Would you still believe?

[AnswersInHovind]

I was reading through some of the posts in Creationism theology disproves Christianity and a hypothetical popped into my mind.

For other creationists, if somebody was able to prove to you beyond any doubt that evolution happened, would you still be a Christian, or would that pretty much undermine your faith?

 

[Mallon]

For other creationists, if somebody was able to prove to you beyond any doubt that evolution happened, would you still be a Christian, or would that pretty much undermine your faith?

(I'd also be curious to know what kind of evidence it would take to convince you that evolution is true. What would you expect to see?)

 

[Chesterton]

I was reading through some of the posts in Creationism theology disproves Christianity and a hypothetical popped into my mind.

For other creationists, if somebody was able to prove to you beyond any doubt that evolution happened, would you still be a Christian, or would that pretty much undermine your faith?

No, it would not undermine my faith, because my faith doesn't depend on such relatively unimportant things. An analogy might be like a creationist placing the importance and meaning of a Shakespeare play on the type of ink and paper Shakespeare used to write it. It doesn't matter; look for the larger meaning in the idea, not how the idea was physically expressed.

 

[Mikecpking]

I was reading through some of the posts in Creationism theology disproves Christianity and a hypothetical popped into my mind.

For other creationists, if somebody was able to prove to you beyond any doubt that evolution happened, would you still be a Christian, or would that pretty much undermine your faith?

I was a creationist once, then studied geology and biology..seeing evolution has happened did not change my relationship to God at all, just my view point!

 

[AnswersInHovind]

(I'd also be curious to know what kind of evidence it would take to convince you that evolution is true. What would you expect to see?)

Either a crocoduck or peanut butter giving birth to new life.


But on the topic of the thread, seems that we YEC's spend a lot of time defending something we don't see as essential. I wonder why that is.
I think for me its a pride issue. People assault Genesis so much as somebody who actually believes its history, I probably spend more time on it than needed.

 

[philadiddle]

Kudos to chesterton for answering this question. I wonder what the other YECs are scared of?

 

[Siyha]

Kudos to chesterton for answering this question. I wonder what the other YECs are scared of?

you

 

[Dark_Lite]

Either a crocoduck or peanut butter giving birth to new life.


But on the topic of the thread, seems that we YEC's spend a lot of time defending something we don't see as essential. I wonder why that is.
I think for me its a pride issue. People assault Genesis so much as somebody who actually believes its history, I probably spend more time on it than needed.

For many YECs, YECism is an essential issue. It doesn't take much to see it in a lot of the posts here. Many of them are restrained by the rules, but the "you're not Christian if you believe in evolution" overtone seeps into many YEC posts. Of course, then there are those who blatantly say that and then get their posts deleted, and then claim persecution. But that's another story.

 

[Jazer]

For other creationists, if somebody was able to prove to you beyond any doubt that evolution happened, would you still be a Christian, or would that pretty much undermine your faith?

What do you mean by evolution? Even evolutionists do not agree with each other. Nothing seems to be proven beyond any doubt. Even Newton's theorys of gravity falls far short compared to Einstein's theory. Most everyone accepts things like founder effect and the bottle neck theory. So most everybody accepts evolution to some degree. Just like everybody rejects parts of it also.

 

[Jazer]

I was a creationist once, then studied geology and biology..seeing evolution has happened did not change my relationship to God at all, just my view point!

Actually, the more I study evolution the more I love God and understand the Bible.

 

[lucaspa]

Kudos to chesterton for answering this question. I wonder what the other YECs are scared of?

Theology Today - Vol 39, No. 2 - July 1982 - ARTICLE - The Beginning

 

[WretchedMan]

The only thing that would cause me to lose faith in Jesus is if you could disprove the resurrection.

If by evolution you mean the common descent of all life forms from a common ancestor, I haven't seen that there is anything other than very slim circumstantial evidence that supports it, and then only by working from atheistic (or more generously, agnostic) presuppositions that God did not create different lifeforms according to their kinds. The evidence that I've read and had presented can just as easily be interpreted from a creation perspective.

But, to play along and answer your question, If you could show me successive mutations that accumulated to form some new feature not previously coded for, that is beneficial to the survival of the creatures, that would help. Mutate a rat to develop an exoskeleton, wings, gills, feathers, or fins, maybe (without trying to splice in something from a creature that has those features). Mutate a lizard to be warm-blooded or a bird with lips. That would be amazing. I want a Komodo Ice Dragon that I can use to hunt in the snow. Or, maybe mutate dolphin genes until you come up with something with intelligence like humans.

I don't see why, with computer power at the level it is, you can't run realistic simulations, based on how genetics work and how mutations occur in nature, that would demonstrate the plausibility of the idea that all lifeforms can descend from a single-celled organism.

 

[lucaspa]

I haven't seen that there is anything other than very slim circumstantial evidence that supports it, and then only by working from atheistic (or more generously, agnostic) presuppositions that God did not create different lifeforms according to their kinds.

Sorry, but most evolutionists have been theists. Also, having God create different lifeforms according to their kinds has many religious problems and was rejected on religious grounds.

The evidence that I've read and had presented can just as easily be interpreted from a creation perspective.

If you could show me successive mutations that accumulated to form some new feature not previously coded for, that is beneficial to the survival of the creatures, that would help. Mutate a rat to develop an exoskeleton, wings, gills, feathers, or fins, maybe (without trying to splice in something from a creature that has those features). Mutate a lizard to be warm-blooded or a bird with lips. That would be amazing. I want a Komodo Ice Dragon that I can use to hunt in the snow. Or, maybe mutate dolphin genes until you come up with something with intelligence like humans.

Your paragraph is an example of moving the goalposts. I can show you several mutations that accumulate to show a new feature not previously coded for. I can show you the mutation that changes scales to feathers (yes, you only need one mutation for that). I can even show you mutations that let you grow azaleas (a warm weather plant) in Minnesota. Does that qualify as the Komodo Ice Dragon? But then you want changes like cold-blooded to warm blooded or a dolphin with human intelligence (something they may already have ). Those are changes that are going to take hundreds of speciations over millions of years and we can't extract the DNA from that long ago.

So, do you really want the things that will demonstrate evolution or are you more interested in making impossible demands? You need to choose.

 

[WretchedMan]

Sorry, but most evolutionists have been theists. Also, having God create different lifeforms according to their kinds has many religious problems and was rejected on religious grounds.

That doesn't change the presuppositions that are used to argue in favor of universal common descent. The presuppositions are atheistic, agnostic at best.

The idea that God created animals according to their kinds is rejected, on religious grounds, by who? What are these "religious" problems with the concept?

The evidence that I've read and had presented can just as easily be interpreted from a creation perspective.



Your paragraph is an example of moving the goalposts.

How is this moving the goal posts? Whose goal posts am I moving? Yours? Mine? I know that is a favorite retort of theistic evolutionists, but come on. It was my first response. No, goal posts had been set to move. A question was asked, I answered. A question that was essentially, "Where are the goal posts set that would convince you of universal common descent?". What should a proper answer be?

I've read tons of data, articles, papers, and books written by evolutionists and when it comes down to making arguments in support of common descent of all life from a common ancestor, they fall back on suppositions. There is a lot of 'may have', 'must have', 'probably', 'possibly', 'could have', et al. and no real logical or cogent arguments. If you want me to believe that man, corn, and salamanders have a common genetic ancestor, it will take more than fanciful ideas and academic credentials to bring me to believe such a silly concept.

I can show you several mutations that accumulate to show a new feature not previously coded for. I can show you the mutation that changes scales to feathers (yes, you only need one mutation for that).

Show me this mutation that changes scales to feathers. Is this an observed mutation? A provable, bona-fide mutation that turned scales to feathers? Or, is it a hypothesis based on a presupposition that dinosaurs slowly evolved into birds over a great span of time? I've read a lot on the ideas that scales became feathers and none of it was conclusive, just hypotheses as to how it may have happened. The evidence that I've seen against it places more than reasonable doubt that this happened. If you have some new evidence that I somehow missed, I would love to see it.

I can even show you mutations that let you grow azaleas (a warm weather plant) in Minnesota. Does that qualify as the Komodo Ice Dragon? But then you want changes like cold-blooded to warm blooded or a dolphin with human intelligence (something they may already have ). Those are changes that are going to take hundreds of speciations over millions of years and we can't extract the DNA from that long ago.

So, do you really want the things that will demonstrate evolution or are you more interested in making impossible demands? You need to choose.

Is the adaptability of azaleas for colder climates an actual mutation or is it a genetic variation that is already present in the line? If it is a mutation, I would find it a very interesting piece of information. I did a very brief search but did not have sufficient time to find anything about them. If you could link to the data I will take a look.

I picked the dolphin because they are intelligent animals, so I thought that might be an easier launch pad for human level intelligence, and I know how some people love to fantasize that they are as smart as humans. I think we're pretty safe in concluding that their intelligence is not anywhere near that of humans. I don't think chemistry, mathematics, or physics are anything they will be contributing to in the future. Of course, if you believe that all life came from a common ancestor, I don't guess dolphin physicists is much of a stretch.

If universal common descent is true, I absolutely want the evidence for it. Something that is untrue is of no value to me. If God created via gradually changing a single-celled organism over millions of years, so be it. I am just not impressed with the flimsy arguments, presuppositions, lack of evidence, or the derisive mocking that implies those who do not accept the hypotheses are of inferior intellect.

 

[Dark_Lite]

If by evolution you mean the common descent of all life forms from a common ancestor, I haven't seen that there is anything other than very slim circumstantial evidence that supports it, and then only by working from atheistic (or more generously, agnostic) presuppositions that God did not create different lifeforms according to their kinds.

Please define "kind."

 

[WretchedMan]

Please define "kind."

What is the relevance?

Please define "genus".

 

[Mallon]

What is the relevance?

Please define "genus".

Genus is impossible to define. It's a completely subjective term used only for taxonomic convenience. And taxonomists recognize it as such.

Creationists, on the other hand, don't recognize "kind" as a subjective term -- they hold it to be a true and objective unit of biology. As such, you must be able to define what a "kind" is in order for it to have any useful meaning. So Dark_Lite's question still stands: How do we objectively recognize what a "kind" is? And how can we tell whether a species belongs to one "kind" or another? These questions are of fundamental importance, yet no creationist has ever been able to answer them.

 

[Dark_Lite]

What is the relevance?

Please define "genus".

What Mallon said. For creationists, a kind is a fundamental unit of biology. The problem is is that it has never been defined and probably never will be defined. Such is the price of pseudoscience.

 

[WretchedMan]

Genus is impossible to define. It's a completely subjective term used only for taxonomic convenience. And taxonomists recognize it as such.

Creationists, on the other hand, don't recognize "kind" as a subjective term -- they hold it to be a true and objective unit of biology. As such, you must be able to define what a "kind" is in order for it to have any useful meaning. So Dark_Lite's question still stands: How do we objectively recognize what a "kind" is? And how can we tell whether a species belongs to one "kind" or another? These questions are of fundamental importance, yet no creationist has ever been able to answer them.

The question isn't relevant to the topic. The questions posed were about whether "evolution" being true would destroy our faith in Jesus and, by another poster, what it would take for a creationist to accept "evolution", which I assumed they meant descent of all life from a common ancestor.

What a scientific definition of "kind" may be is of no more consequence to me than what the scientific definition of "genus" is. It does not inhibit my ability to observe and learn about the wildlife I encounter and study.

When I study an American Alligator, It doesn't make any difference if they are the same "kind" as black caimans or saltwater crocodiles, though I say that they are much more likely the same "kind" than an alligator and a monitor lizard are. Knowing that doesn't effect their behavior, physiology, diet, habitat, etc. I guess I just don't have this compulsive need to categorize everything I encounter based on a notion that it must be related to everything else. I'll leave such tedious endeavors to those that are more inclined to it and interested in it.

Besides, even if there is no clear, objective definition available for kind, and I don't know that there isn't, that doesn't suddenly change what reality is, whether it is creation or universal common descent. So, again, it isn't relevant and is just a distraction to try to put me on defensive when it is your philosophy that is under scrutiny.

What Mallon said. For creationists, a kind is a fundamental unit of biology. The problem is is that it has never been defined and probably never will be defined. Such is the price of pseudoscience.

I don't see that it is a fundamental unit of biology. As I said above, it is of no real consequence. Just because evolutionists want to try and assemble some family tree leading from a simple, single-celled creature to all the life that we have now doesn't mean that this type of classification has to carry over to a creation world view or that it has any fundamental importance in the work of biology.

I don't accept your premise and this doesn't convince me that the materialist fairy-tale you espouse is factual or even possible.

 

[Mallon]

The question isn't relevant to the topic. The questions posed were about whether "evolution" being true would destroy our faith in Jesus and, by another poster, what it would take for a creationist to accept "evolution", which I assumed they meant descent of all life from a common ancestor.

What a scientific definition of "kind" may be is of no more consequence to me than what the scientific definition of "genus" is. It does not inhibit my ability to observe and learn about the wildlife I encounter and study.

When I study an American Alligator, It doesn't make any difference if they are the same "kind" as black caimans or saltwater crocodiles, though I say that they are much more likely the same "kind" than an alligator and a monitor lizard are. Knowing that doesn't effect their behavior, physiology, diet, habitat, etc. I guess I just don't have this compulsive need to categorize everything I encounter based on a notion that it must be related to everything else. I'll leave such tedious endeavors to those that are more inclined to it and interested in it.

Besides, even if there is no clear, objective definition available for kind, and I don't know that there isn't, that doesn't suddenly change what reality is, whether it is creation or universal common descent. So, again, it isn't relevant and is just a distraction to try to put me on defensive when it is your philosophy that is under scrutiny.

So you don't know what a "kind" is, don't care what it is, but you're certain that they exist, and that anyone who doesn't believe as you do subscribes to atheistic philosophy.