The following is a thread created by the Webmaster of ExChristian.net, my good friend and old Air Force buddy, Dave Van Allen. Dave is a deconverted Fundamentalist Christian and one of the clearest thinkers that I have ever known. In this posting, he makes several very good points about science, evidence and faith. Please read this in its entirety, even if you do not accept evolution and science in general - Mako

By Dave, the WM

Evolution is a favorite target of Christians. Evolution, say Christians, is being accepted as fact when in truth evolutionary theory is nothing but a belief that has numerous holes in it. Christians will then focus exclusively on one or two of of these so-called holes, expand upon them, magnify them, and stretch the points beyond all reasonable recognition with the hope of rousing the average believer's emotions. Scientists, who are really just people trying to understand the world we live in, and who have given us modern medicine, amazing inventions, comforts not available to royalty in the past, and even men on the moon, are painted as demonically influenced conspirators bent on eradicating religion from the world in order to usher in a millennial reign of perversity and debauchery.

Let me be honest. I don't have the education to explain how electricity works. I can't rebuild a car engine. Nuclear fusion is beyond my ability to comprehend. I don't really know how my laptop works. I realize all these things have a science behind them. I have a general knowledge about “science,” but if push came to shove, without electricians, mechanics, nuclear scientists and MAC technicians, my lifestyle would be significantly more primitive than it is now.

My guess is that most people, if they were to be honest, are equally at a loss as how to build a light bulb from scratch, construct a dynamo, carve iron ore into a Volvo, or put together a PC out of materials found around the house. We are all mutually dependent on others to understand how most things work.

Few people would trust a mechanic to perform an appendectomy. Surgeons are generally not solicited to install circuit breakers in newly constructed homes. And people don't usually seek out shirtless road crew members to officiate at weddings or administer communion. Yet, when it comes to evolutionary science, a bible-school-educated religious philosopher's observations are touted as equally as valid as someone with, for example, a doctorate degree in molecular biology? How does that happen?

If a molecular biologist gave authoritative talks on the various unresolved differences of interpretation in Christian eschatology, eventually concluding that Jesus really returned in 1611 in the form of the KJV Bible, would he or she somehow now be rightfully promoted as an expert on the topic?

It just doesn't make sense to give authoritative attention to a preacher's rantings on scientific theories.

Christians are under no obligation to “believe” in evolution any more than they are under obligation to “believe” that the earth is round, that the earth orbits the sun, or that the sun is orbiting the center of the Milkyway Galaxy. They are not obligated to “believe” that in a vacuum a feather and a rock fall to the ground at exactly the same speed. They are not obligated to “believe” that new stars are being born in the universe all the time. They are not obligated to believe that people actually walked on the moon, that computers exist, or that men can fly at amazing speeds in giant ships made of metal. Christians are not obligated to believe that disease is caused by small little creatures called bacteria, or by strange non-living/living things called viruses, or by odd genetic mutations, or that no demons are involved. If the evidence for these sciences don't seem compelling to a Christian, then the Christian is certainly free to his or her non-belief.

But religious belief in regards to these sciences is immaterial. Science is not dependent on anyone's religious belief. Science is self-correcting, always testing, re-examining, re-assessing, continually exploring, accumulating new information, adjusting theories, adding evidence... etc., etc., etc., and eventually applying what it learns to the human experience.

Christianity, on the other hand, believes there is nothing more to add to our knowledge, and more to the point, nothing can be added to our knowledge. Evolutionary scientists are digging into the ancient past to piece together the history of life. Christians say we can never know our past, because god did it – it is a mystery – we will (maybe) know the answers in heaven – we should all just have faith – don't shake the applecart.

Since the days of Copernicus, if any sliver of scientific discovery contradicted a favorite Christian belief, the discovery was denigrated by religious leaders as a plot of the devil. And in all honesty, Copernicus' theory did have a hole. He thought the orbits of the planets were circular. Planetary orbits are elliptical and the theory was corrected when better information was obtained. In Galileo's day the Catholics mercilessly persecuted scientific inquiry. Today, fundamental Christians attempt to crucify scientific inquiry in the media, in educational institutions, and in the forum of public opinion.

But why should anyone pay heed to what a religious preacher has to say about science? As someone recently said to me, "I have never understood how a minister can even be in the same debate with a scientist. I equate it to a dentist having a debate with someone arguing that the tooth fairy is the one that takes a child's tooth away and leaves a dollar."

I have no way to absolutely verify the truth of evolutionary science. I have neither the education, training, or mental acuity to make authoritative claims one way or the other on this science or any science. But I can look around my own lower-middle-class home and see the miracles of science crowding the place. Jesus purportedly said that those who came after him would do greater things than he ever did. His words have come true. Humanity has far surpassed any of his reported miracles, but the credit for our modern miracles lies at the feet of inquiring minds that refused to simply have faith in Christian dogma.

That I accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the proliferation of life that we see around us in no way proves the science, any more than my rejection of the theory threatens the science. My opinion on the matter is worthless. I am not an expert. I am not a scientist. I am dependent on others for all my understanding. I benefit from what others are able to do. I am grateful for those who share their abilities in such a way that all of mankind is enhanced. As a member of the vast crowd of average humanity, my life is enlarged by the sacrifices, intelligence, and abilities of many, many others.

So, what about belief vs. non-belief?

Evolutionary scientists are making positive claims about life on planet earth – claims that need to be supported in order to be accepted. And it just so happens they have provided mountains of supporting evidence. And much of that evidence is freely available seemingly everywhere. There are some questions remaining, though, questions that seem confusing to the average Joe like me. Answering those questions might take some time and effort. However, Copernicus, even with the hole in his theory, was much closer to the truth than all the thousands of Christian leaders who maintained that the earth, based on numerous verses in the Bible, played a central role in the universe.

Scientists make positive claims about the world we live in. Faith is not required from me to accept these claims. Evidence supporting the claims is presented to me, and when better evidence is found, that is presented as well. In contrast, Christians make claims about the world – supernatural claims that a god magically popped adult life forms into existence. In support of those claims they offer no evidence. NONE. All they can and do offer is a Bible verse or two and a peek into some supposed holes in scientific theories.

Christians rant and rave about evolution, but rarely, if ever, do any of them actually do any significant study on the topic, outside perhaps reading an article or two by a Christian anti-evolutionary apologist. I know this, because I was once one of those Christians. I KNEW evolution was false, and yet had never read a single non-biased scientific book on the topic.

Why?

Because, all evolutionary scientists are in league, consciously or unconsciously, with the devil. Simple!

It's amazing to me that I was so easily duped. It's horrifically embarrassing to admit what a complete putz I was.

I'm still no expert on evolution, nor do I ever expect to be one. But at least now, when it comes to these kinds of topics, it's not about what I or anyone else believes that matters to me, what matters is the evidence available. And even if I personally find some small points of the evidence for evolution less than compelling, or more accurately, confusing, I've found NO evidence for the Christian supernatural alternative.

I guess I'll just have to stick with science.

What about you?


--------------------
When I do good I feel good. When I do bad I feel bad -- that's my religion.

Extracted from ExChristian.net – “Evolution is full of holes” by Dave Van Allen – Apr 14 2007, 1141 am.

I whole heartedly agree.

excellent post mako.
your friend seems to be a reasonable person.
reading many of the posts here about evolution i have to agree with his observations.
it will be interesting to see how this passage is recieved by those who claim science to be a religion, a bad and corrupting force.
the OPINION of the post is a considered one,
no doubt there will be a clamouring for proof that the fossil record is reliable, another shallow debate over macro/micro evolution and which is more acceptable and fingerpointing to some of the mistakes which do not really affect the validity of the 'theory'.
And im sure there will be quotes from genesis a'plenty.
All quite neatly reinforcing the well reconcilled OPINION of mr Van Allen.
thanks Mako.

This is as funny as the other thread you posted yesterday on televangelists!

Funny how?

Well worth the read! Thank you for posting this Mako.

Mostly in it's overly simplistic presentation of the way Christians approach evolution. It completely fails to take into account that there are Christians who have degrees and experience in science and who question evolution from a scientific standpoint. It also fails to take into account that there are non-Christians who also question the validity of the theory. It's taken the easiest pot-shot it could at a very complicated topic.

Evolution is a story scientists tell;
Special creation is a story some adherents to the major religions tell, its that simple.

Scientists develop their narratives with tainted agendas ie they rule out at the out set any possible influence of a being greater than the universe.
Despite what they claim evolution is by no means a fact.

Also people need to be informed of in what sense the word evolution is being used. Micro evolution is clearly plausible, clearly it occurs. Macro evolution however is a far cry and a leap of faith away from micro evolution. The article does not differentiate between the two. I adhere to the fact that micro evolution occurs but there is no evidence that macro evolution either occurs today or ever has done!

If God made the world as major religions contend what should the scientists expect to find?

Exactly! No clear thinker (as Mako commends him) would do that surely!

Well Gremlin, you are quite the prophet - see the posting above!

It is a faith, not a religion, big difference.

And creation is a lil story the bible tells....your point is??

I think for creationism to be in any way theoretically possible, creation scientists would have to have some theoretical proof, besides the bible, for the god of the genesis. And since creationism depends on that first, it's a precarious perch to think science, because it becomes some anti-religious four letter word in many peoples minds that uphold the creation myth, it is at a deficit already. Because it can't prove there is a god created so as to create everything else.

So bacteria becomes an issue. As does mold, fungus and microbes. Just a few of the progenitors of life on Earth, in the beginning. So looking at that , from a creationist point of view then, becomes a relationship. If god created the heavens and the Earth, how is it against reasoning to think microbes , fungus, mold, bacteria, may be invested in all that god made on the Earth?! Because we know the earth has it's geological properties. Minerals, etc... besides the microbes and such. So if god made the heavens and the Earth how can it be said he didn't also create all the little microscopic things that make the Earth? And as humans regenerate, at their cellular level, so as to have a biological longevity called a life, how can we say everything else created isn't also possessed of a ability , some say intelligence, to do the same? And how is that a conflict for creationists, to think if god made it all, that what science knows is part of that working, isn't gods doing to?

Why can't both camps tolerate one another's research, to find the answer to a mutual question?! Where did we come from? If creation scientists accepted the bible whole cloth, I don't think they'd be in laboratories across the Earth that was made in 6 days of creation. But that they are in laboratories, means they're looking to find out the same answers to the same question as evolutionists are. When did it all begin? And I think if creation scientists can look past the words in a bible, it's the least people that believe in creation can do, to do the same. Because if evolution, or change, doesn't occur, if things don't adapt to changing environments, they die. Because they can not survive if they're not fit.

Look at humans today. Do we actually think we are today what we were in the beginning? If so what explains the cave paintings and skeletal remains of bipedal ancestors that roamed in groups, hunted, forged shelter, kept a primitive record of their existence, on cave walls, in carvings, etc... If change in the human species doesn't occur, why don't we look like Neanderthals today? Cro-Magnon? Why are homosapien digging up their remains and finding evidence of a primitive sense of self, what with remnants of animal skins for clothing, weapons and tools?! Because things change, people change, Earth changes. If Earth didn't change, geological evidence shows we wouldn't be able to exist upon her surface because of the ash and carbon found in the deeper strata. So if god created Earth, he had to wait for a very long time before he could set human feet on the surface. And if he did that it wasn't in accord with the creation account in Genesis. Even when a day could define more than 24 hours of time. And besides, if god wanted to create Earth and populate it he could , without waiting years before putting people here. He's god!

So that we know Earth exists as it does, according to the geological record, etc... if one believes in Creation why not believe to that everything science is finding isn't to prove god doesn't exist, rather it's to prove it does and everything that is part of the changes that take place on this planet and in our solar system and galaxies, where change occurs every second, is just the mechanics of gods creation, working according to plan!?

Oh mighty Gremlin, you are an even greater prophet that I thought! Check out the new thread "Christianity and Evolution"...It is as you said, the claim that science (evolution) is a religion...it is as Dave Van Allen said, the religious think they are qualified to denigrate science because it doesn't agree with their fairy tales... . Luckily for us there are many good Christians that can see the truth that science gives us, can understand that evolution is the tool of God, that the literalists are ignoring the truth, stuck in the Stone Age with their thinking!

Umm God gave me a brain to put to use...so I like to explore other possible outcomes...other known theories....how else am I going to educate myself if I stick to just one theory??...yea it happened like magic..need I say more..............NEXT??

No thanks...exploring is fun... lol

WOW... i'm surprised BM isn't complaining about someone taking another shot at Christians...

belief and faith
evolution is not faith nor religion - it is a theory
nor does it require faith to see evidence for evolution.

those who seek something to believe in, to have faith in, can sometimes confuse those who accept the validity of the theory of evolution with 'believers'.
perhaps to a certain shallow point this is true, some people will believe anything they are told if from an apparently authoritive source.

Another more analytical person will dig deeper, look at all the available evidence, and formulate their own opinion. This is a process which requires no faith. The opinion reached does not necessarily have to deal in absolutes.

'believers' want absolute answers; either unsatisfied with what evidence is presented to them because it is not absolute...they always want it presented to them, never seek it themselves...or willing to take a leap of faith for something that cannot be known because it appears to be an absolute truth.

hmm perhaps that was slightly unfair to some believers, those who do read. the bit about requiring absolute answers and faith stands though.

I as a Christian believe science and religion are quite compatible principles. Anyone who uses either side as a tool to disprove the other is not looking at the big picture. To me it is like comparing sound to taste. Both are viable and separate and yet we as individuals may be more partial to one or the other.

I believe God gave every man and women reason and intellect and within those is the ability to build science. Without either we would not be able to comprehend what our purpose was designed for and what we should design for our own purpose.

Wisdom and education go hand in hand. Even Jesus when choosing the apostles picked intelligent free thinkers to spread the gospel.
An example was Luke who was a physician, a man of science and reason.

For thousands of years man has believed first, that he could fly like the birds. That proof has only been with us for the past one hundred years. It was first an attractive idea that is now possible. It was once but a dream of many men and became a reality for the Wright brothers.

We know inside of us lies an unbiological/unmaterial entity we deem to be the soul. Without believing first we will never identify it and someday science may even prove it.
I wonder if before the invention of radio if conversation about the possibility of radio waves could have been thought of as within the spiritual realm.

There could be a form of undiscovered and unmeasured energy used during creation. It could be interpreted as part of the essence of God. And constitute evidence of a benevolent creator. If science can someday prove this it would come as quite a shock to some but others would still refuse to believe mainly because it’s not in their best interest to do so.

How many people died laughing at those who believed that someday man will fly amongst the clouds and maybe even to the moon?

How many people died laughing at those who believed that someday man could talk to his brothers half way around the world?

How many people died laughing at those who believed that someday man would have iron chariots that require no horse?

Science and spiritually share a special bond within the ability to reason and invent.

The inventor is not subject to His invention, but He does establish a code (law) of Creation and chooses as well as desires to works within its frame work much like a architect has a pre-conceived plan and design for his creations. Natural law, known and unknown has a purpose and design. As man is part of that creation and is in part in the original image of God we are privy as to the laws that govern creation through reason and learnt knowledge. We only have the ability of pro-creation now but our created destiny is within creation itself, science fits within God’s plan, and I believe quantum physics is the door to understanding creation.

Is it possible for human to have all the answers and proof or must we rely a certain amount to hope and faith? Science is continually changing as new discoveries are made on a daily basis, the answers occasionally send us back to the drawing board and sometimes open an entirely new form science and reasoning. For instance quantum physics was for the longest time pure speculation and theory and now is receiving the credit and attention it deserves.

We have a tendency to except scientific principles as dogma and in essence it has become a form of religion unto it self. With some adherents, so dogmatic that they reject anything to the contrary as being foolish and born of ignorance. Our personal view is blinded by our own arrogance and self worth to the point of actually stiffening our scientific progress as well as neutralizing our spirituality. We place our faith in proof and speculation and give little credit toward old wisdom and ancient knowledge, New and Improved has become the god of the twentieth century.

In reality if a man was to know all there is to know about this planet we call home we would consider him to be a genius among men. Yet even if it were possible to have all that knowledge we must also consider that this planet of ours is but a grain of sand in the vastness of the universe and that knowledge is extremely limited and miniscule leaving us right back were we started with speculation and faith.

Although I admire science and appreciate the strides it has taken us I personally have more faith in the Creator than I do in the sciences. And as I said before if I had a tendency to lean toward taste over sound it does not make the reverse wrong.

If it is not possible to know everything there is to know then I believe a foundation of faith is greater than a foundation of uncertainty to build my life upon. So I personal lean more toward faith than sciences yet have the utmost respect for both.

Irish

Mako isnt taking a pop at anyone..there is a difference....

First off let me say that I am not an adherent to the Christian theology or their book. But I do have a question for the Christian and creationist folks. Why is it that the assumption is that a “day” would mean the same thing to us (as humans) as it would to a all powerful omnipotent creator type. If the Christian bible says it took “god” 7 days who says that a day to it is the same as it is to us. Just a question.

Very good post Irish...I have trouble figuring out if you are a Deistic Christian or Christian Deist..LOL

As an ex Atheist you can now peg me as a Christian Deist, I have a personal relationship with the creator but I still have no clue as to what He is up to or why! Some days I feel like an enlightened mushroom. But I trust that He knows what He is doing because He sees a bigger picture than me.

Irish

If you are referring to the story in Genesis, the stumbling point is that if you read the account, after each creation day, the Scripture says, "it was evening and morning the ____ day." So, in order for the idea that the "days" of creation lasted many years, we'd be bound by the account to believe that the days were many years, but the night lasted only hours.

I respect your post Irish, you always have something valuable to say.

Your distinction between science and religion is quite reasonable, I believe that faith belongs with religion.
As you say, it doesnt have to be a case of either/or, you can take a little from column A and a little from column B

As has been noted elsewhere, there are many scientists who believe in god. Finding through faith the absolutes not gratified by uncertain science.
A hardline approach either way can miss something of the other. your point about science becoming a religion with dogma is a good one, it seems to be all in the approach - the fault (for want of a better word) is in the part of the believer...his certainty will constantly need to be revised.
I am satisfied with uncertainty in such matters, my faith is placed elsewhere.

With respects to the theory of evolution, science shows us how. not why.
the presence of God or his Will is not explained away by the theory of evolution. Evolution as a theory is true, the evidence for it is undeniable.
The creation myth as recorded in Genesis is less acceptable on a literal level to the analytical mind. Genesis as we have it was written by a man. As was the myth that it evolved from.

good points...I do believe that we have another Deist among us....

Shadow is another..there are more than you think Mako

We're almost becoming common.

I guess the days of my being the only one here are long gone....It's about time, it was getting a little lonely around here! Good to have you folks aboard!

mako, excellent posts saw you started a thread and bee lined for it as always a sheer delight to read of your incredible wisdom and great finds in articles.....

To your question yes yes yes, science works for me....LOL

its observable that evolution is a decent theory how one misses this baffles me....this is not meant to insult anyone but its fairly clear that science has done a good job of helping us navigate the universe....noone could possibly know it all as relgioun claims, there is nothing left to leanr is the most absurd claim of any systems yet relgioun feels it has it all figured out.....

its catching on like a new UM trend LMAo

there is yourself..Mako...Zero...and hey if you like ME LMAO

and im sure there are plenty more

lol, never been much one for labels....but maybe yes, in the same sense a buddhist is. it is easy to see the divine everywhere.
i practice zazen and have done since 7 yrs old, .....getting quite good at it now....lol (an oldie but goodie)


sorry i know its not quite good form to laugh at ones own jokes.

Evolutionist (most not all) go 'here' because they do NOT want there to be a God of any kind. They do not want to feel accountable to someone for the way they live or not live their lives. So Evolution enters the scene. No God - NO accountablity. But ...... here is the interesting fact:
It takes MORE FAITH to believe in Evolution than Creation - A WHOLE LOT MORE!

Why? (How can I say that....)

Do you realize ".. in the beginning.." of evolution just how PERFECT everything had to be?
That the slightest change in temp, light any and all the conditions - that it would have DIED right then and there.
It had to be 'perfect' and STAY perfect!
But not just ".. in the beginning.." also along certain points in the Evolution theory - things had to happen "just so" deviation of ANY kind would have killed "evolution chain" just that quick. The conditions had to be "JUST PERFECT".

The above is from an Anthropology Class - University Level Intro. (Not a christian college either.)

-- Not included in the Anthro Class Notes.
(Now honestly what are the odds of that happening. It was even worked out on a computer - Secular school - the odds of Evolution Working. They were NOT good!)

Now think about that - The "Key" events in Evolution had to be "JUST PERFECT" - the slightest change would have spelled disaster to the whole theory. That certainly takes A LOT OF FAITH in CHANCE! This has been tested in controlled enviorments and proven that yes indeed, everything had to be "just perfect" - "just right" or it would have turned out VERY differently if at all. To suggest that it all "just happened" at "just the right time" in "just the right conditions" takes a serious amount of FAITH.

sorry jj, but i must disagree.

it takes no faith at all to accept the evidence of evolution.

it would only take faith if you presumed that the current outcome had to happen, and thus working backwards said "gee, good thing things went as they did.". There is no "future planning" in the process. As such there is no faith in the process.

hello grems!

I don't think I have seen anybody on here that practices zazen before. Welcome!

jibreen, there is no god IMO...but that doesn't exempt me from being a proactiv,e responsible, exemplary human being like millions of others that are interdependent beings constributing to the benefit of mankind all by themselves because its who they re..........I do not need directions or a book to telll me to be a good person i take great delight in being the good being that i am and look forward to growing and being more of a benefit..i enjoy using my life for good works....Possibly you are misinformed because the NB's I know are some of the finest people i know just because.. ..Religion creates dependencys not everyone needs training wheels......i do not say this to insult but many can mange quite well to be good folks just for the heck of it...LOL


IMO a system that requires one to think of themselves as sinful and unwiotrhy deters the best efforts it seems to me IMO that most of ones time might be spent in concerns of their salvation and their standing with diety and keeping the church going.... for the 'rewards' leaving very little time towards benefitng mankind.......

I also have to disagree JJ, although you are entitled to your beliefs.
perhaps life is more tenacious than you give credit.

how do hyper, thanks for the welcome.

No, it is not that. All humans are accountable to their society specifically and the world in general for their actions. Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, etc all realize this fact and by the large part are more moral than Theists. This is not that they are better people than the Theists, but because they are moral without the fear of retribution by an angry deity either in the”here and now” or in the afterlife. Goodness freely given is worth much more that goodness coerced through fear of eternal retribution by a deity! The angry, blood-thirsty “invisible Guy in the Sky” has controlled the fearful of this earth for all too many centuries and has caused a large part of the misery of mankind throughout the centuries. We will never replace religion, it seems to be programmed into our genes (just as a certain professor says that morals are – I will post a thread on this after I finish the article) but we need to replace all of the Bronze Age tyrant gods with truly loving gods, gods that demand no sacrifices – only moral living. Gods that are not a mental crutch, that does not denigrate the individual worth, that is pure love.


Do you realize how perfect everything has to be even now? One asteroid or comet strike has the potential of wiping all life from this mud ball. The invasion of this solar system by a Neptune sized interstellar orphan has the potential to change the orbits of the inner planets to where the Earth would no longer be a viable home for life. Global Warming (which is occurring, but is neither man-made nor as bad as let on by Gore) has the potential of ending mankind and the majority of life if the temperatures rose just a few degrees. And on and on and on..the possibilities go. In other words, these perfect conditions are pure chance and this chance could end today or 10 Billion years from now.


The odds of there being a Creator/Creation Force are just as dismal…I would say that the odds between the two are about 50/50. The chances that the Creator is the Judeo/Christian god, Jehovah, are even more dismal, probably with the odds being 1 in 100 Googol (add 100 zeros after the first number)


Not really, it is more like taking a calculated risk…We work with chance everyday of our life. Every time we get behind the wheel of an auto, climb into an aircraft or even walk into the kitchen, we are the prisoners of chance. Chance is the dice toss of the Creator (don’t remember what philosopher said that).


Agreed…all you have to do is carefully examine the evidence for both evolution and creationism (the current type) and determine where the evidence leads.

Lil Gremlin, I didn’t know what you meant by Zazen, but I called my old Professor and Mentor, Wang You Su, who is a practicioner of Zen and he explained that in Chinese we would call it tso-chan. Tso Chan I understand from long talks with Wang Shen Sheng (Shen Sheng is literally the same as the Kung Fu Sensei) back when he was my Professor, Tutor and Mentor at the Yale Institute of Far Eastern Languages. Now I can put a handle on your beliefs and am glad that you seem to think like my old friend. Hale Fellow well met!

Hyper, I love your new Icon…Somehow though, I would not think you were an adherent of Chairman Mao. LOL

The point being it is a theory not a fact...it takes a certain amount of faith to believe in these evolutionary assertions.
A great deal more faith than it takes to believe in an intelligent designer.

mako, you seem to have a good bunch of friends.
Thats right tso-chan is zazen in chinese perspective. I came to that way through judo and aikido starting early, zazen was an integral part of training...it and zen yoga are the only parts i have maintained beyond my teen years. The forms i practice does not rely on any scriptural or doctrinal precepts, although reading and appreciating these is often helpful. I came to the written texts comparitively late, some of them made me sing inside or belly laugh - some of the doctrinal practices are unecessary though and can enclose the experience.
I mentioned zazen because it seemed right to show the way i see things, on one level it is deist i suppose - at least it does not deny existence of a god/head.
I think there are a number of sites that discuss zazen, cant remember any offhand, that introduce the methods and philosophies involved...I dont preoccupy myself with the koans really, but enjoy contemplating them from time to time. no doubt youll find some interesting.
well met indeed mako. I always enjoy your logical perspective

Well, in 65 years of life, most of it spent in other countries among cultures nothing like ours, you tend to collect many and varied friends. I consider many of the members here my friends (Christian, Pagan, Wiccan, Deist, Atheist and otherwise), even though we have never met physically.

I found a fleeting interest in the Maoist propaganda while I was over in Hong Hong recently. Supposedly there has been a recent resurgence in the popularity of Chairman Mao. I almost laughed outloud upon the sighting of Chairman Mao watches in one of the markets. At one market the three most common classes of trinkets were "dragons", "buddhas", and "chairman mao".

Christianity's doesn't try to explain things like science does; it likes to shoot the arrow into the wall and then paint the bull's eye around it.

Good thread, Mako. (As always?)

That there are believing christians that practice completmentary science (e.g. biology, geology, paleontology) is actually beyond me. One cannot mix religion and science, not the slightest.

For instance:
Science has shown that Earth isn't a centre of the universe.
Science has shown that Earth isn't flat.
Christians claimed that it was true because God said so, but the opposite had been proved. How long until science can prove wrong other pieces of the God puzzle until there is nothing left?

There is absolutely nothing in the scriptures that say the world is flat or the centre of the universe. And as for believing Christians that practice complementary science (e.g. biology, geology, and paleontology) is actually beyond me.
The following people would beg to differ with you because they were all Christians:
Science,Technology and Exploration
Robert Boyle*
George Washington Carver*
Christohper Columbus*
Kenneth H. Cooper - "Father of aerobics"
Michael Faraday*
Jim Irwin* - astronaut, Ark Hunter
James Clerk Maxwell - influential mathematician and physicist
Samuel Morse*
Isaac Newton* - inventor, scientist
Louis Pasteur*
Hugh Ross - physicist
Francis Schaeffer - theologian and thinker (1912-1984)
Carol Swain - political scientist, author of Black Faces, Black Interests and The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration (a convert to Evangelical Christianity)
Wright Brothers*

Irish

I have your icon as a computer wall paper and also the Birth Control (1 family, 1 child) propaganda poster as wall paper. Naturally being mil intel and having those (I alternate wall papers with over 200 in my file) on my screen does get me some strange glances, especially when the person is a visiting VIP or a newly assigned person! No one has implemented any investigations or suggested using more appropriate wall papers! LOL. Guess they just put me down as another crazy spook!

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

If you ask the majority of people in the west "what's you religion " you'll get "Christian "as your answer,it is my contention that for most it is merely a label ,that doesn't mean they are practising Christians ,a label which they display to distance themselves from other religions and all their lives the only three Christian services they attend are baptism ,marriage and funeral rites and for two of them they are carried .My point being, your list doesn't mean much because we can't know what kind they were or what their "public face " was and their "private face"

Amazing...you have read it (i guess) & still not understood it.

You're right, it is a conspiracy by those Satan directed scientists (even though a great many scientists are Theists, Christians or otherwise) to discredit Creationism. Irish even gave you a partial list of Christian scientists.

evolution is never presented as a fact but rather as a scientific theory. There is at least strong evidence for evolution and absolutely none for Creationism/YEC.

What is Macro evolution? Answer: many many Micro evolutional steps that lead from one life form to and a changed descendant life form. Not only can this be followed by the fossil trail, but also by the genetic trail. Now that soft tissue material has been recovered from T Rex, we may see much more of the genetic trail.

Evidence that he did, as so far no evidence is forthcoming...but cheer up we have only been searching for 2 centuries! LOL

Since many of our Christian friends seem not to understand what a scientific theory is, here is a fairly good explanation that I discovered on another formu:

In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct. The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.

If man does not understand anything lol they will be against it

For the most part I agree on many of the points you put forth in this post.

However religions seem to arise from purely incorporeal origins, that is why you can't use religious method to invalidate a scientific hypothesis.

Science is derived from what we can see, smell, hear, taste, touch and you can't use science to invalidate a religious belief unless that belief has a physical form attached to it that can be measured.

I think this next quote of yours makes the point nicely:




It is unlikely that science will ever be able "prove" something that is "unbiological/unmaterial", in fact unless you have some type of physical evidence for something I would think it's pretty hard to even put together a hypothesis.

Science and Religion lay in seperate realms, one physical the other spirtual.