Christian faith in TrekLit?

[Rush Limborg]

You claim I used a false dichotomy. I could contend you used a bandwagon argument.

Well, you DID use a false dichotomy.

^Well, the universe is bound by scientific laws, which are part of its existance. Therefore, whatever (or whoever) caused the universe to begin (and even evolutionists concede that it did begin--see: The Big Bang Theory) probably therefore also created said laws.

If the universe--space--was created by something (or someone), we must therefore assume that this source is not limited by space.

Since nothing in this post refers to evolution in any way shape or form, I can only conclude you were using the term to refer to people who don't believe God created the universe. Which is, in fact, a false dichotomy... and so: you were, in fact, using the wrong word!

People who don't believe God created the universe are "atheists".

A look over the bulk of my discussion makes it clear that I have been defending the literalist interperetation of the Bible. Theistic Evolutionists, as you and others pointed out, do not accept as literal the creation passage in Genesis.

I stand by my choice of wording.

I was unaware that, when correcting a factual misunderstanding (as you are, in fact, using the wrong word), I needed to be sensitive to your feelings.

Nor I, yours, when wording my arguments.

If I kept calling the holy book of Christian faith "the Revelation book", you'd say "Thrawn, it's called the Bible, you're using the wrong word". That's all that's going on here.

Somehow...I doubt I would have said that your mistake "pisses me off".


Thrawn...I doubt this quibbling will go anywhere. I personally think it's best we agree to disagree on this. If you wish to continue the debate, I'll be happy to oblige. However, I'm not exactly thrilled by this clash.

 

[Thrawn]

^ Again: no. This isn't a debate and it isn't an opinion. You're making an error; you're using the wrong word. You can "stand by your wording" all you want, doesn't make it any less wrong.

Believing in evolution has *nothing* to do with believing in the big bang. You got it right a couple posts ago; you should've just said "atheists" in the post I quoted, not "atheistic evolutionists".

Creationists like to define "evolutionist" in opposition to creationism, but they're two totally different domains of thought. Evolution is only dealing with specific verifiable evidence in the real world, something creationism by its very definition cannot be. It's a fallacy that is widespread and extremely irritating.

Again: no one that believes evolution is true would call themselves an "evolutionist". It's a term invented by certain religious groups to intentionally connect evolution to connotations of religious belief, and has no factual meaning aside from the actually correct terms I've already mentioned. It's the wrong word.

 

[Smellincoffee]

However -- assuming that there is a Thing out there called God that ..... wants to be worshiped

Where are you getting this from? I've never seen anywhere in Christian teachings where God instructs His people to "Worship Me".

and is in the habit of sending down prophets and avatars to Earth -- that people will accept easily, happily, and deride others for their lack of faith.

Again, you seem to be stating something that is in direct contradiction with the core principals of the Christian faith. While humans are flawed and may succumb to deriding people for various reasons, the philosophy of Christianity explicitly proscribes such behavior. Be careful not to condemn the ideology with those who choose not to live up to it.

"Worship me or die" is pretty much Yahweh's entire schtick, particularly in the Hebrew scriptures. Jewish history is marked by God smiting them for not worshipping him and beaming at them when they do. In the Kings and Chronicles, "good kings" and "bad kings" are defined by their persistence in suppressing other religions and mandating Yahweh worship. Manesseh, Hezikah, Joshiah...all names of interest.


I grew up in a fundamentalist church that constantly harped on worship, so sometimes I forget that some people do it voluntarily. Doesn't make it more palatable, but sometimes I make overly broad generalizations. The "worship me thing" is quite biblical, though. Just open the Hebrew verses at random -- if it's not about ritual or an avocation for murder, it's "worship or die".

Unless you go for the Psalms, I suppose..

 

[ST-One]

^Again, I make no such connotation, per se.

But...for the sake of clarification, perhaps I should have re-worded my use of "evolutionists" to "atheistic evolutionists", as opposed to "theistic evolutionists"--who accept a creator, albeit though a different manner than literalists like myself would hold.

You claim I used a false dichotomy. I could contend you used a bandwagon argument.

Well, you DID use a false dichotomy.



Since nothing in this post refers to evolution in any way shape or form, I can only conclude you were using the term to refer to people who don't believe God created the universe. Which is, in fact, a false dichotomy... and so: you were, in fact, using the wrong word!

People who don't believe God created the universe are "atheists".

A look over the bulk of my discussion makes it clear that I have been defending the literalist interperetation of the Bible. Theistic Evolutionists, as you and others pointed out, do not accept as literal the creation passage in Genesis.

I stand by my choice of wording.

I was unaware that, when correcting a factual misunderstanding (as you are, in fact, using the wrong word), I needed to be sensitive to your feelings.

Nor I, yours, when wording my arguments.

If I kept calling the holy book of Christian faith "the Revelation book", you'd say "Thrawn, it's called the Bible, you're using the wrong word". That's all that's going on here.

Somehow...I doubt I would have said that your mistake "pisses me off".

The intent as to why you use the word "evolutionist" is quite clear - you try to paint evolutionary scientists and people who think evolution rather than creation is what got us here as followers of some form of religion. So that you can point fingers and say, 'you are no better than us'.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^My side hardly has a monopoly on "painting" and "finger pointing", ST-One. And I still contend that I was not as gulty of this as you claim.

^ Again: no. This isn't a debate and it isn't an opinion. You're making an error; you're using the wrong word. You can "stand by your wording" all you want, doesn't make it any less wrong.

Believing in evolution has *nothing* to do with believing in the big bang. You got it right a couple posts ago; you should've just said "atheists" in the post I quoted, not "atheistic evolutionists".

Creationists like to define "evolutionist" in opposition to creationism, but they're two totally different domains of thought. Evolution is only dealing with specific verifiable evidence in the real world, something creationism by its very definition cannot be. It's a fallacy that is widespread and extremely irritating.

Again: no one that believes evolution is true would call themselves an "evolutionist". It's a term invented by certain religious groups to intentionally connect evolution to connotations of religious belief, and has no factual meaning aside from the actually correct terms I've already mentioned. It's the wrong word.

To be frank, Thrawn...evolution does not merely deal with "specific verifiable evidence in the real world". It takes an observed phenomenon--microevolution, adaptation of species--and extrapolates it into macroevolution, changes between kinds, such as fish-to-amphibians.

Microevolution is certainly verifiable. Macroevolution is, to be perfectly blunt, believed by faith. Fossil evidence, for example, shows chaotic conglomerations of animals without the "stage" process macroevolution requires--the "Cambrian Explosion", for one.

But again...if it really offends you that I used the term "evolutionist" (and I am still frankly amused by the idea)--then fine. I see no reson why, but here you go:

Well, the universe is bound by scientific laws, which are part of its existance. Therefore, whatever (or whoever) caused the universe to begin (and even atheists concede that it did begin--see: The Big Bang Theory) probably therefore also created said laws.

If the universe--space--was created by something (or someone), we must therefore assume that this source is not limited by space.

Now shall we agree to disagree?

 

[Thrawn]

^ That is also a factual error often espoused by literalist Christians. It's also wrong. Macroevolution is no more believed by faith than gravity is.

In much the same way that we observe gravity but have no idea what causes it, essentially every scientific theory has "holes" in it. A scientific theory is nothing more ambitious that the best, most-supportable explanation for the world we see.

Creationism isn't a scientific theory; it cannot be disproven. There is nothing I can show you that will disprove that God created the universe, and so it isn't in the realm of science. It thus cannot be an alternative to macroevolution *from a scientific perspective*. They are fundamentally different things.

Evolutionary biologists are often asked "what would disprove evolution", and the answer is extremely simple: Finding a biologically human skeleton from a million years ago. Or any other anachronistic finding. No such finding has ever occurred.

 

[label]

I asked you, since you believe the Bible to be "the divinely inspired word of God", whether you consider the parts that were left out of the official canon as "divinely inspired" also.

I believe the Bible that we got was the core message God wanted to deliver. I also believe that there are valuable lessons to be learned from the apocrypha or other books that did not make the "official" cut just as I believe there's a lot to learn from books and sermons preached today.

Perhaps you shouldn't have written this, then:

"Might I be wrong and there was an actual, literal Adam and Eve that literally get tempted to eat a fruit that bestows some magical knowledge when eaten? I suppose, though I find it unlikely given what I know."

All that I was communicating was that although I personally believe that certain parts of Genesis should not be taken as literal, historical/scientific accounts, I also acknowledge that I'm not so sure of my own conclusions about those particular passages as to be close-minded about it. I believe the view I hold is the correct one (obviously), but I know I could be wrong........that's all the sentence you quoted meant...there was no contradiction.

Perhaps all this is due to my limited command of the English language (I'm German, after all).

I'll try and do a better job of using more clear, concise language when communicating with you. Obviously the syntax I used was not very clear which apparently lead to you misunderstanding what I was saying.

Oh, this

(and certainly nothing in anything you've posted adds any credibility to your arguments)

Could you expand a little on it?

Sure. It's been my experience on these boards that people who make unequivocal statements like yours "Considering what we know, it is not only likely that you are wrong - it's certain that you are wrong" are not actually open to intelligent discourse or the possibility that the person you are talking with may have a point, but are simply trying to verbally hammer people into whatever mold you see them and I find very little value in those types of discussions.

 

[ST-One]

Microevolution is certainly verifiable. Macroevolution is, to be perfectly blunt, believed by faith.

Perhaps you should get you terminology in order.
The only difference between these two (which are still just one) in one of scale.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^ That is also a factual error often espoused by literalist Christians. It's also wrong. Macroevolution is no more believed by faith than gravity is.

In much the same way that we observe gravity but have no idea what causes it, essentially every scientific theory has "holes" in it. A scientific theory is nothing more ambitious that the best, most-supportable explanation for the world we see.

One could say the same about "spontaneous generation"--living organisims "evolving" from non-living matter--which Louis Pasteur disproved.

Interestingly enough...if spontaneous generation is a myth...than how did life begin in the first place?

Creationism isn't a scientific theory; it cannot be disproven. There is nothing I can show you that will disprove that God created the universe, and so it isn't in the realm of science. It thus cannot be an alternative to macroevolution *from a scientific perspective*. They are fundamentally different things.

Evolutionary biologists are often asked "what would disprove evolution", and the answer is extremely simple: Finding a biologically human skeleton from a million years ago. Or any other anachronistic finding. No such finding has ever occurred.

There is, of course, the discovery of Richard Leakey and his parents, in 1959.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Microevolution is certainly verifiable. Macroevolution is, to be perfectly blunt, believed by faith.

Perhaps you should get you terminology in order.
The only difference between these two (which are still just one) in one of scale.

Not necessarily. Microevolution is simply a matter of breeding...adjusting, that sort of thing. The structure, however, remains basically the same.

Macroevolution requires radical changes in structure--reptiles to birds, and so on. Changes require reasons for changes. And evidence is required for this, too.

Even Charles Darwin admitted that the eye is so complex that it seems absurd that it would be formed by "mere natural selection".

Microevolution requires simple changes. Macroevolution requires changes so radical that it begs for the question of why such a process would commence in the first place.

 

[ST-One]

One could say the same about "spontaneous generation"--living organisims "evolving" from non-living matter--which Louis Pasteur disproved.

Interestingly enough...if spontaneous generation is a myth...than how did life begin in the first place?

Your body - just as a stone, or the plastic your computer mouse is made of - consists of atoms. Are they (atoms) living matter?

 

[Thestral]

Oh, I am aware of the existance of "theistic evolutionists". But again...there are many such evolutionists--and even some creationists--who accept the Big Bang Theory.

"Theistic evolutionist" is another silly phrase. "Theistic evolution" might work as a matter of philosophy or apologetics, but it really has nothing to do with evolution as a scientific principle.

From what little I know of it, I agree that evolutionary theory is the best explanation for the development of life on earth. I "believe" in evolution. At the same time, I believe in Creation - as metaphorically presented in Genesis. So by your logic, what am I, an "evolutionist" or a "creationist"?

Also...Kestrel, you admit that "evolutionist" is an established term. Doesn't that mean that your claim that "no thinking person should use it" is purely subjective?

You claim I used a false dichotomy. I could contend you used a bandwagon argument.

"Camel jockey" is an established term too; so's "slutbag" - something being established doesn't mean it's acceptable for thinking people to use.

You had a perfect way out of the accusation of false dichotomy by admitting that Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

...as opposed to "theistic evolutionists"--who accept a creator...

"Accept" a creator?

 

[Rush Limborg]

One could say the same about "spontaneous generation"--living organisims "evolving" from non-living matter--which Louis Pasteur disproved.

Interestingly enough...if spontaneous generation is a myth...than how did life begin in the first place?

Your body - just as a stone, or the plastic your computer mouse is made of - consists of atoms. Are they (atoms) living matter?

Not particularly, no. They have energy, to be sure--but they are not alive, per se.

For those who don't know what I was referring to--"spontaneous generation" was the old idea--which even Aristotle fell prey to--that rotting meat evolves into maggots, or that old bread evolves into mold, that sort of thing. Life from lifelessness, through a natural process.

Pasteur proved through his famous expiriment that that was not the case--organisms had simply traveled to the objects in question and reproduced in them.

 

[Thrawn]

Interestingly enough...if spontaneous generation is a myth...than how did life begin in the first place?

Scientists have succeeded in causing spontaneous formation of amino acids in laboratory conditions similar to primordial Earth, and based on that research there are several promising theories. Many scientists are currently involved in attempting to document the formation of life. It's currently an open question, but one science could someday address.

There is, of course, the discovery of Richard Leakey and his parents, in 1959.

Yes. This was not a biological homo sapiens sapiens, and radically redefined the timescales on which we understood human evolution to have occurred. It did not disprove evolution; it altered our understanding of one part of it, which is how science works. Since then, several other humanoid skulls have been found in the same area that were equally ancient, further deepening our understanding of the process.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Oh, I am aware of the existance of "theistic evolutionists". But again...there are many such evolutionists--and even some creationists--who accept the Big Bang Theory.

"Theistic evolutionist" is another silly phrase. "Theistic evolution" might work as a matter of philosophy or apologetics, but it really has nothing to do with evolution as a scientific principle.

From what little I know of it, I agree that evolutionary theory is the best explanation for the development of life on earth. I "believe" in evolution. At the same time, I believe in Creation - as metaphorically presented in Genesis. So by your logic, what am I, an "evolutionist" or a "creationist"?

As I said, a "theistic evolutionist". An evolutionist who holds that God (or whoever) created the universe through evolution.

Also...Kestrel, you admit that "evolutionist" is an established term. Doesn't that mean that your claim that "no thinking person should use it" is purely subjective?

You claim I used a false dichotomy. I could contend you used a bandwagon argument.

"Camel jockey" is an established term too; so's "slutbag" - something being established doesn't mean it's acceptable for thinking people to use.

Established by whom, is the question. Those two terms are colloquialisms. On the other hand, as you have implied, "theistic evolutionist" is effective as philosophical terminology.

You had a perfect way out of the accusation of false dichotomy by admitting that Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

I did not say otherwise, per se. I was, again, simply using the example of the Big Bang theory--which even some creationists accept as a possible interperetation of "let there be light".

...as opposed to "theistic evolutionists"--who accept a creator...

"Accept" a creator?

Well...accept the premise of a creator.

 

[Thrawn]

Microevolution requires simple changes. Macroevolution requires changes so radical that it begs for the question of why such a process would commence in the first place.

Actually, this is wrong too. Macroevolution, based on our current understanding, is a process that would happen so slowly that there would be no possible way for us to observe it happening within a human lifetime. Consider that we've been studying genetics for, at best, a little over a hundred years, and evolution takes place on timescales of the hundreds of THOUSANDS of years at least.

But: this is not as much of a problem as you might think. The differences between the observable and unobservable parts of quantum physics, for instance, are roughly equivalent to the differences between micro and macro evolution. (It's just that no one thinks that contradicts the bible, so people don't spend so much mental energy taking misunderstandings and gussying them up so they look like scholarly research that DISPROVES QUANTUM PHYSICS!)

Every fossil ever discovered fits into the paradigm that macroevolution would've dictated. Thus, even though we cannot observe it happening (and never could), we can theorize that it is true.

Here's your fundamental misunderstanding: Science is not concerned with *provable* things. It is in fact impossible to prove any scientific theory; the very next observation you make could invalidate the whole thing (as Pasteur, Einstein, and many others have shown). Science is concerned with *disprovable* things. Every science paper has an understanding of what it would take to invalidate that paper.

People have been trying to invalidate evolution for over a hundred years, though. It's very clear what would do so, and not a single anachronistic fossil has been found. (That is, if a biological homo sapiens sapiens skull was found next to Leakey's skull, it would've been a hell of a lot more famous than it is! That would've meant either someone could travel in time or evolution was wrong. But that isn't what happened.)

 

[ST-One]

Microevolution is certainly verifiable. Macroevolution is, to be perfectly blunt, believed by faith.

Perhaps you should get you terminology in order.
The only difference between these two (which are still just one) in one of scale.

Not necessarily. Microevolution is simply a matter of breeding...adjusting, that sort of thing. The structure, however, remains basically the same.

Macroevolution requires radical changes in structure--reptiles to birds, and so on. Changes require reasons for changes. And evidence is required for this, too.

Even Charles Darwin admitted that the eye is so complex that it seems absurd that it would be formed by "mere natural selection".

Microevolution requires simple changes. Macroevolution requires changes so radical that it begs for the question of why such a process would commence in the first place.

I'm sorry, but you are simply repeating creationist talking-points here.

You don't understand that 'macro'- is the accumulation of 'micro'-evolution but are still explaining the very same thing; the distinction is mainly made for simplification of explanation.

And, you clearly don't understand the point about complexity Darwin was making.
He goes on saying:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."
and
"We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind."
and
"In considering transitions of organs, it is so important to bear in mind the probability of conversion from one function to another,..."

 

[Rush Limborg]

Interestingly enough...if spontaneous generation is a myth...than how did life begin in the first place?

Scientists have succeeded in causing spontaneous formation of amino acids in laboratory conditions similar to primordial Earth, and based on that research there are several promising theories. Many scientists are currently involved in attempting to document the formation of life. It's currently an open question, but one science could someday address.

Stanley Miller? Yes, I heard of that.

Yet, first of all, Miller only created amino acids--not life, per se.

Second, he was in complete control of the sytem he had set up, at times intervening in the expirimental process. (In effect...he was the Intelligent Designer.)

Third, the atmoshpere he used was the then-accepted mixure of hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water vapor.

Over the years, however, the scientific community revised its opinions as to what the atmosphere was like at the time of life's beginning. Had Miller's experiment been conducted with that atmoshere...he would have failed.

There is, of course, the discovery of Richard Leakey and his parents, in 1959.

Yes. This was not a biological homo sapiens sapiens, and radically redefined the timescales on which we understood human evolution to have occurred. It did not disprove evolution; it altered our understanding of one part of it, which is how science works. Since then, several other humanoid skulls have been found in the same area that were equally ancient, further deepening our understanding of the process.

This of course, depends on how a scientist presumes to distinguish sapiens from non-sapiens. "Neanderthal Man". for example, was originally held to have been an old man who suffered from a bone disease. When Evolution was popularized as a theory, it was re-interpereted as a "missing link".

 

[Thrawn]

And, you clearly don't understand the point about complexity Darwin was making.
He goes on saying:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."
and
"We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind."
and
"In considering transitions of organs, it is so important to bear in mind the probability of conversion from one function to another,..."

On top of which, several generational simulations have been done by computer, beginning with simple photosensitive cells, and documenting an evolutionary process that creates an eye or eye-like organ every time.

Sure, that's not as convincing as a real-world demonstration, but again, such a thing is impossible within a human lifetime. I'm positive that creationists would invalidate the entire enterprise, but it does provide a reasonable method for the evolution of such a specialized organ. If not convincing, it is at least plausible.

 

[ST-One]

One could say the same about "spontaneous generation"--living organisims "evolving" from non-living matter--which Louis Pasteur disproved.

Interestingly enough...if spontaneous generation is a myth...than how did life begin in the first place?

Your body - just as a stone, or the plastic your computer mouse is made of - consists of atoms. Are they (atoms) living matter?

Not particularly, no. They have energy, to be sure--but they are not alive, per se.

And yet they form the molecules and acids which form cells which form our bodies.

For those who don't know what I was referring to--"spontaneous generation" was the old idea--which even Aristotle fell prey to--that rotting meat evolves into maggots, or that old bread evolves into mold, that sort of thing. Life from lifelessness, through a natural process.

Pasteur proved through his famous expiriment that that was not the case--organisms had simply traveled to the objects in question and reproduced in them.

Yes, so?
Scientific experimentation proved and explained it.