Evolution & Creation in the Classroom... again

This issue might be the epitome of "pendulum" to me. If I believe the news-media (which I don't, but it's hard to not believe when they seem like the only one's who "know"), the people are either die-hard evolutionists or die-hard creationists.

Here's an idea: individuals use their own brains, THEN they converse with other individuals who are also using their brains.

By converse I do NOT mean reading one article out of Time (an 'edited' media - not a primary-source!) and developing a battle-plan to blast the enemy!

"Scientists" (a term loosing value, which is why I believe this debate even exists) canNOT tell us what causes gravity, why light happens ('emitting photons by electron shift' only tells HOW it happens), etc. Why? Because these issues are NOT subject to "The Scientific Method" (pretend there is reverb as you read that): they are not repeatable with dependent and independent variables because WE CANNOT MAKE MATTER. Attempts are made to pull gravity apart and, like most subatomic theories, we end up at the exact same place only one step smaller (what is a proton made of? sub-atomic forces. Wait! we found a quark! What's the quark made of? sub-atomic forces. Wait we found ____).

Hey, "scientists," you cannot say squat about the origin of the universe. You cannot say anything about the origin of species. That's what philosophers and historians do! And we know what you think of those two! You weren't there to observe and you cannot repeat the beginning of the universe nor the earth. Stop pretending.

But the "Christians" . . . ugh. Isaiah did NOT think the earth was round no matter HOW you take that passage! The Bible had NO Intention of being helpful for Modern/Enlightenment science. Read Genesis 1 and tell me it's not poetic! Parallelism, incluzios, climax, repetition, vagueness. It's flat-out beautiful! And what does the rest of the Bible say about creation? It explains God (Ps. 19, Rom. 1, for ex.). What does it say about genetic drift, survival of the fittest/fastest, a galaxy that's so enormous that light takes BILLIONS of years to reach us - nada, zip, zilch. Why? It wasn't talking about that! It was talking about GOD!

And it talks about where everything came from. God. As John DelHousaye pointed out to me years ago (not that he would or would not agree with this post), either God has always existed or matter has always existed. One of those ideas is silly. Even if the "Big Bang" happened, it still doesn't explain what was before the bang. It just says there was stuff.

So what do Christians do when given a book by Darwin? ATTACK! Bring in more troops! Learn about God, His creation, His character, etc.? Naw. Kill, Kill, Kill! Take them out of context! Use poor science/logic! Whatever it takes. This is war!!


So chew on this, Supreme Court: It would take billions of years to evolve the current crop of creatures on this planet, no question. Part two: the sun is a big A-bomb. Bombs/stars use atomic fuel and burn/explode. The sun is both a bomb and it's own fuel. As such, it is using up it's fuel. This has as one of many results, shrinkage (the Sun's diameter is shrinking at about 6 feet an hour). So go back in time. On hour ago, it was 6 feet bigger. 10 hours, 60 feet. Go back 5 billion years and you get the outer edge of the Sun somewhere inbetween Neptune and Pluto's orbits. Okay, how does the earth "evolve" inside the Sun!

Does this prove Genesis-based 6-day creationism plus 6,000 year old universe. NO, NO, NO! It just means that the evolutionary proposal about Earth's age/origin is off. Genesis was not addressing the age of the Earth/Universe!

Even worse, isn't "origin" a topic for the history class?!? Or philosophy? It has no place in a "science" class! IT'S HISTORY! UnObserved, UnRepeatable History! If the Court had a clue, they'd pull origins out of Science altogether!

Stop wasting time! Does it matter if Humans evolved from Chimps? NO! If their genetic codes are close, the study them as close genomes. Don't worry about how they got that way!

Besides, nobody wants survival of the fittest anymore. Being abstract-capable beings who evolved would imply that we should start helping this concept along - genocide, euthanasia, kill all with any handicap, take over the world because that's what the strongest do. Societies stop evolution! They prevent our species from evolving. And if the belief in Evolution is allowed, then one should be allowed to murder the less-than! Who is the "less than" - anyone who is dead (if SURVIVAL of the fittest is used).

Puts the NRA in a whole new light...

If you pray

If you pray, pray for University Baptist Church, Waco.

**Young senior pastor has evidently died while baptizing a young gal - her status is unknown or bad. His lapel mike fell in the water and electrocuted them both during the baptism.**
*** Correction: the pastor died, the gal was not in the water yet. The cause is not necessarily a falling lapel mike. The cause is being investigated at this time (this information per the website).
*** Correction as of 11/1/05 at 10:00am

The church-folk are in pain, the family (wife and 3 young kids, evidently) are dealing with the death of their husband/father in the church gathering itself. Prime warfare (mental, emotional, spiritual).

[This information comes from someone at the service, but was given to me indirectly. I cannot verify the specifics (death, kids, etc.), but it is obvious, even from the website, that it went very wrong this morning.]

Why Inerrancy Matters . . . or Doesn't

If you have not been so privileged to enter this dialogue, there is much discussion amongst some of my friends regarding the Bible being without error (“inerrancy”). In particular, see Goz and Brett and the comments on each site.

[For the record, both of these guys are: (1) pretty smart! (2) committed so fully to the health and life of all people that it rivals comprehension (3) good friends of mine, men for whom I would fight and die for, men whom I am unashamed to say that I love, men I have fought with against that which kills (4) both of them love God dearly. I can also write the same of Jason Fischer and perhaps some others in the mix]

I should like to propose an idea and then some questions. I am putting words into others’ mouths, which is wholly unfair. Please correct any and all of my misunderstandings.

Idea: we are NOT talking about the same thing in essence. One side of the discussion is about the importance of inerrancy. The other is about the practical ramifications of maintaining inerrancy, given the current situation of the Church in the western world. For myself, I still hold to full, 100% (“verbal, plenary”) inerrancy. My issue is that this theology has become toxic. The line between passion and belief is SUPPOSED to be blurry, I would contend. When belief is no longer married to passion, there is an extreme danger that the belief will become a reality by itself. Belief without corresponding life-expression is a worthless belief (in my opinion). This has been brought to light most recently by the post-modern philosophers of Europe (mainly in the 80’s). What I contend has happened, is that Christians have come to the following state: believing in inerrancy is essential, living the ramifications of this belief is a good idea but not necessary. Further, living the ramifications does not erode the belief nor its importance.

Issue #1, then: the doctrine has devolved into a belief that (quite accidental to the doctrine) precludes the believer from living according to the Bible.

Issue #2: post-modern critique of this doctrine. There are a multitude of theologies that claim to hold inerrancy but hold to MANY, fully different beliefs. So the question eventually gets posed, What good is Biblical inerrancy if one’s theology is NOT inerrant? I have a friend who is sincerely asking this. I appeal to those reading this to help me. Sincerely. What would you say to someone who says, “Ok, say the Bible’s 100% true. That doesn’t help me know what it says or what I am to do since my/your interpretation is up for debate.” How many times have you and I disagreed with God-loving men and women?!?