OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[KodiakBuck]

This movie sure is getting the atheist community in an uproar.

Heard Stein on the Laura Ingram show today and it was great talk radio. It is going to be fun to watch the debates over this movie. Anyone planning to see it?

 

[Brewtus]

This movie sure is getting the atheist community in an uproar.

Heard Stein on the Laura Ingram show today and it was great talk radio. It is going to be fun to watch the debates over this movie. Anyone planning to see it?

Definitely plan on seeing it. I've watched a few of the trailers and was impressed to see some of the people who Ben Stein interviewed considering it's a pro-ID film (Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Eugenie Scott, etc.). I like Stein but have read that much of the film's controversy stems from him getting big names from the scientific community under false pretenses and then lobbing them with a list of questions in an attempt to quote-mine. I just hope he doesn't turn into the Michael Moore of the Right.

 

[billmac91]

Definitely plan on seeing it. I've watched a few of the trailers and was impressed to see some of the people who Ben Stein interviewed considering it's a pro-ID film (Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Eugenie Scott, etc.). I like Stein but have read that much of the film's controversy stems from him getting big names from the scientific community under false pretenses and then lobbing them with a list of questions in an attempt to quote-mine. I just hope he doesn't turn into the Michael Moore of the Right.

I saw it...it was ok. Attacks Darwinism pretty hard. Tries making the point that Intelligent Design scientists aren't religion motivated, but most of the science world paints that picture. Brings up the major question of how life started? Nobody can answer it so the "evolutionists" look silly in interviews.

Ben Stein definately has an agenda, but I think most people can take something from it. I'd probabaly recommend renting it vs. the theatre because I kind of felt like I paid 18 bucks to watch an educational video rather than an entertaining movie.

There was some good history regarding Hitler and Darwinism.

 

[muffler dragon]

Brings up the major question of how life started?

I've only seen a commercial and this was a major point in it. Abiogenesis is a very important topic; however, I've found that most evolutionists don't attempt to answer that question because evolution doesn't deal with it. It definitely is a topic that interests me.

I'd be interested in seeing the movie for the historical considerations.

 

[Gatorubet]

I've only seen a commercial and this was a major point in it. Abiogenesis is a very important topic; however, I've found that most evolutionists don't attempt to answer that question because evolution doesn't deal with it. It definitely is a topic that interests me.

I'd be interested in seeing the movie for the historical considerations.

Well, I agree that abiogenesis is an important topic. But the problem arises with the poor logic that says that "If you can't demonstrate with reproducible experiments how life began, then you must accept the only other option - that the Judeo-Christian God started life in the garden of Eden as per Genesis!"

I mean, you might was well go with Norse or Hindu mythology. To me, the fact of evolution being real and demonstrable - which it is - is just part of the explanation of the history of the earth. It pretty much shreds the 6000 year old earth advocates, and the view that the earth is new and a product of God recently. It (evolution) does nothing to dispel the existence of God, or of God being the ultimate author of all life on earth. It tells me what happened to some of the flora and fauna for millions of years. Doesn't tell me how life started. OK. Maybe we'll be told how that worked later. No problem. The problem is a belief in a jot for jot Bible that cannot have one little spot be non-literal. When a part is proven not literal, the option for those poor souls is to 1) lose faith completely, or 2) invent fantastically non-rational reasons to support the part that is demonstrably non-literal.
You can point out to people who are LDS the serious fallacy in much of their doctrine, but you either won't get any traction at all, and a serious head in sand ignoring or even switching of old doctrine with newly written doctrine claimed to be original. You can pull out the old book and show the re-writes, but you won't get any response at all, save being attacked as an evil person trying to ruin faith, or you will get a soon to be former Mormon who says "my gosh, I never knew that." No way in between.

Same thing here. To some, the failure of evolution to explain everything will lead them to discard the proof for the parts of the earth's history that evolution does show, and lead them back to the Garden of Eden and a 6k old earth. To others, they will go "ah-hah - so the earth is millions of years old and we can trace things like horses and birds via fossil and DNA over many years and see how they changed....let's keep looking to see if we can find out how life started"

It is so simplistic, but the ultimate questions is still, "If there was a big bang, what caused it, and who made the material that stared the universe in the first place. I guess, the old "if there is a God, who made God?"

I'm going with Tim Tebow as a working theory.

 

[MaxBuck]

Evolution deals with the development of life. It has nothing whatever to say about its origin.

 

[billmac91]

Evolution deals with the development of life. It has nothing whatever to say about its origin.

which is why the "evolutionists" are made to look so bad. The movie (Ben Stein) asks many questions, but in the end, to all of those interviewed comes the question: how did life start?

There isn't a known answer, just theories, and the theories are complex and 'out there' so the point of the movie is to say:

If scientists can believe it's possible life was formed in one of these crazy ways, why are they so anti-Intelligent Design as a possibility?

I do think it's worth seeing, maybe not in the theater, but I think most people can learn quite a bit.

 

[Gatorubet]

If scientists can believe it's possible life was formed in one of these crazy ways, why are they so anti-Intelligent Design as a possibility?

Because intelligent design is just a fake front for Christian fundamentalism (i.e., a not-so-subtle attempt at pushing a literal Genesis version as fact) and not an honest attempt at empirical research or theory, as any evidence contrary to a factual Biblical account is automatically discarded....IMO

 

[Gatorubet]

which is why the "evolutionists" are made to look so bad.

Hence the false set up: not knowing the answer to question "A" does not mean that the answer to question "B" - that you do know - is false.

Evolution is a valid and demonstrably proven theory that "proves" how plants and animals adapt and change over time. That the particular theory may not answer all other questions posed does not detract from its inherent validity.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

...that Intelligent Design scientists ....

Bill, this isn't directed at you, it's just that you spoke the words quoted above that I'm using as a sounding board....

There is no "science" in Intelligent Design. None. Not even a shred of it. Using the word "Scientists" in connection with these people adds a "legitimacy" to which, frankly, they are not entitled. If they wish to be regarded as legitimate scientists, then I'll expect them to provide me with some damn science at least once.. ever. By way of illustration, and somewhat in line with Stein asking evolutionists "what's your answer to how life began?" - consider the following:

You need a doctor because you are having severe pain in your abdomen. Before you are two people. One guy is wearing a white lab coat and has a stethoscope hanging around his neck. The other guy is dressed "business casual" and has a pen and paper in his hand. The guy with the pen and paper asks the guy with the lab coat the following question: "What's the appendix for?" The guy in the lab coat says "No one knows. Doesn't seem to have any purpose at all" The pen and paper guy then says "I think it's where the body stores petroleum."

Which person are you going to see about your abdomen pain? The guy who asked the question, or the guy who didn't know the answer? Shouldn't we assume - as Stein apparently seeks that we do with these ID idiots - that he (the pen and paper guy) knows the answer since he offered the working theory that the body stores petroleum and the lab coat guy has no idea?

Trying to think of a nice way of saying this...
ummm...

ID is a lot of things.... science is not one of the things that it is, though.

 

[muffler dragon]

Gator:

I went back and read my post. I hope that you're simply using my statements as a sounding board, because I don't see anything that I wrote as being a promotion of a particular point of view. Anyway...

Well, I agree that abiogenesis is an important topic. But the problem arises with the poor logic that says that "If you can't demonstrate with reproducible experiments how life began, then you must accept the only other option - that the Judeo-Christian God started life in the garden of Eden as per Genesis!"

Something I should have mentioned in my post is that the abiogenesis question to evolutionists (who do not address said point) is nothing more than a strawman. I learned this a long time ago when I WAS a YEC. I am no longer of such mind, and I've become more knowledgeable of points for both sides of the debate.

FTR, I am not a creationist in the common sense of the movement nor am I a "tow the line" evolutionist. I BELIEVE that the impetus behind the universe and all that is contained therein is from a Deistic basis. Meaning: I believe that G-d is behind all that there is in the physical universe. I believe that the natural laws of the universe are in place, because of said Deity. However, I also have no problem accepting common scientific considerations regarding the nature of ecological and animal development. My recent travels with work have taken me to the "Garden of the Gods" in CO, and Zion National Park in UT. Just seeing these topographical displays is enough to make one wonder about the antiquity of the planet we live on.

Anyway... I believe that this universe has the age that has been ascribed to it. I believe that science IS a means to understand our world. I believe that the Torah can be in agreement with that science. BKB and I have have attempted to start a discussion amongst ourselves regarding a book that I turned him on to: Genesis and the Big Bang by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. It's an non-Christian look at how the Torah and science can agree about the existence of the universe. Now may be an opportune time to bring some of the discussion to the public setting.

I mean, you might was well go with Norse or Hindu mythology. To me, the fact of evolution being real and demonstrable - which it is - is just part of the explanation of the history of the earth. It pretty much shreds the 6000 year old earth advocates, and the view that the earth is new and a product of God recently. It (evolution) does nothing to dispel the existence of God, or of God being the ultimate author of all life on earth. It tells me what happened to some of the flora and fauna for millions of years. Doesn't tell me how life started. OK. Maybe we'll be told how that worked later. No problem. The problem is a belief in a jot for jot Bible that cannot have one little spot be non-literal. When a part is proven not literal, the option for those poor souls is to 1) lose faith completely, or 2) invent fantastically non-rational reasons to support the part that is demonstrably non-literal.

I understand your angst with people of this type of mindset. I just hope you now realize that I am not one of them.

You can point out to people who are LDS the serious fallacy in much of their doctrine, but you either won't get any traction at all, and a serious head in sand ignoring or even switching of old doctrine with newly written doctrine claimed to be original. You can pull out the old book and show the re-writes, but you won't get any response at all, save being attacked as an evil person trying to ruin faith, or you will get a soon to be former Mormon who says "my gosh, I never knew that." No way in between.

Same thing here. To some, the failure of evolution to explain everything will lead them to discard the proof for the parts of the earth's history that evolution does show, and lead them back to the Garden of Eden and a 6k old earth. To others, they will go "ah-hah - so the earth is millions of years old and we can trace things like horses and birds via fossil and DNA over many years and see how they changed....let's keep looking to see if we can find out how life started"

LOL! I understand what you're talking about. Fortunately enough, for myself, I don't have to have everything understood. I've gotten to the point where I don't mind mystery, and it certainly has little to do with my faith.

It is so simplistic, but the ultimate questions is still, "If there was a big bang, what caused it, and who made the material that stared the universe in the first place. I guess, the old "if there is a God, who made God?"

I'm going with Tim Tebow as a working theory.

So, was Tebow conceived or was he just there?

 

[muffler dragon]

BKB:

Now may be an opportune time to discuss the Schroeder book if you're so inclined. I'll make the time available.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

BKB:

Now may be an opportune time to discuss the Schroeder book if you're so inclined. I'll make the time available.

Sure. I'll be around.

 

[Jake]

While open to the possibility of intelligent design, and the fact that the theory of evolution has some holes in it, the concept of "religion" escapes me. Frankly, "religion" has been so humanized over the centuries I don't see how any thinking person can take what is said in the Bible, Koran, or any religious document - as well as in the houses of worship - at face value.

"Faith" is a matter of personal choice, but too often "faith" in a god makes as much sense as faith in the tooth fairy, easter bunny, or santa claus. It's enticing to believe in a paradise after death, one where all of our loved ones will be there to spend eternity with us, but to me it is about as believable as Zeus, Thor or any other "god" one can imagine.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

While open to the possibility of intelligent design, and the fact that the theory of evolution has some holes in it, the concept of "religion" escapes me. Frankly, "religion" has been so humanized over the centuries I don't see how any thinking person can take what is said in the Bible, Koran, or any religious document - as well as in the houses of worship - at face value.

"Faith" is a matter of personal choice, but too often "faith" in a god makes as much sense as faith in the tooth fairy, easter bunny, or santa claus. It's enticing to believe in a paradise after death, one where all of our loved ones will be there to spend eternity with us, but to me it is about as believable as Zeus, Thor or any other "god" one can imagine.

Yes, but....

Why/how is the universe here? What's it expanding in to? How is "scientific cosmology" (if I can coin the phrase) any more satisfying an answer when they openly admit that seeing before the Big Bang is impossible and that it thus appears the universe achieved it's massive energy from nothing. Nothing at all.

Sounds like a cop out answer to me. True, there may not be a G-d.... but... it's a workable solution to the problem. 'Course, paradise realities awaiting us on our bodily death... may well be as you say psychological coping with the idea of our own mortality.... But, the existence of an afterlife (in the religious sense of the word) is hardly determinative of there being or not being a creator G-d.

So... really... religion and science is in search of an answer to the same question. Why... how.. are we here.

Both "disciplines" have determined the same thing... We came from nothingness. If religion is unsatisfying in this respect (Creation ex nihlo) then so must be science.