phil: They (creationists) "aren't a bunch of hillbillies from the south, as they are often portrayed to be by the likes of Bill Maher."
---
Well, if we are to measure based on how well evolution is taught - or not taught - in the schools of the U.S., then, actually Creationism and Appalachia and the South appear to be strongly correlated (see map at this website: http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/2001/jan_feb01/lerner.html ). But, of course, beliefs are not racially, ethnically, or geographically limited. Obviously there would be other factors one might posit to explain such correlations.

The first poter translates one line of the bible and it generates this much debate, we could be here a long time if he every tries to translate a page...

@Dexter - I certainly am not about to defend the believers of Creationism or the South, for that matter. I guess I was just trying to point out, that the hillbillies from the south believe it just because they "know it's true", whereas the people who are actually in the field of creationism are some truly smart people. As smart as the people on the other side of the argument.

But the reality is, that Creationism only exists because you start from a religious ideology and try your hardest to prove that it can be true in spite of evidence to the contrary which isn't hampered by the restriction that it can't disagreewith the bible. And from that point of view, in public schools in America - evolution (at the very least Natural Selection) is what should be taught, not Creationism.

phil, Re: Ken Ham - I'd like to note that this world-renowned leader in the Creationist movement is a former teacher with a bachelor's degree in Applied Science. He's probably no dummy... and I have nothing against teachers... but his education hardly suggests that he is a qualified expert in same league as the numerous doctorate-level biologists and geneticists and geologists and astronomers aligned against young-earth Creationism. IQ above average? - almost certainly... as smart as the other side of the argument? - probably not (certainly not as educated).

Philcore you say:

"But the reality is, that Creationism only exists because you start from a religious ideology and try your hardest to prove that it can be true in spite of evidence to the contrary which isn't hampered by the restriction that it can't disagreewith the bible. And from that point of view, in public schools in America - evolution (at the very least Natural Selection) is what should be taught, not Creationism."

Flip this and the argument is the same. Let's not accuse the creationists of being biased when evolutionists are prone to the exact same bias.

And Dexter hold on. Sure, Ken Ham individually may not be "in the same league" intellectually with some on the other side, but let's not just assume all creationists are that way. I just noted Phd professors at Stanford, Brown, and Oxford as well as the director of the Human Genome Project (which, by the way, is the most compelling argument pro-evolution that I've ever heard). Uber-intelligent people are on both side of this debate, which I think was philcore's point.

And evolution is what's taught in US public schools.

Ok, scratch that, I misread the "against young-earth Creationism" part of your post. Bart -1.

My point is valid though, don't make me look up uber-educated young-earthers.

@dexter - "as smart as the other side of the argument? - probably not (certainly not as educated)."

ok good point, I was actually refering to the guys who explicity argue against Creationism - Hamm is certainly on their level. But part of my argument was all of the scientists who don't have a dog in that race, they are just progressing science, and it is their science that argues against Creationism. From that standpoint - you're absolutely correct. Those are certainly the smartest people this world has to offer IMHO, and some of them believe in god, while others don't - but it is irrelevant to most of them whether their science agrees / disagrees with the bible.

So good job calling me on that - I officially recind the statement that Ken Hamm is as smart as the people on the other side. But I do appreciate and respect the approach he takes, because it is an intelligent one, and it is based on the scientific method and on science. Of course I can see through his use of science in that he only cites the science that supports his view, while ignoring that which contradicts it ... but still, he does that in a very intellegent way ... ok I might be floundering in my defense of Hamm a bit, but that's only because I disagree with his basic premise and all of his conclusions. I still think he's a valuable resource to those who agree with him and want some justification as to why they can.

@bartdogg - "Flip this and the argument is the same. Let's not accuse the creationists of being biased when evolutionists are prone to the exact same bias."

I've heard this many times, but it just isn't true. There are evolutionary biologists who are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Budhist and atheist. They clearly don't all start from the same set of predisposed ideas that they must not contradict. They are just looking at evidence and advancing the science. Point me to a single athiest Creationist. If the viewpoints are truly opposite, then you'd find it just as hard to find a Christian evolutionist as you would an athiest Creationist, right?

It is absolutely not necessary to start off with the assumption that god doesn't exist in order to believe in evolution. If I drop a rock I don't expect that God's hand carries that rock to the ground at the acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s while simultaneously carrying all other falling things at the same rate and ALSO moving everything in the univerese according to very precice mathemetical rules. Instead I think that part of his creation was the set of forces which govern how things with mass and charge behave.

Why can't evolution be the same way? Why he have not created the universe in such a way that given the right conditions, chemical processes would occur that would lead to the combination of proteins that could replicate themselves. And from there complexities could arise to the point of the first csingle-celled life form.

From there it could have just gotten more and more complex until one day a group of these complex organisms decded to write a book explaning how the hell they got here.

And I have no argument with intelligent design and evolution existing together. My view is that God had a hand in guiding evolution to meet his desires. But it was still evolution. Mankind's knowledge has changed over the centuries. We no longer think the earth is flat or that the sun somehow races around the bottom to come back up the other side, yet that is what mankind believe as little as 600 years ago. so our own brains are intellectually evolving as part of the whole "survival of the fitest." An IQ of 100 today is the equivalent of an IQ of 110 just 50 years ago. So the "wise men" (actually just a group of astrologers, not learned astronomers or anything) who went to Christ's manger were actually dumb as a box of rocks by today's standards.

Granted, one does not need to start off with the assuption that God doesn't exist in order to believe in evolution, but Darwin's theory fails to provide any information whatsoever about the beginnings of life.

The subjects are different, not contradictory. I believe cheese is real and I believe Egypt is a country. Similarly one can believe in God and believe in evolution.

You are right, creationists are trying to make sense of the seeming contradiction.

phil, what you're describing I'd like to call pretty damn intelligent design... Designed so well that all God has to do is kick things off... and like a grand Rube Goldberg machine everything else simply plays out. Seems to me that this would be an attractive idea for a religious person as it suggests an even more awesome god. The ultimate design. A design that includes creation within it... rather than a patchwork of instant planets, instant life, instant humans, that pop up magically out of nothing like so many sea monkeys poured into water out of a sealed packet. How much more grand for it to be an incremental and creative process taking billions of years - growing/evolving organically...

Re: Ken Ham - sounds like what you're saying is that he's a skillful salesman. Or perhaps, more charitably, communicator: a Carl Sagan for the Creationist layman. (setting aside for the moment that Sagan was an award winning PhD Astronomer - never the less, we'll remember him most for his communication - his teaching of the masses)

Draugnar I'd take issue with your statement about human intellectual evolution. We are not biologically more intelligent than those who lived several thousand years ago. That is simply not true. What we are is systematically educated, and we also stand on the shoulders of giants. While we have progressed from such archaic views as 'the world is flat' and 'the Sun orbits the Earth', we still owe our thought to those in the past. The majority of Western theory on virtually anything can be traced to Roman, Greek and Egyptian thinkers thousands of years ago.

On IQ...IQ doesn't mean anything. It's a poor measure of intelligence at best. There are a huge number of things that could cause a rise in IQ over fifty years, amongst them better nutrition and education.

It always amazes me how threads tend to leave me behind.

To answer bartdogg's question about my name, I have no idea where it came from. I came up with it years ago, to use as a username, and I've just used it since.

Anyway, is God just or merciful? It is impossible to be both, by definition. The Old Testament seems to imply justice, while the New Testament says that he's merciful.

Also, it is perfectly acceptable for a good God to allow a sinful world, because he isn't causing it. Personally, I prefer the freedom to do wrong at the cost of being unhappy to be happy at the cost of free will. And that isn't even because I want to do wrong, I just want to be able to.

So, Creationism vs Evolution, now. I've never examined the evidence, so I can't really argue much about it, and there isn't really a way to prove one side or the other.

If this is about evolution which I sense it might be, I'll just interject an opinion I doubt has been forwarded yet:

I think that the universe began only recently, but was made with the appearance of a long history.

I couldn't tell you if I believe in God, because what I actually believe in is just a higher mind, whose imagination of the universe, well, IS the universe. This mind, of whom you and I are manifestations, started the timeline somewhere in human history, I imagine, be it five minutes ago or ten thousand years ago. I tend to doubt that it has all been going for billions of years though, as that would get boring, and is pointless. All the records we have are just backstory, if you will. Does this mean I dispute evolution? No, not strictly, though what it does mean is that I doubt it could actually happen, but I don't doubt that it is what we're meant to BELIEVE happened.

If that makes sense.

Zuzak: I would wholly disagree that one cannot be merciful and just. The old story is of a judge who sentences a guilty man to an enormous fine, which is the just penalty for this man's crime. Then the judge takes off his robe, walks down from the bench, stands beside the criminal and pays the bailiff the enormous fine right out of his pocket for the man. Is not this judge just and merciful?

Thucydides I've heard this before and it has always intrigued me, I must admit. There are certian theological hangups I can't get over, but it's interesting nonetheless.

@zuzak
Why must justice and mercy be mutually exclusive? Since you said "by definition", let's look at some definitions of just and mercy (from dictionary.com).

Just:
1. guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness.
2. based on right; rightful; lawful.

Mercy:
1. compassionate or kindly forbearance shown toward an offender, an enemy, or other person in one's power; compassion, pity, or benevolence.
2. the discretionary power of a judge to pardon someone or to mitigate punishment, esp. to send to prison rather than invoke the death penalty.

God is just. In that he embodies truth, reason, fairness, etc. So man is judged, and the law is carried out. The law being that sin results in death. However, God also provided a way for the law to be fulfilled without our personal death. That is, Jesus Christ. Through his death, the penalty of the law was paid. In my mind, there is no way to be any more merciful to us than that... allowing another to die in our stead, God's own son. So the law is fulfilled (justice) and people are given a free gift of life (mercy).


Also, wow. There are a lot of loooong posts in this thread. I'm afraid I didn't read all of them. If I just echoed what someone else already said, sorry. :)

The just thing to do would be to punish sins. The merciful thing to do would be to forgive sins.

bartdogg, in your example, the judge is merciful, not just. The criminal deserves to pay that fine, but the judge is being merciful by paying it, instead of being just and making him pay it.

The definition I was thinking of for justice is "everyone gets what they deserve" and mercy "people are forgiven and not punished as harshly as they deserve."

@Chalks - I couldn't have said it any better, nor could anyone else. You laid it out perfectly. Honestly, I'm thankful God is merciful because if I got what I deserve... Let's just say I would not be a happy camper in this life or the next.

How is this just or merciful for victoms of horrific crimes to be forced to confront their attackers once they get off scott free. Fines paid out of jesus's pocket

They say if you want to talk about God, find the physics department, and if you want to talk about God's non-existence, find the philosophy department. But Hawking leaves his beliefs in God to Providence and conjecture, and Einstein's belief in God was not from a standard Christian point of view.

alexwilder, I'm not sure I understand your question.

I've always found it odd how God defines what a sin is, then is all merciful by allowing his son to die for them. Branding what we do as sinful and then conveniently absolving it for us with his 'sacrifice' doesn't make any sense. Sins are completely subjective, so Jesus only died for your sins if you accept the Biblical lore on sin in the first place. It's circular.

I disagree Hereward.

In every culture in the history of the world, if you were to walk up to someone and punch them in the nose, I'd guarantee that person would be angry. The Bible argues that all men have an ingrain knowledge, built into our humanity, in which we can distinguish good from bad and right from wrong. The punched man would be angry because he knows something wrong has been done.

This could open a whole new debate on nature v. nurture and all that jazz, but there it is.

Suffice it to say that you're mistaken. God doesn't just declare what is sin. If you'd like to just plead ignorance at the throne of heaven and say, "well I didn't know I was sinning, who is to say it's a sin?" that's a game i'd advise against.

Francis Schaeffer's analogy is the one I like the most. Imagine you have a tape recorder hanging on your neck your entire life. It is not working except for the times in which you pass judgment. So, everytime you say, "Man, that guy was disrespectful" or "He/she is mean" or "what a gossip!" or "what a jerk!" or "Don't look at my wife/girlfriend like that!" or anything of the like, the tape recorder records it. When you arrive in judgment, it will not be God that judges you guilty but your own words. The tape will play and then scenes of your life will play. should you be guilty even once of breaking your own ingrained rules, you are judged guilty.

Punching a man in the face is never (to me) a 'sin'. It may be rude, unacceptable given the cultural context et cetera, but it is not a sin in the religious sense. I can give examples of societies where killing a man, though not a 'good' thing, was nowhere near as serious as it is now. In Dark Ages Britain for instance, if a man killed another he was required to pay blood money to the family, that was all (and let's not get into the argument about civilisation and advancement, this was simply a different time with a different set of cultural values, and different definitions of right and wrong).

You have to set a standard for what is sinful or wrong. Having a sense of right and wrong built into us is Humanism, and has nothing to do with God (not that I particularly support Humanism's assumptions either). In the case of religions that standard is set by their deity/deities. You must agree that if God created us then God had to designate what good and bad behaviour is? Following from that, are not the bad things considered 'sins'? If they are your own ingrained rules, why should God be the one to pass judgement? I fail to see how you can claim sins are inherent to men, God made men, and God doesn't define what a sin is.

Yes, In a sense you are correct, God designates what is right and wrong because he created man in His own image. Right and wrong is decided by God because He is the author and creator of everything good.

But, we are not just declared guilty because God says so. I was arguing that we are also declared guilty by our own conscience. Hypocrisy, in no society in history, has been a "good" thing. We are guilty because we know we have broken God's standard of perfection and have done wrong.

And your first paragraph isn't valid at all in this argument. I'm not arguing degrees of sin, or degrees of right and wrong. I'm arguing that right and wrong have been somewhat always known to man inherently.

I see your point, but I still don't agree with it. You're right about my first paragraph, I got a little sidetracked!

bartdogg, would it be your view, perhaps, that man was not a complete creation until he ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge? After all, that is when he learned shame and ideas of right and wrong, correct? (Prior to that he had no sense of such things - and acted innocently). If God made man in his own image - and God knows right from wrong - but man didn't until that fateful moment of attaining knowledge, then man was incomplete up until that time that he ate the apple. Make sense? (this all assuming a somewhat literal interpretation of Genesis, of course)

I can be pretty well described as a humanist... and I find your perspective (as Hereward points out) to be in line with humanism in a key way. That is interesting to me (and as I point out above, I actually think that it is consistent with the Bible to think that way)... but you have a foundation, shall we say, of a religious view that serves as the source for your humanistic view. I run across a fair number of religious folk who are convinced that all humans would regularly sin (without shame) if god wasn't watching them... more or less that we don't have a conscience of our own... but are only kept in line with the knowledge that God sees all. I find your view to be more reasonable (more likely and logical), more biblically correct, and more optimistic about human nature.

About the whole punching in the face thing, it wasn't blood money. It was called weregeld, and failure to pay would result in a blood feud between the victim's clan and the one of the fella who killed him. It was also far more widespread than "Dark Age" Britain. It was standard in all Germanic and Celtic cultures and forms of it exist world wide. They even still kind of have it in Albania, albeit not in the letter of the law.

The point you were trying to make was silly anyway, so it's kind of a moot point.

Hmm, Dexter. I would say that Adam and Eve were complete beings before the "fall". But I guess it depends on what you mean as "complete". All knowing, definitely not. If that means they were not complete, than I suppose so. But I don't think that a void in the realm of knowledge of disobedience to their maker makes them less complete. How I wish I were free of the burden of a conscience! If all I knew were goodness and truth and righteousness than I would be the complete man! However, after the fall, all men are bound in the chains of a conscience, so, in a sense we know more, but I don't think it makes us more "complete".

Granted, not once have I thought about that, and I just seem to be shooting from the hip there, so feel free to shoot inconsistencies in my thinking ;)

And your second paragraph is confusing to me. You lost me at the "...I run across a fair number of..." part all the way to the end. The God watching/not part is confusing. Do you mean "holding accountable to" or "awareness of" their sin?
These people would say all men would tend towards sin if God were not hovering over us, holding us in check? Is that what you mean?