One Little Book About Cavemen

July 26, 2007 - 5:21pm

In his book "Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time," Marcus Borg describes the confusion and trauma that occurred when his childish images of Jesus collided with the scientific worldview of our culture. As I read his words, I felt like he was telling my own story. How well I remember when that collision began.

The year was 1969. I watched the moon landing that July in our living room in El Paso, Texas. My parents made me watch it. They said, “Someday you’ll be glad you saw this.” I saw a stark, black horizon and a man with a strange bounce coming down a ladder. I was mildly interested, but not old enough to appreciate the changes that science was bringing to my world.

At the end of the summer we moved into a small home in Forth Worth, so that my father could do some post-graduate work at the Baptist seminary in town. I began second grade that fall at Hubbard Heights Elementary, which was about half a mile away. My best friend Mickey and I walked to school together every day. I admired Mickey because he had to pack his own lunch. Usually it consisted of ketchup sandwiches and candy bars.


Hubbard Heights Elementary

I got the G.I. Joe Astronaut with space capsule that Christmas, which was a huge thrill for me. Space toys were replacing Cowboy toys. Roy Rogers was out, and Apollo was in. I played little league baseball for the first time that Spring. It was my first experience with organized sports. I was the catcher for our team, but I didn’t have a catcher’s mitt, which bothered me greatly.

Mickey and I both fell in love with the same girl at school. I don’t remember her name, but she had brown hair and wore it in pigtails. I was too shy even to wave at her and was standing around wondering how to proceed when Mickey, showing a surprising streak of romantic sophistication, swooped in and gave her a small bottle of perfume. Somehow that sealed the deal, and the two of them walked around the playground whispering for a week or so. I was annoyed but at the same time impressed with his savoir faire. He knew you should give a girl perfume, AND he knew how and where to get perfume. He was completely out of my league.

Our family went to Gambrell Street Baptist Church, which was across from the seminary and a fairly well-known Baptist church in that city. Martin Estep, whose father was a famous Baptist historian and professor at the seminary, was in my Sunday school class. He had leukemia, and we were told quietly that someday soon he would die. The idea of a child dying was so far outside my view of the world that I didn’t know how to receive the information. I just filed it away and forgot about it.

Martin loved dinosaurs and was allowed to bring toy dinosaurs to church, which was against standard policy, but no one made an issue of it, perhaps because his situation was so grim. Many Sundays Martin and I played together with his extensive collection of plastic and rubber dinosaurs.

Years later, long after Martin had died, I attended that seminary and had his father for a number of history classes. I told him I remembered Martin and his dinosaurs. He looked off in the distance and said, "Yes, Martin did love his dinosaurs."

I knew about dinosaurs, of course, but had never considered how they fit into the story of creation that I heard at church. Up until that time, the only story of the origin of the earth I knew was the one found in Genesis. God had created the world in six days, resting on the 7th. He had created human beings on one of those days, but there was some kind of a glitch, and then Adam and Eve were on the outs with God. That’s why Jesus had to come to the world.

Children have a capacity to hold many thoughts and views at once. Truly, we all have this capacity but it is particularly pronounced in children. So I played dinosaurs with Martin, thoroughly believing that they existed millions and millions of years ago, while at the same time holding to the simple view of creation taught to me at church.

And then one day at school, I discovered a strange book, a book filled with new information and stories I had never heard before.

In second grade I had just discovered the joy of reading. The first book that thrilled me was Matt Christopher’s “Catcher With A Glass Arm,” the story of a boy who was a catcher, like me, only he had a real mitt. Sadly, his arm was a bit lacking, and this created the drama of the story. I also read my mother’s old copy of “The Bobbsey Twins” by Laura Lee Hope, falling in love with it immediately. I read that book 15 or 20 times over the years, even when I was in high school.

My second grade teacher had a collection of books in the corner of the room, which we were allowed to browse and read if we finished our work. One day I pulled out an ancient looking book from behind the others. My memories of this book are very dim. It had an old, cloth cover. I suspect that it was published in the first half of the 20th century, but it might have been published at the turn of the century. The book was about ancient humans - cavemen and cavewomen, as they were called at the time.

According to this book, many thousands of years ago, people lived in caves and wore clothing made from animal skins. They made their own tools and arrow points, and they lived before modern technology, even before Jesus and the people of the Bible. I remember being absolutely fascinated by the book's theory of how cooking began. The author theorized that a tree might have burst into flames after a lightning strike, cooking a squirrel or some animal in the trunk. Primitive humans chanced upon this tree and found that they liked the flavor of cooked meat. This is a ridiculously simplistic view of how human technology develops, but at the time it made perfect sense to me.

I don't know why, but I became obsessed with this book for many months. Every chance I got I pulled it from the shelves and sat on a little carpet in the corner of the classroom, poring over it. I believed every word of it with the same level of innocent trust that I had given to my Sunday school teachers.

This simple book didn't address the incredibly complex questions of human prehistory or evolution, but it suggested a history of the world and humanity that was different from what was in the Bible. And these new ideas seemed to make sense to me, even then.

That was the moment the collision began. It was the moment that my Biblical worldview first collided with the modern worldview of science. The violence of this collision wasn’t immediately apparent. It was more like two galaxies slowly passing through each other.

But when galaxies collide, nothing stays the same.

rlp

 

Submitted by Anonymous User on July 26, 2007 - 7:04pm.

Holy crap Preacher man! You just took me on a guided tour of my childhood! Ditto on the moon landing and the Bobbsey Twins (later followed by Tom Swift and the Hardy Boys). I remain jealous of ANYONE who got the ultimate grail toy in my neighborhood the GI Joe space capsule. Exactly one kid on the block had it. Fortunately he was my best friend. The first book that I really remember grabbing me was "My Side of the Mountain". It was also the first book made into a movie that let me down badly.
Being raised an Episcopalian there was much less emphasis on the literal understanding of Genesis. By the time I hit Junior High I was being influenced by what I jokingly refer to as "those hippy priests".

My spiritual collisions came later in life.

Thanks for the memories. Dang, now Bob Hope is in my head.
JP

Submitted by Keith on July 26, 2007 - 7:08pm.

I don't have any "galaxy colliding" experiences, since one of those galaxies never existed for me anyway.

But the moon landing is my earliest memory. I remember looking at the TV... and up at the moon... and back at the TV...

My dad told me a few months ago, when I mentioned this, that they built it up for a few weeks beforehand. I was three.

Submitted by Li Kai on July 26, 2007 - 11:41pm.

Although the collision may be "violent", I believe it is a necessary one. The Bible is not meant to describe the physical workings of the universe, just as the laws of physics are not meant to give us insight into what it truly means to be human. However, to live without an appreciation of viewing our world either way is to live half-blind.

On the surface there seems to be such tension and conflict between the worlds science and faith that it seems there is no choice but to keep them compartmentalized. However, beyond the surface of petty (and often unfounded) arguments, there is a beauty and true awesomeness to be found in the synthesis of appreciating our world, our Creator, and the relationship we have been given to both.

Collide away.

Submitted by Erin Phillips on July 27, 2007 - 1:18am.

I'm having a major nostalgic moment here - I loved The Bobbsey Twins and My Side of the Mountain. I grew up in a secular home so I never had this kind of collide. For me the collide happened when I read the Gospels for the first time. Thanks for sharing this.

Submitted by atticus on July 27, 2007 - 6:44am.

The collision time for me is now. My foundation of beliefs began in a college in the bible belt: SFA in Nacogdoches, but i was among thinkers. I explored evolution and it was in my comparative anatomy class that I became more set in my creationist views. It was 10 yrs later when I saw there was no more evidence available in the fossil record that I still believed in the creation story—literally. Not because I don’t question, not because I don’t understand the complexity of nature and beginnings. (Actually, I do get lost in the physicists’ explanation against creation.) But because it was my foundation of faith. It matches my image of God. It is only now, in my skepticism regarding the teachers of my faith that I can venture into other beginnings. It is scary for me, but it is matching my faith journey at this time in my life and yet I feel a distance from God I have never known before.

Submitted by rlp on July 27, 2007 - 8:02am.

For what it is worth, part of my journey has been to learn that only God is worthy of my faith. The literal approach to scripture is just one approach. It's been "marketed well" among many groups so that people feel like they are abandoning the Bible if they abandon that approach. But you shouldn't have faith in the Bible in the way you have faith in God. And you certainly shouldn't have faith in one way of reading the Bible.

Your feeling distant from God is a common feeling whenever these collisions happen. I can tell you that I feel closer to God now than I ever did in those old days. My journey has let me toward contemplative prayer, and that has made a real difference for me.

Submitted by Anonymous User on July 27, 2007 - 9:37pm.

i didn't think i had a "faith" in the Bible, but since this is the 2nd time someone has said this to me based on what i have expressed, i need to listen. my faith experience has been so wrapped up in the two: God and the Bible. thank you for this...it gives me hope for a deeper, perhaps, truer, relationship.

Submitted by atticus on July 27, 2007 - 9:41pm.

forgot to login above...atticus

Submitted by Anonymous User on July 27, 2007 - 9:16am.

I have several questions!
First let me say that I LOVE Borg. Dis you just recently read "Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time"? What did you think of it? I dont agree with all of Borg's theology, but I love his broad view; that Christianity is about a relationship with God, and that if you're theology helps to bring you closer to God than it is a good thing.
I think that sets him apart from liberal fundementalists like Shelby Spong.
Also, just out of curiousity, was Martin's dad a good prof? I know you had alot of mixed feelings about your Seminary profs...

Submitted by rlp on July 27, 2007 - 10:20am.

Still reading this book, but I agree about his devotional side. He's not the liberal "bugaboo" that I've heard about.

Martin's dad was one of the good guys. William Estep. I had him for History of the Reformation and one other class, but I don't remember the name of it. His famous book is, "The Anabaptist Story." He was considered a major scholar on that area of the Reformation.

By the way, Anabaptists are not related in any way to modern Baptists. The former are a part of the radical Reformation movement. The latter come out of the English Separatist movement. Not that any normal person would care about such seminary trivia.

Submitted by Anonymous User on July 27, 2007 - 10:59am.

If you enjoy "Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time" try "The Heart of Christianity" I think its his best book. In that one he focuses much more on a post modern vison of Christianity than on Jesus himself as a historical figure.

He has also recently co-authored a book with John Dominic Crossan on the political/spiritual meaning of the last week of Christ's life, its called "The Last Week", its one of the greatest books I have ever read.

Submitted by Anonymous User on July 27, 2007 - 9:33am.

A love of reading, I have in common with you preacher.
I am an avid reader. In fact it is because of my reading that I have come to question some particular orthodox doctrines
of the historic christian faith. Like, uh, hell for instance. As for a literal 7 days for creation, what difference does it really make? Does not the holy book say that one day is like a thousand to God? We are here, and that much we know is true. And that's good enough for me. And thats about all I got to say about that......
Shalom & stuff, Nancy in San Antonio

Submitted by Progression of Faith on July 27, 2007 - 9:40am.

I always remember having questions and doubts in the back of my mind as a child. The conflict and guilt associated with having questions was painful but I didn't realize how painful it was until I let go of it. Marcus Borg was a big help in creating the freedom to expore my faith beyond the old 2nd grade theology that I was carrying around well into my adult life. thanks!

www.faithprogression.com

Submitted by Anonymous User on July 27, 2007 - 11:01am.

WOAH! Martin's pop has his own wikipedia entry!

Submitted by Anonymous User on July 27, 2007 - 11:04am.

Is Southwestern still a very popular seminary? It seems like almost every minister I know (I am a Texan) went there.

Did you enjoy your time studying there?

Submitted by rlp on July 27, 2007 - 11:49am.

The story on Southern Baptist Seminaries is that before the 1990s, they were still very popular amongs Baptists of all types. My father went to Southwestern in Fort Worth, and so did I. But when the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention was complete (hard to date - sometime in the 90s) they fired all the professors who would not sign various statements of orthodoxy. The real moment of division was when they fired the president, Russell Dilday. My wife Jeanene and I still say, "We got our degrees from Southwestern, BEFORE the takeover)

As it stands now, moderate and progressive Baptists generally have nothing to do with any of the Southern Baptist Seminaries.

Submitted by Anonymous User on July 27, 2007 - 11:04am.

My moment of decision came when the Episcopal priest told me at my first confirmation meeting, "Now's the time for you to think of what this all means to you." After thinking about what I had been taught at church vs. what I had been taught in the Humanist schools, I told him I couldn't get confirmed because my teachers made better sense. He told me, "Well, if you ever change your mind, come on back." NO attempt to defend the faith or anything!

I stopped going to church right then, followed by my father and sister the next week. My mother kept going, although what she was fed was more tradition than Christianity.

Ten years later, after going through Humanism, nihilism and the occult, I finally read the Bible. I became a Christian when I reached the biographies of Jesus.

When people debate Genesis vs. atheist evolution, I just remind them what brought them to Jesus was not Genesis. Jesus respected the old testament and since he is my lord and master, I respect it as well. Let the atheists try to disprove the gospels.

-Tim Temple
orderofsaintpatrick.org

Submitted by rlp on July 27, 2007 - 11:52am.

See, my approach would be to throw my arms around that young man and praise and affirm the power of his mind. Then the two of us would sit in my office, for as many sessions as needed, to talk about how science and faith co-exist in our world. And how you can be a person of faith, but also be a curious, seeking, scientific person.

I grieve for all the young people like you, who were given an all or nothing kind of choice. I'm sorry that the Church did that to you, but proud for hearing of how you've found your own way.

Submitted by Anonymous User on July 27, 2007 - 12:18pm.

Gordon,
So you think there is any hope for the Southern Baptist Convention returning to its progessive roots?
I think that guys like Tony Campolo, N.T. Wright and Brian McLaren are really reaching conservative christians and helping them realize that one can be progressive and still be orthodox.

It is sad what happened to the SBC.

Submitted by rlp on July 27, 2007 - 12:47pm.

I think the age of denominations is crumbling and splintering. The question is "what is coming next?"

my opinion

Submitted by Keith on July 27, 2007 - 6:35pm.

what is coming next?

New denominations.

The stupidest thing will always happen
--Snyder's Law

Submitted by Anonymous User on July 31, 2007 - 1:42pm.

We're all going to be wiped away by The Presence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6cJfjuKZfw&mode=related&search=

Submitted by Anonymous User on July 27, 2007 - 7:46pm.

Ok I'm much older than you young things (I was 29 when the moon walk occured). My collision came when I taught physical anthropology for the first time (my master's was in cultural anthropology) I was one chapter ahead of the college kids I was teaching-- and I was still a fundamentalist---didn't last long. Although come to think of it, the real crisis of faith, the real collision came when I was a missionary and the cannibals (no kidding) were kinder to me and to each other than the other missionaries...I wondered what we were doing to "covert" them (to what?) So now I'm Lutheran...don't have to check brain at the door of the church-- although many Lutherans are still literalists..blessedly most of them are not the ones I hang out with. But glad to hear of the collisions producing a strengthened faith...sometimes they just leave shards of unbelief and emptiness..shalom to all -- ps loved Synder's Law...and denominations need to be dead...just hope something new is not stupid...

Submitted by Anonymous User on July 27, 2007 - 10:14pm.

Complexity of nature and beginnings...now.

Doesn't the design strike you? Narrow it down to the human musculoskeletal system (I'm a physical therapist by trade, trained in biomechanics/orthopedics). Say the knee, said to be one of the most simple (primitive?) major joints of the body.

Anyone...everyone...here, now, today, can easily recognize when one of the these delicate structures of our body malfunctions. Stairs are a battle. Kneeling is a major chore. Athletes and carpenters retire. Office people stop their evening hikes.

Most knee problems simpley come from years of wear and tear on various joints slightly askew from birth. The arch of the foot is too high or low. The femur is rotated too much inward or outward. The big toe doesn’t bend back enough, transferring strain to the ankle and knee.

The undeniable, readily observable fact is that nothing good comes from anatomical deviation. Difference from the known “blueprint” of human structure and function causes pain and misery. The abnormal joint either breaks down or transfers high strain to another joint. Small changes never helped anyone/anything, much less added up to large changes in a superior creature.

There are literally thousands of differences between the structure and function of a human knee and the knee of say, some monkey-like creature. How would a monkey-ish knee trasnform into a functional human knee unless a human foot, ankle, hip, etc… was already in place? And the lions are licking their chops because a human knee would be a life threatening condition for a kyphotic-spined monkey-prehuman-type creature.

You can’t just throw your arms in the air and shout “mutation.” [As in, coding error that happened to turn DNA into something better than the original.] Foot, ankle, and knee all adapted for upright/bipedal gait? Mutation. Congruous effect of abdominal and pelvic stabilization muscles on correct knee alignment? Mutation. Forward orientation of the hip socket? Mutation. Thoracodorsal fascia that unites the effects of trunk and leg muscles in order to stabilize and support an upright spine, like guy-wires on a bridge? Mutation.

Here's a take on one writing from a certain RLP:
Are your knees really cheap copies or byproducts? Did they develop slowly and painfully, only now to fit perfectly into their environment; only now here for your good pleasure? Does Old Man Time have an upper limit to achieve such delicate, synchronous fine-tuning? Going back a few thousand years into recorded history, shouldn’t our skeletal -proportions- be changed just a little?

Not that I have great answers...actually, sharing what I see every day. My collision of the day.

Submitted by DSpitko on July 28, 2007 - 10:13am.

"You can’t just throw your arms in the air and shout 'mutation.'"

Why not? I agree that the complexity of life, and the universe for that matter, is mind-boggling. It is there that I see my God. But by making this statement, is this not the point that you have chosen to put aside scientific facts for faith reasons because it is beyond your (and my) understanding of evolutionary science? I suspect there are PhDs that can explain how the knee developed and why it did. Plus, there is archeological proof of at least some of that progression.

Also, we are dealing with millions upon millions of years. Stretch out an arm and the tip of the fingernail is the entire time Homo sapiens have been on this earth. Could not trial and error over that incomprehensible length of time be sufficient time to accomplish the human knee? Could not trial and error be God’s way?

Not attacking - just trying to engage ...

Submitted by Anonymous User on July 28, 2007 - 11:45am.

Thanks for the comment.

My point for that post was to just put a little "meat" on all the philosophy flying around...to try to step back and say "sure, doubt the literal creation story, AND also doubt the monkeys (or monkey-type pre-human) to man story.

Definitely not putting aside scientific facts, but observing at face value, an untrained eye can see the result of even the slightest changes in structure and function. The point here is that everything (musculoskeletally-speaking) functions as a unit. In fact, you definitely cannot seperate the knee from the foot, ankle, hip, upright spine, etc.etc.etc.

And that was my exact question...does evolution (in the drivers seat to get us where we are right now) have ANY upper limit in time to where we finally admit that it's just so improbable that our species developed that way (i.e. by natural selection involving or not involving genetic mutations).

Bob G

Submitted by Anonymous User on July 28, 2007 - 11:50am.

Also forgot...be careful with the assumption of "archeological proof" and that there are really great explanations for how our knee came along...again, it would have had to be the entire funtional unit, all or nothing. Much unlike what we observe when we observe in the here and now.

Submitted by DSpitko on July 29, 2007 - 8:48am.

Bob,

May I respectfully suggest that, contrary to creationism/intelligent design, there is literally nothing in the peer reviewed scientific literature to suggest that evolution can be subject to doubt as to its overall validity. Thus, I do not believe the burden of proof is on those who believe in the evolutionary process, but rather the burden of proof is on those who assert that evolution is not to be accepted as a truism and/or that creationism/intelligent design is a plausible scientific alternative.

I hear your argument as stating something like, “The knee, as part of the complete human body, is so complex and so wonderfully and intricately inter-related, that I cannot imagine it occurring without God being directly involved. Chance and trial/error just could not have created this, even over millions of years.”

If I correctly state your argument, this sounds like Professor Behe’s argument of "irreducible complexity" in support of creationism and intelligent design. I challenge you to be courageous enough to read pages 64 to 138 of Judge Jones decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. In this case, Professor Behe was subject to cross examination by attorneys who had prepared well and knew the science involved. It is fascinating reading about what happened when Behe was confronted by the hard questions.

In the opinion, Jones (a Reagan appointee) examined in excruciating detail the assertions that creationism/intelligent design is a scientifically plausible explanation for the development of not just humans, but all we see around us. Jones concluded, “To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.”

Here is a URL to the opinion: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/jones/04v2688d.pdf. Copy and paste it into your browser. I hope you will accept my challenge. I would enjoy a further exchange after you read those pages. Peace.

Submitted by Anonymous User on July 29, 2007 - 7:34pm.

DS. Thanks for the link. Eager to check that out, though, not able to right now. I live near Dover PA, so as you can imagine, there was a lot in the press around here. I have a -decent- idea of what went on.

Initial thoughts..."render an explanation on every point" sounds troublesome, and my little argument about the function of the knee is in fact not grounded in religion.

You site the vast amount of peer-reviewed research on evolution, but I've honestly never seen a good explanation for -exactly what drives evolution-

I think this is a pretty huge part of the "every point" noted above.

1-I look and see what slight anatomical variation results in (early osteoarthritis, etc) and think: I just don't imagine that a bunch of these types of slight variations could add up and be "selected" into something much much better...

2-I read various...information...on information systems, language, DNA transcription and translation, coding, communication,etc., and yes, some intelligent design viewpoints... From those things (and more) I conclude that it's even more unlikely that mutations can account for such changes.

Submitted by Anonymous User on July 31, 2007 - 11:34am.

Good mutations survive. Bad mutations get eaten. Liberally add a dollop of time and you get the human knee. Only now, we have folks who studied up on it and can fix what ails it or replace the worn parts. This positive intelligence mutation is making it less necessary to have good knee mutations. Knee wears out...get a scooter. You can still procreate even if you lie on your back.

(By the way, this was meant to be simplistic. I am not going for a scientific theory here, just some food for thought.)
Old Poet

Submitted by Anonymous User on July 31, 2007 - 1:44pm.

Simplistic-good.
Me-not good.

Then what exactly might a "good mutation" look like? I mean...by this I'm saying that you need to have a great appreciation of the complexity of human biomechanics (credentials: PhD in biomechanics-"studied up on it") to understand that you can't adapt just a knee. Needs to be the "knees" entire functional unit, which, turns out, extends all the way from the pinky toe to the upright spine and trunk muscles. Spine is connected to the, rib cage, rib cage connected to the, upper extremity,... you know the song. Must be the entire "organism".

By my (limited) knowledge, mutations don't work that way. A hypothetically advantageous mutation that might involve the entire lower extremity (a fantastic one, we've never observed anything like-fruit flies with nonfunctional wings don't count) would -still- be lunch, without concurrent changes to the upper half, to the entire body as a functional unit. Again my question, is there an upper limit of time and chance when we say it's not likely?

Francis Collins - me need read

Submitted by DSpitko on August 1, 2007 - 9:06am.

Francis,

Like the poster above, I challenge you to be courageous enough to read pages 64 to 138 of Judge Jones decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Here is a URL to the opinion: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/jones/04v2688d.pdf. I hope you will accept my challenge and will enjoy a further exchange after you read those pages. Peace.

DSpitko

Submitted by Keith on August 1, 2007 - 10:30am.

Today's absurdist comedy is brought to you by the US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

"...defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology."

"Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."

"Professor Behe admitted in “Reply to My Critics” that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity ... In that article, Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to “repair this defect in future work;” however, he has failed to do so even four years after elucidating his defect."

"Natural selection can bring together parts of a system for one function at one time and then, at a later time, recombine those parts with other systems of components to produce a system that has a different function." (I quoted this one because of the knee example.)

"Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex."

"Moreover, cross-examination revealed that Professor Behe’s redefinition of the blood-clotting system was likely designed to avoid peer-reviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument..."

These are just a few tidbits from the first dozen pages. It keeps going. And going. And going.

There may be a creator, or there may not, but Intelligent Design is grownups behaving badly.

It's like the Keystone Kops with microscopes.

Submitted by Anonymous User on July 31, 2007 - 1:47pm.

It's not even a matter of mutations I think, I mean really evolution can be seen as the simple, and undeniable, difference between the parents and the child, and over millions and millions and millions of years those difference add up to huge variations.

Submitted by Anonymous User on August 1, 2007 - 5:34pm.

In my original post, I never meant to say anything was "proof" of intelligent deign. Should the comment have instead been, "the knee and all that goes with it is so remarkable that it had to happen with (in the weakest term) some intention."

"Natural selection can bring together parts of a system for one function at one time and then, at a later time, recombine those parts with other systems of components to produce a system that has a different function."

I'm not sure I'm getting this...what this process actually might look like. Sounds like...faith. Call it anything you want, but just don't say the "D" word.

Differences between parent and child, added up, are a far cry from evolution. Say we want to naturally select handsome super-athletes...even with intelligent input (selecting certain traits to be passed on), are you going to get to the point, over millions of years, where the child has wings, a mighty exoskeleton, anything that adds to performance?

Submitted by Anonymous User on July 27, 2007 - 10:16pm.

Gordon,
I had the GI Joe boat. I was playing with it on the banks of the Big Sandy river one day. I had it tied to a kite string my "Paw Paw" gave me. The string broke and the boat sailed away. I bet it made it to the ocean. To this day I still remember this loss and this lesson: Not every knot holds. Thanks for holding me up tonight.

Larry V

Submitted by DSpitko on July 28, 2007 - 9:04am.

My collision occurred over Christianity’s assertion of exclusivity.

I grew up as a Lutheran in the sixties; I was extremely active in the church and it was rare when I missed a church service. Even then, I recall feeling a little like I was on thin ice when I was in a conversation about the virgin birth, the raising of Lazareth, Jonah being swallowed by a whale … and other parts of the bible that defy rational explanation. But I was willing to use blind faith to say anything was possible since God and Jesus Christ (as parts of the Trinity) were divine. But where I really struggled, even back then, was when I pondered, “How can I confess to a creed that damns most of the world to hell simply because they do not believe in Jesus the Christ?” I remember as a sixth grader looking at maps of China, India and the rest of Southeast Asia (the war in Vietnam made such maps ubiquitous) and thinking, “So all these millions of people are damned to hell?” Through my 20s, 30s and early 40s, I was the Organist/Choir Director at my home church. While I had growing doubts about the teachings of the Christian church, I accepted my imperfect faith.

It was sometime in 2002 when the Pastor asked in a sermon, “So … what about peoples of other faiths?” His answer … “Don’t think about it … all things are possible with God through Jesus Christ.” I decided I was being intellectually dishonest even listening to that answer. I had to finally consider the question that had haunted me my entire life. I had to confront my own questions. So I read many, many books. Brown, Spong, Borg, Crosson, Hick (to name a few) and lately Kant (The Critique of Pure Reason – geez is it difficult …); and I have many more to go. As someone stated above, a path like this is scary. At one point I flirted with atheism. Where has this led me?

I do believe in God and I revere, and try to follow, the teachings of the one named Jesus of Nazareth. But I believe he was a human ~ as human as you and I. There is no question that he had a special understanding of the Kingdom of God on this earth. God gave him that understanding – so he does speak for God. He had the unimaginable courage to state in no uncertain terms that the earthly world had it all wrong … the first shall be last and the last shall be first – even when he knew such teachings would lead to an inconceivably painful death on a cross. His teachings lay out in perfect terms what God expects us to do if we love our neighbor as ourselves ~ just as Abraham, Mohammed and many others have done.

I noted that it was not until John that the writer had Jesus making assertions of exclusivity. I came to discover that the early Christian church was not monolithic. There were many differing points of view. It was human men who, over the first 3 centuries, etched one doctrinal Christian point of view into stone and then enforced that doctrine over the following centuries, against followers of Jesus and non-Christians alike, with violence, oppression and fear. Exclusivity and triumphalism of faith is a corrupt human need that has led to an inconceivable amount of suffering, and not just by Christians. I believe that God cares not what belief system leads a human from self-centeredness to a God-centric life. That it happens is what is important – not how it happened.

I am more at peace with my faith than I have ever been. By rejecting all the elaborate (and some would say strained/absurd) theological arguments to establish that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God (try reading the various arguments to explain the paradox that Jesus is "truly God and truly man"), I found someone to whom I can relate. Jesus became and is real. I find I have a greater ability to live my life according to his teachings ~ although I certainly fail more than I am successful.

Submitted by Anonymous User on July 28, 2007 - 12:56pm.

Holy crap, Batman! I went to Hubbard Heights for 1st and 2nd grade, while my dad was in the seminary. That was before we moved to Fred.

bradford
www.fredtexas.com

Submitted by Anonymous User on July 28, 2007 - 8:29pm.

I think you'll like Borg. He's really good. You can hear him lecture online, his voice is kinda funny sounding, but he is a brilliant man. Helped me alot.

Submitted by Anonymous User on July 28, 2007 - 9:48pm.

Hard Science and Scripture. I found dissonance here until I discovered:

Gerald Schroeder: MIT physicist who worked for years increasing food yields in 3rd world countries using applied physics. Now a professor at Jerusalem University....

who is also a Bible scholar.

Has written: "The Science of God", and "The Hidden Face of God", among others. Very readable. And compelling. And enlightening. And not at all thick tomes of academia even though packed with hard science.

Science and Scripture. The two are not mutually exclusive after all.

Presbyterian Gal

Submitted by digory on July 30, 2007 - 9:41pm.

Did Martin Estep have a brother named Merl? Merl lives here in Palestine, and his father, a Dr. Estep from Southwestern Seminary, used to preach at our church on and off. I'm not sure, but I think Dr. Estep may have died. If Merl was his son, he teaches at the Trinity Valley Community College here in Palestine. Small world.

Submitted by rlp on August 1, 2007 - 9:20am.

He must have had a brother. I knew Dr. Estep had died. If you see Merl, tell him someone remembers Martin and his dinosaurs.

thanks

Submitted by Anonymous User on July 31, 2007 - 7:21am.

Another great read is the Language of God by Dr Francis Collins, leader of the genome project. The book describes the marriage between science and faith and provides evidence for the existence of a Creator but also challenges Christians to accept that strict Creationism and Intelligent Design theories do not hold up with today's scientific knowledge.

Submitted by mattman on July 31, 2007 - 10:13am.

coming in on the end of the discussion. RLP describes the ability children have to hold two viewpoints that "rational" adults would classify as contradictory. Dspitko, I read your solution to the obstacle of exclusivity as another kind of exclusive way of thinking. Jesus can be only human. I grant you that the Nicene formula of fully human/fully divine is paradoxical, but then I would argue that so is faith. That doesn't mean that I suspend my brain. But the collision RLP describes is not unlike the collision this paradoxical confessional formula seeks to describe as well. My opinion is that you may have prematurely resolved a tension that is a necessary component of faith, not unlike the tension created by that which is hoped for, but not yet seen.

Submitted by DSpitko on August 1, 2007 - 9:10am.

Thank you. Let me think on your post for a day or two. The depth of your response deserves that much.

An intial question not meant to challenge but for me to understand your post. I still have tension in my faith. Why can't I live my belief system consistently? If I am a true follower of Jesus' teachings, am I required to sell everything and give it to the poor? Can't "paradox" and "healthy tension" be used to accept parts of Christianity that are difficult to reconcile, even when those parts have the appearance they exist for non-spiritual reasons, i.e. the need to survive as an institution thereby promoting its belief system over others to the extent of requiring people be discriminated against - with murder being the ultimate discrimination and being applied?
Dave

Submitted by mattman on August 1, 2007 - 12:54pm.

Dave, I may have over-reached if I implied your faith was without tension. That comment was really meant to be limited to the doctrine of Jesus' full humanity and divinity. And I recognize that it is a doctrine. I'm not as allergic to that word as some. Clearly when docrine becomes a rigid tool for uniformity it is problematic, but at some point it was intended to be the product of the church's collective discernment about who Jesus is/was and what it means to belong to him or follow him. I was responding to what I read as your rejection of Jesus' divinity. Since I'm not ready to give that up, and think it is an essential component of Christian faith, I was trying to engage the reasons you gave for emphasizing his humanity and hoping to encourage you to see an embrace of the Christological paradox as one of these collisions that, rather than faith destroying, can create a deeper trust in that which we will never fully name, nor comprehend.

Submitted by goatmeal on August 12, 2007 - 10:53pm.

So what happened next?