Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
__________________ "If we begin with certainties, we shall end in doubts; if we begin with doubts, and are patient, we shall end in certainties."
-Marcus Aurelius
And how are animals less intelligent? Beavers contruct damns by gnawing down trees, then dragging them, arranging the logs, then filling in the cracks, much like early settlers built log cabins. And they do it without any hands. Beaver damns are only one example of the amazing craftsmanship of animals. Wasps build elaborate, paper mache hives that are works of art. Birds learned to weave fibers eons before humans did, humans most likely learned weaving from looking at bird's nests. Animals even know more about medicinal herbs than most people. They know what to eat to cure a sick stomach, or illnesses. Dogs will eat certain types of plants when they are sick, bears, cats.
I won't pretend to be the scientific type, but I think that what animals seem to lack, in most cases, is imagination. Birds' nests in 2003 probably look quite similar to birds' nests from eons ago. They don't appear to be capable of advancing, of possessing creativity. Look at how different human life has been over the centuries!
Sure, beavers are wonderful craftsman.... but they couldn't perform open heart surgery even if they had hands.
I would also suggest that, at one time, humans knew what kinds of plants cured a sick stomach, too. Civilization has robbed us of that knowledge, preferring instead to profit from our illnesses (i.e., pharmaceutical companies).
__________________ "People usually consider walking on water or in thin air a miracle. But I think the real miracle is not to walk either on water or in thin air, but to walk on earth. Every day we are engaged in a miracle which we don't even recognize: a blue sky, white clouds, green leaves, the black, curious eyes of a child -- our own two eyes. All is a miracle."
-Thich Nhat Hanh
A refutation to bevets's original metaphor, from another site:
Two men walk up to you and both claim that they are billionaires.
You ask them: "Prove it."
The first one shows you five hundred million dollars and says, "the rest is in the bank across the street, and, although it is closed, here is a list of my deposits."
They total over 500 million dollars.
The second man says, "I'm a billionaire and here's my proof: my friend saw me deposit the money in the bank, but nobody can talk to him, ever, in person. In fact, I have absolutely no evidence that this friend exists or has ever existed, but he knows the truth about my billionaire status."
You, being rational, say, "I think I'd trust that the first man is a billionaire. However, I will accompany him to the bank tomorrow to check on it. On the other hand, without further proof, the second man cannot be believed."
The second man then screams loudly, "WHY DO YOU PERSIST IN PERSECUTING ME!!!!?!?!
I like your analogy better, Diane. Though I think the second man should, at the end, threaten you with all the bad things that'll happen when his friend comes back.
__________________ "If we begin with certainties, we shall end in doubts; if we begin with doubts, and are patient, we shall end in certainties."
-Marcus Aurelius
The crux of the issue is 'What is your final source of authority?'
For Dr Wise, the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. If the Bible makes a claim that is disputed by science, the bible wins -- no contest -- you do not 2nd guess God.
Originally Posted by lucaspa
Correction. Dr. Wise has as his authority himself. That is, his interpretation of the Bible.
This interpretation did not originate with Dr Wise. If you turn this around, you would have to claim yourself as final authority (or your interpretaton of the empirical data)
Originally Posted by lucaspa
Christianity has long felt differntly and disagrees with Dr. Wise:
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
If you intended to convey that these were literal days, how would you have been more specific?
If you intended to convey a non literal day, what is the point of 'And there was evening, and there was morning'?
Can you give an example of a non literal day (yom) that is associated with a specific number (first, second, third)?
Matthew 19.4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
Matthew 23.35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
Luke 17.26 "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all."
They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. ~ St. Augustine
He [Moses] calls 'a spade a spade,' i.e., he employs the terms 'day' and 'evening' without Allegory, just as we customarily do... we assert that Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively, i.e., that the world, with all its creatures, was created within six days, as the words read. If we do not comprehend the reason for this, let us remain pupils and leave the job of teacher to the Holy Spirit. ~ Martin Luther
Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; ... Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr (Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University)
Originally Posted by bevets
You may not understand how the claims of the Bible can be resolved with scientific theories, but scientific theories come and go. Answers that dont seem obvious in one era become obvious with new discoveries.
Originally Posted by lucaspa
However, theories that are falsified don't change. They remain falsified. Special creation and creationism are two scientific theories that have been falsified. That will never change. However God created, it was not by YEC.
I guess I missed that news bulletin. Disputation is not refutation. While some aspects of Creation theory (or ANY theory) may have been ill advised, Science has not disproven special creation. Actually the major strategy of Dawkins et al is to ignore creationism ('head in the sand science' I guess)
Originally Posted by bevets
For the 'theistic evolutionist', if there is a conflict between scientific theory and the Bible, Science wins. They are not concerned with the best intrepretation of scripture -- they are concerned with the best interpretation that fits scientific theory. Its not that they disrespect scripture -- its that they are absolutely convinced by the 'scientific evidence'
Originally Posted by lucaspa
Not quite. The theistic evolutionist realizes that God really did create. That means that Creation has all the evidence of how God created. Creation is therefore a second book of God. Written directly by God without having to go thru humans and their limitations. So, if what we find by studying Creation (science) shows that a particular interpretation of scripture is wrong, then that interpretation is wrong.
Aside from the bible, what reason does the 'theistic evolutionist' have for suggesting a Creator? Are you suggesting that humans are fallible when recording scripture, but infallible when interpreting empirical data?
Deuteronomy 18.18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.
2 Samuel 23.2 The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me; his word was on my tongue.
Psalm 18.30 As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is flawless.
Matthew 24.35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
2 Timothy 3.16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
2 Peter 1.20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Originally Posted by bevets
We should also remember that science will never know the mind of God, but God can make his mind known to man. We sense God through nature, but we know God through his Word.
Originally Posted by lucaspa
Whynot? Why can't science give us glimpses of the mind of God?
You switched terms. Man can glimpse God through science -- and know God through scripture.
Originally Posted by bevets
We sense God through nature, but we know God through his Word.
Originally Posted by lucaspa
The problem is that creationists want to know that God exists thru nature. You just told us that creationism is a futile exercise. Thank you.
You make some bizarre claims. Please explain why this would apply to creationism, but not 'theistic evolution'?
Last edited by bevets; 17th November 2003 at 12:22 AM.
Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. ~ William Provine
The ancient seekers after truth differ from their modern successors in only one respect. It was permitted to them to suppose that supernatural forces were at work in the world-forces which could be perceived only by the eye of faith. The modern seeker refuses to accept any explanation which involves the action of a supernatural agent, even as a last resort. ~ Arthur Keith
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ~ Richard Lewontin
Originally Posted by lucaspa
The first two quotes are accurate. However, you forgot to ask yourself if they really represent science and evolution or if they only represent the opinion of the author.
I didnt forget, did you?
Originally Posted by lucaspa
The last quote is laughable because it shows how little creationists read. Lewontin is actually poking fun at this attitude and showing this attitude is not part of science.
Here are some more quotes from the same article:
The problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth. The reason that people do not have a correct view of nature is not that they are ignorant of this or that fact about the material world, but that they look to the wrong sources in their attempt to understand.
Sagan's suggestion that only demonologists engage in "special pleading, often to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble," is certainly not one that accords with my reading of the scientific literature. Nor is this a problem unique to biology. The attempts of physicists to explain why their measurements of the effects of relativity did not agree with Einstein's quantitative prediction is a case no doubt well known to Sagan.
As to assertions without adequate evidence, the literature of science is filled with them, especially the literature of popular science writing. Carl Sagan's list of the "best contemporary science-popularizers" includes E.O. Wilson, Lewis Thomas, and Richard Dawkins, each of whom has put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.
But when scientists transgress the bounds of their own specialty they have no choice but to accept the claims of authority, even though they do not know how solid the grounds of those claims may be. Who am I to believe that quantum physics if not Steven Weinberg, or about the solar system if not Carl Sagan? What worries me is that they may believe what Dawkins and Wilson tell them about evolution.
Given the immense extent, inherent complexity, and counterintuitive nature of scientific knowledge, it is impossible for anyone, including non-specialist scientists, to retrace the intellectual paths that lead to scientific conclusions about nature. In the end we must trust the experts and they, in turn, exploit their authority as experts and their rhetorical skills to secure our attention and our belief in things that we do not really understand.
Could you show me the part where he said 'just joking'?
Originally Posted by lucaspa
Yes, Keith and Provine are ardent atheists. However, you don't believe them at face value when they say there is no God, do you? Yet you turn around and believe them at face value when they say evolution backs atheism! Surely the irony is apparent to you.
Do you believe them when they say the empirical data support evolution, but not when they say that evolution backs atheism?
Originally Posted by lucaspa
A major irony here is that Provine's statement works only because of the efforts of creationists! Creationists are the ones that have made evolution "the greatest engine of atheism". If they would simply follow Darwin and McCosh, then Provine's use of evolution for atheism disappears!
And if Americans would simply follow Osama Bin Laden then his reasons for terrorism would disappear! I wonder why Bush didnt think of that?
It was obvious that both the general theory of evolution and its extension to man in particular must meet from the first with the most determined resistance on the part of the Churches. Both were in flagrant contradiction to the Mosaic story of creation, and other Biblical dogmas that were involved in it, and are still taught in our elementary schools. It is creditable to the shrewdness of the theologians and their associates, the metaphysicians, that they at once rejected Darwinism, and made a particularly energetic resistance in their writings to its chief consequence, the descent of man from ape. ~ Ernst Haeckel
Our science of evolution won its greatest triumph when, at the beginning of the twentieth century, its most powerful opponents, the Churches, became reconciled to it , and endeavored to bring their dogmas into line with it. ~ Ernst Haeckel
Thank you, but the job is filled. Despite Dr. Wise's, Hovind's, Ham's, Morris', Wysong's, Johnson's etc. attempts to take the job away.
Linear Mode
