The Forum > Article Comments > Christians can be gay > Comments
Christians can be gay : Comments
By Nigel Leaves, published 24/2/2012You can take the Bible seriously and accept gay lesbian and transgender people as Christian equals.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 12
- 13
- 14
-
- All
Posted by crabsy, Friday, 24 February 2012 11:13:25 AM
| |
It is a lazy, throw-away line to say: "Christians can be gay."
Oh, can they? Okay. I guess I better take your word for it. Oh, you take the Bible seriously? Oh, I guess you would know about such things. Articles such as these are a dine-a-dozen. And they all come from self-identifying Christians who claim to take the Bible seriously. Of course "Christians" can be gay. Wasn't Hitler a "Christian"? And the terrorists (on both sides) in Northern Ireland, they were "Christians," right? For better or for worse, there exists no independent body charges with assessing and accrediting people who claim to be Christian and the seriousness with which they take the Bible. "Love Upside Down," and indeed "Being Gay, being Christian," may be but a couple of volumes of a whole shelf of books that affirms the place of LGBTQ people within the body of the Church. But the shelf of books that affirm otherwise is more substantially stocked, to say nothing of the shelf of orthodox Christian thought over the past two millennia - writings by self-identified Christians who understand the Christian faith and the Bible (yes, they "take it seriously) differently. Posted by Chris Ashton, Friday, 24 February 2012 12:53:27 PM
| |
I'm guessing Chris Ashton isn't an Anglican, or at least doesn't agree with the head of the Anglican Church.
Do Anglicans qualify as 'Christians'? Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 24 February 2012 1:12:08 PM
| |
Thank you Nigel, for a thoughtful article. Too many people assume you have to be homophobic if you are Christian, and the fundamentalists get a disproportionate amount of air time on this issue. They do not represent all of us.
Christ's message of love and inclusion extends to everyone. Posted by Rhian, Friday, 24 February 2012 1:45:41 PM
| |
I suspect there are atheists who are homophobe too, y'know. So the whole purpose of these books under review will be to educate Christians on the content of their own religious texts.
Good luck with that. And there's no point in trying to lay the blame elsewhere, crabsy: >>The general public has an inaccurate picture of Christianity sculpted by mass media.<< Most people I know take note of the words used by Christians on matters of Christianity. Are you suggesting that they are mis-reported by the media? "PETER JENSEN: Because [Bishop Robinson's] consecration has occurred in defiance of God's teaching in the Bible, in very, very clear defiance of this" http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2003/s981336.htm That looks suspiciously like a direct quote, to me. Everyone else, of course, will have to be educated out of their bigotry without the Bible's "help". How will they manage it, I wonder. Posted by Pericles, Friday, 24 February 2012 3:16:13 PM
| |
Pericles:
<<Most people I know take note of the words used by Christians on matters of Christianity. Are you suggesting that they are mis-reported by the media?>> Well, mis-reporting does occur now and then. Selective reporting occurs more often. More widespread still is the failure to use the mass media to show the general public that LGBTQ people are not deemed to be "sinful" by God nor by many clergy and church-members. The Jensen camp in Sydney have diocesan wealth at their disposal which other Australian dioceses cannot come close to equalling. That diocese also has a fundamentalist theological tradition unlike most others in the world-wide Anglican Communion. It has constructed a formidable media organisation to promulgate its exclusive, small-minded, mean-spirited view of the world. That is part of the explanation as to why the Australian mass-media report the Archbishop of Sydney far more often and in far more detail than they do any other Anglican Archbishop, including the Australian Primate. Perhaps, as I say, if more Christians spoke and acted through the mass-media with a more loving, intelligent and inclusive message the Jensenesque face of the church could be changed. Posted by crabsy, Friday, 24 February 2012 4:27:00 PM
| |
So, if I understand you correctly crabsy...
>> It has constructed a formidable media organisation to promulgate its exclusive, small-minded, mean-spirited view of the world. That is part of the explanation as to why the Australian mass-media report the Archbishop of Sydney far more often and in far more detail than they do any other Anglican Archbishop, including the Australian Primate.<< ... your earlier statement would have been more accurately expressed as: "The general public has an inaccurate picture of Christianity sculpted by Rev Dr Peter Jensen, Archbishop of Sydney" Credit where it is due, and all that. Posted by Pericles, Friday, 24 February 2012 5:12:01 PM
| |
You quote Edser as saying: "I am going to take as truth that being gay or lesbian is neither sick nor sinful."
But if you and Edser really are the Christians you describe yourself as there can be no question of 'taking as truth' anything that deviates from the pronouncements of God as set out in the Bible. Jesus said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. " And the law? "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Not much room for equivocation there, is there? So why not just bite the bullet and admit that your whole religion is a load of bigoted nonsense? Then you wouldn't have to feel a 'sense of sadness' because other people know your own religion better than you do. Posted by Jon J, Friday, 24 February 2012 5:55:44 PM
| |
The Bible is a product of its time and culture, not a supernatural instruction manual.
No modern Christian takes all its laws literally. We don’t stone disobedient children or burn wiccans or follow the laws on diet, clothing etc. The text you quote says Jesus came to “fulfil” the law. In context, the debate was similar to the one we are having today about gays and Christianity – about obeying the letter of the law or fulfilling its underlying values and intent. At this point in Matthew, Jesus has made a series of statements about how his followers should go beyond the letter of the law to fulfil its underlying intent. How then are we to determine between conflicting interpretations of the law, or where there is a clash of worldviews between modern and ancient cultures? I respect the argument of both fundamentalists and atheists that choosing which bits of the bible to take literally can seem to give us licence to cherry pick a religion to suit out tastes. But in fact, I don’t think we have such licence. The bible itself gives us guidance as to the appropriate way to resolve contradictions and conflicts. One of the key passages lies in the dual “law of love” (Matthew 22:36-40): "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Modern understanding of homosexuality clashes with ancient understanding. We understand it as innate to a person, not a lifestyle choice or character defect. It cannot be rejected without denying something integral to a person’s identity, in the same way denying a person’s heterosexuality would not do justice to them. In God’s creation people are male and female, gay and straight. The law of love demands that that all are accepted and welcomed in God’s church. Posted by Rhian, Friday, 24 February 2012 6:48:12 PM
| |
I guess to some extent Christianity is probably like most religions in that is encourages a club-like atmosphere. If you want to belong - you must follow the rules according to whomever runs the club at the time. You want to believe somthing different - you are out of the club. Hundreds of years ago Lutherans were out of the club - now they are in. CofE, the same. In fact, especially in many parts of the USA, it is the evangelical movement which basically 'owns' the term and won't even let the Catholics into the club.
Nowadays most people probably allow most Jesus-teaching groups into the club - but some are still apparently outside the tent - Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses etc. It never occurred to me that gays might be outside the tent, they just need to affiliate with a gay-friendly in-the-tent church. Besides, even if you think being gay is sinful, if sinners weren't allowed in then the churches would be completely empty. Posted by J S Mill, Friday, 24 February 2012 6:59:16 PM
| |
Small point Chris, the IRA are Communists, have been since the 1960's.
In other news: http://www.theage.com.au/national/gay-church-dubbed-a-cult-after-schism-20120208-1rf1f.html Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Friday, 24 February 2012 7:49:50 PM
| |
So Rhian, because you love God, you get to pick and choose which of God's rules to ignore? But the ancient Israelites didn't, so obviously they didn't love God, right? Even though they were much closer and better acquainted with him, interacting on a daily basis.
Maybe they knew more about God than you do, after all. Posted by Jon J, Friday, 24 February 2012 8:11:16 PM
| |
Jon J
yes, maybe they did know God better that I do. But the Bible tells us that the law is made for the service of humanity, not the other way round. My point was not that loving God gives me freedom to do what I want. Rather, faced with a choice of two opposing propositions (e.g. accept gays or reject them), the more loving alternative is more likely to be the appropriate choice for Christians. "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets". Posted by Rhian, Friday, 24 February 2012 8:22:05 PM
| |
Well, I've never heard cherry-picking defended with such breathless audacity before...
Posted by Jon J, Saturday, 25 February 2012 7:19:49 AM
| |
JonJ <" But the ancient Israelites didn't, so obviously they didn't love God, right? Even though they were much closer and better acquainted with him, interacting on a daily basis."
Is that right? I was always led to believe that Jesus was the SON of a God, and not actually God? I don't believe ANYONE has actually been proven to be physically 'acquainted' with a God, as such? In any case, we only have the written words of humans, thousands of years ago, that a bloke called Jesus WAS a son of a God. Why should we believe them? They also thought the earth was flat! JonJ <"Well, I've never heard cherry-picking defended with such breathless audacity before..." Oh come on Jon! Who doesn't 'cherry-pick' from that Bible? If we didn't cherry-pick from that fictional book, we would still be stoning adulterous people, never eating meat on a friday, or whatever other ancient lesson we are apparently supposed to live by. People are not going to stop being Christian and Gay just because a 2 thousand year old fictional book says it is an abomination. Like all Christians, the Gay Christians can just choose to ignore the part of the Bible that they think is out-dated now. Posted by Suseonline, Saturday, 25 February 2012 1:14:50 PM
| |
Rhian
'In God’s creation people are male and female, gay and straight. The law of love demands that that all are accepted and welcomed in God’s church. ' Does the 'law of love ' extend to paedophiles or polygamist or those practicing bestiality? If not who says so? Some claim they were born with these bents. Posted by runner, Saturday, 25 February 2012 2:11:05 PM
| |
Dear oh Dear Runner, you appear to enjoy stretching an opinion way out of context, to try and sell your bigotry and social ignorance.
Posted by Kipp, Saturday, 25 February 2012 6:01:17 PM
| |
Thankfully Rhian's more inclusive approach is evolving within many religious groups. If a religious doctrine does not include unconditional love, how can it work for the greater good.
'Does the 'law of love ' extend to paedophiles or polygamist or those practicing bestiality? If not who says so? Some claim they were born with these bents.' Paedophilia and bestiality do not involve the CONSENT of two mature adult humans. It is disheartening to see this sort of intolerance, hatred and discrimination still exists in an enlightened age. How is the love between two mature homosexual adults in any way anyone else's business and where there is clearly no harm to others. Polygamy, while not enthused by it for other reasons, cannot so easily be lumped in with paedophilia or bestiality in the way you infer. There are some cases where the arrangements in certain sects involve an element of force - an argument for another time. Posted by pelican, Saturday, 25 February 2012 6:22:07 PM
| |
as I expected the usual bigotry towards those that don't support the 'gay ' agenda. I noticed my question wasn't answered. Moral relativism dogma justifies anything. Just add a litle pseudo science and ignotre nature and conscience.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 25 February 2012 10:00:48 PM
| |
A good review, thanks. I find it interesting that while Christians are prepared to accept modifications to their beliefs proposed by scientific study, such as the earth is not the centre of the universe, that evolution is more likely than creationism, they don't accept scientific studies that pretty well prove that homosexuality is decided in the womb, and therefore no one has any say in the matter. When asked, most Christians would denounce punishment being inflicted on people for the way they were born, yet don't hesitate to heap coals on gays. Makes about as much sense as believing in an invisible superman in the sky.
Posted by ybgirp, Sunday, 26 February 2012 7:56:33 AM
| |
Yes, but, Jay Of Melbourne...
>>Small point Chris, the IRA are Communists, have been since the 1960's<< Leaving aside the trivial point that the movement was manipulated by Communists, rather than being Communist itself, all that came to a shuddering halt in 1972 with the ceasefire. At which point the Catholics took over again, forming the Provisional IRA, and went on to become the kneecapping, parcel-bombing pranksters - all in the name of the Catholic Church - that we all knew and loved. "The Catholic IRA is known for their use of car, pipe, and mail bombs, assassinations, kidnappings, beatings, extortion, smuggling, and robberies, most of which have been conducted in Northern Ireland, Ireland, and Great Britain. Although its primary targets have been the British military and police in Northern Ireland, the IRA has also carried out operations against Protestant civilians and British government officials." http://prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Clubs_IRA.Islam Interesting source material too - I recommend a browse through it, just to remind ourselves of the implacable hatred that different religions are able to generate for each other, regardless of whether they worship the same god, or not. Or indeed, completely independent of the stated wishes of that God - in this case, "love thy neighbour". Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 26 February 2012 2:15:34 PM
| |
So true Pericles.
My husband grew up as a Catholic in Southern Ireland, and I as a Catholic in Australia. When we traveled to Ireland in 1987 to meet his family, I was asked on a daily basis at least, was I Catholic. Because I had an Australian accent, many people assumed I was English, and therefore Protestant. The change in their attitude when I told them I was a Catholic was amazing. These extremely religious people went to church and worshiped their God almost daily, yet they relished stories of Protestants being killed in Northern Ireland! I was horrified by this attitude, but was warned by my new Irish family to keep my mouth shut when talking to other people! If ever I had a faith in a Christian God, and a Christian way of life, I certainly lost it while I was in Ireland... Posted by Suseonline, Sunday, 26 February 2012 2:36:01 PM
| |
>>Does the 'law of love ' extend to paedophiles or polygamist or those practicing bestiality?<<
Well according to every Christian denomination familiar with, all people are welcome within Christianity regardless of their sins. After all, is it not their contention that Jesus died on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven - and that the first man into heaven was a thief who was crucified next to Jesus? Does that answer your question satisfactorily, runner? Just out of interest, what denomination are you? Cheers, Tony Posted by Tony Lavis, Sunday, 26 February 2012 3:24:38 PM
| |
Tony Lavis,
The thief you mentioned acknowledged his own sin deserving of death. He called upon God's mercy and received it. Those involved in immorality, lying, homosexuality and other sin will also receive mercy when acknowledging their sin and calling on Christ's mercy. Those who deny their sin will not receive mercy. The homosexual lobby want to pretend homosexuality is not a sin. I know women who have left marriages years after having children and now claim they were born lesbian. How deceived can one be. I am sure some self interested scientist will invent some theory for this obvious chosen behavior. Their are also many Christians who once practiced homosexulaity but have come out of it. The denomination where I choose to worship is irrevelant. I am comfortable worshipping with any bible beleiving Christians across a range of denominations or non denomination. It is only man who has placed barriers not God. Posted by runner, Sunday, 26 February 2012 8:30:54 PM
| |
Runner... you DO realise that lesbians can bear children, right? They are, in fact, biologically speaking, women.
Posted by Jon J, Monday, 27 February 2012 7:18:46 AM
| |
Jon J
'They are, in fact, biologically speaking, women.' I would of thought you were defeating whatever point you are trying to make. The design of the female body was very well thought out by the Designer. Posted by runner, Monday, 27 February 2012 2:28:21 PM
| |
It may reassure you to know, runner, that all my lesbian friends agree completely with you.
>>The design of the female body was very well thought out by the Designer.<< Whoever (or whatever, they're not much fussed which) designed the female body, did a damned fine job of it. Posted by Pericles, Monday, 27 February 2012 3:37:29 PM
| |
>>Whoever (or whatever, they're not much fussed which) designed the female body, did a damned fine job of it.<<
Nonsense. I'll agree that they (or it, I'm not much fussed either) succeeded in making it look fantastic, but good aesthetics do not automatically equate to good design. A simple example is the adjacent placement of the the trachea and esophagus. There is no biological imperative which necessitates that they be located next to one another. But because they just happen to be right next to each other, lots of people die untimely deaths when they choke while eating. If God is the Designer, He is a pretty crap engineer for a being who is supposed to be all-powerful. Cheers, Tony Posted by Tony Lavis, Monday, 27 February 2012 5:50:49 PM
| |
Tony
'If God is the Designer, He is a pretty crap engineer for a being who is supposed to be all-powerful.' Yea I am sure you could of done better Tony. I don't think you know how idiotic you sound Posted by runner, Monday, 27 February 2012 6:22:17 PM
| |
I think you may have missed the point, Tony Lavis.
>>A simple example is the adjacent placement of the the trachea and esophagus. There is no biological imperative which necessitates that they be located next to one another<< As far as I am aware, these are identically positioned on men and women. The design work that my lesbian friends had in mind lies elsewhere on the female body. A fact that did not escape runner's notice, of course. You can tell by the way he studiously avoided correcting the flaw in his own argument. Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 28 February 2012 8:24:01 AM
| |
Thank you gentlemen…
If, from now on because of my beliefs (and like my lesbian friends), I'm subjected to a severe tongue lashing – I shan't be able to prevent myself gagging… With laughter. Posted by WmTrevor, Tuesday, 28 February 2012 9:20:36 AM
| |
Pericles,
What was Runner’s flawed point that needed correcting? “Darwinists argue that the body is poorly designed, and conversely they also argue that science cannot make judgments about design because claims in this area are outside of science—judgments that science cannot entertain because it assumes purpose in nature. Either science can make judgments about design, or it cannot. Both cannot be true. One common claim of poor design is the human pharynx. “When the oral cavity’s many functions are carefully considered and compared to other possible designs, it shows that the ‘bad design’ claim is invalid. There are at least a dozen important reasons for its existing design. The only way to scientifically prove a system is better is to do a scientific comparison of two groups, one group that uses each system. This experiment will never be done as it would require major surgery and likely would create serious health problems.” – JB Nigel, For the lady you mention who pastors the fundamentalist church, why do you use the term ‘fundamentalist’. Why is her church any more fundamentalist than yours or mine? Is that not just emotive language? Is the definition of a fundamentalist church simply one that disagrees with your view or mine? You say this lady condemns gays without actually saying what she said. I’m curious to know what she said. I suspect you’re exaggerating. You say that the God revealed by Jesus Christ is an alternative view. How is anyone supposed to swallow that? Jesus’ revelation of himself has been the central focus of Christian religion throughout the world for 2000 years. It’s pretty mainstream, not alternative. You may have something important to say, but you need to tighten up on your arguments. Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 28 February 2012 11:01:47 AM
| |
>>Yea I am sure you could of done better Tony.<<
Of course I couldn't. But I'm not omnipotent or omniscient. What's God's excuse? Posted by Tony Lavis, Tuesday, 28 February 2012 2:27:52 PM
| |
What's this, Dan S de Merengue, another red herring?
>>“Darwinists argue that the body is poorly designed, and conversely they also argue that science cannot make judgments about design...<< Who are these people? Name names. I'm a "Darwinist" (always assuming that is the same thing as "someone who favours evolution over design"; it's sometimes difficult to tell with you) and I would not dream of suggesting that the body is poorly designed. In fact, I would go further - I don't accept that the body has been "designed" at all. Like Topsy, it just growed. Furthermore, red-herring-wise, you have quoted from a Jerry Bergman article whose introductory paragraph states "The concept of dysteleology claims that much poor design exists in the natural world, and therefore an intelligent creator does not exist" You, of all people, should be aware that dysteleology - in the form attacked by Bergman - was the brainchild of Ernst Haeckel. Haeckel was a competent zoologist, but an appalling philosopher, with most of his theories - dysteleology included - widely derided. He was also an archetypal "master race" proponent. Just saying. All in all, Bergman's attack is manifestly directed at the strawest of strawmen. But you knew that already, did you not. I nearly forgot. You asked a question: >>Pericles, What was Runner’s flawed point that needed correcting?<< In response to runner's insistance that purpose of the female body is to enhance male-on-female attraction, hence heterosexual activity and childbearing in the sanctity of marriage. (I was going to use a whole lot of inverted commas there, but you'll just have to imagine the raised eyebrows instead.) I simply pointed out that the same design is fiercely attractive also, to lesbian women. So far, no rebuttal. Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 28 February 2012 2:59:23 PM
| |
Pericles,
Who are the people saying the body is poorly designed? Tony Lavis, for one, is saying so. Are Darwinists saying that the body is poorly designed? The creators of the journal Panda’s Thumb speak of poor design. It’s there even in the naming of their journal. They’re Darwinists aren’t they? And I think you’re reading something into Runner’s posts that he didn’t quite say. But I’ll let him clarify or defend his comments if he wants to. Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 28 February 2012 5:26:57 PM
| |
Pericles you write
'I simply pointed out that the same design is fiercely attractive also, to lesbian women.' Unfortunately also some men and women are fiercely attracted to young girls and boys. Posted by runner, Wednesday, 29 February 2012 12:19:19 AM
| |
One at a time, please.
It might help here if you let me know who you believe is a "Darwinist", Dan S de Merengue, and whether they differ from those who simply prefer the various theories of evolution over the God-designed-it-all school of thought. >>Pericles, who are the people saying the body is poorly designed? Tony Lavis, for one, is saying so<< Is Tony a "Darwinist"? If he is, then your statement might better be phrased "some Darwinists argue", until we decide who is and who isn't. >>The creators of the journal Panda’s Thumb speak of poor design. It’s there even in the naming of their journal. They’re Darwinists aren’t they?<< I don't know. Are they? A brief glance at their web site doesn't provide any clues. If you search the site for "Darwinism", you will find that it is a term used predominantly by creationists - presumably as some form of pejorative naming convention. I guess it's easier to target a dead nineteenth-century naturalist than to line up against folk who believe in modern science. I think you may be clutching at straws here. To my way of thinking, using "design", good or bad, as evidence of anything at all is a fairly dumb approach. After all, if the thumb of a panda, or the human trachea, really are aberrations, surely they could equally be used as evidence against natural selection, as well as "design", no? And runner. How quaint. >>Unfortunately also some men and women are fiercely attracted to young girls and boys.<< Are you offering this as further evidence of God's design? That he/she deliberately designed young girls' and boys' bodies to be attractive to a particular type of individual? Whom, by the way, he/she also designed...? An interesting angle on the whole question, to be sure. Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 29 February 2012 8:23:06 AM
| |
I'm a neo-Lamarckist.
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and all the numbers were 'six', and it lacked for an hour hand. What conclusions would you draw from such a shoddily constructed watch? It doesn't suggest a blind watchmaker to me: it suggests a hopelessly incompetent watchmaker. Either that, or no watchmaker at all. I go for the latter. Cheers, Tony Posted by Tony Lavis, Wednesday, 29 February 2012 9:18:35 AM
| |
Pericles,
I hesitate to keep this line of discussion going as it is beginning to stray off topic. Is Tony Lavis a Darwinist? Perhaps you should ask him. He didn’t say precisely. Yet he did want to challenge God’s credentials as Designer. For those who wish to challenge the suggestion that God is the creator of life, the main theory given any plausibility these days is some form of Darwinism or Neo-darwinism. That is the going theory. Is there anything else on offer? Are you proposing some other theory? I don’t see the people from Panda’s Thumb proposing anything else. I don’t see them viewing the term Darwinist as pejorative. You claim to be a Darwinist. You also claim the body is well designed. So you’re one of those caught in the dilemma of seeing and acknowledging design while denying the Designer. Through design in nature (that many including you admit is apparent) we clearly see God’s invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature. The sound response when one sees wonder in design is to give credit to the designer. If all those have who want to deny God’s divine qualities is recourse to whom you call 'a dead nineteenth century naturalist', then more pity to them. Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 29 February 2012 9:45:11 AM
| |
No, I think we are still well on topic, Dan S de Merengue.
>>Pericles, I hesitate to keep this line of discussion going as it is beginning to stray off topic<< In my view, the appearance of "God's Design" in this thread is apposite. After all, if you believe that man is God's design, you will also need to accept that the design includes homosexuality. Which was my point to runner. But you may be right, that this Darwinism, neo-Darwinism stuff is all a little tedious and irrelevant. But just a couple of points before I go. >>You claim to be a Darwinist<< Only, as I took pains to point out, if you classify anyone and everyone who accepts the concepts of evolution as a "Darwinist". But as I also observed, it seems to be some kind of swear-word in the mouths of creationists, so I took a little time out to wonder why this should be. >>You also claim the body is well designed<< ¿Qué? Absolutely I did no such thing. As it happens, I believe there are quite a number of changes that would be most beneficial, straight off the bat. What's with toenails? And how about those disgusting clumps of hair sprouting from the ears of the bloke in front of you in the bus? And how come I can't see clearly any more without bits of plastic in front of my eyeballs...? >>So you’re one of those caught in the dilemma of seeing and acknowledging design while denying the Designer<< I'm afraid that takes us back to our favourite circular argument. You can accredit a Designer only if you first believe that there actually is a Designer. There is nothing missing from evolution theory that requires us to say "ok, that makes no sense. It must have been designed by some supreme being.". So I'd be genuinely interested in a creationist's view on the design benefits of a toenail. Particularly as one of mine is horribly black, ingrowing and painful at the moment, having recently had a close encounter with a cricket ball. Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 29 February 2012 3:16:48 PM
| |
The term “Darwinist” is used by creationists to make evolution sound like an ideology and the need creationists feel to do this (in lieu of any sort of evidence whatsoever) is evident in Dan’s persistent use of the term despite other less ambiguous alternatives.
“Evolutionist” sounds more scientific because it contains the word “evolution”, but by using a term that is based on a name (the name of the person who first hypothesized that natural selection was the driving force behind evolution) creationists get to make it sound like it’s a mere philosophy, like Marxism or Keynesianism or Stalinism, and just one man’s idea. Pericles’ point, that “Darwinism” is a form of pejorative naming, is spot on. Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 29 February 2012 4:06:01 PM
| |
>>Is Tony Lavis a Darwinist? Perhaps you should ask him. He didn’t say precisely.<<
What part of neo-Lamarckist don't you understand? >>If all those have who want to deny God’s divine qualities is recourse to whom you call 'a dead nineteenth century naturalist', then more pity to them.<< I don't want to deny God's divine qualities: I just don't think It's the Designer. Why is it necessary to believe that God is in the watchmaking trade to believe that It exists? Cheers, Tony Posted by Tony Lavis, Wednesday, 29 February 2012 5:55:53 PM
| |
Pericles,
I thought you said, ‘the body was well designed.’ Que? You don’t remember saying that? Here’s the quote: “I would not dream of suggesting that the body is poorly designed.” How else could that be interpreted? What’s with toenails? Well, I was glad I had a set today when someone stepped on my foot on a busy train. And Pericles, I’m also glad at last I’ve found something we have in common. It seems we’re both cricket fans. Three times in my life I’ve visited the hospital because of cricket injuries. I can sympathise with your bruises. Tony, I’m sorry; I didn’t read your previous post before I put mine in. They two posts were submitted somewhat close together and I started writing mine before noticing you’d put yours in. What part of neo-Lamarckist don't I understand? Most of it. What is the difference between a neo-Lamarckist and an old-style Lamarckist? ‘Why is it necessary to believe that God is in the watch making trade to believe that it exists?’ If we are talking about any unspecified or imaginary god, then we’re free to believe anything we care to. Yet Nigel’s article refers to the Christian God as revealed in Jesus Christ. This is something specific. The Christian God is known as synonymous with the Creator. Thanks AJ, for your comment. I tend to see the terms Darwinist and evolutionist as mostly synonymous. In this I don’t think I’m alone judging by the comments of some others here. Just as it is with how Marxism is mostly synonymous with communism and Keynes is often synonymous with laisser faire economics (or whatever it was he was advocating, I’m no economist.) Darwin’s philosophy changed the way the world thinks about nature. In many ways, he rules the world from his grave in Westminster. The term Neo-Darwinism means something specific, and many highly qualified biologists are happy to identify themselves with that view. Yet if you’d prefer, I’d be happy to exchange those words (Darwin and evolution) in my posts above. It doesn’t change much for me. Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 29 February 2012 11:44:03 PM
| |
Now I’ll try to drag my comments somewhere towards the topic at hand.
Pericles, We could talk about cricket injuries or other unpleasantness such as hair growing in places we don’t appreciate. However, you haven’t grasped the Christian philosophy if you think that the world is this way because that is how God planned or designed it. What is is not necessarily what ought to be. No Christian (or perhaps I should say no Christian who’s read the Bible) believes that this world is a pristine representation of the world that God created. While we see evidence of design in creation everywhere, we also see many things that are far from ideal and very much undesired. The world is spoiled and fallen from its original state. The Bible talks about the earth groaning under a curse, waiting for its liberation. It speaks of a future time of refreshing and restoration. Restoration implies restoring something back to its original state. We get a picture of the original state that God created when we read about the Edenic garden. Jesus spoke about how at the beginning, ‘God made them male and female.’ He affirmed marriage in relation to the first marriage, of a man becoming one with his wife. The point I’m trying to make is that evidence of design doesn’t imply that everything is as it was designed. That homosexuality or anything else now exists doesn’t necessarily imply that it was part of the original creation. ‘Is’ does not imply ‘ought’. Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 29 February 2012 11:46:41 PM
| |
Oh, really, Dan S de Merengue?
>>Here’s the quote: “I would not dream of suggesting that the body is poorly designed". How else could that be interpreted?<< You could make a start by reading the rest: "I would not dream of suggesting that the body is poorly designed. In fact, I would go further - I don't accept that the body has been 'designed' at all. Like Topsy, it just growed." But I guess you just stopped at "poorly designed", didn't you. I can understand that. >>What’s with toenails? Well, I was glad I had a set today when someone stepped on my foot on a busy train<< If you are suggesting that toenails are any form of protection to the toes, you are definitely not a cricketer. A bruised foot heals within a couple of weeks. A blackened toenail, complete with the congealed blood between the nail and the skin that prevents you from cutting the damn thing properly, lasts for the entire season. A fact of which I am right now walking - or hobbling - proof. >>While we see evidence of design in creation everywhere, we also see many things that are far from ideal and very much undesired<< That's inconsistent. If you are content that "many things are far from ideal", what's the problem with some folk pointing out design flaws? Is it just because they don't believe in your Designer in the first place? So in your view, Christians are the only sect allowed to admit that some aspects of Design are "very much undesired"? >>The world is spoiled and fallen from its original state<< That would indicate that you believe Adam did not have hair sprouting from his ears in his later years. Nice for him. And for Eve too, I guess. >>The point I’m trying to make is that evidence of design doesn’t imply that everything is as it was designed. That homosexuality or anything else now exists doesn’t necessarily imply that it was part of the original creation.<< How inconsistent of you. But how very convenient. Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 1 March 2012 8:07:37 AM
| |
Hi Dan de Meringue,
So, everything either: * works pretty satisfactorily, and therefore was designed by God; or * doesn't work too well, or is not approved by decent Christians, and therefore ".... is spoiled and fallen from its original state ...." I guess that just about covers everything, one way or the other. As an atheist, can I suggest that you can get around this poor-design, or 'fallen from grace' dilemma by considering that your god is possibly (I think it was Mircea Eliade who proposed this) otiose: he/she did her/his bit over those six days, said "yeah, she'll be right," and has retired from the world to be a powerless observer ever since (apart from the burning bushes, manna from heaven, creating vast amounts of water out of nothing for Noah's flood, a bit of smiting here and there), but bitterly disappointed. That also gets him/her off the hook for allowing the most dreadful tragedies to occur. I guess, if he/she is omniscient AND good, then he/she must be constantly grieving, regretting, and thinking "Christ, what was the bloody point of THAT ?". Oh well, with billions of billions of galaxies, and probably billions of planets too, she can practise on one of the others until she gets it right: no ear-hair, no toe-nails, smaller avocado stones, stable tectonic plates, smarter-looking emus next time. Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 1 March 2012 1:29:39 PM
| |
Dan
What do you think of the fact that most of the mainstream churches in Australia – Anglican, Catholic, Uniting etc – accept the theory of evolution? At the very least, it suggest you are not speaking for all Christians when you identify Creationism with Christianity. Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 1 March 2012 1:50:16 PM
| |
>>Most of it. What is the difference between a neo-Lamarckist and an old-style Lamarckist?<<
Old school Lamarckists were definitely wrong. Lamarckism is usually held up as an example of a plausible hypothesis which was not supported by evidence. Neo-Lamarckists accept the current understanding of genetic and evolutionary theory; as best they understand it. There is evidence in reputable and repeatable studies for epigenetic inheritance, which may not have been exactly what Lamarck was getting at but which is close enough that I'll use his name. >>If we are talking about any unspecified or imaginary god, then we’re free to believe anything we care to.<< Personally I only believe there's the one god and that It isn't imaginary. I like polytheism because I like Classical mythology, but I don't think it's a very rational belief system. >>The Christian God is known as synonymous with the Creator.<< At least the Christians managed to get that much right: God is indeed the Creator. Where they start to go wrong is insisting that It's the Designer. Apparently the notion creation without design is too much for them get their head around. Go figure. Cheers, Tony Posted by Tony Lavis, Thursday, 1 March 2012 11:08:42 PM
| |
Rightly or wrongly, being a Christian (and, for the purpose of this post, I refer to mainstream organised Christianity with a well-documented interpretation of doctrine) requires an acknowledgement that sin is a part of the human condition. While we should always endeavour to avoid sin, we will not always be successful. In those cases, contrition is the next best thing. Acknowledging our wrongdoing and atoning for it brings us back into communion with God.
Therein lies the problem. What if one sins but does not know it? It's not denying a sin, as runner seems to suggest; rather, it's blindly sinning. Out of late-night laziness, I won't dig up references here (and I don't apologise for that - if you can read this, you have internet access and can dig around for yourself). I will, however, put forth my understanding (based on Catholic teaching) that those who are ignorant of their sins do not share the condemnation of those who are aware of them and commit them anyway. (cont'd) Posted by Otokonoko, Friday, 2 March 2012 12:15:12 AM
| |
(cont'd)
Which raises a further question: is reading the Bible the same as 'knowing'? Is hearing the word equal to understanding it? Take those who put Jesus to death as a case study. According to Luke (23:34), Jesus asked His father to forgive them, 'for they know not what they do'. Yet they had heard the word of the Lord, and they were aware that the man they were punishing had said He was the Son of God. So how could they not know? My suggestion is that they had heard, but not accepted. There is a difference between passively not accepting and actively rejecting - the former is an unconscious and uncontrollable act, while the latter is a conscious decision. If indeed the execution of a deity is a sin, then the former equates to the blind sin I mentioned earlier, while the latter equates to a denial of sin. How does homosexuality come into this? I know several Catholics who are gay. Their church tells them that their sexual activities are sinful, but they continue with them anyway. It is possible that they have heard but not accepted - they have been told that their actions are sins, but this has not become a part of their mindset. In every other regard, they are Catholic. They are charitable, they are faithful, they honour the Lord and they perform God's work to the best of their ability. To deny them their Christianity simply because their understanding of what 'being Christian' is differs from others of the same faith is, in my opinion, absurd. I suspect that Jesus himself would petition for their absolution because, like His own persecutors, they know not what they do. Alternatively, we Catholics may have it wrong. Perhaps homosexuality is not a sin at all. Sorry to babble. Sorry also that this may not make a whole heap of sense. Of late, I've had difficulty explaining myself. I'll summarise by saying that, as I understand it, a sin is a sin only if it is known by the sinner to be such a thing. Posted by Otokonoko, Friday, 2 March 2012 12:17:19 AM
| |
Otokonoko,
I don’t think you were babbling; you were quite coherent. Pericles, For the record, I did play cricket, though I wasn’t particularly good, not nearly as good as my dad. I played five years in juniors, four years seniors, and then three years umpiring. Tony Lavis, I must admit, I’ve never made much distinction between God as designer and God as creator. I suppose design is the thought process that goes before creating. I assume God did both. What’s the importance in the distinction? Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 2 March 2012 11:03:04 AM
| |
Rhian,
I wasn’t attempting to speak for all Christians. I know people have different views. Why do so many Christians accept the theory of evolution? There may be many reasons. I don’t see any Biblical imperative. It may be social pressure and conditioning, wanting to go along with the crowd and not sticking your neck out, especially in the academic realm where evolution is in vogue (grant funding, status, job availability, academic pressure, etc.) The Anglican, Catholic, and Uniting churches are not the only churches in Australia. Church of Christ, Baptist, and Pentecostal churches are growing towards the mainstream in terms of their numbers. Along with the Presbyterians they’re likely to contain more creationists. R.C. Sproul is one respected Reformed theologian coming to mind who has recently declared himself to have adopted the creationist view. Even those within the Anglican, Catholic, and Uniting churches often don’t speak as one. I’m not sure that any of these churches have an official position on the matter. And when occasionally a spokesperson makes a pronouncement they’re usually representing some isolated think tank more so than the entirety of the clergy. I would say that opinion varies. Anecdotally, at the large Anglican bible college in Melbourne at which I’m currently enrolled the lecturer in Old Testament describes Genesis as ‘foundational narrative’. He takes a fairly straight forward historical view of the book. For example, when asked who Cain’s wife was, he said he leans towards the theory that she was probably one of Cain’s siblings, which is a standard creationist position that people weren’t heard to say very often before the modern creationist view started to grow legs a few decades ago. In short I’d say while the creationist view is not in the middle of the theological mainstream, I think it’s slowly heading back that way. (I say ‘back’ as six day creation was the standard view of the church from the beginning of church history, through the centuries of great scientific advancement, i.e. well through Newton’s time, until approaching the time of Darwin.) Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 2 March 2012 11:08:20 AM
| |
The six day creation sounds ridiculuos until you compare it with the idiotic faith based evolution theories which continue to change. Every honest scientist knows that true science points a lot more to Genesis than the something from nothing myth. Hard heartedness and willful blindness stops church goers and non church goers alike accepting Genesis. It is the only sensible explanation for beginnings.
Posted by runner, Friday, 2 March 2012 12:58:57 PM
| |
Dan
I accept evolution because it is rational, coherent and consistent with the available evidence. Evolution is no more in “vogue” in scientific circles than the heliocentric solar system – it’s accepted as fact. You are right that the smaller churches are more likely to contain Creationists than the larger denominations. My point is that most Christians don’t belong to churches that deny evolution. The Anglican church set up a section of its website celebrate the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s Orgin of the Species (sadly the section is now closed, but the reference is here: http://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2008/09/pr6808.aspx) Darwin is, after all, buried in Westminster Abby. Roman Catholics, as I understand it, believe in “theistic evolution” - that evolution is a natural process guided by God. There is some interesting theology exploring the compatibility of design and evolution, and while I tend to be sceptical I don’t rule out the possibility that the anthropic principle points to a Creator’s mind behind the physical universe and life. But that is not the same as rejecting evolution. Otokonoko Thanl you for your thoughtful post. I also suspect that Jesus would petition for gays - not because I think homosexuality is a sin (I don’t think it is), but because he consistently sided with the marginal and the vilified against those who presume to decide who is acceptable and who is not. Posted by Rhian, Friday, 2 March 2012 1:01:22 PM
| |
Hmmm. I'm not sure how that excuses the lack of toe-related-injury awareness, Dan S de Merengue...
>>Pericles, For the record, I did play cricket, though I wasn’t particularly good, not nearly as good as my dad. I played five years in juniors, four years seniors, and then three years umpiring.<< ...but it does add some colour to your confession that... >>Three times in my life I’ve visited the hospital because of cricket injuries.<< In such a short career, to be thrice hospitalized with injuries from the field of play is some achievement. Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is... Aha, perhaps the injuries were sustained while umpiring? Just a thought. So, a quick recap. Have we agreed that the toenail is either a piece of unfortunate Design, placed there perhaps to remind us of the sinful state in which we live, or a redundant feature that will eventually disappear through natural evolutionary processes? Or something else entirely, perhaps. And while we're chatting, a comment or two on Mr Sproul (senior, of course. Let's not talk about junior, shall we) >>R.C. Sproul is one respected Reformed theologian coming to mind who has recently declared himself to have adopted the creationist view.<< Having read his reasoning, I note that it suffers from the circularity disease that you and I enjoy batting backwards and forwards. He appears quite blatant about it: "According to the Reformation hermeneutic, the first option is to follow the plain sense of the text. One must do a great deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to escape the plain meaning of Genesis 1-2. The confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days." http://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-rc-sprouls-position-creation/ So, no useful alternative interpretation of the text, ergo it must be true. Convenient. But surely, resting an argument solely on a literal interpretation of the Bible is dangerous? E.g. most of Deuteronomy... But as soon as you protest "Ah, but...", you will also need to admit the same "Ah, but..." option for Genesis. Any thoughts? Posted by Pericles, Friday, 2 March 2012 3:22:42 PM
| |
Pericles,
As an atheist I don't know why you want to read Sproul. But I'm glad you did. He's quite a well known theologian. I quite enjoy his books. I'd be happy for you to look into his writings a bit further. To say a toe is poorly designed because it suffered an injury is analogous to saying a Mercedes is poorly designed when it was damaged after skidding on a drizzly day and hitting a tree. Even for a Mercedes with its front end crumpled in, there is much for which we still notice that it came about through a process of intentional design. It didn't evolve by itself. Rhian, I can't let your first point go unchallenged. Your heliocentric solar system and evolution is comparing chalk and cheese. Heliocentrism is accepted because it is readily verifiable. If you want to check it, any day of the week, you can observe it, and take the measurements. It's a constantly repeating process. While the scientific method relies on the repeatability of its experiments, we don't get the chance to see apes repeatadly turning into humans. We're not observing nor able to observe reptiles turning into birds. At best these these notions are historical. That's why evolution is destined to stay in the realm of the philosophical and the controversial. Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 3 March 2012 9:03:36 AM
| |
Dan
We don’t get the chance to see apes turn into humans, but we do see a fossil record of evolution and we do see progressive variations within and between species consistent with evolution - the variations that Darwin observed in finches in the Galapagos, for example. You described evolution as “in vogue”, suggesting a temporary and superficial popularity. This is a gross misrepresentation of the longstanding and widespread acceptance of evolution among biologists. Posted by Rhian, Saturday, 3 March 2012 10:30:25 AM
| |
Small correction, Dan S de Merengue.
>>Pericles, As an atheist I don't know why you want to read Sproul.<< I'm the atheist, not you. You're the Christian. But let's not get sniffy about dangling modifiers. I read Sproul for the same reason I discuss creationism at all. It is important to me to read as widely as possible on any subject I find interesting. And as I'm sure I've mentioned before, I find the idea that there are still, in the twenty-first century, people who believe that the universe was created by an omnipresent deity, all at once, in the space of six days, quite fascinating. Gob-smackingly, amazingly, rivettingly fascinating. But please... >>To say a toe is poorly designed because it suffered an injury is analogous to saying a Mercedes is poorly designed when it was damaged after skidding on a drizzly day and hitting a tree.<< Once again (for goodness' sake, how many more times?) let me say this. I. Do. Not. Believe. The. Toe. Is. Designed. Either well designed, poorly designed, usefully or wastefully designed, or any other wise designed. The toenail is vestigial, from a distant ancestor that found it useful. Possibly in the form of claws, for climbing trees more easily in order to escape a predator. If anything, it is waiting to be "designed out". In other words, in a few hundred more generations - unless we find a use for it in the meantime that improves our chances of survival - humans will be toenail-less. Which, if they are still playing cricket, will be a time of great rejoicing for opening batsmen. But the discussion lacks one important input from yourself. Since you believe that the toenail deliberately Designed in its present form, what purpose does it have? Surely not solely for the purposes of encouraging batsmen to move their foot more quickly to the onside, to allow enough room for a free swing of the bat? Although that would be rather impressive. Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 3 March 2012 7:38:39 PM
| |
Rhian,
Your point about the acceptance of evolution being ‘widespread’ and in the ‘majority’, like the ‘billion people in China can’t all be wrong’, type argument isn’t so persuasive in this context. Majority opinion can often be swayed and history shows many examples of where scientific opinion has sweepingly changed. But now you raise a different issue, that of the fossil record. Creationists are more than happy to defend their viewpoint on the fossil evidence alone, which as they expect, shows major categories of living things with gaps between. The variation you and I notice within finches or humans doesn’t explain the origin of those finches or humans, which is the ultimate question. Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 9 March 2012 9:32:56 AM
| |
Hi Dan,
There is an interesting article in today's Australian, detailing the biological commonalities, and common ancestry, of humans and gorillas, going back many millions of years - not just by using the vast fossil record, but by corroboration from thorough DNA studies. Fossils + DNA. Disparate branches of science corroborating each other's accounts. Sounds good to me :) Cheers, Joe Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 9 March 2012 10:18:20 AM
| |
Dan
I was specifically addressing your use of the word “vogue” which implies a temporary, shallow fad. I agree, majority opinion can be wrong, but a tried, tested and logical theory will only be discarded in science if it is shown to be inconsistent with evidence, which evolution is not. As Loudmouth shows, it is not only fossils that support evolution. Evolution tells us how life came to exist. Religion tells us why – a question science cannot answer. Incidentally, why would creationists expect extinctions? Posted by Rhian, Friday, 9 March 2012 12:51:15 PM
| |
Dan S de Merengue, you're a tease.
You can't just drop in here after nearly a week, and still not answer the all-important "question of the toenail". After all we've been through together, that's just torture. I put it as pleadingly as I could: "...the discussion lacks one important input from yourself. Since you believe that the toenail was deliberately Designed in its present form, what purpose does it have?" I don't ask much, you know. But it is little things like this - and they don't come much littler than a toenail - that contribute to a harmonious and mutually satisfying relationship. Posted by Pericles, Friday, 9 March 2012 1:06:45 PM
| |
Rhian,
If you say “vogue” implies something temporary then I think the word might be quite apt. Why would creationists expect extinctions? As I was trying to clarify earlier, according to St Paul (Rom 8), the world is under a curse. Ever since the fall, the world has gone away from God's order and has been suffering. In a fallen world bad things happen. Extinction among the animal kingdom is perhaps one of these. We can see from the fossil record that certain animals at one time existed that don't now. So we know that extinction happens. Though we are sometimes pleasantly surprised when we find living creatures that turn up unexpectedly, after having first only knowing them as fossils (like the Coelecanth), and thinking them extinct for millions of years. Some above have suggested that this view is 'convenient' for the Christian worldview. Yet convenience hardly makes one's perspective untrue. E.g. It's quite 'convenient' that the world rotates on its axis every 24 hours. And I think those question words 'how', 'why', etc. start heading towards the Maxwell Smart throw away lines. Both science and faith attempt to deal with more than just how and why alone. The Bible says a lot about what happened in the past and what's going to happen in the future. Pericles, To be frank, I thought I'd answered your concern sufficiently. I was getting a bit tired of discussing toenails. Joe, You inspired me to go and buy the paper. But I couldn't find the article. The Australian, Friday, March 9. What page? Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 9 March 2012 5:12:32 PM
| |
Hi Dan,
Bottom left-hand corner of page 11. Fascinating ! Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 9 March 2012 5:58:01 PM
| |
Sorry, Dan S de Merengue, I must have missed it.
>>Pericles, To be frank, I thought I'd answered your concern sufficiently. I was getting a bit tired of discussing toenails.<< Would it be too much trouble to cut'n'paste your answer again, just to indulge me? My question was... "Since you believe that the toenail was deliberately Designed in its present form, what purpose does it have?" It is ok of course to accept that it has no purpose whatsoever. But that would open up a few more, possibly unwelcome, avenues of enquiry as to the validity of "Design". would it not? More likely though, you'll fall back on the "God moves in mysterious ways" schtick. Receptus ignavorum. Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 11 March 2012 8:30:59 AM
| |
Pericles,
The words "God moves in mysterious ways" aren’t mine. The phrase belongs to you. For your question, perhaps look at what I’ve already said (try starting Feb 29.) Jo, The article in the Australian was less detailed that I expected. It’s totality on fossils was four words long, stating a particular date ‘tallies with fossil evidence’. Inevitably such evidence will corroborate more easily for the philosophically inclined. Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 11 March 2012 9:42:21 PM
| |
Thank you Dane,
Not just fossils. As I noted earlier, " .... not just by using the vast fossil record, but by corroboration from thorough DNA studies. "Fossils + DNA. "Disparate branches of science corroborating each other's accounts." Fossils (material evidence, bones, bits and pieces which can be put in chronological sequences and fairly accurately dated) + DNA which can be examined for all species down to amoeba and up to Homo Sapiens. Vast amounts of fossils - I've seen entire floors of boxes of fossils in one museum, probably hundreds of thousands of them, mostly still waiting to be catalogued. And DNA which is in every living creature, every wonderful, amazing creature which, through random mutations, have survived where countless other have not (and the remains of many who are now extinct), in the purposeless, chaotic, randomness of evolution, out of which only the 'fittest' survive, and for who knows how long. A completely messy lack of order, but that's life. Fossils + DNA. That does it for me :) Cheers, Joe Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 11 March 2012 9:59:55 PM
| |
Sorry, Dan S de Merengue. That's just not good enough.
>>For your question, perhaps look at what I’ve already said (try starting Feb 29.)<< Ok. You began, on Feb 29, with this: >>Through design in nature (that many including you admit is apparent) we clearly see God’s invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature.<< Which caused me to ask the question, how are these invisible qualities, eternal power and divine nature evident in the Design of the toenail? To which you responded, entirely unconvincingly: >>What’s with toenails? Well, I was glad I had a set today when someone stepped on my foot on a busy train<< Unconvincing, of course, because the toenail in no way forms protection for the toe. Quite the opposite, in fact, since it is far more vulnerable to painful and lasting injury, than a toenail-less toe would be. But you at the same time attempted a cover story: >>While we see evidence of design in creation everywhere, we also see many things that are far from ideal and very much undesired. The world is spoiled and fallen from its original state... We get a picture of the original state that God created when we read about the Edenic garden<< This can surely indicate only that either a) Adam had no toenails, and they grew later as the world fell "from its original state", or b) that Adam had toenails, which are of a patently poor Design. I think you may have recognized this as a serious problem, as your next contribution tried desperately to change the subject. >>To say a toe is poorly designed because it suffered an injury is analogous to saying a Mercedes is poorly designed when it was damaged after skidding on a drizzly day and hitting a tree<< We're not talking the Design of toes, we're talking the Design of toenails. We are also, of course, talking Design in relation to gay Christians. I'm not suggesting that Adam was gay, of course. But his kids were somewhat incestuous, I understand. Is incest part of the Design framework too? Posted by Pericles, Monday, 12 March 2012 8:41:38 AM
| |
Pericles,
In my discussion with Rhian, I pointed out that the Anglicans don’t really have an official position on evolution. I told him about the lecturer in Old Testament at one large Anglican Bible College in Melbourne this year, when asked whom did Cain marry, said he leaned towards the theory that he likely married one of his sisters. The assumptions behind this are that all people were descended from the original created pair, Adam and Eve, and therefore there was no one else for Cain to marry. I don’t count this as incest for several reasons. The prohibitions against incest were established in law at the time of Moses, and not before. This is understandable scientifically, as mutational load on the genome is building up over time as mutations are accumulating. In the same way, looking backwards in time, mutations would have been decreasing. At the beginning, Adam and Eve would have been formed perfect without any mutations. As mutations increased, with family members sharing similar types of mutations, it would be required at a certain point in time to prohibit close family members from marrying. This is why prohibitions against close relational intermarriage were introduced in the Mosaic Law. Previous to this, it is notable that Abraham, the father of the faith, married Sarah who was in fact his half-sister. So here our modern understanding of science is confirming the Biblical account. And since your questioning about toenails is so persistent, next time I see my friend who’s a podiatrist, I’ll ask her to corroborate the protective qualities of toenails or otherwise in the design of feet. But as I said, from my perspective I was glad that I had a set the other day when someone stepped on my foot Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 13 March 2012 8:45:23 AM
| |
Joe,
Disparate branches of science will corroborate each other's accounts when we’re carefully selecting or arranging the evidence to fit into a particular mindset or worldview. This is what Thomas Kuhn referred to as a scientific paradigm. Yet much evidence will not easily fit. For example, it requires special conditions to form a fossil. The vast amount of fossils we can observe, many shown in intricate detail, are likely to have been formed quickly. This is testimony to a cataclysmic flood which would have provided ideal conditions for biota to be trapped in the resulting mud and silt and deposited in layers. How do you account for the large number of marine fossils found on high mountain ranges? Some claim the small percentage difference in DNA between apes and humans show our relatedness. But even a small percentage (even one or two percent) would still amount to a huge amount of genetic information. How billions of units of complex genetic information arose from the chaotic environment within random processes evolutionists have difficulty accounting for. Similarities within different kinds are more likely accounted for by a similar (or same) designer. You reveal your philosophical preferences when you describe evolution as ‘purposeless’. This is a religious idea imposed upon the evidence and not intrinsic to it. Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 13 March 2012 8:50:28 AM
| |
Hi Dan,
This is getting away somewhat from the original purpose of the thread, but never mind. I'm surprised that you raise the issue of the multitude of fossils (while others of your persuasion might keep going on and on about 'not enough fossils', where is the missing link ? etc.) If you think about it, how many kangaroos and bettongs and numbats have wandered over the very piece of ground that you are on, and every other piece of ground in Australia ? And sooner or later, they all had to die and their bones go somewhere. On his voyage in the 'Beagle' in the 1830s, Charles Darwin stayed in Chile for a couple of years and wrote extensively - as a budding Anglican minister - about finding fossils up in the mountains and, after experiencing an earthquake and observing the massive lifting of the ground, started to understand how there could be marine fossils in mountainous country. But only by taking into account vast periods of time, far longer than the six thousand years that he had believed. He spent the next twenty five years wrestling with all the implications of what seemed to be him incontrovertible evidence of the vast time spans that geomorphological processes required. So your question has already been answered :) You write: "Disparate branches of science will corroborate each other's accounts when we’re carefully selecting or arranging the evidence to fit into a particular mindset or worldview." I don't think that archaeologists and palaeontologists and geneticists collaborate to the extent of " .... carefully selecting or arranging the evidence to fit into a particular mindset .... " The evidence is there to be found: on the one hand, the fossil evidence; on the other, the DNA evidence. Palaeontology and genetics don't exactly 'fit' together conceptually. Academics in these disparate fields would most likely work in different buildings, and rarely encounter each other. [TBC] Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 13 March 2012 11:55:23 AM
| |
[contd]
But there it is: one lot comes to one conclusion about human evolution from its body of evidence, the other lot finds much the same thing from its evidence, i.e. from an entirely different angle. It's a bit like two independent teams of detectives working on the same case, each team oblivious of the other. If they each came up with the same conclusions, perhaps from different bodies of evidence, then each of their sets of conclusions would be that much stronger, corroborated. That triangulation does it for me :) And yes, 'purposelessness' is something we impose on the evidence for evolution. Out of chaos, and the incredibly random and reckless waste of life and brutality that is 'nature', comes dominant forms of life, in the competition for existence. Horrible. But that's how it has been. The natural world does not dance to our preferred tunes of love, sweetness and light. Cheers, Joe Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 13 March 2012 11:59:54 AM
| |
You seem a little cagey about your own position on this, Dan S de Merengue.
>>...the lecturer in Old Testament at one large Anglican Bible College in Melbourne this year, when asked whom did Cain marry, said he leaned towards the theory that he likely married one of his sisters<< Do you "lean towards this theory" too? If not, you might share your views on how the grandchildren of Adam and Eve came into being. And try not to stretch the English language too far while doing so... >>I don’t count this as incest<< What name would you give it? Just because someone later decided that it wasn't quite the done thing does not mean that it did not occur. But this is more than a minor quibble over the twisting of words. You seem determined to have your cake and eat it at every turn, do you not? >>This is understandable scientifically, as mutational load on the genome is building up over time as mutations are accumulating<< This somewhat calls into question your earlier position, that "we clearly see God’s invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature". One of these "invisible qualities" being, it would appear, to Design flaws into the structure of the genome, so that it was liable to mutate. You must admit, it is a little unusual for a Designer to deliberately incorporate flaws into a blueprint. Particularly one that was - apparently Designed to be like himself. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" Gen 1:27 On which basis, could it not therefore be equally inferred that homosexuality is simply another perfectly natural outcome of the genetic process. Indeed, that it is simply another outcome of our being "in his image"? Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 14 March 2012 8:05:43 AM
| |
Pericles,
I don’t wish to think I’m repeating myself but I would like to clarify. Yes, I do share the view that was put forward by my lecturer in Old Testament at Bible College. The marriage of Sarah and Abraham was legitimate for its time. I don’t see mutation as built into the design but as deterioration or wearing out of the outworking of the design. Similarly, things we’ve designed and made wear out. I’m not trying to make things up on the fly, so as ‘to have my cake and eat it’. A universe that is corrupted or wearing out is not a novel idea but one found in much Christian writing as well as in the Bible. It has formed part of the Christian worldview. Adam and Eve were made in the beginning by God as part of God’s new creation. God pronounced everything he made in that week as ‘good’. Subsequently the sin and rebellion of man caused a disruption to the natural order. The world was then cursed and is subject to corruption and suffering while awaiting its redemption and renewal. This is explained in the letter to the Romans and elsewhere. Mutation within the genome is part of this corruption and decay. Mutation within genetics can be compared by analogy to errors that creep in to a computer program. Then when copied, the same errors are passed on generation to generation through the copying process. Yet no one (I think) believes computer programs are generated by a series of errors in the copying process. Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 14 March 2012 11:17:15 PM
| |
Joe, I agree we’ve strayed off the topic of homosexuality, but vaguely on topic in trying to understand Christian or Biblical perspectives.
The great number of fossils does work in favour of the creationist argument. For as the multitude of fossils accumulate the gaps (the missing links) in the picture become more obvious. Also, fossils are not formed every time and animal dies. Most of the time the bones decay along with everything else. It takes special conditions for a fossil to form. It’s surprising that we see so many detailed and intricate fossils, even fossilised jelly fish. Something unusual must have happened to form such a collection. I like your analogy of the detectives. But here also, people are greatly influenced by those in other areas. You say they work in ‘different buildings’ as they arrive at their ideas independently. Yet I’d assume those building have access to the Internet, as well as access to books and other media. Our minds are not blank slates to be written upon. We all have our preconceived notions and prejudice. You’re probably aware of the influence of Lyellian geology on Darwin’s ideas of the South American terrain. Some of his ideas on evolution came from his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. I’ve heard that some of his religious ideas might have been influenced by the untimely death of his daughter. I don’t know much about this last example, but my point is that we are all influenced by, and are products of, the experiences and philosophies that have occupied our understanding. I think of the field where I work, that of linguistics. I know researchers who are great at unravelling a written code or spoken text. Yet when they research the origins of language or the development of the early language of mankind, they swallow ideas whole from those outside of their field, including various historical theories of early man. They accept their ideas on faith. They must, as no one person can be an expert on every field. Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 14 March 2012 11:21:14 PM
| |
Linguistics? Really?
I acknowledge you're a more interesting read than runner... but you risk people suggesting Fandango as a more apposite nickname. Maybe this by William James "The varieties of religious experience a study in human nature" from his first Gifford Lecture at Edinburgh in 1901 might yield useful study… "In recent books on logic, distinction is made between two orders of inquiry concerning anything. First, what is the nature of it? how did it come about? what is its constitution, origin, and history? And second, What is its importance, meaning, or significance, now that it is once here? The answer to the one question is given in an existential judgment or proposition. The answer to the other is a proposition of value, what the Germans call a Werthurtheil, or what we may, if we like, denominate a spiritual judgment. Neither judgment can be deduced immediately from the other. They proceed from diverse intellectual preoccupations, and the mind combines them only by making them first separately, and then adding them together. In the matter of religions it is particularly easy to distinguish the two orders of question." My suspicion is that if you tried this more often and with more rigour and honest self-awareness, you might even reach the conclusion - admitted or not - that your God never claimed what you do regarding creation - and that gays can be Christians (as long as they have toenails). Posted by WmTrevor, Thursday, 15 March 2012 7:44:53 AM
| |
Hi Dan de Meringue,
Missing links between what and what ? To my unsophisticated mind, the number and range and locations of, say, human fossils already discovered and dated, is so vast and reasonably seamless that I have not the slightest trouble in accepting the validity of evolutionary theory. Knowledge in this field has advanced enormously since the early fifties when I first became fascinated with it as a kid, especially with the work of the Victorian Raymond Dart in South Africa. And yes, on the one hand, since every living thing must die, it would conceivably follow that we should all be knee-deep in fossils everywhere by now. But equally, as you say, because they decay, it is understandable that they aren't found everywhere. Very few human fossils have been found in Britain, for example, because of the miserable climate and inescapable dampness - which is probably why, in the distant future, more fossils of Britons may be found in Australia than in Britain itself. So it would be helpful if you can point out any large gaps in the human fossil record, something into which a 'missing link' should fit, but hasn't been found yet. Cheers, Joe Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 15 March 2012 9:32:29 AM
| |
You're still being just a tad inconsistent though, aren't you, Dan S de Merengue.
>>Adam and Eve were made in the beginning by God as part of God’s new creation. God pronounced everything he made in that week as ‘good’. Subsequently the sin and rebellion of man caused a disruption to the natural order... Mutation within the genome is part of this corruption and decay<< So the original Design of Adam and Eve was, by definition, flawed, if it was capable of mutation, corruption and decay. A new and somewhat convenient definition of "good", one is forced to acknowledge. >>Mutation within genetics can be compared by analogy to errors that creep in to a computer program.<< That is possibly the worst analogy that you could use. Errors do not "creep" into a program; they are either there, or they are not there. It's all binary, you see. One or zero. On or off. A program that works in a particular way on Monday, will work the same way on Tuesday. And Saturday. And in ten, or ten million, years time. The only possibility is that the error existed ab initio, but for some reason only became apparent when a particular set of circumstances occurred - the "millennium bug" being the classic, and very expensive, example. The only possible logical explanations for the existence of homosexuality in your belief system are that i) it was designed into the initial template, Adam, or ii) it is a perfectly natural state for mankind, as man has evolved from that initial template. There is little to be gained, I feel, in continuing this avenue of exploration, as it clearly has become very uncomfortable for you. It would be nice to think, though, that you might be able to rethink your baseline beliefs just a little, along the lines of: "God made Adam knowing full well how he would develop. And pronounced it 'good'". Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 15 March 2012 10:41:12 AM
| |
Hi Dan,
On mutations: I did a smart-@rse check on Wikipedia and found this: "Loogvali et al. (2009) .... have recalibrated the molecular clock of human mtDNA as 7990 years per synonymous mutation over the mitochondrial genome." it seems that mutation times vary for all sorts of reasons, but perhaps we can run with the figure of eight thousand years/mutation. So, since Bishop Ussher established 4004 BC as the date of the Creation (some time in October, I think? ), we have not actually had time yet for a single mutation in Eve's mtDNA. So probably not in Adam's either. So, genetics supports what Pericles pointed out, that God designed humans with the gene already inbuilt. And in his image. God loves homosexuals because ....... A puzzle: if God made man in his own image (though we can play around with the extent of the meaning of 'image'), then God has DNA and therefore, presumably, passed on his Y-chromosomes to Jesus. And if Dan Brown is right, then there are possibly many people in southern France who, to this day, have God's Y-chromosomes. All of them. Another entirely different puzzle: if God made us in his image, does he have a stomach ? After all, does he need to eat ? Yes, I can understand that he may eat simply for pleasure - after all, he is made in our image, so if we eat for pleasure, why shouldn't he ? If so, I make a pretty good fruit cake, if I say so myself, and whenever he wants to call me home, if he gives me a day or so's notice, I can bring one with me. Unless I'm not actually due to go up there, then in that case I'll try to find a way to get one from the other place, I'm sure there are back-channels :) Of course, if he has a stomach, he must also have a complete digestive system, so .... he's only human, after all. Cheers, Joe Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 15 March 2012 1:40:04 PM
| |
WmTrevor, thanks for the advice.
I found my nickname in the Barry Levison movie, Tin Men. One of the characters was using the nickname Mr. Merengue towards his rival Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 15 March 2012 4:44:05 PM
|
I too have argued along these lines in much of my writing, including articles on OLO. Many more of us who tread that path within the churches must let our voices take the message to the rest of the world. The general public has an inaccurate picture of Christianity sculpted by mass media.
Stephen Crabbe