Skip to comments.Calling Ronald Wetherington’s Bluffs About Human Evolution (Texas Board of Ed. Testimony)
Posted on 04/11/2009 10:22:27 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
I can recap.
To you, I asked by what criteria is something like Evolution not science and other aspects OK science. You then asked for a definition of science, which I provided. The original question is still open.
To J0299, I asked the question to clarify if the RCC is not to be hated for their teaching then what is being hated? Is it the teacher? I am still not clear.
I hope this helps. I get lost thread swimming sometimes, too.
Starting with your words.
I could explain why I rejected belief in evolution - it came from studying science, particularly the evolutionary sciences.
>>Starting with your words.
I could explain why I rejected belief in evolution - it came from studying science, particularly the evolutionary sciences.
And we are unlikely to convince each other but we should be able to agree in what areas we will rely on scientific consensus and what areas we will reserve for religion.
It is neither the Roman Catholic church, nor is it any teacher of Human Evolution. It is the theory of Human Evolution which I hate. That is your answer just as I posted before.
I am still a little confused, but OK. Your posts seemed to have so much antipathy, I was sure you hated proponents of Evolution.
Good to know I was wrong.
Hate is a bad enough thing that we get from the left — I certainly don’t like it from our side.
“Why did God make us look like apes rather than, say, dogs or horses?”
Because God anticipated that it would be ridiculous for Mr. Rogers to have asked repeatedly, “Won’t you be my *neigh......bor.” Bob
>>God created Adam and animal separately according to the Bible. Both cannot be correct, one is wrong, which is it?
You are begging the question and providing a false dichotomy. Both are, indeed, right. Evolution is the method by which God created Man. We have billions of evidential points that tell us so. This is not a question of inventing a theology — it is following the facts where they lead.
Why does this disturb you so? God is very powerful — He can certainly use any mechanism He wishes. He chose to provide us with a wonderful Universe full of vast mysteries, but all which operate on consistent rules to be discovered by His Children.
Well, back onto the plane for me. We are going to be flying over that mess in the south — wish me luck!
I am very much a Christian and I contradict nothing. As I said upthread, the RCC also believes this. I won't put words in your mouth — what do you make of their position?
>>If these are facts as you say, then you received them from something other than the Bible. The Bible says that God formed man from the dust of the ground and gave him life through His own breath and not from evolving man from an animal. Call Human Evolutionists false or call the Bible a lie. Make your choice, the two are not, and never will be, compatible.
The Bible was designed to speak to the theological needs of Man, not as a science text. Unless you have read it in its original language, you really can't make the assertion (I am sorry, my friend, it does not even rise to a contention) that it was ever meant to be literal. Even then you cannot ken the reasoning behind it, nor can you speak to its purpose.
The Bible is alliteration, not denotation. Science leads where the facts lead. God provides the basis for those facts. He would not mislead us.
I am sure you are a very good person, but you are neither theologian nor scientist. Just a (I assume) nice guy with some opinions.
But, to assist in the thread I leave these question (so there can be no misunderstanding):
1. Is the RCC wrong in its interpretation of the Bible and all RCCs are not Christian since they follow that?
2. Have you read the Bible in all its original languages? If so, can you list those languages and where they are used?
3. Please explain why the Bible in Genesis I and Genesis II conflict? The conflict is clear and yet suggest that a literal interpretation is problematic.
4. OOps — are you a theologian or a scientist? Maybe I was making assumptions too quickly. If so, I can ask a few question more deeply in each area. If I was wrong, please accept my apology in advance.
Thanks and I hope you have a lovely and blessed evening.
btw: I made it to my workplace city, and the plane was only an hour late. I am pleased we can have this discussion.
What you provided was an opinion, an editorial, not a definition. And I did not ask for it, I said go ahead with it if that is what you felt a need to do.
If you have a different definition of science that is accepted by the science community, please post it so we can compare and determine where our divergence may be.
As a note, You were the one who said "science is just a word." That is sort of the ultimate begging the question. If science is whatever anyone says it is then it has no meaning and this thread has no meaning either.
And if that is the case, that is fine, but it undermines all your posts and threads concerning science. I won't bring your quotes back, but it will be hard not to bring your argument back (which would really bother me). Thanks in advance.
Note: Wiki doesn't count. ;)
It seems you rely a great deal on distortion, twisting what a person has said (creating strawmen) and putting words in their mouth in an apparent attempt to throw the person off balance/topic and/or make whatever points it is you want to make.
In a reply to your initial post to me wherein you said said 'science teaches many things' "I said Which science are you talking about. Men teach things. Science is a word" meaning many different fields can be described as science or having elements of science, not that 'science is just a word'
And you never answered my question on How do you reconcile your love of evolutionism with the truth of Bible
>>After reading your post I now see clearly how you feel. You see the Bible how you see it and not literally. That explains a great deal to me.<<
I am pleased you understand.
>>Peter was a fisherman. Would he be qualified to speak of theology in your opinion? If you feel this way about the Bible, then that is your choice. If I wanted to believe Human Evolution, I would take that stance as well.<<
Well, you have staked out a position that suggests you are either a theologian, since you say that your understanding of the Bible provides a dichotomous interpretation; or a scientist since you say the scientific interpretation is in conflict with the Bible — or both.
Peter was one of Jesus’ chosen and schooled at His knee — He made it clear what He wanted to be said and it dealt with men’s souls, not their understanding of the physical universe. Nowhere in the Gospel of Peter does it say one word about Evolution or science in General. Theology is the study of religion, as is Science the study of the physical world.
It is a bit ironic that you choose Peter, who found the RCC, as your forensic gladiator. It is the church he founded that agrees with me (or me, it, I suppose).
But this is getting to be interesting — thanks for continuing to be open to discussion.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t look like an ape.....
>>I do not take you as a spokesman for science or the ‘science community’, nor do you come off as one. Thats an understatement btw.<<
If i have mis-stated the perspective of the scientific community, please tell me where. I always strive to be accurate in my scientific declarations.
>>It seems you rely a great deal on distortion, twisting what a person has said (creating strawmen) and putting words in their mouth in an apparent attempt to throw the person off balance/topic and/or make whatever points it is you want to make.<<
I again invite you to note where I have specifically engaged in such conduct. If my paraphrasing is innacurate, then my bad — please note where I have done so.
>>In a reply to your initial post to me wherein you said said ‘science teaches many things’ “I said Which science are you talking about. Men teach things. Science is a word” meaning many different fields can be described as science or having elements of science, not that ‘science is just a word’<<
OK — please provide a workable definition of science. I have asked it before and I ask it now. Once we agree on what we are speaking we can determine how Evolution does or does not fit. As a reasonable person, you must admit this is a proper way to resolve our different understandings.
>>And you never answered my question on How do you reconcile your love of evolutionism with the truth of Bible
I have no “love” for Evolution, any more than I have “love” for astronomy. I do, however “understand” evolution and understand how my wonderful God used the evolutionary process to create modern Man. My God, who gave us his Son (whose Resurrection we just celebrated), can do awesome things. The greatest is a Universe that is consistent in how it operates, including how it created humans.
I don’t like to cross-reference too much (as I said, I get lost myself), but please look at my last few posts to J2099 to see how I conclude that the Bible and science are both correct and not in conflict.
Thank you for your continued interest in this topic.
If there is a delay in my subsequent response to any post you may make, it is because God evolved into us this “sleep” requirement and, although I could fight it off in my college days, He clearly demands us old dudes to answer it :)
>>I dont know about you, but I dont look like an ape.....
You never say my BIL ;)
I ask again, which of these areas makes you an expert? The Bible clearly says what it says -- I have read it in its original languages. The concept of a "day" for example has many meanings across the multiple Biblical languages. have you reconciled these linguistic differences? If you have, I look forward to your scholarship, since so many before you have had great debates on this issue alone. Your perspective will be welcome.
"Peter was one of Jesus chosen and schooled at His knee He made it clear what He wanted to be said and it dealt with mens souls, not their understanding of the physical universe. Nowhere in the Gospel of Peter does it say one word about Evolution or science in General. Theology is the study of religion, as is Science the study of the physical world."
After that answer there is no doubt you would ask Peter for his academic credentials when speaking of theology. I asked if he were qualified to speak of theology, not science. The Bible never mentions evolution in any way in the entire Book, thank you for pointing that out as well.
No, since Jesus was very clear that Peter was to be a fisherman of souls. I would never presume to ask His chosen about theology, although a thoughtful debate would be a delight. Maybe I misunderstood your question?
"It is a bit ironic that you choose Peter, who found the RCC, as your forensic gladiator. It is the church he founded that agrees with me (or me, it, I suppose)."
You seem to be obsessed with Catholics for some reason. I don't care if the whole world agrees with you, you disagree with the Bible and therefor I disagree with you. You pretend like the Bible is not literal, but it is literal. You'll find out just how literal it is one day I promise you that.
I just want to point out that billions of people, many who are well-versed and experts in theology, science and both disagree with you on your personal lay interpretation. It is easiest to quote the RCC, since it is easily identifiable and quite succinct. To say that Evolution gainsays the Bible is to gainsay hundreds of years of theological scholarship developed by thousands, or maybe millions, of adherents.
God and I have a great relationship. He sent His Son to die for me and for that I am thankful daily. He created a fabulous Universe, which exposes itself day by day to those who choose to look. Its rules are consistent, if difficult to discern, much less understand.
I am sorry you choose to close your eyes to God's wonders, my brother in Christ. But, in the final analysis, that is indeed your option.
But I ask only you not blindfold others.
Yes, you have your lay opinions, I have my knowledge-based ones. I mean these as no harm to you my friend. It is simply fact. You feel that the literal interpretation of the Bible is a lie and a mistranslation.
I never said the Bible is a lie. You are now guilty of doing what you accused me of earlier(which I successfully countered) -- putting words in my mouth.
I feel it is the accurate and truthful account of creation recorded and presented to us by God so that we may know and not be deceived by people like Human Evolutionists.
But does your scholarship support your position? It is, indeed a truthful theological account of the relationship between God and Man.
In order to keep your beliefs, you must rewrite the Bible.
I need only read it in its source language and interpret it according to the language used to pen it.
In order to keep mine, I leave the Bible as it is.
I asked before -- you read and interpreted the Bible in its original language? That is "as it is." Anything beyond that (such as the King James version, as lovely as it is) is just you reading the interpretation of the interpreters.
Looking at those two sentences, I like my choice better.
But, my Friend, you again present a false dichotomy. Your English language Bible is 4 or maybe 5 times removed from the original language. Apparently simple words, such as "day" need to be viewed not only linguistically but anthropologically.
If you think I am being silly, look at the simple word "gay" -- if you read a missive in 1920: "he was a gay man" and read a missive in 1990: "he was a gay man" you know these would be quite different.
If you were reading these sentences in 3009, would you know the difference?
I learned enough Hebrew and Aramaic to slog through Genesis (I and II and am still waiting for you to explain the inconsistencies) -- not easy and I don't even have the subtleties (or not subtleties worked out yet).
I guess I am waiting for more than "'cause I said." You clearly have though a lot about this. I invite you to provide a bit of scholarship to explain your conclusions.
So you HAVE resolved the "Yom" issue! Great! What is the resolution? You can refer to any one of the million people more qualified than me and break it down. This has been quite a linguistic and theological quandary. Please proceed to tell us -- I, for one, would be relieved to see it finally put to rest.
My reasons are not "because I said", they are because the Bible said it. Your beliefs are based on a translation of the Bible that isn't even accepted, if it were, it would have been placed in the Bible.
My friend, I am trying to parse that statement. You are saying that the translation of the Bible from its original language(s) is not accepted but that a translation different than the one you understand would have been put there -- in the Bible's original language, which would then be translated into something you don't accept? My friend, please run that by me again.
Your arguments for your own beliefs are built on sand foundations and a whole lot of guessing.
Well, Aramaic and Hebrew (and some Greek and a bit of Latin) were the foundation languages of the Bible. In modern times, the Scientific Model is the foundation "lingua franca" for understanding all items of science and technology. Perhaps, while you explain why the Bible should be interpreted differently than its original language (and explain the hundreds of years of debate on those interpretations), you can also explain why millions of scientist who do things like invent computers and stuff are basing their work on "sand."
If you have this all worked out, I think that is great. You can put to bed so many debates crossing hundreds of years in a single post.
Good night my friend -- may God lighten your dreams for this evening and give you the fortitude to perform the tasks you have taken upon yourself.
*doh* I am getting so old that I have these Senior Moments where I forget stuff...
I would also appreciate your reconciliation between Genesis I and Genesis II — I guess you can use whatever translation is easiest (I never cared for the colloquial English “Good News” version since I am a bit of a KJ affectionado, translation warts and all). But the differences are there in pretty much every translation (although, hint hint, interpretation of the base languages is required to perform even the slightest reconciliation).
Your scholarship, in matters of linguistics, theology and science will be very much appreciated on this thread. It is about time we had someone who can address all three here. I can dabble, but really, you have made it clear your understanding is immeasurably superior to mine (or, I guess millions? I didn’t quite get that part either — another senior moment).
Good night and God bless. May you wake up on the morrow refreshed, renewed and invigorated — and I hope you wish the same for me — I need it :)