User talk:Filll/EvolutionDiscussions

Proevolution

• Antievolution
• Talkdesign
• Talkorigins
• Talkreason
• Panda's Thumb
• NCSE

As you know, I'm Jewish, more as an ethnicity rather than religious faith, but I am not an Atheist. I assume that faith and science can commingle easily. Read this when you get a chance. [Jurrasic Judaism] Orangemarlin 19:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a point that he made in the article. "But doesn't the apparent age of the dinosaurs contradict the Torah? Well, to claim so, one would have to claim to understand what the Torah actually means with its account of Creation. But this raises many matters of interpretation; for example, how do you measure a "day" when the sun is only created on the fourth one? How do you determine the flow of time when it varies depending on how near you are to objects of large gravitational mass? Since we have so little understanding of these matters, how can dinosaurs frighten us?" Replace "dinosaurs" with "evolution" and the point is the same. What I never understand from the Creationists is why are they so arrogant to believe that they know what G_d meant by anything that was written. Maybe it's a difference between Judaism and Fundamental Christianity. Orangemarlin 19:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think so. And most of Christianity frankly. Maybe even most of Islam (that I am not sure of). What is so poisonous about these fundamentalists is that they get to define

• who is an atheist
• who is going to heaven
• who is a "real" Christian
• what the bible says
• what is right and what is wrong

They set themselves up as God's spokesmen and then proceed to spew vile hatred and anger, and people are so #$%^&* stupid , they just buy into it. Over and over. Because it clearly works. If the average person heard them and just decided, this person is a nut, and ignored them, they would not be dangerous.--Filll 21:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a very interesting issue. I, too, am ethnically (but not religiously) Jewish. I disagree that faith and science can "commingle easily"; really, religious faith directly contradicts the scientific method, and cannot be scientifically justified or substantiated. What really happens when people try to mix faith and science is either that science suffers as a result (people who reject scientific evidence that contradicts their faith), faith suffers as a result (people who lose faith when science naturalistically explains religious phenomena), or compartmentalization occurs, and faith-based and evidence-based reasoning are isolated in different parts of the psyche, to be drawn upon depending on the situation. (For example, we rely on evidence when crossing the street, going to the doctor, or even getting out of bed; we rely on faith when thinking about God and other religious matters). I wouldn't characterize any of these situations as "commingling easily". At best, they can form an Odd Couple relationship and try to live in the same brain while ignoring each other. But conflicts are inevitable, unless you reserve your faith for the most abstract, vague, metaphysical things possible. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen as often as one would hope; consider, for example, people who believe that homosexuality is a sin because of their faith.

I'm going to hold out for the commingling, or we're going to have battles forever between science and religion. Maybe it's a false hope! Anyways, there are too many scientists who have a deep faith in a god. They have resolved the contradictions by being good scientists. Orangemarlin 16:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good 50% of all scientists and 50% of all Christians have no problem with commingling. About 90% of all US Christians belong to faiths that have no problem with commingling. The Catholics have no problem with commingling. Historically, the study of science was the study of God's work, God's creation written in the book of nature, and as such was a sacred activity. These fringe nuts that deny this are dangerous and should be marginalized and exposed for what they are: dangerous nuts and nonChristian cultists. I have more than a couple of sources that argue that they are really doing more harm to religion and Christianity than good. I am a bit cynical, but I think it is mainly a ploy to raise money. Most of these characters are basically liars and crooks, if you look at history.--Filll 16:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course, even disregarding the torny issue of Genesis "days" entirely, it is hard to argue that the Genesis account is consistent with our view of science. Taken as fact or history, Genesis makes a number of assertions that are flat-out wrong, such as that the Earth existed before light, that light existed before stars, that the Earth and heavens were initially blanketed by waters, that plants existed before the stars, that birds existed before "creatures that move along the ground" (and that's only in Genesis 1!). Only if Genesis is taken as myth, fable, or incredibly opaque metaphor is it possible to avoid such a factual contradiction.
• I do not think that it is "arrogant" of creationists or fundamentalists to claim to know what God meant by what was written. If God is good, then he will not deliberately deceive us; and if he is wise, then he knows how best to present us with reliable information; and if he is powerful, then he is capable of presenting us with that information. Based on the presumption that God is good and wise and powerful and created the Bible, then, it seems reasonable, at least at a cursory view, to infer that the Bible is a reliable way to know about the world and its history. The real problem isn't that this is a bad inference, but that it relies on bad premises (why should we believe that God exists? why should we believe that he wrote the Bible? why should we believe that he is good?), and that it leads to other conclusions which are absurd (the Bible contradicts itself on a number of counts; if the Bible is true, then it must be possible for something to be true and false at the same time, a violation of basic logic). It isn't "arrogant" to conclude that one knows the truth from the premise that the Bible is the true and infallible word of God; rather, it's "arrogant" to assume that that premise is correct even though it flies in the face of all evidence. -Silence 02:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical inerrancy and Biblical literalism are the problems: the hallmarks of bibliolatry. If you are comfortable with the bible/torah as poetry or allegory written by men, perhaps inspired by God but imperfectly rendered, there is no problem.--Filll 02:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]