Why Christians/Conservatives Should Accept Evolution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[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.

@the video… Do any of you think that it is a mega copout to say retrospectively that the creation story in Genesis is myth and shouldn’t be taken literally? Jesus himself references the creation story, so what evidence is there that it should be viewed as just mythology?

123

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Evolution - theory (ok honestly, theories - there are what , several hundred variations by now?) is not fact. It is merely multiple versions of a particular line of theory that seeks to unite the observable data we find on the planet in a plausible explanation. It always has been and always will be a work in progress and will undoutedly change many many more times in the future.

At the end of the day, evolution still cannot explain where everything came from and at that point - the origin of it all, it fails. It cannot give origin, it will only ever be able to offer a theory of process. In that sense it leaves a huge whole in the metaphysical understanding of our existence.

So, no . . . thanks, but I’ll stick with my creation/God-centered understanding of the universe.

[/quote]

…Many concepts of evolution are provable facts. Microevolution is a well documented occurrence, as is genetic drift, as is allopatric speciation, etc. Therefore it’s not just a theory, it is very real… [/quote]

You’re distorting the debate. This faux implication that creationists don’t accept microevolution is a crude manipulation and you know it.

Because microevolution is a well documented occurrence creationists have absolutely no problem with it. This debate is not about and never has bee about microevolution. Move on, Tanker, because I don’t want to thump on you too much; your wounds are doubtlessly unhealed from prior confrontations.[/quote]

Nothing in my post indicated that all creationists don’t believe in microevolution. You are distorting the debate, and yes this discussion has a place for microevolution so kindly shut up.

It seems from your other posts that your logic works from the unmovable assumption that every word of the bible is the word of god and therefore law. Im curious, would you condone killing your son if he swore at you? It’s commanded that you do so in Deuteronomy.

Of corse you wouldn’t. You aren’t a bad person, and that passage of deuteronomy directly contradicts the teachings of Jesus. Therefore, it is clear that your concept of “true christianity” is really no different than the thousands of other selective interpretations of the world. I have to ask, what merit does the literal interpretation of genesis have? Why is it essential that mans sin literally created bodily death 5,000 years ago? That is the core question of your religious debacle it seems.

However, this thread really isn’t about religion, it’s about the overwhelming science of evolution. You assume that there are no lessons to be learned from a story of death 4 billion years old. I think you’re very wrong about that…

124

[quote]Fezzik wrote:

[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.

@the video… Do any of you think that it is a mega copout to say retrospectively that the creation story in Genesis is myth and shouldn’t be taken literally? Jesus himself references the creation story, so what evidence is there that it should be viewed as just mythology?
[/quote]

Those are your words not his. He said it’s not a scientific account and was never meant to be, exactely what I said. It’s a theological account. It’s the theology that counts. This is an account that has lasted thousands of years. That in itself is amazing.

What about Jesus’s reference to the creation story do you think I contest, because I do not contest it.

Mythology no, theology, yes.

125

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Fezzik wrote:

[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.

@the video… Do any of you think that it is a mega copout to say retrospectively that the creation story in Genesis is myth and shouldn’t be taken literally? Jesus himself references the creation story, so what evidence is there that it should be viewed as just mythology?
[/quote]

I have an idea some Catholics gonna have some splainin to do when they stand before their Creator.

Like you said, when Jesus himself referenced the creation account he shor nuf wasn’t smilin’, noddin’ and winkin’ about the “myth” of Genesis.[/quote]

I ask you only to discount this point of view. There is no myth about it. It doesn’t have to be a orderly factual account about creation to tell us about creation. Despite creation itself, is God’s exposure to us vs. any other part of his creation is the most fascinating part. There are so many details revealed in those rather vague passages. Marriage, even as we know it today, was established, society and and how hierarchy works, crime and punishment, etc.
I don’t know what you think I am missing by not considering it a record of historical account? I am no further or closer to God than you are. We all have explaining to do before God.

126

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I have an idea some Catholics gonna have some splainin to do when they stand before their Creator.

Like you said, when Jesus himself referenced the creation account he shor nuf wasn’t smilin’, noddin’ and winkin’ about the “myth” of Genesis.[/quote]

Seriously? Do you really think that God is that mean and petty? If I lived an otherwise good life, was a good husband, father, and if I live long enough grandfather and even great-grandfather, am I really going to be banished to hell for all eternity because I didn’t accept the literal truth of a story written in the Bronze Age that went through several translations and has been disproven by modern science? I’m going to take a chance that God is a logical and rational being and will cut me some slack on that one.

127

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I have an idea some Catholics gonna have some splainin to do when they stand before their Creator.

Like you said, when Jesus himself referenced the creation account he shor nuf wasn’t smilin’, noddin’ and winkin’ about the “myth” of Genesis.[/quote]

Seriously? Do you really think that God is that mean and petty? If I lived an otherwise good life, was a good husband, father, and if I live long enough grandfather and even great-grandfather, am I really going to be banished to hell for all eternity because I didn’t accept the literal truth of a story written in the Bronze Age that went through several translations and has been disproven by modern science? I’m going to take a chance that God is a logical and rational being and will cut me some slack on that one.[/quote]

You must have only read the most rudimentary summary of the bible. There are very specific things Christians must do to enter heaven, and living ‘an otherwise good life’ isn’t one of them.

I’m not saying it hurts their chances, or that it’s a bad idea, but it is neither necessary, nor sufficient.

But on a grander scale, what do you care of God? You’re an atheist, I thought.

128

[quote]Otep wrote:

You must have only read the most rudimentary summary of the bible. There are very specific things Christians must do to enter heaven, and living ‘an otherwise good life’ isn’t one of them.

I’m not saying it hurts their chances, or that it’s a bad idea, but it is neither necessary, nor sufficient.[/quote]

I am aware of this, and it is one of the things that doesn’t make sense to me about religion. A total asshole who doesn’t give a shit about anyone can “find Jesus” and get into heaven but a good person who has worked hard all of his life helping others will go to hell just because he didn’t buy into all of the Bible stories. This makes no sense.

No, I am an agnostic, at least for now. I do not deny there is a God and have never done so. I am very interested in religion and perhaps reconnecting with Christianity. Let’s just say that I’m looking for answers. Even if I go back to religion I will still maintain that the Adam and Eve story is just an allegory and that evolution, the Big Bang, and perhaps string theory are what explain the origins of the universe and of life. John Paul II, who is apparently on a fast track to sainthood, stated that evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis and is compatible with religion. Pius XII also discussed evolution and while he didn’t endorse it, he didn’t say it was wrong either. While I normally don’t like arguments based on an appeal to authority, I’d rather go with a guy like JPII, whose sainthood is practically guaranteed, than a bunch of batshit crazy fundamentalists who believe in the literal truth of a document written in the Bronze Age.

129

Well, if you’re considering coming back to the Church, our morality on sexual/reproductive issues are probably no different then when you left. Just saying, as this is the realm which causes many coming back to drop right back out. We might be rather friendly with respect to modern science, but we are often aligned against modern ‘morality.’ Don’t come back simply because we’re not hostile to science. Or, because we have pretty services and celebrations, for that matter. We’re not pop-culture friendly or politically correct. To accept our morality is, more than ever, is to reject the world. If one is just looking for some vague ‘spirituality’ while doing “whatever the hell one wants with one’s own body” inbetween the rare attendance, we’re probably the last place to look.

I’m not assuming this is your thinking. However, having been confirmed only a year ago, having met others making the same journey, I’ve seen it. It’s a short-lived relationship. “Wait, your stance on abortion is that strict?!” Really? They didn’t know?

130

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
I am aware of this, and it is one of the things that doesn’t make sense to me about religion. A total asshole who doesn’t give a shit about anyone until he “finds Jesus” can get into heaven but a good person who has worked hard all of his life helping others will go to hell just because he didn’t buy into the divinity of Jesus.

[/quote]

Fixed. Death-bed conversions only work if they’re sincere and helping people because you love Jesus and helping people because you seek recognition and reward are two different things.

If you really want to argue these points (the perception of injustice in the criterion God uses to mete justice), you should probably make a new thread, because the tie between this and the current thread-title is tenuous at best.

131

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Ben Stein had an interesting show on Showtime about evolution and how very credible scientists find it a flawed theory.

I personally haven’t dwelled on this issue much or spent a lot fo time on it, so I have no personal bent either way. I believe in God, but whatever his plan etc is, I don’t really worry much about it. [/quote]

The Ben Stein movie, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” was a really cool movie. [/quote]

Thanks for the title, I couldn’t remember it. I believe so I don’
t stress about proving it to a non believer or anyone else. i have better things to do.

132

So, question for the evolutionists amongst us . . . why is it that only dogs and humans have prostates? Being on totally different branchs of that evolutionary tract and all . . . Shouldn’t there have been a primate or two along the way with the same to bring that little gem into homo sapiens? or do organs just spontaneously appear without warning?

133

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
So, question for the evolutionists amongst us . . . why is it that only dogs and humans have prostates? Being on totally different branchs of that evolutionary tract and all . . . Shouldn’t there have been a primate or two along the way with the same to bring that little gem into homo sapiens? or do organs just spontaneously appear without warning?[/quote]

You were very close, really you were. But actually all mammals have prostates. Only dogs and humans get prostate CANCER likely because our diets are so high in meat. Where did you hear that information?

But seeing as that both humans and dogs have a recent common ancestor it wouldn’t be impossible for us to share a few irregularities.

Here’s a question for you. Why is it that many animals like snakes and whales have tiny vestigial legs that serve no purpose whatsoever? Surely they must have been used for something at a point in time.

134

^ thanks for the correction - actually had some free time and did some real research (rather than just listening to my friend’s statements without fact checking). You are correct all mammals have prostates - it is the prostate cancer trait that only dogs and humans seem to share. I apologize for the skewed post.

I have no problem with vestigal appendages. it’s the classification of their actual purpose that leaves much to be desired in my opinion.

It follows that same line of reasoning that we know what color dinosaurs were. Personally I think they were all neon colored with tribal patterns . . . and I think the T-rex had small arms and big legs beacuse he was really good at ceramics and after generations of sitting on his ass they morphed into useless appendages for anything else. He had big teeth, because promotions at the T-Rex Ceramics and Novelties plant required being able to defeat your supervisor in literal head to head competition . . . . opinion does not replace direct evidence

135

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, if you’re considering coming back to the Church, our morality on sexual/reproductive issues are probably no different then when you left. Just saying, as this is the realm which causes many coming back to drop right back out. We might be rather friendly with respect to modern science, but we are often aligned against modern ‘morality.’ Don’t come back simply because we’re not hostile to science. Or, because we have pretty services and celebrations, for that matter. We’re not pop-culture friendly or politically correct. To accept our morality is, more than ever, is to reject the world. If one is just looking for some vague ‘spirituality’ while doing “whatever the hell one wants with one’s own body” inbetween the rare attendance, we’re probably the last place to look.

I’m not assuming this is your thinking. However, having been confirmed only a year ago, having met others making the same journey, I’ve seen it. It’s a short-lived relationship. “Wait, your stance on abortion is that strict?!” Really? They didn’t know? [/quote]

Seconded. It’s not a light commitment and you will have issues with the church’s stances at times. This is normal and to be expected. Add to that that everybody hates you including Christians and everybody thinks you condone child rape, so it’s certainly not an easy road.

136

[quote]pat wrote:

[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?[/quote]

…you certainly have a point there pat, and i don’t doubt that for some people science is as important as religion is for others. About Stalin; give me an example of what he believed i can agree or disagree with?

137

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, if you’re considering coming back to the Church, our morality on sexual/reproductive issues are probably no different then when you left. Just saying, as this is the realm which causes many coming back to drop right back out. We might be rather friendly with respect to modern science, but we are often aligned against modern ‘morality.’ Don’t come back simply because we’re not hostile to science. Or, because we have pretty services and celebrations, for that matter. We’re not pop-culture friendly or politically correct. To accept our morality is, more than ever, is to reject the world. If one is just looking for some vague ‘spirituality’ while doing “whatever the hell one wants with one’s own body” inbetween the rare attendance, we’re probably the last place to look.

I’m not assuming this is your thinking. However, having been confirmed only a year ago, having met others making the same journey, I’ve seen it. It’s a short-lived relationship. “Wait, your stance on abortion is that strict?!” Really? They didn’t know? [/quote]

Seconded. It’s not a light commitment and you will have issues with the church’s stances at times. This is normal and to be expected. Add to that that everybody hates you including Christians and everybody thinks you condone child rape, so it’s certainly not an easy road.[/quote]

Yes, I am aware of the Church’s harsh stance on abortion - it’s not even allowed when the mother’s life is in danger - and other issues. This is why I’m not eager to jump back in. And I am also aware that many Protestant denominations don’t like Catholics. My belief in a very strict separation of church and state comes not from a desire as an agnostic to destroy religion but from my having been raised as a Catholic in the South around Southern Baptists who tend not to like Catholics. The last thing I wanted was for one of my teachers to casually start discussing religion (because we’re a Christian nation, so what does it hurt to discuss Christianity with someone who seems to be a Christian, right?) and then deciding that I was the “wrong” kind of Christian. As we’ve seen in this thread, Christianity comes in different flavors. But that’s a whole 'nother topic.