Origins | Colony Worlds

Those Pagan Creationists? (Bible And Science)

Posted by darnell on May 9, 2006 in Blog, Creationism, Evolution, Origins | 0 comments

(Hat Tip: Around the World with Ken Ham)

Apparently it seems that a Vatican astronomer is calling anyone who believes in the six day theory of creation (that being a divine entity created the world in six literal days) “pagans.” Really?

(Scotsman) Brother Consolmagno, who works in a Vatican observatory in Arizona and as curator of the Vatican meteorite collection in Italy, said a “destructive myth” had developed in modern society that religion and science were competing ideologies.

He described creationism, whose supporters want it taught in schools alongside evolution, as a “kind of paganism” because it harked back to the days of “nature gods” who were responsible for natural events.

I guess this probably means that I need to break out the make up and celebrate my favorite pagan holidays such as Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Easter. If creationism is false, then the Bible is worthless making the teachings of Christ to be at best relative.

But it seems that Consolmagno has not written off religion completely.

(Scotsman) “Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism – it’s turning God into a nature god. And science needs religion in order to have a conscience, to know that, just because something is possible, it may not be a good thing to do.”

Although Consolmagno’s argument sounds cute, he forgets that morality (which is those pesky rules people say we have to follow) is based upon authority, which in turn must be based on truth. Otherwise, the authority loses legitimacy in the eyes of the world along with any writings, movements, ect. connected with it.

Either the bible is or it isn’t. Either it’s writings are in harmony with science or it is to be placed alongside of other great fairy tales such as Peter Pan, the Three Little Pigs or even Snow White. To claim that the Bible is unscientific yet moral is to claim that oxygen is unnecessary for life yet important.

For those thinking that the Bible lacks anything scientific in nature, here are some verses written thousands of years in advance before they were verified by science.

The Earth is round not flat (Isaiah 40:22)

Planet Earth surrounded by a spacial vacuum (Job 26:7)

Worker Ants being female (Proverbs 6:6)

The enormous number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)

Differing spectra of stars (1 Corinthians 15:41)

Circulation of the winds (Ecclesiastes 1:6)

Air actually having weight (Job 28:25)

The Water Cycle (Job 36:27-29)

More info can be found over at Clarifying Christianity.

Science is nothing more than an attempt to analyze our world and how it functions. If God exists and if the Bible (your basic instructions on how to get the most out of life) was inspired by him, then science and religion (or rather Christianity) should be in harmony with each other. Apparently Consolmagno seems to have forgotten that when he decided that the Bible was fallible yet relevant.

Tiktaalik Missing Links (Funny)

Posted by darnell on Apr 15, 2006 in Blog, Evolution, Origins | 0 comments

Being a former follower of “the way of Darwin,” the missing link drama is what first convinced me of the possibility that macro evolution was a fable.

Evolution News has an interesting post about the new Tiktaalik missing link, which I found (along with the author) to be amusing myself.

Update: For those of you interested in the “does God exist” debate, their is an interesting video debate between Cliff Knectle and atheist Michael Newdow (the man who tried to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance).

Teaching Both Sides Of Evolution In Ohio

Posted by darnell on Feb 13, 2006 in Blog, Creationism, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Origins | 1 comment

According to a poll by Zogby International, residents of Ohio favor teaching the weaknesses and strengths of evolution.

(Evolution News) “Ohioans want Darwin’s theory of evolution fully and completely presented, including the theory’s strengths and weaknesses,” said Robert Crowther, director of communications for Discovery Institute, which commissioned the Zogby poll. [...]

Sixty-eight percent of respondents said they agreed with the following statement: Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it. Less than 20 percent supported the alternative statement: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.

This is encouraging as it would allow students to understand the debate around our origins more clearly and perhaps validate why some have left Darwins faith in the first place. It also seems that the populace are willing to go a step further, one where the politicians do not–teaching Intelligent design in the classroom.

(Evolution News) “Surprisingly, Ohioans want to go further than their leaders with 75% favoring teaching intelligent design alongside of Darwinian evolution,” added Crowther. “Even after all the attacks on intelligent design by the dogmatic Darwin-only lobby, the public clearly wants to know more about the theory and make up their own minds.”

Although Intelligent Design has yet to prove itself as scientific it may open the doors to other theories bashed by some in the scientific community (such as Creationism). Just as one discusses politics before choosing a party so one must discuss the theories of origins before choosing a system.

Only by analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the evolution theory (of which the latter there are many) can we enable people to decide for themselves and thus hopefully end the debate.

Intelligent Design, Fact Or Fiction?

Posted by darnell on Feb 7, 2006 in Blog, Creationism, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Origins, Science | 0 comments

(Via Answers In Genesis, Published on Blogger News)

Update: Removed photo.

While the debate over God (and what he consists of) rages throughout America and in a few locations throughout Europe, a “new philosophy” seems to be attracting the attention of clergy and scientists alike.

Intelligent Design, (also known as ID) is championed as an alternative towards evolution and a legitimate theory of the origins of our species.

But despite the press about this theory from the right and the left, this belief system lacks a critical element key for any scientific faith which can be boiled down in one word–clarity.

Evolution and Creationism are classified as theories because both have a clearly laid out thesis stating the origins of the human race. This allows outsiders, believers and the curious to test out both of these theories to see if any of them hold up under serious examination.

Despite what proponents might say, Intelligent Design lacks a clear thesis stating humanities origins, which leaves the origins of man open ended. This formulates “a big tent” philosophy club where theists and atheists can come together respectively, despite the contrast of ideals.

One can examine whether or not Noah’s flood happened as well as if there is any evidence to support the fossil record (despite its many gaps). Even the Raelian Society (viewed by many as “a fringe group”) has a testable thesis, something the ID movement lacks.

Although fought in courts and class rooms throughout America, Intelligent Design seems to be lacking in the substance arena. Unless this is provided, ID will be nothing more than a philosophy that satisfies the phlegmatic agnostic rather than stimulating us all towards scientific enlightenment and discovery.