The 1% Myth
by Ted Slater on 07/11/2007 at 6:03 PM
For decades the common understanding was that humans and chimps had 99 percent of their DNA in common. Darwinists used this "fact" to support their contention that humans and chimps obviously, therefore, share a common ancestor.
Over the past couple of years, this "fact" has increasingly been shown to be utterly false.
According to an article in last month's Science Magazine, there's more than a 6 percent difference. A 17.4 percent difference was found in genes expressed in the cerebral cortex.
Museums and textbooks and Web sites continue to regurgitate this 1 percent figure, just as many of them continue to promote Embryonic Recapitulation. But now we know better.
1. Scott said the following at 8:13 PM on Jul 11:
1
From my standpoint as a philosophical 6-dayer (i.e. I'm convinced outside of scientific evidence (the interpretation of which is always biased by one's viewpoint and presuppositions), I've never seen the 99% claim to prove ANYTHING, either way.
As far as I'm concerned, the 99% argument is an equally strong argument for design, as it shows that God didn't need to make 10,000 distinctly different ways to conduct biochemical processes. If anything, it demonstrates the eminent flexibility and extraordinary creativity that the same template could produce countless variations. It's a red herring issue both sides can use well in their arguments.
2. Chris said the following at 8:34 PM on Jul 11:
2
I find it interesting that the link Ted provides to Wikipedia talks about how some people try to use embryonic capitulation to discredit evolutionary theory and how that is an oversimplification.
Also, it's not peer-reviewed paper. It's in the news section. And, here's an interesting quote from it:
"In the December 2006 issue of PLoS ONE, Hahn and co-workers reported that human and chimpanzee gene copy numbers differ by a whopping 6.4%, concluding that "gene duplication and loss may have played a greater role than nucleotide substitution in the evolution of uniquely human phenotypes and certainly a greater role than has been widely appreciated."
If you read that very carefully, you'll be hard pressed to find any claims that evolution or the concept of a shared ancestor are questioned or disproven.
3. JB said the following at 8:43 PM on Jul 11:
3
Ted,
Did you have a chance to read the article? I think "utterly false" is way overstating the conclusions of the author. His case is that there's no straightforward way of calculating the "genetic difference" between species. If you look at point mutations only, humans and chimps are 1% different, but if you look at larger structural differences in the genome, you get a somewhat higher figure.
The idea is similar to two people typing up independent copies of the Bible. If you count up typos only, they're 1% different, but Bob left out 2 Corinthians completely and for some reason Rick has copied some of the Psalms twice. It's a difficult proposition to figure out how to represent the difference between what Rick and Bob did numerically. It's not a lie or false to say they differ by 1%, it's just not a complete representation of the situation (though it might be the most important representation). That's why the last sentence in the article says, "'I don't think there's any way to calculate a number,' says geneticist Svante Pääbo... 'In the end, it's a political and social and cultural thing about how we see our differences.'"
And, of course, none of this has anything to do with the veracity of the theory of evolution . . .
4. Lena said the following at 8:59 PM on Jul 11:
4
It is often quoted that humans and apes share 99% of the same DNA, however it is also quoted by the same sources that mice and apes share 98% of the same DNA. All statistics must be looked at the some perspective. Our DNA is just the framework and instructions that make our cells, tissues, and organs function. It is so much more that makes a human more than just a mammal, but a person with a soul!
5. Mike Theemling said the following at 9:35 PM on Jul 11:
5
I don't think it's that relevent whether it's 1% difference or 99% difference because many things in nature are drastically different based on minor changes.
For example, 1 proton difference can make the difference between one element and another but in many cases neither share similar properties.
As for genetics, I'm no expert in the field but do know that the genetic sequence is very specific and even minor changes in the ACTG sequence can yield very different results.
Chris,
The point that Ted was trying to make in that that years past the 99% was touted as strong evidence that we evolved from chimps. It was mentioned in many an evolution-creation debate.
What I find interesting is that this again an example (at least on the surface) where the authors are making conclusions first and trying to fit data into it. So here, the writers are trying to downplay the long-revered 99% similarity by saying that it must mean that "gene duplication and loss may have played a greater role than nucleotide substitution in the evolution of uniquely human phenotypes and certainly a greater role than has been widely appreciated." It still assumed that evolution was true to begin with.
6. Armen said the following at 10:22 PM on Jul 11:
6
Yeah, I'm with Scott.
The fact that the same genetic 'alphabet' can be found throughout creation, equally proves that it was a Designer that created everything, as it proves we all come from the same ancestors.
7. castillo said the following at 11:15 PM on Jul 11:
7
don't we also have 97% or so of the same genes as cats?
8. JB said the following at 10:18 AM on Jul 12:
8
The reason that the 99-93% similarity between humans and chimps doesn't rule out creationism is because creationism is congruent with any possible set of scientific findings. If humans and amoebas have the same genetic "alphabet," then that shows the Designer wanted to maintain consistency throughout Creation. If humans and chimps turn out to have no biochemical similarities, then that shows the endless variety the Designer placed in His work. Evolution, on the other hand, only works if extensive mophological similarities correspond with extensive genetic similarities. Scientific research is only relevant to investigating evolution since creationism is not contingent upon findings about the world around us.
9. Mandi said the following at 10:56 AM on Jul 12:
9
Ted -- thx for posting this information! Very useful!
Lena -- that's very interesting about apes and rats, I didn't know that...can you please lead me to an online source for that?
Armen -- it doesn't prove ancestry, only a common Designer and Creator, since so many of His creatures have respiratory, muscular, etc. systems.
10. Ivy said the following at 11:30 AM on Jul 12:
10
Forget cats and chimpanzees. I remember a biology teacher telling us we had 76% (or thereabouts) the same genes as a banana. I'm going with this showing how much we were designed rather than just randomly created.
11. Paul said the following at 1:33 PM on Jul 12:
11
"creationism is congruent with any possible set of scientific findings"
Yep, in fact creationism is congruent even with evolution. I'm not arguing for or against evolution or young earth creationism here, just making the point that there is nothing in science that we should be frightened of.
As a metaphor for evolution, lets take the process of making a sandwich. I can cultivate a load of plants, harvest them, mix them together, kneed them, bake them and create bread. I have performed a load of actions, and at various points in the production of my loaf of bread quite natural processes have taken place that I seem to have little control over (though in reality I may well have put some seeds in a damp, sunny place, allowed the dough sufficient time to rise, turned the oven on and checked regularly that my bread hasn't started to burn).
The process of turning bread into a sandwich is not at all natural though, bread is never going to magically turn into a sandwich, because I have to do something special to make it different. Clearly a sandwich has a lot of similarities with a loaf of bread, and it has in a sense evolved from a loaf of bread, but the important point is that I have intervened to make it more than that.
12. Jethro said the following at 3:59 PM on Jul 12:
12
JB,
The question is how you define "extensive genetic similarities". If 99% is similar and 90% is not, then why? And more importantly, how do you reach such a conclusion.
On a general note, your comment about creationism is dead right. It also illustrates the fundamental weakness of creationism. You can take any piece of information and throw it into the theory and claim it's evidence. Intellectual honesty doesn't really support that though.
13. JB said the following at 11:45 PM on Jul 12:
13
Jethro,
I think I'd agree with the authors of the paper and say that it doesn't really make much sense to calculate a "genetic similarity" between species at the genome level. There just isn't any clear way to do it. An easier way of looking at genetic similarity might be to take high conserved genes (say, cytochrome C) and numerically compare the number of base pairs they have in common between species. Evolution would require that humans have more cytochrome C base pairs in common with chimps than with petunias, for example. Otherwise, the theory would have some serious problems . . .
As for creationism, I don't think that fact that it can account for all possible evidence is a weakness per se, but it does mean that creationism shouldn't be understood as science. Science isn't the only method of coming to truth, but I would agree with you that it is intellectually dishonest to call creationism science.
14. Mandi said the following at 11:55 PM on Jul 12:
14
Jethro,
What do you believe in the Bible anyway? (Your comments are almost entirely predictable now: if the Bible says it, you downplay it as irrelevant or false in favor of the anti-Christian, anti-life, anti-family, anti-Bible party line.) From reading your comments on a variety of posts, you dismiss the claims in God's Word as being outdated, untrustworthy, and unworthy of your obedience and reverence on almost every subject. Except your selective 2 cents for the poor, which I challenged in another post.
15. chizadek said the following at 12:22 PM on Jul 13:
15
I am disappointed with the anti-scientific nature of the post. That's a strong description, but I am prepared to back it up. I won't deny the theological problems with accepting various evolutionary ideas, but I want to be intellectually honest about the science too. Christians need to show more discernment regarding the arguments about science that they accept. Just because a conclusion is true doesn't make an argument for it good.
First, the specific argument is anti-science because it takes genuine scientific knowledge and twists it. I haven't seen the article itself, but I have seen a quote from it that clearly contradicts the claim in the post. My guess is that Ted has not read the science article himself, but is following somebody else who has misrepresented it. The following quote makes clear that the 99% figure has actually been recently validated and that the 6.4% difference is a different measure and not a contradiction.
Secondly the post is anti-science because it misrepresents the basis for scientists accepting evolution, and in this case specifically common descent. The suggestion is that common descent is based on limited flimsy evidence, and that the simple claims of the post seriously undermine the theory. Common descent is a theory based on strong evidence from many different fields. Darwin made a compelling argument before DNA was discovered, and that argument has become much more compelling with the addition of genetics. In particular, for this discussion, the degree of genetic similarity between life is consistent between different types of analysis including various types of genetic analysis. This is not changed by quibbling about just how similar humans are to other hominids like chimps. If the 99% figure has been used to argue for a connection between humans and chimps and is wrong, then I see no reason why the argument can't work with the correct figure.
Third the article falsely undermines the scientific process. I don't know if its intentional, but it gives the impression that scientists lie to make their argument. The idea of some conspiracy to hide the truth about the scientific evidence does not hold up to the reality of how science works. Most scientists are not atheists and indeed some are committed Christians, and the scientific process is open, subject to checks, and rewards new scientific ideas and results.
Also regarding the comments about evidence for evolution also being evidence for a creator. As has been said by others, if any result is consistent with a creator, then while a particular result does not disprove that idea, nor is it evidence for it. Any % similarity between us and chimps is consistent with a creator, but some values, based on other information, would be inconsistent with common descent.
Finally, this website: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html discusses the issue of embryonic recapitulation. Its a long discredited idea, and does not contribute to the current scientific consensus regarding evolution.
16. Ted Slater said the following at 12:57 PM on Jul 13:
16
Chizadek -- I appreciate your weighing in on my post, however I have to say that I stand by what I wrote.
The truth is that this "1%" figure is commonly referenced as evidence for humans and chimps being related, and that continued scientific research has found that figure to be inaccurate. Kudos to the scientific process!
It's also true that museums and textbooks continue to include this figure, just as some continue to promote ideas inherent in the concept that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny ("human fetuses with gills" anyone?).
As you confirm in the two paragraphs you quote, 1% is just inaccurate when you take into consideration the entire set of data -- including inserted/deleted DNA. Would you say that I'm identical to nothing, since there's no "different" DNA, only "missing" DNA? Silliness.
You say that the evidence
against Scripturein favor of common descent is "compelling." I'm not compelled to believe the fairy tale that frogs turn into princes with a kiss; I'm not compelled to believe that frogs turn into princes over billions (is it trillions yet?) of years either. Consider the "problem" of irreducible complexity, for example. Ultimately, I take the stance that if it's good enough for Jesus to believe in the veracity of the Genesis account of creation, then it's good enough for me. Where "science" differs from "Truth," the former is false.Your third concern was that I'm trying to undermine the scientific process. No, the scientific process is a wonderful tool with which to make sense of the physical world. It's the scientific process that brought to light the 1% fallacy. While it's true that some scientists lie to promote their theories, if allowed to be pursued the scientific process will uncover the truth about physical processes.
Again, my point is that the 1% figure is wrong, and it's time we leave it behind.
Not sure why you're so eager to paint me as anti-science, Chizadek. My post is in effect in praise of the power of science to illuminate certain falsehoods.
17. JB said the following at 1:25 PM on Jul 13:
17
Ted,
With respect, the way you write about this issue makes me believe that you don't understand the paper you referenced. When you talk about the 1% figure being "utterly false" and imply that the "Darwinist's" use of that figure has been discredited, you're misinterpreting the implication of the research.
The 1% figure used in the context of discussing evolution is meant to show that relatively few genetic mutations over time can have a great effect of morphology, and therefore it is not unreasonable to hypothesize that the origin of species could have come about by progressive mutations. The research mentioned in the paper actually supports this use of the figure. When you look at point mutations you're really looking at individual mutation events. So the dissimilarity between humans and chimps of 1.23% when you look at point mutations is entirely in line with this argument.
However, a primatologist may want to calculate the similarity between the human and chimp genetic codes in more absolute terms, taking into account gene deletions and gene duplications. In that context, 1.23% dissimilarity is misleading, and 6.4% might represent the situation more accurately.
I think this is a decent analogy: suppose that you and I both have typed NIV Bibles that are identical in every respect, except that due to a weird error the book of Revelations has been left out of mine. How similar are these books? If we're talking about how good we are at typing, we'd say that we've both done a great job and they're extremely similar since we made no errors all the way through until I made the large but single mistake of forgetting Revelations. In another context, the books are very dissimilar because I've left out a whole section. It is not, however, "utterly false" to say that the books are very similar if we're talking about typing accuracy.
As far as irreducible complexity goes, however, I encourage you to read Michael Behe's testimony in the relatively recent case in Dover, PA. His defense of the concept was, frankly, embarassing.
18. Ted Slater said the following at 1:49 PM on Jul 13:
18
JB -- now why would I read Behe's testimony if he evidently did such a poor job communicating the concept of irreducible complexity? No, I'll stick with those scientists who communicate the idea well.
Again, are you implying that "Ted" and "nothing" are very similar, since we are identical (other than the minor fact that some DNA is "missing" in "nothing")? Why are you arguing that the absence of genetic information is irrelevant?
I maintain that "1%" is "utterly false," though it's obvious that some are desperate to cling to that seemingly-evolution-supporting figure.
19. JB said the following at 2:28 PM on Jul 13:
19
Ted,
I'm arguing that the deletion of DNA is not particularly important in some circumstances because it takes only a single genetic error to erase large amounts of information. Suppose I'm comparing how similar two lines of text are:
"Blogging is fun."
"Blogeing is fun."
They have only one difference between them, which corresponds to one error.
"Blogging is fun."
"Blogging i"
There is more than one difference between these lines, but (if we're talking about how genes are replicated) there is still only one error - I just deleted everything after the second i.
The one percent dissimilarity figure is meant to show how few genetic mutations are needed to get from a chimp to a human. For this purpose, it doesn't matter how large the differences are that result from a single mutation, since you just want to quantify the number of required mutations. Deleting one gene or 50 can require just one error. In terms of genetics
"Blogeing is fun."
"Blogging i"
"Blogging is fun is fun."
can all result from just one mutation. So, from that perspective, it is fair to say that all three lines above are equally dissimilar to "Blogging is fun." From another perspective, they differ from each other to different degrees. There's no absolutely correct standpoint for calculating "difference," so for some uses the 1 percent figure is perfectly accurate. So is the 6.4% figure.
Of course, none of this is really relevant to evolution. Call the difference 1.23% or 6.4%, the sequencing data remains the sequencing data and it in no way contradicts what evolutionary theory would predict.
20. chizadek said the following at 3:18 PM on Jul 13:
20
Ted,
I'd like to write a comprehensive response, but only have time to ask for a couple of clarifications.
Have you read the article, or did you get your info from another source? This conversation is tricky, because I don't really know what the article says. Some more quotes might be helpful. Presumably it talks about how the 99% figure has been abused.
By humans and gills are you referring to gill slits, which are different to gills, and which human embryos do have (see the link I gave before)?
21. Ted Slater said the following at 3:42 PM on Jul 13:
21
JB -- on the surface your argument seems to make sense, but after a bit of thought it continues to be absurd.
What you're implying is that the higher developed being, let's call it a "proto-human," lost some DNA and became a "proto-chimp." That's not "evolution," but "devolution" (a phenomenon for which there *is* support, by the way).
Or are you saying that the "proto-chimp" gained strands of DNA pushing them into the "proto-human" category?
Or let's take your "Blogging is fun" example. If you compare it to the series of letters "Blogging i," it's clear that the more complex phrase "Blogging is fun" came first, and thus you'd say there's only one difference between the phrases. But if the less complex preceeded the more complex (as Darwinists argue), then there are 5 additional characters in the evolved phrase.
Do you see the problem here? The DNA evidence may support devolution, but it certainly does not support Darwinistic evolution.
Of course, there are a good number of squishy scientists who say that evolution is "any change" (either more complex or less so) in genetic makeup (just as some global warming enthusiasts are speaking of non-directional "climate change" more than "global warming" now that the evidence doesn't support their cause as strongly as it seemed to at one time).
22. Ted Slater said the following at 3:45 PM on Jul 13:
22
Chizadek -- the controversy surrounding "1%" has been discussed for a few years now, and I've read several articles that've discussed the data. The article in Science Magazine is merely the most recent to acknowledge the controversy. I haven't read this most recent article in full, only in excerpt, but I have read the other articles in full. Not sure how that affects my argument, that "1%" is no longer a reliable figure.
Regarding "gills" on preborn babies, let me encourage readers to do a google search and read a few articles arguing both sides before saying such a thing. It's the same old silliness of Embryonic Recapitulation, repackaged for 21st century sentimentalities.
23. BDB said the following at 4:54 PM on Jul 13:
23
JB:
Here's the problem with macroevolution using your example. To evolve from a one-celled organism to the full species diversity we have today, we don't start with:
"Blogging is fun."
We start with:
"Blog"
And somehow get to:
"Blogging is fun for a set of cetaceans who have been fitted with frontal lobe implants allowing them to translate from the normal voalizations of marine mammals into American English and html."
By itself, a mutation can't create a significantly more complex form that actually works. If it really worked this way, we'd be surrounded by transitional species. Particularly species of Beetles.
While I recognize that evolution is the organizing principle of Biology, the math doesn't work. It's particularly amusing when parts of genetic replication rely on "induction" which means, "We don't know how it works."
Here's another point to ponder. There are a lot of physicists who become believers specifically because they realize that the statistical chance that all the necessary conditions of life would happen is so small that it's almost impossible. Take hydrogen bonding, for example. It's a physical property of H2O. There's no genetic material, so it could never have evolved. Yet hydrogen bonding is critical for allowing respiration, because it allows water to absorb the heat without boiling off. Hydrogen bonding is necessary for life - but it never could have evolved.
24. JB said the following at 12:08 AM on Jul 14:
24
Ted and BDB,
I think you're both shifting the argument to something very different than what I originally advocated. All I meant to show was that the 1% figure was not "utterly wrong" but was in fact supported by the argument in the article (which, Ted, you say you didn't actually read.) Neither of you have responded to the argument I made (which is that the 1% figure accurately represents the mutational difference between humans and chimps) so I'll take that as conceded.
Instead, you both seem to want to argue that mutation can't elaborate a genome from simpler to more complex forms (or else it is not statistically likely to do so), but this is a very different issue and one which I don't think can be addressed in a comment thread. In short, yes, I would argue that simpler genomes can evolve into more complex forms via gene duplication and mutation under evolutionary pressure. The concept isn't absurd on its face, but an extensive defense or attack on the theory would require a lot more room than is permitted here.
I just think that Ted's original characterization of the issue drew some conclusions which were not warranted and which were actually argued against in the evidence he cited to support it. If you disagree, it might help to visit a local university where you can access the article in question. It's much better written than my posts, of course.
25. Ted Slater said the following at 8:16 AM on Jul 14:
25
JB -- as I've written, the idea that this "1%" figure is wrong has been written about in many publications over the past few years. It's not necessary to read this specific Science Magazine article to understand the arguments against it. The Science Magazine article is only the latest to address it, and I'm not ignorant of the facts merely because I haven't read this particular article. I've read many others, and understand the arguments.
What do you mean by "conceded"? No, I don't concede that the Scriptural account of creation is inaccurate, that some nondescript "evolutionary pressure" (what is that?) brought about "all this." I've responded in detail to your arguments, explaining that "missing DNA" is not at all irrelevant, and should be included in the computation of "difference."
You wrote, "I would argue that simpler genomes can evolve into more complex forms via gene duplication and mutation under evolutionary pressure." But if that's your contention, then you'd have to throw out the 1% figure (which seems to support devolution) and embrace the 6% (or 17%) figure (which would be the figure compatible with the argument that "evolutionary pressure" was responsible for the differences in DNA between humans and chimps.
Earlier you wrote, "if you look at larger structural differences in the genome, you get a somewhat higher figure." Yes, that's what I'm doing, something we need to do to be intellectually honest. And that "somewhat higher" figure is over 6%.
26. BDB said the following at 4:33 PM on Jul 14:
26
JB Wrote:
>>If you disagree, it might help to visit a local university where you can access the article in question.<<
Cheaper to just buy it for $10.
>>Neither of you have responded to the argument I made (which is that the 1% figure accurately represents the mutational difference between humans and chimps) so I'll take that as conceded.<<
No, that's not what the article says at all. In fact, the article is a series of admissions that there really is no way to compare the genome and phenotype of two complex organisms like chimps and humans. According to the article, are 35 million base pair differences, and no one even knows which ones are active. There is no discussion of "mutations" in relation to 1% at all. In fact, the 6.4% refers to gene gain and loss in the duplication process, NOT stable genome differences by species.
We can all watch the Discovery Channel and see how chimps are similar to humans. But clearly 1% is a press-release number, not an accurate measure of active gene differences.
27. Jethro said the following at 6:34 PM on Jul 14:
27
Mandi,
Apologies for the delay in reply, I've been rather busy of late.
I'm terribly sorry to have descended into the realm of predictability, I'm sure that I am not the only person who is predictable. In any case, doesn't predictability indicate consistency? I would have thought consistency concerning one's views was a positive thing...
I'm a bit confused by your comment that I am "anti-Christian, anti-life, anti-family, anti-Bible party line". In fact I find that rather insulting. To address them in order:
1. I am not anti-Christian. I do not however believe that Christians can expect to hold some unique and privileged place within public life, such that their views should hold great sway or import. I know you will claim that Christians don't act that way, but in my experience many do - even though they say they don't. Frankly, I find it annoying. On top of that, a lot of Christians will simply present their opinions as fact. It happens here all the time. Rarely if ever does anyone concede their statements are mere opinion. If everyone who claims on here to know what God wants, is in fact representing God, then you could only conclude that God is highly confused and changes His mind every three minutes. Clearly he is not, ergo my annoyance.
2. Anti-life. Well, that's a rather large statement. How or why have you concluded that I am anti-life? Personally, I am not in favor of abortion, to be honest I think it's pretty tragic. Having said that, I am not so one-eyed as to think that there is no debate about the topic. Clearly there is. In that context I don't feel comfortable making the government legislate my viewpoint.
3. Anti-family. No idea where you get this from. If it's to do with gay marriage, again, I am not in favor of the government legislating according to the morality of one group. If you are, mount for me a convincing argument as to why the government should not introduce Sharia law.
4. Anti-Bible party line: This is my favorite. There is no 'Bible-party'. Don't worry, it's a common mistake for conservatives to think there is though.
28. Melissa said the following at 10:22 AM on Jul 16:
28
Like several others have commented, it doesn't bother me one way or the other if chimps and humans share 99% of our DNA or 10%. Isn't there a span of difference between humans, anyway? I agree with those who have mentioned that 99% works just as well for the creation argument. God was consistent and logical and decided to use the same materials for His creation. "Hat" and "hate" are completely different words with unrelated definitions, yet they are comprised of almost all the same letters.
Quote from Jethro: "...a lot of Christians will simply present their opinions as fact. It happens here all the time. Rarely if ever does anyone concede their statements are mere opinion."
While this may be partly true, this is also how modern English functions and is even taught. I can think of the words of many English teachers I've had: "Never use 'I believe' or 'I think' (etc) because it weakens your point, is a waste of words, and suggests that you do not back up your statement."
29. Jethro said the following at 3:40 PM on Jul 16:
29
"Never use 'I believe' or 'I think' (etc) because it weakens your point, is a waste of words, and suggests that you do not back up your statement."
It also has the effect of making you sound like an arrogant know it all. If your argument is a good one anyway it should be able to stand on its own merits and without you having to inflate it through overly forceful language. That's just my opinion though.
30. Mandi said the following at 11:16 AM on Jul 19:
30
Jethro,
No prob…my own apologizes for just writing back now to clarify, I've had to seriously cut down my time online to get my wedding stuff done.
Predictability doesn’t always show consistency. And in any case, consistency isn’t always behind correctness.
My intent was not to insult you, and I apologize that you took it that way.
Look, I think you’ve misunderstood the intent or underlying premises of my question to you, and in other ways your own reasoning isn’t, well, logically consistent.
Re: anti-Christian – a number of your comments on a variety of posts at best put Christianity just cultural and at par with other religions. If you believe that it is, how can you claim to believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life, if you indeed believe that the Bible is the Word of God? (Or do you? I don't know. That's why I was honestly asking.) Such “exclusivity” may grate on the sensibilities of modern day folk, but it shouldn’t any more than my saying that the US is north of Mexico, so if you want to go to the US from Mexico, you must go North.
Furthermore, your comments on creationism-related posts “consistently” try to (or actually) deny the truth that God created the universe. Yet the only thing non-Christians who deny the scientific evidence of creation and intelligent design can “benefit” by proving their claims is that there is no God – because if He didn’t create the universe and the universe has been ever-existent (a scientific absurdity, for another day), then they can be justified in their rejection of God. When I read your comments about creationism, I often wonder if I might have missed something somewhere on a post eons ago of you saying that you’re not one. It’s just bizarre to see a Christian argue so vehemently for the non-existence of God, to me anyway!
Yes, there are wildly divergent views about God, but that does not reflect God. It does, sadly, reflect the egotistical, rationalistic, largely Westernized approach to theology in general, and God’s Word and the Church in particular. But that’s a problem you didn’t start, and one for another day! :)
In terms of holding sway in public life, this is kind of tricky because of that very issue of conflicting, mutually exclusive “valid” interpretations: there’s no use in having non-practicing Christians in office who would undermine religious freedom of everyone, or unilaterally decide on an exclusive definition of personhood, or allow child pornography. We should only seek to have people in office that will uphold at least the most basic objective notions of right and wrong -- don’t kill, steal, defraud, rape, exploit children, etc. These things just happen to originate from God’s Word. (Notice that I didn’t say the state should tell me Whom to worship, or how. It’s none of the state’s business. It should leave me to be FREE to do so, though. This is a highly-prized right that people from my Middle Eastern background would rank second only to the right to life.)
If we were to seriously strip our legal system of any and all Biblical traces so as not to “impose”, we would have to get rid of highly prized things like the right to remain silent, innocence until guilt is proven, almost all of the Criminal Code, freedoms of thought/conscience/religion/expression, and on and on and on. How would that be right? The law, by definition, imposes someone’s morality. It’s just a question of whose, and what that morality consists of. Our goal should not be to take over the kingdoms of this world for the sake of it because God’s Kingdom isn’t even of this world (though I can see your frustration with Christians who don’t believe that -- I share it!). Our goal should be elect people who will uphold good, not promote evil. If they happen to be practicing Christians, they should not be barred from holding office or promoting their legislative goals because of their religion.
31. Mandi said the following at 11:27 AM on Jul 19:
31
Re: anti-life – post after post, you identify positively yourself with politicians who support the government-given “right” to perform heinous, barbaric acts on defenceless, growing, innocent human beings on the soil of a free and democratic country. It’s hard for outsiders not to come to that conclusion about you, Jethro.
And you say you’re “personally…not in favor of abortion”, and that you think “it’s pretty tragic”. If you don’t believe that the unborn are human beings, why do you think it’s tragic to burn, poison, or rip them into shreds? And why aren’t you personally in favor of it if they’re not human? Seems it shouldn’t be any of your business or mine if people are just pulling out their own teeth. But this isn’t about your personal preferences, or mine. This is about objective right and wrong claims, not subjective claims about personal preferences. (Is it just your preference that rape and slavery remain illegal, or do you think that objectively that’s the morally right thing to do?) We’re making claims about which members of the human family are excluded from personhood and the protections of the law against those who would use, or force others to use, violence as a solution to their problems (or financial dreams of the “doctors”!), not claims about which football team is the best.
Re: anti-family – Ditto. Are you in favor of the government legislating the morality of only those people who are against child pornography? Rape? Kidnapping of Christian girls? Forced conversions to or from any religion? Slavery? Female “circumcision”? The issue of gay “marriage” is not about the government legislating the morality of one group for the sake of that group, but for the sake of what is morally, objectively correct. Sharia law is an entirely different kettle of fish. Especially when read in Arabic, the utter lack of respect for human rights is glaringly obvious in itself, and when compared to Biblically-based morals. How can that be compared to a Book that has inspired legal systems to give all its citizens – Christian or not – the right to believe, or disbelieve as they choose, or the right to be alive, or the right to a fair trial, etc. as I said earlier? Just not the same thing!
32. Mandi said the following at 11:34 AM on Jul 19:
32
Re: anti-Bible – I absolutely agree: there’s no “Bible Party”. Nor should there be, outside of the sense I spoke of earlier, that decent democratic civilizations uphold very basic notions of right and wrong. Unfortunately, in the U.S., one party has chosen to align itself with murder, special interest groups, and people who do not have the best interests of children, the disabled, and other vulnerable people in mind when it comes to public policy. That's likely why people end up pegging the party that at least makes some progress on those issues, or tries (or is supposed to try!), the "Bible Party".
Further, all of your anti-creationism statements smack of distrust or outright rejection of the truth and reliability of God’s Word, well, God’s Word. If it is a lie, it comes from the father of liars, Satan. If it is a “myth”, then how can the rest of the plan of salvation – of God’s immeasurable love for you and me, manifested on a bloody cross – not fall apart?
Certainly, my ethnic background has more than enough history of people just “imposing” unjust religious laws, so see why initially “imposing” Judeo-Christian principles may make you uncomfortable. But only at first glance.
Very, very sorry this was so, so long. I do hope that clarifies my honest question about what you do believe in the Bible, though. Again, I did not mean to insult you.
God bless you.
33. Jethro said the following at 4:02 PM on Jul 19:
33
Mandi,
Thank you for your reply, you were far more gracious than I.
You raise some interesting points, certainly I could answer them if you wish, but given that this thread seems to be dying a slow death, I won't worry about posting them unless you are particularly keen to hear how my views on these things fit into my overall experience as a Christian (yes, I do consider myself one).
Hindy
34. chizadek said the following at 4:13 PM on Aug 20:
34
Ted,
Apologies. I do try to be fair in what I say, but rereading the post I now realise that my unpublished comment attacked you for saying the 1% figure is a lie when you did not actually go that far in your piece. I hope it did not put you off reading the rest of what I had written.
Thanks for the stimulating post. I have enjoyed dipping into the scientific, philosophy of science and theological issues that it relates to.