You've seriously gotta be kidding me - A "Creation" museum?

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by RACooper

Ah yes - Theistic Evolution, rationality and faith together (shocking concept huh?)

I'm somewhere in there, too. Not that shocking at all.

Thanks for the formal name!

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by Trey_P-I_47

I have a question for you AKA Monet, how many people have you seen on the brink of death and suddenly for no reason they recovered completely. or how many patients have you dealt with that had cancer, and through no radiation or treatment, were apparently healed. I know that these types of cases exist, and I am not preaching religion at anyone, I just have a legitimate question, and would like some insight from a person in the medical field. Surely you have seen something like this, right?

I just think, at some point its kinda hard to put off that there is no God, otherwise how do people magically get healed in what we call 'Miracles'. If there is no medical treatment and obviously the body cant just make major medical changes overnight, or sometime is the matter of hours, how else do you explain something like this without a higher being?

This is major lulz. I'm in the medical profession. I've never seen it. At what point do we all have to start believing there is a god? Honestly I think at some point you have to start believing there isn't.

We should have a fight to the death!

-your friendly ex-christian

[AGDee]

I had always heard of it referred to as Intelligent Design (the rationality and faith together).

[RACooper]

ID is really just Creationism repackaged... and most ID folks disagree stongly with Theistic Evolution.

Theistic Evolution is different in that the Bible Creation Story is just that a story (ie. allegorical not literal), Evolutionary Biology is a sound science that explains the development of life and ulimately 'Man', and that all is ultimately the result of 'divine creation' (ie. God started everything). Where the two differ is that Theistic Evolution does not advocate or teach that God was involved in the process of Evolution (well that we can tell), only that he was the 'Creator' or instigator of the universe and hence life.

Or more simply completely accepting of the science of the creation and development of the universe and life - and completely accepting that God was the creator of the universe.

[Lady Pi Phi]

Originally Posted by RACooper

...Theistic Evolution is different in that the Bible Creation Story is just that a story (ie. allegorical not literal), Evolutionary Biology is a sound science that explains the development of life and ulimately 'Man', and that all is ultimately the result of 'divine creation' (ie. God started everything). Where the two differ is that Theistic Evolution does not advocate or teach that God was involved in the process of Evolution (well that we can tell), only that he was the 'Creator' or instigator of the universe and hence life...

See: Darwin.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by RACooper

Right got this emailed to me through facebook from folks doing their Anthro PhD.

Genesis of a theory evolves into museum

rest at:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...wcreationism28

Are the poll results at the end of the article serious? Do that many American's seriously believe in Creationism or "Creation Science"? and is it true (as reported by the CBC) that 3 of the 10 Republican candidates are Creationists who reject Evolution?

Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive to many people. I read a pretty good book one time about a merger of the two, including breaking down of evolution into macro and micro categories, I'll try and remember what it was. Unfortunately, those who don't believe in the exact version of evolution that the modern scientific community advocates are labeled idiots or zealots or ignorant. Is it pretty stupid to think the world is 3000 years old and that everything is the same now as it was in the beginning? Sure. Is it idiotic to question very shaky theories about the origin of Earth or species-level evolution, while retaining some belief in a religious version of creation? I certainly don't think so. I get really annoyed at people who scoff at Christians for questioning origin theories, especially when those scoffing couldn't explain anything about their beliefs.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by Trey_P-I_47

I have a question for you AKA Monet, how many people have you seen on the brink of death and suddenly for no reason they recovered completely. or how many patients have you dealt with that had cancer, and through no radiation or treatment, were apparently healed. I know that these types of cases exist, and I am not preaching religion at anyone, I just have a legitimate question, and would like some insight from a person in the medical field. Surely you have seen something like this, right?

I just think, at some point its kinda hard to put off that there is no God, otherwise how do people magically get healed in what we call 'Miracles'. If there is no medical treatment and obviously the body cant just make major medical changes overnight, or sometime is the matter of hours, how else do you explain something like this without a higher being?

I still have faith in God. And the way I "rationalize" it as being a witness to seeing utter pain and suffering in close relatives throughout my life, is like the sick man beside the Bethesda pool when Jesus walked by and He asked him, "do you want to be healed"...

Now as a scientist, I have to concede that it is about evolutionary protective genes or single nucleotide polymorphisms or microRNAs. Some people carry them and in times of stress, these genetic survival mechanisms are activated in succession at the right time, in the right place. It is testable, repeatable and possibly an exception rather than the rule. It is highly stochastic and the shows the randomness of the Universe.

I am not a physician, so I rarely see any patients. I just test their genetics. However, I develop genetic rodent models that can test those boundaries in pre-phase I clinical trials. Your question is more about acute vs. chronic pathological lesions. If cancer is chronic pathology to the bone, the odds are against the person surviving this illness without invasive experimental treatment.

But I did just see some article discussing sudden cardiac arrest and how to reactivate it by some USC cardiologist. Then, I hear the opposite that if the heart is not reactivated under 90 seconds, the brain will die... That means we have to do more research as to what is correct.

Scientists question the process "how" and rarely the question "why". I think that theologians and philosophers are about the question of "meaning of life". Scientists cannot successfully answer that kind of question, the testable hypothesis cannot be examined.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Is it idiotic to question very shaky theories about the origin of Earth or species-level evolution, while retaining some belief in a religious version of creation? I certainly don't think so. I get really annoyed at people who scoff at Christians for questioning origin theories, especially when those scoffing couldn't explain anything about their beliefs.

One, I need to understand why you think the theories are "shaky"? There was a discussion on GC ~1-2 years ago regarding this very issue.

People can believe what they want. But Christian theories cannot be tested by the scientific method. Whereas, evolution can be successfully tested and the tests are repeatable [sp?].

Origin of the species occurs by "natural selection" that is controled by several mechanisms: one being mutation. The rate of mutation occuring in the entire human genome occurs 1 per 1000 centiMorgan (cM)--which is 1 megabases of DNA, the genetic material. In a given population, as designated by geography, the variations within the genome in some areas are similar and others are diverse. The more diverse, the older the population based on Bayesian statistics and population genetics.

Christians that choose to have these strong beliefs are fine. However, they cannot be angry at those who know and think scientifically when their strong beliefs are debunked by strong data and mathematics.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

One, I need to understand why you think the theories are "shaky"? There was a discussion on GC ~1-2 years ago regarding this very issue.

People can believe what they want. But Christian theories cannot be tested by the scientific method. Whereas, evolution can be successfully tested and the tests are repeatable [sp?].

Origin of the species occurs by "natural selection" that is controled by several mechanisms: one being mutation. The rate of mutation occuring in the entire human genome occurs 1 per 1000 centiMorgan (cM)--which is 1 megabases of DNA, the genetic material. In a given population, as designated by geography, the variations within the genome in some areas are similar and others are diverse. The more diverse, the older the population based on Bayesian statistics and population genetics.

Christians that choose to have these strong beliefs are fine. However, they cannot be angry at those who know and think scientifically when their strong beliefs are debunked by strong data and mathematics.

I think some Christians are angry, just at the proposition of advocating the theory. These people frustrate me. However, I think a substantial portion of the population simply dislikes the attitude of the modern scientific community. History has shown, and will continue to show, that science itself is evolutionary. I think this warrants a bit of caution when proclaiming truth. I'm not saying the theories are going to be entirely different a century from now, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised to find that they've been augmented to a level making some current factual assertions look foolish. Religion aside, I know a lot of people with logic-based reasoning that have trouble getting their mind around currently advocated origin theories. I'm one of them. Thus, it gets a bit annoying to have a community saying "you're a %#$@!^% idiot if you question this." I guess I'm just reluctant, in almost any matter, to assert that "we know" something, especially in such a haughty manner.

I personally believe in evolution, at least on some levels. I'm not a science-oriented person, so I don't really have overwhelming faith that I'll ever get a grip on the information at a level sufficient to make informed decisions for myself. As a Christian, I believe in some form of creation as well, but I wouldn't have a problem if the modern theories were spot on. I'm certainly not a person who has a problem with teachers explaining evolution and the theories involved in the classroom. I don't even care if ID or Creationism or whatever isn't taught beside it, though I do think it should be mentioned that there is some opposition. As I said, my biggest concern is the hostility towards those who question or believe differently. I know you said Christians can believe what they want, but that doesn't mean people will let them do so without affront. Hell, the candidates reluctant to raise their hand at the GOP debate got absolutely slaughtered in the media (I also haven't seen similar questions asked to democrats). This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Does it really make a difference? Does a reluctance to believe fully in evolution make an otherwise intelligent person unfit for leadership?

[OneTimeSBX]

i was raised a Christian. i was read the Bible and taught to read the Bible. i wasnt there for the beginning. neither was anybody else here today. so basically, it is what it is. i believe in the whole "on this day ____, the next day ____..."

in my OPINION, if you consider yourself a Christian, and read the Bible, and believe what is in the Bible, there is no other way. Maybe it was a bang! it could even have happened with a big bang! like i said, i wasnt there so i go by the only written documentation of it. true, it doesnt go into specifics, but who am i to judge? i just believe what i was taught, and lets face it, whats wrong with that? id rather be told in the end i was right and not held accountable for it, than to have believed wrong and suffer the consequences...

[Taualumna]

Originally Posted by OneTimeSBX

i was raised a Christian. i was read the Bible and taught to read the Bible. i wasnt there for the beginning. neither was anybody else here today. so basically, it is what it is. i believe in the whole "on this day ____, the next day ____..."

in my OPINION, if you consider yourself a Christian, and read the Bible, and believe what is in the Bible, there is no other way. Maybe it was a bang! it could even have happened with a big bang! like i said, i wasnt there so i go by the only written documentation of it. true, it doesnt go into specifics, but who am i to judge? i just believe what i was taught, and lets face it, whats wrong with that? id rather be told in the end i was right and not held accountable for it, than to have believed wrong and suffer the consequences...

But if you look very closely at the Bible, you'll actually see two creation stories. One where it ends with "and man and woman did He create..." (or something to that extent) and then it goes into Adam and Eve. Which one should we go with? Are we supposed to mix it up, like what's done when kids put on the Christmas Pageant?

[Drolefille]

We discussed this in one of my college theology classes (Jesuit University, although not necessarily Jesuit theology). The more formal one, which I believe is first, is actually a Jewish hymn that post dates the rest of the Bible. The more casual one (the one that includes the tree) doesn't post date it, but reads to me almost like an Anansi story. God makes everyone, God says you can eat of any tree except this one, then puts tree in garden. (WHY WOULD YOU PUT THE TREE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?) Wacky antics ensue.

Anyway, to me that story was told to explain why bad things happen, why there is sin in the world, why others attack their clan. There's no definitive answer to this, although my teacher agreed with this interpretation.

I refuse to accept an interpretation that necessarily lowers God's abilities to a level at which we can completely comprehend them. God is much bigger than that.

[adpiucf]

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Religion aside, I know a lot of people with logic-based reasoning that have trouble getting their mind around currently advocated origin theories. I'm one of them. Thus, it gets a bit annoying to have a community saying "you're a %#$@!^% idiot if you question this." I guess I'm just reluctant, in almost any matter, to assert that "we know" something, especially in such a haughty manner.

As AKA said earlier I'd like to know what you mean specifically by 'shaky'.

Personally I have no problem with people who question or challenge Evolution (or any scientific theory/knowledge),and if anything I encourage or look forward to these questions and challenges; but it has to be on solid scientific grounds, not on ideology - one I'll happily debate with or read up on... the other I'll pretty mush dismiss as a "%#$!^% idiot".

Now as for people with "logic-based reasoning" having trouble getting their minds around the current theories regarding Evolution or universe creation models I'd love to have that explained in more detail since I'm at a loss to understand why.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by RACooper

As AKA said earlier I'd like to know what you mean specifically by 'shaky'.

Personally I have no problem with people who question or challenge Evolution (or any scientific theory/knowledge),and if anything I encourage or look forward to these questions and challenges; but it has to be on solid scientific grounds, not on ideology - one I'll happily debate with or read up on... the other I'll pretty mush dismiss as a "%#$!^% idiot".

Now as for people with "logic-based reasoning" having trouble getting their minds around the current theories regarding Evolution or universe creation models I'd love to have that explained in more detail since I'm at a loss to understand why.

There has been controversy regarding evolution for years, obviously. As I recall, archaeological evidence has been found faulty, misrepresented, etc. Also, despite a more recent trend of accepting the big bang theory throughout the scientific community, there has been a lot of discussion over the years over inconsistencies and problems that people within the community have with it. As I've stated, this stuff is over my head, so I can't refute people's contentions nor say they're accurate. My point is that the theories haven't seemed, at least on a pedestrian level, to be rock solid. Thus, my point is that for people who perhaps haven't seen the evidence, don't understand, etc., I think its a bit ridiculous for them to just discard their beliefs in favor of what someone like you tells them to believe.

As for logic-based people...Where did it all come from? As AKA stated (I think), some people ask why, as opposed to "how". I think a lot of people have trouble with the concept that everything we know of happened by chance. For me, and a lot of other people I know, I just can't wrap my mind around the idea that everything just fell into place. Maybe I'm just not well schooled in science or gifted with a scientific mind, but I just can't look around, look at how things function, etc...and think "what a coincidence that all this came together like it did."

I agree that those challenging evolution or whatever should do so on a scientific level. Then again, I don't think it makes someone an idiot to go "that just doesn't make sense to me".