Creationism and life in general

[fhansen]

I’ve had an experience like Paul’s, only we called it being baptized in the Spirit . God touches lots of folk – how He does I don’t know. It’s certainly spiritual but I don’t think spiritual needs to be supernatural.

The resurrection is a singular event, a miracle if ever there was one. Just as every pop star and sports celebrity is now called a genius, I reckon miracles are devalued unless they are really rare.

I’ve also had an experience like Pauls’-although I’m sure it was different in some quality or another. But it was so overwhelmingly profound that there was nothing in the natural world to relate it to. Unless we want to arbitrarily include all things in the term “natural” and render the term “supernatural” meaningless, these experiences are certainly of the miraculous order. Can’t comment on the baptized in the spirit experience tho, as I haven’t had it, but I do know that the HS can directly make known to a person Who it is that’s orchestrating an experience in them to such a degree that their left with no real means of questioning it.

 

[razredge]

Do you really have such a shallow view of God that He has to make Himself quite so obvious? If God put the laws of General Relativity in place, why would He be so crass as to put Himself right there is the equations? If God put the laws of evolution in place why do you expect Him to behave any differently?

rossum

Indeed - people reject evolution simply because they don’t fancy the idea.

You don’t see this much fuss from believers over accepting gravity, relativity, quantum physics etc. Or indeed, modern medicine - which they are all too happy to have, actually that in itself proves that the interventionists, deep down don’t really believe that God will answer their prayers (and if He doesn’t it’s all for the best anyway).

I think this kind of thinking results from the fact that most believers simply have misconceptions of what God is - they very much believe in the angry old man in the sky and do not really understand what is entailed by a transcendant Being outside of space and time.(and if God really does exist, you can be sure He will be the latter and not the former or some kind of cosmic genie)

 

[grannymh]

Thanks. There’s a theological issue here.

There are other studies which indicate no effect from prayer, but then this is like those studies which one week say bananas are good for health, the next they’re bad. The problem is there are so many variables.

But suppose this research is correct and praying does have an effect on fertility. The obvious thing to do is rerun it several times to find the active ingredients – is praying out loud more effective than praying silently, do females have more effect than males, etc. That’s the way to maximize the chances of successful prayer.

But is treating God like a vending machine any different from occult spells? Ethically, as Christians, should we even think about starting down this road of testing God?

Two comments:

1. Catholic prayer is usually misrepresented. Catholics do things differently than other Christians. Sad to say, from reading a few enlightening posts on prayer and miracles, it is obvious that there are a few Catholics who are on the short side of Catholicism. They are not alone because I now wonder about some of prayer research participants.
2. A major prayer study was prosecuted as a kind of fraud. When googling that study, one needs to go to the follow-up.

 

[grannymh]

Yes - all recognized long afterwards of course - which is why we have geocentrists and monogenists.

Do you realize that geocentrism and monogenism have been treated differently by the Catholic Church since the time of the Apostles? Ooops – have to get out of my cranky mood before I imply that some Catholics don’t know…Besides no need to go off topic.

 

[grannymh]

Indeed - people reject evolution simply because they don’t fancy the idea.

What a great coincidence!
I have come across people who reject certain Catholic doctrines simply because they don’t fancy the idea of a particular doctrine.

 

[ricmat]

Then the Theory of Gravity is also atheistic because it also dispenses with the need for God. There is no term for God in the equations of General Relativity. Show me one scientific theory where there is a term for God in any of the equations.

The theory of gravity or theory of general relativity do not affect our salvation one way or the other. From a salvation perspective - it’s a “don’t care.” Not so with the origin of man.

Do you really have such a shallow view of God that He has to make Himself quite so obvious? Rossum

So what is the Buddhist view of God? Is it a shallow view, or a deep view, or no view at all?

I don’t recall who you were arguing with in the comment above, but it seems to me that God’s “obviousness” is all over the place anyhow. When we see the evidence, and don’t acknowledge God’s glory and majesty, that’s not good.

From the book of Wisdom chapter 13 (in Catholic Bibles). This is really quite profound. Take a minute and read it (also, the Protestants reading this post should take a look too since they won’t see it in the KJV.)

1 For all men were by nature foolish who were in ignorance of God, and who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing him who is, and from studying the works did not discern the artisan; 2 2 But either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circuit of the stars, or the mighty water, or the luminaries of heaven, the governors of the world, they considered gods. 3 Now if out of joy in their beauty they thought them gods, let them know how far more excellent is the Lord than these; for the original source of beauty fashioned them. 4 Or if they were struck by their might and energy, let them from these things realize how much more powerful is he who made them. 5 For from the greatness and the beauty of created things their original author, by analogy, is seen. 6 3 But yet, for these the blame is less; For they indeed have gone astray perhaps, though they seek God and wish to find him. 7 For they search busily among his works, but are distracted by what they see, because the things seen are fair. 8 But again, not even these are pardonable. 9 For if they so far succeeded in knowledge that they could speculate about the world, how did they not more quickly find its LORD?

Indeed - people reject evolution simply because they don’t fancy the idea.

No doubt. Just as some fancy evolution because they do fancy the idea. It’s so simple and elegant and it explains everything

You don’t see this much fuss from believers over accepting gravity, relativity, quantum physics etc. Or indeed, modern medicine - which they are all too happy to have, actually that in itself proves that the interventionists, deep down don’t really believe that God will answer their prayers (and if He doesn’t it’s all for the best anyway).

Hmmm… perhaps you have misconceptions about the purpose of prayer.

I think this kind of thinking results from the fact that most believers simply have misconceptions of what God is - they very much believe in the angry old man in the sky and do not really understand what is entailed by a transcendant Being outside of space and time.(and if God really does exist, you can be sure He will be the latter and not the former or some kind of cosmic genie)

You do a disservice to many good, faithful, holy, and smart people with your caricature of how “they” see God. Certainly there are some who see God this way, but most do not.

 

[StAnastasia]

Indeed - people reject evolution simply because they don’t fancy the idea.

razredge, it might simply be because they are not biologists. Evolution is as s central to understanding biology as plate tectonics is to understanding geology. People who don’t study or work with biology or geology have no need for understanding or accepting evolution or plate tectonics.

Or indeed, modern medicine - which they are all too happy to have, actually that in itself proves that the interventionists, deep down don’t really believe that God will answer their prayers (and if He doesn’t it’s all for the best anyway).

Vaccine denial is fairly big these days, with serious consequences for public health. People pick and choose which aspects of medicine they accept and follow.

I think this kind of thinking results from the fact that most believers simply have misconceptions of what God is - they very much believe in the angry old man in the sky and do not really understand what is entailed by a transcendant Being outside of space and time.(and if God really does exist, you can be sure He will be the latter and not the former or some kind of cosmic genie)

Yes, I know a lot of people who envision God as the angry – or sometimes benevolent – deity in the sky. However, don’t forget that for Christians God is both transcendent and immanent.

 

[edwest2]

A few words about vaccines:

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-do-we-invoke-darwin/

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

A few words about vaccines: uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-do-we-invoke-darwin/
Peace,Ed

“After more than a decade of effort the Discovery Institute proudly announced in 2007 that it had got some 700 doctoral-level scientists and engineers to sign “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.” Though the number may strike some observers as rather large, it represented less than 0.023 percent of the world’s scientists. On the scientific front of the much ballyhooed “Evolution Wars”, the Darwinists were winning handily. The ideological struggle between (methodological) naturalism and supernaturalism continued largely in the fantasies of the faithful and the hyperbole of the press.”

Alexander, Denis; Numbers, Ronald L. (2010). Biology and Ideology from Descartes to Dawkins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-60841-7.

 

[Prophesy]

“After more than a decade of effort the Discovery Institute proudly announced in 2007 that it had got some 700 doctoral-level scientists and engineers to sign “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.” Though the number may strike some observers as rather large, it represented less than 0.023 percent of the world’s scientists. On the scientific front of the much ballyhooed “Evolution Wars”, the Darwinists were winning handily. The ideological struggle between (methodological) naturalism and supernaturalism continued largely in the fantasies of the faithful and the hyperbole of the press.”

Alexander, Denis; Numbers, Ronald L. (2010). Biology and Ideology from Descartes to Dawkins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-60841-7.

700 doctorates isn’t really all that impressive. But then again is there a difference between a doctorate holder and “doctorate-level” in terms of this petition?

-Prophesy

 

[grannymh]

Yes, I know a lot of people who envision God as the angry – or sometimes benevolent – deity in the sky. However, don’t forget that for Christians God is both transcendent and immanent.

And according to Catholic doctrines, God had a personal relationship with the two, real, sole parents of humanity.

 

[StAnastasia]

700 doctorates isn’t really all that impressive.

No. There are around 120,000 with doctorates in biology or allied sciences who do not dissent.

But then again is there a difference between a doctorate holder and “doctorate-level” in terms of this petition? -Prophesy

 

[Prophesy]

And according to Catholic doctrines, God had a personal relationship with the two, real, sole parents of humanity.

As far as I understand, this is the teaching of the Church on the matter:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church: CCC375:

The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”.This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.

Catholics believe that there was one fall through our parents. And as far as I understand this allows for a belief based on theistic evolution or creationism.

-Prophesy

 

[Prophesy]

No. There are around 120,000 with doctorates in biology or allied sciences who do not dissent.

“The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism document has been widely criticized on several different grounds. First, similar to previous lists produced by other creationists, the professional expertise of those listed is not always apparent and is alleged to be deficient.[35] Also, the professional affiliations and credentials that are claimed for some of the signatories has been questioned. Finally, there appear to be a few who appear on the list who are not firmly committed to the agenda advanced by the Discovery Institute, and who have been misled into signing or who have changed their minds. Russell D. Renka, a political scientist, said that the Discovery Institute presented the list in an appeal to authority to support its anti-evolution viewpoint.”

I can’t say that I’m particularly surprised.

-Prophesy

 

[edwest2]

“After more than a decade of effort the Discovery Institute proudly announced in 2007 that it had got some 700 doctoral-level scientists and engineers to sign “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.” Though the number may strike some observers as rather large, it represented less than 0.023 percent of the world’s scientists. On the scientific front of the much ballyhooed “Evolution Wars”, the Darwinists were winning handily. The ideological struggle between (methodological) naturalism and supernaturalism continued largely in the fantasies of the faithful and the hyperbole of the press.”

Alexander, Denis; Numbers, Ronald L. (2010). Biology and Ideology from Descartes to Dawkins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-60841-7.

Did you read the article I provided the link for?

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

Did you read the article I provided the link for? Peace,Ed

I did, indeed.

 

[StAnastasia]

Catholics believe that there was one fall through our parents. And as far as I understand this allows for a belief based on theistic evolution or creationism. -Prophesy

"Joel Watts highlights that Ken Ham agrees with the logic of atheists. Ken sets up a logical chain which he has clearly linked together backwards. Since he can think of no reason to believe in God if there was no literal Adam and Eve, he tries to prove the latter so as to lead to faith in the former.

Joel gets it just right: Both Ken Ham and atheists “have a god in mind which doesn’t exist.” The atheists presumably know that, but since Ken can only envisage one sort of God, he thinks he has no choice but to cling to and defend an outmoded and unworkable concept at all costs."

networkedblogs.com/iBicI

 

[ricmat]

No. There are around 120,000 with doctorates in biology or allied sciences who do not dissent.

So, is there is a signed document somewhere with the signatures of 120,000 doctorates in biology or allied sciences which states that they do not dissent from Darwinism?

 

[StAnastasia]

So, is there is a signed document somewhere with the signatures of 120,000 doctorates in biology or allied sciences which states that they do not dissent from Darwinism?

"NCSE’s “Project Steve” is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of “scientists who doubt evolution” or “scientists who dissent from Darwinism.”

"Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a “theory in crisis.” Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

"Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because “Steves” are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend.

We’d like to think that after Project Steve, we’ll have seen the last of bogus “scientists doubting evolution” lists, but it’s probably too much to ask. We hope that when such lists are proposed, reporters and other citizens will ask, “How many Steves are on your list!?”

The statement:

“Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.”

 

[StAnastasia]

So, is there is a signed document somewhere with the signatures of 120,000 doctorates in biology or allied sciences which states that they do not dissent from Darwinism?

Yes, here it is: ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve