Comments on Ambassador Watch: UCG's inane, cheesy, cheap creationist fraud

The point, Leonardo, and please forgive my bluntne...

2009-10-27T23:08:25.606+13:00

The point, Leonardo, and please forgive my bluntness, is that the Divine inspiration of Genesis should be self-evident to anyone able and willing to probe its depths. I don't mean to offend, but not even God bothers to prove His existence. Genesis has always been open to scrutiny, and the more thorough the scrutiny, the more congruence with Science. The geologic and fossil evidence behind evolution is all presaged in Genesis -- but one cannot discover that with a casual read.

Learning of God is challenging for the best of us and requires study and application of all the intelligence one can muster; there's no other route. God is not less challenging than math or quantum physics. We're talking total effort here. You're not a person to be fobbed off by sweet talk about God. Nor am I.

You and I have both lived through the Armstrong experience, and have grown beyond it. To the careful observer, it should be clear that Armstrong did too, changing throughout his life.

Certain zealots could be a major obstacle to obtaining this knowledge, including Herbert Armstrong, what with their severely inept grasp of important Scriptural teachings. Dare I quote Solomon?

"If YOU call out for insight and cry aloud for understanding, and if YOU look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure, then YOU will understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God."

I'm sure you know that quote as well as I. It was penned two millennia before Herbert Armstrong was born. It works, but it's your your fight for understanding the true provenance of man that we're discussing. If you really care to uncover the scientific reality that lies hidden under the camoflage that translations inevitably bring to Hebrew Scriptures, then you have a lot of hard work ahead of you.

I speak from well into my seventh decade, and from fifty-two years of serious dedication to the teachings of Scripture. Only now am I beginning, just beginning, to grasp what these wonderful old books have had within them all these many long years. I wonder why it has taken so long.

Content, I carefully read through your comment abo...

2009-10-27T16:48:44.497+13:00

Content, I carefully read through your comment above, and to be quite honest, I'm still scratching my head trying to understand exactly what it is you are attempting to say.

You've made many assertions. OK, you have the perfect right to do that.

But the original topic of discussion was the recent UCG anti-evolution booklet, and the blog took off from there in terms of evidence for or against evolutionary theory, the scientific method contrasted with religious faith, etc. This happens because the general topic of origins is vitally important and of infinite interest – and not, as Bear_track asserted, a “dry and unresolvable (sic) topic.”

On balance, the True Believers were shown, as usual, to be quite ignorant of what scientists and evolutionary theory actually say. Instead they insist upon attacking their straw man characterization of evolution, which of course is absurd to the extreme, and totally based on nothing but pure ignorance, willing or not.

You've made your statement of faith – solely without any attempt at providing evidence. Your statement “For me, the Biblical psychology is best” perhaps most succinctly sums up your entire argument. But this is nothing more than a subjective assertion on your part.

I've attempted to touch upon the various forms of evidence both for and against evolutionary theory, and tried to demonstrate within the limited restraints of a blog site the later to be greatly wanting.

So, perhaps it’s best to leave it there. The blog record is available.

I could counter virtually everything you've written above, but of what ultimate benefit will it be? True Believers just cannot seem to break the habit of putting words in their opponent's mouths that they have never argued or implied.

Again, I encourage those so inclined to carefully re-read the entire blog from the beginning, as I have, and see what side the balancing scale of empirical evidence is clearly tipping toward.

And notice I said the “empirical EVIDENCE” – not mere blind FAITH or arbitrary religious ASSERTIONS.

Leonardo, I'm not sure where you're coming...

2009-10-27T13:00:22.847+13:00

Leonardo, I'm not sure where you're coming from. What's this mean? "Deception is very much part and parcel of this overall strategy aimed ultimately at getting people to accept the literal existence of the Judeo/Christian Deity and make their “decision for Christ.”

"Getting people to accept literal existence of God" might be a futile quest with or without deception. The Bible doesn't waste time or words trying to do that, although its third word is elohim, God. No arguments about elohim's existence. But it's not just "take it or leave it" either.

The genius of the text itself should be evidence of something extraordinary behind it; that is, the unparalleled genius of Moses' texts, and to a lesser degree that of Joshua, whose military genius is still studied at West Point.

As for IDers moving anyone toward a decision for Christ, I find that condescending and bizarre. If the Bible does nothing to cajole, persuade or force God or Christ on people, why should anyone? But making information available to scrutiny should be praiseworthy, IMO.

ID, whose prescriptions one of my dearest friends highly esteems, would probably do best to make their findings available and leave it there. If they have something wonderful, its excellence should be self-evident to anyone in an honest search for God.

I am puzzled, however, by anyone so disgusted with the God concept that they treat with disdain or contempt those who are convinced, intelligently so, of a benign Deity. For example, I am reasonably intelligent, have looked into these things both intellectually and prayerfully, and have emerged with profound belief in a benign, caring, practical, unfathomably brilliant Creator in whom I trust -- but not as a Lacky for Christians. I don't expect him to make it stop raining for me when I can't find an umbrella.

I think those who haven't found similar evidence are denied an Object for their gratitude, which is a situation that I would find uncomfortable. On the other hand, it seems equally certain to me that if God felt it necessary for everyone to believe, or to make what you term a "decision for Christ," then He/She/It has failed miserably, and so has Intelligent Design.

For me, the Biblical psychology is best. The presentation is made and preserved on parchment or paper without apology; its readers or students can accept or reject, without fear, as they see fit. There is little evidence that God is on a search and destroy mission against unbelievers.

The Apostate Paul wrote: "An opinion held by ...

2009-10-27T05:12:09.911+13:00

The Apostate Paul wrote:
"An opinion held by the authors of the paper and the journalistic community. The conclusions of that paper, and the hullabaloo over the paper, were criticized by other scientists since it was released."

Absolutely right on, Paul.

Questeruk (and many others) fails to distinguish between what the actual scientists are saying as opposed to the media frenzy (exaggerated articles, documentary films aimed at the mass public, etc.) made in an attempt to sell their product and thus boost their ratings.

In fact, the book I previously recommended called "Voodoo Science" highlights this very mistake so commonly made in the world of pseudoscience.

For example, supporters of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement don’t do any of their own legitimate research in order to promote their claims. Instead, they make their appeal to public prejudices (which in America, is very oriented toward theism), mass media (with it’s tendency toward stories that will get people excited) and the public court systems.

This frequent yet misleading strategy has been the primary method used by IDer’s so they can thus avoid the rigorous scientific examination of their blatantly religious ideology. The outcome of the fairly recent court case in Dover, Pennsylvania was a superb textbook example of how this strategy impressively rises to the sky like fireworks, only to quickly burn out and wither away under serious cross-examination by professional scientists (many of whom were called to testify in that particular case).

The legitimate findings of real science go through, as a standard matter of course, the meticulously rigorous filters of replication, peer-review and often extremely brutal attempts at deconstruction. And this process can often last for years, decades, and in some cases, centuries in order for a scientific truth claim to be soundly established.

In contrast, pseudoscience (Creationism, ID, many forms of alternative medicine, etc.) evades all these filters in order to take their case DIRECTLY to the ratings-driven media and the often scientifically-illiterate public. And it works spectacularly well — at least for awhile, until the actual EVIDENCE is more thoroughly examined, and then such pseudoscience is seen for what it truly is: faith-based supernaturalistic religious ideologies wrapped up and disguised in the terminology of science.

Deception is very much part and parcel of this overall strategy aimed ultimately at getting people to accept the literal existence of the Judeo/Christian Deity and make their “decision for Christ.”

IDer's have made this very plain to one another - as such documents have accidently slipped out to the public.

Understand the difference between these two basic strategies of trying to make a case for whatever scientific claim one is trying to establish, and we then possess a virtually fool-proof way of very quickly discerning the difference between legitimate science and pseudoscience, between a claim likely to stand up under lengthy scrutiny, and one that will be abandoned because it was specious to begin with.

"The evidence last May and on Thursday was th...

2009-10-26T10:00:34.531+13:00

"The evidence last May and on Thursday was the same – what had changed was the opinion on the evidence."

An opinion held by the authors of the paper and the journalistic community. The conclusions of that paper, and the hullabaloo over the paper, were criticized by other scientists since it was released.

But what are the implications here?

That scientists take differing views of data? Sure. That happens in every area of science. I view my data differently than my boss (though his view usually turns out to be right). But this "opinion" usually revolves around the twigs, not the trunk of the tree. The controversy surrounding this fossil doesn't change the fact of human evolution or even cast doubt on it, though many Kreationists are saying "Aha! Science said this and now science is saying that and therefore this again disproves evolution!!!"

The Apostate Paul

Q further said: “There is plenty of material from ...

2009-10-26T09:54:43.593+13:00

Q further said:
“There is plenty of material from the earth’s past. It’s the interpretation of that material that leads to differing ideas of what the evidence represents. Even with the best of intentions, different experts will have different views of the same evidence. It’s rarely a case that the evidence can only be interpreted one way.”

I agree with everything you’ve said above, Q.

But don’t forget the vital element of the passage of time here. Relatively new theories and forms of knowledge must pass through extremely rigorous testing and be subject to many attempts at deconstruction. Some theoretical claims (cold fusion, for example) just can’t stand up to such testing, and fall by the wayside.

Whereas heliocentrism, cell theory, germ theory, atomic theory — just to cite a few — have withstood much testing, and thus stand on much firmer ground.

Your basic comparison between legal evidence and scientific evidence is a false one, like comparing apples and oranges. Legal evidence used in trials in general is not subject to such lengthy testing (often over many decades, and in some cases centuries, 150 years for evolutionary theory, for example), except in relatively few cases, such as convicted felons being exonerated based on DNA evidence, etc.

Your example of Ida is an extremely poor one for the point you are trying to make, and only serves to verify what I’ve said above. Within five months, science corrected ITSELF.

And why? Because it’s evidence-based and therefore subject to rigorous self-correction — unlike the faith-based and ideologically-driven Catholic Church, which took many centuries before formally apologizing for the entire Galileo affair (geocentrism versus heliocentrism).

Quest, please, I beg you Sir, do more reading. You would not make many of the comments you do if you would just have a little bit larger base of general knowledge with which to work and argue with. I was greatly heartened by your stated willingness to read a book recommended by The Apostate Paul. But please read with a genuinely open mind, and not like Jorgheinz, who openly stated above that no matter what he reads, “it will not change my stance [in regard to evolution].”

I heartily encourage you to please keep up your reading program, but not with the narrow-minded and obviously self-defeating approach of Jorgheinz.

You might even include a book in your program called “50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God” by Guy Harrison. It’s a very believer-friendly yet extremely thought-provoking book, and I think would address many of the thoughts you seem to have.

Yes, we live in a free society, and you can believe whatever you want, but just because you believe something doesn’t make it true. We should want to believe what is actually, objectively and ultimately true, don’t you think? That’s why I read and reflect deeply, rather than just passively lean upon the slowly cracking reed of religious faith.

Questeruk wrote: “Leonardo, you do seem to be taki...

2009-10-26T09:31:26.019+13:00

Questeruk wrote:
“Leonardo, you do seem to be taking a completely rigid view of things.”

You essentially hold a fundamentalist view of origins, and you are accusing ME of taking a “rigid view of things.” Think about this one, Quest.

Q also wrote:
"Evidence on factual things can often have many interpretations. We wouldn’t have so many long drawn out trials if facts and evidence was completely cut and dried."

Yes, I very much agree. But my view is not as simplistic as you present it as being. That’s where the scientific method comes into play: experimental replication, peer-reviewed journalism, provisional conclusions always open to either further support or total rejection in the light of future evidence, etc. One scientist can indeed be way off the mark, and is eventually corrected by the work of many other minds investigating the same claims and theories.

I don’t at all mean to imply that just because I see something one way, and you see it another, means that by default I always am the one with the correct interpretation. I’ve never said that, but that seems to be your spin on my view.

In the legal field, for instance, eyewitness testimony is well-known to be among the most flimsiest and unreliable forms of evidence. The JFK assassination (a historical event I’ve studied in some detail because it can teach us so many vital epistemological lessons we can apply to other real-life pursuits) highlights this truism quite well. That’s why so many other technologically sophisticated techniques have had to have been devised, fingerprinting, DNA testing, etc. (I might add, by the way, eyewitness testimony is virtually the only evidence the gospels present, for example, that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead and ascended up to heaven. And eyewitness testimony of folks raised in an extremely gullible, supernaturalist-oriented culture at that.)

Content former member wrote: "So I will conti...

2009-10-26T08:45:28.093+13:00

Content former member wrote:
"So I will continue to recommend the allowance of intuition in the quest for God and the metaphysical. It would make little sense to ignore it in matters of true intellectual honesty, but apart from knowledge, as you so clearly argued, it obviously is not enough."

OK, that's fine, now that you've explained it a bit more. I get so much more clarity when bloggers write with a degree of comprehensible specificity instead of quick little comments that just can’t convey much real understand.

But this kind of intuition is based upon some actual knowledge. My concern is when folks try to equate subjective feeling with objective knowledge. I don’t deny that intuitive feelings can sometimes lead to knowledge, but they can also lead one astray more often than not (like many New Age adherents, for instance) especially when operating under ideological blindness. Much study has been done in this area, and this kind of useful intuition is a form of subconscious reasoning going on based upon much past knowledge and research stored in the mind.

Einstein himself talked about the importance of imagination as well, but imagination that eventually leads to objective, testable, empirical knowledge that is of practical application in the real world.

This entire subject — various subdivisions of epistemology — is probably THE most important single subject for human minds to study, for it’s the foundation of every other pursuit.

"Again, since so many bloggers here attempt h...

2009-10-26T03:23:14.508+13:00

"Again, since so many bloggers here attempt humorous sarcasm, I’m not sure to take what you’ve said seriously, or not. But just to be on the safe side, I’m taking what you've written above at face value."

WOW your worldview is jaded and warped, Leo. I was being serious. If you couldn't tell that, or somehow thought I was being sarcastic, you really really need to take a step back and re-evaluate how you look at people, IMO.

The cynicism, and callous nihilism of fundie atheism is what always turned me off. You don't believe in the FSM? Good for you! Don't poke sticks at those who do (bless His Noodly Appendages), unless and until they are directly harming either themselves or others with their beliefs.

That's it, this thread just reached the limit, for me. I'm out.

"176 comments" Think we'll crack 20...

2009-10-26T03:18:34.365+13:00

"176 comments"

Think we'll crack 200 before it falls off the front page?

Leonardo said... “it’s about the crucial matter ...

2009-10-25T16:18:14.111+13:00

Leonardo said...

“it’s about the crucial matter of TRUTH versus fiction; FACTUAL REALITY versus subjective feelings; RATIONALITY versus irrationality. SCIENCE versus pseudoscience; FREEDOM versus religious enslavement.”

Seeing I was the one being discussed, I’ll stick my two pence (or two cents) worth in.

Leonardo, you do seem to be taking a completely rigid view of things. ‘Facts are facts’, and you seem to feel that there can only be one way to look at facts (your way).

Yet this isn’t reality. Even the simplest event in life, if you have several people that were there, and you ask them later what happened, then you will get several versions about the exact details.

Read several different newspapers reports on a specific event, and the details all differ.

It’s not just memories of events. Evidence on factual things can often have many interpretations. We wouldn’t have so many long drawn out trials if facts and evidence was completely cut and dried.

There is plenty of material from the earth’s past. It’s the interpretation of that material that leads to differing ideas of what the evidence represents.

Even with the best of intentions, different experts will have different views of the same evidence. It’s rarely a case that the evidence can only be interpreted one way.

A recent example. In May this year, a primate ‘Ida’ was unveiled to the world. In the UK, with great publicity, a documentary was brought out, narrated by no less a person than Sir David Attenborough, who, in the UK at least, has probably even greater status that Dawkins.

This was presented as ‘one of the most important fossil finds in history, a missing link that would challenge everything we knew about human evolution’. Fine – together with millions of other people, I watched the documentary.

Just last Thursday, five months after the documentary and the other hype, the papers now announce that actually the fossil was no way an ancestor of mankind, instead it belonged to an extinct group of mammals, closely related to lemurs.

The evidence last May and on Thursday was the same – what had changed was the opinion on the evidence.

This is so often the case in life, even with ‘hard evidence’.

So very often it is not a case of ‘TRUTH versus fiction; FACTUAL REALITY versus subjective feelings; SCIENCE versus pseudoscience’ etc, but rather one ‘experts’ opinion verses another ‘experts’ opinion, and sometimes, more simply, just a change of mind.

Leonardo, my statements in support of intuition we...

2009-10-25T16:06:47.836+13:00

Leonardo, my statements in support of intuition were culled, abstracted, from a larger concept of intellectual honesty. I meant to emphasize intuition, not to isolate it as a complete formula. It is often the first part of a quest for knowledge. I'll quote an interview with Albert Einstein, one of the most famous intuitive geniuses, to illustrate. I think you'll agree.

Alisa Voll: "Isn't truth inherent in man?" I interjected. "You once told me that progress is made only by intuition, and not by the accumulation of knowledge."

"It's not as simple as that," replied Einstein. "Knowledge is necessary, too. An intuitive child couldn't accomplish anything without some knowledge. There will come a point in everyone's life, however where only intuition can make the leap ahead, without ever knowing precisely how. One can never know why but one must accept intuition as a fact." (http://intuition-indepth.blogspot.com/2007/11/einsteins-intuition.html)

Mathematicians I've known, brilliant men, don't advance their discipline from cold hard numbers and symbols alone. Intuition often leads, not always but often. So I will continue to recommend the allowance of intuition in the quest for God and the metaphysical. It would make little sense to ignore it in matters of true intellectual honesty, but apart from knowledge, as you so clearly argued, it obviously is not enough.

PurpleHymnal wrote: "Let's give Q and the...

2009-10-25T10:56:53.750+13:00

PurpleHymnal wrote:
"Let's give Q and the other UCG members a break, guys (I need to do this myself); if he wants to swallow whole-cloth UCG's vaguely mainstream Creationist beliefs, as long as Questeruk isn't harming others, beating or starving his kids, preaching from a UCG pulpit, and he doesn't care how his money's being spent by the UCG Council of Elders (What a fancy retreat they held last year hmmm?), then really what's the point of all this back-and-forth arguing?"

Again, since so many bloggers here attempt humorous sarcasm, I’m not sure to take what you’ve said seriously, or not. But just to be on the safe side, I’m taking what you've written above at face value.

Perhaps I misunderstand your point, though I think I understand the overall spirit of what you're saying here, Purple. Questeruk has made the choice to buy into supernaturalistic religion. OK, fine. We can believe whatever we want to. We live in a free society.

However, Q (and many other fundamentalists who blog here on AW) also have the choice to keep such beliefs to themselves. But Q has chosen not to. Q made the decision to venture out onto the field of open discussion and debate by commenting on this blog site—ridiculing modern scientific theories and discoveries when he clearly didn’t even understand them, pushing for an ancient belief system that he has absolutely not one shred of empirical evidence to back it up with other than raw faith.

You ask: what is the point of all this back and forth arguing?

I answer: it’s about the crucial matter of TRUTH versus fiction; FACTUAL REALITY versus subjective feelings; RATIONALITY versus irrationality. SCIENCE versus pseudoscience; FREEDOM versus religious enslavement.

So stop giving Q and others intellectual breaks they don’t deserve. They’ve chosen to put their beliefs up for scrutiny by coming here and discussing them openly and publically. Many of the more politically active ones (far right evangelical Christians) have become extremely aggressive in asserting their nutty truth propositions (invisible gods, America was founded as a Christian nation myths, evolutionary understanding is “a theory in crisis” about ready to collapse, etc.) and thus have become an all too powerful a force in American politics.

And you ask that we continue this nonsense?

Well, the time of philosophical “free lunches” has come to an end—and many of them know it.

Too many people are all too sympathetic when it comes to the irrationality and arrogance of supernaturalistic faith. For the plain fact is that fundamentalists DON’T keep their loony beliefs to themselves and in so doing, they DO harm others.

They harm their children, because often times they are the unfortunate victims of the lies their parents believe to be true. A plague upon the ignorance which keeps such youth from the factual truths they deserve and desperately need as they grow up to become tomorrow’s leaders as we head into the 21st century.

They are threatening to disrupt true science education in this nation by constantly appealing to public sympathy, mass media, and the court systems (where thankfully they’ve lost many times) rather than appealing to the court of demonstrable facts.

They try to insert their completely unsubstantiated views into the public school systems, as if creation “science” and the real enterprise of evidence-based hard sciences were equally valid systems of knowledge. Well, anyone with an IQ no higher than room temperature can see that they aren’t. The practical results prove this beyond all question.

The list could go on and on, but I think you get my point.

And you, PurpleHymnal, would give the purveyors of such misinformation a break?

Please do let me know if I’ve completely missed your point, and we can clarify the issue, because I must admit, it seems rather uncharacteristic of you to try to defend the gurus of faith.

Content Former Member. That is quite an appropria...

2009-10-25T06:08:25.446+13:00

Content Former Member.

That is quite an appropriate name.

You are content in that you have no proof of any gods.

Then, secondly, you are content to quote from writings allegedly inspired by one of the unproved gods.
(Ever hear of circular reasoning?)

Thirdly, you are content to throw these arguments in the faces of some folks who have a respect for logical discussion.

Perhaps a little discontent with the standard theist stance might be in order.

"Of course this does require the belief of a ...

2009-10-25T01:04:06.030+13:00

"Of course this does require the belief of a different level of life, a different dimension if you like."

On this we are absolutely agreed, Q; it is 100% an alternate reality that you are living in right now.

But then we've all, all of us here, lived in that same alternate reality. Some of us no longer do. That's not to say we're better than you, or that we are better than others still in the church; we are just in a different place.

Let's give Q and the other UCG members a break, guys (I need to do this myself); if he wants to swallow whole-cloth UCG's vaguely mainstream Creationist beliefs, as long as Questeruk isn't harming others, beating or starving his kids, preaching from a UCG pulpit, and he doesn't care how his money's being spent by the UCG Council of Elders (What a fancy retreat they held last year hmmm?), then really what's the point of all this back-and-forth arguing?

Quest, when (or if) you're ready to step into a different version of reality (I know it's scary, but we've all been through it), we'll be here for you. In a strange sort of way (whether it looks like it or not) we're here for you now.

Anybody here ever see the movie Pleasantville?

Oh, and one more thing, Content, I find many relig...

2009-10-24T21:59:27.263+13:00

Oh, and one more thing, Content, I find many religious believers to be extremely deceptive.

Do we need to mention Bob Thiel's obvious little games with respect to his academic credentials?

I think deception is so much a component of the fundamentalist lifestyle because it's so much part and parcel of their ideology of faith, which requires great self-deception. And if you're in the habit of deceiving yourself, then it's very easy to take it to the next step and deceive others. Perhaps folks don’t do this consciously, but I see it as simply a natural outgrowth of the religion.

Intellectual HONESTY is something I’ve discovered after leaving the COG’s, and it’s a trait of inestimable value which I greatly respect.

That’s why I have such respect for the practice an...

2009-10-24T21:42:37.690+13:00

That’s why I have such respect for the practice and many of the teachings of Buddhism. I’ve known several Buddhist priests who I’ve had long spiritual conversations with regarding the deep metaphysical truths of existence, and they’ve never once self-righteously condemned me for my views. The same cannot be said of Christians or Muslims I’ve had basically the same conversations with. It’s simply in the very nature of monotheistic religions to condemn.

You said that religious faith “obviously cannot be shared” but I would disagree. That’s how the meme of faith spreads, it is shared, or mostly enforced on others, depending upon the cultural environment it is being spread within. Islamic faith pretty much depends on the threat of physical violence to enforce it where militant Islam is dominant. Christian faith was enforced legally, politically and physically during the Middle Ages and the times of the Inquisition. Christian faith is very much influenced by very powerful peer pressures within fundamentalism, the COG’s being no exception to this.

So really, Content, I can respect your faith as far as you hold it, try to live by it and claim that it helps you by providing utilitarian value in your life. And that’s fine. But don’t try to tell me you have hard, irrefutable evidence that it’s the one true faith (which I realize you aren't sayng, but many others of your fellow religionists do), such that everyone ought to adopt it as their own or be condemned to the fires of hell or the lake of fire or whatever.

That’s what I object to, and what many others find so offensive about fundamentalist faith.

Content Former Member, the imaginary self-delusion...

2009-10-24T21:37:37.118+13:00

Content Former Member, the imaginary self-delusion that is religious faith can work wonders. I don't deny this at all. It can allow people to endure through great trial. So it has a certain utility. This is often referred to as the argument from pragmatism.

However, what you refer to as the “intuitive capacity” is often wrong. As I mentioned to Dennis earlier in the week, my intuition unaided by the hard findings of science is that the earth is flat, and that it’s perfectly still. But we know these such “intuitions” are false.

And please remember that I had such faith for over 30 years. So it’s not like I’ve been an unbeliever since childhood with no Christian experience. I know, I know, I was never truly converted, was never really called by God, never had my mind open to the truth, never actually received the Holy Spirit, wasn’t a true Christian, etc.

All I can say is I lived the life sincerely and with all my heart for three decades – as virtually anybody who knew me well could testify to.

But let us not forget that the religious faith of which you speak comes in various flavors — and ancient Persians, Muslims and Hindus, for example, all can point to how their faith in Ahura Mazda, Allah or the many gods of Hinduism have helped them in life, gave them great victories, etc.

One of the most fascinating autobiographies I’ve ever read in my life was called “The Autobiography of Malcolm X” the Black Muslim civil rights leader who was killed in 1965. His rise from street con and drug pusher to respectable and articulate Black Muslim spokesman, a true story, is truly an inspiring one. His faith in Allah gave him the strength to get off drugs and completely turn his life around. This is a true story, and an uplifting one, but I would hardly consider this as irrefutable evidence that Allah the ancient moon god literally exists.

The same thing can be said of the Judeo/Christian God or any other deity man has invented in the subjective realm of his imagination. Self-delusion can cause people to do things they otherwise couldn’t do. The early Christians were exemplary role-models of determination under trial of torture and death, as documented in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, which was standard reading when I first came into the WCG. So are many Christians in modern times, for example, in China, where they are being terribly persecuted by the government. Or Africa.

I don’t ridicule people of supernatural belief when they quietly live out their faith in daily life. I honestly respect it, though I may not subscribe to it myself. But when they attempt to seriously argue that theirs is the one true faith, and everyone one else’s faith or belief system that is different from theirs is wrong and worthy of condemnation, and they can prove it scientifically (which some try to do, creation science, Intelligent Design, etc.) that’s where I draw the line and don’t hesitate to leap into action.

Leonardo, why must subjective faith be so lightly ...

2009-10-24T18:58:34.158+13:00

Leonardo, why must subjective faith be so lightly esteemed? It obviously cannot be shared, or consistently duplicated in a lab, but there is an intuitive capacity in us that can acquire a subjective faith that, at least for me, rises to the level of evidence. I wish I could share it with you, but each of us is so completely unique, and who is to say one person's experience should work for another?

Are you sure you're as bone-deep certain of your “rainbow-colored invisible talking unicorn” as I am of the Rock of Israel?

Jorgheinz wrote: “Even my great-great-grandfather,...

2009-10-24T15:30:10.134+13:00

Jorgheinz wrote:
“Even my great-great-grandfather, an ardent evolutionist and scientist, were he alive, could not convince me that his Darwinian leanings were correct. (In fact, one of his own sons disagreed with him so much he emigrated to the Antipodean regions of the world as a Baptist preacher, to be far removed from his father's pontifications).”

When I had that conversation with Dr. William Provine that I relayed earlier in this blog, I asked him how he became interested in evolutionary science, and he told me that he came from a long line of Presbyterian ministers! Interesting how that tends to work out!

Jorgheinz also wrote:
“I may follow up on this, though it will not change my stance.”

But is this really being fair, Jorgheinz? Does it reflect an inquisitive mind truly open to objective truths of reality.

“He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him.” Proverbs 18:13

“The heart of the prudent acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.” Proverbs 18:15

Jorgheinz further wrote:
“Both evolution and creationism are personal beliefs, as I have stated before. I believe evolution is a crock, with nothing to support it but a lot of hot air and waffling text.”

True to a certain extent, except that evolutionary theory is profoundly EVIDENCE-based, and creationism is FAITH-based. How can you fail to see this powerful distinction between the two?

And to say that nothing but “hot air and waffling” supports evolutionary science, well, this is just utter nonsense and rank ignorance on your part. You might as well proclaim that nothing but hot air and waffling supports heliocentrism.

Content Former Member wrote:
“And what if the Creator imbued the singularity that became our universe, with wisdom and capacity to produce and develop life over billions of years?”

I appreciate much of your comment, Content. However, your statement above just smuggles in “the Creator” without any substantial proof whatsoever.

Why can’t I smuggle into my comments my “rainbow-colored invisible talking unicorn” just as well – for your “Creator” has just as little evidence to substantiate his existence as my unicorn does.

Both must be taken on subjective faith.

OK, I know I said I was not going to comment anymo...

2009-10-24T15:27:23.478+13:00

OK, I know I said I was not going to comment anymore on this blog, but I must!

Questeruk wrote:
"on your recommendation Paul, I have just ordered the book from Amazon – so it had better be good!"

I am stunned, yet delighted to hear this, Quest! May I say that I am sincerely impressed - a creationist willing to actually read a book about evolution written by a practicing geologist from cover to cover!!

You might also find “Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul” by Dr. Kenneth Miller, a practicing mainstream (Catholic) Christian, helpful as well.

And the important thing is not that you end up agreeing "hook, line and sinker" with evolutionary theory, but that you begin to understand what is actually is, and isn’t, as understood by real scientists rather than mostly scientifically-illiterate fundamentalists like Hovind or Ham.

Also, I looked into Hoyle’s idea of panspermia, but to me it only moves the whole discussion a step back, “Where did the seeding alien civilizations come from?” being the foundational question.

Coco Joe wrote:
“I can't say that I know.”

So who does? I certainty don’t either, at least not with 100% philosophical certainty. But I DO think intellectually curious and open-minded folks who are willing to read widely are much closer to the answers than those who just accept the biblical account of creation on faith alone.

We are talking about the single most important subject our minds could ever attend to, what Bertrand Russell called “the inexhaustible mystery of existence.”

Coco Joe also wrote:
“I understand that the Bible is a lot of myth and speculation of men trying to explain how and why we are here, but there's a good deal of wisdom and truth in the Bible as well.”

I absolutely agree with you here as well, Joe. Just because I no longer view the Bible as “God’s inerrant Word of revealed knowledge” doesn’t mean I don’t respect the wisdom and insights it contains. Just like Shakespeare or other good literature that has stood the test of time. Of course the fundamentalists, with their unbalanced “all or nothing” mindset, just cannot understand this approach. But I’ve found it to be of great practical value, and it has brought an enormous amount of tranquility into my post-COG life.

Coco Joe further wrote:
“I wouldn't be surprised, that as it turns out, like with so many things, the truth and reality of the matter will be somewhere in the middle.”

Amen to that as well.

Joe, you make a great deal of sense. Please stick to the serious expression of your thoughts rather than sarcasm – it’s so much more enlightening to read and contemplate.

Paul says, "Research evolution. Look at all t...

2009-10-24T11:41:51.836+13:00

Paul says, "Research evolution. Look at all the evidence. You can do this by reading one of the user-friendly books that I have mentioned several times in this thread. A good one is Donald Prothero's "Evolution What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters." Then you will be in a position to explain why evolution didn't occur, by criticizing the evidence- instead of just stating that you find the notion improbable."

And what if the Creator imbued the singularity that became our universe, with wisdom and capacity to produce and develop life over billions of years?

Creationism is out of step with Science, and that is mainly the fault of Creationists. That much goes without saying. The fossil record lies under foot every day of our lives. But the true story of "Creation" is one of development over billions of earth years and involves the earth bringing forth, once it cools down enough to cradle it.

So other questions are appropriate too. What caused the Big Bang? Why did it lead to a universe made of atoms that behave predictably? Why is it beautiful? Isn't it a stretch to accept DNA as a normal consequence of a singularity's monstrous explosion around 14 billion years ago?

Why does Hebrew Genesis require Relativity to be understood? Why does Genesis Creation begin with the Big Bang? How does a primordial surge of light ultimately congeal into human beings with sentient intellect capable of love, hate, choice? If we choose to call these phenomena evolution or development, it should also be known that all of this was known or implied in Hebrew Genesis 3300 years before our modern scientific discoveries.

My point is that Science and Revelation (not the book of) both reflect the same series of historical events that led to you and me, today, typing on computer keyboards and sharing awesome observations across vast distances of space and time, all at the speed of light. Not Creationism but Creation, a lengthy process of slow development in which we ourselves are now sharing an ongoing creative responsibility with the Creator.

Personally, I fail to see a conflict.

To the Apostate Paul, Even my great-great-grandfa...

2009-10-24T10:14:56.543+13:00

To the Apostate Paul,

Even my great-great-grandfather,an ardent evolutionist and scientist,were he alive, could not convince me that his Darwinian leanings were correct.

(In fact,one of his own sons disagreed with him so much he emigrated to the Antipodean regions of the world as a Baptist preacher,to be far removed from his father's pontifications).

His(that is g-g-g'father) descendants include two "current" professors of theology who do not hold to his views,either.Neither do any of the other four doctorates in the family aspire to evolutionary concepts.And two of these doctorates are scientific,in the field of chemistry.

Both evolution and creationism are personal beliefs,as I have stated before.

I believe evolution is a crock, with nothing to support it but a lot of hot air and waffling text.

As I have stated before,quoting from Hamlet,there is more in heaven and earth than any of us has considered in our own personal philosophies.Herr Shakespeare knew something.

Thanks,for the tips though,as to choice of reading matter.I may follow up on this, though it will not change my stance.

I guess we must agree to disagree.

Cheers,

Jorgheinz

"Balaam’s ass - again it is clear that this w...

2009-10-24T08:51:58.707+13:00

"Balaam’s ass - again it is clear that this was not the ass itself speaking, but an angel speaking through it."

What's the diff?

Also:
I realize this topic has run its course, and I've made my comment, using sarcasm to make my point, and I've learned that doesn't work too well. So I want to offer my two cents, in plain language, because I can't leave it alone without doing so.

I'm not one of those denying evolution. But here's what I see, looking from earth's beginnings until now.

At this present time in our history, when we look back, we can truthfully say that, at some point in time, intelligence entered the picture. Because look at us, with our advances in science and technology, and our inquisitive nature as to our origins. We are creatures of intelligence. I don't think anyone would deny that.

And for me, when I step back and look at the big picture, this is what I see: That this existence that we live in, has somehow brought the ingredients together for the primordial soup, and from that, over time, has produced, or brought forth, intelligence; that is, us.

I don't think anyone would deny that either, because here we are.

I also think that it would be fair to say; That this existence that we live in, has a very amazing and peculiar nature to it, to have brought forth intelligent creatures like us, who have a desire to understand the truth and reality of the matter.

Am I saying that this existence is aware of what it's doing, from the beginning? Or that there is a Mind behind it? I can't say that I know.

On the other hand, I think it's a pretty neat trick for mindless, unconscious, and unaware matter, being driven by mindless, unconscious, and unaware forces, to have done all that has been done on this earth, including bringing us(intelligence) into existence with it.

I understand that the Bible is a lot of myth and speculation of men trying to explain how and why we are here, but there's a good deal of wisdom and truth in the Bible as well.

The apostle Paul said something interesting: "For in Him, we live, and move, and have our being". Wasn't he referring to this existence that we all live in, which has brought us forth?

Creationists say that the creation proves God's existence, and evolutionists say that we are not a creation, but the product of an evolution. And evolutionists(not all of them) also say, that shows there is no God.

I wouldn't be surprised, that as it turns out, like with so many things, the truth and reality of the matter will be somewhere in the middle.

Questeruk said... With Eve clearly this is Satan,...

2009-10-24T06:14:28.626+13:00

Questeruk said...

With Eve clearly this is Satan, either talking through the animal, or being manifested as an animal.

It is not clearly Satan, because Satan is not mentioned and it is the snake that is punished by making him crawl on his belly and not the devil. It is actually an explanation of why a snake doesn't have legs.

Balaam’s ass - again it is clear that this was not the ass itself speaking, but an angel speaking through it.

Again, it is not clear. The text says that the Lord opened the donkey's mouth, not the angel speaking through the donkey. It was the donkey that could see the angel standing in the way, not Balaam. Further, Balaam didn't think that it was unusual for his donkey to talk and actually began a conversation with the animal.