by AK - Jeff 66 Replies latest jw experiences
I would like to say something I thought of just now.
Why in the world would God, the creationist, create all that he is doing, galaxies a KaZillion miles from here. ONLY create life on this planet.
AND make EARTH the planet to settle his universal Sovereignty
Did we swallow a bunch of BS or what?
What a person believes is his or her own choice. Make a case for your choice, but don't push it on me.
I fear that what's happening in America is a return to some religious dark age. Many creationists go beyond "accepting" it and into the realm of promoting it in public school classrooms. Creationism is not science and hence does not belong in the classroom. As a further prong in their public relation campaign, creationists recently opened the "Creation Museum" in Petersburg, Kentucky ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14122311/ ) that presents myths like dinosaurs roaming the earth at the same time at humans.
Now if people choose to believe that kind of thing it's fine. But to dress it up as real science goes way beyond the pale of traditional debate and into the realm of religiousness.
There are many flavors of creationist. Some feel that God sparked life, then let evolution carry it from there. Some think he sparked life, and has nudged evolution along the way. And still others believe God popped every creature into existence pretty much as they are.
I don't have any problem with the idea that God sparked life originally. I don't personally believe it, but I don't know of anything that would contradict it.
The "god nudged evolution" camp would need to explain why he didn't nudge it in more comfortable ways for some creatures. Why does the hyena have to endure such pain (and probably the loss of her firstborn) during her first childbirth? That sort of thing. It's nearly believable (to me), but getting closer to not.
The "god directly created everything" folks are the ones that are really "out there" in terms of credulity. There is a ton of evidence that evolution happened, and a ton more that show it happening right now. There is ample evidence of poor design in nature to bring into question the intelligence of whoever designed it. Anyone choosing to believe that has to mentally shelve all of that, in favor of a story that fits with their accepted premises. If the premise that god created creatures directly was removed, and the evidence alone was considered, I find it very hard to believe that anyone would still come up with direct creation as a likely explanation for species.
I don't think badly of a person for the beliefs they hold. People can believe anything they like. That I disagree with their beliefs is not relevant.
Dave
but in my own mind I wonder what it is the compulsion to believe.
compulsion to believe is evolutionary. If our forefathers had not believed the superstions/mythology of the priest/king class we would not have society as we know it today.
I got no problem with believers.
I used to believe so I know that it might take a life time to get to the point where you no longer need god.
I do not like the dogmatic approach that many believers take but then there are many atheists that are just as dogmatic as a bible thumper.
I do wish believers would stay away from trying to use science to prove their point. Just makes them look foolish.
So far, I am pleased with the direction of this thread. No firestorms at least.
Dave - points are well taken.
Jeff
Suspension of logic is an example of survival of the fittest.
No firestorms at least.
Where's the fun in that?
Just kidding.
I think nvrgnbak related my feelings about the subject rather succintly:
My point is, it's hard to say what happened when none of us were here.
Science offers explanations based on observations. These explanations are not static.
However, my ability to accept this is reliant upon my understanding that the bible is a book of stories, myths and legends, with some basis in truth in many cases, but highly unreliable as a source for facts regarding the nature of our world and our universe.
Similar to what is being discussed in another thread regarding the herbivorous nature of certain animals of obviously carnivorous nature, religionists tend to rely upon the bible as a source for absolute truth first and then deny actual scientific observation when the data opposes what the bible says. Creation can't be a natural phenomenon without being molded by the hand of God, because the bible says otherwise, they say. And yet, when it suits them, so many will deny (or manipulate interpretation of) certain lines of reasoning within the bible... such as its, to my mind, definitive stance against homosexuality. It baffles me as to how one can be a Christian and yet rationalize homosexuality. Yes, I've heard all the arguments, but they seem to me like frightened rationalizations. (Nope, not a Christian myself and so hold absolutely nothing against gays. Just don't see how, for example, a gay can also be Christian when the bible calls for their deaths.)
I suppose it's much easier to deny scientific theory regarding the development of life upon earth than to stand against individuals we may see day to day with alternative lifestyles.
I suppose one would have to accept the bible as a fallible piece of work to begin with to accept scientific attempts to explain it all. And if one does that, doesn't it call the entire rest of the work into question? House of cards...
Daystar - good points.
But is 'acceptance of the Bible' an absolute before accepting that higher powers are responsible for life? I am assuming you meant inside the 'Christian' realm with your comments.
I do believe that others though - some of whom do not share the Christian/Judeo/Islamic opinion of God as creator, also may accept that evolution is not correct. Does one depend on the other - or can one perhaps just conclude without a holy writ as base?
Jeff
You raise a multi-faceted question, AK-Jeff, since there are all manner of beliefs in creationism.
I have no respect whatsoever for young-earth creationists, since they display the same disregard for facts and rationalism as do the JWs and other fundamentalists.
I have some respect for certain varieties of old-earth creationists, but they must display respect for solid science and display rationality when discussing their beliefs.
So far as I'm concerned, there is a fundamental problem with belief in a creator: there is no direct evidence for a creator, and all of the indirect evidence boils down to what is often called "the argument from personal incredulity". While there is a great deal still to be learned about evolution, belief in creation amounts to belief in a "God of the gaps", where the gaps are continually shrinking.
Let me give an example. Thirty years ago, creationists pooh-poohed the idea that the ancient birdlike creature called archaeopteryx was proof that dinosaurs and birds were genetically related. "Archaeopteryx had feathers and so was clearly a bird!" they would holler. The JW Creation book, for example, showed a picture of a sauropod next to a bird and asked, "Could birds really be related to dinosaurs?" (this notion was borrowed from publications of the Institute for Creation Research.) But in the intervening years, more and more fossils of certain theropod dinosaurs -- a large group of which T-Rex is a part -- have been uncovered which display skeletal features so close to archaeopteryx that it takes a specialist to distinguish one from another. And more and more ancient birds have been found that close the gap from the other end. Furthermore, in the last ten years, a number of Chinese theropod fossils have been found that show that these creatures actually were covered by a form of feathers. So in view of the fossil evidence, it's no stretch to claim that this continuous array of fossils, from theropod to bird, is strong evidence for evolution. The necessity of a God to fill in the gaps is shrinking. On the other hand, this same evidence strongly suggests that no such God had a hand in creating all these forms. What would be the point of creating in such a way that creation is indistinguishable from evolution?
There are other examples, such as the evolution of whales from landgoing predecessors, where the gaps are always shrinking. Along these lines, I think it's extremely telling that all of the fossil finds are completely in line with an evolutionary progression, while not a single properly verified fossil is inconsistent with it. You don't find rabbits in precambrian strata.
AlanF
