The personal thoughts, opinions and typos of Ron Shank
Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin
“More Americans believe in a literal hell and the devil than Darwin’s theory of evolution, according to a new Harris poll released on Thursday.”
You would never guess that by the comments I get here. đ
In this YouTube Video Mitt Romney refuses to answer how Mormonism differs from Christianity.
Before you chime in and say “it doesn’t.” My simple reply to that is “then why are they knocking on my door?”
Since Gov Romney won’t answer, just click here for an excellent list.
Are you a member of the Mormon faith? Click here.
Jim had a great comment which deserves a full post for a reply. He wrote:
Hey.
Just a disclaimer – I am a Christian, and am not slamming typical Christian views.
First of all, re: your distinction between macro and micro evolution, could you define the word âspeciesâ? There are plenty of animals that cannot interbreed that would countermand your argument.
Second, why do you insist on interpreting the Book of Genesis literally? The Bible doesnât tell you how to field strip a garand – it tells you how to live your life. I donât think anybody thinks that the Bible is an authoritative view on how you should clean and service your 1911.
How does evolution affect your life, and how does it change the way you minister to the poor and homeless?
Jim, good post. Thanks. You wrote: “There are plenty of animals that cannot interbreed that would countermand your argument.” I assume you meant “can.” I don’t know of plenty. A few may be more correct. And of those few, I don’t know of any that can continue breading as this new species. Maybe if we give it a few million years đ Most common is the mule (the product of a horse and donkey). Mules are sterile; as are male tions and ligers. And all hybrids are man induced. I know of no natural hybrids.
Interspecies hybrids are rare and in most cases impossible (primarily) because of the chromosome numbers have to match (ex: chimps have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46). Let’s follow that thinking for a min… evolution teaches that this mutation occurred naturally. But keep thinking. One day, Bob (make him whatever species you want) is born from his normal chromosome matching parents. While very good looking and healthier than his friends at school, alas, Bob can’t mate because he has an extra chromosome. Eventually his successful modeling career ends and he dies. One magical day, this happens again. Again randomly to a set of normal chromosome matching whatsits. This one is named Sue. She is âlucky enoughâ to be born down the street from Bob (oh but he’s dead). Not so lucky. She dies.
My point is this. The likelihood of genetic mutation happening and successfully creating a healthier more advanced species is much harder to believe than a guy (albeit, with the oversight of an all all powerful all knowing God) survived a worldwide flood.
Where the Bible is written allegorical, I take it as such. Where it is clear it’s literal, I take it as such. What is your basis for deeming it allegory? Are you suggesting we should take Darwin’s tale as allegorical? Sorry. Of course you are not. I just get a little sarcastic before my second cup of coffee.
Evolution does not affect how I minister to the poor and homeless. If I believed in evolution it might. Because evolutionary thought typically leads to a âsurvival of the fittestâ mentality. In other words, “I deserve to have a better life, they don’t. Why help them?”
To the contrary, as one who believes the Bible is the word of God, I am commanded to help those who are sick, naked and imprisoned (Matt 25:31-46). I also want to help, having been personally shown much grace and mercy from God. As a believer, I am sure you understand that.
Furthermore, it’s why I blog in the first place. Nearly all discussions eventually lead to the Gospel. It is my constant prayer that the Holy Spirit will use some of my feeble words to cause someone to consider their own âgoodnessâ and ask themselves âyeah, why would God let me in Heaven?â
Again, thanks for stopping by and posting.
This is post is part of a series of replies. If you landed here first, please see the intro post here.
Ron wrote: So what’s your story, Elsa? Why are you interested in this discussion? What do you believe and what led you to that belief?
I don’t âbelieve,” nor do I consider belief to be evidence of any truths. I observe, acknowledge evidence, and use logic to form my opinions. I also acknowledge that any part of understanding can be flawed, and have no problem adjusting my opinions in light of new evidence and new interpretations, as long as they are well-founded.
Sure you believe. We all believe something. I find your intentionally distancing yourself from anything that even sounds remotely religious sign of some deep hurt or offense. I hope that’s just my inner-Dr.Phil. And not based in fact. But if someone in the church has hurt you, I’m sorry.
But you are right that because we believe something doesn’t make it true. I always demand evidence; which is where every evolution debate I’ve ever had ends. Where’s the evidence of trans-species evolution? I believe in micro-evolution or as we called it as kids, adaptation. But I see zero-none-nuthin-honey evidence of the kind of evolution proposed in Darwin’s “origin of species”
I found this page while researching Ron Paul, because I want to be informed about the candidates before I cast my ballot, as I’m sure you do as well. As for this conversation, it’s important to me that people base their opinions on facts, instead of basing them on misinformation, especially when it comes to something as important as choosing the next leader of our country. I’m sure you can see what happens when people do that, as evidenced by our current president, who not only doesn’t believe in evolution, but apparently doesn’t believe in science all together.
And thanks for allowing me to clarify my facts and opinions.
If “belief” in evolution is such a deciding factor for who you vote for and who you recommend others to vote for, then please inform yourself about the actual theory. There’s a good reason why a doctor would acknowledge evolution as a fact, and that’s because he understands the real theory behind it, not some strawman argument that creationists set up to refute.
And with that we come full circle. There is much I don’t know, I admit. But I think I am informed pretty well on Darwin’s theory and the problems with it. Any further articulation would just be rehashing things I’ve posted in the Ron Paul reply.
Thanks for the discussion.