Creation vs. Evolution
Jonathan Berglund
NOT be taught in a school? Evolution goes against itself, the Scientific
Method. Evolution has never, and can never be proven. There is not even
evidence to base it. Evolutionists say "time", but I say "truth!". But even
if we keep teaching evolution, creationism should be taught as well.
Creation is no more a religion than evolution. Prove to me that creation is
false! Creation is part of many religions, why is that, because it is very
reasonable to believe we were created, seeing as everything we see is from
some type of creation. The fact is there is a first uncaused cause, but
evolution says there is a first uncaused event, but the very law of nature
states that every event has a cause! If creation can't be taught in school,
then neither should evolution, for it is has no more evidence than creation.
Please every person that seeks for truth and justice, fight for the right to
teach creation. I am a high school student and I want to be able to hear
both sides of the story.
PMDavis
means gradual change over time. One can observe the configuration of the
automobile over the past century and observe certain evolutionary trends.
Likewise, one can study maps of streams over the past several centuries and
observe trends in the "evolution" of a river. Speaking as a Christian, I
don't see a direct conflict between evolution and theism. The conflict
which you identify is between biblical literalism vs. historical-critical
textual criticism applied to scripture. Objective scientific methodology
does not speculate as to the "meaning" of phenomena, only it's existance.
If you are going to take a position on a topic (such as evolution) it is
worthwhile use clearly defined vocabulary and to address specific topics of
concern in a rational manner.
Regardless of one's theological perspective I think that everyone can agree
that "Creationism" as currently propounded in religious circles implies a
belief in a "Creator". (Personally, I happen to think that existance itself
implies that there is a creator, but causation is another philosophical
proposition that needs to rationally separated from scientific methodology).
In that sense, young earth creationism is inseperable from religious
assumptions. That's why it can be taught in schools, but only in the
context of it's historic and sociological influences. Public education is
about communicating the prevailing ideas and methods. "Creation science"
simply does can carry the same weight and status in the scientific community
as does young earth creationism.
Jonathan Berglund wrote in message ...
Jonathan Berglund
the big bang is given to me and other students as the truth, and that the
idea of a creator is taught as false. I think you either missed my point, or
are trying to twist my point, so here it is again:
Evolution is no more evident than creation, so it should not be chosen as
the standard for public education. If education is going to be based on
fact, then it needs to be taught that the fact is, no one can tell you for a
fact how man came to existence.
I think your response was to make me seem stupid, you know what I'm talking
about. And if you don't see the conflict between, God and the Big Bang, you
sir, are not a Christian nor intelligent. I take it that you are though, so
my only conclusion is that you must have misunderstood what I said.
I'm not trying to offend you, I am only upset and offended at your
condesending response. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding your
intent.
Thank You.
"PMDavis" <pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:DzxU5.11413$nh5.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
PMDavis
remarks
could be construed to be so. Some of us have inherited the sort of
personality
that tends to rub some persons the wrong way. I like to think that we have
a place in life like anyone else. In the meanwhile, I'll try to adapt to
what I believe you think to be an agreeable style of communication, to the
greatest degree possible. I'm trying to be sincere here, not sarcastic.
"Stupid" is a relative term, and I don't think that you are "stupid" for
any age. Particularly for age 17. However, I like to think that extensive
research and study of a particular field qualifies one to hold an informed
opinion on a topic. At least one who has done such study has some claim to
having a more informed opinion than does someone who has not had yet had
such an opportunity. That is why I am speaking to you as someone who has
acquired an informed opinion on the topic over a matter of 6 years of formal
classroom (college) training plus some informal, and who has a sincere
interest in
your well being. In other words, I want to see you carry with you enough
information to give you a strong enough argument that you don't make a fool
of yourself before the anti-Christian elements. It's one thing to be a
"fool for Christ" and something else again to be just plain foolish. In
communications in the
real world a Christian needs to be able to support his opinions just like
anyone else.
You are putting forward an opinion on the teaching of , and I am challenging
you to support it. By that challenge I hope that you will either change
your opinion, or else generate stronger support for it, so that it can be
more clearly communicated to others.
This is a scientific subject. Scientific opinions are hotly and heatedly
contested in the scientific community as a part of the scientific process.
There is no need to allow one's own personal ego to be interjected into a
scientific discussion. The exchange of facts and opinions can take place,
and even be debated, without any need to feel that one side is vested with
some sense of moral superiority or inferiority (even though they might
happen to be "right" or ""wrong") It's just that the reasoning process
implies that there is a disagreement. Otherwise, why even have a
discussion?
I was raised in a conservative protestant denomination which taught that all
true Christians believed that the world was created by divine fiat in 6, 24
hour periods. "That is what the Bible teaches and that is what all true
Christians
believe". I chose a career in a science related field in which it was
necessary in order to prepare for my career choice to study the scientific
explaination of evolution in great detail. As a consequence of that
training I was placed in a position of having to rationally examine my
religious training in comparison with my professional training. There were
some very clear discrepancies between the two. I believe that you
understand what I am talking about, as is reflected in the fact that this
thread pertains to that issue.
Since my graduation I read practically all the leading books and journals by
short-earth creationists (published to that point in time) and compared
their theory in light of my
professional training. I also studied various ways of interpreting
scripture by various Christian writers and what they have had to say about
the Genesis account. I have also some formal training in Scripture
interpretation preparation for the ministry, and am currently active as a
lay minister in the Episcopal
Church, USA. By age 46, I've heard a lot of discussion on all sides of this
issue, and have had to reflect on the limited knowledge that I have
obtained, and have come to some clear opinions on the matter.
1. The teaching that somehow belief is the Big Bang theory is incompatible
with Christianity is a false and spiritually hurtful teaching. A Christian
is one who believes in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. (which I do,
by the way). Christianity does claim that the creation of the world is a
product of God's handiwork. It' s very important to realize that the Big
Bang Theory, and indeed all science itself, offers no opinion on causation.
The idea that God created a "Big Bang" in order to start the
universe is entirely consistant with the Genesis account of creation. In
fact, both the Genesis explaination and the Big Bang theory reinforce one
another in that both point to a specific starting point for the existance of
the universe, rather than (for example) a theory that the universe has
always been in existance as we know it. In other words, BIg Bang reinforces
the creationist argument more than the evolutionist argument.
Q. If you were able to watch what God was doing at the moment of creation,
what you have seen?
A. A big bang?
2. Likewise evolutionary theory itself is not necessarily incompatible with
all Christianity. It is incompatable with a particular interpretation of
scripture called literalism. Literalism says that the plain text of the
Bible is "inerrant in all historic and scientific matters". This is a view
held by all "Fundamentalist" churchs (by definition) and by some (but not
all) evangelicals. It is clearly NOT the view of most of the mainline
protestant
denominations, or of Roman Catholics, Orthodox, or liberal churchs. I
suggest that anyone who has studied the Bible seriously would agree that the
plain text of the Bible isn't always as plain and clear as a cursorary first
examination might imply. I take the Bible very seriously and I think that
other Christians should also. That means having reasonable and informed
opinions about it, and about what it says and how it says it. We should
also have some concept about how the Bible fits into the rest of God's
scheme for life.
Frankly, I believe the Bible to be generally accurate, and for christians
authoritative on spiritual and moral matters. I also believe inerrant
literalism to be an intellectually, and spiritually unsupportable,
viewpoint. Perhaps you would benefit by discussing that comparison with one
of the more informed and leading scripture interpretors in your own
religious community.
Nigel Herbig
> Ok... I'm 17 and all I'm trying to say is that I don't like the fact that
> the big bang is given to me and other students as the truth, and that the
> idea of a creator is taught as false. I think you either missed my point, or
> are trying to twist my point, so here it is again:
I highly doubt that they are teaching that the idea of a creator is false,
they rather don't acknowledge it. There's a big difference. And frankly,
there's more evidence (though not perfect of complete) of the big bang
than there is for creation. What backs up creation? Some religious
beliefs based on a book compiled over 1800 years ago. What evidence is
there about the big bang? Astronomers will show you how the universe is
expanding. Do me a favor and take an Astornomy class when you go to
college. Please, don't mix up the big bang theory with evolution. There
is much more evidence for the big bang than for evolution, and the two
aren't necessarily dependant on one another.
> Evolution is no more evident than creation, so it should not be chosen as
> the standard for public education. If education is going to be based on
> fact, then it needs to be taught that the fact is, no one can tell you for a
> fact how man came to existence.
>
> I think your response was to make me seem stupid, you know what I'm talking
> about. And if you don't see the conflict between, God and the Big Bang, you
> sir, are not a Christian nor intelligent. I take it that you are though, so
> my only conclusion is that you must have misunderstood what I said.
There are chirstians that see the big bang as god's vehicle for
creation. Biblical literalism isn't essential for all forms of
christianity.
Jonathan Berglund
bang theory, I know I don't know a lot in the field, but that is why I'm
asking and questioning. From what I have read and heard, the big bang theory
says that all of creation came about from the big bang, but the Bible
clearly states, in Genesis, that God created the heavens and earth, each
plant and animal, and man and woman himself, in 6 days.
Please note, my reply was out of temperment, I apologize for that. I also
apologize for arguing with you in an issue I'm not so well informed. I have
done more reading and I know that I should not be argumentative. So what I
am asking here, is to be enlightened. I do not want to be ignorant, and I do
appreciate being corrected. Thank you for your responses.
"PMDavis" <pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:LSRU5.13838$nh5.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
PMDavis
The Big Bang theory (like all of science) doesn't have an opinion on the
existance of God. God is spirit, not a corporal being like you and I.
Science deals only in the realm of things that can be picked up in your
hand, measured, weighed and examined. Religious ideals deal with things
like the meaning of life, how we should treat other persons, why are we here
and what is life about. Religion and science don't conflict, so much as
they simply deal with separate realms of inquiry.
Any scientist who holds forth an opinion on God, or any other motivating
action behind the creation act is expressing his opinion as a private
individual and is not representing the field of science.
Frankly, I don't know what I would have observed had I been there watching
God create the earth. Would I have seen an old bearded man digging with a
shovel? Did it take an hour and a half? 20 seconds? Did God make the
world with a big bang? All that scripture says is that God created it. It
really doesn't give a lot of specifics.
I don't think that He thought it was important to enter into scripture or
the details would be there. It's one of those things that he left for
humanity to figure out on our own, as best as we can. What's important is
that we trust Him to show us what we need to know.
Larry Fairbanks
Many things taught in school are not the case. Most of the history taught is inadequate. Often people try to use schools for political indoctrination. Creationism is and should be taught in Religion classes, because it is religion. Try to make a rational argument for creationism without using the Bible, it won't stand up to peer review. You may believe it, but you are not able to convince anyone else. When you try to tell people that there were dinosaurs around at the same time as humans, people start whistling the "Flintsones."
Where in the Bible does it say that every word in the Bible is true, or that you can understand the truth in what you read there? In I Corinthians 13 it says that we see dimly in the mirror, that we see in part or in truth. Therefore, anyone that tells you that they know the absolute biblical truth about this or that, doesn't.
There seems to be this idea that everything we teach our children must be absolutely verified 100%. If so, we would end up teaching them nothing, since we know nothing absolutely. Get over it. Creationism is obviously religion, and should only be taught in religion classes.
PMDavis wrote:
--
Larry Fairbanks
1210 Mulford Rd.
Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212-3508
(614) 297-0036
Home Page - Road Runner
http://home.columbus.rr.com/lfairban/homepage.html
Questions, comments, witty remarks? Send them to me!
mailto:lfai...@aol.com
Jonathan Berglund
"Larry Fairbanks" <lfai...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3A250FB4...@columbus.rr.com...
> You would not have seen anything had you been around at the time of the
Big Bang. Being a physical being, you would have been part of it, and
therefore, not able to observe.
>
> Many things taught in school are not the case. Most of the history taught
is inadequate. Often people try to use schools for political
indoctrination. Creationism is and should be taught in Religion classes,
because it is religion. Try to make a rational argument for creationism
without using the Bible, it won't stand up to peer review. You may believe
it, but you are not able to convince anyone else. When you try to tell
people that there were dinosaurs around at the same time as humans, people
start whistling the "Flintsones."
>
> Where in the Bible does it say that every word in the Bible is true, or
that you can understand the truth in what you read there? In I Corinthians
13 it says that we see dimly in the mirror, that we see in part or in truth.
Therefore, anyone that tells you that they know the absolute biblical truth
about this or that, doesn't.
>
> There seems to be this idea that everything we teach our children must be
absolutely verified 100%. If so, we would end up teaching them nothing,
since we know nothing absolutely. Get over it. Creationism is obviously
religion, and should only be taught in religion classes.
>
> PMDavis wrote:
>
MousePlanetFab
A small group of people using myth to control larger groups of people.
Fab
The Fabulous Disney Babe at MousePlanet
http://www.mouseplanet.com
The Magic....Made Easy!
PMDavis
5ME religioun < OFr or L: OFr religion < L religio, reverence for the gods,
holiness, in LL(Ec), a system of religious belief < ? religare, to bind back
< re3, back + ligare, to bind, bind together; or < ? re3 + IE base *leD3, to
collect > LOGIC, Gr legein, L legere6
1 a) belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and
worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe b) expression of
such a belief in conduct and ritual
2 a) any specific system of belief and worship, often involving a code of
ethics and a philosophy !the Christian religion, the Buddhist religion,
etc." b) any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling,
suggestive of, or likened to such a system !humanism as a religion"
3 the state or way of life of a person in a monastery, convent, etc.
4 any object of conscientious regard and pursuit
>get religion [Colloq.]
1 to become religious
2 to become very conscientious or earnest about something
The world's major religions are usually categorized as
Animism (kind of a catch-all category for all nature based or primitive
religions including Taoism)
Buddhism
Hinduism
Judaism
Christianity
Islam
Sometime Confucianism is also listed as a religion, but sometimes it is
considered to be a philosophy
Jonathan Berglund wrote in message ...
Jonathan Berglund
taught in a school, but the Christian world view can not be? And not just
Christian, what about every other religion?
"PMDavis" <pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:JOyV5.32216$nh5.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Jonathan Berglund wrote in message ...
PMDavis
leading and definitive works on humanism.
In "The Humanist Alternative" (a series of short essays edited by Paul
Kurtz) the writers expound on differant types of humanism. There is a
philosophical difference between religious humanism, secular humanism,
classical humanism based on the Greek model, and so forth. Many of the main
line churches have been infiltrated with religious humanism, which
presumably would not be acceptable in a public school setting. In the other
hand, its counterpart (secular humanism) makes no reference to any concept
of divinity... and would not only be acceptable in the public system, but is
the primary guiding philosophy behind American public education today. In
fact Dewey, who essentially started the concept of public education was an
avowed humanist.
Actually what the series of 1960's Supreme Court decisions determined is
that religious instruction and indoctrination can not be taught in schools.
However, facts about various religions, and their social and historic
implications can be taught. It's a fine line between the two, and local
school officials would rather error on the side of not having to fight a
protracted legal battle at all, rather than fighting to win one because they
are right. I am old enough to remember daily morning prayer and Bible
reading (led by the teacher) every school day morning. The teachers also
insisted upon a standard of ethical conduct from the students that was
Christian based. It's worth noting that for most of the nation's history
the New Testament (along with a McGuffey Reader, and an arithmatic book) was
among the few required text books used in nearly all public schools. The
removal of religious ethics and instruction from schools is at the root of
many of the social ills facing society in this generation, including general
malaise, cynicism, and school violence.
Jonathan Berglund wrote in message <8nAV5.40$zP.2...@typhoon.we.rr.com>...
Dan
evolution and creation, in your homogenized way of thinking. That would be
no different than saying Mormonism and Jehovah witness are the same in
Christian Science reading room.
John 1:1-5
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has
been made.
4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
NIV
"PMDavis" <pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> Jonathan Berglund wrote in message ...
Dan
>Q. If you were able to watch what God was doing at the moment of creation,
>what you have seen?
>A. A big bang?
Dear PMDavis
I find it interesting that you ask "what (would) you have seen?" by
answering "A big bang?" This is imposing your opinion to the answer. In the
court of law it would be considered a leading question. Your response "A big
bang?" is to an audible response (noise) a description of an explosion.
when your question was what (would) you have seen?"
I submit to you that God is bigger than my understanding and yours put
together. If we were able to see the wonders of God during creation you
would have experienced such fascinating visuals like Lava flowing like
rivers from the heavens, clouds of steam and smoke, you would have
experienced such tremendous heat that if you stood by you would have been
consumed it. Every time I think I have God figured out he revels to me how
much I can not comprehend him.
Dear PMDavis in all sincerity
To you who is Jesus?
Dan
PMDavis
in the sense that they each false religious teachings. All three are in the
category of "things to be cautious of because they are clearly contrary to
reason and scripture". If that is "liberal" to your way of thinking, then
fine by me. I'm a liberal.
Dan wrote in message ...
PMDavis
evident that this is a newsgroup discussion, and is not a court of law.
To expect scripture to serve as a scientific textbook on physics
is not a reasonable expectation. The bible was written by persons within a
specific historic and social context, and the literary devices that it uses
are a product of the culture and understanding of the writers.
Naturally, no human was actually present to observe the big bang, either
close up or at a distance. Again, I am postulating a hypothetical in order
to examine the truth of a proposed concept. You will find similar
hypothetical "what-if" questions in much ancient Jewish discourse, including
the
Gospels.
Surely you don't feel a need to literalize
1 Cor 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly;
2 Sam 22:34 He maketh my feet like hinds' feet:
Psa 114:4 The mountains skipped like rams, and the little hills like lambs.
The Bible needs to read with appreciation for literary device, wherever
appropriate. It is not ALL literal truth.
To respond to your inquiry, I believe that Jesus was born in Nazareth about
4-6 BC, the "son" of a carpenter (and therefore presumably a carpenter
himself). He also showed a tremendous proclivity for theological
understanding at an early age. At about age 30 he gathered together a
number disciples and spent 3 short years in ministry in Galilee, and
journeyed to Jerusalem about year 27-28 where we was condemned for heresy by
the Jewish authorities, tried under Pontius Pilate for treason, and was
crucifed and buried. That much can be reasonably inferred from the written
historic record, and can reasonably be believed by all persons regardless of
their religious affiliation.
I also believe that Jesus was the human incarnation of the eternal Supreme
Godhead
and that he rose to life again on the third day. He was seen by the
apostles and ascended into heaven to reign, and to intercede with the
Supreme Godhead for us in our prayers. I believe that he will someday
return to earth and will create a new heaven and a new earth where those who
worship him will have eternal life. This latter paragraph requires an
element of "faith" or "belief". It is recognizably contrary to general
reason. In one sense it is this belief that forms the distinction between a
Christian and a Non-Christians. The understanding of the meaning in
specific passages of scripture (such as Genesis) is generally NOT an issue
upon which Christain salvation depends.
Dan wrote in message ...
Jason
tribe from the Middle East and the descended sect that arose around a
disident to Roman rule HAS to be false.
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:46:36 GMT, "PMDavis"
<nospampm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Mormon, Jehovahs Witness, and Christian Science are all alike (homogenized)
>in the sense that they each false religious teachings. All three are in the
>category of "things to be cautious of because they are clearly contrary to
>reason and scripture". If that is "liberal" to your way of thinking, then
>fine by me. I'm a liberal.
>
>
>Dan wrote in message ...
>>PMDavis You appear to be liberal in your thinking as you are mixing
>>evolution and creation, in your homogenized way of thinking. That would be
>>no different than saying Mormonism and Jehovah witness are the same in
>>Christian Science reading room.
>>
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal
establishment of Christianity been on trial.
What have been its fruits?
More or less in all places, pride and indolence
in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity;
in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
- James Madison; 1785.
jaro...@my-deja.com
"PMDavis" <pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Speaking as a Christian, I
> don't see a direct conflict between evolution and theism. The conflict
> which you identify is between biblical literalism vs. historical-critical
> textual criticism applied to scripture. Objective scientific methodology
> does not speculate as to the "meaning" of phenomena, only it's existance.
Theistic evolutionists believe God created life using the naturalistic
processes of evolution. However, Phillip Johnson ["Darwin on Trial";
"The Wedge of Truth"] says naturalists define words like "evolution" and
"science" in such a way that naturalism is true by definition. He
commented in World magazine (Nov. 22, 1997):
"Evolutionary science is based on naturalism and draws philosophical
conclusions to that base. That's why any theistic evolution is
inherently superficial. It leads people into naturalistic thinking, and
they don't realize it." (www.worldmag.com/world/issue/11-22-97/
cover_1.asp)
And Ontario author and researcher Ian Taylor [*"In the Minds of Men:
Darwin and the New World Order"] concludes his article from the Creation
Science Association of Ontario Newsletter (Fall 1995):
"At increasingly earlier ages the belief is impressed upon children that
evolution is a fact accepted by all educated people. Thus even if the
child does become a Christian later in life, the fear of looking foolish
lingers on subconsciously. While pride of intellect plays no little
part, the bottom line is that the believer in theistic evolution has
less fear of God than he has of man."
David Buckna
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-282.htm
* Taylor, Ian T. "In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order",
(Fourth Edition with Revisions, 1999). TFE Publishing, P.O. Box 48220,
Minneapolis, MN 55433. The book fills a vital gap by relating the
sciences to the humanities, and carefully documents the history of the
ideas that are the foundation of the evolutionary worldview, and has
become the definitive work in its field.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Joe Green
of what science is. It is a systematic method of inquiry in to how the
universe
works. It has a basic approach called the "scientific method" in which a
proposition is advanced, and then tested by experiment. The power of science
rests in it ability to allow independent inquiry without the need for any
authority. Anyone can do science simply by following its method.
Similarly, scientific decision making is not based upon any historic notion
of laws, or adversarial relationships, or anything else. Science makes
decisions
by the consensus of all scientists participating in a field of science, and
these
are always subject to revision or "appeal" if new theories are advanced.
Finally the "standard" of science is exceptionally high. Even a single valid
challenge
to an existing "scientific law" that can be replicated and reproduced, will
lead to the
"striking down" of that law. Science does not allow, even a single
exception.
Now in light of that, all life on this planet operates on the "carbon cycle"
and it
requires sunlight for energy at some point. That "life" processes have
produced
larger and more complex molecules is pretty much an established fact. And
it is also established, that "life" is not "perfect" in its reproductive
scheme. For
example cancers are basically departures in the original patterns in DNA
molecules that lead to anomalous growth that often is disease like, often
killing
the host.
Natural selection is pretty much an established fact in nature. The survival
of the
fittest in nature has been observed in many species both plant and animal.
And
we have seen how adaptation to local environments takes place, particularly
the
now famous study by Charles Darwin with the finches on the Galapagos
Islands.
The core theory of "evolution" says that a species can adapt to such an
extent that
it can no longer breed with its originating members, i.e. a new species has
come
into being. There are many examples in the scientific record of such new
species
with man himself being one of the most interesting examples.
No discussion of this subject can be complete without a discussion of how
time
in measured in science. These are the so-called radio carbon dating and
other
methods that have been used to establish the age of certain rocks and so
forth.
We have a sound scientific foundation in the measurements that have been
made that have determined for example that a mass extinction of dinosaurs
took
place approximately 63,000,000 years ago. The event was rather sharp, with
evidence of the event widely available in the geologic record. There was a
significant geological event at that time, possibly a large collision with a
meteorite
because that exact same time frame corresponds to the date of the formation
of many kimberlites, which are very deep fissures in the earth's crust,
possibly
caused by such an impact. All our understandings of geology, and physics
are tied together through this chain of evidence, available to anyone who
wishes to study it. The earth, factually speaking therefore is not 6,000
years old.
It is very unfortunate when ignorance masks itself in religious garb. In a
papal
encyclical, Pope Pious XII wrote eloquently about the relationship of
theology
and science. He said, that there cannot be a sound theological belief that
contradicts science that has been established. And he said also that
scientific
theories that flatly contradict scriptural theology is suspect.
In history there have been examples of both types of contradictions. Galileo
one of the worlds foremost scientists and engineers, stated a fundamental
scientific fact, that the earth revolved around the sun. Many churchmen
strenuously objected. However in History, The Pope himself did not condemn
Galileo's discovery as "heresy". While Galileo had more than his fair share
of
unjust treatment at the hands of the Church, he was not pushed into the
hellfire's
of heresy. On a similar vein more recently, Science has reversed itself in a
very
dramatic way in discussions over the origins of the universe. Stephen
Hocking
for example successfully synthesized a theory explaining black holes by
combining
relativity and quantum mechanics to explain the presence of physical bodies
that
we cannot see. And at the time, this led to the startling new scientific
theory over
the origins of the universe the so called "Big Bang" Theory. Well here we
have
a pretty direct link between a scientific theory, and a scriptural
understanding.
God Created the Universe in an instant.
It is a bad idea to present religion as science and science as religion in
schools.
I have no objections to teaching kids about Creationism as long as it is
done as
religious studies. But to present it as "science" is an act of propaganda,
since
it is not a balanced or even vigorous presentation of the known scientific
facts.
There are a number of religious denominations that need to study what other
Christian theologians have said about these subjects. But to insist that the
age of the
earth is 6,000 years old for example, is ultimately not an act of faith, it
is a statement
of ignorance.
Joe Green
<jaro...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:91f75q$eta$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Dan
I like to ponder the "what ifs" also.
I have stood by the volcanoes of Hawaii and watched the Lava flow without
any sound except the sound of the things burning that were in it's path. I
was living in Portland Oregon when Mount Saint Helens Blew up and I have
seen the devastation that occurred within just one minuet and I understand
the mighty power behind the shockwave blast that raped the landscape of
anything that was living. We could feel the earth shake in Portland. The
ash that came down was also a deafening experience as someone could honk
their horn 100 feet ahead of you and you would not hear anything. In
relating time to the creation it is hard to accept literal days, as you and
I know it, maybe a day is more an example of the distinctive steps God took
in creating the universe. However I need more faith to believe the evolution
theories than to have faith that God is able to create the mighty universe.
I have come to this point in my life do I concern myself with the theories
and theologies of men or do I seek the face of God, request God for
understanding and wisdom.
-- --
13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
17 How precious to me are your thoughts, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!
18 Were I to count them,
they would outnumber the grains of sand.
When I awake,
I am still with you.
Ps 139:13-18
-- --
May God Richly Bless you with his knowledge.
Dan Davis
P4745
>I
>was living in Portland Oregon when Mount Saint Helens Blew up and I have
>seen the devastation that occurred within just one minuet
Yeah. I would certainly imagine that would have been one very short dance.
For sure.
Lester