"Wrong" Wing Conservative Christians

[liberalogic]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone seen the HBO documentary "Friends of God?"

Here's a review if you missed it: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9406E2DC163FF936A15752C0A9619C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

What scared me the most was the part where the Christian speaker tells the auditorium of young kids that evolution is wrong because it's not in the Bible. It's a great way to start kids off-- limit their intellectual capabilities before they can even develop.

 

[5stringJeff]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone seen the HBO documentary "Friends of God?"

Here's a review if you missed it: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9406E2DC163FF936A15752C0A9619C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

What scared me the most was the part where the Christian speaker tells the auditorium of young kids that evolution is wrong because it's not in the Bible. It's a great way to start kids off-- limit their intellectual capabilities before they can even develop.

Well, from a Christian perspective, evolution and creation are mutually exclusive, and the Bible specifies that the world was created by God. However, there are plenty of other faults in evolutionary theory that he could bring up.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone seen the HBO documentary "Friends of God?".

FROM THE REVIEW:
''Like if a pastor falls into corruption or becomes dishonest or greedy: it's heartbreaking because even secular people want godly people to be authentically godly.''

What scared me the most was the part where the Christian speaker tells the auditorium of young kids that evolution is wrong because it's not in the Bible. It's a great way to start kids off-- limit their intellectual capabilities before they can even develop.

But isnt teaching the Biblical message of creation "authentically godly"?

That ENTIRE review is so much trash, elitism at its worst/best.

 

[Avatar4321]

Since when does teaching someone anything limit their intellectual capacities?

If your argument was accurate, then teaching people that evolution and creationism is wrong is just as limiting to their intellectual capacities.

Teaching people a certain principle or subject never limits their intellectual abilities. The only thing that does is willfully choosing not to learn.

Personally, i couldn't care less about this so call creation v. evolution debate. You find that both theories have numerous areas in common. In fact, I think belief in evolution requires even more faith in a Divine Creator. The odds are astronomical otherwise.

 

[Eightball]

I'd just like to know why Liberalogic seems to use the word, "scared"? What is endangering, if creationism is taught exclusively to these kids?

When these kids grow up, they will have the opportunity to weigh "evolution" and evaluate it. For the time being when they are young and under the direction of their parents, this is what Mom and Pop Christian desire for their kids to be taught.

If Liberalogic is so concerned, how about he/she check out what American Islamic schools are teaching the little one's who are going to be American adult voters, movers, and shakers one day.

Some of the greatest scientists of the past and present were biblical Christians.............Their faith didn't limit their ability to use their God given minds and potential to great measure..........

 

[Bullypulpit]

Well, from a Christian perspective, evolution and creation are mutually exclusive, and the Bible specifies that the world was created by God. However, there are plenty of other faults in evolutionary theory that he could bring up.

Such as...? And be specific, please.

 

[Bullypulpit]

chirp...chirp...chirp...

 

[Gurdari]

The ceation argument needs evolution to succeed, the evolution argument, needs only its own evidence.

Intelligent design is an argument that basically says:
This place is soooo crazy! I can't even fathom how it all could've happened without some god doing it. My rudimentary human brain couldn't have created anything this complex, so the next rung up on the latter must an omnipotent god who created the universe!

 

[5stringJeff]

chirp...chirp...chirp...

Sorry, I was banned for a while.

Off the top of my head, evolution theory cannot account for:

1. The rise of life from non-life, or
2. The existence of irreducibly complex organs/machines in cells.

 

[LOki]

Sorry, I was banned for a while.

Off the top of my head, evolution theory cannot account for:

1. The rise of life from non-life, or
2. The existence of irreducibly complex organs/machines in cells.

1) This metaphysical issue is not part of evolutionary theory.
2) Irreducible Complexity requires an unfounded presumption.

 

[glockmail]

Well, from a Christian perspective, evolution and creation are mutually exclusive, and the Bible specifies that the world was created by God. However, there are plenty of other faults in evolutionary theory that he could bring up.

I've never been taught that, and I'm Catholic.

 

[5stringJeff]

1) This metaphysical issue is not part of evolutionary theory.

Yet, evolutionists insist that Darwinism explains the appearance of life. I'm glad to see that someone agrees that evolution is unequipped to deal with the issue, though.

2) Irreducible Complexity requires an unfounded presumption.[/QUOTE]

Which is?

 

[LOki]

Yet, evolutionists insist that Darwinism explains the appearance of life.

I'm not so sure this is true--you'll need to demonstrate.

I'm glad to see that someone agrees that evolution is unequipped to deal with the issue, though.

I'm not so sure it's unequipped as much as it's uninvolved.

Which is?

That the complexity it claims is so irreducible, is actually irreducible.

 

[5stringJeff]

I'm not so sure this is true--you'll need to demonstrate.

I'm not so sure it's unequipped as much as it's uninvolved.

I'll have to get back to you. I have seen claims that evolution explains the rise of life, however.

That the complexity it claims is so irreducible, is actually irreducible.

Darwin himself said, "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Such machines have been shown to exist.

 

[LOki]

I'll have to get back to you. I have seen claims that evolution explains the rise of life, however.

I've heard the same claims from opponents to evolution.

Darwin himself said, "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Such machines have been shown to exist.

Cite such examples--just be sure you don't cite eyes and [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w]flagella[/ame], those examples of Irreducable Complexity have had their complexity reduced.

 

[José]

Originally posted by 5stringJeff
Yet, evolutionists insist that Darwinism explains the appearance of life.

Jeff,

Some scientists fail to distinguish between scientific and philosophical questions (or metaphysical issues, as Loki put it).

They tend to invoke the authority of science for ideas that are not part of science itself. They extend scientific concepts beyond their scientific use to support comprehensive materialistic philosophies.

So you can rest assured that when a scientist say that there is no purpose or design behind the origin of life on Earth, he's speaking for himself only, or rather, he's speaking as a philosopher, not as a scientist.

An honest scientist should always separate the issue of how life on Earth came to be (the process of evolution) from the broader issue of purposeful design in the course of evolution.

The first question is a scientific issue the second one is philosophy at its best.

Originally posted by 5stringJeff
Off the top of my head, evolution theory cannot account for:

1. The rise of life from non-life

There is a consensus in the scientific community that no good explanation has been given regarding abiogenesis (the rise of life from non-life).

I wouldn’t go as far as Loki and call the origin of life a “metaphysical issue”, but like most extreme issues such as the origin of the universe, it is extremely difficult to propose a credible scientific theory about the origin of life (by credible I mean: open to refutation).

So your statement is basically correct, Jeff, science cannot explain how life arose from brute matter.

But the real question we should be asking here is this:

How should the inability of science to propose a scientific theory for the origin of life be interpreted?

Does the origin of life require a supernatural intervention or is it just another temporary gap in human knowledge?

This is basically the same issue Gurdari raised in post number 8 in a less diplomatic and more partisan way : )

 

[Gurdari]

The ceation argument needs evolution to succeed, the evolution argument, needs only its own evidence.

Intelligent design is an argument that basically says:
This place is soooo crazy! I can't even fathom how it all could've happened without some god doing it. My rudimentary human brain couldn't have created anything this complex, so the next rung up on the latter must an omnipotent god who created the universe!

Sorry for any lack of diplomacy I exhibit, this topic is so juicy I get over excited sometimes.

But... is there another way to explain 'Intelligent design'?
It seems to rest on our perception of probability and what we consider to be long odds, which is arbitrary, and essentially variable.

 

[Gurdari]

There is a consensus in the scientific community that no good explanation has been given regarding abiogenesis (the rise of life from non-life).

...science cannot explain how life arose from brute matter.

But the real question we should be asking here is this:

How should the inability of science to propose a scientific theory for the origin of life be interpreted?

Does the origin of life require a supernatural intervention or is it just another temporary gap in human knowledge?

Well there are theories and evidence about how life can spring from non-life... is there a clear definition of what constitutes life? At what point to proteins and acids and molecules go from a chemical reaction to 'life'. (maybe when high voltage electricity runs through proteins?)
It's tough to prove we aren't just a very complex (to us) chemical reaction.
And being able to 'explain something concretely' and 'having evidence that points to a conclusion' are not the same thing, but latter often preceeds the former.

All science does is gather and analyze info... when certain people inject their philosophy into the mix - that is no longer scientific. So a true scientist would never say 'There is no design, no 'hand' in evolution of life, or universe... he or she could only say we have no reason yet to think that way.

Just as a scientist would never rule out God's existence, as there is no proof he doesn't exist, nor even any evidence he doesn't exist... Scientifically, we're in a situation that science has yet to support his existence...ergo, it should be left out of the discussion like anything else that has no evidence for or against it.

The origin of life requires a catalyst like the origin of everything else in the universe.
We don't know what that is. But over time... scientific progress will shed more light, as it is unlikely to shed less light, or the same amount of light.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Gurdary
is there a clear definition of what constitutes life?

Yes, there is a clear definition of what constitutes life (on Earth, at least).

Originally posted by Gurdary
At what point to proteins and acids and molecules go from a chemical reaction to 'life'.

When these proteins and acids finally became a cell.

If you are a living organism on Earth you have to have at least one cell (The endless debate about viruses is irrelevant to our discussion).

Originally posted by Gurdary
Well there are theories and evidence about how life can spring from non-life...

Gurdari, it seems to me you fail to distinguish between a scientific theory and a scientific hypothesis.

A scientific theory of abiogenesis must provide a comprehensive scenario describing the mechanisms through which chemical elements like hydrogen combined themselves to form basic organic molecules and how these molecules eventually formed the first cell.

A scientific theory about the origin of life must describe the modus operandi of the “catalysts” responsible for the process of abiogenesis, to use your own terminology.

But if you do have a scientific theory about abiogenesis, instead of the working hypothesis used by scientists so far, then, by all means, submit it to a scientific magazine like Nature and you’ll be a serious candidate for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry : )

 

[liberalogic]

Since when does teaching someone anything limit their intellectual capacities?

If your argument was accurate, then teaching people that evolution and creationism is wrong is just as limiting to their intellectual capacities.

Teaching people a certain principle or subject never limits their intellectual abilities. The only thing that does is willfully choosing not to learn.

Personally, i couldn't care less about this so call creation v. evolution debate. You find that both theories have numerous areas in common. In fact, I think belief in evolution requires even more faith in a Divine Creator. The odds are astronomical otherwise.

Sorry to respond to this so late. I'm sure you've forgotten about it already but I feel it demands a response.

Intellectual capability is limited when you tell kids something that they don't need to know about and discredit all other possibilities. Brainwashing them with inaccurate representations of evolution will undoubtedly leave an impression on them and notice I used the word "brainwashing" and not "teaching." Teaching would imply substantiating one's claim, which the man did not do.

Personally, I believe in evolution, but within the logic of reason, there must be someone/something that/who created the apes. I was never brainwashed and I've come to this conclusion on my own and I still grapple with it today; but at least I was given the room to do so rather than have my thinking capacities cut off at an early age.