It’s 6:25pm Tue, and with 41 votes cast, 38 BMG readers believe evolution is true against 3 who say it’s false. Who among us denies evolution? I don’t know, since most deniers failed to take up my challenge to identify themselves and the alternative to which they subscribe. It’s possible that all 3 BMG evolution deniers are non-Democrats.
Please share widely!
…The fact of evolution is incontrovertable. Evolution has been observed. It’s been observed every time a species of pathogens becomes immune to an antibiotic, and every time a species of insects or other pests becomes immune to a pesticide. One reason that Rachel Carson railed against the excessive and exclusive use of DDT was that she correctly feared that insect species would become immune to the insecticide: she favored integrated pest management (use of a rotating set of insecticides, on a limited basis, instead).
<
p>
Then there is Darwin’s theory of evolution, which describes the means by which the fact of evolution occurs. Darwin’s theory (genetic variation, followed by selection) has been inferred from the historical evidence, as far as I’m concerned is on fairly good ground (go to talkorigins.org for an extensive discussion of the evidence), but it is the theory that people who object to “evolution” seem to have, not so much the fact.
<
p>
Two different issues, unfortunately the same word: evolution.
raj writes: “…The fact of evolution is incontrovertable. Evolution has been observed.”
<
p>
There are most definitely those who disagree with this statement. They will assert that the little shifts in genetic makeup we can observe today are trivial compared to the kind of huge change needed to transform the primordial soup into homo sapiens. Thus, since the Earth is not all that old, we must have been “bootstrapped” with a mostly complete set of creatures that have since undergone only limited adaptation.
<
p>
Evolution denial, and I do mean denial of the FACT of evolution, is still very much alive.
raj writes: “…The fact of evolution is incontrovertable. Evolution has been observed.”
<
p>
There are most definitely those who disagree with this statement
<
p>
People are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. And, as described <a href="here evolution denialists caused the Sri Lankans a rather significant problem because of their denial of evilution.
<
p>
Believe what you wish. But leave the rest of us to do what we need to do to survive.
<
p>
And, if you want to deny what we are doing, I’m quite sure that you will eschew the bounties of the evilutionists.
You got a broken link in your comment…
…try this The DDT Ban Myth
At UMASS, about half my good friends were in the biology department – including my best friend. So, I got to know a bunch of bio people… and here’s a sad fact. A number of people in the biology department didn’t believe evolution. I – and she – didn’t understand how one could be studying to be a biologist and not believing evolution, especially seeing as though evolution is basically the base of biology, but it’s true.
<
p>
Furthermore, I got to “bump heads” with one of these people a few months later. I was a member of Pride, a glbt organization on campus, and once a semester we’d take a trip to P-Town for the day. We were close by, so it was a short trip. Anyway, on my way up there, I was talking with my another one of my very good friends about Global Warming… when, suddenly, I was rudely interrupted by a woman who said it didn’t exist. See, she said, she was studying biology at the graduate level, so clearly that ended the discussion. Let’s just say, she wasn’t exactly a kind person. She was also a registered Republican, very religious and clearly having trouble with her sexual identity. I cut her as much slack as possible.
<
p>
In any event, months later my best friend told me she was also one of those biologists that believed there was “no evidence” of the existence of evolution and that the dinosaurs were roaming the earth 10,000 years ago. Sheesh.
If the question is do I believe in evolution, then I would say yes as it is clear from biological laboratory studies of germs and such. If the question is – Did man evolve from a single cell organism that turn into a salamander and then into a tree climbing lemur and then into a man, then I would say unequivocally “no”.
<
p>
There is absolutely no scientific evidence to prove that occurred. There is evidence that shows there existed things similar to man, but more like an ape. But, because one remotely resembles another does not imply evolution or a generational relation. Rainclouds and watermelons are both 99% water, but I would not suggest that one evolved into the other.
<
p>
People will find facts to support what they want to believe. I propose that the people reading this who do not believe in God have made no real effort to find out the facts. Of course I could say the same for myself and my reluctance to believe in global warming and the impending doom it suggests.
<
p>
I refuse to believe in human evolution and truthfully it will not make one iota of difference in my life. Should tomorrow I wake up with a news broadcast showing definitive facts proving the evolution of man I would not change a thing in my life. Even then to suggest that the reality of human evolution negates the existence of God is wrong. Can’t God have made man evolve?
<
p>
As C.S. Lewis said “Why is it that some men find it so reassuring that they are descendent of apes. I would much prefer to think I was a creation of a loving God”.
<
p>
As an alternative to the evolution of man I would suggest creation by an all powerful and knowing being. I have no idea what God is like or how He came to be. I do believe that the likelihood that we crawled from some primordial soup to inherit the earth based upon the instinct to survive is foolishness. Man is far in advance of the survival mode. Evolution proposes that man unknowingly changed in order to survive, but so very little of what we are is about survival. Does man create great pieces of art in order to survive? Does man sing songs of love or war in order to survive? Is the birth of a child simply man’s desire to produce the next generation? Is the passion we invest in great foods about survival? I hope not. I hope that all the things we do to add passion and meaning to our life is done not from a survival mode, but rather from a desire to inspire others and share what we consider beautiful.
<
p>
I do not fault anyone’s reluctance to believe in God. Certainly God has left enough detail out so to make the whole thing questionable. But, that is the reason for faith. What would the world be like had God removed all doubt about His existence? Would there be the freewill to believe? Would we be drawn to God because he is a loving and caring God, or would we be drawn to Him for fear of a final judgment?
<
p>
God made us in His likeness – meaning He gave us intelligence and freewill. I know that God is glad when he finds people that wrestle with his existence. Belief should not come easily.
You are mistaken.
<
p>
98% of human DNA matched the DNA of chimpanzees. We share 25% of our DNA with a banana. Conclusive proof? No, but solid scientific evidence of a common ancestor for humans, chimps and bananas. All life shares one common ancestor; this is an indisputable fact.
<
p>
For conclusive proof, feel free to crack open a book on evolution or, as raj suggested, start by browsing Talk Origins.
<
p>
Also, I have not once said that God does not exist. I have not once said that there is one scientific discovery, from evolution by natural selection through the Big Bang, or any discovery that precludes the existence of God. You are the one who insists on injecting God into the discussion.
<
p>
The existence of God is irrelevant. My issue is not with God, it is with religion userping scientific fact with outrageous fiction.
A few thoughts
<
p>
1) Creationism is a phenomenon unique to fundamentalist American protestantism, most other Churches have rejected it and in fact most early Church thinkers including St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin all reject a seven day creation period as a blasphemous concept that limits the scope and power of god to a human time frame. While they never endorsed evolution (although Aquinas did say one thing bangs into another and that cuases something else, the initial bang had to be God) they certainly did not support the 10,000 year old Earth, seven day period, etc. as they saw it as limiting God (also it is narrow enough to be easily disproven)
<
p>
2) The rejection of evolution by lots of Americans is because we mandate curriculum in school with state tests etc. and children are forced to hear things that contradict their religious beliefs, and by this I do not refer to evolution which again most faiths support, but the idea that God did not create the universe which in my view is compatible with evolution, this idea a lot of bio teachers Ive had and friends in other states had attempted to debunk this idea, in fact my textbook did just that, and this only reinforces the sterotype that Darwin, himself a Christian believer, was some brave crusader for a radical atheist vision thats being forced on students hence the backlash
<
p>
3) The solution-continue to teach evolution, do not teach ID, but also state right off that there is still a lot we dont know and never say there is or for that matter there isnt divine guidance since its something a science teacher, or for that matter any human being truly knows for certain
of my genetic makeup when my own children have only 50% of my genetic makeup?
<
p>
Though I appreciate the reference to talkorigins I somehow doubt any website that i would be referred to from here is impartial.
<
p>
As for opening a book I have done that many times (probably 50 different books, including Darwin’s) on this subject as part of my search for a fundamental philosophy regarding my existence and found the bible to be more than adequate.
Or cellular biology, for that matter.
<
p>
In point of fact, if you are a male, your children have far less than half of your DNA in their nuclei. Sperm contributes only to nuclear DNA, and has nothing to do with mitochondrial DNA. The mitochondrial DNA derives solely from the egg, and it is from analyses of mitochondrial DNA that much of this comes from.
<
p>
On the general subject…
<
p>
How can a chimpanzee have 98% of my genetic makeup when my own children have only 50% of my genetic makeup?
<
p>
…the fact should be obvious. Because the egg has 98% (or more) of your genetic make-up. I seriously cannot comprehend the inanity implied in the question.
These is the sort of prima facie evidence that we are doing something seriously wrong in the teaching of critical thinking and science in our public schools. HFS.
Oh wait, I already did.
<
p>
;^)
And I, for one, appreciate your efforts. Adults (and kids) cannot sort information, apply rigorous scrutiny to help them determine the quality of the information, and arrive at an informed decision. In kids, one expects to see these issues and that is what school is about–learning to think critically, but when you see this in adults, it’s enough to make you want to chew on your knees. Aaarrrgh–again. We see it in the abortion debate, we see it in this ridiculous exchange about DNA, bananas, and chimps, we see it in the proud refusal of some to consider information that doesn’t conform to their worldviews, and we see it in many who boast that “faith” in an idea or concept is something to actually be proud of.
<
p>
Geez, I need to go back to work. The frustration I experience reading the idiocy of the adults on the clogged-up tubes of the internetz is enough to make my head explode.
Because the egg has 98% (or more) of your genetic make-up.
<
p>
Several years ago, in an “ask the experts” column in Scientific America, someone posed the question “why do men have nipples”? It is obvious why women have nipples, but it is not obvious why men would. The answer that the scientist gave was that men have nipples because men and women share most of their genetic make-up, and that there was apparently no evolutionary reason why male genes should be selected for nipple-deletion.
God made us in His likeness
<
p>
…then tell us why your god gave humans eyes of a worse design than he gave molluscs. Apparently, your god loves squids more than he/she loves you.
<
p>
BTW, CSLewis was a nut case. Interesting fiction but nothing more.
This is one of the most misunderstood quotes made regarding the creation of man. In the older translations of the bible the word used did not mean made in God’s image, but rather in his likeness or characteristics. The word used meant that man was created with two things – intelligence and free-will as mentioned in my earlier post. The literal translation did not mean man looked like God.
<
p>
Clearly this is the case as man has established himself as the most intelligent of all creatures. Though many would inform me that monkeys and dolphins are brilliant creatures, they clearly do not come anywhere close to man in the ability to reason, plan, speak, manufacture or any number of other activities associated with intelligence. I would ask many of you – if evolution is happening to all creatures why then is it not happen to other creatures as quickly as to man?
<
p>
Secondly, man seems to be the only creature given the ability to excercise free will. So often we hear the argument that when a dog bites a child the dog was simply doing what it instinctively knows. Can’t blame the dog because it is a dog and doesn’t know any better. Consequently, if the dog, or any other animal, acts purely out of instict then they do not have free will. Man on the other hand, has the ability to know better and to excercise free will in any given situation. Example: if I lose all my money and become hungry – I still know better than to raid my neighbors vegetable garden and take all the food. Instinct (desire to resolve my hunger) tells me to take it, but free will gives me the ability to resist.
<
p>
Lastly, C.S. Lewis will go down in history as one of the great literary theologians of all time, and many of his works were not meant to be taken as religious.
<
p>
One last thing, God gave many creatures far better eyes/vision than to humans. To name a few – almost all birds of prey, dogs, cats, insects, etc. Still they are not equal to humans in any way and eyesight is a poor measure of love from our God.
I wish CS Lewis had just come out straight with his theology for children instead of cloaking it the way he did in Narnia. He believed in predestination (Great Divorce) and Mere Christianity is filled with more logical sleights-of-hand that a magicians’ convention. He reminds me of Bill O’Reilly, in that the rare time he goes outside an environment of his control — such as his books — he routinely was knocked around, such as his complete humiliation at the hands of Elizabeth Anscombe during a debate.
…I doubt very seriously that many children would recognize the religiosity in the Chronicles of Narnia. I read most of the books when I was a kid in the very early 1960s and had no idea that they were supposed to have anything to do with religion until a few years ago. I suspect that that would also be the case with most kids even today.
I didn’t recognize the religion for what it was in 3rd grade when I first read through the series, but I sure could tell in a couple of years (however, now that Hollywood is making money and WackoJesusland is taking credit for the movie series, that may chance). To me, that makes it all the more manipulative.
<
p>
If I were to learn that a hypothetical child of mine were expected to read LWW in school, I’d raise a far stink about it, unless s/he were required to read The Golden Compass at the same time.
Read ‘Mere Christianity’, or my favorite ‘The Screwtape Letters’. Those were what he considered his serious work.
<
p>
Here’s a LIST of his other thological works as well.
<
p>
(I always like Kierkegaard better…)
I’ve read plenty of Lewis, including the two works you mentioned, Surprised by Joy, and the Great Divorce. His Perelandria trilogy is sitting on one my shelves right now (I don’t have it with the other science fiction though — that stuff doesn’t deserve to be shelved next to Vernor Vinge or Greg Bear. Lewis and Hubbard are proof that religioinsts shouldn’t dabble in SF.). I also found The Screwtape Letters enjoyable, though sometimes self-contradictory.
<
p>
My general point is that sneaking Christian evangelism under the cover of children’s literature is dishonest and underhanded, whether it was written as an afterthought or not.
Looks like you’ve already got some appropriately science-y responses, but this sentence seems to kind of sum up your non-spiritual arguments:
<
p>
“Rainclouds and watermelons are both 99% water, but I would not suggest that one evolved into the other.”
<
p>
Respectfully (really), maybe I’m just not science-y enough, but I’ve read that sentence five times now and all I can think is: Crocoduck. Crocoduck. Crocoduck.
<
p>
(See, e.g., http://www.slate.com…)
<
p>
That’s all, I guess.
Considering between 40% – 44% of America denies evolution, I think BMG can be proud that the poll curently stands at 94% (51-3) in affirming belief that evolution is true.
<
p>
This makes me appricate BMG even more.
<
p>
This begs the question: if you belong to a party where 68% of your fellow members deny the fact that humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced life forms, can you really call the BMG community moonbats?
A person using the handle ‘Vote Third Party Now’ is a long shot to be a Republican.
<
p>
I read his post, and it was earnest and respectful. Unlike many BMG members, he didn’t indulge in name calling, and never referred to you as a moonbat.
<
p>
Why can’t you respond to his ideas, and stop abusing him?
Could it be that tblade was referring to people other than Vote Third Party Now? I bet tblade was. I take your objections as evidence that tblade was talking about others.
I did not put the term ‘moonbat’ in vote3rdpartynow’s mouth. I know he never called anyone that.
<
p>
You and I both know that moonbat is a popular term used by the right to describe lefty types, and it is often hurled at BMG. The comment was directed at the right who try to discredit lefties by calling them moonbats. Basically, what I’m saying here is Let he who’s party is without moon-battery cast the first verbal stone. When 68% of of a party denies reality so fervently, members have no basis to call liberal/progressive types moonbats.
<
p>
I have responded to his ideas. Which of vote3rdpartynow’s ideas have I responded to inadequetly, Pete?, I will be happy to respond in more detail.
There’s something about the tenor of this debate that I feel uncomfortable with. For the record, I acknowledge the scientific fitness of the Theory of Evolution and I answered “True” in the poll. I think the systematic denial of evolution is problematic. It’s strange to me that people live in a world of cell phones and Internet and satellite television and yet think that the scientists are wrong on evolution.
<
p>
There is, I suppose, an argument to be made that there is a basic literacy, an understanding of the world, that is necessary in a modern Democracy, faced as we are with the pressures that could derail it. And that an understanding of the processes of evolution is a part of that basic literacy. But this idea of rating the percentage of BMGers versus “Republicans” on the “belief in evolution” sounds like a shibboleth to me. Are we somehow saying that someone who answers “false” to this poll question is less than a real American? Are people who answer “true” on the poll necessarily more informed or more enlightened than those who answer “false”? I’m not so sure. Maybe they just infer that it’s the “right” answer in this social situation.
<
p>
Before the 2000 election, then-candidate George W. Bush said in a televised debate that Jesus was the political philosopher that influenced him most. It’s a response that still sticks in my craw to this day. How in the heck has Bush’s political philosophy been influenced by the man who gave the Sermon on the Mount? But he didn’t mean to answer the question. He meant to tell millions of evangelical Christians that he was one of theirs.
<
p>
Similarly, if a Democrat were to get up and say the political philosopher who influenced him the most was Charles Darwin, I would think that ridiculous.
<
p>
To me, the crime is not that someone might not believe, or not want to believe, that humans evolved from earlier primates over a period much longer than 6,000 years. The crime is that a party would manipulate people who hold those beliefs into voting for a public policy that is anti-intellectual, belligerant, secretive and plutocratic. And doing so at least in part by telling them that the other side thinks they’re rubes.
This is not aimed at anyone in particular. Would love to hear everyone’s thoughts on Mr. Al Gore being a Born Again Christian, or as it were in the 2000 elections. Now, I know a lot of Born Again Christians and the greatest majority of them believe in creation. Was Al Gore just playing politics or was he really a born again Christian?
<
p>
Source:
http://www.americana…
<
p>
“Then there?s Al Gore. A former divinity student, Gore has been shuffling to the right lately faster than a Sammy Sosa homer reaches the fence. He actually got the jump on George Dubya last summer, when he proposed a ?New Partnership? between church and state. While addressing a crowd in Atlanta at a Salvation Army drug rehab center, Gore paid lip service to the establishment clause, but reminded his audience that ?freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion…?
<
p>
No, Ralph Reed is not Al?s speech writer.
<
p>
Fast forward to Sunday, December 5 when Gore appeared on the CBS program 60-Minutes, for a segment with Leslie Stahl. In a discussion of religious beliefs, Gore admitted to being a born again Christian, adding:
<
p> I am. It — it — it?s something lampooned, you know. And I think the –what I call the anti-religious view — it sometimes tends to be arrogant and to the intimidating side of — of making people who do believe in God feel kind of like they?re, you know…? put down. Mr. Gore goes on to assure the viewers this ?born again? philosophy is the ?core of my life. It is — it?s the foundation of my other beliefs, my political philosophy…?
<
p>
Further in the article…”So Gore has pulled a ?Jesse Ventura? of sorts. He has set up tens of millions of Americans who define themselves as atheists, agnostics, freethinkers or some similar term — those who are pejoratively characterized as the ?anti-religious? — as bullies with swelled heads.”
<
p>
Al seems to have a fairly good grip on reality and scientific fact. People can pray to Ba’al or Osirus for all I care as long as they’re correct on the issues I care about and not trying to replace dogma and disproven assertions as scientific fact.
you will see that Al Gore speaks of his “creator”. I am not sure how one can believe in a creator and in human evolution (as it pertains to this discussion) at the same time. Explain to me how the belief in a creator does not, in fact, deny the idea of evolution. Either God created us as we are or we evolved from apes. We can’t have it both ways. Was Al Gore grossly out of touch back then? Was he a part of the problem being so involved in religous affairs? Or, was Al Gore using religion to elevate his campaign? If the latter, is he now using the idea of global warming to elevate his campaign (loose definition)?
<
p>
Did I mention that the father of global warming also attended divinity school?
But ask most Catholics, mainline Protestents, reform Jews, Unitarian Universalists, etc to explain how they reconcile belief in a ‘Creator’ and belief that humans evolved from other life forms.
<
p>
95% of the peole responded that they do believe human evolution to be true. I know for a fact that all 56 voters are not atheists and I’m wiling to bet (don’t know for sure) most of those voters have a belief in a creator.
<
p>
Believing in a Creator is not the same as being a creationist or denying evolution.
Not all UUs believe in a “creator God,” and belief in such is certainly not one of the Seven Principles.
I only included UUs because I didn’t want them to feel left out.
What about Caodaiists like me?
I left out Caodaiists becuse I have never heard of the religion until right now.
<
p>
http://en.wikipedia….
I’m not a Caodaiist..seems like a lot of work. But they do have a cool name, and it’s my favorite religion started by a former government bureaucrat.
humans evolved from other life forms
<
p>
…evolution doesn’t really say that. What Darwinian evolution says is that, for example, humans and apes share a common ancestor. Humans did not evolve from apes (as they are today), but they both share common ancestors although they followed different evolutionary paths. (Dawkins has an excellent book on the subject.) And that’s why humans and apes now have such similar DNA.
I don’t think that belief in a Creator is incompatible with acknowledging the validity of the theory of evolution.
<
p>
All the theory of evolution is a theory of the long, long chain of events that had led us to be as we are. At the far end of that chain, there is something that started the chain, a “first cause.” What was that first cause? The question is scientifically unanswerable; it is in the realm of faith.
<
p>
I beleive that a Creator started the chain of events that, over billions of years, ahd led to the existence of me.
Did I mention that the father of global warming also attended divinity school?
<
p>
it was probably the chemist Arrhenius, and I’ve seen no indication that he was in divinity school.
Source:
http://www.infidels….
<
p>
Al Gore on Arrogant Atheists
by James Still
If the message boards are not yet crawling with the news they soon will be: U.S. Vice President and Presidential candidate Al Gore admitted that he was a born-again Christian. During a 60 Minutes interview, broadcast on Dec. 5, he also attacked nonbelievers–or what Gore referred to as the “anti-religious view”– calling them “arrogant” and “intimidating . . . making people who do believe in God feel like they’re being put down and I don’t like that. I’ve never liked that.”
<
p>
Nonbelievers are arrogant? For shame! Al Gore is sure to fall under the wrath of every online freethought editor for his comments. By the end of the week, it will be the conventional wisdom of outraged atheists, humanists, and agnostics everywhere that Gore is one more in a long line of religious bigots, for whom casting aspersions on reason is seen as a good gimmick for political gain among the religious right.
<
p>
Before we arrive at that point, however, let’s stop and examine the context of Gore’s remarks. He made them during a moment in which his personal life was under the microscope. As the cameras roll, Gore is seen strolling on the campus of Vanderbilt University while the voice over tells us that just after his tour of duty in Vietnam, Gore enrolled in the Divinity School. “Did you want to be a minister?” the interviewer asks. “I was open to the call,” he replies. Gore admitted that he was searching for the meaning of life. “What duty do we owe to our Creator?” he had asked himself at the time. Gore went on to express frustration that born-again Christians are often lampooned by nonbelievers but he admitted that he is uncomfortable when politicians talk about religion all of the time, especially when they use it as a wedge to drive between the separation of church and state. Even so, Gore said that religion was the “foundation of his life” and he stated that he will continue to be “personally guided by religion in his professional life.”
<
p>
Rather than join the bandwagon of outrage over Gore’s remarks, I’d rather spend a moment to reflect and to defend him. Many of us nonbelievers are arrogant, incredibly arrogant, and in our single-minded attempt to engage in spiritual cleansing, we often forget that we have no more a monopoly on the truth than anyone else. Yet this reality does not seem to prevent some nonbelievers from howling their indignation loudly, bolstering their own sense of superiority by ridiculing those who believe in God. It is this rigid attitude that unites fundamentalist atheists with their religious cousins in that fundamentalist atheists are not content to revel in their own perfect worldview, but rather they must also prove others wrong in order for them to be right. It is this intellectual elitism that religious believers see when they glance behind them at those atheists who nip at their heels. In the end, this had led to a serious image problem for the rest of us for whom our atheism is not challenged by the coexistence of religious belief.
<
p>
It is important to notice that Gore never once says that arrogant atheists are wrong for proclaiming their beliefs or even for proclaiming them passionately. Gore says that they are wrong for putting down others who do believe, and in that remark lies the rub. The result of denigrating the beliefs of others, no matter how silly they seem to us, is bigotry and intolerance. Gore attended a divinity school because he was searching for meaning in his life. That search led him to public service and regardless of what one thinks of his political views, no one should look down upon him for honestly searching for answers in his life. After all it is the search, not the discovery, that makes life’s journey meaningful. Even though I do not believe that God exists, I strive to keep an open mind toward the matter. There are some–atheists and theists alike–who have already decided down to the last detail what is true and false and thus busy themselves with ridiculing those who do not yet know or agree. But for most of us the search continues. That is as it should be.
<
p>
<
p>
I am using Al Gore as an illustartion because his testimony about global warming is seemingly unquestioned in liberal circles, yet the foundation for his political campign several years ago was the very foundation of my argument on BMG. Why believe him now when he was apparantly so feeble minded before in his belief in creation? The enlightened websites I quoted from were jumping ugly on Gore for his remarks about creation. Yet, today he is not only one of the top progressive thinkers, but an often considered candidate for President. Does anyone else think this is odd?
If Al Gore stated that he denies evolution let’s see it, and I’ll be happy to comment on it. Gore does not state that he is a creationist and I, as of right no, have no reason to believe he ever was.
<
p>
I am a strong believer in freedom of religion. To paraphrase an oft used quote, people are entitled to their own religions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.
When Al Gore says in the interview that he is a Born Again Christian and then refers to God as his creator – He is saying that he believes he was created (versus evolved) and he believes in Christianity, which teaches creation.
<
p>
I will admit that he did not say directly that he denies evolution. But let us be reasonable human beings and infer from this extremely simple comment that he told people he believes he was created by God, which would negate the possiblity of being evolved – in the Christian context. He didn;t say he believed in a creator, but rather that he was a Born Again CHRISTIAN with a creator.
<
p>
To be clear, Christianity does not teach the possibility of evolution. It does not teach that creation was one of many possible options. Christianity teaches in no uncertain terms that God created mankind. There can be no mincing of words here, folks.
<
p>
I am not putting words in Al Gore’s mouth. He said these things, not me. I am simply asking how one can reconcile Al Gore’s past thoery of creation with his current theory of global warming? Was Al Gore correct in both instances, or was he incorrect in both instances, or was he confused on one of the instances – if so which one?
<
p>
This discussion, and it has been a good one, began with the assertion that creation was clearly wrong and global warming was clearly right. My argument is that the very man leading the global warming issue was a one-time divinity student and self professed Born Again Christian. How can this be reconciled?
It’s possible that he accepts the Bible as allegory rather than literal fact?
<
p>
I don’t think being a “born again” Christian necessarily equates with being a Biblical literalist, and as an allegory, creation does not necessarily preclude evolution.
a second birth, not of the flesh/womb, but of the spirit. It is a term not lightly used because of its flighty perception. If someone says they are Born Again – they mean it.
<
p>
Nicodemus, A leading thinker of the time came to Jesus and asked how to see the kingdom of heaven. Jesus responded that no one sees the kingdom of heaven unless he is born again. Nicodemus was so confused he up and walked away.
<
p>
I believe that if Al Gore says he is Born Again and speaks of his creator he is taking the bible rather literally.
<
p>
Creation in the Christian sense does negate the possibility of evolution.
Belief in the Bibla as inerring hostorical fact is called “fundamentalism.” Although all fundamentalists might call themselves “born again,” not all who call themselves “born again” are fundamentalists.
<
p>
It’s kind of like squares and rectangles.
Either that or I have fat fingers.
<
p>
Can’t someone invent an edit feature?
…”Preview,” but I gave up on apologizing for typos long ago, when I discovered that the apppppolllogies took up more bandwidth than they were worth đŸ˜‰ Most of us can interpolate between the typos.
Let us as reasonable human beings discuss the fact of what Al Gore actually did say and not reinterpert what we hope he might of meant to fit our argument. I say again that there is no reason, at this point, to believe that Al Gore has ever denied evolution.
<
p>
And just because Al Gore once attended divinity school, doesn’t mean he ever denied evolution. Plenty of clergy agree with evolution. Even the Pope believes that Evolution is true; so to say that one cannot be Christian and agree that humans evolved over millions of years is a false statement.
Per the BBC