Perhaps mincing a few percentage points doesn't add anything to the debate about the DNA in chimps and humans. It detracts us from the awesome fact that we are so closely related secular scientists have to rely on "junk DNA" to explain why we are different.
Did Genesisweek take into account that humans have less chromosomes (23 rather than 24) than chimps? This alone might help with the math.
And you think Humphreys, the man who came up with the idea that earth is 6,000 years old while most of the universe is 15 billions years old, is someone who can be trusted with the facts? Whatever, John. It will all help make my conclusion more obvious.
Personally speaking, I think it's presumptuous and perhaps even blasphemous to think we can know exactly how God does things, as was pointed out to Job in Job 38:4. I believe even in the next life we will not "know" exactly how God does things because it presumes we will have God-like minds. The Scriptures weren't inspired to answer every "how" question. They were written to give humanity reliable answers to the most important who, why, and how questions that roost our hearts.
I belong to a theological tradition that says only by the inner operation of the Holy Spirit that we can truly know God and trust him and his promises in Christ. Using the Bible as a "modern" science text book or as a technology manual or as a fine arts catalogue simply abuses God's purposes for his written Word. It makes us arrogant and it gets us into trouble when we have borne false witness to God -- which has happened far too often in history.
Perhaps this gets to the point of the debate here. Creation science, especially YEC science, seems to boast that it knows exactly how God created the earth. Most important, it runs roughshod over the monumental intellectual and cultural challenges that the Spirit of God surmounted to communicate his saving truths to ancient peoples barely out of the stone age. And God is still "lisping" to us and stooping to make himself known to us, as Calvin said.
That's why I kind of like the idea of a truly "secular" science. Good science, no matter what faith conviction, must follow where the evidence leads when it comes to understanding the universe we inhabit. We need to be humble about our limited capacities and about how our faith commitments will influence our quest to understand. Yet we must follow the evidence and keep testing to see if our conclusions are sturdy and repeatable and open to peer review, even if at first it doesn't seem to fit with what we used to think about nature.
As a Christian, I know I can do this fearessly. My Father may be inscrutible in somethings, but He's no trickster.
I learned more about Humphreys -- the "expert" whom you think has pointed out the "facts". Eek! Humphreys is a great example of how his fundamentalism abuses science and turns people off. Might have to use him as a closing example for my last installment.
"So is this true? Are they (Morton and Wood) getting slammed for being good scientists? Really? No. It may be they get slammed for changing sides, or for disagreeing with various creationists, or for neglecting certain chemical or physical facts. But not for being good scientists... this is a slur and an adhominem (sic) attack."
It's not a slur or an ad hominem attack. Both Glen Morton and Todd Wood have publically shared their stories of insults, intimidation, accusations of being in league with the devil, etc, by young earth creationists. In other words, both Wood and Morton have experienced slurs and ad hominem attacks because YECs attacked them personally rather than respecting them for being good scientists who take the evidence seriously. I'm just relaying their stories. I think I gave you links to this info before -- perhaps you've forgotten.
Here's a sample ...
"It appeared that the more I questions I raised, the more they questioned my theological purity. When telling one friend of my difficulties with young-earth creationism and geology, he told me that I had obviously been brain-washed by my geology professors. When I told him that I had never taken a geology course, he then said I must be saying this in order to hold my job. Never would he consider that I might really believe the data. Since then this type of treatment has become expected from young-earthers. I have been called nearly everything under the sun but they don't deal with the data I present to them. Here is a list of what young-earthers have called me in response to my data: 'an apostate,'(Humphreys) 'a heretic'(Jim Bell although he later apologised like the gentleman he is) 'a compromiser'(Henry Morris) "absurd", "naive", "compromising", "abysmally ignorant", "sloppy", "reckless disregard", "extremely inaccurate", "misleading", "tomfoolery" and "intentionally deceitful"(John Woodmorappe) 'like your father, Satan' (Carl R. Froede--I am proud to have this one because Jesus was once said to have been of satan also.) 'your loyality and commitment to Jesus Christ is shaky or just not truly genuine' (John Baumgardner 12-24-99 [Merry Christmas]) "[I] have secretly entertained suspicions of a Trojan horse roaming behind the lines..." Royal Truman 12-28-99
Interesting debate. And very telling. It seems that a hypothesis related to "global witness" is easily dissolved into worries about protecting the "flock", seperating out wolves in sheeps clothing, and mincing words about very obvious points of fact, such as the geological column. I don't think these are helpful ways of turning the tide that John Zylstra is lamenting.
I enjoyed Jeff's reminder that the two books of revelation both reveal God and not just any old (sorry) fact. This is something that every Christian scientist/apologist/philosoper would need to keep in mind. It might help us find a productive way out of the Bible/science debate without us reeking of paranoia and grasping at straws.
As for our first mission field, it seems to me that a strategy of demonizing any sort of science that isn't "young earth" or which refuses to abide the historical, logical and theological sense of Scripture (i.e. modern fundamentalism) will inevitably make a ghetto of Christian faith and "science". In other words, it's not evolution that's driving thinking people away from faith. It's much of the church's public reaction to it.
I believe that the above mentioned endeavor is mostly about preaching to itchy ears and is not at all interested in convicting skeptics, Christian or not.
There's plenty of pride and egotism to go around, John. That's for sure.
My take on it is based on shared experiences of young people with a natural tendency to skepticism and curiosity. This is about a preacher telling them that if you shoot a skunk in the woods and let it rot for a couple of weeks, the bones are just as worthy as being called a "fossil" as any other. This is science teachers shutting down thoughtful student objections in the classrooms of our Christian Schools. This is indeed about demonizing fellow Christians because they are not YECs.
Tell you what. I have randomly selected a paper written by a present day YEC by the name of Helder -- "How to Respond to Secular Science". She is better trained in the sciences than I am. But I want to show you how her approach is not at all interested in "winning the battle" against skeptics of any stripe. It's about triumphalism, propaganda, arrogance and ghetto science.
Give me a couple of weeks to give her paper a more careful read and go through it point by point.
I am responding because you invited me to. You posed the question. I am trying to answer it. I don't waste time responding to all objections. I just concentrate on ones pretending to be completely scientific and rational as well as claiming to be faithful to the Bible. I find many of these voices repeatedly bear false witness, encourage division in the Christian community, and seem to misunderstand the nature of science. (Incidently, I also invest time and energy in refutions of claims like those of Dawkins. However it's American fundamentalism that's making this more difficult, not the other way around)
Allow me, then, to use Helder as an example of how NOT to respond to "secular science". The first brief installment is just about ready. Then you can have at 'er.
As long as this church sponsored forum continues to publically promote YEC propaganda, fudge the basic principles and conclusions of modern science, and bear false witness against those who hold them, I will post rebuttal evidence. At least as long as the moderators allow me. :) According to the Heidelberg Catechism teaching on how to honour the 9th commandment, this is my duty before God and my neighbour.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Nice!
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Perhaps mincing a few percentage points doesn't add anything to the debate about the DNA in chimps and humans. It detracts us from the awesome fact that we are so closely related secular scientists have to rely on "junk DNA" to explain why we are different.
See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111025122615.htm
Did Genesisweek take into account that humans have less chromosomes (23 rather than 24) than chimps? This alone might help with the math.
And you think Humphreys, the man who came up with the idea that earth is 6,000 years old while most of the universe is 15 billions years old, is someone who can be trusted with the facts? Whatever, John. It will all help make my conclusion more obvious.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Personally speaking, I think it's presumptuous and perhaps even blasphemous to think we can know exactly how God does things, as was pointed out to Job in Job 38:4. I believe even in the next life we will not "know" exactly how God does things because it presumes we will have God-like minds. The Scriptures weren't inspired to answer every "how" question. They were written to give humanity reliable answers to the most important who, why, and how questions that roost our hearts.
I belong to a theological tradition that says only by the inner operation of the Holy Spirit that we can truly know God and trust him and his promises in Christ. Using the Bible as a "modern" science text book or as a technology manual or as a fine arts catalogue simply abuses God's purposes for his written Word. It makes us arrogant and it gets us into trouble when we have borne false witness to God -- which has happened far too often in history.
Perhaps this gets to the point of the debate here. Creation science, especially YEC science, seems to boast that it knows exactly how God created the earth. Most important, it runs roughshod over the monumental intellectual and cultural challenges that the Spirit of God surmounted to communicate his saving truths to ancient peoples barely out of the stone age. And God is still "lisping" to us and stooping to make himself known to us, as Calvin said.
That's why I kind of like the idea of a truly "secular" science. Good science, no matter what faith conviction, must follow where the evidence leads when it comes to understanding the universe we inhabit. We need to be humble about our limited capacities and about how our faith commitments will influence our quest to understand. Yet we must follow the evidence and keep testing to see if our conclusions are sturdy and repeatable and open to peer review, even if at first it doesn't seem to fit with what we used to think about nature.
As a Christian, I know I can do this fearessly. My Father may be inscrutible in somethings, but He's no trickster.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
I learned more about Humphreys -- the "expert" whom you think has pointed out the "facts". Eek! Humphreys is a great example of how his fundamentalism abuses science and turns people off. Might have to use him as a closing example for my last installment.
http://www.cese.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/creation_physicist_humphreys.pdf
Just a little correction...
"So is this true? Are they (Morton and Wood) getting slammed for being good scientists? Really? No. It may be they get slammed for changing sides, or for disagreeing with various creationists, or for neglecting certain chemical or physical facts. But not for being good scientists... this is a slur and an adhominem (sic) attack."
It's not a slur or an ad hominem attack. Both Glen Morton and Todd Wood have publically shared their stories of insults, intimidation, accusations of being in league with the devil, etc, by young earth creationists. In other words, both Wood and Morton have experienced slurs and ad hominem attacks because YECs attacked them personally rather than respecting them for being good scientists who take the evidence seriously. I'm just relaying their stories. I think I gave you links to this info before -- perhaps you've forgotten.
Here's a sample ...
"It appeared that the more I questions I raised, the more they questioned my theological purity. When telling one friend of my difficulties with young-earth creationism and geology, he told me that I had obviously been brain-washed by my geology professors. When I told him that I had never taken a geology course, he then said I must be saying this in order to hold my job. Never would he consider that I might really believe the data. Since then this type of treatment has become expected from young-earthers. I have been called nearly everything under the sun but they don't deal with the data I present to them. Here is a list of what young-earthers have called me in response to my data: 'an apostate,'(Humphreys) 'a heretic'(Jim Bell although he later apologised like the gentleman he is) 'a compromiser'(Henry Morris) "absurd", "naive", "compromising", "abysmally ignorant", "sloppy", "reckless disregard", "extremely inaccurate", "misleading", "tomfoolery" and "intentionally deceitful"(John Woodmorappe) 'like your father, Satan' (Carl R. Froede--I am proud to have this one because Jesus was once said to have been of satan also.) 'your loyality and commitment to Jesus Christ is shaky or just not truly genuine' (John Baumgardner 12-24-99 [Merry Christmas]) "[I] have secretly entertained suspicions of a Trojan horse roaming behind the lines..." Royal Truman 12-28-99
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Interesting debate. And very telling. It seems that a hypothesis related to "global witness" is easily dissolved into worries about protecting the "flock", seperating out wolves in sheeps clothing, and mincing words about very obvious points of fact, such as the geological column. I don't think these are helpful ways of turning the tide that John Zylstra is lamenting.
I enjoyed Jeff's reminder that the two books of revelation both reveal God and not just any old (sorry) fact. This is something that every Christian scientist/apologist/philosoper would need to keep in mind. It might help us find a productive way out of the Bible/science debate without us reeking of paranoia and grasping at straws.
Here is an example of why we are losing the "war": http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cuozzo_cg.html
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Thanks for trying, John.
As for our first mission field, it seems to me that a strategy of demonizing any sort of science that isn't "young earth" or which refuses to abide the historical, logical and theological sense of Scripture (i.e. modern fundamentalism) will inevitably make a ghetto of Christian faith and "science". In other words, it's not evolution that's driving thinking people away from faith. It's much of the church's public reaction to it.
I believe that the above mentioned endeavor is mostly about preaching to itchy ears and is not at all interested in convicting skeptics, Christian or not.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
There's plenty of pride and egotism to go around, John. That's for sure.
My take on it is based on shared experiences of young people with a natural tendency to skepticism and curiosity. This is about a preacher telling them that if you shoot a skunk in the woods and let it rot for a couple of weeks, the bones are just as worthy as being called a "fossil" as any other. This is science teachers shutting down thoughtful student objections in the classrooms of our Christian Schools. This is indeed about demonizing fellow Christians because they are not YECs.
Tell you what. I have randomly selected a paper written by a present day YEC by the name of Helder -- "How to Respond to Secular Science". She is better trained in the sciences than I am. But I want to show you how her approach is not at all interested in "winning the battle" against skeptics of any stripe. It's about triumphalism, propaganda, arrogance and ghetto science.
Give me a couple of weeks to give her paper a more careful read and go through it point by point.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Here's why creation science, as presently practiced, is a myth.
It's purely antagonistic and propagandist.
It's purely political.
It holds the rest of the Christian community hostage to its biblicist, literalist, claims and we are all paying for it.
Here's an example of what's going on in America:
http://www.texscience.org/meetings/sboe-live-blog-2009January21-23.htm
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Dear John... couldn't wait, huh? :)
I am responding because you invited me to. You posed the question. I am trying to answer it. I don't waste time responding to all objections. I just concentrate on ones pretending to be completely scientific and rational as well as claiming to be faithful to the Bible. I find many of these voices repeatedly bear false witness, encourage division in the Christian community, and seem to misunderstand the nature of science. (Incidently, I also invest time and energy in refutions of claims like those of Dawkins. However it's American fundamentalism that's making this more difficult, not the other way around)
Allow me, then, to use Helder as an example of how NOT to respond to "secular science". The first brief installment is just about ready. Then you can have at 'er.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
As long as this church sponsored forum continues to publically promote YEC propaganda, fudge the basic principles and conclusions of modern science, and bear false witness against those who hold them, I will post rebuttal evidence. At least as long as the moderators allow me. :) According to the Heidelberg Catechism teaching on how to honour the 9th commandment, this is my duty before God and my neighbour.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4065