celebrity writers

How did God Create the Universe?

The Christian Debate over Origins

Mar 26, 2007

Did God speak the Sun into existence?, Public Domain

How should Christians understand the first two chapters of Genesis? How did God create the "heavens and the earth"?

The first two chapters of Genesis are perhaps the most contested passages in all of ancient literature, save perhaps for the resurrection accounts of Jesus. As discussed in a previous article, there are three broad schools of thought in dealing with Genesis (or, for that matter, the entire Bible). Traditional monotheists, by and large, hold Genesis to be inspired by God and thereby instructive and beneficial. Agnostics and atheists largely dismiss Genesis. Spiritualists and polytheists may recognize some literary value to Genesis, but put little stock in its specific content.

The three most dominant religions in the world (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) all stem from the monotheistic school of thought. Since this site is focused on the Protestant Christian community, this article and the entire series will address the debate over Genesis and the origins of the universe from the Christian perspective.

Christians are far from united in their understanding of Moses’ account of God creating the “heavens and the earth.” (This article assumes the traditional view that Moses authored Genesis, however this writer concedes that some scholars dispute mosaic authorship of the Torah). There are three primary interpretations of the Genesis account of Creation prevalent in the Christian community today. They are Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, and Theistic Evolution. We will now look at each in turn.

Theistic Evolution

Sometimes known as evolutionary creationism, Theistic Evolution (TE) is the belief that God presided over the evolutionary process to bring about the “heavens and the earth.” According to this view, Genesis 1-2 need not be interpreted literally, but rather figuratively or allegorically. TE is popular with Roman Catholics, Jews, and liberal Protestants.

The appeal of Theistic Evolution is that it allows adherents to maintain their general religious faith without coming into conflict with the modern scientific community. Wikipedia explains: “Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to some religious interpretations.”

Young Earth Creationism

Directly counter to Theistic Evolution, Young Earth Creationists (YEC) hold that God created the universe and all basic life forms approximately 6,000 to 12,000 years ago in six 24-hour days.

The baseline YEC chronology stems from James Ussher, a medieval archbishop who calculated the age of the Earth based on Old Testament genealogies. Ussher dated the Creation to 4004 BC. Many YECs have correctly pointed out, however, that the Bible sometimes skips generations in its recorded genealogies. Thus, revisionist YECs have opined that Earth may be older than 6,000 years – perhaps as much as 10,000 or 12,000 years.

YEC fell out of favor in the late nineteenth and throughout the twentieth centuries due to developments in scientific dating methodology as well as geology. The latter has been particularly difficult for YEC adherents, since geologists today overwhelmingly consider the apparent displacements and changes in the earth’s layers to be the result of incremental change and erosion over millions of years rather than sudden catastrophe (such as Noah’s Flood). Moreover, fossil remains of dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures have seriously challenged the YEC chronology.

Old Earth Creationism

Old Earth Creationism (OEC) is basically an umbrella term that incorporates a number of alternative Creationist perspectives – alternative, that is, to Young Earth Creationism. The unifying theme amongst these perspectives is that Genesis 1-2 need not be interpreted in a tight manner to restrict the age of the Earth to a mere 6,000 years. Early church fathers that held this understanding include Origen, Augustine, and Eusebius. They and others believed that the days of Genesis were not necessarily solar days.

OEC Christians generally believe that God created the universe through a combination of natural processes and direct intervention. The two leading OEC perspectives are Progressive Creationism and Gap Theory Creationism.

The Debate Continues

The modern scientific consensus tilts heavily in favor of Theistic Evolution or Old Earth Creationism. Young Earth Creationists, however, remain firm in their conviction that the Creation account in Genesis is divinely inspired and authoritative. Moreover, they argue (correctly) that the modern scientific community has based much of its dating methodology on certain assumptions and presuppositions that have not been factually established.

Science cannot authoritatively establish the origin of the universe for the simple fact that no human was present to directly observe it. And the re-creation of a new universe is not possible to test the theory of evolution. The scientific community therefore is limited to holding evolution as a theory. It cannot establish it as a fact.

The origin of the universe therefore remains in the arena of faith. Accordingly, even Young Earth Creationists (YEC) can lay claim to the possibility that their explanation for the universe’s origins may, in fact, be true.

The copyright of the article How did God Create the Universe? in Protestantism is owned by Brian Tubbs. Permission to republish How did God Create the Universe? in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Comments

Mar 27, 2007 2:07 PM

Pink :

.
I must say that you have provided us with a goodly article here, Brian, that gives us a quick look at some of the more prevalent thinking in religious circles.
.
Are you familiar with the Luriaist view of creation? Isaac Luria was a Jewish Rabbi. His ideas relate with the Shekina. Do you know about Lurianic Jews?
.
He presents another view of biblical writings that almost totally denies any literalism.
.

.

Mar 27, 2007 4:24 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Not familiar with him. Fill me in.

Mar 27, 2007 4:39 PM

Pink :

.
Put the following information in your search engine:
,.
shekina "isaac luria"
.
and you will get quite a bit of information.
.

Mar 28, 2007 1:56 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Okay, I read this article...

http://www.kheper.net/essays/Tikkun_and_Big_Bang_Theory.html

It's an interesting read. But of course Luria's view of the creation out of a "cataclysmic accident" is directly contrary to the creation by DELIBERATE plan model espoused by Genesis.

Mar 28, 2007 1:58 PM

Pink :

.
Be that as it may, it is an important version of the creation and, as such, derserves to be used in any discussion about the beginnings of existence.
.
Have you known about the Shekina before this?
.

Mar 28, 2007 2:04 PM

Brian Tubbs :

No. I appreciate the information.

Obviously, though, as the Suite101 Protestantism writer, I'm most focused on the Christian interpretations of Genesis. I haven't researched all the non-Christian ones yet. Only a few of those.

Mar 28, 2007 2:44 PM

Migisi :

.
Very good article, Brian.
.
Here are a few native American creation stories.
http://www.indians.org/welker/legend.htm
.
==================
.
Thought you might enjoy this legend:
.
The Ancient One
by Bearwalker
.
Ancient One sat in the shade of his tree in front of his cave. Red People came to him and he said to Red People, "Tell me your vision."
.
And Red People answered, "The elders have told us to pray in this manner, and that manner, and it is important that only we pray as we have been taught for this has been handed down to us by the elders."
.
"Hmmmm," said the Ancient One.
.
Then Black People came to him and he said to Black People, "Tell me your vision."
.
And Black People answered, "Our mothers have said to go to this building and that building and pray in this manner and that manner. And our fathers have said to bow in this manner and that manner when we pray. And it is important that we do only this when we pray."
.
"Hmmmm," said the Ancient One.
.
Then Yellow People came to him and he said to Yellow People, "Tell me your vision."
.
And Yellow People answered, "Our teachers have told us to sit in this manner and that manner and to say this thing and that thing when we pray. And it is important that we do only this when we pray."
.
"Hmmmm," said the Ancient One.
.
Then White People came to him and he said to White People, "Tell me your vision."
.
And White People answered, "Our Book has told us to pray in this way and that way and to do this thing and that thing, and it is very important that we do this when we pray."
.
"Hmmmm," said the Ancient One.
.
Then Ancient One spoke to the Earth and said, "Have you given the people a vision?" And the Earth said, "Yes, a special gift for each one, but the people were so busy speaking and arguing about which way is right they could not see the gift I gave each one of them." And the Ancient One asked same question of Water and Fire and Air and got the same answer. Then Ancient One asked Animal, and Bird, and Insect, and Tree, and Flower, and Sky, and Moon, and Sun, and Stars, and all of the other Spirits and each told him the same.
.
Ancient One thought this was very sad. He called Red People, Black People, Yellow People, and White People to him and said to them. "The ways taught to you by your Elders, and your Mothers and Fathers, and Teachers, and Books are sacred. It is good that you respect those ways, for they are the ways of your ancestors. But the ances

Mar 29, 2007 5:48 AM

Pink :

.
I watched the National Geographic television presentation on the evolution of existence last night.
.
14,000,000,000 Years to get to this point.
.
How can anyone possibly buy into the literal interpretations of the creation stories of Genesis when the facts are so compelling?
.

Mar 29, 2007 11:53 AM

Migisi :

.
How can anyone possibly buy into the literal interpretations of the creation stories of Genesis when the facts are so compelling?
.
Not just buy into the Genesis stories, but take any cultural creation legend literally. Every culture has one or more stories. Sitting around the campfire, the children ask the questions...
"Where did we come from?"
"Who made the stars and moon?"
"How did the birds come to be?"
And grandfather answers with a story. A legend is born, added to, and passed on through generations.
.
I don't often quote Paul, but I think what he said here is appropriate: "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me." (1 Corinthians 13:11)
.
Some folks never put their childish thinking and reasoning behind them.

Mar 29, 2007 1:10 PM

Brian Tubbs :

I've tried to do my Genesis series in a fair and balanced manner. The most important theme in Genesis is that GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH. In other words, taking Migisi's campfire example, the important thing for those kids to know is: GOD is responsible for the world being here and for the human race being here. God did it.

THAT is not childish.

Mar 29, 2007 1:16 PM

Pink :

.
THAT is not childish.
.
Right. It isn't.
.
What is childish is to believe the literal interpretations--then they become fairy tales. And, that is childish.
.

Mar 29, 2007 1:23 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Pink, I went through some doubts on Genesis literalism a few years ago, and worked through this issue with a physicist friend of mine. He walked me through it and basically said that science and religion (in this case, Christianity) approach the origins question from two different perspectives and in two different ways. The scientist works with what he or she plainly sees and observes - and then makes estimations, assumptions, theories, etc. based on that. Accordingly, the earth appears 4.5 billion years old (give or take) and the universe about 14-15 billion years old. A Christian looks at the origins question through the lens of faith. Is it possible that God could have created the universe and all life as stated in Genesis 1-2? It's not "childish" to believe that God can do that. I agree that public schools should not be compelled to teach Young Earth Creationism, but it's not "childish" for a Christian to believe that Genesis might contain the truth.

Mar 29, 2007 2:20 PM

Pink :

.
Well, yeeaauh, as long as we are going to believe in magic.
.
:)
.
That's mincing words.
.
And, childish.
.

Mar 29, 2007 3:23 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Believing that Genesis could be literal is not childish. Forcing others to believe in a literal Genesis and turning a blind eye and deaf ear to all views and arguments to the contrary is childish.

Mar 29, 2007 3:40 PM

Pink :

.
Okay, if you are saying that you believe in a literal view that God created Adam out of the dirt like it comes across literally and that he took one of Adam's ribs and made Eve with that, then I guess you can call your self an adult thinker.
.
But, I don't. I say that's a childish fairy tale when it is taken literally.
.

Mar 30, 2007 6:21 AM

Paper Turtle :

You have forgotten your own Vision. Your Vision is right for you but no one else. Now each of you must pray for your own Visions, and be still enough to see them, so you can follow the way of the heart. It is a hard way. It is a good way.
.
I love this. Thanks for posting it.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

Mar 30, 2007 7:21 AM

Brian Tubbs :

If God is real and He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, then ANYTHING is possible with God. That is an important beginning assumption. If you don't believe in God or seriously doubt God, then all this Genesis stuff is mumbo-jumbo.

Assuming belief in an all-powerful God....

if you are saying that you believe in a literal view that God created Adam out of the dirt like it comes across literally 

Could God do this? Could He have created Adam out of the dirt? Of course, I would say that, in this case, God IS trying to communicate something to us. There is literary value in these terms. A deeper meaning.

...that he took one of Adam's ribs and made Eve with that...

I think God communicated it this way to Moses in order to demonstrate the equality of men and women. A woman was created out of the man's side, NOT his backside. A woman isn't just supposed to follow along behind the man, but a man and woman are to stand side-by-side. That's the meaning of the "rib," I think.

You see? I am not closed to literary depth. :)

Mar 30, 2007 8:00 AM

Pink :

.
If God is real and He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, then ANYTHING is possible with God. That is an important beginning assumption. If you don't believe in God or seriously doubt God, then all this Genesis stuff is mumbo-jumbo.
.
That's what I mean by didactic. Get off the my way or the highway pitch, okay?
.
Any person can believe in God--a Supreme Entity--without having to swallow the Bible as the Word of God.
.
And, just because something is written analogously does not mean it is mumbo-jumbo. Instead, that claim is an effort to intimidate anyone who would question authority.

Mar 30, 2007 8:08 AM

Migisi :

.
and be still enough to see them, so you can follow the way of the heart. It is a hard way. It is a good way.
.
Beautiful and powerful, isn't it! Whew!

Mar 30, 2007 8:26 AM

Pink :

.
When I was a youngster, the life of the Native Americans fascinated me.
.
You might recall I spent a big part of my boyhood living with my grand parents at a place called Indian Lake. The name derived from the fact that Native Americans lived there. I imagined myself to be a young Indian and I felt the spirit of the place come into my presence. I could hear the echoes of the mature braves enjoying the scene where young bucks were being encouraged into their manhood. What was I, nine or ten years old? Maybe 11? All along on a field where I found arrow heads and other articfacts and dancing around like I was there in their midst with others. When you're a young boy and you're all alone on a field where no one else can see or hear you, all kinds of things are imaginable.
.
We lost much wisdom when we drove the Natives into obscurity. Very sad.
.

Mar 30, 2007 9:03 AM

Migisi :

.
I would say that, in this case, God IS trying to communicate something to us. There is literary value in these terms. A deeper meaning... I think God communicated it this way...
.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere. "Literary value... A deeper meaning... communicating it this way..." Your remarks here show me that you're no longer offering infant 'milk' (literal belief), but 'solid food' for the mature (deeper meaning through the imagery and symbolism). Keep going. I'm with ya. :)

Mar 30, 2007 9:05 AM

Migisi :

.
Their spirits never left that land, Pink. Being young, open and receptive, you felt them. :)

Mar 30, 2007 10:25 AM

Paper Turtle :

Migisi--
.
I thought you might be interested in my latest painting. Its a depiction of a Native American medicine bag, containing my own personal "medicine" (representations of natural objects which have spiritual significance for me). The painting will never be for sale, since it just wouldn't feel right to sell what was given to me by the earth.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

Mar 30, 2007 10:55 AM

Migisi :

.
The painting will never be for sale.
.
Some things are simply 'priceless'.

Mar 30, 2007 3:09 PM

Brian Tubbs :

PT, are any of your paintings online?

Mar 30, 2007 5:11 PM

Paper Turtle :

PT, are any of your paintings online? 
.
Not yet. My goal is to set up a web site after I get an exhibition--then I'll be able to buy a digital camera so I can have web-displayable photos. I'm aiming for an exhibition in the next 4-6 weeks (maybe in conjunction with my son).
.
Thanks for asking. :)
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

Mar 31, 2007 12:54 PM

Pink :

.
I wish you the best of luck.
.
A mid-spring exhibition is a great time for a new birth. In what place will your work be shown?
.

Mar 31, 2007 11:18 PM

Paper Turtle :

Thanks, Phil. :)
.
My best prospect is a local coffee house which regularly displays area artists in all media (including music and poetry). People who have exhibited there tell me their works sold right off the wall. :)
.
I will also be displaying my works at a local arts festival in mid-May.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

Apr 1, 2007 5:50 AM

Pink :

.
Good luck!
.
:)

Jun 7, 2007 7:19 PM

Brian Tubbs :

I like what this pastor had to say about Ken Ham's new museum...

http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=25812

Jun 9, 2007 8:55 AM

Migisi :

.
From the article above - "Closed minds at the museum":
.
"...it dawned on me that the problem for the protesters is not that they are scientifically wrong. They are certainly not our enemies."
.
Nice for the good pastor to say, but it's not Christian doctrine. According to Jesus himself (Matthew 12:30), "He who is not with me is against me.." makes nonChristians the enemy.
.
"The problem is that they hold a view of the world that is sad and hopelessly violent."
.
Care to comment on why he might think this?
.
"I pray the protesters see not just the truth but the beauty of a world in which scientifically impossible things happen: lions eat straw like an ox, the world is saved in an ark, people come back from the dead, camels pass through needles' eyes, old men are born again."
.
I think Moore has been living in fantasyland too long. In the real and natural world, it is indeed 'impossible' for the above to happen. Thou shalt not lie.

Jun 10, 2007 8:09 AM

Pink :

.
Aren't these "Creation Museums" being built in different places in America? Aren't they all relative to Southern Conservatism? Aren't they an assault on our educational systems? Is Orlando's Bible Theme Park a similar symptom?
.
http://www.bennyhinn.org/yourlife/InTheNews-Religion-News/Bible-Theme-Park.html
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/us/10biblepark.html?ex=1339128000&en=291a563323c7954c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1442079/posts
.
http://www.ticketmomma.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=25&products_id=98
.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/walkthrough/
.
http://www.creationmuseum.org/
.
http://www.creationevidence.org/
.
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/museum/
.
Just a few.
.

Jun 10, 2007 9:45 AM

Migisi :

.
"Bible park USA" in Tennessee, (New York developer SafeHarbor Holding)
.
Benny Hinn's "Holy Land Experience" - Florida
.
Carl Baugh's "Creation Evidence Museum" - Texas
.
Ken Ham's "Creation Museum" - Kentucky
.
.
Yep, I noticed none in the north. Yet. Wonder how much $ they bring in at the door each day.

Jun 10, 2007 9:58 AM

Pink :

.
People like Benny Hinn have no concerns about money. They are more interested in power.
.
You can be sure Benny HInn has a great deal of power. He can sway millions of people.
.

Jun 10, 2007 10:28 AM

Pink :

.
Have you heard how Hinn paid for his six million dollar private jet recently?
.

Jun 10, 2007 11:30 AM

Brian Tubbs :

I agree with you on Benny Hinn.

Jun 10, 2007 11:31 AM

Brian Tubbs :

Yes, terrible. But don't lump all evangelicals and/or professing Christians together.

Jun 10, 2007 1:44 PM

Pink :

.
"...don't lump all evangelicals and/or professing Christians together."
.
I know several Evangelicals who will call Hinn an opportunistic fraud when they are in closed company.
.
He's a snake oil fraud in my book. I think the problem arises when those Evangelicals I know don't come out of their closed company to make those statements. I'd like to see that done on national television so the general public can get the message of the difference. In the absence of that all television Christians are stuck on believing he is a highly respected preacher within Evangelical Christianity. You can deny that; but, it is the large number of the masses that are the victims of the fraud. What ever happened to the idea of rescuing the perishing?
.

Jun 10, 2007 2:15 PM

Brian Tubbs :

I agree that more evangelical Christians should call Hinn to account, and many do. Hank Hannegraf, better known as the "Bible Answer Man" for his nationally syndicated radio program, wrote a book Christianity in Crisis in which he took Hinn and several other televangelists to the woodshed. I enjoyed the book!

Jun 10, 2007 2:20 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Just so we understand our terms....

Intelligent Design is a theory or belief (depending on your POV) that the universe evidences DESIGN - and thus implies a Grand Designer of some kind.

Creationism is a subset of Intelligent Design. There are many adherents of ID who are not literal biblical Creationists.

Intelligent Design IS a scientific interpretation of the origins data/evidence. Creationism is NOT.

Jun 10, 2007 2:47 PM

Pink :

.
I think Intelligent Design is an hypothesis and not a theory.
.
Why? Because theories can be tested and Intelligent Design cannot be tested.
.
Science has rigid rules and it holds the feet of every theorist to the fire.
.

Jun 11, 2007 2:40 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Evolution, in terms of speciation - one species changing into another - has also NOT been tested or observed. (Yes, some plants have been classified and re-classified in ways that have been used to support evolution. But there have been no clear cases of one species changing into a completely and totally different species).

In my view, evolution (which HAS been observed at a "micro" level) has been extended well beyond what science and the fossil record has established.

Jun 11, 2007 3:18 PM

Pink :

.
In my view, evolution (which HAS been observed at a "micro" level) has been extended well beyond what science and the fossil record has established.
.
Do viruses evolve?
.
I suspect that life is a universal "thing" that pervades existence.
.
And, seeing that all existence appears to been existent for somewhere in the neighborhood of from four to five billion years, it seems logical to me that a supreme being has most likely evolved.
.
Maybe not, I have no way of knowing.
.
But, it seems more than plausible to me.
.
In so far as "Intelligent Design" is concerned, it is a fanciful idea; but, it reminds me of a U tube that is used in experiments to show that water seeks its own level.
.
The male and female gamete of the human species combine to evolve into a human infant that is born into life. That is such an exciting thing that I think arguing over the religious issues Is a waste of our time. We can get into more productive things.
.

Jun 11, 2007 4:55 PM

Kim Jeremy Sheil :

People like Benny Hinn have no concerns about money. They are more interested in power.

You can be sure Benny HInn has a great deal of power. He can sway millions of people.

I'm no fan of Benny Hinn, or all those other Televangelists like him. I don't mind some of these preachers on TV, but too many of them I cannot trust. It's seems they care more about the Almight Dollar than saving souls.

I saw a fuuny t-shirt once that said "If money is the root of all evil, then why are televangelists always begging for it?"

Jun 11, 2007 5:26 PM

Pink :

.
"If money is the root of all evil, then why are televangelists always begging for it?"
.
They want to do you a favor and suck the evil out of you?
.

Jun 11, 2007 5:34 PM

Brian Tubbs :

If God is real, then I can't think of any more productive or pertinent topic of discussion or investigation. Seems rather odd that you would wave it off as a "waste of time."

It is FAR, FAR, FAR more plausible to believe that a Supreme Being initiated and designed the universe than to theorize that it exploded out of nothing.

Jun 11, 2007 6:57 PM

Pink :

.
Well, you have your ideas and I have mine.
.
I don't think that existence exploded out of nothing.
.
These things of existence are mysteries and we hate those that are unsettled. It is our nature to explain everything, isn't it?
.
Why do we have to settle for the imaginings of an ancient tribal people regarding such things as the existence of reality?
.
When I see the pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope I am blown away. I want to be with the love of my life--one with whom I can go deep into explorations. I want to go out back and lay on my back gazing into the skies. I want my imagination to run wild. I am chagrined by the thought that I can be influenced by tribal chiefs from the ancient Semite valley--those people who thought a breeze blowing through the leaves of a tree was God. Life is so wonderful.
.
The very idea of a galaxie was unknown to their primitive minds. This is the year, 2007. Even a nut has that information available to them.
.
In no way does this thinking detract from the wonders of a Supreme Being.
.

Jun 11, 2007 10:40 PM

Kim Jeremy Sheil :

Lol, that was a good one.:)

I don't believe money is the root of all evil, but the lust for money comes close.

Jun 12, 2007 12:11 AM

Migisi :

.
Why do we have to settle for the imaginings of an ancient tribal people regarding such things as the existence of reality?
.
What makes the Hebrew creation story more believable or truer than these from other ancient tribal cultures?
.
Creation Stories from around the World
http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSIndex.html
.
And nice artwork here:
.
Common Themes, East & West: Creation Myths & Sacred Narratives of Creation
http://www.mythinglinks.org/ct~creation.html

Jun 12, 2007 12:30 AM

Migisi :

.
Entire article quoted from:
.
Actor's Risque Past Halts 'Adam' Film
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/06/07/national/a175033D34.DTL
.
By JULIE CARR SMYTH, Associated Press Writer
.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
.
Columbus, Ohio (AP) --
.
The man who plays Adam in a video aired at a Bible-based creationist museum has led a different life outside the Garden of Eden, flaunting his sexual exploits online and modeling for a clothing line that promotes free love.
.
After learning about his activities Thursday, the Creation Museum in Kentucky pulled the 40-second video in which he appears.
.
"We are currently investigating the veracity of these serious claims of his participation in projects that don't align with the biblical standards and moral code upon which the ministry was founded," Answers for Genesis spokesman Mark Looy said in a written statement.
.
The actor, Eric Linden, owns a graphic Web site called Bedroom Acrobat, where he has been pictured, smiling alongside a drag queen, in a T-shirt brandishing the site's sexually suggestive logo. The Web site, which has a network of members, allows users to post explicit stories and photos.
.
He also sells clothing for SFX International, whose initials appear on clothing to spell "SEX" from afar. It promotes "free love,""pleasure" and "thrillz."
.
Linden, a graphic designer, model and actor who grew up in Columbus, said he is no longer affiliated with the Bedroom Acrobat site, and had handed the domain name off to somebody. Ownership records available through the NetworkSolutions database show Linden registered the site 18 months ago.
.
He also said he no longer posts to the site.
.
Linden said he is very proud to play Adam. "But just because I'm Adam on the screen, that doesn't mean I'm Adam off the screen," he said. "What I do shouldn't have anything to do with who they think Adam is."
.
The clip he appears in is one of 55 featured on tours of the museum, near Cincinnati in Petersburg, Ky. The museum tells the Bible's version of Earth's history - the planet was created in a single week just a few thousand years ago.
.
The museum pulled the clip after learning about his online activities from The Associated Press.
.
Linden, who now lives in Los Angeles, said his modeling work for the clothing line is just one of the many jobs that make up his career. He said he has great respect for the founders of the Creation Museum and their vision.
.
"For the Creation

Jun 12, 2007 1:07 AM

Migisi :

.
Irreverent and R-rated, but I just had to...
.
Fun at the Creation Museum!!!!
http://crazytalk.typepad.com/bluegrassroots/2007/06/fun_at_the_crea.html
.
Click on pics to enlarge so you can read Ken Ham's 'how' and 'why' explanations. I confess I did laugh out loud.

Jun 12, 2007 4:49 AM

Kim Jeremy Sheil :

Thanks for that Migisi. I read about Paris Hilton claiming she talks to through Barbara Walters this morning and I thought to myself "This is about the stupidest thing I'll read this day", but the person who wrote that blog makes Miss Hilton seem like a member of MENSA.

Either this blog was written by an uneducated skeptic or a Creationist posing as a skeptic to make them look stupid.

I should point out though, that, judging by the first paragraph, this person is a bigger hypocrite than the folks at PETA.

Once again, thanks for the laugh Migisi.:)

Jun 12, 2007 8:48 AM

Brian Tubbs :

Critics of the Bible and Christianity often turn to ridicule and insults to refute Creationism. People who are capable of reason can hopefully see through that to assess Creationism for what it is -- an explanation for the origins of the universe and human life.

As an explanation, it is NOT implausible, nor has it been discredited - as many critics claim. It's true that it can't be conclusively established, but it cannot be utterly disproved either.

It is, in fact, entirely plausible and consistent with what we know in science, philosophy, and logic.

Jun 12, 2007 8:55 AM

Brian Tubbs :

I appreciate your marveling, but there are several problems with your reasoning here.

First, Creationism isn't merely a construct of ancient tribal chieftains. Biblical creationism was MORE OR LESS the reigning origins theory of the western world (in both secular AND religious circles) for centuries leading up to Darwin's theory of evolution. While Darwin's theory has supplanted Creationism (for now), Creationism remains - as a theory - much more credible than you give it credit.

Second, you are opening the door, in my opinion, to the real reason you now reject Christianity. You want an open reality - one in which your imagination can "run wild." Christianity represents a more closed system - one that claims Absolute Truth. That's much too limiting for you. Well, Christianity may present emotional difficulties or psychological problems for you, but these factors do not make Christianity or Creationism any less real or valid.

Third, you should NOT make the mistake of thinking that ancient peoples have nothing to offer the modern world - because they were once steeped in superstition and myth. In our modernist snobbery, we too often disregard the wisdom of history. This is a real shame, when you consider that the ancient world has passed down many literary, architectural, and other wonders through the generations. Don't wave off ancient peoples as mere primitives. I'm not saying you have to completely buy into everything they believed, but they deserve greater respect than you give them.

Jun 12, 2007 9:21 AM

Pink :

.
Heh!
.
The ideas of creationism are entirely out of the minds of primitive men.
.
Those ideas have been honed and polished over the centuries up to the time of Darwin and even until to day with Intelligent Design; but, their roots are in primitive civilizations. Boogie men and gods that fought with each other over geography.
.
As far as me rejecting Christianity is concerned, I don't. But, I think any Christianity that opposes modernity is a pile of bunk. That's the brand that attempts to compete with science by claiming the Bible trumps all else and whose adherents can spend their entire life time trying to prove fairy tales are facts of life. The boogie man is going to get you? Phooey!
.
Of all the things a person should question, the most obvious is something that claims absolute truth.
.

Jun 12, 2007 5:56 PM

Kim Jeremy Sheil :

Critics of the Bible and Christianity often turn to ridicule and insults to refute Creationism.

Sadly, that is the reason I no long engage in Creation/Evolution debates. While I try my hardest to present evidence and debate in a calm, peaceful manner with an open mind, the critic resorts to closed mindedness, childish name-calling, abuse, ridicule, insults and everytime we start getting somewhere, s/he either starts ranting about God being evil (which has nothing to do with Creation/Evolution) or they play the Hitler card. Pretty much, by the end we get nowhere and everyone involved in the debate feels dumber.

And it doesn't just happen to me. For example, in a recent debate between Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron and 2 Atheists the same thing happened. While the Christian side of the audience sat quietly and listened to both sides of the debate, the atheist side resorted to heckling, name calling and other childish activities (although surprisingly, the Atheist debaters showed maturity this time around).

Plus a debate is nothing more than a talking contest.

I'll gladly start debating again though when I can find a critic who is willing to act their age, but until then I have just one question directed at both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate: What makes you think insulting and ridiculing people makes you right?

Jun 12, 2007 6:01 PM

Kim Jeremy Sheil :

Click here:

http://www.intelligentdesignversusevolution.com/

But if you want to win $100, 000:

http://www.skeptics.com.au/prizes/challenge.htm

Jun 12, 2007 6:04 PM

Kim Jeremy Sheil :

Just my final thoughts on the Creation Museum.

Why's everyone so worried? The only people who'll go there are either those who already believe in Creation, or skeptics who just wanna laugh at us, and I doubt there will be any field trips there by secular schools, so what's the problem?

Jun 13, 2007 4:50 AM

Pink :

.
I saw the first video.
.
Bunk.
.

Jun 13, 2007 5:12 AM

Pink :

.
Why's everyone so worried?
.
Who is worried?
.
It isn't a problem that some believe in the magical idea that God literally spoke being into existence.
.
Some believe that God metaphorically spoke being into existence.
.
Some say it was a big bang and then evolution completed the job over the next several billion years.
.
Some say that the Big Bang Theory means that everything came into existence as completely as we can see it today with buildings, cars, society, and everything else in place.
.
Some, like the people who produced that video you linked, like to ridicule anyone who doesn't buy into their system.
.
And, like you wrote,
.
"...so what's the problem"
.

Jun 13, 2007 7:50 AM

Migisi :

.
Interesting Gallup Poll to review on evolution/creation beliefs here. The disagreement over origins isn't based on science, but on religion. So I wonder why do so many attempt to use science to reinforce the Bible.
.
June 11, 2007
Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution -
More Americans accept theory of creationism than evolution
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
.
Snippet:
.
"Bottom Line
.
"The data in this analysis were measured in the context of questions about the origin and development of human beings. It is apparent that many Americans simply do not like the idea that humans evolved from lower forms of life. This appears to be substantially based on a belief in the story of creation as outlined in the Bible -- that God created humans in a process that, taking the Bible literally, occurred about 10,000 years ago.
.
"Americans who say they do not believe in the theory of evolution are highly likely to justify this belief by reference to religion, Jesus Christ, or the Bible. Furthermore, there is a strong correlation between high levels of personal religiosity and doubts about evolution.
.
"Being religious in America today is strongly related to partisanship, with more religious Americans in general much more likely to be Republicans than to be independents or Democrats. This relationship helps explain the finding that Republicans are significantly more likely than independents or Democrats to say they do not believe in evolution. When three Republican presidential candidates said in a May debate that they did not believe in evolution, the current analysis suggests that many Republicans across the country no doubt agreed."

Jun 14, 2007 8:07 AM

Migisi :

.
Why's everyone so worried? The only people who'll go there are either those who already believe in Creation, or skeptics who just wanna laugh at us, and I doubt there will be any field trips there by secular schools, so what's the problem?
.
I personally don't have worries or problems with Ken's museum. I'm all for free enterprise (cha-ching $). I think the protesters are making a big deal out of nothing.
.
Years ago, while on a road trip across the US with my kids, we stopped at many 'museums' along the highways. We especially enjoyed visiting those that promised they had irrefutable 'evidence' of space aliens (Roswell) - or Big Foot - or live dinosaurs. The kids had fun with the trinkets and books we bought to keep them busy in the car. I think of Ken's museum on that level. Just another roadside show.

Jun 14, 2007 9:44 AM

Boanerges :

I think of Ken's museum on that level. Just another roadside show

based on the pictures Ive seen, and admittedly not personally visiting the museum.. I must admit.. Im not impressed....

valiant effort? sure.... worth? Hmm.. thats an individual decision.. if the museum helped to resolve that decision then I am for the fundamental human right of free speech......
:)

Jun 14, 2007 9:58 AM

Brian Tubbs :

I'm not that far from the Creation Museum. So, I'll probably visit it at some point. When I do, I'll post a review. I don't want to offer too strong commentary for it - pro or con - until I've seen it.

HOWEVER...I will say that I strongly disagree with the anti-Creationism bias shown by so many of the museum's critics. There is a lot more evidence that challenges Darwinian macro-evolution and which supports Creationism than critics of Christianity care to admit. That's why they seek every way possible to stifle and suppress any challenge to their 'sacred cow' of Darwinism.

Jun 14, 2007 10:01 AM

Pink :

.
"...Darwinian macro-evolution..."
.
Could you explain what you mean by that?
.
Thanks.
.

Jun 14, 2007 10:06 AM

Brian Tubbs :

There is overwhelming scientific evidence for micro-evolution. In layman's terms (I admit), micro-evolution refers to intraspecies adaptation. There's plenty of evidence for that. And, in that sense, I totally accept and embrace evolution.

There is LITTLE evidence (and what there is can only be described as 'stretched' or 'strained') for MACRO-evolution, meaning the evolutionary transformation of one species to another.

I understand that evolutionary scientists claim that certain plants have shown signs of speciation, but these claims are highly questionable. In many cases, it's a matter of classification.

Jun 14, 2007 10:12 AM

Pink :

.
I would say it is more of a question about at what point speciation is accomplished.
.
And, it is a great challenge to biological science. Do you think that federal funds should be used to learn more about it?
.

Jun 14, 2007 11:19 AM

Brian Tubbs :

Federal funds are already being allocated to scientific research, including presumably into this. I am not interested in restricting scientific research just to service a religious agenda - if that's what you're getting at.

I think it's far more the case that ATHEISTS and AGNOSTICS use the power of the purse AND the power of the state to stifle Intelligent Design.

Jun 14, 2007 11:42 AM

Pink :

.
We must be eternally vigilant to keep our freedoms from the power hungry hands of sectarian politicians. I'm sure you know that.
.
I have to fly to some appointments.
.
Sorry for the brief answers.
/.

Jun 14, 2007 4:39 PM

Migisi :

.
There is a lot more evidence that challenges Darwinian macro-evolution and which supports Creationism than critics of Christianity care to admit.
.
"Evidence" is something that furnishes PROOF. A 'theory' is an ~unproved~ ASSUMPTION. Evolution is a scientific ~theory~. Creationism is a religious ~theory~. Neither can furnish irrefutable PROOF. Belief in either is simply that -- a belief. NOBODY can claim they know with absolute certainly how the universe and life began.

Jun 14, 2007 7:58 PM

Kim Jeremy Sheil :

Sorry for the late reply. I couldn't get onto Suite101 yesterday for some reason.

Who is worried?

Many people seem to be. I can name one person: Dr Eugenie Scott. She seems very worried about it.

It isn't a problem that some believe in the magical idea that God literally spoke being into existence.

I would have "supernatural" rather than magical. Magic are those tricks magicians do on stage.

Some say it was a big bang and then evolution completed the job over the next several billion years.

The Big Bang is one of the biggest problems that makes it hard for me to believe in Evolution. I don't understand how one thing that's physically impossible(God speaking every natural thing into existence) is less believable than something else that's physically impossible (an explosion caused by nothing in an empty void slowly creating an entire functioning universe but only producing sentient beings on only one backwater planet).

I don't have a problem with people believing in Evolution or Creation or that "chariots of the gods crap", I just have a problem with people ridiculing others for what they believe in (and yes, that does include Creationist like the folks at AiG).

Some, like the people who produced that video you linked, like to ridicule anyone who doesn't buy into their system.

You think they're bad, take a look at a "documentary" (I use the term lightly since Doco's are supposed to be educational and enlightening) called "The Root of all Evil" by my old friend, Richard "believe what I tell you to or I'll point at you and laugh" Dawkins. In fact, watch any pro-evolution/anti-creation "documentary". They're no different from the ones Creationists make, but sometimes they're worse.

Jun 14, 2007 8:27 PM

Kim Jeremy Sheil :

I personally don't have worries or problems with Ken's museum. I'm all for free enterprise (cha-ching $).

I have no worries about any secular museums. In fact, just about every seacond Tuesday, I kill time in one of my favourite places near where I live, the Queensland Museum. As soon as you walk in you're bombarded with Evolution. In fact, the first thing you see (apart from the donation bin, which contains money from all over the world and some plastic spiders, and the gift shop) is a complete (I think) Muttaburrasaurus skeleton. I took a photo of it and put it on my MySpace page. Check it out: http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=120616481&albumID=879438&imageID=6165988

 I think the protesters are making a big deal out of nothing.

I think they gave it the attention AiG never thought possible. Much like the PETA people. Everytime they hold a protest at a KFC, the store reports record business.

If the critics wanted the Creation Museum to fail, they should have just stayed away.

Years ago, while on a road trip across the US with my kids, we stopped at many 'museums' along the highways.

When I tour the States sometime in the future, I really want to visit those museums. Well, maybe not the Barbie Museum they had in Rat Race, lol. Then I wanna go that place in Texas with those huge-arse steaks.

We especially enjoyed visiting those that promised they had irrefutable 'evidence' of space aliens (Roswell) - or Big Foot - or live dinosaurs.

Man, you only need to visit YouTube for that stuff. Type in "alien" or "ghost" or "chupacubra" or something like that and you'll be sure to find "irrefutable evidence". I've debunked just about all of them. They're either just a guy in a suit, a puppet or some really bad CGI animation. This is one of my favourites: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmHmnfgON4A

This is one to show Grandma: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtqjXRqKr1Q

I e-mailed it to one of my friends and it scared the crap out her. She then showed her 9 year old sister. Now she's scared to open any e-mail I send her, lol.

Although this one is freaky. There must be something wrong with me because I can't find any evidence of a hoax, but still, I'm not jumping to any conclusions. I've been looking at it for over a month now. See if you can do any better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hwus_nQm54

Jun 15, 2007 7:27 AM

Migisi :

.
As soon as you walk in you're bombarded with Evolution. In fact, the first thing you see (apart from the donation bin, which contains money from all over the world and some plastic spiders, and the gift shop) is a complete (I think) Muttaburrasaurus skeleton.
.
Interesting. You frequent an evolution museum, even tho' you don't believe in it - just like I visited the space aliens museums and Big Foot road shows. Entertaining and fun to speculate, isn't it.
.
I took a photo of it and put it on my MySpace page.
.
I went, but where's your pic?
.
think they gave it the attention AiG never thought possible. Much like the PETA people. Everytime they hold a protest at a KFC, the store reports record business.
.
Exactly! You read my mind. The protesters gave Ham just what he needed -- free advertising.
.
When I tour the States sometime in the future, I really want to visit those museums. Well, maybe not the Barbie Museum they had in Rat Race, lol. Then I wanna go that place in Texas with those huge-arse steaks.
.
You'll enjoy the roadside museums - world's largest pumpkin,
real live dinosaurs (a reptile zoo), fabric from the Roswell alien crash site, a cement cast impression of Big Foot's foot ... it's all so silly but entertaining. Eat all the Texas steak and you're meal's free? I'm telling you, you CAN'T finish that slab of meat! No way!
.
This is one to show Grandma:
.
Ya got me, Kim! Tee hee.
.
There must be something wrong with me because I can't find any evidence of a hoax, but still, I'm not jumping to any conclusions.
.
One would think a self-proclaimed digital expert like the filmer would be able to bring the flying man into better focus.
Did you watch this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJARrc40imk&mode=related&search=
I'm thinking the flying guy is using mechanical assistance - a jet back pack? Perhaps another military experiment?

Jun 15, 2007 8:00 AM

Migisi :

.
Christianity represents a more closed system - one that claims Absolute Truth... Christianity may present emotional difficulties or psychological problems for you, but these factors do not make Christianity or Creationism any less real or valid.

.
From the 'Reality of Jesus' thread (post 45):
.
Migisi,
.
I personally don't go down the road of defending the Bible on scientific grounds, since much of it was written allegorically and poetically. Christians get themselves in trouble when they pick some verses that imply a scientifically correct ecosystem, and then ignore others that are poetic - like the "four corners."
.
So, how can one defend Bible Creationism as 'real and valid' and 'Absolute Truth' - if, as you say, much of the Bible was "written allegorically and poetically"? Confused and curious.

Jun 15, 2007 10:02 AM

Brian Tubbs :

If there is a Supreme Being which can rightly be called "God," then no other entity can claim to establish the standards for Right and Wrong or Truth and Falsehood. God would be all-powerful and timeless.

Since I'm an avowed monotheist, harboring zero doubts about the existence of such a Supreme Being -- I therefore believe completely and totally in the existence of Absolute Truth.

This, however, does not necessarily translate to believing or arguing that the Bible contains the entire scope of that Truth or that it explains the entire scope of God.

The Bible is God's revelation to mankind -- as understood and penned by human hands, under (I believe) the inspiration of God.

Much of the Bible is allegorical and poetic. And the Bible overall is written with human and linguistic limitations. So, it cannot convey ALL of God's essence or nature to us, nor the extent and scope of ALL of Truth -- but it can convey as much as GOD wants there to be conveyed.

Jun 15, 2007 6:55 PM

Kim Jeremy Sheil :

Interesting. You frequent an evolution museum, even tho' you don't believe in it - just like I visited the space aliens museums and Big Foot road shows. Entertaining and fun to speculate, isn't it.

Yep, it is fun.:)

Well, it's not exactly an Evolution museum. Evolution only makes up a small part of the museum. One room features the history of Australia, and Queensland in particular, such as the first settlers, our farming/mining history, etc. Another room is dedicated to our marine life, mainly turtles, then there's the history of cars/trucks/planes in Australia, and a new exhibition about Australia's Surf Lifesaver history. Anyway, there's so much there it'll take ages to explain it all. It'd be better to visit the website: http://www.southbank.qm.qld.gov.au/

I went, but where's your pic?

Try this link: http://www.myspace.com/evilchihuahua84

Just click on "Pics" and "Fun at the Museum".

If that fails go here: http://www.myspace.com/evilchihuahua84

Once again, it's "Fun at the Museum". Also check out "Movie World" if you have the time. Just a few pics from one of our most popular theme parks. They've shot a lot of American films there (Scooby Doo, The Matrix, etc) and still have a lot of left over props and sets, some thet've brought in from Hollywood(they still have one of the sets from The Matrix movies, and props from the Batman films and Police Academy to name a few.).

Exactly! You read my mind. The protesters gave Ham just what he needed -- free advertising.

I wouldn't be surprised if they hired some people to protest, lol.

You'll enjoy the roadside museums - world's largest pumpkin,
real live dinosaurs (a reptile zoo), fabric from the Roswell alien crash site, a cement cast impression of Big Foot's foot ... it's all so silly but entertaining.

I heard you can go UFO watching near Area 51. I believe in UFO's and aliens and all that, but I know Area 51 has nothing to do with aliens. I've also heard about insect rodeos and haunted houses/graveyards they pull in the odd dollar. It's a pity we don't have places like that here. We have a Strawberry farm, where you can keep what you pick, but that's about it. Well, apart from the major theme parks anyway.

 Eat all the Texas steak and you're meal's free? I'm telling you, you CAN'T finish that slab of meat! No way!

I'll take that challenge, lol. I've been practicing.:)

Ya got me, Kim! Tee hee.

I love that

Jun 15, 2007 7:22 PM

Brian Tubbs :

I once told my class: "I believe in UFOs." They recoiled in shock. Then, I asked: "What does UFO stand for?"

The answer of course is "Unidentified Flying Objects."

I then said: "Who here believes that everyone always correctly identifies flying objects that they observe?"

So...you see? There ARE flying objects that people are not able to identify.

This, of course, doesn't mean that they are space aliens. I don't believe in space aliens. Well, actually, I do when I watch Star Trek and Star Wars. :)

Jun 16, 2007 7:50 PM

Kim Jeremy Sheil :

Exactly.:)

Aug 5, 2007 7:15 AM

Pink :

.
Here's a different view on creation and how we came into being.
.
For what it's worth, you can listen to it and learn how some people think:
.
http://www.kabbalahblog.info/2007/08/05/kabbalah-today-issue-5-podcast/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-120
.

Sep 12, 2007 6:10 AM

Pink :

.
Without Form & Void
.
Good title for a book.
.
It's unclear to me that the Bible claims God created the Universe.
.
Maybe I can get some help from the biblicists here. It seems like there was something already existent when God created Earth and the Heavens surrounding it.
.

Sep 13, 2007 8:45 AM

Migisi :

.
Carl Sagan - The Pale Blue Dot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M&mode=related&search=

Sep 13, 2007 8:57 AM

Pink :

.
W.O.W.!!
.
That is a fantastic clip! it makes me feel like I soar.
.
It made my day.
.
:)

Sep 13, 2007 10:57 AM

Migisi :

.
Just food for thought to chew on today. :)
.

Sep 13, 2007 12:06 PM

Migisi :

.
Wanna soar some more? You might enjoy this version. I did.
.
On The Turning Away [Pink Floyd]: Pale Blue Dot (carl sagan)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7xj8xikyD8&NR=1
.
Towards the end of this video, Sagan is quoted:
.
"My deeply held belief is if any god of anything like the traditional sort exists, our curiousity and intelligence is provided by such a God. We would be unappreciative of that gift, if we surpressed our passion to explore the universe and ourselves."
.
I liked this one too, (music by Ice Core Scientists).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47EBLD-ISyc&mode=related&search=

Sep 13, 2007 12:50 PM

Migisi :

.
This is an interesting "universe age" question posed by Sagan.
.
Light years ahead of Creationism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOJPprykkrI&NR=1

Sep 13, 2007 3:21 PM

Brian Tubbs :

Watched it. Several assumptions made by the late Mr. Sagan (as usual), but still a very interesting video. Thanks for sharing.

Sep 13, 2007 3:26 PM

Brian Tubbs :

It's unclear to me that the Bible claims God created the Universe.

Re-read Genesis 1:1 - and keep doing so until it becomes clearer.

Maybe I can get some help from the biblicists here. It seems like there was something already existent when God created Earth and the Heavens surrounding it.

You seem to be referring to Genesis 1:2 - "And the earth was without form, and void." You will note that Genesis 1:2 comes AFTER Genesis 1:1, which means that the action of Genesis 1:1 - i.e., "God created the heavens and the earth" - takes place before the observation in Genesis 1:2.

If you're opening the door to the "Gap Theory," that's fine. We can discuss that. But I fail to see how Genesis 1:2 says to you that there was anything present before God's initial creative act, as described in Genesis 1:1.

Sep 13, 2007 5:06 PM

Pink :

.
Well, the heavens and the earth are one thing; but, the universe and the galaxies are something else.
.

Sep 13, 2007 5:48 PM

Pink :

.
I am pretty familiar with Sagan and his Cosmos series from the 80's. Are you?
.
No, I'm not; but, that doesn't answer my question. Perhaps I didn't understand your previous statement which is, "We are alone to Sagan and we should be thrilled to share our solitary experience with or without cheribum."
.
Let me try to parse that out.
.
You are saying that Sagan claims we are isolated individuals--all alone by ourself,
and that he claims it should thrill us to share our situation with others whether there is a supernatural or not.
.
Is that what you are saying?
.
If it is, what is there about that that you find upsetting?
.

Sep 13, 2007 9:11 PM

Brother_Jones :

If it is, what is there about that that you find upsetting?

Sagan is preaching basic humanism in his series Cosmos with the original programing airing on PBS...all under the heading of exploring the Universe. Obviously, his stuff appeals to you. No question, he was quite a good communicator and he got many people interested in Science, which is a good thing.

the oldtimer.

Sep 14, 2007 4:17 AM

Pink :

If we are not able to ask skeptical questions; to interrogate those who tell us that something is true; to be skeptical of those in authority; then, we're up for grabs, (up for grabs, up for grabs, up for grabs, ad finutum.) ----Carl Sagan with the echo in parenthesis.
.
Ain't it the truth?

Sep 14, 2007 6:21 AM

Brother_Jones :

Ain't it the truth?

Once again you've ignore with typical liberal posturing what I am saying. It is not Sagan's wonderful curiousity that works the trouble in his body of work. It is his emphatic statments about religion which he provides no basis for his ideas except a masquerade of science. The clip from yesterday is a good example. His contention that we are alone in the Universe with no help coming from anywhere outside our materialistic realm is based on what? Science? For the brief time that Sagan took the stage in the 80's presentation of the Cosmos Series, he became the televangelist for the idea that reality is reduced to matter alone. Watch that little clip again to discover that Sagan was not arguing or asking questions but making religious claims based on his belief that the Universe is self governing. In their book, Science Held Hostage,by Till, Young, and Menningra, the authors conclude:

What Sagan failed to point out is that, although natural science chooses to limit the object of its investigation to the physical universe, that does not provide any warrant for asserting that "the Cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be." Clearly, such a statement cannot be a conclusion of natural science....had that distinction between metaphysical assumption and scientific conclusion been candidly made, the religious agenda of "Cosmos" would have been more obvious from the outset.

Sagan made these types of statements all through his Cosmos Series and you can view the tape again from yesterday to catch a flavor of his unscientific approach to origins.

excerpt from Science Held Hostage, Intervarsity Press, 1988.

im just an oldtimer for the Lord.

Sep 14, 2007 6:37 AM

Pink :

.
His contention that we are alone in the Universe with no help coming from anywhere outside our materialistic realm is based on what?
.
When it came time for you to reach out into the world to earn a living, were you taught that the rewards would come from someone else's efforts? Were you taught to sit back and to wait on God to provide you with all your needs? Or, were you taught to discipline your time and effort and to learn some craft of skill that would carry you through? Were you brought up to believe that you would be responsible to provide yourself and your dependents with your needs and desires?
.
As long as we're going to be basic, these are good questions to answer.
.
I'm not side stepping you in the Self and Family Values threads whether you want to be responsive or not. And, I'm not side stepping you here. It's more that you do the side step and, you're pretty good at it. :)
.
Here is another quotation from the Van Till, etal, book:
.
While natural science can fruitfully investigate the
/formation/ of various structures within the physical world,
it is incapable of dealing with the ultimate /origin/ of the
world's existence. . . .
"Questions of /origin/ -- the ultimate source of existence
itself -- are profoundly important questions. Their answers,
however, will never be derived from the results of natural
science. They are religious questions that must be directed
to whatever serves as the source of one's answers to
religious questions. The natural sciences, because of
limitations in both the object and the domain of their
investigation, have no choice but to remain silent. (My bold emphasis.)
.
Why are these questions outside the realms of science? Why does science have to remain silent? That's bull roar.
.
Science must investigate even where it has no answers. In fact, that is why science does investigate.
.

Sep 14, 2007 6:39 AM

Migisi :

.
His contention that we are alone in the Universe with no help coming from anywhere outside our materialistic realm is based on what?
.
He said there was no evidence of anything coming to save us from ourselves.
.
Is he wrong? Is so, provide the evidence.

Sep 14, 2007 6:58 AM

Brother_Jones :

He said there was no evidence of anything coming to save us from ourselves.

Well, he said alot of things on this subject. I gave a direct quote from the Clip that contradicts your paraphrase, I think. ABC. Maybe you could dig up a direct quote showing what you found so that we can actually have a little more of what he said.

the oldtimer.

Sep 14, 2007 7:01 AM

Pink :

.
Here is a link that carries profuse quotations from Brother Jones' reference book:
.
http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/hostages.htm
.

Sep 14, 2007 7:48 AM

Migisi :

.
I stand corrected. Sagan said, 'In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no HINT that hope will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.'
.
To hint is to convey an idea covertly or indirectly, but intelligibly.

Sep 14, 2007 7:59 AM

Brother_Jones :

I stand corrected. Sagan said, 'In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no HINT that hope will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.'

No sweat, Migisi. I'm sorta all thumbs in this area of Science and Astronomers. It is a busy job just trying to keep Theologians honest. Don't you agree that Sagan's statement negates the world of spirituality? Is he someone that you feel comfortable with in the overall understandings of the meanings of life? (Billions and billions of planets and stars proves our insignificance in the Universe. We are just a faded blue dot. My paraphrase.) What science do you believe that Sagan uses to determine that 'no hint that hope will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.' Did Sagan discover this truth somehow by using his telescope or microscope? Or did he learn it in a philosophy class?

How well do you know your Sagan?

i'm the oldtimer.

Sep 14, 2007 10:37 AM

Pink :

.
So, then, Brother Jones, it appears you are saying that the spiritual is subservient to the material?
.
Heaven, in your mind, will be some sort of a place quite similar to what we have here except that everything will be perfect and we'll live forever.
.
Uh huh. Yupper, that's what it looks like you are saying.
.
.

Sep 14, 2007 11:03 AM

Brother_Jones :

No, nothing like that.

Pinky, are you posting after a nap or something? Sometimes I do that. It is best to do a couple of jumping jacks or push ups before you post. Thanks for the inquiry about my Grand Rapids grandson. He is doing great. Michigan is advertising the whole state is going green. He will grow up recycling and avoiding plastic. His parents don't have any plans to have him play football or shoot a bb gun. It sounds like those are choices there for young boys. Michigan is like another country from Texas. lol.

the oldtimer.

Sep 14, 2007 11:06 AM

Pink :

.
Pinky, are you posting after a nap or something? Sometimes I do that. It is best to do a couple of jumping jacks or push ups before you post.
.
Your entire set of posts about Carl Sagan seems like an attempt to compare the physical with the spiritual.
.
Maybe I should draw pictures for you?
.
I don't enjoy being insulted. Do you?
.

Sep 14, 2007 11:11 AM

Brother_Jones :

Maybe I should draw pictures for you?

Sagan's humanism doesn't have much appeal for me. Just to use astronomy to direct folks away from God seems like a less than noble calling, but I would admit that lots of people are into the Carl Sagan approach of athiesm. I guess I was comparing Matter vs Spiritual in the Sagan model. Spiritual is a flat zero to Carl Sagan. Can you see any advantage to his kind of humanism?

the oldtimer.

Sep 14, 2007 11:27 AM

Pink :

.
I guess I was comparing Matter vs Spiritual in the Sagan model.
.
It looks to me like you're comparing the material world to the spiritual in a way like comparing apples to oranges. Sagan is world renowned as a highly respected scientist. His video makes many valid points. And, that seems to bother you.
.
???????????
.
BTW, I'm a human so I pay attention to human things. I don't live in la la land.
.
I see our Evangelical participants are all choosing their battles wisely and only entering in on the ones they think they have at least some small chance of winning.
.

.

Sep 14, 2007 4:09 PM

Migisi :

.
"Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense."
- Carl Sagan
.
"In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?"
- Carl Sagan, Cosmos, page 257
.
"I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides."
- Carl Sagan, 1996 in his article "In the Valley of the Shadow", Parade Magazine; Also, Billions and Billions p. 215]
.

Sep 15, 2007 6:59 PM

Pink :

.
Old Carl was pretty good, if you ask me.
.

Sep 16, 2007 11:47 AM

Migisi :

.
Sagan certainly inspired millions to think above and beyond the rock we live on. He presented an awesome 'big picture', a different and wonderful perspective, which moved many to ask and face hard questions about our significance to and in the vastness of the universe. Always, his summations returned to individual responsibility - how we need to cherish and preserve our rock - and each other, and forever seek knowledge. ~That~, IMO, was Sagan's spirituality.
.

106 Comments