PDA

View Full Version : Just curious...



Spartana
1-18-11, 1:32pm
I saw a show on PBS last night about how both Darwin discoveries, and the dicoveries of large dinosaur and mammal fossils, in the late 1880s really effected the various religious belief around the world. However they never addressed how those religions dealt with the issue. So, hoping not to start a flame war but just curious, how do most Judeo-Christian and Islamic faiths which have specific timelines in their bibilical texts handle the issue of evolution and things like carbon-14 dating? Both in terms of cosmic evolution (universe, planets, etc..) and human & animal evolution? Do they just discount it as being untrue or inacurate? Do they say that the scientific timelines of millions and billions of years is wrong? Or that the religious texts (Bible, Torah, Koran, etc..) timelines of a few thousand years is off? Enquirering minds want to know:thankyou:

bae
1-18-11, 1:44pm
The Catholic position is that there is no conflict between faith and science.

Spartana
1-18-11, 2:35pm
Yes but how do they justify the scientific timelines (billions of years to create the earth, millions of years for animal evolution, etc..) vs. the Biblical text timeline approx. 4000 years or so from creation? Do they just ignore it or do they have an explanation for the difference?

bae
1-18-11, 2:51pm
See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 101->141.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#I

In particular:



In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.

In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."

Spartana
1-18-11, 3:27pm
See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 101->141.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#I

In particular:

OK, I think I understand what you're saying. Basicly that the Catholic Church says God sort of dumbed down the timelines in the Bible in order for the authors (and us) to understand easier. So there is no conflict since things, in reality, could have happened at a much slower pace of millions or billions of years instead of the stated 7 days, etc...

Kathy WI
1-18-11, 11:00pm
I was raised in a fundamentalist Baptist church and Christian school, where they believed in literal creationism. (I never believed any of it.) What we were taught was a mishmosh of rationalizations about how all the science was wrong. They had answers for everything. Some of the things I can remember being taught at school:
- There are no dinosaur fossils and never were any. These so-called scientists find a bone that's probably a cow thigh bone, and claim that it's a dinosaur's pinky toe, and reconstruct a whole skeleton based on this one bone.
- Alternate explanation: dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans and were wiped out by the flood.
- Carbon dating is totally inaccurate because God can change the laws of physics and chemistry any time he feels like it.
- If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
- Only a few "cave man" skeletons like Neanderthals have been found. They were just regular people who were deformed.
- There was one scientist back in the 1800's who claimed to have found a skeleton of a primitive hominid. After studing the skeleton, other scientists figured out that this guy faked it and used some kind of animal skull with other bones, because he wanted to get famous. They use this example to discredit ALL scientific studies of primitive man.
- God created geological features like the Grand Canyon to make it look like they took millions of years to form, just to goof with us.

Obviously, I didn't get a good education in science at that school. It was impossible to discuss anything about science, really, without accepting evolution. For example, they wouldn't say that foxes and wolves are in the same family as dogs, because they didn't want to imply that there could be a common ancestor. Every question about science was answered simply, "Because God made it that way."

I think the Catholic church's position makes a lot more sense.

Bootsie
1-19-11, 12:07am
Not all Christians take the Bible word-for-word as accurate....they see it as the Truth. There is a difference between truth and accuracy, and often the very best way to tell the truth is to tell a story. To me, the writing of the Bible is beautiful, often moving, metaphoric and poetic. I don't think God made the world in six days literally and I don't count the ages of the Old Testament people and count the generations to calculate the age of the Earth. I don't think the stories told in the Old Testament were written for that purpose.

I respect that others read the Bible in a more literal way than I do, though I never heard of those literal interpretations growing up in my strict Protestant family. I was fully an adult before I heard of such interpretations. When I read about science and discoveries and new information that explains the world, I see beauty. The new information in no way conflicts with my religious beliefs. In fact, the more I learn, the more awe I usually feel.

treehugger
1-19-11, 12:14pm
I was raised in a fundamentalist Baptist church and Christian school, where they believed in literal creationism.

My brother-in-law was not raised that way but he is born again and now believes in literal creationism. I reached the ripe old age of 25 before I knew that people believed that way, and, boy, was it eye opening. We took a trip up Mount St. Helens with him, and he spent the entire time, through 2 facinating visitor centers/museums and movies about geology and natural history, loudly scoffing at everything in sight. Anything we read about or anyone said, he loudly disagreed with, maintaining that it's all a conspiracy by scientists and how could the earth possibly be as old as they say because God...whatever.

I certainly know that that this way of thinking is in the minority, at least among American Christians (of all denominations) of my acquaintance, but wow, is it hard not to roll my eyes and laugh when he brings it up, which is often, since there are so many things that come up in daily life (news reports, signs, books, etc.) that he needs to loudly refute. Sigh.

Spartana
1-19-11, 1:04pm
I was raised in a fundamentalist Baptist church and Christian school, where they believed in literal creationism. (I never believed any of it.) What we were taught was a mishmosh of rationalizations about how all the science was wrong. They had answers for everything. Some of the things I can remember being taught at school:
- There are no dinosaur fossils and never were any. These so-called scientists find a bone that's probably a cow thigh bone, and claim that it's a dinosaur's pinky toe, and reconstruct a whole skeleton based on this one bone.
- Alternate explanation: dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans and were wiped out by the flood.
- Carbon dating is totally inaccurate because God can change the laws of physics and chemistry any time he feels like it.
- If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
- Only a few "cave man" skeletons like Neanderthals have been found. They were just regular people who were deformed.
- There was one scientist back in the 1800's who claimed to have found a skeleton of a primitive hominid. After studing the skeleton, other scientists figured out that this guy faked it and used some kind of animal skull with other bones, because he wanted to get famous. They use this example to discredit ALL scientific studies of primitive man.
- God created geological features like the Grand Canyon to make it look like they took millions of years to form, just to goof with us.

Obviously, I didn't get a good education in science at that school. It was impossible to discuss anything about science, really, without accepting evolution. For example, they wouldn't say that foxes and wolves are in the same family as dogs, because they didn't want to imply that there could be a common ancestor. Every question about science was answered simply, "Because God made it that way."

I think the Catholic church's position makes a lot more sense.

This was the kind of answer I got from some fundamentalist (born again, evangelical) Christian friends I asked the same question to. Basicly that the science was wrong and the Bibile was right. But I figured there must be other religious groups that find a way to fit the various scientific theory's into what their religious texts said - like Bae's examples of the Catholic Church's explanation - and wondered if they openly explained those things when disscussing religion - say in Sunday School or Bibile study classes. I was raised a Lutheren but consider myself agnostic now but as a kid they seemed to teach the bible literally.

bae
1-19-11, 1:46pm
When I was a young lad being instructed by Jesuit ninjas, they were quite open about the relationship between science and faith, and clearly laid out the reasoning showing that ultimately there is no conflict between the two.

Then I discovered girls, and I escaped their clutches.

Spartana
1-19-11, 3:16pm
Jesuit ninjas

Yep, those Nuns wielding throwing star-rulers of death were pretty tough I heard :-)!

KayLR
1-19-11, 4:35pm
ITA with Bootsie's take.

Gina
1-19-11, 5:16pm
My brother-in-law was not raised that way but he is born again and now believes in literal creationism. I reached the ripe old age of 25 before I knew that people believed that way, and, boy, was it eye opening. We took a trip up Mount St. Helens with him, and he spent the entire time, through 2 facinating visitor centers/museums and movies about geology and natural history, loudly scoffing at everything in sight. Anything we read about or anyone said, he loudly disagreed with, maintaining that it's all a conspiracy by scientists and how could the earth possibly be as old as they say because God...whatever.

I suppose he also would scoff at 'Evolution works in mysterious ways'. ;)

I too am the product of a Catholic education through high school. Back when I still believed, I was introduced to the full range of science in college (evolution, fossils, etc) and it didn't take long to conclude that an all powerful, all knowing, all everything God could have created the world in any way he wanted. :) I eventually moved on from even that however.

The descriptions of some narrower, literal Christian beliefs reminds me of the 'environmentalism is evil' thread.

And, Yes, some of those nuns were pretty tough - some should have been barred from being near children. I'd never seen physical abuse until I saw one of the nuns abusing one of the boys right in the 4th grade classroom.... It's something that made an impression. Usually at least they would remove a 'bad kid' from the room before doing what they did, and the kid later would return bawling...
Fortunately most of the nuns I was taught by were nice, or at least neutral, but there were a few.....http://www.simplelivingforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=168&d=1294631180

nithig
3-15-11, 3:10pm
The Catholic position is that there is no conflict between faith and science.
Unless yr name is Copernicus or Galileo.

bae
3-15-11, 3:15pm
Unless yr name is Copernicus or Galileo.

How long ago was that?

And has the Catholic position changed since then?

I pointed you at the facts. So why the snark?

chord_ata
3-15-11, 3:57pm
Fundamentalism is conceptually attractive (to some, and once upon a time, me) because it eliminates the need for the continuous judgement that this world requires. Unfortunately, each discrepancy discovered between a world fact and a fundamentalist fact feels like a violent attack on the whole belief system. With no gray area or judgement allowed or taught in the fundamentalist view, there really is no other option but to violently reject the discrepancy as an evil trick (of you know who).

nithig
3-16-11, 4:48am
Opposition to Embryonic Stem-Cell Research:The Church has consistently opposed research on embryonic stem cells, however. For several years now, many scientists have called for greater research on embryonic stem cells, because they believe that embryonic stem cells exhibit greater pluripotency (the ability to divide into different types of cells) than, say, adult stem cells.

Oh...and there's the little matter of global population concerns, sub Saharan Aids concerns but
(scientific) contraception is definately, positively and inrationally opposed.


I pointed you at the facts
So did I.

What's with this projection stuff ... why are my facts 'Snark' but your (incompete)
facts ok? Double standards?

bae
3-16-11, 10:06am
Good day to you.

treehugger
3-16-11, 12:04pm
Fundamentalism is conceptually attractive (to some, and once upon a time, me) because it eliminates the need for the continuous judgement that this world requires. Unfortunately, each discrepancy discovered between a world fact and a fundamentalist fact feels like a violent attack on the whole belief system. With no gray area or judgement allowed or taught in the fundamentalist view, there really is no other option but to violently reject the discrepancy as an evil trick (of you know who).

Thank you for writing this description of some of the appeal of fundamentalism. I admit I have tried to figure this out, but always come up short. And reading this helps me understand why I will never truly understand it. It's just too foreign to my makeup and thought processes.

As a side note, my oldest brother visited the Creation Museum in Kentucky a couple of weeks ago. He took lots of pictures of the exhibits and it has been eye-opening to look at that.

Kat
3-16-11, 1:08pm
I am a Christian, and I, too, was curious about the age and creation of the word, why the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs (although there is mention of the leviathan, which some people think could be dinosaurs), etc. The best book I have ever read on the subject is called "Faith and Science: Friend or Foes." The author is a college professor and bases his book on the first 3-4 chapters of Genesis. It was a fascinating read. I would try to explain his ideas, but I know I wouldn't do them justice. It is a cool book, though, if that kind of stuff interests you. It is very well written and doesn't just try to attack the other side or "explain away" things that don't seem to mesh. John C. Collins, the author, is, in my opinion, very frank and straightforward, and he has an impressive knowledge of the nuances of Hebrew (which does make a difference in understanding the Bible and the original text).

Kat
3-16-11, 1:10pm
Oh, and some people believe that creationism and evolution can peacefully co-exist...that's another perspective to consider. :-)

loosechickens
3-16-11, 1:49pm
certainly religious belief in a Creator and evolution can peacefully co-exist, because the scientific theory of evolution does not address the question of a creator, only the scientific investigation of how living beings adapt and change to changes in their environment, by a process of natural selection.

the co-existence of creationism and evolution is far more difficult, if not impossible, IMHO. They aren't even apples and oranges, more like elephants and unicorns, to me.

madgeylou
3-16-11, 5:00pm
Oh, and some people believe that creationism and evolution can peacefully co-exist...that's another perspective to consider. :-)

there is an amazing book called "thank god for evolution" by michael dowd, a former fundamentalist preacher who has a vision of a christianity that embraces evolution and allows itself to evolve.

i love this quote of his and think of it often: "facts are god's native tongue." the way things are, in reality, is how god communicates with us. i thought that was a really beautiful way of understanding science in a sacred context. his book is a really lovely synthesis of those two streams of ideas.

freein05
3-16-11, 7:06pm
"109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76 "

Being a Lutheran I like that. I am of the ELCA branch.

Xmac
3-19-11, 3:50am
Creation is always right now, unceasing.
Evolution is the patterns of creation: this way, that way, the way, wrong way, better way, no way, my way, away, by way........

Xmac
3-20-11, 12:52am
I'm a Christian(not a fundamentalist). I don't believe in 7 days or that Adam and Eve were real people. I see the creation story as more a way of describing how when we are born we have are innocent and free from knowing of sin and then as we grow up we become 'self' oriented and sin.

I like the analogy but I tweak it a bit.

I put it this way: When we are born we are innocent and free from the sin (meaning to miss the target) of knowing, the knowledge of good and evil etc., as in eating from the tree of knowledge. In fact, I'd say we are still innocent because we still believe in the our knowledge of good and evil.

I think it was easy for us to accept the transition from the juvenile games for the adult games, not the least of which is "This Is Not A Game" game. That is the most compelling game going and we are lured into it everyday because there's never a dull moment. God knows very well that being stuck in complete and perfect abundant, eternal love is still stuck. And this may be pushing it a bit but even more profound, I think, is the way I accidentally started to write the last sentence: God knows very well that being stuck is complete and perfect etc.

Alan Watts is more articulate than I:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ndTvw6OwT0

domestic goddess
3-20-11, 1:34pm
I was always raised in mainstream Protestant churches. Even though I was raised in an area of fundalmentalism, it was not something that was ever brought up in our home. My dad was a great deal more conservative than I, but I think he thought these were not issues most important to God, so it was not a matter of great importance in our home. Our church's position is basically that the Bible is not a science book, so let's not try to make it one. I think we are really in trouble if we start down that path, because that is simply not what the Bible was written for. I believe that the Bible doesn't have to be "factual" to be "true". The truth in it is much more than just a recitation of "facts".
I also hold the comforting belief that God understands my confusion between the beliefs of the various brands of religion, and He sympathizes with me. I think He is willing to let me work it out as long as I don't try to push my (possibly erroneous) beliefs onto others who are struggling, too, and maybe lead them down a wrong path, deliberately or not. So, my final answer is "It's a mystery to me".