I'm guilty as accused of literalism....but how else do you communicate with a "true" believer if not by adopting his own logic(or lack of it..) to point out a glaring contradiction...true,the "From dust thou cometh" is open to different interpretations just like Gonzo's examples "light without a sun" as a reference to electricity, etc. My interpretation of it is that inorganic matter(dust)has been transformed into organic matter.If the process occurred rapidly or over a period it still qualifies as evolutionary.....In short there are few(if any) absolutes so we've to think how well each viewpoint has served us better- the scientific view or the believer's view.
In a recent poll 51% were found to be believers in creation while the rest were divided roughly equally between believers in micro-evolution with or without a god...It's reasonable that much of the creationist vote comes from our good old friends the evangelists who could perhaps explain my dilemma as an evolutionist: One of the few quotes I can recall from my religious upbringing says "From dust thou cometh and to dust thou shalt return". Doesn't that imply evolution?... and for that matter an even more profound view than Darwinian theory.How does an evangelist contradict that? The same question applies to believers in micro-evolution WITH a god plus the added question: If you believe in MICRO-evolution what's the blind spot that prevents you from believing in MACRO-evolution?
Fellow posters, these questions are no longer academic as this evangelical crowd is holding us all hostage through domination of the RNC!
You observed: "From dust thou cometh and to dust thou shalt return". Doesn't that imply evolution?... and for that matter an even more profound view than Darwinian theory"
I'm not a "creationist" in the sense you're implying, but I do recall a bit of the old testament, so I took a look and found the following:
"1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. "
I'd suggest that most staunch creationist theory starts with verse 24 and builds from there for your "dust" question. I've also heard (but cannot find reference to) a mention that God reached into the heavens and collected the elements of space, which falls more into the evolutionary/religious believers.
But posting this type of question in this forum will typically drawa lot of contempt from the stongly anti-religious zealots.
I'd suggest that most staunch creationist theory starts with verse 24 and builds from there for your "dust" question. I've also heard (but cannot find reference to) a mention that God reached into the heavens and collected the elements of space, which falls more into the evolutionary/religious believers.
I know where you will find that reference. I do not remember off the top of my head exactly which verse, but it is discussed in the Babylonian Tractates (the Gemara), which werre an expansion of the "Mishnah"... the original sources for our modern codes of Ethics. I did not want to wait until i had found the specific location before commenting to you, didnt want it to be lost in the shuffle.
These documents and tomes, while they do discuss in great detail dogmatic and religious applications as they relate to Judaism of the time, also discuss in great detail many intriguing concepts, and are filled with a plethora of stories and tales, and fascinating discussions; among them "light without flame or heat or sun", "the twin bands of Life", and even, (wait for it) stories of a man named "Yeshua ben Yosef Minazeret". you may have already recognized these as references to electric light, the Double Helix of our Genetic code, and the man you know as Jesus Christ.
I'm leaving in a few days, and will not have access to the Hebrew libraries i need to find the precise references, but i'll get back to you on that one.
because you are asking people to justify faith in terms of logic.
Faith trumps logic, and the answer is, because they feel it is right. They feel it's right because that's what they've been taught for hundreds of generations, since the Bronze Age - ah, sure it's been edited along the way by the various church councils, Popes, etc; but religion is about politics and group psychology, it's not about observing, measuring and reasoning.
No, "dust to dust" does not infer evolution in any way. 1st, it could be the usual magic; 2nd, generation of a child from his mother's body, and decomposition of his mortal remains is not the process of evolution.
The reason creationism is so popular is (1) politics, and (2) because it doesn't affect their real world. You can bet Pat Robertson is one hell of a lot more critical about accounting.
No quarrel with you except that "dust to human" infers a transformation from inorganic to organic matter, while "human to dust" is a "devolution" ...LOL I fully agree with your last paragraph except that their real world seems unreal to me
Riem, you've resisted the overwhelming logic of my postings on politics in the Near East, so let's try another topic.
Let the disgruntled one time Catholic school student [12 damn years] give you a little assist. [Totally off the point - I was suspended with 17 minutes remaining in the next to last day of my senior year in high school. I mean, can you believe...]
It seems that you're making the same mistake the fundamentalist types oft make - literalism. "From dust thou cometh..." has to be read as a simple observation re the transitory nature of life and all human existence. "From dust" might be a reference to God's creation of Adam, "to dust" a reference to the inevitable corruption and decay and eventual disintegrastion of the human corpse. See, 12 years were not entirely wasted! Don't really think Sam and Tessie got their $$$$ worth all things considered however.
Can't begin to imagine how to address the rest of the post, but as those questions are asked based upon a less-then-perfect premise, perhaps it's not necessary.
Not necessarly in disagreement with you re your intent. I just part company with the practice, damn near irresistable it is true, to mock these people with such cruel avidity and glee. [Though you DO NOT do so in your post].
I'm guilty as accused of literalism....but how else do you communicate with a "true" believer if not by adopting his own logic(or lack of it..) to point out a glaring contradiction...true,the "From dust thou cometh" is open to different interpretations just like Gonzo's examples "light without a sun" as a reference to electricity, etc. My interpretation of it is that inorganic matter(dust)has been transformed into organic matter.If the process occurred rapidly or over a period it still qualifies as evolutionary.....In short there are few(if any) absolutes so we've to think how well each viewpoint has served us better- the scientific view or the believer's view.
Riem, i think this Boaard has an implicit division of labor.
I specialize in harangues and screeds and diatribes critical of US policy in the Near East. The creationist/evolutionist debate is one that's really beyond my modest intellect, so I'll defer to you on this.
[Apologies for not thinking of this point when I originally posted] but "from dust thou cometh" begs the question, as a creationist/intelligent designist might argue that yeah, so what, it was God transforming the dust. Basing your argument on an interpretation of that phrase favorable to your POV might not be as effective as you would like. It can just as easily be used by a creationist to support his views and to undercut yours. Remember, to them God is behind everything, so pointing to transformed dust scores no point against that opposing side necessarily.
For what it's worth, i'm with the scientists but I'm never happy to see the other guys, wrong as they most likey are, mocked so cruelly and make sport of so freely, as is the case with many posts on this board critical of them. It does nothing to get them to listen to you or to consider your POV, and probably just serves to convince them to cling all the more tenaciously to those [mistaken?] views.
Now, mocking the guys I disgree with, especially on any issue involving the Near East, well...
and as I said, this discussion is not about western logic, it's about their faith, and the medieval logic of the Bible - which document as we know it now was largely assembled and put thru its many translations during the western medieval period.
If you want to talk to them, you have to understand the logic behind that is the logic of political power. A given cleric believes what he does NOT because of what is written, but because he has FAITH in a particular interpretation; and coming as an outsider to "discuss", you will be regarded as Satan.
The underlying logic here is the logic of power, and the power of medieval politics is whether you are more afraid of words or violence. The only solution is really easy: keep a close eye on the buggers, and put a bullet thru them if they make a false move.
Creationism will continue until it's discredited. The great thing about faith is that you don't spend time and money asking questions and trying to figure things out. So as long as this advantage trumps the issue of having to deal with it (ie, you will find more creationists among 7/11 employees than among geologists and biologists) there will be creationists.
Again, the issue is political - an expression of political stance and unity. It has nothing to do with observable facts, because nobody has observed, and few even need to think about it.
Fellow posters, these questions are no longer academic as this evangelical crowd is holding us all hostage through domination of the RNC! ............................................
"From dust thou cometh and to dust thou shalt return". Doesn't that imply evolution?... and for that matter an even more profound view than Darwinian theory.How does an evangelist contradict that? The same question applies to believers in micro-evolution WITH a god plus the added question: If you believe in MICRO-evolution what's the blind spot that prevents you from believing in MACRO-evolution? .............................................
And answering these questions does exactly what? Lemme know before I sound the Kook Alert...
It would expose their simplistic view of life that threatens(through sheer numbers)the basic tenet of church/state separation! Regressive thinking may not be too important to you,but I wouldn't want my kids to be taught that evolution is just an unproven theory!What are your thoughts, if any,on the subject?
it's accurate to say that evolution is a hypothesis.
Sure, there is substantial evidence, rather than the "feeling" that we're so wonderful that we must have been created by somebody even smarter than us (how intelligent are the tits on men?) and of course recitation that some Bronze Age scribes had the same sort of feeling.
BK is right on point though, in that it really doesn't matter. You can believe any damn thing you want about how we got here, and nobody really cares. That's the reason that the political needs of creationists trump the beliefs of scientists.
I think you are unwittingly teaching your kids intolerance of different P'sOV. This I believe inhibits their growth as people far more than them holding any specific viewpoint at any particular point in time. I've formed that opinion by the terms you have used ie
""their simplistic view of life that threatens""
""Regressive thinking""
You may want to begin to consider the disticnt possibility that "they" and "you" are but oppositer sides of the very same coin.
this is coming from the religious right?? That somebody ELSE is teaching intolerance? That they want people to have open minds?
Give me a break.
The difference is that the secular humanists are willing to set their propositions out on the table, and let nature take its course. The religious fundies need to legislate their beliefs to get anybody to take them seriously.
I'm with Galileo, I really don't give a damn what the Pope or anybody else thinks, because the world isn't going to arrange itself according to your beliefs. It's fine with me if you want to handicap yourself; just don't come crying to me when you get in trouble because you didn't listen. Burn your kids as a sacrifice, or whatever it is you do.
Different points of view? One POV based on a childish insistence "I believe" and unwilling to spell out any reasons; while the other POV relies on evidence in support of evolution theory. While fear underlies one POV the other is based on rational thinking.Mind you the one God concept is relatively recent and obviously an improvement over earlier multi-god concepts while the other derives from scientific thought.If resisting attempts by the creationists to impose their POV on all others through political pressure is intolerance then so be it
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
VIP MEMBER
, you are now a VIP member!
We thank you for your purchase!
VIP MEMBER
, Thank you for becoming VIP member!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
