Skip to main content

View Diary: Bill Nye Is Making a Mistake (339 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Another Possibility (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tytalus, terrypinder, OllieGarkey
    If you believe in an all-powerful God who can choose to make the world any way that God wants to, then creationism is viable.  Any evidence that appears to the contrary is just part of the plan.
    Of course, you could alternatively believe in an all-powerful God that can choose to make the world any way God wants to and therefore believe that He/She chose evolution as his/her MO...............and believe that what is a "day" to man bears no relationship to what is a "day" to the Lord, so references to time in the Bible are meaningless because it is written in reference to man's work, not God's.

    Just putting that out there.  I agree with you that this so-called "debate" is not going to do anyone any good, but it is possible to believe in both God and science--and understand that they are not inherently inconsistent.

    •  I used to think that too... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tytalus, OllieGarkey
      Of course, you could alternatively believe in an all-powerful God that can choose to make the world any way God wants to and therefore believe that He/She chose evolution as his/her MO.
      If I may, let me offer you the reasons why I stopped considering that possibility.

      1. DNA evidence tells us there was no Adam and Eve. Therefor, there is no original sin. And no reason for human sacrifice to "heal" us. The whole system falls apart.

      2. For evolution to work, mega death and suffering are required for it to work. Every minute of every day for all time. No creator would choose such a plan. And it he did, he's a monster.

      3. Evolution does not favor man. We get sick. We die. We are born with bad teeth. We are susceptible to extinction just like the dinosaurs were.

      What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to which she represents—and her supporters celebrate—the joyful marriage of confidence and ignorance. SAM HARRIS

      by Cpqemp on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 03:01:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's true though, benevolent god-concepts (0+ / 0-)

        can be difficult to reconcile with reality at times. Still, they remain popular.

        Guns don't kill people. People kill guns. -- this message brought to you by the Night Vale chapter of the N.R.A.

        by tytalus on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 03:24:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I Appreciate You Sharing Your Thinking (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cpqemp, terrypinder, OllieGarkey

        I believe nothing that you wrote is inconsistent with the idea of God acting through evolution.  Just because the Bible contains an apocryphal story about Adam and Eve that is inconsistent with evolutionary theory doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. It means only that man sucks at recording/inventing stories.

        God never promised happiness or freedom from evil and/or suffering except following death, anywhere I could find in the Bible I've read.  Folks who choose to believe that there must be no God because all of these sorrowful things exist in the world are attempting to impose upon God their own behavioral requirements.  

        And there is absolutely nothing inconsistent about death and evolution. Indeed, the need to develop resistence to exposure to grave illnesses caused by the environment, as well as pragmatic need to adapt to be able to do other things (like run fast or grasp things), have resulted in adaptive changes in the human body more than once last time I took a science class (admittedly a long long LONG time ago).  I certainly don't think there is anything inconsistent between the ideas of extinction and God either.

        Thanks for hearing me out, and sharing your own views respectfully as well.

      •  Good points, but I'd like to respond. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cpqemp
        1. DNA evidence tells us there was no Adam and Eve. Therefor, there is no original sin. And no reason for human sacrifice to "heal" us. The whole system falls apart.
        The bible tells us that there was no literal Adam and Eve, but people don't make a habit of studying ancient Hebrew. The language is obviously metaphorical. Adam, mankind, is married to Eve, life. The names themselves are obvious, intentional, metaphors. Anyone taking that story literally has no education or understanding of Hebrew.

        And as far as the human sacrifice/healing/original sin stuff? That's all catholic theology that many protestant churches roundly rejected years ago, because they're shoddy theology designed to give the church control over the day-to-day lives of ordinary Christians.

        2. For evolution to work, mega death and suffering are required for it to work. Every minute of every day for all time. No creator would choose such a plan. And it he did, he's a monster.
        The interventionist concept, that God intervenes in the day-to-day operation of the world, or even that god has some kind of design or plan, is theologically and logically weak, and easily rejected by Christians. It can be argued that god does not intervene here. He did not intervene through any supernatural means to save Christ, and will not intervene to save us. I don't believe that god has any hands in the guidance of this world save human hands.
        3. Evolution does not favor man. We get sick. We die. We are born with bad teeth. We are susceptible to extinction just like the dinosaurs were.
        Yep. We are. And it's up to us to do something about all of these things.

        Thanks for engaging in this discussion. I'd like to keep talking with you. Take your time to respond.

        An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail. (The truth against the world.) Is treasa tuath na tighearna. (The common people are mightier than the lords.)

        by OllieGarkey on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 01:47:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  That depends on your concept of a god (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cpqemp

      Creationism as it's espoused by the likes of Ken Ham, that's not consistent with our understanding from science. And any kind of interventionist god-concept may run afoul of science as well. There are ideas, like the basic deistic model, that make no claims that scientists can evaluate and so they may coexist.

      Some xian sects like catholicism may claim to be compatible with evolution and make such allegorical claims about the inconsistencies found in the bible. But when they claim prayer works and it's shown not to, they still end up incompatible.

      Guns don't kill people. People kill guns. -- this message brought to you by the Night Vale chapter of the N.R.A.

      by tytalus on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 03:06:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tytalus, terrypinder

        Agree that this particular "defender" of creationism believes in theories that are not consistent with evolution. And that this "debate" is a sham.

        I appreciate that science cannot falsify the idea of God. And I appreciate you recognize that it is possible for evolution and science to co-exist.  Yet just because man cannot falsify all ideas relating to God, doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.  IMO concluding otherwise imbues man with being all-knowing.  Man isn't such, and certainly not today. Science has advanced throughout history because scientists were willing to say "I don't know" without insisting that their lack of knowledge wasn't proof of anything.  That seems OK to me.  I certainly know a lot of scientists who are OK with that, where issues like God and evolution are concerned.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site