Would you go to a doctor who doesn't believe in evolution?

[mitchellmckain]

If you already admit that god is plain useless as an explanaiton in science, why do you think god is useful as an explanation somewhere else? By what criteria do you determine when, how and why god is an useful explanation for something?

From where I stand, your decision to use god as an explanation for some things and not for others seems quite arbitrary.

But all I said was "Goddidit" was useless to science. That is all. So is my collection of over 200 science fiction and fantasy novels, so are my over 100 strategy games, and my DVD collection, and my ingredients for Thai curry. What in the world has the uselessness of "Goddidit" to science possibly have to do with my belief in God? A couple thousand years ago, there was hardly any difference between any of the different facets of life. All were rolled into one fantastical explanation of things. Religion, science, law, entertainment, and perhaps even cooking were all a part of the mythical stories we told one another. But things have changed quite a bit since then don't you think. Sure they consult one other to various degrees but every decision of law does not need a scientific explanation, just as entertainment need have no relationship to religion (thank God), or religion to law or to science. The mind of man, or at least the communal mind of man has grown to encompass multiple points of view for a variety of different purposes for a much greater degree of versatility. It is unfortunate that many individual members have not been able to achieve the same versatility personally.

I am a scientist but that is not all that I am. I do not breathe science with every breath or wear my science colored glasses every second of the day. What you seem unable to understand is that science is NOT a religion nor does it require 100% devotion of ones life, mind and soul lest ones impurity spoil the result of ones scientific inquiries. No, science does not work that way. (Neither does my religion for that matter.) Science is a matter of proceedure, that is all. Purity of devotion plays no role at all. Science informs my religious beliefs but does not rule them because religion just is about explaining objective observations or the mathematical relationships between measurable quantities, just as science is not about personal development in a relationship to God or towards living up to ones ideals.

The very first intent of Genesis in its historical account is to explain that God created everything. Is this a science book, claiming that this is a theory to explain the world around us? No. It does not proceed to show that this is an explanation of one thing about the world around us unless one is childish enought to belief in talking snakes (which most Christians think to represent Lucifer and not a snake at all) and think this story is an explanation of why snakes have no legs. No, the purpose is entirely about man's relationship with an all powerful being refered to as God, to expain that He is our creator and the creator of everything have and see. Its purpose is to explain how we are beholden to a being other than ourselves for everything we have including life itself. This purpose has a logical place in the story which follows, for it all about how man responds to this creator and God's attempts to guide human beings towards what this being considers acceptible behavior.

 

[bob b]

I wonder what prompted Bob's recent references to doctors and evolution? It must be a pure coincidence that a brain surgeon named Michael Egnor has been recruited by the Discovery Institute to issue statement after statement to the effect that evolutionary theory is "worthless". Despite the fact that he has been bombarded with proof (not evidence but proof) that evolutionary principles are being used very successfully in scientific research he has nevertheless continued this ridiculous tirade. Here's just one of many responses from people who actually use evolutionary principles in their field.....

Usless theories and all that jazz....

The agenda driven vacuity of the Discovery Institute is hardly a new development but with their new "spokesman" posting one pile of deliberately uninformed garbage after another it's obvious they have no idea the damage they are doing to themselves. On the bright side, everyone loves watching a good car crash....

I found your link fascinating, because it provides additional evidence that evolutionists do not understand what creationists (and even IDers) are saying.

"Here, they examined whether multiple outbreaks in an area are due to a single introduction event or multiple ones. In any phylogenetic analysis, we make certain assumptions, and (I'm simplifying this considerably) one of those is that closely related sequences reflect a more recent common ancestor. Therefore, the strains have *evolved* via "chance and necessity", accumulating mutations along the way that allow us to estimate the time of divergence from their most recent common ancestor. Now, one could certainly say, "well, I don't accept your assumptions," or "I believe your assumption is based on the false pretense that evolutionary theory is true," but then I hope they'd provide us with a better explanation for the results we obtain. "They were just designed that way" simply doesn't cut it; it doesn't give us a framework to analyze our results in any meaningful way, and it certainly doesn't contribute to an understanding of the spread of infection."

Tara needs to get it through her pretty little head that neither creationists nor IDers believe that lifeforms, especially bacteria and viruses "were designed that way and have never changed". Of course they were designed that way but it does not follow that people who believe this also believe that they have not changed in the slightest. This might have been the case a couple of hundred years ago, but to claim that the belief exists today is a "convenient myth", to put it mildly.

Both groups however seem to be very skeptical of the "molecular clock" hypothesis that claims to be able to predict with some degree of accuracy how rapidly mutations can accumulate in any given population. In fact there seems to be increasing skepticism within the evolutionary community itself whether this technique is all that accurate or even totally valid in all situations.

It might have some limited merit in cases of bacteria and viruses and short time intervals, but even this is far from proven. The rmore important problem I would think in epidemics is how to treat the victims, not so much as how to trace where the epidemic came from.

 

[Woodbine]

Tara needs to get it through her pretty little head that neither creationists nor IDers believe that lifeforms, especially bacteria and viruses "were designed that way and have never changed". Of course they were designed that way but it does not follow that people who believe this also believe that they have not changed in the slightest. This might have been the case a couple of hundred years ago, but to claim that the belief exists today is a "convenient myth", to put it mildly.

And beyond patronizing her you may actually get the point she is trying to make instead of highlighting one sentence out of context a running away with it.

She is responding to the charge that evolutionary principles are useless in practice....Egnor's (and by extension the Disco Institute's)cause celebre. She then describes just why they are useful in research for vaccines to combat the viruses. The point you totally missed is this....

If researchers did not use an evolutionary model of how viruses mutate and new strains develop then the chances of developing a useful vaccine would plummet. By using the ideas of common genetic ancestry the researchers can narrow their targets to a much smaller group of paternal strains. This explains why the alternative of using evolutionary principles i.e. treating viruses as though "They were just designed that way" is of no use whatsoever. Without using evolutionary principles to help home in on particular paternal viral strains they are left in the similar position of just swatting flys as they come by.

It might have some limited merit in cases of bacteria and viruses and short time intervals, but even this is far from proven. The rmore important problem I would think in epidemics is how to treat the victims, not so much as how to trace where the epidemic came from.

Ahahaha....limited merit! Thank God your "side" isn't in charge of scientific research.

 

[mitchellmckain]

But if a doctor says "I don't believe in evolution", isn't he a little confused about the difference between science and religion? I mean if the doctor is so confused about the difference between science an rhetoric that he thinks that Creationism is a valid scientific theory, I think that might be a little scary. I mean I believe in the powers of prayer and all, but that is not what I would be paying a doctor for. Aren't you afraid that such a doctor might think that "Its God's will" is a sufficient and meaningful explanation of your symptoms, no matter how useless such an explanation might be? After all this is precisely why the Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory and ID is not, because "Goddidit" is just plain useless. I mean I would say quite sincerely, "thank you God and may your will be done", but I don't need the help of any doctor to do that.

Not believing in evolutionary theory doesn't mean you have to be a creationist. Creationism falls apart quite happily of its own accord. Even if evolution turns out to be wrong it doesn't help fill the holes in creationism. As for my doctor, I don't really care what his beliefs are....I just want to get myself fixed. If my doctor is qualified to do the job and carries it out following strict medical guidelines then I don't much care if he believes he's Venusian marooned on Earth.

I know that very well, of course. I was extending and exploring the question a bit. After all I do believe that God created everything and the doctor believing that is hardly going to bother me at all. In fact I even suggested in my first post that I might find such a belief by the doctor a little comforting. But the OP seems to lump together everyone who takes science seriously and by the phrase "believes in evolution" summarily denounces everyone who recognizes the Theory of Evolution as a legitimate scientific theory as devotees of some atheistic religion. Therefore it is only natural that I take to task his own pecular anti-science cult to task by showing how what passes for thinking in this group, would manifest itself if used by a man of medicine.

It should be obvious by now that I do affect hostile postures for the sake of making a point. I deeply respect the fundamentalist point of view that rejects science in their efforts defend the sanctity of scripture according to the proper priorities that places salvation before scientific inquiry. The widespread improper use of science to marginalize and ridicule the Bible amply justifies this behavior. You will find in other forums (if not to such a great deal in this forum), like thescienceforum.com, that I am rather critical and contemptuous of atheists who go out of their way to aggressively denounce the Christian point view. But in this forum, it is certain Christians who go out of their way to aggressively denounce science. I frankly feel moved to denounce foolishness whether that foolishness is expressed by a Christian or by an atheist.

 

[bob b]

But all I said was "Goddidit" was useless to science. That is all. So is my collection of over 200 science fiction and fantasy novels, so are my over 100 strategy games, and my DVD collection, and my ingredients for Thai curry. What in the world has the uselessness of "Goddidit" to science possibly have to do with my belief in God? A couple thousand years ago, there was hardly any difference between any of the different facets of life. All were rolled into one fantastical explanation of things. Religion, science, law, entertainment, and perhaps even cooking were all a part of the mythical stories we told one another. But things have changed quite a bit since then don't you think. Sure they consult one other to various degrees but every decision of law does not need a scientific explanation, just as entertainment need have no relationship to religion (thank God), or religion to law or to science. The mind of man, or at least the communal mind of man has grown to encompass multiple points of view for a variety of different purposes for a much greater degree of versatility. It is unfortunate that many individual members have not been able to achieve the same versatility personally.

I am a scientist but that is not all that I am. I do not breathe science with every breath or wear my science colored glasses every second of the day. What you seem unable to understand is that science is NOT a religion nor does it require 100% devotion of ones life, mind and soul lest ones impurity spoil the result of ones scientific inquiries. No, science does not work that way. (Neither does my religion for that matter.) Science is a matter of proceedure, that is all. Purity of devotion plays no role at all. Science informs my religious beliefs but does not rule them because religion just is about explaining objective observations or the mathematical relationships between measurable quantities, just as science is not about personal development in a relationship to God or towards living up to ones ideals.

The very first intent of Genesis in its historical account is to explain that God created everything. Is this a science book, claiming that this is a theory to explain the world around us? No. It does not proceed to show that this is an explanation of one thing about the world around us unless one is childish enought to belief in talking snakes (which most Christians think to represent Lucifer and not a snake at all) and think this story is an explanation of why snakes have no legs. No, the purpose is entirely about man's relationship with an all powerful being refered to as God, to expain that He is our creator and the creator of everything have and see. Its purpose is to explain how we are beholden to a being other than ourselves for everything we have including life itself. This purpose has a logical place in the story which follows, for it all about how man responds to this creator and God's attempts to guide human beings towards what this being considers acceptible behavior.

I agree with much of what you said but not all, and some of that "not all" I consider to be critical.

A couple of women stopped at my door this afternoon to hand out a sheet and invite me to their church. I expressed some interest and they asked if I read the Bible. I answered that I did and they said that this was amazing and that mine was the first house they had visited where a person said they read the Bible. That was amazing to me since I knew that in every house on my street there dwelt a churchgoing family.

The question we must ask is "will the children in those houses grow up to be churchgoers?" Will they also believe in God if nobody tells them why they should do so? Is churchgoing merely a social club or a habit that is slowly fading away?

I don't agree with you that it is a question of "acceptable behavior".

Almost everyone is convinced that their behavior is acceptable. They are wrong, it is not. Nobody's behavior is acceptable to God.

If it were acceptable then it would not have been necessary for Jesus to die on the cross for our sins.

And if one does not recognize oneself as a sinner, it is all too easy to believe that all one has to do to eventually go to live with God is to be a "good" person, so there is no compelling reason to worry that much about religion and fellowship with those hypocrites in churches who agree with the preacher that we should not sin but during the week go ahead and sin anyway.

In that atmosphere it is no wonder that children grow up to ignore the Bible and its story of the relationship between men and God, and when they go to college are frequently so easily indoctrinated into the religion of evolution and atheism (which go together like a "horse and carriage" as the song says).

Genesis is about much more than "God created the universe and life".

It tells us why it was necessary for people to have a Redeemer.

And it also gives us reasons why we should not fall for the lie of common descent.

If Genesis is not true then why should we believe that we need a Redeemer?

Just be as good a person as you can, be happy and everything will turn out just fine.

 

[Woodbine]

But the OP seems to lump together everyone who takes science seriously and by the phrase "believes in evolution" summarily denounces everyone who recognizes the Theory of Evolution as a legitimate scientific theory as devotees of some atheistic religion.

Amen.

It should be obvious by now that I do affect hostile postures for the sake of making a point. I deeply respect the fundamentalist point of view that rejects science in their efforts defend the sanctity of scripture according to the proper priorities that places salvation before scientific inquiry.

I disagree strongly. I deeply disrespect the mindset (call it fundamentalism) that seeks to undermine the pursuit of knowledge. Shame on anyone who thinks discovery is at odds with humanity.

The widespread improper use of science to marginalize and ridicule the Bible amply justifies this behavior.

I don't see this happening. Certainly scientific discoveries are contradicting the conclusions derived from the bible but that's not improper use, that's just life. Can you give me an example of an improper use of science that has been used to ridicule the bible?

 

[bob b]

Mitch,

I wish you would not say that fundamentalists reject science. I know a lot of them from this site don't and neither do I.

We believe we reject only "bad" science.

And this is because I have loved science all my life and get angry when bad science tries to wrap the mantle of legitimate science about itself by claiming that anyone who rejects evolution (common descent) has rejected all of science.

 

[mitchellmckain]

I disagree strongly. I deeply disrespect the mindset (call it fundamentalism) that seeks to undermine the pursuit of knowledge. Shame on anyone who thinks discovery is at odds with humanity.

Well I cannot say that I am entirely thrilled by this either, but people are complex and troublesome creatures. They offer their right hand in friendship while waving a gun in their left. But the solution is not to compare everyone with some perfect model that they think people should be. On the contrary this is, in fact, the one of the biggest problem. No it is far better to seek and appreciate the goodness in people in all its bewildering variety. For that is the key to understanding them, and understanding them is where communication must begin. It is only through communication that one can begin to address the issues that divide us.

I don't see this happening.

Of course you don't. Have you read absolute everything that has ever been written? You read only what interests you, correct? You have not attended a theological seminary as I have, right? So I hardly would expect you to have the slightest idea what I was talking about. Would the literary and historical analyses of the Biblical text interest you?

I don't see this happening. Certainly scientific discoveries are contradicting the conclusions derived from the bible but that's not improper use, that's just life. Can you give me an example of an improper use of science that has been used to ridicule the bible?

I am not talking about science at all. Not one post in this forum, for example, represents any part of science. It is all rhetoric, my posts as well as everyone elses. And in this rhetoric the confusion between religion and science is rather prevalent, and so science is used to criticize the Bible and the Bible is used to criticize science. An example of what you request would be something like, "the theory of evolution" means that God does not exist.

 

[mitchellmckain]

Mitch,

I wish you would not say that fundamentalists reject science. I know a lot of them from this site don't and neither do I.

We believe we reject only "bad" science.

And this is because I have loved science all my life and get angry when bad science tries to wrap the mantle of legitimate science about itself by claiming that anyone who rejects evolution (common descent) has rejected all of science.

But setting your theological opinions up as the arbiter of what is to be considered good science or bad is the rejection of science. You don't have to accept the conclusions of science. There are a lot of scientists that do not accept the conclusions of science. Many hope for the day when the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics will be overturned so that they can relax back into their comfortable presumptions of deterministic materialism. But no scientist would abandon the methodology of science for such reasons, or allow others to pervert science by calling some other methodology science. There is no atheistic science and there is no theistic science. That is pure babble, and anyone making such a claim is rejecting science utterly.

I have no problem with anyone rejecting the idea of common decent, but to try to claim a scientific justification for that rejection cannot be more than a shameful indulgence in pure rhetoric that cannot in any way shape or form be called science. You simply cannot change the rather blatant genetic evidence of this, for example. You cannot even come up with reasonable religious reasons why this would be the case. You end up with a fantastical state of affairs where your God has arranged all the evidence against you. I sympathize with your antipathy to the identity which this theory of evolution gives to human kind. I do not accept that identity myself.

I think that a lot of the problem comes from this insistence by the fundamentalists that the all the answers to every question and problem must be found in the Bible itself, which can be nothing but absurd. The Bible was written for one purpose only. The Bible is of no use in answering the question of how to build skyscrapers that are resistant to earthquakes and the Bible is likewise of no use in answering the question of why we are not 98.3% primate despite the DNA evidence for this. I appreciate the desire to live your life in a manner where every motivation and thought is derived from the word of God. But it is not Christian to think think that this is a ticket into heaven whereby you can judge worthiness of others in the eyes of God. I make different choice of thought than you do, and you have no right to usurp the authority of God in setting yourself up as my judge, for your interpretation of the Bible has no more authority than mine.

I am not 98.3% chimp because I am not a collection of interacting organic molecules any more than I am a golem of dust animated by medeival necromancy! I am a living organism whose life and structure owes a great deal to an inheritance that comes to me through Adam and Eve from God Himself. Therefore I am a child of God. But living organisms are so integrated and dependent upon their environment that it is difficult to draw any definite line where the the organism ends. When we use tools or drive a car these things become an extention of our presence in the world and part of our identity. The human body is no different, for despite this entanglement of identity it is not what I truly am.

There is one form of life on this planet that is not the product of the common decent implied by the theory of evolution and all the genetic evidence because DNA has no part in its nature and structure but simply provides the environment of living things in which it lives and depends on for its existence. I am talking about the human mind and that is where I find my identity. The atheist can choose to see himself as a primate desended from the worms of long ago, and you can choose to see yourself as a golem of dust animated by the magic of God, but I find see myself as a being of mind who can trace its lineage back to the direct parentage of God. Is this found in the Bible? No it is not. Is this found in science? No it is not. But it is the truth, nevertheless.

 

[noguru]

But setting your theological opinions up as the arbiter of what is to be considered good science or bad is the rejection of science. You don't have to accept the conclusions of science. There are a lot of scientists that do not accept the conclusions of science. Many hope for the day when the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics will be overturned so that they can relax back into their comfortable presumptions of deterministic materialism. But no scientist would abandon the methodology of science for such reasons, or allow others to pervert science by calling some other methodology science. There is no atheistic science and there is no theistic science. That is pure babble, and anyone making such a claim is rejecting science utterly.

I have no problem with anyone rejecting the idea of common decent, but to try to claim a scientific justification for that rejection cannot be more than a shameful indulgence in pure rhetoric that cannot in any way shape or form be called science. You simply cannot change the rather blatant genetic evidence of this, for example. You cannot even come up with reasonable religious reasons why this would be the case. You end up with a fantastical state of affairs where your God has arranged all the evidence against you. I sympathize with your antipathy to the identity which this theory of evolution gives to human kind. I do not accept that identity myself.

I think that a lot of the problem comes from this insistence by the fundamentalists that the all the answers to every question and problem must be found in the Bible itself, which can be nothing but absurd. The Bible was written for one purpose only. The Bible is of no use in answering the question of how to build skyscrapers that are resistant to earthquakes and the Bible is likewise of no use in answering the question of why we are not 98.3% primate despite the DNA evidence for this. I appreciate the desire to live your life in a manner where every motivation and thought is derived from the word of God. But it is not Christian to think think that this is a ticket into heaven whereby you can judge worthiness of others in the eyes of God. I make different choice of thought than you do, and you have no right to usurp the authority of God in setting yourself up as my judge, for your interpretation of the Bible has no more authority than mine.

Well said.

 

[Woodbine]

I am not talking about science at all. Not one post in this forum, for example, represents any part of science. It is all rhetoric, my posts as well as everyone elses. And in this rhetoric the confusion between religion and science is rather prevalent, and so science is used to criticize the Bible and the Bible is used to criticize science. An example of what you request would be something like, "the theory of evolution" means that God does not exist.

If only people would realise that. Unfortunately the theory of evolution is taken by some as a direct challenge to the word of God, and if the bible is not the word of God then.....

I agree at the internet forum level it's mostly rhetoric but hopefully it's informed rhetoric. I may be taking your words out of context but I don't think science is being used to criticize the bible per se, but it is being used to counter the factual claims derived from the bible. Claims of factuality are ripe for debate in any walk of life and it isn't necessary to attack the whole scheme in order to examine its constituent parts. The bible is a little different, though. The claims made in the bible come with a burden of moral responsibility to believe they are true, and with these kinds of claims it's doubly important to use the best tools we have to examine their veracity.

 

[writer]

Would you go to a doctor who doesn't believe in evolution?

i'd prefer to. It'd probly make him or her more intelligent in general. And more humble

 

[kmoney]

It may be important to advances in the field of drug development/how to handle epidemics, but on general practice I fail to see how it would matter.

Yeah, I'm not sure it would matter. :idunno:

Why would it?? :think:

 

[bob b]

If only people would realise that. Unfortunately the theory of evolution is taken by some as a direct challenge to the word of God, and if the bible is not the word of God then.....
.

If I assume that by the theory of evolution you actually mean the theory of common descent, then I fail to see why this is not a direct challenge to the Bible, which says in many places that God created human beings in the beginning..

How in the world can you not see this?

 

[bob b]

"But setting your theological opinions up as the arbiter of what is to be considered good science or bad is the rejection of science."

Perhaps if that is what in fact happened.

But in my case that was not what happened.

I originally believed in evolution. Why not? I even attended a Music Hall lecture at university on the evolution of the horse given by Julian Huxley, the grandson of Thomas Huxley, Darwin's "Bulldog". So I had no reason to doubt it.

But later I got interested in what was happening in research on something called DNA,

My training and experience in systems engineering convinced me that it was nonsense to believe that this DNA/RNA/protein system could have arisen naturally in a slow and gradual manner through the mechanism of random mutations.

It was hard for me to believe that evolutionists believed this. But all my friends and relatives believed this. I knew no fundamentalists.

However, science is science, and as I had learned over my long career, one should go with the evidence despite the initial scepticism of others or even everyone. If the facts are with you then stick to your guns and eventually you will prevail despite the number of people arguing against you.

Common descent was simply not true because there was no way under heaven for the DNA/RNA/protein system to emerge gradually by the mechanism of random mutations. The idea was simply preposterous.

A number of years later I begin to entertain the idea that perhaps the Bible that I had rejected in my youth might not be just a collection of myths by ignorant sheep herders. So I began a long process of examining it to see if there were physical reasons why some of the stories could not possibly be true.

The plagues of Exodus was one of my first stops. No physical problems there. In fact the Bible actually says that the abating of the waters that allowed a crossing was due to a strong East wind that lasted all night. Yes, the people at the time considered this a miracle, and perhaps it ultimately was caused by God, but if so He carried it out using natural forces that did not have to be suspended.

I could go on and on because this process has lasted some 20 years now, until I finally realized that a global flood was the best explanation for the sedimentary layers and the fossils embedded in them.

Most people shake their heads when I tell them things like this, because it is not what the rest of society is saying. Too bad for them. I know ten to a hundred times more about these things than the average person does, and I am sticking to my guns, because that is the right thing to do.

I love science and I hate things that pretend to be science but are really far from it.

 

[Woodbine]

If I assume that by the theory of evolution you actually mean the theory of common descent, then I fail to see why this is not a direct challenge to the Bible, which says in many places that God created human beings in the beginning..

How in the world can you not see this?

Bob, I swear you're not all there.

Why is it when I say something perfectly unambiguous such as "Unfortunately the theory of evolution is taken by some as a direct challenge to the word of God"....you manage to read it as me saying "Evolution is not a direct challenge to the Bible"?

How do you do this, Bob? It's incredible. Post after post it's as if you read every other word then compose a reply based on which words happen to jump out at you.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

I'd go to a doctor who doesn't believe in evolution. And I'd go to a doctor who does believe in evolution. I don't really care what they believe in when it comes to that. I'm more interested in their skill as a physician than anything else.

 

[noguru]

"But setting your theological opinions up as the arbiter of what is to be considered good science or bad is the rejection of science."

Perhaps if that is what in fact happened.

But in my case that was not what happened.

I originally believed in evolution. Why not? I even attended a Music Hall lecture at university on the evolution of the horse given by Julian Huxley, the grandson of Thomas Huxley, Darwin's "Bulldog". So I had no reason to doubt it.

But later I got interested in what was happening in research on something called DNA,

My training and experience in systems engineering convinced me that it was nonsense to believe that this DNA/RNA/protein system could have arisen naturally in a slow and gradual manner through the mechanism of random mutations.

It was hard for me to believe that evolutionists believed this. But all my friends and relatives believed this. I knew no fundamentalists.

However, science is science, and as I had learned over my long career, one should go with the evidence despite the initial scepticism of others or even everyone. If the facts are with you then stick to your guns and eventually you will prevail despite the number of people arguing against you.

Common descent was simply not true because there was no way under heaven for the DNA/RNA/protein system to emerge gradually by the mechanism of random mutations. The idea was simply preposterous.

A number of years later I begin to entertain the idea that perhaps the Bible that I had rejected in my youth might not be just a collection of myths by ignorant sheep herders. So I began a long process of examining it to see if there were physical reasons why some of the stories could not possibly be true.

The plagues of Exodus was one of my first stops. No physical problems there. In fact the Bible actually says that the abating of the waters that allowed a crossing was due to a strong East wind that lasted all night. Yes, the people at the time considered this a miracle, and perhaps it ultimately was caused by God, but if so He carried it out using natural forces that did not have to be suspended.

I could go on and on because this process has lasted some 20 years now, until I finally realized that a global flood was the best explanation for the sedimentary layers and the fossils embedded in them.

Most people shake their heads when I tell them things like this, because it is not what the rest of society is saying. Too bad for them. I know ten to a hundred times more about these things than the average person does, and I am sticking to my guns, because that is the right thing to do.

I love science and I hate things that pretend to be science but are really far from it.

This reminds me of one of those testimonies given by those actors they hire to advertise MLM schemes. :think:

 

[icilian fenner]

Yeah, I'm not sure it would matter. :idunno:

Why would it?? :think:

:idunno: For some reason completely beyond me.

 

[zacubus]

The thought of evolution being the enemy of Religion is just so funny,
People forget that God has forever he is in no hurry (but the unbelievers better be.)
I believe in Christ but also that at some time we slimed out of the ocean and became what we have, but that took a very long time it seems beyond comprehension to some but
so easy to explain that God has time and he took it.