cstu
Footballguy
My answer was based on 30 years of not a receiving an acceptable answer from Christians.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Creation vs. Evolution (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter larry_boy_44
- Start date
Non-fundamentalist? Un-literalist? Non-conservative/mainstream? What word would you use? As you point out, even with the faculty vote, he was let go. So he puts a little bit different spin on it than the liberals, it still quacks like a duck.
One of my favorite college professors, John Haught, has written a bunch of stuff on the subject. See, e.g.: Making Sense of Evolution: Darwin, God, and the Drama of Life.
proninja
Footballguy
BA in theology. I took several classes from Haught, including Systematic Theology, Theological Method, and a really interesting class on Science, Myth, and Religion.
Haught was actually the one who got me into reading Dawkins. (This was back when Dawkins wrote almost exclusively about evolutionary biology, not philosophical atheism.)
Last edited by a moderator:
proninja
Footballguy
Awesome. I'm pretty jealous re: the theology degree.
A GB of mine from church is reading the greatest show on earth currently. We're the weird ones.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jayrok
Footballguy
Thanks for the link. I have not read MSoE but I'd like to. I'm curious if Haught comments on some of the things I'm talking about or is it just a piece on how evolution and creation do not have to be at odds with one another. To me, everyone seems to focus on harmonizing evolution with Genesis. That's all fine and well but I think it has to go much deeper than that in order to take its place within the Christian (NT) theological construct.
shader
Footballguy
Physical death was not a natural part of God's plan...if you believe the bible, that is. The bible is quite clear on that. God made man perfect and without flaw, and their death was a result of their turning away from God, which resulted in death, which is the entire reason Jesus needed to die.
The bible makes no allowances for man to have evolved from ape-like creatures.
Jayrok
Footballguy
I know that crosseyed isn't around much these days but I know he would agree with you here.
Lots of fancy words have found their way to print from philosophers who set out to reconcile evolution and creation. But they need to address the real issues that are at the core of the Christian faith. Not whether God snapped his fingers and created things or he allowed a long process to unfold... but the path to salvation as preached by figures in the NT.
How does the evolution of man fit into the redemptive acts of Jesus on the cross? Why did God need to die if death is a natural process for all living things? Where did sin come from?
shader
Footballguy
I fail to see how it can. I haven't read any of these philosophers that try and reconcile the two, because in my eyes, it's ludicrous to even consider.
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
Which is why it's a bad idea to try to use the Bible as a science text book. Man did evolve from ape-like creatures. That is clear to any rational person with a basic understanding of modern biology. Theology/religion should focus on how to interpret their books, teachings, etc. in the modern world, and leave the science to the scientists.
shader
Footballguy
The bible isn't a science text book.
In my opinion, your two statements are incompatible. If man evolved from apes, then you have to throw the whole bible out, because at that point, it would be practically worthless. How do I interpret a book that has it's fundamental teachings (God created man, man sinned, Jesus provided a ransom for man) all wrong? The answer would be that I wouldn't worry about interpreting the books and teachings, I'd reject the book completely.
I know the popular school of thought is to leave theology to theology and science to science, but in the case of ape-like creatures evolving into man, I don't believe that scientific theory to be compatible with the bible.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
Couldn't agree more...and on the flip side scientists should leave the theology to the theologians.
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
If I were to draw a Venn diagram, using one circle for "Reality" and one for "Religion", I would put myself in the "Reality" circle that doesn't overlap with "Religion", shader in the "Religion" circle that doesn't overlap with "Reality" and you right in the middle of the overlapping section.
Last edited by a moderator:
shader
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
I'm not sure if that's a compliment or an insult
While, not as articulate as proninja, I am firmly in his camp when it comes to dogma. Over thousands of years, we've had opportunity to accumulate a lot of religious dogma as a civilization. We MUST weed through it and not allow it to distract us. In the end, the Bible says that God created "man" in his image. It doesn't mention any iterations prior to "man" existing, nor does it say "man" was the only iteration.
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
I'd say it's a compliment, definitely not an insult. I'll only argue within the circle of reality, and you seem to be OK in that sphere. You delve into the religion area as well, whereas I do not. We can certainly agree to disagree on that, and still have productive discussions in the scope of reality.I'm not sure if that's a compliment or an insult
While, not as articulate as proninja, I am firmly in his camp when it comes to dogma. Over thousands of years, we've had opportunity to accumulate a lot of religious dogma as a civilization. We MUST weed through it and not allow it to distract us. In the end, the Bible says that God created "man" in his image. It doesn't mention any iterations prior to "man" existing, nor does it say "man" was the only iteration.
shader...not so much. If he wants to insist that humans are not a product of evolution, there's really no point in me discussing this stuff with him.
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
I'd say it's a compliment, definitely not an insult. I'll only argue within the circle of reality, and you seem to be OK in that sphere. You delve into the religion area as well, whereas I do not. We can certainly agree to disagree on that, and still have productive discussions in the scope of reality.I'm not sure if that's a compliment or an insult
While, not as articulate as proninja, I am firmly in his camp when it comes to dogma. Over thousands of years, we've had opportunity to accumulate a lot of religious dogma as a civilization. We MUST weed through it and not allow it to distract us. In the end, the Bible says that God created "man" in his image. It doesn't mention any iterations prior to "man" existing, nor does it say "man" was the only iteration.
shader...not so much. If he wants to insist that humans are not a product of evolution, there's really no point in me discussing this stuff with him.
shader
Footballguy
I agree 1,000%. But I'm not in the camp of thinking that the bible is dogma. The bible is clear that death (of man) started with Adam (Rom 5:14), and that he was the first man (1Cor15:45) I do agree that it doesn't say man was the only iteration of intelligent creatures. I suppose God could have created other intelligent creatures anywhere else in the universe, the bible certainly doesn't touch on that subject.I'm not sure if that's a compliment or an insult
While, not as articulate as proninja, I am firmly in his camp when it comes to dogma. Over thousands of years, we've had opportunity to accumulate a lot of religious dogma as a civilization. We MUST weed through it and not allow it to distract us. In the end, the Bible says that God created "man" in his image. It doesn't mention any iterations prior to "man" existing, nor does it say "man" was the only iteration.
The only reason anyone is weeding through the "dogma" when it comes to this subject, is in an attempt to reconcile the bible with current scientific thinking.
shader
Footballguy
So you want to have a discussion with me, but before we begin, you want to insist that you are in the "reality" circle, ie, you are correct. Got it. That sounds like a productive place to begin a discussion!I'd say it's a compliment, definitely not an insult. I'll only argue within the circle of reality, and you seem to be OK in that sphere. You delve into the religion area as well, whereas I do not. We can certainly agree to disagree on that, and still have productive discussions in the scope of reality.I'm not sure if that's a compliment or an insult
While, not as articulate as proninja, I am firmly in his camp when it comes to dogma. Over thousands of years, we've had opportunity to accumulate a lot of religious dogma as a civilization. We MUST weed through it and not allow it to distract us. In the end, the Bible says that God created "man" in his image. It doesn't mention any iterations prior to "man" existing, nor does it say "man" was the only iteration.
shader...not so much. If he wants to insist that humans are not a product of evolution, there's really no point in me discussing this stuff with him.
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
I'm always willing to discuss this stuff - I find it very interesting. However, I have to screen the callers. First question: do you accept modern evolutionary theory? If the answer is no, you do not live in reality. Period. Now, if it's a simple lack of knowledge, that's one thing. But, if you have been educated in the field of biology, even at a rudimentary level, and you choose to reject the science, then I see no point in having further discussion on the topic. You're going to reject any rational argument and discredit any facts that are presented. I might as well argue with you about whether or not the Earth is flat.
shader
Footballguy
My beliefs are not shaped by the current modern scientific theories on the origin of life and the origin of man. I make no excuses for that. At the same time, I'm not going to ridicule you for your beliefs. Can I explain in detail why I believe man did not evolve from apelike creatures? Not at a level that would satisfy you, I'm sure. But I'm not going to throw out all the things I believe, have seen, and have pondered in my life, because the scientists of this generation believe that man is nothing more than a cosmic accident that evolved from apes.
CBusAlex
Footballguy
Does pre-rejecting every possible argument Cowboys could make ahead of time seem like a productive place to begin a discussion? If not, why do you object to him saying there's no point in having one with you?
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
I don't think I've ridiculed you or your beliefs. If I have, I apologize. Perhaps saying they don't jive with reality is not the most sensitive way to put it, but that's how I see it. You obviously see things differently, and as you've stated here, we're not even playing by the same rules in terms of how we substantiate our individual world views. So, best to agree to disagree, and move on.
shader
Footballguy
Fair enough. And to be clear, I don't really think you ridiculed me, on a personal level, so no hard feelings.
proninja
Footballguy
It's interesting to me that the only people who read the bible in the same way as the literalist fundamentalist are the atheists.That's where I come out on it.
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
To me, what's way more interesting is the folks in the middle explaining how they believe some, but not all.It's interesting to me that the only people who read the bible in the same way as the literalist fundamentalist are the atheists.
shader
Footballguy
I realize that. I don't see the relevance to what I said, but I am aware of when Darwin wrote his book.
shader
Footballguy
That is quite interesting to me, too. I have no idea how you could believe in evolution and the bible simultaneously. I do understand how you coule believe in a diety and evolution, but the bible itself is pretty cut-and-dry on the subject of man, where man came from, original sin, and the reason Jesus came to earth.To me, what's way more interesting is the folks in the middle explaining how they believe some, but not all.It's interesting to me that the only people who read the bible in the same way as the literalist fundamentalist are the atheists.
The Commish
Footballguy
Not really. It's good for believers to challenge dogma in theology for the same reasons it's good for scientists to challenge scientific findings. It helps produce greater understanding of the texts. More importantly it causes us to spend time in the word of God.I agree 1,000%. But I'm not in the camp of thinking that the bible is dogma. The bible is clear that death (of man) started with Adam (Rom 5:14), and that he was the first man (1Cor15:45) I do agree that it doesn't say man was the only iteration of intelligent creatures. I suppose God could have created other intelligent creatures anywhere else in the universe, the bible certainly doesn't touch on that subject.I'm not sure if that's a compliment or an insult
While, not as articulate as proninja, I am firmly in his camp when it comes to dogma. Over thousands of years, we've had opportunity to accumulate a lot of religious dogma as a civilization. We MUST weed through it and not allow it to distract us. In the end, the Bible says that God created "man" in his image. It doesn't mention any iterations prior to "man" existing, nor does it say "man" was the only iteration.
The only reason anyone is weeding through the "dogma" when it comes to this subject, is in an attempt to reconcile the bible with current scientific thinking.
shader
Footballguy
I agree it's great to challenge dogma. I personally think that mainstream christianity is full of dogma.
But if the theory of evolution had never arisen, there would be no reason to challenge the historicity of Adam, to wonder if he was real, etc. For thousands of years, Jews and Christians believed Adam was a real person, and was directly created by God. Even scientific giants (Isaac Newton among many others) believed this. It wasn't until evolutionary theory made this view seem antiquated and outdated that religion found the need to challenge this particular dogma. Otherwise, why would any bible-believing Christian decide to challenge this?
But if the theory of evolution had never arisen, there would be no reason to challenge the historicity of Adam, to wonder if he was real, etc. For thousands of years, Jews and Christians believed Adam was a real person, and was directly created by God. Even scientific giants (Isaac Newton among many others) believed this. It wasn't until evolutionary theory made this view seem antiquated and outdated that religion found the need to challenge this particular dogma. Otherwise, why would any bible-believing Christian decide to challenge this?
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
I need to be clear here an I think proninja said something similar above. For guys like us, you'll hear "I don't know" a lot. That's not a rejection of the Bible. Obviously, the creation story is there for a reason and it means something but the question is what and how do we interpret it? It's very few verses that cover a VERY complex subject. I'm confident if you go to the Bible as an "answer book" (for lack of a better term) on this particular subject, you're going to be left wanting.To me, what's way more interesting is the folks in the middle explaining how they believe some, but not all.It's interesting to me that the only people who read the bible in the same way as the literalist fundamentalist are the atheists.
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
This kind of comment is way more interesting and entertaining than the fundamentalists point of view.
matuski
Footballguy
When you get to "I don't know", how does the supernatural explanation/option win out over the alternatives?I need to be clear here an I think proninja said something similar above. For guys like us, you'll hear "I don't know" a lot. That's not a rejection of the Bible. Obviously, the creation story is there for a reason and it means something but the question is what and how do we interpret it? It's very few verses that cover a VERY complex subject. I'm confident if you go to the Bible as an "answer book" (for lack of a better term) on this particular subject, you're going to be left wanting.To me, what's way more interesting is the folks in the middle explaining how they believe some, but not all.It's interesting to me that the only people who read the bible in the same way as the literalist fundamentalist are the atheists.
Last edited by a moderator:
proninja
Footballguy
For thousands of years people believed that the sun rotated around the earth too. Do you also believe in geocentrism? How far are you willing to go with this?
The Commish
Footballguy
Have you ever considered the theory that science is here because God wants it to be here and it's a mechanism through which he challenges us to be in his word? When I read stuff like this I am reminded of that story where the guy is floating in the ocean and passes up several opportunities to be rescued because if he's meant to be rescued, God will rescue him. When he dies and goes before God and asks him why God didn't save him God is befuddled and responds "I sent three different boats to rescue you but you didn't take any of those opportunities".
The Commish
Footballguy
When I'm at "I don't know", that means my understanding of the Bible isn't sufficient to proceed and science hasn't been sufficient to proceed either. Not sure what you're asking here given the context of the replies you quoted. Is there a topic specifically you have a question about?When you get to "I don't know", how does the supernatural explanation/option win out over the alternatives?I need to be clear here an I think proninja said something similar above. For guys like us, you'll hear "I don't know" a lot. That's not a rejection of the Bible. Obviously, the creation story is there for a reason and it means something but the question is what and how do we interpret it? It's very few verses that cover a VERY complex subject. I'm confident if you go to the Bible as an "answer book" (for lack of a better term) on this particular subject, you're going to be left wanting.To me, what's way more interesting is the folks in the middle explaining how they believe some, but not all.It's interesting to me that the only people who read the bible in the same way as the literalist fundamentalist are the atheists.
shader
Footballguy
Because the alternative view doesn't have any answers either?When you get to "I don't know", how does the supernatural explanation/option win out over the alternatives?I need to be clear here an I think proninja said something similar above. For guys like us, you'll hear "I don't know" a lot. That's not a rejection of the Bible. Obviously, the creation story is there for a reason and it means something but the question is what and how do we interpret it? It's very few verses that cover a VERY complex subject. I'm confident if you go to the Bible as an "answer book" (for lack of a better term) on this particular subject, you're going to be left wanting.To me, what's way more interesting is the folks in the middle explaining how they believe some, but not all.It's interesting to me that the only people who read the bible in the same way as the literalist fundamentalist are the atheists.
The Commish and I probably (although this rarely happens) agree on this: It's ok to at times say "I don't know".
I'm fine with that. I have faith that things that seem to be inconsistencies, will one day be shown not to be. As mentioned, I don't believe man evolved from apelike creatures, and I'm confident one day people will laugh at the theory.
Atheists on this board cannot explain how life arose from non-living matter, but they are likely very confident that it will one day be figured out.
A question: If over the course of the next 50 years, we could somehow know that science will make no progress on the Origin of Life issue, would that change the opinions of atheists? knowing that no progress would be made on the issue? I'd say it wouldn't. You'd probably just say "well the billions of years of time must involve processes that we can't duplicate in a lab". And that's fine.
On the same note, it's quite possible that there won't be anything that will happen in the next 50 years that would allow me or any other believers to prove that God exists. But that doesn't mean I'll turn away.
People choose the supernatural for a reason. Perhaps they were born that way and are in a sense brain-washed. Perhaps they feel very strongly that God has intervened in their life. Perhaps they look at the complexity and the "apparent design" and conclude "I don't think there is apparent design, I think it is actual design". Perhaps they realize "we humans don't have a clue about the nature of God....perhaps God isn't supernatural in the sense that he's a mystical man in the clouds, but God exists in a realm outside of time and space that we just can't comprehend...yet or ever.
Just as people have reasons to choose atheism, there are reasons people choose the belief in God. It's not irrational to do so, as is proven by the fact that many rational people do in fact, choose to believe in a God of some sort.
You obviously don't agree, but you don't have a lockdown on rational belief. Personally, I think atheism is irrational. You think the opposite. Two different ways of looking at the world.
The Commish
Footballguy
I frequently agree with you on theology shader 
I am not a literalist though. There was a day when I was (early in my walk.....mostly caused by the dogma mentioned before), but I'm at a point in my faith where I can't be. Perhaps one day I will swing back that way, but with what God has presented me both in his Word and through the world, I can't get there right now.
I am not a literalist though. There was a day when I was (early in my walk.....mostly caused by the dogma mentioned before), but I'm at a point in my faith where I can't be. Perhaps one day I will swing back that way, but with what God has presented me both in his Word and through the world, I can't get there right now.
Cliff Clavin
Footballguy
shader
Footballguy
Trying to understand God's word, and diving into it is a great thing to do. But at some point, you have to make a decision on what you believe, not just keep looking for answers.
Imagine I said "well there is no archaeological evidence for Noah, so I'm going to assume he never existed". Then I scour the bible, looking for a way to reconcile Noah being a fictional character with the fact that the bible appears to present him as a historical figure. Then imagine in 50 years, someone finds a stone with the name Noah on it. All of a sudden, do I abandon all those hoops I created to make myself feel better? I would think God would say "I had the answers right there in the bible the whole time".
shader
Footballguy
I don't view the scientific theory that the sun rotated around the earth as a good analogy to Adam existing. The bible really doesn't touch on geocentrism, unless you feel poetic statements that "the sun rises" (things we still say today) as being some proof that the bible clearly teaches geocentrism.
Adam existing though, that's quite obviously presented in the bible as a historical fact. Unless in the lineage at the beginning of Luke and Matthew, Adam really means "the first homo sapien that evolved from apes".
Last edited by a moderator:
shader
Footballguy
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
I disagree completely.
Do you believe that women shouldn't be allowed to talk in church? Do you think that a rapist should have the right to marry his victim? Do you refuse to wear any clothes that are made from more than one material? Do you believe that a disobedient son should be stoned to death? Do you believe that the handicapped should not be allowed in church? Do you agree that a woman should have her hand cut off if she hits her husband in the nuts (OK maybe this one I can get onboard with)?
Of course not. Like all Christians, you pick and choose the parts of the Bible that you like, and having something in there that you consider wrong and not worth following does not stop you from vigorously adhering to the things you like.
How is the notion that God snapped his fingers and created people any different from that? You could just as easily shrug that off as you do a thousand other things in the Bible and just as vigorously adhere to the rest of it. Heck, I would wager that most (or at least a great many) religious people already do this and believe in evolution and the like while still choosing to follow other parts of the Bible as if they are hard unquestionable fact.
Really, there is basically no one that truly believes the Bible word for word. Anyone that does, and still thinks that wrathful, tortuous, baby murdering god is a guy that deserves their praise and worship is a complete and utter psychopath.
That's not even to mention that it would be impossible to adhere to every verse of the Bible because many of them contradict each other.
