Ralph Sevush, all around good guy, wrote the following short essay which he calls “The Cultural Divide.” I thought it was an interesting take on the current status of things and decided to close out political blog entries for a bit with it:
Regarding the cultural divide
This morning, I woke up thinking…
… that, as Spalding Gray observed, I live on an island off the coast
of America;
… that we should have just let the south secede when they wanted to;
… that perhaps we could consider a new form of secession, a Northern
secession;
… that if Canada could just give up a strip of land along the northern
border of North Dakota and Montana, we could build a “Freedom Trail”
with an “underground railroad” that connected the northwestern corner of
Minnesota to the northeastern corner of Washington state, thus creating
an independent, contiguous nation consisting of the Northeast, the Great
Lake region, the northern midwest, and the westcoast (plus Hawaii) with
full autonomy from the United States;
… that we could then forge a union with Canada, and become the
Federation of North American States (FONAS);
… that we would then be Fonasians, with access to Canada’s national
health care, with religious and ethnic diversity and tolerance,
relationships with the rest of the world, economic justice, individual
freedoms, and great hockey teams;
… that we would then have a nation composed of the cultural, financial
and industrial centers of the former US, and have Canada as our farmland
and ranch, and still have great vacation spots in the south pacific;
… that we could learn a lesson from Israel and build a massive wall
along our southern border that would separate us from the belligerent,
imperialistic, crypto-Fascist military theocracy that continues to grip
the US government, as it presides over a small-minded citizenry steeped
in religious zealotry who love only their god, themselves, their first
cousins and their sheep, and whose leading export to the world is death;
… that I should just roll over and go back to sleep. Perhaps I’ll
dream of Fonasia, in repose on my island off the coast of America.
But when I wake up, I’ll still be here.
Shìŧ.
Did you ever have one of those mornings?
– by Ralph Sevush, Esq.
(a card-carrying member of the ACLU and the MMMS)
• 
Jim in Iowa: There is a fundamental difference in your examples. Women and blacks are that way from the point of birth. Discrimination is solely a matter of skin color or gender. Even if you believe someone is gay from birth, it is still a “trait” that is only exhibited through behavior later in life.
Luigi Novi: Wrong. Homosexual behavior often is exhibited before puberty. Try researching the evidence.
Luigi, did you even bother to read my point? Your very response makes by point: homosexual “behavior” is an action. I did not say it was not exhibited until puberty. I said it was not a visible trait in a nursery.
If you were to take a group of people, remove all make up, etc., and put them in identical jumpsuits, you could, with a very high degree of accuracy, say which one was white, which one was black, which one was male, etc. Those are characteristics that are evident from the moment of birth. Those are characteristics that are evident based on external appearance.
If you were to take the same group of people, you could not determine which one was Catholic, which one was Muslim, which one was hot tempered, which one was argumentative, which one was married, which one was single, or which one was straight and which one was gay. All of those traits are exhibited through BEHAVIOR. And that was my point.
Jim in Iowa: My oposition to homosexuality is based on behavior. Furthermore, it is an established fact that it is possible for at least some who have a gay orientation to change and be very happily married to someone of the opposite sex.
Luigi Novi: And many of those men who tried that so-called
Actually, Deano, from what I’d read and seen on various documentaries (lovingly provided through the multitude of Discovery channels available on digital cable), opium cultivation remained strong in many parts of Afghanistan that never fully succumbed to Taliban control. A number of local warlords who maintained their autonomy from the Taliban (through whatever means were at their disposal) continued protecting poppy farmers as long as the fields were productive. Also, it was noted that immediately following the fall of the Taliban, many farmers replanted their poppy fields as a source of quick income (to show how quickly this was done, one report can be read at http://www.poppiesinternational.com/opium_poppies/opium_poppies.html; the article is dated December 4, 2001, by which time the Taliban controlled only the city of Kandahar).
As for women’s rights in Afghanistan, they are just barely better than under Taliban rule. Prior to the fall of the Soviet-backed regime, Afghani women were guaranteed full equality under the Afghan Constitution (which, in fact, was written by a group of men AND women). Of course, this equality was not absolute as many remote areas remained under traditional tribal laws, but even those women were generally freer than their sisters in Saudi Arabia–traditional Afghani cultures tended to give women more of an equal standing with men in many respects; it wasn’t until the Taliban students opted for an incredibly strict interpretation of Islam (moreso than even the Wahhabist view in Saudi Arabia) that women’s rights turned into the nightmare they became. The Qu’ran maintains women dress modestly so as not to inflame men’s desires (which is, of course, punishing the wrong party, but that’s another topic) while the Taliban chose to interpret that much too strictly (hence, the burqa, and the Taliban police’s authority to beat a woman whose foot might show while walking or whose hair might slip from its cover). However, even today, many women in Afghanistan-OK (Outside Kabul) find themselves still required to maintain the burqa or face possible abuse, even torture, if they venture outside without “sufficient” clothing. Many women still suffer from medical problems in Afghanistan-OK as they’re not allowed to be examined by male doctors–and there aren’t a sufficient number of female doctors (or even nurses) to treat the women. There have been stories of women who flee their homes to escape domestic abuse, but invariably the women are returned to their abusers by the mostly-male police forces throughout the country (as women are, for the most part, not allowed to travel on their own–for their own “safety”, of course) and, to add to the fun, many Afghani men maintain their “right” under Islamic law to more than one wife (I use the quotation marks since that particular right has some very serious limitations which are mostly ignored), and if the man’s current wife chooses to voice her objection to his decision to add a new wife, she’s liable to face a serious beating (or broken arm, or broken leg, or knife-slash to the face, etc) with virtually no legal recourse. One could actually compare the plight of Afghanistan’s women with American Blacks–despite Constitutional guarantees allowing Blacks to vote, many Southern states found ways to get around those guarantees for more than half a century. Afghani women may have Constitutional guarantees of equal treatment, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they enjoy those guarantees at this time in Afghanistan-OK.
Jim in Iowa: Actually, I would disagree, at least according to the Christian world view. Creation itself is an historical basis.
Luigi Novi: No, it is not. Creation is a mythological idea. It is not historical. Stop mislabeling things.
Actually, Luigi, he’s right and you’re confused. Creation is a point of fact. No one’s disputing that. After all, you’re here to have the argument.
What you should have said though was that Creationism is a mythological idea. Even so, you can’t completely dismiss the idea that Creationism is real. Technically, Genesis agrees with many of the scientific theories. Genesis 1:3 “And God said let there be light” could easily be the Big Bang. And the order of creation, with life evoling in the ocean and moving onto land and man being the last creation. If you think about it, if not for the timeline, atheists would be arguing that you can’t teach evolution because it’s in the Bible, Torah, and Qu’ran
Craig,
DEANO: I don’t know, slow down heroin production?
CRAIG: What rebuilding/building have we done to guarantee they’ll do something other than return to their opium crops? Not a helluva lot.
You have proof of this, of course.
No, of course not. Just another opinion gaven with no facts to back it up. Anything to keep your “Everything Bush/the military/ the troops have done is wrong” mentality.
No matter what anyone says, you just basically repeat the same things.
A poster says, in reference to the troops, “spitting is in order”. I respond. You then say, basically, that he didn’t say what he said and was instead bashing the administration/the military, basically shoehorning your personal views into a statement that did not fit.
And I recall that you never rebuked the statement, but a few posts later, in your ever eloquent style stated that “only an idiot” would say you don’t care about the troops.
Gee, why would anyone think that when, not only do you portray everything in Iraq as being a failure but you fail to rebuke someone who specificaly DID say something vile against the troops because you were more intent on spouting one of your talking points and interpreting words to fit your point of view, when they specifically stated something that had nothing to do with the point you were determined to make.
To use your own words.
“Amusing, really.”
Luigi, you never cease to amaze me. You said Retreat. So spare me your false victimhood. If you really are so sensitive about a minor jab (what you call an
Peter, just so you’re clear on this, I never said that you said “Saddam Hussein should have been left in power.” Here’s what I *did* say:
I just asked you a question.
Craig said The truth apparently hurts Novafan alot.
So what are you trying to say Craig? Why don’t you just spit it out and stop beating around the Bush?
And try and say something in your post that doesn’t involve slamming Bush, if it’s not that difficult for you, that is.
Didn’t we discuss this before? I think you have a fixation with Bush.
Not only that, you decide to get a jab in whenever anyone else makes a comment. Do you come up with anything on your own or do you just wait for someone else to make a jab so you can get yours in too?
Curious.
I have to say, Bush might be on the verge of doing something I approve of…apparently he’s willing to commit to reopening the border to Canadian beef products within four months.
If he comes through, I will be forced to tip my hat to him for the first time in four years.
Luigi Novi wrote, “…as there is no contemporaneous evidence for Christ that survives to this day.”
Do you read the Bible Luigi??? The evidence for Christ is found in the pages of God’s word. One can only get faith in Christ by reading and responding to the gospel of Christ. (Romans 10:17, Romans 1:16).
Luigi Novi: Yeah, because telling someone that they
“Peter, just so you’re clear on this, I never said that you said “Saddam Hussein should have been left in power.” Here’s what I *did* say:
I just asked you a question.”
Yes, but the question you asked was, “Do you still think Saddam Hussein should have been left in power.” That phrasing means only one thing: That at some earlier point, I contended that he should have been left in power. And that’s what I responded to.
PAD
“I never claimed Peter should be happy to be targeted for conversion, but how does name-calling help?”
To quote Rupert Giles, It doesn’t; it’s more of an end unto itself.
PAD
No matter what anyone says, you just basically repeat the same things.
If you want a broken record, go watch Bush during the debates.
I have made many points, along with many other folks here, and people such as Novafan and yourself would rather dismiss us on a whim.
Apparently some folks can’t handle a debate with facts and truths. Apparently some, such as Novafan, would rather just huddle in a corner when they find that their points are not holding up.
The whole conservative argument is to say “you’re full of šhìŧ, you have no proof”, and then provide no proof of your own.
Fine, you say I have no proof that we’re doing nothing in Afghanistan. We have 15k or so troops? We aren’t very active in the hunt for bin Laden (or, at least, not publically, since Bush has forgotten he exists). Opium production in the country is back to what it was under the Taliban. Women still have no rights. Warlords still control much of the country.
What the hëll do you want for proof, Jerome? What dámņ proof do YOU have that we’ve actually accomplished something over there?
So what are you trying to say Craig?
I’ve had better conversations with brick walls. That, and you might as well not bother trying to use simple English with a conservative – they probably won’t understand.
Do you read the Bible Luigi??? The evidence for Christ is found in the pages of God’s word.
*chuckle*
Yes, and Middle-Earth existed because Tolkien wrote that down on paper, too.
Quite frankly, I’d rather base evidence of Christ’s existance on sources OTHER than the Bible. I’d hope the reasons are self-evidence (see: “God’s word).
To Jim in Iowa:
Hello! It did occur to me that you may have been reading literature on evolution as written by creationists (is it ok to use that term??), which was suggested by someone a bit back (I can’t find the reference just now, though). I came across some of them myself during my first year of college at a Jesuit university. 🙂 BTW, try reading the latest edition of National Geographic, the one with the “Was Darwin Wrong?” cover. It’s a great article, and the only one so far I’ve come across that tackles the issue head-on, in my opinion.
My comments and questions on some of your previous posts:
1. The theory of evolution cannnot explain morality, how the human mind came to be so complex and adaptive, or the big bang because it does not seek to explain those things. It only seeks to explain the phenomenon of evolution.
2. So you firmly believe, with all your heart, in the Bible’s story with Creation?
3. “My oposition to homosexuality is based on behavior.” –Ok. Why are you (conservative Christians) against homosexual behaviour? As a challenge, can you explain this without citing the Bible? Or if you do want to cite the Bible, how do you know that the anti-homosexual passages in the Bible are not to be interpreted/understood in the same manner as the passages regarding Lot and his daughter? That is, that being anti-homosexual is something that some people did in the past and was recorded in the Bible but is something that should not be emulated?
4. “Furthermore, it is an established fact that it is possible for at least some who have a gay orientation to change and be very happily married to someone of the opposite sex.” –But how can anyone tell what they really feel?? I mean, what if these ‘converted’ homosexuals just say that so people will stop bothering them, and that there really are no converted homosexuals?
5. “Christian faith is based in a historical reality. If you could prove to me that Jesus did not really live, die, and rise again, I would immediately cease to be a Christian.” –Does this mean, by extension, that you would cease to believe in the 10 Commandments, in loving your neighbor, and in all the other wonderful things the Bible says?
5. Do conservative Christians believe in a Triune God? I’m sorry if this counts as a stupid question but I am Catholic and I live in a predominantly Catholic country, so I really have no idea.
wow, how things have turned in the past few days. From eclark 1849:
“Jim in Iowa: ‘Actually, I would disagree, at least according to the Christian world view. Creation itself is an historical basis.’
Luigi Novi: ‘No, it is not. Creation is a mythological idea. It is not historical. Stop mislabeling things. ‘
Actually, Luigi, he’s right and you’re confused. Creation is a point of fact. No one’s disputing that. After all, you’re here to have the argument.
What you should have said though was that Creationism is a mythological idea. Even so, you can’t completely dismiss the idea that Creationism is real. Technically, Genesis agrees with many of the scientific theories. Genesis 1:3 “And God said let there be light” could easily be the Big Bang. And the order of creation, with life evoling in the ocean and moving onto land and man being the last creation. If you think about it, if not for the timeline, atheists would be arguing that you can’t teach evolution because it’s in the Bible, Torah, and Qu’ran”
Creation is not a point of fact. It’s a point of faith and assumption. At best, it is a theory supported by observations and circumstantial evidence.
Here’s the theory: We’re here today, so the act of creation must have occurred somewhere in the past. Why is it only a theory? Because it’s totally based only on present day observations. And it pretty much always will be, since we’re not very likely to ever get a first hand account of the initial act of creation. That’s not to say that we don’t accept the idea of creation as fact, but if we’re going to be using words, we may as well use them correctly.
I’m still trying to understand why people spend time arguing about whether evolution or creationism is “right.” It’s not even apples to oranges, it’s fruit to rock. Totally different things.
From what I’ve read, the main sticking point is that science, including anthropology, archeaology, and the theory of evolution, support observations that tell us that the Earth is billions of years old. Strict Creationists have to oppose this idea because, according to most strict biblical scholars, the Earth cannot be more than 10,000 years old. Maybe 20,000, if you push it. So, to allow the ideas put forth by science, Creationists would have to allow that the Bible is not the end all and be all source of information they claim it to be. It simply comes down to a credibility issue. Strict, faith based Creationism is usually paired with the view that the Bible was divinely inspired, and thus free from flaws. Their view cannot tolerate being wrong.
Which, of course, has lead to some pretty incredible explanations. Like half-life dating being wrong because half-lives change over time. Or that the speed of light decreases over time (at least this theory isn’t widely supported any longer). That fossils are just fancy rocks put together by creative imaginations, and that dinosaurs and ancient mammals never existed.
It never ceases to amaze me the lengths people will go to to avoid having to consider that the story of Genesis is not a literal account of the creation of the Earth and the Universe. Man, according to Genesis, wasn’t even created until the 6th day. So who was around watching the clock on days 1-5?
Maybe someone can explain to me why days 1-5 of Genesis actually only lasted 5 days, and not billions of years. Or why, if God can just create man from thin air, do we have to deal with the mess and blood and pain and danger of birth.
Or why, if you can believe that God can create Adam and Eve without birth, but then later implement birth as means for creating people, why can’t you believe that he could create the universe in a Big Bang event, then let the rest of reality proceed according to the laws of physics and theory of evolution? If you can accept change in one theory, why not the other?
kingbobb,
I’ve don’t have the stomach to read this entire topic, but I like some of the your arguments. They match my lines of thinking when I’m in my more religious mindset.
Personally, I’m surprised that noone’s presented the argument that the Universe was created c10,000 years ago…and that it was created OLD. That the Universe was 10 (or 12 or 20 or whatever) Billion years old when it was Created. In my opinion it makes more sense than trying to argue with scientific experts in their own field about how their methods for determining age don’t work the way they think they do.
Personally, I’m surprised that noone’s presented the argument that the Universe was created c10,000 years ago…and that it was created OLD. That the Universe was 10 (or 12 or 20 or whatever) Billion years old when it was Created. In my opinion it makes more sense than trying to argue with scientific experts in their own field about how their methods for determining age don’t work the way they think they do.
That’s called Omphalos (or the the Church of Last Tuesday-ism, with Mauve the Cat as Supreme Creator).
Doesn’t really pass muster, as it casts God as a trickster god at best, and outright liar at worst…as you can imagine, a lot of Christians can’t stomach this interpretation…
Craig:
Yes, and Middle-Earth existed because Tolkien wrote that down on paper, too.
To be fair, Craig, you did ask for a contemporary source, so unless you have concrete proof that it wasn’t written when most scholars say it was, it counts.
Chrissie:
I think both you and (I believe) Craig are using the story of Lot out of context. Way out. One : the bible condemns incest. Two: Lot’s two daughters thought they and their father were the last three beings on the planet. Lot was too grief stricken at the loss of his wife to tell them otherwise, nor did he knowingly consent to have sex with his daughters. They got him drunk, and then took advantage of him.
For you to use that story as you do, as an attempt to validate homosexuality, means that you also could use the same story to validate incest and rape.
Why are you (conservative Christians) against homosexual behaviour?
I’m against it pretty much for the same reason I’m against incest. It’s just not right. True, you can argue that it’s consensual behaviour between adults, but then you’d also have to say that ANY consensual behaviour between adults, including incest is okay. as well as simultaneous multiple partners., and sado- masochism. I don’t really have a problem with some of the lighter stuff, but people have died doing some the more freaky stuff.
And yes, I know that people who say incest is wrong also cite biological reasons such as birth defects as a reason for it’s prohibition, but the truth is that there is only about a 25% higher chance of birth defects among siblings than between strangers, such as sickle cell anemia among blacks? Did you know that 1 out of every 400 African- Americans have sickle cell anemia, or that sickle cell affects 8 out of every 100,000 people on the planet? Feeling lucky today?
eclark1849 (I hope you don’t think I’m picking on you, you just have some unteresting things going on) said “And yes, I know that people who say incest is wrong also cite biological reasons such as birth defects as a reason for it’s prohibition, but the truth is that there is only about a 25% higher chance of birth defects among siblings than between strangers, such as sickle cell anemia among blacks? Did you know that 1 out of every 400 African- Americans have sickle cell anemia, or that sickle cell affects 8 out of every 100,000 people on the planet? Feeling lucky today?”
The biological reasons against incest aren’t really concerned with the immediate impacts of such unions. As you’ve pointed out, a single incident isn’t a big statistical risk over non-incest pairings (for the math challenged, like me, a 25% greater risk would mean that, if say 1 in 100 non-incest babies are born with birth defects, 1.25 babies out of a hundred born from incest pairings would have birth defects…I think…)
Anyway, it’s the long term impacts of inbreeding that biology tells us can spell the doom for a population.
David Hunt wrote: Personally, I’m surprised that noone’s presented the argument that the Universe was created c10,000 years ago…and that it was created OLD. That the Universe was 10 (or 12 or 20 or whatever) Billion years old when it was Created. In my opinion it makes more sense than trying to argue with scientific experts in their own field about how their methods for determining age don’t work the way they think they do.
There is a variation on your idea that has been suggested, at least for the age of the cosmos. Let me set up the premise: Einstein established that time is relative based on the location of the observer. While any of us sci-fi junkies know that traveling at the speed of light changes the “relative” time, few realize that gravity is also a source of change. For example, it is a proven fact that an atomic clock at sea level runs at a slower rate than an identical clock located on top of Mount Everest. The difference is small because the variation of gravity is small, but it is real.
Ok, with those facts established, let us move to the theory: It is scientifically possible for the age of the earth to be younger than the age of the universe. I am not saying we can yet prove it, but there are theories that can give some very scientific (not sci-fi) ways it could occur.
Most theories involve. As anyone who has watched Stargate 1 or other sci-fi with black holes know, time becomes severely distorted at the center of a black hole. If the universe started with a “big bang,” it is not hard to theorize the big bang as being in part from a black hole and a white hole interacting.
There is a short book written on this topic called “Starlight and Time” I believe by an expert in the area. My point is that there are assumptions that guide the suggested age of the universe. (The age of the earth also has assumptions, but some are different.) There are some very scientific ways to theorize how the earth could be 20,000 years old and be receiving light from stars billions of “light years” away. Whether you agree with this theory or not, it is important to remember that time is relative, particularly when you get into issues pertaining to the universe.
Jim in Iowa
Jim, a while ago you posted a comment explaining how biblical authors would think a rabbit was a cud-chewing animal because they lacked our modern understandings of biological and simply classified rabbits as such based on their observations of mouth-movements.
So, if we can accept that, is it not then possible to assume that the accounts in Genesis of a literal six days to create the Earth and an Earth that’s only 20,000 years old was simply written so that people who lived 3,000 years ago and lacked our modern understanding of biology, geology, paleontology, archeology, and cosmology could grasp it?
The way I view it, the Genesis story is simply an allegory to put the big bang (let there be light) and formation of the earth’s atmorsphere and oceans (separated the waters from the land) and evolution (describing the living creatures in the waters first, then moving onto land) into terms that people during the bronze age could grasp.
There is a variation on your idea that has been suggested, at least for the age of the cosmos. Let me set up the premise: Einstein established that time is relative based on the location of the observer. While any of us sci-fi junkies know that traveling at the speed of light changes the “relative” time, few realize that gravity is also a source of change. For example, it is a proven fact that an atomic clock at sea level runs at a slower rate than an identical clock located on top of Mount Everest. The difference is small because the variation of gravity is small, but it is real.
Ok, with those facts established, let us move to the theory: It is scientifically possible for the age of the earth to be younger than the age of the universe. I am not saying we can yet prove it, but there are theories that can give some very scientific (not sci-fi) ways it could occur.
Most theories involve. As anyone who has watched Stargate 1 or other sci-fi with black holes know, time becomes severely distorted at the center of a black hole. If the universe started with a “big bang,” it is not hard to theorize the big bang as being in part from a black hole and a white hole interacting.
There is a short book written on this topic called “Starlight and Time” I believe by an expert in the area. My point is that there are assumptions that guide the suggested age of the universe. (The age of the earth also has assumptions, but some are different.) There are some very scientific ways to theorize how the earth could be 20,000 years old and be receiving light from stars billions of “light years” away. Whether you agree with this theory or not, it is important to remember that time is relative, particularly when you get into issues pertaining to the universe.
Well, I wouldn’t put much hope in that. I think you very much misunderstand the science involved here; you’re not going to get an age much less than billions of years for the age of the earth given the way that the strong force, radioactive decay and the speed of light all interact–change one, and you don’t even get the universe you know, let alone such more subtle things as solid planets and life-as-we-know-it.
By the way, STARLIGHT AND TIME is by Russell Humphreys. He is far from being an expert in his field, as he is netiher a cosmologist nor particularly expert in general relativity (he admits to not having studied general relativity since his college days since he was primarily a nuclear engineer). Basically, he relies on divine intervention to make the numbers add up, which sorta defeats his scientific purpose.
Oh, man, I just looked up what a white hole is, and now does my head hurt….
David: but it’s a little annoying to be “corrected” on points that I didn’t get wrong.
Apologies. I just get irritated with several people (not on this board) who keep telling me that Abe and Teddy were republicans, as if that means anything today. So I jumped the gun.
Oh, and Teddy was a huge conservationist (created Yellowstone, ya know)… which more or less is not what Dubya is about (he maybe a personal conservationist, but he really, really doesn’t show a good national conservational policy).
Onto other things, religion and evidence of creation, etc.
I grew up religious. Very religious in a very conservative sect (heh, heh, I said sect)…
With any piece of literature, if you go looking for justification of a belief, you can find it. Especially with the Bible.
Example? The sect I grew up in believes that since there was no references in the New Testament that when people came together to worship they used instrumental music, the sect sings a capella.
Even though, in truth, the reason they do this is a historical one. The ‘pianna’ was most likely found in bars and saloons, so it was tied to that concept, and so they did not use them in church.
Another Example:
I could easily explain that slavery is biblical because of Philemon. And I could easily say that re-incarnation is biblical:
“John the Baptist was the spirit of Elijah reborn.”
Another problem with religion, is that people misunderstand words:
Most people think that the Prophets where prophetic (see the future), but what the concept was is that Prophets were those who spoke for God/YHWH. They were foretelling sometimes, but not constantly. Jonah was a prophet. God told him to go to Ninevah and tell them to change. Then there was something about a rebellion, a fish and a few other things.
The majority of the Revelations are re-treads of the Old Testament prophets. And a lot of it dealt with what was happening AT THAT TIME. Yet somehow we have people taking it literally, even though it clearly was written in a code for the churches.
The word Worship means “to kneel and kiss,” which comes from when you genuflected to royalty. Yet now it’s become a noun, an adverb, an adjective and a money making music industry.
A lot of what people believe is based on the concepts of what they have been told.
Example: The Pentatuch was written by Moses.
Neat trick, since this is almost impossible. Moses’ death is recorded in the Pentatuch. Now that’s Ghost Writing.
And finally, like a lot of literature, the Bible contains metaphors and the like.
Genesis can be seen as absolute, but it could also be seen as a metaphor. I’ve been called many a name because I’ve said this.
The same with Job. In fact, in the book of Job, the name YHWH is not found at all. Experts are not even sure that Job was jewish. But it’s a great metaphor of what people can bear.
Anyway, that’s my three cents.
Do I believe in the bible? Not really. I’m more of a naturalist. On creationism, it’s useless to argue something you cannot prove. Unless you have poloroids of the fact.
My opinion as always,
Travis
Well, I wouldn’t put much hope in that. I think you very much misunderstand the science involved here; you’re not going to get an age much less than billions of years for the age of the earth given the way that the strong force, radioactive decay and the speed of light all interact–change one, and you don’t even get the universe you know, let alone such more subtle things as solid planets and life-as-we-know-it.
Good questions. I don’t claim to understand all of the science involved. That is why I referred to the book. A theory this complex (as any theory for the origin of a whole universe would be) cannot be summarized adequately in a paragraph. The author, Dr. Russell Humphreys, has a Ph.D. in physics from Louisiana State University and has worked for General Electric and for Sandia National Laboratories. So this theory is not the work of a creationist who just has a high school or college education. (And yes, I know, that does not make his theory true, but it does mean he has the training and experience to have an idea of what he is talking about.)
The book gives some suggestions for the answers to your questions.
However, keep in mind that my theory is given to answer a question about a biblical model for creation. I would not argue that God started a big bang in the manner described and then “walked away.” I would suggest he was intimately involved along the way as a potter is in molding a piece of clay. My point is not to prove a 6 day creation is true with this theory. Instead, it is to suggest that there are some reasons, based on known physics, why stars can actually be billions of years old while the earth is only, say, 20,000 years old. I am arguing for a personal, literal, 6 day creation, from the viewpoint/perspective of someone who is standing on earth. Since it is a fact that time is always relative based on perspective, then this is not a special argument. It is simply pointing out that, from the perspective of the age of the universe, it is important to keep in mind what perspective of time you are using. Whether Humphreys mechanism is valid or not, his point (that time is relative) is an established scientific fact.
Jim in Iowa
Jim, a while ago you posted a comment explaining how biblical authors would think a rabbit was a cud-chewing animal because they lacked our modern understandings of biological and simply classified rabbits as such based on their observations of mouth-movements.
So, if we can accept that, is it not then possible to assume that the accounts in Genesis of a literal six days to create the Earth and an Earth that’s only 20,000 years old was simply written so that people who lived 3,000 years ago and lacked our modern understanding of biology, geology, paleontology, archeology, and cosmology could grasp it?
The way I view it, the Genesis story is simply an allegory to put the big bang (let there be light) and formation of the earth’s atmorsphere and oceans (separated the waters from the land) and evolution (describing the living creatures in the waters first, then moving onto land) into terms that people during the bronze age could grasp.
Short answer: Neither most evolutionists nor most who take the Bible literally are comfortable with your alternative. There are some who suggest it, but they generally get pounded on from both sides! I speak from experience, since I mentioned this viewpoint on this site and got pounded myself!!
My answer: I am very careful to not make Genesis say more than it has to say. It was written for a different purpose than providing a detailed, scientific explanation. That does not mean I think it is not accurate, just that it is a statement that something happened, without giving virtually any details for HOW God did it. I think it is wrong to expect the Bible to have given a detailed scientific description in terms we use today. At the same time, I think it is wrong to just say it was poetry and that it is not meant to be accurate and true in what it does say.
There are plenty of good books out there that give some good explanations of how a reasonable literal interpretation does not violate known science by people who know far more than I do. If someone really wants to know, they can do their own research as I have. For most of you who reject the idea of a God having created the heavens and the earth, I will be curious to get the names of books you would recommend that give a strong defense of the idea of evolution.
(I just bought the National Geographic with the cover story, “Was Darwin Wrong,” and found it to be a joke. It glosses over any objections, and compeltely confuses microevolution (changes within a species, such as the varities of cats) — that most “literal” creationsists accept — with macro-evolution (the change of a fish into a bird, for example). But I will keep reading on the issue on all sides.)
Jim in Iowa
On creationism, it’s useless to argue something you cannot prove. Unless you have poloroids of the fact.
Do you require the same level of evidence from evolution? Do you require polaroids of the fact?
Literal creationism does have to be taken largely by faith since it is, by definition, a non-repeatable event. You must look at whether the evidence since the event supports the theory, but ultimately, you are right, you had to be there. There is no way I could have written Genesis 1 if I was not there. So there is some truth to your argument.
Evolution, on the other hand, is not strictly a one time event. The big-bang is (at least for the life of this universe), but the evolution of life should be an ongoing event. I have looked at the evidence given, and have yet to see proof of macro-evolution (the change from one species to another, or the addition of an organ that never existed before, etc.) that is at all convincing. Evolution should be able to give us at least snapshots of it still being at work. But there is no clear, overwhelming evidence that this is the case.
So I, too, am waiting for the polaroids.
Jim in Iowa
Do you require the same level of evidence from evolution? Do you require polaroids of the fact?
Good question.
And truthfully, I don’t argue for evolution. I think it exists and it has happend. But in the end, I find it futile to argue the facts of something that cannot be proved.
Sorta like me arguing the facts of political ethics.
Travis
By the way, STARLIGHT AND TIME is by Russell Humphreys. He is far from being an expert in his field, as he is netiher a cosmologist nor particularly expert in general relativity (he admits to not having studied general relativity since his college days since he was primarily a nuclear engineer). Basically, he relies on divine intervention to make the numbers add up, which sorta defeats his scientific purpose.
You are right, he is not an expert in cosmology. I would love to see a fair peer-review of his ideas to see if he has made any errors in his use of the laws of physics. However, he is not a fly by night scientist. He has done cutting edge work in his field, has published other words in standard scientific journals, and has won an award for his work in the area of light ion-fusion target theory. So while it is valid to note he is not an expert in cosmology, he has shown himself to be a very capable scientist.
Your last comment is not how he ends his book (which I finally found). He states that he is proposing a theory to best understand the facts. Where did you get your quote, or is it based on the fact that, as I suggested above, he believes God was actively at work shaping the process (which is the point of creationism)? It does not defeat his scientific purpose IF his purpose is strictly related to the question of how the earth could be young and at the same time we be receiving light from stars billions of light years away. He is giving some scientific reasons that fit the story in Genesis, rather than just an arbitrary, “God made it that way.”
That’s my perspective on it, anyways.
Jim in Iowa
P.S. — I would rather debate this somewhere else than on PAD’s site since it really has little to do with either the purpose of this thread or even this site. Is there another place this running debate could continue? Most here could care less about the perspective of a creationist. Just wondering.
Short answer: Neither most evolutionists nor most who take the Bible literally are comfortable with your alternative. There are some who suggest it, but they generally get pounded on from both sides! I speak from experience, since I mentioned this viewpoint on this site and got pounded myself!!
True. My interpretation tends towards the arena of “intelligent design” which strict evolutionists deride as “backdoor creationism” while creationists like yourself dislike a less than literal interpretation of the timelines involved.
I didn’t mention it in the hopes of the idea being popular here, so I really don’t care who pummels me for it. I only offer it as a logical interpretation of how I have resolved my own dual scientist/spiritualist nature.
BTW, I sort of agree with you about the National Geographic story. Behind the sensationalist “Was Darwin Wrong” headline, it was just a retread of the existing evolutionary theories and offered nothing really new to the field.
My problem with the creationist viewpoint is that it gives stories written for the understanding of bronze age shepherds more weight than our own modern ability to observe and collect data and use our rational powers of deduction tells us. Either all of our accumulated knowledge of geology, physics, biology, chemistry, and archeology is wrong, or the earth was created in a literal six days and is only 20,000 years old instead of 5 billion years old. Based on my own reading of the subject, there is no other way to look it at. If Humphreys is right and Einstein is wrong, then we might as well say that our nuclear reactors work on magic because then our entire understanding of relativity and quantum mechanics is wrong.
PAD wrote: Short answer to Jim: Talmud.
I forgot to say thanks for the info.
Jim in Iowa
True. My interpretation tends towards the arena of “intelligent design” which strict evolutionists deride as “backdoor creationism” while creationists like yourself dislike a less than literal interpretation of the timelines involved.
I actually appreciate all sides of the debate. I personally think the “ID” movement has a lot to commend it. I welcome their input and do not feel they are the enemy (nor are evolutionists). My “faith” is not built in spite of the facts, and I am humble enough to admit that my interpretation of the Bible may be in error. So I welcome all input and am continually thinking through the alternatives. My “presupposition” or belief, based on some evidence, is that the Bible is reliable, so I do start with it as my grid of reference. So I do favor a literal, 6 day creation.
Jim in Iowa
Couple things Jim in Iowa said: “For most of you who reject the idea of a God having created the heavens and the earth, I will be curious to get the names of books you would recommend that give a strong defense of the idea of evolution.”
This is what I was trying to describe in the debate between creationism and evolution. Evolution doesn’t seek to identify the underlying source of biological change: it observes, describes, and makes predictions. Evolution neither attempts to, nor can it, define the impetus for genetic evolution. Evolution can observe species A and B compete for the same food source. Species A develops the ability to climb trees, thus avoiding predators. Species B does not, and is hunted to extinction. Species A goes on to thrive, eventually spending all of their lives in trees. Evolution theory then stops. It doesn’t seek to understand if there is a divine hand at work. It simply observes and understands what happens, how it happens, but not why. Evolution simply doesn’t CARE whether God put the idea to climb trees into Species A’s head. I’ve always thought that, where evolution theory ended, faith based creationism began. Creationism attempts to answer the question of what’s behind the forces of evolution.
Also from Jim in Iowa: “I have looked at the evidence given, and have yet to see proof of macro-evolution (the change from one species to another, or the addition of an organ that never existed before, etc.) that is at all convincing. Evolution should be able to give us at least snapshots of it still being at work. But there is no clear, overwhelming evidence that this is the case.”
We have such snapshots. Not that I’m advocating Hollywood movies as sources of education, but check out the scene where they visit the Galapogos, and they see swimming iguanas. The Doctor says Iguanas don’t swim…yet these do. They have developed an ability that members of their species in other areas do no have. Or flightless cormorants. On an island deviod of predators, a formerly flight-ful bird species loses the ability to fly because they no longer need to. In more recent (and real) news, there was a recent dicovery of hobbit-sized human remains on some island. Species dwarfism is thought to have taken place, but it shows a macro-scale evolutionary shift to adapt to climate.
We can’t get the big snapshots (ala the three eyed fish from the Simpsons…oohhhhgh, fish…) because evolutionary changes occur over thousands of years, or longer. Hundreds of thousands. We have fossil remains only.
Here’s the thing: You can accept that God can create the heavans and the earth, plants, animals, man and woman. But you can’t accept that God can change his creations? Or that God can’t “program” into his creations the ability to react to their environment, to survive and overcome the natural challenges this world presents?
Jim in Iowa, if you could, please explain to me the creationist view on dinosaurs and extinct mammals (like the saber-toothed cat, mammoths, giant sloths). I really haven’t had a chance to look into it. But if you don’t accept macro-scale evolutionary changes, how do you explain these species?
And my apologies if you don’t hold these views. I’m going based on what you say, and it seems that you’re a creationism OR evolution person, siding with creationism.
If Humphreys is right and Einstein is wrong, then we might as well say that our nuclear reactors work on magic because then our entire understanding of relativity and quantum mechanics is wrong.
Humphreys is NOT saying Einstein is wrong. In fact, Humphreys actual area of expertise is in the area of nuclear physics, and he would be the first to say that reactors do not work on magic. Humphreys is simply taking physics and starting with some different presuppositions. And that is the key point. Every scientist does have to start with some presuppositions, particularly in this area. You then attempt to come up with a theory to test your presupposition, but you have to start somewhere. Humphrey’s changes a few of the presuppositions (such as suggesting the universe has an actual boundary instead of being infinite — a premise that he bases on observations of the universe) and comes to some different conclusions.
Bottom line, Humphreys is not invoking the “god of the gaps” to fix any problems with his theory about starlight and time. He is instead offering a different theory based on a different set of parameters. That is how science works. Others can then go and test or examine whether his theory holds up.
Jim in Iowa
This is what I was trying to describe in the debate between creationism and evolution. Evolution doesn’t seek to identify the underlying source of biological change: it observes, describes, and makes predictions. Evolution neither attempts to, nor can it, define the impetus for genetic evolution. Evolution can observe species A and B compete for the same food source. Species A develops the ability to climb trees, thus avoiding predators. Species B does not, and is hunted to extinction. Species A goes on to thrive, eventually spending all of their lives in trees. Evolution theory then stops. It doesn’t seek to understand if there is a divine hand at work. It simply observes and understands what happens, how it happens, but not why. Evolution simply doesn’t CARE whether God put the idea to climb trees into Species A’s head. I’ve always thought that, where evolution theory ended, faith based creationism began. Creationism attempts to answer the question of what’s behind the forces of evolution.
You have hit on a key issue. Evlolution (or perhaps more accurately, “natural science”), is based on observing what is. However, the theory does go farther than you suggest. It attempts to show that everything that exists was inevitable, that it was the result of known (or perhaps not yet discovered) laws of nature. By definition, a “divine” intervention is not necessary, and in fact, would violate this very premise.
On this basis, your statement is incorrect. There is no place in a pure scientific system for God to be the answer behind the forces of evolution.
The issue that arises is this: What do you do if there is no clear explanation for how a fish became a reptile? What if there is no clear explanation for how one species developed into another? What if there is no clear reason for why these laws that led to evolutions existed in the first place? A “pure” scientist argues that injecting “god” into the equation is wrong. There is a natural explanation.
I suggest that when the facts are examined, there are a lot of holes in the evolutionary theory. In fact, there are enormous chasms which seem to be impossible to bridge. If you start with a “natural” perspective, then you insist that there is a natural explanation, even if you have not found it yet. That is ultimately just invoking the “god of the gaps” answer that evolutionist accuse creationists of using. (One example: DNA. The complexity and amount of information stored in DNA is staggering. As I understand it, there is more information stored in a strand of DNA than in all of the books in the library of congress. There is no evidence for how this level of sophisticated information could have been created randomly or by natural selection.)
We have such snapshots. Not that I’m advocating Hollywood movies as sources of education, but check out the scene where they visit the Galapogos, and they see swimming iguanas. The Doctor says Iguanas don’t swim…yet these do. They have developed an ability that members of their species in other areas do no have. Or flightless cormorants. On an island deviod of predators, a formerly flight-ful bird species loses the ability to fly because they no longer need to. In more recent (and real) news, there was a recent dicovery of hobbit-sized human remains on some island. Species dwarfism is thought to have taken place, but it shows a macro-scale evolutionary shift to adapt to climate.
You are arguing for changes within a species, not for a change into a new species. Let me give you an example: If a human developed wings to fly, that would be an example of an enormous change, but wings already exist. The information is stored in DNA. But if a human developed the ability to live in space without oxygen, that would be something new (as least as far as I know). We would develop a new ability, a new organ, that does not yet exist. That is what macro-evolution aruges happens. Where did the first wings appear? The first eye? The first ear? No one disputes the fact that some birds lose the ability to fly. But if a bird suddenly developed the ability to create a force field around itself, then it would be something new. (I know, it is out there, but it is hard to imagine something that does not already exist in some animal.)
Bottom line, the evolution that can lead to a single cell organism developing a vertebrae is a huge leap. The evolution that created the human ability for spoken language is an enormous leap that has not been adequately answered. (Despite sensationalistic claims, apes and other animals will never be able to talk and communicate as we do. They lack the syntatical ability that we uniquely have as humans. Even young deaf children are able to create a sign language on their own, complete with its own rules of grammar and syntax, that allow them to communicate in full thoughts. You can take a baby born in any part of the world, remove him at birth to another, and he will learn to speak fluently in his new culture and language. We are “hard wired” with language in a way that does not exist in any animal.)
Jim in Iowa, if you could, please explain to me the creationist view on dinosaurs and extinct mammals (like the saber-toothed cat, mammoths, giant sloths). I really haven’t had a chance to look into it. But if you don’t accept macro-scale evolutionary changes, how do you explain these species?
Not sure what you mean? The creationist view believes God created some basic species. He designed them in a way where the would adapt to their enviroment. So from an original “prototype-cat” would come the current variations of cats.
RE: extinct animals. A literal creationist also believes in a literal flood. Such a catastrophic, world wide event would have created an enormous fossil bed as most of life was buried by the flood. It also could have had an effect on the climate, which would lead to some species not surviving after the flood.
Jim in Iowa
Well, Jim in Iowa, I must admit to having never heard of Humphreys before you mentioned him, but based on your previous descriptions of his theories, I can see a number of points where he disagrees with Einstein’s own interpretations of general relativity. Maybe I’m reading your statements wrong or maybe I just need to go directly to his writings, but I just don’t see anyway to use relativity to posit the creation of the earth to be compressed into a literal six days to an observer on the earth using relativity.
Well, Jim in Iowa, I must admit to having never heard of Humphreys before you mentioned him, but based on your previous descriptions of his theories, I can see a number of points where he disagrees with Einstein’s own interpretations of general relativity. Maybe I’m reading your statements wrong or maybe I just need to go directly to his writings, but I just don’t see anyway to use relativity to posit the creation of the earth to be compressed into a literal six days to an observer on the earth using relativity.
For what it is worth, this is a short and very readable book, if you are interested enough to read it. I apologize that I cannot summarize it clearly enough to answer your question. Humphries has written a technical version for peer review, and if it was that clearly in conflict with Einstein’s theories, I am sure that would have been pointed out.
Jim in Iowa
Good points, Jim in Iowa. I’ll spare everyone my usual copy/paste rehash.
I think there’s some wiggle room in your application of a “pure” scientist. I think that scientists that reject the idea of God and a natural world have the bigger issue of not believing in God in the first place, and their foray into science is their attempt to prove it to the rest of us. Maybe I’m just more associated with what you might call a casual scientist, one who doesn’t try to answer the questions he can’t. Even presented with the statement “evolution is subject to the forces of nature: there’s no divine will present in evolution” begs the question of what defines natural law? As you’ve said, the genetic information contained within a single strand of DNA exceeds all the combined works of man, ever, and that level of organization is literally beyond human comprehension.
But again, why do creationism and evolution have to be an either/or proposition? Why can’t creationism be an allegory or metaphor for the divine act of the creation of the universe and the Earth, and what we call evolution be the observable process that God put in place to make his universe run?
Maybe we can’t see the amobea turning into the hyrda turning into the simple fish turning into the lungfish turning into the frog turning into the salamandar etc etc etc because change on that scale, like the DNA strand, is beyond human comprehension. We can understand that it happens, but we can’t see it, because the scale of our viewing (years as compared to eons) doesn’t allow for us to observe the macro evolution.
And speaking of the lungfish, there’s an example of a mid-species evolutionary change. There’s a russian snakefish currently threatening the Great Lakes area that has a rudimentary lung, and the beginnings of arms/legs. It can live for hours, maybe days, out of water, and can cross short spans of land to migrate to new water.
Is that the kind of macro snapshot you are looking for?
Re:James W.
Thanks for the Afghanistan info,some of it I was aware of ,but i appreciate the history of how some
of the current situation came to be
Realistically ,someone has to convince the locals that their are other options to growing the Heroin.I recall reading an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer commmenting on how the local warlords are using the drug money in some places to provide some food and basic items for the local people.Kind of difficult to turn your back on the guy providing food and protection.
Also read a heartbreaking article about a 9 year old forced into a marriage to pay a family debt,and her rape and abuse at the hands of 52 year old man.I dont have any big solutions for these problems ,but thanks again for the information.
Jerome was your comment directed at me or Craig???I was critical of the situation,not the troops and what they may or may not be doing.
Well, my next question about Humphreys technical work would be what peer reviewed journal was it submitted to and was it accepted for publication?
Re :Jerome
Just reread what you said ,it was directed at Craig.
Kingbobb,
But again, why do creationism and evolution have to be an either/or proposition?
For “purists” on either side, that is not an option. But I think the reality is closer to what you suggest. I think it can be to some degree a both/and. Most creationists do see variations (or “evolution” / “natural selection”) happening within a given species. And there are definitely some Christians who fully agree with your view (see http://www.newcreationism.org/index.html for one example). Without getting too theological, the belief in a real Adam and Eve who literally sinned and brought death to mankind is a crucial Christian belief, so any model that rejects this concept is in conflict with the entire Bible, not just Genesis.
Maybe we can’t see the amobea turning into the hyrda turning into the simple fish turning into the lungfish turning into the frog turning into the salamandar etc etc etc because change on that scale, like the DNA strand, is beyond human comprehension. We can understand that it happens, but we can’t see it, because the scale of our viewing (years as compared to eons) doesn’t allow for us to observe the macro evolution.
Not trying to be difficult, but I thought evolutionists were trying to argue that we “could” see this happening. Darwin’s original hope was that the fossil record would one day show this very progression. To date, it does not exist. There are a few suggested examples of an animal that appears to be in between, but there is absolutely no record of a progression like Darwin predicted. That is why the idea of “puncilular equilibrium” (sp?) was introduced.
Is that [the lungfishor russian snakefish] the kind of macro snapshot you are looking for?
For me? No. I admit I am looking for something bigger and clearer. The example you give is on a different level than what I would like to see.
Jim in Iowa
Well, my next question about Humphreys technical work would be what peer reviewed journal was it submitted to and was it accepted for publication?
Good questions: My understanding is that it was submitted to a creation scientific journal. I believe it was published. I know that some did disagree with the premise and his use of relativity. Others agreed with it. I don’t think it has been submitted officially to a broader peer review. I would be interested to see if it has since his premise is to explain the issue based on known, estalished science.
The objections I read did not say he violated Einsteins theory, but did take issue with other parts. It is too technical for me to explain further than that.
Jim in Iowa
You are right, he is not an expert in cosmology. I would love to see a fair peer-review of his ideas to see if he has made any errors in his use of the laws of physics. However, he is not a fly by night scientist. He has done cutting edge work in his field, has published other words in standard scientific journals, and has won an award for his work in the area of light ion-fusion target theory. So while it is valid to note he is not an expert in cosmology, he has shown himself to be a very capable scientist.
Your last comment is not how he ends his book (which I finally found). He states that he is proposing a theory to best understand the facts. Where did you get your quote, or is it based on the fact that, as I suggested above, he believes God was actively at work shaping the process (which is the point of creationism)? It does not defeat his scientific purpose IF his purpose is strictly related to the question of how the earth could be young and at the same time we be receiving light from stars billions of light years away. He is giving some scientific reasons that fit the story in Genesis, rather than just an arbitrary, “God made it that way.”
Actually, Humphreys PhD is not in Physics, but in engineering. Engineering is not the same as science, though research is done in both. And certainly expertise in one area does not transfer over into another.
The major problems in his book is that a) his model has real world consequences and phenomena–they’d confirm his hypothesis (and would go a long way towards building a real scientific theory)–except that these observations don’t exist, and b) other people (working cosmologists) have looked at his work and have worked out the equations and found out that his premises result in a universe that’s pretty much the same as what current scientists think exist (i.e., his theory doesn’t do what he thinks it does).
Given that, I really don’t think he should be taken seriously until his hypothesis starts fitting the real world better.
Without getting too theological, the belief in a real Adam and Eve who literally sinned and brought death to mankind is a crucial Christian belief, so any model that rejects this concept is in conflict with the entire Bible, not just Genesis.
You just hit on why I reject Christianity – even though I believe in God. Christianity puts forth the concept of original sin: that we are somehow “stained” from birth due to the choices of Adam and Eve. People are therefore “born sinners” and must be baptized and saved to receive grace. Jesus’ sacrifice was supposed to help wipe away that original sin for those who believed.
However, in my opinion, the greatest gift God gave man is free will – the ability to choose our path. We are born in a neutral state since we have no ability to make choices yet – and our choices are what put us in concert/conflict with God’s will. I don’t accept the need for Christ’s sacrifice for Adam and Eve’s sins since I don’t believe in the stain of them.
Or, if you want to put it in Star Trek terms:
God is not a Klingon
🙂
Okay, can this discussion get any more apolitical?
We are born in a neutral state since we have no ability to make choices yet – and our choices are what put us in concert/conflict with God’s will. I don’t accept the need for Christ’s sacrifice for Adam and Eve’s sins since I don’t believe in the stain of them.
Question: If your premise is true, why does evil seem to exist in every recorded culture? To put it differently, you don’t have to teach a child to lie — it comes very naturally. Why?
You state your problem well. I am curious as to how you would explain the level of evil that exists in our world. Why do so many make a moral “free” choice to do evil?
Jim in Iowa
Good questions: My understanding is that it was submitted to a creation scientific journal.
Well, that’s a conflict in terms. 🙂
Seriously, this goes to the heart of the problem with creation. Creationists take the approach of, “We don’t understand this one point, so God must have intervened here.” Reali scientists when confronted with the same puzzle, say, “We don’t understand this, so we must study it further until we do.”
vlolution (or perhaps more accurately, “natural science”), is based on observing what is. However, the theory does go farther than you suggest. It attempts to show that everything that exists was inevitable, that it was the result of known (or perhaps not yet discovered) laws of nature. By definition, a “divine” intervention is not necessary, and in fact, would violate this very premise.
On this basis, your statement is incorrect. There is no place in a pure scientific system for God to be the answer behind the forces of evolution.
Jim, this is incorrect. You are mixing the descriptive with the prescriptive. For science, it doesn’t matter who (if anyone) is behind the forces of evolution; science is just describing what’s happening. And there are many scientists who are Christian who think that divine intervention isn’t necessary–because it would mar the work of God (in that it’s a poor workman who has to constantly fiddle with the product–and God is anything but a poor workman).
You are arguing for changes within a species, not for a change into a new species. Let me give you an example: If a human developed wings to fly, that would be an example of an enormous change, but wings already exist. The information is stored in DNA. But if a human developed the ability to live in space without oxygen, that would be something new (as least as far as I know). We would develop a new ability, a new organ, that does not yet exist. That is what macro-evolution aruges happens.
No, it doesn’t. Evolution is descent with modification; it works with what’s already there and adapts it to to a new function. And it would only do so if with respect to its environment. What you’re talking about would DISPROVE evolution.
And by the way….the process of species changes is NOT necessarily something we can see on a human scale. It’s certainly not something we’d “expect” to see.
Darwin’s original hope was that the fossil record would one day show this very progression. To date, it does not exist. There are a few suggested examples of an animal that appears to be in between, but there is absolutely no record of a progression like Darwin predicted.
There are numerous examples of transitional fossils between large classes. And the fossil record actually does bear out Darwin’s hopes (don’t use the word progression; it has some implications that don’t apply).