Why Christians/Conservatives Should Accept Evolution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[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.

[/quote]
I rather enjoyed that interview. The other one to watch was…

this one!

If only more Catholics were like this.

102

Mak, yeah Reggie is a hoot.

Here’s another really good video from a Catholic priest critiquing Bill Maher’s movie. It’s a bit long but worth watching. Unlike some of the fundamentalists who merely label Maher as the anti-Christ, he does a good job of going through a rational explanation of what he didn’t like about the movie. He provides a very good explanation of how faith should be approached. Did it convince me to go back to the Church? No, but where the hell were these intelligent priests when I was learning this stuff? Perhaps the Church is trying to distance itself from a lot of that fire and brimstone crap, meaning that Fr. Reggie may not be such a maverick after all.

103

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[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.

[/quote]
I rather enjoyed that interview. The other one to watch was…

this one!

If only more Catholics were like this.[/quote]

(I took out the links to save space)

I watched both interviews. The first one I liked better than the second only because there was less editing.
There is nothing shocking about interview 1. Science, if possible must be pursued with the utmost varsity. In science we can discover truth as through religion, logic, math and related disciplines. If science reveals a truth, it’s a truth. There are plenty of nutty dogmatic Catholics out there, but at the core of the faith is the quest for truth, and we’ve learned it can come in many ways.
I don’t believe science takes shit away from God. To me it shows how amazing he is and what other possibilities there are. I believe the study of science glorifies God. How amazing what he did is!
Science is part of the process of discovering truth. That’s why we are interested in it. God gives us these tools, far be it from us to turn away from them.

The second interview was over edited. A lot of answers were cut. I get the feeling that he’s not as “rogue” as the video makes him appear. He seems to be saying and I agree, that ultimately, the faith isn’t about shit. If fancy shit wasn’t there or if the days were different, the faith would not be more or less important.

The Vatican is impressive though. It’s worth checking out just on a historical, architectural, artistic, archeological, etc. basis.

104

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

…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.

Hmmmm…seems to me thar aint no Science is assuming an agnostic perspective as to whether God exists and going from there in thar anywhar, is thar?
[/quote]

Huh. Turns out the eschewment of the supernatural isn’t technically in the definition of science. I’ll give you that. I looked for it, and only found references towards it in the scientism context, which isn’t what I’m arguing.

That said, as far as I’m aware, science (and by ‘science’, I’m referring to the vast sum of papers and articles in peer-reviewed journals, and the scientific establishment, people employed within the field as scientists and researchers) has yet to develop a framework to conclusively test for the existence or nonexistence of God.

In fact, it seems as though science seems to take an agnostic perspective as to whether God exists (by recognizing it, in fact, has no opinion outside what can be tested and observed).

Unless you’re aware of some test/observation I’m not.

105

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Do some study on “appearance of age” on that and other websites.

I’d also take a look at accuracy in dating methods and the assumptions one must make when placing trust in them. Note I did NOT say “Dating methods are no good” or even something to that effect.[/quote]

So, apparently the ‘appearance of age’ is the argument that the earth isn’t actually billions of years old, it just looks like that.

And what I’m reading from Push’s ‘AnswersInGenesis’ site suggest that it doesn’t LOOK billions of years old, the methods we use to measure age (the amount of carbon isotopes, layers of ice cores, sediment positioning) don’t actually measure age, because a lot of it was created that way.

And we know that because of the bible.

For all the ‘evolutionary bias’ accusations that site throws around, I think they would do well to measure the log in their own eye.

A quote:

[quote]AnswersInGenesis wrote:
The ideas that God created the earth with appearance of age or that the earth actually is old are both easy to refute. â??Appearance of ageâ?? is refuted because it is an oxymoron; age cannot be seen. Therefore, something cannot really â??appearâ?? old or young. Age is a question of history, not a matter of present observation. We sometimes use the phrase loosely (and technically incorrectly) when we say that a person â??looksâ?? a particular age. But what we really mean is that the person resembles (in some ways) other people who are known to have a particular age. Formally speaking, there is no such thing as an â??appearance of age.â?? The universe was created mature, in the sense that it was complete and functional by the end of the sixth day; but this is not the same as â??age.â??

Itâ??s also easy to refute the idea that the earth is actually old. The Bible tells us that God made the earth in six days. Itâ??s clear from context (the days are bounded by an evening and morning) that these are days in the ordinary senseâ??the same as our work week (see Exodus 20:8â??11). And itâ??s clear from the genealogies that this happened thousands of years ago. Those who argue against this must either assume that (A) the Bible is wrong, or (B) the Bible does not mean what it says.

…

Your message implies that science cannot actually determine the age of the earth; this is true. Since science deals with predictability in the present, it cannot definitively answer history questionsâ??such as age. Age is not a substance that can be measured by scientific means. Granted, there are many powerful examples of scientific evidences that are inconsistent with an old earth, such as C-14 in diamonds. But the proof that the earth is young is that this is the clear teaching of the Bible, which cannot be wrong since any alternative leads to irrationality (Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:2â??4).[/quote]

FWIW, they publish a lot of articles of dubious scientific merit proposing the truth of a young-earth model, but… you’d have to have an attention span shorter than an ADD 10 year old who’s high on meth to trust their dedication to the scientific method after reading the noise above.

106

[i]…our ancestors were not merely rapists and murderers. They were the best rapists and murderers. Your own genes will eventually murder you for the good of your children. You are rocketing towards oblivion at a pace you will not understand until you arrive. Your life will, in the end, amount to nothing more than the last frantic memory you have before you slip away into nonexistence. Your love is a chemical prison forced on your mind by your gametes, and means nothing in any grander sense. There is no objective morality and in five billion years the planet will be nothing but a haze of molten iron and none shall remember the name of man.

Eventually all sapient life will be gone and the universe will perish forever, and there will be nothing but dark and non-being for longer than you can possibly imagine, and longer again than that. You will not die with grace. You will not die with grace. You will die afraid and unready and alone, and you will die soon, sooner than you can possibly foresee. You will die for nothing. Sorry…[/i]

107

[quote]Otep wrote:
but… you’d have to have an attention span shorter than an ADD 10 year old who’s high on meth to trust their dedication to the scientific method after reading the noise above.[/quote]

Funny you mention their “dedication” to the scientific method - the following is taken from the AiG Statement of Faith (4.6):

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Now, push and I* discussed this in a past thread but I can’t quite remember what his response to this was… something about supporters of evolution being biased, too, but one would think that most scientists would get their rocks off over the opportunity to disprove a 150-year-old theory backed by reams of evidence and enormous global support.

*yes, push, this is anonym. My other user name requires moderator approval for every post I try to make, so this one is needed for when they are sleeping. Otherwise, this wouldn’t be here until mid-morning.

108

[quote]ephrem wrote:
[i]…our ancestors were not merely rapists and murderers. They were the best rapists and murderers. Your own genes will eventually murder you for the good of your children. You are rocketing towards oblivion at a pace you will not understand until you arrive. Your life will, in the end, amount to nothing more than the last frantic memory you have before you slip away into nonexistence. Your love is a chemical prison forced on your mind by your gametes, and means nothing in any grander sense. There is no objective morality and in five billion years the planet will be nothing but a haze of molten iron and none shall remember the name of man.

Eventually all sapient life will be gone and the universe will perish forever, and there will be nothing but dark and non-being for longer than you can possibly imagine, and longer again than that. You will not die with grace. You will not die with grace. You will die afraid and unready and alone, and you will die soon, sooner than you can possibly foresee. You will die for nothing. Sorry…[/i][/quote]

Oh, the joys of the philosophy of everything comes from nothing and ends in nothing.

109

[quote]ephrem wrote:
[i]…our ancestors were not merely rapists and murderers. They were the best rapists and murderers. Your own genes will eventually murder you for the good of your children. You are rocketing towards oblivion at a pace you will not understand until you arrive. Your life will, in the end, amount to nothing more than the last frantic memory you have before you slip away into nonexistence. Your love is a chemical prison forced on your mind by your gametes, and means nothing in any grander sense. There is no objective morality and in five billion years the planet will be nothing but a haze of molten iron and none shall remember the name of man.

Eventually all sapient life will be gone and the universe will perish forever, and there will be nothing but dark and non-being for longer than you can possibly imagine, and longer again than that. You will not die with grace. You will not die with grace. You will die afraid and unready and alone, and you will die soon, sooner than you can possibly foresee. You will die for nothing. Sorry…[/i][/quote]

Well, at least we can both agree that, ultimately, this line of thinking will mean nothing.

110

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Your love is a chemical prison forced on your mind by your gametes…[/quote]

Our love is a chemical prison forced on our mind by our sperm/eggs?

If we can’t trust your knowledge of basic biology, how can we trust your insight on anything deeper?

111

…indulge your delusions to your heart’s content, but even those who believe in the same god can’t agree on what’s true and what’s not, but hey: at least you believe in something, and that’s the important part, right?

112

[quote]anatonym wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Your love is a chemical prison forced on your mind by your gametes…[/quote]

Our love is a chemical prison forced on our mind by our sperm/eggs?

If we can’t trust your knowledge of basic biology, how can we trust your insight on anything deeper?[/quote]

…no, by all means, don’t trust me on anything, seriously. Use your intelligence and wit, instinct and intuition to find your answers, trust nothing else…

113

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…indulge your delusions to your heart’s content, but even those who believe in the same god can’t agree on what’s true and what’s not, but hey: at least you believe in something, and that’s the important part, right? [/quote]

Likewise those who don’t believe in God cannot agree in what is true ans what is not. There is not absolute truth, not unity in pricipal in atheism.

114

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

…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.

Hmmmm…seems to me thar aint no Science is assuming an agnostic perspective as to whether God exists and going from there in thar anywhar, is thar?
[/quote]

Huh. Turns out the eschewment of the supernatural isn’t technically in the definition of science. I’ll give you that. I looked for it, and only found references towards it in the scientism context, which isn’t what I’m arguing.

That said, as far as I’m aware, science (and by ‘science’, I’m referring to the vast sum of papers and articles in peer-reviewed journals, and the scientific establishment, people employed within the field as scientists and researchers) has yet to develop a framework to conclusively test for the existence or nonexistence of God.

In fact, it seems as though science seems to take an agnostic perspective as to whether God exists (by recognizing it, in fact, has no opinion outside what can be tested and observed).

Unless you’re aware of some test/observation I’m not.[/quote]

The job of science is to measure and observe shit. My hypothesis on based on related events. Science should be agnostic. If God happens to be part of an equation then so be it, but it’s not the job of science to prove anything about God.

115

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…indulge your delusions to your heart’s content, but even those who believe in the same god can’t agree on what’s true and what’s not, but hey: at least you believe in something, and that’s the important part, right? [/quote]

Likewise those who don’t believe in God cannot agree in what is true ans what is not. There is not absolute truth, not unity in pricipal in atheism.[/quote]

…don’t believe in a god and you’re an atheist. I don’t think there’s much debate about that amongst atheists, do you?

116

[quote]pat wrote:
The job of science is to measure and observe shit. My hypothesis on based on related events. Science should be agnostic. If God happens to be part of an equation then so be it, but it’s not the job of science to prove anything about God.[/quote]

…agreed.

117

504×533 59.2 KB

[quote]pat wrote:
The job of science is to measure and observe shit. My hypothesis on based on related events. Science should be agnostic. If God happens to be part of an equation then so be it, but it’s not the job of science to prove anything about God.[/quote]

I agree with this apart from the very last part. Science is about unraveling the mysteries of the universe, so actually it is the job of science. Not that it has found anything conclusive on that front, it has merely disproven literal readings of all man made religious texts.

118

All of which comes down to the simple fact that believing in Christian God or not Believing in the Christian God does not alter the basic tenets of the scientific method. In fact, you’ll find proponents of the scientific method from Aristotle to Newton on both sides of the theological question yet just as firmly committed to the application of rational thought and the scientific method to the development of their particular fields of study.

119

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…indulge your delusions to your heart’s content, but even those who believe in the same god can’t agree on what’s true and what’s not, but hey: at least you believe in something, and that’s the important part, right? [/quote]

Likewise those who don’t believe in God cannot agree in what is true ans what is not. There is not absolute truth, not unity in pricipal in atheism.[/quote]

…don’t believe in a god and you’re an atheist. I don’t think there’s much debate about that amongst atheists, do you?
[/quote]

There’s not much debate about the existence of God among theists. The nature of God, what he says, and how to relate tend to be the bones of contention. Same with athiests, some because of evil in the world, some because God doesn’t behave like they think he should, some because a perceived lack of evidence, some becuase a little bird said so, some because other really smart people are athiests.
Don’t tell me that athiests, for instance, aren’t arguing about the origin of the universe or string theory of what not. They may agree there is not God, but they don’t all agree on the origin of creation. Another for instance, you don’t agree with Stalin, do you?

120

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Mak, yeah Reggie is a hoot.

Here’s another really good video from a Catholic priest critiquing Bill Maher’s movie. It’s a bit long but worth watching. Unlike some of the fundamentalists who merely label Maher as the anti-Christ, he does a good job of going through a rational explanation of what he didn’t like about the movie. He provides a very good explanation of how faith should be approached. Did it convince me to go back to the Church? No, but where the hell were these intelligent priests when I was learning this stuff? Perhaps the Church is trying to distance itself from a lot of that fire and brimstone crap, meaning that Fr. Reggie may not be such a maverick after all.

Wow! That’s all I have been trying to say, perhaps not as eloquently, but that is the long and the short…You want to know how I think, everything this priest say I agree with 100% and it totally represents my faith and how I view faith.
Good find, Mike. I appreciate it. It is the rational sense of the church, that make me love Catholicism.

For instance, I don’t see God as supernatural or his works as supernatural, I see them as completely natural and normal.God is a normal part of our existence, not some magician doing magic tricks.