31 responses so far ↓

• 1 Holly // Feb 5, 2006 at 7:29 am

  Cool post! I’m really excited about this project of yours and look forward to everything you’ll have to say on the topic.

  I’m obsessed with religion too, but somehow, I just feel so wounded by all that time spent listening to talks in church. I’d rather explore mysticism, ways of approaching god that I can do on my own. If we’re going to compare ourselves to guys in poems, I’m more like the guy in Philip Larkin’s “Church Going,” who likes entering an empty church, because it is “a serious house on serious earth,”

  And that much never can be obsolete,
  Since someone will forever be surprising
  A hunger in himself to be more serious,
  And gravitating with it to this ground,
  Which, he once heard, was proper to grow wise in,
  If only that so many dead lie round.

  http://edu.gsnu.ac.kr/~songmu/Poetry/ChurchGoing.htm

• 2 Josh // Feb 5, 2006 at 8:47 am

  heh, you said Jabberwocky. I havent seen the Monty Python rendition in a long time.
  I’ve seen interesting takes on religion. One of the interesting trends I’ve seen is alienism as a religion. People are drawn to the ‘other’ or convinced that life is too complex to be a mere product of chance, yet these people refuse to be associated with any standard ‘religion’. So they look to the stars. Something they dont realize is that they have not given up on religion but made alienism their religion.

  Interesting fact:Francis Crick, Novel Peace Prize winner for ‘discovering’ DNA, believed DNA was too complex to be chance but was an avily against ‘god’ as creator, so he developed the idea that aliens rocketted the building blocks for life into space to seed the universe with life, a theory called pan-spermia. Pretty wacky if you ask me, but if our life is too complicated to explain and therefore must have come from aliens, then how did the aliens come about? more aliens?

  Any way that was my random thought of the day.

  I hope you enjoy your sampling project. You have an opportunity to learn a lot, and the opportunity to understand a more diverse set of people around you if you go into it open mindedly as you are planning.

  I tried it once, and it was fun. It eventually led me back on path. I didnt end up going to so many as you plan to go to. I think I went, Hindu, Bhuddist, Mysticism, Joshinism (a little of all), Judaism, Mormonism, and finally back to a Christian relationship with Christ which was odly (or not so odly) revealed to me through Jewish Studies.

  I was obsessed with ‘religion’, once until I found ‘relationship’.

• 3 John // Feb 5, 2006 at 9:33 pm

  Hey Josh-bro!

  Haven’t seen the Monty Python Jabberwocky, though I’ve always loved the poem. I’ll have to add it to my Netflix queue.

  Clarification: Crick played around with the intelligent panspermia hypothesis. He abandoned the idea later in his life and replaced it with pre-biotic chemical theories that centered on self-replicating polymers. Also, panspermia doesn’t require aliens or any sort of intelligent agent–most of what I’ve heard focuses on amino acids that have been found in comets and on asteroids.

  We’ll have to compare notes on visiting other churches. I’m not sure if I’ll find much of a relationship with God through this–been working on that for years, with no results.

• 4 John // Feb 5, 2006 at 10:02 pm

  Holly:

  I’m excited that you’re excited! I think that this will really be a fun project.

  I’ve wandered into a number of empty churches and I’ve always had a sense of reverence and connection, regardless of my level of cynicism. I really like the following lines:

  For, though I’ve no idea
  What this accoutred frowsty barn is worth,
  It pleases me to stand in silence here;

  A serious house on serious earth it is,
  In whose blent air all our compulsions meet,

  At this point, I value both the communal reaching towards the divine, as well as the individual pursuit. Humanist that I am, it’s hard for me to separate humanity and divinity, since connectedness to others is a huge part of what I consider “divine.”

  But I do continue all the monastic sorts of acts: devotional prayer, seeking prayer, meditation, and reading.

• 5 Josh // Feb 7, 2006 at 7:32 am

  I think you find God when you stop looking so hard and start allowing him to reveal himself. I searched long and hard. Of course it helped when God used a vision to show me the follow of trying to define God by my own wisdom and knowledge. In our attempt to be wide eyed and open minded we want to avoid putting “God in a box” and so we seek to find God outside of “preconceived human notions” which we call the limiting definitions of religions”. Instead what I found out was that no matter how broad I opened my mind I still but him in the box which was my mind, and on top of that He is too much to contain without direction within the mind and I felt like the “this is your mind on drugs - frying egg in a pan” commercial. So I try to let god show me what religious direction I could take and through Judaism He revealed Himself to me in Christ. weird, but not so weird.

  Any way, I loved my Jewish Experience and feel a connection there. If you ever want to know anything in that area, I have some practical resources and some experience as one who almost converted.

• 6 Josh // Feb 7, 2006 at 11:16 am

  Speaking of amino acids.

  In them selves they mean nothing.

  The miller experiment claimed to create life, and many people still claim they did, but all it did was create amino acids which proves nothing.

  here are the problems:

  1. they left oxygen out of the experiment because oxygen destroys the amino acids, but all our data points to the presence of oxygen from the creation of the earth.

  2. oxygen in itself has problems, it destroys the amino acids, and yet without it, harmful UV rays otherwise blocked by ozone destroy life.

  3. they tried to then say it sarted in the ocean to get around this, but hydrolysis destroys amino acid bonds.

  Life cant start with or without oxygen or in water.

  4. 2000 types of amino acids and only 20 are used in life.

  5. All life is completely 100% made of left handed amino acids. When we die the amino acids imediately start reverting to 50% 50% left and right mirrored image amino acids.

  6. The amino acids we find are always 50% 50% left and right in balance.

  7. Miller did not create life, he created death.

  so can there be amino acids in space. Yes of course. Does this prove panspermia? no.

  Did Crick stick to aliens his whole life. No, but he did seriously entertain it.
  - that the seeds of life on earth may have been sent here in a rocket launched from some faraway planet by creatures like ourselves. - (Hugo de Garis, Cosmism)

  pretty crazy, and as crazy as it seems, many people believe it today.

• 7 John // Feb 7, 2006 at 1:30 pm

  I’d actually really like to hear about your Jewish experience. I’ve also got a couple of resources, including a friend who is a cantor at his synagogue, as well as both liberal and orthodox Jewish professors.

  You’re absolutely right–amino acids by themselves are not life, but I didn’t imply that. You’re creating a straw man by suggesting that the Miller experiment “claimed to create life.” I challenge you to find one biologist, respected in the scientific community who made that claim. All the Miller experiment demonstrated was that under certain circumstances, amino acids could be created. This was a huge gap in theories of abiogenesis, and the Miller/Urey experiment helped expand the options available to scientists investigating the issue.

  Scientists are not immune to strange beliefs. Heck, a lot of them believe that the fact that the death of a Jewish peasant in a backwards, troublesome corner of the Roman Empire 2000 years ago is cosmologically significant.

• 8 Josh // Feb 9, 2006 at 10:12 am

  I didnt say that you said or scientists say that they created life. I said “many people” (especially in public media, and our schools) say life was created. It is one of those bad examples that although wrong have been used for years to support evolution, such as Haeckel’s drawings of embryos, which even I remember seeing in my school books, claiming that the human embryo goes through animal stages.

  All the miller experiment shows is that amino acids can be created. I have seen articles where scientists do not directly claim that life was created. Rather they suggest that it is the next step and so they very well have started the process of life. Most of the hype comes from “media scientists”, our public media, and our school textbooks. I also remember seeing the miller experiment in my books and its claim to have created life. I’m not so sure on the credentials of the “media scientists”, or who they were at the moment.

  I really had two things to point out.

  1. Life was not created which we both agree on.

  2. As I said in my previous post, “many people”, not specifically scientists, support that life was indeed created. And whether scientists believe it or not, the public media and the creators of our public school text books do an excellent job of misrepresentation with their “all scientists believe such-and-such” statements. Or “the miller experiment created life!”

  Heck, I just saw NOVA state that Carbon 14 is a proven and accurate dating method, yet the guy who created knew the earth was 20% out of balance, and now we find that it is 25% out of balance. C14 and N14 only takes about 38,000 years (if I remember correctly) to reach balance. The earth should have been in balance long long ages ago, and yet it is not, and so C14 is a flawed dating method. C14 is found in coal which according to their theological world-view is many ages older than the half life of C14 and should not contain any. Yet it is still displayed as perfect and accurate.

  –

  and you are right. Many scientists believe in a literal Biblical Creation. The science supports it. We all look at the same data. It is a matter of how you read it. Many people think my creationism is a matter of religion vs. science. Rather it is a difference of religious world-views over the same scientific data: the religion of Evolutionism vs. Creationism.

  –

  I’ve had some great liberal (is there such a thing as a conservative reformed jew?) jewish professors. One of whom I respect very very much. He has experienced everything from ultra conservative to ultra liberal judaism. I forgot what kind he is now, but it is one that accepts each person has his own suited form of religion. I forgot what they are called. I used to attend a synagogue for about a year.

  here is a joke my rabbi once told us: There has always been a debate about head covering. Traditional Jews say you have to keep your head covered all the time. Reformed Jews say only in the house of God do you need to cover your head. So how do you become a reformed Jew? You can become a reformed Jew at the drop of a hat! brum brum cha! <<– thats 2 snare beats and a high hat, in case you didnt get it.

• 9 John // Feb 9, 2006 at 11:23 am

  You said:

  I didnt say that you said or scientists say that they created life.

  Here’s the exact quote from comment #6:

  The miller experiment claimed to create life

  This was a glaring error and important enough to the argument that I had to respond.

  You also said:

  the public media and the creators of our public school text books do an excellent job of misrepresentation with their “all scientists believe such-and-such” statements. Or “the miller experiment created life!”

  You’re representing this as a general phenomenon. Can you give me examples from the public media and from widely circulating school science textbooks that claim that the Miller-Urey experiment created life? I’m assuming that these are exceptions–I find it hard to believe that this is mainstream.

  At any rate, this would be one item that both the greater scientific community and young-earth biblical creationists could agree on.

  ——

  LOL! Great joke.
  ——

  I just thought of a question: are you willing to accept the possibility that God did not create life? or the earth? or the universe? Are you willing to accept the possibility that the Bible isn’t the revealed word of God? That God may not exist at all?

• 10 Josh // Feb 13, 2006 at 9:44 am

  I did say, “the miller experiment claimed to create life.” I think I compacted too much into such a short statement. As I described in other responses, They did not directly create life, nor do most true scientists agree that they created life. However many do claim it is the next step, and seem to be rather vague sometimes about the actual great distance between merely creating amino acids and actually getting life from such amino acids. Also as I further explained despite scientists who in their labs and academic worlds can be quite definate that life was not actually created, it is the scientists, pseudo-scientists, authors, and teachers who in support their theology(evolutionism) in the public media and public school systems who most misrepresent the experiements results and either imply, or out right claim life was created. I guess I should explain something about that too. When I see an article title that makes a catchy but incorrect statement like “life is created”, despite the entire artcile which says life was not actually created but rather its building blocks, it is the title that get burned indoctrinated into peoples minds. Even though the article may give the actual results in truth, such remarks are included to support their bias of theological world-view.

  I read an article in the sacramento bee, which was talking about the erosion of the banks of the sacramento river. The first sentance makes an out of place an unneccessary statement displaying the authors worldview. The whole article discussed the erosion of the banks and planned improvements to prevent breaking of the levees. However the author for some reason decided to say, “Along bend after lazy bend of the Sacramento River, engineers are trying to outwit or outmuscle the same force that carved the Grand Canyon.” Nothing in the rest of the article supports this sentance. Nothing is discussed about geological evolution or the grand canyon. The author wanted the reader to finish reading the article with a small idea of evolution stuck in his head. He wanted the reader to read the article while thinking evolutionary process was at work in the river. If thats true then why make any improvements because it should only be eroding a millimeter or two every year, which leaves plenty of years to think about improvements and not worry about it. And the article was supposed to discuss the levee not canyons. The statement may not be true, and in fact is somewhat irrelevant, but it is made in order to indoctrinate the evolutionary beliefs into the minds of the readers. This is where although articles may tell the truth, false, or misrepresentative statements are made and included in some way in, or about things such as the miller experiment.

  –

  I can not think of any specific examples of text books. I remember seeing it in my text books in school. I have seen it in articles in magazines and tv. And although I cant think of any examples right now, I can think of similar errors of science in our public texts. Haeckels pictures of embryos to support evolution which have been proven fraud have been in our text books for a long time. I still see it surface in the media every once in a while. And I remember it in my text books. I have heard that some books still include them.

• 11 Josh // Feb 13, 2006 at 10:37 am

  you said “are you willing to accept the possibility that God did not create life? or the earth? or the universe? Are you willing to accept the possibility that the Bible isn‚Äôt the revealed word of God? That God may not exist at all? ”

  I’ll break it down by question. Man I hope you dont start making tests for students.

  Professor John, “I have a short test of 4 questions”

  Students, “YAH!!”

  Professor John, “Each question has 6 parts.”
  
  –

  1. Are you willing to accept the possibility that God did not create life? or the earth? or the universe?

  No. I did at one point, but then through personal experience in my life, having experienced how compromise of God’s word ultimately leads to doubt and the denial of God, I have learned that One cannot compromise God’s word and still remain truly a Christian, or at least a very consistent Christian. I have also learned that doubt is the result of putting man’s opinions over the authority of God’s word. When one compromises Genesis the historical account of the creation of life, the earth, and the universe by one who was there to witness in its process and who revealed it to the authors of the Bible through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, one creates many inconsistencies and flaws in their theology.

  for example:

  If God did not create then why did Jesus refer directly to Genesis on the following topics: doctrine of marriage, Noah’s flood, or the teachings concerning himself beginning with the writings of Moses?

  If there was no first Adam, then why do we need the last Adam?

  If Adam’s rebellion in the Garden of eden is not real, then why did Jesus die a real death for an imaginary or metaphorical event?

  If Genesis is not really true then when does the bible begin to be true?

  If death and suffering existed long before Adam and Eve as seen in any long-ages compromise theory where man has attempted to accomodate God’s word according to philosophies of men, then why would God say in Genesis 1:31 that “it was very good”?

  2. Are you willing to accept the possibility that the Bible isn’t the revealed word of God?

  No. I did that once as well. See the above explanation in question 1 for the path of compromise and its resulting problems. I have known a lot of people who doubt the authority of scripture because it was written by man. Something they seem to not understand is that despite our many flaws, God continues to use us for his great and perfect works. In fact through biblical history we see that God usually chose the smallest or weakest to do his great works through so that we would come to trust in God or His Word based upon the perfection of the men he chose to use, but rather upon the opposite: God’s glory and power is made more evident by taking the weak to overturn the strong, using the meek to fend off the brave, taking the smallest to bring down the largest, taking the imperfect to write his perfect Word. I once doubted the authority of God’s revealed word and it led me away from God.

  3. That God may not exist at all?

  No. I didnt actually do this one though. I have had my doubts, and have even drifted to odd and strange theologies with a pseudo-universalistic view of God. I fell to the point of seeing God as this undefineable entity. Religions were various paths based on limited perceptions of finite and limited minds of a timeless, boundless eternal God. I decided flaws, inconsistencies and imperfections in religion were due to the flawed nature of man, and his limited capacities. I set out to seek God according to no limited preconceived notions or limitations which we call religion. I studied as many as I could, and experienced God in as open a way as possible. I was a sponge in God’s presence soaking him in all around me and in any way, until I started to be spiritually overloaded. I felt like my mind, and heart were going to explode. Then to top it off God granted me a hightened insight or viewing of the world. In flashes my thoughts or my vision would be overloaded by a flood of perception. I’d look at some wheat-like weeds next to the sidewalk, and my vision would be flooded with an array of historical religious accounts of wheat, greek vases with wheat painted on them, vedic plant sacrifices, hebrew first fruit offerings. It was like doing a topic search on the internet of the importance of wheat in various different religions around the world, and then having them flood into my vision in a moment. It was an overload. I’d start to think about something and a flash of the similar kind would flood my mind, but it would come as several various levels of thought hitting at once. It happened for about a month, before I realized what God was trying to say. I had tried to become like God and experience Him at his own level, and it was overwhelming me and overloading me. Man is not meant to be without direction. I have since learned that the Bible is the guidebook He has given for our direction. But at this time I did not realize that. All I knew is that I am limited and I needed a limited perception of God so I wouldnt overload any more. I went to judaism. It wasnt until 1 year later that through the study of Jewish Scripture that Christ revealed himself to me despite my hostility towards Christianity at this time.

  The closest I have come to thinking God may not exist was in contemplation about what it would be like if God did not exist. In answer to my contemplation God let me know what it would be like. He removed part of His sustaining presence from me. It was an afternoon, I was lying on my back thinking about God, not because I was tired but rather because I was bored. When he removed some of His presence, I was struck with utter desperation of hopelessness. I could not move, I could not breath. It felt like massive weight was put on my body. I wanted to die, but I couldnt do that either. All I could do was lie there and struggle, paralyzed with hopelessness, in sheer blackness I could not see. When I called out to God he returned and I could finally move. I struggled off the bed and it took a good while before I could calm down again. I felt drained and weak. I learned that although we can deny God and pretend he does not exist, He is still there sustaining us with his Spirit. It is like closing your eyes. Just because you close your eyes and cannot see something in front of you, it does not mean that thing does not exist any more.

  I have had entirely too many visions, revelations, experiences, miracles, glimpses into the spiritual, personal discernment of evil spirits, prayer for me by one person who was 3 states away and did not know my circumstance but was impressed with the urgency to stop and pray for me at the same hour I was suffering a vision into Satan’s realm, gift of tongues, and other awesome experiences of God’s presence, to not believe in God.

  My experiences give me the proof I need to believe in God. They are fully consistent with the Christian Scriptures. No other religion can explain or is consistent with all my experiences. And although I can still choose to doubt the authority of scripture despite having so many personal experiences of God and knowing the scientific data that supports Genesis creation, it is by the truth of God’s word, my faith in God, and the consistency of God’s works in my life that I choose not to doubt the authority of scripture.

  I guess you can call me dogmatic but we are all dogmatic. It is just a matter of which dogmas we hold to. I trust God. I trust his Word. I see that His word is consistent and his promises are always fulfilled. I despise compromise of God’s word, and I attempt to live my life according to the truth despite who may laugh at me, think I am silly or archaic in my belief.

  I believe that God did create life. God created the earth. God created the universe. The Christian Bible is God’s revealed Word. And I certainly believe that God does indeed exist, no matter how much anyone may try to pretend he does not.

  “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities‚Äîhis eternal power and divine nature‚Äîhave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” Romans 1:20

• 12 John // Feb 13, 2006 at 12:26 pm

  Here is where the dogmatic faith-based approach and the skeptical scientific method differ: You are unwilling to compromise your belief. Scientists have to willing to question and doubt everything.

  Thus, science is willing to throw out old ways of looking at things–think of the various scientific revolutions that have occured throughout the centuries. The scientific community may stubbornly resist each new revelation, but given time and evidence, it generally compromises and caves to the better argument.

  While I’m willing to accept the possibility that God exists and created the world, I have a hard time trusting the science claims of creationists who are unwilling to compromise and unwilling to accept even the possibility for a non-supernatural (and a non-Christian) creation of the world.

• 13 John // Feb 13, 2006 at 12:31 pm

  I just wanted to say that I don’t want to discount the fact that you’ve had visions and marvelous experiences. The problem from my perspective, especially as someone who has also had incredible spiritual experiences and as a student of religions, is that people all over the world throughout history and from all religious traditions have had, continue to have, and will have such experiences that wholly validate and are completely consistent with their particular religious view. These are totalizing experiences, and are not unique to Christianity.

• 14 Josh // Feb 13, 2006 at 7:33 pm

  “Here is where the dogmatic faith-based approach and the skeptical scientific method differ”

  Skeptical scientific method is just as dogmatic. The actual agenda is not science versus religion, but rather one religion versus another religion. Evolutionism as a dogmatic religious world-view that takes upon itself faith in man-made philosophies and tries to explain the origin of the world without a creator. It is a conflict between two different religions that interpret the same set of data according to different precepts, god created versus there is no god.

  skeptical evolutionism as changing and accepting of new theory is just as dogmatic. You show me one evolutionist who is not dogmatically persistent in his beliefs. The methods and theories contained in those beliefs may change, but the basic precepts remain the same.
  The real difference is where the evolutionist looks at evidence that exists in the present and makes huge assumptions about the past, and uses artistic license to imagine how things happened, the Creationist has a record of history according to the one who was there when it happened.

  Evolutionism is a godless religion not a scientific truth.

• 15 John // Feb 13, 2006 at 7:52 pm

  I see science v. religion as one of method (skepticism v. faith), not of two conflicting dogmas, so I think we’ll just have to fundamentally disagree. You see evolution as dogma, and I see it as another hypothesis that can be superceded as the earth- and sun- centered cosmos (and the Newtonian universe).

  What do you care, anyway, when God can work outside of the laws of science (i.e., miracles/ super + natural)? Why not stick to encouraging people to gain a witness of Christ and the Bible, rather than trying to argue science, since the perceived rational explanation doesn’t matter anyways?

• 16 Josh // Feb 13, 2006 at 7:54 pm

  “people all over the world throughout history and from all religious traditions have had, continue to have, and will have such experiences that wholly validate and are completely consistent with their particular religious view”

  Correct which is why I said I can still choose to doubt the authority of God’s word or his existance despite my experiences. Experiences are faith building and have power in a testimony, but in themselves they are nothing. That is one thing I learned in my quest for God. I started to put so much importance on experiences, which I think you may have also done, hence your doubts based on a lack of experiences. I started to think that others were having valid experiences just like I was and that the personal experience of God is what really defined God. I have since realized that you can interpret experiences in any way.

  There are powers out there in the world.
  “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Ephesians 6:12
  These powers are available to anybody to use. Satan enjoys the fact that people so willingly take these powers and the experiences of the “spiritual” that accompany them and we create our own religions or define them according to the myriad of religions out there. I dont deny that other peoples of other religions have their own experiences. I deny the validity that their experiences are truly of a good nature. Yes, I said I dont believe they are of a good nature. Despite how much apparent good may come of such lies, their souls will meet eternal condemnation. A lie is best given when it contains a certain amount of truth. Temptation always looks so good. Its easy to take the wrong path when you can tell yourself it is for the better. And so Satan fills the experiences of people all around the world. The Bible warns us of deceivers, and of man-made philosophies. The bible warns that men will seem wise, great in reason, and will scoff at believers of God’s word. The bible tells about those who worship the created rather than the creator. Of all the religions I have studied and have tried to experience, only one remains ultimately true and consistent in all areas of personal experience, social truth, wisdom, and with scientific support. Yet above what I have experienced, The word of God is fully authoritative and consistent. I do not have to worry whether any of it will ever be situational, relative, reinterpretted, or irrelevant. I will never do wrong by it, and it will never be subject to the ever-changing flippant values of society.

• 17 John // Feb 13, 2006 at 8:15 pm

  Josh said:

  I dont deny that other peoples of other religions have their own experiences. I deny the validity that their experiences are truly of a good nature. Yes, I said I dont believe they are of a good nature…A lie is best given when it contains a certain amount of truth.

  This sums up a lot of what I think about your experiences. I’m glad we can sort of agree on something.

• 18 Josh // Feb 13, 2006 at 8:24 pm

  “I see science v. religion”

  Maybe we can agree to disagree on creationism but I do not agree that it is a matter “science vs. religion.” Rather it is the science of one religion vs. the science of another religion. Creationists and Evolutionists look at the same scientific data and interpret it according to their religious world-views.

  –

  Interesting to note, Isaiah knew the earth was a sphere, and not a flat disk. The word he chose to describe the earth actually translates to sphere.

  –

  “What do you care, anyway, when God can work outside of the laws of science (i.e., miracles/ super + natural)?”

  I care because God is consistent, and although yes he chooses to reveal his glory through miracles which can defy the laws of science, he would rather we believe by faith. Is not the general revelation through his creation not enough? He wants us to believe according to faith, not by revealed signs and wonders.

  –

  “Why not stick to encouraging people to gain a witness of Christ and the Bible, rather than trying to argue science, since the perceived rational explanation doesn‚Äôt matter anyways?”

  Because science fully supports biblical creation. It is the interpretation of that same science according to the religion of evolutionism (biological, universal and geological) which is used to argue against the existance of God. The modern church has compromised and has handed the idea that science is not biased, and that science is objective over to the people who now use it to destroy the church.

  Again as I have said, God created the laws of nature and is consistent. To give up science, is to give up half the gospel and allow the world to use it against the church. To just give up and say “well god can do anything outside of the laws” is a cop out answer which shows the Christian does not know how to support his theology and that the bible is irrelavant. You cant have a gospel if the foundation of that gospel (Genesis) is merely a fairy tale.

  –

  Laws of Nature.
  Do the religions of Evolutionism and Creationism agree with the laws of nature?

  1. 1st law of thermodynamics
  summarized: energy is neither created nor destroyed.

  Evolutionism: A big bang created everything from nothing. (I believe quantum physics claims this can be done)

  Bible: God who is existant from the beginning (a concept also within his creation: time) created the universe and the laws by which it is governed.

  2. 2nd law of thermodynamics
  summarized: Everything naturally tends to wind down.

  Evolutionism: life somehow goes in the opposite direction, gaining new information where information was never present; working against the natural tendencies. Not one supposed proof of evolution displays any gain of new genetic information.

  Bible: All creation was originally created perfect, but sins the fall has been growning because of the curse. Genetic mutations are compiling with each successive generation causing more and more complications. Species are losing genetic variability and becoming more and more specialized due to the loss of genetic info.

  3. Law of cause and effect.
  summarized: every effect has a cause.

  Evolutionism: A Big bang occured from which everything was made. What caused the big bang?

  Bible: “In the beginning God created…” (Genesis 1:1) The effect “created” was caused by “God”. God is outside of time and created all things from which we now perceive according to the concept of time.

  4. Law of Biogenesis.
  summarized: Life comes from life.

  Evolutionism: Life came from a random chance occurance of chemicals, a scientific impossibility.

  Bible: The Living and True God created life.

  –

  Both require faith.
  Both look at the same scientific data.
  Creationism has a means to back up its faith.
  Creationism has a maker of miracles.
  Evolutionism requires miracles to go against the laws of nature as it claims to do, yet it has no room for a maker in its religious world-view.

• 19 John // Feb 13, 2006 at 10:55 pm

  Josh, how about we give this topic a rest? You’ve essentially told me that you’re not open to non-Creation options. I’m tempted to invest the time in detailed responses, but I’m disinclined because you’re not interested in an open-minded discussion, only in proving your point.

  Also, I’m just not that interested in the debate anymore. A number of years ago, I spent countless hours taking creationist arguments seriously (and reading arguments by leading young-earth creationists) and seeing if they held water, but ultimately wasn’t convinced. Ironically, they helped me move a little faster on the road to atheism. Also, I have my head full of arguments from both sides, but when I observe the universe, the earth and humanity, the scientific views (though full of holes and far from perfect) make tons more sense to me than the Christian young earth creationist approach. So I don’t see our discussion being very productive.

  If anyone in our reading audience is interested, my views are represented in large part by the information on this
  site.

  Josh has a site devoted to presenting the Evangelical “Young Earth” Creationist perspective. Go check it out.

• 20 Josh // Feb 14, 2006 at 9:07 am

  “how about we give this topic a rest?”

  Sure I guess.

  “You‚Äôve essentially told me that you‚Äôre not open to non-Creation options.”

  I told you I’m not open to non-biblical options.

  “I‚Äôm tempted to invest the time in detailed responses, but I‚Äôm disinclined because you‚Äôre not interested in an open-minded discussion, only in proving your point.”

  I think our society today has determined that open-mindedness somehow means agreeing on everything. If I believe something that disagrees with another I am somehow seen as close-minded, which means you would as well be seen as close-minded. Open-mindedness is not about beleiving everything everyone else believes, but rather being open to hear what others regardless or not wether it changes your own opinion or not.

  I am willing to hear anything you have to say, but I doubt it would change my mind as I see God’s word as more authoritative than yours. So in the sense that you seem unwilling to accept my belief I also see you as not interested in an “open-minded” discussion. We each have our points to prove. We each have our biases. We each are willing to learn something new. But because my world-view is different than yours, does not make either one of us not “open-minded”.

  “the scientific views” are just religious views of a different nature.

  I also spent a lot of time looking into both sides, and interestingly enough creationism makes more sense.

  One thing is apparent is that you have not noticed or commented that my goal is not to argue science vs. religion, but rather to recognize that what you call “science” is actually in truth just another religious world-view which poses under the label of “science.”
  Creationists and Evolutionists look at the same exact data. It is a matter of how you interpret it according to your religious world-view. Both are religions interpretting the same scientific data. Evolutionism is a religion which is more selective of less practical and more imaginative interpretations of the same data that Creationists look at.

  –

  I am curious to know why you have not touched on my statement that evolutionism is a religion, and you still use the label “scientific” for evolutionism, when Creationism is as equally “scientific”. Perhaps it seems that you too have bought into the “generality statement” that “scientists believe in evolution.” But I am willing to give the topic a rest if you need it.

• 21 Josh // Feb 14, 2006 at 9:31 am

  Something I found interesting:

  Even Papa who is definately not a creationist or a chirstian, is open-minded enough to recognize that evolutionism is a religious system, and that isnt even my own doing.

  Leading evolutionary scientists know that Evolutionism is a religion.

  Ok thats it. Powers of blog unite and end this torment of ending posts!

  dang I forgot my eco-ring.

  eh… who wants a pasty-faced superhero with green hair running around anyway.

• 22 John // Feb 14, 2006 at 10:45 am

  Dammit, you’re making me respond again!
  In response to your last paragraph: I thought I addressed the issue by saying that science and faith have different methods and that we fundamentally disagree . Good science is based on skepticism. Religion, especially fundamentalist religion, does not encourage skepticism among believers. This is why *good* science and religion do not have the same approach. I agree with you that a lot of scientists are stubbornly biased, but genetic evolution, plate tectonics, the Copernican view of the solar system–all of these theories were developed by multiple scientists who had to have their fundamental assumptions challenged before they could accept them.

  The theory of plate tectonics was rejected by the majority of earth scientists for decades until one finding after another in multiple disciplines made it hard for scientists to argue against the corroborative evidence of multiple disciplines. Scientists had a strong bias against the theory, but ultimately accepted it as the case in favor of it solidified. I don’t want to argue the validity of continental drift here (and please don’t)—my point is that these theories develop under intense scrutiny and serious opposition by the scientific community itself. For all the pig-headedness of scientists, the community is willing to change its fundamental assumptions a strong enough case has been presented. Fundamentalist Christians are not willing to make such a change. This is why I don’t see supporting a scientific theory as analogous to religious dogmatism.

  Besides, historically, religion has a track record of persistent belief in worldviews that have long since been abandoned.

• 23 John // Feb 14, 2006 at 10:47 am

  Josh, I’m don’t think I’m interested in arguing, especially about creationism. I get tired of arguments because we both end up in situations where we’re mostly interested in proving our own points and not on trying to understand each other. If we were genuinely trying to listen to each other, you would see more searching questions on both sides (and not just questions supporting an argument). It’s narcissistic: we just like listening to ourselves talk. I’m trying to move away from this.

  If you look at most of my recent mindonfire posts, I try to avoid a critical tone (not always successfully). This post began as an affirmation of my desire to explore and understand people with different beliefs and it somehow evolved into an authoritative argument on creationism, science and religion. I’m easily drawn into these sorts of dogmatic arguments, but I don’t see how productive they are. You go away reinforced in your views of scientific dogmatism and political liberals, and your arguments reinforce the negative stereotypes I have of Christian fundamentalists as blindly dogmatic and as uncompassionate and un-Christlike. You don’t seem like you’re interested in changing, but I really would like to prove my preconceptions of fundamentalists wrong—that’s where I see some potential fruit from our conversations, at least on my end.

  I’ve also had wonderful conversations, especially in ecumenical settings, with people I don’t agree with. Generally the emphasis is on building on commonalities, exploring nuances and differences, and asking questions instead of proving points. Those are the kinds of conversations I’d like to have on this blog.

  Well, that’s another 90 minutes wasted–and I’m busy today!

• 24 Josh // Feb 14, 2006 at 5:19 pm

  I think there is a misconception of what is allowed to change and adapt. Sciences can change but that does not mean religious foundational belief has to change as well. And just because religious foundational beliefs may not change does not mean one is scientifically fixed and unmoving.

  The creationist standpoint is not that we take a fixed an unchanging viewpoint on any scientific method or data. We take a fixed non-changing viewpoint on scripture, and yet at the same time allow for a changing of sciences and theories which support creationism. I think most people confuse the issue and think that creationists will not move on anything to include the sciences. we dont bleed people and stick leeches to anyone. If a scientific method changes and better supports an understanding of Biblical creation, I am more than happy to study it and understand it. In fact there are teams of creationist scientists working in all areas of the sciences gaining new understandings and theories concerning the general revelation which we call nature.

  Sciences change but the scriptures do not. A creationist is willing to accept new theories which better support the truth of Biblical creation, just as evolutionists also accept better theories which support evolutionism, the difference is the where the support changes for both, the actual idea of belief changes in evolutionism all the time, and the bible changes not. And so for that creationists are seen as unchanging and completely dogmatic.

  I really truly hope you dont think I would be scientifically unchanging and hold to old and outdated scientific methods based solely on the fact that my religious belief will remain unchanging.

  Since you mentioned plate tectonics, there is now a creationist model by the RATE project which better explains plate tectonics than most secular models of billions of years do.

  See… I didnt just try to prove something. I just attempted an open-minded clearing up of a misconception I seem to be sensing.

  –

  Contrary to your perception of fundamentalists, as a fundamentalist I fully encourage skepticism, because otherwise every believer will end up being weak in faith spitting out what they heard without knowing why they believe it. When a believer questions his faith, and answers are provided then how can his faith fail when he is challenged by the world. Most people of faith who leave the faith have done so because their churches have failed to give them the answers, so when they start asking questions they have no answers and thus they have no faith. So against your conception of fundamentalist aversion to skepticism, I fully welcome it and do my best to provide answers that those who ask may have faith. In fact the bible teaches this. It says to have the answers ready at all times, so how do you have answers if you never ask questions?

  “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” 1 Peter 3:15

  Most youth in the church leave after highschool, because the church has given sciences over to the secular world which uses it to argue against the bible, with such phrases as “all scientists believe in evolution”, “science prooves that god does not exist”, and “religion does not encourage skepticism among believers.” That is why so many churches now compromise, and so many youth leave the church.

  –

  any so how bout that local sports team?
  what a game, huh?

  oh, yeah…

  happy Saint Valentine’s day. I hope you have a nice and joyful day on this day on which a saint was beaten and beheaded at Rome. hmmm… This seems like something Mr. Letterer would say in his highschool class.

• 25 Josh // Feb 14, 2006 at 5:22 pm

  (start music here)

  This… is… the…

  post that never ends…

  It goes on and on my friends.

  Someone started blogging it not knowing what it was,

  and they’ll continue replying to it forever just because,…

  This is the post that never ends…

  …

  ..

  .
  

• 26 Tired and Care Worn // Feb 16, 2006 at 5:25 pm

  Josh, please, for the love of all that is good, please shut up!! John’s intent of this blog–and this thread in particular–is right on target.

  Your dogmatic assertations both about scientific methodology and abiogenetic studies are so pathetically out of touch I’m just trying to hold back a diatribe here. Suffice it to say that your poor reasoning and inability to distinguish between abiogenetic studies and evolutionary science only betrays how entrenched you are in fundamentalist, literalist, Biblical young earth creationist thinking. You really can’t comprehend a world that operates by a whole different set of rules, argument, logic and evidence. Now if I was showing up at your church going on and on about scientific reasoning and how it needs to be applied to matters of the spirit you would be wise to tell me to shut up. But as long as we’re dealing with reason and science here please go somewhere else with your “theories.”

  Kudos to John for his efforts to bridge the gap. Too bad you weren’t there to catch the other side of the rope, dude. I’m certainly not. And I’m going to read some new threads!

• 27 Tired and Care Worn // Feb 16, 2006 at 5:29 pm

  And for that matter, Josh, it’s sad you can’t even comprehend the beauty that you rob from the transendant power of religious myth to inspire the human spirit.

• 28 tired too // Feb 17, 2006 at 7:03 am

  What I’ve really learned from all this is that Josh is one of those people who wants to control ALL discourse, even when it’s conducted in a space created by others to address the concerns others have.

  he might believe in Christian doctrines, but he’s not a christian when it comes down to behaving with compassion and charity.

  He blames and mocks others for problems he creates: If this is the blog entry that goes on and on, it’s because Josh insists on leaving many nasty comments that reveal how little he pays attention to what anyone else says, how little respect he has for what anyone else thinks.

  You read what he has to say, and you understand why someone came up with the word TROLL for such people.

  Yeah. He’s a real good Christian. I just hope he’s never in a position where it’s truly IMPORTANT–life or death, professional success or failure–that he listen to what someone with another belief system has to say. If so, woe to that poor person, because Josh won’t be able to muster a bit of understanding or compassion.

• 29 PodMonkeys // Feb 17, 2006 at 2:45 pm

  On a completely unrelated note, or related due to similarity of poem content, (and by blodd )… There was a poem that was one of my favs as a kid, that also had to do with a house on the side of the road. Except this poem had to do with a house who’s roof sat low to the earth, and it was snowy I think.

  The house was a metaphore for the author’s grave. I thought it was really cool. I sometimes wonder about why I liked it, and its effect on my later goth-like tendancies. Chicken and the egg and what not.

  On a more related note, and trying not to get myself in the middle of any arguments, for as Atheistic as I am, I also have a facination for certain religious aspects as a kid. Especially those pagan stories from the East.
  I like what I hear in the teachings of many religions. What makes me sad is all the usage of religion and doctrine to push hate, violence , and inequality in the world. If I could, I would like to thank the Dali Lama in person.

  I think as I walk down my road, I stay to the side, and watch others as we pass. I try to help those who find their shoes worn thin. I try to greet those who appear to be looking for a friendly hello. I can’t decide if I am an atheist or an agnostic, so I will try to be a friend to humanity.

  I think in a small way, whether John knows it or not, we may be traveling partners. Or at least, we’ve been walking on parallel roads just within sight of each other, and I can just make him out in the distance every now and then. (No, I’m not stalking you. :P)

  But enough about my road. This site is John’s road, and I’m just passing through.

• 30 John // Feb 17, 2006 at 4:58 pm

  I don’t want to comment too much on the “Tired” responses–Josh is my brother (literally) and I love him, as much as we disagree. It was heartening to be defended and supported though. So thank you, T&CW and “Tired Too.” I have to agree, though, with TT that his approach demonstrates “how little he pays attention to what anyone else says, how little respect he has for what anyone else thinks.” Whether he means too or not, that is how he ends up presenting himself, and I tire of exchanging dogmatic volleys.

  Of course, our comments will only reinforce any siege mentality that already exists, which is one reason I try to be patient and restrained. T&CW, thank you for your restraint. Believe me, I completely I empathize with you!

• 31 John // Feb 17, 2006 at 5:17 pm

  Hey PodMonkey Boy,
  I really appreciate your comment. I like this metaphor because the focus is on the journey rather than the destination. We may all be headed different places, but for a space of time, we are all on the road together, fellow-travelers. I’m glad that our paths have joined.

  I see religion as a human thing (even if it’s attributed to other sources), and subject to all of humanity’s failings and triumphs–the best and the worst all rolled into one. I also see religion as humankind’s poetry: our deepest yearnings and worst terrors are captured in the rites, the doctrines, the symbolism.

  For some reason it seems appropriate at this point to say, in the words of those great 80s men of wisdom William and Theodore:

  “Be excellent to each other. And party on dudes!”

Leave a Comment