Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

       Ok, what is the problem some people have with the concept of
       evolution, or more specifically natural selection.  Is it that all
       things, living and otherwise, were created by God and are unchanging
       (i.e. natural selection doesn't occur)?  Or is it that natural
       selection applies to everything but humans?

       For those well versed in the Bible, does it teach you that all
       creation is static and unchanging?  Does it address the many unique
       racial characteristic found among the people of the earth?

       I am asking these questions in the spirit of curiosity, not to be
       antagonistic.  Please try to understand that I have heard some
       professed Christians claim that fossils were put on Earth by God to
       confound scientist; and that dinosaurs, for example, never existed. 
       This is a hypothesis that I have difficulty accepting... but perhaps
       I am a heathen :^)

       Go ahead, I'm listening.

       		Eric

    First of all, people who express skepticism regarding the current
    consensus regarding evolution do so at great peril to their careers. 
    It's a bit of hypocrisy that doesn't give credit to science.  It's
    often defended as "payback" for Scopes.

    Secondly, the form the skepticism takes is that theories of evolution
    which explain variations in species are not subject to observation or
    experimentation in the same way that one can show that water is formed
    from two gases.  Cosmology shares this problem with evolution.

    It's one thing to say that evolution is plausible and another to assert
    it with the same academic breath as Newton's Theories/Laws of Motion.

    I think that there is some debate among scientists on the roles that
    various mechanisms may play in evolution.  For example, Gould's
    punctuated equilibrium hypothesis represents an alternative explanation
    for speciation.  And Darwin proposed, in addition to natural selection,
    something called "sexual selection", which is often given much less
    attention in evolutionary theory.  So while the details of evolutionary
    mechanisms are certainly subject to debate, and may change as
    scientific understanding increases, the fact of evolution per se is
    accepted implicitly within modern biology.

    I think that one problem is that scientific debate about the mechanisms
    are often confused with debate about the legitimacy of evolution per
    se.  The two kinds of debates are quite different.
    
    -- Mike

    re:.2 

    I'm sorry for being dull witted, but your first two paragraphs left me
    more bewildered than when I started.  I *think* you said that the
    theories of evolutions make leaps in logic that you disagree with... am
    I right.  Perhaps you could rephrase your ideas more succinctly.

    For what it's worth, the assertions I've read regarding evolution were
    more akin to theories of black holes than absolute laws of nature.  The
    thing is that natural selection ("survival of the fittest") does indeed
    exist, the question is do new species "evolve" through natural
    selection.  The assumption that evolution is being touted as natural
    law is news to me.  No one has referred to the law of evolution.  What I
    have heard is that scientific evidence strongly suggests the theories
    of evolution (like black holes) as apposed to theories that espouse
    that new life forms were created by a divine being and placed on earth. 
    
                                                 Eric

    Clarification to my .4 ...
    
    When I said "evolution" I was referring to the Darwinian theories, or
    mechanics, as Mike calls them.  Sometimes I get mixed up with the terms
    "natural selection" and "evolution".
    
    Sorry for the confusion.
    
    	EM

    First, evolution is based on scientific evidence and conjecture as to
    the meaning of the evidence.  Modern day science generally holds that
    evolution, or something rather similar, is responsible for the vast
    biological diversity that exists on this planet.  Creationism, on the
    other hand, has absolutely zero reliable scientific evidence to back up
    it's claims of validity, particularly if one wishes to take a literal 
    view of the Genesis story.
    
    re: dating
    
    Incidentally, (and this is based on commets made in the note from which
    this rat hole was rescued) I don't believe that Dr. Leakey had anything
    to do with discovering the dinosaur footprints in the bed of the
    Patuxey river (or whatever the name of that river is) in Texas. 
    Further, while carbon 14 dating techiniques have some limitations, not
    least of which is that they are only good for a extremely limited time
    frames in terms of geological dating, it still provides scientifically
    valid results.  There are other forms of dating that provide 
    information for time frames that go into the millions and hundreds of
    millions of years.  And no, none of these techniques can nail a date
    down to within a few years.  But when one is discussing paleontology,
    that isn't important.  What is important is that the biblical time
    spans often touted by fundamentalist people (<6,000 year old earth) are
    easily disproven by scientifically valid methods.
    
    Mike
                                   

    An astronomy professor I studied with once put a distance figure on the
    blackboard one day:
    
    1.56 X 10 (raised to the 15th +/- 2)
    
    When we all raised a skeptical collective eyebrow, he shrugged and said
    "Astrophysicists are the only scientists who put the error in the
    exponent!"
    
    SImilar considerations ought to be given to planetary geography and
    evolutionary matters.  These are VAST periods of time we are talking
    about.  Look at the chimpanzee: gentically speaking, the chimpanzee is
    a near perfect genetic match with humans.  But they estimate that the
    match is separated by 20 MILLION mutations.
    
    I doubt that the human mind is really capable of grasping the enormity
    of this kind of time...
    
    Daniel

    
    
     I'l try and avoid this topic directly, and instead just ask some
    obvious question.
    
    1.) If man evolved from apes then where are the transitional
    apes(unless we did it en mass).
    
    2.) Who created the apes?( I will not accept infinite regress as a valid
     answer).( thus speaketh Nero :-) )
    
    3.)  What is the meaning of life?
    
    4.) Why the hell did Reagan get Re-elected?
    
    David ( who loved those little Chick publications that showed the
    college prof evolutionist getting tore up by a " Spirit filled freshman" :-) :-)

    
>    1.) If man evolved from apes then where are the transitional
>    apes(unless we did it en mass).
 
    Actually, this is a misconception about evolution.  Gorillas and
    chimpanzees and the other primates are not the *ancestors* of homo
    sapiens.  Evolutionary theory, extrapolated from the fossil record,
    shows that human evolution *parallels* evolution of the other primates
    from a common ancestor.  The famed "missing link" has not been
    positively identified from the fossil record, although the
    Austrolopithicus genus is a strong candidate.
    
    Genetic matching, however, is clear evidence that humans and the other
    primates have a common ancestry.
       
   > 2.) Who created the apes?( I will not accept infinite regress as a valid
   >  answer).( thus speaketh Nero :-) )
    
    See above.  Common ancestor.
    
  >  3.)  What is the meaning of life?
   
    This is found quite plainly in the 3rd movement of Mahler's 4th
    symphony.   8-) 
   
   >  4.) Why the hell did Reagan get Re-elected?
    
    The Lord works in mysterious ways?
    
    
    Daniel (who used to read everything in sight from the age of five until
    the present day)

    Good comments, Daniel.  One nit--I don't think the australopithecines
    would be a candidate for a common ancestor for humans and apes, for one
    thing because the australopithecines walked fully upright (the
    australopithecines are classified as hominids.)  It is interesting that
    walking upright evolved among our ancestors before their brains got
    larger.

   >>  4.) Why the hell did Reagan get Re-elected?
    
   > The Lord works in mysterious ways?
    
    Are you sure it is the Lord who engineered Reagan's re-election?  Could it
    not perhaps have been, maybe, SATAN?  :-)

    -- Mike

    AH, thanks for clearing that up --- but, hey, I was ten the last time I
    read this stuff!  8-)

Re:  564.6

  >First, evolution is based on scientific evidence and conjecture as to
  >the meaning of the evidence.

The conjecture far outweighs the evidence, in my opinion.

  >Creationism, on the other hand, has absolutely zero reliable scientific 
  >evidence to back up it's claims of validity, particularly if one wishes 
  >to take a literal view of the Genesis story.

I'm surprised that you would make such an easily disprovable
statement, Mike.
    
  >...it [carbon dating] still provides scientifically valid results.  

Of course, these "scientifically valid results" are not reproducibly
valid since no one has the thousands (or millions) of years necessary
to prove the theory.  On the surface, the [carbon dating] assumptions 
appear reasonable.  Others (e.g. Garth Wiebe) believe that these 
assumptions hide numerous provable flaws.

If you want an informed discussion, take a look at note 24 in
GOLF::CHRISTIAN.  When you look in depth at all the assumptions and
facts on both sides, you may be surprised at all the evidence that
supports the "foolish" creation theory and all the assumptions made to
support the prevailing evolution theory.

Creationism is not taught not because it lacks evidence (according to
the courts), but rather because it is religious since Christians who
accept the Biblical account believe it!  Creationism can accomodate
either the short-lived earth view (6,000-15,000 year old earth) or the
long-term view (4 billion years).  The issue is, what was the *cause*. 
This answer can come only in one way - faith.  I contend that it takes a
whole lot more faith to believe the initial cause was not God than that
it was God. 

Collis                                   

    Although a quick perusal of topic 24 of GOLF::CHRISTIAN does find some
    rather interesting misinformation, the real issue once again is that
    there is no dichotomy between faith in God on the one hand and
    acceptance of evolutionary science on the other.  Science and God, and
    evolution and God, are not incompatible, creationism notwithstanding.
    
    -- Mike
    

Is this the first note Mike Valenza has written with which I can wholeheartedly
agree?

re: Note 564.12 by Collis "Jesus is the reason for the season" 

>Of course, these "scientifically valid results" are not reproducibly
>valid since no one has the thousands (or millions) of years necessary
>to prove the theory.  

Very often I hear that in order to prove anything concerning how something 
occurs over a long period of time (especially evolution) requires a similar 
long period of time.

Yet we determine a product's mean time between failure of 200K hours in far 
less than 200K hours with stress testing.  We determine the strength and
durability of materials by sampling tests.  We do not need to destroy a bridge
to prove some level of load bearing strength, we can sample similar building
materials, build models and extrapolate the results, and perform computer
assisted analysis, while building in a factor of over-engineering on the real
thing because of the known and unknown limits of such means.  But those limits
do not eliminate the usefulness of such exercises.  (And they DO limit the 
occurence of disasters, which when they do unfortunately occur, help to extend 
the limits of knowledge.)

There also seems to be quite a bit of confusion concerning the terms 
Hypothesis, Theory, and Law in a scientific context.

A hypothesis is an assumption subject to verification that is useful to 
explain a given set of facts.  

A theory is a systematic system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules 
of procedures that can analyze explain and *predict* a set of phenomena.

A law is a formulation or generalization based on observed phenomena.

Thus we have the Law of Relativity, the Theory of Evolution, and the 
Hypothesis that there is a black hole in the center of our galaxy.
Each has different weights of scientific credibility and predictive powers.
A hypothesis has little predictive power, and generally when contrary evidence 
is discovered, the hypothesis gives way to a better hypothesis.  A theory has 
greater predictive powers, having been built up of ever improving hypothesis 
and a wider base of previous knowledge.  They are susceptible to revision, but 
usually in details, not their overall aspect.  A law has very great predictive 
power, to the point that even unobserved phenomena are presumed to obey the 
"law".  Even then, they are subject to change, as Einstein's Laws revised 
Newton and Kepler's Laws, yet even then they are in measurable agreement for 
everything barring relativistic velocities.  (Einstein was vindicated by a 6 
second of arc difference in the observed position of Mercury during a solar 
eclipse due to the bending of light by gravity than Newtonian physics 
predicted.  6 seconds of arc is 1/600 of a degree, a very small amount in some
circles.) 

>The issue is, what was the *cause*. This answer can come only in one way - 
>faith.  I contend that it takes a whole lot more faith to believe the initial
>cause was not God than that it was God. 

I agree, and science does not disagree.  Science makes no claim as to why,
only to the means.  It does not claim that the cause was NOT God.  To learn
the means of Creation is to learn about the cause.  It is a search for the
divine. 

Peace,

Jim

Re:  564.15

  >Very often I hear that in order to prove anything concerning how something 
  >occurs over a long period of time (especially evolution) requires a similar 
  >long period of time.

There are varying degrees of proof.  I stated that the commonly accepted 
claim has not been provid valid through reproducability.  Presumably you 
agree.

  >But those limits do not eliminate the usefulness of such exercises.  

Agreed.

  >Science makes no claim as to why, only to the means.  It does not 
  >claim that the cause was NOT God.

Science may not make such a claim.  Scientists often do.

The "theory of evolution" is at "theory" state.  You would expect
that something at this state would have pretty comprehensive evidence.
Yet, despite this, there is not one example of either an ape evolving
into a human OR ANY ANIMAL EVOLVING INTO ANY OTHER ANIMAL that
would require a similar amount of change as an ape to a human.  Hmmm.
Not very predictive.

Think about that for a moment.  The theory of evolution says that
*EVERYTHING* evolved in gross (very large changes) ways.  There is
not a SINGLE example of this.  Anywhere.  Anytime.  Despite the
search for well over a hundred years.  Despite many attempts to
cause these changes to occur.  To evolve those species which show
adaptability for evolving.  To search for archaeological evidence
which shows these gross changes in any species.  Total evidence for
this theory on hard data:  ZILCH.  Hmmm.  Not very consistent with
actual findings either.

(It's also interesting to note that someone who has done work in
studying genes hypothesizes that the data is consistent with a one
man - one woman human race 10,000 years ago and, in fact, this is
the most likely scientific explanation give the rate at which gene
defects occur, etc.)

Collis

    One of the interesting results that has come out of chaos theory is
    that we have come to understand that certain kinds of phenomena in the
    universe cannot be analyzed in a deterministic manner.  In other
    words, there are certain events in nature (the weather being the
    classic example, but ecological and biological events can also conform
    to this analysis) which we simply *cannot* deterministically predict. 
    I would suggest (and I admit that this is a personal opinion) that this
    phenomenon exists not only because of our own finite limitations in
    perceiving the universe, but in fact that this characterizes nature in
    principle as well; in other words, it is my own belief that nature
    itself is not strictly deterministic. 

    What that means, if true, is that, given a different Earth with
    identical starting conditions--a world that began some 4-5 millions
    years so--the evolution of life on earth would not exactly proceed in
    the same way that this one did.  There might or might not be humans
    here--and even if there were, they might not be identical in every way
    to what we evolved to become.  This is not, of course, the classical
    Newtonian deism of a God who sets up initial conditions and laws and
    then sat back and let the clockwork proceed inexorably according an (in
    effect) predetermined history.

    -- Mike

    Regarding the views that scientists express towards the existence of
    God, the fact that some individual scientists may draw (what we
    consider to be) faulty theological conclusions represents a problem in
    their theological reasoning, not the validity of their scientific
    discoveries.  We can forgive them for this, because they are paid to do
    science, not theology.  Speaking as one who is no better than an
    amateur theologian myself, I consider my own right to draw theological
    conclusions from scientific knowledge to be as legitimate as that of the
    most brilliant physicist or evolutionary biologist, who is also at best
    an amateur theologian.  That is not to say that there are not those who
    are both professional scientists and professional theologians; the
    physicist and Christian writer John Polkinghorne comes to mind, for
    example.

    The theologian David Ray Griffin has focused a lot of recent attention
    to the prevailing paradigms that accompany contemporary interpretations
    of scientific knowledge.  Unfortunately, there has been a paradigm, not
    specifically of science, but of the world at large, which he calls
    "scientific materialism", which has been predominant in the world over
    last few centuries.  While this replaces a more primitive and
    superstitious view of nature, Griffin argues that it is accompanied by
    its own inadequacies, and that what is needed is a "post-modern"
    paradigm, one that does not turn the clock back to a scientifically
    naive view that embraces ignorance (as some religious perspectives
    would do), but which instead accepts the validity of scientific
    knowledge while rejecting a  materialist world view which is actually
    in no way inherent to scientific knowledge anyway.

    One way of reconciling God with nature was the "God of the Gaps", the
    idea that God is somehow found in those gaps that exist in our
    understanding of the world.  In other words, according to this view,
    anything we can't understand in nature we attribute to God. 
    Polkinghorne rejects this view; it has been pointed out by many
    philosophers and theologians that the gaps have narrowed considerably
    since this theory was first proposed.  Looking for God in the gaps is
    not, the right place at all; instead of looking for God in how nature
    defies our understanding, it makes more sense to me to find God
    everywhere in nature, including in that which we fully understand.

    The events that led to what we are today are, to me, awesome to
    comprehend.  From the Big Bang, to the formation of galaxies, to the
    creation of the earth, to the formation of continents and oceans, to
    the evolution of life--on a time scale that we cannot possibly
    comprehend--is truly an amazing process.  And to me it has a beauty and
    an elegance.

    -- Mike

re Note 564.17 by JURAN::VALENZA:

>     What that means, if true, is that, given a different Earth with
>     identical starting conditions--a world that began some 4-5 millions
>     years so--

        I think you meant to say 4-5 BILLION (4,000 to 5,000 million
        for those far east of Maynard).

>     the evolution of life on earth would not exactly proceed in
>     the same way that this one did.  There might or might not be humans
>     here--and even if there were, they might not be identical in every way
>     to what we evolved to become.  This is not, of course, the classical
>     Newtonian deism of a God who sets up initial conditions and laws and
>     then sat back and let the clockwork proceed inexorably according an (in
>     effect) predetermined history.
  
        Again, it would depend upon what God would want to
        predetermine.  It is entirely conceivable that the same God
        who considered it so important that human beings have a free
        will even if that included the freedom to choose evil may
        have endowed the very elements themselves with a small
        measure of "choice".

        Bob

    Yes, Bob, I meant billion, not million.  Thanks for the correction.
    
    -- Mike

    re: .16
    
    Collis,
    	Evolution theory states that most things mutated in small ways with
    some exceptions.  Also, these mutations were mostly malevolent and
    resulted in the death of the creature before it could reproduce and
    pass on its unsuccessful gene structure.  Of those mutations that were
    benign, only a small percentage were useful enough to give the "mutant"
    an edge when it came to breeding.  It may not have been much of an
    edge, but the cumulative effect of millions of years of evolution
    (and thus millions of minor, benign mutations) produced many animals 
    that had little or no resemblence to their earliest forebears.
    
    
    George

    RE: .21
    
    This is true, but creationism argues that if evolution did indeed
    take place this way, why are there no fossilized remains of
    "in-between" creatures?
    
    Personally, I'm skeptical of the claim that there are NO fossilized
    remains of "in-between" creatures.   I recall seeing a chart on the 
    evolutionary history of the horse and there seemed to be more than a 
    dozen variations going back millions of years...  
    
    Anyway, in the string in CHRISTIAN, there are additional conflicting
    points about this that I find confusing.  In one instance, it is argued 
    that nature doesn't allow dead animals to become fossilized.  That 
    scavangers and insects and bacteria quickly consume every last bit.  
    This is why we aren't tripping over dead racoons, blue-jays and mice 
    every time we take a walk in the woods.  The point (there) is that the 
    only way a animal could become fossilized would be for a great natural
    catastrophe to suddenly consume the animal in tons of sediment.  This,
    I believe, is argued in an attempt to scientifically support the 
    story of Noah and the great flood.
    
    Now, it is true that most animal remains are not fossilized.  This is 
    not to say that only a great natural disaster can create fossils. Tar
    pits, deep mud on a river bank, landslides, avalanches, etc... - all
    can lead to conditions under which animal (or human) remains might
    become fossilized.  The vast majority of all creatures that ever lived
    on this planet however, did "return to dust" after they died.
    
    But this fact is apparently ignored when it comes time to wonder about 
    the lack of a fossil record of "in-between" species.
    
    Curious....
    
    /Greg

    If Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium is true, then the
    likelihood of finding every shade of gradation between species would be
    highly unlikely.  Gould postulates that species tend to remain fairly
    stable over time, with new species evolving under unusual conditions
    when smaller groups are permanently separated from the larger
    populations.  Because of the rare likelihood of finding fossils, this
    rapid "punctuation" would probably not be found in the fossil record.
    
    Note that Gould's theory pertains to the creation of new species. 
    Gould believes that generally an entire species doesn't evolve into a
    new one; rather, he argues that new species form as a result of a new
    one splitting off from an old one, when a sub-population faces strong
    evolutionary pressures that cause it to evolve rapidly.

    -- Mike

    By the way, some of the information contained in the discussion in GOLF
    is simply untrue or highly misleading.

    For example, it is asserted in note 24.14 that the australopithecines
    were probably knuckle-walkers, based on "extensive analysis of the
    Australopithecine bone structure."  This is false.  In reality, it is
    not difficult at all to distinguish a knuckle walker from a fully
    bipedal hominid; the structure of the pelvis and the foramen magnum
    makes it clear whether or not a species is bipedal or a knuckle walker. 
    The position of the foramen magnum of humans and that of
    knuckle-walking apes is clearly distinguishable.  There is no question
    that the australopithecines walked upright.

    Although they were bipedal, they did have small brains.  The ability to
    walk fully upright evolved among hominids long before the brain evolved
    to a larger size.  Since the australopithecines lived some 3.5 million
    years ago, we can see that this ability is quite old.  This has often
    been difficult for people to accept, even anthropologists, who often
    wanted to believe that our "humanness" is defined by our intelligence
    and that this intelligence must have evolved first.  But that is
    actually not the case at all--imagine a group of short small-brained
    ape-like creatures walking fully upright.  Not only that, but there
    were apparently two or three different species of australopithecines!

    This thus illustrates why a comment in 24.15 of that topic was quite
    misleading.  In an apparent attempt at illustrating that the
    Neanderthals were not really any different from us, that note states
    that "in 1939, Professor Sergio Sergi demonstrated that Neanderthal
    walked erect as we do."  Hardly surprising, since walking upright "as
    we do" precedes the Neanderthals by a few million years!  The note also
    points out that Neanderthals may have lived after modern humans
    emerged, and that they are considered "fully human".  This is all very
    true, but misleading, for one thing because it isn't clear if
    Neanderthals were ancestor of modern humans--they may not been a
    parallel development among homo sapiens that either died out or perhaps
    even bred with our ancestors.  Pointing out that they are "fully human"
    is misleading since it doesn't give the full picture.  Neanderthals are
    considered by anthropologists to have been a different subspecies of
    homo sapiens--we are homo sapiens sapiens, and the Neanderthals are
    identified as homo sapiens neandertalensis.

    Any study of Neanderthal skeletal structure makes it clear that they
    *were* very similar to us, but also clearly different in certain
    interesting ways--a fact admitted in 24.15 when it even points out that
    their brain sizes were larger than our own.  Such an identifiable
    difference illustrates that, while they were very close to us, not only
    in bone structure, but culturally as well (signs of ritual burial,
    indications that they provided compassionate assistance to their
    disabled), they were also slightly different.  Their skulls just aren't
    quite the same as ours (pronounced brow ridges, for example).  

    There is much that isn't totally known about Neanderthals, but what we
    do know is quite interesting.  Though different from us, they were very
    similar in many ways, and were hardly the ape-like brutes that has come
    to characterize them, and they may not be an ancestor to us.  But they
    are clearly not identical to what we are either.

    -- Mike

    I still find the movie "Inherit The Wind" timely.
    
    Marc H.

Re:  .22

 
  >Personally, I'm skeptical of the claim that there are NO fossilized
  >remains of "in-between" creatures.

It is astounding, isn't it.

I expect most people are like you.  They hear and/or are taught a
theory.  Some of the underlying facts are then presented.  Since
the facts do fit to the theory, their tendency is not to believe
the facts rather than to not believe the theory.

Evolution is one area where I've always wanted to know more but
have not done a lot about learning.  I do have several books at
home on evolution and creationism and I pick up other miscellaneous
facts in other places.  Unfortunately, I generally do not have
sources for much of what is now in my head.

A final note:  the argument is NOT the evolution does not occur -
we agree that all things evolve.  The argument is that gross
evolution (of the type from ape to man - and I don't know what
the lowest common denominator is between these two is, whether its
species or class or something else, but whatever it is, that's
what I'm talking about) has no example of occuring for any
species.  This does not necessarily contradict any chart you may
have seen; the chart may not be depicting gross evolution.

And you are quite right to question what I write.  I wish I knew
more for I desire to know the truth.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    Reading your note I sense the important point for you is not whether
    evolution occurs but that the creation of humankind required a
    specific divine act.  Is that the issue?
    
    
    Patricia

        >Again, it would depend upon what God would want to
        >predetermine.  It is entirely conceivable that the same God
        >who considered it so important that human beings have a free
        >will even if that included the freedom to choose evil may
        >have endowed the very elements themselves with a small
        >measure of "choice".

    This point gets to the heart of one of the problems which a
    deterministic world view faces--how could our human free will have
    emerged from a deterministic world.  Whitehead understood this problem,
    and thus turned the question on its head by suggesting that the world
    is not really deterministic.

    One of my favorite quotes comes from David Ray Griffin in his book "God
    & Religion in the Postmodern World", in reference to the deterministic
    paradigm often accepted by many scientists:

        This [scientific] community admires and rewards extraordinary
        exercises of creativity.  And yet the worldview accepted by this
        community implies that creativity is an illusion.  Those feats that
        appear to result from especially creative insight combined with
        extraordinary self-discipline are said, really, to result from
        purely deterministic causes.  Nobel prizes should not be given to
        the people who make the breakthroughs, but to the molecules in
        their bodies; their "minds" are simply obeying, willy-nilly, the
        orders coming from some combination of DNA and environment.  Of
        course, it would make no sense to reward the DNA molecules either;
        they are simply the products of deterministic causes lying further
        back.  Ultimately, all Nobel prizes should be awarded posthumously
        to the Big Bang.

    My own opinion (which is perhaps very unorthodox, but I share the view
    of process theology) is that God does not predetermine things; however,
    I do believe that God has considerable influence on the outcome of
    events in the world.  In this view, God exercised an influence over
    nature by luring it in the direction of greater complexity of
    experience among the subjects that made up the universe (ultimately
    resulting in things like people with an advanced consciousness) but
    that the exact result of this evolutionary process was not quite
    predetermined.

    Whether one believes that God is omnipotent and ceded some free will to
    the universe (the more orthodox view), or that God is not omnipotent
    and that free will and creativity inherently characterize the universe
    anyway (the view of process thought), is probably not so important
    here.  In either case, the suggestion is the universe is not entirely
    deterministic, and that we humans in our free will are an expression 
    of this.

    -- Mike

Re:  564.27

  >Reading your note I sense the important point for you is not whether
  >evolution occurs but that the creation of humankind required a
  >specific divine act.  Is that the issue?

If God chose to create the human race by evolution (that is by forming
life from non-life, evolving creature upon creature until homo
sapiens is formed and then installing a soul), I would accept His choice.
The Bible makes it clear to us that without God's *constant* support,
the universe would not maintain itself (reference escapes me, but
I'm sure I could find it if pressed).  Of course, it is significant
that God Himself revealed to us how the universe was created and that
it was not by evolution.  :-)

Now, I look at the theory that has been presented and encouraged
specifically by those who deny that God exists (although, over time,
people who accept the existence of God and who even claim to believe
the Bible have accepted this theory).  Does the theory stack up
according to the actual facts?  The main contention of the theory,
that gross evolution has occurred, has absolutely 0 examples, nor
is corroborating evidence at all convincing (at least what I've
seen).  I freely admit that I come from the knowledge that the Bible
speaks accurately about what happened.  This does not prevent me from
also saying when appropriate, "I cannot reconcile the 'facts' with
the Biblical account at this time".  Things don't always agree.  Do
this mean I must throw out the Bible?  No.  Does this mean I must throw 
out the 'facts'?  No.

I believe at this point in time that those who are willing to concede
that there may be a God who created us and who have access to the full
knowledge of gross evolution (or at least as much knowledge as I have
which is far from full :-) ) will come to the logical conclusion that 
creationism is a much better explanation of the facts (as well as
being true :-) ).
    
Collis

    "Appealing to his [Einstein's] way of expressing himself in theological
    terms, I said:  If God had wanted to put everything into the world from
    the beginning, He would have created a universe without change, without
    organisms and evolution, and without man and man's experience of
    change.  But He seems to have thought that a live universe with events
    unexpected even by Himself would be more interesting than a dead one."

    	-- Karl Popper

    I mentioned earlier that the Neanderthal culture appears to have showed
    some very human traits.  One burial site showed, as I recall (this is
    off the top of my head), fossilized pollen, indicating flowers on the
    grave.  This has led to some interesting speculation on the possibility
    of religious belief among Neanderthals.  This does raise an interesting
    question about the evolution of religion among our ancestors.  When did
    that spark of awareness of something greater than themselves first
    arise?  Did it occur among australopithecines?  Homo habilis?  Or did
    it wait until the rise of homo sapiens?  How much intelligence is
    required in a species before a mystical awareness becomes possible?  Or
    is intellectual awareness even necessary for that awareness--perhaps
    intelligence and language are only necessary for the formalization of
    religion into structure, rituals, and so forth?

    -- Mike

    How does one go from saying that evolutionary theories are improbable
    to concluding, therefore, that the biblical creation story must be
    correct?  It seems to me that one would have to provide evidence
    (aside from biblical accounts) to support their theory, rather than
    just tear down an opposing theory?  All I've see so far is that
    creationism is true because the Bible says so.  For me this is not
    enough.

    Generally speaking, my correctness is not proven by showing flaws in
    YOUR argument, but rather showing strengths in my argument.

         Eric

Re:  .30

Indeed, Einstein was a great scientist but a lousy
theologian.  :-)

Re:  .32

Indeed, only 2 theories have recieved wide acceptance.  Therefore,
if one theory does not fit the facts, there is only one theory
left.  If that theory fits the facts (which it does, depending
on the variation of the creation theory you use), it is accepted
as the theory to work from.

That's how I got there.  How did you not get there?  :-)

Collis

    Re: .33
    
    Yes, there is no question that Einstein wasn't right about everything
    (but then who is?).  My guess is that he would not have gone along
    with Popper's comment.
    
    -- Mike

	The controversy over evolution vs. creation centers basically in 3
    areas : Constitutional , Academic and Scientific .
    
    Constitutional - Evolutions contend that teaching creation in state
    schools violates the 1st Amendment by "teaching religion" . Creationist
    respond that the Constitution demands "neutrality" in regard to
    religion . They believe that neutrality is violated by the sole
    teaching of evolution because it is the basic tenet of the religion of
    humanism .Creationist also believethat the exclusive teaching of
    evolution violates the free exercise of rights of students who believe
    in creation ,that it violates the "establishment" clause of the 1st
    Amendment (no state religion) ,also the 14th Amendment (discrimination
    on the basis of religion) .
    
    Academic - Evolutionist insist that the requirement to teach
    creationism violates academic freedom .They contend that the teacher
    must be "free" to teach as he/she chooses . Creationist retort that
    academic freedom means the freedom to teach all aspects of a subject .
    It means freedom to educate , not freedom to indoctrinate .
    
    Scientific - The evolution enviroment argues that creation is a
    religious myth , that science has proven that man is a product of
    bio-chemistry , and that life has progressed from nothing to one-celled
    origins to it's present state of development through a series of
    biological changes over a period of billions of years . Creationist
    inist thaat science proves man was created , and assert that the
    creation dogma is supported by far more evidentiary fact than is
    evolution . Evolution  , they assert , is the myth ; it is based on
    assumptions , conjectures , shifting suppositions ,and a chain of
    missing links . 
    
    
    
    Further more evolution flies in the face of some basic hard core facts:
    
    1) The theory of evolution contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics -
       without outside interference , all things tend toward the state of
       greatest disorder . While the bible validates it cf.Hebrews1:10-11 .
    
    2) Apollo astronauts found only 1/8 of an inch of dust on the moon's
    surface . If the moon and earth had been in existence for billions of
    years(as evolutionists claim) ther should at least be 100 feet of dust
    on the surface .
    
    3) The magnetic field of the earth is decaying at a measurable rate .By
    reverse projection based on existing data the earth could not have
    existed in its present state for more than 10,000 yrs .
    
    4) Evolution flies in the face of the Law of Biogenesis -
       living matter comes only from previously living matter .
    
    
     

re Note 564.36 by ELMAGO::AMORALES:

>     They believe that neutrality is violated by the sole
>     teaching of evolution because it is the basic tenet of the religion of
>     humanism .

        Are they suggesting that if, for example, I made algebra a
        fundamental tenet of the "Religion of Fleischerism" that
        public schools, as a result, would be forced either to teach
        alternatives to algebra or not to teach it at all?

>     Further more evolution flies in the face of some basic hard core facts:
>     
>     1) The theory of evolution contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics -
>        without outside interference , all things tend toward the state of
>        greatest disorder . While the bible validates it cf.Hebrews1:10-11 .
  
        Please study thermodynamics first and then re-examine this! 
        This reflects a totally bogus understanding of thermo!!!!!

>     3) The magnetic field of the earth is decaying at a measurable rate .By
>     reverse projection based on existing data the earth could not have
>     existed in its present state for more than 10,000 yrs .

        In fact, scientists have found evidence in the fossilized
        magnetic orientation of certain minerals that the magnetic
        field of the earth oscillates, and reverses polarity after
        going through zero over that kind of time period.

>     4) Evolution flies in the face of the Law of Biogenesis -
>        living matter comes only from previously living matter .
  
        Yeah, but then so does God!

        Bob

    Also, the moon dust argument was based on an inaccurate figure on the
    rate of dust accumulation on the moon.  In fact, the amount of dust on
    the moon is completely consistent with its old age.

    Some of these creationist arguments continually resurface no matter how
    much debunking is done, not unlike the urban legends about expensive
    cookie recipes and dying children getting into the Guinness Book of
    World Records.  In fact, this reminds me so much of the urban legend
    phenomenon that Jan Brunvand has documented in several books that
    Brunvand really ought to devote a book to this topic alone. 

    -- Mike

                  Planets seen aborning in star nursery
                           By David L. Chandler
                               GLOBE STAFF

    Imbedded in the sword that hangs from the belt of Orion the hunter, the
    familiar constellation of stars that shines high in December skies, new
    solar systems are right now being born.

    Pictures snapped by the Hubble Space Telescope and made public yesterday
    have, for the first time, clearly revealed the stellar nurseries in
    which swirling clouds of sand-sized grains slowly clump together to form
    new planets.

    The stunning pictures, which show that at least 40 percent of the stars
    studied seem to be undergoing planet birth, give strong confirmation to
    astronomers' prevailing theories about how stars and planets form.  They
    also bolster astronomers' belief that planets are commonplace in space,
    and that therefore life, and even intelligent life, may also be common.

    The pictures, in effect, allow us to "look back in time and actually see
    what our solar system looked like a few million years after the sun
    formed," said Stephen E. Strom, an astronomer at the University of
    Massachusetts at Amherst who specializes in star formation.  "That's an
    amazing look back."

    The pictures were taken by a team headed by Robert O'Dell of Rice
    University, one of the pioneers who helped design and plan the Hubble
    telescope.  At a press conference yesterday at the National Aeronautics
    and Space Administration headquarters, Strom said that with the new
    pictures O'Dell "is holding a piece of history in his hands."

    The nascent planetary systems are framed against the flowing veil-like
    reds and blues of the Orion nebula, a huge cloud of interstellar gas
    1,500 light years--or 9 million billion miles--from Earth that resembles
    a filmy curtain undulating in a light breeze.  Within that cloudy
    formation, the pictures show flat disks of dust swirling around 15
    different stars.

    Such disks, according to prevailing theory, are the stuff from which
    stars, and later a retinue of planets, moons and comets wheeling
    steadily around them, are born.

    The theory holds that such disks, swirling like a whirlpool, gradually
    collapse under the relentless pull of gravity, and when the dust and gas
    are compressed enough, the gravitational pressure causes atoms to fuse,
    igniting the cloud and creating a new star.

    Then, the remaining material still swirling around gradually forms
    clumps, as specks the size of grains of sand collide and stick
    together.  Over a few million years, most of the grains collect into
    chunks almost a mile across.  In a few million more, these chunks have
    collided and stuck together to form planets and moons.

    "We are not saying Hubble has discovered planets," explained a Hubble
    program scientist, Edward Weiler, "but we have found a place where, in
    the next few million years, there will be planets."  These newly
    discovered disks, he said, could not be seen without the great power of
    the space telescope--even in its flawed state--to reveal fine detail,
    and they represent "a new kind of object never before seen by
    astronomers.

    Similar disks of matter around four other stars have been discovered
    within the past decade by astronomers using ground-based telescopes, but
    all of those were disks too thin and tenuous to give birth to planets.
    Some astronomers believe that planets might already have formed around
    those stars and that the observed disks are just residue, the leftover
    material from planet formation.  Or it could be that those stars are
    failed solar systems, places where planets never managed to form.

    But in the case of the stars observed with the Hubble scope, the disks
    are "somewhat larger than the current size of the solar system," O'Dell
    said, and contain "enough material to account for a planetary system
    like that orbiting our sun."

    "I regard this as dramatic proof that there's enough material in these
    disks to easily form planetary systems such as our own," Strom said.

    Weiler added that "this is taking us further toward the final proof that
    there may be planets around other stars," and thus improves the odds of
    someday finding life out there.

    O'Dell said that because most stars are believed to form in bunches in
    crowded, dusty places like the Orion nebula--a well-know stellar
    nursery--the fact that disks are widespread there probably reveals a
    common characteristic of all stars.

    Before this discovery, he said, although theorists had predicted that
    planet-forming disks were common, it was "rather uncertain how many stars
    had such disks."  Now, he said, "we have a firm number."

    Strom added that this "really confirms visually what we've
    inferred...that most, if not all, stars, form disks."

    O'Dell, who collaborated with Jeff Hester, an astronomer at Arizona
    State University, and graduate students Zheng Wen and Xi-Hai Hu, said
    that "what we're seeing here is a missing link in the whole process of
    forming planets.  Now we have direct evidence that the material needed
    to form planets exists around about half of stars like our own sun.  It
    shows planets are probably common."

    O'Dell added that "these disks provide the best evidence for planetary
    systems" yet found by astronomers.  The Hubble telescope is to be
    refurbished with lenses to correct its flawed vision and a new, improved
    camera during a space shuttle mission schedule for next December, and
    O'Dell is already making plans for the new pictures of this and other
    planetary birthplaces.  "This," he said, "is just the beginning."

Article: 40
Newsgroups: sci.astro.hubble
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Hubble Sees Protoplanets
Sender: sah@wfpc3 (HST Newsgroup)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:19:37 GMT
 
Paula Cleggett-Haleim
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.               December 16, 1992
(Phone:  202/358-0883)
 
Jim Elliott
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
(Phone:  301/286-6256)
 
Ray Villard
Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore
(Phone:  410/338-4757)
 
 
RELEASE:  92-226
 
HUBBLE DISCOVERS PROTOPLANETARY DISKS AROUND NEW STARS
 
     NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has uncovered the strongest 
evidence yet that many stars may form planetary systems.
 
     Dr. C. Robert O'Dell of Rice University, Houston, and 
colleagues have used Hubble to discover extended disksanetary 
systems," said O'Dell. "The disks are a missing link in our 
understanding of how planets like those in our solar system form.  
Their discovery establishes that the basic material of planets 
exists around a large fraction of stars.  It is likely that many 
of these stars will have planetary systems." 
 
     Hubble Space Telescope's detailed images confirm more than a 
century of speculation, conjecture and theory about the genesis of 
a solar system.
 
     According to current theories, the dust contained within the 
disks eventually agglomerates to make planets.  Earth's solar 
system is considered a relic of just such a disk of dust that 
accompanied the sun's birth 4.5 billion years ago.
 
     Before the Hubble discovery, protoplanetary disks had been 
confirmed around only four stars, Beta Pictoris, Alpha Lyrae, 
Alpha Piscis Austrini and Epsilon Eridani. 
 
     Unlike these previous observations, Hubble has observed newly 
formed stars less than a million years old which are still 
contracting out of primordial gas. 
 
     Hubble's images provide direct evidence that dust surrounding 
a newborn star has too much spin to be drawn into the collapsing 
star.  Instead, the material spreads out into a broad, flattened 
disk. 
 
     These young disks signify an entirely new class of object 
uncovered in the universe, according to O'Dell.
 
     Hubble can see the disks because they are illuminated by the 
hottest stars in the Orion Nebula, and some of them are seen in 
silhouette against the bright nebula.  However, some of these 
protoplanets are bright enough to have been seen previously as 
stars by ground-based optical and radio telescopes.  Their true 
nature was not recognized until the Hubble discovery.  
 
     Each protoplanet appears as a thick disk with a hole in the 
middle where the cool star is located.  Radiation from nearby hot 
stars "boils off" material from the disk's surface at a rate equal 
to about one-half the mass of Earth per year.  This material is 
then blown back into a comet-like tail by a stellar "wind" of 
radiation and subatomic particles streaming from nearby hot stars. 
 
     Based on this erosion rate, O'Dell estimates that a 
protoplanet's initial mass would be at least 15 times that of the 
giant planet Jupiter.
 
     Many of the youngest and hottest stars in the Milky Way 
Galaxy are found in the Orion Nebula.  The nebula is on the near 
edge of a giant molecular cloud which lies immediately behind the 
stars that trace the sword of the constellation Orion the Hunter. 
 
     The region of Orion is a bright part of the nebula where 
stars are being uncovered at the highest rate.  These results 
suggest that nearly half the 50 stars in this part of Orion have 
protoplanetary disks.
 
     O'Dell's co-investigators are graduate students Zheng Wen and 
Xi-Hai Hu of Rice University and Dr. Jeff Hester of Arizona State 
University.  Their results will be published in the Astrophysical 
Journal next spring under the title "Discovery of New Objects in 
the Orion Nebula on HST Images:  Shocks, Compact Sources and 
Protoplanetary Disks."
 
- end -
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | a day in you life. 
 

    re :.39
    
    >               Planets seen aborning in star nursery
    >                           By David L. Chandler
    >                               GLOBE STAFF
    >
    >    Imbedded in the sword that hangs from the belt of Orion the hunter,
    > thefamiliar constellation of stars that shines high in December skies,
    > new solar systems are right now being born.
                            ^^^^^^^^^
    
    Well, maybe... if by "right now" you mean several thousands of years ago.
    :^) :^) I mean, these Hubble pictures are capturing images from several
    thousand light years away.
    
    This is assuming, of course, that one beleives in such things as and
    ancient (15 billion+/- years old) universe.
    
        Eric

    re .34 

    > Indeed, only 2 theories have received wide acceptance.  Therefore,
    > if one theory does not fit the facts, there is only one theory
    > left.

    Although I respect you beliefs, from my standing one of the two
    theories is rooted in analytical science and the other in mythology.
    Further, one might also say that human life was brought to Earth by
    ancient astronauts.  There seems to be as much evidence to support this
    as there is to support divine human creation.

        Eric
     

    >Well, maybe... if by "right now" you mean several thousands of years ago.
    >:^) :^) I mean, these Hubble pictures are capturing images from several
    >thousand light years away.
    
    Of course, on the scale of time we are talking about, a difference of
    few thousand years here and there is for all practical purposes the
    same thing as right now.  :-)
    
    >This is assuming, of course, that one beleives in such things as and
    >ancient (15 billion+/- years old) universe.
    
    Maybe God created a several billion year old universe 6000 years ago
    just to fool us.  :-)  In that case, the light from those images that
    astronomers can view from millions of light years away were actually
    created *in transit* from those distant stars by God when he created
    the universe.  Then again, maybe I was created five minutes ago, and
    all those memories I have from prior to that moment were implanted in
    my mind at the moment of my creation.  That means I just *think* I am
    more than five minutes old.  :-)
    
    Ah, the mind boggles.
    
    -- Mike

Re:  564.42

  >Although I respect you beliefs, from my standing one of the two
  >theories is rooted in analytical science and the other in mythology.
  >Further, one might also say that human life was brought to Earth by
  >ancient astronauts.  There seems to be as much evidence to support this
  >as there is to support divine human creation.

Indeed many people reject the possible existence of a God (which is
what I hear you doing for if there were a God, it is no stretch to
believe that God actually created a universe).  They insist that all
that we see and experience can be and should be accounted for without
such a supernatural creature.

Personally, I think those who believe this are blinded.  That is the
only explanation since the proofs that there does exist a God are, in
my opinion, overwhelming.  These have been discussed numerous times.
A few proofs include:

  - the order and complexity of the universe
  - fulfilled prophecy
  - totally changed lives
  - "miraculous" healings 
  - of course, the ultimate proof is Jesus' being raised from the dead -
    the empty tomb

If you accept that there is or may be a God, creationism is not only
possible, it would appear to be highly probable.  If you believe the
prophets of the Bible and Jesus, God created man and human and breathed
the breath of life into them.  Creationism.  Or, you can believe
that the 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (I believe I am quoting
the *evolutionist* correctly) chance happened and that there is not
a God directly involved in creating people and creatures.

Collis

>If you accept that there is or may be a God, creationism is not only
>possible, it would appear to be highly probable.  If you believe the
>prophets of the Bible and Jesus, God created man and human and breathed
>the breath of life into them.  Creationism.  Or, you can believe
>that the 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (I believe I am quoting
>the *evolutionist* correctly) chance happened and that there is not
>a God directly involved in creating people and creatures.
    
    Or you can believe a third alternative, which is that God participated
    (and continues to participate) in the creative evolution of the world. 
    In other words, the third alternative involves accepting evolutionary
    science *and* believing in God.
    
    -- Mike

    One perspective that you gain from a knowledge of astronomy is that 
    the creation of things like stars and planets in the universe is that
    it is clearly an ongoing natural process in the universe.  We can see
    back in time millions of years with the help of powerful telescopes. 
    We can see stars in every stage of their lives, from those first
    moments that they form until the point they collapse--and now, thanks
    to the Hubble Telescope, we are now seeing planets being created.  It
    is clearly not necessary to come up with a special creative act to
    explain the creation of the earth (which is a planet) and the sun
    (which is a star).  That doesn't mean that God does not participate in
    a certain way this process--because you can certainly believe, as I do,
    that God is involved in the creative processes at work in the universe. 
    It does mean that some *special* act, outside of the regular and
    ongoing processes at work all the time, is completely unnecessary.  The
    creation of planets and stars in the universe is a natural event, one
    that has happened and which will continue to happen. 

    I have to admit that I have a certain love for astronomy, even though I
    don't pay that much attention to the subject any more.  I think the awe
    of the vast regions of space, the magnificence of the formation of
    things like worlds and stars is truly awe-inpsiring.  In appreciating
    the way that creative forces continually operate in our universe, with
    creation essentially occurring continually rather than a single time, I
    feel a special appreciation for the divine at work.

    -- Mike

	RE: .44

       Hold on there! I was saying that the creation stories in Gen 1 and
       Gen 2 were mythology, not that God was a myth.  I will admit
       that I believe we should interpret the Bible based on our
       understanding of the universe and not the other way around.  A
       few hundred years ago it was argued that people born with birth
       defects were not in the image of God and therefore the product
       of some evil force.  And epileptics were surely demon possessed.

       Sure God created all life.  He defined the laws of the universe
       and set things in motion (Big Bang ??).  From there everything
       happened according the the laws of the universe...
       including the evolution of the planets and life on Earth.  What
       I find incredible is that some normally intelligent people will
       throw intellect to the wind because of some ancient tribal
       allegory.  
                                                  
	> If you believe the
	> prophets of the Bible and Jesus, God created man and human and 
	> breathed	
	> the breath of life into them.  

	My belief in God is not based in a literal interpretation of 
	Bible stories.  I believe that the Bible must be read through the 
	eyes of it's original audience.  To not understand the history of the 
	ancient Israeli tribes is to miss the point of the stories, in my 
	opinion.  There is much that God did in the old testament that I 
	hope you would not see as a "Christian perspective".  You see my
    	faith in God is not small, but my faith in an inerrant, literal Bible
    	is.   

	Eric

    re 564.47
    
    
    I agree.

     Sorry for the long delay in responding .....
    
    .37 - 
    
       your example of algrebra is funny , but I believe we were speaking
    of the neutrality needed in light of what creationist term as the
    evolutinist religion which is humanism . So I guess 1st of all do we
    agree that this is true ? Is humanism the "religion" of evolution ?
    
      Just to make sure I got my facts straight I'll be happy to reevaluate
    my statement of the Law of Thermodynamics ! Thank You . (ref. 1)
    
    
    > Yeah but then so does God
    
       Could you explain this a little more for me . Thanks . By the way
    don't you believe that God is alive and living ?
    
    
    
    
    
    .38 - 
    
       Again I'l be happy to recheck my sources and will soon reply ! By
    the way I don't know much about the urban league or Jan Brunnand(sp)
    could share a little more . Thanks .
    
    
    
    .40 -
    
      Interesting stuff !! I'll try to read up on this information and get
    back to you .
    
    					Alfonso
      

Re:  564.47

  >Hold on there! I was saying that the creation stories in Gen 1 and
  >Gen 2 were mythology, not that God was a myth.  

I hear you saying that the God of the Bible is a myth.  I don't know
what God you're talking about what you say that God is not a myth.
Our failure to communicate is because we have no common definition
of terms.

  >Sure God created all life.  He defined the laws of the universe
  >and set things in motion (Big Bang ??).  From there everything
  >happened according the the laws of the universe...

Does these laws include the supernatural?  If so, I expect that we
still have quite a bit to learn and that it would be foolish to rule
out the supernatural, particularly in an area where the evidence so
clearly :-) points to supernatural intervention.  If these laws do
not include the supernatural, I'd like to hear your explanation of
all the miracles that happen daily.  C. S. Lewis wrote an excellant
book title "Miracles" which proves (in C. S. Lewis' opinion) that 
if God exists, he exists outside of the natural and in the supernatural
and that admitting to the existance of God admits to the supernatural
and that therefore it is nonsensical to deny the supernatural while
admitting the existence of God.

  >What I find incredible is that some normally intelligent people will
  >throw intellect to the wind because of some ancient tribal allegory.

On the other hand, I don't find it unusual at all that people prefer
to deny the numerous, detailed claims of the Bible's inerrancy.  I
think that this is a perfect example of human nature.  Hey, I used to.

  >My belief in God is not based in a literal interpretation of 
  >Bible stories.

Neither is mine.  But then, I'm not a literalist.

  >I believe that the Bible must be read through the eyes of it's original 
  >audience.

Agreed.  This is a must.

  >To not understand the history of the ancient Israeli tribes is to miss 
  >the point of the stories, in my opinion.

Fortunately, we have some God-breathed commentary on the early chapters
of Genesis which insures that the point will not be missed.  Or do you
prefer to believe that this commentary misses the point as well?

  >You see my faith in God is not small, but my faith in an inerrant, 
  >literal Bible is.

The grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God shall
stand forever.  My trust in God's Word is equal to my trust in God.
No so unreasonable when you consider that God desires that and so that
His Word is *worthy* of my trust.  In fact, my salvation is *based* upon
the fact that God will always honor and fulfill every word He has ever
uttered.  It is my faith in God's promise combined with God's integrity
and ability to effect salvation that allows me to know that I will be
with God for eternity.  Hmmm.

Collis

re Note 564.50 by CLT::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> I hear you saying that the God of the Bible is a myth.  I don't know
> what God you're talking about what you say that God is not a myth.

        Hey, what's wrong with being a myth!  I could imagine a lot
        lower fates after my time is gone than being part of a myth!

        Bob

RE: .50

    > I hear you saying that the God of the Bible is a myth.  I don't know
    > what God you're talking about what you say that God is not a myth.

    I'm saying that the _literal_ illustration of God in the old testament
    is a myth, yes.  I don't believe that God would punish the enemies of
    the Israelites down to the 4th generation... this is not a God of
    love.  I don't believe that God was as nationalistic as the Israelites
    believed.

    I guess you stumbled on something there, Collis, when you said
    that we are having trouble communicating because we have no common
    definition of terms.  For me the Bible is a collection of stories
    that relate the experiences and religious understandings of the
    Hebrew tribes throughout their history of conquerors and
    conquered.  Later, in the early centuries of the Christian church,
    a group of men got together and decided which of the several
    contemporary Gospels and writings would be included in the standard
    collection of Christian teachings.  [In my opinion this too
    greatly reflects the influence of the Pauline writings].  The
    result is a collection of human commentaries that reflect the
    conventional wisdom and understanding of the cosmos of the time. 
     
    You say that you are not at literalist, but then assert that the
    Biblical creation stories are literally true.  I am not real
    proficient in the language of bible-ese.  To me if one is not a
    literalist then one agrees that the stories in the Bible are
    subject to interpretation.  Therefore, the Bible is inerrant only
    if you interpret the stories correctly. 

    My understanding is that, by and large, the earliest written form
    of the old testament is dated to c. 960 b.c.e., during the time of
    King David.  So could you explain to this heathen what exactly "God
    breathed" means?  I thought it meant that God audibly spoke to a
    person taking notes.  If any part of the Bible is believed to be
    "God breathed" then I take it that you see this as being a literal
    passage.  So you are not a literalist unless it serves to make
    your point?  [If I sound testy here it's just my frustration with
    my own inability to grasp the terms and logic used.]

    My terms:
       literal -  A factual account as a text book.  The opposite of
       		  allegory or parable.

       inerrant - Without error.

       God breathed -  The dictated word of God.  Nothing is lost to
       		     human interpretation or error in translation.


    Did God create law of super-nature as well as laws of nature?  I
    don't know if there is a supernatural realm.  It seems that we as
    humans divide our perception of the universe in two bodies:  that
    which we understand is natural; that which we don't understand is
    supernatural.  Throughout the ages as our understanding of the
    universe grows we continually move things from the supernatural
    area to the natural area.  I seems to me to be a bit presumptuous
    to assume that the natural universe consists only of what my
    knowledge encompasses.  [I took a quantum mechanics class that
    challenged my understanding of reality... verged on supernatural
    to me :^).]

    The Word of God is Christ, according to the Gospel of John.  The
    Word of God is a concept for good living, not a dissertation in natural
    history.  The Word of God transcends total human understanding and
    cannot be captured in a book; only vignettes can be captured.  We
    do the Word of God an injustice, it seems, by professing all that
    is the Word of God can be contained in a book... edited by humans
    several centuries ago.  

    For me the theory of evolution of the species gives God far more
    credit that the creation stories of Gen.  Especially Gen. 2 where
    God has to create every beast and creature on earth before He
    figures out that Adam would rather have a female human than a
    goat.  As some here have suggested, the creation stories are
    easier for them to believe than evolution.  As if ease of belief
    were some indication of divinity...


    As always, Shalom,

    		Eric

re Note 564.52 by HURON::MYERS:

>     Especially Gen. 2 where
>     God has to create every beast and creature on earth before He
>     figures out that Adam would rather have a female human than a
>     goat.  

        Imagine what life would have been like if Adam had made his
        first mistake a little earlier!

        Bob

    The more interesting question to me is who did Cain marry?

    I can just imagine Cain talking to his mom about this problem at some
    point in his adolescence.  "You know, mom, remember when we had that
    talk about the birds and bees, back when I first started undergoing
    puberty?  And you told me how I'd develop acne and become self
    conscious and interested in girls?  Not that you'd know what it's like
    to have raging adolescent hormones, seeing as how you were created as
    an adult and all, but your description of the trials and tribulations of
    teenage life have been largely accurate.  But there is just one
    problem.  Who do I take to the post-Eden high school prom?"

    Eve, of course, would have to break the news to him.  "Well, son, since
    Adam and I are the only human parents in the world, I am afraid you are
    going to have to take your sister."

    "My SISTER!  Yuck!  Pooey!  Gag!  Mom, haven't you ever heard of an
    incest taboo?"

    That was probably only the half of it.  His unknown sister/wife has
    remained anonymous, no doubt because her shame at having to marry her
    (ick!) brother was such that she probably pleaded with God to leave her
    name out of it when he dictated the Bible word for word into Moses's
    ear.

    -- Mike

    
    I'm going for the Oedipus slant myself...
    

    Yes, that is a definite possibility as well, isn't it?  :-)

    I vaguely recall a Jewish teaching that there were "others" - to
    resolve the "Whom did Cain marry?" question.  Sorry I can't give you
    more detail.  Have you considered asking in BAGELS?  An interesting
    conundrum...
    
    Actually, if you posit that there were other humans, then does that
    void Original Sin?
    
    L
    

Re:  564.52

  >I don't believe that God would punish the enemies of the Israelites down 
  >to the 4th generation...this is not a God of love.  

I believe the issue here is 

  - your definition of love which I is non-Scriptural (as I hear you)
  - your interpretation of this verse of how this punishment extends
    down generations which I expect is far different from mine, for
    example

  >For me the Bible is a collection of stories that relate the experiences
  >and religious understandings of the Hebrew tribes throughout their
  >history of conquerors and conquered.

It continues to amaze me that people want to believe that God influenced
the writing of the Bible while at the same time believing that what was
written was not true as it claims to be.  

  For those who believe that God not influence the writing of the Bible, 

     - is it not then clear that those who wrote about God knew nothing 
       about Him and so they are relying on the worst possible source of 
       information (i.e. those who are known to be ignorant)?  

  For those who believe that God did influence the writing of the Bible, 

     - then is it not clear that God is a liar when he allowed those who 
       wrote about Him to claim that all of His Words were true and that 
       these were His Words?

No thank you.  I'll stick with the belief that God really did write
what His prophets say He did.

  >You say that you are not at literalist, but then assert that the
  >Biblical creation stories are literally true.

For a discussion of literalism, see topic 24.  Briefly, I view the
label of "literalism" as a weapon whose main purpose is to bludgeon
those who accept the proclamation of Scripture that it is God-breathed.
This label is almost always twisted then to make claims about what
is believed that are usually not true.  I therefore reject
the label since it only clouds the true issues and leads to 
misunderstanding.  I willingly accept the label of inerrantist since
I view it as clear, precise and accurate.

  >To me if one is not a literalist then one agrees that the stories in 
  >the Bible are subject to interpretation.

Perfect example.  Although you do not define what a literalist does, you
define what someone who is not a literalist does (interpret the Bible)
which, presumably, a literalist may not be likely to do.

I interpret the Bible.  I, however, interpret it in the light that
the numerous proclamations of it being God's Word are indeed true.  You
interpret it in the light that these proclamations are quite false.
This is the difference - not literalism.

  >So could you explain to this heathen what exactly "God breathed" means?  

There is a long discussion on the nature of the Bible in topic 18
and other related discussions also in the low-numbered notes (23
and 27, for example).

Briefly, in II Timothy 3:16, Paul writes, "All Scripture is 
God-breathed..." which means that God himself wrote "All Scripture"
(note that Paul did not say "the Law and the Prophets" or any other
term which would limit this to simply the Old Testament) *through* 
human authors (as opposed to human authors writing Scripture 
based on their understanding of God which is what you and many others in 
this conference believe).  Other proofs of this point are numerous 
throughout Scripture and include the interchanging of the human author's 
name with the name of God when attributing quotes (this interchanging 
goes both ways), the 3000+ times the Old Testament attributes the 
writing to God directly or indirectly and many, many more.

  >If any part of the Bible is believed to be "God breathed" then I take 
  >it that you see this as being a literal passage.

You take it incorrectly.  If any part of what you write is believed by
me to be "Eric-breathed", then should I take this as being a "literal
passage"?  Hardly.  I apply the exact same standard (surprise!) to what 
God has breathed.

  >God breathed - The dictated word of God.  Nothing is lost to human 
  >	          interpretation or error in translation.

The vast majority who accept that God-breathed Scripture do not claim
dictation from God.  Rather, the human author wrote what God wanted
him to write without error, but with the human in control (but, of
course, submitted to God's Will as we should all be).

The point about human interpretation or error in translation is
simply wrong.  God-breathed does not mean that you or I will necessarily
interpret everything correctly.  In fact, it is clear to me that
you do not.  :-)  Then again, neither do I.  :-(

  >Did God create law of super-nature as well as laws of nature?

God created and sustains everything.  

  >The Word of God is Christ, according to the Gospel of John.  The
  >Word of God is a concept for good living, not a dissertation in natural
  >history.

I see a contradiction in these two sentences.  The Word of God is indeed
Christ.  (However, this is not the only Word of God - a simply reading
of the Bible will make that clear.)  However, the Word of God is not
defined as a "concept" anywhere in the Bible that I'm aware of.  It
refers to Jesus, it refers to the written Word of God, it refers to
the expressed Word of God (usually spoken but also given in other
ways such as visions).  

  >We do the Word of God an injustice, it seems, by professing all that
  >is the Word of God can be contained in a book...

John agrees with you and so do I.

  >For me the theory of evolution of the species gives God far more
  >credit that the creation stories of Genesis.

Indeed an interesting belief.  Please feel free to expound on exactly
what credit you see given to God via your favorite variant of the 
evolution theory vs. the creation story of Genesis which claims that
God was soley responsible for creating all by a divine plan.

Collis

Re:  91.2186

Bubba,

  >That is why I do not accept the "creationist" theory but that of 
  >evolution.  I hear tell that God don't make errors and/or mistakes.  
  >He would surely not knowingly create homosexuals .. would He?

What I hear you saying is that you reject creationism because there
is evil in us (forget the issue of homosexuality, anything you
consider evil or sinful will do).  Is this a correct understanding?

Collis

re Note 564.58 by CLT::COLLIS::JACKSON:

>   For those who believe that God did influence the writing of the Bible, 
> 
>      - then is it not clear that God is a liar when he allowed those who 
>        wrote about Him to claim that all of His Words were true and that 
>        these were His Words?

        But they never claimed this! 

        (And even if they did claim that all of the written text of
        Scripture were God's own true words, God would IN NO WAY be a
        liar if he allowed fallible humans to write about him.)

        A liar is not somebody who allows another to write something
        that is not entirely true.

        If allowing others to do something in His name makes God
        guilty of their errors, then God (by your logic) has done a
        multitude of things far more heinous than lying!

        Bob

    I believe that God continues to speak to all of us today, just as She
    has always spoken to people, including those who recorded their
    inspiration in written words that were later collected into the Jewish
    and Christian canons.  The fact that we in our limited human way are
    not always able to fully perceive or understand the possibilities and
    inspiration that God offers us hardly makes God a liar.  The Bible
    makes for an excellent record of how certain people in history
    attempted to understand God, and we can use that to help us in our own
    attempts at understanding God. 

    The creation myths in Genesis represented two interesting attempts at
    understanding God and expressing the belief that God is the source of
    creation.  In that way they can be quite valuable.

    -- Mike

    
    
    Collis,
    
    Shalom.
    
    Thanks for clearing up the terms "literal" and "God-breathed" for
    me.  Notes are (is?) an awkward forum to say the least, but if I
    understand you correctly you believe that the Bible is literally
    the Word of God, but that God may literally given the Bible writer
    allegorical information.  In other words, the Bible is literally the
    Word of God, but that doesn't mean that all passages can be read
    literally?  (I'm tryin' to understand... really I am!).  Anyway,
    as you mentioned the nature of the Bible is covered in other
    topics so I won't drag you down this rat hole any more than
    necessary :^)  I promise you that I am not (and will not) trying
    to twist your words.  If it seems that I am then correct me; as I
    said I don't speak bible-ese. 

    You could quite possibly be right when you as that my
    understanding of Scripture is different than yours... no
    great mystery there!  I do, however, see a difference in saying
    that the Bible is influenced by God, and saying that the Bible was
    created by God.  I believe that the Bible is influenced by God
    insofar as the writers understood the word and will of God.  (I'm
    absolutely sure that this conflicts with some or several passages
    in the Bible).  I think you see things in more absolute terms than
    I do (i.e. either the writers knew everything about God or
    nothing about God).  I am not ridiculing your belief, merely
    explaining my belief.  If I was so convinced that I am absolutely
    correct I wouldn't need to participate here :^)

    Regarding Paul's claim that "All Scripture is God-breathed": didn't
    he write this before the Gospels and the bulk of the New Testament
    was written?  I thought the the Pauline letters were the earliest
    New Testament writings...  Furthermore, who decides what will be
    called Scripture and what will not.  Don't the various Christian
    denominations have some disagreement over the inclusion of certain
    OT text?

    Back to evolution (strictly my convoluted beliefs :^) : 

    God created the entire set of natural law: for every possible
    combination of causes there is a defined effect. God is all
    knowing.  Once defining these laws God set the universe in motion
    (Big Bang??) and the universe evolved. The stars were formed
    according to the natural laws of God.  The planets were formed
    according to the natural laws of God.  Even life evolved according
    to the natural laws of God.  The universe is not some random
    crap-shoot, by a highly defined order... much of which is beyond
    our earthly comprehension.  It is from the divine order that life
    was created by God.

    Conversely the creation stories (Gen. 2, in particular) depict a
    confused God who appears to be making it up as he goes along.  In
    fact I have a hard time reconciling Gen 1 with Gen 2.  In Gen 1
    God created all the beasts of the world before he created man.  In
    Gen 2 God created man first and then all the beasts.  In Gen 1
    there is not the anti-woman slant that there is in Gen 2 (woman
    being not as divine a creation as man).  In Gen 1, God saw that it
    was good, and created them man and woman.  In Gen 2 god created
    woman and Adam saw that it was good.


    Be gentle now... this is just my opinion.  We may never agree
    since we have different foundations for our belief systems.  I'm
    just sharing my ideas here.


    	Eric                       

Re:  564.60

   >>      - then is it not clear that God is a liar when he allowed those who 
   >>        wrote about Him to claim that all of His Words were true and that 
   >>        these were His Words?

  >But they never claimed this!

Indeed, we disagree on this point.

  >(And even if they did claim that all of the written text of
  >Scripture were God's own true words, God would IN NO WAY be a
  >liar if he allowed fallible humans to write about him.)

Agreed, which leads us back to point one - the authors were ignorant
of God.  The reason I say this is that the inerrancy of Scripture
is not made from a simple sentance here and there, it is taught,
proclaimed, assumed, commented upon and applied throughout all of
Scripture.  Did the prophets know God?  If they did (and they are all
on agreement - with a few silent - on the validity of God's Word), then 
God's Word is inerrant.  If they didn't, then we shouldn't rely on 
their ignorance to teach us.

Collis

Re:  .61

You objection does not squarely address the point, as best as
I can tell.

Collis

Re:  564.62
    
  >...you believe that the Bible is literally the Word of God, but that God 
  >may literally given the Bible writer allegorical information.  
  >In other words, the Bible is literally the Word of God, but that doesn't 
  >mean that all passages can be read literally?  

The Bible is inerrant.  Before we proceed down this line, please read
the relevant note on literalism (24, I think) and we can pick up any 
questions you still have at that point.

  >I do, however, see a difference in saying that the Bible is influenced 
  >by God, and saying that the Bible was created by God.

Created is really not the best term; I think "written" is more appropriate.

  >I believe that the Bible is influenced by God insofar as the writers 
  >understood the word and will of God.

You are in agreement with many here and in sharp disagreement with
the prophets of God.  Of course, some tell me that I can't understand
what the prophets said or meant, so you can take everything I say
with that in mind.  

  >I think you see things in more absolute terms than I do (i.e. either the 
  >writers knew everything about God or nothing about God).

I do admit to being a black/white type of person.  I would not hold
the belief that it's an either/or type of proposition if the inerrancy
of Scripture was not part of the very fabric of Scripture.  But it is.
Some believe that it isn't.  My study tells me that they are wrong.

  >Regarding Paul's claim that "All Scripture is God-breathed": didn't
  >he write this before the Gospels and the bulk of the New Testament
  >was written?

Before some, after others.  Note that Paul did NOT write, "all previously 
written Scripture is God-breathed...".  Neither did Paul write, "all of
the Old Testament is God-breathed...".  He wrote, "All Scripture is
God-breathed...".  Now, possible interpretations would include one of
the first 2 meanings.  Is this the best interpretation?  Not in my
opinion.  Personally, I do not know a single person who accepts the
inerrancy (God-breathing Scripture and God doesn't write error) of
either the Old Testament or of all Scripture written before Paul wrote
this statement (under the influence of the God, of course :-) ), who
does not also accept the inerrancy of all of what we today call
Scripture.  But, if you'd like to be the first, fine.  I'm sure you
can be nudged that small step over to include the inerrancy of the
New Testament as well.  :-)

  >Furthermore, who decides what will be called Scripture and what will not.  

God.

  >Don't the various Christian denominations have some disagreement over the 
  >inclusion of certain OT text?

No.

Some books that were never given Scriptural status by either the Jews
or the Roman Catholic Church are now accepted by the RCC but are not
in the same category of Scripture - at least if my understanding on
this point is correct.

  >Conversely the creation stories (Gen. 2, in particular) depict a
  >confused God who appears to be making it up as he goes along.

Please be specific.  I read the same words and the idea of confusion
is certainly not there explicitly and therefore you must see it there
implicitly.  Maybe I can present an explanation of what happened that
will not rely on you to believe in a confused God.

  >In fact I have a hard time reconciling Gen 1 with Gen 2.  In Gen 1
  >God created all the beasts of the world before he created man.  In
  >Gen 2 God created man first and then all the beasts.  

Your interpretation of the Hebrew here is wrong.  Genesis 2 explicitly
states that God created the beasts before man.  (One of the few things
I remember from my one semester of Hebrew.)

  >In Gen 1 there is not the anti-woman slant that there is in Gen 2 (woman
  >being not as divine a creation as man).

This is not stated explicitly nor is it true (according either to
Genesis 2 as I read it or other parts of the Bible which comment either
on Genesis 2 or women).  God breathed life into both man and woman.
Neither is divine.  Woman is never referred to in Scripture as any
less of a creature than man because of who she is.  She is sometimes
given roles that are different (and often seen as less important), but
that's a different aspect.  Galatian 3 sums it up well saying that
we are all the same in Christ Jesus.  There is no difference between
men and women before God.  Her nature is the same nature as man.  I
have never read any Biblical commentators who believe what you are
claiming, i.e. that Genesis 2 presents women as being less of a
creature than men.  Of course, I don't hear all the commentators and
it wouldn't surprise me to find that some out there believe that.  But
not the evangelical teachers I'm familiar with (Chuck Swindoll, John
McArther among a few) nor have I ever heard this view presented or
endorsed by any evangelical (which I am).

  >In Gen 1, God saw that it was good, and created them man and woman.  
  >In Gen 2 god created woman and Adam saw that it was good.

This is not a contradiction, only differing details included.  God did
indeed say that it was good.  Adam did indeed see that she was good.
I do indeed tell my wife that she is good.  :-) (which is not to mean
that she doesn't have a sinful nature - which is another story all
together...)

Collis

    One assumption I disagree with is that knowledge of God is a binary
    condition--either one is knowledgeable or ignorant, period. It is my
    view no one is either totally ignorant about God or totally
    knowledgeable--that all of us, in some sense, have a part of God within
    us and that the possibilities and inspiration that God offers us is
    perceived or understood to a lesser or greater extent by various
    people.  I thus view the Bible as a record of certain author's attempts
    at expressing their limited understanding of God, just as when I write
    here today I express *my* limited understanding of God.  The efforts of
    previous people, mistakes and all, are useful in helping us in our own
    spiritual journeys.  Thus the errors within the Bible are perhaps quite
    instructive and valuable in their own right.

    It thus is not a question of the prophets either knowing God or not
    knowing God.  The prophets knew God to the best of their ability, as we
    all do.  One's knowledge of God does not make one inerrant in
    everything they write about God, because one, as a finite human being
    with a limited understanding, make mistakes.  But our collective
    struggle to understand God is a valuable process and instructive to
    others.

    The creation myths in Genesis can be seen as valuable in that light.

    -- Mike

    Yeah, what Mike said... 
    
    	Eric

    Well I give up on trying to make head and tails out of the definitions:
    literal, inerrant, God-breathed... I've got a head ache.  Maybe I'll
    try again after the holidays when my mood improves.  It just seems that
    sometimes we dance around the words we use.  Like when you say that
    Paul said "all Scripture is God brethed" applies even to Scripture
    written after Paul... just because he didn't explicitly say otherwise.
    This is more confusing than  Back to the Future II.  I mean what
    non-biblical writtings would one apply this sort of logic to?  I, at
    least, will just try to say what I mean as clearly and unambiguously as
    possible.
    
    To me, saying that the Bible is inerrant, because the Bible says it's
    inerrant, is kind of a twist on the "Cretan paradox":
    
         "All Cretans are liars.  I am a Cretan."
    
    Just as the Cretan paradox makes it impossible to determine the
    truthfullness of a Cretan, the Biblical inerrance paradox makes it
    impossible to discuss radical interpretations of the Bible since my
    interpretation is obviously inerrant :^)  We can discuss the Bible as
    long as the revelations augment previously defined convictions and not
    challenge them.
    
    RE the sequence of creation in Gen1 and Gen 2:  I just re-read both
    accounts and, without twisting the English language to obscurity, I
    still say that Gen 2 has a clearly different sequence than Gen 1.
    
    RE anti-woman slant in Gen 2 and the divinity of man:  What I was
    trying to say was that man is a divine creation just as we would say
    that computers are a human creation... we aren't saying that computers
    are human.  But since you brought it up, how can we be created in the
    image of God and not posess, at least to some degree, divinity.  (My
    beliefs follow somewhat along the lines expressed by Giovanni Pico
    della Mirandola in "Oration on the Dignity of Man").
    
    In Gen 2 God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life".  But
    later he simply made woman with no more fanfare than his creation of
    the plants or the creatures of the earth, save that Eve was created
    from Adams rib rather than from dust.  Later, in 1 Cor 11, Paul in no
    uncertain terms says that women are a lesser creation than men:
    
        "A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory
         of God; but woman is the glory of man." (NIV)
    
    This clearly is saying that women are not created in the image of God. 
    Unless of course this is one of those non-literal, literal God-breathed
    scriptures (I'm sorry, I'm getting flip).
    
    Evolution says that all life was formed and evolved on earth.  The
    creation stories say the same thing, esp. Gen 2 where everylthing grows
    from the ground or is formed from the ground.  The Bible says that God
    created everything, but it doesn't preclude the mechanics of evolution
    as God's method of creation... but I'm sure that someone will "prove"
    that it does.
    
    		Shalom,
    		Eric

Re: 564.66

  >One assumption I disagree with is that knowledge of God is a binary
  >condition--either one is knowledgeable or ignorant, period.

I don't agree with that either.

  >I thus view the Bible as a record of certain author's attempts
  >at expressing their limited understanding of God, just as when I write
  >here today I express *my* limited understanding of God.

Was the author correct when he attributed either what he wrote or what
someone else as God's writing?  That's the question that must be
answered.

  >It thus is not a question of the prophets either knowing God or not
  >knowing God.

This is indeed a critical question.

  >The prophets knew God to the best of their ability, as we all do.

You have assumed the answer right here - and, according to the prophets,
your assumption is wrong.  The prophets writings were not based on
a "best effort" attempt.  They were based on God writing through them.

You still need to deal with the basic issue.  Was the prophet right
or was the prophet wrong when saying/implying Scripture is true.  Was
the prophet who said that all prophecies *must* come true if they are
from God speaking according to God (and implying that prophets of the
true God can *only speak/write truth*!) speaking the truth of God?  Or
was he simply wrong.  And if he's wrong about such a basic question,
why do you believe he knows the nature of God?

Collis

Re:  564.68

  >Like when you say that Paul said "all Scripture is God breathed" applies 
  >even to Scripture written after Paul... just because he didn't explicitly 
  >say otherwise.  This is more confusing than  Back to the Future II.  I 
  >mean what non-biblical writtings would one apply this sort of logic to?

I hope *all* non-Biblical writings.

If I said, "all people are homo sapiens" and tomorrow another person
was born, would this person be a homo sapiens?  If I said, "all water
is made of hydrogen and oxygen" and I examined some water tomorrow,
would it be made of hydrogen and oxygen?  Just as hydrogen and oxygen
are essential components of what constitutes water, God-breathing is
an essential component of what we call Scripture.

Again, this is not the only possible interpretation.  However, it is
the most consistent interpretation with other Scripture.  And, again,
if you prefer the definition that all of the Old Testament is God-breathed,
I'd be *very* willing to start at that point with you.  Are you willing?

  >I, at least, will just try to say what I mean as clearly and unambiguously 
  >as possible.

Sorry that you find me unclear.
    
  >To me, saying that the Bible is inerrant, because the Bible says it's
  >inerrant, is kind of a twist on the "Cretan paradox":

Agreed.  I think Pat Flanagan's position is a perfectly logical one.
I think my position is a perfectly logical one.  I think that those
who wish to find a middle position are hopelessly mired in confusion.
Why?  Because this claim/assumption of Biblical accuracy is propogated 
continuously throughout most all of Scripture.  To say that this is
wrong is to say that almost all of the prophets are wrong about an
essential element - truth.  To then believe that these prophets who
are self-deluded into thinking that they are writing what God tells
them when in fact they are not have valuable insights into God is
rather far-fetched.  Not impossible, but certainly not up to the
standards that most people impose in this conference.

  >Just as the Cretan paradox makes it impossible to determine the
  >truthfullness of a Cretan, the Biblical inerrance paradox makes it
  >impossible to discuss radical interpretations of the Bible since my
  >interpretation is obviously inerrant :^)

Again, the issue is not interpretations.  You have already tried to
claim that interpretations are inerrant and I already replied that they
are not.  The issue is whether or not the original writings were written
by God (i.e. the Holy Spirit) through human authors.  If they were,
then the Bible is correct and truthful when it claims/assumes that they
were.  If they were not, then the Bible is filled with thousands of
errors just regarding this one claim alone.

  >RE the sequence of creation in Gen1 and Gen 2:  I just re-read both
  >accounts and, without twisting the English language to obscurity, I
  >still say that Gen 2 has a clearly different sequence than Gen 1.

I've told you what the Hebrew says.  I'm sorry that the English does
not bring out more clearly the sequence of events.  It's your choice
whether you want to believe that I know what I'm talking about.
    
  >But since you brought it up, how can we be created in the
  >image of God and not posess, at least to some degree, divinity.

Since you mentioned computers, I'll use a like analogy.  How can we
create (invent) a robot in the image of a person and not have it
posess, at least to some degree, humanity?  

Divine means "to be or have the nature of deity".  The Bible is quite
clear that humans were *created*, not *begotten*.  You pass on your
own nature when you beget an offspring.  You do not pass on your own
nature when you create/invent something.  See the difference?  One
comes from reproducing, the other from working with materials and
forming/shaping them in some way.

Now, indeed, God did breathe his spirit into humans to give us life.
An analogy might be putting batteries into a robot to give it life.
Neither one requires a change in "nature" for what was created.  The
Bible tells us that God is divine (deity) and we are not and never
will be.

  >"A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory
  >of God; but woman is the glory of man." (NIV)
    
  >This clearly is saying that women are not created in the image of God. 

This does NOT say that women are not created in the image of God.  I
can see how it is possible to interpret it that way.  This interpretation
does not hold up to other Scripture references, however, and so must
be discarded as in error (my opinion which is by far the predominant
opinion amongst inerrantists).

Eric,

It appears that you wish to challenge all kinds of ideas you have about
what the Bible has said to you and what you may have been taught that
you consider wrong.  It's good to challenge and to think.

But we are in agreement on a number of issues.  We both believe that
women are created in the image of God.  I believe that because I find
that Scripture teaches this.  You believe despite what you hear Scripture
teaching (or despite what some have said that Scripture teaches) - yet
you are unwilling to let go of an interpretation that we both agree
is not correct.  Is your goal simply to find problems in the Bible?  Or
is it *know* Jesus Christ.  If your objective is to know Jesus and what
you hear the Bible saying is a stumbling block, I can help you.  If you
you don't care about Jesus and just want an intellectual discussion, I'll
still discuss with you, but don't expect anything significant to happen.
You may or may not change your beliefs; I may or may not change mine.  But
you'll never encounter the Living God unless you're willing to open your
heart and desire to *know* Him.

  >Evolution says that all life was formed and evolved on earth.  The
  >creation stories say the same thing, esp. Gen 2 where everylthing grows
  >from the ground or is formed from the ground.  

I know of no theory that says life was created somewhere else and then
magically transported (through space) to earth.  Yes, we are all in 
agreement that life began on earth.

  >The Bible says that God created everything, but it doesn't preclude the 
  >mechanics of evolution as God's method of creation... but I'm sure that 
  >someone will "prove" that it does.

The Bible clearly states that God created man from "the dust of the
ground" and "breathed the breath of life" into him.  Please reconcile this
with gross evolution which claims that man evolved from an ape and
either never or already had the breath of life in him.

Collis

    Re: .69

    Like I said, I don't believe that knowlege of God is a binary
    condition.  Although you start out by saying that you agree with me on
    that point, that isn't really clear since you later imply that you
    believe just the opposite.  For example, you say that it is a critical
    question as to whether the prophets knew God or not (thus implying that
    they either did or they didn't, which goes back the binary condition
    that you said you didn't accept), and your final question, "why do you
    believe he knows the nature of God?", presupposes precisely that. 
    
    I believe *everyone* knows the nature of God to at least a limited
    extent, so of course it logically follows that those prophets, flawed
    though they were, knew something about God.  It is my premise that they
    knew something about God because as human beings they had the Light
    within them.  They might even have known a thing or two more about God
    than the average person did, thus giving what they wrote a certain
    value; but that doesn't mean that they were right in all the
    conclusions that they drew about the nature of God. 

    I believe that the prophets knew something of the nature of God, just
    as you and I do.  And yet I don't claim that you are inerrant, nor do I
    claim that I am inerrant, and I certainly don't claim that the
    imperfect and limited humans who wrote the Bible were inerrant. 
    Even if my ego led me to make such a claim about what I wrote here, the
    reality is that others can evaluate each thing that I write on its own
    terms.  I have no doubt that those who wrote the Bible were sincere in
    believing that they are expressing God's will; I am very convinced
    about certain aspects of God's will myself.  I could be wrong about
    some of those things, even though I don't think I am.  Such is the
    difficult process of seeking that all of us undergo in our spiritual
    lives.
    
    I believe that George Fox and John Woolman were also prophets.  I read
    their journals for inspiration and insight into their own thought
    processes and spiritual journeys.  I don't read what they wrote in
    order to find this correct doctrine or that one; the processes that
    they underwent, however, are valuable to me.  Those journals often have
    just as much value to me as the various writings that made their way
    into the Bible--sometimes more.  Because I view Fox and Woolman as
    prophets, they offer something to me in what they wrote, as do the
    works attributed to, for example, Amos and Isaiah, who were also
    prophets in their own time.

    -- Mike

    re: Note 564.57             TNPUBS::STEINHART "Laura"        
    
    > I vaguely recall a Jewish teaching that there were "others" - to
    >resolve the "Whom did Cain marry?" question.  Sorry I can't give you
    >more detail.  Have you considered asking in BAGELS?  An interesting
    >conundrum...
    
    I didn't check BAGELS but the Bible sheds some light on this. Gen 5:4
    says Adam was father to sons and daughters.
    
    >Actually, if you posit that there were other humans, then does that
    >void Original Sin?
    
    Only if you somehow think of these "others" as not being offspring
    descended from Adam and Eve.
    
     robin
    L
    

Re:  564.71

  >Like I said, I don't believe that knowlege of God is a binary
  >condition.  Although you start out by saying that you agree with me on
  >that point, that isn't really clear since you later imply that you
  >believe just the opposite.

I do agree with you.  The argument is:

  - A person claims to have intimate knowledge of some aspect of God
  - This person claims repeatedly that what is said by he and others
    is accurate/true.
  - It comes to light that this person is wrong.  What was said is
    not true.  God did not say the things that this person said He said.
    God did not do what this person said He would do.

What should our response be?

  Typical response in this conference:
    This person may not know everything about God, but certainly he
    knows something about God.  What should look carefully at what he
    says and see what we can gain from it.

  My response:
    This person is known to be a poor guide of who God is.  This person
    is either deceived or lying or crazy.  Any of these states makes
    this person a poor candidate for determining more about God.  It
    is much wiser to ignore this person and look elsewhere.

  Biblical response:
    Anyone who claims to speak for God and speaks falsely is not a
    prophet of God and no credence should be given to that person as
    a spokesperson for God at all.  This is a FALSE PROPHET.

I argue that it is foolishness to seek wisdom from those who are either 
deceived or lying or crazy.  

The Bible claims that your logic is all wrong.  You are accepting
guidance from a false prophet.  You are deceived (at best).

  >For example, you say that it is a critical question as to whether the
  >prophets knew God or not (thus implying that they either did or they
  >didn't, which goes back the binary condition that you said you didn't
  >accept), and your final question, "why do you believe he knows the
  >nature of God?", presupposes precisely that.

It is true that what you suggest is not left as an option by the
Scriptures, i.e. a person knows something about God, writes God-breathed
Scripture and yet also reveals falsehood.  God does not use prophets 
that way according to the prophets.

I believe that part of the problem is that most readers of this 
conference have little idea of the tremendous number of places that 
Scripture claims to be from God or true or accurate, etc.  A detailed 
study of this would be very beneficial I think for people to 
understand why I continue to deal with this point.  It's easy to 
disregard that which you know little about or have seen little 
explicit evidence of.  It's much harder when fact is piled upon fact 
upon fact.  Someday...

  >It is my premise that they knew something about God because as human 
  >beings they had the Light within them.  They might even have known a 
  >thing or two more about God than the average person did, thus giving 
  >what they wrote a certain value; but that doesn't mean that they were 
  >right in all the conclusions that they drew about the nature of God.

You are welcome to believe this.  It contradicts what the prophets 
wrote and in so doing you are stating your belief that the prophets 
did not know about this aspect of God.  Again, this makes what little 
you *know* of the prophets to be *wrong*.  Again, this does not make 
them good candidates to learn about God from.  In fact, it makes them 
the worst candidates.

  >I believe that George Fox and John Woolman were also prophets.  

This has a very definite Biblical meaning which is that the person
speaks for God with 100% accuracy.  Since you apparently reject the 
Biblical definition of a prophet, this is probably not what you mean.

Collis

>  - A person claims to have intimate knowledge of some aspect of God
>  - This person claims repeatedly that what is said by he and others
>    is accurate/true.
>  - It comes to light that this person is wrong.  What was said is
>    not true.  God did not say the things that this person said He said.
>    God did not do what this person said He would do.

    If it turned out that everything that this person said about God were
    wrong, then I probably would not find a great deal inspiration in what
    they said or wrote.  However, to a certain extent, even the wrong
    things that people write are instructive, because we learn from
    people's mistakes as well as their successes.  History tells us that
    there is value in learning about the evils that happen in the world. 
    And if the people who record their own attempts at inspiration are
    sincere, then it is instructive to us to ask ourselves where they went
    wrong and why; and this can tell us more about our own struggles at
    learning about God. 

    So that is one kind of inspiration--learning from mistakes.  Another
    kind of inspiration can come from the beauty that we do recognize to be
    derived from God.  That latter kind of inspiration is not universally
    scattered throughout the Bible.  Some parts of the Bible are lacking in
    much inspiration for me, and  the Bible for me is really a mixed bag.  
    The book of Joshua, for example, is to me probably one of the most
    offensive books in the Bible, and holds very little inspirational value
    for me of any sort.  Certainly its Holy War theme is instructional for
    us today as we grapple with developing more enlightened conceptions of
    God.  But the reality is that I don't find the book very inspirational
    in the sense of feeling good about what is written there.

    With other books, I think that more inspiration is there, but you
    sometimes have to strain to find much inspiration.  And some aspects of
    the Bible are really quite valuable for my own faith journey.  It just
    depends.  I like Second Isaiah much better than First Isaiah, for
    example, and Amos better than Habakkuk.  

    So the point is that, with many parts of the Bible, it isn't a matter
    of the person being all wrong.  There is often some truth to what the
    prophet writes.  It often has some value, even if certain aspects are
    clouded by the person's own cultural or historical biases, or if they
    are simply mistaken in certain ways.  It is that middle ground where
    the task of finding inspiration can be challenging but also rewarding;
    for here you find the grain of truth that the person, in his or her
    inadequate human way, is trying to discover.

    Often I find this in the Bible.  It was something I learned as I first
    began to read the Bible with a fresh perspective a few years ago. 
    Coming from a dogmatic, binary, either-or religious upbringing, one of
    the most important aspects of my religious growth was learning to see
    the value in what some of these prophets wrote even when they not
    always right.  When there is a grain of truth, it is interesting to
    consider the culture, the time, and circumstances that led to that
    understanding of God.

>I believe that part of the problem is that most readers of this 
>conference have little idea of the tremendous number of places that 
>Scripture claims to be from God or true or accurate, etc.  

    I can't speak for others here, but I have always assumed that the
    authors of the Bible generally believed that what they wrote
    represented the truth about God.  That is what makes the Bible so
    valuable and instructional--it records the sincere expressions of their
    understandings about God. thus provies a record of the continual
    development of human theologies during an important place and range of
    time in human history.  The Bible would be a lot less useful if its
    authors had not provided any insights into what they believed.
    
    -- Mike

Re:  564.74

  >If it turned out that everything that this person said about God were
  >wrong, then I probably would not find a great deal inspiration in what
  >they said or wrote.

Even an idiot would get some things right.  The real issue is whether
or not this person is a *reliable* source of information.  By your
own admission, this person is not a reliable source of information
and yet you wish to rely on information provided.

  >When there is a grain of truth, it is interesting to consider the 
  >culture, the time, and circumstances that led to that understanding 
  >of God.

Of course, there is little hope of ever (objectively or even
subjectively) determining what is truth and what is falsehood.  Indeed,
you may find the quest stimulating or exciting.  But enlightening?
I hardly think that this is consistent with the (assumed) facts.

  >I can't speak for others here, but I have always assumed that the
  >authors of the Bible generally believed that what they wrote
  >represented the truth about God.

I expect that this is a common belief.  The authors were deceived
about the truth.

  >That is what makes the Bible so valuable and instructional--it records 
  >the sincere expressions of their understandings about God.

Their sincere belief is that God spoke to them and through them.
Is this true?  If it was, then you are rejecting truth.  If it was
not, then you are again relying on people that God did NOT speak to
in order to determine truth about God.  It still seems to me that this
is similar to asking a blind man about colors.

Collis

    re: .70
    
    > If I said "all people are homosapiens"...
    
    And my analogy would be if I said "all sculpture is art"...
    
    Collis,
    
    I want to thank you for your patience with me.  I know that I can come
    across as being argumentative.  To answer your question, I am trying to
    seek Jesus.  It's just that I've seen so many people (no one in this
    file, as far as I know) that use the Bible to support whatever agenda they
    happen to be pushing.  Right now I believe that I can find Jesus
    through a _personal_ interpretation of the Bible... maybe I'm wrong.  I
    don't want to iconify the Bible.  If the English translation cannot be
    used by me to understand the nature and Word of God, then what use does
    it have?  Is insight into God reserved only to the scholors?  Is it for
    them to translate, both literally and contextually, to us uneducated?
    I have had some bad experiences with folks who claimed that the bible
    is the inerrant Word of God... please don't take it personally, as I
    don't really know you, but I assume you are sincere and speak from the
    heart.
    
    May the Holy Spirit guide us.  Shalom.
    
    		Eric

    >and yet you wish to rely on information provided.

    Did I say that?  Perhaps this point of confusion is the basis of at
    least some of the communication difficulties that have cropped up in
    this discussion.  I have been reflecting this evening on our
    discussion, and I believe that there has been a lack of understanding
    on what the other party means by what they say at several points.

    I do not wish to "rely" on the information provided; in fact, I would
    think that your use of the word "rely" more accurately describes *your*
    approach to the Bible.  I don't know, maybe you have been assuming that
    I am to at least some degree approaching the Bible with at least
    something resembling this goal, since it does appear that this is an
    important part of how you view the Bible.  If I were expecting to turn
    to the Bible as a source of final *answers* that I could rely upon with
    absolute confidence, then I would probably believe that the Bible was
    without error, if not on matters of science then perhaps on matters of
    morals.  However, this is not my perspective, and I do no turn to the
    Bible for that purpose.  If anything, the Bible is more interesting to
    me as a source of questions than of answers.

    Another point of confusion seems to be over the question of God
    speaking to people.  I stated that I believed that knowledge of God is
    not a binary condition--that it is not correct to say that people
    either know God or they don't; on the contrary, I stated that I
    believed that all of us have the Light within us and have a limited
    knowledge of God.  You said at one point that you agree.  Yet I don't
    understand where this agreement really lies, because when we try to get
    from point A to point B we seem to lose each other.  Let me comment on 
    this paragraph:

>Their sincere belief is that God spoke to them and through them.
>Is this true?  If it was, then you are rejecting truth.  If it was
>not, then you are again relying on people that God did NOT speak to
>in order to determine truth about God.  It still seems to me that this
>is similar to asking a blind man about colors.

    I have stated my position on this before, and apparently I haven't made
    myself clear.  I believe that God spoke to them; I believe that God
    speaks to you; I believe that God speaks to me.  I also believe that
    everyone's understanding can be generally somewhat accurate, and also
    generally somewhat inaccurate, to a degree that depends on their own
    measure of understanding of God.  So if you ask me was it true that God
    spoke to them and through them, I would say yes.  And if you ask me if
    it was false, I would say that in a sense that was also the case.  Once
    again, I am asserting that it was not a binary condition of them
    expressing divine revelation or not expressing it.  They were
    expressing some kernel of it, and perhaps not always accurately.  Thus
    *some* of what they expressed was no doubt often consistent with divine
    revelation, just as some of what I express is consistent with the
    divine, just as some of what you express is consistent with the divine.

    Furthermore, and just as importantly, you used the word "rely" in that
    paragraph, once again reflecting an important difference in
    perspective; because I do not "rely", at least not in the sense of
    accepting unquestioningly what they say to be their understanding of
    God.  Part of the reason for this is that because I also have knowledge
    of God, limited thought it is.  I view prophets and others in my faith
    community to be valuable because they supplement my own understanding,
    confirm parts of it, provide possible reality checks on other parts; I
    have the same value for *others* in supplementing *their* understanding
    of God with my own.  The process, then, in my view is mutual, not one
    way.  To *rely* on the Bible would be a one-way process.  This is, I
    believe, how you in effect view the Bible--as a final arbiter, and thus
    it provides a one-way reality check for you on all questions.

    I was also trying to figure out how you can agree with me that knowledge
    of the divine is not a binary condition and yet believe that the
    prophets are without error in their expressions of divine knowledge. 
    From my point of view, if their knowledge is incomplete, how could they
    *not* make errors in their pronouncements?  There seemed to be a real
    lack of communication on this point in this discussion.  On reflection,
    on trying to understand where you are coming from, I could only surmise
    a couple of possibilities.  One is that you believe that "limited
    knowledge" implies (at least in this instance) *incomplete* knowledge
    that is totally accurate in those areas that *are* known.  In other
    words, the idea would be that I as a prophet would know some things,
    but not others, and those things I do know would be correct, I would
    know that they were correct, and I could not be mistaken about which
    things I knew and which ones I didn't.  Another possible interpretation
    is that you believe that God somehow controls the utterances that
    prophets make to insure that those things they identify as divine
    proclamations are true and without error.  I am only guessing here, and
    perhaps you believe yet a third thing I haven't come up with.  The
    problem with point-by-point rebuttals in notes is that debating
    specific points and attacking other views on those points overwhelms
    any attempts at understanding.

    Finally, allow me to say that I was interested by  your analogy of
    asking a blind man about colors.  Actually, you metaphor is fairly
    close to one I would use, a more famous metaphor of asking a blind man
    about an elephant.  In a sense, I view all of us as blind men,
    perceiving that elephant with our limited sensory capacity of feeling,
    and through our mutual interaction we can help to develop a greater
    understanding of that elephant that would not be possible if we just
    felt one part of it and came to our conclusions about it alone.

    -- Mike