“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, … we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way…”
– Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities
This oft quoted phrase has never been more applicable than today when examining two denominations and their recent decisions.
The Presbyterian Church USA recently voted to allow congregations the option of using “alternative phrasings for the Trinity.” Instead of Father, Son, Holy Spirit, PCUSA members may be praising the “Rock, Redeemer, Friend” or “Mother, Child and Womb.”
Now, I understand why they voted to allow this. They do not want to limit God or establish Him as male. (Yes, I said “establish Him as male.”) Leaders said the terminology of God the Father “has been used to support the idea that God is male and that men are superior to women.” They want to correct those problems and that is a laudable goal.
However, in attempting to correct one problem they created a much more serious one. Their solution is much like reverse discrimination. How is calling God “Father” a problem, but calling God “Mother” is okay. If the male terminology established God as a male, which I would argue it does not, then all the female terminology would do is establish God as a female. 500 years from now the PCUSA will be meeting to allow the usage of “Father, Son, Holy Spirit” because women are viewed as superior to men because of “Mother God.”
In our inclusive age, we forget that male terminology has regularly incorporated both males and females. The word “mankind” (which has also been attacked) speaks of both men and women, the entire human race.
The term “Father” when applied to God is not speaking of God’s gender (nonexistent), but rather our way of relating to Him. As Christians we model ourselves after Jesus, who called God “Father” and told us to do the same in “The Lord’s Prayer.” The father/child relationship is the best way to describe our relationship with God. Just as the marriage relationship is the best way to describe the Church’s relationship with Jesus. The analogy is not perfect (no analogy is), but when not stretched farther than it should, it provides us with a useful way of looking at things which are impossible to fully understand.
While PCUSA is seeking to liberalize the message in order to not offend, Southern Baptist are working to harshen the message in order to appear more holy.
Clearly, the Bible teaches that it is a siin to get drunk. The SBC is right to discourage drunkeness. It could even be argued that they should encourage all church leaders to abstain from drinking – to avoid the apperance of evil and not allow drunkeness to develop. But what many in the denomination are calling for is beyond Scripture to the point of legalism.
I think it may be wise to not drink at all. I have a personal conviction to not drink at all, but I cannot and should not apply that personal conviction to Southern Baptists (or Christians) all around the world. Simply because something can be abused is no reason to automatically condemn the behavior, but it appears too often many believers take this position. Martin Luther, known to drink himself, said, “…wine and women bring many a man to misery and make a fool of him; so we kill all the women and pour out all the wine. Again, gold and silver cause much evil, so we condemn them. Indeed, if we want to drive away our worst enemy, the one who does us the most harm, we shall have to kill ourselves, for we have no greater enemy than our own heart … And so on – what would we not do?”
Clearly, Jesus and early Christians drank wine. Now there are arguments about the alcohol content, cultural differences, access to other drinks, etc. I understand all that, but you cannot get around the fact that Jesus did drink wine. He was actually accused (falsely) by the religious leaders of the day of essentially being a “drunk.”
Why would a denomination seek to model itself after the legalistic Pharisees, instead of Christ? Jesus told us to take His yoke upon us, but it seems that is not enough for many Southern Baptists. They insist on adding more things on top of Jesus’ yoke. “It’s not quite heavy enough. It needs a few more rules and regulations.”
I don’t agree with John Piper on everything, but I love his quote on this subject:
Alcoholism makes men fail; legalism helps them succeed in the world.
Alcoholism makes men depend on the bottle; legalism makes them self-sufficient, depending on no one.
Alcoholism destroys moral resolve; legalism gives it strength.
Alcoholics don’t feel welcome in church; legalists love to hear their morality extolled in church.
Both of these denominations are seeking to do things to reach people for Christ, either through inclusiveness or avoiding sinful behavior, but both are doing things that denegrate the message of Jesus.
Liberalism and legalism will both fail. Neither is a complete understanding of Jesus and what He taught. Both undermine Scripture in favor of man’s opinion. Making the standard higher or lower is still changing the standard set forth by God. I am afraid that while many in both denominations may think this is “the best of times,” their decisions will ultimately cause many to go “direct the other way.”
A more accurate pronoun for God would be “It.” God has no gender because he does not need to procreate (unless He is Zeus and She is Hera). When people assign a gender to God it just proves that we created God in our image.
There is no such thing as sin to an atheist. It’s all personal conviction, drinking included. They don’t need a church denomination to tell them what is good and what is bad, they know. If you are uncomfortable with the idea of southern baptists wanting to pass their beliefs into law, then welcome to the club. Secular culture is uncomfortable with fundamentalists of all creeds warping law to fit their own specialized brand of morality.
Several things concern me about your reply Cineaste.
First you tell me that God has no gender, then you say there is no God. That doesn't jive. If you don't believe in God, you can't have a say so in who He is.
"It" would be a horrible pronoun for God because it is so impersonal and creepy in a clown-sorta way. God is a personal God and we can have a relationship with Him. It is hard to have a relationship with an "It."
I understand that "sin" is a foreign concept to those outside of Christianity, which is why you will not find me telling you that you have to obey strictly Christian standards of morality. It may be beneficial to do so, but I do not expect non-Christians to act like Christians.
This resolution (Southern Baptist) is not aimed at others outside the Church. It has no weight on anyone who is not a Southern Baptist (honestly, it has no real weight on Southern Baptist either. The convention, as it is now, cannot issue such commands.)
This has nothing to do with passing it into law. This post has nothing to do with actual law. Here is where those outside of Christianity make their biggest mistake. When someone makes a decision as the Southern Baptist did, secularists automatically assume that they are making the decision for them as well.
If you look at the totality of my writings, you will find that I have always been wary of Christians using the rule of law to enforce our morality.
First you tell me that God has no gender
This is true.
then you say there is no God
When did I say that?
"It" would be a horrible pronoun for God because it is so impersonal and creepy in a clown-sorta way. God is a personal God and we can have a relationship with Him. It is hard to have a relationship with an "It."
The pronoun "It" would be a more accurate description for a genderless entity. "It" is the pronoun used to describe a baby before it's gender is known.
What the Southern Baptists are doing reminds me of the sentiment behind prohibition which was a law. When you say "I have always been wary of Christians using the rule of law to enforce our morality" that does not jive considering your stance on abortion, evolution, homosexuality. Perhaps I am confusing your views with Seeker's though. If you feel that Christian views of morality should not be written into law then we agree.
two or three . net: A Tale of Two Churches
Aaron at one two three . net has posted some thoughts on actions by two different Christian denominations, Presbyterian and Baptist, in A Tale of Two Churches
I cant speak much to the Baptist issue about abstaining from all alcohol, given that i…
As far as you saying "there is no God," you say we created God in our image and then speak of atheists.
I hate calling a baby "it." If I have to say anything, I say "the baby" because I do not believe the baby is an "it."
I don't want Christian morality in law, but we are going to disagree on things.
I think evolution should be challenged or at least questioned for a day or so in schools.
I think abortion is an abhorent scar on the face of our nation. It is murder and everything we can should be done to stop it. Having said that, I can see where Constitutionally it can be a state's rights issue and I would accept that (and then work to outlaw it in every state).
I don't really want any legislation dealing with homosexuality, but I am guess you do – changing things from the way they are.
As far as you saying "there is no God," you say we created God in our image.
Yes, I guess I must explain. This means that there indeed may be a God but our conception of He/She/It is skewed to make He/She/it more tangible to humanity. Hence, we assign human qualities to God, a being we can know so little about that we are debating about what pronoun to use for He/She/It. For example, to make God personal, you want to call him He.
As far as the baby pronoun thing, at the moment of conception, those cells are more accurately termed "It." God is more accurately described as an "It."
it
pron.
Used to refer to that one previously mentioned. Used of a nonhuman entity; an animate being whose sex is unspecified, unknown, or irrelevant; a group of objects or individuals; an action; or an abstraction
I do not feel Christian views of morality should be written into law. I don't want a theocracy. I don't want Islamic views of morality written into law for the same reason.
I think evolution should be challenged or at least questioned for a day or so in schools.
Why not also challenge Newton's gravity and Einstein's theory of relativity. Both are leaps of faith in the same way Darwin's evolution is. You will say no but I say there is no difference. It's a much much greater leap of faith to believe in a God, specifically a Christian God, rather than simply a supreme being.
I think abortion is an abhorent scar on the face of our nation.
Are you a fundamentalist in your beliefs in abortion in that human life starts at the moment of conception? Do you believe abortion should be illegal even in cases of incest, rape and when the mother's life is in danger?
I don't really want any legislation dealing with homosexuality.
I am a live and let live person when it comes to this issue. If homosexuals want to marry that is fine with me.
We will disagree on the "it" thing. I understand the definition, but you have to admit it sounds very impersonal. God is a personal God.
I don't want a theocracy either. Glad to see we (along with 99% of the population) agree.
Of course I am going to challenge that a visible force and a math equation are the same as a single cell organism developing into a human being. Huge difference. As much as you may believe in evolution that is fine, but it is silly to try to equate Darwinian evolution on the same level with gravity. I think you do harm to science when you take something inferred and equate it with something observed.
I explain my postion on abortion in that post.
I think you do harm to science when you take something inferred and equate it with something observed.
Please review the posts on the evolution thread. Evolution is observable in the same way as gravity.
I think you do harm to science when you take something inferred and equate it with something observed.
Aaron, I completey agree with this eloquent summary. However, it seems that this concept is somewhat foreign to or rejected by evolutionists. I have gone to wikipedia and researched the empirical method and the scientific method, and they don't really make too much mention of induction v. experimentation. I will have to do more research, since I think this distinction is important and has merit.
Cineaste will we have to agree to disagree. I'm sure you will just chalk this up to my stupidity, but I cannot see how you can equate a rock falling in front of your face to looking at fossils and other evidence and making an educated guess to explain them.
As educated as that guess may be it cannot be as solid as watching something fall right in front of you, knowing that gravity pulled it down. You did not see macroevolution take place. You see and feel gravity take place every day.
…not to mention your evolutionary definition of speciation.
It's not my definition, it's from the dictionary. It is how the word "speciation" is used by speakers of the English language. If you are using another definiton then you using the word incorrectly. I only speak English so if you are using a type of "creationst language" of your own devise, then communication is bound to break down. This is what happened with "species" and "created kind." "Species" has a scientific definition and "created kind" is religion.
However, what' you've really done is inferred it, based on your assumptions, from what you've seen. YOU HAVE NOT SEEN (Macro)EVOLUTION.
Yes, my point exactly, you have not seen my heart yet you infer based on your assumptions that I do have a heart, and that gravity is not limited only to planets we can see. I think you understand now.
Seeker, induction is the logical process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances. Experimentation is what gets you those facts and principles. Once the experimentation is finished, its the induction, the inference, the leap of faith that leads to the conclusion.
Do you find my explanation for experimentation and induction to your satisfaction, or do you require more research?
What also keeps God an "It" in my mind is His never ending silence. It makes me question the existence of a supreme being. I even question my agnosticism because my belief that there is a possibility God exists may be equated to a belief that perhaps Santa Claus (another supernatural being) exists.
It's not my definition, it's from the dictionary. It is how the word "speciation" is used by speakers of the English language. If you are using another definiton then you using the word incorrectly.
In this case, I would argue that your dictionary is inaccurate, just like many other authorities you might cite. If that is the common usage, then I find it a poor choice of words, and let's choose another.
Yes, my point exactly, you have not seen my heart yet you infer based on your assumptions that I do have a heart, and
OMFG, not at all. I may ASSUME you have a heart, but I don't need to infer anything, since I can ascertain that by experiment. No experiments are possible to ascertain if (macro) evolution happened. I give up if you still think your example works.
Experimentation is what gets you those facts and principles. Once the experimentation is finished, its the induction, the inference, the leap of faith that leads to the conclusion.
Incomplete. You may also arrive at principles by inference rather than experimentation, but those inferences, if uncofirmable, remain theory. Such as origins via macroevolution.
If that's the standard by which you determine truth, then I find it laughable that you could believe anything at all. I guess it makes sense that you need an ancient book of mythology to tell you what's real or not.
"Even though this recipe has produced chocolate chip cookies 1000 times before," you could proclaim, "We can't possibly be certain that it is, in fact, a recipe for them. That's merely a theory."
If you genuinely believe that Cineaste's posession of a heart is merely a theory, then you're hopeless. What's merely a theory is the idea that Cineaste could live without a heart.
You believe that species can, within just a few years, develop useful traits through natural selection. But you refuse to believe that these traits could, over the course of billions of years, go so far as to separate them from other members of their own species. If you accept natural selection as an axiom in this argument, then the remaining theory is that there's some invisible power that prevents such developments from going anywhere.
Oh, but wait. Silly me. You don't believe that there even are billions of years. But you would, I have no doubt, stake your life and the life of your family on your belief that the world is a fraction of that age. No theories, there, right? Of course, you understand that's a theory, but it's a theory with special privelege, because Magic People from the past told you so.
Maybe it was a mistake for me to assume you had standards for truth at all.
Stewart, we get responses to our posts but we never get answers.
f you genuinely believe that Cineaste's posession of a heart is merely a theory, then you're hopeless.
No, you misunderstand, it is the opposite. The fact that he has a heart is not just a theory, it is a verifiable fact that can be ascertained by experimentation.
However, he is comparing this to macro-evolutionary theory, saying they are equally scientific. I am saying that m-evolution can't be experimentally validated. But he thinks it's a verifiable fact like the existence of his heart.
You believe that species can, within just a few years, develop useful traits through natural selection.
No, not develop, express existing traits. And not a few years, a few thousand.
But you refuse to believe that these traits could, over the course of billions of years, go so far as to separate them from other members of their own species.
Of course they could, but that's not evolution, that's just speciation. The quantum leap needed for macro-evolution of a species to a new, say Family, just does't happen. Rather, we see variation around a genetic mean. This is, in part, why we see many species unchanged over "millions" of years, because the mean is preserved.
Maybe it was a mistake for me to assume you had standards for truth at all.
No, your mistake is that you don't read and understand, nor do you ask clarifying questions. Rather, you jump to your straw man conclusions, then act like I'm stupid because you think I believe some wacky contstruct in your head. But you are right in one thing – you are making mistakes here.
The fact that he has a heart is not just a theory, it is a verifiable fact that can be ascertained by experimentation.
So, right now I want you to experimentally validate that I, Cineaste, have a heart. You can't because you can't see, touch or feel me. I am not there. You have no empirical evidence about ME specifically. Does this mean you think I don't have a heart? No, even without experiments you know that I have a heart, correct? So, what did you do? You inferred that I have a heart. It is SO simple.
How can you be so dense? How could you have gotten a biology degree when your critical thinking skills are nil? It's not possible that you can't understand and you are just being disingenuous because you're unwilling concede the point, like a willful child. I guess that's the type of person you are. I mean, how many other people argue that the dictionary is not a good source to quote from because it's inaccurate? Christ! It's as if you were raised in the Mormon compound in "Big Love" and you are not exposed to the outside world. Some of those people don't even know Europe exists. It boggles the imagination. /shakes head
Your point is moot. and your analogy does not work.
Now you are playing semantics with me because I can't personally examine you. But the truth is, I could if you got on a plane and flew out here.
Until then, I'll just have to "infer" that you have a heart, as you say. However, I can examine other like humans IN REAL TIME, and infer that you are human, with macro evolution, one can not, in any place, do an experiment to observe it. That's because macro evolution is not emprical science, it is theory.
If you disagree, or find some heinous illogic with that and would like to insult my intelligence some more, have fun. But your example remains poor and unoconvincing.
Seeker, this isn't just semantics. Cineaste's point, if I understand it, is that there is no reasonable way for your to absolutely determine whether or not he has a heart. Even if you flew to visit him, you would have to open up his chest in order to inspect it with your own eyes. Even using an X-Ray machine or a cardiogram would just be another form of inference. And looking at other people would say nothing about Cineaste. You simply can't observe his heart without opening him up. And even if you did, he could claim that the heart is only present when his chest cavity is exposed to religious fundamentalists.
But of course we all understand that Cineaste has a heart. Our understanding of animal biology hinges on this being the case. His posession of a heart is as much of a fact as any other piece of scientific knowledge in the history of the world. Your protests to the contrary just sound like special pleading.
You're also arguing that evolution fails even this test of veracity — and we can have that argument separately — but your claims about Cineaste's heart are just meaningless bickering. As I said before, if that's your standard for truth (direct personal examination of a physical object or event), then you're hopeless. You would have entirely redefined the concept of science, and the intent of scientists everywhere.
As for evolution itself, I believe you're placing goal posts where they'll be most favorable to your cause. In spite of the fact that a Christian monk invented the field of genetics, Christians have historically been opposed to all the ideas contained within it. When the idea of genetic natural selection was first developed, Christians were among the most vocal opponents. Now that it's directly observable, you've been forced to adjust your protests accordingly. Now it's not natural selection that's impossible, it's familial evolution. Again, this just sounds like special pleading.
In order to believe that your protests have merit, I have to disregard my own geological observations, and the research of hundreds of thousands of scientists around the planet. I have no doubt that you can produce plausible explanations for why it is that carbon dating, geological formation, radiometics, galactic distances, et al. exist and appear to disprove your beliefs. I know that, if I went to Answers in Genesis, I could read more of the endless collection of these explanations. But the very fact that you have to do all this explaining is really damaging to the credibility of your argument.
Are they plausible to me? Yes. Certainly they are. But so are the Mormon apologetics from the FARMS organization. They're plausible to me because (like yourself) I don't have firsthand, direct experience of the specific elements involved. I can see layered rock formations, but I wasn't actually THERE when it happened. In spite of that, what I can observe, and what I do understand, suggest that the world is significantly older than your Bible suggests. And your theories don't seem likely to me, because in order to make them all work, you and other believers have to constantly run around plugging up the holes in the theory, creating new explanations for why nothing seems to make any sense in your model.
Even if you disagree with me, surely you can see why people like Cineaste and I find it hard to give your theories any credence at all.
Now you are playing semantics with me because I can't personally examine you. But the truth is, I could if you got on a plane and flew out here. Until then, I'll just have to "infer" that you have a heart, as you say. -Seeker
Excellent. I knew you understood my point. You admit you made an inference, a "leap of faith" based upon historical evidence not on direct experimentation. The point is you didn't NEED to "get on a plane and fly out here" to empirically conclude I have a heart. One may also look at the historical data, evidence of other humans and animals having a heart, to scientifically conclude I personally, have a heart. Historical (meaning paleontological) evidence IS empirical evidence because it is derived from observation. This is how you concluded I have a heart, indirect evidence.
Although information in experimental science is acquired through observation, the observation of a great amount of indirect evidence of a process makes as good a scientific case as the direct observation of a process. As Michael Ruse asks, "[t]he evidence that I have a heart is all indirect, neither I nor anyone else ever seen it, but does anyone really believe that it is not a fact that I have a heart?" (Ruse 1982:58). In the same way, there is sufficient evidence for macroevolution that it can safely be considered a fact without direct observation of the process occurring in our time. We need not, as many unsophisticated creationists put it, observe cats changing into dogs right before our eyes, in order to have a good case for macroevolution. -Mark I. Vuletic
You must also use inference with the theory of gravity. You can't just "get on a plane and fly out there," to other planets. You infer all living human beings have hearts and you infer all planets have gravity regardless of whether you verify each individual case with experimentation.
Now that you admit usage of indirect evidence is a valid method to reach a scientific conclusion, your next objection was that you don't agree with the fossil evidence supporting macroevolution i.e. you claim scientists are misinterpreting the fossil evidence. I thought about why a creationist would think this and I reasoned that in order to take genesis literally, one must conclude that…
Fossils are the remains of the organisms that perished in Noah's Flood.
"Robert J. Schadewald offers six arguments that cast great doubt upon the idea of a historical worldwide Noachian Flood:
[i] The Karoo Formation contains the remains of some 800 billion vertebrate animals. If one conservatively estimates that the Karoo Formation contains a mere 1% of the vertebrate fossils on earth, this means that before the flood the earth would have held 2100 vertebrates of varying sizes per acre.
[ii] If marine fossils comprise 0.1% of the volume of sedimentary rock, this means that before the Flood these organisms would have covered the earth to a depth of at least 1.5 feet.
[iii] The varves of the Green River formation would, by the standard interpretation, take 20 million years to form. For the varves to have been formed during the Flood by shallow flows of mud-laden water (as the creationists conjecture), would have necessitated a sequence of 40 million flows covering tens of thousands of square miles every two-thirds of a second.
[iv] Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives – being the only human occupants on the Ark (Genesis 6:18, 7:13) – must have carried all of the diseases specific to man in their bodies, were the disease organisms to survive the Flood. Given that only two of most of the animals of each kind were on board, some of the specific disease organisms known today would have been wiped out by the eventual immunity of the two.
[v] Hydraulic sorting during the Flood would have caused large trilobites to have always been found in lower strata than small trilobites, because of hydrodynamic drag properties. This is not what is actually found. Victim habitat and mobility arguments are similarly shown to be wrong be the fact that fossils of flowering plants – despite their relative immobility and their existence at all elevations – never appear before the Cretaceous era.
[vi] There are overturned strata, explainable by conventional geology, but impossible to explain by the working of the Flood. How could the Flood cause upside down raindrop craters and brachiopod burrows? (Schadewald 1983:448-453)."
Yes, Stewart you got my point right away, and I didn't have to spend days hammering away at it like I did with Seeker. It shows something is wrong with Christian fundamentalist thinking.
there is no reasonable way for your to absolutely determine whether or not he has a heart. Even if you flew to visit him, you would have to open up his chest in order to inspect it with your own eyes.
Sure, that may not be "reasonable" (although we could just use ultrasound), but if that's his only point, then he and you are missing the original point, which is that macro evolution is theory, not experimentally verifiable fact. His heart analogy is incorrect.
Even if you disagree with me, surely you can see why people like Cineaste and I find it hard to give your theories any credence at all.
I understand that it is hard fo ryou.
Macro evolution is theory, not experimentally verifiable fact.
Not a good argument Seeker. Take a look at the answers in genesis link to see why, using your own special "creationist" lingo. I'll paste the normal explanation for everyone else below…
Assertion 7.11: Evolution is just a theory.
(i) This criticism conflates the colloquial use of the word "theory" with the scientist's use. In colloquial usage, the word "theory" is used to designate a mere guess or conjecture. But scientists do not call guesses and conjectures "theories"; they call them "hypotheses." In scientific circles, the word "theory" designates something far stronger than a hypothesis. As zoologist Tim Berra explains,
a theory in the special scientific sense is not "just a theory," as creationists are fond of saying. A scientific theory is the endpoint of the scientific method, often the foundation of an entire field of knowledge, and is not to be confused with the sort of "theory" we so easily propose in everyday conversation. (Berra 1990:4)
To say that evolution is "just a theory" is at best to make a mistake comparable to saying that Copernican theory, electromagnetic theory, quantum theory, the theory of relativity, and round-earth theory, are just guesses. Evolution is a theory only in the same robust scientific sense as all of these other theories.
(ii) The creationist organization Answers in Genesis has labeled the argument that evolution is just a theory "doubtful, hence inadvisable to use."
-Mark I. Vuletic
Gravity is also a theory.
So this is how it works: I point out that x-rays and electrocardiograms are indirect methods of observation, and your rebuttle is ultrasound. And then you add that it's hard for us, as if we're these two wayward thinkers, who've strayed so far from the rest.
Seeker, it's 'hard' for almost everyone. In fact, the only people that your hypothesis is not 'hard' for, are a group of people who are best known for making their decisions based on faith.
But instead of admitting that it requires the same faith to believe all of the patchwork conjecturing that's done at AiG, you imply that we're just willfully opposed to them. You couldn't possibly admit that it's a hard tale to swallow, so instead you blame it on a Darwinian conspiracy. It's those bullying scientists, right? Of course it is. And to back your claims up, you'll occasionally post stories about researchers who speculate about potential problems with evolution. And that's fine, by the way. But you always seem to forget to mention the tiny fact that most of those scientists still think your Young Earth beliefs are laughable.
There's this mountain of evidence, which you're aware of, against your beliefs. I could go through it with you, but Answers in Genesis is a good place to start on your own, actually: Just look at all the "fixes" they have to offer in order to contradict virtually every major theory that modern scientists hold. It's really astounding. In order for it all to be valid, they really have to be the finest collection of scientific minds that the world has ever seen. Right? How else could they be so overwhelmingly correct, when the rest of the world is just so wrong?
I doubt you'll admit to the validity of any of this logic. I'm sure you think I'm just buying into the bullying party line of contemporary zoology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, genetics, anthropology — even linguistics — but let me assure you: I am very open to the idea that I might be wrong. I'm quite sympathetic to conspiracy theorists like yourself. I've already admitted that your explanations are, at the very least, plausible. Like most of the rest of the world, I just don't find them likely. And you do your own argument a great disservice when you imply that people such as myself are the ones responsible for that. Your argument simply isn't convincing.
Regarding the word theory, you are correct, I am using it in the colloquial sense. In the scientific sense, I should be using the phrase "untestable creation myth" (this author at the AIG site itself uses the term theory – guess he didn't get the AIG memo).
In fact, the only people that your hypothesis is not 'hard' for, are a group of people who are best known for making their decisions based on faith.
It's hard for you because you are already a person of faith – just not the creationist kind. You look for semantic arguments over what words mean, and think you have won an argument.
As to the mountains of evidence, I contend that there is really little or NONE that supports evolution. There may be plenty of evidence supporting such processes as natural selection, speciation, and adaptation. Of course, all of these are consistent with creationism. In fact, I would argue that creationism accomodates the data as well or better than evolutionary theory, and both have some data that appear to conflict. But you are entirely brainwashed, as I once was, into thinking that science overwhelmingly supports macro evolution. It is not so.
In fact, your precious evolutionary theory, as I have argued, really adds nothing to science or medicine – it's real importance is as a world view for atheists, and for those who have no other possible explanation for origins.
As to your argument from the majority, it will not be the first or last time that they majority is wrong. Yes, I think they are duped because I was once among them as a scientist. Since evolution is not really testable and applies to very little of the sciences, millions can believe it without really having it affect their science. Even when I did life science research, our work was done with little reference to evolution, save "zoo blots", which imho, yielded nothing of value.
Your argument simply isn't convincing.
Ok, fine.
In fact, I would argue that creationism accommodates the data as well or better than evolutionary theory, and both have some data that appear to conflict. -Seeker
About creationism: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
So, back your words up Seeker. You can start by addressing the 6 arguments I posted against Noah's flood. As a "scientist," it should be easy. :P
It's (evolutions) real importance is as a world view for atheists, and for those who have no other possible explanation for origins.
No. Evolution has nothing to do with how life originated. Evolution states that species evolved from a common ancestor. So, there is room for God in evolution but there is no room for people who take genesis literally. The way you blatantly lie about this is disgusting. Many people like FCL are true Christians who also believe in evolution.
Look, I am done answering your questions for a while. It is fruitless because we can't even agree upon terms, and even when I do answer your questions, the answers aren't good enough. So stay convinced in your own mind. I will, however, continue to post on evolution in the future.
You can now commence whatever gloating over supposed victories or attacks on my motives, character and intellect that you feel you need to do.
I'll simply throw your own words back in your face because they apply your post above. If you think I am being rude, remember, they are your words not mine.
Your defeatist tone means that YOU are bailing out of the discussion. I provided a link with good logic, and you dismiss it as "semantics." Your refusal to answer my claims with logic is one reason we don't go anywhere, so don't think you are not part of the breakdown in communication here. -SEEKER
I am bailing, because I am tired of your argument. I'll pick it up again on future posts.
The Scientific Method vs. The Creationist Method