Science and the Sacred

Science and the Sacred


Thanksgiving

cornucopia.jpg

Let us come before him with thanksgiving and extol him with music and
song.”

Psalm 95:2

“The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. He can be worshipped in the cathedral or in the laboratory. His creation is majestic, awesome, intricate, and beautiful.”

- Francis Collins

Share
|





Advertisement
Comments read comments(11)
post a comment
Mere_Christian

posted November 27, 2009 at 8:32 am


Was I supposed to be on the internet on Thanksgiving day?
Just joking. I cruised it early morning. Looking for sales and replying to those silly atheists (and others) here and there.
“Thanks” for allowing me to post here though. (Me being a half-wit and all.) It’s not that I don’t think your organization is an important one, I do. (Even more than half of me does.) It’s just that, in today’s world of liberals and progressives and humanists, et al, claiming they can be Christians (and even atheists propping up some moral-ized agenda!?), and using evolution to insert more of a Sodom and Gomorrah lifestyle onto and into The Church, I feel questioning your motives is quite in keeping with the advice of the New Testament writers.
“The world” and its secular ways is killing human beings at a staggering rate. From our morally corrupt cities of humanist experiments, to our secularized schools, preaching the Gospel and reaching the lost is something very important to do correctly.
Evolution is important to people, but only to a certain point.
Then other realities take over.
And yes, I’m sure you’re aware of that. At least half of me is.
LMChBO
Thanksgiving, what a concept. Certainly not in a darwinian way though. I’m sure Turkeys aren’t digging this event.



report abuse
 

Knockgoats

posted November 27, 2009 at 8:42 am


“The world” and its secular ways is killing human beings at a staggering rate. – Mere_Liar
Human lifespan is at an all-time high and continues to increase – thanks to the secular disciplines of agriculture, medicine, sanitation, education, etc. etc. The most secular among the rich countries, such as Japan and the Scandinavian countries, have among the highest life expectancies. The far less secular USA does not.



report abuse
 

scott

posted November 28, 2009 at 10:03 pm


The amount of ignorance that can be found on blogs never ceases to amaze me. To say that is someone is in favor of a women dying of cervical cancer, because they said that they said that they believe that the Gardisal shots are license for promiscuity, is idiotic (meant in the Greek meaning). The shot that is referenced is a shot that only protects against a certain type of STD, that being the human papilloma virus, not against the cancer itself. This is another alley given to young people to facilitate their promiscuity. It is no different than handing out condoms to kids in JR. High. But then again if someone truly believes in evolution then there is no reason to argue against promiscuity, after all they would see a promiscuous person as bolstering an heightened ability to attract mates in order to further their genes. But since I disagree with the stance, I do think that these shots offer extra permission for minors and anyone else to act more promiscuous while receiving fewer consequences.
Lastly if someone wants to disagree with the purpose of the Gardisal vaccination, I gathered my information from the CDC Website.
http://www.cdc.gov/STD/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm#howget.
Have a Good one.



report abuse
 

Knockgoats

posted November 29, 2009 at 4:07 am


Scott,
The shot that is referenced is a shot that only protects against a certain type of STD, that being the human papilloma virus, not against the cancer itself.
The virus causes cervical cancer; therefore to oppose vaccination against it is to favour women suffering and dying from cervical cancer. It is of course quite possible for a virgin to acquire the virus on her wedding night from her husband.
It is no different than handing out condoms to kids in JR. High.
Once adolescents reach the age of 16, I would consider this an excellent idea. Adolescents are going to have sex – there is abundant evidence that “abstinence only” sex education does not stop them – so it is best to minimise the risks. You are evidently in favour of unwanted teenage pregnancies, syphilis and HIV as well as cervical cancer. Nice. Your attitude is part of the pathological hatred of women and pleasure that lie at the heart of your disgusting religion.
But then again if someone truly believes in evolution then there is no reason to argue against promiscuity
Being called idiotic by you is like being called ugly by a naked mole rat. Evolution is simply a fact: acceptance of the overwhelming evidence for it does not entail any moral beliefs whatever. I would certainly counsel adolescents against promiscuity because of the physical and emotional risks both to themselves and to partners; as far as adults are concerned, what they do in bed is entirely their own business so long as all parties freely consent to it. But you really believe the creator of the universe shares your sordid prurience.



report abuse
 

Scott

posted November 29, 2009 at 7:57 pm


Hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday.
First let me say that I did not mean to call you an Idiot in an offensive way, at least I did not intend in that way. I simply meant that all of your posts seem to be very narrow in view. I apologize if I offended you.
The virus causes cervical cancer; therefore to oppose vaccination against it is to favour women suffering and dying from cervical cancer. It is of course quite possible for a virgin to acquire the virus on her wedding night from her husband.
Would this not only be possible if he had been sexually active before their wedding night?
Once adolescents reach the age of 16, I would consider this an excellent idea. Adolescents are going to have sex – there is abundant evidence that “abstinence only” sex education does not stop them.
I would like to see some of your evidences that you use to say that abstinence only sex education does not lower the ill side-effects of promiscuity. I could be wrong, but STD’s will not be translated if people only ever had one sexual partner.
Your attitude is part of the pathological hatred of women and pleasure that lie at the heart of your disgusting religion.
I am not sure what you mean? If you compare the gospel narratives of the Bible (Matthew-John) Women are treated much better and held in a higher respect with comparison to any of the contemporary literature of that time. And even the rest of the New Testament holds to this pattern. Call me a women hater if you want, but this is simply unfounded on fact and seems to be an attempt to discredit anything I said by false statements of slander.
Lastly.
Evolution is simply a fact- I have not been shown any evidence using modern science, deeper than look-a-likes, such as development of DNA or the Cell that points to Evolution being a fact.
Have a good one.
Scott



report abuse
 

Knockgoats

posted November 30, 2009 at 5:52 am


Scott,
First, please use quotation marks or some other indication when you are quoting – it makes things much clearer.
Hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday.
I’m British; it’s not a holiday here.
Would this not only be possible if he had been sexually active before their wedding night?
Yes. So you think a woman should suffer and die from cervical cancer because her husband had premarital sex. How admirable.
I would like to see some of your evidences that you use to say that abstinence only sex education does not lower the ill side-effects of promiscuity.
See http://www.openeducation.net/2009/01/05/abstinence-only-sex-education-statistics-final-nail-in-the-coffin/.
Women are treated much better and held in a higher respect with comparison to any of the contemporary literature of that time.
Even if that’s true, so what? That was nearly two millennia ago. The NT also makes it quite clear that women are to be subordinated to men, and that sex is at best, tolerated for the purposes of producing children. I note that Muslims make exactly the same excuse for the misogynistic features of Islam: it was, apparently, a great improvement on pre-Islamic Arabia.
I have not been shown any evidence using modern science, deeper than look-a-likes, such as development of DNA or the Cell that points to Evolution being a fact.
Then you have deliberately closed your eyes to it. The evidence is there in literally millions of scientific papers, and is accepted by all relevant experts except for a vanishingly tiny minority who are religiously motivated. Here’s just one little fact for you. Most mammals can make their own vitamin C. Haplorrhines (tarsiers, monkeys, apes and humans), cannot. They still have the gene to produce the necessary enzyme, L-gulonolactone oxidase, but it is inactivated by mutations: very similar mutations in all haplorrhines. Why would we even have the gene, since it does nothing, unless inherited? Why would it be inactivated in the same way in all haplorrhines? Did God put it there and then inactivate it? Did Satan go round all the haplorrhines inactivating it after the fall? There are literally billions of such facts that cannot be explained other than by evolution.



report abuse
 

Scott

posted November 30, 2009 at 11:01 pm


Knock Goats,
Hope you are having a good day in your beautiful country.
I apologize for the quotation format issue. I am putting it into the blog from another software and I guess the format did not transfer.
Thank you for bringing up the gulonolactone oxidase. I had read and studied a little about this before. It is an extremely interesting occurrence in nature. However, it is not as much of a concrete proof for evolution as you make it seem. You are right when you said that many primates cannot produce their own Vitamin C, but what you failed to mention is that guinea pigs too have this pseudo-gene. This is according to a study that was done in 2003. I have never been told by any evolutionist that they consider guinea pigs and primates to be in a direct lineage. If this is the case, then this pseudo-gene would have been generated independently of one-another, most likely due to diets that consisted of an abundance of vitamin C. You being an evolutionist I would assume that you would agree with a policy of “use it or lose it”. So it might be possible that the pseudogenes at one time were able to create vitamin C.
The proof that you gave does not seem that convincing to me, because it does not show the origin of the actual gene, but instead an instance of pseudo-genes which do not always show lineage. These genes may make nice sequences, but do not indicate an actual lineage.
Another possibility is that science has yet to discover the purpose for the so-called pseudo-gene. The argument for a lack of scientific evidence is an argument that evolutionists use when discussing the Cambrian explosion, so I figured I can barrow it for once.
Lastly, I must point out that you did not provide any evidence of evolution concerning the development of DNA. The reason that I am wondering about evidences for the development and not the converse, is because my understanding is that for evolution to be correct there must be a gradual progression towards complexity, and usefulness.
Have a good one,
Scott



report abuse
 

Janet

posted December 1, 2009 at 1:09 am


Knockgoats,
The NT also makes it quite clear … that sex is at best, tolerated for the purposes of producing children.
Can you support this statement? I am not aware of a single passage in the New Testament that says this. In fact, I Cor 7:3-5 would seem to say otherwise.



report abuse
 

Knockgoats

posted December 1, 2009 at 5:14 am


Scott,
So it might be possible that the pseudogenes at one time were able to create vitamin C.
Of course they were, and became non-functional because a diet rich in vitamin C rendered them unnecessary – that’s the whole point. Yes, the guinea pig also has a non-functional gene, as do bats, but the mutations responsible are different, indicating independent evolution, while for all haplorrhines, they are similar. Why should we have such a non-functional gene, and why should its non-functionality be found in all of a group of species already regarded as related by common descent before these genetic facts were known? Moreover we know the gene has no function, because it does not produce a protein. Your “Oh, well it might have some other function” is pure hooey. (Your reference to the Cambrian explosion, either ignorant or dishonest: Darwin noted the lack of Precambrian fossils as a problem, but it has been comprehensively resolved in the 150 years since he wrote: the fossil record now goes back to at least 3.5 billion years ago, and the “explosion” itself is an increase of animal diversity over some 30 million years.) As I said, the vitamin C fact is one of literally billions for which evolution is the only viable explanation. Why do whales and dolphins have the rudiments of legs, and a whole set of genes for the sense of smell, when they can neither walk nor smell? Why does food have to pass over the entrance to our windpipe when we eat it, with the attendant risk of choking? Why do many people suffer from impacted molars because their mouths are too small for 32 teeth? Why is most of our DNA junk (and it is – much of it the remains of inactivated retroviruses, most of which, in our case, we share with chimpanzees, with successively less sharing as we look at more distantly related animals). But I know you are completely stuck in your dogmatism.
I see you do not contest my contention that you believe women should suffer and die from cervical cancer because their husbands had premarital sex; nor that the NT subordinates women to men.
I Corinthians 7, 1-9:
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Emphasis added. I admit there is no reference to children (I was thinking of the marriage service, but of course this has no specific NT basis), but it is clear the founder of Christianity, Paul of Tarsus, took a very dim (“Oh alright, if you must”) view of sex.



report abuse
 

Scott

posted December 1, 2009 at 2:38 pm


Knock Goats,
This is a scientific forum and I would truly like to try to find out the truth about evolution. I have read a lot and have tried to figure out the truth about the science. The one scientific question that I have asked you, you still have not answered. The reason that I continue to ask it is because this issue is one of the things that I found lacking about evolution. Once again, please give me evidences for the development or beginning of DNA.
Have a good one
Scott



report abuse
 

Scott

posted December 1, 2009 at 10:55 pm


Knock Goats,
I appreciate you using scripture, but you used a very old English translation that was actually not done as well as some the later ones, I am supposing that you used the KJV. The verses the proceed the ones that you pointed to I think do indeed show the Bible says that Sex is a great thing (you can also look at Song of Solomon). After all, we believe that God made sex. now for the verses.
“Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so”
I think that these verses show that Christianity understands the importance of sex in a marriage and does not have this attitude that you say it does. I think that Paul is instead pointing out the simple fact that it is much easier to devote yourself to a singular cause if you are unmarried. This is an empirical fact. College would have been much easier if I did not have a wife and two kids. I think that this verse shows Paul’s understand of what correct devotion is towards God. But, that is my understanding. And I am sure that you will find some way to insult my love towards my wife and my daughter. But Anyways off to write a paper.
Have a good one
Scott



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

We're Moving
Science & the Sacred is moving to our new home on The BioLogos Foundation's Web site. Be sure to visit and bookmark our new location to stay up to date with the latest blogs from Karl Giberson, Darrel Falk, Pete Enns, and our various guests in the science-religion dialogue. We're inaugurating ou

posted 8:00:00am Dec. 11, 2009 | read full post »

Shiny Scales, Silvery Skins, and Evolution
  Source: Physorg.comIridescence -- a key component of certain makeup, paints, coatings of mirrors and lenses -- is also an important feature in the natural world. Both fish and spiders make use of periodic photonic systems, which scatter or reflect the light that passes against their scales or

posted 8:00:00am Dec. 09, 2009 | read full post »

A Stellar Advent Calendar
Looking for a unique way to mark the days of the Advent season? The Web site Boston.com offers an Advent calendar composed of images from the Hubble Telescope, both old and new. Each day, from now until the celebration of the Nativity of Christ, the calendar will offer a beautiful image from the hea

posted 8:00:00am Dec. 09, 2009 | read full post »

Belief, Guidance, and Evolution
Recently BioLogos' Karl Giberson was interviewed by Marcio Campos for the Brazilian newspaper Gazeta do Povo's Tubo De Ensaio (i.e. "Test tube") section. What follows is a translated transcript of that interview, which we will be posting in three installments. Here is the first. Campos: Starting o

posted 8:00:00am Dec. 08, 2009 | read full post »

Let's Come at this From a Different Angle
Every Friday, "Science and the Sacred" features an essay from a guest voice in the science and religion dialogue. This week's guest entry was written by Peter Enns. Enns is an evangelical Christian scholar and author of several books and commentaries, including the popular Inspiration and Incarnatio

posted 8:00:00am Dec. 04, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.