The Electric Commentary

Friday, July 22, 2005

Ron Baily's third and final dispatch from the Creation Conference

Is here. "God Said It, That Settles It"

Science and scripture cannot contradict one another, and if they appear to do so, then there is something wrong with the science.

This is what's wrong with America. Read the whole thing.


  • Between the ages of 12 and 15 I regularly attended church youth groups and Bible studies, and the one thing I could never get my head around was how we could be so sure that everything in the Bible was right. When I asked my pastor how he knew we could trust everything in the Bible, he showed me a Bible verse that said scripture is the word of God. That really cleared things up.

    But the other thing is, even these people probably don't really believe everything in the Bible. The Bible is full of passages that condone capital punishment for working on the sabbath and praise a prophet who got a bear to maul a child. I've never gotten how people decide they can just ignore those verses while accepting that the universe was created in six 24-hour days.

    By Blogger MDS, at 2:31 PM  

  • Devil's Advocate for Christian's here: I was always taught that (and this is all Southern Baptist speak) you could ignore all of the laws and punishments in the Old Testament, as Jesus wiped those away with his New Testament. So, what happened historically was true, but the Laws of the Torah were no longer applicable.

    One more point - there is a verse in the Bible saying that, for God, a day is an eon, and an eon is a day. So, a day for God could technically last thousands and even millions of years. God could have created in the earth in six "days" like in the Genesis story and still allow for evolution to be true. That's the best arguement I've heard for Creationism.

    Anyone who believes the earth was created in a day has simply rejected a great deal of science and evidence, and likely cannot be convinced to change their mind.

    By Blogger Mike, at 2:44 PM  

  • "That's the best arguement I've heard for Creationism."

    Same here. So the best argument for creationism is idiotic.

    The people at that conference seemed to reject the notion that a day to god might last eons.

    By Blogger DannyNoonan, at 3:16 PM  

  • I've heard about how Jesus wiped away all the old laws of the Old Testament, but I've never heard an adequate explanation for why those laws are still in the Christian Bible, and why Christians still use Old Testament scripture to justify their beliefs.

    By Blogger MDS, at 4:11 PM  

  • God gave us a brain -we should use it. Science is the method human beings use to try and figure out what God already knows, what God has already created. It takes us a long time to figure stuff out and reach a consensus on it.

    God doesn't need science, we do. Adam and Eve didn't use their brains when God said don't eat it. They ate it anyway. Now we have science.

    By Blogger NLock, at 9:37 PM  

  • Evolution gave us our big brains. Probably. How did you figure out that God already knows anything? He and Santa don't need science because they are not real.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:36 PM  

  • Hey that's pretty good! That's kind of like, "I think, therefore I am. I think not!" **POOF**

    By Blogger NLock, at 8:25 PM  

  • Or like, "I know God is real because I read it in a book that I know is true because it's god's word."

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:34 PM  

  • Right and we both disagree with Ron Bailey. My statement was to show that those who do have faith can reconcile the science and scripture. There are flaws in the scripture because a bunch of people wrote it. I don't believe it just because the Bible said it alone. Faith is involved, and maybe faith is something we human beings find mind blowing. But hey, I'm not dropping my faith because it is hard for me to reconcile with science. Faith doesn't work that way.

    I'll tell you something mindblowing. I sequenced DNA for plants we knew were undergoing microevolutionary processes from becoming nonparasitic to parasitic. These were chloroplast DNA, present in both the plants continuing to use primarily photosynthesis and plants that had started their parasitic properties. It is amazing to see the transformations, and we had to have a lot of faith that these transformations were acting on their own. But we believed the processes were taking place because of the evidence from the science. It's really a cool thing.

    Those without faith don't have to reconcile this. The codes in the DNA are enough. Mr. or Ms. Anonymous, you don't have to worry about it. I too have trouble with folks who think they really know what God is saying to them especially when the human brain is going to muddle those transmissions. I think this Baily piece might be a muddled transmission. They did not check with my people. So we don't really have a consensus on this issue yet. When we all die, I guess we'll find out then (or won't).

    By Blogger NLock, at 9:11 PM  

  • By the way it's Falwell I disagree with, not Bailey necessarily. My apologies. (Wasn't using my brain, was I?)

    By Blogger NLock, at 9:29 PM  

  • Whenever I'm arguing with my friend Brian (in the "People we like" section of the blogroll) about homosexuality I always point out that it's very close to the part of the bible that outlaws the eating of shellfish. At some point in this argument he always mentions that "Jesus came to fulfill the old covenant, not revoke it." (Or something very close to that). I think that that is the reason that many more conservative christians still count old testament teachings. He also makes a point of stressing that sexual sins are more important, but I don't recall any authority for that point.

    Maybe I should just have an open thread evolution post. Maybe later.

    Tim, (not speaking in any way for anonymous folk), your last comment put all of the rest of your comments into better perspective. Personally, I have no problem with people of faith. Not in the slightest. But I am bothered when people ignore new information simply because they like the old information. (And I'm not saying that you do this: "My statement was to show that those who do have faith can reconcile the science and scripture.").

    I definitely think you can come from the faith side with an open mind, but those people tend to spend less time in front of cameras, at school board meetings, etc. That's what allows Bailey to write stuff like:

    "The deeply saddening thing is that these decent people have come to believe they have to reject modern science in order to do so."

    I agree with that sentiment whole-heartedly.

    By Blogger PaulNoonan, at 11:32 PM  

  • I appreciate your comments. Falwell doesn't speak for all Christians. For me, the wonders, discoveries and complexities of science and scientific discoveries are additional building blocks for faith in God. If there is a contradiction, that's a good thing. We go back and look, check our assumptions, and move forward.

    Again, I agree Bailey hit the nail on the head (not the Falwell group). It's sad that this particular group abandons science when they can't reach reconciliation, when the very tenets of their faith are to believe without seeing, believe without evidence, and believe for the sake of believing. That's hard to do. Society has advanced since these tenets, themes, were translated and taught. The Biblical authors likely had no way of knowing we could one day heal our people through scientific discoveries so naturally the subtext is your faith will heal you.

    Why not allow our ever growing knowledge base be a supporter of that very faith. In other words, leave the contradictions to faith and the scientific method where eventually some comfortable merging takes place. Right now, I think the creationists are giving up too early.

    By Blogger NLock, at 11:56 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Amazon Logo