A little surprised by the reaction to my latest Pajamas Media piece. I wasn’t even really sure who I was making fun of in it, but the ones who seemed offended by it were some atheists and some Christians who don’t have problem with mainstream science — the latter being my the category I fall in. Then again, I’m a big boy so I can take me offending my own beliefs.
BTW, I really like science. I like reading up on the evolutionary relationships of animals and the big bang theory and the new attempts at a unified field theory and all the complex stuff I can only partially understand. We tend to put too much importance on science, feeling that knowing the earth goes around the sun actually makes us morally superior to someone who believes otherwise. But, as a Christian, science is just about the physical and the temporary and isn’t worth much in the end. Even if the universe is around billions or trillions of more years, it’s all just a blink of the eye in the face of eternity.
And I believe there is the big difference between the religious and the atheist: When you have eternity to think about, it changes your priorities. Or it should.
I have always taken this view in regards to science. If all truth comes from God and science discovers something that is true, such as the LAW of gravity as opposed to the THEORY of evolution, then that is something that comes from God. A truth doesn’t need to be religious to come from God. I firmly believe God has a way of governing that far exceeds our own understanding and that God also has a way for economics to be applied. What we try to do is get as close as we can to His way of thinking, though we will never get thre.
[People get way too hung up on law versus theory. Basically, a law is a generalization of observations and theory is an explanation for those observations. Gravity and evolution can both be a law and a theory considering what the context is. -Ed.]
Man, if you thought the liberal vs. conservative strife was bad…
I´ve never lost so many followers, fought off so many attackers, been called so many names as the times I´ve posted on, argued or even mentioned atheism/evolutionism in a negative light (i.e. a belief system and not settled fact).
Anyway, it was a good piece. Well done!
I actually thought that article was awesome, and I’m with you in beliefs, Frank.
Still, if you REALLY wanted to get a reaction, you should have tied Ron Paul into it. And also maybe PC vs Mac vs Linux. THAT would have been EPIC.
49. Professor Guvinoff:
The god of the atheists has not conceived humor, just yet.
Jul 22, 2009 – 9:10 am
Best comment on your story.
For the record, I don’t claim to know anything about the existence of a god, I just don’t believe in a god.
I’m not making any claims as to how the universe started. I don’ know, neither does anybody else.
Personally? I’m rooting for a Jonathan Livingston Seagull type scenario.
I’m a creationist (6-day literal) and I loved this article. Not because I believed it was defending my views (I know FrankJ disagrees with me), but because it was funny. This topic needs more funny and less Charles Johnson.
As one who believes God created evolution, I have received some odd looks from all sides. But nothing compared to the looks I get from those who find I will sometimes boot my Mac with Windows.
“Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!”
-Benjamin Franklin
The problem is that it is logically inconsistent to be a christian and believe in evolution.
One of the foundational beliefs in being a christian is that the bible is a message from god. You cannot take the bible as an inspired book and discount the fact that it clearly contradicts evolution.
2 reasons.
First the bible teaches that death first happened when Adam sinned (Romans 5:12 for example). No sin, no death, no death, no evolution as evolution is based on eons of dying and striving and the best surviving.
Second, verses that give the age of a father when he has a son can be strung together from Adam to Solomon building the temple, where we can tie in to a historical event that we can date with some certainty. Stringing those dates together lets us know pretty much how old the bible sez the earth is. ( see Genesis 5:3 for example)
You can believe the bible if you want, you can believe in evolution if you want, but you can’t logically believe the bible is a message from God and believe in evolution at the same time. They contradict each other.
[Evangelical atheist will gladly make the same argument. Unlike forgiveness of sins, evolution and age of the earth are areas science speaks on.
Still, I find no compelling reasons to says scientists are mistaken or not making the most logical conclusions based on the facts they’ve found. It’s a pretty big things to attack people’s integrity on what you think is the proper interpretation of the Bible. Science is insignificant to the message about the soul, and I don’t buy the arguments that the Bible wastes time commenting on it. Any paradoxes of accepting mainstream science and believing the Bible are pretty minor compared to the other paradoxes involved in religion. -Ed.]
It’s like this: I firmly stand on the fact that you cannot believe just some of the Bible; either it’s all true, or none of it is. And the very beginning of the Bible, the foundation, is “In the beginning, GOD created the heavens and the earth”. It then goes on in some detail as to exactly how God did this. It’s a slippery slope to allow man’s ideas to intermingle with, then distort God’s Word. And that’s the end of my sermon.
[So if there is some scientific evidence that you believe contradicts the description of creation, you’ll stop believing in Jesus? -Ed.]
And on the five trillion, three billion, nine hundred six million, seven hundred thirty-seven thousand, five hundred thirty-fourth daydollar, present hussein rested.
FTFY
By your logic Frank, the atheists scientific prophet Einstein states that time is relative. Therefore the Earth could be only 8 days old as stated by creationists, yet a “relative” time sample could place it at billions of trillions of arbitrary counting cycles.
I tend to believe that atheists are there merely to give us someone to mock when it is inappropriate to mock homosexuals. Like there is ever a time when it is not appropriate to mock homosexuals.
I agree that a common sense reading of Genesis contradicts what science says, but I would like to make the point that evolution (to me) is not a salvation issue. God loves us and wants us to have a relationship with Him. I think its okay to say, “I believe you died for my sins, but I’m not buying the creation story.” He probably just smiles and says, “deal.”
Well Christians are going to be in for a shock when they take a dirt nap and find out the Atheist are right and there is no God. Of course they’ll be to dead to know. The Atheist are going to be in for a shock when they take a dirt nap and find out the Christian are right and there is a God and he Judges them.
[One of the sucky parts of being an atheist is that if you’re right you never get to find out you’re right. -Ed.]
Jesus: The Original Truther
Just wanted to point something out. I’m a Christian who, to the extent that I worry about this stuff is of the “earth and universe are probably very old, but I still believe Adam and Eve were literal people” camp, which means I generally piss off everyone on all sides.
However, to play Dawkins advocate for a moment, people who don’t read ancient Hebrew should be aware of one fairly compelling response to the “If you believe the Bible is inspired, you have to believe the 1st 3 chapters literally” folks. People who are far smarter than me (including some pretty conservative Christians) look at the beginning of Genesis and examine the meter and other fancy literary things and are pretty sure it was probably written as a song. So what, right? Well, why do we not literally rip our eyes out of our skulls as Jesus suggested? (Matthew 5:29) Why do we not believe that God is an tower or rock? (Psalm 61:3, 62:7) Because even the most faithful interpreters of Scripture make allowances for metaphor, and the fact that an author writing a song or poem has more artistic license than one reciting a dry, factual account. Besides, there’s this guy called the Pope who says that evolution is compatible with Scripture, and despite my vast theological differences with him, word on the street is that he knows his Bible fairly well, and he’s kind of smart, so if he can find a way to rationalize the two, I’m not going to tell him he’s wrong.
As for adding up the geneologies, that doesn’t work, and again, it isn’t just gutless liberal Christians who will tell you so. Ask a professor at a place like Bob Jones or Liberty University about it. Ancient near-eastern geneologies skip unimportant generations on purpose, to make the lists easier to memorize. Compare Jesus’ geneologies in the Gospels to the kings of the Old Testament, and you’ll see the Bible does it too. If they do it with Jesus’ geneology, why would we assume that they didn’t with the Adam-Solomon ones? It’s not an error, just a mnemonic (sp?) device, because the Bible was written for a culture where few people would have access to written copies, so they needed to be able to memorize it.
Anyway Frank, I enjoyed it no matter who you were trying to make fun of.
Its not an attack on anyone’s integrity to point out that two different beliefs contradict. All I am saying is that it is inconsistent to believe contradictory things.
MDR’s post above was spot on. God says how he did it, so the question is, is it really a message from God or not. My fundamental assumption is that it is a message from god.
It is Ok to have a different fundamental assumption, but you have to follow through logically from that assumption.
And yes if that fundamental assumption was shaken I would stop believing in Jesus.
According to south park the mormons are right all others go to hell. I do not know if GOD really exists but I do know that praising him at the right times and places will drive liberals F@#KING NUTS. (as if they weren’t there already)
I can agree with cjtony97, and I agree with midwestconservative about driving liberals nuts.
so let me end this post with a hearty
Praise Jesus
The atheistic notion that everything just came into being from nothing is pretty silly. But, then when you ask the religious where the god that created everything came from, the answer is an equally silly, “He always was.”
My answer, I don’t have one. Just call me a skeptic.
I respectfully reply to “Ed” and cjtony97: First, Ed, in all the years they have been trying, there has yet to be any substantial proof refuting Creation. Yet there is a wealth of information (scientific, if you will!) that supports it.
[How can you just randomly assert this as fact? Any scientist will tell you tons of things known to dispute an extremely literal interpretation of Genesis. If you deny reality, how will anyone believe anything else you say? Where I have the biggest problems with creation science is where it has the appearance of being extremely dishonest, blowing up a couple scientific studies it likes while ignoring or denigrating any it doesn’t. -Ed.]
cjtony97, I don’t think God let’s us make deals to get into heaven. He’s not big into compromise. How can someone deny He created the earth, yet conveniently believe He can save you?
If as a believer I’m wrong and the atheist’s are right, what have I lost? However, if atheist’s are wrong…yikes. I wouldn’t wish that end on anyone.
remember: Wang the dyslexic agnostic says” there is no dog”, Wang the dyslexic guy also says “sick my duck”
I like to think that Science is the explanation of God’s creation.
I think science and religion can definitely co-exist.
I think God created His creations to evolve (ie, evolution), in order to adapt to/survive its surroundings, or as new information or technologies are discovered. Kinda cool really, these minds and bodies that He designed and gave us to use for good or evil, as each of us sees fit (that pesky free choice thang).
And yeah, just looking inside the workings of the human body, how each part interrelates to the others; definitely Intelligent Design. Maybe that’s why in the Bible He compares the human body to a group of believers (1 Corinthians 12: 12-)
“God heals the patient, but the Doctor takes the fee.” — Father Mulcahy, M*A*S*H
I’m of the belief of the immense gap between Gen1:1 and 1:2, so I’m much more interested in the angelic Ages of the earth before Adam. Evolution can be interesting, fascinating, but really doesn’t explain a lot of stuff. Whether it’s true or not, or how influential it is, I dinna care. I find it kinda boring actually. Now 12 foot angels in physical form, 30 foot seraphim, zoas of all kinds, that’s interesting sh*t right there I tell ya what. Prolly looked more like a f**ked up version of World Of Warcraft before Adam.
I look at O’vomit, Hitlery, Dirty Harry, Stinky Frankin, Dirtbag Dodds and the rest of the Washington coven and know that Satan lives……….hence God lives (this I already knew but it’s always good to have verification.
seanmahair,
I respect your opinion and agree with it. However, I protest your use of the nickname “Dirty Harry” while referring to Reid. Inspector “Dirty” Harry Callahan was a personal hero of mine and I believe “Dingy” Harry Reid is more appropriate.
Respectfully,
Marko
mdr – I don’t believe that I was saying God makes deals on salvation. My point was that God would be okay if one of His children questioned the story of creation. I don’t consider the literal reading of it to be a salvation issue. I do understand where you’re coming from (if you believe Him, you believe everything He says) but I wouldn’t dare question someone’s Christianity based on this issue. I questioned creationism myself and asked God to help, He led me to Kent Hovind’s seminars (I know what you’re thinking) and I realized that no one has “the answer” to how it all happened, all we have are “evidence” and assumptions.
That being said, I’d like to ask FrankJ and others like him whether they believe in the virgin birth? Because, like creationism, “science” will scoff at you for doing so.
seanmahair – Roger Simon came to the same conclusion recently by witnessing A-Jad.
Here’s my take on creation: God created the heavens and the earth… BIG BANG!!!
Besides, what’s time to God?
I wouldn’t be sure it doesn’t happen. Anyway, I’m getting waaay too serious here. In the words of one of the 20th centuries greatest philosophers, “Smiles, everyone!”
I personally believe that Ron Paul put all humans in a volcano a million years ago and blew then up with hydrogen bombs.
Wow. These religious conversations always confuse the heck out of me. Everyone goes off in a million different directions.
Let me make this simple: There is only one Almighty God. He has been called many things over the centuries. Some have called Him “Sea Shell,” others have called Him “Tulip.” Today, he is called “Dollar.” But His name is not important. What is important is that those who worship Him in abundance have great power while those who turn their backs on Him are known as “homeless.” So it has always been, so it shall always be.
So bow down to him, Infidels, or ye shall surely perish. Heed my words, for I am the True Profit.
Conan’s god is pretty cool too. Crom. He is a stern and unforgiving god. He never answers prayers. He crushes all of your puny gods underneath him.
I liked it so much I saved it in my “position papers” file. Yep, I have a “position papers” file.
I find the theory of evolution to be ludicrous. Just preposterous. And worthy of satire.
The Bible is a work that took thousands of years to complete. It was written by Divinely inspired men who wrote with their own baggage. It was not written by God as the koran supposedly was, but by men. There are stories, alegories, and a lot of other stuff thrown in. The purpose of the Bible is not to serve as a science workbook, but to bring lost men and women into a personal relationship with the Living God. In that respect, it is a perfect book and needs no defense. If science is so anti Christianity/Judiasm, then why is it that the great scientific awakening came about in places where the Bible was and not where the koran was?
I have had an atheist tell me that giraffes have long necks because “evolution” decided the giraffes needed long necks to eat leaves from tree tops. That “evolution” feller is prettty darn smart to know and cause that.
Beliefe in an eternal almighty God, that’s nuts. Belief in some guy called evolution who can change DNA on a whim, that’s ok.
Part of the problem is an finite being (man) attempting to understand an infinite being, God. Kind of like Barack taking on Michelle in a fist fight.
[The average layman doesn’t understand evolution too well (what you described sounds like the discredited ideas of Lamarck). A theory doesn’t last hundreds of years and scrutiny of thousands of scientists and introduction of tons of new data, though, just because someone thought it was a neat idea one day. -Ed.]
One last thing.
The Bible is the Christian’s foundational document like the Constitution is to the conservative. A plain straight forward read of it, and it seems to me to be claiming a very young earth.
You are free to interpret it differently than me, that would be like debating if the constitution preserves our rights to own rocket equipped dinosaurs. Its all a question of interpretation.
Whats not cool is deciding it doesn’t matter what it says ( constitution or bible) because we know better.
So it would be equally uncool to say “the bible has no authority when it speaks on origins” as to say “We are going to ignore the 22nd amendment because we want Barry to have a third term”
[The Bible isn’t anything at all like the Constitution. -Ed.]
Has anyone here read both The Bible and On The Origin of Species? Just curious.
I’ve tried, but both are mostly written using prose so dry and contorted that they sap my will to live after a while.
I’ve made it through the New Testament a couple times, though. Paul has some decent talent for coining a phrase, and Jesus is unparalleled for quotability.
Anyway, for the curious, I explain my atheism here:
http://badexample.mu.nu/archives/284872.php
Anybody who can actually say “the science is settled” is no scientist.
The genetic code and the whole information system surrounding it is one of those stubborn facts that has forced me to the inescapable conclusion that God exists, even when on matters of pure faith I have been repeatedly disappointed. A plausible mechanism for the formation of an information system that does not involve intelligent design, has not yet been demonstrated. Atheist/mainstream scientists have based their models on the assumption that this is not a problem that would throw a huge wrench into everything.
On the other hand if one does allow for the possibility that an omnipotent God is responsible for the origins of life, the universe, and everything, it would be perfectly rational to keep in mind whatever would count as the most coherent documents purported to be divine revelation, and not ridicule scientific theories that make an effort to be compatible with such documents.
“It’s like this: I firmly stand on the fact that you cannot believe just some of the Bible; either it’s all true, or none of it is.”
Which Bible? Was every translation including the new ones inspired? Isn’t it impossible to print one that ISN’T inspired? I mean, I can sit here today and make up this disgusting artsy fartsy perversion of the Bible and call it “The New Idahoser Bible” and that would have to be inspired, I couldn’t have had the idea without the intervention of God to make sure this Bible like all others was correct and true in every respect, right?
Look, I don’t know if the Bible is true. There certainly is no science that disproves it. You don’t know either- that’s why it’s called “faith”, because you don’t have evidence.
The “scientists” who get so uptight over religion are equally wrong.
Maybe someone has already covered this in another post, but I don’t know because I just glanced over the responses…but here goes.
Why is it so difficult to believe that science and religion can co-exist? Think about this for a moment, and this is a personal belief I have held for some time.
God makes it known via The Holy Bible that he created the heavens and the earth, and everything in it. Science says “Big Bang”, God says “Let there be light.” Ok, so here is where I believe the two coexist. When science can prove something to be definite, and not just a theory, we know it to be true. Like the air we breathe is made up of what we call nitrogen, oxygen, argon, carbon dioxide, and other trace gases. Well, maybe our scientific explanations are our own interpretations of what God has created. We find building blocks on the elemental, atomic, and molecular scale. God in his infinite power doesn’t need to describe to us the molecular makeup of his creations. Also, if God did describe such things to us, who’s to say he’d describe our air of being comprised of nitrogen, o2, argon, co2, etc.
This brings me to an old adage: There is no reality, only perception. So, what we claim to be scientific certainty, is only our interpretation of what God has created for us by his Divine power. Atomic, element, and molecular symbols and jargon are the language we use to interpret things that are.
I want to drive this home once again – Scientific explanations don’t deny the existence of God. They only explain to us how God created such things, and what he used to create them out of.
Pingback: IMAO » Blog Archive » Chiming In On The Conversation
I certainly don’t consider myself a “scientist” by any means! And Idahoser is right–faith is the key. But what that faith rests in (or on) is vital: you cannot have more than one source of truth (and too many different versions of that source aren’t a good idea either)! Muslims believe just as passionately in the Koran as I do in the Bible. Both those sources are in direct opposition to each other–they both simply cannot be true. We need to save the moral relativity crap for the Left. I think you can have faith that goes far beyond a simple “blind faith”.
There are two great books by Lee Strobel–“The Case for a Creator” and “The Case for Christ”. Both are fairly short, and a much easier read than the Bible!
First you take as an assumption that all this around us shows signs of design. design leads you to assume a designer. If he exists would he communicate with us? if so the bible is the most probable choice because of ts history, uniqueness, etc. Sure there is a bit of static and crap from all the translations and time but we can also assume that God would shine through most of that.
So we assume there is a God and this Bible is a message from him. At that point we have to accept that it speaks with authority on anything it speaks to. We can have a wide variety of interpretations as to what that means. We can even choose to readjust our assumptions and look for god elsewhere or not at all.
What we cant do is decide that a portion of it has vital info on eternity but some of it is mistaken. It either has authority or not.
If you conclude that it possibly could be a message from god, the next step is simple. read it.
To all earnest seekers, I Strongly recommend:
“The Everlasting Man”, by G.K. Chesterton.
“It is customary to insist that man resembles the other creatures.
Yes; and that very resemblance he alone can see.
The fish does not trace the fish-bone pattern in the fowls of the air; or the elephant and the emu compare skeletons.
Even in the sense in which man is at one with the universe it is an utterly lonely universality.
The very sense that he is united with all things is enough to sunder him from all.
Looking around him by this unique light, as lonely as the literal flame that he alone has kindled, this demigod or demon of the visible world makes that world visible.
He sees around him a world of a certain style or type.
It seems to proceed by certain rules or at least repetitions.
He sees a green architecture that builds itself without visible hands; but which builds itself into a very exact plan or pattern, like a design already drawn in the air by an invisible finger.
It is not, as is now vaguely suggested, a vague thing.
It is not a growth or a groping of blind life.
Each seeks an end; a glorious and radiant end, even for every daisy or dandelion we see in looking across the level of a common field.
In the very shape of things there is more than green growth; there is the finality of the flower.
It is a world of crowns.
This impression, whether or no it be an illusion, has so profoundly influenced this race of thinkers and masters of the material world, that the vast majority have been moved to take a certain view of that world.
They have concluded, rightly or wrongly, that the world had a plan as the tree seemed to have a plan; and an end and crown like the flower.”