Why Christians/Conservatives Should Accept Evolution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

…I have a lot of respect for my evangelical bro’s and sisters, but I won’t tolerate being told my faith is somehow inferior or wrong. [/quote]

Your faith isn’t inferior or wrong unless you’re constantly adjusting your faith to meet the standards of atheists and agnostics, folks who don’t trust Christ as their Lord and Savior. If your faith is tailored to accommodate them…friend, you have problems.[/quote]

I can’t believe that I’m being a Catholic apologist here. Hell, I may rejoin the Catholic Church just to piss off the fundamentalist evangelicals. But like I said, except for that little disagreement with Galileo, the Catholic Church has always been pro-science and pro-education. What other religious organization has its own observatory staffed by members of the clergy who possess training in both science and philosophy/theology? http://vaticanobservatory.org/

It is most definitely NOT about accommodating atheists and agnostics. It IS about the rational position that science and religion do not conflict and do not need to conflict. Priest sex scandals aside, the fact that there exists a Vatican Observatory makes me think that there is some hope that reason and religion can not only co-exist, but actually unite for a common good. This is an attempt to advance society. What has fundamentalism done for society? It is the year 2010 and yet there are people who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. And they want to teach this nonsense in the school system! Are you fucking serious? Fundamentalism is indeed a plague.

83

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
…Hell, I may rejoin the Catholic Church just to piss off the fundamentalist evangelicals…

…What has fundamentalism done for society? It is the year 2010 and yet there are people who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. And they want to teach this nonsense in the school system! Are you fucking serious? Fundamentalism is indeed a plague. [/quote]

MikeTheHypocrite also wrote:

Apparently MikeTheHypocrite is just another disingenuous, dogmatic evolutionist that must have it his way or it’s the highway. If you disagree with him then the “Let’s do so seriously and civilly if possible” thing goes out the window.

[/quote]

Push, you’re absolutely right that this post was out of line given my stance of creating a serious and civil discussion. I don’t often get worked up about stuff and I try to see the other side’s view. I can understand how someone can believe in some sort of Supreme Being. I can even understand this Supreme Being had a son who sacrificed his life for our sins. Sort of anyway, because my concept of a Supreme Being is more along the lines of how Einstein viewed God, i.e., the Universe itself. I can even see the appeal of intelligent design, as it has some superficial appeal, even though it’s been debunked. I can even understand, quite easily in fact, how a person living in the Medieval time could believe in a literal view of the Bible. However, I absolutely cannot fathom how a rational adult living in the year 2010 can believe that the earth is 6,000 years old AND WANT TO TEACH THIS AS SCIENCE. It is just beyond my comprehension. It would be like believing that 2+2=5. I would need to suffer some type of brain trauma to even begin to think this way. Seriously. Yes, I am pro-science, which includes evolution, and proud of it. I once wanted to be a scientist. I do not believe that science and religion need to be at odds. I am not the only one who thinks this way - it is a modern view held by most major religions.

If you wish to believe that 2+2=5 go for it. But don’t even think about trying to teach this shit as science in schools.

85

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
…Hell, I may rejoin the Catholic Church just to piss off the fundamentalist evangelicals…

…What has fundamentalism done for society? It is the year 2010 and yet there are people who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. And they want to teach this nonsense in the school system! Are you fucking serious? Fundamentalism is indeed a plague. [/quote]

MikeTheHypocrite also wrote:

Apparently MikeTheHypocrite is just another disingenuous, dogmatic evolutionist that must have it his way or it’s the highway. If you disagree with him then the “Let’s do so seriously and civilly if possible” thing goes out the window.

[/quote]

Push, you’re absolutely right that this post was out of line given my stance of creating a serious and civil discussion. I don’t often get worked up about stuff and I try to see the other side’s view. I can understand how someone can believe in some sort of Supreme Being. I can even understand this Supreme Being had a son who sacrificed his life for our sins. Sort of anyway, because my concept of a Supreme Being is more along the lines of how Einstein viewed God, i.e., the Universe itself. I can even see the appeal of intelligent design, as it has some superficial appeal, even though it’s been debunked. I can even understand, quite easily in fact, how a person living in the Medieval time could believe in a literal view of the Bible. However, I absolutely cannot fathom how a rational adult living in the year 2010 can believe that the earth is 6,000 years old AND WANT TO TEACH THIS AS SCIENCE. It is just beyond my comprehension. It would be like believing that 2+2=5. I would need to suffer some type of brain trauma to even begin to think this way. Seriously. Yes, I am pro-science, which includes evolution, and proud of it. I once wanted to be a scientist. I do not believe that science and religion need to be at odds. I am not the only one who thinks this way - it is a modern view held by most major religions.

If you wish to believe that 2+2=5 go for it. But don’t even think about trying to teach this shit as science in schools.[/quote]

Your problem is apparently you have only a cursory understanding of creationism and the science behind it but yet…compelled by your dogma, your faith, and your unbending devotion to it you insist on critiquing creationism.

You kinda remind me of the Norwegians and New Zealanders on this forum who insist on interjecting their “astute” opinions on internal American politics with no idea of American culture and sociology except what they see on television and the big screen.

If you’re going to lash out at your opponent like this at least be intellectually honest enough to be able to say, “You know…I took a good long hard look at creationism. I studied their theory as THEY presented it. I examined the evidence they use for a young earth. I examined Flood geology. I took some courses in creation science (in some form or another) to find out how they justify their ideas in the face of the uniformitarian/evolution model that grips much of the modern world…and…it came up short in my opinion…and here’s why…”

Until then…as Pink Floyd put it…“All in all you’re just another brick in the wall” and frankly, you bore me.[/quote]

Alternatively, we could assume an agnostic perspective as to whether God exists, seeing the lack of ability to test for such a thing, and attempt to unravel the secrets of nature without relying on a supernatural explanation. Which is what science does.

I think the bible counts as a ‘supernatural explanation’, thereby placing itself outside the realm of science.

While I’ll admit that’s not the ENTIRITY of creation science, it’s a fundamental cornerstone, and it’s fatally flawed (from a scientific viewpoint). If one is constructing a house, why build its foundation on sand?

87

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Pat, the last time we went over this you were stirring some absurd witch’s brew that Adam and Eve’s parents were still half human/half simian and then POOF God sprinkled them, Adam and Eve, with souls and BINGO they became “real humans” and committed the first sin.

Even in an figurative interpretation of Genesis this is a pile of bullshit 17 feet deep: hominid/human ancestors runnin’ 'round all over the earth, death and suffering happening everywhere in God’s “perfect” creation, all the while waiting for God to imbue some “chosen” couple with souls, commanding them not to partake of some “figurative” fruit tree, them doing whatever it was they did to disobey that command about the “symbolic” tree and then…what…more death and suffering as a result of that sin?

Sure thing. Sounds reasonable. Sounds biblical.

(And folks want to call me the crazy one?)[/quote]

You have me confused with someone else. I never, ever, asserted that Adam and Eve’s parents were anything. I know that the truth of Genesis is there. I don’t know if there Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden or not. The illustrated truths are still the truth’s. God created everything, including us. We are animals, but we are waaay different than any animal on the planet. I don’t think that’s an accident of evolution, but the theory of evolution has very valid observations and decent theories on how life in general got to where it is. It’s not perfect, but it’s pretty darn close.

Does this pertain to us? Partially. It does not explain our uniqueness among all living things. Genesis completes the story. I just can’t see the conflict.

88

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Doctrine of Papal Infallibility has only been enacted twice. Hardly anything to get fussy over. And the things they have used it for are foundation things, nothing to do with contraception. [/quote]

I thought Papal Infallibility applied to all of the encyclicals and such. I know that something like 98% of Catholics ignore the contraception ban even though it’s classified as a mortal sin, i.e., you’re going to hell. But apparently confession will absolve one of this.[/quote]

Papal infallibility is an official declaration of dogma and is seldom used. If I am not mistaken, the last time was 1854, regarding the Immaculate Conception. Infallibility is not taken lightly. Contraception is not part of that.

89

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

…I have a lot of respect for my evangelical bro’s and sisters, but I won’t tolerate being told my faith is somehow inferior or wrong. [/quote]

Your faith isn’t inferior or wrong unless you’re constantly adjusting your faith to meet the standards of atheists and agnostics, folks who don’t trust Christ as their Lord and Savior. If your faith is tailored to accommodate them…friend, you have problems.[/quote]

You have bad information. That is not how Catholicism works. I am afraid you just don’t know or understand it all if that’s what you really think.
The faith is only adjusted by truth and faith in Jesus. If that’s wrong than I am proud to be wrong.

91

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Pat wrote:

Like it or not, we are the church that Jesus established by his own authority by Peter in literal scripture. [/quote]

This is a doctrine that can only be created and finessed by drawing on documents outside the Bible.

“The rock” that Christ spoke of against whom the gates of hell would not prevail is Christ himself. I know this steps on your toes purty hard but I believe youse/y’all Catholics got this one wrong - big time.

http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/45.htm[/quote]

Even if you dispute that phrase, what does Mt 16:19 say right after? Who else has God given the keys of the kingdom too?

93

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

Alternatively, we could assume an agnostic perspective as to whether God exists, seeing the lack of ability to test for such a thing, and attempt to unravel the secrets of nature without relying on a supernatural explanation. Which is what science does.

I think the bible counts as a ‘supernatural explanation’, thereby placing itself outside the realm of science.

While I’ll admit that’s not the ENTIRITY of creation science, it’s a fundamental cornerstone, and it’s fatally flawed (from a scientific viewpoint). If one is constructing a house, why build its foundation on sand?[/quote]

You showed your hand in that you don’t really understand what science is.

Science is the pursuit of knowledge. Period. Not comma, period.

Science is NOT assuming an agnostic perspective as to whether God exists and going from there.

And macroevolution SURELY cannot implement the scientific method. Need I state why? For the thousandth time?
[/quote]

I can’t seem to find the link right now, but as science specifically stays within the bounds of observation and testability, it specifically eschews the supernatural. Because, you know, if it could observe/test the supernatural… it wouldn’t be supernatural.

Here’s a quote from Wikipedia’s article on SCIENCE and it’s definition to support the observation/testability clause of that sentence. I’ll look up the supernatural business more tomorrow.

95

Stated,

“Even if you dispute that phrase, what does Mt 16:19 say right after? Who else has God given the keys of the kingdom too?”

Jesus promised to give the keys of the Kingdom (the authority of God’s rule) to Peter that others might be brought under the rule and reign of God.This was really a commision to preach the gospel and was first fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost. Jesus, however, did not intend to limit this to Peter. Later He gave the same commision to all the disciples and true believers (Mat. 18:18; 28:18-20). This preaching would have heaven’s authority behind it because it would be true to the Word of god. By preaching the gospel they would declare that those that rejected it would be bound and those who accepted it would be loosed and set free. When they declared this, the work would have already been done and ratified in heaven.

96

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

…I have a lot of respect for my evangelical bro’s and sisters, but I won’t tolerate being told my faith is somehow inferior or wrong. [/quote]

Your faith isn’t inferior or wrong unless you’re constantly adjusting your faith to meet the standards of atheists and agnostics, folks who don’t trust Christ as their Lord and Savior. If your faith is tailored to accommodate them…friend, you have problems.[/quote]

You have bad information. That is not how Catholicism works. I am afraid you just don’t know or understand it all if that’s what you really think.
The faith is only adjusted by truth and faith in Jesus. If that’s wrong than I am proud to be wrong.[/quote]

Thanks Pat and others for the information on Catholicism. Seems to me that the Catholics here are the reasonable ones.

Great interview with Fr. George Coyne, Jesuit priest and astronomer. If this guy had been my parish priest I may still be involved in the Church.

97

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Pat wrote:

Like it or not, we are the church that Jesus established by his own authority by Peter in literal scripture. [/quote]

This is a doctrine that can only be created and finessed by drawing on documents outside the Bible.

“The rock” that Christ spoke of against whom the gates of hell would not prevail is Christ himself. I know this steps on your toes purty hard but I believe youse/y’all Catholics got this one wrong - big time.

http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/45.htm[/quote]

Even if you dispute that phrase, what does Mt 16:19 say right after? Who else has God given the keys of the kingdom too?[/quote]

Could you be more specific?[/quote]

Sure. Let’s look at Mt 16:17-19 for context.

Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Mt 16:17 is the disputed phrase. Is funny that one word or lack of a word can change this to be a disputed phrase. So I will give you the lack of specificity regarding Peter as the Rock of the church. That’s fine. What Jesus does proceed to do is he gives Peter, the keys of heaven, and gave him power to bind or loosen on Earth and Heaven. If you dispute the Rock, you cannot dispute the power and authority bestowed on Peter, by Jesus himself.
Peter in all contexts was the first pope, though the office by such name did not exist. Early Christianity was the church led by Peter. There would be no Christianity were it not for Peter.

It doesn’t matte much whether you like Catholicism or not. History is this way, all other sects and Christian disciplines branched from it. There is nothing wrong with this fact and it does not lessen the faith or importance of the other Christian disciplines.

I can only suppose that if early Christians behaved themselves and stayed true to the faith and did not use it for personal gain or wield it as a means of power, Christianity would still be what is today the Catholic faith.
St. Paul tried awful hard, but in the end, you can’t fix stupid.

98

[quote]blacksheep wrote:
Stated,

“Even if you dispute that phrase, what does Mt 16:19 say right after? Who else has God given the keys of the kingdom too?”

Jesus promised to give the keys of the Kingdom (the authority of God’s rule) to Peter that others might be brought under the rule and reign of God.This was really a commision to preach the gospel and was first fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost. Jesus, however, did not intend to limit this to Peter. Later He gave the same commision to all the disciples and true believers (Mat. 18:18; 28:18-20). This preaching would have heaven’s authority behind it because it would be true to the Word of god. By preaching the gospel they would declare that those that rejected it would be bound and those who accepted it would be loosed and set free. When they declared this, the work would have already been done and ratified in heaven. [/quote]

He declared this to Peter alone. I don’t recall him going to Home Depot and making 12 copies of the keys to the kingdom.

If you want know how it breaks down in church hierarchy it breaks down like this. The apostolic tradition is passed down through the bishops. All the church leader are bishops, including the Cardinals and the Pope himself. The pope is the ultimate authority, but understand that his main job is to spread the faith and serve the faithful. Being authoritative is but one job.

Heck, even though Peter was the head honcho, Paul took him to task when Peter was swayed to bring in Jewish traditions as mandates to faith. Paul won, (as well as God telling him in a dream to back off) the focus was the heart of the law, not the letter of it.

I think that Pope John Paul 2 was quintessentially what the pope should be. What I mean is when you think of the office, the way he did it was ideal…He served and he always came to the people.

99

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

…I have a lot of respect for my evangelical bro’s and sisters, but I won’t tolerate being told my faith is somehow inferior or wrong. [/quote]

Your faith isn’t inferior or wrong unless you’re constantly adjusting your faith to meet the standards of atheists and agnostics, folks who don’t trust Christ as their Lord and Savior. If your faith is tailored to accommodate them…friend, you have problems.[/quote]

You have bad information. That is not how Catholicism works. I am afraid you just don’t know or understand it all if that’s what you really think.
The faith is only adjusted by truth and faith in Jesus. If that’s wrong than I am proud to be wrong.[/quote]

Thanks Pat and others for the information on Catholicism. Seems to me that the Catholics here are the reasonable ones.

Great interview with Fr. George Coyne, Jesuit priest and astronomer. If this guy had been my parish priest I may still be involved in the Church.

Damn, the embedding was disabled, I’ll try to hunt this down on youtube. I appreciate what you said and I wish your experience had been better. A bad priest, or experience can be huge sometimes. I have had them myself. For instance, I went to a confession where I had a priest be a total dick to me. Instead of enlivened by faith, I left pissed off and wish I had told him to fuck himself and walk out. In confession, you are already humbling yourself and making yourself vulnerable, and this guy disrespected that, further, he was making assumptions based on my confession that were just wrong. I made mistakes, it’s not a matter of destructive patterns.
Anyhow the point, is that I had a bad experience and it turned me off and took a while before I went to confession again. So I get the bad experience thing. But in the end, we worship and put our faith in God, not people. You’re going to have people fuck up royally, but in the end God is the focus.

That’s why even when the media dredges up horrible crap about the church, it’s still God we worship. If your faith is dependent on the behaviour of people, you will be let down.

The church is a road to God, not God himself or an object of worship. A perfect person doesn’t need the church, or any church.

100

[quote]pat wrote:
Sure. Let’s look at Mt 16:17-19 for context.

Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Mt 16:17 is the disputed phrase. Is funny that one word or lack of a word can change this to be a disputed phrase. So I will give you the lack of specificity regarding Peter as the Rock of the church. That’s fine. What Jesus does proceed to do is he gives Peter, the keys of heaven, and gave him power to bind or loosen on Earth and Heaven. If you dispute the Rock, you cannot dispute the power and authority bestowed on Peter, by Jesus himself.
Peter in all contexts was the first pope, though the office by such name did not exist. Early Christianity was the church led by Peter. There would be no Christianity were it not for Peter.

It doesn’t matte much whether you like Catholicism or not. History is this way, all other sects and Christian disciplines branched from it. There is nothing wrong with this fact and it does not lessen the faith or importance of the other Christian disciplines.

I can only suppose that if early Christians behaved themselves and stayed true to the faith and did not use it for personal gain or wield it as a means of power, Christianity would still be what is today the Catholic faith.
St. Paul tried awful hard, but in the end, you can’t fix stupid.[/quote]

You left out Matthew 16:20 which says, “Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ,” which indicates that it’s possible he could be talking to all of the disciples by the time he gets to ‘whatever you bind on earth…’

Even so, if at this point he was speaking directly to Peter, Jesus does confer this same power to the rest of the disciples in the parallel passage Matthew 18:18. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

I think you are right in saying that Peter was an integral part of early Christianity. He was a chosen apostle. But then again there were 12 others considered apostles including Paul who wrote the majority of the New Testament. Paul even corrects Peter in Galations 2 which would be odd if Peter was the Pope right?. There is nothing in the New Testament pointing towards a papacy. The only hierarchy drawn out is that of elders and deacons.