Church Discipline

[agricola]

Did anybody else sit through (as a teenager probably) a special week long series of classes on why evolution is wrong?

[KLP]

IMO, It shouldn't take a week long series for a reasonable person to see that evolution requires a generous use of convenient definitions and assumptions, like what is a species or that various things have always remained constant.

[agricola]

This class included a healthy dose of young earthism.

[KLP]

I still for the life of me do not see what damage there is to believing young Earth. I have yet to ever hear what negative result there is in accepting a literal reading of the Genesis account. Medicine and science is what most folks will infer or imply but cannot really tell the actual harm or downside. These are not the kind of folks to sell and ship baby parts (speaking of downsides). But they are the type to believe that everything follows a natural law, has a common source and designer, and they accept that organisms mutate because it is observable. So what difference does it make if someone thinks 6k yrs or 13billion yrs? Why is requiring everyone to accept one or the other a good thing? None of it is knowable in the sense that it can be observed or demonstrated...so why the need to force conformity and compliance one way or the other? What practical difference does this matter?

[NeverAgain]

No one is forcing anyone to believe in the facts associated with evolution or the overall scientific theory that explains those facts. If force is used by anyone, it is used by creationists, and the philosophy behind the Scopes Money Trial is very much in evidence today.

Believe what you like. I personally find the scientific explanations about the origin and development of the universe, the earth and life itself far more believable. And there is plenty of scientific evidence to support that, with more being found every day.

But if you find it more likely that an invisible spirit just spoke a word and everything came into being about 6,000 years ago, and he made a man out of some dust and pulled one of his ribs out to make a woman because he didn't think about the need for a woman at first, and the man walked around and gave names to all of those specially created animals, and we all have to die because of the guile of a talking snake, and well we can't really explain those dinosaurs--maybe they died in a flood that the invisible spirit inflicted because he fucked up so bad with the first set of people, and that invisible spirit made up a cosmic rule about blood atonement that needed animal sacrifice for a long time before he decided to kill his own son to enforce that cosmic rule of his own making... Well, you can believe all that, none of which has an iota of scientific proof, probability or even remote possibility. I'll just shake my head at willful ignorance and simpleminded lack of intellectual honesty.

That harm in accepting superstition an fables over scientific inquiry is the damage it does to intelligent inquiry and scientific progress. The harm is confining anyone's mind to a set of myths and fables concocted thousands of years ago. It enables a suspicion of--and rejection of--actual facts, real science and the human capacity to achieve. Anti-science obstinacy is a barrier to human progress. That's the harm.

[KLP]

No one is forcing anyone to believe in the facts associated with evolution or the overall scientific theory that explains those facts. If force is used by anyone, it is used by creationists, and the philosophy behind the Scopes Money Trial is very much in evidence today.

Believe what you like. I personally find the scientific explanations about the origin and development of the universe, the earth and life itself far more believable. And there is plenty of scientific evidence to support that, with more being found every day.

But if you find it more likely that an invisible spirit just spoke a word and everything came into being about 6,000 years ago, and he made a man out of some dust and pulled one of his ribs out to make a woman because he didn't think about the need for a woman at first, and the man walked around and gave names to all of those specially created animals, and we all have to die because of the guile of a talking snake, and well we can't really explain those dinosaurs--maybe they died in a flood that the invisible spirit inflicted because he fucked up so bad with the first set of people, and that invisible spirit made up a cosmic rule about blood atonement that needed animal sacrifice for a long time before he decided to kill his own son to enforce that cosmic rule of his own making... Well, you can believe all that, none of which has an iota of scientific proof, probability or even remote possibility. I'll just shake my head at willful ignorance and simpleminded lack of intellectual honesty.

That harm in accepting superstition an fables over scientific inquiry is the damage it does to intelligent inquiry and scientific progress. The harm is confining anyone's mind to a set of myths and fables concocted thousands of years ago. It enables a suspicion of--and rejection of--actual facts, real science and the human capacity to achieve. Anti-science obstinacy is a barrier to human progress. That's the harm.

Ever look to see what happens to the career and tenure prospects of those in a science field who dare to go against the 13billion yr party line? Ever see how they are treated in certain media, peer reviews, or selection of who/what is published in journals? And don't dare question the consensus on Warming or your career takes a nose dive. There are many ways to pressure and force conformity in the "science" realm but you for some reason are a denier of this "actual fact". And these are happening now and the data is readily available, you just have to be open minded enough to be wiling to see it for what it is.

So ya got any actual examples of actual "real science facts" or "actual scientific progress" that are denied or ignored because of a lack of belief in the 13billion year number? That is the actual question, not just mud slinging at those you disagree with...not the inference or implication of damage, but any "actual" "real" data?

[margin overa]

IMO, It shouldn't take a week long series for a reasonable person to see that evolution requires a generous use of convenient definitions and assumptions, like what is a species or that various things have always remained constant.

If that's true, the "6,000 years ago creationism story" requires RADICALLY generous acceptance of all kinds of things.

[KLP]

IMO, It shouldn't take a week long series for a reasonable person to see that evolution requires a generous use of convenient definitions and assumptions, like what is a species or that various things have always remained constant.

If that's true, the "6,000 years ago creationism story" requires RADICALLY generous acceptance of all kinds of things.

Actually only one thing is needed, an all-powerful creator outside of Nature. This is the CofC doctrine and practice forum yes?

But the point isn't that creationism is right because evolution is wrong...the original question was about the ability to prove evolution wrong. My point is that evolution trades a good bit on some convenient use language. Why does that assertion provoke you? Are you saying there is not a good bit about the definition of the word species? That is the point I was making not your comment about proving the Bible true.

[margin overa]

IMO, It shouldn't take a week long series for a reasonable person to see that evolution requires a generous use of convenient definitions and assumptions, like what is a species or that various things have always remained constant.

If that's true, the "6,000 years ago creationism story" requires RADICALLY generous acceptance of all kinds of things.

Actually only one thing is needed, an all-powerful creator outside of Nature. This is the CofC doctrine and practice forum yes?

But the point isn't that creationism is right because evolution is wrong...the original question was about the ability to prove evolution wrong. My point is that evolution trades a good bit on some convenient use language. Why does that assertion provoke you? Are you saying there is not a good bit about the definition of the word species? That is the point I was making not your comment about proving the Bible true.

I didn't know I was "provoked", nor was I attempting to provoke you. I was simply responding to your statement.

[margin overa]

The rest of my post didn't make it through. Anyway, I've never sat through a CofC educational attempt/sermon/series that I thought was of any real seriousness - throw a few terms and ideas around and then discount them. The closest we ever got were 2 gospel meetings with Bert Thompson, if anyone remembers him. He did a week-long series on evolution in one, and there was a member at our church who was a biology professor at the local college. He was a CofCer, of course, but I remember him going up to Bert Thompson after a particular lesson and telling him he needed to be more careful with certain examples, because it was obvious he didn't know what he was talking about on some particular topic (I don't recall what it was). It was pretty tactfully done, but his point was that if you're going to take biologists on, you needed to know specifically how a biological process actually worked.

I remember at least 2 speakers I heard at a youth event talking about evolution use the false example of Darwin repenting on his deathbed.