evolution vs creation vs Intelligent Design

Interesting thread...

I can think of many cases where science has disproven religious teachings. Thor. Poseidon. Witchcraft. The horns on Jews.

I can also think of many cases where science has disproven past science. Lobotomy. Alchemy.

Are there any cases where religious teachings have disproven scientific theory?

-Euge

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Apr 11 2006, 11:20 AM) [snapback]238127[/snapback]</div>

Well, I believe that all religion is nonesense. Does that make it "bad"? Any system that systematically teaches children to accept dogma unquestioningly, that denies them the right to question or to make up their own minds, is, I believe, bad. Religions, as a general rule, though not always, teach that the unknowable is known, but only by them, and that only by unquestioning adherance to a set and imutable dogma can they be fully human. This, I believe, is bad.

There are religious denominations that are relatively humanist and tolerate other beliefs and lifestyles. These are the least bad.

There are other denominations, that assert that the Bible is the inerrant word of god, and that then extract carefully-selected passages (often out of context) and use these to deny basic human or civil rights to selected groups of people (at best) or to torture and kill those people (at worst). The Bible was been the principle argument in favor of slavery, it was the justification for witch-burnings, it was the principle argument in favor of racial segregation, it is today the only argument offered against permitting GLBTs to marry. And in every one of these cases, the selected quotes are taken out of context, or are used in spite of other passages that clearly state the opposite.

The Bible is not "bad." The Bible is a large collection of poetry (some quite lovely), mythology (some very interesting, as mythology), ethics (a mix of some very good and some very bad, by modern standards, but all in all ahead of its time on average). It is, as books go, an excellent book. What is indeed very bad are religious denominations who promote ignorance, hatred, and intolerance, based on treating a work of fiction, mythology, and poetry as inerrant truth.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(zapranoth @ Apr 11 2006, 01:49 AM) [snapback]237928[/snapback]</div>

for reference, i was saying that humanity is much crueler than any god could ever be. however, there is no belief that will save you from the evil people of this world imposing their god-given free will upon you.

now, on the explaining that.

what i'm basically saying is that man has the capacity to do absolutely awful things to our own kind, and all others occupying this earth. the less strong and the less powerful are easy targets for abuse and other unfavorable conditions, as they're not in a position to be able to defend themselves or protest.

simply believing in a god that will save you, simply put, DOES NOT WORK against those here on earth who are capable of such abuse. in fact, by giving them free will, god has enabled the abusers of the world and created the abused. and sitting and waiting for god to take out the abuser is just creating more time for the abuser to gain more power over you.

that sounds like a real victim mentality, but imagine being a kid. you're told that god will take care of you, that god is watching out for you and your part of the deal is to believe. at what point, after how many vicious encounters do you start to question this requirement of mere belief? how long does it take for you to say F this, i'm taking matters into my own hands. it's easy if you never have to question your faith. it's easy if things go as everyone says they will go. but when you're placed in a position completely opposing everything you've been told and you see no salvation, and indeed by waiting around for salvation you'll surely die... when do you say "enough" ? is salvation found only in death? are we supposed to sit idly by waiting for what someone might consider our fate... that we were meant to die at the hands of someone with innumerable advantages over us?

rant over.

i'm going for a drive...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mehrenst @ Apr 10 2006, 11:47 PM) [snapback]237940[/snapback]</div>

Excellent question.... I've used to often wonder why there was sickness, evil and suffering in the world.
Without these things the goodness of God could never be contrasted and demonstrated.
Without the frailty that man was made in, the strength of God would never be understood.

There is nothing for Love to work on without having the unlovable around to use it on.

Longsuffering, patience, kindness, joy.. all these things are never demonstrated without the opposite to contrast it.

It is mentioned many times about how throught the weakness of man, the strength and Glory of God is made manifest.

The "mess" is not of God... its of evil.. which God allows... "big difference".... if we had it all without God, we would be strong in our independence and pride and have no need for the relationship God seeks and demands.

Its quite a mystery that is not easily explained on a forum.. "or anywhere else for that matter".

When all of this is over, the finally talley will Glorify God and all his attibutes that before mankind came along, were never known.

Its really not all about us.. its all about the Creator.
And we are a big part of that.

The 2.5 billion years I threw in for each creative day is a bit silly, but makes sense. You see how the first life came from the waters, then the land, then bigger creatures, then finally man "unregenerate man", then on the final day, the regenerated man was created with the breath of life.

This is only a glimpse and type and shadow of the real.

God loves to show how a frail form made of the dust can accomplish so much with only his Spirit added to the mixture...... Its all about Glorifying God.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Apr 11 2006, 09:58 AM) [snapback]238054[/snapback]</div>

You have a definate advantage in this debate, sir! I have enough trouble with my native tongue!

I did read in a footnote somewhere that the structure of Genesis was more like a song or poem, so the thought is not original with me, which will be a comfort to some, I'm sure. I do note a similarity between the creation account in Genesis and some of the Psalms, so its a theory that resonates with me, but my opinion is formed by an appeal to experts rather than true scholarship.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 11 2006, 09:07 AM) [snapback]238027[/snapback]</div>

Well in my book God is God.. .if there is anything higher, then he can't be God, but the thing thats higher is God instead.
A Created thing cannot be God.
I is written that in the last days they would worship the creation more than the creator.

(Rom 1:22 KJV) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

(Rom 1:23 KJV) And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

(Rom 1:24 KJV) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

(Rom 1:25 KJV) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

(Rom 1:26 KJV) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

(Rom 1:27 KJV) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

(Rom 1:28 KJV) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;



Not only does is speak about the Gay relationship here, but it talks about how when someone has rejected the knowledge of God, they cannot see God.


Have you ever seen a couple madly in Love and they are kissing all over each other and touching and wallowing all over each other and the whole world is invisible to them because all they can see is each other?
....Then do you remember the feeling of how uncomfortable you were as you could not relate to their feelings and they seemed silly and foolish and didn't make sense as you could not share the same feelings?

In the same way, when you don't have a relationship with God, it makes others very uncomfortable that do not have that relationship.. not can they understand it.

They are trying to understand the hidden energy and electricity and passion with their analytical mind... doesn't work does it?

We are so foolish to think if we cannot see or percieve it, it must not be real, yet we believe their are other planets, radiowaves in the air,... our atmosphere is jam packed full of information we cannot see with our senses, yet its real.

so why is it such a mystery when so many people know God and proclaim to have a relatioship and are able to hear his voice?
(John 10:27 KJV) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

The ablility to hear and see and percieve the existence of God is a gift from God, not a right or a gift at birth.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dipper @ Apr 11 2006, 11:54 AM) [snapback]238115[/snapback]</div>

I don't think that's true. The chruch just waited until then to officially apologize to Galileo. But it certainly did not teach an earth centered universe until then. And he was never accused of devil worship, he was "only" put on house arrest because he wouldn't give up and recant (he finally did). For his part, Galileo did not recant his faith either. The thing was, Galileo was demonstrably wrong, just as the earth-centered universe was demonstrably wrong, and most of the other astronomers of the day agreed with the church. It was as much a case of the scientific establishment scorning Galileo as it was the church. And that often happens, as there is always resistance to change, even in science, when you have the "old guard" who have invested a lifetime of research in what is being said was the wrong theory! The book "Big Bang" by Simon Singh has a fascinating account of the incident, and the problem of established theory yeilding slowly to truth.

Singh also does a great job of showing how some of the early proponents of the Big Bang theory were religious folks, and how that very fact reinforced the steady state proponents' argument against the Big Bang. Georges Lemaitre, who with Alexander Friedmann first proposed an expanding universe, was a catholic priest. Einstein eventually agreed with Lemaitre, and adopted the Big Bang theory, based largely on his work (and the observations of Hubble in Los Angeles in the early 1930's). In submitting his views in a seminar at Mount Wilson, Lemaitre used flowery, almost Biblical language to describe the "moment of creation"

(From Big Bang, p274)

After Lemaitre finished his presentation, Einstein said it was the "most beautiful and satifactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened".

Singh goes on a bit later in the book to explain Lemaitre's approach to faith and science: "Like Galileo, Lemaitre believed that God had blessed humans with an enquiring mind and that He would look fondly upon scientific cosmology. At the same time, Lemaitre kept his physics and his relgion spearate, declaring that his religious beliefs certainly did not motivate his cosmology. 'Hundreds of professional and amateur scientists actually believe the Bible pretends to teach science,' he said. 'This is a good deal like assuming that there must be authentic religious dogma in the binomial theorem'" (p276)

It is interesting that only in America do you find religious teetotalism and religious "Scientific Creationism". Christians all over the rest of the world are enjoying fine wine and accepting truth whereever they find it, even if they find it at the eyepiece of a telescope.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Euge @ Apr 11 2006, 03:15 PM) [snapback]238254[/snapback]</div>

You would be hard pressed to find any examples, although some point to the Big Bang as being a vindication of religious teachings that say the universe had a beginning (up until the late 1950's, the predominent theory was that the universe was static and always existed, and except for those renegade cosmologists, only ignorant religious fools believed there was a "moment of creation".)

But, seeing as it is not religion's job to tell us about the natural world, but rather its job to tell us about the super natural, it would be rare indeed to have religion prove science wrong in a scientific manner. It would be like going to a plumber for your colon cancer; he may have a tool that would take care of it, but its going to be messy and not very accurate.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 11 2006, 12:06 PM) [snapback]238120[/snapback]</div>

The Roman Catholic church of the 1700's were in the dark age and they were a far far cry from the original church as politics grasped thier power. They became as far off base as the pharasee's when Jesus proclaimed them to be of thier father the devil and as septures full of dead mens bones.

The church of today still follows a form and ritual often without even knowing the God they worship any more than the pharsees who missed him as he walked among them.
(2 Tim 3:5 KJV) Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.



They study the Lion, his weight, his tracks, they scientifically analyse the moisture content of the tracks to assess how long its been since he was there, and how fast he was going etc.... they study about what he was like and what he is going to be, BUT FEW relate with him now... today..... and have a realationship as to where they can hear his voice. If they actually "see" the Lion, they are afraid and run as they cannot control him any longer.
Same with a fire, people are drawn to it, they are facinated with it, and enjoy its warmth, but are afraid to get too close for fear of being burn't by an energy they cannot harness.

Every mans opinion and will becomes confused with the will of God and so religions pop up on every corner and none seem to agree.

Its very confusing to one who doesn't know the difference and can't see the difference.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dipper @ Apr 11 2006, 02:27 PM) [snapback]238222[/snapback]</div>

I think so..... there is a scripture that says:
(Prov 21:30 KJV) There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.

I have seen science think they have the bible disproved... just to find out later when the science gets better that the bible was true the whole time!

There is no knowledge against the lord.. if you think you have facts that disprove God, your facts are not yet up to date and you are lacking information.


God always moves with us as we grow and evolve.
Whats so wrong with evolution?

Why people don't want to accept evolution is that they cannot bear the thought that they may have come from an animal or less. If God can use a donkey.. whats the difference?
What makes us more than just an animal is that the spirit of God may dwell in us.

As I pondered all this years ago.. I felt like I heard......
Man is a noble spirit encased in a frail form.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Apr 11 2006, 09:25 PM) [snapback]238423[/snapback]</div>

I have another take on Romans 1. I don't think it describes gay people at all, unless you take that single verse out of the context of the rest of the chapter and isolate it. Romans 1 describes a person becoming progressively more and more corrupt, starting with lying, stealing, then sexual degradation, and finally ending up murderers. I have seen this happen with people, as they descend progressively into a deeper and deeper spiral with no end in sight, and eventually they do things they would never do previously ... like an addict who is afraid of needles, the addiction is more powerful than the disincentive. Gay people don't start out by lying, then stealing, and they don't end up murdering people. They start out wanting to have sex with people of the same gender. Very different.

This series of verses is about someone, but it isn't about gay people. I think its about us. The part most people leave out happens right after the (artificial, inserted) chapter change:

Wretched man that I am and all that. Hard for me to pull that out as a proof text against gays when the most strident passage in the New Testament about sexual sin is immediately followed up by telling me I can't judge that behaviour, and that I am doing the same things in a spiritual sense.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Apr 11 2006, 06:25 PM) [snapback]238333[/snapback]</div>

I agree... there is far too much refuting that.
(James 2:19 KJV) Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

 

and what about the child that prays for a need, and dies the next week of starvation?
or the one who prays for protection, and is killed by a drunk stepfather?

perhaps God helps those who help themselves, but God isn't there for the helpless - sometimes luck is, and sometimes luck isn't. God might make you feel better, but it doesn't change things, only you.

 

The problem with the god theory (and it's just a theory) is that it doesn't actually explain anything.

Where is god when children are starving?

The christian answers: God is not responsible for what humans do to each other.

But why not? Isn't a parent responsible if he knows his children are murdering each other, and he stands by and does nothing, saying, "I cannot interfere with their free will," ?

The god theory does not explain suffering. The god theory does not explain fossils or stars or sunsets or lightning. The only thing the god theory does is it gives people an excuse to kill and rob each other for believing in a slightly different version of the god theory.

God is not responsible for anything because there is no god; but the belief in a god only makes it that much more difficult for people to get along with each other.

 

Exactly. If a ship sinks, killing hundreds of people and one person survives, he says "thank God" - isn't that just a little solipsistic?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 12 2006, 10:51 AM) [snapback]238521[/snapback]</div>

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you CANNOT apply logic/expectations from the human standpoint against an omnipotent, supernatural, being!!!!

...and again, it's NOT religion, it's the underlying behavior....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dipper @ Apr 11 2006, 05:27 PM) [snapback]238222[/snapback]</div>

Yes, in my opinion, both *can* be true. But, as someone pointed out, evolution isn't just ONE theory. There is NO denying that animals CAN and DO adapt, through the process of natural selection, survival of the fittest, which is what Darwin originally noted. When we look at some of the strange adaptations of animals, even humans, that were geographically isolated for thousands of years, there is no denying that we have a WIDE range of variation in our DNA. This is what has allowed man to breed an endless variety of dogs, cats, etc.
BUT, Darwin also postulated that, with enough time, this natural selection could produce a TOTALLY NEW species of animal, for which I find no support. The Bible asserts that each animal can only produce "according to its kind", indicating that God has put genetic safeguards in place, to prevent undesireable mutations.
In my studies, I've found that there is no gradual "evolution", from one species to another in the fossil record, but ALL life, in ALL its diversity, sprang forth at once. The fossil layers below that are devoid of life. For me, this is a powerful arguement for a creation of life, instead of evolution.
But, again, the Bible was NOT intended to be a science book, to tell us the origins of the earth, or even the animals on it. It is simply the history of God's interaction with man, and trying to argue points or details outside that is not only futile, but going beyond what is written, and is where many religionists get themselves in trouble.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Apr 12 2006, 10:57 AM) [snapback]238525[/snapback]</div>

see, again, you're applying a set of human-based thought to a supernatural entity. For example: Maybe God needed those people to die in order to save 100,000 others 450 years from now. OR, go the other way, maybe 1 million people were saved over the last 100,000 years, at the now-paid expense of these hundreds of people on a sinking ship...

this grand entity of God has plans entirely on his own plane based upon a totally different universe with its own properties...

 

Ah, so you believe in karma. I didn't know you were a Buddhist. But then, Buddhists don't need a God.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 12 2006, 10:51 AM) [snapback]238521[/snapback]</div>

Actually, it does. If you really want an answer to that, you have to look at what went wrong. In the beginning, everything was great, God pronounced it perfect.
1) God created a beautiful, self-sustaining planet, with plenty of food and water for man.
2) All the animals were at peace with each other and man. Ok, great! B)
3) Man was given a good, fulfilling assignment, to spread that paradise throughout the earth.
4) Man was given life with no end in sight, no threat of sickness or death.
5) He was also told to be fruitful, procreate! Ok, I'm with the plan!
Now, does that sound like a heartless, uncaring God? Does that sound like a creator with no interest whatsoever in his creation? So, what went wrong?
MAN took the step of wanting to be independent from God. Adam and Eve deliberately disobeyed, wanting to decide for themselves what was right and wrong. There is no reason to believe that this part of the Genesis account is "allegory", or a fable. It is an actual account of the first act of rebellion. But, the PRIMARY issued raised in Eden was "Does God, or any creator, have the RIGHT to rule over his creation?" Does God have the RIGHT to tell us how to live? Or, would humans be better off served ruling themselves, independant of God?
Why didn't God just destroy them, and start off fresh, you may wonder? Well, God was also dealing with a rebellion in his spirit realm. As the Bible goes on, we are shown that not only the Devil, but countless thousands of other angels, have left their God-given assignments, and are also questioning God's authority. Destroying Adam and Eve would not have answered the question "Could humans do better if not ruled by God?" So, the only thing God can do, to allow this question to be answered once for all time, is allow time to pass to see whether human rule can succeed.
You need to think of this as a court case, and the evidence is now being presented. Once this case is closed, NO ONE will ever be able to raise this question again. Mankind will NEVER have to go through this needless suffering again! God has had to allow time for mankind to suffer from the consequences of alienation from him. All the suffering on the earth is not his fault, but a result of mankind's separation from him. Its not that he CAN'T do anything about the suffering, as much as he hates to see it, but doing so would taint the evidence, so to speak.
But, its not like he has been doing nothing at all: in the meantime he has made provisions, through the ransom of his son Christ Jesus, to give humans another chance. He has given us the Bible, so that honest-hearted ones can find him. He has already cleansed the heavens, ushering in a new government in heaven, with his son as king, in preparation for extending that rule over the earth.
However, as one of my workmates said, it sometimes seems that "Satan has a better press secretary". Satan has been extremely busy slandering God's good name, to keep people from serving him. For example, here are a few wrong thoughts that I can think of that often misrepresent God:
1) God kill little babies, so that he can have another angel in heaven
2) God will torment you eternally for 70-80 years of sin.
3) God is extremely demanding, and none of us can ever live up to his standards. So, why even try?
4) God can't care about his creation, because he allows all this suffering.
5) God needs to keep the Devil around, to do his dirty work.
6) We need to have suffering and death, so that we can appreciate life and good health.
7) God is all-knowing, so that must mean that he as already predestined which of us are good or bad, who lives and who dies. He has already determined when "your time is up", etc. So, you are pretty much powerless to do anything, its already been determined.
Actually, the list goes on and on, Satan is extremely good at what he does, unfortunately.
The good part is that all the signs we see indicate that we are deep in the "time of the end", the time when God is going to intervene, and put an end to this court case. The rule of Christ's kingdom will usher in an age of peace and security unparalleled in human history. So, the big question all of us need to ask is whether our choice is to stand with Satan, in a course of defiance and independance from God, or welcome his rule, knowing that he truly cares for us, and knows what is best for us.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(keydiver @ Apr 12 2006, 08:02 AM) [snapback]238568[/snapback]</div>

The problem with this argument is that animals suffer also, and there were animals hundreds of millions of years before there was Man (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt my not counting single-cell organisms or plants). So, maybe you're saying that god tortured the animals for hundreds of millions of years because he knew that Man would sin, so he was punishing them in advance.

And anyway, why should animals be punished for Man's sin?

And Squid: Indeed I can apply reason and logic to anything I like. You may assert that it does not apply, and we'll disagree. Just as god cannot create a stone so big that he cannot move it, even he is bound by logic.

Now let's imagine that there was a god, and that everything was perfect in the beginning, and Man really did disobey. What kind of a parent burns his own children to death for eating something he didn't want them to eat?

And if this god of yours is really omnipotent, then he makes the rules, so he made the rule that an entire planet should suffer because one man and one woman disobeyed him. This is not the behavior of a being that loves us. This is the behavior of a being that loves to make us suffer. I think it's Glouster in King Lear who says: "As flies to wanton boys, so we are to the gods: they kill us for their sport." God does not have to punish anybody. The god of the Bible chooses to punish. And considering that the "crime" was eating an apple, that's the act of a psychopath.

(Of course, a small number of christians do not believe in hell. Those are the more rational ones.)

Creationists say that the devil put all those fossils in the ground to turn us away from god. But maybe the devil wrote the Bible to sow dissention among the human race. The problem with religion, is that any crazy idea you can think of makes as good a religion as any other. (Or I should say, As bad a religion as any other.)

I kind of like the door knob religion. If there weren't so many four-letter words in its seminal document (Norman's Epistle to the Americans, Including Canada Under Free Trade) I'd post a copy of it here.