by logansrun 42 Replies latest jw friends
The cultural factor is not to be underestimated.
Here in France only a very small minority of believers would ever question evolution -- and most of those who would are clearly influenced by American creationism.
The vast majority of Christian clerics would rather say "evolution is how we got here, creation is why we got here" or something similar.
What is most peculiar to me is believing or having to believe anything that is a point of confusion. Why take a stand at all unless you actually have firmly in mind what you are accepting totally or rejecting totally?
What sort of relationship would you be in if the person to whom you were bonded condemned you for not going along with a murky and uncertain point of view? Wouldn't a caring (much less perfect) love and concern embody allowance for growth?
It seems persons who demand dogma are really very very insecure. They want to shut off discussion which is threatening so that they don't have to face the consequences of phony belief. But demanding orthodoxy the dreaded "facts" need not be mentioned (and dealt with openly) again.
A frightened and insecure person is usually the most rigid; wouldn't you say? Animals often freeze when terrified. A rigid point of view is a kind of intellectual rigor mortis.
T.
As far as I'm aware God must use evolutionary processes at least after the flood (and therefore why not before) since there is no record of a second creation and certainly not enough room in the ark for even a small percentage of creatures - there aren't even enough people on the ark as traditionally understood to repopulate all the human races (including giants like Goliath)
What I do believe in however is that God does play with genetics and that it doesn't happen by chance - I think genetics is very like a clever computer code that is designed to adapt to give life its best chance.
Not a topic change but interesting nonetheless - evolution IMHO cannot account for things like:
Music appreciation, recognition of beauty, fashion, art, romantic love, contemplation of the past and future, ethics, philosophy, poetry, religion, intuition, prophecy (I have had some very precient dreams), stories, writing and chopsticks.
As for creationism vs. evolution, creationism is ridiculous if you're going to say that everything was created in six days and that it happened 7,000 years ago. On the other side of the coin, it is quite astonishing that in Genesis I the sequence of creation is exactly the sequence in which creation evolved; I see no conflict there. The problem scientists have is admitting that God had anything to do with creation. I believe God was deeply involved in the creation, but he was involved -- or she was involved -- over the course of millions of years.
But, this isn't really a point of view, is it? It is straddling two points of view without settling on anything like an opinion.
To me, the real issue is WHY WHY WHY it is so goll darned important to make one's mind seize either point of view when the issues aren't clear enough for facts to be simple facts.
Either evolution is settled with a few open ends or it is a troubled view constantly patched up by science. Creationists try to portray it as passe' and irrelvent as though it were from Sigmund Freud. Evolutionists want to take the position that all the facts speak loud enough to drown out the critics.
An intelligent and neutral position is often looked upon as the safe way to go; but, a neutral position isn't a genuine position per se. It is an abeyance.
The jury is out why pretend there is a verdict?
Terry
Qcmbr,
As far as I'm aware God must use evolutionary processes at least after the flood (and therefore why not before) since there is no record of a second creation and certainly not enough room in the ark for even a small percentage of creatures - there aren't even enough people on the ark as traditionally understood to repopulate all the human races (including giants like Goliath)
This hypothesis of yours would mean new species evolving -- by theistic direction -- at a rate far, far, far faster than is thought by any modern evolutionist. And, if God would use evolution after the flood (which the Bible doesn't talk about at all) why not use it before?
What I do believe in however is that God does play with genetics and that it doesn't happen by chance - I think genetics is very like a clever computer code that is designed to adapt to give life its best chance.
Is God responsible for genetic defects as well?
It seems persons who demand dogma are really very very insecure.
Terry, do you ever think you come across as dogmatic?
A frightened and insecure person is usually the most rigid; wouldn't you say?
Agreed. Rabid creationists and rabid evolutionists are both offputting. They stink of fear.
I think that when talking about Christians who believe in evolution, I would asume that the Christian believes that evolution was set in motion (or perhaps even directed) by God.
I would assume that too. I have never run across a Christian who personally espoused this point of view. Not surprising though. To speak of it in the mainstream Christian denominations would probably be about as popular as saying you believed Jesus died on a cross at the local kingdom hall.
Brad, thanks for cluing me on C. S. Lewis' views. As for Scott Peck, he has really gone out on a limb with his latest book "Glimpses of the Devil" that talks about his work as an exorcist casting out demons and going head to head with Satan.
Being progressively refined from a deity's developing plan is no less dignified than being formed progressively from dirt. If I were a Christian, I would find the former more appealing.
MegaDude... I don't mean to pick at you, but it sounds like you just said that the Catholic church isn't 'mainstream'. Perhaps what you actually mean is Evangelical Protestant?
