They say a man is known by the company he keeps. If that’s true, some of the folks that state legislature candidate Jason Conger hangs with might say something troubling about him.
Back in January, a Bend group called Prepare the Way held a “Cities Wide [sic] Prayer Meeting” to support the Republican Conger’s campaign for Democrat Judy Steigler’s House seat.
“We are asking that you share about this gathering with your pastors and Christian leaders,” an announcement of the event on Prepare the Way’s website said. “Help spread the word so we can gather as a City church, letting go of denominationalism, standing together to support a Godly man willing to represent God in a very challenging hour in government.”
Toward the end, the announcement got kind of scary. Introducing a quote from Archie P. Jones, it said: “We must not stand idly by while the enemy takes what is rightfully ours. Christians have DOMINION on this earth by the blood of the Lamb!” (Capitals in original.)
A little explanation of who Archie P. Jones is and what “Dominionism” means is in order here.
“Dominionism” is a doctrine embraced by many Christian fundamentalists that essentially says Christians have a divinely ordained right – indeed, a duty – to rule the Earth. According to the ReligiousTolerance.org website, Dominionists think the verse in Genesis saying man shall rule over all the creatures on Earth “commands Christians to bring all governments, societies, and cultures worldwide under the rule of the Word of the Judeo-Christian God as they interpret it to be.”
Archie P. Jones is a prominent Dominionist author and scholar. In a 1980 essay entitled “Civil Government: The Neglected Ministry” he wrote that the legitimate role of government is “to enforce God’s law” and that “the ruler, in his pastoring, teaching function, must enforce God’s laws, God’s moral system and moral teaching.”
(If you’re in any doubt as to which end of the political spectrum Jones believes to be on God’s side, it might help to know that he co-authored a book titled “Born to Lie: From the Birth Certificate to Health Care” that, among other things, tries to revive the discredited smear that Barack Obama isn’t a native-born American citizen.)
When I asked Jason Conger if he agreed with the Dominionist doctrine, he replied: “I have to be honest and tell you I don’t even know what a Dominionist is.” After I gave a brief explanation, he said that “any kind of imposition of a state religion I certainly don’t believe in. I’m a believer in the Constitution and I completely respect the provisions dealing with the establishment of religion.”
Conger explained that the January prayer meeting came about because Stephen Williams, the founder of Prepare the Way, and his wife are “very dear friends of ours.” Stephen Williams formerly was a teacher in Cupertino, CA and became something of a right-wing media celebrity in 2004 when he tangled with the school district over bringing religion into the classroom. He also ran unsuccessfully for the Bend-LaPine School Board in 2007.
Conger says he supports the Constitution, and I have no reason to doubt him. His campaign website doesn’t present any wacky ideas – in fact, it’s pretty bland. And he belongs to Trinity Lutheran Church, which is hardly out there on the lunatic fringe.
But his closeness to Williams and his group makes me wonder where he’d stand if pushed hard on issues such as civil unions for homosexuals, prayer in the schools, abortion rights and Oregon’s Death With Dignity law. Hopefully that will become clearer between now and November.
This article appears in Mar 11-17, 2010.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
God did not put us on this earth to rule over anyone. He did give us dominion over the earth and all of it’s non intellectual inhabitants, not each other. Yes we are governed by elected leaders and laws, but those are for our own protection, not to be used to force God on mankind. He does not want Himself or His teachings to be forced on anyone, otherwise why would He bother giving us free will. He could easily with a blink of an eye make us all perfect, but then we’d be nothing more than a bunch of robots. There are many things of this world that are very appealing even when used outside of God’s will. So He gave us a choice, Him or the things of this world. Simple as that. It’s when bible verses are taken out of context that Christianity becomes complicated. Let’s look at the verse that dominionism uses to shore up their agenda.
Genesis 1:26 (New King James Version)
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
As you can clearly see, there is nothing in this verse that says let them have dominion over each other. God was simply talking about the earth and everything on it which is to be used for our benefit such as food, shelter, clothing, etc.
Our church which coincidentally is called City Church teaches, service, not dominion. Our purpose is to serve one another with joy, not to control or force our agenda, (Christianity) on anyone, to not judge one another, but to try our best to follow the two most important principals Jesus taught us:
Matthew 22:36-40 (New King James Version)
36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
37 Jesus said to him, ” 'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
We also teach, don’t take our word for it check things out for yourself.
God did not put us on this earth to rule over anyone. He did give us dominion over the earth and all of it’s non intellectual inhabitants, not each other. Yes we are governed by elected leaders and laws, but those are for our own protection, not to be used to force God on mankind. He does not want Himself or His teachings to be forced on anyone, otherwise why would He bother giving us free will. He could easily with a blink of an eye make us all perfect, but then we’d be nothing more than a bunch of robots. There are many things of this world that are very appealing even when used outside of God’s will. So He gave us a choice, Him or the things of this world. Simple as that. It’s when bible verses are taken out of context that Christianity becomes complicated. Let’s look at the verse that dominionism uses to shore up their agenda.
Genesis 1:26 (New King James Version)
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
As you can clearly see, there is nothing in this verse that says let them have dominion over each other. God was simply talking about the earth and everything on it which is to be used for our benefit such as food, shelter, clothing, etc.
Our church which coincidentally is called City Church teaches, service, not dominion. Our purpose is to serve one another with joy, not to control or force our agenda, (Christianity) on anyone, to not judge one another, but to try our best to follow the two most important principals Jesus taught us:
Matthew 22:36-40 (New King James Version)
36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
37 Jesus said to him, ” 'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
We also teach, don’t take our word for it check things out for yourself.
What happens when Dominionists get political power: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/us/politics/11texas.html?src=me
Oh my gosh, The Source printed a left leaning article. We must stop that!
I guess it was OK that Obama went to Church with the race-baiting rev Wright for 20 years… but I guess that’s different in your eyes – right? You are hopelessly unbalanced.
What happens when Dominionists get political power:?
Pot-heads are much more likely to be paraniod.
Well, Miller, Congratulations. Although you deviated from the interview with Mr. Conger and went off on religious tangents(I smell a religious Zelot rock throwing party from you in the future) you managed to stay fairly civil . If given the opportunity to interview Jason Conger in the future, would you please stay focused on his political viewpoints so we can make an educated decision this November. Besides, Obama’s religious affiliations were off the hook crazy, but the world was made to believe we were some type of religious biggots if we were to even mention it. Better luck with your next interview.
I do not see a Dominionist agenda in the article you posted a link to. What I see are Christians saying teach history exactly how it happened, and then let students decide for themselves whether they want to apply George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther, Joseph Stalin, Karl Marx or the principals of any person from the past into their own lives. I saw nothing that would insinuate anyone wanted to force God and His teachings on anyone.
Here’s one example of what I as a Christian would like to see happen:
I believe that creationism and evolution should both be taught in our schools as a possibility, (After all, they both need faith to believe in) and let the students decide, which side they will choose.
Government picking and choosing bits and pieces of history to be taught to our kids sounds like communism to me. It basically takes away our childrens right to know the whole truth so they can decide for themselves how to assimilate it into their own lives.
Davaughn, HBM’s link has everything to do with Dominionism. It’s the dominion of the liberal agenda and its revisionist history that has totally permeated our schools and textbooks. I applaud the push back by Texas to provide the facts on both sides and leave liberal talking points to the NY Times and Keith (no ratings) Olberman.
HBM, your blog that legitimately pointed out the issues and dangers of religious intolerance was totally compromised by the linked article and the insertion of your politics in a largely unrelated matter. However, I must remind myself that for most of those on the left, liberalism is a religion, their religion, and Dominion is their goal.
Fortunately we have seen the pushback in VA, NJ, and MA leaving the liberals to resort to legislative gimmicks to force their agenda on the majority who have rejected their agenda.
“I believe that creationism and evolution should both be taught in our schools as a possibility, (After all, they both need faith to believe in)”
Wrong. The theory of evolution is not a matter of faith; it is a scientific hypothesis that can be verified or disproved by empirical evidence. The faith-based idea of creationism by definition can’t be empirically verified or disproved. To present creationism and evolution side by side as two equal opinions is distorting the picture and misleading students.
“Government picking and choosing bits and pieces of history to be taught to our kids sounds like communism to me.”
It’s exactly what the Texas School Board is doing. See http://themoderatevoice.com/65640/texas-board-of-education-making-their-own-history/
“Government picking and choosing bits and pieces of history to be taught to our kids sounds like communism to me.”
It’s exactly what the Texas School Board is doing. See http://themoderatevoice.com/65…n-history/
I was going to point that out, thanks for beating me to the punch.
In other news…
“Pot-heads are much more likely to be paraniod”…it’s not pot heads that should be worried…it’s the regular folks who for some reason believe that the government should have nothing to do with religion,something about the Constitution that Glenn Beck seems to forget. Regular folks who think that religion is a private matter that nobody else has any right to meddle in. No matter what the religious right thinks, progressives are not trying to take away their right to worship whomever they please…they just don’t want the religious right to try and force THEIR religion on THEM. And that is exactly what the religious right wants to do. Put the Ten Commandments in public (government) schools and courthouses. Require everyone to make an oath to their God, as in the Pledge of Allegiance. Require that everyone prescribes to their religious moral code, as in abortion and the treatment of gays. It is the “religious” right that is trying to impose their views upon others, in direct contradiction to the Constitution. And I put “religious” in quotes because, even though these people believe themselves to be Christian, they fail to follow, or even comprehend, the basic tenets of Christianity. How about the whole “before you point out the speck in my eye, remove the log in yours,” a chastisement of the penchant pf modern “Christians” to pass judgement on others? Or how about that whole “camel will fit through the eye of a needle more easily than a rich man will get into heaven” thing? That seems to suggest that Christians should NOT strive for wealth, yet there are many “Christian” congregations that preach that God actually WANTS them to be wealthy. Where is the outrage? Where are the protests? It is clear that the modern Christian movement in America has been co-opted and bastardized by a political movement that seeks only to solidify political power. It truly is a shame that they don’t understand what has transpired. Growing up, I knew many Christian people who had compassion for others and didn’t equate their religious faith to an undying and un-questioning alignment with any political figure or party. That is no longer the state of the Christian movement. These days, Christians are played as pawns in a political game that Jesus would shake his head at in shame.
HBM says in his blistering kerfufel with Davaughn: “Wrong. The theory of evolution is not a matter of faith; it is a scientific hypothesis that can be verified or disproved by empirical evidence.”
Since you believe the matter is settled, then why did you refer to evolution as a “theory”….it’s because evolution is not an applied science. It still had many unknowns.
Many enlightened, progressive paleontologists, biologists, and other scientific types do not regard evolution and creationism (regardless of the religion) as mutually exclusive. Much of science relies on the use of certain “assumptions” to bridge many of the gaps created by the unknowns. Science:Assumptions – Religion:Faith; Potato – Potahto (phonetically) in my book and both can and should be taught in a responsible, non-proselytizing manner.
Keep the faith, HBM.
Sorry Bruce I wholeheartedly disagree! Please share with me the empirical evidence. I’ve done much research on both and as far as evolution, I’ve seen nothing that proves anything other that it being just a theory. Here is a link to a lot of questions about evolution: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Creationism/creationism.htm. I’m pretty sure you won’t be able to answer them. I’m also pretty sure that you’re belief in evolution is based purely on faith that the people who taught the theory to you were right, just like I believe by faith what I was taught about God and creation are right. If evolution were proven beyond a shadow of doubt, why do scientists and scholars still debate the subject to this day?
aa you can rest assure that dominionism could never come to fruition. Dominionists are a tiny minority among Christians. The vast majority of us do not believe in it as it would take away our God given freedom of choice. What I believe is my choice, and no one can take that away from me, unless I allow it, and that will never happen!! What I believe was not forced or pushed on me in any way. It was shared with me out of love and compassion, the way God intended it.
Davaughn – just a comment on creationism versus evolution. Just because all questions have not been answered does not mean you fill the hole with religion. Science is evolving just as we are – what was known or thought to be understood is constantly being updated and improved. What was unknown – researched and discovered. Medicine is an great example of this progress. Many diseases that ended in death and that were once considered “god’s will” are now easily curable. Evolutionary sciences are progressing and have had many, many successful theories proven with empirical data – each of these individual theories piece together to the larger general theory (see evolutionary synthesis and it’s studies). This is not Darwinism -it has progressed beyond that just as physics has changed over time to the theories of Einstein and onward (he too was wrong in places – but the general ideas were in the right direction).
And just as a side note – when ppl want “intelligent design” taught – I have not heard it discussed as anything but as a Christian designer – there are many, many creation stories – the bible is only one…
I know this was not what the article was discussing but the comments digressed that way – I felt a need to add.
On another note- Both yourself and aaychbee’em critic commented on the “revisionist” “liberal” writing of history books and embraced the decisions recently set forth in Texas. It seems to me, the government was just that “picking and choosing bits and pieces of history”. I thought you found this practice offensive and “communist”? Why then do you applaud the behavior in Texas?
I believe this practice of picking and choosing what is taught has gone on for a very long time. That that is what standards in the school systems do while trying to insure quality education from one school to the next. Unfortunately at times whole groups of ppl, influential ideas, etc have been left out – this will always happen but especially when one dominant group is doing the editing …of course you can’t include everything – but there should be a fair representation – I think that’s what those “liberals” have always tried to do.
“…you’re belief in evolution is based purely on faith that the people who taught the theory to you were right, just like I believe by faith what I was taught about God and creation are right. If evolution were proven beyond a shadow of doubt, why do scientists and scholars still debate the subject to this day?”
Davaughn, apparently you, like so many Christians, weren’t paying attention in school. From the Wikipedia page for Theory:
“In modern science the term ‘theory’, or ‘scientific theory’ refers to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena made in a way consistent with scientific method. It is described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, and challenge it.”
The entire idea behind a theory is that it has NOT been proven yet. However, because evolution is the leading theory with few competitors, it is taught in school as the best answer to the question of where we come from.
Like many people with strong religious convictions, you are engaging in a logical fallacy known as the “argument from ignorance”. In other words, you regard your perceived lack of evidence for evolution as constituting proof that creationism is true. Nothing could be further from the truth. What if I were to suggest that we were in fact created… but by an alien intelligence instead of a divine being. Could you prove me wrong?
“I’ve done much research on both and as far as evolution, I’ve seen nothing that proves anything other that it being just a theory. … If evolution were proven beyond a shadow of doubt, why do scientists and scholars still debate the subject to this day?”
Those statements show that you don’t understand what the word “theory” means in a scientific sense. I don’t “believe in” evolution as a matter of faith; I accept it as the explanation that’s most logical and that best accounts for the observed phenomena. As a scientific theory it is not frozen in one place; as our understanding improves and new knowledge comes to light, it is modified. That’s what makes it a scientific theory rather than a faith-based belief (such as creationism) that isn’t capable of being empirically tested and that never changes.
But I’m not going to get bogged down in an endless debate about evolution vs. creationism.
“Dominionists are a tiny minority among Christians.”
And let’s hope they stay that way. But even though they’re a tiny minority they can do a lot of damage when they get into power, as in Texas.
Bruce, have you read, “The 5,000 Year Leap?” The Founding Fathers had a little something to say about religion being a foundation in America, and it being taught to children. Or are you one of those people who hold up the Constitution, but write off the men who wrote it?
good work Miller! Even though there is no evidence including your interview that throws Conger in the same camp with Dominionists —you’ve managed to cast him in that light and frame him as potentially a religious fanatic!! Now voters can focus on that instead of his political point of view!
I do understand what theory is. And yes this is not a debate about evolution or creation. The debate is whether both should be taught as a possibility and allowing the students to decide. Whether you like it or not both are part of our history. 80% of the people in this country believe in God. Teaching only part of history is robbing our children of the whole truth. Do we do that with any other subject in school? Of course not.
Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
I believe creation and evolution both fit into this category, don’t you?
You say that there are dominionists who have attained power in Texas. Can you name them? Because I don’t see it.
“Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.”
That is not the definition of a SCIENTIFIC theory, which is “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena(such as Einstein’s theory of relativity.)” See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory
Creationists try to confuse the issue by pretending that a scientific theory is the same thing as a guess or a hunch, e.g. “I have a theory that the Ducks are going to win by two touchdowns.” It isn’t.
“80% of the people in this country believe in God.”
Irrelevant. Scientific truth is not determined by popular vote.
Evolution should be taught in biology classes. Discussions of creationism belong in a comparative religion or philosophy class.
And that’s the last thing I’m going to say about evolution vs. creationism.
“You say that there are dominionists who have attained power in Texas. Can you name them? Because I don’t see it.”
Whether they call themselves “dominionists” or not, the conservative majority on the Texas School Board is operating on dominionist principles. You aren’t able to see that because from your biased perspective you see only good Christians who are doing God’s will.
Last week I signed up to help Jason Conger win over Judy Steigler.
I don’t go to church so my decision to help Jason Conger has nothing to do with his personal beliefs.
I know Mr Conger is a self made man working his way up from nothing. He is a successful businessman and attorney.
His website is here http://www.conger4oregon.com/
The fact that Steigler or Dugan didn’t listen to what we wanted on 66 and 67 did it for me. She doesn’t represent us here in central Oregon. I am also hoping Mike Dugan loses as well.
I don’t believe either Steigler or Dugan have ever created their own business, they just receive our tax money as their paycheck.
Send them both home to the single-wide trailer they lived in before taking office.. before we started paying their bills.
What’s wrong with how it’s being done in Texas, Bruce? Are you upset that they are making it the standard, to call the United States of America a Constitutional Republic, instead of a Democracy? That’s what we are. A Republic. You Liberals are always talking and rambling on without saying anything coherent. 80% of Americans believing in God is relevant! That is what our nation was built on. Natural Law. People like you, Pelosi, and the whole lot should take a long walk to nowhere. You probably won’t post this comment. But oh well. “Scientific truth is not determined by popular vote?” Who cares. This is America, where popular vote matters. I love how you tried to ambush Conger with your Dominionist question, and he tossed you aside. More politicians should do that to bleeding liberals like yourself.
God forbid the theocracy of the (il)liberal left would have an opposition here in Gaia er, Oregon
There are no “gods”, only fairy tales. Fantasies to explain away the dark, justify sex with young children, and profit. You really don't think the witch doctor really believes that tossing a virgin in a volcano will make it rain, do you? Nooo… tossing a virgin in a volcano keeps him in his cushy witch doctor gig, with the additional perk of spending a few quality end of life hours with the virgin – what… !? you thought the virgin, stoned to the bone on Ambien, Prozac, and Viagra and smiling all the way to the bottom, was still a virgin when the witch doctor tossed 'em in? I've got some property to sell. Ocean-front. Cheap. Cash only, in small bills. You'll love Idaho!
Recalling that in all legend lay a kernel of fact, reading the fabrications koran, bible, and torah in larger, historical context with other fabrications lain down in stone it is in fact quite easy to afford “Intelligent Design” a measure of credibility. When chariots with wheels of fire flitting about, vast arks propelling the seeds of life across vast empty spaces, and fathers asking of their wives “be this my son, or that of a “giant?” are lain aside the physical record it isn't all that far fetched to supposit that at some point in the past half-million years extra-terrestrial travelers – for whatever reason: pure science, sheer boredom, desperate survival, or profit – genetically interfered with the development of the proto-humans they found roaming the savannahs of Northern and Western Africa. Not only are we but fleas agitating the hide of a far greater organism, but some bastard's abandoned science project, if not cattle, as well. Wrap the twelve percent of your brain you use around that.
This notion that the bastard is going to come back and rescue us… that as the blood of our adolescent squabbles over whose imaginary dog has the bigger dick rises to the horses' bridle will come floating down out of the sky on a white horse with a thousand angels to carry away the chosen few, the faithful… Who are these “Chosen People”, these “faithful”? The genetically purest cattle (or pigs, as it is)? More accurately: just who do they think they are? Get this straight, these “Chosen People”, these “faithful”, can destroy the world – burn the forests, chop down the mountains, turn the air we breath into toxic gas and waters we drink into vast garbage reservoirs… can drop their bombs and burn the screaming babies and at the last moment, the moment the world is utterly destroyed, after the bloodbath, some spectral being with whom they've entered into some kind of “special” contractual obligation is going to float down out of the sky and carry them away.
Uh-huh. To what?
Far the more likely thousands upon thousands of cavernous spacecraft, vast slaughter-houses piloted by ravenous vaguely reptilian creatures, replete with horns and folked tail, intent not as benevolent overseers of the demise of this world and our current iteration in human evolution and our children's evolution onto the next iteration of humanity but as ravenous reptilian creatures… you know, hungry lizards. We did, afterall, invite them to “Come Eat!”
Though I often despair of humanity, seeing the mass as that of maggots: a few will evolve and escape as flies, the vast majority will consume the host and die, we as a species, the human species, as a “race”, the human race, today stand at a cusp, an iteration, in the evolution, in the maturing, of humankind. But if we don't abandon – outgrow – this irrational dependency on adolescent fairytales and attendant adolescent squabbles over whose imaginary dog has the bigger dick… we may very well not survive at all. And while Americans certainly enjoy the “right” to believe whatever fairytale it is chosen to be believed, we are equally free not to believe in fairytales, and leave me remind you of Ben Franklin's admonishment that “'rights' end with the tip of [the] nose”. There is no inherent “right” to impose such nonsense on me, or mine, nor is there any “right”, “divine” or otherwise, to destroy the world my grandchildren are growing up in… in the name of some dog. To do so will result, “right”fully so, in short order and at my hand, in instruction in the difference between prey, and prayer.
Rather than beating of breasts and wailing on street corner, far better to do as Jesus said: put it in the closet.
What was it Jesus said about puffed-up pontificating pontificaters puffed-up-edly pontificating on street corners?
Yeah, right, put it in the closet.
Matthew 6:5-6:
When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.
You want bonus points for that?
Mt 6:1-3 (just prior to the above). Do it because it’s the right thing to do.
TW How does it feel to have absolutely no hope?
Bruce you are wrong sir! The definition you gave is not the definition of scientific theory. It is just one of seven definitions for the single word theory, copied from you own link below:
the·o·ry
? ?/??i?ri, ????ri/ Show Spelled[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
– noun,plural-ries.
1.
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3.
Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4.
the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.
a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6.
contemplation or speculation.
7.
guess or conjecture.
Do they offer religious or philosophy classes in High school? They sure didn’t when I was in school.
Good Christians do not agree with dominionism. Good Christians would not take God’s word and change the meaning to fit their own agenda. I myself would question is a dominionist really even a Christian at all because their doctrine is so far out there.
I’ve heard the debate in Texas and I’ve not seen one Cristian or conservative that wants to take over the world. All they’re asking is all sides of the story be heard so people can decide for themselves.
Stormy and NH, there are no holes to be filled. We were created by God. It has been proven mathematically that evolution is impossible.
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC1W0102.pdf
Most evolutionists deny this for several reasons. Loss of grants, jobs, waste of career choice, etc. More and more evolutionists are beginning to question the possibility of evolution. But don’t take my word for it ask them for yourselves.
And the chances of dominionism getting a foot hold in government is about the same chance that we evolved from absolutely nothing.
Sorry! For some reason the full URL didn’t post.
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC1W0102.pdf
Evolution and Faith
I believe that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than creationism. In evolution, you have to believe that this universe was created out of nothing. That is a tremendous leap of faith.
Time and space are physical properties. They had to be created out of nothing. The biological makeup of anmimals and plants is so highly complicated that we, the intelligent people of this planet, cannot even come close to replicating what happened by “random chance”. It would have been easier for evolution to create a digital watch than life.
Now, in evolution, life forms changed from single-cell to highly complexed creatues. All by random chance. What surprises me is that this seemed to happen without mistakes. Where are the failed attempts? How did evolution know that a giraffe need a pod in it’s head to keep it’s brains from exploding? Where are the examples of attempts that failed? Nowhere! So evolution was perfect in it’s transformation – no errors. Talk about a leap of faith!!!
God is outside of time & space. He created time & space. He created you. The only reason you choose evolution over creationism is that you would have to accept God and therefore acknowledge Him and be willing to humble yourself before Him. You are to arrogant to do that. You would rather believe the impossible than marvel at the greatness of God.
Hope, like luck, is for people who play the lottery.
Having actually read The Damned Book… numerous times,,, it could be argued that today's reichwind conservative 'christianity', while paying lip-service to The Hippie Jesus, actually reflects the true spirit of “The Bible”, glorifying as it does, reveling in, all of the finest in Judean Tradition – torture, genocide, fratricide, intrigue, incest… with both sons and daughters, rape, murder, pillage. Usury. Insury. Racial Superiority.
The barbarians are inside the gates, with trained monkeys at the helm.
David D: “Scientific truth is not determined by popular vote? Who cares.”
Well, there it is. I guess that tells us all we need to know about where the right wing is coming from. Why don’t you guys just call yourselves the Know-Nothing Party?
There’s no point in trying to carry on a rational discussion with somebody who rejects rationality. Good bye.
“What surprises me is that this seemed to happen without mistakes. Where are the failed attempts?”
The “failed attempts” died out. They failed to adapt to changing conditions and/or environments. Their genes were not passed on. They died out. It’s really that simple. And yes, there is scientific evidence, it’s called the fossil record, and it is chock full of fossils of species and organisms that once thrived but eventually disappeared.
“The only reason you choose evolution over creationism is that you would have to accept God and therefore acknowledge Him and be willing to humble yourself before Him.”
Space Elf, let me clear up a couple of points for you.
1. Evolution says nothing about how the universe came into existence. Evolution is concerned with biology; how the universe got here is the concern of cosmology.
2. It is perfectly possible to believe in both evolution and God; in fact that is the position of the Catholic Church and most mainstream Protestant churches. God is the creator; evolution is one of his tools. What is not possible is to believe in both evolution and the literal truth of Genesis.
The fossil record is replete with evolutionary failures–of the four legged kind, two legged kind, finned and non-finned, reptilian and mammalian,feathered, etc. Visit any natural history museum for examples.
Ankenberg’s (a minister in the conservative christian evangelical church) mathematical proof is nothing more than the claim that improbability assumes impossibility.
There can be fifty definitions of the word theory–but one applies to scientific method and using the others to cloud the issue is intellectually dishonest. That some–even most–clutch at such issues as a justification for their actions and points of view does not make it correct.
Texas is an example of agenda driven elected politicians deciding what should be taught and how to teach it in the state’s curriculum. The pendulum will swing the other way and when it does those that support the process now will scream out how unfair and biased it is.
Logical fallacy: Eighty percent of the people believe in god. Some people who believe in god believe in creationism. Eighty percent of the people believe in creationism.
Proclaiming that ‘liberalism’ is a religion doesn’t make it so. That claim does not discredit everything a liberal believes or advocates any more than a creationist’s beliefs add veracity to their beliefs or advocacy.
There has never–repeat NEVER–been one verifiable shred of empirical evidence of the existence of the ‘great one.’ It boils down to: 1) There are patterns in life that cannot be random. They have to be created.(Let’s ignore the ‘who created the creator’ question and focus instead on the concept that ‘someone’ is eternal rather than ‘some thing’ is eternal.) 2) The divine exists because I know he does–I can feel it, sense it, and see it all around me. (an argument that is soundly rejected by same when used by those of other religions or people who do not believe.) 3) There is nothing else to explain things I don’t understand and I want understanding NOW. This means miracles happen and are the result of divine intervention. People do come back from the dead and see a ‘white light’ that is god. Angels are real. Jesus is coming back in my lifetime.
After fifty years of argument, I should know better: facts are no match for deeply held belief. Believers can look at reality and twist it or contort their beliefs to reconcile any conflict. Muslim clerics do this by banning and burning all books but the quaran, where the word of god resides and all knowledge can be found. Vedic texts and their ‘theory’ of creation predate the christian bible. The mayan culture is equally ancient and full of creation stories–and so it goes.
“God is outside of time & space. He created time & space. He created you. The only reason you choose evolution over creationism is that you would have to accept God and therefore acknowledge Him and be willing to humble yourself before Him. You are to arrogant to do that. You would rather believe the impossible than marvel at the greatness of God.” I would posit that the arrogance lies with you–someone who is self-righteously arrogant enough to determine the truth, validity and value of your FAITH over that of all others and then be able to condemn them–as a true believer always must. It is not enough to be a believer–it is necessary to believe in the god of your faith. It is not, after all, enough to be a christian–it is necessary to be a christian who believes as you do or else be just another lazy heretic. It is not enough to analyze and investigate the real world–it is necessary to view and analyze it through the prejudiced lens of your belief. It is not enough to believe as you do and contemplate the wonders of your faith–it is necessary that others believe as you do and that anything that does not encourage them to do so must be ended, stopped, or buried.
I find it hilarious that christian believers bemoan the hostility with which their beliefs are met and how horrible it is that the secular is intruding deeper and deeper into our culture and lives. Name a elected politician of ANY significance who claims to be secular–an atheist. What chance does an atheist have of being elected president? Serious consideration will be given Mitt Romney, but a wiccan would be laughed out of any debate. I would propose to you that one of the minorities most under assault for their beliefs are atheists and the laws and policies that you decry are nothing more than an attempt to protect their minority rights.
And so the pin-dancers go…
To reiterate, for the sake of those who don’t read and therefore connato address the essay on its merit so throw out the canard ‘no hope’, point by point:
Recalling that in all legend lay a kernel of fact,
reading the fabrications koran, bible, and torah in larger, historical context with other fabrications lain down in stone
it is in fact quite easy to afford “Intelligent Design” a measure of credibility.
When chariots with wheels of fire flitting about, vast arks propelling the seeds of life across vast empty spaces, and fathers asking of their wives “be this my son, or that of a “giant?” are lain aside the physical record
it isn't all that far fetched to supposit that at some point in the past half-million years extra-terrestrial travelers – for whatever reason: pure science, sheer boredom, desperate survival, or profit – genetically interfered with the development of the proto-humans they found roaming the savannahs of Northern and Western Africa.
Not only are we but fleas agitating the hide of a far greater organism, but some bastard's abandoned science project, if not cattle, as well.
Wrap the twelve percent of your brain you use around that.
Wow, what a pointless article… with an obvious agenda.
And the worst part is that now we get to watch people argue about religion online.
Hey Freddie, no one’s twisting your arm to watch anything!!
And in conclusion, let us contemplate the arrogance of declaring one ‘without hope’. By whose definition, retard, yours? I’m sorry that your world is so… ahhh… messed up, so crappy, that it requires ‘hope’ for something better to get through the day… I live in paradise, my wife looks like she just stepped out of her 1973 Miss Santa Monica Pageant, between us we have nine exceptionally healthy, well educated, well rounded children with six pretty darned cool children-in-law and almost five exceptionally healthy, exceptionally intelligent grand-children. What more could a Grumpy Old Fourth Generation (Central) Oregon Logger ‘hope’ for?
To be Gnostic [nos-tic`] is Greek to know, or more accurately to choose to know. As a-typical (atypical) is to be not-typical, a-political (apolitical) is to be not-political, etc. a-gnostic (agnostic) [ag.nos-tic`] is to not know, or more accurately chose not to know.
A-Theism (atheism) is not-theism. Theism is the fervent belief in gods or deities – religion. Atheism is not-religion. No, “being an atheist” does not “require[s] as much belief in an unknowable… ”
Atheism rejects belief in an unknowable. War is not the answer. Next question.
I find it fascinating as a not-necessarily disinterested nor outside observer here as reinforcement of comfort zones unfold through the exercise of definition of that unlike, and this entire thread runs disturbingly evangelical. The fundamental problem here is you don't listen. When I tell you there are no gods you don't hear “there are no gods” – you hear does not believe in gods. Atheist. But what you heard, “does not believe in gods”, is not what I said – there are no gods. It makes you comfortable, it reinforces your worldview, your belief system, to assign labels to that which you do not understand, are indeed fundamentally incapable of understanding. It makes you comfortable to call me a name, a something, I am not – you call me “does not believe in gods” as if “gods” exist, but that is not what I am. There are no gods.
As a Gnostic I have chosen to know, or more accurately have chosen to pass through the doors of and pursue the path of knowledge – to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, if you wish. There is no unknowable. Only the undiscovered. Upon entering into, embracing, investing in, your belief system you consciously chose to close the door to the path of knowledge, to reject the fruit of the tree of knowledge, to embrace ignorance and thus must reinforce your conscious choice to do so through “definitions”, insults, labels and mockery.
I mock you as you once mocked me for my consumption of green tee when I say “far more the likely than heyZeus floatin' down out'a the heavens on a white horse with a thousand angels to carry away the faithful thousands of cavernous spacecraft piloted by ravenous vaguely reptilian creatures repleat with horns and folked-tail. We did, afterall, invite them to “Come Eat”.” But does that sound any crazier than the apocalyptic christian worldview? I shock you when I say “animals, those insufficiently evolved, bow down to gods, Human Beings do not”, but I would far rather you didn't exist to me at all… I am far more interested in understanding why there are California Wood Ducks on The High Desert for the first time in my half century and more memory than your inter-fairytale squabbles 'ore whose non-existent dog has the bigger dick. And make no mistake, the jew/muslim/christian cult, the cult of Abraham, as with all other theisms – religions – is naught but a fairytale to sooth the adolescent breast, explain away the dark and keep the bed dry at night, yet one somehow, seemingly divinely manifest, capable of bringing about the end of the world my grandchildren are to grow up in.
As I have said here and elsewhere numerous times before, facing the challenges we today face we as a species, the human species, as a “race”, the human race, stand at a cusp, an iteration, in the evolution, in the maturing, of humankind, but if we don't abandon – outgrow – this irrational dependency on adolescent fairytales we may very well not survive at all.
We are but fleas agitating the hide of a far greater organism.
In all our deliberations we must consider the consequence of our actions upon the grandchildren of our grandchildren.
SC, Dr. John Ankerberg is not the one who figured out the math.
In “Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution,” Marcel P. Schutzenberger of the University of Paris, France, calculated the probability of evolution based on mutation and natural selection. Like many other noted scientists, he concluded that it was “not conceivable”
because the probability of a chance process accomplishing this is zero: “… there is no chance 10 to 1000th power to see this mechanism appear spontaneously and, if it did, even less for it to remain… . Thus, to conclude, we believe there is a considerable gap in the Neo-Darwinian Theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology.”25
Evolutionary scientists have called just one chance in 10 to the 15th power (one chance in a quadrillion) “a virtual impossibility.”26 So, how can scientists rationally believe in something that has only one chance in 10 to the 1000th power? After all, how small is one chance in 10 to the 1000th power? It's infinitesimally small – one chance in 10 to the 12th power, is only one chance in one trillion. On a practical level, if a horse at a horse race had only one chance in a trillion (let alone one chance in 10 to the 1000th power of placing first, second or third, how much money would anyone place on a bet? So should anyone gamble convictions about God, reality and heaven and hell on the basis of one chance in 10 to the 1000th power?
What I find interesting about the claims of evolution, there are no transitional fossils. Where are the fossils wich should be many, of the creatures that eventually evolved into T-Rex for example? There are none!
If you fully read what I asked, it had to do with evolution making mistakes – not natural selection as you put forth.
How did evolution know that lungs were required – how did evolution manage to make our bodies symetrical (legs, arms, eye perfectly balanced). And just think of it – evolution managed to get everything right the first time! I guess the room full of monkeys with typewriters doesn’t apply to evolution.
Come on – were are the fossles of the elephant who’s trunk grew out of his butt the first time. Where are the fossels of the mistakes? If they do not exist, then evolution was pretty damn smart!
Am I really arrogant in my beliefs? Do you think I cannot put science & creation together? There is not one scientific fact that can disprove the existance of a creator-being. Did the universe start with a big bang? Possibly – but where did the bomb come from & who lit the fuse?
Again I ask, where are evolution’s mistakes? It cannot be argued that the monkeys would have gone through a lot of paper before one of them came up with the works of Shakespear! One of them could have got it 75% right, but that would have to be discarded because it was not perfect. What are the odds for the monkeys in their attempts? Pure logic must admit that there would have been more mistakes than successes. The ratio would be astounding!
Again, balance & perspective. Try to look at the WHOLE picture instead of picking the points that fit your idea of reality.
It has been brought to my attention by a very good friend of mine that I may be going about this debate the wrong way, and after discussing it with him, he is right. If I have offended anyone I deeply apologize, and I want to let you all know I look at everyone as equal regardless of beliefs and although some of us disagree on things I truly do love and respect each and everyone of you and your beliefs. I am a flawed human being who sometimes let’s my passion go too far. God bless!!!!
Ankenberg’s proof IS based on Schutzenberger’s contention that the probability was so low as to be non-existent, ergo impossible. Ankenberg then posits that no one should risk their faith in a divine creator on so tenuous a probability.
I would ask, why base a belief in a god when no one has ever offered absolute, empirical proof-positive of his existence that is not faith based? Pascal’s wager says belief should be based on self interest. What harm can believing be? What does it hurt to believe? Absolutely nothing if that belief stops with the believer. Unfortunately that is not the case. Believers want agreement–concurrence. Voltaire rejected the wager as “indecent and childish… the interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists.”
And the absence of transitory fossils isn’t true. The continued expansion of the fossil record with something as finite as the human history continually expands. Because something is unknown does not offer itself as a proof to the contrary. Why is it necessary that the proof of evolution be complete, entire and unimpeachable? The same requirement should exist for theists. Where is your sure, empirical and unequivocal proof that the divine exists?
If there were such no one would be arguing.
“How did evolution know that lungs were required – how did evolution manage to make our bodies symetrical (legs, arms, eye perfectly balanced).”
First off, evolution doesn’t “know” anything. It’s not a person, it’s a process. Lungs didn’t just appear out of nowhere; they are refinements of earlier organs of respiration — gills, book lungs, etc. The most primitive organisms simply “breathe” through their skin.
Also, our bodies (and other animals’ bodies) are not perfectly symmetrical. You don’t have two hearts or two livers. And even the sides of your body that are paired (hands, feet, eyes) are not perfect mirror images of each other.
“And just think of it – evolution managed to get everything right the first time!”
Hardly. Where now is Tyrannosaurus Rex? The saber-toothed tiger? The Neanderthals? Evolution doesn’t “get it right the first time” — it keeps on tinkering and tinkering to make organisms better adapted. And isn’t it kind of silly to assume that all the life forms we now see represent “perfection” and never can be improved on?
“There is not one scientific fact that can disprove the existance of a creator-being.”
In the first place, it’s logically impossible to prove a negative. I could tell you there are 20-foot-tall blue baboons living on Mars and there’s no way you could absolutely prove I was wrong, but that doesn’t mean there are 20-foot-tall blue baboons living on Mars. The burden of proof rests with the person making the claim.
In the second place, even if it WAS logically possible to prove a negative, how could anyone possibly disprove the existence of a being that is non-corporeal, invisible, inaudible, and can’t be detected by any of our earthly instruments?
I can see that despite my good intentions I let myself be dragged into this endless debate again. I’m really going to quit now. If anyone is sincerely interested in learning about the case for evolution I recommend the books of Richard Dawkins, notably “The God Delusion” and “The Blind Watchmaker.”
Stephen, Bruce. You are right that I have no physical proof of the God I believe in. All I can tell you, and yes this will have to be taken on faith, that IMHO I am proof there is a God and Jesus is my Lord and Savior by what He has done in my life. Those that truly know me can see it. And those that don’t know me of course can’t. Compared to the life I led in the past and the life I live now is like the difference in night and day. I could not climb up out of the pit I dug myself into without divine intervention. I just didn’t have the strength. I am able to live the life I do today because of the power of Jesus in me, other wise I would more than likely be dead. I asked God to reveal Himself to me, and He did and continues to do so in many ways. You can choose to believe me or not, that’s OK I understand. In the old days I would have punched me right in the mouth for even mentioning God. 🙂 Thank God that guy is gone! Just know that I do not think of anyone as lesser than I because we believe differently. One of my very best friends I just had dinner with he and his wife, and we always go through some form of religious debate, and even though they believe differently than I do, I really enjoy their company and love them just the same as I love my Christian brothers and sisters. Take care!
Wistrom
I appreciate the change in your life and understand the radical nature of this type of day and night transformation. I have seen it in others and although many attribute it to a ‘road to Damascus’ type of divine intervention, I know of some who do not and it is through their strength and will that they have become who they are.
I also appreciate that the only ‘proof’ that you have of a deity is non-empirical. You recognize that. You admit to it. Why, then, should it be afforded any more credulity than TW’s “Chariots Of The God’s” inspired point of view? Each have an absurdist quality that is unprovable and myth inspired.
Finally, there is nothing ‘humble’ about the way believers feel about divine intervention that changes their life and circumstance. It is the ultimate in pridefulness to believe that we are of sufficient importance to an almighty creator that he would intervene and change our life (or help us score the touchdown or hit the home run.) But that is the nature of the human condition–we are important. “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.”
Yet the vastness of the universe decries such a parochial notion. The unfathomable scale of existence tells me the opposite of what it tells you. The difference is I can face the ‘darkness’ and lack of answers without attributing them to a counter-intuitive invisible, unknown, undetectable presence and wait for the revelations of scientific discovery. As Voltaire stated, and it’s worth repeating, belief is no substitute for proof.
Cramer: I always thought Pascal was joking with that “wager” argument. Surely God doesn’t want phony belief — he wants SINCERE belief. You can’t force yourself to believe in something you don’t really believe in. And if you try to fake it to win the “wager,” God will surely know your “faith” is not sincere.
Wistrom: Whatever works for you, man.
Thanks Stephen and Bruce! Stephen believe me I searched for the kind of strength you have most of my life but was finally so beaten down by all the stupid mistakes I made I just didn’t have it in me to change on my own. It was either continue on and either die or end up in prison, or Give God a try. It took being totally broken before I realized what I had to do. I made the decision to give my self 100% to God to heal and mold as He saw fit. Now it wasn’t an immediate on the road to Damascus experience, those are very rare, but do happen. Over the last couple of years God has slowly brought me up out of the pit, and into the light. I’m still a flawed human being, a work in progress, but happy and at peace for the first time in my life. In the past I always wished for the kind of strength you have, but I have to say I’m glad that wish never came true or I probably wouldn’t have the wonderful relationship I now have with my Lord and Savior. The love I never knew from my biological father, My Father in heaven has replaced ten fold. And the sad part is His love was always there for me, all I had to do was reach out and except it. Well you know what they say, “hind sight is 20/20”. Take care my friends!!!
Interesting article referring to the decisions being made in Texas linked below. One quote from the article – which I cannot understand how anyone could support:
“- Thomas Jefferson no longer included among writers influencing the nation's intellectual origins. Jefferson, a deist who helped pioneer the legal theory of the separation of church and state, is not a model founder in the board's judgment. Among the intellectual forerunners to be highlighted in Jefferson's place: medieval Catholic philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas, Puritan theologian John Calvin and conservative British law scholar William Blackstone. Heavy emphasis is also to be placed on the founding fathers having been guided by strict Christian beliefs.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1253
HB
I always thought it was Pascal’s way of saying that trying to reason the way through doubts about the existence of a god were best left unpursued. Since reason was incapable of the proof of a deity, why bother. It might result in the loss of faith and if god existed that loss would have consequences.
W–
Good luck. Thanks for the dialogue–thanks for keeping it respectful and I know things are going to work out for you. We all need an anchor–and it looks like you found yours.
Hope to see you contributing on other things as well.
“Heavy emphasis is also to be placed on the founding fathers having been guided by strict Christian beliefs.”
It’s true that most of the Founding Fathers were Christians. However, whether they were Christians or Jews or Muslims or Buddhists or atheists is not the point. The point is that they very deliberately and consciously established a SECULAR republic. (If, as the fundamentalists claim, they wanted to establish a “Christian nation” it’s very strange that the Constitution doesn’t even mention God, much less Christ or Jesus. In fact, the constitutional convention explicitly rejected proposals to include references to God and Christ.)
The Founders had good reasons for making the new republic secular. They had seen how England and Europe had been torn apart by religious wars for generations. They had seen the Inquisition in action. They wanted to establish a government that would be insulated from religious concerns and religious squabbles.
HB, This we definitely agree on. I believe in the seperation of church and state. There are just too many different religions, who do want things their own way. Like I’ve said we are all equal but believe in many different things. Governmemnts Job is to protect our country from those that seek to harm us and to protect us from each other, with military, police, Fire dept. fair justice, etc. What makes this country great is we respect our God given right of free will to choose what we want to believe in, not that forced on us by government. We have enough problems as it is without adding religion as another thing for government to control. Admittedly as a Christian I would like to see more Christian politicians yes, not to force his Christian agenda on government and the people but to simply govern with Christian morals and principals, to live his life as an example of Christ’s teachings, that’s all.
Is it hypocritical to decry those who attempt to enforce a theocratic dogma via the government when one is trying to enforce an environmental dogma using the similar methods?