My daughter experienced some of this type of teaching in her Sunday School class at the Baptist church we were attending. She found it quite disturbing. On the way home, I told her that I felt that the church was wrong and that a person can believe in God and in evolution. We have left the Baptist church and are now attending an Episcopal church. It is a much better fit for us.
Does the rest of the world have this battle over evolution or is it just us the in the US? We seem to want to find nice black/white answers.
It is my understanding that true scientists think more in terms of theory – there is the theory of evolution and as they continue to research and learn more – that theory will continue to evolve. (the world is flat – OH, NO – it’s round – OH, NO – it’s….)
Is indoctrinating our children into only one world view really healthy for them or our world? I want the children to learn to think for themselves and question the status quo. (Unfortunately, I don’t see public, private, or Christian schools doing a good job of promoting our children to become “learners’.)
My God is big enough to not to need me to defend him. And I’m certainly not smart enough to explain him.
Siamang – thanks; I didn’t know it was a clip from Jesus Camp.
Rachel, I can understand you wanting your daughter away from conservative Christian teaching. What has her reaction been to changing churches? I’m guessing she shares your reasons for preferring the Episcopal church since the other teaching disturbed her.
I was becoming increasingly unsure about having my children in conservative Christian church classes in recent years. I was quite relieved that one of the ramifications of me leaving was that they left too. (Although if they wanted to go to church I would give them a ride – I don’t want to put pressure on them not to go)
Elaine I’m so glad there are Christians like you who don’t feel they have to defend God. It doesn’t make sense to me when Christians defend God – or rather, when they get bent out of shape and defensive and touchy on God’s behalf.
I don’t think many countries have enough Christians disbelieving in evolution that they can cause a battle over evolution.
Rachel, I can understand you wanting your daughter away from conservative Christian teaching. What has her reaction been to changing churches? I’m guessing she shares your reasons for preferring the Episcopal church since the other teaching disturbed her.
Helen- Yes, Anna is happy about the change. We’ve only attended our new church St. Thomas Episcopal for a few weeks but we have been discussing this move for months. We had been growing increasingly uncomfortable with the Baptist church for several years. But we have two friends, a married couple who are both in seminary, who are planning to plant an emerging church. So we were very much looking forward to eventually joining a more progressive faith community but we figured we would stay at the Baptist church until this new community was launched.
But it just became too difficult to stay in such a theologically and politically conservative environment, especially when Anna was reporting these types of things about her Sunday School. So we will be attending the Episcopal church in the interim and we are very happy about the change.
Rachel I’m glad you’re all happy with the change. Hopefully the Episcopal church will be an interesting enriching experience while you wait for your friends to plant a church.
Thanks, Helen! Regarding our topic of evolution, here is the position of the Episcopal Church:
In 1982, General Convention passed a resolution (a) to “affirm its belief in the glorious ability of God to create in any manner,” (b) “and in this affirmation reject the rigid dogmatism of the “Creationist’ movement” and (c) further affirmed “our support of the scientists, educators, and theologians in the search for truth in this creation that God has given and entrusted to us.”
Rachel – yes, I can agree and accept a resolution like that…the Episcopal Church seems to be ahead of the curve on this one…and other things I’ve seen from them.
I think this video is good because it not only shows children being indoctrinated into an anti-science attitude, but it also shows two examples of what those kids look like with another decade of living in that mindset. The guy thinks he can get a Nobel Prize in Creationism and the gal thinks that it’s somehow wrong for schools to not teach religion in science class.
Also it is really neat that a Jewish mythological animal mentioned once in the Bible (and once in an apocryphal text) is used by Ken Ham et al. as evidence that sauropods lived in historical times.
This is about as stupid as pointing to Babe the blue Ox as proof that oxen can be really really big. And then demanding that science classes teach the theory of giant North American oxen.
This is about as stupid as pointing to Babe the blue Ox as proof that oxen can be really really big. And then demanding that science classes teach the theory of giant North American oxen.
Obviously, you are failing to grasp that Paul Bunyan is just a story while the other comes from the inerrant word of God. ;-)
I have long been fascinated by the references to fantastic beasts and creatures in the Bible. One of my faves are the Nephilim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim).
The Nephilim (which apparently means The Fallen) are mentioned prior to the flood and after. Which kind of raises the question of how they managed to survive if the flood killed everything on the earth that wasn’t in the ark. But the post flood reference to them connects them to the race of giants living in the middle east, of which Goliath was among the last. There are actually several races of such large people mentioned in the old testament.
I wasn’t familiar with Behemoth, but have heard varying explanations for the origins of leviathan (sea monster, giant squid — now that is a real creature that defies the imagination — or simply a whale).
Ever since reading about Heinrich Schliemann while in high school I have believed that many myths have some sort of truth behind them. I have also thought that some of those creatures would make great characters in novels or movies. But it seems kind of foolish to make them intrinsic to my faith in God.
So, Ken, if I can prove that Behemoth wasnt a sauropod then you’ll deny your faith and salvation? I thought you believed in Jesus only to discover you actually believe in giant reptiles with saddles.
Regardless of what creationists say, the evidence — while already overwhelming — is mounting that the earth wasn’t created in 6 days about 6,000 years ago. Yet now they seem inextricably locked into forcing an irrelevant conflict between faith and science that is much more likely to cost them their faith then refute science.
The Old Testament (from the extremely little I have learned about it in, say, parochial high school) does have some characters and critters which, if written by any other ancient peoples, would just be labeled as myth, without anyone being offended.
Not to mention all the other Hebraic literature that is just as, if not more, mystical and mythological, which fundamentalist Christians ignore because somehow it …wasn’t written by God? I didn’t know Yahweh autographed all his work.
Regarding the Nephilim, they are referenced by some creationists. Kent Hovind thought all of the earlier characters in the Bible were giants. That somehow was how the Pyramids got built, see, cuz the people back then were much taller than they are now.
This gullibility to believe in implausible things is, of course, not restricted to modern-day Christian fundamentalists.
…I don’t know what else to say that hasn’t been said a zillion times before. Christian fundamentalism is a reactionary force against the modernization of both Christianity and civilization. It’s dangerous because fighting against progress never ever ends well for either side. etc. etc. etc.
I wasn’t familiar with Behemoth, but have heard varying explanations for the origins of leviathan (sea monster, giant squid — now that is a real creature that defies the imagination — or simply a whale).
David, that’s how I have always understood it. Leviathan and Behemoth were simply names that ancient peoples used to describe huge creatures they had observed. Leviathan is clearly some giant sea creature and I’ve often heard that Behemoth may have referred to a hippopotamus or rhinoceros. At any rate, these creatures inspired awe because of their size and strength.
The Bible records peoples’ journey of faith toward God. It simply isn’t a science textbook. I can’t understand why people like Ham and Hovind insist on these tortured explanations. To me, it minimizes and obscures the true value of Scripture.
And it is indeed frightening to see children growing up with an anti-scientific mindset, especially in the age of the global warming crisis. When these kids grow up and make their own decisions, some will reject faith in favor of science and some will reject science in favor of faith. In my opinion, it is a tragedy either way. I wish they weren’t being forced to choose.
This gullibility to believe in implausible things is, of course, not restricted to modern-day Christian fundamentalists.
I believe in God. I believe that Jesus was the son of God. Some would argue that is a gullible belief in something implausible.
How I separate that from what is being done by the creationist is that my belief in those beings is largely separate from my belief in The Bible. If God and Jesus are real, then they are real regardless of anything in the Bible (especially murky things mentioned in a single verse like Behemoth).
People like Ham and Hovind have essentially made the Bible a fourth aspect of God. Moreover, they have made their reading of the Bible an aspect of God. To question their reading is the same as questioning God. Therefore to question them is heresy. I believe that if God didn’t want us to question he wouldn’t have wasted all the gray goop we have stuffed between our ears. What’s more, if Behemoth was essential to our understanding of him, he would have brought him up more than that once.
C.S. Lewis led me to an analogy about the Bible being like a map. It isn’t the destination. It isn’t even the trip. It provides guidance on the latter in order to reach the former. And like any map, it has a lot of murky markings (are those mountains or trees?). Ham and Hovind have decided they are neither mountains nor trees, they are dinosaurs with saddles on their back and seeing them on the map is just the same as if they had actually seen them personally. Not only ludicrous on the face of things, it also doesn’t help one make the trip or reach the destination.
I read every post so far. They are all hypocritical. What about the boy saying he wants to become a scientist? Christianity is not synononomous with ignorance. Sir Isaac Newton said this;
“Whence is it that nature does nothing in vain: and whence arises all that order and beauty which we see in the world? . . .does it not appear from phenomena that there is a Being incorporeal, living, intelligent, omnipresent, who in infinite space, as it were in his Sensory, sees the things themselves intimately, and thoroughly perceives them, and comprehends them wholly.” I suppose the previous posters would post the same kind of remarks if there was some video of Newton talking to children. You take a few seconds of a video clip and condemn what you do not understand.
Another theme was that God does not need defending. Maybe so, but your reasons for believing should be defended. If you believe in evolution, your reasons for believing should be defended. I see none of that. Reasons for believing in creation should be defended, that was in the video. So the condemned, ignorant, fundamentalists are thinking, and telling us what, and why they believe, but the posters on here cannot.
A scientific hypothesis should be testable. Evolution cannot be tested. It is a philosophy; how life got here apart from God. I challenge anyone to show me one single experiment that proves evolution, or disproves it.
You can read some of my blogs on myspace, especially; Morality and another one: Evolution as a Religion. And others if you think I’m an ignorant fundamentalist.
Not sure you will be back to read this Clay, but I do believe in a creator. However, I do not believe in strict creationism. I believe in Jesus as the son of God, but I don’t think relying on him for my salvation requires me to accept Ken Hamm as the source of all truth on issues of creation. Finally, there have recently been quite a few breakthroughs regarding scientific evidence of evolution. Me personally, as a matter of spirituality, I don’t think it is important how God created the earth — simply that he did. Also, I don’t find the strict creationist view particularly helpful in reaching the unconverted.
If that makes me a hypocrite, I can live and die with that.
David,
I don’t have a problem with what you believe. What are the breakthroughs regarding scientific evidence of evolution? I don’t find creation a hinderance to reaching the unsaved, in fact it opens doors.
I took a class called Critical Thinking, (U of M)the teacher asked how many believed in evolution, with his hand up, about two other people raised their hands. Take a critical look at evolution and you’ll see it is not a scientific theory, it does not even back up it’s claims. I am going to take a lab class on evolution. Should be fun.
I don’t rely on Ken Hamm either, don’t think I’ve ever heard him speak. I can simply take what evolutionist’s tell me and tear it apart.
What I meant by hypocritcal was not that you can’t believe in evolution and be a Christian,(although evolutionists are laughing at you behind your back) I meant the self-righteous, condemning attitudes.
Clay, I’m not too concerned about evolutionists laughing at me behind my back. I know people are have been really persecuted — hung up by their thumbs, fingernails pulled out, that kind of stuff. Someone laughing at me doesn’t really compare.
As for recent work, I’m going to refer you to the book recently written by Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project. Here is an article about him and the book. Collins, who is a Christian, believes that what we now know about the genetic material in people, animals, plants and almost living thing on earth offers quite a bit of evidence that all life on this planet evolved from a single organism. He goes into quite a bit more detail than that on the scientific evidence that leads him to such a conclusion.
There are quite a few others. Even Intelligent Design advocates such as Michael Behe don’t argue that there is no such thing as evolution, they simply try to define its natural limits and then insist some intelligence had to have a hand in what obviously occurred (natural selection, i.e. evolution).
Of course none of it is proof.
As for being a hypocrite. Thanks for noticing. Aren’t we all?
What I meant by laughing at you behind your back is that it is a philosophy of how we got here without God. They think it’s cute that you hold onto your beliefs while saying you believe in a philosophy that gets rid of the very God you say you believe in. I’ll look at the article but as you already said it isn’t proof. I can look at the same evidence and see creation. I can even make the same claim as Darwin; If it can be shown that any part of creation could not have been created my God theory will completely break down. Have you ever read “On the Origin of the Species?” It’s pathetic. Evolution is not a scientific theory, it cannot be tested. Confirming evidence can always be found. I can say we all came from aliens and find confirming evidence everywhere.
I read it. I’m not impressed. I think he was also in Time magazine? Here’s an address for an article on whether God created evolution. Impressive list of degrees behind this guys name too. He is also doing an experiment on whether space has substance, ya know, another one of those ignorant fundamentalist Christians. http://www.montanabiblecollege.com/Documents/DidGodCreateEvolution.pdf
The philosophy of evolution does not fit with Christianity at all. Survival of the fittest. Doesn’t sound like what Jesus taught. Hitler followed it, the way he saw it, he was just improving the gene pool.
Well, good luck to you on your belief system, Clay. Not really sure what you have to offer in discussion with non-believers other than nothing can be proved. That kind of leads to believe what you like — cause it all has the same impossibility of proof.
The fundamental difference between us seems to be that unless something can be proved absolutely you feel free to discard it completely. That seems to be critical to your faith. My attitude is that if I can’t prove evolution or creationism (absolutely) then they can’t be particularly important to my belief system. But hey, maybe that just makes me ignorant too.
Thanks, David H, for referring to Francis Collins. His book, “The Language of God” is wonderful. Although I continue to see few problems with Intelligent Design (so long as you don’t infer that those theories are proving definitively that God created) I think that there is so much evidence for evolutionary processes (regardless whether you believe in Evolution (big E) as a philosophical system) that it doesn’t do a lot of intellectual good to continue to make the BIble into a scientific textbook, which it is not, nor to go around and insist that it is 100% historically factual. It wasn’t written that way. Inerrancy is a 20th Century invention, as far as I can figure. Unnecessary.
Anyway, I recommend everyone to read Francis Collins’s book.
I have great difficulty with upholding a Creationist point of view. I don’t see that it holds water when looking at the world and its age. When I contemplate nature, look at geology, learn about Carbon 14 dating, and the extremely slow, gradual drift of the continents, etc… I do not sense a young earth at all. I do not understand why it seems necessary to insist that Genesis 1 and 2 is literal or historical in the sense that we now call historical.
To me Genesis 1 and 2 are pointing to the reason why God created, far more than how He created. For instance: there is little logic in even the order of the days of Creation given our knowledge of how things work in the world, in nature, etc. Is it even remotely logical that God would create plants before the creation of the sun to enable photosynthesis? To say that there was already light….Cast from what? How likely is it that the earth was created prior to the sun? I don’t think the writer of Genesis had anything remotely scientific in mind, therefore it is worthless to take Genesis and build scientific explanations or theories. Genesis 1 was written in order to deliver one message: However it was created, Nature is good, very good, because it is God’s and we are God’s. That’s not science, it is, however Truth. To equate Truth primarily or exclusively with Factual History is to cheapen and reduce it. Truth transcends mere factoids and scientific data. Let’s not reduce Genesis to that level.
There is no science in this article. There is extrapolation — interpretation — of words in a book. Collins, in his unimpressive work, deciphered a book that is mountainous in its size and complexity. His philosophy about combining theism and evolution can be written off, but that doesn’t change the essential truth of the human genome.
As for whether God invented natural selection, I couldn’t tell you. But what Jesus taught does appear to be in direct conflict with those laws. So maybe he was telling people — those creatures with hearts that feel and minds that think on a level above the rest of creation — that while there do appear to be mindless, random rules that drive nature (as Job and the Psalmists and many other Bible characters said, the rain falls on both the wicked and the good without making a distinction) human beings don’t have to be slaves to those laws. Jesus in his conception, life and resurrection seemed constantly to affirm that there are natural laws, but they are not necessarily the end.
I can’t work up a lot of enthusiasm for making evolution or creationism central to my faith. If God could create the universe, if he could “breathe” me, that goes far beyond my ability to understand. I enjoy the search for the mechanisms, but don’t see any of the those answers — whether provided by interpretation of scripture or scientific testing — changing my essential belief that God created.
There are some straw man arguments up there. I never said Genesis was a scientific book. Funny how in defense of evolution people take to attacking creation. I wasn’t defending creation. I said evolution is not a scientific theory, there are no experiments proving or disproving it and no one on here has shown me one.
As for the argument that it must be proven before I’ll believe in it, well, when it comes to science, that’s the way it’s supposed to be. As for creation there is much more evidence for it than there is for evolution. I have much to offer in that regard. I’m not afraid to say evolution is a scam. I can refute any evidence for evolution and I can back up creation logically.
“…when looking at the world and its age. When I contemplate nature, look at geology, learn about Carbon 14 dating, and the extremely slow, gradual drift of the continents, etc” quoting Pete S. Apparently you haven’t contemplated them enough, or more likely, at all. You believe what you are told without critically looking at it. Carbon dating is unreliable, carbon does not break down at an even rate. How do you know there was a gradual shift of the continents? Because evolution requires a slowly changing environemnt? Evolution is a tautalogy. We are here, therefore we evolved. He who produces the most offspring produces the most offspring. Evolution answers nothing. Put up or shut up, show me the experiment that proves evolution.
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. …
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations which is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. …
Theories are constructed in order to explain, predict and master phenomena (e.g. inanimate things, events, or the behaviour of animals). In many instances we are constructing models of reality. A theory makes generalizations about observations and consists of an interrelated, coherent set of ideas and models.
In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation. … Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.
Evolution as described above, the change in gene frequencies in a population, has been observed innumerable times and can be induced by an experimenter without difficulty. Selective breeding is an example of humans influencing this process.
But perhaps that won’t address the concerns raised. Perhaps that’s only considered evidence of “microevolution”, changes within species, not “macroevolution” – the origin of species. But it is the grander “theory of evolution” (not the more banal “process of evolution”) you are refuting, n’est-ce pas?
The theory of evolution by natural selection was first proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and set out in detail in Darwin’s 1859 book On the Origin of Species. In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis, in which the connection between the units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection) was made. This powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.
Indeed, it has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, because to date it fits the reams of scientific observations, including fossil records.
But, remember! (from above) that a proven counterexample could lead to the overturning of the theory of evolution (especially if another theory was formulated which better explained all of the observations to date).
This, then, is the assignment given to those who believe the theory of evolution is a scam: present evidence which will convince the world’s biologists – or at least a significant proportion of them – that the theory of evolution is not the best explanation for the observed data, including (but not limited to) the fossil record.
Please! Go ahead! If you are able to present (or, find and present) convincing data to support your argument, you will throw the biology community on its ear and create shock waves of excitement in the scientific world.
This, then, is the assignment given to those who believe the theory of evolution is a scam: present evidence which will convince the world’s biologists – or at least a significant proportion of them – that the theory of evolution is not the best explanation for the observed data, including (but not limited to) the fossil record.
Eliza, your proposition seems very reasonable to me. But many who believe in Creationism would see responding to your challenge as a total waste of their time and efforts. This is because they firmly believe that evidence to refute evolution is both abundant and obvious and that the world’s biologists are blinded by their devotion to “secular humanism.” They believe that these scientists hold as a treasured value their freedom to live a selfish and sinful lifestyle and that the scientists understand deep down that if they had to acknowledge the existence of a Creator, they would be forced to repent of their evil ways.
The Creationists feel that they have already proved their case brilliantly over and over and that the vast majority of the world’s scientists simply refuse to face the truth. Creationists are convinced that the scientific community would rather participate in a vast conspiracy of scientific deception than bow the knee to a powerful God and be held accountable for their “ungodly lifestyle.” And the Creationists further believe that the many Christians who accept both the theory of evolution and the concept of a Creator God are no better than the godless scientists because they too have compromised the truth and thus do not really deserve to wear the label Christian.
I know this mindset extremely well because I have grown up in communities that believe exactly as I have described. Many young people go through an agonizing dilemma when they learn more about the scientific evidence for evolution and feel they must choose between modern science and their religious faith. That was certainly my experience and it was a great relief to realize that I could both embrace scientific theory AND continue as a devout follower of Christ.
As for creation there is much more evidence for it than there is for evolution.
At this point I’m not really sure what Clay is defending. He apparently doesn’t necessarily consider himself a creationist, but he is absolutely positive there is not one iota of proof that could lead to belief in evolution.
His quote above is probably self-evident to him. The world is all around him, it was created, thus there are tons of evidence for creation. Who is there who can dispute that?
I grew up near Hershey, PA I know that there is lots of evidence that Hershey makes chocolate bars. But that doesn’t tell me anything about how they make them. I can choose to believe, based on a variety of things, that they aren’t the result of product evolution that occurred over decades. They are just so perfect and I’ve never actually seen an old Hershey bar. But I know they were created, ’cause there they are on my store shelf.
I never met Milton Hershey. I read about him, his company and his products. I know some of the history, but that is just stuff in books and I never met the guy. So there is no proof he invented Hershey bars and until someone can prove it to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, then I refuse to accept that explanation of the origin of Hershey bars. They are just too good to have been made by a man. They are truly divine.
Come to think of it, I have no proof the moon isn’t made of green cheese. I want someone to prove that. Heck, I want someone to prove that gravity is a force holding me to the earth rather than that all objects in the universe are expanding at a linear rate that coincides with the speed at which all celestial objects in the univserse are moving away from each other. I believe that when I jump into the air, the planet actually grows up to meet me. So it may look like I’m falling, but the earth is actually just growing really fast. In order to change my mind I need positive proof — not just evidence and scientific study. Finally, I need you to prove, Clay, that evolution is just a philosophy and not science. I need proof, not just evidence from other sources questioning some tenets of evolution. Refuting something means that you have to prove it false, not simply have an explanation that runs counter and is likewise unprovable. BTW, logic isn’t proof or even evidence. It can help lead to those, but it isn’t them.
I have heard lots of the evidence from creationists regarding why they don’t agree with evolution. Some is interesting (the issue with ocean salinity, for example), but I have never seen any that was backed by scientific study outside the creationist movement. That may be because there is a vast conspiracy or because their evidence can’t be proved through scientific study. Until creationists can prove that evolution is absolutely not involved in how life formed on earth — simply poking holes in aspects of evolutionary theory isn’t enough — then I am going to choose to believe that the conflict between evolution and creationism is irrelevant to my Christian faith.
And as Clay apparently agrees, the Bible isn’t a science book. So while it may tell us many things, it doesn’t tell us anything about how the earth was created — simply that it was.
If Clay doesn’t count himself a creationist, perhaps he just believes there is a creator God and that answers all of his questions. That’s fine. It isn’t about proof, it is about faith. I fully support faith. But saying I believe God created isn’t much more useful or provable to anyone else than saying I believe that Carbon-14 dating doesn’t work (I read a couple of articles about that, but what does that prove?). If everything is just belief — have you ever seen God, Clay, not just evidence of him and can you bring him to my house so I can see him too — then why can’t we all just believe what we want? I don’t see your logic leading me to a useful answer for that question.
I believe that what we believe is important. But for matters of faith, I don’t see arguing against evolution helping to prove the validity or the value of what I believe. That best proof that I believe and that belief has value is my life. Do I live what I believe? Do I love those I am told to love? There is a project worth a Christian effort: stop trying to prove God exists by pointing at everything else in the universe and start trying to prove that God exists in me.
I’ve been feeling bad for having a little extra reason to believe in the space program…my uncle was a geologist for NASA, so I saw one of the Apollo missions take off from Cape Canaveral, saw some moon rocks at the Kennedy Space Center (at least, my uncle said they were moon rocks), and have a copy of transcripts of conversations between Apollo astronauts and Houston (including my uncle). Of course, I don’t know if those are actually transcripts of those conversations, or an attempt at fakery.
I used to think it was pretty cool that my uncle had been associated with the Apollo missions (or, had claimed that association). Now, I’m thinking how great it would have been if he’d been a chocolatologist! If I’d been able to taste his work, that would have been better proof!!
I still remember that silly movie from 1978 where they faked a Mars landing and decided they had to kill the astronauts so they wouldn’t tell. It was called Capricorn One. One of the plot issues was how someone could uncover such a hoax once it was carried out. How do you prove that something everyone watched on TV never took place?
Perhaps I was too goofy in the things for which I wanted proof.
Comment by: Karen
1Ick. Watching that kind of indoctrination of young children actually makes me sick to my stomach.
Probably hits too close to home for me. :-(
Comment by: Siamang
2This is a clip from the movie Jesus Camp.
And yes, it’s disgusting.
Comment by: Rachel
3“Christian patriot missiles?” Yuck!
My daughter experienced some of this type of teaching in her Sunday School class at the Baptist church we were attending. She found it quite disturbing. On the way home, I told her that I felt that the church was wrong and that a person can believe in God and in evolution. We have left the Baptist church and are now attending an Episcopal church. It is a much better fit for us.
Comment by: Elaine
4Does the rest of the world have this battle over evolution or is it just us the in the US? We seem to want to find nice black/white answers.
It is my understanding that true scientists think more in terms of theory – there is the theory of evolution and as they continue to research and learn more – that theory will continue to evolve. (the world is flat – OH, NO – it’s round – OH, NO – it’s….)
Is indoctrinating our children into only one world view really healthy for them or our world? I want the children to learn to think for themselves and question the status quo. (Unfortunately, I don’t see public, private, or Christian schools doing a good job of promoting our children to become “learners’.)
My God is big enough to not to need me to defend him. And I’m certainly not smart enough to explain him.
Comment by: Helen
5Karen, it bothers me too.
Siamang – thanks; I didn’t know it was a clip from Jesus Camp.
Rachel, I can understand you wanting your daughter away from conservative Christian teaching. What has her reaction been to changing churches? I’m guessing she shares your reasons for preferring the Episcopal church since the other teaching disturbed her.
I was becoming increasingly unsure about having my children in conservative Christian church classes in recent years. I was quite relieved that one of the ramifications of me leaving was that they left too. (Although if they wanted to go to church I would give them a ride – I don’t want to put pressure on them not to go)
Elaine I’m so glad there are Christians like you who don’t feel they have to defend God. It doesn’t make sense to me when Christians defend God – or rather, when they get bent out of shape and defensive and touchy on God’s behalf.
I don’t think many countries have enough Christians disbelieving in evolution that they can cause a battle over evolution.
Comment by: Rachel
6Helen- Yes, Anna is happy about the change. We’ve only attended our new church St. Thomas Episcopal for a few weeks but we have been discussing this move for months. We had been growing increasingly uncomfortable with the Baptist church for several years. But we have two friends, a married couple who are both in seminary, who are planning to plant an emerging church. So we were very much looking forward to eventually joining a more progressive faith community but we figured we would stay at the Baptist church until this new community was launched.
But it just became too difficult to stay in such a theologically and politically conservative environment, especially when Anna was reporting these types of things about her Sunday School. So we will be attending the Episcopal church in the interim and we are very happy about the change.
Comment by: Helen
7Rachel I’m glad you’re all happy with the change. Hopefully the Episcopal church will be an interesting enriching experience while you wait for your friends to plant a church.
Comment by: Rachel
8Thanks, Helen! Regarding our topic of evolution, here is the position of the Episcopal Church:
In 1982, General Convention passed a resolution (a) to “affirm its belief in the glorious ability of God to create in any manner,” (b) “and in this affirmation reject the rigid dogmatism of the “Creationist’ movement” and (c) further affirmed “our support of the scientists, educators, and theologians in the search for truth in this creation that God has given and entrusted to us.”
Comment by: Elaine
9Rachel – yes, I can agree and accept a resolution like that…the Episcopal Church seems to be ahead of the curve on this one…and other things I’ve seen from them.
Thanks for posting the resolution.
Comment by: Doreen A Mannion
10scary, very scary….
Comment by: cautious
11Youtube claims the clip is from an HBO show, Friends of God.
http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/friends_of_god/synopsis.html
I think this video is good because it not only shows children being indoctrinated into an anti-science attitude, but it also shows two examples of what those kids look like with another decade of living in that mindset. The guy thinks he can get a Nobel Prize in Creationism and the gal thinks that it’s somehow wrong for schools to not teach religion in science class.
Also it is really neat that a Jewish mythological animal mentioned once in the Bible (and once in an apocryphal text) is used by Ken Ham et al. as evidence that sauropods lived in historical times.
This is about as stupid as pointing to Babe the blue Ox as proof that oxen can be really really big. And then demanding that science classes teach the theory of giant North American oxen.
Comment by: David H
12Obviously, you are failing to grasp that Paul Bunyan is just a story while the other comes from the inerrant word of God. ;-)
I have long been fascinated by the references to fantastic beasts and creatures in the Bible. One of my faves are the Nephilim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim).
The Nephilim (which apparently means The Fallen) are mentioned prior to the flood and after. Which kind of raises the question of how they managed to survive if the flood killed everything on the earth that wasn’t in the ark. But the post flood reference to them connects them to the race of giants living in the middle east, of which Goliath was among the last. There are actually several races of such large people mentioned in the old testament.
I wasn’t familiar with Behemoth, but have heard varying explanations for the origins of leviathan (sea monster, giant squid — now that is a real creature that defies the imagination — or simply a whale).
Ever since reading about Heinrich Schliemann while in high school I have believed that many myths have some sort of truth behind them. I have also thought that some of those creatures would make great characters in novels or movies. But it seems kind of foolish to make them intrinsic to my faith in God.
So, Ken, if I can prove that Behemoth wasnt a sauropod then you’ll deny your faith and salvation? I thought you believed in Jesus only to discover you actually believe in giant reptiles with saddles.
Regardless of what creationists say, the evidence — while already overwhelming — is mounting that the earth wasn’t created in 6 days about 6,000 years ago. Yet now they seem inextricably locked into forcing an irrelevant conflict between faith and science that is much more likely to cost them their faith then refute science.
Comment by: cautious
13The Old Testament (from the extremely little I have learned about it in, say, parochial high school) does have some characters and critters which, if written by any other ancient peoples, would just be labeled as myth, without anyone being offended.
Not to mention all the other Hebraic literature that is just as, if not more, mystical and mythological, which fundamentalist Christians ignore because somehow it …wasn’t written by God? I didn’t know Yahweh autographed all his work.
Regarding the Nephilim, they are referenced by some creationists. Kent Hovind thought all of the earlier characters in the Bible were giants. That somehow was how the Pyramids got built, see, cuz the people back then were much taller than they are now.
This gullibility to believe in implausible things is, of course, not restricted to modern-day Christian fundamentalists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_Giant
…I don’t know what else to say that hasn’t been said a zillion times before. Christian fundamentalism is a reactionary force against the modernization of both Christianity and civilization. It’s dangerous because fighting against progress never ever ends well for either side. etc. etc. etc.
Comment by: Rachel
14David, that’s how I have always understood it. Leviathan and Behemoth were simply names that ancient peoples used to describe huge creatures they had observed. Leviathan is clearly some giant sea creature and I’ve often heard that Behemoth may have referred to a hippopotamus or rhinoceros. At any rate, these creatures inspired awe because of their size and strength.
The Bible records peoples’ journey of faith toward God. It simply isn’t a science textbook. I can’t understand why people like Ham and Hovind insist on these tortured explanations. To me, it minimizes and obscures the true value of Scripture.
And it is indeed frightening to see children growing up with an anti-scientific mindset, especially in the age of the global warming crisis. When these kids grow up and make their own decisions, some will reject faith in favor of science and some will reject science in favor of faith. In my opinion, it is a tragedy either way. I wish they weren’t being forced to choose.
Comment by: David H
15I believe in God. I believe that Jesus was the son of God. Some would argue that is a gullible belief in something implausible.
How I separate that from what is being done by the creationist is that my belief in those beings is largely separate from my belief in The Bible. If God and Jesus are real, then they are real regardless of anything in the Bible (especially murky things mentioned in a single verse like Behemoth).
People like Ham and Hovind have essentially made the Bible a fourth aspect of God. Moreover, they have made their reading of the Bible an aspect of God. To question their reading is the same as questioning God. Therefore to question them is heresy. I believe that if God didn’t want us to question he wouldn’t have wasted all the gray goop we have stuffed between our ears. What’s more, if Behemoth was essential to our understanding of him, he would have brought him up more than that once.
C.S. Lewis led me to an analogy about the Bible being like a map. It isn’t the destination. It isn’t even the trip. It provides guidance on the latter in order to reach the former. And like any map, it has a lot of murky markings (are those mountains or trees?). Ham and Hovind have decided they are neither mountains nor trees, they are dinosaurs with saddles on their back and seeing them on the map is just the same as if they had actually seen them personally. Not only ludicrous on the face of things, it also doesn’t help one make the trip or reach the destination.
Comment by: Clay
16I read every post so far. They are all hypocritical. What about the boy saying he wants to become a scientist? Christianity is not synononomous with ignorance. Sir Isaac Newton said this;
“Whence is it that nature does nothing in vain: and whence arises all that order and beauty which we see in the world? . . .does it not appear from phenomena that there is a Being incorporeal, living, intelligent, omnipresent, who in infinite space, as it were in his Sensory, sees the things themselves intimately, and thoroughly perceives them, and comprehends them wholly.” I suppose the previous posters would post the same kind of remarks if there was some video of Newton talking to children. You take a few seconds of a video clip and condemn what you do not understand.
Another theme was that God does not need defending. Maybe so, but your reasons for believing should be defended. If you believe in evolution, your reasons for believing should be defended. I see none of that. Reasons for believing in creation should be defended, that was in the video. So the condemned, ignorant, fundamentalists are thinking, and telling us what, and why they believe, but the posters on here cannot.
A scientific hypothesis should be testable. Evolution cannot be tested. It is a philosophy; how life got here apart from God. I challenge anyone to show me one single experiment that proves evolution, or disproves it.
You can read some of my blogs on myspace, especially; Morality and another one: Evolution as a Religion. And others if you think I’m an ignorant fundamentalist.
Comment by: David H
17Not sure you will be back to read this Clay, but I do believe in a creator. However, I do not believe in strict creationism. I believe in Jesus as the son of God, but I don’t think relying on him for my salvation requires me to accept Ken Hamm as the source of all truth on issues of creation. Finally, there have recently been quite a few breakthroughs regarding scientific evidence of evolution. Me personally, as a matter of spirituality, I don’t think it is important how God created the earth — simply that he did. Also, I don’t find the strict creationist view particularly helpful in reaching the unconverted.
If that makes me a hypocrite, I can live and die with that.
Comment by: Clay
18David,
I don’t have a problem with what you believe. What are the breakthroughs regarding scientific evidence of evolution? I don’t find creation a hinderance to reaching the unsaved, in fact it opens doors.
I took a class called Critical Thinking, (U of M)the teacher asked how many believed in evolution, with his hand up, about two other people raised their hands. Take a critical look at evolution and you’ll see it is not a scientific theory, it does not even back up it’s claims. I am going to take a lab class on evolution. Should be fun.
I don’t rely on Ken Hamm either, don’t think I’ve ever heard him speak. I can simply take what evolutionist’s tell me and tear it apart.
Comment by: Clay
19What I meant by hypocritcal was not that you can’t believe in evolution and be a Christian,(although evolutionists are laughing at you behind your back) I meant the self-righteous, condemning attitudes.
Comment by: David H
20Clay, I’m not too concerned about evolutionists laughing at me behind my back. I know people are have been really persecuted — hung up by their thumbs, fingernails pulled out, that kind of stuff. Someone laughing at me doesn’t really compare.
As for recent work, I’m going to refer you to the book recently written by Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project. Here is an article about him and the book. Collins, who is a Christian, believes that what we now know about the genetic material in people, animals, plants and almost living thing on earth offers quite a bit of evidence that all life on this planet evolved from a single organism. He goes into quite a bit more detail than that on the scientific evidence that leads him to such a conclusion.
There are quite a few others. Even Intelligent Design advocates such as Michael Behe don’t argue that there is no such thing as evolution, they simply try to define its natural limits and then insist some intelligence had to have a hand in what obviously occurred (natural selection, i.e. evolution).
Of course none of it is proof.
As for being a hypocrite. Thanks for noticing. Aren’t we all?
Comment by: Clay
21What I meant by laughing at you behind your back is that it is a philosophy of how we got here without God. They think it’s cute that you hold onto your beliefs while saying you believe in a philosophy that gets rid of the very God you say you believe in. I’ll look at the article but as you already said it isn’t proof. I can look at the same evidence and see creation. I can even make the same claim as Darwin; If it can be shown that any part of creation could not have been created my God theory will completely break down. Have you ever read “On the Origin of the Species?” It’s pathetic. Evolution is not a scientific theory, it cannot be tested. Confirming evidence can always be found. I can say we all came from aliens and find confirming evidence everywhere.
Comment by: Clay
22I read it. I’m not impressed. I think he was also in Time magazine? Here’s an address for an article on whether God created evolution. Impressive list of degrees behind this guys name too. He is also doing an experiment on whether space has substance, ya know, another one of those ignorant fundamentalist Christians.
http://www.montanabiblecollege.com/Documents/DidGodCreateEvolution.pdf
The philosophy of evolution does not fit with Christianity at all. Survival of the fittest. Doesn’t sound like what Jesus taught. Hitler followed it, the way he saw it, he was just improving the gene pool.
Comment by: David H
23Well, good luck to you on your belief system, Clay. Not really sure what you have to offer in discussion with non-believers other than nothing can be proved. That kind of leads to believe what you like — cause it all has the same impossibility of proof.
The fundamental difference between us seems to be that unless something can be proved absolutely you feel free to discard it completely. That seems to be critical to your faith. My attitude is that if I can’t prove evolution or creationism (absolutely) then they can’t be particularly important to my belief system. But hey, maybe that just makes me ignorant too.
Comment by: Pete S.
24Thanks, David H, for referring to Francis Collins. His book, “The Language of God” is wonderful. Although I continue to see few problems with Intelligent Design (so long as you don’t infer that those theories are proving definitively that God created) I think that there is so much evidence for evolutionary processes (regardless whether you believe in Evolution (big E) as a philosophical system) that it doesn’t do a lot of intellectual good to continue to make the BIble into a scientific textbook, which it is not, nor to go around and insist that it is 100% historically factual. It wasn’t written that way. Inerrancy is a 20th Century invention, as far as I can figure. Unnecessary.
Anyway, I recommend everyone to read Francis Collins’s book.
Comment by: Pete S.
25This comment is first to Clay, then others.
I have great difficulty with upholding a Creationist point of view. I don’t see that it holds water when looking at the world and its age. When I contemplate nature, look at geology, learn about Carbon 14 dating, and the extremely slow, gradual drift of the continents, etc… I do not sense a young earth at all. I do not understand why it seems necessary to insist that Genesis 1 and 2 is literal or historical in the sense that we now call historical.
To me Genesis 1 and 2 are pointing to the reason why God created, far more than how He created. For instance: there is little logic in even the order of the days of Creation given our knowledge of how things work in the world, in nature, etc. Is it even remotely logical that God would create plants before the creation of the sun to enable photosynthesis? To say that there was already light….Cast from what? How likely is it that the earth was created prior to the sun? I don’t think the writer of Genesis had anything remotely scientific in mind, therefore it is worthless to take Genesis and build scientific explanations or theories. Genesis 1 was written in order to deliver one message: However it was created, Nature is good, very good, because it is God’s and we are God’s. That’s not science, it is, however Truth. To equate Truth primarily or exclusively with Factual History is to cheapen and reduce it. Truth transcends mere factoids and scientific data. Let’s not reduce Genesis to that level.
Comment by: David H
26There is no science in this article. There is extrapolation — interpretation — of words in a book. Collins, in his unimpressive work, deciphered a book that is mountainous in its size and complexity. His philosophy about combining theism and evolution can be written off, but that doesn’t change the essential truth of the human genome.
As for whether God invented natural selection, I couldn’t tell you. But what Jesus taught does appear to be in direct conflict with those laws. So maybe he was telling people — those creatures with hearts that feel and minds that think on a level above the rest of creation — that while there do appear to be mindless, random rules that drive nature (as Job and the Psalmists and many other Bible characters said, the rain falls on both the wicked and the good without making a distinction) human beings don’t have to be slaves to those laws. Jesus in his conception, life and resurrection seemed constantly to affirm that there are natural laws, but they are not necessarily the end.
I can’t work up a lot of enthusiasm for making evolution or creationism central to my faith. If God could create the universe, if he could “breathe” me, that goes far beyond my ability to understand. I enjoy the search for the mechanisms, but don’t see any of the those answers — whether provided by interpretation of scripture or scientific testing — changing my essential belief that God created.
Comment by: Clay
27There are some straw man arguments up there. I never said Genesis was a scientific book. Funny how in defense of evolution people take to attacking creation. I wasn’t defending creation. I said evolution is not a scientific theory, there are no experiments proving or disproving it and no one on here has shown me one.
As for the argument that it must be proven before I’ll believe in it, well, when it comes to science, that’s the way it’s supposed to be. As for creation there is much more evidence for it than there is for evolution. I have much to offer in that regard. I’m not afraid to say evolution is a scam. I can refute any evidence for evolution and I can back up creation logically.
“…when looking at the world and its age. When I contemplate nature, look at geology, learn about Carbon 14 dating, and the extremely slow, gradual drift of the continents, etc” quoting Pete S. Apparently you haven’t contemplated them enough, or more likely, at all. You believe what you are told without critically looking at it. Carbon dating is unreliable, carbon does not break down at an even rate. How do you know there was a gradual shift of the continents? Because evolution requires a slowly changing environemnt? Evolution is a tautalogy. We are here, therefore we evolved. He who produces the most offspring produces the most offspring. Evolution answers nothing. Put up or shut up, show me the experiment that proves evolution.
Comment by: Eliza
28Late to this discussion, was away without internet access this past week.
Clay wrote:
From Wikipedia’s page on “Theory” (boldface added):
And from the Wiki page on Evolution:
Evolution as described above, the change in gene frequencies in a population, has been observed innumerable times and can be induced by an experimenter without difficulty. Selective breeding is an example of humans influencing this process.
But perhaps that won’t address the concerns raised. Perhaps that’s only considered evidence of “microevolution”, changes within species, not “macroevolution” – the origin of species. But it is the grander “theory of evolution” (not the more banal “process of evolution”) you are refuting, n’est-ce pas?
Indeed, it has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, because to date it fits the reams of scientific observations, including fossil records.
But, remember! (from above) that a proven counterexample could lead to the overturning of the theory of evolution (especially if another theory was formulated which better explained all of the observations to date).
This, then, is the assignment given to those who believe the theory of evolution is a scam: present evidence which will convince the world’s biologists – or at least a significant proportion of them – that the theory of evolution is not the best explanation for the observed data, including (but not limited to) the fossil record.
Please! Go ahead! If you are able to present (or, find and present) convincing data to support your argument, you will throw the biology community on its ear and create shock waves of excitement in the scientific world.
Comment by: Rachel
29Eliza, your proposition seems very reasonable to me. But many who believe in Creationism would see responding to your challenge as a total waste of their time and efforts. This is because they firmly believe that evidence to refute evolution is both abundant and obvious and that the world’s biologists are blinded by their devotion to “secular humanism.” They believe that these scientists hold as a treasured value their freedom to live a selfish and sinful lifestyle and that the scientists understand deep down that if they had to acknowledge the existence of a Creator, they would be forced to repent of their evil ways.
The Creationists feel that they have already proved their case brilliantly over and over and that the vast majority of the world’s scientists simply refuse to face the truth. Creationists are convinced that the scientific community would rather participate in a vast conspiracy of scientific deception than bow the knee to a powerful God and be held accountable for their “ungodly lifestyle.” And the Creationists further believe that the many Christians who accept both the theory of evolution and the concept of a Creator God are no better than the godless scientists because they too have compromised the truth and thus do not really deserve to wear the label Christian.
I know this mindset extremely well because I have grown up in communities that believe exactly as I have described. Many young people go through an agonizing dilemma when they learn more about the scientific evidence for evolution and feel they must choose between modern science and their religious faith. That was certainly my experience and it was a great relief to realize that I could both embrace scientific theory AND continue as a devout follower of Christ.
Comment by: David H
30Clay said:
At this point I’m not really sure what Clay is defending. He apparently doesn’t necessarily consider himself a creationist, but he is absolutely positive there is not one iota of proof that could lead to belief in evolution.
His quote above is probably self-evident to him. The world is all around him, it was created, thus there are tons of evidence for creation. Who is there who can dispute that?
I grew up near Hershey, PA I know that there is lots of evidence that Hershey makes chocolate bars. But that doesn’t tell me anything about how they make them. I can choose to believe, based on a variety of things, that they aren’t the result of product evolution that occurred over decades. They are just so perfect and I’ve never actually seen an old Hershey bar. But I know they were created, ’cause there they are on my store shelf.
I never met Milton Hershey. I read about him, his company and his products. I know some of the history, but that is just stuff in books and I never met the guy. So there is no proof he invented Hershey bars and until someone can prove it to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, then I refuse to accept that explanation of the origin of Hershey bars. They are just too good to have been made by a man. They are truly divine.
Come to think of it, I have no proof the moon isn’t made of green cheese. I want someone to prove that. Heck, I want someone to prove that gravity is a force holding me to the earth rather than that all objects in the universe are expanding at a linear rate that coincides with the speed at which all celestial objects in the univserse are moving away from each other. I believe that when I jump into the air, the planet actually grows up to meet me. So it may look like I’m falling, but the earth is actually just growing really fast. In order to change my mind I need positive proof — not just evidence and scientific study. Finally, I need you to prove, Clay, that evolution is just a philosophy and not science. I need proof, not just evidence from other sources questioning some tenets of evolution. Refuting something means that you have to prove it false, not simply have an explanation that runs counter and is likewise unprovable. BTW, logic isn’t proof or even evidence. It can help lead to those, but it isn’t them.
I have heard lots of the evidence from creationists regarding why they don’t agree with evolution. Some is interesting (the issue with ocean salinity, for example), but I have never seen any that was backed by scientific study outside the creationist movement. That may be because there is a vast conspiracy or because their evidence can’t be proved through scientific study. Until creationists can prove that evolution is absolutely not involved in how life formed on earth — simply poking holes in aspects of evolutionary theory isn’t enough — then I am going to choose to believe that the conflict between evolution and creationism is irrelevant to my Christian faith.
And as Clay apparently agrees, the Bible isn’t a science book. So while it may tell us many things, it doesn’t tell us anything about how the earth was created — simply that it was.
If Clay doesn’t count himself a creationist, perhaps he just believes there is a creator God and that answers all of his questions. That’s fine. It isn’t about proof, it is about faith. I fully support faith. But saying I believe God created isn’t much more useful or provable to anyone else than saying I believe that Carbon-14 dating doesn’t work (I read a couple of articles about that, but what does that prove?). If everything is just belief — have you ever seen God, Clay, not just evidence of him and can you bring him to my house so I can see him too — then why can’t we all just believe what we want? I don’t see your logic leading me to a useful answer for that question.
I believe that what we believe is important. But for matters of faith, I don’t see arguing against evolution helping to prove the validity or the value of what I believe. That best proof that I believe and that belief has value is my life. Do I live what I believe? Do I love those I am told to love? There is a project worth a Christian effort: stop trying to prove God exists by pointing at everything else in the universe and start trying to prove that God exists in me.
Comment by: Staci
31Oh man, now I’m hungry for a Hershey bar!
Comment by: Doreen A Mannion
32I don’t feel so bad now. After the Hershey Bar story, mine about not believing in the Apollo Program sounds like a good analogy!
Comment by: Eliza
33I’ve been feeling bad for having a little extra reason to believe in the space program…my uncle was a geologist for NASA, so I saw one of the Apollo missions take off from Cape Canaveral, saw some moon rocks at the Kennedy Space Center (at least, my uncle said they were moon rocks), and have a copy of transcripts of conversations between Apollo astronauts and Houston (including my uncle). Of course, I don’t know if those are actually transcripts of those conversations, or an attempt at fakery.
I used to think it was pretty cool that my uncle had been associated with the Apollo missions (or, had claimed that association). Now, I’m thinking how great it would have been if he’d been a chocolatologist! If I’d been able to taste his work, that would have been better proof!!
Comment by: David H
34I still remember that silly movie from 1978 where they faked a Mars landing and decided they had to kill the astronauts so they wouldn’t tell. It was called Capricorn One. One of the plot issues was how someone could uncover such a hoax once it was carried out. How do you prove that something everyone watched on TV never took place?
Perhaps I was too goofy in the things for which I wanted proof.
Comment by: Doreen A Mannion
35Capricorn One? One of my FAVORITES!
Just kidding!
This film actually had an incredible cast (not counting OJ Simpson).