A Brilliant Perspective of Creation vs Evolution

[The Barbarian]

And, of course, biological evolution is consistent with Biblical Creation

Until you read Genesis 1 and 2, and then Ex 20:8,11

No, that's wrong. Only some modern interpretations of those verses are incompatible with the reality of biological evolution.

But there are others. Strict YEC literalism has to incorporate the sky as a solid dome with windows in it, and a flat earth.

They make that error ,

The Bible has no errors. Strict YEC literalism honestly accepts all of scripture as literal. Cafeteria YECs say "scripture is literally true, except where I say it isn't." What other parts of the flood of Noah do you think are not true?

Gen 1 has the sun made 1 day after plants,

A literal reading of Genesis 1 has mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them, making it very clear that the story is not a literal one.

11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

And yet Genesis 2 says it happened in one day:

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth: 5 And every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth.

If these are literal verses, one of them has to be wrong. Which one do you think is wrong?

 

[Sir Joseph]

Interesting post Sir Joseph. Some have implied these renowned Christian scientists were dead before Darwin published his theory of evolution in 1859 . Four of them were in fact alive. Einstein's hero, the evangelical physicist James Maxwell, rejected Darwin's evolution theory. William Thompson, also known as Lord Kelvin, vehemently opposed evolution. I don't know what Ernest Walton's view was. But Sir Ambrose Fleming,( student of Maxwell) co-founded the Evolution Protest Movement, so it seems evolution wasn't his cup of tea.

Evangelical physicist James Clerk Maxwell is widely considered among the top 3 scientists in history, even Newton's equal according to the late eminent physicist Freeman Dyson. In fact Albert Einstein said that Maxwell was the initiator of the modern era of physics. Einstein said he owed his discovery of Special Relativity to Maxwell's Equations . " Maxwell changed the world forever," he stated. The largest photo in his home study was of Maxwell. Einstein had another photo in his study which was of yet another fundamentalist . It was of the scientist who showed us how electricity works and came up with the idea of "fields" - which is one of the most important idea in quantum physics.- the incomparable Michael Faraday. Imagine that; two Bible-believing church elders among the absolute top scientists in history.(Both believed in the eternal truth that Jesus is God.)
James Clerk Maxwell's passion for science was second only to his great love for Jesus. On salvation he said"...if I escape(hell) it is only because of God's grace, helping me get rid of myself..."["James Clerk Maxwell and the Christian Proposition", by Professor Ian Hutchinson, MIT.]
I am asking humbly and with genuine concern, that all you sweet people of all the wonderful ethnicities around the world who are not Christian that have spent your good time reading this thread, to accept Jesus Christ as your God and Savior. We will all kneel before the omnipotent Christ Jesus. Either as the most beloved children of His Great Father because we chose to believe in the Gospel of Christ!

Or as Christ's eternal enemy because one chose not to believe. You do not want to be the enemy of the all-powerful Being!
The only smart choice is to believe in Jesus! Everlasting-life in heaven is a free, infinitely valuable gift; but like any gift, you have to accept it. Lord Jesus will not force it on you. I hope to see you all there as I was once an ardent Christ-denier myself.
The New Testament in 1 John 4 says that God is love personified. Lord Jesus loves you so much but he won't force his love on one. So please choose to believe in him as your Savior.

For the youth and those guests peering in from the web:
OT event's True Images from 2700 years ago. Free for Sunday Schools, Youth studies, VBS etc. They were discovered in the proven ruins of Nineveh.

Thanks for an excellent, informative, rational response Ronlion. I appreciate the supportive detail and in fact have articles of quotes from the 10 scientists I listed, clearly showing their belief in God and his supernatural creation. Others here countering these scientists' beliefs are seemingly blowing more wind than fact - something I expect from the atheist community, but not Christians as is often the case.

As for the repeated charges against these scientists living before Darwin, others here again show their preference for supporting evolution over accepting facts of history. I understand that most people don't know that Darwin didn't invent evolutionary theory, or that it originated a 1000 years ago when man first began philosophizing about the universe' existence. Such people though shouldn't reveal their ignorance by wrongly trying to correct others.

To those individuals holding a world view committed to evolution over creationism, I no longer waste my time arguing with them. I like to share the Bible's amazing Genesis creation account that reveals God's awesome power and glory to anyone seeking truth in the matter. Those firmly rejecting it will ultimately face and challenge the Creator themselves, not me.

As first stated though, the intent and focus of the post which most here have ignored, is to listen to the argument made with the newest AI source. It's an extraordinary display of the worldwide deception going on with evolution theory indoctrination of society - despite the actual scientific evidence.

 

[River Jordan]

It's an extraordinary display of the worldwide deception going on with evolution theory indoctrination of society - despite the actual scientific evidence.

Do you think you know biology better than professional biologists?

 

[The Barbarian]

Thanks for an excellent, informative, rational response Ronlion. I appreciate the supportive detail and in fact have articles of quotes from the 10 scientists I listed, clearly showing their belief in God and his supernatural creation. Others here countering these scientists' beliefs are seemingly blowing more wind than fact - something I expect from the atheist community, but not Christians as is often the case.

You might take some comfort in knowing that Darwin, when he wrote On the Origin of Species, attributed the origin of life to God.

To those individuals holding a world view committed to evolution over creationism,

As most Christians do. The vast majority of the word's Christians belong to denominations that accept evolution.

It's an extraordinary display of the worldwide deception going on with evolution theory indoctrination of society - despite the actual scientific evidence.

Since we see evolution going on in populations all around us, there's really no point in denying the fact. I suspect that you have confused evolution (an observed phenomenon) with universal common descent. It's noteworthy that Darwing didn't assert common descent of all living things on Earth. He had no data to show that. Genetics, however, has shown universal descent.

 

[Sir Joseph]

Do you think you know biology better than professional biologists?

I would not pretend to know the thousands of details of a learned, professional biologist, but that's a loaded, worthless question since right now there are professional biologists (and biochemists, geologists, physicists, astronomers, cosmologists, etc) on both sides of the evolution/creation debate. Here's the difference between the two sides that determines my opinion on the subject:

The evolutionary biologist, like other fields of study, has accepted the (recent) premise that all science follows naturalistic laws. Any supernatural cause or effect is necessarily excluded - not for scientific reason, but for philosophical reason. Thus, when a biologist is burdened with the question of how life originated from non-life or how life increased in complexity without added information, he must concede that the biological community has no sound explanation. His evolutionary world view is not based upon evidence, but rather a philosophical world view that must be held to at all costs.

The creation biologist understands that life only comes from life, and that each type of life only produces its own kind - consistent with the Law of Biogenesis. He also understands that mutations reduce information and viability, thus limit evolution rather than enable it - consistent with Mendal's Laws of Genetics and laws of information science. He accepts the current scientific evidence, and rather pleading dumb about the cause and effects, logically concludes that something supernatural must be at work.

Surprisingly, many scientists don't even recognize, yet alone understand the problems with Darwinian evolutionary theory - problems that counter some of the strongest laws of science. They only know what they've been taught and they must stick to that if their careers are to remain intact. Whether I know more than them or not I can't say, but I will say that their secular world view which counters both scientific evidence and the Bible is irrational and untenable.

There's my answer to your question, but I maintain no desire to debate the intricate details of creation vs evolution. There's another section for that which I stay out of purposefully.

 

[River Jordan]

I would not pretend to know the thousands of details of a learned, professional biologist

That's good. We all need to be humble as scripture teaches.

but that's a loaded, worthless question since right now there are professional biologists (and biochemists, geologists, physicists, astronomers, cosmologists, etc) on both sides of the evolution/creation debate.

But if you don't know much about biology how do you decide which biologists are right? If I came across a debate between two IT techs about different approaches to network management I wouldn't have any idea how to pick a side because I don't know much of anything about network administration.

Here's the difference between the two sides that determines my opinion on the subject:

The evolutionary biologist, like other fields of study, has accepted the (recent) premise that all science follows naturalistic laws. Any supernatural cause or effect is necessarily excluded - not for scientific reason, but for philosophical reason.

That's not accurate. The supernatural isn't included in science because it's not testable.

Thus, when a biologist is burdened with the question of how life originated from non-life or how life increased in complexity without added information, he must concede that the biological community has no sound explanation. His evolutionary world view is not based upon evidence, but rather a philosophical world view that must be held to at all costs.

The creation biologist understands that life only comes from life, and that each type of life only produces its own kind - consistent with the Law of Biogenesis. He also understands that mutations reduce information and viability, thus limit evolution rather than enable it - consistent with Mendal's Laws of Genetics and laws of information science. He accepts the current scientific evidence, and rather pleading dumb about the cause and effects, logically concludes that something supernatural must be at work.

Surprisingly, many scientists don't even recognize, yet alone understand the problems with Darwinian evolutionary theory - problems that counter some of the strongest laws of science. They only know what they've been taught and they must stick to that if their careers are to remain intact. Whether I know more than them or not I can't say, but I will say that their secular world view which counters both scientific evidence and the Bible is irrational and untenable.

There's my answer to your question, but I maintain no desire to debate the intricate details of creation vs evolution. There's another section for that which I stay out of purposefully.

I don't understand. In the first part of your post you acknowledge that you don't know biology as well as professional biologists, but in the paragraphs above you speak as if you do. What you wrote above comes across as you saying all the biologists who are "evolutionists" are very wrong. Is that really what you think? If you came to my workplace (I'm a biologist) do you think you would be able to do our work better than we do?

Also, if you believe creationists do better science than all the biologists who work under the ToE, where are their results? Where are the breakthroughs, new discoveries, new fields of science, and increases in our understanding from creationist organizations? The ToE has all sorts of practical applications. Where is anyone applying creationism to do anything productive?

 

[Sir Joseph]

That's good. We all need to be humble as scripture teaches.


But if you don't know much about biology how do you decide which biologists are right? If I came across a debate between two IT techs about different approaches to network management I wouldn't have any idea how to pick a side because I don't know much of anything about network administration.


That's not accurate. The supernatural isn't included in science because it's not testable.


I don't understand. In the first part of your post you acknowledge that you don't know biology as well as professional biologists, but in the paragraphs above you speak as if you do. What you wrote above comes across as you saying all the biologists who are "evolutionists" are very wrong. Is that really what you think? If you came to my workplace (I'm a biologist) do you think you would be able to do our work better than we do?

Also, if you believe creationists do better science than all the biologists who work under the ToE, where are their results? Where are the breakthroughs, new discoveries, new fields of science, and increases in our understanding from creationist organizations? The ToE has all sorts of practical applications. Where is anyone applying creationism to do anything productive?

River Jordon, your inquiries are fair, respectful, non-antagonistic, and worthy of a response unlike some others on this website that I choose not to debate. Here goes:

Let me start with a preamble.

I was taught evolutionary theory in high school and went along with it for decades, even as a Christan, despite its deviation from the obvious Genesis account reading. I reconciled it as all theists do - by massaging the Bible's text with additions or misinterpretations. In my 40's, I started studying Christan apologetics, and that soon led me to the creation/evolution debate. Once I read material from creationists, it took me very little time to learn and realize 3 things: that neo-Darwinian evolution has little to no scientific evidence supporting it, that it actually conflicts with our strongest laws of science (biology, physics, and geology specifically), and that creationism is fully compatible with the scientific evidence and laws of science. I can't prove those findings in a paragraph here, but studying the subject over the past 25 years has solidified my views. In short, even if I was an atheist, I could not believe in the current, popular evolutionary world view because it counters (nearly) all scientific evidence and mathematical probabilities.

The second thing I've learned from the past 25 years of studying Christian apologetics is that the Bible is completely authoritative, meaning that its inerrant, historically accurate, and literally true - even in scientific matters. I don't take that on blind faith either; there's an abundance of scientific, archaeological, historical, prophetic, and manuscript textual criticism evidence to support that conclusion - as well as affirmation from Jesus, Paul, and Peter.

Thus, the Bible and scientific evidence both support creationism over evolution - as it should since God created the universe and the scientific laws that govern it. Now, on to your questions:

"But if you don't know much about biology how do you decide which biologists are right?"

Can we agree that most biologists aren't actively engaged on projects that are critically affected by this issue? Thus, their work is valid even if their personal views are wrong? But for those individuals, be they biologist, other scientist, or anyone speaking out or writing books on the subject: only those recognizing the Bible's Genesis (literal YE) creation account and preponderance of evidence for a supernatural creation get my academic respect. Others don't.

"The supernatural isn't included in science because it's not testable."

Actually, that's not true. For example, if there's only 3 possibilities for explaining the origin of life and science disproves 2 of those options, logic would dictate that the third option must be true. An open minded, unbiased scientist would understand and respect this, but a person with a philosophical objection to the third option will rule it out. Such is the case of evolutionists whom are mandated to exclude any supernatural process, even if the evidence excludes a naturalistic solution.

Further, evolution is entirely faith based with untestable presuppositions like uniformitarianism and biological macroevolution - none of which has been observed or can be tested in a lab.

"What you wrote above comes across as you saying all the biologists who are "evolutionists" are very wrong. Is that really what you think?"

Yes - definitely, terribly wrong, along with the masses of people around the world that have been duped on a Satanic theory that not only undermines the Bible and robs God the glory for his creation, but denies both scientific evidence and common sense.

"If you came to my workplace (I'm a biologist) do you think you would be able to do our work better than we do?"

Of course not, unless you're making natural history museum signs and displays.

"If you believe creationists do better science than all the biologists who work under the ToE, where are their results? Where are the breakthroughs, new discoveries, new fields of science, and increases in our understanding from creationist organizations?"

Really, did you not read my original post? Do you not know or believe that many of our greatest scientists in history were Bible believing creationists who accepted the Genesis account and rejected evolutionary theory? Truth is there are great scientists on both sides of the issue doing productive work regardless of their faith, but society is being shaped by the current evolutionary world view.

"The ToE has all sorts of practical applications. Where is anyone applying creationism to do anything productive?

Personally, I'm not sure what practical applications you might be referring to, so I'd question that presumption. As for creationists doing anything productive, I'd suggest that doing science is more productive and beneficial to society if the right conclusions are drawn vs wrong ones. Why would anyone oppose drawing conclusions from the available evidence except to protect a certain preferred, biased view?

OK, that's all I have time for this day and week. I'll check back in next Sunday but don't want to turn this thread into a creation/evolution debate. I've found that arguing with any firm evolutionist (not branding you necessarily) is endless and unproductive. I believe that anyone receptive to God and the existing supernatural world can be influenced with evidence, but those committed to a secular world view will not. The heart has to be in the right place before the evidence will be properly interpreted.

 

[River Jordan]

River Jordon, your inquiries are fair, respectful, non-antagonistic, and worthy of a response unlike some others on this website that I choose not to debate. Here goes:

Let me start with a preamble.

I was taught evolutionary theory in high school and went along with it for decades, even as a Christan, despite its deviation from the obvious Genesis account reading. I reconciled it as all theists do - by massaging the Bible's text with additions or misinterpretations. In my 40's, I started studying Christan apologetics, and that soon led me to the creation/evolution debate. Once I read material from creationists, it took me very little time to learn and realize 3 things: that neo-Darwinian evolution has little to no scientific evidence supporting it, that it actually conflicts with our strongest laws of science (biology, physics, and geology specifically), and that creationism is fully compatible with the scientific evidence and laws of science. I can't prove those findings in a paragraph here, but studying the subject over the past 25 years has solidified my views. In short, even if I was an atheist, I could not believe in the current, popular evolutionary world view because it counters (nearly) all scientific evidence and mathematical probabilities.

The second thing I've learned from the past 25 years of studying Christian apologetics is that the Bible is completely authoritative, meaning that its inerrant, historically accurate, and literally true - even in scientific matters. I don't take that on blind faith either; there's an abundance of scientific, archaeological, historical, prophetic, and manuscript textual criticism evidence to support that conclusion - as well as affirmation from Jesus, Paul, and Peter.

Thus, the Bible and scientific evidence both support creationism over evolution - as it should since God created the universe and the scientific laws that govern it. Now, on to your questions:

"But if you don't know much about biology how do you decide which biologists are right?"

Can we agree that most biologists aren't actively engaged on projects that are critically affected by this issue? Thus, their work is valid even if their personal views are wrong? But for those individuals, be they biologist, other scientist, or anyone speaking out or writing books on the subject: only those recognizing the Bible's Genesis (literal YE) creation account and preponderance of evidence for a supernatural creation get my academic respect. Others don't.

"The supernatural isn't included in science because it's not testable."

Actually, that's not true. For example, if there's only 3 possibilities for explaining the origin of life and science disproves 2 of those options, logic would dictate that the third option must be true. An open minded, unbiased scientist would understand and respect this, but a person with a philosophical objection to the third option will rule it out. Such is the case of evolutionists whom are mandated to exclude any supernatural process, even if the evidence excludes a naturalistic solution.

Further, evolution is entirely faith based with untestable presuppositions like uniformitarianism and biological macroevolution - none of which has been observed or can be tested in a lab.

"What you wrote above comes across as you saying all the biologists who are "evolutionists" are very wrong. Is that really what you think?"

Yes - definitely, terribly wrong, along with the masses of people around the world that have been duped on a Satanic theory that not only undermines the Bible and robs God the glory for his creation, but denies both scientific evidence and common sense.

"If you came to my workplace (I'm a biologist) do you think you would be able to do our work better than we do?"

Of course not, unless you're making natural history museum signs and displays.

"If you believe creationists do better science than all the biologists who work under the ToE, where are their results? Where are the breakthroughs, new discoveries, new fields of science, and increases in our understanding from creationist organizations?"

Really, did you not read my original post? Do you not know or believe that many of our greatest scientists in history were Bible believing creationists who accepted the Genesis account and rejected evolutionary theory? Truth is there are great scientists on both sides of the issue doing productive work regardless of their faith, but society is being shaped by the current evolutionary world view.

"The ToE has all sorts of practical applications. Where is anyone applying creationism to do anything productive?

Personally, I'm not sure what practical applications you might be referring to, so I'd question that presumption. As for creationists doing anything productive, I'd suggest that doing science is more productive and beneficial to society if the right conclusions are drawn vs wrong ones. Why would anyone oppose drawing conclusions from the available evidence except to protect a certain preferred, biased view?

OK, that's all I have time for this day and week. I'll check back in next Sunday but don't want to turn this thread into a creation/evolution debate. I've found that arguing with any firm evolutionist (not branding you necessarily) is endless and unproductive. I believe that anyone receptive to God and the existing supernatural world can be influenced with evidence, but those committed to a secular world view will not. The heart has to be in the right place before the evidence will be properly interpreted.

I appreciate you sharing your story with me. Instead of doing the line by line reply style and since you said you don't want to get into a back and forth debate, I'll just summarize my reaction to your post.

You said you've done this for a long time so I assume you understand the gravity of what you claimed. From my perspective, you've effectively said that not only are my co-workers and I reaching the wrong conclusions, we're even working under an improper/mistaken framework and completely botching our understanding of life (its history, how it behaves). You seem to sincerely believe that if you were given a chance, you would have no problem coming into my office, or one of any similar offices, and basically telling all of us just how astoundingly and historically wrong we are.

If you are correct, we are all horrible, terrible, awful scientists. We will go down as the biggest bunch of dopes in human history.

That's how your post comes across to me. I pray you also understand how it's very difficult to see someone make extraordinary boasts like that but also say they can't prove any of it and don't really want to be put in a position where you'd have to support them. To me, it's like if we were at a professional soccer game and you started boasting about how they're playing the game all wrong and you could do so much better, but you don't really want to right now.

So while I understand now how you see things and how strongly your feel about them, I honestly don't understand the boasting and elaborate claims. It seems a bit much to me. But then I suppose this is when I have to check my own pride and remind myself that this is just an internet forum and put it all in that context. People say all kinds of things all the time in these places and not one bit of it will ever affect how we do our work. If you and other creationists truly believe we're doing our jobs completely wrong and you can do better, then please go do it and show the world. Bragging about it in forums doesn't accomplish anything.

 

[sfs]

To me, it's like if we were at a professional soccer game and you started boasting about how they're playing the game all wrong and you could do so much better, but you don't really want to right now.

With the additions that he's clearly winded just walking up the stairs to his seat and that he doesn't know what the offside rule is.

 

[sfs]

Thus, when a biologist is burdened with the question of how life originated from non-life or how life increased in complexity without added information, he must concede that the biological community has no sound explanation.

I'm only going to address one sentence here -- I think it's representative of some of the issues involved. Two points. First, as a biologist, I am not burdened with the question of how life originated. How it originated has no effect on the study of biology -- it's a different question for different researchers who use different methods.

Second, "how life increased in complexity without added information" makes not the slightest bit of sense. Where did you get the idea that information in organisms, and specifically in DNA, doesn't increase? I realize that this is a frequent creationist talking point, but it's such nonsense to anyone who knows anything about biology that it's hard to credit. If the cycle of random mutation followed by selection didn't produce new information, you'd long since be dead, as would everyone else. That process is precisely how your immune system generates the information needed to match antibodies to microbes it has never encountered before, and thus to fight off infection.

For me, the core problem with creationist arguments against evolution is not that they're unscientific or include miracles: it's that they're just really, really bad arguments.

 

[The Barbarian]

As for the repeated charges against these scientists living before Darwin, others here again show their preference for supporting evolution over accepting facts of history. I understand that most people don't know that Darwin didn't invent evolutionary theory,

Darwin's contribution was to show how it worked. And it turned out to be remarkably simple and effective. Huxley later exclaimed "how stupid of me not to have realized." So simple and effective, engineers have started using it to solve extremely complex engineering problems.

Further, evolution is entirely faith based with untestable presuppositions like uniformitarianism and biological macroevolution - none of which has been observed or can be tested in a lab.

Uniformitarianism is not part of evolutionary theory. And macroevolution has been repeatedly observed. I'm guessing you don't know the scientific definitions of these words.

Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the rules of the universe have been the same since the begining. So far, it's been validated every time it's been tested. And macroevolution is the evolution of new species, which also has been directly observed.

 

[Sir Joseph]

I appreciate you sharing your story with me. Instead of doing the line by line reply style and since you said you don't want to get into a back and forth debate, I'll just summarize my reaction to your post.

You said you've done this for a long time so I assume you understand the gravity of what you claimed. From my perspective, you've effectively said that not only are my co-workers and I reaching the wrong conclusions, we're even working under an improper/mistaken framework and completely botching our understanding of life (its history, how it behaves). You seem to sincerely believe that if you were given a chance, you would have no problem coming into my office, or one of any similar offices, and basically telling all of us just how astoundingly and historically wrong we are.

If you are correct, we are all horrible, terrible, awful scientists. We will go down as the biggest bunch of dopes in human history.

That's how your post comes across to me. I pray you also understand how it's very difficult to see someone make extraordinary boasts like that but also say they can't prove any of it and don't really want to be put in a position where you'd have to support them. To me, it's like if we were at a professional soccer game and you started boasting about how they're playing the game all wrong and you could do so much better, but you don't really want to right now.

So while I understand now how you see things and how strongly your feel about them, I honestly don't understand the boasting and elaborate claims. It seems a bit much to me. But then I suppose this is when I have to check my own pride and remind myself that this is just an internet forum and put it all in that context. People say all kinds of things all the time in these places and not one bit of it will ever affect how we do our work. If you and other creationists truly believe we're doing our jobs completely wrong and you can do better, then please go do it and show the world. Bragging about it in forums doesn't accomplish anything.

I appreciate you sharing your story with me. Instead of doing the line by line reply style and since you said you don't want to get into a back and forth debate, I'll just summarize my reaction to your post.

You said you've done this for a long time so I assume you understand the gravity of what you claimed. From my perspective, you've effectively said that not only are my co-workers and I reaching the wrong conclusions, we're even working under an improper/mistaken framework and completely botching our understanding of life (its history, how it behaves). You seem to sincerely believe that if you were given a chance, you would have no problem coming into my office, or one of any similar offices, and basically telling all of us just how astoundingly and historically wrong we are.

If you are correct, we are all horrible, terrible, awful scientists. We will go down as the biggest bunch of dopes in human history.

That's how your post comes across to me. I pray you also understand how it's very difficult to see someone make extraordinary boasts like that but also say they can't prove any of it and don't really want to be put in a position where you'd have to support them. To me, it's like if we were at a professional soccer game and you started boasting about how they're playing the game all wrong and you could do so much better, but you don't really want to right now.

So while I understand now how you see things and how strongly your feel about them, I honestly don't understand the boasting and elaborate claims. It seems a bit much to me. But then I suppose this is when I have to check my own pride and remind myself that this is just an internet forum and put it all in that context. People say all kinds of things all the time in these places and not one bit of it will ever affect how we do our work. If you and other creationists truly believe we're doing our jobs completely wrong and you can do better, then please go do it and show the world. Bragging about it in forums doesn't accomplish anything.

River Jordan, I appreciate and respect your troubled response and will try to clarify a few points.

"If you are correct, we are all horrible, terrible, awful scientists. We will go down as the biggest bunch of dopes in human history."

I'll repeat that many if not most biologists are not working on projects dependent upon a certain religious or secular world view. Thus, their value as scientists is not being questioned or judged here by me. For those few that are actively promoting a naturalistic theory that rejects God's existence and deprives Him of his creation glory, I pray that they will see the light in time - as many reputable scientists have.

"I pray you also understand how it's very difficult to see someone make extraordinary boasts like that but also say they can't prove any of it and don't really want to be put in a position where you'd have to support them."

I didn't say I couldn't prove my point of view; I said I didn't want to get into a debate over the issue. You see, I've gone down that path before on forums and with friends only to find it a lengthy prospect of wasted time, effort and failure. I've learned that presenting evidence that opposes a firm evolutionist's world view is entirely ineffective. It will only be dismissed or rejected, no matter how relevant, good or sound.

The fact is that our world view presuppositions dictate how we interpret evidence around us. Both sides of the issue are bound to this if the individual has a strong religious or secular perspective. For those many that do not, evidence can be assessed with less biasness and thus become influential. Those are the ones I invest my time in - open minded ones seeking truth in the matter based upon evidence and rationale, not those already holding firm presuppositions.

"So while I understand now how you see things and how strongly your feel about them, I honestly don't understand the boasting and elaborate claims. It seems a bit much to me."

That's understandable River Jordan because it's a charge made against Christianity and the Bible by much of society. In fact, you've raised a point that's even bigger than than just creationism vs evolution, but also the claim of Jesus being the only way to salvation and the claim for objective morality. What an offensive claim made by arrogant Christians. Unless it's true.

I trust you know that our culture today is struggling over the prime issue of objective truth vs relativeness. The Bible believing Christian accepts objective truth as God's revelation. Current (American, or western) culture is fighting against this. What started with exchanging Biblical creation teaching in the schools for evolution has progressed into a total moral decline of our culture. There is a battle going on for the hearts and minds of America's society. Each side "should" be offended by the others' world belief system and values if they care about what's going on in the world.

Know though that while outspoken Bible believing Christians may be labeled as close minded, arrogant, hateful bigots by today's society, that's not the behavior actually being demonstrated. As Charlie Kirk demonstrated so well with his public college debates, a Christian can and should speak truth openly while maintaining love and respect for others.

In summary, I'm not smart, proud, or great enough at anything to be arrogant, but I am blessed to have a heart receptive to God and His written Word. I have a biblical world view based not only on faith, but by a preponderance of evidence. That includes a firm position on biblical creation vs evolution.

I expect any atheist to reject creationism in order to be consistent with their secular world view, but they should realize that they don't have the scientific evidence on their side as the current educational system and culture promotes. Thus, the reason for my initial video post.

Similarly, I expect any true Christian to believe the foundational scriptures of their faith, which mandates a respect for the Bible's authority - including the Genesis creation account.

I don't want to argue with atheists or misguided Christians holding firm evolutionary beliefs. But for those less biased ones who are seeking God or wanting reconciliation between the Bible and today's culturally touted science, know that there's an abundance of scientific evolution vs creation material to explore. I'm always happy to share my best examples of books, articles, or videos to those who are truly interested, but the time and work involved is more than most here would want to give. It's easier to just accept the cultural norm than seek the truth.

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't want to argue with atheists or misguided Christians holding firm evolutionary beliefs.

I don't mind arguing with atheists or misguided Christians holding firm YEC beliefs. I don't convert many, but even a few is worth the effort. And honestly, God doesn't care if you approve of the way He created things. YECs, unless they make an idol of their beliefs, are no less Christians than the rest of us.

 

[Sir Joseph]

I'm only going to address one sentence here -- I think it's representative of some of the issues involved. Two points. First, as a biologist, I am not burdened with the question of how life originated. How it originated has no effect on the study of biology -- it's a different question for different researchers who use different methods.

Second, "how life increased in complexity without added information" makes not the slightest bit of sense. Where did you get the idea that information in organisms, and specifically in DNA, doesn't increase?

I realize that this is a frequent creationist talking point, but it's such nonsense to anyone who knows anything about biology that it's hard to credit. If the cycle of random mutation followed by selection didn't produce new information, you'd long since be dead, as would everyone else. That process is precisely how your immune system generates the information needed to match antibodies to microbes it has never encountered before, and thus to fight off infection.

For me, the core problem with creationist arguments against evolution is not that they're unscientific or include miracles: it's that they're just really, really bad arguments.

Appreciate your fair response SFS. I think we'll probably have to agree to disagree on your two points, but I'll still offer a respectful rebuttal.

"First, as a biologist, I am not burdened with the question of how life originated. How it originated has no effect on the study of biology -- it's a different question for different researchers who use different methods."

I've heard a similar view from famous evolutionists as well as my college roommate when confronted with the Law of Biogenesis - that life only comes from life according to its own kind. Even secular textbooks affirm that law, leaving the evolutionists no choice but to ignore it as irrelevant or unimportant. I'd suggest that the origin of life certainly is a necessary component of naturalistic evolutionary theory just as the origin of the cosmos is.

Perhaps you don't realize it or agree, but the current, popular, neo-Darwinian evolutionary model is a philosophical (and religious) answer to man's origins and purpose in life: where we came from, why are we here, and what lies ahead after this? It specifically excludes God as an option by allowing only naturalistic possibilities. So, the evolutionist not only logically needs to address the transition of simple life to complex life, but also needs to justify having a universe and life in the first place - or else evolution would never get started.

Anyone studying the creation/evolution issue for awhile quickly realizes that there are many sciences involved - particularly cosmology, astronomy, physics, mathematics, biology, biochemistry, and geology. I understand each scientist may have their limited scope, but the various disciplines are all engaged in trying to formulate a naturalistic theory on where everything came from and how it evolved.

"Second, "how life increased in complexity without added information" makes not the slightest bit of sense. Where did you get the idea that information in organisms, and specifically in DNA, doesn't increase?"

I'm no expert, but I've read and watched material from those who are - particularly Biologists, Biochemists, and Geneticists. Of course DNA mutations cause "different" gene codes, but calling that "added" information is deceptive terminology. For instance, we don't see mutations growing new, higher complex organs or structures beyond the original genetic code capabilities. Even after breeding countless generations of fruit flies over the past 20 years, Mendel's Law of Genetics stands: that there's a limit on mutational change within a kind. In short, the vast majority of genetic mutations are actually detrimental to an organism, and none are evidenced to be adding information to an organism necessary for developing a new, more complex body structure.

The principles of information science dictate the DNA code similarly as a written document. If one misspells a word millions of times over, we don't turn a child's one page story into a 30 volume encyclopedia.

"If the cycle of random mutation followed by selection didn't produce new information, you'd long since be dead, as would everyone else. That process is precisely how your immune system generates the information needed to match antibodies to microbes it has never encountered before, and thus to fight off infection."

This is a very common example of evolution that we'll simply have to disagree on with no further debate beneficial. My learned view is that the genetic code for antibodies has always existed. A latent antibody can be initiated with certain drugs through various ways. I've seen one good specific, example video on this subject to embrace its rationale.

"For me, the core problem with creationist arguments against evolution is not that they're unscientific or include miracles: it's that they're just really, really bad arguments."

I understand, since most evolutionists on this website feel the same way - or worse, claiming that there's no evidence at all to even discuss. In this case, I'll repeat my resistance to debate any further because you and I apparently not only have opposing world views that force us to interpret evidence differently, but also have different sources of evidence presenting opposing interpretations of the facts. In other words:

For the individual that wants a naturalistic world view, a majority of websites, schools, museums, and public information will support current evolutionary theory. However, for anyone else wanting or at least open to a biblical world view, there are creation websites, books, articles, and videos supporting a supernatural creation. Since both sides have evidence that seems compelling, one must decide in his heart which world view he wants to embrace:

one with God or one without.

 

[The Barbarian]

I've heard a similar view from famous evolutionists as well as my college roommate when confronted with the Law of Biogenesis - that life only comes from life according to its own kind.

Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things. If God had poofed living things magically, instead of using nature as Genesis says, evolution would work exactly as it does now.

Perhaps you don't realize it or agree, but the current, popular, neo-Darwinian evolutionary model is a philosophical (and religious) answer to man's origins and purpose in life: where we came from, why are we here, and what lies ahead after this? It specifically excludes God as an option by allowing only naturalistic possibilities.

See above. Darwin thought God did it. And some of the prominent evolutionists today are Christians. C'mon. God excludes poofing; He says that the Earth brought forth life. Why is that so objectionable to YECs? And it doesn't matter to evolution which would still work the way it does today, no matter how life first formed.

My learned view is that the genetic code for antibodies has always existed.

That's not consistent with the evidence. While Ig-like molecules exist in prokaryotes, none of them are actual antibodies. Plants don't have antibodies, but even primitive metazoans do. Antibodies didn't appear before animals evolved from earlier eukaryotes.

Origin of the metazoan immune system: identification of the molecules and their functions in sponges - PubMed

During the evolutionary transition to Metazoa, cell-cell- as well as cell-matrix recognition molecules have been formed, which made a further step in evolution possible, the establishment of an immune system. Sponges [Porifera] represent the oldest still extant metazoan phylum and consequently...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I'm no expert, but I've read and watched material from those who are - particularly Biologists, Biochemists, and Geneticists. Of course DNA mutations cause "different" gene codes, but calling that "added" information is deceptive terminology.

Well, that's a testable belief. Let's take a simple case. using easy to calculate numbers. Imagine a population with two alleles for a given gene locus. Now suppose a mutation occurs that produces a third allele, which eventually results in each allele with a frequency of 1/3. So tell us, what was the information for that gene locus before and after the mutation spread through the population? If you don't know how to calculate information, I'll show you, but if you don't, I'm wondering why you're so sure of your position.

Since both sides have evidence that seems compelling,

That's the problem for YECs. They don't have any evidence aside from their particular interpretation of scripture. Can you show us something else?

 

[sfs]

I've heard a similar view from famous evolutionists as well as my college roommate when confronted with the Law of Biogenesis - that life only comes from life according to its own kind.

Scientific "laws" are codified observations. The "Law of Biogenesis" simply says that we do not observe life forming spontaneously. That tells us nothing about how life first started under very different conditions. More importantly, it has nothing to do with what I wrote.

I'd suggest that the origin of life certainly is a necessary component of naturalistic evolutionary theory just as the origin of the cosmos is.

You can suggest anything you like -- it has nothing to do with my statement. Whether life began by a natural process or by miracle matters not at all to the evidence for evolution or to how I do my job.

Perhaps you don't realize it or agree, but the current, popular, neo-Darwinian evolutionary model is a philosophical (and religious) answer to man's origins and purpose in life: where we came from, why are we here, and what lies ahead after this?

Perhaps you don't realize it or agree, but you're wrong. Evolutionary biology is a scientific field of study, based on a vast range of evidence. Anyone who wants to make it part of an answer to our purpose in life -- whether a theistic or an atheistic answer -- is welcome to do so, but at that point they've left the science behind. I note that you, like many creationists, are avoiding dealing with the data -- you'd rather change the subject to philosophy or theology. That doesn't make the evidence go away.

Anyone studying the creation/evolution issue for awhile quickly realizes that there are many sciences involved - particularly cosmology, astronomy, physics, mathematics, biology, biochemistry, and geology. I understand each scientist may have their limited scope, but the various disciplines are all engaged in trying to formulate a naturalistic theory on where everything came from and how it evolved.

What you're objecting to here isn't evolution: it's all of science. If you want to reject science, just say so. Don't pretend (even to yourself) that it's only evolution you have a problem with.

I'm no expert, but I've read and watched material from those who are - particularly Biologists, Biochemists, and Geneticists. Of course DNA mutations cause "different" gene codes, but calling that "added" information is deceptive terminology. For instance, we don't see mutations growing new, higher complex organs or structures beyond the original genetic code capabilities.

You are indeed no expert, so why are you trying to tell an actual expert the basics of his own field? You're the one who introduced the idea of 'information'. Under any scientifically relevant definition of 'information', it's something that can increase through mutation and selection. I just gave you an example of new structures that are in fact generated by mutation and that were not in the original DNA: antibodies. They are structures tuned to match the shape of a molecule on an invading pathogen. To be clear: you are stating as a basic principle something that we know without a shadow of a doubt to be wrong, based on empirical evidence. This has nothing to do with worldviews or presuppositions; it's a matter of telling the truth.

This is a very common example of evolution that we'll simply have to disagree on with no further debate beneficial. My learned view is that the genetic code for antibodies has always existed.

This is simply false. I've been looking at creationist arguments for decades, and they pretty much always come down to this: they're based on falsehoods.

For the individual that wants a naturalistic world view, a majority of websites, schools, museums, and public information will support current evolutionary theory. However, for anyone else wanting or at least open to a biblical world view, there are creation websites, books, articles, and videos supporting a supernatural creation. Since both sides have evidence that seems compelling, one must decide in his heart which world view he wants to embrace:

I find that a convenient way to shut yourself off from learning anything that might challenge something that you very much want to be true. In any case, for the record: I base my conclusions on things that I know first-hand, because it's data that I work with all the time. I'm certainly open to a Biblical world view, but I'm not going to lie about what's really out there -- that seems far more counter to Biblical values.

 

[River Jordan]

River Jordan, I appreciate and respect your troubled response and will try to clarify a few points.

"If you are correct, we are all horrible, terrible, awful scientists. We will go down as the biggest bunch of dopes in human history."

I'll repeat that many if not most biologists are not working on projects dependent upon a certain religious or secular world view. Thus, their value as scientists is not being questioned or judged here by me. For those few that are actively promoting a naturalistic theory that rejects God's existence and deprives Him of his creation glory, I pray that they will see the light in time - as many reputable scientists have.

"I pray you also understand how it's very difficult to see someone make extraordinary boasts like that but also say they can't prove any of it and don't really want to be put in a position where you'd have to support them."

I didn't say I couldn't prove my point of view; I said I didn't want to get into a debate over the issue. You see, I've gone down that path before on forums and with friends only to find it a lengthy prospect of wasted time, effort and failure. I've learned that presenting evidence that opposes a firm evolutionist's world view is entirely ineffective. It will only be dismissed or rejected, no matter how relevant, good or sound.

The fact is that our world view presuppositions dictate how we interpret evidence around us. Both sides of the issue are bound to this if the individual has a strong religious or secular perspective. For those many that do not, evidence can be assessed with less biasness and thus become influential. Those are the ones I invest my time in - open minded ones seeking truth in the matter based upon evidence and rationale, not those already holding firm presuppositions.

"So while I understand now how you see things and how strongly your feel about them, I honestly don't understand the boasting and elaborate claims. It seems a bit much to me."

That's understandable River Jordan because it's a charge made against Christianity and the Bible by much of society. In fact, you've raised a point that's even bigger than than just creationism vs evolution, but also the claim of Jesus being the only way to salvation and the claim for objective morality. What an offensive claim made by arrogant Christians. Unless it's true.

I trust you know that our culture today is struggling over the prime issue of objective truth vs relativeness. The Bible believing Christian accepts objective truth as God's revelation. Current (American, or western) culture is fighting against this. What started with exchanging Biblical creation teaching in the schools for evolution has progressed into a total moral decline of our culture. There is a battle going on for the hearts and minds of America's society. Each side "should" be offended by the others' world belief system and values if they care about what's going on in the world.

Know though that while outspoken Bible believing Christians may be labeled as close minded, arrogant, hateful bigots by today's society, that's not the behavior actually being demonstrated. As Charlie Kirk demonstrated so well with his public college debates, a Christian can and should speak truth openly while maintaining love and respect for others.

In summary, I'm not smart, proud, or great enough at anything to be arrogant, but I am blessed to have a heart receptive to God and His written Word. I have a biblical world view based not only on faith, but by a preponderance of evidence. That includes a firm position on biblical creation vs evolution.

I expect any atheist to reject creationism in order to be consistent with their secular world view, but they should realize that they don't have the scientific evidence on their side as the current educational system and culture promotes. Thus, the reason for my initial video post.

Similarly, I expect any true Christian to believe the foundational scriptures of their faith, which mandates a respect for the Bible's authority - including the Genesis creation account.

I don't want to argue with atheists or misguided Christians holding firm evolutionary beliefs. But for those less biased ones who are seeking God or wanting reconciliation between the Bible and today's culturally touted science, know that there's an abundance of scientific evolution vs creation material to explore. I'm always happy to share my best examples of books, articles, or videos to those who are truly interested, but the time and work involved is more than most here would want to give. It's easier to just accept the cultural norm than seek the truth.

Joseph, like the last time I find your post frustrating to read. It's very difficult to be lectured about biology by someone who (as @sfs showed) also makes basic errors in that very subject. That level of Dunning-Kruger from creationists is exactly what I referenced in another thread a bit ago and is something I really don't understand.

Also, evolutionary biology doesn't "reject God's existence". It may conflict with your fundamentalist interpretations and beliefs, but those are not God.

And that brings me to one of the main frustrations I had when reading your post. Like other fundamentalists I've interacted with, you've tried to frame it to where you and those who share your particular interpretations are "Bible believing Christians" and the rest of us apparently don't believe the Bible. That's terribly divisive and unnecessary. I pray you find a way to be more open understanding to your fellow Christians, especially with things that aren't vital to our salvation.

Lastly I'll reiterate what sfs said in his reply to you. A lot of what you've posted about biology is just plain wrong. So my recommendation to you is that you check your pride and be much more humble with what you say about biology and science. We are commanded by God to be truthful in all that we say and do for a reason. Going around saying ridiculously incorrect things under the banner of Christianity likely drives some people away, and I trust you're aware of what scripture has to say about people who do that.

 

[Sir Joseph]

Scientific "laws" are codified observations. The "Law of Biogenesis" simply says that we do not observe life forming spontaneously. That tells us nothing about how life first started under very different conditions. More importantly, it has nothing to do with what I wrote.

You can suggest anything you like -- it has nothing to do with my statement. Whether life began by a natural process or by miracle matters not at all to the evidence for evolution or to how I do my job.

Perhaps you don't realize it or agree, but you're wrong. Evolutionary biology is a scientific field of study, based on a vast range of evidence. Anyone who wants to make it part of an answer to our purpose in life -- whether a theistic or an atheistic answer -- is welcome to do so, but at that point they've left the science behind. I note that you, like many creationists, are avoiding dealing with the data -- you'd rather change the subject to philosophy or theology. That doesn't make the evidence go away.

What you're objecting to here isn't evolution: it's all of science. If you want to reject science, just say so. Don't pretend (even to yourself) that it's only evolution you have a problem with.

You are indeed no expert, so why are you trying to tell an actual expert the basics of his own field? You're the one who introduced the idea of 'information'. Under any scientifically relevant definition of 'information', it's something that can increase through mutation and selection. I just gave you an example of new structures that are in fact generated by mutation and that were not in the original DNA: antibodies. They are structures tuned to match the shape of a molecule on an invading pathogen. To be clear: you are stating as a basic principle something that we know without a shadow of a doubt to be wrong, based on empirical evidence. This has nothing to do with worldviews or presuppositions; it's a matter of telling the truth.

This is simply false. I've been looking at creationist arguments for decades, and they pretty much always come down to this: they're based on falsehoods.

I find that a convenient way to shut yourself off from learning anything that might challenge something that you very much want to be true. In any case, for the record: I base my conclusions on things that I know first-hand, because it's data that I work with all the time. I'm certainly open to a Biblical world view, but I'm not going to lie about what's really out there -- that seems far more counter to Biblical values.

Sfs, you clearly embrace evidence interpreted by evolutionary scientists that counters my evidence interpreted from creation scientists. Since we're both committed to our beliefs concerning this subject, no further debate is beneficial. Let us end here in peace. I appreciate your involvement with the thread and wish you well.

 

[Sir Joseph]

Joseph, like the last time I find your post frustrating to read. It's very difficult to be lectured about biology by someone who (as @sfs showed) also makes basic errors in that very subject. That level of Dunning-Kruger from creationists is exactly what I referenced in another thread a bit ago and is something I really don't understand.

Also, evolutionary biology doesn't "reject God's existence". It may conflict with your fundamentalist interpretations and beliefs, but those are not God.

And that brings me to one of the main frustrations I had when reading your post. Like other fundamentalists I've interacted with, you've tried to frame it to where you and those who share your particular interpretations are "Bible believing Christians" and the rest of us apparently don't believe the Bible. That's terribly divisive and unnecessary. I pray you find a way to be more open understanding to your fellow Christians, especially with things that aren't vital to our salvation.

Lastly I'll reiterate what sfs said in his reply to you. A lot of what you've posted about biology is just plain wrong. So my recommendation to you is that you check your pride and be much more humble with what you say about biology and science. We are commanded by God to be truthful in all that we say and do for a reason. Going around saying ridiculously incorrect things under the banner of Christianity likely drives some people away, and I trust you're aware of what scripture has to say about people who do that.

River Jordan, I'd counter your claim that evolutionary biology doesn't "reject God's existence." According to some of the world's most educated, prominent, evolutionary authors and speakers, the very definition of evolution mandates a naturalistic process that excludes God from both the origins or development equation. Thus, it takes God's glory of creation completely away from him and undermines the historicity and authority of the Bible. Theistic evolutionists try to uphold the theory with both God and evolution, but it's an irrational position to try and reconcile a naturalistic, unordered process of meaningless chance with a supernatural, ordered process of meaning and purpose.

Aside from the debatable interpretation of scientific evidence, I'll maintain that current, popularly accepted, neo-Darwinan evolutionary theory is not compatible with Christianity or the Bible. That's recognized by the outspoken atheist community but unfortunately not by a majority of Christians or Catholics.

I'll agree that the issue of origins is not a salvation issue, but Answers in Genesis has good evidential surveys showing that the teaching of naturalistic evolution in schools is a primary reason for youth raised up in a Christian environment ultimately rejecting their faith completely. In short, when the Genesis creation and flood accounts are rejected, the entire Bible and faith is subject to fall. With that comes a further degradation of society that I've seen within my own lifetime - a huge increase in abortions, teen pregnancies, teen suicides, school shootings, and an overall degradation of cultural objective moral values.

So yes, there is a Biblical world view vs secular world view on the origins issue, and they are diametrically opposed belief systems - both philosophically and scientifically. You and I definitely disagree on this issue and so be it, but I do pray that others here less ingrained in secular world views to study the issue themselves - from Biblical Christian apologetic sources. For anyone having both interest and an open mind on the subject, I have some excellent videos to recommend. Meanwhile, I see no benefit in debating the issue any further with you River Jordan. I wish you well and will allow you the last word if you want.

 

[Job 33:6]

River Jordan, I'd counter your claim that evolutionary biology doesn't "reject God's existence." According to some of the world's most educated, prominent, evolutionary authors and speakers, the very definition of evolution mandates a naturalistic process that excludes God from both the origins or development equation. Thus, it takes God's glory of creation completely away from him and undermines the historicity and authority of the Bible. Theistic evolutionists try to uphold the theory with both God and evolution, but it's an irrational position to try and reconcile a naturalistic, unordered process of meaningless chance with a supernatural, ordered process of meaning and purpose.

No scientist, not even atheist scientists, view the process of evolution as unordered or truly random. Genesis describes ancient Israelite cosmology, not modern science.