| Line 959: |
Line 959: |
| | :::Thanks for the question, Ed. Please remember this isn't me saying this but many academic theologians from mainstream Christianity including Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants. In most cases it seems to mean that the jury is out - that their Christianity doesn't exclude evolution in the same way that it doesn't exclude the Big Bang. This seems to be borne from the position that mortals shouldn't limit God's creativity and that the Bible, particularly the Genesis account, shouldn't taken literally. While this might not be a majority position in the US (I don't know), it probably is in the rest of the Christian world - not necessarily by the layman (the subject doesn't really crop up that often!) but by members of Christian academia. In fact, admitting my ignorance, it might not even be a majority elsewhere but it certainly is a firmly held belief among a significant section of Christianity. | | :::Thanks for the question, Ed. Please remember this isn't me saying this but many academic theologians from mainstream Christianity including Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants. In most cases it seems to mean that the jury is out - that their Christianity doesn't exclude evolution in the same way that it doesn't exclude the Big Bang. This seems to be borne from the position that mortals shouldn't limit God's creativity and that the Bible, particularly the Genesis account, shouldn't taken literally. While this might not be a majority position in the US (I don't know), it probably is in the rest of the Christian world - not necessarily by the layman (the subject doesn't really crop up that often!) but by members of Christian academia. In fact, admitting my ignorance, it might not even be a majority elsewhere but it certainly is a firmly held belief among a significant section of Christianity. |
| | :::What I am trying to suggest to Philip's original point in reply to Lenski, is that Lenski almost certainly wasn't referring to Creationist Christianity. (I doubt he would be that ignorant to not understand the basic principles of YEC.) Many of us only have experience of Christianity as non-scientific and non-political spirituality and faith and, for the scientists among us, NOMA applies. This is amply demonstrated by the various scientists who were Christians developing scientific discoveries that would not agree with the YEC view; the most recent famous example probably being Father George Lemaitre, arguably the "discoverer" of the Big Bang. Whether we, as individual Christians, believe in these scientific theories or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that many others do and it was to this Christian view that I presume Lenski was referring. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 09:46, 25 June 2008 (EDT) | | :::What I am trying to suggest to Philip's original point in reply to Lenski, is that Lenski almost certainly wasn't referring to Creationist Christianity. (I doubt he would be that ignorant to not understand the basic principles of YEC.) Many of us only have experience of Christianity as non-scientific and non-political spirituality and faith and, for the scientists among us, NOMA applies. This is amply demonstrated by the various scientists who were Christians developing scientific discoveries that would not agree with the YEC view; the most recent famous example probably being Father George Lemaitre, arguably the "discoverer" of the Big Bang. Whether we, as individual Christians, believe in these scientific theories or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that many others do and it was to this Christian view that I presume Lenski was referring. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 09:46, 25 June 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | "''...you mentioned Creationism...''": I actually mentioned creation''ists'', with reference to what they've pointed out about what ''the Bible'' teaches. And despite the existence of "useful idiots" who try and force the text to say something contrary to what it clearly says, the Bible ''very clearly''—arguably ''overly'' clearly—says that creation took six days. That is not (just) a YEC view: That is the clear, unambiguous, indisputable (except by people who don't understand the language and have try and force-fit an anti-biblical view into the Bible) record of Scripture. Any five-year-old can read the Bible and learn that. And experts in Hebrew agree. And the church believed that until the anti-biblical views of uniformitarianism changed that (that is, long ages wasn't something that was learned from Scripture, but from outside). |
| | + | |
| | + | "''He was talking about Christianity in more general terms reflecting what a great deal of Christians believe...''": Yes, but in doing so he was making a theological claim, which is (presumably) outside his area of expertise. |
| | + | |
| | + | "''This seems to be borne from the position that mortals shouldn't limit God's creativity and that the Bible, particularly the Genesis account, shouldn't taken literally.''": However, this position only arose as an attempt to incorporate what ''seemed'' to these ''non-scientists'' a scientific fact—''which it is not''. So basically they've been hoodwinked by scientists proclaiming a supposed scientific truth that is actually an anti-biblical philosophy. Prior to around 200 years ago, the Genesis account was taken literally. Again, the move to taking it non-literally was not based on theological understanding nor a better appreciation of the language, but an attempt to accommodate the supposedly-scientific but actually anti-biblical ideas of fallible men. |
| | + | |
| | + | "''Lenski almost certainly wasn't referring to Creationist Christianity''": No, he was referring to the God of the Bible, and that is what I was talking about in response. |
| | + | |
| | + | "''I doubt he would be that ignorant to not understand the basic principles of YEC''": From what I've seen many times over, I'd be surprised if he ''did'' understand. |
| | + | |
| | + | "''...for the scientists among us, NOMA applies.''" You mean that principle dreamt up by a Marxist that tries to claim for science areas that the Bible claims, such as how things got started? NOMA itself is anti-biblical.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3855/#noma] |
| | + | |
| | + | [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:01, 25 June 2008 (EDT) |
| | | | |
| | ==Fair Warning== | | ==Fair Warning== |