead the words of such a brain trace back to natural selection operating on some worms. A mind of the synaptic “gaps” which believes that may as well be excrement and one may as well try to reason with worms as with it.
1) the hard core YEC group is dwindling
It may be, or you may be citing imaginary evidence based on a mythology of Progress again.
There are some interesting questions in evolution: as I have noted many times before, whether it happens is not one of them.
Of course not given that the term has been made into an equivocation that encompasses all change and therefore all possible empirical observations.
…the real challenge to the YEC mode was and increasingly appears to again be in astrophysics.
It’s important to note that all theories are a provisional and contingent form of knowledge. Most of the knowledge that you’re referring to relies on a philosophy of uniformitarianism and uniformity in which natural processes occurred in the past just as they do now and so on. Yet even granting some assumptions which may make about as much sense as setting down an hourglass in a room full of toddlers and assuming that the sand will pass through at a steady rate people may still tend to reject “knowledge”/scientia gained on their own terms. For instance:
(Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe
by Simon Singh :361-62)
As Robert Jastrow notes:
(God and the Astronomers, by Rober Jastrow :9-10, 14)
In other words, those who set about looking for immanence and naturalism have found transcendence instead even when they set the terms to deny that possibility a priori.
At any rate if you are stupid enough to believe in Darwinism then your insignificant brain events can have no transcendent significance and your words have more to do with natural selection operating on the penises of ancient primates than any form of intelligent selection.
There is not requirement to follow the exact words of primative people dead thousands of years. We can be better than that.
We’ll ignore the blindingly obvious chronological snobbery and point out the puerile phrasing of your challenge: Victoria does not believe the words of people, primitive or otherwise; if the Bible was merely the words of people it would be about as useful as the Gospel of Thomas. The Bible is the word of God as revealed to people. That makes all the difference.
And no, that claim cannot be empirically proven (as if the empirically verifiable was all that existed); it is an article of faith, but of reasoned faith - not a blind acceptance.
As Antony Flew notes:
(There is a God: How the
World’s Most Notorious
Atheist Changed His Mind
by Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese :137)
It’s interesting how those who have not only excluded Genesis as a form of evidence but who also seem to reject it in the visceral way that the Nazis did as if it is contaminated with something evil and so on, still have to admit to much of it even given their own terms.
…do you seriously suggest that evolution (descent of the complex life forms from a common ancestor through mutations undergoing natural selection) does not occur?
- what is your evidence?
So far you’ve only cited the imaginary evidence typical to Darwinism, yet if it is all so overwhelming and so on then empirical evidence should be easy to cite. It’s not up to me to show that something does not occur if it hasn’t been shown to occur in the first place.
What is known is that millions of embryos unfold/”evolve” in specified ways based on “codes” and information as if they are programmed not to lack the specificity typical of species:
(Why is a Fly not a Horse?
by Giuseppe Sermonti :33-35)
But please, don’t point to the Bible. That was written by people.
Your words are written by you and are only significant to the point that you claim some form of transcendence. Note that given what passes for Darwinian reasoning about “evolution” these days and the limited intellects that seem to be taken in by it, your “random” brain events haven’t actually said anything here.
Boy, that was a lot of stuff.
#70: Perhaps if you could understand the difference between empirical evidence and imagining things then you wouldn’t use the term evolution as a pollution of language leading to a proto-Nazi form of “biological thinking” in which the nature of language itself is denied.
OK, I believe you. You know less about biology than I do.
#70: The problem is that Hitler is not some character who just happened along divorced from the eugenics movement, instead the intellectual elite that he presided over was the product of it.
Are you saying Hitler was a biologist?
Carl Woese belives in evolution.
mynym post 75,
that you cold note:
“It’s interesting how those who have not only excluded Genesis as a form of evidence”
implying that Genesis is objective scientific evidence shows:
1) the lack on your part of a rigorous model of objective
2) your lack of understanidng of science
In short, you do seem to suffer from a magic oriented philosophy.
One can make the following statemnt with reasonable assurance:
The objective world is defined by and understood scientifically by observation not a religious text. Every time one introduces Genesis one also by defintion is removing oneself from the scientific argument.
Are you saying Hitler was a biologist?
I’m saying that you’re easily taken in by pseudo-scientia/knowledge and the notion of scientific consensus, therefore if you had lived in Germany when German biologists were preaching the scientific racism of their day you would have supported it based on little more than the “overwhelming numbers” typical to scientific consensus. It takes a severely limited intellect to point to scientific consensus as if it is the equivalent of facts, logic and evidence, yet apparently you’re up to the task.
implying that Genesis is objective scientific evidence shows…
I didn’t say that Genesis is scientific evidence. Apparently you believe that science can answer all questions, ironically that would only show that your grasp of science is poor given that science itself speaks to its limitations.
The objective world is defined by and understood scientifically by observation not a religious text.
Your scientism isn’t born out by science itself. For example, note that the conceptual language of mathematics and geometry on which much of science rests speaks to its own limitations in a systematic way:
mynym post 82,
your statement:
“I didn’t say that Genesis is scientific evidence. Apparently you believe that science can answer all questions, ironically that would only show that your grasp of science is poor given that science itself speaks to its limitations.”
But of course that is not what I said. What I did say is that science answers scientific questions about the objective world. This is a definitional tautology, so if you do not accept this it would appear we need to work through definitions carefully.
You also stated:
“Your lack of awareness of the limitations of science that science itself speaks to and lack of focus on pursuing true and total forms of knowledge indicate why you believe in pseudo-science.”
but you never seem to have developed what you mean by the lmitations of science.
In my development I always note that science is able to answer scientific questons, but does very poorly as a tool for philosophical or religious questions. I have also presented a number of cases where science clearly states objectvie world questions which it can not answer.
Your statement:
“For instance, note that if a people incorporated a historical event in their mythology (Perhaps by saying that “gods” came from across the seas born on creatures with huge white wings and a god gave them the gift of agriculture and so on and so forth.) then you’d have us deny it as a matter of principle simply because it was incorporated in a culture’s folklore.”
is clearly not true. If objective evidence were made available to demonstrate this point, then the presence in the religioous text would neither negate nor prove the point.
You appear tobe highly overgeneralizing.
You also appear to be working without a solid definition of:
1) what is meant by the objective world
2) what is meant by science
3) what is meant by objective evidence
We can pursue these questions if you like, although I have posted this material multiple times in this blog.
The key point is that science is based opn observations of the objective world which can be replicated.
Genesis is not in and of itself observations of the objective world. Genesis is a religious book written, as best we can tell, between perhaps 800 BCE and 450 BCE or so (typically credited with the appearance of Ezra at the second temple). As such it is not a science or math book.
For reasons we can discuss, for its earlier reports it does not even appear to be a history book.
But of course that is not what I said.
Apparently you are now down to arguing about not saying something about something I didn’t say about Genesis, apparently because you have nothing to say with respect to the pursuit of truth and instead wish to invent some rule by which the pursuit of truth as such is excluded.
What I did say is that science answers scientific questions about the objective world.
Then much of evolutionary theory is not science because it purports to explain subjective experiences and questions.
In my development I always note that science is able to answer scientific questons, but does very poorly as a tool for philosophical or religious questions.
You clearly believe in that Darwinian creation myth that is based on the mythological narratives of naturalism thought to be derived from a form of “science” based on philosophic or methodological naturalism, therefore your view of science is not limited to facts, logic and empirical evidence. You approve of the hypothetical goo typical to Darwinism which is based on nothing but citing one’s own imagination as if it is the equivalent of empirical evidence or the theory of gravity, etc. For example: “The SET states that the evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotes involved the [imaginary] symbiotic union of several previously independent ancestors. According to [our way of imagining things], these ancestors included a host cell, an [imaginary] ancestor of mitochondria, an [imaginary] ancestor of chloroplasts, and, more [imaginary], a prokaryote that brought with it the structures that today provide cellular motion.
If objective evidence were made available to demonstrate this point, then the presence in the religioous text would neither negate nor prove the point.
The religious text would be a form of evidence consonant with that type of evidence but history shows that a harmony between different forms of evidence would tend to be denied for that very reason. For example:
(Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing
Refereed Journals by Frank Tipler :124)
Genesis is not in and of itself observations of the objective world.
Neither is anything you write here, whatever it is you think that the excretions of your random brain events in your text means, it may as well be excrement if philosophic naturalism is true.
At any rate, why should the Genesis somehow be “purely” objective? As the most objective and geometric language we have, mathematical logic speaks to and refutes the modernist myth of perfect objectivity, as subjects our knowledge of the world will always be subjective. Yet in postmodernist times most of us could stand to be much more objective and aware of a divine Logos that pervades all logic, all the ratios of rationality, all cause and effect and therefore laws and justice, etc.
As Galileo said, “The holy Bible and the phenomena of nature proceed alike from the divine Word.” and he also noted that, “The laws of Nature are written in the language of mathematics.” And what does mathematics do but make invisible realities visible? Kepler, Galileo and many modern scientists believe that they are studying the Mind of God through the language of mathematics, a view that is not “proven” by but is consonant with the Bible being of the same type of Word: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” –Paul, emphasis added
Note that to those with a Nature based/pagan urge to merge the notion that invisible realities can be clearly seen makes as much sense as claiming that unicorns, etc., exist and can be “seen.” Yet no sooner have they made typical atheistic arguments associating invisible realities with childish imagination than they fly off on flights of imagination about chimeric ancient ancestors or carve a graven image which seeks to symbolically blur known forms and so on and so forth.
mynym post 84,
so you stated:
“What I did say is that science answers scientific questions about the objective world.
Then much of evolutionary theory is not science because it purports to explain subjective experiences and questions.”
Now I and others have posted numerous times that evolution describes the process of the organisms of this world being descended from a common ancestor through mutations acted upon by selective pressures.
I suggest that there are no subjective issues in this defintion of evolution as posed.
Since you say that evolution discusses subjective issues, then it would appear that you do not have an undertsanidng of the typical scinetific defintion of evolution.
And again it would appear that you are not well grounded in your defintions here.
It would seem we also need a deep discussion on the objective and what is meant by objective evidence.
One thing that seems quite clear is that you do not appear to have a sense of science in the context in whcih science is typicaly defined.
And when you state:
“Genesis is not in and of itself observations of the objective world.
Neither is anything you write here, whatever it is you think that the excretions of your random brain events in your text means, it may as well be excrement if philosophic naturalism is true. ”
it clearly suggests that you are confounding ones intuition and beliefs with objective evidence. In general I post references to objective evidence which others can read and, if they choose to make the effort, can themselves in principal reproduce.
It is the reproduceability of the observation by independent individuals which, I suggest, is key to the concept of objective evidence and its difference from subjective beliefs.
And since you sem to have concluded issues about my religious beliefs from my scientific perspective in your comment:
“Note that to those with a Nature based/pagan urge to merge the notion that invisible realities can be clearly seen makes as much sense as claiming that unicorns, etc., exist and can be “seen.””
I will merely note that I believe in God and am a Christian. I also suggest that there is a significant and important difference between beliefs and opbjective evidence which does not seem to be captured in any of your posts.
I suggest that there are no subjective issues in this defintion of evolution as posed.
I suggest that almost every organism has some form of subjective experience which are united with and impact the very things that you purport to explain on a “pure” objective basis:
(Scientific Outlook: Its Sickness and Cure
by Michael Polanyi
Science New Series, Vol. 125, No. 3246 (Mar., 1957), pp. 482)
The same point can be made in many ways because your “pure”/modernist ideas about objectivity/”scientificality” excluding subjectivity are clearly false, therefore they ought to be rejected even if that means moving on to the next mistake like postmodernism. Given the nature of subjective experience we ought to begin with our own and simply admit to it, we know as a basic reality of experience that we are sentient beings that can process language, learn and make selections. Even someone as “objectively” mentally incompetent and lacking awareness about awareness itself like Richard Dawkins admits to the basic facts of our own experience when he argues that we ought to make selections against natural “selection” as if we should be aware of it. Yet when he admits that then one has to wonder how far back have higher organisms been capable of making selections against natural selection and wonder at how that capacity would undermine all the inane mythological narratives of naturalism that Dawkins and you apparently believe.
I also suggest that there is a significant and important difference between beliefs and opbjective evidence which does not seem to be captured in any of your posts.
Then give an example, it seems that you talk about evidence more than you actually cite or provide any. I haven’t denied significant and important differences, only the way that you twist generally complementary and consonant differences into a lack of concern with the truth of things to the point that one might insist that one ought to hold to something “scientific” even when it’s not actually true. If one takes a limited and highly defined view of science then science cannot also be expanded into an explanation for the whole Cosmos, every change that takes place in it or a grand creation myth of progress suitable to socialists and progressives. As Polanyi notes of biology, if a more limited view of science is taken there then much of Bios/life cannot actually be studied at all.
I’m not checking message here anymore. If you have more to discuss or comment on enter mynym in Google.
Genesis is not in and of itself observations of the objective world. Genesis is a religious book written, as best we can tell, between perhaps 800 BCE and 450 BCE or so (typically credited with the appearance of Ezra at the second temple). As such it is not a science or math book.
Silly statements like that don’t lend credit to your arguments - the JEDP source theory is worn out and discredited.
DR post 88,
well first my observations on the date of writing the Torah do not depend on the JEDP hypothesis.
Further, if you assert that the JEDP hypothesis is worn out, I assume you are prepared to provide objective data to support your statement.
I have already posted a JP separation of the Genesis account on this blog based on the King James Version of the text. When decomposed as provided, it would appear on reading to resolve some of the textual issues which get raised at intervals regarding the flood narrative.
So at least in this case a JP decomposition appears explanatory for the flood narrative.
Your evidence that the Torah was not written by multiple authors?
I also note that you did not address my comment that Genesis is not a science of math book, so I assume you agree on this point.