\creation Crisis in Christian Colleges?

[Digit]

Hello Metherion,

Nope. The problem is believing that a book of Hebrew mythology is literal scientific fact and trying to get that belief to usurp legitimate science that is integral for biology and thus things like medicine

The science does not differ, merely the axiom. This is a really old claim by those who don't agree with creationism. It's pseudo-science, because it's presupposition differs. You may say that science doesn't need presuppositions, but all logical thought does, it's the basis from which we work. Creationism doesn't take away from the fields you mentioned, it's not replacing the scientific model, it uses the same science, we all have the same evidence and facts to work with. If a doctor measures the blood-sugar level, with differing methods, he will always reach the same result, yet dating methods aren't as robust, they disagree quite largely in some instances, and too are based on axioms about our world. That radioactive decay is constant, despite it being seen that it isn't under certain circumstances.

Also, people hark on about the presupposition issue, in that real science doesn't have any presuppositions. This is a complete fallacy. In fact, no one can bring up how creationist scientists ignore data that doesn't adhere to the historical account of Genesis (it's not scientific fact, it explains no workings, no testable theories of any kind) it simply says God created our world and describes it, and we are trying to figure out the how and confirm it. Afterall if it's untrue, it's in all our best interests to find out about it now.

Back to data verification and theories though. Secular science, ie, science that does not account for God's hand in creation does the same thing:

“Take black matter, for example. As fate would have it, the most recent and popular theories in physics just don’t work. It’s not as if there are some loose threads around the edges; the theories don’t work at all. If they did, the universe would instantaneously fall in on itself or fly apart. Now those of us who are not astrophysicists would probably do something like discard the theories. Not astrophysicists. They readjust the uncooperative universe to fit their theories, postulating a gigantic quantity of invisible gravity-producing stuff they call black matter, even though it’s not black and maybe not even matter. And there you are. Just like that, the modern, popular theories are back in business.
I can imagine that readers new to physics and its way of doing things might be skeptical, but those of us who are higher up in the world of science feel nothing but anticipation in all this theorizing. It could, after all, be a step toward a newer and even sillier putty.”
Roger L. Welsch, “Astrophys Ed”, Natural History, February 1994, p. 25

@ digit:
1. I don't know enough about the earth magnetic field decaying to talk about it. Mind providing your sources?

Sure thing.

According to Nasa, the moon is ~380,000 kilometers away. It is also receding at 3.8 cm/year. if it has been receding at a constant rate all that time, over 1.2 billion years it would have moved 4.56 billion centimeters.

It hasn't been receding at a constant rate. It's rate has been getting more and more constant over time, but it hasn't ever been constant.

I'm going to skip the rest of your post, because at the end of the day this isn't the place for debate about this topic, the issue I and many like me have, is as such:

1) We are supposed to be God's people, rejecting anything that doesn't come from faith (according to scripture) testing everything, holding on to the good that we find (Thessalonions). Yet it seems we are very eager to remove God's part in creation. Evolution isn't such a complicated theory that God could not have found a way to describe it in Genesis.
2) Something doesn't add up. One of the reasons I didn't respond to each of your points is that I've done this all before. I post. You post. I post... etc. It doesn't get anywhere, unless we are a specialist in several fields, at some stage we are going to have to rely on the facts presented to us by others. In that regard:

"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence."
Bertran Russell

3) We are constantly hearing how proving a theory false, is as exciting as proving it true, yet we see no evidence of this. Creationism has been blacklisted as a pseudo-science, and we've already seen as above, how the hipocrisy runs through that statement. Apparently people would jump at the opportunity to disprove evolution, but they aren't. Why? Why not? Why are we clinging so tightly to a theory that doesn't require God at all? Why are we not presenting all alternatives, why are we not highlighting the issues, the holes and gaps in the theory and providing students with some alternatives, which whilst aren't as wholly testable, are still very new and are being worked on.

Lastly:

4) Imagine if we could prove a young Earth. What would that mean for us Christians, it would suddenly give a tremendous amount of backing to our faith, and dare I suggest the number of souls saved as a result would sky-rocket, as evolutionary theory is something that is constantly thrown in our faces as a reason why God is a fairy-tale. We support this, and some of us have adopted theistic-evolution, why do we show such intolerance for a belief and study when it could gain us so much. It's very confusing.

I do understand how some of this is our fault. In that some creationists are quite out there, but we are constantly told not to judge, and if someone goes around saying, "Creationism or Hell!" we have to realise that message isn't back by scripture. We need to separate these things, and hold on to the good (the theory), whilst discarding that which doesn't come from faith (the intolerance).

That's my two cents, personally I am really looking forward to the following years of study and work done in this area, I think it's quite exciting, regardless of the outcome. Christ is still my banner, and I would hope that in that at least, we can find unity, afterall it's the most important thing in the world.

Cheers,
Digit

 

[Digit]

Hello Dies3l,

Seriously, the reason I keep posting on this topic is that there is something amazing about what this topic does to people.

Zing! We have a winner, give this man a cigar.

Cheers!
Digit

 

[dies-l]

No, it's not.

If neither viewpoint was demonstrably correct by either reasoning, I wouldn't be here. Evolutionary theory is, for all intents and purposes, correct. It has never been successfully challenged by a competing theory. All of its predictions have been verified so far. Young-earth creationism, on the other hand, is demonstrably false. The few scientific claims it is able to make have been shown to be patently incorrect. All of them.

So yes, I agree that if we had a grey issue here it might be questionable to label a viewpoint as idiocy. But this really is clear-cut. Those who support evolutionary theory do so because they actually know the theory. We've looked very carefully at large amounts of evidence over the course of our stays here. Furthermore, we readily acknowledge that if the evidence instead pointed towards young-earth creationism, we'd switch. Those who oppose evolutionary theory do so because they don't know what the theory says. Indeed, they often don't even know how theories work.

I agree. My viewpoint is not justified by their claims that I'll go to hell. It's justified by their continued, persistent and unlawful efforts to introduce young-earth creationism as a competing scientific viewpoint in science classrooms.

How about the truth: young-earth creationism disgusts us. The very idea that people could willingly blind themselves to reality because they're too frightened and uncomfortable to revise their religious views is disturbing. It doesn't disgust us because it was written in a book somewhere that we're supposed to be disgusted. It doesn't disgust us because some figurehead told us that God wants us to be disgusted. It disgusts us because it's the progeny of intellectual cowardice that has somehow managed to infect half of America.

My hostility towards the viewpoint is neither irrational or unjustifiable, as I've explained.

Spoken like a true fundamentalist!

Seriously, each of your explanations as to why you are not a fundamentalist sounds more and more like a fundamentalist argument. "I am not being a fundamentalist, because I am right and they are idiots!" Everything you say about evolutionary theory I have heard fundie creationists say about YEC. Neither of them is based in demonstrable fact. Both positions require their adherents to place faith in some basic presuppositions that are not provable by science or logic. Therefore, I stick by my statement that anyone who goes out of their way to belittle those who hold the competing viewpoint (much as you have done) comes across sounding like a fundamentialist. A fundamentalist will never admit that their hostility is irrational or unjustifiable. A fundamentalist will claim that those with opposing viewpoints "willingly blind themselves [the Truth]." A fundamentalist will never even entertain the possibility that their beliefs fall into a "grey issue." Do any of these fundamentalist statements sound familiar?

The sad thing is that you sound like you have a lot of good things to contribute to the discussion. But, the fact that you bring them with such venom and hostility effectively shuts down anything resembling meaningful dialogue.

 

[Dannager]

Spoken like a true fundamentalist!

*sigh* You really want this to be true, don't you?

Seriously, each of your explanations as to why you are not a fundamentalist sounds more and more like a fundamentalist argument.

No, it doesn't. You're looking for nothing but the similarities. As others have pointed out, there are plenty of reasonable positions to take that involve finding a viewpoint idiotic. That doesn't make the people who take that position fundamentalist in any way.

"I am not being a fundamentalist, because I am right and they are idiots!"

Why do you take issue with this? I've spent three years here. There is no way to participate in this discussion for that long without either deluding yourself into believing young-earth creationism or to become convinced of evolutionary theory's validity. To put it simply, we really are right. I don't know why this sticks in your craw, but this isn't some sort of we-know-we're-right-because-we-have-faith-we're-right thing. We know we're right because no matter how often we try to prove ourselves wrong it simply doesn't work.

verything you say about evolutionary theory I have heard fundie creationists say about YEC.

That doesn't make us fundamentalists, even if it were true (and it isn't). Fundamentalism lies in the reasoning, and evolutionists share almost nothing in their reasoning with fundamentalists.

Neither of them is based in demonstrable fact.

What? Man, we have quite literally thousands of demonstrable facts in support of evolution. Are you just not paying attention?

Both positions require their adherents to place faith in some basic presuppositions that are not provable by science or logic.

What? Seriously, what presuppositions does evolutionary theory make that aren't grounded in science or logic? The only one that I've heard (that's valid) is that the physical laws of the universe have remained constant for the period we study. And even that is grounded in logic, since if it were not true we would be unable to make any observations with anything resembling certainty, ever.

Therefore, I stick by my statement that anyone who goes out of their way to belittle those who hold the competing viewpoint (much as you have done) comes across sounding like a fundamentialist.

Wait...so, let's say, a Democrat calling a Republican-proposed bill "idiotic" is fundamentalist in nature? That's what fundamentalism sounds like to you?

Please, take a step back and carefully examine the claims you're making.

A fundamentalist will never admit that their hostility is irrational or unjustifiable.

And if that hostility really is rational and justifiable? What then? Are they still fundamentalists? If I say that an apple is red, and someone else says that same apple is blue, I can't call him an idiot without being a fundamentalist? Do I have to say "You know what, I respect your opinion that the apple is blue and acknowledge that I could be incorrect?" Does that make the world better for you?

A fundamentalist will claim that those with opposing viewpoints "willingly blind themselves [the Truth]."

And if they do willingly blind themselves to reality? We can't tell them because it would be impolite and would make people like you call us fundamentalists? Seriously, what are you thinking?

A fundamentalist will never even entertain the possibility that their beliefs fall into a "grey issue." Do any of these fundamentalist statements sound familiar?

Sure. They also sound like the statements of someone who is actually correct. What are you doing?

The sad thing is that you sound like you have a lot of good things to contribute to the discussion. But, the fact that you bring them with such venom and hostility effectively shuts down anything resembling meaningful dialogue.

I've had dozens of meaningful discussions with people on here, including some who have attributed their switch to theistic evolution to me. I'm sorry that you have the impression that my attitude shuts down meaningful discussion, but I'm afraid it simply is not the case. Your argument here is really horrendously misguided. Please, re-examine your thoughts.

 

[dies-l]

Sure. They also sound like the statements of someone who is actually correct.

Not at all. People who are convinced of the indisputable truth of what they are saying have no need to get nearly so defensive or hostile. Other than that, I'll let the rest of your post speak for itself. I have said my peace on this. It's sad that this is such an unnecessarily divisive issue in the church.

 

[metherion]

But, it is not a problem when people on the other side of the discussion insist that believers in YEC are idiots?!?!?

I do think it is a problem when people start calling the holders of other ideals idiots without just cause. There really isn't such just cause in this particular debate. There are a great many smart people on both sides of the debate.

Well, at this point I should probably talk about which debate I'm talking about. I'm talking about which one is true here. About which one should be in schools? Sorry, but YECism doesn't meet the definition of science. Evolution does. Therefore, put the one that belongs in science class in science class.

To paraphrase Ken Miller:
Supernatural explainations may be correct, but they aren't science. Science doesn't deal with the supernatural. God is not empirically observable, measurable, or repeatable.

And back to my own words, let's face it. Which one works? What can saying "God did it" offer us in terms of finding an anti-viral for HIV? What can "meat eating is a result of the Fall" tell us about food toxins? What can "God created the earth in it's present form" tell us about oil deposits? (Yes, I know that last one is actually a geology question, but the YEC paradigm contains much more than evolutionary biology.)

However, I am troubled by the lack of civility in the discussion when we resort to calling an opposing viewpoint "idiocy" or "nonsense", especially when neither viewpoint is demonstrably true either by scientific or philosophical reason.

And here lies the crux of the matter. Proof is a term for logic and math. Science works off of evidence. Evidence in favor of an old earth, and old universe, and evolutionary biology (which are astronomy, geology, and physics problems except for evolution): overwhelming. Evidence for a young earth, special creation, kind barriers, etc: none. Popular propoganda deceiving the masses into thinking there are holes and mis-representing evidence in favor of YECism? Almost as much as there is evidence for evolution. (And I'm not afraid to back that statement up, but that would be more suited to Origins Theology.)

To point to the fact that some YECs (though a VERY small minority) claim that not believing in YEC will send you to hell does not justify taking on an equally obnoxious and intolerant viewpoint toward YEC.

It is true that it does not justify the position that YECs are idiots. It is true that the hell belief is only held by a minority of YECs. But which group is on the news more? The hellfire guys. So it's not hard to connect the two viewpoints as being universally shared (just like atheism and evolution are normally connected) since the ones who hold the minority belief are shown much more often then the ones who don't.

Seriously, the reason I keep posting on this topic is that there is something amazing about what this topic does to people. Generally, I prefer speaking to more liberal Christians, because they generally tend to be more accepting of divergent viewpoints and more willing to have civil conversation. But, I have noticed on several threads that, when the topic of creationism comes up, very often the liberal perspective is enunciated with the same kind of hatred, venom, and intolerance that I have generally come to associate with fundamentalism.

A lot of people are tired of treading out the same points OVER and OVER and OVER again with people who AREN"T as polite as you are. This, coupled with the not-as-relatively-rare-as-it-should-be-considering-the-number-of-believers-belief-about-going-to-hell arguments thrown at many of us combined with accusations of being a false believer, a traitor, and any number of things that are false grates on people's nerves after a while. It also doesn't help that our side gets accused of many things that the other side does which we don't. Ex: reinterpreting things to fit our preconcieved notions, when AIGs statement clearly states that anything contradicting the Bible will be thrown out before it can even be examined. Ex: we refuse to consider other options because it would get us booted from the scientific community for breaking the conspiracy when a lot of the churches who are against it would throw out members who stopped being YECs. EX: accused of manipulating the data when many of the counterpoints are lies, manipulated data, or just plain wrong themselves. See where I'm going with this?

All of the responses I have gotten, with the exception perhaps of yours, have only demonstrated to me the deep irrational and unjustifiable hostility that some theistic evolutionists have toward YEC.

Which I agree is just as bad if not worse than the venom some YECs show towards TEs, and neither is justified in the least. I'm with you there.


And Digit? I'll get to you in a bit. I think this post might be at or near the limit of characters.

Metherion

 

[dies-l]

I do think it is a problem when people start calling the holders of other ideals idiots without just cause. There really isn't such just cause in this particular debate. There are a great many smart people on both sides of the debate.

Well, at this point I should probably talk about which debate I'm talking about. I'm talking about which one is true here. About which one should be in schools? Sorry, but YECism doesn't meet the definition of science. Evolution does. Therefore, put the one that belongs in science class in science class.

To paraphrase Ken Miller:
Supernatural explainations may be correct, but they aren't science. Science doesn't deal with the supernatural. God is not empirically observable, measurable, or repeatable.

And back to my own words, let's face it. Which one works? What can saying "God did it" offer us in terms of finding an anti-viral for HIV? What can "meat eating is a result of the Fall" tell us about food toxins? What can "God created the earth in it's present form" tell us about oil deposits? (Yes, I know that last one is actually a geology question, but the YEC paradigm contains much more than evolutionary biology.)



And here lies the crux of the matter. Proof is a term for logic and math. Science works off of evidence. Evidence in favor of an old earth, and old universe, and evolutionary biology (which are astronomy, geology, and physics problems except for evolution): overwhelming. Evidence for a young earth, special creation, kind barriers, etc: none. Popular propoganda deceiving the masses into thinking there are holes and mis-representing evidence in favor of YECism? Almost as much as there is evidence for evolution. (And I'm not afraid to back that statement up, but that would be more suited to Origins Theology.)


It is true that it does not justify the position that YECs are idiots. It is true that the hell belief is only held by a minority of YECs. But which group is on the news more? The hellfire guys. So it's not hard to connect the two viewpoints as being universally shared (just like atheism and evolution are normally connected) since the ones who hold the minority belief are shown much more often then the ones who don't.



A lot of people are tired of treading out the same points OVER and OVER and OVER again with people who AREN"T as polite as you are. This, coupled with the not-as-relatively-rare-as-it-should-be-considering-the-number-of-believers-belief-about-going-to-hell arguments thrown at many of us combined with accusations of being a false believer, a traitor, and any number of things that are false grates on people's nerves after a while. It also doesn't help that our side gets accused of many things that the other side does which we don't. Ex: reinterpreting things to fit our preconcieved notions, when AIGs statement clearly states that anything contradicting the Bible will be thrown out before it can even be examined. Ex: we refuse to consider other options because it would get us booted from the scientific community for breaking the conspiracy when a lot of the churches who are against it would throw out members who stopped being YECs. EX: accused of manipulating the data when many of the counterpoints are lies, manipulated data, or just plain wrong themselves. See where I'm going with this?



Which I agree is just as bad if not worse than the venom some YECs show towards TEs, and neither is justified in the least. I'm with you there.


And Digit? I'll get to you in a bit. I think this post might be at or near the limit of characters.

Metherion

I don't think I have any serious disagreements with you. I can understand the frustration that some TEs have about the attitudes of some YECs. But, I think that you and I both agree that there is nothing productive about namecalling or stereotyping, whether it be the YEC folks or the TEs. As I think you and I have both articulated the correct response to the closed-mindedness and intolerance of some YEC adherents is not more closed-mindedness and intolerance. Seriously, we can be civil about our disagreements. It is this lack of civility that I have come to associate with both sides of the evolution debate that has pushed me away from really seriously considering the issue. Thank you for addressing the issue with a sense of tolerance and decency.

 

[metherion]

The science does not differ, merely the axiom. This is a really old claim by those who don't agree with creationism. It's pseudo-science, because it's presupposition differs. You may say that science doesn't need presuppositions, but all logical thought does, it's the basis from which we work.

Of course science needs presuppositions. But they are vastly different from those of Creationism.
Creationism: If it differs from an interpretation of a book with no evidence to support that interpretation and which probably isn't the way the book is meant to be taken anyways, it's wrong.

Science: If it can be done, measured, repeated, verified, tested, make correct predictions, and still hold up, it's probably right. Without those steps, it's probably wrong.

Creationism doesn't take away from the fields you mentioned, it's not replacing the scientific model, it uses the same science, we all have the same evidence and facts to work with.

I must disagree here. Concocting the solution before you've even looked at the particular problem is NOT the way science operates. Science does not have a book of absolutes that cannot be wrong. Science has books upon books of "These have been tested many many times, are probably right, and should work whenever you try to use them, but boy oh boy will you be famous if you can show them wrong"s and a lot of question marks.

If a doctor measures the blood-sugar level, with differing methods, he will always reach the same result, yet dating methods aren't as robust, they disagree quite largely in some instances, and too are based on axioms about our world. That radioactive decay is constant, despite it being seen that it isn't under certain circumstances.

And are those circumstances around when they are measured? Will something only altered by a magnetic field stronger than the earth's be affected inside a volcano too hot for anything to hold it's magnetic properties? No. Have the corrections for some of these been fixed? Yes. Are the faulty ones used and touted as correct? If they were, whoever did it would be censured from his field.

Also, people hark on about the presupposition issue, in that real science doesn't have any presuppositions. This is a complete fallacy. In fact, no one can bring up how creationist scientists ignore data that doesn't adhere to the historical account of Genesis (it's not scientific fact, it explains no workings, no testable theories of any kind) it simply says God created our world and describes it, and we are trying to figure out the how and confirm it. Afterall if it's untrue, it's in all our best interests to find out about it now.

Please show Genesis is a historical account penned word for word from the Mouth of God intended to be taken literally and is infallible. Please show it is an actual historical account and not a Bronze Age creation myth. Please show all actual historical accounts are actually correct.


As for your quote, it has several things wrong with it.
1. It's 13 years old. Got anything newer? We've made a lot of discoveries in 13 years.
2. It's dark matter, not black matter.
3) The problem it refers to is that the detectable universe isn't massive enough to keep together according to the current theories of physics, which work fine in other testable cases. This lead to a few things that could happen:
a) discarding the theory and the cases is still works on. This is bad, as it still works in some cases.
b) change the theory with acquired data. Well, it we don't have any data yet, we can't change it.
c) make a hypothesis and try to test it. We still don't know how gravity works (gravitons, waves, who knows?) yet, so we can't detect it's carriers. But we can hypothesize about things we can't detect yet, continue using the theory WHERE IT WORKS, and readjust it when we do have the data, and in the meantime see if we can make it work.
Not unreasonable at all.

I mean, imagine if every time we came up to a roadblock in human knowledge we gave up instead of trying something new. We wouldn't even have fire!

Sure thing.

Sorry, I meant the studies they did to show that the magnetic field was dropping. Furthermore, are there any studies to indicate any sort of cyclicality to this? That it might reverse itself, has reversed itself in the past, etc?

It hasn't been receding at a constant rate. It's rate has been getting more and more constant over time, but it hasn't ever been constant.

If it hasn't been constant in the past t would have been slower. According to the inverse square law you cited. Gravity would have been stronger and slowed the pull down.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html

1) We are supposed to be God's people, rejecting anything that doesn't come from faith (according to scripture) testing everything, holding on to the good that we find (Thessalonions). Yet it seems we are very eager to remove God's part in creation. Evolution isn't such a complicated theory that God could not have found a way to describe it in Genesis.

Really. I think you overestimate the understand of biology Bronze Age Nomads had. I also think you confuse their culture with ours. Furthermore, don't you think God telling the land to produce vegetation, the sea to produce animals, and then the land to produce other critters, and using dust to create man can't on some way show abiogenesis? Hmm?

"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence."
Bertran Russell

Find me one good, solid piece of irrefutable evidence that can't be explained. Bring me one thing. Pull out the keystone from the arch of evolution. Bring me the smoking gun. Bring me the Precambrian Bunny Rabbit. Bring me the Jurassic human. Bring me any one of the many things that would falsify evolution.

Then bring me the one irrefutable piece of positive evidence for creationism. Bring me the God's Thumbprint detector. Bring me flaming Cherub guarding the Tree of Life. Get me the one piece of positive evidence for YECism. Remember, showing evolution false DOES NOT support YECism. Evidence is all that can do that.

3) We are constantly hearing how proving a theory false, is as exciting as proving it true, yet we see no evidence of this. Creationism has been blacklisted as a pseudo-science, and we've already seen as above, how the hipocrisy runs through that statement. Apparently people would jump at the opportunity to disprove evolution, but they aren't. Why? Why not? Why are we clinging so tightly to a theory that doesn't require God at all? Why are we not presenting all alternatives, why are we not highlighting the issues, the holes and gaps in the theory and providing students with some alternatives, which whilst aren't as wholly testable, are still very new and are being worked on.

Why won't they disprove it? Because they can't. Because the evidence that would doesn't exist.
Why are we clinging to something that doesn't require God? Because God isn't testable, repeatable, measurable, etc. God is not scientific. As in my statement to Dies3l, He may be right, but He isn't scientific, and no scientific theory should include Him. He's also a dead end. God did it explains nothing about how something works, or interacts, or anything.
Why aren't the holes and gaps talked about? Because the ones that are there are very high level (graduate or even post-graduate) or we haven't had enough time with the evidence yet (like the chimp genome) to figure things out. And most of the ones you hear about from AIG, ICR, etc are false.
Why don't we search for alternatives? Because we don't need them. Evolution is used in biology. Where it is used, it works well. It models and predicts what happens accurately. Geology does the same, as does (for the most part) physics. We do have the problem with dark matter, but that is being researched. Either the missing term or a new theory should be found. And then it'll be all over the newspapers. "Scientists throw out decades-old physics theories! New universe equations found!" and whatnot.

4) Imagine if we could prove a young Earth. What would that mean for us Christians, it would suddenly give a tremendous amount of backing to our faith, and dare I suggest the number of souls saved as a result would sky-rocket, as evolutionary theory is something that is constantly thrown in our faces as a reason why God is a fairy-tale. We support this, and some of us have adopted theistic-evolution, why do we show such intolerance for a belief and study when it could gain us so much. It's very confusing.

IMPORTANT THING. EVOLUTION DOES NOT DISPROVE GOD. EVOLUTION DOES NOT REMOVE GOD. EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO SAY REGARDING GOD. NOR DOES ANY BRANCH OF SCIENCE. EVER. Why do we show intolerance and whatnot for beliefs of YECism? Because of the tactics the YECers show. They provide little to no research. Their answers show nothing about the way the phenomenon explained works. They lie, misrepresent, quote mine, and use logical fallacies all over the place. They try a political reach around to avoid the scientific community because they know EXACTLY what will meet them there. THAT is why we abhor it.
Heck, if we could provide the amount of evidence towards a young earth as we can for evolution, every scientist would most likely believe. And I say that as an engineer-in-training, not as a layperson. But then there is the double standard- no matter how much evolution evidence there is there will be people who don't accept it.


Metherion

 

[metherion]

But, I think that you and I both agree that there is nothing productive about namecalling or stereotyping, whether it be the YEC folks or the TEs.

Oh yeah. Very true.

As I think you and I have both articulated the correct response to the closed-mindedness and intolerance of some YEC adherents is not more closed-mindedness and intolerance.

After all, if one sides escalates the tension the other will reciprocate and we'll have the never ending spiral of nastyness.

Seriously, we can be civil about our disagreements. It is this lack of civility that I have come to associate with both sides of the evolution debate that has pushed me away from really seriously considering the issue. Thank you for addressing the issue with a sense of tolerance and decency.

You're very welcome. I would inite you over to the OT forum. Melethiel is good at modding and most of the guys over there are nice.

Metherion

 

[Digit]

Hello Metherion,

I'm only going to comment very briefly on some parts of this.

Of course science needs presuppositions. But they are vastly different from those of Creationism.
Creationism: If it differs from an interpretation of a book with no evidence to support that interpretation and which probably isn't the way the book is meant to be taken anyways, it's wrong.

Science: If it can be done, measured, repeated, verified, tested, make correct predictions, and still hold up, it's probably right. Without those steps, it's probably wrong.

Again here is that distinction between creationism and science. They are not different in their works Metherion, merely their processes.

Please show Genesis is a historical account penned word for word from the Mouth of God intended to be taken literally and is infallible. Please show it is an actual historical account and not a Bronze Age creation myth. Please show all actual historical accounts are actually correct.

*laughs* Is this not a little unfair? The only reason you think otherwise, is because of all the work done in evolutionary theory that seems to invalidate it. Yet when creationists try to build of their theory, they meet resistance every step of the way. In addition, creationists cannot prove it not a myth, anymore than Christians can prove God not a myth... I think you should be careful of what you apply these rigorous requirements too. I do know that the sentence structure in the opening books of the Bible is a narrative, and not poetic. The structure is (V)erb, (S)ubject, (O)bject, which is used to account for historical events all throughout the Bible. Make of that what you will.

1. It's 13 years old. Got anything newer? We've made a lot of discoveries in 13 years.

Does truth have a time-limit? The issue here is not what we did, it's that then, it was ok, but now, it's not. We are knee-deep in hypocrisy here.

Find me one good, solid piece of irrefutable evidence that can't be explained.

Do the same thing Metherion, but for God's existence hmm?

Remember, showing evolution false DOES NOT support YECism. Evidence is all that can do that.

You seem to feel I have a vendetta against evolution, I do not. This is by far and away not the core of my faith in God. What I am saying, is that I think it's exciting, I think we should support it, because we just don't know if it's actually right or not, lets hammer at it with all the effort and energy we can muster and try to form a complete picture. Imagine if it can be proven, and can form a complete theory what that would mean for Christians the world over...

IMPORTANT THING. EVOLUTION DOES NOT DISPROVE GOD. EVOLUTION DOES NOT REMOVE GOD. EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO SAY REGARDING GOD. NOR DOES ANY BRANCH OF SCIENCE. EVER.

I'm not certain how much you witness to people, but if evolution has never come up, then perhaps you have had exceptions. I talk to people all the time about this, evolution doesn't disprove God, and I never said it did. What I said is, evolution makes God meaningless in our origins. It injects a great deal more problems than it solves for God, and it's constantly a comforter to atheists and non-Christians that there position is correct. You can reconcile it with scripture, but anyone who has witnessed seriously will know that this only goes so far, and it's only a few moments of conversation before it causes problems for the Bible all over.

I think this will be my last reply, thanks for the discussion. I would encourage any who read this to try and separate the issues, as to see them clearly.

Cheers,
Digit

 

[Dannager]

Not at all. People who are convinced of the indisputable truth of what they are saying have no need to get nearly so defensive or hostile.

Defensive or hostile?

I'm on the defensive because you started calling me a fundamentalist.

And if I exhibit hostility towards the young-earth creationism movement, it's because its stated goals are underhanded and (in some cases) downright evil in their execution.

I'm not getting defensive or hostile because you're attacking the truth. You're not. As you yourself said, you have no problem with evolutionary theory. You're attacking me.

Other than that, I'll let the rest of your post speak for itself. I have said my peace on this. It's sad that this is such an unnecessarily divisive issue in the church.

I agree. I do not, however, think that achieving a true common ground when it comes to fundamentalism vs. non-fundamentalism is possible. I believe that the two represent, at this point, entirely separate religions within the umbrella of Christianity - not denominations, mind you, but separate religions. I do not believe that fundamentalists worship the same god that I do. The god they attempt to pray to is not the same god I attempt to pray to.

 

[artybloke]

You "take issue" with the fact that they want to teach their viewpoint to children.

I think it's a form of child abuse to teach lies to children.

 

[Dannager]

I think it's a form of child abuse to teach lies to children.

Agreed.

 

[revanneosl]

Brava! Teach science in the science department, and teach "the controversy" in the political science department

 

[Armistead]

Oh yeah. Very true.


After all, if one sides escalates the tension the other will reciprocate and we'll have the never ending spiral of nastyness.


You're very welcome. I would inite you over to the OT forum. Melethiel is good at modding and most of the guys over there are nice.

Metherion

Interesting debate. Metherion, I so enjoy your posting.
You have a way of making complicated science simple.
Moreso, than anyone I've yet seen. As I lean more to TE, you've been very helpful.


We took a trip to the tarpits in NC. It was an amazing experience.

 

[metherion]

Interesting debate. Metherion, I so enjoy your posting.
You have a way of making complicated science simple.
Moreso, than anyone I've yet seen. As I lean more to TE, you've been very helpful.


We took a trip to the tarpits in NC. It was an amazing experience.

I'm very glad I can be of help!
Actually, I kind of view this as training. I'm going to be a chemical engineer trying to explain my complicated results and methods and whatnot to non-engineer managers. So any practice I get talking about any science with non-scientists is invaluable.
If you ever want to know anything, just ask and 'll do my darndest to explain it if I know it myself!

And I'm rather jealous you got to go to the tar pits. I've never been to any of them. The closest I've gotten is digging for fossil shells in a shale pit.

Metherion