This week, our Come Follow Me curriculum brings us to Gen 1-2, Moses 2-3, Abr 4-5. We discuss several different accounts of the creation of the world, and the lessons we can learn from them. Study with me!
Anchor.fm:
Soundcloud:
Youtube:
Showing posts with label #evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #evolution. Show all posts
Sunday, January 2, 2022
Friday, February 7, 2014
Confessions of a Creationist
The Winter Olympic games are nearing. I look forward with anticipation to seeing talented athletes perform amazing feats, and with the hope that my country, the United States, will win many competitions. There is, however, an aspect of the winter games that I do not enjoy: the artistic competitions.
Events such as speed skating have measurable results. Though at times, special cameras and equipment is necessary to determine what racer finished first, the method for winning is always crossing the finish line first. Similarly, ice hockey rewards the team with the most goals at the end with victory.
Events such as figure skating or "ice dancing" are distasteful to me because they have arbitrary elements. The objective is not to skate faster, farther, or higher, but to skate "better" than the other competitors. Of course, this does not mean that the competitors are not impressive, or that they are not athletic... they can be both. It means that their events should not be considered competitive sports. They are artistic performances.
While it is possible for some performances to be better than others, the criteria for "better" always has an arbitrary element. Whether the competition is "American Idol" or figure skating, these types of competitions have always seemed a bit distasteful to me. To some degree, I have an affinity for the definitive, objective, and the measurable. In other words... I like science!
I was always fascinated with learning about biology, chemistry, physics, and astronomy... and while repetitive practice became tedious, the concepts of mathematics have always interested me. The names of planets, elements, dinosaurs, reptiles, amphibians, theorems, and rules were valued acquisitions even from before I started attending school.
The first time I recall learning something scientific that I disliked was in my sixth grade class when the curriculum turned to evolution. Every image of the ape-like homo habilis or homo australopithecus filled me with a distaste that was practically instinctive. I recall one of my fellow students suggesting that the pictures "looked like monkeys." The teacher expressed that they were ancestors of modern humans. Something inside me snapped, and I recall angrily saying that "my dad is not a monkey, and his dad was not a monkey." The next hour was filled with attempts to calm everyone down.
In hindsight, my outburst was not based on evidence, science, or anything measurable or definitive. It was raw and emotional. I just knew that there was something wrong about it, but I had no idea how to articulate my thoughts.
Of course, part of the reason that I found the curriculum so distasteful was my firm belief that "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) From my youth, I was taught that humanity represent the children of God, and that people are not animals.
As I have gotten older, I have learned much more about the theories that support evolution. I have learned about the processes of natural selection, and how they impact changes in allele frequency. I have learned that speciation is not as simple as some make it out to be (for example, donkeys and horses may be considered different species because they produce sterile offspring, mules... but organisms that reproduce asexually cannot be separated into species using this method).
Though my belief that God created heaven and earth has not diminished, if I am honest, I am forced to confess that I have grown to like the science behind evolution.
That having been said, I have also grown to understand more of the reason the concept was so distasteful in my youth. And although I could state that evolution is not based on observable evidence, or how it assumes that the basic characteristics of life have not changed since life began (such as reproduction and death), if I am honest, I am forced to confess that my skepticism toward evolution has little to do with science.
My beef with evolution is Godlessness. Of course I know that not all evolutionists are atheists, and I suppose it is possible that not all atheists are evolutionists, but I have known many atheists to use scientific evidence that supports evolution not as a tool of enlightenment or to express interest in fossils, genetics, or taxonomy... but rather as a weapon to mock and belittle those that believe in God.
In other words, many Christians are made to feel the argument being made is this: people who believe in God are stupid/wrong/ignorant/[other belittling adjective] because evolution.
There is no other scientific principle or theory that I have seen used the way evolution is. No one says:
people who believe in God are stupid/wrong/ignorant/[other belittling adjective] because fundamental theorem of calculus.
The implications of Godlessness are not scientific either. They are ethical and philosophical. If humans are animals, and other animals kill one another (whether for food, for mating, or for other competition), how can we say that it is wrong to kill someone? Without some higher purpose, what exactly is immoral about human cruelty?
Of course, most secularists are not interested in intellectual honesty when it comes to questioning the instability of their moral foundation... but those that are reveal the awful truth about Godlessness. For example, rabid atheist activist Richard Dawkins said this:
"I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today" (http://twitchy.com/2013/09/10/mild-pedophilia-cockroach-richard-dawkins-brazenly-defends-sexual-abuse-of-children/) He later went on to say that a former teacher that abused him and his classmates did not do any "lasting harm."
When the standards of right and wrong can shift toward what is convenient for society, there is no evil that is off limits. When life has no purpose, then there is no good reason to avoid exploiting or abusing others for personal gain. Arguments about the "good of society" being a motivating factor for moral behavior justify wrongs perpetrated against those that society dislikes and/or devalues.
Ultimately, if right and wrong are relative concepts, then crimes such as genocide or child abuse are given equal moral strength to children being forced to eat their vegetables... as they are both only "called bad".
Having said this, I certainly understand the legitimate feelings of those that do not want creation taught because it is not scientific. I would prefer that figure skating not exist in the winter Olympic Games for similar reasons. I do not however think it is appropriate to belittle those that enjoy figure skating, or who participate in the events... and if I am honest... I have to confess that sometimes the music and the skill can even be good, and that American gold medals make me smile regardless of the event.
I would suggest that persons who find creationism distasteful might similarly find value in an ethical foundation that believers aspire to build where honesty, kindness, and virtue are inseparably connected to the purpose of life. Just because it is not based on observation or hard evidence does not mean it is worthy of universal condemnation... In fact... if everyone is honest... they must confess that there is beauty and goodness that comes from faith in God.
Events such as speed skating have measurable results. Though at times, special cameras and equipment is necessary to determine what racer finished first, the method for winning is always crossing the finish line first. Similarly, ice hockey rewards the team with the most goals at the end with victory.
Events such as figure skating or "ice dancing" are distasteful to me because they have arbitrary elements. The objective is not to skate faster, farther, or higher, but to skate "better" than the other competitors. Of course, this does not mean that the competitors are not impressive, or that they are not athletic... they can be both. It means that their events should not be considered competitive sports. They are artistic performances.
While it is possible for some performances to be better than others, the criteria for "better" always has an arbitrary element. Whether the competition is "American Idol" or figure skating, these types of competitions have always seemed a bit distasteful to me. To some degree, I have an affinity for the definitive, objective, and the measurable. In other words... I like science!
I was always fascinated with learning about biology, chemistry, physics, and astronomy... and while repetitive practice became tedious, the concepts of mathematics have always interested me. The names of planets, elements, dinosaurs, reptiles, amphibians, theorems, and rules were valued acquisitions even from before I started attending school.
The first time I recall learning something scientific that I disliked was in my sixth grade class when the curriculum turned to evolution. Every image of the ape-like homo habilis or homo australopithecus filled me with a distaste that was practically instinctive. I recall one of my fellow students suggesting that the pictures "looked like monkeys." The teacher expressed that they were ancestors of modern humans. Something inside me snapped, and I recall angrily saying that "my dad is not a monkey, and his dad was not a monkey." The next hour was filled with attempts to calm everyone down.
In hindsight, my outburst was not based on evidence, science, or anything measurable or definitive. It was raw and emotional. I just knew that there was something wrong about it, but I had no idea how to articulate my thoughts.
Of course, part of the reason that I found the curriculum so distasteful was my firm belief that "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) From my youth, I was taught that humanity represent the children of God, and that people are not animals.
As I have gotten older, I have learned much more about the theories that support evolution. I have learned about the processes of natural selection, and how they impact changes in allele frequency. I have learned that speciation is not as simple as some make it out to be (for example, donkeys and horses may be considered different species because they produce sterile offspring, mules... but organisms that reproduce asexually cannot be separated into species using this method).
Though my belief that God created heaven and earth has not diminished, if I am honest, I am forced to confess that I have grown to like the science behind evolution.
That having been said, I have also grown to understand more of the reason the concept was so distasteful in my youth. And although I could state that evolution is not based on observable evidence, or how it assumes that the basic characteristics of life have not changed since life began (such as reproduction and death), if I am honest, I am forced to confess that my skepticism toward evolution has little to do with science.
My beef with evolution is Godlessness. Of course I know that not all evolutionists are atheists, and I suppose it is possible that not all atheists are evolutionists, but I have known many atheists to use scientific evidence that supports evolution not as a tool of enlightenment or to express interest in fossils, genetics, or taxonomy... but rather as a weapon to mock and belittle those that believe in God.
In other words, many Christians are made to feel the argument being made is this: people who believe in God are stupid/wrong/ignorant/[other belittling adjective] because evolution.
There is no other scientific principle or theory that I have seen used the way evolution is. No one says:
people who believe in God are stupid/wrong/ignorant/[other belittling adjective] because fundamental theorem of calculus.
The implications of Godlessness are not scientific either. They are ethical and philosophical. If humans are animals, and other animals kill one another (whether for food, for mating, or for other competition), how can we say that it is wrong to kill someone? Without some higher purpose, what exactly is immoral about human cruelty?
Of course, most secularists are not interested in intellectual honesty when it comes to questioning the instability of their moral foundation... but those that are reveal the awful truth about Godlessness. For example, rabid atheist activist Richard Dawkins said this:
"I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today" (http://twitchy.com/2013/09/10/mild-pedophilia-cockroach-richard-dawkins-brazenly-defends-sexual-abuse-of-children/) He later went on to say that a former teacher that abused him and his classmates did not do any "lasting harm."
When the standards of right and wrong can shift toward what is convenient for society, there is no evil that is off limits. When life has no purpose, then there is no good reason to avoid exploiting or abusing others for personal gain. Arguments about the "good of society" being a motivating factor for moral behavior justify wrongs perpetrated against those that society dislikes and/or devalues.
Ultimately, if right and wrong are relative concepts, then crimes such as genocide or child abuse are given equal moral strength to children being forced to eat their vegetables... as they are both only "called bad".
Having said this, I certainly understand the legitimate feelings of those that do not want creation taught because it is not scientific. I would prefer that figure skating not exist in the winter Olympic Games for similar reasons. I do not however think it is appropriate to belittle those that enjoy figure skating, or who participate in the events... and if I am honest... I have to confess that sometimes the music and the skill can even be good, and that American gold medals make me smile regardless of the event.
I would suggest that persons who find creationism distasteful might similarly find value in an ethical foundation that believers aspire to build where honesty, kindness, and virtue are inseparably connected to the purpose of life. Just because it is not based on observation or hard evidence does not mean it is worthy of universal condemnation... In fact... if everyone is honest... they must confess that there is beauty and goodness that comes from faith in God.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Who is this 'Jesus' and what is his beef with gays?
The format of this post will be in the form of a conversation between a hypothetical individual that is a proponent of homosexual marriage and believes that homosexuality is natural and harmless. This post may make some people angry, so I issue the following warning to proponents of homosexuality before proceeding:
Yes, it is judgmental to say that homosexuality is wrong. It would also be judgmental for you to rush to the comments section to tell me my belief that certain behaviors are sinful is wrong. This post was written in a hypothetical conversation to avoid a heated conversation with you. This article is meant to be thought provoking... not argument provoking. Before giving in to the impulse to tell me everything I may have forgotten to consider, or how you know that I am going to hell... please just consider the points that I have made. If you are unable to control yourself, there are plenty of other blogs, articles, memes, and clever sayings that promote your point of view which are less likely to upset your delicate balance. Please consider these sources instead of continuing on.
That having been said, the hypothetical proponent of homosexuality will present their points in italics.
Who is this 'Jesus' and what is his beef with gays?
Jesus is the son of God. He created the heavens and the earth. He also suffered unspeakable pain to provide a way for every human being to escape sin and death. I would not say that Jesus has a vendetta against homosexuals. He asks all people to cease committing sinful acts as a means of accepting his power to save us. Homosexuality is one of an innumerable list of sinful acts.
You just think that being gay is wrong because of a less than 2000 year old book called the Bible... but even Christians that all claim to believe in the Bible can't agree on how to interpret it.
That is not the only reason we believe homosexuality is sinful, but scripture should certainly contribute to our stance. It may be true that not all Christians agree on how to interpret the Bible, but the fundamental concepts that Jesus is the son of God and that through him all people can be saved are not disputed.
So you all believe in Jesus, but Jesus never said anything about homosexuality in the Bible.
You claim to read the Bible even though you discredit its contents? I find that unlikely... but I suppose that's not important. Of course you are meaning that the words of Christ as represented in the four Gospels do not explicitly define homosexuality as sinful. Of course, prophets existed before Christ's mortal ministry that declared "thus saith the Lord" and spoke on behalf of Christ. After his mortal ministry ended, he directed his Apostles to speak on his behalf. In other words, prophets and apostles spoke in the name of Jesus when they condemned homosexuality. (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:27)
But the law of Moses also condemned eating pork, and you do that... Do you really think everything in the Old Testament still applies?
Of course not. Christians do not practice animal sacrifice, even though it was explicitly commanded. Also... pork is delicious.
And what about the New Testament? Paul said that women should wear only modest clothes and be silent in 1 Timothy 2:9-15... Do you believe that?
Is it so wrong to ask women not to dress like prostitutes? Also, Paul was not singling out women only is his preaching, was he? Have you read the rest of 1 Timothy? Have you read the strict conditions he gave the men in the church? To answer your question though, Christians do not typically believe that women must be silent. I have no problem with women speaking.
So you're just picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you want to follow... Why can't homosexuals ignore the verses that condemn what they naturally want to do?
So Christians are limited only to the Bible? Is that what you think? As you pointed out, it's less than 2000 years old, and people have been serving the Lord a lot longer than that. As much as Christians love the Bible, it was possible for Peter and the early Apostles to be Christians without it. It was also possible for Moses to follow Christ without it, and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Before, during, and after the Bible, God spoke through prophets and apostles. That hasn't gone away because we've "already had a bunch of them"...
So is that the Pope? Is that someone else? How do you know which prophet is right?
You ask that as if this is a new problem... as if true prophets were always easy to spot... Jeremiah 23 is worth reading. Also, there is a reason that Jesus told people to beware of false prophets (Matthew 7:15). The existence of inconsistent sources does not mean there are no sources of God's word.
But you didn't answer my question... How do you know which prophet is right?
Following a prophet is always a matter of faith... but God can help. (James 1:5-6) Prayer should always be a part of the process. Think also of how Peter became convinced that Jesus was the actual son of God... (Matthew 16:17-18) Or how the disciples on the road to Emmaus perceived that they had spoken to the resurrected Lord by saying that their hearts "burned within them"? (Luke 24:32)
If I am supposed to follow my feelings, then I don't feel like there's anything wrong with being gay. What harm does it do?
That is exactly the reason that God still uses prophets instead of explicitly telling every person everything. By choosing a small number of individuals as prophets and communicating a lot to them, and only communicating to you who is a prophet, God creates an environment that rewards those that seek him. The point of revelation was never to learn every detail about every behavior, thought, or deed... It is to help identify a source that represents divine knowledge. The requirement for faith or need to work together is maintained in this environment.
You didn't answer my question again. What, specifically, is harmful about homosexuality?
Well, what if I told you that homosexual acts cause tremendous suffering, but it is not immediately detectable?
That's not specific.
We'll get to the specifics in a moment, first, how do you know something is harmful?
Visible negative effects prove something is harmful.
That's the real issue then, isn't it? Whether or not something can be perceived doesn't necessarily mean it is or isn't harmful. Being unable to see a sniper does not make him less lethal.
That's a bad example. You can immediately see the negative effects of a sniper after he shoots someone. You can't see any immediate negative effects from homosexuals.
How about radiation? How about other diseases? Handling objects that are contaminated with these things may not cause immediate harm, but over time, they do.
Yes, but we know through scientific methods about how these things are harmful...
So before scientific methods were discovered, were these things still harmful?
Yes.
So you're saying that we have discovered every method for perceiving things that are harmful? If I can't immediately show you the harm of something, it is not harmful?
Well...
Or what about things that can appear subjectively harmful. Take smoking and drinking. Science tells us that these habits increase the risk of organ failure or cancer, however, I have met elderly individuals that have smoked and drank for their lives and appear to live in relative comfort. Does that mean smoking and drinking is not harmful to some individuals?
Well...
Also, how harmful does something have to be in order to be bad? A person that undergoes a surgical procedure accepts a degree of risk, and accepts that instruments will be used to damage their bodies. Of course, they are hoping that the end result will help more than it will harm... but is accepting the harm wrong?
That's a different kind of harm... It's more like potential harm or risk... Humanity doesn't stay in plastic bubbles because things *might* be harmful.
But when you asked me to prove specifically that something is visibly harmful, you didn't communicate any of these details that might affect that. Also, do you look both ways before crossing the street? Do you reduce your speed when driving on icy roads? Do you fasten your safety belt? You probably already do things to protect yourself against potential harm.
I don't see a potential harm in letting homosexuals marry...
I don't see a harm in leaving the marriage laws alone... How can you be certain you are seeing the greater harm?
Don't shift the burden of proof to me... You said you had a specific example...
True enough. Jesus Christ is the example.
What? What does that even mean?
Jesus Christ suffered because of the sins of all individuals. In other words, every thought, word, and deed that was wrong that ever was or ever will be done exacted a physical harmful toll on Jesus Christ. The pressure was so intense that blood squeezed through his skin. (Luke 22:44) I would say that Jesus is uniquely qualified to be able to tell us what is and isn't sinful because he suffered for all sins.
Yes, well, I don't believe in Jesus... Prove to me in some other way that homosexuality is bad.
You believe that mankind is the result of evolutionary processes?
Yes. I don't believe in creationism; We evolved.
Fine then. So you're saying that the processes whereby mankind has become the dominant species on the planet are mutations and natural selection?
That's right.
So is homosexuality a natural mutation?
I believe it's natural. I think that Christians only call it bad because they are clinging to their traditions about Jesus, when there is no evidence that Jesus was divine.
The divinity of Christ is a separate conversation, so for the sake of our conversation, let's pretend that you're right about the origins of humanity. Let's pretend that humans are an advanced animal that is more fit to survive than other animals. How can homosexuality be a natural positive force if it drives individuals toward behavior that will prevent them from passing on their genetic code to future generations?
I... well...
So if it doesn't contribute to the fitness of an organism, the mutation must be called a disorder.
I never thought of it like that...
And if it is a disorder, than it would be in the best interest of our species to call it and treat it as such... right?
But what if it's nature's way of controlling the human population because we are abusing the earth?
So you're saying that homosexuals have been selected by nature to be removed from the gene pool? You're saying that nature has declared them unfit to pass on their genetics?
When you say it like that it sounds kinda bad...
Ultimately, homosexuality is either wrong on religious grounds, or it is a disorder on evolutionary grounds. Am I missing any options?
Yes, you're a bully and Jesus said not to judge others.
You're saying I'm a hypocrite because I am saying other people are sinful? I will concede that point. Only Jesus Christ was sinless. That doesn't mean that I'm wrong though, and it certainly doesn't mean that I need to accept sinful behavior for the sake of consistency. It does mean that I should try and be less hypocritical myself by repenting of my sins.
Yeah, so take that bully! You're a judgmental person because you think homosexuality is bad! Also, judgmental people will go to hell!
You don't see any irony or hypocrisy in what you're saying?
I see your point. I will now rethink how I approach Christians who object to homosexuality.
Ok, so I've never heard anyone change their position, and I doubt a blog post by an obscure and abrasive guy is going to actually make anyone rethink their position or approach. One way or the other, it is becoming more important for Christians to understand their own beliefs. Anyone that truthfully wishes to follow Jesus should be a bit more comprehensive in their quest than a few bible references from memes or clever sayings from protest banners. Religion is not something to throw out when it challenges your views... religion should be the defining belief system that guides and governs all aspects of one's life. Find out for yourself using all of your resources what God thinks... because God is never wrong.
Yes, it is judgmental to say that homosexuality is wrong. It would also be judgmental for you to rush to the comments section to tell me my belief that certain behaviors are sinful is wrong. This post was written in a hypothetical conversation to avoid a heated conversation with you. This article is meant to be thought provoking... not argument provoking. Before giving in to the impulse to tell me everything I may have forgotten to consider, or how you know that I am going to hell... please just consider the points that I have made. If you are unable to control yourself, there are plenty of other blogs, articles, memes, and clever sayings that promote your point of view which are less likely to upset your delicate balance. Please consider these sources instead of continuing on.
That having been said, the hypothetical proponent of homosexuality will present their points in italics.
Who is this 'Jesus' and what is his beef with gays?
Jesus is the son of God. He created the heavens and the earth. He also suffered unspeakable pain to provide a way for every human being to escape sin and death. I would not say that Jesus has a vendetta against homosexuals. He asks all people to cease committing sinful acts as a means of accepting his power to save us. Homosexuality is one of an innumerable list of sinful acts.
You just think that being gay is wrong because of a less than 2000 year old book called the Bible... but even Christians that all claim to believe in the Bible can't agree on how to interpret it.
That is not the only reason we believe homosexuality is sinful, but scripture should certainly contribute to our stance. It may be true that not all Christians agree on how to interpret the Bible, but the fundamental concepts that Jesus is the son of God and that through him all people can be saved are not disputed.
So you all believe in Jesus, but Jesus never said anything about homosexuality in the Bible.
You claim to read the Bible even though you discredit its contents? I find that unlikely... but I suppose that's not important. Of course you are meaning that the words of Christ as represented in the four Gospels do not explicitly define homosexuality as sinful. Of course, prophets existed before Christ's mortal ministry that declared "thus saith the Lord" and spoke on behalf of Christ. After his mortal ministry ended, he directed his Apostles to speak on his behalf. In other words, prophets and apostles spoke in the name of Jesus when they condemned homosexuality. (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:27)
But the law of Moses also condemned eating pork, and you do that... Do you really think everything in the Old Testament still applies?
Of course not. Christians do not practice animal sacrifice, even though it was explicitly commanded. Also... pork is delicious.
And what about the New Testament? Paul said that women should wear only modest clothes and be silent in 1 Timothy 2:9-15... Do you believe that?
Is it so wrong to ask women not to dress like prostitutes? Also, Paul was not singling out women only is his preaching, was he? Have you read the rest of 1 Timothy? Have you read the strict conditions he gave the men in the church? To answer your question though, Christians do not typically believe that women must be silent. I have no problem with women speaking.
So you're just picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you want to follow... Why can't homosexuals ignore the verses that condemn what they naturally want to do?
So Christians are limited only to the Bible? Is that what you think? As you pointed out, it's less than 2000 years old, and people have been serving the Lord a lot longer than that. As much as Christians love the Bible, it was possible for Peter and the early Apostles to be Christians without it. It was also possible for Moses to follow Christ without it, and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Before, during, and after the Bible, God spoke through prophets and apostles. That hasn't gone away because we've "already had a bunch of them"...
So is that the Pope? Is that someone else? How do you know which prophet is right?
You ask that as if this is a new problem... as if true prophets were always easy to spot... Jeremiah 23 is worth reading. Also, there is a reason that Jesus told people to beware of false prophets (Matthew 7:15). The existence of inconsistent sources does not mean there are no sources of God's word.
But you didn't answer my question... How do you know which prophet is right?
Following a prophet is always a matter of faith... but God can help. (James 1:5-6) Prayer should always be a part of the process. Think also of how Peter became convinced that Jesus was the actual son of God... (Matthew 16:17-18) Or how the disciples on the road to Emmaus perceived that they had spoken to the resurrected Lord by saying that their hearts "burned within them"? (Luke 24:32)
If I am supposed to follow my feelings, then I don't feel like there's anything wrong with being gay. What harm does it do?
That is exactly the reason that God still uses prophets instead of explicitly telling every person everything. By choosing a small number of individuals as prophets and communicating a lot to them, and only communicating to you who is a prophet, God creates an environment that rewards those that seek him. The point of revelation was never to learn every detail about every behavior, thought, or deed... It is to help identify a source that represents divine knowledge. The requirement for faith or need to work together is maintained in this environment.
You didn't answer my question again. What, specifically, is harmful about homosexuality?
Well, what if I told you that homosexual acts cause tremendous suffering, but it is not immediately detectable?
That's not specific.
We'll get to the specifics in a moment, first, how do you know something is harmful?
Visible negative effects prove something is harmful.
That's the real issue then, isn't it? Whether or not something can be perceived doesn't necessarily mean it is or isn't harmful. Being unable to see a sniper does not make him less lethal.
That's a bad example. You can immediately see the negative effects of a sniper after he shoots someone. You can't see any immediate negative effects from homosexuals.
How about radiation? How about other diseases? Handling objects that are contaminated with these things may not cause immediate harm, but over time, they do.
Yes, but we know through scientific methods about how these things are harmful...
So before scientific methods were discovered, were these things still harmful?
Yes.
So you're saying that we have discovered every method for perceiving things that are harmful? If I can't immediately show you the harm of something, it is not harmful?
Well...
Or what about things that can appear subjectively harmful. Take smoking and drinking. Science tells us that these habits increase the risk of organ failure or cancer, however, I have met elderly individuals that have smoked and drank for their lives and appear to live in relative comfort. Does that mean smoking and drinking is not harmful to some individuals?
Well...
Also, how harmful does something have to be in order to be bad? A person that undergoes a surgical procedure accepts a degree of risk, and accepts that instruments will be used to damage their bodies. Of course, they are hoping that the end result will help more than it will harm... but is accepting the harm wrong?
That's a different kind of harm... It's more like potential harm or risk... Humanity doesn't stay in plastic bubbles because things *might* be harmful.
But when you asked me to prove specifically that something is visibly harmful, you didn't communicate any of these details that might affect that. Also, do you look both ways before crossing the street? Do you reduce your speed when driving on icy roads? Do you fasten your safety belt? You probably already do things to protect yourself against potential harm.
I don't see a potential harm in letting homosexuals marry...
I don't see a harm in leaving the marriage laws alone... How can you be certain you are seeing the greater harm?
Don't shift the burden of proof to me... You said you had a specific example...
True enough. Jesus Christ is the example.
What? What does that even mean?
Jesus Christ suffered because of the sins of all individuals. In other words, every thought, word, and deed that was wrong that ever was or ever will be done exacted a physical harmful toll on Jesus Christ. The pressure was so intense that blood squeezed through his skin. (Luke 22:44) I would say that Jesus is uniquely qualified to be able to tell us what is and isn't sinful because he suffered for all sins.
Yes, well, I don't believe in Jesus... Prove to me in some other way that homosexuality is bad.
You believe that mankind is the result of evolutionary processes?
Yes. I don't believe in creationism; We evolved.
Fine then. So you're saying that the processes whereby mankind has become the dominant species on the planet are mutations and natural selection?
That's right.
So is homosexuality a natural mutation?
I believe it's natural. I think that Christians only call it bad because they are clinging to their traditions about Jesus, when there is no evidence that Jesus was divine.
The divinity of Christ is a separate conversation, so for the sake of our conversation, let's pretend that you're right about the origins of humanity. Let's pretend that humans are an advanced animal that is more fit to survive than other animals. How can homosexuality be a natural positive force if it drives individuals toward behavior that will prevent them from passing on their genetic code to future generations?
I... well...
So if it doesn't contribute to the fitness of an organism, the mutation must be called a disorder.
I never thought of it like that...
And if it is a disorder, than it would be in the best interest of our species to call it and treat it as such... right?
But what if it's nature's way of controlling the human population because we are abusing the earth?
So you're saying that homosexuals have been selected by nature to be removed from the gene pool? You're saying that nature has declared them unfit to pass on their genetics?
When you say it like that it sounds kinda bad...
Ultimately, homosexuality is either wrong on religious grounds, or it is a disorder on evolutionary grounds. Am I missing any options?
Yes, you're a bully and Jesus said not to judge others.
You're saying I'm a hypocrite because I am saying other people are sinful? I will concede that point. Only Jesus Christ was sinless. That doesn't mean that I'm wrong though, and it certainly doesn't mean that I need to accept sinful behavior for the sake of consistency. It does mean that I should try and be less hypocritical myself by repenting of my sins.
Yeah, so take that bully! You're a judgmental person because you think homosexuality is bad! Also, judgmental people will go to hell!
You don't see any irony or hypocrisy in what you're saying?
I see your point. I will now rethink how I approach Christians who object to homosexuality.
Ok, so I've never heard anyone change their position, and I doubt a blog post by an obscure and abrasive guy is going to actually make anyone rethink their position or approach. One way or the other, it is becoming more important for Christians to understand their own beliefs. Anyone that truthfully wishes to follow Jesus should be a bit more comprehensive in their quest than a few bible references from memes or clever sayings from protest banners. Religion is not something to throw out when it challenges your views... religion should be the defining belief system that guides and governs all aspects of one's life. Find out for yourself using all of your resources what God thinks... because God is never wrong.
Monday, October 8, 2012
The Ethical Dilemmas of Godlessness
I recently saw an argument presented by a group of self-proclaimed atheists indicating persuading citizens to decry the practices of some political representatives to argue about the laws of God, and that they should instead embrace "reason."
The effort to separate God from good is not a new effort. Evaluating ethics by asking whether something is good because God commands it, or was it already good with its goodness providing the reason for God's command is a frequent technique used to promote the idea that it is possible to be good without believing in God.
Atheist or agnostic persons can do good. Some individuals in these categories would even argue that atheistic moral philosophy is superior to religious philosophy because it can be questioned and examined more openly, whereas, a religious individual cannot or should not question God.
It is also easy to look at violent historic conflicts between subscribers of differing religious philosophies and conclude that these systems of ethics proved to be unethical entirely. In modern times, though witchcraft is not exactly mainstream, the Salem witch trials famously demonstrated how even well-meaning religious individuals may be mislead by faith-based moral judgement. Refuge from violence between Catholics and Protestants or Protestants and other Protestants represented the cause of many individuals that colonized the American continent.
Unfortunately, taking God out of ethical questions does not resolve them. Removing religion does not expose a universal law for making moral choices. Those that argue for reason proceed to argue about the conclusions derived from their use of reason.
There have been many attempts to create universal and general systems for making moral choices. A common rule that is found in many religions is the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This rule, or derivations of it, exist in a large number of religions. Christ himself taught "therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." (Matthew 7:12)
The problem with trusting only in the law has been highlighted by several philosophers. One weakness is the inconsistency of desires between individuals. If one individual enjoys a particular act, and another person finds the act unpleasant, then an unpleasant act can be forced on one is moral by the Golden Rule. Inversely, the pleasant act withheld from the other is moral by the same rule. This is similar to the generalization philosophy. This philosophy takes an act and then hypothetically asks if all individuals were able to do the act to all persons, including the person considering the act, and then assesses if the result would be desirable. The problem is that there is never a unanimous agreement on what is desirable.
Another weakness in the Golden Rule can be found in administering justice. For example, imagine a criminal duly convicted of crime is sentenced to imprisonment. The criminal then appeals to the judge using the Golden Rule asking if he would want someone else to imprison him. If there are exceptions to the Golden Rule, such as the punishment of criminals who have violated it, by what rule are punishments determined to be moral or immoral?
Other individuals base their actions on happiness. They try and do things that generate happiness. Another way of stating this philosophy is that there is no reason for life except the purpose we give it.
The flaw with this philosophy is the same flaw that atheists find in religion. "Happiness" is not a measurable or representative of empirical evidence. Consider the happiness that a middle-class individual might feel from obtaining one hundred dollars. Consider the unhappiness of a wealthy individual that has millions of dollars when they lose one hundred dollars. In theory, the happiness of the individual that obtains the money would be greater than the unhappiness of the wealthy individual, therefore, stealing is a moral decision in this scenario.
More complicated ethical situations arise when society is forced to "measure" happiness from individuals that make choices that are commonly viewed as immoral. What if the amount of happiness that a serial killer gets from murdering someone exceeds the unhappiness of the victim and their family... does the choice become moral? Has any attempt been made to measure the happiness of serial killers or child molesters or other violent criminals? If we examine the levels of dopamine released during particular acts, does that decide what is right and wrong?
In the end, there is only one philosophy that provides moral guidance without God: cultural relativism. The idea that society decides what is right and wrong to suit its needs and provide for the general welfare of its members cannot be attacked by individual examples, because a society could always redefine right and wrong. The flaw in this philosophy is the lack of consistency. For example, in the 1700s and early 1800s, slavery was an acceptable practice in society. Because the culture embraced it, according to cultural relativism, it was moral behavior. Only after slavery was abolished did the practice become immoral for honest subscribers of this philosophy.
Ultimately, while saying that God follows a law that determines what is good or moral may appear to allow those that reject God to be moral, it does not reveal the law. People still argue about a variety of practices as to whether they are good or evil.
The advantage of having an all-knowing God that identifies what is right and what is wrong should be clear. "God says so" suddenly becomes a valid reason. With a law that no philosopher has ever been able to define guiding right and wrong, pursuing the will of a perfect being that is able to define it makes sense. Even if the will of God is bound by law, understanding the law requires access to God.
The emphasis of many atheists with whom I have spoken is rarely on moral philosophy however. In my experience, preference is given to scientific evidence that highlights evolution and an expanding universe. Ideas presented in the Bible that point to a seven-day creation, or a planet-wide flood that destroyed all land-based animal life that was not preserved in a single ark with Noah seem particularly vulnerable to those that only embrace secular guidance.
Viewing mankind as no more than an advanced form of animal life makes sense in a biology class, but has serious and frequently under-examined ethical repercussions. Survival of the fittest is the only real guide in the natural world. Anything that increases fitness or even decreases the fitness of competitors is desirable without ethical consideration. In this train of thought, right and wrong are not as relevant as getting caught. A person that murders another, but is not detected or not convicted has not acted immorally in the survival of the fittest mindset. If there is no life after this where justice will be administered to the sinful, there is no real reason to avoid practices that are considered sinful, particularly if some form of personal fitness or satisfaction is obtained from these practices.
Embracing God means embracing a universal right and wrong. It is an expression of confidence that choices in this life have consequences in the next life. It gives purpose to concepts that everyone deep in their hearts know to be truly valuable such as benevolence, virtue, honesty, loyalty, and mercy. It gives reason to avoid vices such as pride, envy, wrath, lust, sloth, greed, or gluttony, as these sins may have permanent negative consequences.
More than just defining it, God represents the ability to become good. In the end, there is no person, entity, force, or philosophy that has the power to make bad men good and good men better like God.
While there are those that have done awful things in the name of religion or serving God, I believe that the quest to find the truth about God will in the end lead men to the same place. Ultimately, everyone will have an opportunity to find that strait and narrow path that leads to God, and they will see that choices made in this life have consequences that extend into the next. Good and evil are not abstract concepts, they are universal and general. Separating God from goodness is not necessary since in the end good will triumph over evil because of God.
The effort to separate God from good is not a new effort. Evaluating ethics by asking whether something is good because God commands it, or was it already good with its goodness providing the reason for God's command is a frequent technique used to promote the idea that it is possible to be good without believing in God.
Atheist or agnostic persons can do good. Some individuals in these categories would even argue that atheistic moral philosophy is superior to religious philosophy because it can be questioned and examined more openly, whereas, a religious individual cannot or should not question God.
It is also easy to look at violent historic conflicts between subscribers of differing religious philosophies and conclude that these systems of ethics proved to be unethical entirely. In modern times, though witchcraft is not exactly mainstream, the Salem witch trials famously demonstrated how even well-meaning religious individuals may be mislead by faith-based moral judgement. Refuge from violence between Catholics and Protestants or Protestants and other Protestants represented the cause of many individuals that colonized the American continent.
Unfortunately, taking God out of ethical questions does not resolve them. Removing religion does not expose a universal law for making moral choices. Those that argue for reason proceed to argue about the conclusions derived from their use of reason.
There have been many attempts to create universal and general systems for making moral choices. A common rule that is found in many religions is the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This rule, or derivations of it, exist in a large number of religions. Christ himself taught "therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." (Matthew 7:12)
The problem with trusting only in the law has been highlighted by several philosophers. One weakness is the inconsistency of desires between individuals. If one individual enjoys a particular act, and another person finds the act unpleasant, then an unpleasant act can be forced on one is moral by the Golden Rule. Inversely, the pleasant act withheld from the other is moral by the same rule. This is similar to the generalization philosophy. This philosophy takes an act and then hypothetically asks if all individuals were able to do the act to all persons, including the person considering the act, and then assesses if the result would be desirable. The problem is that there is never a unanimous agreement on what is desirable.
Another weakness in the Golden Rule can be found in administering justice. For example, imagine a criminal duly convicted of crime is sentenced to imprisonment. The criminal then appeals to the judge using the Golden Rule asking if he would want someone else to imprison him. If there are exceptions to the Golden Rule, such as the punishment of criminals who have violated it, by what rule are punishments determined to be moral or immoral?
Other individuals base their actions on happiness. They try and do things that generate happiness. Another way of stating this philosophy is that there is no reason for life except the purpose we give it.
The flaw with this philosophy is the same flaw that atheists find in religion. "Happiness" is not a measurable or representative of empirical evidence. Consider the happiness that a middle-class individual might feel from obtaining one hundred dollars. Consider the unhappiness of a wealthy individual that has millions of dollars when they lose one hundred dollars. In theory, the happiness of the individual that obtains the money would be greater than the unhappiness of the wealthy individual, therefore, stealing is a moral decision in this scenario.
More complicated ethical situations arise when society is forced to "measure" happiness from individuals that make choices that are commonly viewed as immoral. What if the amount of happiness that a serial killer gets from murdering someone exceeds the unhappiness of the victim and their family... does the choice become moral? Has any attempt been made to measure the happiness of serial killers or child molesters or other violent criminals? If we examine the levels of dopamine released during particular acts, does that decide what is right and wrong?
In the end, there is only one philosophy that provides moral guidance without God: cultural relativism. The idea that society decides what is right and wrong to suit its needs and provide for the general welfare of its members cannot be attacked by individual examples, because a society could always redefine right and wrong. The flaw in this philosophy is the lack of consistency. For example, in the 1700s and early 1800s, slavery was an acceptable practice in society. Because the culture embraced it, according to cultural relativism, it was moral behavior. Only after slavery was abolished did the practice become immoral for honest subscribers of this philosophy.
Ultimately, while saying that God follows a law that determines what is good or moral may appear to allow those that reject God to be moral, it does not reveal the law. People still argue about a variety of practices as to whether they are good or evil.
The advantage of having an all-knowing God that identifies what is right and what is wrong should be clear. "God says so" suddenly becomes a valid reason. With a law that no philosopher has ever been able to define guiding right and wrong, pursuing the will of a perfect being that is able to define it makes sense. Even if the will of God is bound by law, understanding the law requires access to God.
The emphasis of many atheists with whom I have spoken is rarely on moral philosophy however. In my experience, preference is given to scientific evidence that highlights evolution and an expanding universe. Ideas presented in the Bible that point to a seven-day creation, or a planet-wide flood that destroyed all land-based animal life that was not preserved in a single ark with Noah seem particularly vulnerable to those that only embrace secular guidance.
Viewing mankind as no more than an advanced form of animal life makes sense in a biology class, but has serious and frequently under-examined ethical repercussions. Survival of the fittest is the only real guide in the natural world. Anything that increases fitness or even decreases the fitness of competitors is desirable without ethical consideration. In this train of thought, right and wrong are not as relevant as getting caught. A person that murders another, but is not detected or not convicted has not acted immorally in the survival of the fittest mindset. If there is no life after this where justice will be administered to the sinful, there is no real reason to avoid practices that are considered sinful, particularly if some form of personal fitness or satisfaction is obtained from these practices.
Embracing God means embracing a universal right and wrong. It is an expression of confidence that choices in this life have consequences in the next life. It gives purpose to concepts that everyone deep in their hearts know to be truly valuable such as benevolence, virtue, honesty, loyalty, and mercy. It gives reason to avoid vices such as pride, envy, wrath, lust, sloth, greed, or gluttony, as these sins may have permanent negative consequences.
More than just defining it, God represents the ability to become good. In the end, there is no person, entity, force, or philosophy that has the power to make bad men good and good men better like God.
While there are those that have done awful things in the name of religion or serving God, I believe that the quest to find the truth about God will in the end lead men to the same place. Ultimately, everyone will have an opportunity to find that strait and narrow path that leads to God, and they will see that choices made in this life have consequences that extend into the next. Good and evil are not abstract concepts, they are universal and general. Separating God from goodness is not necessary since in the end good will triumph over evil because of God.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
On the Origin of Species by Means of Creationsism
I remember the first time I thumbed through my sixth grade history textbook in elementary school. We had just adopted a new textbook series. For my grade level, ancient civilization was the focus. I started in the middle of the book and worked backwards, looking at artistic depictions of Roman soldiers, Greek phalanxes, Persian chariots, the hanging gardens of Babylon, and cuneiform tablets. As I approached the front of the book, I realized that there was more material prior to the Egyptians and the first Mesopotamian cities. There was a section that identified Cro-Magnons, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, and other forms of what the text referred to as "proto-humans."
Being a nerd, I had read enough to know that I was about to get my first experience in the public education system with the theory of evolution. Being a young member of my church, I viewed the presence of this content as offensive. I had been taught clearly that God had created man. As we began going through the material, I became increasingly uncomfortable, however, I remained silent with respect to my feelings on the subject. One day, one of my classmates pointed aloud before the class that the depictions of these "proto-humans" resembled monkeys. I did not shout, but I certainly did not politely raise my hand when I began saying that I was not a monkey, my father was not a monkey, and his father was also not a monkey. The class became silent. Finally the teacher gave a diplomatic statement regarding required curriculum, scientific evidence, and if I recall correctly that the subject had no bearing on what we may have learned in Sunday school.
Since then, I have learned much more with respect to both the theory of evolution and my church's belief in the creation.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints does not have a firm point on how the world was created. The church does maintain firm doctrinal stances on why it was created, and also that God is who created it.
Many people within the church have found this fact sufficient to reconcile the modern theory of evolution with their belief in God. After all, God could have caused the Big Bang ages ago to set everything into motion. He could have controlled all of the forces that led to the climate and elements present such that small creatures could adapt, survive, and emerge from the sea to evolve into a variety of species, one of which became the race of men.
It probably helps support this concept that the records in Genesis seem incomplete. There is very little information in the Bible about society after the fall of Adam. The events surrounding the flood make it easy for people to come to the conclusion that these are not literal stories, but symbolic representations of events for which we do not have all the details. Evolution provides a scientifically accepted, evidence-based context for how life on this world came to be.
In a conversation with one such individual, I recall them attempting to persuade me to accept evolution. They pointed out the development of children in the womb as proof that one type of living cell could become an entire organism in a short time under the right circumstances.
Another individual that had no belief in God defined evolution simply as "change." This is obviously an over simplification, otherwise I would be an expert on the subject from my experience "evolving" diapers for my two young boys.
In spite of its acceptance among so many people, few people really understand what evolution is. At the risk of producing a straw man argument, I wish to enumerate the major points of evolution.
1. Evolution is not manifest in acquired characteristics. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck is perhaps best remembered for promoting this theory. An example of this is that a parent that works out frequently and obtains greater muscle mass will not necessarily produce offspring that also have great muscle mass.
2. Evolution is manifest by changes in allele frequency by means of natural selection. In other words, those that have genetic characteristics that allow them to more successfully reproduce, or survive to reproduce will pass these genetic characteristics to their descendants. A tortoise that genetically has a longer neck and is able to eat higher food is less likely to starve, for example, and more likely to pass on its longer neck to subsequent generations. The result is the species evolves to have longer necks.
3. Evolution implies common ancestry. The idea that all species were once one and through various means life diversified and grew complex is central to the theory. In order to have enough generations to account for these changes, the time frame of this theory necessarily takes millions and millions of years.
4. Evolution requires assumptions. If life, death, and reproduction have not always functioned the way they currently are observed, changes in allele frequencies are impossible.
5. The concept of "species" is more complicated than many people believe. A common understanding of a species is a group of organisms that are still able to reproduce. Dogs for example are bred using unnatural selection to produce certain characteristics such as size (chihuahuas), strength (pit bulls), and speed (greyhounds), but dogs are still able to breed with one another and produce fertile offspring. The combination of a horse and donkey produces the sterile mule, thus horses and donkeys are considered different species. This definition obviously cannot apply to organisms that reproduce asexually.
Having presented these points, let me also present points of belief for creationism. Let me do so with the understanding that this represents my belief, and not necessarily those of anyone else.
1. Creationism does not forbid adaptations that come by means of changes in allele frequency. The Galapagos tortoises do not rule out creationism since creationism is a view on the past.
2. Creationism does not have to be limited to six 24-hour periods. It is also possible that it does represent six 24-hour periods. There is not a fixed definition for "day" in the scriptures.
3. Creationism rejects common ancestry of all species, but accepts common ancestry for humanity. Creationism accepts a literal man named Adam and his wife Eve as the parents of mankind. Adam and Eve are not figurative concepts for groups of advanced primates, they are actual individuals that were created with special attention and using different methods than those used for the creation of other plants and animals.
4. Creationism requires assumptions. While this is pointed out by individuals that enjoy antagonizing creationists, there is no point in denying it. Creationism assumes that life, death, and reproduction have not always functioned the way they are currently observed. Conditions prior to the fall of Adam, and even prior to the flood were not the same as conditions generally observed presently.
5. Creationism implies purposes for various species. While there exist evolutionists that believe in intelligent design and embrace the concept that man has a different purpose than other types of organisms, the implication is required in the creationist paradigm. Man is not simply an animal. God commanded man to "...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." (Genesis 1:28)
In the end, both creationism and evolution rely on assumptions about times that were very different than what we see now. A person that does not accept evolution is not guilty of forcing Galileo to recant. We simply accept different assumptions.
I believe that God created the world and placed life upon it. There was a time where life, death, and birth did not exist as we now know them. When Adam transgressed, everything changed. Mankind was sent to a place where their observational abilities were severely limited. We only detect a narrow range of electromagnetic radiation as visible light. We hear a narrow range of frequencies. We must be very close to smell, touch, or taste items. While science has brought miraculous new advancements that allow us to see things we have never before seen, we are still unable to detect theoretical particles that are very small, or comprehend distant astronomical phenomena that are very large. Certainly our observation is limited by time, and while we may be able to interpolate what conditions may have been like in prehistoric times, or predict what may appear in the future, confirmation is typically only available for time periods much closer to the present.
As limited as mankind is, God has promised that through his son Jesus Christ, the curses and limits under which we find ourselves can be removed. There is a great potential in each man and woman that can be realized by following Jesus. He even has power to redeem men after they die... and as difficult as the world may become, when he comes again, he will save us all.
Is it so hard to believe that "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"?
Being a nerd, I had read enough to know that I was about to get my first experience in the public education system with the theory of evolution. Being a young member of my church, I viewed the presence of this content as offensive. I had been taught clearly that God had created man. As we began going through the material, I became increasingly uncomfortable, however, I remained silent with respect to my feelings on the subject. One day, one of my classmates pointed aloud before the class that the depictions of these "proto-humans" resembled monkeys. I did not shout, but I certainly did not politely raise my hand when I began saying that I was not a monkey, my father was not a monkey, and his father was also not a monkey. The class became silent. Finally the teacher gave a diplomatic statement regarding required curriculum, scientific evidence, and if I recall correctly that the subject had no bearing on what we may have learned in Sunday school.
Since then, I have learned much more with respect to both the theory of evolution and my church's belief in the creation.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints does not have a firm point on how the world was created. The church does maintain firm doctrinal stances on why it was created, and also that God is who created it.
Many people within the church have found this fact sufficient to reconcile the modern theory of evolution with their belief in God. After all, God could have caused the Big Bang ages ago to set everything into motion. He could have controlled all of the forces that led to the climate and elements present such that small creatures could adapt, survive, and emerge from the sea to evolve into a variety of species, one of which became the race of men.
It probably helps support this concept that the records in Genesis seem incomplete. There is very little information in the Bible about society after the fall of Adam. The events surrounding the flood make it easy for people to come to the conclusion that these are not literal stories, but symbolic representations of events for which we do not have all the details. Evolution provides a scientifically accepted, evidence-based context for how life on this world came to be.
In a conversation with one such individual, I recall them attempting to persuade me to accept evolution. They pointed out the development of children in the womb as proof that one type of living cell could become an entire organism in a short time under the right circumstances.
Another individual that had no belief in God defined evolution simply as "change." This is obviously an over simplification, otherwise I would be an expert on the subject from my experience "evolving" diapers for my two young boys.
In spite of its acceptance among so many people, few people really understand what evolution is. At the risk of producing a straw man argument, I wish to enumerate the major points of evolution.
1. Evolution is not manifest in acquired characteristics. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck is perhaps best remembered for promoting this theory. An example of this is that a parent that works out frequently and obtains greater muscle mass will not necessarily produce offspring that also have great muscle mass.
2. Evolution is manifest by changes in allele frequency by means of natural selection. In other words, those that have genetic characteristics that allow them to more successfully reproduce, or survive to reproduce will pass these genetic characteristics to their descendants. A tortoise that genetically has a longer neck and is able to eat higher food is less likely to starve, for example, and more likely to pass on its longer neck to subsequent generations. The result is the species evolves to have longer necks.
3. Evolution implies common ancestry. The idea that all species were once one and through various means life diversified and grew complex is central to the theory. In order to have enough generations to account for these changes, the time frame of this theory necessarily takes millions and millions of years.
4. Evolution requires assumptions. If life, death, and reproduction have not always functioned the way they currently are observed, changes in allele frequencies are impossible.
5. The concept of "species" is more complicated than many people believe. A common understanding of a species is a group of organisms that are still able to reproduce. Dogs for example are bred using unnatural selection to produce certain characteristics such as size (chihuahuas), strength (pit bulls), and speed (greyhounds), but dogs are still able to breed with one another and produce fertile offspring. The combination of a horse and donkey produces the sterile mule, thus horses and donkeys are considered different species. This definition obviously cannot apply to organisms that reproduce asexually.
Having presented these points, let me also present points of belief for creationism. Let me do so with the understanding that this represents my belief, and not necessarily those of anyone else.
1. Creationism does not forbid adaptations that come by means of changes in allele frequency. The Galapagos tortoises do not rule out creationism since creationism is a view on the past.
2. Creationism does not have to be limited to six 24-hour periods. It is also possible that it does represent six 24-hour periods. There is not a fixed definition for "day" in the scriptures.
3. Creationism rejects common ancestry of all species, but accepts common ancestry for humanity. Creationism accepts a literal man named Adam and his wife Eve as the parents of mankind. Adam and Eve are not figurative concepts for groups of advanced primates, they are actual individuals that were created with special attention and using different methods than those used for the creation of other plants and animals.
4. Creationism requires assumptions. While this is pointed out by individuals that enjoy antagonizing creationists, there is no point in denying it. Creationism assumes that life, death, and reproduction have not always functioned the way they are currently observed. Conditions prior to the fall of Adam, and even prior to the flood were not the same as conditions generally observed presently.
5. Creationism implies purposes for various species. While there exist evolutionists that believe in intelligent design and embrace the concept that man has a different purpose than other types of organisms, the implication is required in the creationist paradigm. Man is not simply an animal. God commanded man to "...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." (Genesis 1:28)
In the end, both creationism and evolution rely on assumptions about times that were very different than what we see now. A person that does not accept evolution is not guilty of forcing Galileo to recant. We simply accept different assumptions.
I believe that God created the world and placed life upon it. There was a time where life, death, and birth did not exist as we now know them. When Adam transgressed, everything changed. Mankind was sent to a place where their observational abilities were severely limited. We only detect a narrow range of electromagnetic radiation as visible light. We hear a narrow range of frequencies. We must be very close to smell, touch, or taste items. While science has brought miraculous new advancements that allow us to see things we have never before seen, we are still unable to detect theoretical particles that are very small, or comprehend distant astronomical phenomena that are very large. Certainly our observation is limited by time, and while we may be able to interpolate what conditions may have been like in prehistoric times, or predict what may appear in the future, confirmation is typically only available for time periods much closer to the present.
As limited as mankind is, God has promised that through his son Jesus Christ, the curses and limits under which we find ourselves can be removed. There is a great potential in each man and woman that can be realized by following Jesus. He even has power to redeem men after they die... and as difficult as the world may become, when he comes again, he will save us all.
Is it so hard to believe that "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)