Fundamentalist Christians, Creationism and Science
79Creationism is Duplicitous
I have to say I've been itching to write this article on fundamentalist Christianity, creationism and science for many months. I've watched with interest and horror (mostly horror) the rise in fundamentalist Christian branches in the US and Canada and it's scary how many people are being sucked into the false belief systems that are promoted there. The End Times - Demon Attack - Young Earth Theory - Sin - Judgement and Punishment.
I have views on all of these aspects of fundamentalist Christianity, but here I want to talk about the relationship between taking a literal translation of the Bible, creationism and science. You won't find any Bible quotes or discussion of specifically why creationist science is wrong, but you will see an exposition of a fundamental duplicity in the creationist science argument.
Many fundamentalist Christians say that science, in particular evolutionary science, is a lie - a misrepresentation of the facts. They come up with all kinds of "scientific" explanations of why science actually proves that the earth is a mere 6000 years old and why evolutionary science is wrong. Pseudoscientific explanations such as catasrophism and flood geology just do not work, no matter how much they try to make them fit - the processes used to arrive at these conclusions are extremely unscientific (see the scientific method).
But it's funny - despite attempts to use science against itself, why do this branch of fundamentalist Christians, (the ones who believe in creationism and a literal translation of the bible), happily go along with every other branch of science? Why is it that it's only particular aspects of evolutionary science, geology and cosmology that can't be trusted and that need alternate explanations?
Fundamentalist Christians Love Science
In many areas fundamentalist Christians trust science implicitly! There aren't many of them that do not trust the biological and chemical science of medicine to cure themselves and their loved ones; who don't rely on the physics, chemistry and mechanics that make their cars go; who don't trust the science that makes their contact lenses enable them to see clearly; or who don't have complete confidence in the physics and chemistry that make televisions, electricity or the technical sound systems they use in their worshiping venues work perfectly.
Just look at the image at the top of the page of one of these "super churches". Sound systems, WiFi, microphones, projectors, lighting rigs, plasma screens, plus a multitude of other technology developed by science. How ironic that the very place where science is ridiculed is completely enveloped in that very same science.
All of these technologies are based on the same scientific principles and knowledge contained in physics, chemistry and biology that they challenge so strongly when it comes to the topic of how old the earth is, how old the universe is and where we came from. So conservative or fundamentalist Christians are quite happy to rely on science in their everyday lives, in a multitude of ways, unless it challenges the absurdity of their belief in a literal translation of the bible?
The Scientific Method
- Define the question
- Gather information and resources (observe)
- Form hypothesis
- Perform experiment and collect data
- Analyze data
- Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
- Publish results
- Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
Creationism and Science
This is not to say that everything in science is 100% accurate and should be believed without question because science in itself is an evolving system that should be questioned, tested, analyzed and retested. In fact that is what getting to the truth is all about. Creationism fails so miserably because it does not question itself and though it professes to look for truth, it doesn't.
If we believe that all of the many technological and scientific processes we use in our day to day lives are reliable because scientists have used the scientific method successfully to develop them, then how can we say that all of that's fine and dandy, but evolutionary science is completely wrong? It doesn't make any sense at all. Evolutionary science is based on physics, chemistry and biology just like every other branch of science.
One of the criticisms creationists throw at evolution is that they say they can't see evolution happening around us and that they don't "feel" it happening. But the same is true for any fundamentalist Christian currently reading this webpage and using, quite without thought or argument, the technology and science of their computer and the internet.
I can't "feel" this science at work either and I can't see the processes required to make my laptop work but that certainly doesn't make it untrue or a lie. Though I know it's to do with physics, and maths, electrons and transistors, what my lack of understanding about how my laptop works says is that I am ignorant! Because I have not studied computer science and I don't know how to make a silicon chip I am ignorant in this area of knowledge.
The same analogy of ignorance can be applied to the theory of creationism and Young Earth believers. They challenge something that they really do not understand the mechanism of. A simple example of this ignorance, is when this branch of fundamentalist Christian says, "If evolution is true, why aren't apes turning into humans now?" To that question I can only laugh - it shows a complete ignorance of how evolution works. It's as ridiculous as me saying, "If my laptop works, why isn't it turning into a satellite and flying off into orbit around the earth?"
For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:
- consistent (internally and externally)
- parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
- useful (describing and explaining observed phenomena)
- empirically testable and falsifiable
- based upon controlled, repeatable experiments
- correctable and dynamic (changing to fit with newly discovered data)
- progressive (achieving all that previous theories have and more)
- tentative (admitting that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
"Creationist Science" is an Oxymoron
No creationist science explanation of the Earth's age has been able to pass through the rigorous process of the scientific method for very good reason - the hypotheses are wholly and utterly false. There is no evidence whatsoever for creationism - that there was a great global flood or that the Earth was created in one day, so why not just give it up and accept that the Bible is not, and was not ever, to be taken literally? This is what most of the Christians on the planet have been able to do - keep their faith and belief in Jesus, as well as accept scientific knowledge as it progresses. Why the need to cling onto something so outdated and false? It is as bad as saying that the Earth is flat and that our planet is in the centre of the universe.
Science at it's core aims to be unbiased, it is not out to prove anything in particular. Creationist scientists only try to manipulate existing science to suit their own needs which bastardizes the whole concept of science and the search for truth, so the term creationist science really is an oxymoron. One other aspect that creationist scientists (and I do use the term loosely) do not do that any legitimate scientist does, is to be open about the flaws and gaps in their theory. I have yet to hear or read any creationist science argument that is open to being wrong in any way. This in itself shows that the nature of the inquiry regarding creationism is fundamentally unscientific.
If you're a creationist with an open mind and want to understand how science works, then look into how scientists developed the periodic table over a period of 300 years. Inspiration, knowledge, experiment and testing, building one piece of information upon the other towards a complete picture. The science of evolution is towards the end of the exact same process right now.
Do You "Believe in" the Periodic Table?
Black and White Thinking Never Got Anyone Anywhere
The whole science vs the bible argument put forward by fundamentalist Christians is a massive step backwards in the evolution of the human race. If we've learnt anything it's that nothing is black and white and many theories and ideas can happily co-exist and indeed strengthen each other in the long term. In the context of this article "either/or" doesn't work, but "and" does.
Now in the 21st century fundamentalist Christians stand in the same place Christianity was 400 years ago in Europe, branding many of the best scientific minds of our time as simply blasphemous and deceitful, as Galileo was in the 17th Century. The Bible and the Church was proven wrong then so why haven't you learnt from the past mistakes of Christianity and learned to incorporate science and religion? As I've already stated, you already rely on and trust the scientific method - it would be worth asking yourself why you do. My answer is because it works!
The search for answers and truth is something that makes us human, giving up on that and simply accepting creationism because that's what some preacher has told you about the nature of reality, is sad and a waste of your human intellect.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (4)
- Funny
- Awesome (4)
- Beautiful
- Interesting (1)
CommentsLoading...
Hi hypno - many thanks as always for your thoughtful comments :) I agree with you that the bible was written by men, edited by men and has been used mainly for power and wealth. I do still think that their is spirituality in there, unfortunately there is a lot of nonsense to get past to see it. So many seem to take the nonsense over the real spiritual messsages!
I think what you say about evolution theory getting continuously corrected is the beauty of science. When one road turns out to be a dead end, scientists will go back to the fork in the road and try a new hypothesis or some new information will be discovered that changes the course. I think the science of evolution has come a long way and will go all the way because it's built on sound principles.
Going back to your first point - Catholics are Christians - they are the original christian religion, well since roman times. All of the modern christian branches come from catholicism. They were fundamentalist nuts back in the time of the inquisition, but it's a shame that some branches of christiantiy seem to delight in going back into that madness!
As for fundamentalism - I think it's the modern day evangelicals that see themselves as going back to the fundamentals ie: believing in the bible as an authoritive text on how things are. I'm not sure I understand how it is an oxymoron to be a fundamentalist christian, so if you have time do explain what you mean :)
Thanks for visiting hypno - you are always very welcome :)
Thanks for your appreciation Susana, well we are friends for a reason :)
I agree with you that the beauty of science is that it can try new roads when wrong, but I'd like scientists to be more open minded before being at the end of the wrong road. Good Science teachers usually say "The prevailing theory now says that..." otherwise science behaves like fundamentalists. :)
As for the second point a Christian is someone who accept that:
1) there is only one God, which translated in modern times talk means that since every religion has been "invented" by a man all religions are similar even if they have a different point of view; or better as we say in Italy every road takes to Rome.
2) do unto others as you'd like the others do unto you. Well, this is pretty clear.
These two are the features of a Christian, plus Tolerance and Respect. As you can see everyone can be a Christian, that's why as a religion it went everywhere, but not all of those who say they are Christian really are.
But I've made an error, it is possible to be a Fundamentalist Christian, only that they are pretty good persons, open minded, tolerant, respectful....:)
Excellent hub, Susana. This topic is on my list of subjects to tackle, but you said it all so well that I might have to move onto something else!
Excellent Hub, Susana, and thanks for writing it. Intolerance is the main reason for the so-called fundamentalists' position on evolution and a lot of other stuff. A belief in the possibiity of certainty is what causes intolerance. I don't think we can ever be 100% certain about anything. There are always possibilities that we have not seen, because no person has complete knowledge. Science recognises that and so, as Hypnodude so correctly states it, good science will always use the formulation "the prevailing theory says (or is)..." We live in a world of contingency, of possibility, not of finality. When we don't recognise that we tend to get into totalitarianism, an ideology (of the political left or the political right) which claims to have all the answers and demands total adherence to the answers as defined in the ideology. And ultimately this is madness, as we can see every day in the world around us where fundamentalists of whatever persuasion propagate madness.
I see I'm almost writing another Hub here!
Love and peace
Tony
Hi Hypno :) I understand where you are coming from. I guess one of the difficulties of being human is that we often don't like being wrong! Even scientists ;) Some can be rather fundamentalist in their approach, which I don't like, but if they are wrong in some aspect of their experiments no matter how much they want to be right, other scientists will quickly be along to retest and reformulate the theory. I guess most scientists have to learn to swallow their pride as part of the job!
I agree that if we take the proper definition of fundamentalism rather than the popular negative one, then a fundamentalist christian will be about love, compassion, forgiveness and non judgement (the basic fundamentals of the religion). This is what I take from Christianity which I think is a common approach in Europe. In the US fundamentalism has another meaning, sometimes also called conservative christianity, it's all about belief in the bible as a factual document - so the earth is only 6000 yrs old, the adam and eve story is 100% true, gays are abhorrent, abortion is evil, demons and the devil are everywhere, aids is god's way of killing off bad people etc etc. It's this kind of christianity that I just can't stand - it's just so ignorant IMO and has nothing to do with the fundamentals as we've described them :)
Edweirdo - thank you :) I would still love to read what you have to say about it!
Hi Tony - we are definitely on the same page in our views on this issue. Are you an American? I ask because the type of fundamentalist christianity I am talking about is rampant in the US - what do ordinary Amercians think about it? Does it scare them that such radicalized, ignorant and intolerant views are so prominent in their country? What is the effect on society?
Love and peace to you also :)
Well, Jesus has been killed because He wasn't a fundamentalist, instead He was pretty a reactionary. :) The Bible is simply a book, just like the Torah and the Koran. People with issues or looking for exploiting or enslaving or just dominating others can always find a religious reason for that, and if not they can always write a new book on their own and say it's God word. It might also be that even real Muslims are not at all those who want to force Islam all over the world, but I don't know much about the subject.
But those USA fundamentalists have nothing to do with Christianity. They just need an excuse to rule over others. The Inquisition was Catholic, not Christian.
Wonderful hub and even more wonderful comments. :) Did I say that I like to debate on religious topics? In an open minded way of course like here? I'll stumble it. :) Wonderful job Susana.
Hypno - I wholeheartedly agree with your views on Jesus and The Bible. The muslims I know are nothing like the fundamentalist muslims we hear a lot about in the news - they are peaceful people and are thankfully in the majority.
The scary thing for me regarding christian fundamentalism in the US is that around 45% of the total population are creationists. That's mind boggling to me! http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
Many thanks for the stumble :)
Great hub! I actually had these thoughts a lot and questioned my Christianity when I was younger. As an adult, I decided that Yes, I do believe in God and am Christian but I also believe science. The bible was written, edited, and altered by man. When my kids ask about religion, I always explain to them that God and Jesus do exist and that everything was created by God BUT The bible was written and interpreted by humans and time frame of the creation of Earth is what man wrote in the bible(evolution taught in schools brings about these questions). Time frame is something only humans keep track of. Although I believe God created Earth, I highly doubt he did it in 6 days and rested on the seventh since God has no concept of time. Maybe he created everything in 1 day and rested on the second. We also named the days of the week, don't think it was God's idea to have 7 days in a week, so I pray everyday of the week, not just man made Sundays. Churches are also man made (with LOTS of money), I don't think God ever said go to this huge beautiful church and worship/pray and give me your money. I worship/pray when I want, again, not just on Sunday. I give money to needy people not to a church that needs to replace their stained glass windows and says pray here or God won't hear you. God has no use for money and here's me pray no matter where I'm at or what day of the week it is. Unfortunately I have great difficulties finding a church that I like so I just worship and believe in my own ways instead of another person telling how or what to believe.
I also agree with what you are saying. Scientist can work until the end of their lives and still not have the answers to the hands of the Master's work. We believe by faith that the words of the Bible are true. People that don't believe are missing the faith element. This explains why Moses was delivered and Pharoh was destroyed. Its not that God doesn't love us all, but he does take care of his own.
Susana - Many folks cannot quite come to grips with the facts that (1) the bible was written over a period of centuries by many people, most of whom relied on stories and traditions passed along to them over centuries by another large number of people, (2) there are many versions of many bibles, (3)most of the many bible versions came about by various translations made from one language to the next by numbers of translators using words and phrases that sometimes had no exact or accurate translations, and (4)people have murdered other people, fought great wars slaughtering millions of humans, sacrificed other forms of life to the bible's deity, and, in general disobeyed the "laws" supposedly ensconced in the various bibles, all in the name of what they regarded as the "true" religion that sneers at what is factual and obvious - critters and plants, etc., all evolve from what they were to what they will become. That is not only provable, but totally visible to the naked eye. (I used to be ugly, but now I am beautiful :] ) Now THAT is what I call both creation and pure science!
Gus :-)))
Since you say that science has made mistakes maybe they are wrong about God. Look at the planets how come they are all round and not square or rectangle. Everything works in circles, the earth and planets rotate around the the sun, the earth rotates on its axis. If there is no God who is to say the sun won't just turn off tomorrow, scientists I think not since they did not turn it on in the first place. Science only proves that everything in the bible is possible for example in scientific terms God cloned eve from adam and it says he formed a woman. Actually I agree that science is good, but not all science, if this missing link survived millions of years and turned into a man where is he now, don't tell me that he could not make it long enough for us to see him after surviving over a million years. Or is it possible he never existed to begin with. Maybe you should be open to the possibility that there is a Creator. If we exist why not God, it's possible you might be wrong don't you think.
Susan S, my dear young child--yours is an empty mind trying to explain things is has no personal knowledge or comprehension of. For the sake of Humanity and true intellectuals everywhere, PLEASE retract this childish, incorrect and error-ridden post and cease speaking of such matters until you've invested a serious decade or two researching the topic(s) you wish to address!
You do not realize how damaging and embarrassing this post is to your intellectual and academic status--especially among whose of us who are intimately familiar with the subject matter covered.
Within my peer group your mind--and those like yours--are categorized as belonging to brainwashed religious fanatics incapable of original reason or thought--at least until after the mind has been de-programmed.
Stated another way, your present opinion indicates your intellectual capacity is among the bottom 10% of human society. Restated in a manner that your present religous programming allows you to comprehend: Your mind belongs to those "less favored races" whose existence is an unnecessary burden to the more advanced and intelligent humans on this planet (the "more favored races"); therefore, you are an evolutionary mistake and are no longer beneficial to the furtherance of the human species and ought to be terminated immediately due to your consuming resources more intelligent or "favored races" could be using.
I would strongly suggest, for your own academic future and intellectual reputation, that you forget the silly religious fairy tales of fools like Engels, Marx and Darwin and their associated religious rhetoric--including the quaint notion of evolution [a unique non-scientific precept of the fanatic religious cult of Secular Humanism, similar to the flat earth theory held by other religious cults ] and begin studying genuine science, engineering, physics, electronics, chemistry, astronomy, biology, etc..
Susan, the truth is out there if you are honest enough to admit it to yourself when you find it; however, you'll never be a true scientist until your mind has matured enough to discard your present man-made religious prejudices.
Interesting. I agree with a lot of things you said. You say what most won't.
One thing to someone who made a comment. Catholics are christians. Peace
fits4life - there may be some truth in the Bible, but it's definitely not all true. I think a lot of it is clearly supposed to be metaphoric and not to be taken as literal fact. There's no need to have blind faith in metaphors to be a christian, but somewhere along the line things have gotten very confused for many christian branches. Gus said it well :)
Gus - I agree you are beautiful :) I agree also with each of your 4 points - for anyone that wants to do a very small amount of digging the answers to the how factual the bible is are plain to see. There's nothing wrong with faith, but I do think there is something wrong when supposedly intelligent people blindly believe things that someone else told them to believe and totally give up thinking for themselves. Good to meet you :)
JCisalive - I see that black and white thinking again in your comment. Many scientists do believe in God - it's not necessarily either/or. This statement "if this missing link survived millions of years and turned into a man where is he now" shows that you don't understand how evolution works. Animals don't turn into other animals - who told you that's how it works? It certainly wasn't a scientist. You've taken misinformation from someone who didn't understand and accepted it as truth - why is that? You've assumed I don't believe in God because I also believe in science (more black and white thinking). What I don't believe in is a literal translation of the bible.
I've always had a problem with the recent creationist viewpoint. I understand why theologians came up with it. They are attempting to simplify the biblical account, taking it literally. This includes the genealogical history of the Jews, which is how they came up with the time period from Adam to Jesus. Using this scale, Bishop Pike figured the creation to have occurred 4004 yrs BC! Was King James putting pressure on the guy or what? Anyway, I suppose it's possible that the earth is only 10,000 yrs old but it would mean that God would have had to plant some misinformation during the creation. For example, he would have had to use some old building material when putting together living things. Otherwise, why would fossils appear to be millions of years old?
Hmmm interesting comments "Dr". Interesting in how, when faced with obvious duplicity, you try to revert to insults and do not stay on topic. You are obviously a very highly evolved human with such a wise and compassionate approach to your fellow humans, so tell me "Dr" - do you "believe in" the periodic table?
Thanks treasure :)
Hi rainstreet - thanks for your comment:) I don't think it's at all possible that the earth is under 10,000 years old - like you say it makes no sense at all, no matter how much creationists try to mash it into existing science. I can understand why the bible was taken literally for a few thousand years - people needed a way to explain how they got here and what happened to them when they died and they had nothing else to go on. Now there's no excuse or any reason to believe it!
LOL
You can look forward to some entertaining comments here. I wrote a similar hub some time back and it has about 600 comments. Not one of the buggars bothered to read past the first paragraph though.
Seriously - I love the ones who stop by and use an anonymous user name like the scumbag lying about being a doctor. Can you be a doctor without having been to school?
they do more to convince me that religion is garbage than the apologetics making excuses for 2000 years of abuse "They were not REAL christians." LOL
Hehe - This is going to be fun.
As a biologist, I agree with pretty much all of it - Biblical literalism makes me chuckle.
Greek Orthodox priests do not take the Bible literally. This is because they are fully aware of the complexity and hidden subtleties of their own language. As for translations - it is absolutely impossible to translate Ancient Greek to English accurately. Five different scholars can come up with five completely different interpretations of the same passage!
Mind you, I have been called a demonic icon-worshipper on HP a few times. Apparently, Orthodox Christians are not really Christians! :D
Mark - I think they give their doctorates out at church in exchange for putting something in the collection box - LOL - so no need for school at all! I'm waiting patiently for a creationist to come by and actually try to refute my argument (assuming that they actually read it, lol) - now that will be entertaining indeed!
Sufi - I've always thought of you as a demon - you must be since you are kind, warm, rational, non-judgemental and love to think! It's that thinking part that gives it away you know :D
Seriously though, like you say about the Greek orthodox church, 99% of christians in Europe do not feel the need to take the bible literally. There are far too many inconsistencies to do so. Then as you point out there are issues of translation as well as the issues of who put the bible together and what was left out and why, issues about who the authors were and the mindset of society at the time. I find it hard to comprehend that anyone could take the bible literally - maybe they just don't know all of this stuff. I guess brainwashing could do that :)
hehe - Go easy with the compliments - I have a fierce reputation as a Baby-Eating, Dolphin-Hating, Marxist Fascist, Commie to uphold.
I would love to return the compliment, but you are not particularly bright, according to Dr Sterns, and who is going to argue with such a wonderfully qualified, open-minded individual.
Seriously - not sure what he is going on about, but that type of language reminds me of someone...
Great Hub, Susana. I've been reading a really good book titled, "God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible," by CJ Werleman, in which goes through the Bible, book for book, and shows what the character God does. In ancient mythical stories, God is vengful, bloodthirsty, seriously racists, and has disdain for women. His chosen people the Isrealites roam throughout many lands and each time they find a place to settle, he helps them kill all the inhabitants of the place. At one point, he kills all the first born of Eygpt. The dead bodies in the Old Testmeant at the hands of god number in the tens of thousands.
You no doubt know all this, but yet so many people have never read, let alone really studied the Bible or it’s history. They rely on a couple of dozen inspirational verses that their pastors use over and over again.
In this modern era, it‘s really time that we be more clear about what we believe in. And we definitely need to be more scientifically literate.
Keep up the writing.
You have a huge hole in your scientific theory. IF you were to read the bible and had an understanding of the Greek and Hebrew translations you would find out it is a historical book. PERIOD...NO other book in history has documented what was and is to come ! You can't ignore the facts. If you are a true scholar and wanted to know the truth, you wouldn't ignore facts. There are many scientist who were out to prove the Bible wasn't scientifically correct that became Christians. Best of luck and hope you may someday find TRUTH.
Bakari - Hi and welcome :) That sounds like an interesting book. There certainly is a great deal of violence, prejudice and hatred in the Bible, which I think tells us a great deal about who wrote it! There's nothing like fear to control the people. Thanks for your comment :)
newoman - I'm not sure you read the article, which is essentially discussing creationism, science and evolution? I agree that there are parts of the bible that are historically correct, though there is no such thing as history of the future as you have said.
It's extremely simplistic to say that because some of the bible relates to historical occurances, all of it is historically correct, especially when it comes to the creation of the earth, the universe and humans. My argument here is specifically targetted at "creationist science" and why it falls flat, so if you have something to say about how accurate this "science" is, then I'd love to hear it.
Could it be that the big bang theory has the same chance of being right than creationism? Maybe there is a third road to follow?
:)
Hi hypno :) My own view is that there is a high likelihood that science will in fact prove the existence of some kind of creative force/energy enabling science and spirituality to reconnect at a fundamental level - this might take thousands of years or might not happen at all - it's only a belief I have. I think there are many possibilities and many roads that could be fruitful in terms of understanding our universe :)
I think as well that we'll only get to provable truth by following the scientific method, putting aside myths and fantasies and realising the difference between belief and fact. God may have created the universe, but I don't think she/he/it did so in 6 days and I don't think there is any evidence at all to say that it was! Here's a few links to creationist science websites - tell me what you think of their evidence....(remember that they are doing a hard sell of their science in the US as well and many people believe it.)
Interesting articles. While I'm pretty much sure about the existence of the historical Jesus, as much as I'm sure He has been killed because He was a pain in the back of the established religious and economic powers, I don't think that Creationism is much right. As much as I think scientists are pretty wrong too. At the end science hasn't been able to explain how our universe is, forget about how it came into existence; they have theories but no certainties. So we could even say that regarding these matters scientists and creationists are more or less at the same level. The difference as you said is that while creationists usually base their beliefs in "blind" faith on a human written book, scientist usually test their hypothesis. I'm even pretty sure that when they'll discover a better way to investigate age than C14 scientist will have to rewrite again the history of the world, as they are being forced to do with human ancestors. There is the example of the Coelacanth which considered extinct is instead alive and kicking. :)
The problem arising with Creationism for me is another one: If the story has to be taken literally can someone explain me how the human race derived from Adam, Eve and Cain? Did they have other children? Did brothers slept with sisters? Did the same thing happened again with Noah?
If you want my own opinion I'd make a paragon with Christmas: Santa Claus doesn't exists but the Christmas Spirit does. Call it creative force/energy/spirit or whatever. At the end hasn't been Jesus himself who said that you can curse everything and everyone and be forgiven but you won't if you curse the Holy Spirit? Strange that I haven't seen yet an ecclesiastic definition of the Holy Spirit and why Jesus regarded it as the most important thing of existence.
In this respect everything that exists is a creation of the Holy Spirit, as early Taoism explained pretty well.
:)
And, just to clarify things a little, I've read pretty well the Bible and the Gospels, I've even served at the mass but never been abused, my aunt is a nun and I know many Catholics who are also good Christians as much as I know many Catholics who don't know who Jesus is, even if they go to the mass every Sunday. It's common use between Italian Mafia to go to church even every day, that's why I say that not all Catholics are Christians, and there are similar examples all around the world, like abusive priests. The problem is that with knowledge, especially of ancient history and tradition a lot of questions about religions' reliability come to mind.
When I want inspiration I read, beside the Tao Te Ching, the Gospel of Thomas which having been written around 100 a.c. and having been never rewritten by Catholics is possibly the most true description of Jesus. As a matter of fact it's not recognized by the Catholic Church, probably because the Jesus described there is pretty different from the one on the Four Gospels.
I've made a little mess with the comment. Anyway I'm not an hater of priests. I just think that logic and reason should be applied to every religion, at the end they are all man made. :) Sorry if I've gone a little out of topic. :)
Well, this is certainly an inflammatory article, and I see that it has attracted a match or two. I think you are very brave. Thank you.
I sometimes get annoyed with both science AND religion, and saddened by both, especially when the holier-than-thou critic rears his or her ugly head. At the bottom of all seemingly never ending reactions of this nature there must be tremendous need to be special (enter religious exclusivist characteristics) and to have everything either all black or white (which is absurd) and absolutely fixed (which is dangerous).
You have a great mind hypnodude - it's wonderful that you think about these things :) And there's certainly no need for apologies :)
The thing with science is that it is working towards answers - fundamentalist christians think they already have them all. To me this kind of thinking is dangerous. I agree that Jesus was a real person who had much good to bring the world. Like you I also know a lot of good christians, but there's something very different about the christianity you will find in your native Italy and my native Spain, to the kind of christianity you'll see in the US.
I think in general European christians have evolved with science and are willing to incorporate new information into their understanding (which you demonstrate perfectly in your responses!). Evangelical christians refuse to do this and it's this stuck mindset that I'm really attempting to challenge. I also want to challenge how this type of thinking does not "add up" - it's full of duplicity and ignorance.
Though brought up as a catholic, I have since gone on to study many religions. My preference is Buddhism because it has room for everything :)
Hi DurgaMa - thank you. I think what you point out is very important. Fundamentalist christianity seems to appeal to the basest and laziest part of human ego - feeling special and above others; having everything in black or white terms so there's no need to think; and fixidity which means no need to question. It's a kind of intellectual laziness IMO. I'm not sure I've met any holier than thou scientists but I'm sure there are some :)
Thanks for your kind words, and don't worry, I'll keep this comment short. :) I agree with what you say and I find pretty interesting to know about how things go around the world.
Grown up Catholic too I'm now basically Christian (with the meaning said above:)) plus a bit of this and of that, especially early Taoism, but almost every religion has points that can enrich the others.
I strongly believe that Jesus first would appreciate questioning beliefs and ideas, and if I remember well He did it too. :)
It's a pleasure to talk with you and a bigger one that we think pretty in the same way. And to see so many hubbers enjoying talking easily about religion. When I think about good religions I see something like Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, and maybe some others around the same table talking "easily" about their different yet equal point of view. That's what religions should be. :)
Hi Susana, this hub is as clear as a bell, and make unavoidable fully confronting observations that would put an end to this rubbish if religionists would study it. We both know they wont! Top hub!
Hey Hypnodude :) I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. One thing the Dalai Llama said in his book The Art of Happiness, is that there really should be 6.5 billion religions, one for each of us. I like his wisdom!
Hi Earnest - Thanks :) Like you I doubt they'd read past the first few sentences.....but you never know, my argument may touch a nerve with one or two :)
I like it too, but it's already true that there are 6,5 half billion religions, isn't it? :)
As with anything in this world, there really is only one truth.If people would work together to seek the truth. When even a smidgen of a lie is in anything, that "thing" becomes corrupted.
Let's look at some basic facts. The world had to be created. Nothing can exist without being a creation. A creator must be a whole unit to make something perfect. Next, everyone seeks to love/be loved, yet we are not willing to give up our own selfish desires to acheive this. Think about the power struggles even within an individual household. Siblings, born of the same womb cannot seem to manage to be civil to one another, yet we expect the entire world to self-manage! People talk about world peace, yet do nothing about it.
Another thing that amazes me is that those that teach tolerance tolerate do not show any toleration toward fundamentalist. Under the new testament guidelines of the teachings of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, people that share the gospel of Jesus Christ of Nazareth are to love God above all, and to love one another just as Christ loved us. Based on this teaching, this is supposed to be the most peaceful of teachings, yet it seems to be the most persecuted.
Also, what qualifies you to make these statements? Are you a Hebrew/Greek bibical scholar? Not to offend you, it just seems that one should be if they are going to make such absolute statements.
Brilliant and brave - Susana (given the many fundamentalist Hubs I see on Hub Pages). So, well done, you! I also greatly liked Gus's succinct and biting comments.
Fundamentalism of any sort is offensive but when it defies intellectual rigour and the facts - then it does any religion a terrible disservice. Most religions, after all, are little more than (very important) codes of behaviour and ethics with 'stories' illustrating their points. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, until the 'stories' are taken as irredemable 'gospel' - despite having been written, very obviously, by 'man'.
I am curious, though, about one point - for which I should like illumination. Why is it that 'Creationism' is so important (and widely supported) in the US where in Europe it is not? Can anyone clear this up for me?
Creationism. Why is it important. I try to study Hebrew and Greek correlations of meaning to the original texts as well as the various translations, but I am by no means an expert. It is important for to a society to recognize that all things are "Created". A creation has meaning and purpose, therefore is the fundamental belief of a society that believes that all people should be equal, respected and able to pursue their own hopes, dreams and goals. The Christian bible has a place for all people. It naturally evolves from a point where people reject God's wisdom and decide that they know more than their creator. This explains our basic animal instinct, which is what the human without the spark of God is, an animal. This animal instinct is what causes people to fight. The given intellect that we have causes us to seek out a reason for our existance. The U.S. did away with slavery years ago, and civil rights has been at the forefront for over 40 years. Creationsism establishes a basis for these civil rights. That we are all created equal. In many other countries in this world civil rights are not what they are here. Abortion, euthanasia and other forms of human degradation are acceptable because of the secular humanist views that have evolved in those countries. Another factor is people in the U.S. are free to speak about how they feel, to question and to exchange ideas, while this is not the case in Europe.
One final note. You should be up front and honest about your article. It is trickery and manipulation to name this segment "Fundamentalist Christians, Creationism and Science" when your article should be named "Why you should not believe Fundamentalist Christians...etc".
Do you know exactly how we came to be ? If you do I'd like to see your proof, otherwise it's only speculation with out any understanding of the possibilities and prove or disproves nothing. I like to believe that we will be given the whole story in time and I'm sure it may contain alittle of both.
Rather than preach to the choir(atheists) why not prove what you're saying. You can't and we can only offer our faith so I see the line in the sand, do you?
Hi hypno :) Yes, in some ways there are already 6.5 billion religions or certainly 6.5 billion belief systems. I think what the Dalai Llama was getting at was that when we think, challenge and question we can come to our own personally unique understanding of the nature of things. Using our minds and intellect in this way is the basis of Buddhism - we are encouraged to think and challenge what we think we know! :)
mwoods - I agree seeking truth is part of being human and that's why I'm challenging obvious lies in creationist science. I can't see the need to spread misinformation on such a grand scale.
If fundamentalist christians believe by faith, so be it - I may see it is rather ignorant but faith is faith. Why then take that faith and attempt to back it up with science? The answers science have found don't fit with a young earth, yet YEC are trying to mash science to fit in with their belief system. Like you say it only takes one lie to corrupt. They are spreading such lies that they need challenging. People are working together to seek truth, yet YEC want to deny truth to suit themselves.
You say, "Let's look at some basic facts. The world had to be created. Nothing can exist without being a creation. A creator must be a whole unit to make something perfect." These are beliefs not facts. It's important to be able to make the distinction.
I personally have no problem at all with people that decide to try and be a good human being by following Jesus example. If anything is to be taken from the bible, then the love, compassion and non judgement that Jesus lived by is it. In my experience it's not Love that is persecuted.
"The U.S. did away with slavery years ago, and civil rights has been at the forefront for over 40 years. Creationsism establishes a basis for these civil rights." Morality and a code of ethics is needed for civil rights, not creationism. The UK for example has a secular government and got rid of these things long before the US did!
"Another factor is people in the U.S. are free to speak about how they feel, to question and to exchange ideas, while this is not the case in Europe." Where on earth did you get that from? It's nonsense.
Lastly, I'm free to call my article what I wish to call it! Appreciate the time you took to comment, thank you :)
Hi Nicks - First off let me just say thanks for your comments across many of my hubs - I really appreciate it :)
I completely agree - there's nothing wrong with using stories/parables to illustrate ideas - it's a fantastic way of conveying information in an accessible way, especially to people who can't read or write as was the case in Biblical times.
There are so many books that have interesting things to say under the guise of fiction. Roald Dahl's, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory comes to mind. There are a lot of messages in it about some of the destructive elements of society such as greed, the results of poor parenting and materialism to name just a few. Yet, no one would ever say that the chocolate fatory was a real building, in a real place, really run by Umpa Lumpas! Yet this is exactly what creationists do with the bible.
I can only theorise to why a literal bible translation is not so important to European christians. I think when the Catholic church was proved unequivocally wrong about the Earth being at the centre of the solar system and the centre of the universe by Copernicus and Galileo, it had to accept that many aspects of the bible were not actually literal as they had previously believed. This acceptance that science has important things to say about the physical workings of the universe has stuck and enabled them to tease out from the bible faith and belief, historical facts and stories/parables. The bible clearly contains all of these elements so there is no need for it to be presented as 100% factual. Why many US christians need it to be 100% fact I don't know - there is a high correlation between those who believe in creationism and lack of education, maybe that's the root of it?
Sneako - hopefully my last two responses answer your questions :)
mwoods:
"Another factor is people in the U.S. are free to speak about how they feel, to question and to exchange ideas, while this is not the case in Europe."
Have you ever been to Greece? If anybody tried to tell Greeks what they can and can not say, they will burn Parliament down! Not sure where you heard that from, but it is tripe. :D
As for the rest, I am Greek Orthodox Christian, but have little time for literal interpretations of the Bible - it is impossible to translate Greek directly into English, or any other language.
Personally, I have no problem with creationism - if people want to believe it, that is up to them. In the same way, I would ask creationists to respect my stance on evolution :)
Knowledge/Culture is the worst enemy of a lot of religions, that's why extremists usually, but unfortunately not always, have a low education level.
Example: Jesus was born from a virgin who was made pregnant by an Angel, on the 25th of December, died and resurrected.
Knowledge: During festivals in the Pagan world it was quite common to have babies without knowing exactly who the father was; those babies were considered to be children of the Gods and their mothers made pregnant by Spirits. Around the 25th of December there was Yule, a Pagans' holiday which gave birth to today bonfires feasts and the Christmas tree. Mitra, a Pagan God pre-Christian died and then resurrected.
Result: someone took all the Pagans' beliefs, mixed them up and added them to the real life of Christ in the effort of deleting Pagans' beliefs. This means that the greater part of what we know about Christ has been written as a TV script. And if this true as regards the New Testament can it be wrong for the Old Testament?
Christianity sprung from Christ, not from the Bible, which was written by Jews. And rewritten during the Council of Nicaea under the close watch of Constantine. Strange that after this agreement with the political power Christians, now to be called Catholics, weren't any more persecuted. But probably if they had continued to follow the real teachings of Jesus they would have been all crucified. And today we would not have the chance to know about Christ, who was a reactionary by the way. :)
Wonderful, clear, brilliant and brave. Thank you Susana for an uplifting read and for responding with such wisdom to all your comments.
For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:
5. based upon controlled, repeatable experiments
When the “scientist’s” start making something out of nothing, i.e. Primary Cause, then I’ll believe evolution is possible, as of today they can’t, so according to your own words you have proved the ‘theory of evolution’ to be wrong, …thanks for clearing it up for us.
clearly a thoughtful post. I have, though, posted a rebuttal, if you are interested in another perspective.
Actually, I am not that worried about Fundamentalist Christianity and what it preaches. Honestly, the mainline Christianity dismisses Fundamentalism. It is not even thought of as a legit form of Christianity. Anyone who can honestly believe in the Bible 'literally' is an uneducated person, a borderline moron.
Well Mikio, for most fundamentalists the Bible (Old Testament as the New is usually skipped) or the Koran or the Torah or whatever is usually the only book they have read, or that has been read to them.
Susana, there is a good hub from James Watkins which you should read, it's really interesting. :)
Hi hypno - sorry for the late reply - I have been working my butt off these last few days! It is interesting how early christiantity sought to incorporate pagan festivals into their system in order to push the delete button on these other religions. They did it very successfully, huh :) This should be enough evidence for anyone that the bible is not total fact.
Yes, I do believe that Jesus was a reactionary. He certainly challenged much of the old testament!
He would challenge much of Christianity today. :)
It's interesting that all those "Christians" base their lives on the Old Testament and just jump over the New. Also because if you don't follow the New Testament you can't call yourself Christian. I use the Gospel of Thomas just to be sure. :)
Green Lotus - many thanks for your kind comments. I was thinking about what you said about bravery and whether that applied to me, lol :) I was worried about publishing it - my finger definitely hovered over the publish button!
Just passing thu - I haven't proved anything to be wrong, lol. There are a ton of controlled, repeatable experiments that have been carried out in the quest to understand evolution. For example, no matter how many times human DNA is sequenced and compared to chimpanzee DNA, gorilla DNA and baboon DNA the divergences are the same. It's controlled and repeatable.
Mikio - thanks for stopping by :) I've just read one of your hubs on the history of born again christians in the US and is was brilliant! Here's the link for anyone else who's interested: http://hubpages.com/hub/History-behind-Americas-Bo
Do you have any thoughts on the future of fundamentalist christianity in the US?
Hi hypno - yes I think he would! One of the main ideas I think he tried to convey, that doesn't seem to have been taken on by a huge proportion of christians, is that we are all man and god. I don't think he ever set out to set himself apart from the rest of humanity as some kind of deity.
I will read the gospel of Thomas - I think I may have come across it before, but I can't remember the contents :)
Susana, thank you for endorsing my article. As for the future of Fundamentalism, it will continue as a minor nuisance in America just because it serves people's psychological needs. When folks are insecure and angry about changes in their society, they tend to cling onto some kind of authority. The Bible often serves that authority. I always wonder how 'rational' human mind can affirm the Bible as the 'literally' true word of God. Anyway, folks will always need crutches. Fundamentalism won't go away in America.
I wasn't talking about the divergences of DNA, I'm saying your "scientists" can't go to the laboratory and say "Today we are going to make DNA and we are not going to use any thing to make it from except our minds, i.e. nothing.
Hence there aren't and have never been any controlled or repeatable experiments to make matter out of nothing, so like you stated for a theory to be qualified as scientific, this has never happened, the theory of evolution has never been repeated in a controlled laboratory so it is false theory, ...by your definition.
@Just Passing thru -
I will agree with you that it is not possible to prove the theory of evolution in a lab, that is why it is still a "Theory" - see my related hub here:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Fundamentialist-Christians However, I think it harms the position of Creationism to deny science and say "Evolution is a false theory".
A scientific Theory is named such because there is evidence that can plausibly support the conjecture. It just hasn't yet been proven and repeated so that it can become a "Law". Consider the Theory of Relativity. It can't be proven in a lab - if it could, it would be a Law. Instead, it is conjecture which is still in the process of being tested.
While I am a creationist, I cannot deny that the Theory of Evolution has some level of plausibility, based on scientific evidence. I happen to also believe that same evidence can be interpreted differently, which is why I am a Creationist.
It's fine to say "you can't prove it." But then, we can't prove Creation, either. Both are theories. I would avoid the inflammatory position that Evolution is a "false" theory. Say rather that it isn't the ONLY theory to explain the existing scientific record.
Besides - consider this. Scientific laws PROVE that the light we see from stars is often from stars that no longer even exist, but died millions of years ago. Easy explanation for "young earthers" - the all-powerful God created the world "aged" and created light from stars that would have been long dead if they were there. Anything's possible with God.
So, what if God created this world to LOOK like life had evolved and the fossil record and geological layers represent NOT the flood, but evolution. Again, anything is possible with an almighty God.
I hesitate to throw out science because I want a literal interpretation of the first 6 chapters in Genesis. Instead, I believe that God gave us clear spiritual messages in those first 6 chapters, and he MIGHT have been giving a literal picture of the beginning, and that if He wanted to, He could have made this world all "grown up", evolved and everything, and still have it only be about 10,000 years old.
What's it matter to a Christian anyway? I don't think it changes the gospel one way or the other. (or anything inbetween.)
So that's a LONG-winded way of saying - I think it's better to focus on what matters instead of spending time making statements that will only create hostility.
Instead of writing a long rebuttal I think these hubs do a much better job than I could ever do. Honestly yours looks a bit silly in comparison. Sorry.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Science-vs-Evolution
http://hubpages.com/hub/Fool-Me-Once-Evolution-Hal
http://hubpages.com/hub/Can-You-Handle-The-Truth-a
plus the recent rebuttal by Frazzled Mom
"One of the criticisms creationists throw at evolution is that they say they can't see evolution happening around us and that they don't "feel" it happening. But the same is true for any fundamentalist Christian currently reading this webpage and using, quite without thought or argument, the technology and science of their computer and the internet."
Your logic is broken here. First of all, your assertion is without merit because you make a claim that you don't support: you need to provide evidence that some creationists are indeed using the "can't feel it happening" argument. Provide a web link or site a scientific paper that supports your assumption. Otherwise, you are simply making a strawman argument.
Second, assuming that your initial assertion is verifiable, your attempt to link two unrelated issues is logically incorrect.
"The whole science vs the bible argument put forward by fundamentalist Christians is a massive step backwards in the evolution of the human race. If we've learnt anything it's that nothing is black and white and many theories and ideas can happily co-exist and indeed strengthen each other in the long term. In the context of this article "either/or" doesn't work, but "and" does."
No. 2+2 is always 4 and no conflicting theories exist. Either we were created or we weren't. There's no middle ground. You either subscribe to abiogenesis or you don't.
"And if the Bible is to be true than how can it be that He passed hundreds years to have people killed and then suddenly become all love and compassion? Bipolar disorder? Schizophrenia?"
Argument from incredulity.
Just passing thru - my scientists are your scientists, which was really the fundamental argument here. It's taken thousands of years for science to develop your computer, based on the scientific method. It clearly works as we are communicating via our computers right now. If you want to talk about intelligent design, that's another matter. I'm quite happy to say I don't know how it all started, but I'm not happy with YEC's saying the Earth is 6000 years old because it is a complete lie.
Synthetic DNA has been made: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=l
i love accents - trying (unsuccessfully) to hurt my feelings by calling my work silly is pretty immature, lol. The info in those articles you posted is warped in order to try and prove a belief - it may sound scientific in places, but it isn't. thetruthhurts has very little understanding of science. Why not do your own research instead of relying on false info?
nicomp - the sentence you pulled out was based on discussions i've had with creationists in the forums here - many say evolution can't be true because they can't see and don't feel it.
I don't believe my basic argument is logically incorrect - it exposes a massive contradiction/hypocrisy/dichotomy made by creationists everyday. Like I said in the article, they trust science implicity in many areas, therefore they must also trust the scientific method. The scientific method is what drives evolutionary science forward - if there was no evidence there would be no theory - that's how science works.
Again, I'm not talking about intelligent design - I'm talking about a literal translation of the bible and science. I belive science and religion can co-exist (they do for me) so does the head of the protestant church in England: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religio
P.S. they also criticize creationists as "naive" and damaging the christian faith.
"Like I said in the article, they trust science implicitly in many areas, therefore they must also trust the scientific method."
Absolutely. I trust the scientific method; I have 2 science degrees. However, evolution is a theory based on inference, modeling, and most importantly, an initial assumption that everything can be explained naturally. If you start from that supposition, then evolution is your only conclusion.
There is no application of the scientific method that can prove evolution. We use it to gather evidence (facts), then we each draw our conclusions from those facts. Evolutionists can point to what they consider to be a preponderance of evidence, but at that moment they deviate from the scientific method; consensus is not part of the scientific method.
Hi nicomp - that's interesting. Could you point me to some peer reviewed scientific papers on e.g. geology, plate tectonics, or another branch of science (of your choice) involved in evolutionary science, where you feel the evidence has been misinterpreted? We can then talk about which areas you believe are wrong and why.
Nice hub, I like where you have taken the reader. Well thought out journey. Thanks.
I also liked you rave about hub pages sucks on the feed. Good one.
" I have 2 science degrees."
I love it when creationists lie for jebus.
Hmm, I thought the 2 science degrees statement was pretty fishy also. Especially as nicomp has not come back with any science, from any branch, that he refutes.
Interesting view! I have just published a hub on this very subject, please check it out and leave some thoughts!
Humans believe in evolution because to believe in creation insists on a belief in God and some people won't go there, period. End of that story. However only God has ever created something from nothing. Period. End of THE story. To "Christians" who claim to believe in evolution, one question, "When in the process did mankind acquire a soul?"
The reason fundamental religionists try so hard to discredit evolutionary theory is that it is a direct challenge to their religious concept of a controlling god. The fundamentalist holds the key to getting access to this controlling god who can work magic in your life - even help you win the life lotto - and all you have to do is exactly what they tell you to do.
Sleep....be slave to dogma....don't think....don't question....believe...sleep.....believe....
Now do you understand why religion is called the opium of the people?
Hi David, You clearly have a strong belief in God as creator which cannot be argued with because it cannot be proved or disproved at this moment in time. Many people believe in evolution because of the hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence for it, not simply because they choose not to believe in God. Many of these people also have beliefs in God or the supernatural, because they aren't mutually exclusive beliefs. For the majority of people they sit happily together.
I like your question about where the soul came from. I don't know is my answer. Consciousness certainly evolves over a lifetime but I'm not sure that consciousness is the same as soul. Thanks for visiting and commenting :)
this earth is millions of yrs old and the bible proves it in the book of job it speaks of beomoth which is a form of dinesor and second peter 1000 yrs with man is one day with god so it took 7000 yrs to replenish the earth after he destroyd it becouse of satin rebelion and ome third of the angles to give them a second chance to make thier mind who to follow satin or god that is why we are here for second chance. before you condem my thinking search the scriptures its all there but most people make up thier mind up before looking at the facts to help you look this up write in your search bar on the computer about the first and second earth age i hope this helps you with better understand why we are realy here may god bless from a christian check out the websites concerning this it is interesting reading but speaks the truth why this isnt tought to day i dont know
(...science in itself is an evolving system that should be questioned, tested, analyzed and retested. In fact that is what getting to the truth is all about.)
Susana,
Have to disagree somewhat here. Science can never produce any truth. Truth is always subjective, as it requires proof. Proof is determined by an observer, and thus also subjective. Subjective proof cannot then produce an objective fact.
Science explains. Religions search for truth. Creationism is actually true to the Creationist - their proof comes from whatever it is they believe that makes them Creationists. You cannot disprove their truth because their truth is like all truth - only opinion.
Better to speak of facts than truth. A fact is unchallengable. Truth is whatever the jury decides.
AKA Winston obviously doesn't understand the scientific method -- otherwise his comment wouldn't have been made. Lol.
At any rate, this is an excellent hub! great job. voting up!
Thanks Ckhoffman - I meant to get around to responding to AKA wonston but never got round to it. I think what Winston is talking about is belief, rather than truth. Beliefs are subjective and they create personal truths and opinions, but scientific truths are not subjective - they are objective.
It's important to see our beliefs for what they are - they are not proofs in any sense of the word.
Whew! I made it through your article and the many comments. Wow! There is a lot of dead-stuck opinion out there and that's ok even if I agree or disagree: Glad for that freedom. But...Someday we'll all find out what Truth is. I think that is the 'bottom line'.
Susana, interesting hub, but I must disagree. Any theory of origins and development of life can never be proved to be "truth" scientifically. A historical science cannot by definition be observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Unless you have developed a time machine, you cannot observe, repeat, or falsify something that happened in the past and which is directly unobservable - it cannot be "truth". Therefore, just as creation or ID cannot be scientific "truth", so also evolution cannot be scientific "truth". We are not omniscient - there are always explanations or aspects that we don't understand or have not thought of, yet. Comparing the historical scientific study of origins in macroevolution to an observational scientific study of the operation of a computer is a completely illogical comparison made only to insult creationists rather than to illustrate a legitimate point.
Contrary to the whole point of your hub, creationists don't disagree with science (because science is based on observation and data analysis), but rather with the interpretation of that analysis. You have to provide valid reasons why your interpretation is better than their interpretation and saying "I'm right because scientists say so" is not a legitimate argument. If I make a field study of a formation and interpret it to be a estuarine marginal marine environment because of herringbone crossbedding with mud drapes and wave ripples, I may be right - but I may also be incorrect because other environments of deposition can have similar sedimentary structures. Someone who disagreed would not be disagreeing on the science, because they would be looking at the same evidence; but would be disagreeing on the interpretation. According to your hub, only one of us would be scientific because we disagree on the interpretation, which is obviously not correct.
Hi Susana – Fantastic Hub, bold and very precise. Creationists are quick to denounce the general negative applications of science, ie, Nuclear weapons, etc, but seem to have little problem with God wiping out a city with brimstone as with Sodom & Gomorrah. Science is forward looking, and tries to ascertain a better future for us. Fundamentalist Christians, and Muslims are retrospective (Fundamentalism is basically about going back to basics, undoing all the schisms and differences to make things as they were when the scriptures were set out – that life and knowledge have moved on renders their aims impossible. Often the creationist response to science seems to amount to putting their hands over their ears and shouting Yada yada yada (or Yahwah Yahwah Yahwah) until the wicked science goes away. As you say, they are happy when science comes up with stuff they can use – the heated swimming pool used for making baptisms comfortable, lightning conductor rods that protect their churches against God’s lightning bolts, etc.
Hi :)
A very good hub, which I only just found ~ I kept agreeing with your words and will link to my hub.
ISIAIh 41 BRING forth your IDOLS did they PREACH to you see they can’t speak they can’t DO ANYTHING all they do is cause confusion. spalms 115 and spalms 135 thier IDOLS are FALSE cant speak can't hear cant smell and those that make them shall become like them. Jeremiah 10 they nail their IDOL down like a scarecrow it can’t move can'...t speak can’t move must be carried these are nothing but the WORK of CON men.john 10 jesus christ sais his sheep hear his voice and another voice thy will not follow and if another person tries to preach to them they WILL FLEE from him. jeremiah 5 the priests bear rule on their own authority what will you do when your judged my word is not inside them. Now here is the kicker john 5 son of man voice goes back in time mathew 16 jesus christ claims to be the son of man.1 cor2 mind of CHRIST preached internally and john 16 sais the spirit of truth comes in the future. Ezekiel 13 lying prophets of ISRAEL my word is not inside them saying god sais god sais god sais wrote hoping mankind would CONFIRM their WORDS. all of this is EASILY verifiable.
LOL - is that supposed to make some kind of sense?
I love how "Dr. Stern" throws insults instead of explaining why he thinks you are wrong. Typical of these types of christians isn't it. He also claims to be a doctor yet I had to read his comment twice just to understand if he was being sarcastic or not. Maybe he needs to repeat college. LOL.
Anyway Susana, you hit the nail on the head here. I could not have written a better hub. I've always seen the bible as a book of stories and legends to teach people of that time period right from wrong. Of course, it is centuries dated and no longer valid in our society. In fact, many of the verses are dangerous if taken literally. I can't really fathom why fundamentals are so stubborn about their beliefs. Especially since most of them are so bitter and angry all the time (at least the ones I know). I think you can still believe in a higher power and believe in science. Nothing is black and white, not science and certainly not religion. Thanks for writing such an interesting hub.
I enjoyed reading this, some interesting views some of which i agree with, some of which I am not so sure. I would be interested to see what you think of my hub on religion. I think we are both barking down the same sort of track... let me know.
Chritian means to be Christlike. Read I Timothy 3:16 concerning the authorship and of the Bible. The people that God had write his word were under his inspiration,sure they have there own styles but the words are Gods. The Bible is God breathed. Most people that do not put there faith in Gods word probably do not read it and do not pray. (What do they know about God?) If we are saved (Have asked christ into our hearts and truly believe in him we can be saved.) If we have not done this we are on our way to hell. We are lost. If we want to know who God is we need to read his word and pray daily. Remember that when we come to God we need to do this in a humble, kind,loving, and sincere way and except him as lord and savior. If we are not willing to do this Gods word will have no real meaning to us. Jesus said except a man be born again he cannot enter the Kingdom of heaven. If we have excepted christ and asked him into our hearts we are Christians if not we are lost and on are way to hell. I truly believe the decision we make concerning salvation is by far the most imprtant decison anyone can make. Do no take this lightly. When we make this decison we become a Christian. If you have not made this decison you are not a Chritian and you are on your way to hell. God wants us all to make the right decision but most will probably not. In reading Gods word it only makes sense if we take it literally, we are not given the authority to change it. Many churches today do not teach it literally and do things contrary to Gods word. These pastors and churches will have a big price to pay when Christ returns. Some people do not believe in God and that is there choice hopefully they someday they will change there mind about this before they pass into eternity. God will hold us accountable by our decision. As a christian (Born Again) I can only plead and ask that those who are lost make this decison today.
I am an engineer by education. As a Christian, I also believe that the Creator made everything that was and is. I use the scientific method freely, since I believe all truth is God's truth--therefore I'm not afraid to ask questions. I understand God cannot be proven scientifically. Neither can evolution of one species from another species (as opposed to natural selection and micro-evolution within species.) Either belief is an act of faith, since none of us were witnesses to the beginning.
I have scientific curiosity because I am totally amazed at the variety and the intricacy of the world in which I live. I encourage free investigation of that world so long as we do it without harm to others and with respect for life.
hypnodude 2 years ago
This I'm sure is going to be a quite successful hub. But I have some points I disagree with you, nothing too important though. :)
1) 400 years ago in Europe the Holy Inquisition has no Christians within it, a lot of Catholics, all crazy fundamentalists but no Christians.
2) Fundamentalist Christian is an oxymoron, as you can be a Catholic fundamentalist, a Muslim fundamentalist but a Christian fundamentalist simply can't exists, just like a Buddhist fundamentalist. You can't be both at the same time.
As regards Creationism it's a wrong theory for a simple reason: if it was true than using logic God would be pretty sadist creating beautiful things only to take them away from humanity, seems more like a vivisectionist. And if the Bible is to be true than how can it be that He passed hundreds years to have people killed and then suddenly become all love and compassion? Bipolar disorder? Schizophrenia? The Bible has been written by men under the close observation of an emperor (313a.c.) and then it has been always rewritten during the centuries by men who need to keep for themselves knowledge, power and money.
On the other side science with the evolution theory gets continuously corrected, it seems that Lucy isn't any more our first ancestor but he lies in China, the theory on the disappearance of Neanderthals men isn't so clear and as regards intelligence dolphins are at the second place above apes. Maybe we evolved from them. There is still a long road before knowing how things are really gone.
Love this kind of hubs, obviously rated up. :)