RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   
  Topic: Is the clergy letter project a waste of time ?, Anti-evolution/religion< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2008,17:37   

I noticed this on Ham's blog today, criticising the United Methodists for supporting the clergy letter project:


http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundt....growing

   
Quote
This illustrates the sad state of the church. In doing this, this denomination has shaken its fist at God and told the Creator of the Universe they don’t believe what He had written in his Word in Genesis.


   
Quote
If you look at the list of clergy who signed this letter, you will see that many are from denominations that deny a number of basics of the Christian faith—quite a number of them could not be described as “Christian”as the Bible would describe Christian.


As a Christian who has no problem with conventional science (and by that I mean evolutionary science, regardless of the subject) I wonder what exactly this project is going to achieve in the long run. Unless large numbers of evangelical Christians/Christian denominations come out in support then it really is a dead duck, so to speak. Note Ham's comments with regard to the fact that he doesn't accept many of those denominations that have supported the letter as really being Christian at all.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. I think we are on the verge af a major split within the Protestant church over their support of mainstream science, say along the lines of the reformation i.e. when the main Protestant denominations split from the Roman Catholic church, e.g. Martin Luther etc. It really does appear that YEC's have a completely different way of looking at Christianity than other Christians. I think the differences are so great now that a major split is inevitable.

Next year is a very important one with regard to Darwin. It will be interesting to see if any evangelical leaders in the US lend their support to this project. I very much doubt it somehow.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2008,17:54   

Quote

Unless large numbers of evangelical Christians/Christian denominations come out in support then it really is a dead duck, so to speak.


Major disagreement here. We know from the vocal religious antievolutionists that they don't like evolution; the Clergy Letter Project's mission is to up the profile of Christian believers who do not have a problem with what science discovers. The Clergy Letter Project was never intended to "convert" those already committed to the antievolution camp.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2008,18:34   

In other words, the Clergy Letter Project has already succeeded. Large numbers of churches have joined in Evolution Sunday and Evolution Weekend activities. The DI has felt sufficiently threatened to have begun publishing books to try to diminish or dismiss the CLP and other Darwin Day activities.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2008,18:41   

But are there any leading evangelicals that support the clergy letter project Wesley ? In the UK only Steve Chalk has come out in support of evolution.

I've noticed that leading evangelicals in the US e.g. John MacArther and R.C. Sproul for example, are both firmly in the YEC camp. Josh McDowell's son has visited the creation museum so that obviously puts McDowell Snr. there as well. These people are not just influential in the US but are quite well known over here, particularly in NI. I've heard McDowell speak a number of years ago at the Crescent church in Belfast. He also addressed the Presbyterian church in Ireland's general assembly recently as well.  

Who are the evangelical leaders in the US that support evolution ?

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2008,18:46   

Perhaps repetition will help:

We know from the vocal religious antievolutionists that they don't like evolution; the Clergy Letter Project's mission is to up the profile of Christian believers who do not have a problem with what science discovers.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2008,19:16   

If Ham doesn't like it, that means it's all good.  However, even if Ham took my advice and took a long walk off a short pier tomorrow, The Clergy Letter is still a good idea, IMO.  It's good to have friends, in the struggle against YEC  and IDC stupidity.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2008,19:26   

The superiority complex is so obvious in "his" statement...AiG now "is" the Creation Museum...Carl who?

   
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2008,20:39   

I think that it is good. It weakens the evolution == atheism link. The fact is that you have DOL writing "No True Christian" posts shows that it is working.

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,10:53   

Quote
Perhaps repetition will help:

We know from the vocal religious antievolutionists that they don't like evolution; the Clergy Letter Project's mission is to up the profile of Christian believers who do not have a problem with what science discovers.


Then I'll repeat my question again Wesley. Who are the leading conservitive evangelicals that support this ? In the past evangelicals such as Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield and C.S.Lewis have all accepted evolution (and thus have supported science). This doesn't seem to be happening at the moment. In my opinion (don't get me wrong, I do support the project) for the clergy letter project to succeed at least some leading evangelical conservitives need to come out and endorse it. The people I've mentioned are highly respected in evangelical circles, not just in the US but throughout the world. As an example, Adrian Rodgers was open minded on the subject until Ham got to him. What is it with Ham that seems to persuade so many preachers, who in other respects are good speakers , to accept such nonsense without question ? And what about some of the other well known speakers in evangelical circles e.g. Joyce Meyer (very popular in NI), David Jeremiah, the Graham's (both likely YEC), and Charles Stanley. These are the type of evangelicals that need to come out and say they accept evolution for the clergy letter project to work. Unfortunately they aren't doing this.

it doesn't  help either when Atheists such as Jason Rosenhouse or P.Z. Meyers start attacking Christians that accept evolution (Theistic Evolutionists) from the sidelines. In one newspaper article that I've read recently PZ Meyers stated that Christians who were theistic evolutionists were in his opinion "wishy washy" Christians. When asked " what about professor Ken Miller" he (PZ Meyers) replied that "Ken Miller is a wishy washy Catholic". I'm not sure if that statement was tongue and cheek or not but it sure doesn't help the project gain credibility in Evangelical circles.

  
KimvdLinde



Posts: 12
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,11:08   

Flip it around. What if we would give up on everything that is not supported by well-known evangelicals? Should we just give up? Is that what you are suggesting?

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,11:19   

Quote
Flip it around. What if we would give up on everything that is not supported by well-known evangelicals? Should we just give up? Is that what you are suggesting?


Not at all. All that I am saying (as someone who moves in evangelical circles) that these are the type of speakers that evangelical Christians listen to. They're not going to pay any attention to the Pope, Ken Miller, Francis Collins, or any other liberal minded Christian leader for that matter. C.S. Lewis is still widely read and quoted in evangelical circles here. I'm not sure who the modern day equivelent is.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,16:52   

I do not think that the clergy letter is a waste of time. The very least that it does is provide evidence against the creationist argument that evolution=atheism.

It gives an answer to IDC claims that all evolution supporters are atheists.

The very existence of the clergy letter shows that at least some of the claims of people such a FtK are ridiculous.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2008,17:20   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ July 21 2008,11:19)
Not at all. All that I am saying (as someone who moves in evangelical circles) that these are the type of speakers that evangelical Christians listen to. They're not going to pay any attention to the Pope, Ken Miller, Francis Collins, or any other liberal minded Christian leader for that matter. C.S. Lewis is still widely read and quoted in evangelical circles here. I'm not sure who the modern day equivelent is.

No one is trying to convince the unconvinceable. There are a lot of religious fence-sitters out there who are being told by the fundies that most of science is anti-religious. Having a substantial number of clergy people refuting the contention is aimed at them.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2008,19:31   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 23 2008,05:20)
Quote (Peter Henderson @ July 21 2008,11:19)
Not at all. All that I am saying (as someone who moves in evangelical circles) that these are the type of speakers that evangelical Christians listen to. They're not going to pay any attention to the Pope, Ken Miller, Francis Collins, or any other liberal minded Christian leader for that matter. C.S. Lewis is still widely read and quoted in evangelical circles here. I'm not sure who the modern day equivelent is.

No one is trying to convince the unconvinceable. There are a lot of religious fence-sitters out there who are being told by the fundies that most of science is anti-religious. Having a substantial number of clergy people refuting the contention is aimed at them.

Yes, I agree that it is one of those "at the margins things" and while people like Ftk will never be convinced she'll end up more isolated.

It's like homophobia, it is hard to maintain when somebody you know is gay and open about it. As the homophobia disappears more and more people will come out of the closet causing more homophobia to disappear. A virtual circle.

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2008,15:34   

And this is precisly the sort of thing that just makes Christians who support mainstream science (evolutionary science) look downright stupid in the face of YEC's:

http://scienceblogs.com/evoluti....hp#more

Which is why I wonder what the point is of evolution Sunday and the clergy letter project.
:angry:

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2008,23:22   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Aug. 11 2008,15:34)
And this is precisly the sort of thing that just makes Christians who support mainstream science (evolutionary science) look downright stupid in the face of YEC's:

http://scienceblogs.com/evoluti....hp#more

Which is why I wonder what the point is of evolution Sunday and the clergy letter project.
:angry:

There seems to be a chasm in between the premises and the conclusion.

It's not the first time, either.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,06:08   

From the article that Jason linked to

Quote
When Salon interviewed me about my new book, "Saving Darwin," I suggested that science doesn't know everything, that there might be a reality beyond science, and that religion might be about God and not merely about the human quest for a nonexistent God. These remarks got me condemned to whatever hell Myers believes in.


I would say that most (if not all) evangelical Christians would agree with Karl Giberson on this statement. So what exactly is the point that Jason Rosenhouse and PZ Myers are trying to make here ? Atheists criticise evangelical Christians for accepting the YEC nonsense and yet, at the slightest oppertunity they attack those who accept evolution. Then they have the audacity to promote "evolution Sunday" or the clergy letter project (do Jason Rosenhouse and PZ Meyers support the clergy letter project and evolution Sunday ?).

As I have said, certain Atheists just make evangelical Christians look silly in the face of YECs (and by the way, I have a great admiration for both Rosenhouse and Meyers, it's just their spiritual beliefs that I disagree with)

Giberson is correct.  Science doesn't explain everything. i.e. the whys and wherefores of life. As an example, UTV are covering the 10th anniverseray of the Omagh bomb this week. In one interview yesterday evening, a survivor told her story and the fact that she was standing with two of her friends when the bomb went off. Both her friends died and yet she lived. She put this down to divine providence. I think if I had lived through such an experience I'd probably feel the same.

http://www3.u.tv/index.asp?showId=1303029

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,08:13   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Aug. 12 2008,06:08)
In one interview yesterday evening, a survivor told her story and the fact that she was standing with two of her friends when the bomb went off. Both her friends died and yet she lived. She put this down to divine providence. I think if I had lived through such an experience I'd probably feel the same.

You'd be left trying to figure out why "divine providence" blew your friends to smithereens (by an act of omission, at the very least).  Were they somehow privileged?

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,09:23   

who are the atheists that denounce logical positivism or mereological reduction?

PZ and Rosenhouse bore me on this topic.  I'm not even sure what the proposition really is.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,12:09   

Quote
You'd be left trying to figure out why "divine providence" blew your friends to smithereens (by an act of omission, at the very least).  Were they somehow privileged


She quoted the book of Ecclesiastes Jim:

http://www.carm.org/sermons/Ecc_3_1-15.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHvf20Y6eoM

Surely an idea that has been used in many's a horror movie:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0195714/

and TV series:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348913/

On that particular day it wasn't her time.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,12:36   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Aug. 12 2008,12:09)
Quote
You'd be left trying to figure out why "divine providence" blew your friends to smithereens (by an act of omission, at the very least).  Were they somehow privileged


She quoted the book of Ecclesiastes Jim:

http://www.carm.org/sermons/Ecc_3_1-15.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHvf20Y6eoM

Surely an idea that has been used in many's a horror movie:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0195714/

and TV series:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348913/

On that particular day it wasn't her time.

So should she be thankful, or disappointed?

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,17:19   

Quote
So should she be thankful, or disappointed?


She was very thankful in the interview Jim.

Even though she had lost a leg as a result of the bomb and had a very long recovery period she now cherished each day of of life. A very moving story I thought.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,17:32   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Aug. 12 2008,17:19)
Quote
So should she be thankful, or disappointed?


She was very thankful in the interview Jim.

Even though she had lost a leg as a result of the bomb and had a very long recovery period she now cherished each day of of life. A very moving story I thought.

Very moving. She is, in effect, cherishing the fact that jebus blew her friends up instead of her.  Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,18:32   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Aug. 12 2008,06:08)
Giberson is correct.  Science doesn't explain everything. i.e. the whys and wherefores of life.

I would first ask myself the question if there even IS a "why" and "wherefor" answer. I'm not making the assumption that an answer to that question even exists. I do not see a shred of evidence that supports that assumption, that there is a "Why?" and "What for/purpose?" answer. Hence, I do not feel like I should look for an answer to that question, since I'm skeptical about the assumption that the question is answerable.
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Aug. 12 2008,17:32)
Very moving. She is, in effect, cherishing the fact that jebus blew her friends up instead of her.  Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.

That is indeed something that keeps amazing me. When I see people thanking God about surving some disaster or not getting hurt, my very first reaction is "And what about the people who díd die/got hurt, hmm?". Something else is that, for example in medical reality series, you see patients thanking God for letting them survive. That just doesn't amaze me, that makes me slightly angry: the doctors used every shred of expertise they gained to save you, and whó are you praising?? I really do not understand.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2008,19:35   

well in a zero sum game there are no winners.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2008,04:31   

Quote
She is, in effect, cherishing the fact that jebus blew her friends up instead of her


She is doing nothing of the sort Jim. Most Christians think like this i.e. they are thankful that they were "spared". I'm sure there will be many similar type statements and sentiments on the 10th anniversary of  9/11. Surely you don't think Jim, that those who survived that one are cherishing the fact that so many of their friends were lost   ??????

     
Quote
That is indeed something that keeps amazing me. When I see people thanking God about surving some disaster or not getting hurt, my very first reaction is "And what about the people who díd die/got hurt, hmm?". Something else is that, for example in medical reality series, you see patients thanking God for letting them survive. That just doesn't amaze me, that makes me slightly angry: the doctors used every shred of expertise they gained to save you, and whó are you praising?? I really do not understand.


And it is precisely these type of statements that makes me uncomfortable with the clergy letter project and evolution Sunday. This is the way Christians think Erasmus. I know. As someone with an incurable disease I have medical science to thank for being able to live a normal life, by and large. Even though I wasn't "cured" I still have God to thank for a lot of things. Most Christians will quote Romans 8:28 when bad things happen to them.  

And why are evangelical churches being urged by some atheists to celebrate the achievmants of a man who was at best an agnostic   ?????? I agree whole heartedly that the Christian church can support science but this needs to come from other evangelicals, not Atheists or Agnostics.  

Just to re-emphasise the fact that it hasn't caught on with the evangelical church in the UK, only two churches in England and Four ??? in Wales have signed up for next years event:

http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evolution_weekend_2009.htm#ENG

     
Quote
England

Bury St Edmunds Unitarian Congregation
Cambridge, England
Martin A. Gienke, Lay Leader

Essex Unitarian Church
London, England
The Rev. Sarah Tinker


     
Quote
Wales

St Cynwyl's
The Church in Wales
Caio, Carmarthenshire, Wales
The Rev. Joanna Penberthy

St Sawyl's
The Church in Wales
Llansawel, Carmarthenshire, Wales
The Rev. Joanna Penberthy

St Michael's
The Church in Wales
Talley, Carmarthenshire, Wales
The Rev. Joanna Penberthy

Cwmgwendraeth Rectorial Parish
Upper Tumble, Llanelli - Carmarthenshire, Wales
The Rev. Dr. Marc Rowlands, Team Vicar


Note that two of the "vicars" are women and three of the churches in Wales are being pastored by the one person.

None of the big evangelical churches (e.g. All Souls) have bothered with it and it certainly doesn't surprise me. I can't see any of the churches in NI participating, even in the mainstream denominations.

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2008,07:24   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Aug. 18 2008,04:31)
She is doing nothing of the sort Jim. Most Christians think like this i.e. they are thankful that they were "spared". I'm sure there will be many similar type statements and sentiments on the 10th anniversary of  9/11. Surely you don't think Jim, that those who survived that one are cherishing the fact that so many of their friends were lost   ??????

What he wanted to say, is that while she is thanking for not dying in the blast, the sáme blast killed lots of other people. It's kinda selfish to thank an apperantly all-mighty and all-good being for surving something that killed lots of other people. Afterall, that being wasn't apperantly as good for the one's who díd die.
 
Quote
Even though I wasn't "cured" I still have God to thank for a lot of things.

I alwayse wonder: what? I hear that often, that people have enough to thank for, but I never hear exactly what.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2008,08:06   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Aug. 18 2008,04:31)

And why are evangelical churches being urged by some atheists to celebrate the achievmants of a man who was at best an agnostic   ?????? I agree whole heartedly that the Christian church can support science but this needs to come from other evangelicals, not Atheists or Agnostics.


Not sure what "atheists or agnostics" have to do with the Clergy Letter Project and its Evolution Weekend event. Perhaps you are confusing and conflating something else with it? It would be best to stick to the topic here.
 
 
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Aug. 18 2008,04:31)

Just to re-emphasise the fact that it hasn't caught on with the evangelical church in the UK, only two churches in England and Four ??? in Wales have signed up for next years event:

http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evolution_weekend_2009.htm#ENG

         
Quote
England

Bury St Edmunds Unitarian Congregation
Cambridge, England
Martin A. Gienke, Lay Leader

Essex Unitarian Church
London, England
The Rev. Sarah Tinker


         
Quote
Wales

St Cynwyl's
The Church in Wales
Caio, Carmarthenshire, Wales
The Rev. Joanna Penberthy

St Sawyl's
The Church in Wales
Llansawel, Carmarthenshire, Wales
The Rev. Joanna Penberthy

St Michael's
The Church in Wales
Talley, Carmarthenshire, Wales
The Rev. Joanna Penberthy

Cwmgwendraeth Rectorial Parish
Upper Tumble, Llanelli - Carmarthenshire, Wales
The Rev. Dr. Marc Rowlands, Team Vicar


Note that two of the "vicars" are women and three of the churches in Wales are being pastored by the one person.

None of the big evangelical churches (e.g. All Souls) have bothered with it and it certainly doesn't surprise me. I can't see any of the churches in NI participating, even in the mainstream denominations.


Well, in the UK there is no "separation of church and state". Much of the impetus for educating Christians here in the USA on the issue of evolutionary science simply doesn't apply to the UK.

Is "All Souls" a denomination that explicitly adopts biblical literalism? If so, one would not expect the Clergy Letter Project to have any relevance to them. I can't see much that speaks to any issue concerning evolution or creationism on their webpage. They seem to mostly be concerned about suppressing homosexuality.

The CLP is not an evangelical tool aimed at converting people who have already committed themselves to extreme positions to change their minds and cannot be said to be lacking because it doesn't do that.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2008,08:22   

Quote
I alwayse wonder: what? I hear that often, that people have enough to thank for, but I never hear exactly what.


My symptoms were very similar to cancer. I feared the worst when I began to pass blood. Although my diagnosis wasn't great (IBD), I was relieved that cancer was ruled out. But I still have a lot things to be thankful for. Like the work of Professor Bryan Brooke:


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19981003/ai_n14195331

which changed the lives of millions of people. Without his pioneering work many would be debilitated:

 
Quote
TO THOSE suffering from ulcerative colitis and inflammatory bowel disease, the name Bryan Brooke is remembered with gratitude


 
Quote
Brooke became Reader in Surgery at Birmingham University, working at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. It was here that he devised the brilliantly simple Brooke eversion ileostomy - a bowel opening on the skin of the stomach, to which a bag could be attached. This revolutionised the treatment of ulcerative colitis. The vast majority of the thousands world-wide who have had this operation are living near-normal lives.


and it is for this reason that I despise Ken Ham (and the rest of the YECs) for devoting so much time, energy , and money in their efforts to return science to the 18th century. It gauls me to think of the millions of dollars that have been spent on Ham's museum, and the number of intelligent individuals that have been duped by his nonsense. I cried when I read Brooke's obituary. I can honestly say I'll probably not feel the same way about Ham etc.

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2008,08:38   

Quote
Is "All Souls" a denomination that explicitly adopts biblical literalism


All Souls is a well attended evangelical Anglican church in London Wesley. In my opinion it's the sort of church that should be paricipating in this .It's been prone to YECism  though:

http://www.allsouls.org/ascm....EE70B99

But from what I can gather, there's been some opposition to it.

Several obscure churches that have a few dozen members are not going to break any delf with a majority of evangelicals I'm afraid.

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2008,08:46   

Quote
My symptoms were very similar to cancer. I feared the worst when I began to pass blood. Although my diagnosis wasn't great (IBD), I was relieved that cancer was ruled out. But I still have a lot things to be thankful for. Like the work of Professor Bryan Brooke:

I think you missunderstood me there ;) I ment God, Vishnu, Thor, Zeus or any other mythological, transcendant being, and not real persons. Ofcourse I definatly agree with you about Bryan Brooke, people like him are the persons who deserve the praise.

PS: I'm very glad for you, and indeed also thankfull for Prof. Brooke for helping you and millions of others.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2008,08:50   

Quote
I always wonder: what? I hear that often, that people have enough to thank for, but I never hear exactly what.


I think this may reflect the story that if all the troubles of the world were put in a bucket and you could draw out anyone's, you would -- after reflection -- choose your own.

Maybe.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2008,09:15   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 18 2008,08:50)
Quote
I always wonder: what? I hear that often, that people have enough to thank for, but I never hear exactly what.


I think this may reflect the story that if all the troubles of the world were put in a bucket and you could draw out anyone's, you would -- after reflection -- choose your own.

Maybe.

I ofcourse mean the thanking of mythological, transcedent beings, not actual persons. Heck, I've got plenty to thank for regarding people. For example, I definatly have to thank my study councelor for helping me choose a Bachelor that would really suit me. I couldn've done it without him.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2008,09:58   

Quote

Several obscure churches that have a few dozen members are not going to break any delf with a majority of evangelicals I'm afraid.


The CLP is not an evangelical tool aimed at converting people who have already committed themselves to extreme positions to change their minds and cannot be said to be lacking because it doesn't do that.

Please take a moment to read the above, several times if needed, before continuing.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 18 2008,09:58

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2008,11:26   

Quote
Ofcourse I definatly agree with you about Bryan Brooke, people like him are the persons who deserve the praise.


At least we've agreed on something assassinator.

Quote
The CLP is not an evangelical tool aimed at converting people who have already committed themselves to extreme positions to change their minds and cannot be said to be lacking because it doesn't do that.


Then who is it aimed at Wesley ? Or is it merely preaching to the converted ?

I still feel that a several big name evangelicals need to come out and support it for it to have any impact. Christians who haven't made their minds up about evolutionary science are the ones that will be influenced.

Steve Chalke is the only evangelical leader that supports evolution in the UK. I'm not sure if he agrees with the CLP or not.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2008,11:35   

Quote

Then who is it aimed at Wesley ?


The CLP is not an evangelical tool aimed at converting people who have already committed themselves to extreme positions to change their minds and cannot be said to be lacking because it doesn't do that.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2008,11:57   

[quote=Peter Henderson,Aug. 18 2008,11:26]
Quote

 
Quote
The CLP is not an evangelical tool aimed at converting people who have already committed themselves to extreme positions to change their minds and cannot be said to be lacking because it doesn't do that.


Then who is it aimed at Wesley ? Or is it merely preaching to the converted ?

I still feel that a several big name evangelicals need to come out and support it for it to have any impact. Christians who haven't made their minds up about evolutionary science are the ones that will be influenced.

Steve Chalke is the only evangelical leader that supports evolution in the UK. I'm not sure if he agrees with the CLP or not.

Now we're going in circles.  :angry:  It's been explained that (A) people committed to an anti-science position are not targeted by the CLP and (A) the idea is to provide abundant evidence that  it's possible for religious beliefs and acceptance of biological evolution to coexist, mainly for the benefit of people who aren't sure.  Many of those people are members of congregations who are being told by their pastors that they can't believe in the bible and science at the same time.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2008,15:32   

Quote
it's possible for religious beliefs and acceptance of biological evolution to coexist


I've just watched the last of Richard Dawkins' new series "the genius of Darwin". According to Dawkins you can't believe in God and accept Charles Darwin's view the world. Evolution and religion are incompatible. It's illogical to think that they are (according to Dawkins)

i noticed he had a go at the Archbishop of Caterbury,Rowen Williams (who accepts biological evolution) as well.

Dawkins also emphasised the fact that over time Darwin came to abandon Christianity. To be honest, as I have said before, it's for these reasons that I feel uncomfortable with evolution Sunday. I still feel the clergy letter project misses the point. Dawkins doesn't help.

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2008,05:29   

Dawkins has the nasty tendency to generalise religion. It's true that certain interpretations of religions, like literal interpretations of christianity. But, at least from my p.o.v, it seems like Dawkins thinks that's all there is, that only such literal interpretations exist. Ofcourse it's 100% true that such literal interpretations of any religion are incompatible with evolution and maybe science in general, but those aren't the only interpretations possible.
And because Dawkins attacks any religion like it's all just literal and orthodox, I'm not a big fan of him.
Quote
At least we've agreed on something assassinator.

I thought we were just misreading eachother for the most part ;)

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2008,10:01   

The extremes, literalist Christians and evangelical atheists, are both fond of the conflict model. They agree that faith and the findings of science are incompatible. They disagree about which way people should jump, but they both insist that a jump to an extreme is needed.

The CLP clarifies for people who aren't already in one of the extreme groups that although both extremes tell them that they have to jump to one of those positions that, no, they don't have to; there are large numbers of people who have both faith and an appreciation for science as it is practiced now.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
MIchael Roberts



Posts: 13
Joined: Oct. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2008,16:33   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Aug. 18 2008,08:38)
Quote
Is "All Souls" a denomination that explicitly adopts biblical literalism


All Souls is a well attended evangelical Anglican church in London Wesley. In my opinion it's the sort of church that should be paricipating in this .It's been prone to YECism  though:

http://www.allsouls.org/ascm....EE70B99

But from what I can gather, there's been some opposition to it.

Several obscure churches that have a few dozen members are not going to break any delf with a majority of evangelicals I'm afraid.

The problem with All Souls is that its previous Paul Blackham was totally YEC and led his vicar Bewes up the garden path.

Several years ago there was fricition over YEC with John Stott involved - he's ended up sitting on the fence.

More and more Anglicans especially clergy are becoming YEC - I guess 5-10% of clergy.

Michael

(author Evangelicasl and Science - Greenwood Press 2008

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2008,17:32   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 18 2008,09:50)
I think this may reflect the story that if all the troubles of the world were put in a bucket and you could draw out anyone's, you would -- after reflection -- choose your own.

Maybe.

at 17yo, i spent a summer working with crippled children in a easter seal society camp.  the camp existed to give the children's parents a 10 day break from the 24/365 care they were giving.
on your worst day ever, you'll not be as bad off as the majority of those children were.
a seriously life changing summer.

i'd definitely choose my own troubles.

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2008,11:09   

To the delight of AiG, this minister has chosen to reject the clergy letter project. I can't believe a Methodist minster has written this nonsense for AiG:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article....hodists

 
Quote
If Dr. Zimmerman and others really want to pursue full scientific research and the truth about origins, then they should not be alienating people by calling them such things but encouraging them to pursue every path of discovery and thought. Instead he is creating a situation where people like me who have moved from a theistic evolutionist worldview to a young-earth creationist worldview over the last 30 years will become marginalized. Does not Dr. Zimmerman have his mind open to the major scientific discoveries in biology related to the complexity of the human cell, as well as to the mapping of the DNA that shows intelligent design? Plus there are other scientific fields that support a biblical model rather than an evolutionary one.


 
Quote
I believe that God created the universe in six solar days as stated in Genesis 1 and supported by Exodus 20: 8–11. To say that the stories of creation, Noah’s Flood, etc. are poetic (non-historic)—and therefore the only way to convey biblical truths to ancient peoples so that they would understand these accounts—is not acceptable. This would indicate that God was giving the prophets a spirit of falsehood to convey truth. The ancient biblical patriarchs would not tolerate telling stories under the pretext of being true, only to learn later that they were false. God is not a God of falsehood. He gave the prophets His anointing to tell the truth in order to convey to us His invisible attributes of power and divinity.


 
Quote
To say that the model of Darwinian evolution is an established fact is wrong. A growing number of scientists are abandoning evolution for the biblical creation model instead because it better explains the evidence in the world around us. More and more scientific discoveries are revealing how inadequate the model of evolution really is. Ultimately, the naturalism of evolution does not belong—nor is it compatible—with the plain teaching of Scripture related to creation and the origin of life on earth.


As usual, AiG make a big thing of Rev. Shunk's qualifications:

 
Quote
Rev. Dale Shunk has a B.S. in Physics from Edinboro University and a M.Div. from Asbury Theological Seminary. He has been married to Annabelle for 35 years, has two grown children and one grandson. He enjoys astronomy and seeing people touched by the beauty, majesty, and order of God's creation when looking at the stars in his homemade telescope. Many have trusted their lives to Christ during these star-gazing sessions. He currently is the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Somerset, Pennsylvania.


I grew up in the Methodist church and it certainly wasn't extreme. How does the United Methodist church in the US fit in the grand scheme of things there ?

In NI there are three Methodist denominations. The Methodist church in Ireland is the mainstream one and it is definitely not YEC (yet). YECism has made some inroads in the denomination in England. The other two denominations that label themselves as "Methodist" are the Free Methodists and Indipendant Methodists. Both are YEC.

  
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2008,08:45   

Coming very late to the party.  I haven't posted here in months.

My background:  I was a fundamentalist minister for 18 years before leaving ministry in 2001.

Christian ministers typically have very little interest (let alone training) in science.  They also believe those who are on the forefront of the ID movement are honest, intelligent, science informed Christians who have investigated and found that the Biblical account best represents the science--or at the least the science does not contradict the Biblical account.

Many of them truly believe science is prejudiced against a theistic world view.

In addition many would lose their job, home and complete social circle if they rejected literalism.  That's a huge emotional obstacle to overcome--and most ministers are not consciously aware of that tention.  It's easier to keep the status quo.

If a minister begins to question his party's line, he will feel threatened and isolated.

Initiatives like the CLP allow ministers to know they are not alone, that there are others who have accepted contemporary science and "lived to tell about it."  Over time they can begin to see there are many so-called "experts" who are supressing truth in the name of Christianity.

I know many on this board see fundamentalists as being unreachable with any common sense.  For the most part that's likely accurate.  But always keep in mind that most fundamentalists are born and indoctrinated into their beliefs and some, when given the chance, are able to later see the error of their ways.

Any nudge you can give them is good.

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2008,09:29   

Quote (ScaryFacts @ Sep. 16 2008,14:45)
Coming very late to the party.  I haven't posted here in months.

My background:  I was a fundamentalist minister for 18 years before leaving ministry in 2001.

Christian ministers typically have very little interest (let alone training) in science.  They also believe those who are on the forefront of the ID movement are honest, intelligent, science informed Christians who have investigated and found that the Biblical account best represents the science--or at the least the science does not contradict the Biblical account.

Many of them truly believe science is prejudiced against a theistic world view.

In addition many would lose their job, home and complete social circle if they rejected literalism.  That's a huge emotional obstacle to overcome--and most ministers are not consciously aware of that tention.  It's easier to keep the status quo.

If a minister begins to question his party's line, he will feel threatened and isolated.

Initiatives like the CLP allow ministers to know they are not alone, that there are others who have accepted contemporary science and "lived to tell about it."  Over time they can begin to see there are many so-called "experts" who are supressing truth in the name of Christianity.

I know many on this board see fundamentalists as being unreachable with any common sense.  For the most part that's likely accurate.  But always keep in mind that most fundamentalists are born and indoctrinated into their beliefs and some, when given the chance, are able to later see the error of their ways.

Any nudge you can give them is good.

Hallelujah, praise be. Someone got it!

Oh I know lots of other people got it too. I'm just being a sarcastic prick. Sue me!

Pretty much anything we do to encourage people of faith (or people of no faith) to understand and accept science is a good thing. Some methods will be more successful in some environments than others. The CLP won't winkle Ken Ham out of his hidey hole, but it might be a lifeline to someone else. There are other things to do with the Ken Hams of this world. My personal preference involves a very very big stick and some angry wolverines.

Overcoming the psychosocial and cultural barriers which people put in place is a key part of this goal. The fact that there are many different cultural and psychosocial barriers, and that each requires its own specific solution does not in any way negate or prefer the applicability of one solution over others in a global sense. I.e. it is highly unlikely that there is one simple solution to a multifactorial, diverse set of problems.

So the short answer to the question posed by the title is: No and Yes. No where it is applicable, yes where it isn't. Gee, could it be dependant on context? It seems to me that I've said something similar about a related topic once or twice before.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2008,11:31   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Sep. 15 2008,09:09)
To the delight of AiG, this minister has chosen to reject the clergy letter project. I can't believe a Methodist minster has written this nonsense for AiG:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article....hodists

   
Quote
If Dr. Zimmerman and others really want to pursue full scientific research and the truth about origins, then they should not be alienating people by calling them such things but encouraging them to pursue every path of discovery and thought. Instead he is creating a situation where people like me who have moved from a theistic evolutionist worldview to a young-earth creationist worldview over the last 30 years will become marginalized. Does not Dr. Zimmerman have his mind open to the major scientific discoveries in biology related to the complexity of the human cell, as well as to the mapping of the DNA that shows intelligent design? Plus there are other scientific fields that support a biblical model rather than an evolutionary one.


   
Quote
I believe that God created the universe in six solar days as stated in Genesis 1 and supported by Exodus 20: 8–11. To say that the stories of creation, Noah’s Flood, etc. are poetic (non-historic)—and therefore the only way to convey biblical truths to ancient peoples so that they would understand these accounts—is not acceptable. This would indicate that God was giving the prophets a spirit of falsehood to convey truth. The ancient biblical patriarchs would not tolerate telling stories under the pretext of being true, only to learn later that they were false. God is not a God of falsehood. He gave the prophets His anointing to tell the truth in order to convey to us His invisible attributes of power and divinity.


   
Quote
To say that the model of Darwinian evolution is an established fact is wrong. A growing number of scientists are abandoning evolution for the biblical creation model instead because it better explains the evidence in the world around us. More and more scientific discoveries are revealing how inadequate the model of evolution really is. Ultimately, the naturalism of evolution does not belong—nor is it compatible—with the plain teaching of Scripture related to creation and the origin of life on earth.


As usual, AiG make a big thing of Rev. Shunk's qualifications:

   
Quote
Rev. Dale Shunk has a B.S. in Physics from Edinboro University and a M.Div. from Asbury Theological Seminary. He has been married to Annabelle for 35 years, has two grown children and one grandson. He enjoys astronomy and seeing people touched by the beauty, majesty, and order of God's creation when looking at the stars in his homemade telescope. Many have trusted their lives to Christ during these star-gazing sessions. He currently is the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Somerset, Pennsylvania.


I grew up in the Methodist church and it certainly wasn't extreme. How does the United Methodist church in the US fit in the grand scheme of things there ?

In NI there are three Methodist denominations. The Methodist church in Ireland is the mainstream one and it is definitely not YEC (yet). YECism has made some inroads in the denomination in England. The other two denominations that label themselves as "Methodist" are the Free Methodists and Indipendant Methodists. Both are YEC.

Wow.  Never has the phrase "Holy Shit!" been more apposite.

Given this:
Quote
The ancient biblical patriarchs would not tolerate telling stories under the pretext of being true, only to learn later that they were false.

I look forward to the Rev. explaining that Jesus actually tried to shove a camel through the eye of a needle.

Peter, I think the United Methodists here are usually pretty liberal - the church a few blocks from my house has a lesbian pastor, and was on alert against a possible Fred Phelps demo a couple of years ago.  (He never showed up - too busy making a dick of himself at military funerals).  However, there's no guarantee that "First United Methodist Church in Somerset, Pennsylvania" is affiliated with the UMs, or with anyone else - independent groups of nutcases can, and do, call themselves whatever they like.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,13:05   

Just to stir the pot:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/12/robert.winston

Quote
As an example of misplaced scientific certainty Winston said the traditional "determinist" approach to genetics was proving to be too simplistic.

"We can't any longer have the conventional understanding of genetics which everybody pedals because it is increasingly obvious that epigenetics – actually things which influence the genome's function – are much more important than we realised … One of the most important aspects of what makes us who we are is neither straight genes or straight environment but actually what happens to us during development."

Quote
Lord Robert Winston has renewed his attack on atheist writers such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens, whose arguments he said were "dangerous", "irresponsible" and "very divisive".

The science populariser and fertility expert said that the more bombastic arguments of atheist scientists were making dialogue between religion and science more difficult.


--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,13:42   

The folks on either side who subscribe to the conflict model do want to make dialogue between religion and science more difficult. Each thinks that people will come down on their side, or that the people who will not do not matter.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 18 2008,13:42

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,13:53   

YEC and literalism are where the heart of the conflict lives and breathes. I'm shocked sometimes by things I hear from friends and relatives, members of mainstream churches.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,16:20   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 18 2008,19:42)
The folks on either side who subscribe to the conflict model do want to make dialogue between religion and science more difficult. Each thinks that people will come down on their side, or that the people who will not do not matter.

Wesley,

I know of no one prominent on the science/atheist side who advocates conflict between science and religion. And I've read all Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris/Myers/Dennett/etc etc.

I see PLENTY of less than conciliatory language that is frequently turned into straw men by a variety of people. For example, acknowledging the existence of an epistemological conflict between faith and reason is in no way an advocacy of (social/political) conflict between religion and science. It's the is/ought fallacy writ large in this "conflict". Nor is it some appeal for certainty or any such drivel. The old joke goes "just because I know about gravity, it doesn't follow that I want to fall down".

The distinction some people seem incapable of making is that wanting undeserved religious privilege to diminish is not the same as wanting the destruction of all religious people/religions etc.

Speaking as one of those horrid, Churchillian, conflict-loving, evil, nasty, whatever atheistic scientists I am over the moon for any help we can get to improve science communication and education from anyone. I couldn't care less what private religious thoughts people have. Not only do I think that it's good to get "moderate" religious people on the team, so to speak, I think it's essential. What I don't want though is any ally who is less than committed to the cause. What amuses me greatly about all of this is we are having no conversation about providing an inclusive accommodations for astrology believing students (for example). This is an explicit example of religious ideas receiving unwarranted privilege. There are no comparable conversations being had for any number of quasi/pseudoscientific notions. But then religious ideas are perhaps more prevalent and certainly better supported.

Religion is here to stay, in some form or another. The "evil atheist/chuchillian/whatever" caricature camp no more want religion eradicated than the "lovely fluffy/chamberlain/accomodationist/whatever" caricature camp want to roll over and have the Pope rub their tummies. The straw flying around on the issue is frustrating.

I certainly don't know of anything by the traditionally labelled "conflict supporters" on the science/atheism side which would lead me to think that they think people who disagree with them do not matter.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,17:14   

Quote
I couldn't care less what private religious thoughts people have. Not only do I think that it's good to get "moderate" religious people on the team, so to speak, I think it's essential.


Well said Louis. I entirely agree.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,17:41   

It would help if stuff not responsive to anything I said not be headed with "Wesley,".

"Conflict model" is a phrase inclusive of far more than "eradication". It's interesting that "straw" gets mentioned when the basis of the rant was as quaint a Morlanization as I've seen. On the one side, it includes a plethora of statements that religion and rationality itself are entirely separate, and I do mean plethora. That takes care of all but the last sentence, AFAICT.

As for "do not matter"... disjunction, I take it, is unfamiliar terminology?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,17:47   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Sep. 18 2008,23:14)
Quote
I couldn't care less what private religious thoughts people have. Not only do I think that it's good to get "moderate" religious people on the team, so to speak, I think it's essential.


Well said Louis. I entirely agree.

And please bear in mind I am self confessedly one of those nasty atheist puppy kicking nun murdering ebola spreading church burners. I even advocate telling people that Santa doesn't exist.

I'm REALLY EXTREMELY anti privileging religion, I am an ardent secularist, and yet I have absolutely zero problem with working with, alongside, on top of, under, left of and right of, for, with people who hold religious faith. I am more than happy to say "we may have our differences, but on THIS we agree".

That is in no way an accommodation or capitulation. No one, not Dawkins, not PZ, not anyone is angling for the destruction of religion or the disenfranchisement or eradication of religion or religious people, or any similar ridiculous extremist straw man. All anyone is advocating is a policy of reasonable zero tolerance. This does not mean "no discussion" or "sack the religious" or anything similar. This means we examine proposals (like for example that of Michael Reiss) for content, then we swap the word "creationism" for "astrology" and see if the argument holds the same water.

Religious belief is part of that wonderful diversity of human ideas. It's one I think can be immensely destructive and horrendously misused. It's a habit that can be incredibly dangerous, but it's a habit we cannot eradicate, nor are it's less than fulsomely pleasant elements universal, it IS however one we can minimise via education and a swathe of other vastly pleasant and reasonable means. No gulags, no indoctrination, no brainwashing. Simply improving the average quality of life and education does 50% of our work for us. Sorry folks, but that's a fact. People forget how atypical the religiosity of the USA really is in 1st world democracies.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,17:59   

And what I'm saying to you is that you are confused if you thought that my use of "conflict model" referenced the ridiculous extremes you mention, and thus I have little notion of why you thought your response to be apropos to what I said.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,18:15   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 18 2008,23:41)
It would help if stuff not responsive to anything I said not be headed with "Wesley,".

"Conflict model" is a phrase inclusive of far more than "eradication". It's interesting that "straw" gets mentioned when the basis of the rant was as quaint a Morlanization as I've seen. On the one side, it includes a plethora of statements that religion and rationality itself are entirely separate, and I do mean plethora. That takes care of all but the last sentence, AFAICT.

As for "do not matter"... disjunction, I take it, is unfamiliar terminology?

Wesley,

Then please accept my apology for I obviously misunderstood and projected my own annoyance at some aspect of this debate onto you. And admittedly I leapt for the more extreme straw army that often gets raised (perhaps more due to personal frustration with it than any advocacy of it on your part). I didn't mean to accuse YOU of that particular brand of straw (although I've recently seen similar from good old Wilkins which depressed me mightily).

What I gleaned from your comment was that there are people on both sides who desire conflict, who are making resolution more difficult deliberately. It's the "deliberately" I disagree with, it's the desire to make life more difficult that I disagree with. I'll come back to this in a second.

I also disagree that anyone claims rationality and religion (two huge areas) are mutually incompatible or separate. I am a vehement exponent of the epistemological differences of reason/observation and faith/revelation, that however is not a distinction that maps cleanly onto religion. I think it's so obvious it's a given that there is rationality in religion. I think it's also obvious that there are huge quantities of well reasoned, observation based, reason based ideas in religion. I think anyone who denies THAT is burying their head in the sand (to be exceedingly polite about it). There are also ideas that are (formally) irrational and not products of reason. Hell, even that purported bastion of philosophical reason and logic Logical Positivism is not completely based on reason. The key difference being is that in many cases those ideas within religions that are demonstrably (formally) irrational have a huge degree of protection.

I am well aware of the plethora of statements you mention, the word I disagree with is not "separate" but "entirely". I defy you to find me a prominent exponent who claims the universality or entirety of that separateness. I'll grant you can find nutters! But then I'm sure nutter hunting is not a road either of us would want to go down. I also grant that you (and I) can find many statements that are less than fulsomely accurate, but even {insert your prominent atheist of choice} at his/her most extreme doesn't deny the demonstrable positive products and rational elements of religion.

Oh and disjunction is not unfamiliar, but again, I defy you to find any prominent "churchillian" (or whatever caricature we're going for) that espouses either element of your disjunct.

Louis

P.S. Please note that my use of "eradication" etc was specifically as caricature. Just like my use of "roll over and let the Pope rub their tummy" is caricature. The two way straw is what annoys me, one way straw is insufficiently annoying. FYI I explicitly do not think that YOU are one of the fans of straw. I am concerned that your statements above (rightly or wrongly) fall foul of a false equivalence.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,18:17   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 18 2008,23:59)
And what I'm saying to you is that you are confused if you thought that my use of "conflict model" referenced the ridiculous extremes you mention, and thus I have little notion of why you thought your response to be apropos to what I said.

It wasn't entirely apropos, I freely admit it. It was an extension to the general debate, and a reflection of my general dissatisfaction with people who I know agree with each other, disagreeing so vehemently. My bad if I failed to get that across.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2008,07:26   

Quote
I even advocate telling people that Santa doesn't exist.


You killjoy Louis
;)

This is in fact how the fundamentalists "get on" (as they say in these parts). There's a certain section of the fundies (the Brethren in particular but also in mainstream Presbyterian circles here) that are "anti Santa", telling the kids as soon as they can talk that Santa doesn't exist. In my opinion, this takes away the fun of childhood. Christmas was always a time of the year that I looked  forward to. I remember I could never get to sleep on Christmas eve. I also enjoyed meeting Santa at various local shops in the run-up to Christmas.

Eventually I figured out (before my parents told me) that Santa was in fact mum and dad. It wasn't a devastating blow discovering that he wasn't real.

I do realise that Christmas is an old Pagan festival incorperated into the Christian calendar (which is why the Brethren don't celebrate it). Cromwell of course banned. The modern Christmas was revived during Victorian times.

  
Melvin46



Posts: 1
Joined: Oct. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2008,12:24   

The Clergy Letter Project is an affront to all Christians (followers of the Lord Jesus Christ).  The heart of a god of evolution is incompatible to the heart of the Living God of the Bible.  I recommend those who contend my assertion to read “Evolution and Ethics” by Sir Arthur Keith; and/or visit my blog http://foxat.blogspot.com/.
-Mel

  
Spottedwind



Posts: 83
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2008,12:37   

Originally, I was going to let Mel know that there is no god of evolution but realized that it's pointless.  If he thinks that a god that used evolution couldn't possibly have the same compassion and love as a god of creation, then I don't have the energy to try to convince him otherwise.

Bringing up evolution and ethics as if they are related makes me think that Mel is one of those 'is/ought' people.

I wonder if Mel is a drive by or if he stuck around?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2008,13:22   

Quote (Spottedwind @ Oct. 31 2008,11:37)
Originally, I was going to let Mel know that there is no god of evolution but realized that it's pointless.

Yeah, it's the anti-evolutionists that put Darwin on a pedestal that way, claiming he had (has?) lots of power over other people.

Meanwhile, scientists and science have moved on since then, and regard Darwin as a scientist who was successful at the time.

Henry

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2008,13:27   

Melvin46:

Quote

The Clergy Letter Project is an affront to all Christians (followers of the Lord Jesus Christ).


Over 11,700 Christian clergy signing the letter, and many others besides, are living testimony that Mel is wrong.

I suggest Mel have another read of the Sermon on the Mount, but try to pay attention this time.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Spottedwind



Posts: 83
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2008,13:35   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 31 2008,14:27)
Melvin46:

   
Quote

The Clergy Letter Project is an affront to all Christians (followers of the Lord Jesus Christ).


Over 11,700 Christian clergy signing the letter, and many others besides, are living testimony that Mel is wrong.

I suggest Mel have another read of the Sermon on the Mount, but try to pay attention this time.

Aw, don't be so hard on Mel, Wes.  He just for got to put the "true" in his sentence.  Then it would have been an ironclad statement.

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2008,17:12   

Quote
The Clergy Letter Project is an affront to all Christians (followers of the Lord Jesus Christ).


Does this mean Mel, that in order to be a "true Christian" one must reject virtually all of science i.e. most of Biology, Physics, Geology, Astronomy etc. and instead believe in a 6,000 year old Earth/Universe, dinosaurs living alongside humans a few thousand years ago, a global flood that deposited all fossiis etc. I sincerely hope not but that is the only conclusion I can draw from your comment. Even Answers in Genesis accept that you can be a "true Christian" and believe in evolution.

By the way, I can't access your blog.

  
Amadan



Posts: 1332
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2008,07:57   

Peter, not quite on topic, but wotthehell.

Seems dear Mervyn is exercising his formidable intellect again, and on an all-island basis, no less!

Just the usual chip-shop brawl, no new nuggets of knuckleheadedness.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2008,08:19   

Quote
Peter, not quite on topic.


not at all Amadan. a good article. Thanks for drawing my attention to it:


Quote
Yes there is a nasty form of fundamentalism in the air - and it is witnessed each and every time an "old earth" evolutionist tries to stop the furnishing all of our children with all of the facts.


Quote
Storey seems to believe that students must choose between their faith and a scientific education. Now, it is true that scientists take a range of positions on whether faith is compatible with a scientific world view. But even those who emphatically refuse any rapprochement with religion do not ask for a renunciation of belief as the price of studying biology: there are no loyalty oaths in science.


Like Mel, Storey seems to believe that all Christians are YECs.

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2009,05:00   

This reinforces my conviction that both the clergy letter project and evolution Sunday are a complete waste of time. Acoording to Professor Jerry Coyne, evolution and Christianity are completely irreconcilable.

From Talkreason:

 
Quote
Giberson and Miller are thoughtful men of good will. Reading them, you get a sense of conviction and sincerity absent from the writings of many creationists, who blatantly deny the most obvious facts about nature in the cause of their faith. Both of their books are worth reading: Giberson for the history of the creation/ evolution debate, and Miller for his lucid arguments against intelligent design. Yet in the end they fail to achieve their longed-for union between faith and evolution. And they fail for the same reason that people always fail: a true harmony between science and religion requires either doing away with most people's religion and replacing it with a watered-down deism, or polluting science with unnecessary, untestable, and unreasonable spiritual claims.


 
Quote
Now Darwin Year is upon us, and we can expect more books like those by Kenneth Miller and Karl Giberson. Attempts to reconcile God and evolution keep rolling off the intellectual assembly line. It never stops, because the reconciliation never works.


So here is an Atheist saying exactly the same as AiG. Since you are an advocate of the clergy letter project etc. Wesley, your thoughts on the above would be appreciated. I cannot see the point in churches taking part in either.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2009,09:12   

I think I already gave my thoughts.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2009,11:15   

Quote
I cannot see the point in churches taking part in either.
Could be there's an embedded IQ test involved.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2009,12:19   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Jan. 25 2009,05:00)
This reinforces my conviction that both the clergy letter project and evolution Sunday are a complete waste of time. Acoording to Professor Jerry Coyne, evolution and Christianity are completely irreconcilable.

From Talkreason:

             
Quote
Giberson and Miller are thoughtful men of good will. Reading them, you get a sense of conviction and sincerity absent from the writings of many creationists, who blatantly deny the most obvious facts about nature in the cause of their faith. Both of their books are worth reading: Giberson for the history of the creation/ evolution debate, and Miller for his lucid arguments against intelligent design. Yet in the end they fail to achieve their longed-for union between faith and evolution. And they fail for the same reason that people always fail: a true harmony between science and religion requires either doing away with most people's religion and replacing it with a watered-down deism, or polluting science with unnecessary, untestable, and unreasonable spiritual claims.


             
Quote
Now Darwin Year is upon us, and we can expect more books like those by Kenneth Miller and Karl Giberson. Attempts to reconcile God and evolution keep rolling off the intellectual assembly line. It never stops, because the reconciliation never works.


So here is an Atheist saying exactly the same as AiG. Since you are an advocate of the clergy letter project etc. Wesley, your thoughts on the above would be appreciated. I cannot see the point in churches taking part in either.

But when people say these things, they're mostly talking about one or two religions practiced one or two ways, not all of "religion."

What is "watered down deism"? Buddhism - which in its esoteric form postulates no deity at all? Taoism? Contemplative Christianity? Hinduism? Shinto? The religion of the people of Madagascar, who believe that humans are descended from alligators, and that their spirits move into monkeys after they die? Get my drift?

It frustrates me how inexperienced with diversity most fundies and many atheists are. Why not invite some Shinto priests to comment? If the project is not working, maybe that's because its focus is too narrow. Many religions are not about doctrines, but about experiences.

If Christianity and evolution are irreconcilable, let's look for the reason for that and ask the real question: is Christianity compatible with other religions, and if not, is Christianity compatible with reality? That, in my opinion, is the essential question for Christians. Our society is changing, and this is really about how we handle change. Evolution is just the flashpoint. This country is really, really naive about other religions, and therefore creationists should not even be talking about "science vs. religion."

My attitude is: No one should criticize as impossible the actions of those who seem to be doing the impossible. If I observe Christians who are good scientists, and I have, then I accept the reality that they have achieved this reconciliation. I didn't care for Ken Miller's last two chapters of Finding Darwin's God, but I also think he didn't have to write them as he doesn't have to answer to me on religious matters, as long as his science is sound and he doesn't use religion to stop inquiry.

If this country can get past the anti-evolution/anti-science/anti-change stance, then the atheism vs. "religion" debate can turn into what it should be, a game of verbal tennis.

If people have to "choose" between their faith and science education, then they also have to "choose" between their faith and any education at all in our increasing diverse culture. That's why when fundies call me "intolerant," I just laugh my ass off; I've actually met the people they want to convert. There is no generic religion or concept of God. Not at all.



Edited by Lou FCD on Jan. 26 2009,06:34

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Sealawr



Posts: 54
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2009,16:11   

Quote

But when people say these things, they're mostly talking about one or two religions practiced one or two ways, not all of "religion."

What is "watered down deism"? Buddhism - which in its esoteric form postulates no deity at all? Taoism? Contemplative Christianity? Hinduism? Shinto? The religion of the people of Madagascar, who believe that humans are descended from alligators, and that their spirits move into monkeys after they die? Get my drift?

It frustrates me how inexperienced with diversity most fundies and many atheists are. Why not invite some Shinto priests to comment? If the project is not working, maybe that's because its focus is too narrow. Many religions are not about doctrines, but about experiences.

If Christianity and evolution are irreconcilable, let's look for the reason for that and ask the real question: is Christianity compatible with other religions, and if not, is Christianity compatible with reality? That, in my opinion, is the essential question for Christians. Our society is changing, and this is really about how we handle change. Evolution is just the flashpoint. This country is really, really naive about other religions, and therefore creationists should not even be talking about "science vs. religion."

My attitude is: No one should criticize as impossible the actions of those who seem to be doing the impossible. If I observe Christians who are good scientists, and I have, then I accept the reality that they have achieved this reconciliation. I didn't care for Ken Miller's last two chapters of Finding Darwin's God, but I also think he didn't have to write them as he doesn't have to answer to me on religious matters, as long as his science is sound and he doesn't use religion to stop inquiry.

If this country can get past the anti-evolution/anti-science/anti-change stance, then the atheism vs. "religion" debate can turn into what it should be, a game of verbal tennis.

If people have to "choose" between their faith and science education, then they also have to "choose" between their faith and any education at all in our increasing diverse culture. That's why when fundies call me "intolerant," I just laugh my ass off; I've actually met the people they want to convert. There is no generic religion or concept of God. Not at all.


Post (or shimmy) of the week nomination

--------------
DS: "The explantory filter is as robust as the data that is used with it."
David Klinghoffer: ""I'm an IDiot"

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2009,21:37   

Quote (Sealawr @ Jan. 25 2009,16:11)
Quote

But when people say these things, they're mostly talking about one or two religions practiced one or two ways, not all of "religion."

What is "watered down deism"? Buddhism - which in its esoteric form postulates no deity at all? Taoism? Contemplative Christianity? Hinduism? Shinto? The religion of the people of Madagascar, who believe that humans are descended from alligators, and that their spirits move into monkeys after they die? Get my drift?

It frustrates me how inexperienced with diversity most fundies and many atheists are. Why not invite some Shinto priests to comment? If the project is not working, maybe that's because its focus is too narrow. Many religions are not about doctrines, but about experiences.

If Christianity and evolution are irreconcilable, let's look for the reason for that and ask the real question: is Christianity compatible with other religions, and if not, is Christianity compatible with reality? That, in my opinion, is the essential question for Christians. Our society is changing, and this is really about how we handle change. Evolution is just the flashpoint. This country is really, really naive about other religions, and therefore creationists should not even be talking about "science vs. religion."

My attitude is: No one should criticize as impossible the actions of those who seem to be doing the impossible. If I observe Christians who are good scientists, and I have, then I accept the reality that they have achieved this reconciliation. I didn't care for Ken Miller's last two chapters of Finding Darwin's God, but I also think he didn't have to write them as he doesn't have to answer to me on religious matters, as long as his science is sound and he doesn't use religion to stop inquiry.

If this country can get past the anti-evolution/anti-science/anti-change stance, then the atheism vs. "religion" debate can turn into what it should be, a game of verbal tennis.

If people have to "choose" between their faith and science education, then they also have to "choose" between their faith and any education at all in our increasing diverse culture. That's why when fundies call me "intolerant," I just laugh my ass off; I've actually met the people they want to convert. There is no generic religion or concept of God. Not at all.


Post (or shimmy) of the week nomination

Yes, Absolutrly!

Kristine - This is excellent!

Well written, thought provoking and more worthy of being turned into a book than any / all of the Dembski - Behe - ID tomes out there - and of course, much more worthy of being turned into a movie than Expelled.  

I'm just wondering if there should be a couple of versions though - one for church basements, and one one for teh rest of us, with the belly dancing scenes left in.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2009,00:14   

My shimmies are for everyone - even church basement ladies. ;)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2009,11:32   

Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 26 2009,00:14)
My shimmies are for everyone - even church basement ladies. ;)

That's as disappointing as winning a bet from Dembski... :angry:

All that work and effort and NO PAYOFF!!???

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2009,12:28   

Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 26 2009,11:32)
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 26 2009,00:14)
My shimmies are for everyone - even church basement ladies. ;)

That's as disappointing as winning a bet from Dembski... :angry:

All that work and effort and NO PAYOFF!!???

You mean not getting arrested? ;)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
  73 replies since July 20 2008,17:37 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]