1

"Should be taken literally, word for word (38%)"

"Women evangelicals are more likely to hold a literal interpretation of the Bible (71% versus 62% of men)."

I wonder if I misunderstood something, but these two points don't add up. Do only 38% of evangelicals take the Bible literally, or is it more than 62% ?

"77% believe they must fight to have their voices heard by the American mainstream"

"47% believe that evangelical Christians are looked down upon by most Americans"

I'd say the first thing to decide here is whether the evangelical Christians are the vast ("moral") majority and the true American mainstream, or a small persecuted minority. It cannot be both at the same time.

2

Ikka,

I wonder if I misunderstood something, but these two points don't add up. Do only 38% of evangelicals take the Bible literally, or is it more than 62% ?

Only 38% believe the Bible should literally taken “word for word.” The 62% refers to the subset of that 38%. In other words, 24% of all white evangelical women and (12% of all men) are Biblical literalists.

3

I'm a bit confused. How do you differentiate between an evangelical and...let's say...a pentecostal or a protestant?

4

believe bush is their new god: 100%

5

Ilkka, I'm not certain that it is impossible for Evangelicals to be large in numbers, and yet feel persecuted. To give an extreme example, every subject of a kingdom is inferior to the king, and may feel it, and yet be in a huge majority.

by the way this reminds me of a conversation I had with my wife, when I came home and said, "I feel like the new persecuted minority kid on the block. I'm a white male Christian."

Her reply: "Could be worse. You could be Southern." (She is from Kentucky.)

6

"I'm a bit confused. How do you differentiate between an evangelical and...let's say...a pentecostal or a protestant?:

Evangelical is a subgroup of Protestant
Pentecostal is a subgroup of Evangelical

7

"I'd say the first thing to decide here is whether the evangelical Christians are the vast ("moral") majority and the true American mainstream, or a small persecuted minority. It cannot be both at the same time."

Neither are true. Evangelicals are not the majority. If you want to see real persecution move to the Sudan or China. We Americans are soft and any inconvenience gets wrongly labelled as persecution.

8

69% of white evangelicals are Republican or lean Republican

I find this stat quite surprising having expected a figure like 95% rather than 2 out of 3. I look forward to your next part in the series about the political agenda and wonder how the 31% of evangelics that are Democrats figure in that. (Or maybe you can shed some light on the composition of the portion that are not Republicans. I jumped to the conclusion about them being Dems. Perhaps they are libertarians, Greens, etc.)

9

If you are an open minded evangelical, it might be an enlightened exercise to check out
which is a pro-choice religious coalition site.

10

Some clarification?

(1) What's "East North Central"?

(2) I don't get this:

Less likely to hold 4-year college degrees (22% compared to 27%).

More likely to have some sort of post-secondary education (27% compared to 26%).

How can 26% of non-evangelicals have "some" post-secondary education but 27% have a college degree?

Are the numbers cumulative? (27% of non-evangelicals have "some" college but not a college degree, and 26% have a degree, so a total of 53% have some college of any kind?) If so, then 49% of evangelicals (vs. 53% of non-evangelicals) have been to college at all, and 22% (vs. 27%) have graduated. The reason the "some college" figure is lower for non-evangelicals is that most of them go on to graduate.

Instead of saying "more likely to have [only] some post-secondary education", it seems easier to say: "Less likely to have any post-secondary education, and less likely to finish a 4-year degree."

(3) [Believe the Bible] "Should be taken literally, word for word (38%)" [but] "Women evangelicals are more likely to hold a literal interpretation of the Bible (71% versus 62% of men)."

The 62% refers to the subset of that 38%. In other words, 24% of all white evangelical women and (12% of all men) are Biblical literalists.

I don't think that works.

First of all, "that 38%" are the Biblical literalists - 100% of every subset of that group should also be literalists. Also, your figures would mean that 62% of Biblical literalists were male, and 71% of Biblical literalists were female. That can't be.

I think Ilkka's question still stands (I don't understand the claim either).

11

Kevin,

(1) What's "East North Central"?

I have no idea. Somewhere around the Ohio – Kentucky area I assume.

Are the numbers cumulative?

Here is the original from the survey:

Like most Americans, most white evangelicals have attained at least some college education. About 22 percent of white evangelicals hold 4-year college degrees, compared with 27 percent of the general population. A quarter (27 percent) of white evangelicals have some sort of post-secondary education, compared to 26 percent of the general population.

(3) [Believe the Bible] "Should be taken literally, word for word (38%)" [but] "Women evangelicals are more likely to hold a literal interpretation of the Bible (71% versus 62% of men)."

I don't think that works.

Oops. You’re right. The original number should not have been 43% and 38% but 66% and 29%. I was using the figures for the general population rather than for evangelicals. Sorry for the screw-up.

12

It's hard to summarize stats, isn't it, Joe?

Can't help but reiterate the famous quote: lies, damn lies, and statistics. Seems a bit like two opponents quoting passages from the Bible. You can always find something to support your claim.

Still, I appreciate your attempt. I think the general idea comes across and I found it helpful.

13

Looks like you were visited by Fred Phelps.

I personally have never met anyone like you have just described, though I have been involved in the evangelical movement my entire life. I know they are out there, on account that I have seen them in the news, though it always seems to be the same group. I wish they'd get a different hobby.

As far as your contrived test. so what if I agree with this group on some points. There were plenty of abolutionists that engaged in violence in the quest to end slavery. Does that fact make every one who opposed slavery wrong? of course not.

To answer your questions:

1. "Jesus said I am the way, the truth and the life, no ones to the father but by me." This is christianity in a nutshell and matters not one wit how many soup kitchens volunteer in. I have heard this called the scandal of eeclusity. If you don't agree why does it bother you.

2. No I don't believe this. I don't think this sin is worse than any other. I believe that God gives us the opportunity to repent from the most heinious sins possible. What will keep us out heaven is our refusal to repent of our whether is is homosexual behavior or anything else.

3. Sure, just as killing newborns is illegal, I can't comprehend that killing an unborn child soley because it resides on the wrong side of the birth canal. Are there cases that may be the lesser of two evils yes, but not 95% percent of the time. Most of the time babies die to cover up the carelessness of the parents. This is justice to you?

4. I don't believe in having a state church. Most European countries have one, and look how at how they turned out. My own demonination started off as rebellion from the Norwegian State Church.
Evangelicals, by and large belong to denominations that lack very hierarchal structures. Your problem is you see every public display of religion as an infringement on wish to be untouched by religious sentiment.

5. See the answer to number one. If you are an athiest, why should this bother you, because you would then believe that none of us will escape death. I suspect that you believe in God, but simply want God to act according your conditions.

Look back at your actions today, do you think did anything to win these protesters over your side, or merely reinforce thier stereotype of you.

14

Scandal of exclusivity. Sorry for the typos in that last post.

15

Scandal of exclusivity. Sorry for the typos in that last post.

16

1. the only way to get into heaven is to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

Yes. There may be other ways, but by what I can see, that's the safest bet. NB: It's not my place to decide whether or not a particuar person has "passed the test." That's God's job, and His alone.

2. homosexuals will go to hell if they don't repent

Yes. So will murderers, thieves, liars, people who disrespect their parents, people who cheat on their taxes, take a ream of paper home from the office, gossips.... ALL have sinned. ALL are guilty.

3. abortion should be illegal

I'd rather it be simply UNTHINKABLE - along the same lines as cannibalism.

4. there should not be a seperation between Church and State

The only theocracy I want to live in the one that Jesus Himself will rule when He returns. People tend to screw things up. Michael Medved says it well: This is a Judeo-Christian nation with a secular government. I like it that way, personally.

5. god will come down and take all the born again's to heaven and seperate (that is, kill) all the non-believers.

Not exactly, and what precisely you think depends on your reading of eschatology. The bottom line is that there will be a Final Judgement. Those that have sinned against God will be found guilty and sentenced appropriately, according to God's perfect justice and holiness. Some of those, however, will have had their sentences already borne by Jesus - God Himself - on the cross. By faith, they have accepted His sacrifice on their behalf. They will have their records expunged.

17

1. the only way to get into heaven is to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

True. Which doesn't mean I have to call you names. God gives His common grace to to friends and enemies alike, and I say, if all you want of God's grace is this life, then live it up before you face eternal death. I'd rather you took the unspeakably better part of that bargain, though.

2. homosexuals will go to hell if they don't repent

Yes. So will agnostic philanthropists, Islamic moralists, born'n'bread Fightin' Fundies who never personally take Christ as their Savior, Jews killed by suicide bombs, preacher's kids, pot smokers, and Mother Theresa.

What part of "all have sinned" don't you people get? And what part of "Except you repent, you will all likewise perish" was vague?

3. abortion should be illegal

Yes. Which does not mean that those who perform unspeakable atrocities while protected by the law should be unlawfully murdered or indecently assaulted, even by those who are right on this issue.

4. there should not be a seperation between Church and State

Of course there should. Christians (specifically, dissenters from the magisterial Protestant dissents from Roman Catholicism) invented this concept. We believe that the consequence of using earthly force to achieve spiritual ends is the corruption of those who make the attempt. "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal," said that renowned evangelical ("Gospel-man") Paul.

5. god will come down and take all the born again's to heaven and seperate (that is, kill) all the non-believers.

He sure will. I know what side of that one I intend to be on.

And if there *is* no difference but tactics?

Well, first, the difference of tactics *is* a difference in beliefs. That is, it is a difference in our understanding of the moral teachings of Christ and the conscience of the Church.

Second, well, it's also a very important difference from a legal and social POV.

Consider: a gay-rights advocate believes that AIDS is devastating the homosexual community because that community is ignored by mainstream America (as defined in, say, 1981 or so), and in fact that such a blind eye is a sort of passive wish-you-dead on the homosexual community.

Now, if that advocate forms an organization that tries to use the mass media to raise awareness of AIDS and to humanize homosexuals in the eyes of the mainstream, then he has engaged in civil discourse; we can have a lively and, I hope, mutually enlightening debate on his attempt at persuasion.

If, on the other hand, he acts on his beliefs by encouraging homosexuals with AIDS to aggressively infect the bloodbanks, in hopes that the spread of AIDS to the mainstream population will win funding and recognition of the problem--well?

Do you really want to tell me a difference in tactics is meaningless?

18

"Oops. You’re right. The original number should not have been 43% and 38% but 66% and 29%. I was using the figures for the general population rather than for evangelicals. Sorry for the screw-up."

So to clarify: which one of these four figures is the percentage of American evangelicals who are Biblical literalists?

Since most studies indicate that even for the general American population, the percentage of young-earth creationists is over 50, I would have estimated the portion of Biblical literalists to be around at least 70-80 percent for evangelicals.

These are alarming figures for the reality-based community. It's a good thing that reality is not determined by a 51% majority vote.

19

Ikka,

So to clarify: which one of these four figures is the percentage of American evangelicals who are Biblical literalists?

The 66%.

Since most studies indicate that even for the general American population, the percentage of young-earth creationists is over 50, I would have estimated the portion of Biblical literalists to be around at least 70-80 percent for evangelicals.

The number of “creationists” in America is 100%. Some believe in an intelligent designer while the rest believe that creation was the result of the impersonal gods of Chance and Time.

These are alarming figures for the reality-based community.

It cracks me up every time someone claims to be in the “reality-based community.” It shows that they either didn’t understand the original reference or they simply are clueless about what it means. It’s like a parent trying to be hip by repeating a bit of slang they picked up from their kids.

20

1. the only way to get into heaven is to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

good thing ted bundy accepted christ before he died. wonder if they have witness protection programs in heaven?

21

Joe writes

"The number of “creationists” in America is 100%. Some believe in an intelligent designer while the rest believe that creation was the result of the impersonal gods of Chance and Time."

Oy. "The impersonal gods of Chance and Time"? Where in hell did you come up with that, Joe? If nothing else, you forgot the impersonal god of Cause and Effect (known to some South American natives as the impersonal god of Action and Reaction).

22

Rider, if Ted Bundy truly accepted Christ, then indeed he joined the thief on the cross, adn is with Jesus in Paradise. That's the scandal of God's grace. Deathbed conversions after a life of unpeakable depravity are valid.

Think on that for a bit - what does it tell you about the depths of God's grace, and the heights of his holiness and love, compared with our feeble, finite, mortal attempts at "goodness" and "badness?"

Here's an analogy for you: If you shrink the Earth to the size of a cue ball, it's smoother than the cue ball. The heights of the Himalayas, the depths of the sea, are insignificant on that scale.

Likewise, from God's standpoint, the difference between Charles Manson and Mother Teresa is insignificant. ALL fall short of the infinite glory of God, and ALL are in need of His saving grace.

23

Chance and time aren't Gods Joe. YVWH's a deity. Satan is a deity. Odin is a deity. Time, biology, astronomy, geology are all simply observations and rely on facts. No matter how much you flap your jaws about your mythology you will not change that.
But you'd be well advised not to look to chance or time as Gods. For both those phenomena exist and can be measured, unlike your mysteriously shy sky pixie.

24

DS,

Chance and time aren't Gods Joe.

Why not? Materialists believe that they have creative ability. They certainly act like gods.

YVWH's a deity. Satan is a deity. Odin is a deity.

Satan’s not a deity.

Time, biology, astronomy, geology are all simply observations and rely on facts.

Then I assume that macroevolution isn’t a “fact” since it is not observable.

No matter how much you flap your jaws about your mythology you will not change that.

And no matter how much you might think otherwise, there is a God.

But you'd be well advised not to look to chance or time as Gods. For both those phenomena exist and can be measured, unlike your mysteriously shy sky pixie.

He’s not so shy. I and millions of other have had contact with him. Unlike chance and time, he has an real ontological existence and is not just a useful construct created by the human mind.

25

"It cracks me up every time someone claims to be in the “reality-based community.” It shows that they either didn’t understand the original reference or they simply are clueless about what it means. It’s like a parent trying to be hip by repeating a bit of slang they picked up from their kids."

I am quite aware where the term "reality-based community" comes from, but also believe that it is such a good term that it ought be applied in wider contexts.

As for creationism, I think it's funny that Christians who otherwise claim to advocate binary reason and oppose relativism and postmodernism turn out to be the biggest relativists and postmodernists when the topic is the age of Earth or the evolution of man.

26

"While you decry the evils of 'naturalism' you accept the gifts that science has bestowed on you and your family everyday. Unless you're praying your posts onto this Blog you're a closet naturalist."

By coincidence, I've been thinking of that exact same example, actually.

Creationists often like to ask how likely a tornado is to build a 747 when it hits a junkyard. But similarly one could ask the following question: unless the naturalistic science didn't know exactly how the physical world behaves, what is the probability of my posting here appearing on hundreds of computer monitors around the world?

I would estimate this probability to be vanishingly small, since billions of individual physical events must take place exactly as predicted, or the posting will not appear.

From this unbelievable accuracy, I conclude that the naturalistic science is immensely accurate and correct in its description of the physical world.

Now, the science also claims that the universe is billions of years old, whereas according to Christianity, it is only a few thousand years old. As we saw before, the naturalistic science is immensely likely to be correct. A true religion certainly would not fail like this, so I conclude that Christianity in its historical form (created in an era when the cruel scalpel of the modern science could not be imagined) is not the true religion. This is elementary logic.

Note that the standard reply "science is good and quite accurate in its physical realm, but it doesn't reach the spiritual realm where different truths apply" does not work here, since the age of the universe is a physical truth. As soon as a religion makes physically testable claims, it takes the dangerous step of possibly losing all believability.

The second standard reply is that science is usually otherwise OK but fails in the field of cosmology. Those who claim this envision that they could have most of the science that they like and remove only the offending parts. It's too bad that pretty much everything in science is interconnected some way: you can't just pull the old-Earth stuff out like a bad tooth without also losing most of the rest that inevitably lead to the old-Earth conclusions in the first place.

To finish this posting, I once read somebody (who was a Christian fundamentalist in his youth, in fact, but then chose science and reason) write quite appropriately: "But face it: there is no priest, preacher, minister, prelate, cardinal, shaman, monk, holy man, guru, astrologer, theologian, or spirit guide whose belief system results in anything so complex, elegant, and valuable as a computer monitor. So we have several thousand religions and philosophies, none of whom can produce anything like the monitor, and one belief system which can."

27

Ikka,

Creationists often like to ask how likely a tornado is to build a 747 when it hits a junkyard. But similarly one could ask the following question: unless the naturalistic science didn't know exactly how the physical world behaves, what is the probability of my posting here appearing on hundreds of computer monitors around the world?

The problem isn’t that “naturalistic science” can’t know how the physical world behaves but that it has no explanation for why the world is even knowable. There is no justification for the belief that the brain, which was created by an unguided and undirected process of chance and time, is able to accurately know anything about the physical world. As we’ve discussed on this blog many times before, if naturalism is true then there is no way of knowing it is true.

Now, the science also claims that the universe is billions of years old, whereas according to Christianity, it is only a few thousand years old.

I’m a Christian and believe that the universe is billions of years old.

As we saw before, the naturalistic science is immensely likely to be correct. A true
religion certainly would not fail like this, so I conclude that Christianity in its historical form (created in an era when the cruel scalpel of the modern science could not be imagined) is not the true religion. This is elementary logic.

You need to work on both your history and your logic. Modern science is derived from a Christian worldview. Without that foundation in an epistemology that can justify that the world is “really real” and knowable, there would be no naturalistic philosophy.

Note that the standard reply "science is good and quite accurate in its physical realm, but it doesn't reach the spiritual realm where different truths apply" does not work here, since the age of the universe is a physical truth. As soon as a religion makes physically testable claims, it takes the dangerous step of possibly losing all believability.

I think you’re putting too much “faith” in science. While I believe that the universe is billions of years old, the ability to determine that with any real degree of accuracy is rather slight. Also, if religion makes a “physically testable claim” (such as the universe was created in a manner similar to the Big Bang), does that increases its believability?

The second standard reply is that science is usually otherwise OK but fails in the field of cosmology. Those who claim this envision that they could have most
of the science that they like and remove only the offending parts. It's too bad that pretty much everything in science is interconnected some way: you can't just pull the old-Earth stuff out like a bad tooth without also losing most of the rest that inevitably lead to the old-Earth conclusions in the first place.

You might want to try a different tactic. I don’t think you’ll gain much ground around her kicking the YEC strawman.

To finish this posting, I once read somebody (who was a Christian fundamentalist in his youth, in fact, but then chose science and reason) write quite appropriately: "But face it: there is no priest, preacher, minister, prelate, cardinal, shaman, monk, holy man, guru, astrologer, theologian, or spirit guide whose belief system results in anything so complex, elegant, and
valuable as a computer monitor. So we have several thousand religions and philosophies, none of whom can produce anything like the monitor, and one belief system which can."

Um, no. You have written some pretty thought-provoking comments before but know they are bordering on being just plain silly. If you want to criticize the theistic view of science you may want to learn something about it first.

28

Joe Carter: "Modern science is derived from a Christian worldview."

This is probably true, but means less than the Christians like to believe. If one happily eats an apple and claims that it is delicious, he doesn't have to also eat the dirt that the apple grew from (which is even an essential prerequisite for the apple's existence) or claim that the dirt is delicious.

Or an even better metaphor: when build a house, you can take out and discard the scaffolding when the house is ready, even though the scaffolding was necessary for the construction process.

"I don’t think you’ll gain much ground around her kicking the YEC strawman."

That depends on the exact definition of "here", but the majority opinion is not a strawman, by definition.

29

Joe's an Old Earther, which is good because arguing with a Young Earther makes arguing with Joe about evolution look like the height rational dialogue. I get several e-mails a week from Young earthers and often one of them will start with the good old "I'm doing a report for school on evolution and I wondered if you could answer some questions for me" and then they go off on a YEC rant along the lines of Hovind or Baugh with a rhetorical question at the end.
I get a few OEC's and IDCists also.

I have a standard e-mail I send out when they get defensive and start haranguing about being 'repressed' or what not over their creationist beliefs which I originally wrote for Joe and I enclose it here:
There's no need to be defensive, just produce that theory so it can be examined. If there is a decent theory of ID then it will have to rise or fall in the scientific community on it's merits like any other proposed explanation in science, not on it's emotional appeal to the laypublic. Demonstrating solid evidence for non human intelligence-let alone one which created the universe- would be the most exciting scientific idea ever made. No one is 'repressing it'. Just because it might be consistent with a specific religion would not be an issue. The Big Bang is consistent with Genesis but that cosmology wasn't repressed because of that congruency and remains one of the most active fields of exciting research in science to this day.

Some folks in the religious community seem to be under the mistaken impression that evolutionary biology, or geology, or astronomy, should be subject to the whim of those who don't know diddly about it. That's an unrealistic position, it's rather immature, and it's arrogant.

I don't know anything about evangelicalism ( I don't even know if that's a word).
If I read a book or two written by Hindus hostile to that faith and seeking to discredit it, or hard core vocal atheists who belonged to a think tank with the written goal of destroying theism, which critiqued evangelical Christianity, and came barging into church or this Blog armed with that scanty knowledge belittling your understanding of the facts, you might be willing to give me a pass at first because I don't know any better although you'd probably think I was a pretty arrogant and gullible person. Especially if those books employed known logical fallacies which have been around since the time of the Greeks.

So if someone like yourself who does know about it were to discuss my misgivings gleaned from such a source with me, points out flaws in the books I'm using, and provide resources I can independently check to support your position about what that faith is, or what the history of it is, I'd be well advised to consider that your opinion is far more likely to be accurate than the books I've been reading which critique it. If instead I rejected your expertise and prattle on with my corrupted information, ignoring any evidence or personal knowledge you bring to the table, you'd probably get disgusted with me pretty quick, and rightly so. Finally you might lose your patience and call me a liar or an idiot if I persisted in spite of every effort you made at setting me straight and giving me reputable texts to research the distorted claims I've been preaching.
Calling me an idiot or a liar as a first reaction to my errant claims about evangelicalism would be an ad hominem. Calling me an idiot and a liar, after showing that I'm indeed wrong and unwilling to admit I'm wrong no matter what reasonable evidence you bring to my attention, might be a little extreme in so far as there are nicer ways to say it, but it wouldn't be strictly speaking be an AH.

In the same way I've read for example Philip Johnson's stuff and most of the latest incarnation of creationism called ID or IDC for short by those of us who follow this issue, and the collective expert opinion of my associates is that either Johnson is an idiot or a liar and maybe a bit of both. He's either horribly misinformed and unwilling to correct himself, an idiot, or he's knows he's full of crap and unwilling to correct himself, a liar. When I sate this the reaction of many who defend IDC is to say something like "Well why don't you challenge Dr Johnson/Wells/Hovind to a debate online or something?'

I and many others who openly challenge the DI and who would like a crack at what is in, our opinion, this particular idiot and liar aren't exactly hard to find online or in the virworld. We're all over the web, we have our own Blogs and forums, and we contribute to and comment on well known Blogs such as Pharyngula and The Panda's Thumb where an open invitation to Johnson and anyone else exists at all times. Hovind's made a few anonymous appearances, George Gilder has been seen, but so far no Phil Johnson as far as I know. We're still waiting and we're willing to wait for years.

There may be someday evidence found for non human intelligence, perhaps even evidence for non human Intelligent Designers at work in the universe, although I'll tell you I think it's highly unlikely that potential discovery will contradict common descent of species here on earth, but could be wrong. As of now there is no such evidence and no such theory which stands up to even cursory review. At least not one anyone has ever presented. This isn't a conspiracy. It's just the way it is. I hope evidence for non human intelligence is found someday. I think it would be really cool and so does almost every scientist I know along with the science fiction fans of the world.

But this stuff isn't a valid theory of ID making it's way through the scientific process into science textbooks at the K-12 level in anyway close to the conventional sense. Instead what we have are lobbying organizations such as the Discovery Institute who spend their money not on scientific research, but on political efforts to avoid that very review process and force their antiscientific religious views on kids in public schools on the publics dime under the credible guise of science. The DI doesn't do any research. They simply regurgitate the same crap that creationist have been pitching to us for years. In the most common attack called the "Teach the controversy" angle, the 'controversy' is nothing but the same tired MO used for decades. They contrive or portray a problem in evolutionary biology as being intractable with the stated or unstated false dichotomy that whatever flavor of creationism the supporter prefers is the default winner. "No transitionals" the "SLoT" Dubios' H erectus was a "gibbon", Piltdown, "Haeckals drawings/ideas are still used in evo-bio"and so on.

A few years ago I actually ordered what I can only describe as an "Intelligent Design political action kit". The kit came complete with a copy of "OF People and Pandas", and booklet which gave some details to parents of children in public schools about how to organize at the grassroots level and bring intense political pressure on local school boards to teach creationism. There was also a list of online resources which included the DI and lists of names of prominent creationist evangelist who would be happy to speak at local churches and revivals for a reasonable fee, or to promote their latest book. Does that sound like any legitimate purely scientific theory you've ever heard of [wink]?

And what they end up doing in real terms is costing school districts money. When ISD's try to force creationism into the science curricula in this way, even it's the relatively moderate version of teaching the controversy, it gets challenged, it usually goes to court, and the ISD often has to foot a big part of the legal bill. That's taxpayer money right out of the school districts pocket, meaning right out of the teacher's pocket and/or at the expense of your child's education, which has to be made up for somehow. It's a scam which preys on your faith for dollars and prestige. I'd be furious with them if I were a Christian and most of the Christians scientists I know are indeed furious with the creationists for this reason and a whole bunch more.

30

BTW Joe you may be an OECist, but many of your fellow Christians are on record as rejecting that idea. The 7th Day Adventist and a Lutheran Council for example just released an in depth 'study' whch conludes the universe was created 7-10 kya.
Besides independent creationist ministries, the 403,000-member Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church believes that “the creation happened in the course of six consecutive days of normal length.” The 2.5 million-member Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod defends a strictly literal reading of Genesis history.

So kicking down YECism is not a strawman (although I'm glad to see you're not one YEC), there's a ton of people who claim to believe it as literal scientific fact. There are folks on thios Blg who have argued with me the YEC 'worldview' both on the Blog and in e-mails
source: http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/10099325.htm

31

DS,

So kicking down YECism is not a strawman (although I'm glad to see you're not one YEC), there's a ton of people who claim to believe it as literal scientific fact.

Ikka had written: "...according to Christianity, [the universe] is only a few thousand years old." That's why I said it was a strawman. Being a YECer is not essential to Christianity.

32

I agree Joe. And believing in OEC is not essential either for I know many such Christians who are what might be called theistic evolutionists, or thevos in our lingo.

33

BCB,
Your story sounds like a mess, and those "bible thumpers" are not helping the situation or the cause. I will put it to you like this. If people today would meet the Christ of the cross and Christianity they would run to him (I.E. Jesus) instead they meet the christians of Christianity and they want no part of it (I.E. the group of zealots in front of your school) In my best defense of those people I will say this on their behalf, although they are right their tactics are wrong. Look at Jesus he came to everyone in love, he would reason with them, they looked into his eyes and seen that there was nothing fake, only truth. The fact of the matter is that not everyone will accept the truth it happen to Jesus, so it will happen any follower of Him. Believe me on this much the Bible stands true, it has never contradicted itself or ever been proven wrong. The original text of Hebrew and Greek cannot be disputed. People say "well it up for interpretation" no it's not if you do word studies in Heb & Grk it will say one thing and one thing only. Why then you may ask is there so many "denominations" within the christianity, if we all love God and want to be with him and go to Heaven why is there so much dissention. Isogesis & Exogesis which are the terms for taking away from and adding to the scripture to make it say what you want, the original says one thing and one thing only. As far as going to Heaven, Jesus is the only answer, if there is another way then Christ came to earth for no reason, and died for no reason, and everyone's faith in him is vain, that also would make God out to be liar and that my friend is just not possible. Homosexuality is a sin just as lying or murder is a sin, the choice of lifestyle and refusing to repent which simply means to turn from is what would send that person to hell, what is hell eternal separation from God, punishment for the rejection of the cross and truth. So I am sorry that you had to encounter that, that is not the total voice of Christianity and not the pulse of every Christian. God puts it like this in the book of Duteronomy. Gods says I put before you life and death, choose life. When you hear what Jesus has done for you what will you do with it that is the choice and the question. You have a good day and try to understand.

34

To all posters and respondents:

I wonder why some people must choose to rely on such literal interpretations of biblical perspective such as creation of the universe in 7 days as an argument for or against creation? I find it actually ridiculous for Christian believers and non-believers to follow such a frustrating path, to draw a line in the sand and say that "it must be 7 actual 24-hour days" in creation (6, really, with the 7th devoted to rest) and so on.

To say that the earth, the universe and all we can see and touch was created 700 billion years ago or 6,000 years ago is to put the earth and our concept of time at the center of the measurement system. "Scientists" see the rather hard to understand concept of relativity (Einstein) as defining time that is very much dependent upon the point of view of the observer. You don't need to be Christian, animalistic or atheistic to look at a biblical account of creation and come to a realization that the writer did not have a way to express time in a manner that accounts for the separate events of a creation.

The billions of years expressed by an evolutionary theory of the origin of the universe must be taken from the viewpoint of an earth-centered time base, which should be suspect by any rational scientific analysis by its very closed point of view. What time period did the universe take to expand as expressed from the point of view of the "center of the bang" if you will? Such representations are more the stuff of science fiction writing than something that a reasonable, thinking, knowledgeable person would use as a basis of argument. Stating a measurement in time for the "beginning of the universe" is to put the earth at the center of existence (what, 12th century thinking, perhaps?)

Recorded history being what it is, the victors in war get to write the history, get to decide if the victors were "morally right" and get to point out the depravity of the vanquished.

So, where am I in this? White, male, evangelical (by George Barna's measurement) and I believe that to the extent that we can know it, the Bible is true. I am rather highly educated (Master's of Science, Software Engineering, Bachelor's of Science, Computer Science) and you know what? I believe that Jesus Christ died to spare me the wrath of God, his father, for the deeds I have committed against his desire and plan for my behavior. I accept Jesus' sacrifice of his life to atone for my behavior, and I believe that because I accept the work of Jesus, and not by my own pitiful works, that I will live eternally in the presence of God.

I don't know, or do I ever expect to meet, anyone who can know God the way I do personally. It is my personal belief. Laugh at me if you want, and I will pray for you that you too will come to see what I believe is the truth.

I don't know who the Johnson guy is that you are spouting on about, but he sounds awfully shallow to me. I don't know why anyone would want to hold up such an obviously shallow writer as an example of what "the other side thinks like." Maybe its like when the neighborhood bully picks on the slow, small kid to push around.

"The Case for a Creator" by Lee Stroebel is perhaps a better suited intellectual description of an argument for creation. It is new, will cost you about $20 but I think that it offers some better scientific discussion that is more suited to the inquisitive and intellectually honest mind.

Personally, my rather limited understanding of statistics (real science) pushes me more toward the belief in creation and a creator rather than toward a belief that there has ever been enough time since the "big bang" for the sequence of events that develops an amoeba on earth, much less thinking, rational man. Statistics cannot even begin to manage the odds that the inhabitable earth should even exist. The odds are 1 to what?

I wish you all the best in your pursuit for truth and real meaning in life.

-- Mark Fowler --

35

DS and others, 1)Personally I can't get past the Darwinist proposition that nothing x nothing = everything, and I have yet to hear anyone address this fundamental issue with anything other than fanciful speculation.
2)On another subject I propose a simple experiment. Take e coli DNA (as much as you want), put it in the most friendly medium you can think of (pre-existent cell struture excepted)and then observe what happens. Betcha it just sits there for a while like a glob of snot and then decomposes. What do you think?

36

Mark,

What is your point, ok you believe in Jesus great, you have established that, you gave us your resume, and you promoted a book, you seem mad about something so what is it, You say you believe the Bible to an extent, with your mind you'll never understand the things of God, it is with your heart you believe and are justified, and either you believe all of God's word or not there is not a happy medium, don't take offense to my thread I am just talking, by the way I too am pursuing degrees in the area of Biblical Studies and Theology so I know a little about what I am talking about, the Bible supports science, that had been proven, the Bible stands on it's own and that is the problem for people, because if the Bible is true and cannot be refuted or contradicted then everything is true and then people would have to face the reality that they will have to give an account of their life unto God, so instead of them changing it is easier in their mind to say God is not real, creation is not real, I'll manipulate my thinking and call it science so I can keep doing what I want, that is the real problem.