Sorry, Charlie
The Church of England today issued an apology to Charles Darwin, in a bizarre posthumous statement that one church official likened to Pope John Paul II’s apology to Galileo for his 1633 trial by the Vatican. In an essay by Rev. Malcolm Brown, the church’s director of mission and public affairs, the Church of England said it was sorry for its vilification of Darwin’s evolutionary theories:
“The trouble with homo sapiens is that we’re only human. People, and institutions, make mistakes and Christian people and Churches are no exception. When a big new idea emerges that changes the way people look at the world, it’s easy to feel that every old idea, every certainty, is under attack and then to do battle against the new insights.”
He concludes:
“Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practice the old virtues of ‘faith seeking understanding’ and hope that makes some amends.”
Andrew Darwin, a great-great grandson of the author of evolutionary theory called the apology “pointless” in a Daily Mail article. “Why bother?” he said. “When an apology is made after 200 years, it’s not so much to right a wrong, but to make the person or organisation making the apology feel better.”
Ann Widdecomb, a former Conservative minister who left the Church of England to become a Roman Catholic, said the apology made the church look “ridiculous.” “It’s absolutely ludicrous,” she said. “Why don’t we have the Italians apologizing for Pontius Pilate?”
Charles Darwin is buried at Westminster Abbey, which a great-grandson, Horace Barlow, called “an apology of sorts.”




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top116 Comments to “Sorry, Charlie”
Just another one in a long line of apologies from religion to people and things that threatened their very foundation. Just more of the same. Let’s face it, the bible is so wrong on oh so many things. It was wrong then, it is wrong now. This bible you revere and base you life upon is just a sick errant piece of the best fiction ever written by man. I so love it.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, Scott, the underlying problem is that the Church of England agrees with you.
Report comment to moderator
Wusses! Everybody knows that a god created man instantly. A litte packet of this, a packet of that, a little water and voila. We don’t need no stinkin’ monkeys.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, joy! Another evolution vs. religion thread. Guaranteed to foment acrimony.
Sorry about that on your first day, Emily, but this topic brings out the the flamers and the condescention of the science minds toward the backards country bumpkins who believe in the Bible. And the flames fly in both directions.
It’s always a pot stirer.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia is slowly catching on…
Report comment to moderator
This is a much-improved version of “Christian apologetics” – one where Christians actually apologize rather than simply defend their mistakes.
Report comment to moderator
#4 And why shouldn’t Emily stir the pot???
Report comment to moderator
Oh, I don’t know, Spin – so we can flog this already dead horse yet again?
Report comment to moderator
Both Darwinists and creationists are wrong. They’re each half right, though. Read Zechariah Sitchin to understand where we came from.
Report comment to moderator
It seems pointless.
If Darwin (or the modern conception of what Darwin represents) was right, then he himself was nothing but a sort of absurd shaved monkey. And there is no need to apologize to a monkey, especially a long-dead monkey.
Report comment to moderator
Right. And monkeys very clearly according to the bible go to hell as they are the spawn of the nephilim. So I think we can dispense with the monkey business.
Report comment to moderator
The Texas Freedom Network is a leftwing tree-hugger hootenanny outfight based in the People’s Republic of Austin, Texas. They are alarmed at all the sinister machinations underway to get creationism taught in our publik skool sistum.
I’m hoping someone somewhere will say if you can’t beat’em join’em and come up with a curricula for teaching evolution in the liberal churches; you know the same churches which bemoan even mentioning the POSSIBIILITY of intelligent design in schools.
If gummint skools wanna teach creation than I say let the alarmist liberal churches pick up the fallen baton and teach evolution. Sounds fair, no?
Seriously, anyone recommend any curriculum for teaching evolution which the liberal theologians could embrace for their like-minded congregations???
Report comment to moderator
Emily is Joel your Dad? Mindy your Mom? Did you ever think of writing under a pseudonym? Then again, neither Hank Williams Jr or Julian Lennon ran away from their last name and its associated privileges.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not an expert on Darwin but we should at least try to accurately understand his theory: It doesn’t teach men evolved from apes, but that men and apes had a common ancestor.
I believe this. But I suppose it would be accurate to say that mankind are superevolved “monkeys.” I don’t have a problem with that. Though, if a single cell could, over billions of years, evolve into human beings, it seems to me, that the first spark of life was a miraculous, thing, loaded with potential.
Darwinisn does not, as it does with Dawkins, make me an intellectually satisfied atheist. Darwinism is not inherhently atheistic.
Report comment to moderator
Emily is Joel your Dad? Mindy your Mom? Did you ever think of writing under a pseudonym?
How about Jake Belz?
Or maybe Sarah Belz?
If those don’t work for you, Emily, Outkast probably has some other good suggestions.
Report comment to moderator
Klasko – Oh, I don’t know, Spin – so we can flog this already dead horse yet again?
This horse is very much alive! It’s ALIVE!
Report comment to moderator
Seriously, anyone recommend any curriculum for teaching evolution which the liberal theologians could embrace for their like-minded congregations???
See http://thankgodforevolution.com/
Report comment to moderator
It amazes me that it is still alive as much and as often as we flog it here on WMB.
Report comment to moderator
18 – Me too, actually …
Report comment to moderator
The most pernicious belief is not that evolution is true, nor is is that evolution is false.
The most pernicious belief is that if evolution is true, Christianity must be false.
It is that belief that leads some Christians to make themselves look foolish defending a literal interpretation of Genesis Creation and oppose sound science, when such a stance is completely unnecessary.
Report comment to moderator
Since several of you are so interested in Emily’s family tree, let me clarify it for you: She is the daughter of WORLD’s editor, Mindy Belz, and the niece of WORLD’s founder, Joel Belz.
Report comment to moderator
It is that belief that leads some Christians to make themselves look foolish defending a literal interpretation of Genesis Creation and oppose sound science, when such a stance is completely unnecessary Interesting point SteveG. Upon what biblical reference might we be able to conclude, infer or otherwise make up, that the translation shouldn’t be literal?
Report comment to moderator
Scott: A literal reading of Genesis is at odds with all observed fact. Ergo, either it must be taken in a more metaphorical way, or it can’t be true at all.
Too many Christians leave out the middle step and say either it must be true in literal form, or else it can’t be true, and since they refuse to believe it can’t be true, they are stuck arguing for a literalism that is not supportable by fact.
I understand the argument, which I’m sure we’ll hear here soon enough, that taking Genesis metaphorically requires a retooling of all the theology that follows from Genesis. I agree … it does.
However, the sensible response to that fact is to do the retooling (or leave Christianity behind) rather than retreat to untenable Biblical literalism.
Report comment to moderator
And we’re off … good call Emily!
But I’m torn – Palin, evolution, Palin, Evolution …. sigh …. Good thing I don’t have to completely separate these:
“The Republican Party of Alaska platform says, in its section on education: ‘We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory.’”
I think the Alaskan GOP owes Charlie an apology …
Report comment to moderator
Upon what biblical reference might we be able to conclude, infer or otherwise make up, that the translation shouldn’t be literal?
Well, the part about snakes walking upright and conversing with humans before God cursed them, for one.
That’s sort of a huge red flag screaming DO NOT TAKE THIS LITERALLY.
Report comment to moderator
“Well, the part about snakes walking upright and conversing with humans before God cursed them, for one.”
Where does it say “walking upright’?
Satan’s best and first used trick was to “retool” what God has said.
Report comment to moderator
Well, part of God’s curse on the serpent was making him crawl upon the ground.
But snakes didn’t walk “upright” – maybe they walked hunched over like apes before the fall.
Or are you contending they flew like birds before the fall?
Report comment to moderator
But maybe snakes didn’t walk “upright” – maybe they walked hunched over like apes before the fall.
Report comment to moderator
Darwinism is not inherhently atheistic.
Darwinism states that all of life can be explained by randomly-acting natural causes, which clearly implies that there is no need for the Creator God.
Report comment to moderator
Steve: What does “sound science” teach us about where we came from?
Report comment to moderator
And instead of getting hung up on their ambulatory methods, please explain the part about snakes conversing with humans before the fall being literal.
Report comment to moderator
Except science doesn’t support evolution. I am currently reading “The Case For a Creator” and it’s fascinating. Science doesn’t argue with the existence of a Creator – it points toward a Creator. This “science” that you seem to so revere is flawed to the point of silliness. The “facts” laid out in today’s textbooks have been proven false. Some have been deliberatly manipulated to “prove” their case. That, my friends, is appalling. We are teaching our children outdated “facts” and “science” instead of letting them explore the world to come to their own conclusions. It’s not the Creationists that fear scrutiny. It’s the evolutionists who fear it. Teach evolution, I don’t care. But also teach the counterpoint – Creation. Evolution will fall flat everytime – that’s what they are afraid of. Look into the science. If you wish to actually debate the subject, then look into the science. It doesn’t hold water.
Report comment to moderator
#23, the sensible response to that fact is to do the retooling (or leave Christianity behind) rather than retreat to untenable Biblical literalism… you mean as I stated earlier, make it up? How will there ever be order? How will there ever be authority? How will there ever be morality?
Report comment to moderator
Darwinism states that all of life can be explained by randomly-acting natural causes, which clearly implies that there is no need for the Creator God.
non sequitur here — where did the “natural causes” come from?
Report comment to moderator
#32 Designergirl – is this Lee Strobel’s re-vamping of Jonathan Wells?
Please pick the ONE anti-evolution point you read that you deem most compelling and summarize it here for critique. (we can always go on to others).
BTW, you may find many of Strobel’s criticisms answered here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/iconshe.html
Report comment to moderator
Rev Brown can lick Darwin’s boots all he wants, that’s his business. He adds no credibility to Darwin’s theory by doing so. He merely exposes the shallow weakness of his personal faith.
However, when he speaks for the Church of England he damages the church and leads many astray. He will be held accountable for that. The sad part is that it is unnecessary. As #32 mentions above, there are many excellent sources today that expose the multitudinous flaws of Darwin’s theory. Had Rev Brown done his homework, he wouldn’t have become a sycophant to the swarm of toads that continue to hop along behind Darwin’s fraud.
Report comment to moderator
“She is the daughter of WORLD’s editor, Mindy Belz, and the niece of WORLD’s founder, Joel Belz.”
I do hope that Emily has evolved.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, it is Lee Strobel’s book. I am not done reading it, so I can’t speak for the entire book. But, the Cambrian explosion is very interesting. Why do we find all kinds of animals in one place, if they would have needed to evolve at all different times? They wouldn’t all be in the same place at the same time. I also found the faking of evidence very telling. Such as the DNA that was supposedly linking dinosaurs and birds – except the DNA was EXACTLY that of a turkey’s. So – it was a turkey, not a missing link. Or, how about the drawings of embryos shown to be so alike at their earliest stages – except that the drawings are completely NOT what those animals look like in their earliest stages. And it is still taught in our schools as fact. The author does interview Wells in his book, but also interviews several others. Very interesting.
Report comment to moderator
In re: 27
Not contending they flew, merely requested where it said that the serpent “walked” much less “upright”. The curse is directed at THE serpent. Its specific. Its directed at one entity. Just because God may have a symbolic meaning in his curse against the serpent, it doesnt mean that God did not literally say it.
“And instead of getting hung up on their ambulatory methods, please explain the part about snakes conversing with humans before the fall being literal.”
It doesnt say snakes, it says THE serpent. Why could the serpent talk? Because he was Satan.
Report comment to moderator
Exactly, just as SteveG said. The parts you like you want interpreted literally; the parts that make you look like a laughingstock you want intepreted symbolically.
Report comment to moderator
Emily for the record let me say I’m sure your journalistic contributions stand quite ably on their own merits. Your mom was the first AMERICAN MEDIA rep I ever personally met in Iraq when I was first deployed there. (Later while assigned to 1st Cav Div in Baquba at the Forward Operations Base Warhorse latte shop I met a freelancer from NR) One has to reach back all the way to Dickie Chappell to find a war correspondent more willing to go into harm’s way to bring back a story. I heard Jennifer Anniston was slated to portray Chappell in an upcoming film, by the way
Report comment to moderator
Hey Night Train, if you had just recently been created, how would you know that snakes aren’t supposed to talk? Adam and Even were so innocent, perhaps it never occured to them to think of the world (a world which they had just recently been introduced to) with hardcore facts, such as, “serpents do not talk”.
Why couldn’t have snakes had legs, Thorn? God can do whatever He darn well pleases (except sin), so maybe he really did take legs from snakes.
Once again, Mr. Martin, you repeat what my Mr. Martin often says almost to the letter. 8o
Report comment to moderator
Hey Night Train, if you had just recently been created, how would you know that snakes aren’t supposed to talk? Adam and Even were so innocent, perhaps it never occured to them to think of the world (a world which they had just recently been introduced to) with hardcore facts, such as, “serpents do not talk”.
What are you babbling about?
Report comment to moderator
OT, even though you should simply ignore the insulting locomotive, your assumption does have one small error, if I am right. (I’m just trying to help you here)
Eve may not have known that “serpents do not talk,” but since Adam named the animals and it was his job to take care of the Garden, I’m sure he knew that snakes can’t usually talk. (or at least they aren’t supposed to) But the other things you said may well be correct. For instance, if God can take a rib from a man while he’s sleeping (and the man is just fine after his “surgery” and needs no time to recover) and makes a woman from it, He can certainly change animals. So snakes could possibly have had legs, but I can’t say for sure, as I wasn’t there, and the Bible isn’t clear on that.
Report comment to moderator
But, the Cambrian explosion is very interesting. Why do we find all kinds of animals in one place, if they would have needed to evolve at all different times? They wouldn’t all be in the same place at the same time.
Does Strobel say that Cambrian fauna are all found in one place? That’s not true. There are not a lot of fossil-rich Cambrian rocks – it was 500 million years ago and most have eroded – but the key fossiliferous ones are found in China, Canada, Russia, Greenland, etc., – widely spread. Less fossiliferous Cambrian rocks still show strong trace-fossil evidence for Cambrian wormy stuff. It’s all over in the Grand Canyon Cambrian strata, for example.
Also – what do you mean by “all kinds of animals?” Most of these are just wormy things. There are no land plants/animals of ANY kind, there are no advanced vertebrates, not even fish. No flying anything, not even insects, much less birds, etc. There are no mammals at all (which is what many common folk identify exclusively as “animals”). So I ask again – what do you mean by “all kinds of animals?”
I also found the faking of evidence very telling. Such as the DNA that was supposedly linking dinosaurs and birds – except the DNA was EXACTLY that of a turkey’s. So – it was a turkey, not a missing link.
Huh? Never heard that one! Do you have a reference? The DNA and fossil linkage of dinosaurs and birds is quite strong. Strobel is, at best, selecting a controversy and omitting all the real evidence. But that’s standard procedure for creationists.
Or, how about the drawings of embryos shown to be so alike at their earliest stages – except that the drawings are completely NOT what those animals look like in their earliest stages. And it is still taught in our schools as fact. The author does interview Wells in his book, but also interviews several others. Very interesting.
Nonsense – vertebrate embryos DO look a lot alike in the early stages. Here is a link with photographs, not drawings – http://www.geocities.com/evolvedthinking/arguments.htm – you think these are really all that different? What’s even more interesting is that the same kinds of genes control embryological development in a wide range of animals. This is very strong evidence for common descent.
Wells made a big point about Lamarckian (not Darwinian) evolutionist Ernst Haeckel’s drawings, which were doctored a bit in the late 19th century to champion his idea of “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” But that idea was rejected by biology a long time ago, and nobody teaches it with the support of Haeckel’s drawings. See the following link on the topic:
http://www.natcenscied.org/icons/icon4haeckel.html
Good luck in your studies!
Report comment to moderator
Hey Night Train, if you had just recently been created, how would you know that snakes aren’t supposed to talk? Adam and Even were so innocent, perhaps it never occured to them to think of the world (a world which they had just recently been introduced to) with hardcore facts, such as, “serpents do not talk”.
In other words, the Genesis creation account isn’t a literal account, but simply the product of Adam and Eve’s limited understand of their world and how they came to be. That seems to be what you’re saying, in which case you’re agreeing with Steve and I as to whether this story is literal.
I never claimed that the reason the Bible says the snake talked is that Adam and Even didn’t know snakes weren’t supposed to talk. The reason I say the Bible teaches that the snake talked is because the Bible teaches the snake talked.
Report comment to moderator
So snakes could possibly have had legs, but I can’t say for sure, as I wasn’t there, and the Bible isn’t clear on that.
The evolutionary precursors of snakes had legs – the evidence for this consists in the vestigial leg spurs that snakes have:
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/lizards/snakes/python.php
A Cretaceous fossil snake had more developed “legs” during the time of the dinosaurs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7339508.stm
Report comment to moderator
Just a quick point for now … I notice that yet again a complete misunderstanding of the Cambrian explosion is abroad in the land. Whether Strobel is being deceptive or DesignerGirl has misunderstood, I don’t know.
Creationists often speak of this event with the apparent assumption that it documents the creation of everything. A-ha, they say, the Creation event.
It does not. As Spinoza notes, the organisms involved in this event are mostly “wormy things.” It does document a fairly rapid (in evolutionary time) divergence of species, but only invertebrate sea-dwellers.
And as explosions go, it was a long lasting one… around 85 million years.
So really, it provides no evidence against evolution. And if Stroebel says it does, he’s either lying or misinformed.
Report comment to moderator
Instead of us finding evidence AGAINST evolution, how about you presenting some evidence FOR it. It is physically impossible for something to come from nothing. Science and physics says so. Also, it is against the laws of physics for something chaotic to become something orderly. Can’t happen. In fact, it happens the opposite way. It takes MUCH more faith to believe in the religion of evolution than it does to see a Creator in nature. Much. Sometime, I can dig out the book I’m reading and quote from it, if you like. I don’t have time right now. Or, you could read it yourself and see what you think. It can’t hurt, since you obviously have an answer for everything anyway. Why not check it out?
Report comment to moderator
DesignerGilr, and everyone else, read Sitchin. It will explain everything. Evolution is wrong, and so is the Genesis account of where we came from.
Report comment to moderator
Instead of us finding evidence AGAINST evolution, how about you presenting some evidence FOR it.
Genetic, anatomical, and fossil evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly convincing. Why do you think otherwise? Have you ever taken a simple biology or evolution class? I’d recommend it.
It is physically impossible for something to come from nothing. Science and physics says so.
This has nothing to do with Darwin’s theory of evolution which says nothing of the sort.
Also, it is against the laws of physics for something chaotic to become something orderly. Can’t happen. In fact, it happens the opposite way.
The evolution of life is fueled largely by a flow of energy from the Sun. It obeys all physical or thermodynamic laws about entropy and complies with all information theory notions of order, chaos, or “information.” The claim you quote here is an old creationist lie refuted ages ago by physics. Strobel repeats it because he’s ignorant of physics in general and thermodynamics in particular.
It takes MUCH more faith to believe in the religion of evolution than it does to see a Creator in nature. Much.
It doesn’t take “faith” to believe in evolution – it just takes some education in the details to learn about it. You clearly need to do this – and learn what mainstream science says, not what megachurch pastors with no science training have to say about it.
Sometime, I can dig out the book I’m reading and quote from it, if you like. I don’t have time right now. Or, you could read it yourself and see what you think. It can’t hurt, since you obviously have an answer for everything anyway. Why not check it out?
When you say one thing from this book I haven’t heard already, I *may* be tempted to check it out! Not sure if I’ll give in, though!
Report comment to moderator
It is physically impossible for something to come from nothing. Science and physics says so. Also, it is against the laws of physics for something chaotic to become something orderly. Can’t happen. In fact, it happens the opposite way.
This has nothing to do with evolution but physics. Evolution has to do with biology. I agree that it’s plausible some kind of first cause exists outside of time/space/matter/energy that caused that framework to come into being. But I also know atheists do not argue something came out of nothing but that the universe itself is uncaused — that time/space/matter/energy always existed. The big bang doesn’t prove “nothing” existed before it, rather it’s plausible that this was just a radical transformation in an uncaused universe that always existed. My atheists friends tell me this is the MOST plausible explanation; but I think the prime mover thesis to be equally plausible.
Report comment to moderator
Sitchin – excellent! I see I have some re-thinking to do!
http://www.sitchin.com/
Report comment to moderator
Z. Sitchin…
If you are going to get into right wing crack pot cult leaders to offer an alternative to historic orthodox Christianity (which, admittedly, can get just as “crankish” at times, see WorldNetDaily) I’d suggest Roy Masters over Z. Sitchin.
http://www.fhu.com/
Report comment to moderator
I dunno Jon, I think ET visiting ancient earth and “Is our Past our Future?” (just to point out a few highlights) has a special unique charm that is pretty hard to top!
Report comment to moderator
Sitchin is right wing? What’s your source for that?
He’s a cult leader? What’s your basis for saying that?
And I know all about that con man Roy Masters, so no dice, Jon.
Report comment to moderator
p.s. 2 designergrl – I looked up Strobel’s book and I see that it is just a series of interviews with Discovery Institute Fellows. No wonder I’d heard it all before!!
Read some REAL science, GRL!
Here are 3 good ones!
http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0375424474
http://www.amazon.com/Relics-Eden-Powerful-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1591025648/
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231139624/
Report comment to moderator
Honestly, Jon…Roy Masters?
I’d listen to David Icke before I payed that guy any attention.
Report comment to moderator
Master may reject the Trinity, but he’s still preaching that the Bible is the Word of God and Has All The Answers To Life. Which is nonsense. Of course, he just happens to be the only person on earth who’s able to interpret the Bible correctly, and he’ll be happy to take your money in exchange for his brilliant biblical insights. But he’s not greedy or anything, because that’s a sin, and Roy Masters doesn’t sin. Honest. He’ll tell you all about it. Just buy one of his tapes.
Report comment to moderator
Well I don’t buy into Masters either. But since he holds the Bible to be the Word of God his teachers are closer to historic orthodox Christianity than the figure you mentioned.
I don’t buy into his teachings either; but I know he doesn’t hold he is the only one who can interpret the Bible. Rather he holds the Bible is just words on a printed page which no one will be able to understand unless you do his meditation exercise. Anyone who does his meditation exercise, Masters teaches, will be able to “see” what the Bible really means. If you don’t do his meditation exercise you’ll just get caught up with the words on the page and think you understand what they mean, when you don’t.
Maybe I should be his lawyer.
Report comment to moderator
Correction should be “his teachings are closer to historic orthodox Christianity….”
Report comment to moderator
I’d still like to know why you consider Sitchin right wing, and a cult leader. All I know about the guy is his books, and this is news to me. He seems very private, and apolitical to boot, from what little I know about him.
Report comment to moderator
I should also note that just as there is biblical support for theological unitarianism (the notion of Jesus as a created, separate and subordinate being to God the Father) there is also biblical support for the notion that believers do not sin once they are saved which is what Masters argues. He doesn’t say he is “without sin” but that, after being saved he does not sin. He does a good job at going toe to toe with the late Bible answer man Walter Martin on this very issue here:
http://tinyurl.com/5vjzr2
Again, I would agree that some of Masters’ ideas are very cranky (just as much of historic Christianity in its orthodox and evangelical form has been “cranky” believing in talking snakes and whatnot) but you cannot deny Masters’ talent.
He’s also amassed a following that is (from what I know) more impressive than your figure. They include Michael Savage, Matt Drudge, Joe Franklin, Bob Just, David Kupelian, supposedly John Wayne and the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson. He owns with his family Talk Radio Network which broadcasts, among others, Laura Ingraham, and his son Mark is President. At 80, he probably won’t be with us much longer, but when he dies I can see his religion making a similar impact to that of Mormonism or Jehovah’s Witnessism. I don’t see your guy as making any impact.
Report comment to moderator
He’s not “my guy”, and while he has a lot of fans, I know of no group that’s coalesced around him. I also know of nothing he’s written that’s “right wing” in any way. Unless you can back up your statements about him with facts, I’ll assume you’re either misinformed or lying.
Report comment to moderator
I’m glad you like Masters. Go for it. I’m not sure why my view that Sitchin’s theories about human origins should prove so threatening to you and Roy Masters that you have to make up stories about Sitchin being a right wing cult leader in order to defend Masters.
Report comment to moderator
Well whatever his political leanings, assertions such as “THE CASE OF ADAM’S ALIEN GENES” and the Nephilhim are every bit as unreal, unbelievable and crackpotish as the notion of talking snakes.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza, show me one time a half-fish, half-reptile has been found, for instance, or any half-half creature.
The use for certain things are unexplainable, but others have a reason. The human tailbone has muscles attached to it that are used for “relieving yourself, if I remember correctly.
Once again, there is the prime evolutionary mindset: “Prove we’re wrong.” How about proving you’re right, like TL (DesignerGirl) said. Although some, like Ray Comfort, believe that God’s existence can be proven and hence the evidence for one’s belief in God, I don’t think it’s so necessary. Being a Christian requires faith, as do other religions, evolution, etc. For those who ascribe to the Big Bang theory, where did the matter that exploded (or did “nothing” explode) come from?
Jon,
Must we go into the “Teaching of Roy Masters” thing again?
Just as there are liberals (politically), there are “liberal Christians.” You can find “Christians” who will support gay marriage, hold the Bible to be flawed, etc. They will believe incredible teachings, and certain people are deceived by lies, which is indeed sad. How do Unitarians answer this question, “If Jesus isn’t and wasn’t God, how could he die for the sins of the world?”
While the majority is not always right (the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages wasn’t), the Christian denominations that deny the Trinity are much fewer than those who acknowledge it.
By the way, did you look at the Jehovah’s Witnesses translation/version of the Bible?
Report comment to moderator
Well whatever his political leanings, assertions such as “THE CASE OF ADAM’S ALIEN GENES” and the Nephilhim are every bit as unreal, unbelievable and crackpotish as the notion of talking snakes.
I never claimed that his ideas weren’t highly unorthodox. They are.
How does that justify you making up these outrageous lies about him?
Report comment to moderator
Here is what one of Roy Masters followers said on the matter of biblical debate re the Trinity:
Dr. Martin even has the audacity to misquote Jesus himself by saying that Jesus said to the people that: “If you do not believe I am God, you will die in your sins”. I for one was appalled at his blatant misquote of Scripture, but was glad to hear a caller in the radio audience, later call into the show and make this correction of Dr. Martin. Like many “indoctrinated” Trinitarians, Dr. Martin quoted John 8:24, and slipped the word “God” into the verse after the words “I am”. The NIV reads more clearly than the King James on this verse. And bear in mind, Jesus never said the words “I am the I am” as God the Father said in the Old Testament. Trinitarians would like you to believe both verses have the same meaning and that Jesus is therefore God. If that were the case, then the same Greek words “ego eimi” [I am] would not have been used speaking about the Apostle Paul (Acts 26:29) because everyone knows he was not God. And Trinitarians like to intimidate by slipping the word “God” into this verse. And this is sophism in itself.
This is an audio recording which will let you discover the deeper elements of each man’s personalities and characters’ as well as the morality and reasonableness of their arguments, and the depth of their beliefs. It is not an exhaustive debate on the doctrine of the Trinity…as about 12 ½ minutes into the debate, Roy makes certain he does not walk into waters he is not too familiar with. After all: Roy is not a theologian or a student of Greek and Hebrew – and has never claimed to be – as Dr. Martin certainly was during his lifetime.
You must have an open mind, and an ability to see through a statement without discoloring it with your own bias. Certainly Roy Masters is not someone a person should underestimate and take lightly, and think that Roy is someone who can be messed with: He certainly is not…even when he is at the disadvantage of formal seminary training. Listen to this giant of a man – untrained in Biblical doctrine but full of wisdom – as he knocks down one of the most outspoken advocates and pillars of the most sophisticated and convoluted false doctrines in the history of the church!
Report comment to moderator
Calling him “right wing” is an outrageous lie? Perhaps I was confusing him with Elizabeth Clare Prophet who is clearly right wing and posits similar ridiculously sounding ideas.
Report comment to moderator
Stick to the Founding Fathers, Jon. When you talk about them, you sound like a scholar. When you talk about Sitchin, you sound like either a complete idiot or a slanderer. That’s what happens when you spout off about things you know nothing about.
Right wing?
Cult leader?
You’ve just been proclaimed Outkast For A Day!
Report comment to moderator
Well, yes.
He’s NOT Elizabeth Clare Prophet.
Report comment to moderator
I would like DesignerGirl and Rio to explain why we should take the time to teach them primer courses in biology, genetics, physics, geology, paleontology, chemistry and cosmology, in order to document the evidence for evolution, when we know full well they’re going to wave it off and dismiss it with a statement as uninformed as “Why do we find all kinds of animals in one place, if they would have needed to evolve at all different times?”
I mean, seriously, if you were interested in really understanding the science you’d be reading up on the science, not Creationist apologetics. The information you’re demanding is readily available. If you’re seriously interested and open to it, seek it out.
Report comment to moderator
Rio: Spinoza, show me one time a half-fish, half-reptile has been found, for instance, or any half-half creature.
Archeaopteryx
While there are a LOT of transitional fossils known, this is one of the best. I expect you will not accept it or even read the linked article.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, this bible gets sicker and sicker by the day. I love it more each time I read something from it!
Report comment to moderator
Archeaopteryx was a bird.
Report comment to moderator
Jeremiah was a bullfrog.
Report comment to moderator
76 – I guess Steve was right. For the record, unlike modern birds, Archaeopteryx had small teeth as well as a long bony tail, features which it shared with other dinosaurs of the time.
There are many fantastic transitional sequences of fossils in the record. You seem interested in fish to reptile – primitive tetrapods and then amphibian-like tetrapods are precursors to reptiles and evolved from fish.
Read Neil Schubin’s “Your Inner Fish” for an account of the discovery and evolutionary importance of Tiktaliik, a real “Fishibian.”
http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0375424474
Report comment to moderator
#68 Does Sitchin have “political leanings?” What are they?
Report comment to moderator
I fail to understand why my fellow believers feel that they can defend God with so-called facts and ‘theories’. God does not need defending, and there is nothing that is in the bible that is not true and nothing that is true that is not in the bible. The scientific way of knowing things is a scheme devised by satan to supplant God from his true and rightful throne. Hast there not a trumpet sounded in the city, and the LORD not done it? There is no such thing as gravity, it is simply God’s will. God has allowed Satan to tempt man with rebellion and the result is the parade of so-called knowledge and false pride that we see from science and the educated segment of the culture.
I am sure that Lee STrobel and others have the best of intentions and truly wish to lead men to Christ but they adopt the way of the Beast when they attempt to use facts and logical arguments to disprove ‘theories’ of men. We don’t have a theory, we have a Bible, and there is nothing theoretical about it. Christians who tread into these deep and murky waters end up making themselves and Christ look like fools: I offer you #32, 38 and 67 as proof.
Fellow believers, do not cast pearls before swine. The spirit of rebellion is working in the hardened hearts of these scoffers and disbelievers and nothing you can say will sway them, they have all the ‘facts’ and ‘logic’ in the argument but they don’t have the bibble.
Report comment to moderator
80 “…there is nothing that is in the bible that is not true and nothing that is true that is not in the bible.”
This statement is not in the bible – it must not be true….
Report comment to moderator
i offer you proof of the deceiver at work.
Report comment to moderator
#68 Does Sitchin have “political leanings?” What are they?
I have no idea what his political leanings are. His books give no hints as to his political views. From everything I know about him, he’s extremely private and has political agenda whatsoever. The idea that’s he’s some kind of “cult leader” is crazy. Jon’s out of his F’in gourd on this one.
Report comment to moderator
82 – um, you mean your post 80?
It’s not the devil’s fault that you speak in logical contradictions!
Report comment to moderator
83 – He probably belongs to some extra-terrestrial political party that most of us know nothing about …
Report comment to moderator
Actually, I’m pretty sure Jon’s a libertarian. But nothing would surprise me.
Report comment to moderator
Okay, Night Train, since you seem to have confused me for you (e.g. user of confuzzling hyperbole) I shall restate what my beliefs are, as clearly as possible.
Genisis is a historical account. It is all true, including the fact that the Serpent (Satan in a snake form) talked. What I was trying to say was that the fact that Adam and Eve weren’t freaked out at a snake talking to them could be attributed to their innocence. That’s all. I said what I said because you asked, “please explain the part about snakes conversing with humans before the fall being literal”. I didn’t say that this was the reason the Bible taught that the snake talked, either. The reason that’s in there is because, (as you put it) the snake talked. Satan does have a certain measure of power.
Rio, I see your point, but why should Adam be any more factually oriented than Eve? Just because he named the animals doesn’t mean he knew their every idiosyncrasy. He may have even been delighted that he found an animal that could talk like a them.
Spinoza, just because the Archaeopteryx has some characteristics that resemble dinosaurs doesn’t mean that it automatically evolved from dinosaurs. Evolutionary scientists do this all the time.
“Omicows, it’s a hunched-over man! It must be a missing link!”
“Ooops, no, it’s just an old man with arthritis.”
“Omicows, it’s a jawbone that kind of looks like a humans! It must be a missing link!”
“Nope, whoops, that belongs to a donkey.”
So keep drawing lines that aren’t there…….
Report comment to moderator
OT – your grasp of the fossil record is, well, nonexistent. Rio asked for _one_ example of a transitional fossil and has been given two… but that’s hardly a full representation of the complete picture.
Transitional fossils don’t just share intermediate characteristics, but novel characters appear gradually over 100’s of millions of years of time. This is not at consistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Genome comparisons between living species confirm evolutionary relationships – your DNA is more like a chimps than it is like a baboons, and much more like either than like a fish or a sponge. Moreover, it contains non-productive coding regions inserted by viruses – ERV’s – that are only explainable by common ancestry. To understand this, read
http://www.amazon.com/Relics-Eden-Powerful-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1591025648/
You claim to be familiar with what “Evolutionary scientists do all the time.” But you haven’t a clue… get one!
Report comment to moderator
Here is a simple YouTube video on ERV’s if you don’t want to read a book:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
Report comment to moderator
Yes, I’m a libertarian.
And I didn’t know anything about this Sitchin fellow until reading this thread today, but he appears to be selling something that’s about as believable as Scientology, except less original than L. Hubbard’s vivid imagination. Sitchin appears to believe in Sumerian mythology mixed in with a tale of aliens. Skeptically minded folks who defend evolution put this kind of stuff on about the same level as talking snakes.
http://jcolavito.tripod.com/lostcivilizations/id14.html
Sitchin skeptic Ian Lawton gives an overview of Sitchin’s theories on his website:
“Not only does he suggest that a race of ‘flesh and blood’ gods who were capable of space flight visited Earth from their home planet, which the Ancients called ‘Nibiru’, nearly half a million years ago. He goes on to speculate that they came in order to mine precious minerals which were abundant on our planet; that they created modern Homo sapiens by genetic engineering, mixing their own genes with those of the primitive hominids they encountered (’in their own image’); that they did this in order to create a slave race to take over the mining and refining work; and that they lived for sometimes thousands of years, were capable of good, evil, compassion and brutality, and warred with each other and their human offspring.”
Sitchin described for Connecting Link what led him to these remarkable conclusions: “My starting point was, going backto my childhood and schooldays, the puzzle of who were the Nefilim, that are mentioned in Genesis, Chapter six, as the sons of the gods who married the daughters of Man in the days before the great flood, the Deluge.”
Sitchin translated Nefilim as “those who from heaven to earth came.” (Standard translations have it as “fallen ones.”), a meaning he says is identical with that of the Biblical Anunnaki. For him, his “discovery” that the Nefilim (also spelled Nephilim and translated in the King James Bible as “giants”) were synonymous with the fifty mysterious gods of fate in Sumerian mythology, the Anunnaki, led him to a startling conclusion. The Anunnaki are extraterrestrials:
“Ever since the publication of my first book (The 12th Planet) in 1976 I have asserted that Sumerian and other ancient Near Eastern texts and depictions showed familiarity with a complete Solar System that included, beside the Sun and the Moon, ten (not nine) planets — the 3,600 years. Its Sumerian name was Nibiru.”
Report comment to moderator
And I didn’t know anything about this Sitchin fellow until reading this thread today,
Yes, and you nevertheless had no hesitation in libeling him as a “right wing cult leader”, when he’s nothing of the kind.
Report comment to moderator
In Jon’s case, libertarian=liebertarian
Report comment to moderator
Wow what foolishness men believe when they forsake the Living God.
Believers, do not trust reason nor facts nor logic for they are the tools of the Deceiver. If the bible says squares are round, it is true no matter how you fail to understand it. I do not understand why so-called Christians wish to wear the cloak and mantle of Satan by attempting to use his tool, science, to argue for the veracity of Scripture. The bible is it’s own justification. It does not matter if you think it is false, God has said that it is not. Do not argue with the evolutionist, for you cannot win in his arena. This is why I advocate avoiding the debate but there are so many christians who think they can defeat facts and logic without understanding from whence these powers come.
Report comment to moderator
Hey spin and musing:
I posted replies on the Braveheart thread, I’ll be gone the rest of the week, but I hopefully will have some time to check any replies yall might leave after i get back.
Report comment to moderator
“Exactly, just as SteveG said. The parts you like you want interpreted literally; the parts that make you look like a laughingstock you want intepreted symbolically.”
The parts you like you want to interpret symbolically…
I mean i can turn the sentence around easily..but thats not really the point, that was just fun. It wasnt until post Darwin that “theologians” attempted to say that Genesis wasnt literal. Some how, despite our pride, i highly doubt we are far wiser than any theologian to come along previously.
So the best test is to check Genesis against the rest of scripture, and considering that Christ along with the rest of hte bible, act and discuss the events of Genesis as actual real events, you either have to disregard/retool the entire bible as symbolic and thus Christ isnt real/necessary, or you try to have your cake and eat it too, which wont fly either.
Report comment to moderator
Which came first, man or the animals. It’s a simple question, right?
Genesis 1:25-27
And God made the beasts of the earth after his kind, and the cattle after their kind … And God said, Let us make man … So God created man in his own image.
Genesis 2:18-19
And the Lord God said it is not good that man should be alone; I will make a help-meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.
Report comment to moderator
Pssst . . . Arcadia . . . the help-meet for Adam was Eve.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast: Answer the question. Oh that’s right, asking questions is arrogant,or rude or whatever.
Well, I guess the same goes for your candidate…
It’s one heck of a fantasy world you guys have built for yourselves.
Report comment to moderator
OT, I must admit, you do have a point there.
It makes sense to me that if Adam had spent time with the animals he would know what they did, but it’s always possible that what you say is correct. Creation scientists likely have views on both sides of the spectrum concerning this (I can’t remember hearing any say what you did before, though), but I am not going to debate it. It’s not a particularly important thing to disagree about.
Report comment to moderator
Theon Deon @93: Believers, do not trust reason nor facts nor logic for they are the tools of the Deceiver.
I don’t know what kind of teaching you’ve sat under, but whatever it is, it’s very extreme. Truth comes from God, and He wants us to use our whole person in responding to Him – mind, emotions, and will. Using our minds involves reason, facts and knowledge. You are right in saying that the Bible is absolutely true, and what God says about Himself and the world He created goes a long way toward helping us to believe that He is trustworthy (i.e. it’s not a blind faith).
I do not understand why so-called Christians wish to wear the cloak and mantle of Satan by attempting to use his tool, science, to argue for the veracity of Scripture.
Science is satan’s tool? I guess that the early scientists had it all wrong. Modern science actually arose b/c of the unique contribution of Christianity to Western culture. Up until the latter part of the 19th century, scientists were typically Christians who saw no conflict between their faith and their science. Ever hear of Kepler, Boyle, Maxwell, Faraday, Kelvin, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton or Pascal? Their Christian faith actually inspired and informed their scientific efforts.
The idea that science and religion don’t go together is a relatively recently-developed myth. But during the last 30 years or so there has been a renewed interest in the relationship between science and Christianity. They aren’t adversaries, but rather allies in the search for truth.
Report comment to moderator
Except for the fact that most modern “scientists” seek for any possible explanation for something, rather than accrediting God for the achievement of whatever it may be. Essentially, “science” looks for a “natural” explanation, ignoring any possibility that God may have done something. So they’re looking for truth apart from God.
OT,
Is “omicows” just your personal expression? Just wondering.
Report comment to moderator
Theon Deon – the reason Lee Strobel’s book is interesting to be, is that he was exploring his own disbelief of Creation. He was an atheist for many years. Until he started investigating things, from a skeptics point of view, and came to the conclusion that there must be someone larger than us in charge of things. That’s what is fascinating. No, God doesn’t need defending. But, when evolutionists worship science, and that science doesn’t support what they are saying, it should be pointed out to them.
If Darwin was correct, we would see MILLIONS of transitional forms left fossilized in our earth over the millions of years evolution would have taken. We don’t. Period. Where are they all? I am no scientist, but no one has offered one shred of evidence for evolution – and I have looked it up. Not one shred. There are hobbled-together fossils that have been proven fake or questionable. There are theories and assumptions. But, it takes an awful lot of FAITH to believe in the theory of evolution.
Report comment to moderator
Theon Deon – the reason Lee Strobel’s book is interesting to me, is that he was exploring his own disbelief of Creation. He was an atheist for many years. Until he started investigating things, from a skeptics point of view, and came to the conclusion that there must be someone larger than us in charge of things. That’s what is fascinating. No, God doesn’t need defending. But, when evolutionists worship science, and that science doesn’t support what they are saying, it should be pointed out to them.
If Darwin was correct, we would see MILLIONS of transitional forms left fossilized in our earth over the millions of years evolution would have taken. We don’t. Period. Where are they all? I am no scientist, but no one has offered one shred of evidence for evolution – and I have looked it up. Not one shred. There are hobbled-together fossils that have been proven fake or questionable. There are theories and assumptions. But, it takes an awful lot of FAITH to believe in the theory of evolution.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry for the double post.
Report comment to moderator
Rio at #76: Archeaopteryx was a bird.
Well, that’s the response I expected. The article I linked to details a significant number of differences between archaeopteryx and modern birds, and similarities between it and dinosaurs.
It is a transitional specimen, in between dinosaurs and birds.
True to Creationist form, you just deny and dismiss.
So I restate my question from earlier: Knowing this is how you will treat evey piece of evidence there is, why should I bother?
Report comment to moderator
DesignerGirl: the reason Lee Strobel’s book is interesting to me, is that he was exploring his own disbelief of Creation. He was an atheist for many years. Until he started investigating things, from a skeptics point of view, and came to the conclusion that there must be someone larger than us in charge of things.
Hey, that’s the same story Josh MacDowell tells. One wonders how many of these so-called skeptics-converted-by-the-evidence were ever really skeptics.
Theon Deon is either a troll (assuming an extreme version of an opponent’s point of view to make it look ridiculous) or else he is an even finer paragon of self-chosen ignorance than Outkast, and that’s saying something.
Report comment to moderator
DesignerGirl: , we would see MILLIONS of transitional forms left fossilized in our earth over the millions of years evolution would have taken. We don’t.
We do, actually. Creationists lie to you about that.
One thing you have to understand is that ALL organisms are “transitional” in a sense. Evolution doesn’t have endpoints. We tend to decide what is transitional based on the defined taxonomies of today. That is, we have birds and we know of dinosaurs, so we see archaeopteryx as a transitional form between them. (The reasons this is so are considerably more subtle and complex than just feathers and teeth … read the article I linked to in #74 if you can consider it with a more open mind than Rio demonstrates.)
But if we were having this dicussion 100,000 years from now, we might just as well say that 21st century birds were a transitional form between archaeopteryx and whatever they evolve into in 100,000 years.
But even if you insist on seeing transitional forms between our more commonly assumed endpoints, there are many. Here are a number of examples.
Report comment to moderator
I am no scientist, but no one has offered one shred of evidence for evolution – and I have looked it up. Not one shred.
I don’t even know where to start with such profound ignorance.
Where did you do this looking up? In the Bible? In Creationist literature? Did you carefully seek out only sources you could assume would confirm what you wanted to believe?
Try reading some real science.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast: Pssst . . . Arcadia . . . the help-meet for Adam was Eve.
Pssst … chucklehead … that has nothing to do with the contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.
Genesis 1: God creates all the animals and then, finally, man and woman.
Genesis 2:God creates man. God sees that man is lonely. God, apparently not yet knowing anything about what men want, creates a succession of animals to see if the man considers any of them a suitable help-meet. Then finally God gets a clue and makes Adam an Eve.
So not only is the order of creation different, God’s alleged omniscience is on a serious retreat in Gen. 2.
Report comment to moderator
OT: Hey Night Train, if you had just recently been created, how would you know that snakes aren’t supposed to talk? Adam and Even were so innocent, perhaps it never occured to them to think of the world (a world which they had just recently been introduced to) with hardcore facts, such as, “serpents do not talk”.
Which has nothing to do with anything.
Serpents cannot talk. They never could talk. Even if they had the brains to talk they don’t have the jaws, lips and tongues of the right sort to form words.
The story is a myth. It may be a myth that carries a great deal of meaning, as many myths are, but it is not literal history.
Biblical literalists have the most impressive ability to deny things as obvious as “snow is cold” if their Bibles say otherwise.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, you have apparently ignored all the faux “missing links” created by altering primate skulls, introducing different bones, etc.
The “alleged discrepancy” you note about Gen. 1 & 2 is one that I don’t remember seeing before, but isn’t difficult to refute.
Gen. chapter 2, when talking about the creation of man, is sort of a flashback to day six of creation. Day seven has already arrived, when God rested, but man was created on the sixth day.
There are many “seeming contradictions” in the Bible, but they all can be reconciled one way or another, usually by looking at the context of the passage. Great errors are made when people take verses out of context.
Hm, real science. Real science that is not science…but I don’t have the time to go into that at the moment.
However, do you think calling people ignorant and names like “chucklehead” is a prime example of civilized, polite discussion? While I disagree with you, I do not resort to calling you “ignorant” or even arrogant.
Everyone:
Talking with people who are arrogant is difficult and annoying, as is a discussion with someone who is ignorant.
But the worst is having a conversation with someone who is both.
So, this problem can be partly remedied if everyone treats each other as having a right to their point of view, and not saying they’re morons because they think as they do.
We all shouldn’t be arrogant, because if I’m wrong, you’re wrong, and everyone else is too, then we have nothing to be arrogant about. (not that we should be, anyway)
Back to what I said before:
Since you can’t trust your senses, what’s to say we aren’t in a simulation like the Matrix ?
Although that way of thinking could lead to problems and can be confusing, thinking that way would prevent people from being smug, as what they think is real might not be after all.
It might just be easier to assume that what we see, hear, feel, etc. is reality, though.
Report comment to moderator
Rio:
SteveG, you have apparently ignored all the faux “missing links” created by altering primate skulls, introducing different bones, etc.
I have not. You have greatly overestimated their importance. There have been a small number of cases of fraud, a few cases of error, and many, many authentic examples.
The “alleged discrepancy” you note about Gen. 1 & 2 is one that I don’t remember seeing before, but isn’t difficult to refute.
Gen. chapter 2, when talking about the creation of man, is sort of a flashback to day six of creation. Day seven has already arrived, when God rested, but man was created on the sixth day.
That would be a good explanation if that was what the text says, but it isn’t. The second chapter of Genesis has God creating the land animals after having created Man.
It also has God not knowing that man needs a woman for a helpmeet until first trying out a lot of other animals. Whether God is clueless about his own creation or actually trying to encourage bestiality, I don’t know.
There are many “seeming contradictions” in the Bible, but they all can be reconciled one way or another, usually by looking at the context of the passage. Great errors are made when people take verses out of context.
That’s a cherished belief of inerrancy apologists, but sadly, one that doesn’t hold up to examination. There are some real internal contradictions — this is one of them — along with logical absurdities, immoral behavior with Yahweh’s approval (and sometimes command or even participation) and external contradictions, enough so to make it impossible to take as literal and inerrant without denying the truth of things most of us know to be true.
Like, snakes can’t talk, and couldn’t form words even if they had the intelligence to think of them.
However, do you think calling people ignorant and names like “chucklehead” is a prime example of civilized, polite discussion? While I disagree with you, I do not resort to calling you “ignorant” or even arrogant.
Consider it an affectionate jibe. Outkast has a penchant for saying really silly things with such an air of smug superiority that he’s often very hard to take seriously. This was such a case.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn:
It wasnt until post Darwin that “theologians” attempted to say that Genesis wasnt literal. Some how, despite our pride, i highly doubt we are far wiser than any theologian to come along previously.
Perhaps, but our scientists know more than scientists of bygone years. And advancing knowledge has required theologians to reconsider the interpretation of things.
Look, you could just as easily drop back 500 years and have this same debate over the idea that the Earth isn’t the center of universe. Theologians, and pretty much everyone else, assumed it was because from our point of view, that’s how it appears. Once our ancestors figured out that appearances were deceiving, they had to adjust … an adjustment that many inflexible theologians resisted because they feared it would displace Earth, and mankind, as the centerpiece of God’s creation.
Five centuries later, Christianity appears to have survived the change.
So the best test is to check Genesis against the rest of scripture, and considering that Christ along with the rest of hte bible, act and discuss the events of Genesis as actual real events, you either have to disregard/retool the entire bible as symbolic and thus Christ isnt real/necessary, or you try to have your cake and eat it too, which wont fly either.
So you argue that one should continue believing what is proven false because otherwise you’d have to modify your beliefs about other things?
Report comment to moderator
It wasnt until post Darwin that “theologians” attempted to say that Genesis wasnt literal. Some how, despite our pride, i highly doubt we are far wiser than any theologian to come along previously.
That’s not true at all! Discussion of the non-scientific nature of biblical language predates Darwin by at least 150-200 years.
Report comment to moderator
It wasnt until post Darwin that “theologians” attempted to say that Genesis wasn’t literal.
That’s not true at all! Discussion of the non-literal nature of biblical language goes back at least to Spinoza’s day (and to Spinoza himself) 150-200 years before Darwin. Newton also did not take Genesis literally.
Report comment to moderator
hmmm – sorry for the twin posts – thought one had crashed…
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!