ahhhh....now it's my perceived problem.

WAT - You do tend to see it as a "problem" anytime something touches on faith (especially Christian faith).

I don't see it that way. I see it as presenting all possible models (theories if you prefer that term) for origins and how the data fits, or doesn't fit, with the predictions one would have from those models for what is seen and what has been found in the world.

Your fear seems to be that some might actually choose to believe the Biblical account and be "lost" to humanism (or lost to "sanity" that denies a 'higher power' than mankind). Suffice it to say that if you'd care to argue for Creationism to be taught only in private schools, then all taxation for schools (public) should be stopped as a form of "indentured servitude" for those who do not believe, nor want taught exclusively to their children. Or the taxed funds should be applicable by the taxpayer to whatever school they choose for their children because the "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion."

Take your pick. I could live with either taxation solution or the addition of the Creation model to the teaching curriculum at public schools.

C'mon, FH - you're the one who was wailing about the secular elitists. Read your previous post. Clearly you have a problem with the secular government. What would you prefer?

I have no problem with faith having a part in school curriculums - my son went to a Catholic school. In fact, I think it's important for children to be exposed to the wide range of beliefs out there.

But as we've gone over and over before, creastionism, IDism, and any other faith based or supernatural explanation of the origin of species or origin of life does not belong in a science class - because science is limited to natural explanations of things. I don't understand why you cannot accept that distinction.

I have no fear of adults believing humans cohabitated with dinosaurs - as long as they're not in a decision making position that can affect me. Same as I don't want a voodoo doctor in that role. This signifies to me a severe disconnect from reality.

I think your basic disagreement stems from your insistence that science and your religion have to be in lock step agreement. That's your call obviously. But when you have trouble expecting others to have the same view - and if they don't they're going to he!! - that's when you run into trouble with main stream society.

So, my problem is not "anytime something touches on faith" it's when particular versions of faith want to dominate.

Science is objective and faith neutral. It couldn't give a hoot about faith. It can't because faith relies on the supernatural. The current scientific explanation for speciation is biological evolution. It's the only natural model - until a better one comes along. Do you have a better one? A Nobel prize awaits.

Supplanting creationism or IDism or Flying Spaghetti Monster ism or whatever other supernatural explanation in place of evolution is imposing religion. Sorry - our constitution doesn't allow that, and for a very obvious reason > Which one?

And before you type it I'll answer your complaint. No, secularism is not a faith. Science is not a faith. Both faith neutral and faith tolerant - more so than proclaimed faiths.

WAT

Good job explaining, WAT. The other part about being a good scientist is to not be blindly lead. IMVHO, scientists, mathamaticians, biologist, etc have questioning, probing minds. In school, you study the building blocks of life. As far as I know, various churches don't seem to have a problem with the Periodic Table, various physical laws, mitosis or other "theories". There is history and methodology for exploration and problem solving. Thinking outside of the box is acceptable, especially if you are able PROVE it. A good scientist doesn't say "I believe the Origin of the Species word for work and it's infallible." Does that type of questing mind carry over into religion?

Nice try at putting words in my mouth according to your own slant, WAT. Biased and slanted, to say nothing of misinformed, but a nice try anyway.


"No, secularism is not a faith."

Secular humanisim IS a faith, regardless of your protestations. It is faith in "Man," not faith in God.


"Science is not a faith."

That is correct. Science is not a faith, it is investigation of the natural world.

SCIENTISTS have a faith that they bring to the interpretation of the facts and data.


"Both (secularism and scientists are) faith neutral and faith tolerant - more so than proclaimed faiths. "

Ridiculous and you know it. While the data is "faith neutral," the interpretation of that data is not. The "proclaimed faith" that you prefer is the origination of the universe and all that is in it by some "unknown, but natural cause" and that God did NOT "create." Then you argue for the "proclaimed faith" that LIFE itself arose by random chance and not by the will and directed purpose of God. The "proclaimed faith" that you prefer as the bias in interpreting the diversity of life on earth is "evolution," "random chance," and "natural selection" as the ONLY "real" explanation of what really accounted for life, in all of it's diversity, culminating in Mankind. In short, we are all an "accident of nature" and not the purposeful creation of God. Your "proclaimed faith" is that God does not exist and certainly did NOT create anything.

Again, the data is neutral, the interpretation of the "scientist" is not. Nor is your contention that "scientists" are "faith tolerant" correct. The evolutionist scientists are most definitely NOT faith tolerant of any "faith" but belief in evolution and natural processes.



"But as we've gone over and over before, creastionism, IDism, and any other faith based or supernatural explanation of the origin of species or origin of life does not belong in a science class - because science is limited to natural explanations of things. I don't understand why you cannot accept that distinction."

I know you "can't understand."


"any other faith based or supernatural explanation of the origin of species or origin of life does not belong in a science class - because science is limited to natural explanations of things."

So, by your admission, ONLY the "faith in natural process being able to explain everything" is the only "acceptable faith" in any science class.

WAT, you know, or should know, that Science has NOT explained origins, or the way that life began. The assumption is put forth as the FACT, the truth, but it is NOT backed up by direct observation or scientific proof.

If it has, then let me ask you HOW did the universe begin?

HOW, exactly, did life arise?

How did the EYE "evolve" so many different times and in such different ways?

I could go on with many other questions for which Science has no answer, but those should suffice to make it clear that your contention that "faith" has no part in a science class is false, ipso facto.


So the decision is "which faith," if any other than secular humanism, can "explain" origins and life? To you, all other explanations are "voodoo." Well, forgive me for this, but I'd consider your reliance on unproven "natural causes" as just another form of the same "voodoo" that you condemn.





Don't be so obtuse, WAT. You are mixing two very different things and trying to use that to bolster your argument.

Nowhere have I ever said that "science and religion" have to be in "lockstep agreement." With respect to your reference to some people "going to he11," that has to do with being saved or not, through Jesus Christ, and has nothing to do with science, origins of the universe, or origins of life and evolution philosophy and theory.




Well, I have no interest in a Nobel prize, so I'm not concerned with that or any "appelation" for a man.


"The current scientific explanation for speciation is biological evolution. It's the only natural model - until a better one comes along."

Uh huh. It IS the only "natural model" because there are only two choices to explain life (that DOES exist and that we DO see). But it remains rooted in the belief, in the faith, that God does NOT exist and did NOT "create." But there is NO proof as to how life began, nor is there proof that evolution gave rise to different kinds of plants and animals, including mankind.

There are lots of "speculations," "hypothesis," "theories," etc., but they are merely models by which to try to explain what IS and what might have been. REPRODUCEABILITY and REPEATABILITY, which is what the "scientific method" is all about, cannot be applied to origins, nor to the "creation" of different kinds of plants and animals.


"It's the only natural model - until a better one comes along."

Sure, just as the "hopeful monster" theory has been repackaged and touted as a "new theory" called Punctuated Equilibrium. Once again, only faith, no proof. The ONLY consistent faith from one theory to another is that "God" cannot be the answer.


So let me ask you a question this way. Jesus was a real "person of history." He DIED, just as every other person has died. DEAD. The "breath of life" left him. His heart stopped, brain function ended, and he was buried as happens to most dead people. But unlike everyone else, he was "resurrected" from the dead and walked and talked with many POST resurrection from the dead. Since that is true, and a matter of historical record, and definitely "goes against" natural laws and random chance, how does "science" explain that true happening outside of the miraculous (supernatual) action of God who HAS power over all, including life and death?


In asking that question, I don't particularly care whether or not you "believe" he was the Son of God, the Messiah, the Creator of all that is. I am only interested in HOW science explains it and how science could show it could be done, either by "random chance" or by natural processes.

It is not I who stand in "opposition" to what you argue. It is the risen Jesus. You seek explanations for dinosaurs, how they arose, when they lived, how they died. I ask the same with respect to Jesus. Instead of "millions of years," I only ask you to look back some 2000 years for a more contemporaneous occurrence. Apply your "science," sans any faith, to Jesus and his resurrection from the dead.

Yes it does carry over into religion, Grapegirl.

By the same token, when scientific inquiry has led to scientific Laws, those laws are no longer open to "argument" against them. For example, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

A Christian does NOT "check his/her brains at the door."

God created the elements, etc., so why would a Christian have a "problem" with them?

As a Biology major, I have NO problem with the processes that God established.

I understand the "building blocks of life" just as I understand the "building blocks of a skyscraper." That's not the same thing as "believing" those building blocks assembled themselves in precisely the order and sequence that is necessary, especially since there is a need for "parts" of the process to exist even though they "can't exist" until after the whole "Building is built." (i.e. messenger RNA).

So what exactly is the point you are trying to make?

WAT and FH, I have a thought.

My thought is that you are brothers.

Brothers who are estranged from one another, brothers who, on one side or the other, harbor such anger and fear that you are unable to reach out to one another as brothers should.

FH, I can see your triggers more clearly than I can see WAT's. Your anger and fear is palpable to me. WAT, you get disdainful and sarcastic, rather than hotly angry. You feed each other, though, in this destructive dance.

Reach out. As brothers. Find common ground and learn from each other. Surely two men who have such tremendous energy between them -- even if it is currently negative -- could do much together for the benefit of us all.

Back (on) off topic, after the dust settled,

"Pope Benedict and his former doctoral students spent a weekend pondering evolution without discussing controversies over intelligent design and creationism raging in the United States.

The three-day closed-door meeting at the papal summer residence of Castel Gandolfo outside Rome ended as planned without drawing any conclusions but the group plans to publish its discussion papers, said participant Father Joseph Fessio S.J.

Media speculation had said the debate might shift Vatican policy to embrace "intelligent design," which claims to prove scientifically that life could not have simply evolved, or even the "creationist" view that God created the world in six days.

"It wasn't that at all," Fessio, who is provost of Ave Maria University in Florida, said from Rome. The Pope's session with 39 former students was "a meeting of friends with some scholars to discuss an interesting theme".

"We did not really speak much about intelligent design," said Fessio, whose Ignatius Press publishes the Pope's books in English. "In fact, that particular controversy did not arise."

Creationism -- the view that God created the world in six days as described in the Bible -- was "almost off the radar screen of the people in this group," he added. The Catholic Church does not read the Genesis account of creation literally.

Fessio said Benedict took part in the discussions but said nothing different from previous public statements, in which he has recognised evolution as a scientific fact but argued that God ultimately created the world and all life in it."

from thisislondon.co.uk

WAT
-------------------
There is no "controversy".

JustJ - you are mistaken. WAT and I are not brothers, biologically or spiritually. We are two men with wildly differing worldviews, basically in opposition to each other.




Nice try, but I have no anger with, or fear of, WAT, as I am sure he feels similarly toward me. Pity might be more appropriate emotion if you are trolling for emotions.




I'm game. I even tried that already with respect to asking WAT about Jesus and his resurrection from the dead. While we may disagree about WHO Jesus is, there is an event that can be examined in light of WAT's dogmatic stance that ONLY "natural processes" can occur and that there can be NO "supernatural" intervention into the "natural world."

You may be right that I am mistaken about you being brothers. And yet brothers don't always recognize each other when they meet. Perhaps your thoughts on this will change. Perhaps mine will. It's hard to say.

If you are not angry nor fearful, FH, then why treat WAT with so little respect or compassion? When I compare the way you speak to WAT to the way I've seen you speak to others, I can only assume that WAT creates a stronger negative emotion than those others. If it's pity, then does your pity lead to some kind of disgust and disdain?

If you two are to find common ground, I'd suggest starting with something simpler. There must be some things that you agree on. Common ground doesn't mean trying to find religious common ground, necessarily. Perhaps there are individual principles or practices that you've seen WAT use in talking about infidelity that you agree with? Methods that you've found particularly useful in a particular situation?

Not surprised at all by this view, as it comes from the RCC.

It's certainly not the first time that the RCC departed from the Word of God and is part of why I said previously that I could care less what the RCC, or the Pope, thinks when they are directly opposed to Scripture.

As for "Intelligent Design," it's proposals are not Scripturally based either. It attempts to find some way to accommodate the secular "side" with some nebulous "intelligent director." There are only two choices, regardless of many attempts to "integrate" the two. Either God created (as revealed in the Word of God) or accidental happenstance "created" by luck and random chance.

If someone does not believe in God, the only option is the latter. If someone does not believe in Jesus Christ, who IS the Creator, then biblical revelation is meaningless and they will go with whatever "theory" they wish to explain how everything "got here" (came into existence).

The FACT is that the universe, the Earth, the living things on the Earth are FACTS. They DO exist. They had SOME cause.

The choice for WHAT the cause was, the "how" it all came to be, is a matter of FAITH since neither "belief choice" can be scientifically proved. It IS the "Evolutionists" who want to deny that choice to anyone in "public schools" on the contention that belief in Creation is a "faith." They vehemently try to deny that belief is Evolution is also a "faith." They want "their" faith taught as FACT even though they KNOW that it has never been proven and cannot be subjected to the "scientific method."

That there WAS a cause is fundamental to Science in the well-known rule of "Cause and Effect." It runs into "problems" with other well-known Scientific LAWS such as "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed." (Where did "matter" originally come from?) There are many other "difficulties" with explanations that exclude God and rely solely upon "natural processes."

Jesus' resurrection from the dead is one example, unless someone wants to take Mary Shelley seriously.

JustJ - there's no mystery here. It's called "mirroring."

If it would help, I could list several phrases and words that WAT has used over the years to "describe" and "malign" anyone who might be "stupid enough" to believe God instead of WAT, or evolutionists, who believe in a "young earth" rather than an "old earth, who believe in a universal Noahic flood rather than Lyellian Uniformitarianism or even "localized and limited catastrophic events." It's essentially the same attitude, or "judgment" that ended our previous discussion of evolution that 2long made, "scientists, regardless of training and credentials, are NOT scientists if they believe in Creation."

There would seem to be very little "common ground" to "work with. Thus I offered up Jesus and his resurrection as an "event" in history. One "could" even accept that he was resurrected to life (assuming they could posit some scientific principle that would "reanimate" someone who had died) while simultaneously refusing to accept that he IS the Son of God and the "Word" through whom, and by whom, all things that were created were created. Shoot, even Satan and his minions KNOW who Jesus is and still reject him, or more correctly, CHOOSE to not surrender their lives to him.

Given this silly either/or, I'll choose the "evolutionists" any day.

JustJ, this is your fault, you know? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

-ol' 2long

Round and round we go,
where we stop...
everybody already knows.

I was reading in the NT last night, the Epistles of Paul in Corinthians and read (once again) that women were not to speak in Church.

And I know God didn't say that...just reiterating to myself I guess that the Bible wasn't written by God, nor did Jesus mean his words to be taken in such a literal sense...hence the metaphors and parables so often quoted and I am back to a very non literal view of the Bible. In fact I got ticked off reading it (again).

Has anyone here read the Bhagavad Gita? A Hindu sacred book that Mahatma Ghandi fashioned his life after?

I just wonder what the great truths in there (the chariot drivers meaning of life as told to the warrior on the way to battle) have to say.



Wrong.

Weaver <<<< still loving God and following the teachings (as I understand them) of Jesus...but knowing that "truth" lies in the mind of the one thinking it.

weaver, you are taking that passage out of its context. That letter was directed to the church at Corinth. Do you know what the situtation was at Corinth in those days that necessitated Paul addressing that issue with them?

That you "got offended" is itself interesting as it reveals an attitude of superority to God if we "don't like what He said." It's a normal feeling, but it's still a "wrong" feeling considering that God, not us, is Sovereign.




That is your opinion, Weaver. You have every right to it, even though it is wrong. "Truth," for what it's worth, lies with God, not the imaginings of Man.

"Following the teachings of Jesus" is a good idea for anyone, but works of any kind, even attempting to follow Jesus' teaching, to say nothing of polytheistic Hinduism, will not gain salvation. It is not what we do, but what Jesus did for us, that is the "difference."

Yes, it is JustJ's fault. But I'm still a member of your newly formed marital fan club! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> (Blame Pepperband for that one.) <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Do you perhaps have another alternative than Evolution or Creation if you think there is "another option?"

Hurray! It's all my fault. I love that. :-)


FH, what do your beliefs teach in regard to compassion? Why choose to treat WAT without compassion?

And as long as this is my thread, then by golly, I'm gonna post this amusing link:

http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06090501.htm

"In late August, to commemorate the second anniversary of the existentialist painting's theft, Mars subsidiary Masterfoods USA posted a reward of 2 million dark chocolate M&Ms for The Scream's safe return -- a play on the City of Oslo's own offer of 2 million Norwegian kroner."

Regarding Pauls letters in Corinthians, isn't the entire Bible written for a certain group of people during a certain period in time?



What you are saying is not the "truth" FH, it is only your truth.

God didn't write the Bible, it may have been inspired by God but it was written by man. See the difference?

We are not following Jesus's teachings to get "saved", I don't even believe in h*ll, so what am I getting saved from?

Fundalmentalist Christianity is not the only Christian religion, FH, it is only ONE of them...and every one of them has their own interpretation of the Bible, and not all take it literally and yet they are still Christians according to their church and their beliefs.

So quit talking like you have a direct line to God and the absolute "truth" by the word of God... and then tell us that we believe what we believe so we can get "saved".

I do what I do, believe what I believe, because of my love for humanity and my deep love of Jesus and of God.

And because I understand how connected we are to each other and to the earth. Because I have a deep appreciation for other people and the earth.

Evolution vs Creation is irrelevant to a person who is truly spiritual, because it doesn't change a gosh darn thing. Not a thing...it is irrelavant.

A quote from Mahatma Ghandi, a man who did so much for India that he is regarded with deep repect, revered really and a man who was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize five times and after his death much regret was vocalized by the committee who never picked him.



Again,



I guess he had a more open ended idea of where "the truth" comes from.

Mostly though, I believe he believed it comes from within...

Love FH, that is the Truth. Love one another, do no harm, follow the golden rule.

this is the only Truth that matters, and the one we all need to follow.

My opinion, and therefore my (the) Truth.

Why Weaver? So "truth" can be ceded to you regardless of what God has said in His Word?




Yes, I see the difference. You have an amazing lack of understanding of what "Inspired" means. Let's see if we can try a rather simplistic analogy to get the idea of "God breathed," the "Word of God," across with respect to your plea that "men" wrote whatever they felt like writing.

Think of the "men writing" as something like a Court Reporter. They write what is spoken by others, not their own "slant" on things or their own "feelings" about the subjects. When it is "read back" it is NOT the "words written by the Reporter," it is the words spoken by those who spoke, in their words, idioms, mannerisms, etc. The prosecutor, the defense counsel, etc., all using their own forms of speech and emphasizing what they want emphasized for the target audience, sometimes the judge, sometimes the jury, sometimes for the public, etc.

But just because the Court Reporter did the actual writing does not mean that the words belong to the Court reporter and not the speakers.

As for what it takes to "be saved," that is not me talking either. That is God talking. Don't confuse those two either.



Oh come on, Weaver. Just because there are many other beliefs, like those who believe in Polyamory, Homosexual marriage, etc., does make any one of them "right." There are MANY who claim the title of "Christian," but claiming a name does not make one a Christian anymore than someone could claim to be a Hindu and reject all the basic tenets of Hinduism and still be a "Hindu."

What any "man" thinks is a Christian is unimportant. What IS important is what God thinks makes someone a Christian. That is most evident from what Jesus will be saying to a lot of people who "think" they are Christians, at the final Judgment, "Away from me, I NEVER knew you...."

Man can be fooled, but God cannot.




You answer nothing with this "reasoning" and subsitute metaphysical goulash for truth. You may not want to concern yourself with HOW or WHY things got here, including mankind, and that is your right. It's just another form of Conflict Avoidance. But in ANY final analysis, there is a "starting point" to the universe and to life.




Yes, Weaver, I agree. It IS your truth, your wish, your desire. But it is not "the Truth."

"I am the way, the truth and the life, NO ONE comes to the Father but by me." That is the truth that is "proven" by his life, death, and resurrection.

"But if they will not believe the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead."

Mahatma Ghandi was wrong. He can "claim" to be a Christian, but he denies what it takes to BE a Christian, to have the indwelling Holy Spirit as a result of believing in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, as the Son of God.

Works, no matter how "good" or "loving" according to Man's measure, is not good enough according to God's truth. It IS God who "gets to decide," not Man. That is a fundamental difference that many don't like because they want to be in control of their own eternal destiny.

And to your point about Love, God IS love. And rejection of that love is NOT Christian, no matter what anyone may believe because that is what God said, not what any man said.

FH,

“Not surprised at all by this view, as it comes from the RCC.

It's certainly not the first time that the RCC departed from the Word of God and is part of why I said previously that I could care less what the RCC, or the Pope, thinks when they are directly opposed to Scripture.”

I am a practicing RC, FH. I could be heartily offended. But I am not. With you in error, but for the grace of God, go I.

The RCC is not directly opposed to scripture, FH. It is not remotely indirectly opposed to scripture. The Church has learned (sometimes the hard way) over the past 2000 years that scripture is full of analogies, parables, inferences and contradictions.

We live in this God given universe for now. It is best to observe and describe and infer about this universe with the tools given to us.

Sola scriptura is inherently wrong, FH. Demonstrably so. Scripturally determined so. And IMO the MB forum is not the place for it.


With prayers,

PS: “If you don't mind, I'll take a pass on this. I could really care less what the Pope thinks, or for that matter what the problems were with Galileo and the Roman Catholic Church.”

Based on all your subsequent posts, you obviously do care a great deal. But that’s cool.

Sure! The flying spagetti monster.

But that's just one option. There are many others. How 'bout the Church of the Subgenius?

I just prefer evolitionistism, or whatever you might want 2 call it if it indeed were a faith.

-ol' 2long