IN THE BEGINNING GOD......

[aspen]

Science values growth and discovery in thought - the formulation of informed ideas based on observable and repeatable evidence. Religion values certainty. I wonder which is a more humble approach?

 

[marksman]

My thoughts are...One day when people actually use their God given brains or are simply honest we will all agree on the following:


1. This world is limited by the laws of physics and the only plausible belief is that there is a Creator not limited by the laws of physics.

That thought is SENSATIONAL!! What you might call the three Os of God.

 

[Suhar]

I'm not an evolutionist, but I do know what a scientific theory is and what modern evolution theory actually says. They aren't what you say they are.

Science it studying something that can be observed or replicated. Evolution is neither. Evolution is a religious system where totally blind belief is required. Evolutionists are the most rabid religious zealots ever to be observed and never to be replicated.

 

[Dodo_David]

When stripped of the excess baggage that has been added to it over the years, Modern Evolution Theory is summed up in the following two sentences:

A genetic population evolves whenever new genetic data is added to that population. New genetic data is added either by cross-breeding or by mutations.

That is really all there is to Modern Evolution Theory. It is nothing more than an explanation of what causes genetic populations to evolve, with the word "evolve" meaning "change".

Modern Evolution Theory is demonstrated to be accurate whenever dog breeders produce a new breed of dog, such as when the monks at the Monastery of Bernard de Menthon cross-bred previously-existing dogs in order to produce the breed of dog call the Saint Bernard.

The accuracy of Modern Evolution Theory is demonstrated by the rise of antibiotic-resistant infections as the result of mutating bacteria.

Regrettably, people are often confused by what is and isn't in Modern Evolution Theory. Here are some examples.

1. Modern Evolution Theory doesn't say that the passage of time causes evolutionary events to take place. Time is a metric, a measurement, not a force.

2. Modern Evolution Theory is about the causes of evolutionary events. It is the Theory of Common Descent that allegedly describes what evolutionary events have taken place. It is not necessary for one to believe the latter theory in order to believe the former.

3. The Theory of Natural Selection isn't the same thing as Modern Evolution Theory. According to the Theory of Natural Selection, the species best equipped to survive in an environment is the species most likely to live long enough to reproduce. When an environmental change takes place, the species best equipped for the change is the species most likely to survive the change. If a species is ill-equipped for its environment, then that species will most likely die out. In other words, the environment (a.k.a. Nature) selects what species will survive. This is what is meant by "survival of the fittest".

4. Modern Evolution Theory doesn't explain how life began. Hypotheses about abiogenesis attempt to explain how life began.

5. Modern Evolution Theory doesn't require that all mutations be random. British zoologist Richard Dawkins writes, “It is not critical to the theory that mutation must be random, and it most certainly provides no excuse to tar the whole theory with the brush of randomness.”1

6. Modern Evolution Theory doesn't contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Modern Evolution Theory pertains to living organisms, which are open systems. The Second Law of Thermodynamics pertains to closed systems. Comparing Evolution Theory to the Second Law of Thermodynamics is like comparing apples to oranges.

7. Modern Evolution Theory pertains to the scientific discipline of Biology. The age of the Earth pertains to the scientific discipline of Geology. What Geology says about the age of the Earth is irrelevant to Modern Evolution Theory.

8. What scientists mean by "theory" isn't what non-scientists mean by "theory". Science writer Kim Ann Zimmerman states the following:
"When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena."2

9. Modern Evolution Theory is mute in regards to the existence of God or the existence of anything that is supernatural.

10. Nothing in Modern Evolution Theory prevents God from directing evolutionary events should such events occur. Nothing in Modern Evolution Theory prevents people from participating in evolutionary events.

For example, the creation of the Saint Bernard breed of dog is an example of an evolutionary event caused by the mixing of genetic data via cross-breeding. That event was brought about by deliberate human action, and it is possible that God inspired that action to take place.




Quote Sources

1 Richard Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbable (W.W. Norton & Company: 1996), pp. 80-82.
2 Kim Ann Zimmerman, "What is a Scientific Theory?", Live Science, http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

 

[Suhar]

When stripped of the excess baggage that has been added to it over the years, Modern Evolution Theory is summed up in the following two sentences:

A genetic population evolves whenever new genetic data is added to that population. New genetic data is added either by cross-breeding or by mutations.

That is really all there is to Modern Evolution Theory. It is nothing more than an explanation of what causes genetic populations to evolve, with the word "evolve" meaning "change".

Modern Evolution Theory is demonstrated to be accurate whenever dog breeders produce a new breed of dog, such as when the monks at the Monastery of Bernard de Menthon cross-bred previously-existing dogs in order to produce the breed of dog call the Saint Bernard.

The accuracy of Modern Evolution Theory is demonstrated by the rise of antibiotic-resistant infections as the result of mutating bacteria.

Regrettably, people are often confused by what is and isn't in Modern Evolution Theory. Here are some examples.

1. Modern Evolution Theory doesn't say that the passage of time causes evolutionary events to take place. Time is a metric, a measurement, not a force.

2. Modern Evolution Theory is about the causes of evolutionary events. It is the Theory of Common Descent that allegedly describes what evolutionary events have taken place. It is not necessary for one to believe the latter theory in order to believe the former.

3. The Theory of Natural Selection isn't the same thing as Modern Evolution Theory. According to the Theory of Natural Selection, the species best equipped to survive in an environment is the species most likely to live long enough to reproduce. When an environmental change takes place, the species best equipped for the change is the species most likely to survive the change. If a species is ill-equipped for its environment, then that species will most likely die out. In other words, the environment (a.k.a. Nature) selects what species will survive. This is what is meant by "survival of the fittest".

4. Modern Evolution Theory doesn't explain how life began. Hypotheses about abiogenesis attempt to explain how life began.

5. Modern Evolution Theory doesn't require that all mutations be random. British zoologist Richard Dawkins writes, “It is not critical to the theory that mutation must be random, and it most certainly provides no excuse to tar the whole theory with the brush of randomness.”1

6. Modern Evolution Theory doesn't contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Modern Evolution Theory pertains to living organisms, which are open systems. The Second Law of Thermodynamics pertains to closed systems. Comparing Evolution Theory to the Second Law of Thermodynamics is like comparing apples to oranges.

7. Modern Evolution Theory pertains to the scientific discipline of Biology. The age of the Earth pertains to the scientific discipline of Geology. What Geology says about the age of the Earth is irrelevant to Modern Evolution Theory.

8. What scientists mean by "theory" isn't what non-scientists mean by "theory". Science writer Kim Ann Zimmerman states the following:
"When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena."2

9. Modern Evolution Theory is mute in regards to the existence of God or the existence of anything that is supernatural.

10. Nothing in Modern Evolution Theory prevents God from directing evolutionary events should such events occur. Nothing in Modern Evolution Theory prevents people from participating in evolutionary events.

For example, the creation of the Saint Bernard breed of dog is an example of an evolutionary event caused by the mixing of genetic data via cross-breeding. That event was brought about by deliberate human action, and it is possible that God inspired that action to take place.




Quote Sources

1 Richard Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbable (W.W. Norton & Company: 1996), pp. 80-82.
2 Kim Ann Zimmerman, "What is a Scientific Theory?", Live Science, http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

I am sorry but that is a whole lot of talking by somebody who does not even understand what evolution is!

Variations within a specie of bacteria or dog is not evolution. All the monks in the world given all the billions of years in billions of monasteries cannot breed a dog into a cat or a horse it just cannot happen! Genetic information of DNA has limits that cannot be crossed. Creator of those DNA limits made it that way.

 

[Dodo_David]

I am sorry but that is a whole lot of talking by somebody who does not even understand what evolution is!

I know what evolution is. That is why I wrote what I wrote. Way too many scientific laymen have a gross misunderstanding of what Modern Evolution Theory does and does not say.

The Theory of Common Descent is the controversial theory, and I didn't say that I believed it.

 

[Suhar]

I know what evolution is. .

Yet the only “evidence” you provide is a variation within a specie which is not evolution. Evolution claims that one specie can become another which was never observed, replicated and fossil evidence for which does not exist.

 

[marksman]

That is really all there is to Modern Evolution Theory. It is nothing more than an explanation of what causes genetic populations to evolve, with the word "evolve" meaning "change"

I think you will find that modern evolutionary theory says that man evolved from monkeys.


Modern Evolution Theory is demonstrated to be accurate whenever dog breeders produce a new breed of dog, such as when the monks at the Monastery of Bernard de Menthon cross-bred previously-existing dogs in order to produce the breed of dog call the Saint Bernard.

That is not evolution as it started as a dog and finished as a dog.

The accuracy of Modern Evolution Theory is demonstrated by the rise of antibiotic-resistant infections as the result of mutating bacteria.

Modern Evolutionary Theory (MET) is demonstrated when something becomes something else as in when a fish becomes a lizard.

1. Modern Evolution Theory doesn't say that the passage of time causes evolutionary events to take place. Time is a metric, a measurement, not a force.

Time is of the essence in MET as they say that it take millions of years for a monkey to become a human.

2. Modern Evolution Theory is about the causes of evolutionary events. It is the Theory of Common Descent that allegedly describes what evolutionary events have taken place. It is not necessary for one to believe the latter theory in order to believe the former.

Common Descent describes common ancestry between species as in apes and humans share a common ancestry. The idea is found wanting because the scriptures say that everything was created after its own kind.

3. The Theory of Natural Selection isn't the same thing as Modern Evolution Theory. According to the Theory of Natural Selection, the species best equipped to survive in an environment is the species most likely to live long enough to reproduce. When an environmental change takes place, the species best equipped for the change is the species most likely to survive the change. If a species is ill-equipped for its environment, then that species will most likely die out. In other words, the environment (a.k.a. Nature) selects what species will survive. This is what is meant by "survival of the fittest".

The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin, and it is now regarded as being the main process that brings about evolution.

4. Modern Evolution Theory doesn't explain how life began. Hypotheses about abiogenesis attempt to explain how life began.

There are plenty of atheists who say abiogenesis is the explanation for the start of life bearing in mind that the whole purpose of evolution is to remove God from the scene.

7. Modern Evolution Theory pertains to the scientific discipline of Biology. The age of the Earth pertains to the scientific discipline of Geology. What Geology says about the age of the Earth is irrelevant to Modern Evolution Theory.

I think you will find that it is integral to the theory of evolution as what happens in evolution is explained in a specific number of years. Evolutionists really don't know what they do believe because the earth's age has been posited from anywhere between 200 million and 13.5 billion years.

8. What scientists mean by "theory" isn't what non-scientists mean by "theory". Science writer Kim Ann Zimmerman states the following:
"When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena."2

Precisely. But it is not proven so it remains a theory.

9. Modern Evolution Theory is mute in regards to the existence of God or the existence of anything that is supernatural.

I think you will find that evolutionists talk about God and his existence all the time as they have to remove God from the equation at all costs as they have no story otherwise. The media that reported on the Atheist convention in Melbourne last year said it was nothing more than a religious bashing session.

On a TV programme, Richard Dawkins spent most of the time trying to prove that God did not exist.

10. Nothing in Modern Evolution Theory prevents God from directing evolutionary events should such events occur.

Evolutionary theory is adamant that God has nothing to do with it.

Nothing in Modern Evolution Theory prevents people from participating in evolutionary events.

That would be very difficult as I asked some evolutionists how come we have not seen any evolution since Darwin. There answer was you don't see it happening so how can people be involved is they don't see it happening.

For example, the creation of the Saint Bernard breed of dog is an example of an evolutionary event caused by the mixing of genetic data via cross-breeding. That event was brought about by deliberate human action, and it is possible that God inspired that action to take place.

No its not, As I said, a dog before and a dog after. No evolution of any kind took part.

 

[aspen]

everythibg in science is considered a theory. that is how science works - it doesnt mean we disregard observable, repeatible mechanism in our world because scientists leave the door open for further understanding.

 

[Dodo_David]

Apparently, I need to repeat the following:

Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist: “Darwin did not use evolution to promote atheism or to maintain that no concept of God could ever be squared with the structure of nature. Rather, he argued that nature’s factuality, as read within the magisterium of science, could not resolve, or even specify, the existence or character of God, the ultimate meaning of life, the proper foundations of morality, or any other question within the different magisterium of religion.”1

Kenneth R. Miller, biologist: “Does evolution really nullify all world views that depend on the spiritual? Does it demand logical agnosticism as the price of scientific consistency? And does it rigorously exclude belief in God? These are the questions that I will explore in the pages that follow. My answer, in each and every case, is a resounding ‘no’.”2

Mark Buchheim, biologist: “Science is indeed a powerful tool, but science is, by default, mute with regard to anything outside the natural world. The late Stephen J. Gould introduced the concept of NOMA, or non-overlapping magisteria, to describe how science and faith co-exist in “mutual humility.” The point I’m making here is that science, stripped of any philosophical assumptions about the exclusivity of the natural world, can tell us nothing about our faith. Therefore, anyone who tries to link an acceptance of evolutionary theory with atheism or agnosticism is promoting a false dichotomy.”3

Mark A. Foster, sociologist: “There is as much evidence for evolution (most of it genetic) as there is for the heliocentric model of the solar system (that the sun, not the earth, is its center). There is no other side of the coin. Accepting evolution, however, does not mean that one rejects of God or the soul.”4

I am not saying that people should accept Modern Evolution Theory.

I just want people to have a correct understanding of what Modern Evolution Theory says.

Quote Sources

1 Stephen Jay Gould, Rocks of ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life (Ballantine: 1999), p. 192.

2 Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin’s god (Cliff Street Books: 1999), p. 17.

3 Mark Buchheim, “Letter to the editor: an educated response”, The Collegian Online (University of Tulsa: 2005), http://www.utulsa.edu/collegian/article.asp?article=2569 .

4 Mark A. Foster, “The Captain’s Personal bLog”, My Looking-Glass Selves (Sociosphere: 2001), http://editorials.sociosphere.com/arc20020301.html .

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Marksman

I am very much in agreement with your thinking. And in the past 2 years I have come to feel it is extremely important the christian avoid evolutionary theory.

Here is why :

It is from the first chapter of Romans and it appears the "sin" God dislikes the very most is when mankind does not recognize Him as God and as Creator. .... To those who do not recognize Him as God and Creator He therefore delivered them over to do all the other "sins" ...

Romans 1: 20 .... For His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse.
24 Therefore God delivered them over in the cravings of their hearts to sexual impurity, so that their bodies were degraded among themselves. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served something created instead of the Creator,
28 And because they did not think it worthwhile to acknowledge God, God delivered them over to a worthless mind to do what is morally wrong. 29 They are filled with all unrighteousness, evil, greed, and wickedness. They are full of envy, murder, quarrels, deceit, and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, arrogant, proud, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, and unmerciful. 32 Although they know full well God’s just sentence—that those who practice such things deserve to die—they not only do them, but even applaud others who practice them.

I feel a step toward evolutionary theory is a step in a fatal direction (from God's point of view)
Christians should not entertain those thoughts
Especially in modern day because one of the main tenants of evolution is to keep the Creator out of the picture.

And on the subject of the age of the earth I have no problem seeing the earth as about 6000 years old.

The evolutionary scientist thinks he is looking at billions of years , but he is not considering time itself did not exist until 6000 years ago .... thus he is staring into eternity (which looks to him like billions of light years away)

good sermon Marksman . I think every church should preach that message until we understand it completely.

 

[sdcougar]

When discussing evolution, we Christians need to be clear about the distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. We can put stumbling blocks before others when we are not careful.

We also ought to be clear that the Bible is silent on the age of the earth. Genealogies have nothing to do with that. We dare not turn our own words into 'Scripture' and cause others to discredit the actual Scriptures because of our carelessness in confusing our own guesses with the word of God.

http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/in-the-beginning/

 

[KingJ]

King J - recognizing the truth of the Bible does not always require a literal interpretation. I will consider the possibility that I am calling Jesus a liar, as soon as you acquire the capacity for abstract thought

Give the devil your hand and he will take your arm. You have abstract thought? Great, tell me what did Adam do with his monkey father? 1. Go to him for advice on the repercussions of rejecting God? or 2. Adopt him like a pet?

Evolution has been debated and discussed amongst the ungodly as a replacement for religion since 600 bc in Greece. Jesus came, changed the world and they still debating it. Lets not be naive, evolution was never the result of finding fossils. It is a forumlated anti-god belief system.

The Catholic stance is very interesting indeed. The popes supported it chiefly to avoid another similar 'Galileo affair'...but ensured all grasped their 'infallible dogma' with their acceptance of it. All atheists and even many Christians believing in evolution fall short of their 'infallible dogma'.

When discussing evolution, we Christians need to be clear about the distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. We can put stumbling blocks before others when we are not careful.

We also ought to be clear that the Bible is silent on the age of the earth. Genealogies have nothing to do with that. We dare not turn our own words into 'Scripture' and cause others to discredit the actual Scriptures because of our carelessness in confusing our own guesses with the word of God.

http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/in-the-beginning/

Micro evolution lol. The gaps in their theory are filled with ''millions and millions of years'' or ''its too small to notice''. The problem I have with micro evolution is the 'evolution' in the word. Call it adaptation and remove the evolution!

 

[aspen]

KingJ - why do you choose to mock what you do not understand? Do you think it makes you look clever? Your statement about Adam reveals your ignorance, and contempt for science, not zealousness for God.

The Pope appears to be unwilling to make the issue into a millstone - seems prudent to me

 

[KingJ]

KingJ - why do you choose to mock what you do not understand? Do you think it makes you look clever? Your statement about Adam reveals your ignorance, and contempt for science, not zealousness for God.

The Pope appears to be unwilling to make the issue into a millstone - seems prudent to me

Aspen - Why do you choose to support what you do not understand? Don't you think it makes you look dumb? Your ignorance of my statement reveals your lack of abstract thought and contempt for scripture, certainly not zealousness for God.

You wanted to use abstract thought. So lets do that. As Sherlock says ''How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?''

 

[aspen]

Aspen - Why do you choose to support what you do not understand? Don't you think it makes you look dumb? Your ignorance of my statement reveals your lack of abstract thought and contempt for scripture, certainly not zealousness for God.

You wanted to use abstract thought. So lets do that. As Sherlock says ''How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?''

I admit that I did not understand evolution for most of my life, but over the past year, I have improved my science education and I plan to continue to do so. I do not support evolution, as if it was a political party, I simply acknowledge that it is foundational to scientific thought and new discovery. It is not a perfect theory, but it never claims to be perfect - unlike conservative theology, scientific theory develops based on new discovery and peer review. I also recognize the Creation Story in Genesis for what it is; ancient literature inspired by God, but not meant to rival scientific understanding and discovery. Just because it is not literal or scientific doesn't mean it lacks value - on the contrary, it provides a critical understanding of human nature and our relationship with each other and God. In fact, it is one of my favorite parts of scripture - as foundation to the human story as evolution is to science.

I think you need to go look up the definition of abstract.

Finally, I am sorry, but I am not humanistic enough to believe that humans can recognize everything impossible, let alone dismiss it, unless it suits their purposes and allengencies; nor am I ready to take the advice of a fictional character, written by a cocaine addicted author.

 

[KingJ]

I admit that I did not understand evolution for most of my life, but over the past year, I have improved my science education and I plan to continue to do so. I do not support evolution, as if it was a political party, I simply acknowledge that it is foundational to scientific thought and new discovery. It is not a perfect theory, but it never claims to be perfect - unlike conservative theology, scientific theory develops based on new discovery and peer review. I also recognize the Creation Story in Genesis for what it is; ancient literature inspired by God, but not meant to rival scientific understanding and discovery. Just because it is not literal or scientific doesn't mean it lacks value - on the contrary, it provides a critical understanding of human nature and our relationship with each other and God. In fact, it is one of my favorite parts of scripture - as foundation to the human story as evolution is to science.

I think you need to go look up the definition of abstract.

Finally, I am sorry, but I am not humanistic enough to believe that humans can recognize everything impossible, let alone dismiss it, unless it suits their purposes and allengencies; nor am I ready to take the advice of a fictional character, written by a cocaine addicted author.

Evolution is not compatible on any level with scripture! Prove I am wrong / help me see your light with some Christian common sense / lateral thought! Please, do not waste time discussing anything but its compatibility with scripture!

I think you need to go look up the definition of abstract.

Lol. I need just one discussion with a Christian believing in evolution to know what abstract thought is. I am for it and the need to keep both feet firmly rooted in scripture. Forever mindful of Rev 22:19.

 

[aspen]

Evolution is never going to meet your standards, as far as conpatibility with a literal reading of the Creation Story - i thought we already establish this......

The reason i have given you already is that the Creation Story is not a literal account of Creation - believing that it is, is a recent standard of interpration that was placed on this part of scripture during the last century.

You seem to be demanding that people ignore scientific, historical, and literaray evidence in order to prop up your desire to view the Creation Story as a literal account - i cannot do that for you, i am not Ken Hovid. It is not because i love God less than you or because i want team science to win and team Chistian to lose - i just choose to not ignore compelling scientific evidence or compelling spiritual evidence. i am not afraid to be wrong either so if God corrects my understanding someday, i am sure we will have a good laugh about it.....until then, i am going to see the physical world and the spiritual world around me without fear

 

[KingJ]

You seem to be demanding that people ignore scientific, historical, and literaray evidence in order to prop up your desire to view the Creation Story as a literal account - i cannot do that for you, i am not Ken Hovid. It is not because i love God less than you or because i want team science to win and team Chistian to lose - i just choose to not ignore compelling scientific evidence or compelling spiritual evidence. i am not afraid to be wrong either so if God corrects my understanding someday, i am sure we will have a good laugh about it.....until then, i am going to see the physical world and the spiritual world around me without fear

Aspen the underlined are your assumptions. My judgement of you ignoring scripture is NOT an assumption. If science disproves scripture, scripture is obsolete. I just don't get why so many don't '''get''' that. I am not saying we need to all believe in a young earth. It is perfectly fine to believe in an old earth. But NOT evolution. Old earth undermines nothing. Evolution seeks to undermines scripture. We have to identify the origin and reasoning behind this theory being invented. We can't be ignorant!

I accept fact. Example...we find fossils. Ok, sweet, there were animals with really big teeth before Adam. NOT...we find fossils...ok, sweet... that was Adam's lineage. The devil's goal is to lift up 'self'. Evolution is a belief system invented to support atheism / self exaltation. The devil is bringing mankind the same lie he brought Eve. Most of us are just too blind to see it. Like I said, give the devil your hand and he will take your arm. Maybe not today, but soon. Build your house on scripture and then you will see facts clearly....unless you are not yet convinced that scripture is the truth or you don't want to endure sound doctrine...??


2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

 

[aspen]

i could careless about the limited views of scientists who reject anything beyond their senses. i do not believe in a secular conspiracy to destroy Christianity. i do not believe Satan is powerful enough to challenge God or thwart His Will - i believe that he is a cautionary figure, who choose to love selfishly - we should not follow his lead.

i do not spend my time trying to Christianize worldily institutions - i want to be devoted to loving God through prayer and loving my neighbor through service and intimate relationships.

on the other hand i am interested in learning about His creation through observation, which involves science and other academic disciplines. i do not believe this compromises my faith in God. i also refuse to view scripture as either all literally true or all false - it is a false dychotomy based in the fear of making God angry enough to damn me. Docrine does not save - the ability to love perfectly saves and it can only be achieved through Christ