The American Spectator : Creation

Text Size

Creation

By James Bowman on 2.5.10 @ 6:02AM

The origins of this specious Darwin are pretty obvious.

It will come as no news to readers of The American Spectator that science is now no longer just science but has become a religion-substitute for a large number of Americans. This faith, perhaps, claims even a majority of those in some other liberal democracies of the West. And if science, and its political arm, environmentalism, is the new religion, Charles Darwin is its Christ figure, despised and rejected of (theist) men and persecuted for the Truth he sought to bring to set men free of their inherited chains. These are not the bonds of sin and death but of the superstition and ignorance which supposes the world to have had any Creator at all or any Redeemer other than Darwin himself. That is what we mean by myth: a story that explains the world, whether or not the story happens to be true, and the Darwinist myth now comes closer to an explanation that people are prepared to accept than any other since the Redemptive history in the Christian interpretation of the Bible.

For this reason Jon Amiel's Creation, written by John Collee from a family memoir by Randal Keynes, Darwin's great-great-grandson, has something of the odor of piety about it that has hardly been seen on screen since the days of Cecil B. DeMille's Biblical epics. The movie would have us believe that Charles Darwin (Paul Bettany) lost his always rather uncertain religious faith on account of the death of his beloved daughter Annie (Martha West) and only then allowed himself to be persuaded by a group of hard-line atheist friends, led by T.H. Huxley (Toby Jones), to finish the long-delayed writing of The Origin of Species. Furthermore, their ideological interest in his doing so became his own over time and fully congruent with the atheistic triumphalism in Huxley's words of proleptic appreciation for the Origin: "You have killed God, Sir."

That sounds dubious enough, even coming from the historical Huxley, but then the filmmakers can't resist making him add: "Good riddance to the vindictive bugger" -- the v.b., that is, being God. At once we are made aware that we are no longer in anything that is even meant to look like the 19th century except in the most superficial ways. Instead, the film is quite self-consciously taking up the cudgels on behalf of the Dawkins-Hitchens faction in the theist-antitheist debates of our own time. The movie-Darwin tentatively protests at first about how society is held together by religion and, though it is a frail bark, it nevertheless manages to float; he is also restrained by the still-powerful religious belief of Mrs. Darwin (Jennifer Connelly, the real-life Mrs. Bettany) -- until she reads the book in manuscript and urges him to publish it. But in the end his own atheism is as confirmed as Huxley's. Or, more to the point, Richard Dawkins's.

All the movie's drama over God versus no-God, in other words, is just a vulgar invention by the filmmakers, made to make their hero seem more "relevant" to a tedious public controversy of our own time than he ever was or could have been in his. It is as much an anachronism as Huxley's ungrammatical but unmistakably 21st century colloquial description of a committee "comprised of" himself and others. A screen card at the beginning informs us that "Charles Darwin's Origin of Species has been described as the biggest idea in the history of thought. This is the story of how it came to be written." Does it matter if it is in fact, as it is in fact, nothing of the kind? Not even approximately? I don't know, but I do know it matters that it is, instead, the story of how that idea has since been put out to stud by a progressive-minded faction and so made to sire the politicized science of today.

Writing in the London Review of Books, the historian of science Steven Shapin shows how much of last year's celebration of the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth as "Darwin Year" owed to the political agenda of Professor Dawkins and others who regard Darwin's work as the unanswerable proof of the non-existence of God, even though Darwin himself was never an atheist. "The party [i.e. Darwin 200] is one in which the present, with its pressing present concerns, processes fragments of the past in roughly the same way that assorted blocks of white fish, bulked out with filler, are processed into fish fingers. Myths have a market; myth-busting has a small one; setting the historical Darwin in his Victorian intellectual and social context has practically none at all." In other words, this movie is just another bit of cheerleading in the same cause, and even as propaganda it is pretty poor stuff.

The human drama naturally centers around the close relationship between Darwin and the doomed Annie with subplots of the same tendency involving the Missus's gradual "conversion" to Darwinism (and, implicitly, to atheism), a clergyman (Jeremy Northam) who is comprehensively put down and spurned from him by Darwin after years of friendship on account of not being progressive enough, and the great man's own rather eccentric notions about taking the "water cure" for his eczema -- except that the movie finds eczema not poetic enough as an ailment for the great man and hints at a more spiritual sickness requiring barrels full of cold water to be spilled over him. Between being dowsed with water and racked with grief, both of which present Mr. Bettany with opportunities to show his stuff, Darwin finally arrives at that moment of triumph in his own godlessness that his atheist followers of today have achieved with considerably less trouble. What, if anything, that has to do with the actual Origin of Species or the theory of evolution viewers will have to supply for themselves.

About the Author

James Bowman, our movie and culture critic, is a resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is the author of Honor: A History and Media Madness: The Corruption of Our Political Culture, both published by Encounter Books.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (197) | Leave a comment

Kelly Staples| 2.5.10 @ 7:00AM

"This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it." President John Adams

GregA| 2.5.10 @ 8:05AM

Kelly, I am writing to inform you that you have taken President Adams' quote out of context. It reads:
"Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been on the point of breaking out, 'this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there was no religion in it!!!' But in this exclamation, I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company—I mean hell."

Works of John Adams, Vol.X, C.F.Adams, Ed. (1854)

In His service,
Greg

The Bishop| 2.5.10 @ 9:17AM

Good catch, GregA!

Anastasia Mather| 2.5.10 @ 9:47AM

Thank you! I hate things taken out of context.

Kelly Staples| 2.5.10 @ 10:35AM

GregA, Thank you - I stand corrected, but here's another: "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shown on man." President Thomas Jefferson

Stephanie| 2.5.10 @ 11:24AM

Okay Kelly, we get it. You hate religion. Does that go for Obama's muslim brothers "religion" too?

Kelly Staples| 2.5.10 @ 3:14PM

Stephanie, Radical Islam is the worst of the sorry lot with its death-cult mentality, misogyny, and hatred for the enlightened values of our Western civilization. Let us hope that some day they evolve. Regards, KS

Patrick| 2.5.10 @ 7:16PM

It won't and it can't. The sole "evolution" of Mohammedanism is to sweep the numerous and bizarre sexual perversions (ranging from cross-dressing to child rape and probable necrophilia) of their "prophet" under the rug.

Kevin Riley O'Keeffe| 2.6.10 @ 5:13PM

Islam certainly has its problems, but that is an abysmally stupid thing to say.

Alan Brooks| 2.6.10 @ 11:34PM

"I merely resent that fact that in Mr. Bowman states that science is a religion"

There IS some 'faith' involved in science, a given scientist is selling his idiosyncratic worldview-- no one is objective, even those who try to be. EVERYONE is grinding an ax.
In fact all academics are intellectual con artists to greater or lesser extents. And now that social progress has been exhausted, faith-based thinking is all that remains, aside from pure science. Religion is needed; if you want to say by default, then go ahead. Every last drop has been squeezed out of neoliberalism.

Alan Brooks| 2.6.10 @ 11:44PM

"I merely resent that fact that in Mr. Bowman states that science is a religion"

Apologies for answering myself again, but this is as important a topic as any.
Even those who attempt to be objective with all their concentration are NOT objective-- that includes me, yes;-- but you too. Scientists make mistakes, much is discovered accidentally. Sure science has helped many, but so has faith-based charity.Above all, faith is one of the major mucilages that keeps families glued together. Frankly, there isn't much else to keep enough families together in a changing, unvirtuous world.
'Decency' is not a scientific term; science is essentially value-neutral.

Alan Brooks| 2.7.10 @ 12:59AM

Oh, wait, I have to do one more comment, because some atheist will write that there is a contradiction in "science is essentially value-neutral", and having written,
"There IS some 'faith' involved in science, a given scientist is selling his idiosyncratic worldview."

It was not to say science is tainted, only that a scientist is at least to a tiny extent promoting his 'faith' in whatever he has some residual faith in; his prejudices are absorbed by osmosis into his worldview.

Scientists are people first, they are scientists second.

Otis my man!| 2.5.10 @ 11:28AM

My my Kelly, you are persistent with your anti-Christian bigotry today.

GregA| 2.5.10 @ 11:36AM

Kelly, That quote was in a letter to Dr. Joseph Priestly, regarding certain peoples' attempt to discourage artistic, scientific and industrial advancement; people who wished to return to the systems of the powers of "priestcraft."

If it is your implication that our founding fathers were atheists and thus we all should be, you are mistaken. If you are implying that most founding fathers were non-Christian, you are also mistaken. If it is your purpose to enlighten us all by telling us that Thomas Jefferson was not an evangelical Christian, sorry, but you were scooped by Jefferson himself. So, from the letter to Benjamin Rush of 4/21/1803, let us let Mr. Jefferson tell us what he believed:

“Dear Sir,—In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798–99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you, that one day or other, I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry & reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other."

The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Vol.IX, P.L. Ford, Ed. (1904-5)

He was a man of his own belief system.

The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen. Revelation 22:21

Greg

litvi| 2.5.10 @ 3:05PM

you're a rock star, GregA. If no one has said it yet, welcome aboard.

Kelly Staples| 2.5.10 @ 3:33PM

Greg, Mr. Jefferson's quote speaks for itself- its an indictment of the intellectual nihilsm of "priestcraft". Period. Neither you or I can take it out of context. Regards KS

Jeremiah| 2.5.10 @ 4:29PM

Well, Kelly, you have done a fine job of taking both Adams and Jefferson out of context. You obviously read little snippet quotes from your Free Thinkers manual and fancy yourself an intellectual.

GregA quotes one letter which you could possibly torture into your little quote. In a letter to William Short Jefferson, he writes that Christian practices had been badly perverted from the simple doctrines of Jesus. Jefferson was specifically critiquing the Calvinist doctrines that predominated in Virginia, though he might have thought the same of others, as well.

What is certain is that Jefferson made the journey from theist, to Deist, and to complete believer in Christ, though not attached to any denomination (in fact, he always thought that the denominations were about the business of perverting the message of Christ - which he grew more and more to cherish with the years). What Jefferson never was was an atheist.

Now we get to the nub of the matter: you write out your false quotes, presumably because you admire Adams and Jefferson. Knowing that they did not think as you would like to torture their words into meaning, do you really admire them and thus, prepare to recant your own atheism? Or were you just wanting to smear historic heroes to advance your own agenda? If it is the latter, that really tells us all we need to know about the ethics of atheists, doesn't it? And it is surely something none would care to emulate.

(My apologies to other atheists...Kelly's nasty little perversions of the former presidents' words really only tell us about her lack of ethics - or perhaps her lack of intellectual rigor. I trust that you, her fellow non-believers, will help correct her errors so as not to discredit your system of non-belief.)

Kelly Staples| 2.5.10 @ 6:09PM

Your argument is with Mr. Jefferson, not me. Regards, Mr. Kelly Staples

Jeremiah| 2.5.10 @ 7:49PM

No, Mr. Kelly Staples. I have no argument with Mr. Jefferson. I am amply familiar with his full biography and thought. My argument is with you and your rank dishonesty.

If you are going to rally famous supporters to your cause, you have an obligation to study enough about them to find out if they actually did support your cause. If you are too lazy or slow-witted to do that you need to shut up and quit displaying your pretentious ignorance. On the other hand, if you actually are bright enough and enterprising enough to actually know the history and still misrepresent these people, then you are fundamentally dishonest and malicious.

Whether you are ignorant or malicious, neither is an argument for atheism.

bill| 2.7.10 @ 7:15PM

You Kelly are grossly misrepresenting - possibly slandering - Thomas Jefferson's religious beliefs. Note below how church services were in the Capitol and Jefferson attended.

The first Christian church services in the Capitol were held when the Government moved to Washington in the fall of 1800. They were conducted in the Hall of the House in the north wing of the building. In 1801, the House moved the church services to temporary quarters in the south wing, called the ‘Oven’, which it vacated in 1804, returning services to the north wing for 3 years. During church services, the Speaker’s podium was used as the preacher’s pulpit.
‘‘Within a year of his inauguration, President Thomas Jefferson began attending church services in the Chamber of the House of Representatives. Throughout his administration (1801—1809), Thomas Jefferson permitted and encouraged church services in executive branch buildings. Sermons regarding the Old and New Testaments of the Bible were even conducted in the Supreme Court chambers while the judicial branch was located in the old north wing of the Capitol.

Margie| 2.5.10 @ 4:45PM

GregA,
I just love it when you (or anyone) speak to me of the Founding Fathers! :^)

Seriously, I stand in awe at our Founders, as I'm sure most of us do. Thank you for posting them in their own words!

GregA| 2.5.10 @ 5:05PM

Scene: Several decades ago at the old pine kitchen table at GregA's house.

GregA's Mom: Why are you taking all those upper-level history classes?

GregA: I don't know.

Have a great weekend all. God Bless!!!

Franklin| 2.5.10 @ 7:41PM

I heard this quote some time ago and wonder if it applies:

"The athiests do not believe in God. And they hate Him".

Margie| 2.5.10 @ 7:52PM

How about this one~
An Atheist and God

An atheist was taking a walk through the woods. He said to himself: What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!" As he was walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him.

He turned to look. He saw a 7 foot grizzly bear charge towards him. He ran as fast as he could up the path.

He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing in on him. He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer.

He tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw the bear right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.

The Atheist cried out: "Oh, my God!..."

Time stopped. The bear froze.

The forest was silent. As a bright light shone upon the man, a booming voice came out of the sky: "You deny my existence for all of these years, teach others I don't exist, and even credit creation to a cosmic accident.

Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?"

The atheist looked directly into the light, "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask You to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian?"

"Very well," said the voice.

The light went out.

The sounds of the forest resumed. The bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together and lifted his head toward heaven and spoke:

"Lord, bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen."

Margie| 2.5.10 @ 8:16PM

The above should have been labeled: "An Ode to Bob."

Jocon307| 2.5.10 @ 11:08PM

LOL, you can tell your mom you did well now GregA!

Alan Brooks| 2.5.10 @ 11:24PM

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shown on man." President Thomas Jefferson"

Christianity, to paraphrase the greatest of politicians , is bad, but better than the alternatives.

Alan Brooks| 2.5.10 @ 11:26PM

"Christianity is the most perverted system..."

BTW, what did Jefferson mean by "system".
How exactly can a faith be a system?

old white guy| 2.7.10 @ 9:13AM

we need less religion and more Christ.

John S| 2.7.10 @ 2:11PM

Kelly, what's your point here? If you are trying to get us to believe that the founders of this country were primarily atheist then you''re also expecting us to be ignorant of the facts. By using these quotes, you are either ignoring the rest of the evidence or expecting that we aren't educated enough to know otherwise.... Can you help me out.. the only person I'm having trouble understanding is you...I know who John Adams and Thomas Jefferson believed in......

seth| 2.5.10 @ 4:09PM

Kelly there already has been worlds without religion the Soviet Union , Maoist China, Castro's Cuba--- Such wonderful places !!

Alan Brooks| 2.6.10 @ 9:03AM

There are no foxes in atheist holes.

Political Rectum| 2.8.10 @ 8:26PM

WOWOWOWOWOWOOWOW
THAT'S THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN THAT PICTURE OF OBAMA. WHERE IS MICHELLE? GETTING HER TAIL SNIPPED?-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

elainej| 2.5.10 @ 8:14AM

Another good reason to quit going to movies.

Ryan| 2.5.10 @ 8:17AM

I think that, at times, the public debate - which is more polarized over creation and evolution - is not indicative of the populace at large.

Personally, I take scripture at its word, but I also acknowledge the non (NOT anti) science of the matter, and I don't degrade the possibilities that it may not be quite literal.

I think the worst part is the seeming dogmatism of both sides. Neither is willing to admit to the intellectual abilities of the other - there are some very smart scientists out there who believe in evolution and there are smart Christians out there who don't.

Margie| 2.5.10 @ 4:54PM

I take the Bible both literally and figuratively. For example, when God says He will throw us into Hell unless we repent and believe in His Son, I know He means it.
I also think that when He speaks to us through John in Revelation about the Dragons, etc. that He is teaching us through figures. Or something like that.
As for Evolution, I do not believe it for one blessed second!
Truly, we are entitled to our own opinions, and hopefully God will not judge us if we are wrong.
In reading here today, and thinking about it later, this verse came to my mind~
"..but let him who glories glory in this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the LORD who practice steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth; for in these things I delight, says the LORD." Jer. 9:24.

Franklin| 2.5.10 @ 7:50PM

Margie, I have a friend that said something to me recently about Creation vs Evolution. She said:

"When the evolutionist/scientist talks about something (i.e. a certain layer of earth or a fossil) as being millions of years old, why do we have a problem with that except for the problems with carbon dating? Why couldn't God have made it (in one day) AS a million years old?"

As my old brain ruminated on that thought, I realized that God could create anything as old as He wanted it to be.

What do you think about that?

Margie| 2.5.10 @ 8:09PM

Franklin,
I have no idea how old the earth really is! If the Bible says "One day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day"... I can only ponder that it may be a lot younger than millions of years, but I don't know. I will go with King David's attitude~
"O LORD, my heart is not lifted up, my eyes are not raised too high; I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me." Ps. 131:1.

Franklin| 2.6.10 @ 12:07AM

Yeah, sounds good to me. It is whatever God made it, I don't need to know.

It's like my pastor said when we were studying Revelation, "You know in Rev 8:1 when there will be 30 minutes of silence in heaven ... that's when all the 'End-Times' prognosticators will be erasing all their theories".

old white guy| 2.7.10 @ 9:15AM

margie, one day could be a million or a billion. the writers thought in terms of thousands because that was their concept. it doesn't negate the wordds of the Bible.

Margie| 2.7.10 @ 12:50PM

old white guy,
Men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. 2 Pe. 1:21, so I will go by those words written.

Margie| 2.7.10 @ 1:10PM

Old white guy,
:^) that said to you in a most friendly manner, by the way.

D. W. Skinner| 2.7.10 @ 1:18PM

Franklin, Good point. I've often wondered what the materialists would expect a new world--one created by God, that is--to look like. What is it about a 6 day old creation, as given in Genesis, that they would expect to look "new"? Would it, on account of its youth, have a surface as smooth as that of a cue ball? Would such a "new" world have metamorphic rocks or not? Would the seas not fill up what looks like huge canyons between techtonic plates or not? Would not the mountains, with their solid immensity, not look like they were pushed up from the earth's mantle, laboriously and over an apparently long time? Apropos this immensity, perhaps what some call "a million years" or more Saganesque, a "b b b billion years", is merely an unconscious way of acknowleging our own insignificance?

D. W. Skinner| 2.7.10 @ 1:22PM

Please excuse me for responding to my own comment but I hope the readers will not be confused by two too many "nots" in a couple of my sentences.

Jim O'Brien| 2.5.10 @ 8:32AM

The book to read is "Signature in the Cell - DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design", by Stephen C. Meyer.

MOS was 71331| 2.5.10 @ 10:03AM

I agree. Meyer's book's discussion of intelligent design in contrast with evolution through random mutational changes is convincing. Meyer also points out that belief in intelligent design doesn't require any particular belief in the nature of the designer. ID doesn't imply a designer who prefers certain religions to others or who dictates a specific code of conduct.

litvi| 2.5.10 @ 3:08PM

Another good one is "The Science of God" by Gerald Schroeder. Great summary of how faith and science aren't mutually exclusive, but quite the opposite. A wonderful example of how Special Relativity meshes with Genesis is just one of his eye openers.

Margie| 2.5.10 @ 5:05PM

I love things like this. I really know that science, true science matches up with the Bible, and indeed isn't it's opposite! The Bible is a wealth of information, and scientists would do well to search it first for the answers!
For example, it is written in the Bible that there are mountains under the sea.
That the stars in the skies are innumerable. So are the creatures that are in the sea. We are still discovering more and more stars, and more and more sea creatures.
And read Psalm 139 to see how God knew us, and while we were yet being formed in our Mother's wombs.

Magua| 2.5.10 @ 6:59PM

Thank you Jim for the suggested read. I might also offer Michael Behe's excellent work, "Darwin's Black Box", and it's argument regarding irreducible complexity.

Jim O'Brien| 2.6.10 @ 8:00AM

Yeah, I have read Behe's book, but I think "Signature in the Cell" is better. Just IMHO.

Richard Baker| 2.5.10 @ 8:44AM

GregA:
Thank you for the full quotation from John Adams. As always, those who despise any absolute determination of morality seek refuge in "edited scholarship." Good on you, as my Aussie friends would say.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.5.10 @ 8:44AM

Folks, I will say it again.

I believe in both.

I believe God created the heavens and the earth.

I believe that if He decided to spend a few billion years doing so...just for fun and the art crafting 0f it, well that puts all of us...all of us... in Job's position when God asked him......"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?"

See, God was not subject to OSHA regulations regarding the forty hour work week. (smile)

Hallowed be His name.

Sir| 2.5.10 @ 9:22AM

Amen and amen. Job 38 may very well be my second-favorite section of the whole Book... that is second only to the entire Revelation of the Christ.

Amen, I say.

toddes| 2.5.10 @ 11:28AM

While that is an admirable attitude to have, on what is it based?

Genesis clearly lays out the six days of Creation with GOD taking rest from his creation on the seventh. The six days of Creation are again affirmed when the initial commandments are given and the Sabbath day of rest is established (Exodus 20:8-11).

Consider the words of Paul in Romans 1:19-20 where he states that "His invisible attributes, namely His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world...." If mankind did not appear until millions of years later, how can the attributes of GOD have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world?

Finally, we have the words of Jesus Christ in Mark 10:6 where he states that "from the beginning of creation, 'GOD made them male and female.'" How are we to understand this if there are millions or billions of years between the beginning of creation and the time when man first appeared on the Earth?

If Jesus Christ, who according to John 1:1-3 was present in the beginning and through whom all things were made, can't get it right, who else could?

I hope you understand my reluctance in accepting the validity of your point of view.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.5.10 @ 12:02PM

Uh...Toddes...Since you enjoy what we called at Baylor University..."tortured exegesis" of scripture, may I remind you that Genesis 1: 18 and 19 says God created the Sun and the moon...only on the "fourth day".
heh
Please define scripturally the length of the first three days...if not sunlight and moon light defining them...duh...on a particular spot on the earth.

Again you are stupid when you use the "perceive" scripture. Many Bible scholars have come to suspect that Satan and his fallen angels were extant before the creation of the world. Surely they could "perceive".

Hmmm...male and female? My reading of Genesis leads me to believe that God only created ANY gendered species....duh...on the "fifth day".

Then you make a totally stupid jump to conclusion/sermon based upon false 1st and 2nd premises.
I do understand your "reluctance" to accept...but maybe I can help.
Go hunt up the scripture where is talks about a "thousand days as one day"...or where God made the sun stand still long enough for the Israelites to finish off a decisive battle.

What I am saying, sir, is that God did not ONLY create the heavens and the earth...HE created TIME as well.
To use another expression "God created time and space"...and from what our space cameras are showing...He is STILL creating...which is why I am pro-life. We can create babies...but only He can create a soul.
Hallowed be His Name.

Jim Wilson| 2.5.10 @ 12:51PM

In addition, it is offensive to the dignity of God to assume that He could possibly be limited to linear time as we know it. The age of the earth is utterly irrelevant to the existence or non-existence of God. Obviously He exists outside of time as we know it, else He would not be eternal. We cannot conceive of anything without a beginning and end, even though we can grasp at the idea that something has to have happened both before and after the beginning and end, and hence neither can actually exist. God is without beginning or end; I personally believe that linear time is an illusion created specifically for us so we can learn what God is trying to teach us.

Attempting to limit the age of the universe or earth to our perception of time is a waste of time. Since the most hardened Biblical literalist ignores what he chooses (for example, I have yet to lay my finger on the passage that instructs would-be pastors to get a divinity degree), instead of trying to hew exactly to some passages one should realize that even the Word of God has to be translated through the human beings who wrote it down. I am not convinced that the earth is 4 billion years old; but I am convinced that it's older than 6,000 years. This has no effect on my belief in the Bible and God, nor should it on anybody who believes in an Eternal, rather than a limited God.

Tim| 2.5.10 @ 2:28PM

"We cannot conceive of anything without a beginning and end,.."
Yes but reading some of the people who post here will give you a pretty good idea of unending argument.

Richard| 2.7.10 @ 3:03AM

Let me make it simple for you guys. The bible talks of 3 arch angels, Michael, Gabriel, And Lucifer. Each governed a third of the angels. Each had its own sphere. Each sphere was spiritual. No matter. No elements . Translucent, transparent. In order for you to understand the past you must know the future. When Lucifer ruled his sphere, he had creatures, all spiritual, and a third of the angels, all spiritual. It was when he fell that the earth as we know it today, became matter. All creatures became matter, no longer spiritual, then the sphere known as earth was covered, and surrounded by water. All creatures became placed in time and all died. Because they had been around for billions of years in the spiritual form, now are earthly and would have to die because of age. Nothing on this earth will last forever, including the earth as we know it. God said that when time is no more that all the elements thereof would be consumed by fire and there would be a new heaven and a new earth. Actually the new earth to us would be the same as it was before the fall of lucifer. All spiritual, no elements, no matter. The bible says God is the same, yesterday, today and forever. He does not change. The way things were before the fall will be that way again when time is no more. The only difference is the Souls/spirits that will occupy it. For those of you who make it will be on this earth for eternity although in a completely different form, all spiritual, the earth and us. We, having never seen God, chose to serve him while those that had seen him and knew his power elected to serve Lucifer instead, which failed miserably. How humiliating will this be to lucifer? How do I know this? Well God said that if we ask and don't give up that he would show us all things. I have all my life been confused over the 6000 year thing and dinosaurs being billions of years old. How could it be. Well one day God showed me this and it opened my eyes to many things. Lucifer, now called Satan, will also be cast to this earth and made to live in flesh and when it is all over the bible says that the kings of the earth will look at him and wonder with amazement and say " Is this the one that steered us from believing in God" Those who believed and lived the life of Christ will live in a city 1500 miles tall 1500 miles wide,where Jerusalem is today. It is even called the New Jerusalem. Those who were blind will go to the judgement and judged in the balance according to the deeds done in the body. Those souls will be placed on this spiritual earth outside the city and will be reigned over by Christ and his believers who live inside the city. The better the judgement the closer to the city you will be . Those who knew God and yet did not serve him will be cast into the dump. Everything that is natural has a spiritual counterpart. If you pay attention to what is going on on this earth and I mean everything you can understand God. Does not nature itself teach you God Said. How could it not if you were looking. The end of this dispensation is coming to a close. God said in the last days Men would serve the creature more than the creator. Also men would be lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God.If that alone is not evidence then look for more, there is plenty out there which I dont have the space to do it here. The sun and moon and stars will be no more and God/Jesus will live in that city and will be the light thereof. There is no darkness there. Everything again Spiritual, transparent, translucent. I hope I didnt bore you but take sometime out for God and Study him by what he has made including the natural man and I believe your eyes will be opened like never before.

toddes| 2.5.10 @ 2:06PM

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was dealing with a Baylor graduate. I'll just tuck my tail between my legs and defer to your wisdom.

Let me understand this correctly. If I take the Creation account as literal, I'm being stupid and applying "tortured exegesis". Yet, if you take 2 Peter 3:8 as literal, you are being faithful to the text. Can we have little context here?

2 Peter 3 addresses the doubts and apprehensions of some believers regarding the second coming, the last days.

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:8-9)

To try to turn this statement into a reference to the Creation is in the most literal sense "tortured exegesis". It is eisegesis. You are reading into the text something that is not there. Notice the phrase, is like. It indicates a metaphor is in use. Peter is not being literal, he is employing a simile or hyperbole but there is nothing to indicate that GOD is actually affected by time. As you have already stated, He created Time. This would mean that He is outside of Time so whether a day has passed on Earth or a 1000 years, it is the same to GOD.

As well, what does Joshua 10 have to do with it either? Joshua prayed for the Sun and Moon to stand still and GOD answered the prayer. However, you might note verse 14.

"There has been no day like it before or since, when the LORD heeded the voice of a man, for the LORD fought for Israel."

Hey, let's take it out of context. The verse states that there has never been a day like it before or since. So the reference you provided refutes your claim. The verse clearly indicates that there has never been a day that lasted longer than a normal 24-hour day before or since so the day being referenced in Genesis cannot refer to a time period longer than a normal day. The same word for 'DAY' is used in both places.

While your posts usually come across as rational and reasoned, it appears that my response has caused you some form of mental angst. For that I am sorry.

However, your response has only formented my resolve that I am correct in my assessment. In order to accomodate Evolutionary Theory one has to twist and coerce the Scriptures in order to make it fit.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.5.10 @ 2:34PM

Poor toddes.
We can have more fun here. heh
But then I will simply refer you to Paul talking about "seeing through a glass darkly".

You and I BOTH will probably be very surprised about what God has in store for us in eternity.

My choice here is not to prevent "the little chidren coming to Me."
How dare you prevent the yet unbornagain, coming to Jesus with your little quibbles.

Shame on you!
My email address is kbjudgeroybean06@gmail.com

You want to argue? or bring folks to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ?
I will shame you in eternity if that is your goal.

toddes| 2.5.10 @ 4:23PM

Really, your purpose is to shame me?

I appreciate your pointing to 1 Corinthians 13:10. Just a few verses before that Paul writes:

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs."

Where in your use of the invectives, stupid and duh, is this expressed? Where in your desire to shame me is this love to be found? Go back a little further to verses 1-3:

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,but have not love, I gain nothing."

You make claim that my understanding and any teaching resulting from that understanding will result in the yet "unborn again" being lost? On what do you base this? Have you received a revelation unknown to the rest of us? Has GOD provided you a means of showing your authority in this matter?

However, I agree with you. I will be surprised with what GOD has in store for me. My hope is that when I stand, or kneel, or fall flat on my face before the Father that Jesus will claim me as one of his own.

Thank the LORD, that I will be judged by the Father and not by you.

Mac| 2.6.10 @ 1:21PM

Time is an abstract that we use to order our memories. What is now is what is.
The movement of the sun and the moon does not regulate time. They are simply convenient means of measuring the passage of time. This method is sufficient for ordinary purposes. The precision of atomic clocks is not needed for daily life.

Ryan| 2.5.10 @ 12:56PM

Does believing in both evolution and Christianity affect the Gospel message?

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.5.10 @ 1:41PM

Jim,
Thank you for rounding out what I was trying to say.
Ryan,
Of course not.
Just last night, here in my home, I turned my face right then left then full center to the same question.
I asked "who is Kenneth?"
"uh well all three", he responded.
DUH!
The Father: full center
Right profile: Jesus Christ...one time one place.
Left profile: The Holy Spirit, (Comforter), all times all places.

.....hmmmmm sorta like different aspects of God in our world huh?
The "Gospel", (good news), is that "God sent His Only Son..." (St John 3: 16)

You know, Ryan, the thing a lot of folks just don't understand is that Jesus "layed His life down for his friends".
Nobody took His Life.
(I no longer call you sevants (of God), but "friends".

He could have called down ten thousand legions of angels on the way to the cross, and turned the earth into a crisp. Instead, He layed down His life for His friends.
...Maybe to usher in the Holy Spirit?

Heck I don't understand it all. I just kneel down and give thanks.

Patrick| 2.5.10 @ 7:38PM

Ah, I might just be reading this wrong, but you seem to be treading toward Modalism.

toddes| 2.5.10 @ 2:13PM

As you can tell by Ken's response, the answer is YES. Trying to accomodate Evolution into the Gospel distorts the whole of it.

According to Ken, when the Father said, "This is my only beloved Son in whom I am well pleased," He was doing nothing more than patting Himself on the back.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.5.10 @ 2:40PM

YOU are right, toddes.

Sorry...I was totally wrong.

YOU SIR are going to be alone in God's grace.
May I sweep the streets in YOUR heaven?

Al Adab| 2.5.10 @ 3:22PM

I'll stick with the guy who walked out of the tomb. It just might be that someone who could do that has something of value to say.

toddes| 2.5.10 @ 5:32PM

Amen.

Ryan| 2.5.10 @ 3:11PM

How so?

Does it mean that I am not a sinner? Does it mean that Christ is not saviour nor God?

toddes| 2.5.10 @ 5:25PM

If evolution is true and man is nothing more than the result of biological and environmental functions and change, how are we to treat Adam?

Paul connects Christ to Adam. It is through Adam that sin entered the world and it is through Christ that our sins can be forgiven.

Was Adam real or he is nothing more than an allegory? Paul in Romans 5 calls Adam "a type of the one who was to come." So if we treat Adam as allegory how can we treat Christ as real? How can one be of a type with an allegory?

Verse 14 states that:

"Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come."

How does an allegory sin? How does it die? How does it bear children?

Adam is treated as real by the Old Testament writers and by the New. Adam is directly connected with sin entering the world. If Adam did not exist how then can it be said that sin entered the world through him?

(For that matter, when Luke lists the geneaology of Joseph in Luke 3:23-38 he takes the genealogy back to Adam. Not David, not Moses, not Abraham but to Adam. )

How then do we handle Eve who is called the mother of all living?

In 1 Corintians 11 Paul states that "head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" and then links this relationship to the fact that "man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." He affirms the Creation story.

As I initially responded to Ken, Jesus and Paul make reference to the beginning of creation and man's relation to it. At what point do we get to say, this is true but this isn't?

Perhaps as Ken has implied, I am, duh, stupid. I try to read the text as though nothing else is required to understand it. If I had a copy of the Bible and nothing else, how would it be understood? (And yes, Ken, I am well aware that I am not reading the original words but a translation.)

According to Ken, this method is sure to condemn me and anyone else I may teach. Despite what Ken may believe, I have tried to place my trust in GOD and His Providence and I daily pray for understanding and discernment.

So, yes, IMO, evolution and the Gospel are incompatible. Evolution removes the reason for Christ's sacrifice, that is, for sin which the Biblical writers clearly and repeatedly state began with Adam.

Patrick| 2.5.10 @ 8:45PM

Actually, it is rather a scientific fact that all humans do trace their lineage to a single female. This was done by comparing mitochondrial DNA, which is only inherited from our mothers, and determining where and when certain mutations occurred. It is also true that the Y chromosome also traces itself to a single male progenitor. So yes, there was an Adam, and there was an Eve.

Of course, this is the sort of thing that the "Cult of Darwin" never bring up. They use Evolution Theory solely to attack Christianity, and loathe Intelligent Design Theories for daring to shrug off their greatest weapon in their arsenal of propaganda.

Just remember, for all their basking in the glory of Evolution, they still have to account for the Big Bang.

Mac| 2.6.10 @ 1:36PM

Some feminists claim that the relative sizes of the germ cells demonstrates that the female is the superior to the male.
But most of the size of the ovum is made up of protoplasm (analogous to the white of a fowl egg). The nuclei of both ovum (the largest human cell) and sperm (the smallest human cell) are roughly the same size. As if that meant anything.
Mankind is as dependent on the male as on the female. Neither can reproduce offspring without the other.
The female body cannot fully function without the male. Without sperm, produced by the male, the female reproductive organs cannot carry out their purpose.
The male body functions without the female. Sperms are produced and ejected whether a female participates or not, though without the participation of a female it's rather pointless.

Bohred| 2.5.10 @ 11:48AM

Ken, I agree. To confine the Glory of God to a fundamentalist's limited understanding of the Old Testament is to ignore the deep evidential connections of Scientific Theory for Evolution and an Old Earth. Phew!
Men were given minds to learn God's greatness, not to cry in the darkness.

Liberal Reader| 2.5.10 @ 9:00AM

The Catholic Church sees no conflict between evolution and Genesis.

In the US, this issue is purely political. It gives "conservatives" a tool to attack those institutions it sees as a threat: the science establishment, the press, and the universities and high schools.

The real question is this. Why do "conservatives" see learning and information as a threat?

Sir| 2.5.10 @ 9:25AM

L.R., if that's your perspective of "conservatives," then you really have no idea what a conservative is. Religion is how people believe they should live. Politics is how people agree to live among one another. So, if a conservative sees learning and information as threats (which we rarely do), then it's because some leftist has used either or both as a tool to keep him out of the political process.

Bob| 2.5.10 @ 10:19AM

Ever since the Moral Majority engaged in politics, religion and politics have not had a clear dividing line. Social "conservatives" would disagree that religion does not "inform" their politics. For example, there is a litmus test on abortion vs. choice which is purely a religious matter. Now if you were talking about "fiscal" conservatism as the definition, then I'd agree. However, over 60% of Republicans are social conservatives.

Regarding seeing learning and information as threats, that's exactly what non-intelligent design does. Clearly, one knows that you cannot scientifically prove a theory with a negative, i.e., it is too complex for man to have created it!

If you want to believe that mythical person in the sky created man as he exists today -- and in six days, no less -- then do it. However, it is not science and not a scientific proof.

toddes| 2.5.10 @ 11:42AM

Who made science and/or scientific proof the final word on the matter? Doesn't that seem to prove the point of the author that science has become a substitute religion?

Science is a man-made tool. One might be tempted to say that it is an idol that has taken the place of the one, true GOD.

It only has authority because we have given it authority. It is a means of understanding the universe around us but it in no way transcends the universe in which it is a part.

Simon Templar| 2.5.10 @ 12:10PM

Ever since the Moral Majority engaged in politics, religion and politics have not had a clear dividing line...
Another false premise from another historical revisionist with a concealed progressive left wing agenda. The truth is this country was founded by religious believers who valued religion and belief in a creator and saw no threat posed by people being motivated by spiritual and religious belief within the political and government arena. In fact they believed it made for good citizenship and a vital democracy. They also left room for those who did not believe as well and strongly felt that the state should not favor a particular belief system over another but allow and encourage all to participate in politics and government. Religion has every right to inform ones politics as well as ones lack of religion does. As far as science goes..it need not exclude personal religiuos belief on the part of a scientist or be required to embrace atheism. The scientific method is religious neutral and seeks only to determine the facts and repeatable results and construct a basis of knowledge of the physical world. Unfortunately it has been infected with the secular religion of atheism and left wing politics which has clung to its atheistic religious assumptions driving out all debate and scientific investigation that contradicts its atheism and perconcieved notions. Evolution is a theory, not a fact and a poor one at that..the more that is known through advances in technology ( electronic microscopes)..the more it falls on its face. A mythical person may or may not have created the world but neither did evolution.

Bob| 2.5.10 @ 1:29PM

The founders were theists, but they were careful to separate specific religions and politics. That does not mean that religion did not inform these people -- it did. But there was no large, ORGANIZED religious political activity until the Moral Majority came into existence. It is you that is revising history.

Simon Templar| 2.5.10 @ 3:04PM

No..it is you once again lying and misrepresnting. There are numerous example of organized religious groups and citizens throught the last 250 years including religious revival periods that had significant impact on government policy and political social development...too numerous to count. In fact, the progressives, during specific periods in this century coopted and utilized organized religious groups to futher it Social Gospel agenda. You will find that the readers of this site are well educated conservatives..perhaps your time would be better spent trolling RINO web sites and the MSM.

Simon Templar| 2.5.10 @ 3:34PM

No. The founders were not theist. You most likely do not even know what the term means. Most of the signers of the Declaration were christian ministers, farmers, politicians, etc. of various faiths that also included some deist, agnostics, etc. There are literaly thousands of letters written by our founding fathers to each other that contain thousands of references to their faiths and their beliefs about how how christian-judeo principles should be an integral part of developing this new nation...from its laws to its government structure. Did they want a theocracy? Of corse not, but they ALL saw including Jefferson and Franklin the importance of religion, churches, and faith in the public arena.
Organized relgions have sought to inluence public policy since the beginning of this country. Washington himself went to a jewish temple to address the concerns of jewish patriots and reassure them of a place in the public arena. The catholics have their own lobbyist and politcal action groups. Facts..hmm..so troubling for you lefties.

Roy| 2.5.10 @ 7:32PM

The idea that this problem arose when "the Moral Majority engaged in politics" is so idiotic that it is hard to believe somebody dumb enough to say it is able to talk at all.

The time when "religion" started to influence "politics" is when the first human considered how God wanted him to treat his fellow man.

ChuckD| 2.6.10 @ 2:47PM

"...believe that mythical person in the sky created man..."

And what do you believe?

The Universe created itself. Complex biological designs that are unfathomable by any scientist just appeared out of thin air.

I have been a scientist and an engineer for thirty years. The more I studied and worked in the field of science the more convinced I became that there is no science involved in the theory of evolution.

Evidence supporting Evolution is twisted and massaged to fit. Evidence that directly conflicts with evolution is discarded or ignored.

Evolution is all smoke and mirrors-or as we say in the field-"floobie dust.

I agree with you on one point. There is no proof one way or the other. If there were proof, proof that didn't violate the second law of thermodynamics, I'd believe it.

By the way, God is not a "mythical person in the sky". God is also unfathomable. We only know what we can know about him through revelation, either through experience or scripture, or both. Atheist claim Christians are stupid for believing in a "mythical person in the sky" when the truth is they are stupid for referring to God in such a simple minded manner. It shows their lack of understanding of the religion they despise.

That is the problem I see with most atheists-pride. They are angry that there are things that are unfathomable by man.

One immediate example comes to mind. The world we live in is basically three dimensional, length, width, and height. You could argue that time is a fourth dimension. Try to visualize more than four dimensions. You can't. No one can.

But we can mathematically calculate and predict phenomena in five, six, and even n dimensions. And who is to say they are not there?

Maybe that's what Paul meant when he said that "we see through a glass darkly."

cuban pete| 2.5.10 @ 9:36AM

L.R.
"Here's a good idea-have a point. It makes it so much more interesting for the listener."
Steve Martin to John Candy
Plains Trains & Automobiles
Ken,
Once again on the money.
Have a great weekend

Ryan| 2.5.10 @ 10:23AM

Nice strawman.

The answer, of course, is because we want to keep everyone stupid and ignorant so that they'll work for us for too little money and long hours and won't complain.

Honestly, is that REALLY your perception of the conservative mindset - that we think that all science is inherently evil and that we should simply take the word of the man in the pulpit?

Frankly, I see just as many drones on the side of the left who implicitly believe that they are owed something because of the victimhood status and that everything they need in life should simply be given to them.

Jeremiah| 2.5.10 @ 4:41PM

Uh Ryan...you might want to keep in mind that, Bob, the Toddler, et al were the people who were telling us two months ago that we didn't believe in global warming because of our aversion to science. No, we just don't like science tarted up by ideologues to be the politicized fraud so much of it has become.

I'm an historian. One of the ironies that has always fascinated me is the dark ages. The ignorant left today peddles the notion that it was superstitious priests that brought those benighted times into the world. To the contrary,primitive political leaders kept their people ignorant so as to maintain and consolidated mere political power. So what is the irony? Well, it was the Church which kept the lamp of learning burning during those dark times, through the preservation of great books (we would have none of the great Greek philosophers works were it not for the efforts of monks in the dark ages to preserve them), the formation of libraries and the modern university.

Once before when the forces of secular 'reason' thought themselves triumphant, the sole defender of reason and truth was also the sole defender of faith - the institutional Christian Church.

victor| 2.7.10 @ 4:36PM

Jeremiah:
"primitive political leaders kept their people ignorant so as to maintain and consolidated mere political power."

That would explain why the Catholic Church kept the Bible in Latin and not English.
Or why they persecuted men such as William Tyndale. He was arrested, jailed in the castle of Vilvoorde outside Brussels for over a year, tried for heresy and burned at the stake. He was strangled before his body was burnt.
He translated it from the Greek into English and was murdered by the Catholic Church.
His work made it possible for the great translations that followed, including the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva Bible of 1560, the Bishops' Bible of 1568, the Douay-Rheims Bible of 1582–1609, and the King James Version of 1611.
There is an excellent Greek translation by Jay P. Green, Sr.:
http://www.amazon.com/Interlin.....1878442821

Margie| 2.5.10 @ 7:11PM

The question really is~ why is it that Leftists continually obfuscate?

Margie| 2.5.10 @ 8:19PM

(My comment was directed toward Liberal Reader, but came out way down here).

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.7.10 @ 11:04AM

Margie,
I think obfuscation for them is a survival trait.

As one grows in to maturity, the certain KNOWLEDGE of one's end on this world forces them to "existential denial" of that very fact.
A "state of denial" was coined some years ago.
IE: we all play-pretend every day that passing is a long way off.

Margie| 2.7.10 @ 1:26PM

Hbr 2:15~.."and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage."
You're right. The Bible tells us that mankind fears death because we all know that because of our sin, we deserve Hell. It makes perfect sense. Why else would we fear death?

The first part of the above verse talks about how Christ had to die for our sins so we could be set free from sin and death~ "Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, He himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death He might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil.." Heb. 2:14.
Only because of Jesus' sacrifice can we be set free~
"Therefore He had to be made like His brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful High priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people." Heb. 2:17.
Thank God for Jesus, the High Priest, who chose to set me free from the fear of death, and its life long bondage. "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." Gal. 5:1.

Patrick| 2.5.10 @ 9:04PM

First, this is coming from a Catholic:

Yes, it is true that the Catholic Church does not demand that Genesis be taken word for word, literally. It is also true that the Church does not have a problem with the _mechanism_ of Evolution. Even so, the Church does require that certain principles are non-negotiable, particularly in the matter of the human soul. Likewise, the Church does not have a problem of literal belief in Genesis.

However, the Catholic Church does not speak for a majority of Americans, or even Christian Americans. The United States is still a largely Protestant nation, and will likely continue to be so for some time. As such, your premise is flawed.

As for your puerile attempt at a straw man attack, I can only dismiss it out of hand.

Mac| 2.6.10 @ 1:43PM

The Catholic Church's endorsement of theistic evolution is not presented as an infallible dogma but only as the informed opinion of a pope. If a later pope was informed correctly, the Church likely would correct its position.
Evolution (spontaneous generation) is totally incompatible with the first chapter of Genesis. If the account of the miraculous generation of he universe and everything in it is essentially complete (no other miracles, like keeping plant life going for thousands, millions, billions of years until the rest of the system was started), the "gap" or "day-age" theories (parts of theistic evolution) are illogical.

ChuckD| 2.6.10 @ 2:50PM

Well said, Mac. Thank you.

old white guy| 2.7.10 @ 10:17AM

liberal reader i think alot of conservatives see sin as a threat. sin being the transgression of the law and the law being the ten commandents.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.5.10 @ 9:24AM

Lib R
I refer you to my comment on the Homnick column here today. heh.
You are being stupid. (as in knowing better but saying it anyway.)
I could give you a list a mile long of brilliant "conservatives" at the cutting edge of learning and scientific exploration, but you would be too stupid to acknowledge it.

Tim| 2.5.10 @ 11:59AM

Better make that list in kilometers Ken.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.5.10 @ 12:09PM

Tim, again, thank you for the belly laughs along the way.
Please see the emerging conversation above. Fascinating.
I await your wit, always.

MikeBee| 2.5.10 @ 9:35AM

Those who turn to Science as their religion, and who joyfully declare that there must be no God, are condemning themselves to only a small part of life. They become fully committed to the physical life, to the natural realm. But there is far too much evidence that the natural realm is ONLY one dimension of life to permit oneself to be chained only to this dimension. Just a small example: more modern sports (and other type) coaches regularly draw on another dimension of life when they teach their athletes to "visualize" success before performing a physical feat. Engaging one's spirit/soul in a physical activity always tends to bring more success in the physical activity performed, as the physical order is entirely determined/created by the spiritual. Too much evidence exists that one's spirit/soul is far more powerful than anything physical.

Additionally, those who believe that Science is their religion are dependent/reliant entirely upon the scientific method, which forms the root of all science. Observation of results from continuous testing is the basis of the scientific method. However, many continue to ignore the evidence of the spiritual dimension of reality, even when faced with human observation of it. There are many folks who have died, but have been revived to return to live again in their bodies. Many of these folks have written books of their experiences while existing only in their spirit/souls. Their experiences concur on many things in the spiritual realm. Their written works form a body of evidence of the existence of this other dimension of life; portions of some stories can be found on www.near-death.com. There is no good reason to ignore this scientific evidence. If one truly has an open mind, one must admit the validity of all of life's dimensions, not just of the natural realm.

Bob| 2.5.10 @ 1:33PM

You make the fundamental assumption that people must have some form of religion. They don't. Science is not a substitute for religion. It is a group of theories proven by data to understand the world around us. No more, no less.

If you want to believe in some mythical creature in the sky, and it makes you feel better, go for it. If you want to utilize religion to explain emotion or to explain things beyond your comprehension, go for it. I don't pray to science. Science is nothing more than a tool -- just like a hammer or a drill.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.5.10 @ 1:59PM

Heh, Bob,
If a man could be more stupid, I cannot imagine it.
I literally cannot even imagine it.

In a very few years.....you and I both will have "passed"...or in the vernacular..."dead".

You sir, believe only in you. Bye bye...you are dogfood in a few years....and no one will remember just how stupid your comments here truly are.

On the other hand, I know that eternal life is mine through simply the Grace of God. He gave us a choice. Deny Him and die, or embrace Him and live forever.
So far, you have been stupid enough to deny God. I pray now.............................................................................................................................................................................
That the Holy Spirit whispers to you one more time.
(Lord, please whisper one more time to this sad little man.)

Bob| 2.5.10 @ 2:18PM

Ken, you need to convert to Islam so you have more virgins after you go....

Seriously, I live on through my progeny. I gave them birth, I gave them an education, I gave them a sense of morality, and I gave them the will to think for themselves. Most of them are religious and are Christians. They know I'm an atheist. If that is what makes them happy, then I'm happy for them.

Again, if you want to believe in mythical creatures, that is your prerogative. None of them are as blind to religion as you and they don't try and convince others to change.

By the way, I don't deny "God" -- he/she/it doesn't exist. You can't deny something that isn't there.

Tim| 2.5.10 @ 2:22PM

"Seriously, I live on through my progeny. I gave them birth, ..."

And I always thought Bob was a dude.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.5.10 @ 2:55PM

Sad little man,

The Holy Spirit of God has saved me from using a gift of a too high IQ to forget my fellows.

...heh... on the other hand, you guys break my heart.
DIE and go to hell. I'm sorry. I trulululu sorry.

Bob| 2.5.10 @ 3:53PM

I doubt if you have an IQ in the 3-digit range given the lack of content and logic in your posts. Remember, it is a little man without depth who tells someone to go to hell.

Please go see a shrink before it is too late.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.5.10 @ 4:24PM

good joke, Bob.

.............become dogfood when you die.

MikeBee| 2.5.10 @ 5:24PM

Bob,
Seriously, check out www.near-death.com. On the upper left of the front page, there are about 20 stories, in the words of those who died and were brought back, of what they witnessed while they were gone from their bodies. One of these stories is written by an athiest. He had a great time while he was away from his body, from listening to him. He also acknowledged the existence of what Christians call God; he called God something like the great force, or something. But he was very aware of God's presence, and that this force was infinitely more powerful than he was, and he had a great deal of respect for this force. Simply scientific evidence. Good scientists only ignore scientific evidence to their own peril.

Troll Watch| 2.5.10 @ 5:25PM

Whether Bob writes about his military "experience" or his "family" , it sounds phony. I loved the credit taking for his progeny. I loved calling your children progeny. I loved a man saying he gave them birth. I love all the happy talk about religion followed by non-denier denier talk. I loved the liberal he/she/it politically correct phrasing even in a denial. I believe Rahm had this gay pegged. Make that guy.

MikeBee| 2.5.10 @ 6:38PM

Bob,
Wow! What a leap! No, the fundamental basis is that, as human beings, we each carry some founding basis for the beliefs that we carry. Those who believe in a God of some sort carry with them a set of beliefs, many of which have basis in fact. Those who believe in something else ascribe to those beliefs, also, some of which carry a basis in fact. Living, thinking beings cannot help but believe in many things; it's part of our cognitive processes, and evidence of the fact that we are more than one-dimensional creatures: we are not simply bodies. We are spirit and soul, as well.

You choose to use science and the scientific method as the foundation for what you believe. I'm willing to bet, though, that you do not embrace all science, because of your beliefs. Faith and belief are a fundamental part of your thinking and thought processes, as they are for everyone else.

There is too much evidence of the existence of your spirit/soul NOT to believe that you have one. There is too much evidence of the existence of God NOT to acknowledge God's existence. Keep following science; you'll get there eventually.

Nick| 2.6.10 @ 1:23AM

MikeBee,

Don't waste you time on 3/5 Bob.

He's not sure of the scientific fact of when biological human life begins because he doesn't know when "ensoulment" happens. This is what qualifies as intellectual thought for 3/5 Bob.

He also thought (until last June) that blacks had 3/5 of a vote under the U.S. Constitution, as originally written.

He is not worth your time.

Mac| 2.6.10 @ 1:47PM

If you really believe this, why do you care to try to convert others to your belief? What is your motivation? What's in it for you? Why do you waste good eating, drinking and merrymaking time evangelizing believers in supernatural creation?

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.7.10 @ 12:32PM

Mac,
Thank you for that specific question.

Answer: I would like everyone I "meet" to find the joy in living that I have found in my relationship with Jesus Christ.
That simple

TURK| 2.5.10 @ 9:54AM

Our original writer seems quiet as the dead with the exposure of their attempt to trash Adams with the usual leftist/athiest lame attempt to fool the rest of us. One would think that they would be hiding under their beds now that they have been exposed for the 'catcher in the rye' brats that they really are. Let's ask lr the following: Where was the "learning and information" in first writers lame attempt to mislead?
When boy clinton got caught being what he is, the lefts answer was to trash Thomas Jefferson. THATS the brand of "learning and information" that emanates from the left! But alas; their tripe aint working anymore!

Kelly Staples| 2.5.10 @ 6:38PM

Why do you assume that anyone who challanges your fairy tales and superstitions is of the left? How is repeating Mr. Jefferson's own words "trashing him"? Resolve to evolve. . . if you dare.

jay| 2.5.10 @ 9:56PM

Resolving or daring or any other act of free will is not consistent with Darwinism. So please stop imposing your fantasies and superstitions on Darwin's works. Even responding to this post would be a religious act on your part. So just "be". Like fungus.

Or better, just admit you are dogmatic and dismount your high horse. You are not "evolved" over anyone.

victor| 2.7.10 @ 5:00PM

jay:
"So just "be". Like fungus."

Are you saying that Kelly is the "fungus-amungus"?

Or that Kelly will be the humus from which mighty mushrooms will grow?

Bilwick| 2.5.10 @ 10:40AM

Christianity and "liberalism" . . . two religions, one theistic and the other secular; both based on faith and both pushing dogma.

In the words of Lincoln (as I recall(, "Go it, tiger! Go it, bear!" Just let me get some popcorn and a beer first, so I can enjoy the show.

Tim| 2.5.10 @ 10:41AM

God made the world in seven days: the paperwork took four billion years.

Al Adab| 2.5.10 @ 3:24PM

No, little paperwork required as that was before EPA, OSHA, Planning and Zoning, design review, etc.

Patrick| 2.5.10 @ 8:23PM

Ah, I think he was talking about the math. I suspect there is a great deal of it considering that every particle in the universe is doing "something" and is "somewhere" at every Planck time, (5.39124(27)x10^-44 seconds).

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.5.10 @ 12:10PM

Tim,
see above and above. Thanks again.

Pat| 2.5.10 @ 12:43PM

Decades from now, Hollywood will make a movie about former President Clinton - Bill and the young virgin Monica will share a pure, platonic love, Hillary will be written out of the script through some writer's gimmick, the director will focus on Bill explaining his leadership philosophy to Monica while she darns his socks and, in a tragic ending, Clinton will die gloriously while personally rescuing downed Navy pilots during the Bosnian War, after which Monica will be acclaimed President and then lead our nation on to peace and prosperity.

If you don't recognize anything historically accurate within this plot line but don't really object since you're convinced Bill Clinton was a great president, then you'll probably love "Creation" - there's little historical accuracy here as well.

Darwin's magnum opus was delayed because he hadn't worked out all his ideas but heard around 1858 that another scientist had also formulated the same ideas regarding evolution as he himself had and subsequently rushed his book into print to beat out a rival and take all the credit - bet you can't name the other scientist with the same idea - isn't historical indoctrination fun?

And so much for the idea that changed the world, imagine Darwin writing in his manuscript furiously because someone else had the very same "idea which changed the world" - and even blessed with a fortunate historical accident by crossing the finish line first, Darwin got most of it wrong. For instance, the great Charles believed that you inherited physical characteristics from your parents, but characteristics they had consciously developed during their journey to adulthood - if your father was heavily muscled through manual labor, you would inherit that musculature, if your mom was an accomplished ballerina, you would inherit her physical grace.

But this movie isn't about historical accuracy, it's about what we've been carefully taught to believe. As Americans, we've reached the pitiful stage where we don't want to hear the story of a man, we want to hear only the legend.

axbucxdu| 2.5.10 @ 1:04PM

Wallace?

Just another example for, of Stephen Brush's thesis "Should the History of Science be Rated-X?"

Pat| 2.5.10 @ 1:46PM

Congrats - you know your history, Alfred Wallace with supporting credit to Thomas Malthus.

Nate| 2.5.10 @ 2:44PM

Hey Pat
I didn't know that Darwin believed in the heritability of acquired traits--that sounds more like previous (Lamarckian) versions of evolutionary theory. Can you tell me where Darwin talks about this?

I personally find it hard to fault Darwin for being wrong (which he surely was) about some of the finer points of heritability--he didn't know about genetics.

RE Wallace: his theory of natural selection was similar to Darwin's but, by his own admission, much less complete/robust. Among biologists, A.R. Wallace is well known, but yeah, outside of science he's a "nobody. " The history of science (like regular history) is written by the winners, so Darwin gets the lion's share of the credit. The discovery of DNA structure has a similar tale. Oh well...

Pat| 2.5.10 @ 3:50PM

Suggest you read Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, there were 5 or 6 separate editions spanning 15 or 20 years until his death, he changed his material around and added additional ideas with each subsequent edition.

Actually, Darwin didn't get all that much correct initially, his thoughts were fleshed out subsequent to his death by other scientists using recent discoveries and then going back and giving Darwin credit based on their interpretation of what he probably meant.

Darwin was stubborn in his viewpoints and rigidly adhered to his ideas, even Huxley suggested he bend a little, turned out Huxley, the social reformer and political activist, knew more about evolution than Darwin in one major area, although Huxley's ideas weren't properly fleshed out until well after his death by more recent scientitsts - see Punctuated Equilibrium for example.

Brian B| 2.5.10 @ 12:49PM

--In the US, this issue is purely political.--

Dawkins and Hitchens are from Britain.

--It gives "conservatives" a tool to attack those institutions it sees as a threat: the science establishment, the press, and the universities and high schools.--

Since it [evolution] is used even more so by the left as a means to attack those institutions it sees as a threat, the real questions is not the one you pose --Why do "conservatives" see learning and information as a threat?-- but rather why is the left so dishonest and/or willfully blind and/or unselfaware and/or insurmountably stupid?

mike| 2.5.10 @ 1:21PM

Abortion is not just religious it is political as well, the constitution is silent on the
matter and that's what the supreme court should have said. Leave it to the states.

JohnD| 2.5.10 @ 2:07PM

If the Statists, Euthanists, and Tyrants can just convince us that humans are not created in God's image, then they can slaughter us like cattle at their whim, without remorse or guilt.

So they say things like, "humans evolved from monkeys," "animals have rights too," or "look, dolphins are just as smart, nay, smarter, than humans. . ."

This is to erase all Christian morality with regard to humanity and mankind, which will pave the way for guilt-free genocide, eugenics, euthenasia, abortion (first step), and culling the population of "undesirables. "

Beware, my friends. . .

Humans have reason, and do not act solely on instinct like other animals. A hungry dog will eat food presented to him; a hungry human may refuse a feast laid before him by the devil. Humans have the free will to do good, or do evil, animals do not. It is because we are created in Gods image, and animals are not.

Nate| 2.5.10 @ 2:55PM

Hey JohnD,
Important distinction--evolutionary theory does not claim that humans evolved from monkeys. It is more accurate to say humans and monkeys share a common ancestor.
Take care,
Nate

ChuckD| 2.6.10 @ 2:52PM

What the hell is the difference?

Margie| 2.5.10 @ 5:51PM

I agree. I agree with God when He said that He created Man in His image, male and female He created them. Gen. 1:27.

MikeBee| 2.5.10 @ 9:42PM

Margie,
BINGO!!!!! Wow! You had your Wheaties today! Excellent comment...................

Marc Jeric| 2.5.10 @ 3:40PM

Let me state, to start with, that I am sort of an agnostic/atheist in spite of my catholic upbringing. However, the theory of evolution stas that spontaneous mutations happen by chance; then those mutations which are superior survive and those that are inferion perish. In other words a specie mutation survived because it was superior. This can be stated as well as follows: a given mutation was superior because it survived. An excellent example of what Aristotle defined as circular reasoning and therefore false.

Don| 2.5.10 @ 3:52PM

Precisely. That which survives survives.
It is the Left with their Gaia worship racism that defines brown people living and dying at the mercy of the elements without technology as, "being in harmony with their environment".

axbucxdu| 2.15.10 @ 1:40PM

Gentlemen:

A tautology is never false(and more importantly, in an empirical sense it can't be falsified): the problem of course is that it's trivially true and informs nothing.

You may be interested in the following new publication:

http://us.macmillan.com/whatdarwingotwrong

Philosopher Jerry Fodor focuses on the logical tautology of natural selection, while physicist/cognitive scientist Piattelli-Palmarini brings some principles of mathematical system theory to bear on the subject of species development.

Using a mathematical approach in analyzing this subject to determine exactly where, if at all, natural selection applies is long overdue.

Both are also avowed atheists, so that fact should add some spectacle to the fireworks that will surely follow this book's publication...i'm firing up my op-corn maker...

Don| 2.5.10 @ 3:48PM

I have oft wondered at the Ad Hominem attack toward Darwin, withheld from say, Galileo or Luther.
It is almost leftist in its tone, to attach a scientific consensus to an individual.
Really there is no conflict between Science and Religion save when someone sees it as a threat to power or when Religionists use it as an attempt to gain more power.
Most of the sick and and repulsive ideas attributed to Darwinism were already in place in Europe and simply affixed to it as a validation.
For example the Strong's right to prey on the Weak, etc.

Bill| 2.5.10 @ 4:50PM

The majority of people here would be "enlightened" if they were to take courses in biology, anthropology and sociology. I guess if you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, you're already starting with a disadvantage.

Simon Templar| 2.5.10 @ 5:22PM

I hate to break you liberal slanderous fantasy bubble but many of us have taken courses in these subjects. In fact I have 6 college degrees and one is in sociology. But you know us rednick conservatives down on the farm here just can not stop clinging to our guns and god...By the way anthropology was the minor. Whether or nor the earth is 6 hours old or 6 trillion does not matter to this discussion. What is passed off in anthropology and sociology classes is largely a load of post modern and socialist propaganda not science. As conservatives, we wish these fields of study would return to science and religious neutrality and be depoliticized...that is our desire and our argument.

Nick| 2.5.10 @ 8:11PM

Bill?

Is this the same pervert lover, who vulgarly discriminates against polygamists and necrophiliacs, I was arguing with the other day?

Where did you go, Willy?

Pingback| 2.6.10 @ 1:07AM

Channeling Religious Impulses - Telic Thoughts links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…climate evangelism. I am all for climate science but not for climate evangelism. Climate evangelism. How apropos. Evangelism has a religious ring to it. That would come as no surprise to James Bowman, author of Creation. Judeo-Christian scriptures contain an story of global catastrophe. Of course we are much too sophisticated for ancient views of good and evil and floods. Now we speak of the size of your environmental footprint…

Yosemeti Sam| 2.6.10 @ 1:33AM

GOD - is GOD.

Darwin is - Darwin.

FAITH - is key. In ONE or the other.

The other says - there's more than meets the eye.

The ONE declares - I AM the EYE!

Yo - The ONE has the better argument!

Rich Rostrom| 2.6.10 @ 2:58AM

" Charles Darwin is its Christ figure..."

Say what? That Darwin's ideas were controversial is no secret, and he came in for some personal criticism. But I have never heard anyone describe Darwin as a martyr. He was independently wealthy, and lived in comfort, aside from bouts of ill health. He had no trouble in getting his books published, and was given a state funeral and burial in Westminster Abbey.

I am a devout conservative... but I find it embarrassing when seemingly rational people go all screwy when thinking about the scope of geological history and the development of life.

Mike| 2.6.10 @ 12:28PM

I am still unsure how these ideas MUST be mutually exclusive. Man may just not ne learned enough yet to completely understand. And remember:

For the believer no proof is needed, for the unbeliever not proof is accepted.

Mike Johnston
SFC USA (RET)

QuietPro| 2.6.10 @ 2:09PM

Hello, all. I've noticed this lively debate; and can't help but comment on it. I consider myself quite conservative in most respects; but have noticed how so many other conservatives are so quick to skewer evolution; and treat the word 'science' as filthy. And by the way, comparing the belief in evolution as a political branch of the enviornmental movement is, to put it gently, false and foolish.

I invite you ladies and gentlemen to step into my world for a moment: Welcome to lovely Iraq; where religion is involved in most aspects of life. Religion is also a chief underlying cause for much of the needless death and violence that has been occuring here in the past several centuries. Funny, I didn't notice any prominent scientists or monkeys who were responsible for the bombs, explosions, murder and all-around misery here. I do know that a great deal of "Clerics", "Holy Men", and "Martyrs" were, though.

As for for Christians, you don't exactly have a clean slate, do you? Does the Spanish Inquisition come to mind, anyone?

Atheists and foxholes? I'll bet this atheist did more with his rifle to protect "The Faithful" than any two crossed pieces of wood did. Give me a break......

Bottom line: I've noticed how many people of faith rush to defend their religion from the evil threat of "Logic" and "Science". You know guys; those two pesky little things that helped put us on the moon, invented cures for diseases, gave us all a standard of living that we've never had before thanks to technology.....little things like that. MAN did this; NOT some "GOD."

As for religion; what has it truly given us? Fear, Violence, Fanaticism, and MURDER. I know what I've seen with my own two eyes over here. So much of it done in the name of "Allah" (Which merely means "God" in Arabic, nothing more.) MAN did this IN THE NAME of GOD. Human beings have butchered each other for centuries in the name of a Cross, a Crescent Moon, or a Six-Pointed Star. Is there any among you faithful that can look me in the eye and dispute these facts?

Simon Templar| 2.8.10 @ 11:11AM

As for religion; what has it truly given us? Fear, Violence, Fanaticism, and MURDER..
Yeah, I can look you in your left wing revisionist lying eye! Atheistic Socialism has murdered more people in the last century of fascistic socialist wars then all killed and suppressed in the last two thousand years by any fanatical religious sect.. You use the spanish inquisition as an example of christian murder and actually know nothing of the real history of this event...let alone ignore the tremendous contribution of christianity in fostering human rights and the very creation of this nation on its principles. Most of the social movements of the last 3 centuries were inspired and directed by christian faith...from the american revolution to the civil war to the civil rights movements...facts..please spare us the typical left wing tripe and false piety. You do not give a rat a$$ about facts, history, truth, or anything else.

Margie| 2.6.10 @ 2:38PM

Yes. I will. Plain and simple, people who commit murder in the name of god are liars, and they don't worship God. They create their own god. A false one, in order to try and justify their behavior. Mankind has been doing that since the fall of Adam, and will continue to do so until Jesus comes back to save those who are eagerly awaiting for Him.
So that's number one. Number two is that you have to decide what you want to do with those FACTS. You need to separate truth from lies in your own mind and then you can get somewhere. It's always easier to keep up the fantasy that oh well, it's all bad.. there's no hope. God must be false because look at how false people are! But like the Scripture says~ "By no means! Let God be true though every man be false, as it is written, "That thou mayest be justified in thy words, and prevail when thou art judged." Rom. 3:4.
Once you accept the fact that God is not their God you can move on to the truth about Him. Which is in the Bible. In fact, God can do no evil. He is Light, Truth, Omnipotent, Love, Everlasting Father, Creator, Merciful, Shepherd, Wonderful Counselor.
He can do no wrong. It isn't in His nature, and He cannot deny Himself.
He can be trusted, therefore, by all who venture to put their trust in Him. He will never fail you. Though we are faithless, He will remain faithful. He has to me. I would advise you to give Him a fair trial.
Let me ask you, do you have a Bible?

QuietPro| 2.6.10 @ 4:45PM

@Margie-

Do I have a Bible? Yes, I do. Does that suprise you? :) It's a great book; good stories to read. Especially in Genesis. BUT, please note that I don't need the Bible to tell me murder is wrong, theft is wrong, etc.....
At any rate, thanks for your reply to my post. To answer you: I have already given him a fair trial. A few, to be exact. In Bosnia, I saw no mercy given to Muslims, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholic Christians alike. AND of course, over here in Iraq, for the fourth time. I've given him more than enough chance. My opinion did not develop from birth; it took years of experiences here to come to this conclusion.

And I never said anywhere in my post "It's all bad, so there is no hope."

"Allah" in Arabic means "God." Many Christians dislike hearing that and don't agree with it, but it was not me that created the language. "Allah" is not a name, it's a word for a deity like God is. Two faiths worshipping the same deity. Sorry, but that indeed is a FACT.

Margie| 2.6.10 @ 6:04PM

You've already made up your mind to reject God. In fact you are calling Him a liar. You have not given Him a fair trial. You have judged Him a murderer. You obviously don't need Him because you are too good for Him.
"For God so loved the world that He gave his only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than Light, because their deeds were evil." Jn. 3:16-20.

QuietPro| 2.6.10 @ 6:50PM

Funny, I didn't call anyone a liar. I didn't say I was better than anyone. I didn't say I was too good for anyone.

And I find your judgements and condemnations on me to be rather laughable, in fact. I daresay, it is the face of fanatacism that we are fighting against here in the Middle East, and you seem to wear it's mantle quite well.

Thanks for helping to prove my point. It seems further discussion is obviously pointless.......

Nick| 2.6.10 @ 4:48PM

Moslems worship a false god.

Christians and Jews worship the One, True God.

Those are the facts.

GregA| 2.6.10 @ 7:05PM

Quietpro,
I apologize that my schedule does not permit me to answer your post completely at this time. Margie has so gracefully shared with you the Good News. It is not two pieces of wood in a cross shape that provides salvation; it is by God’s grace and Jesus’ self-sacrifice for all humanity. Others will pitch in. Of that I am sure

I infer that you are an active member of the US military. If that is the case, I send to you my profound respect and thanks. I am unable to express to you my gratitude. It is my prayer that you remain safe and that this country, from the alleged Commander-in-Chief on down (or up), properly commend you for your works and sacrifices.

However, your posting prompts me to address several specious arguments that you have presented. I would suggest that you begin to think about things before you write them or say them. You set out to trounce religion, yet you, with blind faith, quite illogically proselytize yours: that being secular humanism. You tout the achievements of man, yet ignore, no wait, deny that scientists are responsible for murder. How about atomic weapons or abortion? The denial of evolution by a Christian is not a denial of “hard” science; it is a denial of a scenario.

Regarding violence, lest I remind you of Communist Russia, Nazi Germany, China, Cambodia, Korea, Saddam Hussein (secular murder, not religious) and so on… I do not deny that atrocities have not been committed in the name of God or Allah or another religion, but I do believe that the “enlightened” humanist is no less capable of evil than any other human. How about the French Revolution? The sinful nature is within us all.

“We can only conclude that there is some violent impulse so deeply rooted in the human heart that it expresses itself regardless of what the beliefs of a particular society might be
--- whether socialist or capitalist, whether religious or irreligious, whether individualistic or hierarchical.” Timothy Keller, The Reason for God, (Dutton, 2008)

I would highly recommend the above book to you. You will be in my prayers.

“The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you” Romans 16:20b

Greg

GregA| 2.6.10 @ 7:27PM

Sorry,I hit submit before I was done. The paragraph above the quotation is a paraphrase from The Reason for God by Timothy Keller.

QuietPro| 2.6.10 @ 8:22PM

@ GregA-

Thank you for your post. There are several valid points to your counter-agument that I will agree with. But first, allow me to clarify: I am not a member of the armed forces anymore, I am a Security Contractor. (For admitting this, I am quite sure some liberal-minded posters will promptly lambaste me for being a warmonger. :) ) That said, you call me a "Humanist". I wasn't quite sure of that definition; considering I haven't heard of it before your post. I take it you think I believe in the inherent goodwill/superiority of man and his technology? Oh no sir; man is indeed a fine animal but a deeply flawed one at that. In that I will readily agree that for all of man's potential, he has a savage side to him that often gets the better of us all.

I will also agree that the Communist and Facist regimes that you spoke of have enough blood on their hands to fill an Ocean. Furthermore, please note that nowhere in my posts did I say that Darwin was infallible, or that his Theory was THE only and absolute truth.

I merely resent that fact that in Mr. Bowman states that science is a religion (It is not), that it's linked arm-in-arm with enviornmentalism (It is not) and that Darwin replaces Jesus Christ as some sort of "Mesiah" (He certainly does not.) I also resent the Christian tendancy to pronounce ANY view outside of Creation as a "Sin", as if I'm the less for not sharing that view, and to be condemed for daring to question otherwise.

That is why I made such comparisons involving religion and murder/violence/intolerance; for attitudes like that breed it. Margie's willingness to quote Scriptures condemning me to Hell seem to prove my point of intolerance.

Roy| 2.7.10 @ 1:24AM

Well, if you don't treat science as your religion, great! Lots of people do. That's who he was talking about.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.7.10 @ 12:44PM

Quiet Pro,
Margie would not consign you to hell. Quite the contrary. I know for a fact she has earnestly prayed for your eternal soul.

She did quote the scriptures "condemning you to hell". She was merely trying to help you see the warning sign: "Bridge Out Ahead".

See, sir you perfectly defined "Sin" capital S singular: Your denial of God...being God, the creator and sustainer of the universe.

Please, open your heart and live.

David D| 2.7.10 @ 5:28PM

People that believe in Evolution are quick to point out the flaws in the Bible's creation, but are totally blind to the flaws in Evolution. Even the most primative single cell organism is far more complex than even the most sophisticated computer. It relies and multiple systems that have to work together for the cell to even survive. You take away one of those systems and the cell dies. The odds of a cell with all the parts put in place randomly occuring, even over billions of years is nil.

Let's assume that by some chance it actually occurred randomly, why would there be any other organisms on earth than simple bacteria? Bacteria (you could throw algea and fungi in there t00) are by far the most successful organisms on this planet. A person is made up of 1.2 trillion cells, but living in and on the average person are 1.4 trillion bacteria cells. So why would bacteria evolve into something less likely to survive? Darwin's survival of the fittest would seem favor single cell organisms over anything else. Bacteria can reproduce far faster than any multi-cell organism and can survive in far worse conditions. Why would bacteria evolve into something less efficient? With all the resources needed for a complex organism to grow and survive long enough to reproduce, Bacteria can reproduce countless billions of times.

There are countless other arguments on the flaws of evolution, that is just one that there is no real answer for.

Truth Monger| 2.7.10 @ 6:16PM

The enormous response to this article is proof enough that we may be sucking at the marrow of America's seletons in the closet. Foregoing the debates of our beloved country as a "Christian Nation" and the numerous other debates that lead us to the age-old quarrel of God or Evolution; we can settle in this discussion at the present. First, I am not sure what the world's religions offer anyone at the present. Second, I am not sure when we lost sight of the importance of seperating Church and State. The forefather's of this nation left jolly old England to get away from a disappearing middle class and the use of Religion for the sake of prosecution and money grubbing. I am not a religion-hater. I do see an overwhelming need for ethics in this county/world. The world's religions have failed in the effort of advancing REAL ethics. When will we see the usefullness in doing the right thing for the sake of each other over the desire to advance an ideology handed down to us that may or may not need an upgrade to current times? Finally, I see such value in the core beliefs of the conservative party. My right to work hard and keep the fruits of my labor, small government, and the use of capitalism and democracy... IN FAITH.. to control the nation's wealth as the men and women of America do what is right for themselves and each other. I fear we (the conservatives) are on the brink of losing any chance to advance these core values as we continue to cling to the old world beliefs and waste resources on non-political fairy tales. Darwin was a scientist, and in all truthfullness he was likely an accurate one. Disputing his findings with a book of religion is even more grossly outmatched than David and Goliath. If David D is going to use probability to disprove a single cell's existence then let us please apply the laws of probability to God's existence as well. My point being that as important a discussion I believe this is, it needs to disacossciate itself from the political world and enjoy a development in the realms of science and religion.... NIETHER of which have a place in our nation's capital. My tax money doesn't contribute to the resolution of these topics, my donations do.

Nick| 2.7.10 @ 8:47PM

" Second, I am not sure when we lost sight of the importance of seperating Church and State."

Perhaps you could explain when we ever had separation of Church and state?

Even the ultra-liberal FDR, on the evening of the D-Day invasion, led the nation in prayer on radio.

If you had ever studied American history, you would know that the several States could, and did, have established religions for decades after the Constitution was ratified.

Also, you would have no conception of "ethics", as we know them, if it had not been for Christianity.

JimE| 2.7.10 @ 9:01PM

What about the thetans and xenu, they have nuclear weapons.

Ken Roberts| 2.7.10 @ 10:12PM

Kelly Staples: that ius a false statement jefferson never said that he was not a religious man but he saw thew benefit of having the bible teacch us all.,

Ken Roberts| 2.7.10 @ 10:15PM

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com.....ferson.htm

Go here it will clear up many things

Curtis| 2.8.10 @ 12:56AM

So a guy has an idea, and says "Hey, I think I'll write this down, maybe talk to some folks about it. It sounds like a nifty idea to me."

He tells some people, and they agree. Everyone else looks at this guy and his freinds, and say "What a bunch of loons." The majority of people laugh and giggle at the silly believers. Some might even get quite nasty with the little bunch of weirdos.

The man dies, and his friends keep talking about him anyways. Eventually enough people believe his idea, and it gains a modicum of respect.

Later on, there's a confrontation, where in the people who believe, heap scorn and abuse on the nonbelievers. Battle lines are drawn, and all type kinds of ugliness breaks out.

Darwin, Muhammad, what ever you want to call the original wise man who came up the nifty idea, it always repeats in pretty much the same fashion. We know what the Christian dark ages were like, We're hoping the Muslims will grow out of their own dark ages angst. I wonder what the atheist dark age will look like?

Hydraulic Cylinder| 2.8.10 @ 4:02AM

Fivestar Tools,a professional china Hydraulic Cylinder manufacturer,we can offer hydraulic cylinders,hydraulic jack and double acting hydraulic cylinders.

Pingback| 2.8.10 @ 12:31PM

Creation Movie « Pastor Tracy's Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Blog Pastor Tracy's Blog Home About Crazy Love by Francis Chan February 8, 2010...11:29 am Creation Movie Jump to Comments James Bowman of The American Spectator has written a review of the movie Creation, which was written from the memoirs of one of Darwin’s great, great grandsons. The film is only opening in limited theatres in the U.S., with the closest one to me being 3 hrs away in Chicago. Paul…

K| 2.9.10 @ 1:15AM

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shown on man." President Thomas Jefferson

Well, you have remember that when Jefferson wrote this, secular humanism or Marxism hadn't been invented yet.

Pingback| 2.9.10 @ 9:12AM

Creation links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…-Mysteries.com guest 'expert' The ES Press Magazine columnist Related blog posts Perkelating » Blog Archive » Updates from Pew on content creation ... THE SCIENCE OF THE CREATION MUSEUM | Viceland.com The American Spectator : Creation The American Spectator : Creation The American Spectator : Creation Gov. Patrick pushing job creation plan | VX50.com Gov. Patrick pushing job creation plan | VX50.com Gov. Patrick pushing job…

Pingback| 2.11.10 @ 6:10PM

Martian Dune Mystery Solved by Bouncing Sand Grains | AboutSpace.info links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Solved by Bouncing Sand Grains Related posts on anthropology agriculture China University List / Nanjing University Related posts on biology anthropology Best U Can B » Blog Archive » What Is Love? The American Spectator : Creation Is This All There Is? « Glory to God for All Things Related posts on chemistry biology Sad Puppy Dog Eyes » Frenzied Daddy Different Genres of Essay Topics I Want To Become An Orthodontist, But I…

Pingback| 2.11.10 @ 9:28PM

Science vs Religion - Some Random Thoughts on Intelligent Design links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Science vs Religion ? Some Random Thoughts on Intelligent Design The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design ? Darwinism Debunked ... Confessing Evangelical » Science, religion and the ?hidden God? The American Spectator : Creation A Mathematician's (Highly Flawed) View of Evolution « Homologous Legs Evolution for kids | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine Selenian Boondocks » Blog Archive » Random Thoughts: Lunar One-Way ...

Pingback| 2.19.10 @ 11:53AM

Faith in Scientific Observation and Inquiry Verses Faith in Out-Dated Dogma links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…university? : Macleans OnCampus The Quest for ?Human? « Life Without a Net TWU in its own words: special no-straw edition : Macleans OnCampus UK Parliamentary Inquiry into CRU « Climate Audit The American Spectator : Creation

mili8951| 5.8.10 @ 1:30AM

http://www.edhardycawholesale.com/

Pingback| 5.14.10 @ 12:49PM

Obama Helps Iran target its dissidents here in USA | ControversyToday.info links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…We are anti-terrorism. Yet Homayoun is now a wanted man, unable to leave the U.S. for fear of… Continue reading here: Obama Helps Iran target its dissidents here in USA Related posts on historical darwin Creation A Somewhat Lengthy Response to The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man … Cordova's Back! And He's Brought More Crank Creationist Ideas … Related posts on internet historical 10 Totally Stupid…

explosion proof light| 11.15.10 @ 8:57AM

Obama's stage props, the guys with the white jackets, are here to take you away, to the funny farm, where everything will be alright.

Converse| 8.12.11 @ 3:47AM

is good

The American Spectator

Movie Takes