I agree that there are portions of the Bible that are metaphor (especially parables), but they are clearly marked as such. For instance, “The kingdom of heaven is like…” Only those sections of the Bible that are clearly marked as metaphor are metaphor. The rest is literal.

Please note that I said, “If it’s all a metaphorical fairy-tale [emphasis addded]” What I’m saying is that if you take as metaphorical the things that are written as literal fact, Christianity becomes an artificial little construct. A conscience salve. A non-binding suggestion. A non-transforming creed to obey only when conveinient. An arbitrary moral system (once again, optional). A system that has no motivation for its adherents to follow, as long as said non-adherents are smart enough to sin slyly enough to take advantage of enough people; one’s only accountability is to an imperfect government that, because of its humanness, can’t catch every crimnal. If you evade authority on earth, there is no accountability beyond the grave.

You might as well custom build such a religion. A custom-built religion has the same value as interpeting the whole Bible non-literally.

However, there has never been any evidence that remotely supports evolution from an amoeba to a cow or a snail to a camel. Evolution on that scale has simply failed to live up to billing.
Scientists know this, and have been scrambling for the past couple decades to explain why,
but they’re not having much luck as of late.

And if you broaden your research beyond the laughably biased talk.origins, you’ll learn this… but that would mean actually wanting to open up one’s mind to the possibly that sacred cows might just be skewered. Do you have the courage to do that?

That certainly wasn’t my point. I would certainly disagree with it.

If it’s all a metaphorical fairy-tale that didn’t literally happen, you might as well write your own: make your own rules, decide for yourself what is sin, have no absolute standards. After all the Bible (in this scenario) is nothing but some other mortal human’s take on morality. What makes them better than you?

I do not believe the previous paragraph. I was just carrying your view of not taking the Bible literally to its logical conclusion.

Sounds reasonable to me. I suppose the point is not to take it literally, because in doing so you’ll miss the essential truth that underlies the text.

Among these three accounts of Jesus’ final words, which one is the truth?
—
Matt. 27:46,50: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”… Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.”

Luke 23:46: “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, “Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:” and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.”

John 19:30: “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished:” and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”
–

Janis: It looks like he said all three. First, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” and then, “It is finished,” and then, “Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit.” After the Matt. passage it explicitly says that he “cried again with a loud voice” before he died. The John passage doesn’t include the “Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit,” but it doesn’t exclude it from being between “It is finished,” and the giving up of the ghost.

The gospel writers differ in writing style; some are exhaustive in their detail, others are more brief, some bring more passion than others, etc. Their personalities dictate that different things stand out to them, as well. Sometimes one writer includes a detail another didn’t. Sometime all four provide the same detail.

The important thing is that they never contradict each other.

A.R.: Couldn’t have said it better myself.

To support microevolution is to support macroevolution. If things can change a little bit in a short time, they can change a lot in a long time.

Micro-evolution has been proved; there is much documentation of “before” and “after”. However, macro-evolution has not been proved. For something to be proved, it must be documented, verified, and repeatable. If things change a little bit in a short time, it means things change a little bit in a short time. It doesn’t mean things change a lot in a long time.
Also, this change we’re talking about always involves changes in genetic information that already was… Genetic info from two “things” combines into one new “thing”, but all the genetic info in the one new “thing” comes from the two original “things”. All observed changes (micro-evolution) have resulted from a loss of genetic information or different dominant and recessive genes.
If you think a creeping land animal had the genetic info for wings, and somehow under right circumstances some creeping land animals grew wings and adapted to flying, where is that genetic info now? Can scientists find in mice the genetic info to grow wings (we might then call them bats)? No. Well, maybe they lost that info. O.K. but you can’t prove that. It’s unprovable.
A lot in the theory (hypothesis) of evolution is unproveable, a lot in the theory of creation is unprovable. We choose to believe about origins whatever makes us comfortable. I’m “uncomfortable” saying “things just happened”, and a lot of people are uncomfortable saying “God created it”. Often the way we were taught as we grew up, is the way we continue to think as we age.

“A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”
Above quote attributed to Laurence J. Peter, Dale Carnegie, and Anon. I don’t know who originally said it, but it’s pretty true, especially in a debate in this area.

Among these three accounts of Jesus’ final words, which one is the truth?
—
Matt.27:46,50: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” …Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.”

Luke23:46: “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, “Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:” and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.”

John19:30: “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished:” and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”
–

Faith is believing something even if it cannot be proven beyond doubt. I have faith in the Bible and what it says. I believe the Genesis account of creation. If the evidence would contradict the Genesis account of creation (from my study, I believe it doesn’t) there is no reason to believe anything the Bible says. If it lies in one area, who’s to say that the rest is true? Faith is not: believing one thing with your heart and another with your head. That’s not faith. Faith requires belief despite not seeing the entire picture of evidence. You can’t say that you have faith in something and then not really believe it.

You can’t be honest and consistent intellectually and say that the faith part of me believes this and the brain part of me believes that. If that’s where you’re at, the faith part of you is useless because it’s not real. It’s just a conscience salve. You don’t really believe the faith thing.

“To support microevolution is to support macroevolution. If things can change a little bit in a short time, they can change a lot in a long time.”

No they can’t. There are features that are irreducibly complex, that is in the process of evolving a single unified feature that is the sum of a number of integrated features, the creature would die. The bombardier beetle (genus Brachinus) is an organism that has become a standard example for irreducible complexity. These beetles have a defence mechanism that works thus: secretory cells produce hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide (and perhaps other chemicals, depending on the species), which collect in a reservoir. The reservoir opens through a muscle-controlled valve onto a thick-walled reaction chamber. This chamber is lined with cells that secrete catalases and peroxidases. When the contents of the reservoir are forced into the reaction chamber, the catalases and peroxidases rapidly break down the hydrogen peroxide and catalyze the oxidation of the hydroquinones into p-quinones. These reactions release free oxygen and generate enough heat to bring the mixture to the boiling point and vaporize about a fifth of it. Under pressure of the released gasses, the valve is forced closed, and the chemicals are expelled explosively through openings at the tip of the abdomen. Irreducible complexity asserts that, in order for any of the components of the system to function, all components of the system must have been present. If a single part of that system were not present, the beetle would blow itself up instead of its enemies.

This is one example from many: The vast differences in the bird lung vs. the reptile lung, flagella that contain 40 different, complex proteins to function (if 39 would have managed to evolve, it still wouldn’t have worked and natural selection would dicate that those that had evolved that would have been eliminated.),

“Hans, you’re presenting us with a false alternative. You’d like to say, “If it didn’t happen the way scientists say today, then god is the only other explanation.” The absurdity of pressing any rational thinker including a scientist to claim infallibility aside, even if all of the items you present do somehow negate a particular theory about the course and mechanisms of evolution or environmental development, they hardly point to creationism. All it says is that new hypotheses should be created and tested.”

I am not saying that because evolution hasn’t been proven, therefore creationism has been proven. With y’all who think that evolution is as settled as gravity, to get to square one with creationism, it must be established that (macro) evolution is not a proven fact.

“Belief in creationism, intelligent design and indeed the very existence of the supernatural is an act of faith, not reason. If such things were not an act of faith, they would be open to scientific discovery and subject to rational thought.”

I agree! Creationism will never be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt by science because science can’t measure the supernatural. It is beyond the realm of science. However, science will not contradict what the supernatural has done in creation/origins.

Practically speaking, if vouchers became commonplace, the effect would be that the price of private school would simply increase by the cost of the voucher. If opting out yields a $3,000 voucher, than that tony private school down the street would run $13,000/year, not $10,000/year, since suddenly all of their students would have an extra $3,000 kicking around. That’s basic market capitalism.

So I figure, hey, bring ‘em on. I don’t think they’ll do a damned thing, once the market events out, but if we have to actually do it for people to realize that, that’s fine by me.

Since this is really a post that speaks to the political ramifications of evolution v. creationism: I agree with Chris: School vouchers! At this point my parents just swallow the 3k tuition each year to send my siblings (and me when I was in school) to a private Christian school. That’s really not fair that we have to pay to support a public school system that is not only failing, but is teaching “science” that to our religion would deny the existence of God.

I bring it up only to illustrate what has already been stated in this discussion: we cannot have a discussion of facts where we do not share a common means of acquiring knowledge of those facts.

That is phrased so much better than I’m capable of saying it.

Hans, a discussion on evolution that is based on scientific terms, you’re doomed to lose. I tell you this not to be a rude bastard but, rather, for your rhetorical gain. Talking about things like the ocean’s salinity level (which appears to oscillate, BTW) not only “do not excuse a mental leap to the supernatural,” as Trey put it (instead, should your points be true, they indicate a need for further research), but they place you on science’s rhetorical terms. That’s not a battle you can win. That’s not due to any shortcomings on your part — it’s because your perspective is one that can only be based on faith.

Faith is a powerful and amazing thing. When you look for evidence to support your faith, you undermine it, because faith, by definition, exists in a vacuum of evidence. My belief in evolution is easy, because all of the facts back it; no faith required. You could say I’ve taken the easy way out. Your belief in creation is very hard — your faith is all you’ve got. You’ve taken the hard way out.

Don’t cheapen your faith by attempting to support it with scientific evidence. If you choose to believe in creation in spite of the facts, do so proudly and be done with it. If you choose believe in creation because of the facts, you are willfully blinding yourself to indisputable factual realities, and that’s a very dangerous path to go down in life. Picking and choosing the facts you choose to acknowledge is very much like picking and choosing the admonitions in the Bible that you choose to see as valid — inconsistent at best, immoral at worst.

Chris Brown has brought another great blog to my attention: Waldo Jaquith. Although Waldo and I disagree on some important aspects of reality (I believe he’s a theist) he is remarkably clear-sighted in his discussions and in most cases we…