Advertisement

Archive for Monday, October 17, 2005

Matter of faith

October 17, 2005

Advertisement

To the editor:

In response to Leonard Krishtalka's Oct. 13 article: Chimps and humans sharing 98 percent of genetic material could also be a logical argument for design. Mammals share similar biological processes, hence similar genetic designs. Throw a chance mutation in those genes, the system fails and the organism dies. Research demonstrates natural selection within species. Science has never proven mutations can cause speciation.

Evolutionists have faith in their religion. I have faith in mine. Evolution requires blind faith in time and chance. Evolution guides Krishtalka's judgment. Why can't design and a respect for life guide Judge Roberts?

Seems to me pro-abortion evolutionists take the decision of life out of nature's hand and gives it to man. At that point, pro-abortion, evolutionary belief systems become self-serving and bigoted. That points to what biblical creationists believe: After initial creation, man sinned and fell short of God's intent. That is why Christians also believe we need a Savior.

Jeff Barclay,

Lawrence

Comments

craigers 8 years, 6 months ago

And I completely agree with you and I would die to express my faith as well. I was not saying anything to the point of injecting this in school, that is a different argument. Yes, faith is blind but it also follows that "These signs shall follow those who believe." I believe and I have prayed only by one name and that is Jesus and in the church I go to we have seen wonderful miracles happen. Faith is blind but when these things happen, they are confirmations of our faith and give us the observation that our natural minds desire for proof. However, God will not just do signs and miracles to prove that he is real, that is where blind faith comes in, but if you trust Him first, He will show up and confirm your belief in Him. You call it blind faith but when I look at the world I don't see any other logical explanation other than creation. Since I have observed these things wouldn't they be considered facts because they fall under the veil of observation? Ryan since you seem very interested in research and getting a more detailed look at things, I will recommend this book to you: "Rightly Dividing the Word" by Clarence Larkin. His first two chapters are very enlightening. He wrote this book back in the 1800s I believe and it is great. He takes the creation event and points out some interesting ideas and thoughts that I would have never dreamed of. He eludes to why there are fossils on this earth and why the earth is so old. I encourage you to look into it. It might make you think a little bit too and it could possibly give an answer to some of your questions that you have had for awhile. Just a suggesstion to look at.

0

ryanjasondesch 8 years, 6 months ago

Craigers says, "I would have to say that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is real, but you might not think so since you haven't seen enough to make you believe".

I would ask, isn't faith supposed to be blind? Whatsoever must I see? And why should that MAKE me believe? Isn't faith also a matter of choice? That's certainly the way I was tought it during 13 awful years of Catholic school. The same problems I was wise to in my youth are even more apparent today. My teachers could not answer my questions then, no one today I believe can do any better. Evolutions holes pointed out here are merely as yet misunderstood gaps in knowledge. The same gaps exist in physics, astronomy, math, any field presented to the common man by the common man. The very existence of those gaps is proof of nothing besides the continuance of the respective field of study. Those holes will be filled, only to find new holes. It's called the 'expanding spheres of ignorance'. It means that the more we know, the more we don't know.

Personally I find so many more holes in religion as it is presented today than perhaps anything else in the world. Those who flew planes into WTC on 911 were men of faith, perhaps more so than anyone I've ever met. They ended their own lives for their faith and their religion. Is that coragious? I think not. Is their faith and beliefs proof of anything? I think not. Is their worldview rational and justified? Absolutely not. Even the pillars of tolerance do not go that far. Craigers: Please hear me carefully, the injection of religion into a public school reaks of Christo-facsim to me, and it's a very dangerous slippery-slope. Your faith should be of a personal matter, I do not object to you presenting it here. BUT, I have major issues with any attempt to present ones faith as truth, and to further inject such beliefs into should-be and as-is state and federal systems, particularly education. As I've stated before, I believe in the seperation of church and state on a fundamental aspect of the founding of this country. As a Buddhist I would fight to any end the injection of any Christian belief to my child's education. The founding fathers were certainly men of faith, but they had the rationality needed to create a secular government to protect the very validity in the variation of beliefs and faith. It is that secular government that secures that variation. Any attempt to violate that seperation is an aggregious attempt to hinder the freedom for you to hold the beliefs you defend. Keep that in mind always, it is of no less vitale to your existence in this world as your belief or your faith in Christ is, or the very fact that you breathe air. For me, if I am denied my own freedoms, I'll fight and except death to defend the freedom to express mine.

0

mermily 8 years, 6 months ago

of course it would be wrong for anyone to say you were ignorant craigers. we all have our own truths, valid to each of us.

that said, i still firmly think we are talking about oranges and apples which results in no one understanding each other and no one being receptive to new ideas. for starters, believing something through faith and heart, albeit very powerful, is different from believing something through observation or logical extrapolation. i make no judgment as to which is "better", but simply note that they have their own place.

continuing, religion and science-- although both given to holes-- are not the same and therefore a battle as to which hole is more acceptable is futile; as just one example, science has the possibility of being proven with more time and data whereas some of the very power of religion rests on the faith required in the absence of definitive traditional proof.

furthermore, the burdens of proof necessary in each category aren't even the same. what would fail as proof in science may succeed in religion and vice versa. in other words, what is scientifically significant enough to be called proof and what is considered proof in religion aren't the same. therefore, rather than debate the validity of each using the same scale that would be inaccurate for both, we should try to give each subject their unique due, proponents their deserved respect, and each their own appropriate forum for exploration.

0

craigers 8 years, 6 months ago

What is enough observation and facts to say that something is true? According to my observations and experience I would have to say that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is real, but you might not think so since you haven't seen enough to make you believe. When you see flaws in a theory then it doesn't show you enough evidence to make you believe. Evolution doesn't prove to me that it is real because it has so many holes in it and I have seen the powerful work of a savior and healer in my own life. For anybody to tell me that I am ignorant would be wrong because what I see I believe not what you believe and see. God will always be my creator and designer. No theory of evolution will ever suffice because I have seen too much proof otherwise to be convinced in any other way.

0

mermily 8 years, 6 months ago

wogonamission- your comment actually does not seem to be in response to my posting at all. rather than a statement about liberation and an invitation to discuss my views on abortion, my posting was in reference to one of many many odd statements made in the author's editorial.

i was simply trying to refute the idea that 1.) anyone is pro-abortion, 2) that those that are pro-choice must necessarily be evolutionists, and 3) that in anyway abortion was linked with the discussion concerning evolution.

your views on abortion, though not of interest to me personally, are indeed valuable and have their place somewhere. however, please do not post them under the guise that you are responding to me, when my posting was clearly otherwise directed and intended.

finally, in an attempt to illustrate an actual response to a posting, i believe woman have yet to successfully be liberated for the domination of men. doing better, certainly, but equality evades many people still.

although all matters are intertwined on some level,

0

wogonamission 8 years, 6 months ago

In response to mermily- We all know the liberation from the domination of men was tremendous- Now the choice is ours- What do you think it will take to liberate a baby from the domination from a woman's choice? When will they get the liberty to choose to live?

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 6 months ago

This is more religious wishful thinking on the part of the Kansas Taliban.

"OO, the big, bad world is messy and doesn't fit with my tidy little belief system". Click your heels, Dorothy.

Click click "OO, the idea of evolution goes against my frail little dogma" Click click, "I wish the big bad old world would go away" Click click.

Spoiled little Dorothys.

0

ryanjasondesch 8 years, 6 months ago

"Chimps and humans sharing 98 percent of genetic material could also be a logical argument for design"

Really? On what basis? What then for the greater difference between humans and other creatures? This is a common theme I see in people with this argument: "Wow, its sooo complex and awe inspiring, it MUST be the work of a designer". I am tired of this mental garbage.

0

mermily 8 years, 6 months ago

"Seems to me pro-abortion evolutionists take the decision of life out of nature's hand and gives it to man."

no, rather those that are pro-CHOICE (whether evolutionists or not) elect to give the decision to WOMAN.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.