Of course evolutionists are going to shape their findings into their theories

[vossler]

It all started with the first lie "Did God really say?"; since then we haven't learned our lesson very well because we're repeatedly falling for Satan's same trap today.

 

[lucaspa]

It all started with the first lie "Did God really say?"; since then we haven't learned our lesson very well because we're repeatedly falling for Satan's same trap today.

And creationism is Satan's biggest trap yet. Creationism leads to denying God and worshipping a false idol.

However, Jesus already told us that, in scripture, God didn't always really say. God didn't say Deut. 24:1, Moses did. And Moses got it wrong.

So, we know God did not dictate the Bible, nor did He take pen and papyrus and write it. Or are you saying He did?

 

[lucaspa]

I'll reiterate what many here have already said.

Creationism is a dogma. It's a religious belief and the evidence is either altered or ignored based on its support of that dogma.

This is because creationism is a falsified scientific theory. Since creationism has already been shown to be false, evidence must be ignored or altered. Because the real evidence shows it to be false.

Anybody who tries to use evolution as a way to disprove God has taken it to the new level of dogma, and is thus no true scientist.

Sorry, but you are also working from the solution backwards in this case: you are defining "true" scientists based on their behavior outside of science.

Let me strongly suggest you change this. Yes, there are some scientists who extrapolate beyond the science to worldviews. As long as they do so in their person, they are OK. It is when they present the worldview as a conclusion from science that they have made a mistake. This doesn't affect their work as scientists, but it does mean they have made a scientific mistake.

Many of us who believe that evolution is probably true still believe in God, and still believe that God was the creator.

At least half of evolutionary biologists -- starting with Darwin -- believe in God and that God created.

 

[crawfish]

Sorry, but you are also working from the solution backwards in this case: you are defining "true" scientists based on their behavior outside of science.

Let me strongly suggest you change this. Yes, there are some scientists who extrapolate beyond the science to worldviews. As long as they do so in their person, they are OK. It is when they present the worldview as a conclusion from science that they have made a mistake. This doesn't affect their work as scientists, but it does mean they have made a scientific mistake.

I do agree with you, and I should have phrased it differently.

However, the delineation between dogma and science is still valid. I believe that evolutionary theory has enough supporting evidence to be taken as close to fact; that's science. If supporting evidence should change that view and indicate that humans or human intelligence could NOT be a product of evolution, and that evidence was quite strong, I'd be fully willing to change my mind. For science it's all about facts and evidence, and I have no preconceived notions of how it will turn out. However, I also believe that God created the universe; that is dogma; any scientist who believes that evolution disproves the notion of God is also believing in a dogma. Either dogma is fully separate and apart from the actual science of evolution.

 

[vossler]

At least half of evolutionary biologists -- starting with Darwin -- believe in God and that God created.

To be honest, Darwin was no biologist, he wasn't even an accredited scientist. He also certainly wasn't a Christian.

 

[lucaspa]

I do agree with you, and I should have phrased it differently.

However, the delineation between dogma and science is still valid.

Oh, absolutely! And that line is crossed by creationists at one end and militant atheists at the other. Carl Sagan crossed the line, but I would never say Sagan was not a "true scientist" because of it.

I believe that evolutionary theory has enough supporting evidence to be taken as close to fact; that's science. If supporting evidence should change that view and indicate that humans or human intelligence could NOT be a product of evolution, and that evidence was quite strong, I'd be fully willing to change my mind.

As would we all. However, let me lecture for a minute. What you are talking about is "falsifying evidence", not "supporting evidence". Supporting evidence comes from failed attempts to falsify a theory.

IF we found mammalian fossils in Cambrian or pre-Cambrian rock, then common ancestry would be in trouble. Darwin noted that if we ever find a trait whose sole purpose is for the benefit of another species and the species with the trait gets no benefit from having it, then natural selection is in trouble.

However, I'm wondering why you are focussing on humans. Are you hoping humans are an exception for evolution?

However, I also believe that God created the universe; that is dogma;

I would say that is faith, not "dogma". "God created" is a statement of faith. "There is no God, thus God did not create" is also a statement of faith.

any scientist who believes that evolution disproves the notion of God is also believing in a dogma. Either dogma is fully separate and apart from the actual science of evolution.

I agree. Evolution, like all science, is agnostic. It doesn't tell you God exists or does not or what control He has over nature. See the quote at the end of the post. I would suggest you try to find a used copy of Science Held Hostage (it is no longer in print) by Van Till, Menninga, and Young. You should also get a copy of Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller. You'll want to play especial attention to chapters 7 and 8.

When PZ Meyer, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, etc. say that evolution shows God does not exist, they are way, way outside of science. They are stating their personal beliefs as tho they were conclusions of science. They are correct about evolution happening, but they are not correct about the conclusion that evolution shows God does not exist. Two separate claims and you need to keep them separate. One correct, the other wrong.

" To say it for all my colleageues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists." SJ Gould, Impeaching a self-appointed judge. Scientific American, 267:79-80, July 1992.

 

[lucaspa]

To be honest, Darwin was no biologist, he wasn't even an accredited scientist. He also certainly wasn't a Christian.

Sorry, but all those are wrong. You are going to have to face the fact that Darwin -- and other evolutionary biologists -- believe(d) in God and thought God created.

In the early 1800s, there was not the system of education in place that we have now. Now we get Ph.D's in a scientific discipline. That is what we call "accredited". But even today that isn't required, and it certainly wasn't required in Darwin's day.

Darwin was a geologist and biologist. By his training and work. Adam Sedgwick -- head of geology at Cambridge -- taught him geology. His "Ph.D" thesis was the work he did on the Beagle and the monographs he wrote about those finds. His fellow scientists considered him enough of a scientist to first joing the Royal Geological Society and then to elect him Secretary annually for about 10 years. He was also invited to join the Linnean Society -- one of the premier societies for biologists in England at the time. If you look at the list of his monographs and books -- http://darwin-online.org.uk/contents.html -- you can see by the titles that most of them are on biology.

And, at the time he wrote Origin of Species (and before), Darwin certainly was a Christian. He remained a member in good standing of the Down Anglican parish for his entire life. Later in life, due to reasons unconnected with evolution, Darwin swung between theism and agnosticism. According to Darwin (in a private letter where he has no motive to lie), Darwin states that he never swung as far as atheism.

The pastor of the Down church -- Brodie Innes -- knew and was friends with Darwin for 30 years. He consistently defened Darwin against charges that Darwin was not Christian. He would not have done that if the charges were true.

 

[vossler]

Sorry, but all those are wrong. You are going to have to face the fact that Darwin -- and other evolutionary biologists -- believe(d) in God and thought God created.

Maybe taking a class or two in biology or geology made someone a scientist. So if I take a few classes in biology and write a few books can I be considered a biologist too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_education

Charles Darwin's religious views could be a carbon copy for most agnostics today. I'm sure in your mind he was a man after God's own heart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_views_on_religion

 

[lucaspa]

Maybe taking a class or two in biology or geology made someone a scientist. So if I take a few classes in biology and write a few books can I be considered a biologist too?

Yes, if your data and ideas are good. See the experience of Mims:
Forrest M. Mims III, Amateur Science - Strong Tradition, Bright Future, Science :55-57, April 4, 1999.
"Computers have greatly expanded the capabilities of professionals and amateurs alike, but the Internet has become the great equalizer. Several years ago I measured record low ozone over central Texas. Thanks to e-mail, I quickly notified scientists at NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency and then organized a quick paper for Eos with them as coauthors. No one asked if I had a degree in the field; all that mattered was the significance of the event and the quality of the data. When I measured large spikes in UV radiation caused by the scattering from cumulus clouds over Hawaii's Manua Loa Observatory, I e-mailed the results to UV specialist John Frederick. I then incorporated Frederick's comments in a communication we jointly sent to Nature. Frederick, the editors at Nature, and the peer reviewers never asked to see my credentials. Instead, they judged the work on its merits." (p. 56)

Charles Darwin's religious views could be a carbon copy for most agnostics today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_views_on_religion

First, wikipedia is always a good place to start, but it can't be the place to end. You must always go on and check wikipedia with academic sources.

But apparently you didn't even read the article. Here are some relevant quotes:

"He studied Anglican theology with the aim of becoming a clergyman, before joining the Voyage of the Beagle. ... However, at the time of writing the Origin of Species he remained a theist,"

Instead of looking at Wikipedia, I would suggest Desmond and Moore's biography Darwin, a definitive work on Darwin's life. Pay particular attention to Chapter 20, "Never an Atheist". Later in life Darwin wrote to someone asking whether he believed in God, and Darwin replied that at the time he wrote Origin, he was a firm a theist as "Dr. Pusey" -- a well-known English clergyman (and opponent of evolution). Also, the wikipedia article says Darwin skipped church. Funny, but his pastor said differently.

Later in life Darwin did tend toward agnosticism. But again, not always. This is by Darwin's own words:

"a man undoubtedly can be 'an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.' For himself, he had 'never been an atheist in the in the sense of denying the existence of a God,' but he still felt profoundly uncertain. If he had to wear a label, Huxley's suited better. 'I think that generally (& more & more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic wold be the most correct description of my state of mind.' " pg 635-657

Also, consider that Darwin kept these quotes in all the editions of Origin. They don't sound very "agnostic"

"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species,pg. 449.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

 

[random_guy]

Maybe taking a class or two in biology or geology made someone a scientist. So if I take a few classes in biology and write a few books can I be considered a biologist too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_education

Charles Darwin's religious views could be a carbon copy for most agnostics today. I'm sure in your mind he was a man after God's own heart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_views_on_religion

Are you actually arguing that Darwin was not a scientist because he didn't have the training the modern scientist have? Especially considering biology didn't exist until the ToE was proposed since before that, it was considered Natural History?

How about this, you can be a scientist once you stop ignoring evidence, make observations, propose a theory, then support it through evidence, and publish a scientific paper on it, much like Darwin did.

EDIT: Thanks lucaspa for the much better reply. I love how vossler attacks Darwin's science education when, even in modern times, Darwin probably understands more about evolution without knowing about genetics and such, than most Creationists.

 

[vossler]

I find it interesting that TEs would hold Darwin up to be a man of God, then again if the bar is already low it really isn't very surprising.

In addition, the one thing I always hear from evolutionists is how so many creationists don't have the proper educational background and yet they'll defend a man who holds a theology degree as a credible top of his field scientist of biology. I personally could care less how you choose to view him because it really makes no difference to me; I just wanted to comment on the clear double standard.

 

[Mallon]

I find it interesting that TEs would hold Darwin up to be a man of God, then again if the bar is already low it really isn't very surprising.

I certainly wouldn't pretend Darwin was a man of God. Truth be told, he was often ambiguous in his writings as to just what he believed. But he wasn't the atheist so many YECs try to make him out to be.

In addition, the one thing I always hear from evolutionists is how so many creationists don't have the proper educational background and yet they'll defend a man who holds a theology degree as a credible top of his field scientist of biology.

Darwin was considered a top biologist because he clearly understood biology, whether he had a degree in the field or not. Same goes for Gregor Mendel. Unfortunately, the same does not hold for most creation "scientists" out there. Darwin's and Mendel's theories have been accepted because they make predictions and help relate seemingly disparate facts, allowing us to make sense of the physical world we live in. "God created everything magically" may help some people to get on in life, but it certainly doesn't line up with the physical evidence.

 

[Assyrian]

It all started with the first lie "Did God really say?"; since then we haven't learned our lesson very well because we're repeatedly falling for Satan's same trap today.

You think it was Satan who asked "Did God really say?" The bible says it was a snake. It seems ironic that you condemn people for not taking Genesis literally by not taking Genesis literally.

 

[vossler]

"God created everything magically" may help some people to get on in life, but it certainly doesn't line up with the physical evidence.

If you limit God to man made ideas like evolution then yes anything else is probably viewed as magic.

 

[vossler]

You think it was Satan who asked "Did God really say?" The bible says it was a snake. It seems ironic that you condemn people for not taking Genesis literally by not taking Genesis literally.

Given that you don't believe there ever really was a snake or for that matter even Satan in the Garden of Eden, it isn't any wonder to see you state this. When truth is as relative as it is for so many, it sure allows for man to push his own theories quite well.

 

[Mallon]

If you limit God to man made ideas like evolution then yes anything else is probably viewed as magic.

Heh heh. I also think God-instituted gravity naturally keeps planets in orbit. Do you think I am limiting God to "man made ideas" in that respect, too?
Another example of the anti-intellectualism gluadys was talking about. It's a wonder we have schools!

 

[random_guy]

I find it interesting that TEs would hold Darwin up to be a man of God, then again if the bar is already low it really isn't very surprising.

In addition, the one thing I always hear from evolutionists is how so many creationists don't have the proper educational background and yet they'll defend a man who holds a theology degree as a credible top of his field scientist of biology. I personally could care less how you choose to view him because it really makes no difference to me; I just wanted to comment on the clear double standard.

I don't see any double standard. Darwin observed stuff, formed a theory from his observations, then checked to see if evidence supported or falsied his theory. You don't need a fancy degree to do science.

On the other hand, Creationist scientists are the exact opposite of Darwin. They tend to ignore evidence, use falsied data, and refuse to publish in scientific journals. The contrast, even with a fancy degree, it doesn't make you a scientist.

 

[vossler]

Heh heh. I also think God-instituted gravity naturally keeps planets in orbit. Do you think I am limiting God to "man made ideas" in that respect, too?

I'm guessing not. Could it be because there hasn't been one produced yet that you like?

 

[crawfish]

However, I'm wondering why you are focussing on humans. Are you hoping humans are an exception for evolution?

Dude, I'm not "hoping" for any such thing. I'm just stating that as a follower of the scientific method, I'm open to change as new evidence arises, if it calls for change.

Faith in God as the creator most certainly is a dogma. It is an established belief that I'm not holding to scientific scrutiny (nor can it be challenged by such). The term doesn't just apply to rigid fundamentalism.

 

[Assyrian]

You think it was Satan who asked "Did God really say?" The bible says it was a snake. It seems ironic that you condemn people for not taking Genesis literally by not taking Genesis literally.

Given that you don't believe there ever really was a snake or for that matter even Satan in the Garden of Eden, it isn't any wonder to see you state this. When truth is as relative as it is for so many, it sure allows for man to push his own theories quite well.

When have I ever said truth is relative?

Though you seem to be advocating a form of 'relative truth' here yourself. You can condemn my non literal interpretation of the garden and the snake (Satan is real enough) as long as you are relatively less figurative than me.

The bible is more black and white on this sort of issue. If figurative interpretation is Satan's trap then let him who is without figurative interpretations cast the first stone. But you are not are you? You said it was Satan who spoke those words when according to the story it was a snake