Biblical literalism correlates with anti-science

[aspen]

Apparently, if we can't see it, and refuse to measure the process by the changes that are happening over history, it doesn't exist. Wow, forget evolution for a minute; how does this method of knowing apply to the relationship between God and His creation?

Refusing to examine the evidence does not mean evolution or God do not exist

 

[River Jordan]

Not really. "Little" knowledge is a pretty ambiguous term. I am not in favor if censoring people or not hearing them out just because someone feels they don't possess the proper credentials. It would be like me saying you don't have the ability to comment on the Scriptures or church history because you don't have a theological education. People can study for themselves or quote sources they trust without having a degree in a field. In fact, I have found many here are quite knowledgeable in some areas they have no formal training in.

I'm not talking about formal training or education; I'm talking about at least looking into a subject enough to have a decent understanding of it before going around speaking as an authority. It's like someone never bothering to read the Bible, and then acting like they know anything about it. Do you think that's ok?

This seems odd coming from a person who starts a blog entitled "Biblical literalism correlates with anti-science." By reading many of your comments, one could easily think that you feel anyone who disagree with Darwinian evolution and holds Genesis to be factual in any regard is automatically "anti-science," regardless of their demeanor in the discussion.

Try and understand that a statistical correlation does not necessitate a specific behavior. Just because Biblical literalism correlates with anti-science attitudes, it doesn't mean it has to. The results of this study indicate that there's a strong anti-science culture within conservative Christianity. That needs to change.

Yeah, the good ol' days when people who believed the Bible were not mocked in the university classroom and 1.1 million babies were not killed each year for the sake of convenience. You actually prefer living during a holocaust?

I've got news for you. Women have been deliberately ending their pregnancies for thousands of years, so there's no need to act like abortion is a recent phenomenon. And yes, I prefer to live at a time when things like institutionalized racism, discrimination, misogyny, and such are on the decline rather than prominent institutional features.

Yeah, I don't think Christians not embracing Darwinism wholeheartedly is a major cause for its decline.

I've posted the survey data here several times that shows one of the factors driving youth out of Christianity is that they see the faith as "hostile to science". You can deny if you like, but that doesn't change reality.

Im not trying to justify either. Im just saying its not like its just those dumb ol Christians out there that are uninformed or improper in these discussions...yet listening to you, that is the impression one would get. The whole "you Christians" diatribes from you are a little myopic.

We're supposed to be above all that, and most importantly, truthful in everything we do. As I've shown several times here, creationism (as promoted by major creationist organizations) is anything but truthful.

I honestly don't know what you are talking about.

Never mind....not important.

 

[River Jordan]

You implied it.

IOW, "No, you didn't say that but rather than admit my error I'll just say you "implied it" somewhere". Nice.

 

[River Jordan]

An interesting comment. On another forum I asked an atheist why we haven't seem any evolution take place since Darwin told us his theories. His reply was that it is happening you just don't see it happening. So one atheist says you see it happening and another says you don't.

By the way, what evolution have we seen happening since Darwin?

I believe I've sent you to this post before.....Let's Get Some Facts On The Table

 

[BlackManINC]

Apparently, if we can't see it, and refuse to measure the process by the changes that are happening over history, it doesn't exist. Wow, forget evolution for a minute; how does this method of knowing apply to the relationship between God and His creation?

Refusing to examine the evidence does not mean evolution or God do not exist

If evolution were true, then we should find something more than just circumstantial evidence that can be interpreted either way. Since it proposes a naturalistic origin of life, then we should be able to put it under a microscope and determine if our origins were really by common descent. You can't refuse to examine evidence that doesn't exist. Bringing 'God' into the picture is a non sequitur, because you can't put God under a microscope. You can't scrutinize something that is immaterial by its nature, but you can put Darwinistic evolution under a microscope, of which we find no evidence for.

 

[aspen]

If evolution were true, then we should find something more than just circumstantial evidence that can be interpreted either way. Since it proposes a naturalistic origin of life, then we should be able to put it under a microscope and determine if our origins were really by common descent. You can't refuse to examine evidence that doesn't exist. Bringing 'God' into the picture is a non sequitur, because you can't put God under a microscope. You can't scrutinize something that is immaterial by its nature, but you can put Darwinistic evolution under a microscope, of which we find no evidence for.

But we do have more than circumstantial evidence; it is called DNA and it points to a universal common ancestor. And when I say 'points to'. I mean it points nowhere else.

 

[BlackManINC]

But we do have more than circumstantial evidence; it is called DNA and it points to a universal common ancestor. And when I say 'points to'. I mean it points nowhere else.

My DNA doesn't point to my common ancestor being pond scum, or some ape, it might however, point to such a thing in your DNA, you should check and see for yourself, I'm not sure. My common ancestor is Adam, who was made from the dust of the earth, in the image of God, not from the material of an animal, or insect, or in the image of Caesar, or anything else.

 

[aspen]

My DNA doesn't point to my common ancestor being pond scum, or some ape, it might however, point to such a thing in your DNA, you should check and see for yourself, I'm not sure. My common ancestor is Adam, who was made from the dust of the earth, in the image of God, not from the material of an animal, or insect, or in the image of Caesar, or anything else.

Archaea
Bacteria
Eukaryota

Call it pond scum if you want. Educated people call it the tree of life.

 

[JimParker]

If evolution were true, then we should find something more than just circumstantial evidence that can be interpreted either way. Since it proposes a naturalistic origin of life, then we should be able to put it under a microscope and determine if our origins were really by common descent. You can't refuse to examine evidence that doesn't exist. Bringing 'God' into the picture is a non sequitur, because you can't put God under a microscope. You can't scrutinize something that is immaterial by its nature, but you can put Darwinistic evolution under a microscope, of which we find no evidence for.

<< Since it proposes a naturalistic origin of life >>

That is false. If you pin down an evolutionist, they will admit that they do not know how life originated.

However, they do insist on pretending that they know by talking about serendipitous combining of amino acids in the so-called "primordial soup" giving rise to living molecules. (One biologist put the possibility of a single DNA molecule forming by happy accident at 10-80. Wining the lottery is only 1.75-8; you're more likely to be struck by an asteroid.

But, aside from pretending to know of a possible naturalistic basis for life as long as they are not directly challenged, they have ample evidence of the evolution of individual species. IMO

And I see no issue with God using evolution of the multitude of species we see.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Archaea
Bacteria
Eukaryota

Call it pond scum if you want. Educated people call it the tree of life.

I'm pretty sure calling someone uneducated is against forum rules. It is an ad hominem attack. Just because someone disagrees with your opinion doesn't mean they are uneducated. Return to the subject of the thread please.

 

[aspen]

I'm pretty sure calling someone uneducated is against forum rules. It is an ad hominem attack. Just because someone disagrees with your opinion doesn't mean they are uneducated. Return to the subject of the thread please.

Educated people do call it the tree of life. It is a fact.

 

[BlackManINC]

<< Since it proposes a naturalistic origin of life >>

That is false. If you pin down an evolutionist, they will admit that they do not know how life originated.

However, they do insist on pretending that they know by talking about serendipitous combining of amino acids in the so-called "primordial soup" giving rise to living molecules. (One biologist put the possibility of a single DNA molecule forming by happy accident at 10-80. Wining the lottery is only 1.75-8; you're more likely to be struck by an asteroid.

But, aside from pretending to know of a possible naturalistic basis for life as long as they are not directly challenged, they have ample evidence of the evolution of individual species. IMO

And I see no issue with God using evolution of the multitude of species we see.

I didn't say anything about the origin of life by chemical evolution, I'm referring to biological evolution, the origin of all creatures by descent from water based life to man. This descending order is the only thing evolution has in common with the creation account, the similarities end there. Satan, in all his guile, twisted the account to mean every creature came into existence in descending order by common ancestry to a single protocell, whereas the Bible records this occurring by a common designer, forming each and every kind of creature as unique from each other from the material of the earth as we see them today from the start.

 

[JimParker]

I didn't say anything about the origin of life by chemical evolution, I'm referring to biological evolution, the origin of all creatures by descent from water based life to man. This descending order is the only thing evolution has in common with the creation account, the similarities end there. Satan, in all his guile, twisted the account to mean every creature came into existence in descending order by common ancestry to a single protocell, whereas the Bible records this occurring by a common designer, forming each and every kind of creature as unique from each other from the material of the earth as we see them today from the start.

I was responding to your words "it proposes a naturalistic origin of life."

<< the Bible records this occurring by a common designer, forming each and every kind of creature as unique from each other from the material of the earth as we see them today from the start. >>

Yes it does.

But we must always be careful not to confuse the genealogy of the heavens and earth (Gen 1) with the transcript of the videotape. Gen 1 is a literary device, poetry, which introduces the story of who the Jews are. It ends with the genealogy of Ex 1:1-5 (Which introduces the story of Moses and the Exodus.) Genealogies, in various forms, are used in ancient near eastern literature at the end of a story to introduce the next story.

Book: Before Abraham Was, by Kikowada and Quinn. It's out of print but used copies can be found. It provides an excellent analysis of the literary structure of Gen 1-11 and provides a refutation of the documentary theory which proposes those stories are just a compilation. The authors show the high level of literary expertise used in assembling the stories of Gen 1-11 as well as the use of standard literary conventions throughout the Bible.

 

[KingJ]

Put down the bs bell, no conspiracy here, just creationist wishful thing

Would you say there is never behind the scenes collusion / intimidation?

 

[KingJ]

Well, the ridiculous logic behind the thinking that quotes are what matters on scientific issues aside, don't expect the creationists here to acknowledge the error of blindly copying quotes from dishonest creationist sources. Some people value loyalty and tribalism over accuracy and objectivity....that's just human nature.

Believing the opposition is always wrong is naivety and stupidity.

 

[KingJ]

True
It is a sad truth

It is also sad that if we invoke Pascal and modify his wager.......I am wrong about science and my method of interpreting scripture, God and I will have a good chuckle someday when I get to Heaven; I fear that if literalists discover that the Bible happens to containing inaccuracies or that the authors of the Bible were influenced by their culture or didn't have unlimited knowledge about boats and floods and 6 day creations, they will chuck out the whole Bible or Christianity itself.

What's sad is that you can't see the devils handiwork if it fell on your head anymore then it is.

Moses and John may not have had the vocabulary of us today, but they will not be impressed with anyone disregarding what they were trying to say.

Who decides what parts we throw out? Do we throw 2 Tim 3:16 and John 1:1 out with Genesis, Revelations, OT laws and every place Paul spoke of GLBT's?

A chuckle in heaven? Lol, no. I don't see God having a good chuckle with you when you believe His word / His attempt to interact with mankind was regarded by you / taught by you as 1. Fairytale dogma (intelligent man 300k old, bible 6k old), 2. Sacrifice on cross was a joke (evolving intelligence) and 3. that He is evil (natural selection).

On the contrary I think God will rebuke / judge you for ever opening your mouth on such.....whilst the belief causing this doubt in scripture is still less then an accepted theory.........

 

[KingJ]

But, aside from pretending to know of a possible naturalistic basis for life as long as they are not directly challenged, they have ample evidence of the evolution of individual species. IMO

And I see no issue with God using evolution of the multitude of species we see.

You believe we are evolved? You see no conflict with scripture?

 

[KingJ]

However, they do insist on pretending that they know by talking about serendipitous combining of amino acids in the so-called "primordial soup" giving rise to living molecules. (One biologist put the possibility of a single DNA molecule forming by happy accident at 10-80. Wining the lottery is only 1.75-8; you're more likely to be struck by an asteroid.

Now if ONLY they could use that same mathematical logic on the odds / number of missing links at every stage of human evolution............................................

The whole time line from the big bang is ridiculous. Agreed?

 

[JimParker]

I don't believe you have thought much on this.

Debunk / convince me I am wrong on my three arguments and you will convert me.

1. How is the bible not recent fairytale dogma if you believe intelligent man is 30k - 300k - 800k BC? It took God 293 000 or so years to choose an Abraham? To decide the world needs to hear from Him? To kick start His plan for mankind's redemption...

2. How is the cross not a joke if mankind's intelligence is evolving? Did Jesus die for Adam's monkey father? Who exactly did Jesus die for? If monkeys too, why are we not witnessing to monkeys and especially their offspring? We know He died for our sins, so what are these sins that we can commit that evolving man could not commit? Did Jesus die for Neanderthals? Heidelberg man? What makes us accountable for sin if not intelligence?

3. How is God not implicated in evil with natural selection? If evil cannot be traced to us and angels, God is implicated. So how is God excused on this?

Convert you to what? Aren't you already a Christian?

1. God does everything HE wants, whenever HE wants, and in whatever manner HE wants and He doesn't need you to understand. The most recent archaeological finds are of cities that are about 10,000 years old which indicates that man, whom God created, is even older.

2. That question doesn't make sense. I have never suggested that Adam's father was a monkey or that man's intelligence is "evolving." Man's knowledge and understanding of the universe is growing but knowledge and understanding are not the same as intelligence.

3. That doesn't make sense either. Man (Adam) chose to sin and sin entered the world. Natural selection has nothing to do with man's free will choice to attempt to be a god through knowledge rather than to be united to The One God.

I see absolutely no reason to challenge the Biblical teaching that God created everything and that man is unique in being the only creature made in God's image and likeness.

I see absolutely no reason to believe that anything happened by random chance without the direction of the will of God.

Are you proposing that I believe the universe to be only about 6000 years old?

Are you proposing that the Bible is a book of natural history rather than the revelation of God to man?

 

[KingJ]

Convert you to what? Aren't you already a Christian?

1. God does everything HE wants, whenever HE wants, and in whatever manner HE wants and He doesn't need you to understand. The most recent archaeological finds are of cities that are about 10,000 years old which indicates that man, whom God created, is even older.

2. That question doesn't make sense. I have never suggested that Adam's father was a monkey or that man's intelligence is "evolving." Man's knowledge and understanding of the universe is growing but knowledge and understanding are not the same as intelligence.

3. That doesn't make sense either. Man (Adam) chose to sin and sin entered the world. Natural selection has nothing to do with man's free will choice to attempt to be a god through knowledge rather than to be united to The One God.

I see absolutely no reason to challenge the Biblical teaching that God created everything and that man is unique in being the only creature made in God's image and likeness.

I see absolutely no reason to believe that anything happened by random chance without the direction of the will of God.

Are you proposing that I believe the universe to be only about 6000 years old?

Are you proposing that the Bible is a book of natural history rather than the revelation of God to man?

I deleted this post to you because I saw / thought I may be making assumptions about your belief.

Just to clarify...you believe in old mankind and old earth? Or young mankind old earth?