the heart of the problem

[rmwilliamsll]

i received an email drawing my attention to:
http://www.x-evolutionist.com/

and i thank the author for her(sorry) work and effort on the site
but it is the best illustration that i am aware of, of the heart of the problem in the Creation-evolution-design debate.


let the site speak for itself:

What is the purpose of this site?

The purpose of this site is to demonstrate that God exists.

If you do not believe in God then you must believe that DNA and the cell are the result of chance. No one would believe that Windows XP is the result of chance, but an must atheist believe that the human brain which created Windows XP is the result of chance. This site will show that DNA and the cell are much too complicated to be the result of chance and thus were created by God.
This site will also show that the theory of evolution is not supported by the scientific evidence. Because the evidence for evolution does not exist, this shows that life was created by God.

Some already believe in God and believe in a theory called theistic evolution. This theory states that God has directed evolution. This was originally developed as a compromise by the church because evolution was believed to be a fact. This site will show that it is unnecessary to believe that God directed evolution because the evidence for evolution does not exist. This site will show that God created all forms of life on earth in the same basic types we see now.

this is two of the main problems conflated:

1)the radical dichomotomy: either believe in God or believe chance created us.
2)the overwhelming desire to prove God via science.

As to (1).
there are a wide range of choices to make at the world view level concerning both God's intervention into the physical world and the role chance could play in it. It is far from this simplistic two pronged ideal. What is interesting is the way two different things are hooked together (the logical error of composition) God and chance.

as to (2)
science is a deliberately truncated physical investigative technic. it's domain does not include the supernatural, nor does it's toolbox contain explanatory levels into the domain of the supernatural. this is a good thing. Since Christians can not agree on the simplest elements of theology i am glad that these divisive things do not enter into the chemistry or physics classrooms, for then no one would get any useful work done. Sort of like importing General Assembly into the study of mechanics, we would still be arguing about the shape of bicycle wheels. (judgment begins with the family of God, those closest to you)

....

 

[X-Evolutionist]

Thank you for your review of my site. I am happy to hear all comments, both negative and positive.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

i'm glad you found your way over here. It is a nice place to discuss the issues. I hope people follow the OP link to your site and look around, the left panel is mostly your writings so i started there. i know your contributions to the blue team(YECists *grin*) will be appreciated here.

...

 

[Vance]

I agree with your assessment, rmwilliams. The "Full Spectrum of Beliefs" thread in the sticky should be enough to show that it is not a simple dichotomy of "you believe in evolution or you believe in the Bible" or "Either it happened by chance, or God created it fully formed". As with almost everything in life, it is not that simple, as much as we would like it to be.

 

[X-Evolutionist]

I am the author of the website you reviewed. I appreciate you talking about it.

X

 

[Maccie]

The link didn't work for me, but I dislike the "either/or" scenario intensely. To me, that is bringing down God to our level, putting him in a box, and shouting "I know God - he couldn't have done these things because they are too difficult for me to understnad"!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

This last posting brings up several good questions.

The first one is old threads, this thread is more than a year old.
The second is missing, closed, sites.

if a site doesn't open.
first try google's cache of the site.
then try the wayback machine at:
http://www.archive.org/index.php

in this case, the site doesn't respond, google's cache is empty and TWBM yields:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.x-evolutionist.com/

which is enough to read what the site was like.

This all brings up the big question, especially for "heated and controversy" discussion groups like this one.

persistence and the ability to track what people are doing and thinking. it is common now for employers to google prospective employees, even to hire people with access to university discussion sites to see what people post.

is it possible how you wrote or what you wrote here years ago will come back to haunt you in the future?

just a thought.

 

[shernren]

Reading list was/is missing Finding Darwin's God.

Seriously, I'm not sure why any prospective employers would really be concerned whether I think the earth is 6,000 years old or a few billion, unless I was planning to go into geology, cosmology, or biology. Then again, maybe that's just an argument from incredulity.

 

[steen]

A need to "prove" God seems bizarre to me. I see it as the modern equivalent of the israelites needing a Golden Calf to pray to, the tangible evidence for "Yes, I can see God, so therefore God exists." It completely disregards Faith.

 

[XTE]

Hello X-Evolutionist

I have not checked out your site because it is very late already. I will tomorrow however.

I am however wanting to comment on "If you do not believe in God then you MUST believe in chance." Evolution is not chance, at all. Its biggest contributing force is SELECTION. There is no chance in selection, it is choice. We are not here from other life because those lives by chance copulated. We are here because they were chosen, either by a mate or by natural selection(they were not fit enough and did not live to copulate.) There is no chance there.

Do you know this already? When I read this bad definition of "Evolution", it does not make me think, it makes me correct you.

God bless you

 

[XTE]

Also, with the quote, "If you do not believe in God then you must believe in chance.":

This is a logical fallacy called "False Delimma. It's where you tell us there are only two options(in this case belief in God or it MUST be chance) when in fact there are many. I'm sure some people owe everything in their world to chance, but they aren't Evolutionists.

An example of a False Dilemma is me telling you this:

If you don't like sausage then you MUST like pepperoni.

.........there are plenty of toppings to choose from and the MUST just carries way to much weight.

What's in the middle? I respect chance as a variable in my life but I know that natural selection wins out eventually.

 

[Rorschach]

Interesting site, I'll explore it when I have more time and when it's not so late at night

I am however wanting to comment on "If you do not believe in God then you MUST believe in chance." Evolution is not chance, at all. Its biggest contributing force is SELECTION. There is no chance in selection, it is choice. We are not here from other life because those lives by chance copulated. We are here because they were chosen, either by a mate or by natural selection(they were not fit enough and did not live to copulate.) There is no chance there.

While some of that is true, I think she meant the creation of the universe, ala the big bang. I agree, it can' t because of chance. This world and everything in it is too complex for it to be an "accident".

 

[XTE]

Interesting site, I'll explore it when I have more time and when it's not so late at night



While some of that is true, I think she meant the creation of the universe, ala the big bang. I agree, it can' t because of chance. This world and everything in it is too complex for it to be an "accident".

Well, I believe that God created the Big Bang. We have plenty of evidence for an expanding Universe from a central point.

It could be that God created another 6 deminsions that we can't see because they are folded in on one another that created the Universe and is just beyond our understanding.

Again, there are not 2 answers to this question. It's a False Dilemma geared souly to bring me to X-Evolutionist's way of thinking. See this will not make me think, it will make me correct.

Bonus: Creationist everywhere gain two points if you strip it from your site.

 

[vossler]

The "Full Spectrum of Beliefs" thread in the sticky should be enough to show that it is not a simple dichotomy of "you believe in evolution or you believe in the Bible" or "Either it happened by chance, or God created it fully formed". As with almost everything in life, it is not that simple, as much as we would like it to be.

Welcome back Vance, it's good to see you again.

What's kept you away for so long?

 

[laptoppop]

Welcome back Vance, it's good to see you again.

Sorry, bro - don't celebrate just yet. Looks like the date on his post is from May 2005.

 

[vossler]

Sorry, bro - don't celebrate just yet. Looks like the date on his post is from May 2005.

Wow, someone sure revived an old thread there. No wonder no one else commented on that.

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[RightWingGirl]

Hi X!
I really loved your site!

 

[Pats]

this is two of the main problems conflated:

1)the radical dichomotomy: either believe in God or believe chance created us.
2)the overwhelming desire to prove God via science.

As to (1).
there are a wide range of choices to make at the world view level concerning both God's intervention into the physical world and the role chance could play in it. It is far from this simplistic two pronged ideal. What is interesting is the way two different things are hooked together (the logical error of composition) God and chance.

as to (2)
science is a deliberately truncated physical investigative technic. it's domain does not include the supernatural, nor does it's toolbox contain explanatory levels into the domain of the supernatural. this is a good thing. Since Christians can not agree on the simplest elements of theology i am glad that these divisive things do not enter into the chemistry or physics classrooms, for then no one would get any useful work done. Sort of like importing General Assembly into the study of mechanics, we would still be arguing about the shape of bicycle wheels. (judgment begins with the family of God, those closest to you)

....

It reminds me of "my way or the highway" kind of thinking.

Either God is "X" or He doesn't exist at all.

 

[steen]

It reminds me of "my way or the highway" kind of thinking.

Either God is "X" or He doesn't exist at all.

Exactly. It is the dillema of the God-of-the-gap idea. If it is either/or, then when science makes a new finding, it leiminated God from that area. It results in an ever-shrinking God.

 

[X-Evolutionist]

I am very aware that my beliefs are in the minority. That is why I do not debate. I am just happy to have my say.

X