Comments on: Republicans and Creationism http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/06/republicans-and-creationism/ Blogging one sidereal day at a time Sat, 04 Feb 2012 16:26:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Ed http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/06/republicans-and-creationism/comment-page-1/#comment-2252 Ed Thu, 07 Jun 2007 06:35:03 +0000 http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/06/republicans-and-creationism/#comment-2252 Pamela, I have to disagree with you on one thing. You have more of a voice, I'll listen to your 30-minute podcast over their 30-second commercial any day! ;-) Am I alone here?? Pamela, I have to disagree with you on one thing. You have more of a voice, I’ll listen to your 30-minute podcast over their 30-second commercial any day! ;-) Am I alone here??

]]> By: Aaron Jackson http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/06/republicans-and-creationism/comment-page-1/#comment-2242 Aaron Jackson Thu, 07 Jun 2007 00:28:58 +0000 http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/06/republicans-and-creationism/#comment-2242 Surely you can see the connection between atheism and evolution? I'm not saying that if you believe in evolution you are a de facto atheist, but rather there is a much higher probability of your being an atheist than say, a Christian Theist. Not to mention that if you happen to be a theistic evolutionist, chances are high that you have a low view of the Bible. Again, not a necessary conclusion, but a higher probability. Of course a low view of the Bible creates huge problems with explaining your Christian worldview in a way that is cogent, comprehensive and non-contradictory. I think this is why so many Christians consider evolution as an “atheist theology”. Taken in light of the growing number of <b>militant</b> atheists, and the fact that (as you have demonstrated here) dissenting views are taken as pure ignorance and not even in the realm of possibility, you can see why such reactions occur. I have to take a small amount of offense with the idea that educated leaders must agree with evolution or else be considered unqualified for office. I'm not a doctor as you are, but I'm also more than a high school graduate and I do not adhere to the theory of evolution. I'm not saying that there isn't evidence for evolution (there is much evidence), I am saying that a) there are problems with the theory at the biochemical level <i>at least</i> and perhaps problems that punctuated equilibrium does not answer (among others) and b) if I believe in a Theistic Christian worldview because the evidence points in that direction, then I must take the Bible as my authoritative norm or I end up with the problems I alluded to above. Having said that, I am not saying that theistic evolution is an impossibility, but I do believe it would require looking at Genesis in a way that I'm not convinced is the most appropriate hermeneutically. Nor am I saying that everyone that believes in evolution is an atheist or even a “bad” Christian. C. S. Lewis was an evolutionist for goodness sake! Surely you can see the connection between atheism and evolution? I’m not saying that if you believe in evolution you are a de facto atheist, but rather there is a much higher probability of your being an atheist than say, a Christian Theist. Not to mention that if you happen to be a theistic evolutionist, chances are high that you have a low view of the Bible. Again, not a necessary conclusion, but a higher probability. Of course a low view of the Bible creates huge problems with explaining your Christian worldview in a way that is cogent, comprehensive and non-contradictory.

I think this is why so many Christians consider evolution as an “atheist theology”. Taken in light of the growing number of militant atheists, and the fact that (as you have demonstrated here) dissenting views are taken as pure ignorance and not even in the realm of possibility, you can see why such reactions occur.

I have to take a small amount of offense with the idea that educated leaders must agree with evolution or else be considered unqualified for office. I’m not a doctor as you are, but I’m also more than a high school graduate and I do not adhere to the theory of evolution. I’m not saying that there isn’t evidence for evolution (there is much evidence), I am saying that a) there are problems with the theory at the biochemical level at least and perhaps problems that punctuated equilibrium does not answer (among others) and b) if I believe in a Theistic Christian worldview because the evidence points in that direction, then I must take the Bible as my authoritative norm or I end up with the problems I alluded to above. Having said that, I am not saying that theistic evolution is an impossibility, but I do believe it would require looking at Genesis in a way that I’m not convinced is the most appropriate hermeneutically. Nor am I saying that everyone that believes in evolution is an atheist or even a “bad” Christian. C. S. Lewis was an evolutionist for goodness sake!

]]> By: pamela http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/06/republicans-and-creationism/comment-page-1/#comment-2237 pamela Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:31:02 +0000 http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/06/republicans-and-creationism/#comment-2237 There is more of this universe painted shades of gray then you'll ever find cast in pure black or pure white. It concerns me when any educated leader disregards evolution. While none of these folks will (following probabilities) be president, the still have influence, a vote, and more of a voice than I do. It frightens me when any leader derides belief in evolution as "athiest theology." There is more of this universe painted shades of gray then you’ll ever find cast in pure black or pure white.

It concerns me when any educated leader disregards evolution. While none of these folks will (following probabilities) be president, the still have influence, a vote, and more of a voice than I do.

It frightens me when any leader derides belief in evolution as “athiest theology.”

]]> By: Aaron Jackson http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/06/republicans-and-creationism/comment-page-1/#comment-2233 Aaron Jackson Wed, 06 Jun 2007 22:07:54 +0000 http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/06/republicans-and-creationism/#comment-2233 I disagree. Science depends upon faith and religion is bolstered by science. Those that are willing not to look at the situation as black versus white can increase their knowledge on both sides of the table. Good point about these guys not being front runners. Regardless of my position, I would waste too much effort worrying about these particular candidates. I disagree. Science depends upon faith and religion is bolstered by science. Those that are willing not to look at the situation as black versus white can increase their knowledge on both sides of the table.
Good point about these guys not being front runners. Regardless of my position, I would waste too much effort worrying about these particular candidates.

]]> By: Autumn http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/06/republicans-and-creationism/comment-page-1/#comment-2230 Autumn Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:20:44 +0000 http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/06/republicans-and-creationism/#comment-2230 Science lacks faith, and religion lacks science. What's right is in the eye of the beholder. You can boast for one side or the other, scream bloody murder at eachother, and make general assumptions all you want but on an issue like this, but you're not likely to change anyone's mind because they have already decided if they are going to base their reality on fact or on faith. That said, if they start teaching any sort of Young Earth theories in public schools I am packing up my kids and moving to Holland. Science lacks faith, and religion lacks science. What’s right is in the eye of the beholder. You can boast for one side or the other, scream bloody murder at eachother, and make general assumptions all you want but on an issue like this, but you’re not likely to change anyone’s mind because they have already decided if they are going to base their reality on fact or on faith.

That said, if they start teaching any sort of Young Earth theories in public schools I am packing up my kids and moving to Holland.

]]> By: Ed http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/06/republicans-and-creationism/comment-page-1/#comment-2229 Ed Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:38:46 +0000 http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/06/republicans-and-creationism/#comment-2229 While much is made of three Republicans in the debate believing in Creationism (or Intelligent Design), it should be noted that none of them are the front runners and for all practical purposes will not be nominated for the Republican ticket. It would have been much different if Giuliani, McCain, and/or Romney would have answered that way. (Not sure where Fred Thompson sits on this issue yet.) In other words, given that the Democrats are all evolution believers, as well as the leading Republicans, I don't think the scientific community has much to worry about from this perspective at least. While much is made of three Republicans in the debate believing in Creationism (or Intelligent Design), it should be noted that none of them are the front runners and for all practical purposes will not be nominated for the Republican ticket. It would have been much different if Giuliani, McCain, and/or Romney would have answered that way. (Not sure where Fred Thompson sits on this issue yet.)

In other words, given that the Democrats are all evolution believers, as well as the leading Republicans, I don’t think the scientific community has much to worry about from this perspective at least.

]]> By: Aaron Jackson http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/06/republicans-and-creationism/comment-page-1/#comment-2223 Aaron Jackson Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:57:19 +0000 http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/06/republicans-and-creationism/#comment-2223 The links are working now. I guess I will never run for president, or at least I won't be expecting to many votes from the scientific community. It is interesting to note that we use the same type of logic in Christian apologetics. "We accumulate more and more evidence in favor of one theory..." I think the issue of most import when scientists and theologians discuss truth is that of epistemology. It seems to me that scientists often have a faulty epistemology (a misunderstanding of what knowledge is and how it can be known). The premise that we can only know that which can be tested by the senses is itself untestable...a self-refuting statement. Science is built on a set of untestable presuppositions that must be accepted by faith before science can even happen, but for some reason this is not seen as a contradiction. The links are working now. I guess I will never run for president, or at least I won’t be expecting to many votes from the scientific community.
It is interesting to note that we use the same type of logic in Christian apologetics. “We accumulate more and more evidence in favor of one theory…”
I think the issue of most import when scientists and theologians discuss truth is that of epistemology. It seems to me that scientists often have a faulty epistemology (a misunderstanding of what knowledge is and how it can be known). The premise that we can only know that which can be tested by the senses is itself untestable…a self-refuting statement. Science is built on a set of untestable presuppositions that must be accepted by faith before science can even happen, but for some reason this is not seen as a contradiction.

]]> By: Aaron Jackson http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/06/republicans-and-creationism/comment-page-1/#comment-2220 Aaron Jackson Wed, 06 Jun 2007 15:55:14 +0000 http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/06/republicans-and-creationism/#comment-2220 I couldn't get either of the links in this post to work, but it could be a problem with Firefox I guess. Are you annoyed because people running for the office of president do not believe in evolution or because this issue has become a litmus test for those running for the office? I couldn’t get either of the links in this post to work, but it could be a problem with Firefox I guess.
Are you annoyed because people running for the office of president do not believe in evolution or because this issue has become a litmus test for those running for the office?

]]>