Creation vs. Evolution

[photohikedive]

here is an interesting interpretation by Mark Twain,

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainlfe.htm

an excerpt.....

This is a strange place, and extraordinary place, and interesting. There is nothing resembling it at home. The people are all insane, the other animals are all insane, the earth is insane, Nature itself is insane. Man is a marvelous curiosity. When he is at his very very best he is a sort of low grade nickel-plated angel; at is worst he is unspeakable, unimaginable; and first and last and all the time he is a sarcasm. Yet he blandly and in all sincerity calls himself the "noblest work of God." This is the truth I am telling you. And this is not a new idea with him, he has talked it through all the ages, and believed it. Believed it, and found nobody among all his race to laugh at it.

Moreover -- if I may put another strain upon you -- he thinks he is the Creator's pet. He believes the Creator is proud of him; he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes, and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to Him, and thinks He listens. Isn't it a quaint idea? Fills his prayers with crude and bald and florid flatteries of Him, and thinks He sits and purrs over these extravagancies and enjoys them. He prays for help, and favor, and protection, every day; and does it with hopefulness and confidence, too, although no prayer of his has ever been answered. The daily affront, the daily defeat, do not discourage him, he goes on praying just the same. There is something almost fine about this perseverance. I must put one more strain upon you: he thinks he is going to heaven!

He has salaried teachers who tell him that. They also tell him there is a hell, of everlasting fire, and that he will go to it if he doesn't keep the Commandments. What are Commandments? They are a curiosity. I will tell you about them by and by.

 

[MikeFerrara]

I've thought about that post I made all day Mike and I hoped I hadn't offended you. I respect your beliefs and do not mean to ridicule them.

Not to worry.

What kept popping into my mind was, how did Abraham know it was God talking to him? Would anyone today know God or Jesus if they tried to get a message to one of us in the same manner? That's why I am so taken aback by the fact that a man would have murdered his own son based on what he believed God told him, even though he trusted Him that everything was going to turn out OK. Imagine if a man did that today. He'd be locked up, and rightfully so.

I can onlly offer a little insight because I have never heard the voice of God. However, this was not the first time that Abraham had heard God. Abraham had already packed up, picked up and moved away from all and everyone that he knew because God had told him to. God had also promised him a son and delivered.

If it happened today, how would we know that it was God? We hear people say, they were called to do a thing. People pray for guidance and get answers though it's through the heart and the word of God and not from a burning bush, pilar of fire or a loud voice out of the clouds. How do they know they are listening to God and not themselves or even something evil? Today we have the benifit of the full scriptures. If the answer we get is inconsistant with scripture, we know it isn't from God.

And as awap said, which occured to me today also, is this mentality any different than that of the suicide bombers in the Middle East?

I don't know a lot about the motivation of the suicide bombers but one obvious difference is that God didn't allow Abraham to harm his son. Lets face it though, if God wants you to do something, you are going to do it. You can argue but you aren't going to win. More of the answer can be found in the very nature of God. He has given us enough that we know quit a few important things about Him some of which are that he is all knowing, all powerful, all loving and His wisdom and justice is perfect. Therefore he isn't going to have you do something that's wrong and if He wants it done, it must be right. Either way, if you and He have a difference of opinion He wins because he is way bigger.

 

[mistressmotorsports]

Last year I heard an interesting sermon. I'm not versed enough in the exact history of Abraham, but the general idea was that the test of Abraham was not whether he would kill his son. Instead, the test was more personal and internal, whether Abraham could continue as a person in the face of horrible adversity. The rabbi giving the sermon was convinced that God did not and would not tell Abraham to kill his son, but that Abraham had some "issues" (mental ones or otherwise) that caused him to think this. Apparently, according to the sermon, after this episode, his family doesn't speak to him again, other bad things happen - that's the part I don't exactly remember- and he winds up alone. Some would give up and live permanently depressed or worse. But Abraham was able to pull himself back up, get a new wife, new life, new family, etc. This idea was part of a bigger topic regarding how people just 200 years ago couldn't conceive of a world without God. Lacking knowledge of bacteria, tectonic plates, etc., the only rational method of describing events was through the divine. However, as we begin to slowly uncover the mysteries of science, it is now easy to envision a world without God. This is not an argument for or against the existance of God in some form or another, just that the world can be perceived as possible without God. Not really sure what this adds to the discussion, but I found it interesting and thought provoking at the time.

My wife has another theory. She says that "God" is actually a committee of aliens who smoke pot all day long and get a kick out of creating the wierdest life forms they can. Then, once they put these things in their little petri dish, they just watch, giggle, and get the munchies. How else can you explain the platypus, sharks eating their siblings while still in the womb, sheep that actually like to butt heads with 30 mph closing speeds, people killing each other in the name of a benevolent god etc.?

Mike

 

[The Chairman]

Mike,

the real issue comes from the common misunderstanding of "grace". While grace is "free", that is not the definition of grace. Grace, "Charis", from which we derive both charisma and character, comes only from God and changes our HEARTS. As our hearts become more like God, we are saved: the works come out of that heart change, the heart change does not come out of the works. This is where the Spirit comes into place, both in our understanding of God and the Scriptures God has given us.

II Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. NIV

All too often, words like faith and grace become spiritual buzz words and few really research to find the deep underlying meaning. Too often Christians have exchanged one set of legalisms for another, and they miss what Andy is talking about: Two laws! Love God and Love everyone else. FROM THE HEART.

As a species, we love rituals and rules. We love to point out how others miss the mark and how only we know how to do things. Heck, I even did that in this post. Man was not made for the rules and rituals: the rules and rituals are made for man. When we were a kid, our moms and dads had STRICT rules. Don't play in the street, Don't burn down the house, Don't pick up that poisonous snake. We saw them as limiting our fun! As we grew up "common sense" replaced those rules. So now there is no need for the rule "Don't play in the street". Instead, my common sense has replaced THOUSANDS of rules, and now I know that there are some times it's OK to play in the street (Can anyone say "Block Party"???). In the same way, God has replaced THOUSANDS of laws and such with "Love each other". Wow.

God is the same way with the entire human race. As we matured, we don't need those specific rules: we just need to love others. Show me one war that would have been started if we had loved rather than hated. Of course, listening to how some Christians justify the current war, I am wondering why they don't wear WWJB bracelets on their wrists! Show me one life that would have been taken if the murderer had been committed to love.

Jesus fulfilled the entire law. We are no longer under it. He gave us a "new commandment" in it's stead:

John 13:34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." NIV

Note that this does not read: "By this all men will know you are my disciples: if you really hate evolution". This need to codify our entire world is WHY many, many Christians have a hard time with Evolution. It doesn't fit their preconceived ideas about how THEY UNDERSTAND God, and so has become evil in their sight. There is nothing "anti-Christian" taught in evolution theory. In fact, most scientists will readily admit that evolution says NOTHING about the origin of life. For those Christians who seem hell bent (pardon the pun) on drawing a line in the sand that God never intended to be, I would reconsider adding your biases to God's scriptures. God generally takes a dim view of people adding to his words.

Yes and James 2:19, 20 says "You Believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe and tremble. But do you want to know, O foolish man that faith without works is dead?

So we have demons that believe and the possibility for dead faith. What then? Certainly the demons aren't saved. Do we earn salvation by our works?

Ephesians 2:8, 9 says "For by grace have you been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any one should boast.

 

[The Chairman]

And as awap said, which occured to me today also, is this mentality any different than that of the suicide bombers in the Middle East?

Ah, the WWJB syndrome. The big difference here is that God STOPPED Abaraham from killing his son. God would NEVER ask us to kill others. How do I justify the OT wars that SEEM to come from God? I don't. The Scriptures are an account of how MAN sees God. Just like today, many use God to justify a war. God does not wage a physical war. We can blame him all we want but we are only fooling ourselves.

James 4:1 What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you? 2 You want something but don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. 3 When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.

4 You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. 5 Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely? 6 But he gives us more grace. NIV

 

[MikeFerrara]

Well Pete, I'm in a hurry because I'm late for work but, in short, I think you did a good job in that post. You got, the Spirit, fulfilling of the law by Jesus, changed heart and works all in there together. No arguement here.

 

[Rick Murchison]

There is nothing "anti-Christian" taught in evolution theory. In fact, most scientists will readily admit that evolution says NOTHING about the origin of life.

On the face of it that's true. I, for example, believe evolution is a very good explanation of how species come to be; that today's species are descended from common ancestors - and that it is directed, part of The Plan.
However... there are many proponents of evolution who are staunch anti-Christians, and try to use evolution as a weapon in their anti-Christian arsenal. Indeed, there is a contingent who go beyond the "Science mustn't consider God" in its theories, even beyond "Science doesn't need God" to the fallacious conclusion that "Because Science explains it, God isn't."
But scientific explanations are always incomplete.
Many think we know a lot.
I think if we're really honest we'll admit we know enough to realize we know only the tiniest fraction of "The Whole" - for me, God defies accurate explanation because He is far "larger than life" and infinitely beyond my capacity for comprehension.
He has given us some very basic "rules for human happiness" which we manage to complicate and pervert all the time, but that, if actually followed, will work.
Rick

 

[The Chairman]

However... there are many proponents of evolution who are staunch anti-Christians, and try to use evolution as a weapon in their anti-Christian arsenal.

Unfortunately, so MANY Christians have drawn the line in the sand that if you believe in God, you can't believe in evolution. Most of these "staunch anti-Christians" have based their non belief in God on this fallacious premise. To whit, given an incredibly old Megalodon tooth in a scientist's hand. Now someone, who claims to represent God, has just told him that he can't believe in the FACTS that he knows about this tooth and believe in God at the same time. That guy must be some kind of LOON to expect him to throw out what he can SEE in his hand to believe in this God that he just doesn't see.

So, these "so called Christians" have drawn a line in the sand that God never intended and have unwittingly shut the door of eternity in these guys faces. I just don't think God is going to be pleased with these people adding new requirements for becoming a Christian. Let's get back to LOVE, which the scriptures clearly show are the earmark of being a Christian.

 

[Thalassamania]

You guys are going on and on about the details of scripture but I think you’re missing the core issues. I just don’t get it. I’m more and more persuaded to the views advanced by Sam Harris in The End of Faith:

We are living in a time where it is very PC to be religious, but moderate. I am persuaded that while religious moderation is likely evidence of good will it is, at base, philosophically untenable. Regardless of the creed, moderates must loosely interpret, or just ignore, much (if not most) of the tenets of their religions in the interest of living in the modern world. It has been observed that perhaps this is the result of an economic truth: life is much more difficult when societies stop producing and instead spend their time and their treasure killing their customers and creditors for heresy. The religious moderate’s retreat from fundamentalism appears to me to be less based on scripture than on cultural developments that have made it impossible for a thinking person of good will to swallow the original scripture hook, line and sinker.

The only reason that someone can be a religious moderate today is because of the secular advances of the last two thousand years, the doors of fundamentalism do not open from the inside. What we see amongst nonfundamentalists is not evidence that faith has evolved, it is the product of rationale thought contradicting basic tenents of faith.

If I were to tell a fundamentalist, of any religion, that their spouse was unfaithful or that eating frozen yogurt would make them invisible, they’d require evidence before believing either premise. But they’re perfectly happy to accept the unsupported idea that the book they keep by bed was written (or directed to be written) by an invisible deity who will punish, with fire for eternity, anyone who fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe. Claims, might I note, that often run counter to both common sense and observed evidence.

Religious moderation is a product of secular advances and education. All of us know far more than anyone did two millennia ago, and much of what we now know is not compatible with scripture. For example, we no longer think that disease is the result of sin or caused by demons. This is not to suggest that such modern thinking demonstrates that faith is compatible with reason, or that religions are open to new learning. Remember that, in their view, the fundamentalists got it right, unerringly, at the start. But today’s moderates find it useful to ignore or reinterpret articles of faith have been made inconvenient or idiotic by overwhelming evidence.

To move from summary and paraphrasing to direct quote:

So it is not that these texts have maintained their integrity over time (they haven’t); it is just that they have been effectively edited by our neglect of certain of their passages. Most of what remains – the “good parts” – has been spared the same winnowing because we do not yet have a truly modern understanding of our ethical intuitions and our capacity for spiritual experience. If we better understood the workings of the human brain, we would undoubtedly discover lawful connections between our state of consciousness, our modes of conduct, and the various ways we use of attention. What makes one person happier than another? Why is love more conducive to happiness than hate? Why do we generally prefer beauty to ugliness and order to chaos? Why does it feel so good to smile and laugh, and why do those shared experiences generally bring people closer together? Is the ego an illusion, and, if so, what implications does this have for human life? Is there life after death? These are ultimately questions for a mature science of the mind. If we ever develop such a science, most of our religious texts will be no more useful to mystics that they now are to astronomers.

While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, in light of all that we have (and have not) learned about the universe, it offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence. From the perspective of those seeking to live by the letter of their texts, the religious moderate is nothing more than a failed fundamentalist. He is, in all likelihood, going to wind up in hell with the rest of the unbelievers. The problem that religious moderation poses for all of us is that it does not permit anything very critical to be said about religious literalism. We cannot say fundamentalists are crazy, because they are merely practicing their freedom of belief; we cannot even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivaled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don’t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. This is not a new form of faith, or even a new species of scriptural exegesis; it is simply a capitulation to a variety of all-too-human interests that have nothing, in principal, to do with God. Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance – and it has no bona fides, in religious terms, to put it on a par with fundamentalism. The texts themselves are unequivocal, the are perfect in all their parts. By their light , religious moderation appears to be nothing more than an unwillingness to fully submit to God’s law. By failing to live by the letter of the texts while tolerating the irrationality of those who do, religious moderates betray faith and reason equally. Unless the core dogmas of faith are called into question – i.e., that we know there is a God, and that we know what he wants from us – religious moderation will do nothing to lead us out of the wilderness.

…

Imagine that we could revive a well-educated Christian of the fourteenth century. The man would prove to be a total ignoramus except on matters of faith. His beliefs about geography, astronomy and medicine would embarrass even a child, but he would know more or less everything there is to know about God. Though he would be considered a fool to think that the Earth is flat, or that trepanning constitutes a wise medical intervention, his religious ideas would be beyond reproach. There are two explanations for this: either we perfected our religious understanding of the world a millennium ago – while our knowledge on all other fronts was still hopelessly inchoate – or religion, being the mere maintenance of dogma, is one area of discourse that does not admit of progress … there is much to recommend the latter view.

 

[Thalassamania]

Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals: true or false? This simple question is splitting America apart, with a growing proportion thinking that we did not descend from an ancestral ape. A survey of 32 European countries, the US and Japan has revealed that only Turkey is less willing than the US to accept evolution as fact.


Religious fundamentalism, bitter partisan politics and poor science education have all contributed to this denial of evolution in the US, says Jon Miller of MichiganStateUniversity in East Lansing, who conducted the survey with his colleagues. "The US is the only country in which [the teaching of evolution] has been politicized," he says. "Republicans have clearly adopted this as one of their wedge issues. In most of the world, this is a non-issue."

Miller's report makes for grim reading for adherents of evolutionary theory. Even though the average American has more years of education than when Miller began his surveys 20 years ago, the percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005 (Science, vol 313, p 765). That's despite a series of widely publicized advances in genetics, including genetic sequencing, which shows strong overlap of the human genome with those of chimpanzees and mice. "We don't seem to be going in the right direction," Miller says.

There is some cause for hope. Team member Eugenie Scott of the NationalCenter for Science Education in Oakland, California, finds solace in the finding that the percentage of adults overtly rejecting evolution has dropped from 48 to 39 in the same time. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared, from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year. "That is a group of people that can be reached," says Scott.

The main opposition to evolution comes from fundamentalist Christians, who are much more abundant in the US than in Europe. While Catholics, European Protestants and so-called mainstream US Protestants consider the biblical account of creation as a metaphor, fundamentalists take the Bible literally, leading them to believe that the Earth and humans were created only 6000 years ago.

Ironically, the separation of church and state laid down in the US constitution contributes to the tension. In Catholic schools, both evolution and the strict biblical version of human beginnings can be taught. A court ban on teaching creationism in public schools, however, means pupils can only be taught evolution, which angers fundamentalists, and triggers local battles over evolution.
These battles can take place because the US lacks a national curriculum of the sort common in European countries. However, the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind act is instituting standards for science teaching, and the battles of what they should be have now spread to the state level.

Miller thinks more genetics should be on the syllabus to reinforce the idea of evolution. American adults may be harder to reach: nearly two-thirds don't agree that more than half of human genes are common to chimpanzees. How would these people respond when told that humans and chimps share 99 per cent of their genes?

From issue 2565 of New Scientist magazine, 19 August 2006, page 11