 |
|
|
|
 Commenters were fired up about Bill Nye, creationism and evolution.
August 28th, 2012
10:37 AM ET
Your Take: 5 reactions to Bill Nye's creationism critiqueBy Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN) - Bill Nye does not think that children should be taught to deny evolution, and a YouTube video of him explaining why has gone viral. The CNN Belief Blog's report on the video has generated around 10,000 comments and thousands of Facebook shares since Monday. There were some broad themes in the comments, reflecting a debate that is largely unique to the United States. While Christianity is booming in Africa, Asia and Latin America, creationism is not, Penn State University religious studies professor Philip Jenkins writes in his book "The New Faces of Christianity: Believing the Bible in the Global South." Here are five schools of reaction that have emerged in comments: 1. Those using this controversy to bash religion Atheists love the Internet, as we've chronicled on the Belief Blog. While they may be a small portion of the population, they seem to make up about half our commenters. It was their chance to join with Nye and cheer him on:
2. Those who say wait a minute, being a creationist isn’t necessarily being anti-evolution Lots of folks from the theistic evolution camp came out to say that believing God was involved doesn't automatically make you anti-evolution.
3. Those who say that science is stupid and that young Earth creationism rules Young Earth creationists, who believe the Earth is about 6,000 years old, appeared to be out in force in the comments.
4. Those who say Nye should stick to his area of expertise This tweet was the most polite remark we could find on this subject. Other comments and tweets, not so much.
[tweet https://twitter.com/watsup1101/status/240168918109523968%5D 5. Those who say CNN is cooking up controversy where none exists Lots of people suggested we were generating a story instead of covering one.
For the record, plenty of other news outlets covered this story, pointing out that Nye's video was posted on YouTube just before the Republican National Convention opened. Turns out that Nye taped the segment awhile back and had no say in when it would be released. Thanks for chiming in. The comments are open here, and you can always hit us up on Twitter @CNNBelief. soundoff (2,811 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next »
Next entry »Dolan to pray at Democratic National Convention
« Previous entry5 faithy players to watch at the Republican National Convention
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
What is disheartening to me is that the percentage of Americans who believe the creationist account is an indication of the number of Americans willing and PROUD to be willfully ignorant.
Even more frightening is that they vote.
@mk045 – you said it.
"""Even more frightening is that they vote."""
AND, they're on school boards.
@Jarsbait
YOu really think so, Jarsbait? I am sorry, but this is not that surprising since many people will define "creationsim" differently. I have two doctorate degrees from reputable schools. Do I believe in "creationism," it depends what you mean, but if asked that question straight, I would surely say, "Yes."
Absolutely I believe in a "creator." I believe that creator is God - i.e., the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. I believe that the creator organized all matter and all "life" on the earth. I believe the Bible is the word of God and that men and women can learn more about the "why" of the creation, their existence, and their own personal relationship with God through reading ancient scriptures and through seeking direct communication and inspiration from God through prayer and living a selfless life.
However, I do not believe that the Bible is "inerrant" – i.e., void of error. I can read the Bible in multiple languages and can see for myself clear errors in human translation even in modern times. Furthermore, I do not believe that the Bible is complete and absolute. I think that the mass book burnings of Nicea and the early councils of the Christian Church speak for themselves – i.e., where pagan emperors and their contentious political cronies burned massive scriptural records over hundreds of years.
Moreover, I believe that many of the stories of the Bible, particularaly the Old Testament, should not always be taken literally, but almost always metaphorically. I also believe that the Bible was written by prophets – i.e., men to whom God revealed (a) himself and (b) a PORTION of his truth. These men then did their best to record God's word, but by their very limited human nature and understanding, the work itself was not litterally accurate all of the time.
That said, I believe in sceince and the Bible. If asked the question, "Do you believe in creationsim?" I would say, "Yes," meaning that I believe in a divine and intelligent creator who is largely responsible for the creation of the world and the life hereon. I would also say that I believe in the literal existence of a first man and a first woman (whose existence is not only discussed in the Bible but is also believed by ALL scientists that I know of). I would take this one step further that this man and woman were "Adam" and "Eve" of the Genesis story. I would say that I believe that Moses, the author of Genesis, was a prophet of God to whom God showed him a vision of the creation of the Universe and of Man.
However, I would also argue that science has uncovered much as to our understanding as to the "how" God worked his creation. I do not believe in the orthodox Christian view that God created this world and all life hereon ex nihlio (i.e., from nothingness). I would argue that the first few chapters of genesis, from an objective viewpoint, are remakably accurate and strongly correlate with current evolutionary theroy in the pattern and process. I would argue that Moses, who was more or less a cave man by all rights, did his best to describe the vision he was given from God without understanding anything about science.
That said, and I think that most rational persons would agree, but "creationsim" and "evolutionary theory" are not mutually exclusive of one another. I would argue that most of the 46% referred to in the survey do in fact believe in both creationsim AND evolutionary theory. For many of us, "believers" science is merely beginning to uncover the tools, the methods, and the processes the creator used (and uses in the ever expanding universe) to further his work of creating and organizing matter, worlds, and life without end.
In other words, for some of us, science only serves to further and enhance our belief in the creator. After all, God is a God of order and of wisdom. When I look in the heavens, I see His majesty and his glory. Science helps me to better understand (at least a little bit) his processes and procedures. I can respect that his prophets were just fallible men. I can respect the teachings of his prophets reflect the frailties and limitations of these (largely uneducated) men.
However, I can also respect that God wasn't really trying to create a physics manual with the Bible. Rather, he was trying to help me understand the why, not the how. In fact, he has let me know that my knowing the how is not necessarily important, even though I am encouraged by Him to do my best to find the "how" on my own; it is not necessary. Much rather, he wants be to know the why, which was the purpose of revealing himself to his prophets in the first place.
In short, I think most rational and educated people will not find fault with those of us who believe both in science AND religion, both creationism AND the evidences of evolutionary theory, both intelligent design AND natural selection, the story genesis AND the story of genetics. They are not mutually exclusive. Anyone who says otherwise and is dealing in absolutes is either (a) a simpleton who really does not understand the issues (and feels insecure with his or her own beliefs) or (b) an intellectually dishonest person who is trying to sell you something (and whose motives, oftentimes, arise again from his or her own insecurities).
Peace.
I fail to understand Mr Nye's complaint. America is the most technically advanced and innovative country in the world and this does not appear to be changing. A creationistic scientist (yes, there are a lot more than you think) will leverage the order and principles of universe to innovate just like an atheistic scientist. Beliefs in origins, both creationist and atheist, have nothing to do with scientific innovation.
There are only two options. 1. There is a creator 2. There is not a creator
Neither can be empirically proven. My point is that creationism doesn't clash with science. Beliefs are the lenses through which we comprehend the world. Formulas and science are tools we use to adjust our lenses. Whether they are right or wrong, beliefs are essential to any kind of progressive thinking. Even scientific theories rely on underlying beliefs that cannot be proven through formula. i.e. causality
At some point, there is a discontinuity. If you deny observations and the scientific method, it eventually catches up to you. There will be some point where you transition from science to supernatural, and all arguments break down at this point. Like that old cartoon of a proof on a blackboard: "A miracle occurs here."
" America is the most technically advanced and innovative country in the world"
Actually, no, we really aren't. There are countries in Asia that are considerably ahead of us on numerous technological fronts. We do have a decent level of general technology though.
@ innovator – "America is the most technically advanced and innovative country in the world and this does not appear to be changing."
Bwa ha ha! Funniest comment yet! You ARE being sarcastic, right?
"Beliefs in origins, both creationist and atheist, have nothing to do with scientific innovation."
Belief in our evolutionary origins has much to do with the scientific method applied to many experiments globally over the last fifty years that show the change of genetic code over time in many species.
Unlike religion, you can use science to verify things you suspect as fact or not.
Justan opinion, be careful of the analogy trap or strawman argument. I work in a very complex engineering field and I have many employees who try to explain problems through analogies or straw man. It doesn't help. If you can't explain it without a staw man argument, then you don't understand it. My advice to you is to always force yourself to never use analogies when trying to understand complex ideas. You will have much stronger arguments and better understand in the end. Straw man's only work on people who don't have critical thinking skills.
Anyone who says "creationism" clashes with "science" is either: (a) a simpleton who is entirely ingnorant of the issues either scientifically or theologically; OR (b) an educated, but intellectually dishonest, individual who is just too insecure with his own personal belief systems to appreciate and respect the entirely rational belief systems of others.
The majority of the world's scientists were neither agnostics nor atheists. Even today, I think there are many uneducated people on these forums who would be SHOCKED at how many reputable religious scientists and scholars there are in the world.
The truth is this: humans justifying the ridicule and persecution of other humans based on differences in personal belief is the new age "racism" and "bigotry." Anyone who knows anything about science knows fully well that science does NOT have all of the answers, and is far from having those answers. There is nothing in science that even remotely supports or proves the existence of a magical primordial pool from where inanimate rocks humped to create the first carbon based DNA strand from non-carbon materials in order to create the "first life" - i.e., the same first life that not only SURVIVED, but THRIVED and MULTIPLIED in what would have certainly been the most toxic, deadly and uninhabitable environment to life in the many million history of planet earth. Prove to me the existence of said accidental and magical soup (the same you have yet to even remotely replicate in even the most technologically sophisticated labs in FAVORABLE life environments in any form), before you can say the burden of proof is on me to prove my God. Prove to me the magical soup God. You can't begin to do it? Then there is equally no rational basis for athesim.
Indeed, when are we as humans going to recognize that patterns of personal belief are part of the wonderful things that make us, as humans, DIFFERENT. Why indeed is it more noble for the magical and accidental soup believes to denounce the beliefs of theists and their believe in a so-called magical "sky fairy." Since when is it more justifiable and appropriate to ridicule our fellow men based on inherent human differences of opinion, culture, heritage, and personal belief (which are not supreficial) over the more superficial differences of eye color, skin color, gender, and race?
My challenge to everyone would be this: regardless of our human differences in belief, can we not start recognizing that we are all members of the same human family? Can we not recognize we are all on the same team? Can we not recognize that it is just not good enough anymore for to exercise superficial tolerance while justifying bigotry that is more than skin-deep? Yay, I am a superficially tolerant person (but, secretly a bigot with respect to differences that matter most and are less obvious). Yay, I can respect people based on their superficial attributions of gender and hair color (but secretly wish for the mass genocide of men, women and children based on differences that matter most and are less obvious).
Neither the believer nor the non-believer "faith" camps are exempt from fault in this regard. It is time we start recognizing that the only REAL enemies of humanity are those who simply cannot exercise and afford human respect, decency, tolerance, understanding, and respectful behavior towards those who differ from them in culture, heritage, thought processes, opinion, and personal belief.
"""Anyone who says "creationism" clashes with "science" is either: (a) a simpleton who is entirely ingnorant of the issues either scientifically or theologically; OR (b) an educated, but intellectually dishonest, individual who is just too insecure with his own personal belief systems to appreciate and respect the entirely rational belief systems of others."""
Nicely framed bit of fallacy there, but you left out (c) an educated person who understands that people around the world are getting their daily dose of brainwashing, from childhood, in local fairy tales and customs of their people.
There may be a (d) and an (e) as well, but I just wanted to point out that you set up an illogical argument in the first place.
You are also incorrect in your optimistic assessment regarding the beliefs of scientists. You will find that the majority are NOT believers.
Creationism does clash with what we know about our world, and your gymnastic rationalizations will not change that fact.
The issue is that parents who teach young earth creationism and bash evolution teach their children to ignore what they see around them. When you teach your children to ignore science, you harm them, just as if you withheld medical care for religious reasons. You stunt the growth of their minds. Bill's point is that this is child abuse, but he is PC enough to not say it outright. He tried to be subtle, and those that needed it missed the point entirely.
Science is based on proof, evolution can be proven. Religion and creationism seem to be missing quite a bit of proof, as theories they hold up very poorly. The farther science advances, the more ridiculous the idea magic gods becomes.
Science is based upon "accepted" proof. It's limitations are still heavily in fluenced by ignorance, bias, the desire by the establishment "not to be wrong" and those who "want to controll".
What? Scientists are always trying to prove themselves wrong or other scientists wrong. DO you know how famous you would be if you could prove E does not = MC^2? There is no conspiracy, no establishment keeping the truth being found out. That was the Catholic church that denied the Earth went around the sun. "It's limitations are heavily influenced"? Do you mean "findings are heavily influenced"? You don't even know what you are saying. On behalf of all scientists that you have insulted I say, go get stuffed!
Believing in God does not make you one or the other. The ignorance of both theories here is astounding. Both theories are extremely well defined so I don't get how people misinterpret them so badly. Strict creationism explicitly states that creation happened literally as described in genesis; God, let there be light, adam, eve, the garden of eden, the apple, 7 days...the whole bit. Merely believing in God doesn't make you a creationist. Similarly, not believing in God doesn't make you an evolutionist; a theory that doesn't mention God at all. Clearly schools do not cover this topic with enough expertise.
I did not speak in secret, in a land of darkness;
I did not say . . . Seek me in chaos.
–(Isaiah 5:19 D.S.V.)
God is NOT capricious, arbitrary, or unrighteous. He has given man, through the visible creation, all that man needs to realize spiritual reality- to come to Him and receive Him. There is no discrepancy between the Bible and science. Only misinterpretation by ignorant religionists and misunderstanding by unbelieving materialists. Those who ignorantly, unscripturally, and incorrect theologically insist on the 7 days in Genesis as literal 24-hour days do a tremendous damage to the gospel and a disservice to God and man. On the other hand, using evolution as a
basis not merely for an explanation of how we got here, but unjustifiably to ignore the real, crucial question of WHY are we
here- makes perfect sense to me. But a glance at any newspaper will tell you how objective, logical, and happy the human race is in toto. http://www.amessageforthehumanrace.org Christ, NOT religion!
During the rectification of the Vuldronaii the Traveller came as a very large and moving Torb. Then of course in the third reconciliation of the last of the Meketrex supplicants they chose a new form for him, that of a Sloar. Many Shubs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Sloar that day I can tell you ! "
It was once told to me that the difference between science and religion is that science seeks to answer "how?" and religion seeks to answer "why?". It's when one crosses over to the other that it gets into troubled waters....
Someone did you a disservice if you were taught that science does not answer the "why" – science answers all questions – who, what, where, when, why and how. By it's very nature, no question format is off limits to science.
I found one person's comments interesting, that "human observation and science is young, so why should we believe that"?
That is exactly the lovely thing about applying the scientific method!!!!!! You CAN (CAN!) ask questions! And doing so furthers our understandings by confirming assumptions, or disproving them.
Unfortunately, religion doesn't allow for questioning. I think Nye's point is...believe what you want, but in the mean time, pay attention to what is in front of your face and not what some men wrote 2000 yrs ago.
Bill Nye believes children shouldn't be taught to deny evolution.
By and large, they aren't. And while you can find evidence of it happening in some cases – with every passing year that's more and more rare.
As a child I was taught the young earth theory – frankly that isn't even an important facet of my childhood to even discuss. Children want love, stability, parents who don't divorce – things of that nature.
As it turns out I had a stable childhood, and as far as the young earth theory, I simply rejected it, and adopted the more standard theories later in life.
FYI: evidence of evolution is doing nothing but increasing.
The evidence of our evolutionary path increases as the years go by. However, the teaching of evolution has come under fire more and more, not less and less. Kansas and their backwards view of education is a great example, but they are not alone.
D, read my posting again, and try to understand what it means. I'm in favor of evolution – if you didn't get that from it, you have trouble understanding how words form sentences to create meaning.
@PattyPal – sorry but that is a subjective feeling you have, and not science.
The attacks are not increasing year by year – the opposite. The belief in a young earth is waning. Bill Nye is right – the belief will die out (opinion). The CNN article is right – Christianity spreads – but not belief in creationism (fact).
"And while you can find evidence of it happening in some cases – with every passing year that's more and more rare."
You need to rephrase your statement. The "that's" in your trailing statement applies to "find evidence" from the first. The way you've phrased it is incorrect; the evidence for evolution is increasing.
Blah, disregard. Too many double-negatives and imprecise phrases.
@roblearns – "sorry but that is a subjective feeling you have, and not science. The attacks are not increasing year by year – the opposite. The belief in a young earth is waning. Bill Nye is right – the belief will die out (opinion). The CNN article is right – Christianity spreads – but not belief in creationism (fact)"
It may be subjective, it may not. I was, however, very surprised to see that the article gave 46% as the percentage of Americans that believe in creationism...not Christianity, creationism. That, to me, is a big number.
@PattyPal
Not that surprising since many people will define "creationsim" differently. I have two doctorate degrees from reputable schools. Do I believe in "creationism," it depends what you mean, but if asked that question straight, I would say, "Yes."
Absolutely I believe in a "creator." I believe that creator is God, i.e., the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. I believe that the creator organized all matter and all "life" on the earth. I believe the Bible is the word of God and that men and women can learn more about the "why" of the creation, their existence, and their own personal relationship with God through reading ancient scriptures and through seeking direct communication and inspiration from God through prayer and living a selfless life.
However, I do not believe that the Bible is "inerrant" - i.e., void of error. I can read the Bible in multiple languages and can see for myself clear errors in human translation even in modern times. Furthermore, I do not believe that the Bible is complete and absolute. I think that the mass book burnings of Nicea and the early councils of the Christian Church speak for themselves - i.e., where pagan emperors and their contentious political cronies burned massive scriptural records over hundreds of years.
Moreover, I believe that many of the stories of the Bible, particularaly the Old Testament, should not always be taken literally, but almost always metaphorically. I also believe that the Bible was written by prophets - i.e., men to whom God revealed (a) himself and (b) a PORTION of his truth. These men then did their best to record God's word, but by their very limited human nature and understanding, the work itself was not litterally accurate all of the time.
That said, I believe in sceince and the Bible. If asked the question, "Do you believe in creationsim?" I would say, "Yes," meaning that I believe in a divine and intelligent creator who is largely responsible for the creation of the world and the life hereon. I would also say that I believe in the literal existence of a first man and a first woman (whose existence is not only discussed in the Bible but is also believed by ALL scientists that I know of). I would take this one step further that this man and woman were "Adam" and "Eve" of the Genesis story. I would say that I believe that Moses, the author of Genesis, was a prophet of God to whom God showed him a vision of the creation of the Universe and of Man.
However, I would also argue that science has uncovered much as to our understanding as to the "how" God worked his creation. I do not believe in the orthodox Christian view that God created this world and all life hereon ex nihlio (i.e., from nothingness). I would argue that the first few chapters of genesis, from an objective viewpoint, are remakably accurate and strongly correlate with current evolutionary theroy in the pattern and process. I would argue that Moses, who was more or less a cave man by all rights, did his best to describe the vision he was given from God without understanding anything about science.
That said, and I think that most rational persons would agree, but "creationsim" and "evolutionary theory" are not mutually exclusive of one another. I would argue that most of the 46% referred to in the survey do in fact believe in both creationsim AND evolutionary theory. For many of us, "believers" science is merely beginning to uncover the tools, the methods, and the processes the creator used (and uses in the ever expanding universe) to further his work of creating and organizing matter, worlds, and life without end.
In other words, for some of us, science only serves to further and enhance our belief in the creator. After all, God is a God of order and of wisdom. When I look in the heavens, I see His majesty and his glory. Science helps me to better understand (at least a little bit) his processes and procedures. I can respect that his prophets were just fallible men. I can respect the teachings of his prophets reflect the frailties and limitations of these (largely uneducated) men.
However, I can also respect that God wasn't really trying to create a physics manual with the Bible. Rather, he was trying to help me understand the why, not the how. In fact, he has let me know that my knowing the how is not necessarily important, even though I am encouraged by Him to do my best to find the "how" on my own; it is not necessary. Much rather, he wants be to know the why, which was the purpose of revealing himself to his prophets in the first place.
In short, I think most rational and educated people will not find fault with those of us who believe both in science AND religion, both creationism AND the evidences of evolutionary theory, both intelligent design AND natural selection, the story genesis AND the story of genetics. They are not mutually exclusive. Anyone who says otherwise and is dealing in absolutes is either (a) a simpleton who really does not understand the issues (and feels insecure with his or her own beliefs) or (b) an intellectually dishonest person who is trying to sell you something (and whose motives, oftentimes, arise again from his or her own insecurities).
Peace.
To Huebert: The brain is electrically operated. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Brain activity)
Jump to: navigation, search
"EEG" redirects here. For other uses, see EEG (disambiguation).
Not to be confused with Electrocardiography (ECG), Electromyography (EMG), Magnetoencephalography (MEG) or Electronystagmography (ENG).
Electroencephalograph
Intervention
An EEG recording net (Electrical Geodesics, Inc.[1]) being used on a participant in a brain wave study
ICD-9-CM
89.14
MeSH
D004569
OPS-301 code:
1-207
Epileptic spike and wave discharges monitored with EEG
Electroencephalography (EEG) is the recording of electrical activity along the scalp. EEG measures voltage fluctuations resulting from ionic current flows within the neurons of the brain.[2] In clinical contexts, EEG refers to the recording of the brain's spontaneous electrical activity over a short period of time, usually 20–40 minutes, as recorded from multiple electrodes placed on the scalp. Diagnostic applications generally focus on the spectral content of EEG, that is, the type of neural oscillations that can be observed in EEG signals. In neurology, the main diagnostic application of EEG is in the case of epilepsy, as epileptic activity can create clear abnormalities on a standard EEG study.[3] A secondary clinical use of EEG is in the diagnosis of coma, encephalopathies, and brain death. EEG used to be a first-line method for the diagnosis of tumors, stroke and other focal brain disorders,[4] but this use has decreased with the advent of anatomical imaging techniques with high (<1 mm) spatial resolution such as MRI and CT. Despite limited spatial resolution, EEG continues to be a valuable tool for research and diagnosis, especially when millisecond-range temporal resolution (not possible with CT or MRI) is required.
Huebert who programmed the brain to make the eye blink when something comes at it? It requires a electrical signal. Same with breathing. Sneezing, thinking and on and on. Someone had to program this electrical substation of the brain to make everything function as it should in our body. Where there is design, there is a designer. Evolution in trillions of aeons would have never gotten it in the right sequence. For instance the first animals on planet terra firma had to have the self protection mode programmed into them at the beginning or none would have survived.
Animals don't always have self protection. A baby turtle survives an open walk from the beach because birds just can't eat that many. The Russian's defeated germany in WWII with ware of attrition. You confuse design with complexity. You assume complexity has to be intended. If the lottery draws 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, is that intended? A miracle? Because laws of probablity say it will happen if they draw enough times. Now, probability and shear numbers of planets explain why our planet is in just a perfect place for life. Howver natural selection is not a method based on chance. Random mutations provide random differences in the population. Natural selection weeds out the negative and promotes the positive changes. It's not a random process but a certainty based on math. A friend of mine wrote a simple evolutionary simulation and all random defects that had negative consequences were eliminated over time while positive mutations spread through the entire population. It's very simple.
"Huebert who programmed the brain to make the eye blink when something comes at it? It requires a electrical signal. Same with breathing. Sneezing, thinking and on and on. Someone had to program this electrical substation of the brain to make everything function as it should in our body. Where there is design, there is a designer. Evolution in trillions of aeons would have never gotten it in the right sequence. For instance the first animals on planet terra firma had to have the self protection mode programmed into them at the beginning or none would have survived."
Please don't berry your response in a field of text.
The "designer" of the brain was natural selection, it can answer all of the questions you put forward about the brain. The first lifeforms reproduced ase.xually, simple bacteria that could divide, se.xual reproduction took millions of years to evolve.
"""Where there is design, there is a designer. """
And where there is a circle, there is circular reasoning.
I am a Christian and I have no problem learning about evolution. It is fascinating. You can't deny the aspects of truth in the theory. Personally I say the Bible told us God created us all in what appears to be a number of days but it did not specify exactly how He did this.
We don't have all the answers, one day people will accept that and finally open there minds to learning and not closing there minds to all the truths out there, there are probably truths in the bible as well as in science, everything has some basis in truth and we all can't say for sure what is and isn't true.
What you are doing, is called taking a cop out.
I suppose you can theorize that the bibles word's don't actually mean anything, and it's all a psychedelic dream, open to any manner of interpretation – but in that world, where words don't mean anything – whats the point? I mean why bother.
Under that theory anything the bible says – or anything anyone says, is basically devoid of any meaning...it's all a big waste of time, if no meaning can be derived.
But lets say words do have meaning – then the straightforward text of the bible, is that things poofed into existence in the period of seven days – and evolution did not occur.
Claiming God set up evolution to occur over millions of years and then told us it was 7 days and didn't happen that way- is cozy. But it devalues the idea that communication about what you mean is even possible – from God to Human, let alone between humans.
It's kind of unsatisfactory to me. Believe one thing or the other – they are incompatible beliefs, if anything ever was incompatible. This is an example of it.
Creationism vs. Evolution.
How can Christians look at an almost complete house missing only a front door and say that the house doesn't exist, and yet look at the vacant lot next door and proclaim what a beautiful, perfectly formed house they see?
Evolution is 99% proven by everything we scientifically know and yet christians think if they find one small unproven component then it is all wrong. Creationism is 0% proven and based on a bronze age story book with no EVIDENCE of any of it ever happening and yet Christians think that it is somehow true.
No wonder America has become the laughing stock of the modern world! What an embarrassment!!!
We are right up there with the radicals of Islam!
I just can't uderstand how some people see things in such absolutes. Since when is the world we live in so black and white in any regard?
Personally, I believe in God AND science. As the great Cosmologist, Carl Sagan, once said, "An individual would have to know A LOT more about the cosmos than I do in order to come to the conclusion there is no God."
Now, albeit, Sagan was Agnostic, but he was far from "atheist." In truth, most educated men and women (including scientists) I know personally are devout believers in a creator, though we tend to call that creator by different names.
Though I am a member of a very minority religion, I do not think I am a minority in my belief. Nonetheless, my religion has always taught officially that spiritual and secular knowledge are both good and that it is desireable and pleasing to God for both men and women to pursue both as much secular and spiritual learning as they can.
On one end of the spectrum, God's spriritual knowledge is pure truth and understanding, but he just has not revealed all of this eternal truth and knowledge to us yet. On the other hand, secular learning and knowledge represents man's worthy (albeit incomplete and fallible) attempts to begin to understand God's infinite wisdom and truth.
The way I see it, the more science progresses, the more we begin to understand our creator and the methods used in his eternal and glorified work. As one famous cosmologist once said (the same who also happens to be a fellow believer of my minority religion), "Science does a great job understanding the how, but fails miserably when asking quesions about the what or the why."
Likewise, and on the other hand, the more we humble ourselves with the recognition that God's wisdom will always be superior and above our own wisdom, the more we begin to understand the "why" and the relationship with we have individually with the "what" - i.e., the creator.
That said, I have yet to meet in my life PERSONALLY any single intelligent and educated person who is arguably a true "atheist." (Certainly such people exist, but I know none of them personally and have never met a true atheist in my life who was also highly educated.)
While I know many educated individuals who are believers and serveral who are agnostic, it indeed seems entirely reckless and irrational to put one's faith in the aboluteness of an "unprovable nothing." At the very least, you and I both exist and this universe exists and is "something" rather than "nothing;" it would appear much more rational to put one's faith in an "unprovable something" than an "unprovable nothing."
there may or may not be a God, but have you read the fanciful nonsense that creationism espouses? When a large % of a population would rather believe a story book written by men than the proof we have with modern science, the country is fatally flawed.
Can someone please, specifically, define what "spiritual knowledge" is?
Sounds like word-salad/technobabble to me.
"Personally, I believe in God AND science. As the great Cosmologist, Carl Sagan, once said, "An individual would have to know A LOT more about the cosmos than I do in order to come to the conclusion there is no God."
The question is: what reason to we have to believe in ANY of the infinite number of possible gods out there? Science provides us with reasons to believe it. Religion does not.
It is not science that pretends to be absolutist about what we can know but it is religion that can't handle the possible fact that there is no god.
@ here a little: Umm – you mischaracterized atheism. It is not an absolute blanket belief that there is No god. It is simply the intellectual response to a claim that a given god or deity ie God ABC exists (which is a positive claim) and the atheist's response is, "I do not believe that God ABC exists". The underlying reason why the atheist states this is that the atheist has been given or shown no reliable, sufficient, and probative evidence to prove the existence of God ABC.
Show an atheist reliable, sufficient, and probative evidence of such a god and the Atheist will then say, "Yes, I now believe in God ABC"
Here is how to prove whether God exists. It is written to prove all things! Prove evolution! Prove whether God is! You should ask is that possible? Yes! Here is the formula: Say God (audibly) if you exist prove yourself to me. Make yourself real now and in days to come. If you really are out there come into my Spirit this moment through your son Jesus Christ. In the book of Romans chapter 10 verses 9 to 13 are the directions. Tell someone what you have done. Find a Bible believing pastor and tell him that you have asked God into your heart and you wish to be baptized by immersion in water. Do it. Then if you can, come back in six weeks and tell me there is no God. Cheers to eternity!
@ GolfPro: What???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Dyslexic,
In response yo your question, please note that, in a similar vein, I would argue that putting one's faith in the imaginary "inerrancy" of the Bible to be equally irrational as devout and absolute atheism. Clearly the Bible is not perfect and is not free from error. Many of the stories in the Old Testament are clearly metaphorical and are not literal (at least not entirely).
For example, and from my personal perspective, the Book of Genesis appears to be an explanation given by someone having the educational level of a cave man trying his best to explain a brief vision God gave him of the creation of the universe. In other words, I believe that Moses, being the author of the Book of Genesis, was a prophet who spoke to the creator, yes. However, I think that Moses (as a mere man of ancient times and with a very limited knowledge of science, the cosmos and physics) clearly could not understand entirely the vision that God showed him pertaining to God's work of the Universe's creation.
On the other hand, I still think there is much wisdom and truth in the first few chapters of Genesis; clearly there are vaild lessons men and women could learn metaphorically from the story.
Sagan was an atheist, no doubt. He was also agnostic, without a doubt. Most scientists tend to be agnostic atheists, in that "I cannot prove there isn't a god, but I do not believe in one".
Feynman, too, was an agnostic atheist. Agnostic versus Gnosticism refer to a claimed position of knowledge. A gnostic atheist claims to 'know' there is no god. However an 'agnostic atheist' can claim to not believe just like you don't believe in unicorns, they're certainly possible, but in lieu of evidence, belief is unwarranted.
Gnostic atheists do take a position that cannot be defended, but as do gnostic christians. Creationists, however, take a position that cannot be defended in any sense, evolution happened, regardless of what religious beliefs you hold.
@Andrew
Absolute BS, Andrew. Sagan clearly beleived that the existence a divine creator was not only possible, but entirely probable. Unlike the arrogant hate-mongering Dawkins, Sagan (along with the vast majority of the World's current and past scientists) believed that the existence of the creator to be "more likely than not."
I will state again than I never personally met a true atheist who is also educated. I should also mention that the majority of scientists I know personally are neither atheist nor agnostic, but are "believers" in a divine creator along varying levels of the spectrum. Cerntainly, there are a great many reputable scientists who are fully agnostic, i.e., believing in the liklihood and even the probability of a divine creator, but at the same time believing that such creator or God does not manifest himself to man.
As I said, most EDUCATED and RATIONAL people will find no fault with people believing in both a "creator," organized religion, AND science. Only simpletons with little to no understanding of this subject think in absolutes.
I'd like a citation on that. Because quotes like this do not seem anything but atheistic to me.
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
At best, you might be able to lump it in together with Einstein's pantheism, but even this is a step beyond, because Einstein held his Pantheistic god to be emotionally satisfying, Sagan clearly doesn't even care.
And when asked 'does he believe in god', "The question [Do you believe in God?] has a peculiar structure. If I say no, do I mean I'm convinced God doesn't exist, or do I mean I'm not convinced he does exist? Those are two very different questions" makes it clear he understands the difference between taking a gnostic and agnostic position, but he never seems to take a theistic answer, at all. At best, he says he cannot show god to be false, which is true, and normally what anyone, Dawkins included, would say.
Not even Dawkins is a gnostic atheist.
no comment
Concise and well said. Bravo!
Prayer changes things .
Burping changes things.
Crapping your pants changes things.
Biting cats in the head changes things.
Saying, "Blah de blah blah waa waa waa" changes things.
I wish you'd frikken change your moronic comment.
Prayer changes the time on the clock.
We have an incredible amount of proof that prayer changed nothing and no evidence prayer changed anything, so let's conclude prayer changes things? Is that your logic?
Being a Christian, even a 'born again' Christian, does not mean you believe in Creationism. However, if you are a believer in Creationism, you do not believe in evolution. I think some of these Christians do not understand the Creationism movement.
And..."Atheists love the Internet, as we've chronicled on the Belief Blog." Oh come on, anybody that wants to 'be heard' loves the internet and you can chronicle the different factions of people, but this makes it sound like they are somehow here in numbers that overwhelm the rest of us! Not true and misleading.
@greg – "Thanks Bill ... but leave the teaching of my children to me. ..." Right! When did those pesky teachers adn intermalectuals start thinking they could edu-macate my chitluns!
Me fail english? That's unpossible!
I think someone missed a joke?
Yes, Lisa – someone DID miss the joke.
THE LENGTH OF THE CREATIVE DAYS
While shrouding their theory in mystic billions of years, evolutionists have often derided the six creative “days” of the Bible. But, interestingly, the Bible itself shows that these days were NOT 24-hour time periods. The Hebrew word “yohm,” translated “day” in Genesis chapters 1 and 2, may have various meanings, as follows:
1. The period of light, daylight.—Prov. 4:18.
2. The 24-hour period, day and night.—Gen. 7:17.
3. A period of time characterized by certain events, as defined in William Wilson’s “Old Testament Word Studies”: “A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens. Something to think about.
This is one of those silly rationalizations trying to reconcile the two. They are irreconcilable with one based on evidence the other on belief.
So you're saying that the bible can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways? That there is no one true meaning? Then by definition, the bible means nothing, says nothing, and is worthless
So you are saying the person who wrote genesis did not mean what he wrote? Usually when people try to account for some event like a reporter, they try and be clear in their claim. Given the long list of generations that are spelled out in the bible, it is obvious that at that time, people tried to be accurate and specific and clear. As clear as you could be about hogwash. And that is the issue. Once you try and get everyone to write something spanned over hundreds of years and try to be consistant in their lies, it just doesn't work. So they were clear, but inconsistent.
Either you believe the bible is the literal word of God or you don't. Just because the creationist account is hopelessly at odds with the data doesn't require you to modify your belief in the Bible...just become an ignorant young earth creationist. This "a day is not really a day" hogwash is nonsense...and by the way doesn't even fit the fossil record. On which day that is not a day did God create dinosaurs. I missed that part of Genesis.
A "day" is defined in Genesis as "an evening and a morning". Sounds like a regular solar day to me. And unless anyone has seen evolution take place in real time, then your belief in evolution is just as much based on faith as creationists belief in a young earth. Oh sure, lets believe that the "scientists" (true science is repeatable, testable, etc – things that evolution is NOT) "know" exactly how we "evolved" from particles that were not created – just existed (whatever) and that they know all the intracacies and complexities of how this happened. If that is true, then perhaps they can put up more than just talk, by curing a common cold?
Evolutionists do not 'shroud' their theories in anything, let alone something mystic, and billions of years is not a mystical time frame. Hard to imagine, maybe, but not mystical; surely anyone that can imagine and have faith in something as intangible as God, can muster that much imagination. Evolutionists, BTW, are not atheists (as a rule) and have said for decades that evolution does not mean you must abandon your Bible.
So are you saying that the person who wrote Genesis can tell God what mechanism he used to create us?
I'm saying the person who wrote Genesis had no idea how we got here and was using a parable to explain it. The historical accuracy is not important.
@arth0r1: evolution, being based on changes between GENERATIONS can't ever be viewed 'in real time'. but, yes, we have viewed evolution to the point of speciation. proven fact there, chief.
I hope the majority of scientists are focused on a cure for cancer and not the common cold. Oh wait, they are, whew.
"Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying...So you're saying that the bible can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways? That there is no one true meaning? Then by definition, the bible means nothing, says nothing, and is worthless"
BINGO!
I rarely ever say anything in the comments section of articles because it generally means that I have to scroll through all of the comments which tend to be very...well, nevermind that. However, I have to commend CNN for displaying this article. While I know many news outlets covered this story, I think it's great that your website tied this to the Belief Blog section. I am a Christian and a science enthusiast and I think regardless of your opinion or where you stand on this issue, it's good to get out of your comfort zone every once in a while and mix it up with others (respectfully). I thought the original article posted yesterday was great, but THIS post is better–it promotes honest discussion and is a revealing summary on how society is reacting and interacting. It's a little disgusting too, I don't know why we can't talk civilly about these things, but thank you for this quick summary that displays diverse opinions and reactions that are going on.
That being said, I don't understand why people come to the conclusion Science and God can't play nice. Both are theories, both take faith in the observations as to why those theories are sound to a person. Furthermore (directed towards fellow Christians), if God did create something as complex and orderly as our nervous system, you think that same intelligence would be capable and in favor of creating an environment and universe that is just as, if not more complex. In the Bible God mentions how his time is not our time–figuratively, his day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. Could he not create a big bang and guide the world through evolution. Could it be that the same God who is so favorable of allegories and talking figuratively, meant that when He created the world in 7 days it might not be within the timeframe we (humans) are familiar with? I'm not saying this is the answer, I think it's something we won't really know for sure either way, it takes faith to believe in God and it takes faith to believe in science because at some point no matter how much observaation, analysis and logic you apply to either–there is no absolute guarantee to know for sure. You some point have to put your trust in the fact that it is truth.
Science continually gets proven and disproven over time, however it is important for discovery and progression as a society–a concious society that is not ignorant and afraid but curious and open to flourishing. Science is not a threat to God if you believe in one–it can actually lead you to be more in awe of a God so big and, well, AWESOME. Science is rich and real–it is not God but it's something God uses. You don't have to believe in evolution, but you need to know the theories out there. How can you know what you believe if you are not open to ideas and opinions that may press your understanding or perceptions of things?
See, the problem with your point here is that you think scientific theories are the same as theological theories.
The main difference, and why your point is a failure, is that scientific theories can be TESTED and results verified.
Religion can and has been tested as well. It may not fit into your description of a laboratory and the time scale may exceed your observation capacity but people have been testing religion for millenia
"Religion can and has been tested as well."
When has religion been tested? Have they tested Santa Claus? Walking on water? Have they tested coming back from the dead? Have they tested the most recent theory of where the gods came from?
Examples please? Remember the format is 1. Hypothesis 2. Experiment and testing 3. form theory
LOL, yeah, that's not a real test then. sorry, you FAIL
@Bill Deacon – How has religion been tested? All religions, or just Christianity? Did they figure out which religion is the right one? I missed it! Someone please tell my born again family members which one, so they can all get on the same page! There are 5 or 6 different Christian religions involved here and it would be nice if they could all agree!
Just because religion has been around for a long time and it has followers, doesn't mean it has been tested...by any means, let alone by scientific methods. People started believing in the heavens and creating gods long before Moses.
So those that believe in creationism AND evolution are actually saying God was an alien who came here and started the seeds of life and let us evolve as a huge experiment in the creation of life and the directions it might take.
I might buy that more than the earth being 6000 years old and man living with dinosaurs, thats just ignorant and ill-educated zealots talking there, but I can see God being an alien species far superior to us and far more powerful. Not that that is what I believe, I myself am not religious in the "go to church and believe the bible as absolute" kind of nutty way.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." – Arthur C. Clarke.
I'd buy that bridge.
Alien – Belonging to, characteristic of, or constltuting another and very different place, society, or person; strange. See Synonyms at foreign. 3. Dissimilar, inconsistent, or opposed, as in nature.
What would God be if not alien?
was a card-carrying "creationist" for the better part of 20 years. I can attest to the fact that believing in such pseudo-scientific drivel has nothing to do with the actual evidence but rather everything to do with religious preconceptions. I was conviced of a young earth, a global flood and the co-existence of dinosaurs and humans, not because the evidence led me to that conclusion, but because I was certain that that was what was required of me due to what I honestly thought the Bible "taught", (and groups like ICR and AIG reinforced). It took an honest, open-minded inquiry into the actual science behind the theory of evolution to finally convince me of my error. It was a long and painful process but a necessary one. I still have a firm faith in God but now understand that "descent with modification" figured prominently in His creative process.
Sorry, anyone in this day and age that doesn't believe in evolution is just plain stupid. Period.
Anyone who believes in evolution is just plain stupid. period.
Satan has blinded the minds of unbelievers.
I am stupid I guess. However, name one species that evolved into another species. Hasn't happened. You have not studied Darwin. Even Darwin could not explain how all the species had eyes at the same time.
I am stupid I guess. However, name one species that evolved into another species. Hasn't happened. You have not studied Darwin. Even Darwin could not explain how all the species had eyes at the same time. The censors will not allow this post. The censors keep saying I have already said this, but it is not true.
Hmmm. Belief in Satan or disbelief in evolution? Hard to determine which is more stupid.
I have studied evolution extensively. There are animals in transition today, look at the skink family of lizards. Some look like regular lizards. Some are long with short legs, some are really long with really short legs, some are really long with just stumps where legs used to be and some are really long and have no legs. They are following the same evolutionary path that snakes did. You can look this up, skinks are evolving into snake-like reptiles, it's just so UTTERLY obvious.
Look at otters, sea otters, seals and sea lions, walruses, manatees, whales etc. Each is in a different stage of evolving into whale-like creatures.
It takes millions of years for evolutionary changes to build up enough to where one species becomes another.
The Catholic church accepts evolution and sees the Old Testament as largely symbolic.
Evolution is a fact. Get over it.