Will Creation Science Ever Be Accepted By Mainstream Scientists?

[LoricaLady]

mindlight - You said:
Re: the view that the majority of Christians believe in evolution.

In America not even a majority of people let alone Christians believe this. Naturalistic Evolution is a view most commonly held by professional scientists and atheists but is not shared by the public who favour YEC then Theistic Evolution then naturalistic evolution.

Around the world Christians and Muslims generally hold creationist views and especially those more regularly attending church or mosque. Protestants are more likely to be creationists than catholics are. Evangelicals and especially conservative Evangelicals are mainly creationist.

----------------

Just fyi another factoid: So far all the Messianics I have ever known or seen online have totally rejected evolution and embraced creation science.

 

[whois]

I really think there is a lot of evidence to support creation, it's just a matter of putting it all together, backing it up with proper research, and presenting it professionally... then maybe, just maybe, it might be taken seriously by mainstream scientists!

Do you Agree? Disagree? What do you think?

no, "creation science" will never be accepted as mainstream.
and for good reason.
would you really accept a scientist word that it happened by magic?
be honest with yourself here.
would a teacher ever allow you to say "well gee teach, it's magic that this identity is true"?
it wouldn't matter if the above teacher was atheist or catholic, they would NEVER allow you to get away with that.

i'm not saying there is no god, i'm also not saying there is.
if you believe, then that is a personal matter and of no ones concern except your own.

 

[madera23]

I don't think you really listened, or you wouldn't feel that way.



That's not even a reasonable or logical request by the way. Macroevolution doesn't necessarily take place in a petri dish on a timeline of your choosing.



The 'hedging' aspect is typical in science. It demonstrates a potential for something to be falsified by later evidence. I can't see macroevolution take place on a short timeline, so in fact there is a certain amount of "faith' involved as you put it, but it's a reasonable thing to put faith in due to the lab work that supports it.



Omniscience? How so?



Quite the contrary. It shows that even simple changes to a few specific genes can generate macroscopic changes in an organism, just as we might expect if evolutionary theory is true. I find that people subjectively tend to dismiss evidence that they simply don't wish to deal with, or to acknowledge however.



That specific request wasn't reasonable to begin with by the way, and I didn't attempt to demonstrate it. What I did demonstrate however is that minor changes in genetic material an and does cause macroscopic changes in organisms, just as evolutionary theory would predict.



As I said, you're confusing ordinary conservative speech in science with some form of weakness. That's simply your own spin.



For how long? Unless you've got a few billion years of lab evidence to support that claim, it's still an ""act of faith" that nothing is ever going to change.



So what? The timelines of macroevolution are probably measured over millions of years, not a hundred years.



And that is exactly what evolutionary theory would predict by the way. The fact that a new type of organism can form, doesn't mean that *all* the organisms of the original sample will automatically go away, die out, or be completely replaced with the new organism. You do understand that, right?



Correct. That's why "real science" embraces evolutionary theory.



Actually science does that all the time. It's quite rare for actual scientists to treat theories as 'fact'. They tend to hedge their bets, and they tend to keep an open mind to the possibility of being wrong. Again, you're confusing ordinary scientific conservative use of speech with a weakness of some type. That's not how it actually works by the way.



What do you think I actually ignored? Even evolutionary theory *assumes* that some bacteria stay as ordinary bacteria, perhaps forever. There's nothing to ignore, and nothing that isn't 'predicted' by evolutionary theory in the observation that some bacteria stay the same over generations and hundreds of years. That's actually a *prediction* of evolutionary theory, and it's perfectly congruent with evolutionary theory.



Er, you could at least be consistent in your criticisms by the way. First you complain that the words they used are ambiguous, and not definite, and now you're accusing them of claiming it's "gawd's truth fact". Which is it? You can't have your cake and eat it too.



Actually it would bother me a whole lot more if they were using terms like 'definitely','absolutely' and 'certainly'. Science isn't supposed to be closed minded.



IMO you missed the whole point of the article. It simply shows that *relatively minor*, and/or very limited changes in DNA can and do generate *massive* changes to the organism.

You know......

A long time ago I gave up debating evolutionary theory mostly because it's 'doubters' tended to hide behind pure denial as it relates to evidence. I get that same impression from you at this point. I don't think you even cared about the content of the article, mostly because you failed to acknowledge the fact that relatively small changes in certain parts of the DNA structure can and do create significant changes in the form of extra legs, and major body changes. If you cannot accept that 'fact' (I'll use stronger terms for you if that makes you feel better), then there really isn't much to talk about.

It's silly of you to *require* something that isn't even a prediction of a theory. EV theory doesn't *predict* that bacteria need or will change over a 100 year timeline. That's your own personal pet peeve apparently but it's not a valid argument. Even evolutionary supporters would *predict* that bacteria will continue to thrive, and that it doesn't predict macroscopic changes over 100 year timelines.

 

[madera23]

Did the universe begin with a big Bang? Is time still flowing, expanding out from the big bang center of the Universe, as many say? How can this be so? What would be the continuing source of this fount? What is it that keeps time flowing from just one explosive event, and when will time run out?

Big bang proponent British theoretical physicist Steven Hawking says that time will eventually reverse, collapse back upon its origin, implode inward towards its beginning by some unknown gravitational force. This, he says, will cause time to run backwards, assumably carrying the universe with it, compressing it all back into a singularity of infinite density.

If time is going to run backwards, will people rise from the grave and become young again, all going back into their mother’s womb, folding into one another all the way back to the first generation of men and women? Will their natures telescope back into primordial slime from which the human race has supposedly emerged? Will the earth boil back into lava, collapse, and finally compress with the rest of the universe back into that big clump of infinite density-and then silence? Some say yes, despite the evident absurdity of the whole idea.

If time were to stop flowing, the entire universe would vanish in the twinkling of an eye. Everything: light, heat, stars, galaxies, would "pop" out of existence without so much as a puff-disappearing into the void of nothingness from whence it came before God said "Let there be."

 

[mindlight]

At least according to Gallup, the majority believes in evolution, although it is a mix of theistic and atheistic.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx


One of the big reasons for this is that the Catholic Church has no official position on evolution. One is free to agree or disagree with evolution. Though the Church supports and allows the teaching of evolution, as it is taught in Catholic schools. Pope John Paul II said, in reference to the to the encyclical Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII, that there was "no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of faith".

Amongst Christians the majority global historical view remains creationism. It is telling that in the USA while the creationist % of a growing population has remained broadly constant over 32 years the theistic evolutionists are increasingly being displaced by atheistic evolutionists and especially in the last few years. It appears that theistic evolution is regarded as an increasingly untenable viewpoint while creationism remain dominant and atheistic evolution is on the rise and the numbers that do not know appears also to have increased.

As the graph above indicates amongst Christians more people take a creationist view of human origins and majority of people in the USA believe that God created one way or another.

 

[lesliedellow]

It is telling that in the USA while the creationist % of a growing population has remained broadly constant over 32 years the theistic evolutionists are increasingly being displaced by atheistic evolutionists

The world famous biologist Francisco Ayala tells a story about creationist students who come to him at the beginning of their courses, and say something like, "I will write what you want me to about evolution, but don't expect me to believe any of it." Then time passes, they are presented with the evidence for evolution, they find that they have no option but to believe it, and at that point they lose their faith.

The students who had no problem with evolution to start with keep their faith.

 

[Michael]

The world famous biologist Francisco Ayala tells a story about creationist students who come to him at the beginning of their courses, and say something like, "I will write what you want me to about evolution, but don't expect me to believe any of it." Then time passes, they are presented with the evidence for evolution, they find that they have no option but to believe it, and at that point they lose their faith.

The students who had no problem with evolution to start with keep their faith.

And that my friend is the real problem with YEC. It does more spiritual harm than good.

 

[Michael]

Did the universe begin with a big Bang?

If you're expecting me to say yes, you're going to be sorely disappointed.

I'd personally be more inclined to believe that "Let there be light" relates to turning on the flow of current before I'd assume it has anything to do with a 'bang'.

 

[madera23]

If you're expecting me to say yes, you're going to be sorely disappointed.

I'd personally be more inclined to believe that "Let there be light" relates to turning on the flow of current before I'd assume it has anything to do with a 'bang'.

You didn't understand the article I sent. It said it did not start with a bang.

 

[Saricharity]

The world famous biologist Francisco Ayala tells a story about creationist students who come to him at the beginning of their courses, and say something like, "I will write what you want me to about evolution, but don't expect me to believe any of it." Then time passes, they are presented with the evidence for evolution, they find that they have no option but to believe it, and at that point they lose their faith.

The students who had no problem with evolution to start with keep their faith.

And yet I know so many students that have been taught evolution...spewed it back for the test and still don't believe it...not even a little...and guess what....they kept their faith. They believe Gods word over mans. Plain and simple.

 

[LoricaLady]

lesliedellow - You are just telling one side of the story. I was raised believing in evolution. Everyone I knew well, and respected, believed in it. One day I decided, just to be fair minded, to check out the other side. I read a book by Dr. Gary Parker, a science professor who once taught evolution as fact to his university students until some of his colleagues helped him to see that he was basing his opinions on presumptions, not science. His book is Creation Facts of Life. That book left me literally falling off the couch laughing at how ridiculous evolution is.

Many former atheists and highly credentialed scientists who once accepted evolution have become creationists. Dr. Dean Kenyon used to write books on abiogenesis for universities until he, too, was challenged to see that theories ain't facts and began to examine the real facts. In a vid I referenced earlier called The Big Bang Never Happened, you can hear the story of a former atheist engineer for NASA who came to see that physics simply does not support the so called big bang but does support special creation. Dr. Russell Humphreys, also speaking in a vid I pasted, is a world class cosmologist who was raised an atheist but came to see that special creation, as described in the Bible, is supported by science. There are countless individuals like those in spite of such things as happen in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

After I found out evolution was pseudo science I wanted to tell to the world! This led to a very humbling experience when I shared the great news with a secretary in my school. She probably had a high school education and was no way thought of as brilliant. I had two degrees, one advanced, and was considered to be an intellectual. When I told her evolution wasn't true she just kind of shrugged rather indifferently and said, "Oh, I never believed in all that stuff." Rotfl. I had swallowed all the evolutionary fairy tales like the so called horse evolution series, "vestigial" tonsils and appendixes, supposed gill slits on a fetus, and on and on. Not her. Common sense will always be a protection, for some, from evolutionary "stuff" and nonsense.

But, yeal, evolution is a great deceptive tool that has led many others to lose their faith. On the other hand, every day more and more people are starting to get "the rest of the story" and come out of evo. brain washing thanks to countless creation scientists' ever increasing and appreciated efforts. I am one of those they have helped to escape the matrix, and I am so very glad. I pray you will also be one of them.

 

[MikeEnders]

Then time passes, they are presented with the evidence for evolution, they find that they have no option but to believe it, and at that point they lose their faith.

The students who had no problem with evolution to start with keep their faith.

Don't really buy the no option claim (I can see someone buying the age of the earth but evolution is nowhere near as strongly attested to) but here is the thing - if in the process of not giving up their faith you change it into something that really isn't faith then what good does that do for you? I do see "believers" like that and they are so wishy washy in their faith they will swallow and reinterpret anything. What I notice to is that over time they lose their faith as well. its just a slower process.

Why? because lets state it plain. There is no Darwinian evolution in Genesis one or two. Its just not in there. You would have to read it into the text and if you can read something as big as that into the text then you can drive a truck of anything you want into any verse.

What I am keen on is defending the Bible and too often now all parties involved don't even now what Genesis one covers and doesn't cover. Its such a polarizing and controversial chapter no one even takes notes of what it really says anymore and because of that we DO find ourselves defending ideas about genesis one that are not even in genesis one. Two examples

Age of the earth - Genesis one starts out before any day with an existing earth (covered in water which is odd but no one gets into this besides gap theorists). We have no verse that say "and god created the earth and saw that it was good and that was the end of day one" Its not in there so if the earth is not included in the days of creation how could we use ussher to fix a 6.000 year old earth?

Special creation - I cant tell how many times I have heard an atheists claim and a Christian agree that species were created independently of each other in a creationist framework. Being a Bible literalist I find myself disagreeing and potentially getting a reaction from fellow creationists. The Truth is Genesis one does NOT say God created each animal independently. It says that there were three commands for life to be created. THREE and the hundreds of kinds and thousands of species comes all from that. Thats a way bit different idea than God creating each animal independently but that IS what the text says

My point being I have no intention of teaching my children something as flaky as Darwinian evolution as fact but then on the other hand I have no intention of teaching them whats not in the Bible merely because its church tradition which can be wrong. So far I haven't found people having big problems when they let genesis say what it says and stop trying to add things into it on either side. Their faith does fine

 

[Michael]

Michael - You have completed the pattern that is most typical for evo. devotees.

Is the devotee commentary intended to be insulting? I'm a devotee of Jesus, and only Jesus. You can keep your personal insults to yourself.

First, when asked for hard core data to support your beliefs, you offered an hypothesis and treated it like evidence.

Er, no. I handed you evidence that small changes in HOX genes *can* cause macroscopic changes over time, and I handed you a *hypothesis* that suggests that's how it occurs *because you asked for it*.

When asked for facts you gave theoreticals, i.e. faith based responses.

Considering that your own position is based *entirely* upon faith, I fail to see the problem. Admittedly none of us have been there to watch the process of evolution occur over billions of years, so there is always going to be some amount of ambiguity either way you look at it. Unlike you I don't consider "faith" to be a dirty word, and I understand that faith is actually an integral part of "science". So what's the problem with faith in your book?

You treated the actual, overflowing, evidence as if it was nothing worth considering.

What evidence? The only evidence that you have presented is that the most basic prediction of EV theory is true, that indeed most offspring of any species will continue to remain the same over long periods of time unless there is some "stress" introduced into the system, and even then, most offspring are likely to remain unchanged. So what? That short window of time isn't even *predicted* to generate macroscopic change in the first place! You're arguing a strawman fallacy based argument from the very start and insisting on seeing something that isn't even predicted by EV theory in the first place. You also just ignored those microscopic changes which we *do* observe in the window of time that EV might predict such changes.

The last part (sometimes it is seen right away) is to go into personal insult mode as with "you whined....incapable of thinking outside the box."

First you complained because the scientists hedged their bets and used terms like may or might. Then you complained because you claimed they were too aggressive. Which is it? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You sneered at Christian faith on a Christian forum

No I didn't. Christians the world over embrace EV theory just like I do, and I'm also a Christian. If anything I sneered at the concept of a 6 thousand year old Earth in this thread, and idea which in fact deserves to be sneered at considering the overwhelming evidence against that idea. If I sneered at ideas, I sneered at *ideas* that aren't core Christian values to begin with. Where in the Nicene creed does it claim that I'm obligated to believe in YEC and reject EV theory? Are Catholics a problem for you?

that is gracious enough to let unbelievers post here. (I guess if you think you're only a modified bug/bacteria you don't have to worry about manners.)

You are now overtly breaking the rules of this forum by inappropriately trying to label me something that I'm not, namely an 'unbeliever'. I believe in Jesus, I just don't believe you. Notice that difference?

[That's called verbal abuse. It's why I have nothing more to say to you. You've been prayed for. You've gotten a peek outside the matrix. Best I can do. May you learn that you have a Heavenly Father Who loves you and wants to bless you beyond what you can imagine. FINIS.

I love how you accuse me of verbal abuse while breaking the rules of this forum and and mislabeling me as a "non believer' simply for rejecting YEC. By your definition, every Catholic on the planet is a "non believer". The only one engaging in verbal abuse is the person you see in the mirror.

 

[Michael]

Lets not play pretend games here. People started rally against creationism when Darwin came upon his theory not when the age of the earth was determined (to the extent it is claimed to be) .

I don't know that to be true or not true to be honest and I really don't care when that may or may not have occured since it all preceded my birth to begin with. I'm only interested in where the scientific evidence leads me today in the 21st century.

Furthermore even the YEC position has never had strict adherence to Ussher and a dating of 6,000 years - though anti-creationists LOVE to claim all YEC's are limited to 6,000 years.

Ok. Then again any number you might pick that is less than the age of the Earth is likely to also be rejected by scientists. I don't really have a problem with the idea of God creating the Earth, I just know that it was done at least 4.6 billion years ago.

Strictly speaking despite the name YEC - a biblical creationist is not limited to anything but the Bible

Alright.

 

[Michael]

You didn't understand the article I sent. It said it did not start with a bang.

I get the feeling we're talking past each other at this point. I don't buy the whole big bang concept either quite frankly so at least we can agree upon that much.

 

[LoricaLady]

Michael - I see you left me another post. Sorry, I didn't read it. Please refer to my last post to you, #118. I believe it makes clear all I have to say to you.

Blessings and bye.

 

[Michael]

Don't really buy the no option claim (I can see someone buying the age of the earth but evolution is nowhere near as strongly attested to) but here is the thing - if in the process of not giving up their faith you change it into something that really isn't faith then what good does that do for you? I do see "believers" like that and they are so wishy washy in their faith they will swallow and reinterpret anything. What I notice to is that over time they lose their faith as well. its just a slower process.

I think there's a problem when someone starts to insist that faith in Jesus *must* include faith in YEC, or belief against EV theory. IMO those shouldn't even be "Christian" issues to begin with, anymore than belief (or lack thereof) in quantum mechanics should be part of the 'Christian' faith. Wrapping up a bunch of irrelevant scientific topics into the religion tends to muddy the waters and it can have negative consequences.

Why? because lets state it plain. There is no Darwinian evolution in Genesis one or two. Its just not in there. You would have to read it into the text and if you can read something as big as that into the text then you can drive a truck of anything you want into any verse.

I for one don't expect a single chapter of any book to contain the entire history of planet Earth, so I don't personally see that as a problem. I don't believe that my scientific beliefs need to be limited *strictly* to whatever I might find in a single religious text in the first place. IMO the Bible was written to introduce us to Christ, it wasn't meant to be the "be-all-end-all" of scientific knowledge. I was absolutely fine with introducing my kids to both the Bible and to EV theory. They aren't mutually exclusive idea in the first place IMO, particularly if one isn't intent on interpreting the Bible literally.

 

[Michael]

Michael - I see you left me another post. Sorry, I didn't read it. Please refer to my last post to you, #118. I believe it makes clear all I have to say to you.

Blessings and bye.

Enjoy your evening and live long and prosper.

 

[Michael]

And yet I know so many students that have been taught evolution...spewed it back for the test and still don't believe it...not even a little...and guess what....they kept their faith. They believe Gods word over mans. Plain and simple.

And yet Catholics can embrace the Bible and EV theory, so apparently it all depends on one's 'interpretation' of the Bible, not the Bible itself.

 

[mindlight]

The world famous biologist Francisco Ayala tells a story about creationist students who come to him at the beginning of their courses, and say something like, "I will write what you want me to about evolution, but don't expect me to believe any of it." Then time passes, they are presented with the evidence for evolution, they find that they have no option but to believe it, and at that point they lose their faith.

The students who had no problem with evolution to start with keep their faith.

I was a straight A student who never questioned evolution before i realised that the bible was a more credible authority. The Evolutionary model is comprehensive providing reasonable sounding explanations for everything and yet is not deemed credible by a majority of Christians and especially by those who adhere most strongly to scripture and attend church. Anecdotally you may find examples of loss of faith due to this issue though anecdotally it is also true a lot of these people return to the faith in later life. Churches that teach creationism tend to grow more strongly and the main advocates of evolution tend to be atheists intent on using it as a tool to bash Christians. What we are seeing now is an increasingly partisan perspective with atheists firmly entrenched in the evolutionary mindset and Christians increasingly less so. Christians that adopted a pro evolution view for evangelistic reasons or as a matter of personal convenience have not seen their churches grow and the hermeneutic they use has caused issues with their interpretations of the rest of scripture also.