Looks like it's a done deal

[NJCubScouter]

I never have time to answer even 1 percent of the statements I'd like to answer in these posts, but let me pick out a few at random.

 

Rooster says:

 

I'd rather be called a fool by man than by God.

 

I find that an interesting statement. In my own little view of things, God does not call people names.

 

Rooster has also made a number of statements in this thread and others, to the effect that "God is not limited." I do not mean to question your beliefs, only to demonstrate that there is another perspective, and here it is. It seems to me that when you believe that God's nature and acts can be described in a book, you are the one who is "limiting" God. I believe that God is so far beyond us, and so unfathomable that man can never know exactly what he did or what he did or what his nature is. (Or what his "name" is or what his gender is or if he even has a gender. I use male pronouns, and the word "God" itself, mainly as a matter of convenience.) At the very least, I don't know any of these things, but I really don't see how anyone else can know the answers either. Believe they know, yes, but actually know, no. I seriously doubt that the answers are in the pages of any book. Anything is possible, but since I can't live my life as if every possibility is correct, I am basically forced to just live my life as well and good as I can (which includes probably about 95 percent of the same moral code as anyone else on this board), and let the rest sort itself out, as the British say.

 

ScoutParent says:

 

It's interesting to me that if you look at gallup poll results; most Americans do not buy into this hoax and that as the level of education goes up the level of belief in evolution goes down.

 

I generally don't believe in polls, and I definitely don't think that the origin of the species can be determined by a poll. However, this inverse correlation between level of education and belief in evolution is so contrary to what I would expect, that I have to question it. I don't normally ask for citations to things, but I'm just curious to see whether you know of a specific source for this polling data.

[sctmom]

Scoutparent writes:

"Evolution is a hoax perpetrated on much of the world. It's interesting to me that if you look at gallup poll results; most Americans do not buy into this hoax"

 

Hmmmmm...

According to the Gallup poll on the link Littlebillie gave, it says "about 45 percent of American adults take the Bibles story of creation literally. "

When did 45 percent become "most"? I thought "most" meant majority, as in over half.

 

[Rooster7]

NJ,

 

It seems to me that when you believe that God's nature and acts can be described in a book, you are the one who is "limiting" God.

 

The book is not mine, it's God's. And there is nothing in the Bible that limits Him - except His own character.

 

If you read your Bible, God condemns many folks in the harshest language.

[SR540Beaver]

Rooster,

 

My comment about God creating man from the dust of the Earth was more or less a joke. But when you consider that evolutionist question how life began and raise questions about the primordial ooze; and then read in the Bible that God created man from the dust of the Earth, there are striking similarities. One of the main differences being the process and the "who" that caused it. The creation story and scientific theories on how our planet formed have many similarities with the exception being the length of time involved. For a strict literal creationist, it took 6 literal 24 hour days about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. Scientific methods show it to be billions of years old.

 

I believe you questioned my beliefs as a Christian earlier and I described them in pretty good detail. Just for the record, let me do it again. I am a Christian. I have been since the age of 7 and I am now 45. I make no apologies for my faith. I am very secure in my beliefs and my faith and my relationship with God. I am willing to die for my faith before I would deny it. I know what I believe and why I believe it (not just because it is the way my Mom and Dad taught me). I have been a student of the Bible for most of my life. I believe that God is God. He is the only God and he is limitless. I belive that he is the creator of everything. I believe that the Bible is his revealtion to man. I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died as a sacrifice for my sins and rose to life 3 days after dying. I believe that he will return again. Deep in my heart, I know these things to be true by my simple faith. I can prove none of these things. I can only accept them by faith.

 

Because I believe what I believe and know why I believe it, I fear no contrary teaching or feel threatened by it. My faith is not determined by whether there is prayer in public schools, whether evolution as a scientific theory is taught in schools, whether "Under God" is in the pledge or whether "In God We Trust" is on out money. Those things do not make Godly people or determine their faith. My faith is something internal between myself and God and is manifested in the way I conduct my life. Those beliefs were taught to me at the hands of daily life with my parents and my extended church family.

 

It pains me to see Christians who fear the way of the world and feel they must demand equal time or who want to legislate morality and values on people who may not believe the same way as them. Are they good values? Yes! Would they be good for everyone? Yes! Does God want people to come to Him freely or be forced to come to Him thru laws? I believe He wants men to choose Him freely.

 

Bottom line for me, evolution is a theory and a scientific field of study just like gravity is. As a field of scientific study, it is proper for study in science classes. Creationism is a matter of religious belief and faith and as a matter of faith, can not be proven, but must be simply accepted by those who choose to belive it. It should not be taught in school. It is religion and not science.

 

My faith is strong enough to believe what I want regardless of what scientific theory attempts to answer.

 

If my son's science teacher stood before the class and tried to tell them that the Bible, God and religion are lies and should not be believed, he'd have a fight on his hands. Be honest, how many stories have you heard of where a school science teacher ridicules religious beliefs and tries to evangalize children to accept a science theory as a form of religion? I never have and I know what a school system would do to the teacher who did it!

[Rooster7]

kwc57,

 

One of the main differences being the process and the "who" that caused it.

 

Which was the gist of my point. What's more believable - God created the living from the non-living or it just spontaneously happened?

 

Scientific methods show it to be billions of years old.

 

The "best" that science can offer - although that's debatable because there are dissenting opinions - estimates the earth to be billions of years old. That does not make it true. By the way, after Hubble took one of its images, the universe got about 4 billion years younger (down to 8 billion from 12 billion). Maybe after a few more pictures, it will be in the millions. Maybe after the James Webb Space Telescope takes a few images, it'll be in the thousands. Maybe after Christ comes, no one will doubt that the earth was created in days. Science is not a constant. It changes everyday. Some claim - "This is why we should trust it to be reliable and true" - How ironic? Science isn't about facts. Science is about people making claims based on their interpretation of the "facts". "Accepted" theory is merely what the majority of these people subscribe to - but none of this means we know or understand the truth. If you believe in God, than you know that nothing is more deceitful than one's own heart. Man's interpretation of the facts, is as "reliable and true" as man himself - nothing more.

 

I believe you questioned my beliefs as a Christian earlier and I described them in pretty good detail.

 

No one knows your heart but you and God. It was not my intent to offend as so much to get you to think about what you were saying. Your comments seemed to indicate that the creation story (taken literally) was not possible.

 

I make no apologies for my faith. I am very secure in my beliefs and my faith and my relationship with God. I am willing to die for my faith before I would deny it. I know what I believe and why I believe it (not just because it is the way my Mom and Dad taught me). I have been a student of the Bible for most of my life. I believe that God is God. He is the only God and he is limitless. I believe that he is the creator of everything. I believe that the Bible is his revelation to man. I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died as a sacrifice for my sins and rose to life 3 days after dying. I believe that he will return again. Deep in my heart, I know these things to be true by my simple faith. I can prove none of these things. I can only accept them by faith.

 

The above statements could be mine. As much as any man can testify to the faith of another, your statements seem to be those of a believer. However, I believe one can be a believer and be imperfect theologically.

 

Because I believe what I believe and know why I believe it, I fear no contrary teaching or feel threatened by it. My faith is not determined by whether there is prayer in public schools, whether evolution as a scientific theory is taught in schools, whether "Under God" is in the pledge or whether "In God We Trust" is on out money. Those things do not make Godly people or determine their faith. My faith is something internal between myself and God and is manifested in the way I conduct my life. Those beliefs were taught to me at the hands of daily life with my parents and my extended church family.

 

I am not fearful of my faith being undermined. Yet, it's not my faith that's being threatened. This battle is over the hearts and minds of our children. There is also the little matter of our heritage. The government does not have a right to indoctrinate our children. They do not have the right to force feed their beliefs to our children (scientific, religious, historical, or otherwise). This is a violation of our freedoms. Every parent has the constitutional right to raise their children as God guides them. If that means, they want their child to refrain from participation in a classroom discussion or even an entire subject that is their right - a right that many state governments have trampled. The government should be providing basic protections and building roads. Today, it appears that a vast number of Americans want the government to be their "big daddy". Educate me, give me a job, guarantee my comfort in my old age, tell me what risks I can take and which ones I cannot take, etc. The government has taken advantage of these people and their fears. In the last 60 to 70 years, they (local, state, and federal governments) have invaded every aspect of our lives. Prayer in school, while it does not determine my faith, is a right that I do not want to give up. I am a Christian 24x7. I do not stop praying because I have entered a public building. I do not expect my children to stop praying when they go to school. Our founding fathers recognized the importance of faith in people's lives. They took this right very seriously. If local governments (or even the state or federal government) deemed it appropriate to allow for a moment of silence in public schools whereas a child could pray to God, or recite the atheist's creed to himself, it does not violate any one's rights. In fact, it celebrates our heritage as people of God and allows others (non-believers) to do as they please. The problem with atheists - they don't care if they have all the rights in the world; they won't be happy until all signs of faith are removed from the public arena.

 

It pains me to see Christians who fear the way of the world and feel they must demand equal time or who want to legislate morality and values on people who may not believe the same way as them. Are they good values? Yes! Would they be good for everyone? Yes! Does God want people to come to Him freely or be forced to come to Him thru laws? I believe He wants men to choose Him freely.

 

First - Let me relieve you of your pain. It is not my intention, nor do I suspect it is the intention of most others, to force their religious views on anyone. People are free to believe as they please. However, Americans as part of a free government - a representative democracy, have the ability to influence their government. Christians would be foolish if they did not take advantage of that fact. We should voice our opinions.

 

Second - You are mischaracterizing this particular issue. Is there a movement to force Christianity on non-Christians? No? Then why are you talking as if there is one? The issue at hand is - What expressions of faith should be allowed in public and/or during a government sponsored event? And, can the government force your children to hear teachings that you find disagreeable (i.e., evolution, sex education, etc.)?

 

Bottom line for me, evolution is a theory and a scientific field of study just like gravity is.

 

One major difference (from a Christian perspective) - the law or theory of gravity does not refute anyone's religious beliefs. And if it does, I still say those parents have a right to prevent the government from imposing that teaching on their children.

 

As a field of scientific study, it is proper for study in science classes. Creationism is a matter of religious belief and faith and as a matter of faith, cannot be proven, but must be simply accepted by those who choose to believe it. It should not be taught in school. It is religion and not science.

 

kwc57 - These are the kinds of statements that leave me scratching my head. You are a self-professed Christian. Yet, you speak about your faith as if it is something other than the truth? Science seeks to discover and explain the truth (about our universe). These fields are NOT mutually exclusive. So, while I agree that the public schools should not be allowed to force feed religion (faith) - schools should not contradict the truth as taught by people's faith.

 

My faith is strong enough to believe what I want regardless of what scientific theory attempts to answer.

 

As is mine, but we're not talking about mature adults - we're talking about our children. And no matter how strong in the faith your child might be, you can only speak for yourself - your family.

 

If my son's science teacher stood before the class and tried to tell them that the Bible, God and religion are lies and should not be believed, he'd have a fight on his hands.

 

Glad to hear it.

 

Be honest, how many stories have you heard of where a school science teacher ridicules religious beliefs and tries to evangelize children to accept a science theory as a form of religion? I never have and I know what a school system would do to the teacher who did it!

 

Public school teachers do not have to personally criticize the faith of others to indoctrinate their children into the "faith" of science. Science teachers are presenting the theory of evolution as the truth about "God's creation". The theory of evolution ridicules the bible (if not per the perspective of all Christians, then by some). Do you honestly believe that children are not detecting a contradiction - between evolution and what they are taught at home concerning their faith? We (Americans) have Constitutional protections against the government teaching these kinds of things. When the government chooses to teach evolution, they are violating my personal freedom by establishing a faith which conflicts with my own. The Constitution doesn't talk about "most people" or "most Christians" - It guarantees the rights of all - as individuals.

 

Here's the crux of this argument - a profound point of contention that many seem to be ignoring:

 

Science = Truth

Faith = Truth

 

Therefore when science and faith disagree, only one can be right. There can only be one truth. Consequently, the theory of evolution (when taught in the public schools) is tantamount to the government declaring the faiths of some to be false.

 

You and some others, sometimes refer to religion and science as if they have nothing to do with one another. How can that be if both address truth? This is why I have questioned exactly what you believe. If God is real, then why are you are not offended by Godless theories. Even if you accept evolution as not being a contradiction to your own faith, you should understand why others might be offended and fight for their right.

 

Whether or not, you think your child can be impacted by this - Whether or not, you think this can impact other people's children - does not sway the constitutionality of this argument. The Constitution clearly protects the people from this kind of government intrusion. Add to this, the fact that the government should not be in the business of instructing your children in the first place - It is plain to see that our government has become something that it should not be - "daddy".

 

My faith is strong enough to believe that we can survive without big government - big brother - "daddy" - or whatever else you'd like to call our current government. My faith is strong enough to believe that we can educate our own children and do just fine. My faith is strong enough to believe that neither my government nor I have the right to tell others how they should raise their children (short of providing basic protections against physical and/or mental abuse).

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster says:

 

The book is not mine, it's God's.

 

Well, that's the whole point. You are making an assumption that I am not making, or if you prefer, you have a belief that I do not share regarding the origin of the book in question. (Not the "mine" part which is obvious, but the "God's" part which is not so obvious.) I am not necessarily saying that your assumption or belief is wrong; it is possible that it could be right, just as it is possible that "God manifests himself in nature" or "God is in all of us" or any number of other possibilities. I don't presume to know. What I do know is that God created something that led through some unknown number of steps to what we are and what we see around us.

 

This is not something I invented myself. It falls into the general category of "deism," and appropos to a discussion that has been winding through this thread, the beliefs of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin also fall into this category, for at least part of their lives.

 

If you read your Bible, God condemns many folks in the harshest language.

 

I know that. That's part of my point. I have a lot easier time believing that the "harshest language" is the work of one or more of my fellow human beings, than believing it is the work of God. And I see no evidence that it is otherwise.

(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

[Rooster7]

NJ,

 

Given your responses, I have no argument with you. However, I must assume that you do not believe in the Bible. Or, if you do, it is a tenuous belief at best. If man has corrupted God's Word, how does one determine which parts are true and which are not?

 

Here's an alternative way to look at the Bible (and some of its harsh teachings) -

 

Perhaps God is not the God that you have created in your mind. Think for a moment - How much of God's character as you believe or "know" Him to be, is based on what you think He ought to be (and want Him to be), and how much is based on God's Word? About 20 years ago, I came to the conclusion that most of what I envisioned to be true about God - was based more on my wishful thinking (and/or based on portrayals of Him by television, movies, and other books) than any known reality that I could claim. The more I read the Bible, the more I became convinced that it was God's Word. The more I read God's Word, the more I became convinced of God's righteousness. This is an aspect of God's character that many folks like to ignore. He is holy and righteous. It is right that He should judge us. Folks don't like to hear that...at least not without qualification. Guess what- even if we never hear His Word, He is still our judge and we are still sinners. If we accept this (and many do not), then it is easier to understand the harsher words of the Bible. The problem with accepting such teachings - it forces folks onto their faces, to pray the prayer of a repentant sinner and to beseech God to come into their lives. It makes one realize that salvation for oneself and one's loved ones, depends on God touching each individual - igniting a love for Him. It's a scary proposition. Regardless, I'm convinced it's the only way to find Him.

[firstpusk]

"Here's the crux of this argument - a profound point of contention that many seem to be ignoring:

 

Science = Truth

Faith = Truth

 

Therefore when science and faith disagree, only one can be right. There can only be one truth. Consequently, the theory of evolution (when taught in the public schools) is tantamount to the government declaring the faiths of some to be false."

 

Rooster7,

 

No one has ignored your point of contention. It is well understood that you and others want to claim that belief in God and evolution are mutually exclusive. The fact that there are a number of theists on this board that vehemently disagree belies your conclusion. It is a false dilema.

 

The courts have examined this question a number of times. The courts use a test to ensure compliance with the establishment clause of the 1st ammendment from Lemon v. Kurtzman. It is a three pronged test. The last time the US Supreme Court dealt with the issue was the equal time law of Louisianna in Edwards v. Agguillard.

 

"The Establishment Clause forbids the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion" (4). The Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether legislation comports with the Establishment Clause. First, the legislature must have adopted the law with a secular purpose. Second, the statute's principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613 (1971) (5). State action violates the Establishment Clause if it fails to satisfy any of these prongs."

Edwards v. Aguillard No. 85-1513

U.S. Supreme Court Decision June 19, 1987

 

Teaching evolution will generally be based on state and local curriculum standards, duely established, First, the intent of teaching evolution is not religious, but secular. Children should have a solid grounding in science. Second, the primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion. Properly taught the teacher indicates the material is scientific and does not speak to God's roll or any set of religious beliefs. And finally, it does not result in excessive entanglement of government with religion. To require teachers to address religious issues would be excessive entanglement.

[littlebillie]

firstpusk, some really interesting sites. esp germane for those who say evolutionists lack OBSERVED or EXPERIMENTAL evidence was the plant stuff, I thought - obviously some folks only want to consider that which has been observed immediately and directly.

 

The ancient DNA stuff was also fascinating.

 

Thanks!

 

 

[ScoutParent]

"What I do know is that God created something that led through some unknown number of steps to what we are and what we see around us. "

 

and what led you to the conclusion there was a something in the middle?

 

[firstpusk]

"and what led you to the conclusion there was a something in the middle?"

 

Probably the scientific evidence...

 

 

 

[sctmom]

Scoutparent PLEASE provide your source for the following quote:

 

"It's interesting to me that if you look at gallup poll results; most Americans do not buy into this hoax and that as the level of education goes up the level of belief in evolution goes down. "

 

The numbers I saw say 45% believe in creationism only.

Others have also asked for your source about the level of education stat.

 

[NJCubScouter]

I said:

 

"What I do know is that God created something that led through some unknown number of steps to what we are and what we see around us."

 

and ScoutParent replies:

 

and what led you to the conclusion there was a something in the middle?

 

That I know about for certain, nothing, I guess. Notice I said "unknown number," and zero is a number. However, as firstpusk said, I do believe that there is sufficiently strong scientific evidence for evolution. (Note "believe" as opposed to "believe in," which would suggest religion, which evolution is not.) Also, when I say "steps," I am not necessarily just talking about evolution, or life on Earth. I am not sure that God needed to be involved in "our" affairs after creating the material and force for the Big Bang. The seeds of life may have been contained in that material. Science is still working on that, and I'm willing to wait. (But since I know that science will not find the answer to the origins of life in my lifetime, I just have to be satsified with not knowing, and I am.)

 

So, what has God been doing since the Big Bang, assuming that his intervention was not needed to start life on Earth? Well, he could have personally created every planet and every living thing on every planet that has life. He could have personally created you and me and all our ancestors, and he knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake. I just don't think there's any evidence for that, I don't think it's necessary, and don't happen to believe in it. It's equally likely that he's been busy creating an infinite number of other universes, or that he's just been playing solitaire for the last 15 billion years. He's got time.

 

And it's also possible that "he" is not a conscious entity at all. I certainly don't think we were created in his image, because I have no idea if "he" even has an image. I think the old guy with the white beard in the paintings of Michelangelo (a famous gay guy, by the way) is just our imagining of what God should look like. It has been said by some wise guy that man created God in his own image; since I do believe in God, I have to amend that to, man created his image(s) of God in his own image. At least, that's what I believe, with an acknowledgement that I could be completely wrong.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

[littlebillie]

NJCS,

 

I've always seen that "in His Own Image" stuff as akin to a human sculpt a statue - a statue can be in OUR image, but of a totally different substance or 'stuff'. The statue of a human being looks like a human being but can't do anything but sit there. The human may be in the image of God, but we are otherwise very unGodlike.

 

Now, in the case of humans and God, we are made in His Mental image, not physical, and the stuff of our minds and souls - compared to God's - is as cold marble compared to our bodies.

 

but again, this is from someone who sees the Bible as a symbolic instrument, a thing of simile and parable, rather than something wholly literal.

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster says to me:

 

Given your responses, I have no argument with you.

 

Wow, that would be a first.

 

However, I must assume that you do not believe in the Bible. Or, if you do, it is a tenuous belief at best.

 

I do not believe that the Bible is "God's Word." I don't actually know it isn't, just like you don't actually know it is. You think you know it is, but you don't actually know. In reality, you think it is, you believe it is, and I don't. I think it is the work of men -- who albeit probably thought that they were correctly reporting the word of God. In their minds, they were correct. I am not criticizing them. They saw rampant lawlessness, people hurting each other without cause, injustice, etc. and they decided to write down the law, and in order to ensure greater acceptance for the law, chose to say that this law was imposed by God. In order to do that, they had to create a background for (what they were calling) God and a reason for people to believe in him, and by extension the law that "he" was imposing. They summarized how they thought God created the Earth, how mankind came to be, and why things are the way they are. I think that a good deal of it, especially the early chapters of Genesis (which are what give rise to the whole attack on evolutionary science), were intended to be parable and metaphor. In some thread somewhere, I have discussed how the story of Cain (Genesis 4 I believe) would seem to indicate that the writer himself was acknowledging that Cain's parents were not unique, and had contemporaries who were not their offspring. A bit later we have the story of the Tower of Babel, which is the clearest example of pure parable that I can think of at the moment. Why do we human beings speak different languages? Well, here's why, mankind disobeyed God and tried to be like God, and God decided to knock mankind down a notch (literally) and prevent further encroachments on his domain. You want to believe that that all literally happened, be my guest. But (and back to the point of this thread) I have to wonder whether the writers of Genesis 1 and 2 would be happy or dismayed at the fact that, three or four thousand years later, their obvious attempts at allegory were being used as the basis for rejecting scientific discoveries that they themselves could not even have imagined. Actually, I don't wonder. I don't think they would be happy at all.

 

If man has corrupted God's Word, how does one determine which parts are true and which are not?

 

The same as with any other book. Now, for most books, there is other evidence, sources, etc. that the reader can look at and decide for himself/herself. Even then, it's tough to really know. Most people have had the philosophical conversation along the lines of "if you have never been to China, how do you know it really exists?" My answer is, I guess I don't know with absolute certainty. But with every map and book on the subject saying it exists, and all of the people I know who were born there saying it exists, and the satellite photos of the Earth showing that there is some big piece of land between Russia, India, Vietnam and Korea, and all the other references to its existence, and nobody saying it doesn't exist, I am sufficiently convinced of its existence to say that I "know" it is there. Could there be a big conspiracy involving several billion people to convince me alone that it is there, when it isn't? I suppose there could be, but if they want to go to that much trouble, I guess they've tricked me.

 

With the Bible, the problem is that, with some exceptions, there really are no other sources to confirm what is in there. Most of the attempts that I have seen to "prove" the overall validity of the Bible or individual statements in it, involve references to the contents of the Bible itself. It doesn't work that way. The book cannot prove itself. Now, that doesn't mean I don't believe that parts of it are historically true, or at least historically based, with some embellishments. This is particularly true for the later books of the Old Testament. (I am not going to address the New Testament, for obvious reasons.) The further along you go in the Old Testament, the more and more detail you find, and the more things start to match up with extrinsic sources. For example, it says there was a King Solomon and that he built a huge temple in Jerusalem, and there is today a huge wall in Jerusalem that appears to be in the right place and of the right vintage, and there is other evidence as well, so I have no problem believing that part of it, at least the rough outlines. On the other extreme, I think Adam, Eve, Cain, Able and Seth are allegorical and not historical figures. My guess is that Noah is allegorical, but that Moses is historical. The real puzzle for me is Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I'd like to believe they were real, but I just don't know.

 

If the point you are trying to make is that only a belief in the literal truth of the entire document will prevent uncertainty as to what is true and what is not, I'd have to agree. The argument proves itself, but the answer is really meaningless. If, however, you are trying to make the point that it is either all-true or all-not-true, I don't think there is any logical basis for that.