Are creationism and evolution "beliefs"?

[laptoppop]

"Yes, but there is still only one correct interpretation, and that lies with the interpretation that explains the most observations and evidence."
Usually, but not always.

"Real science must remain neutral with respect to the supernatural. Science is based on methodological naturalism, and to throw that out means throwing out every single conclusion science has come to over the years."
Which is why science can never speak authoritatively about the historical reality of this planet, which includes a supernatural God who loves us and acts in real ways.

 

[lucaspa]

Do creationism (YEC, OEC, etc.) and evolution (TE) qualify as "beliefs", or is that term reserved for strictly theological positions without scientific implications/support?

Technically, both creationism (all forms) and evolution are scientific theories. The difference is that all forms of creationism are falsified/refuted theories while evolution is strongly supported.

The "theistic" part of theistic evolution is a belief. Evolution itself, like all science, is agnostic and is unable to say anything about the existence of God or His participation in nature. "Atheistic" evolution is also a belief.

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

 

[lucaspa]

""Real science must remain neutral with respect to the supernatural. Science is based on methodological naturalism, and to throw that out means throwing out every single conclusion science has come to over the years."
Which is why science can never speak authoritatively about the historical reality of this planet, which includes a supernatural God who loves us and acts in real ways.

Methodological naturalism is rooted in how science is done; particularly in how experiments are done. We simply can't control for the supernatural.

However, science can and does speak authoritatively about the historical reality of this planet. It tells us the material methods God used to create.

It's very simple: God created by evolution and did not create by creationism. We have God in His Creation telling us so.

 

[lucaspa]

Our discussions and debates cover a very narrow topic, the particulars of how God created, one that is not even mentioned by the Creed itself.

Fantastic! I bolded this because it deserves to be front and center.

There's a differnce between saying 'You're stupid because you're YEC.' and 'I think YEC is stupid because . . . '

Again, fantastic! Yes, ideas are independent of the people who advocate them. It is very easy for the idea to be wrong. That says nothing about the advocate as a person. It's about the idea.

 

[lucaspa]

I agree, in most cases, creationism is a belief but not because evidence is against it. Scientists also have faith (which is supported by evidence, but it is an assumption nonetheless) that the rules governing the universe will continue to govern the universe.[;quote]

Apples and oranges. Creationism is a very specific scientific theory. And yes, that is how we evaluate theories -- the evidence against them.

Now, in any search for truth you must start with assumptions that you may never be able to prove. This includes searches by science or philosophy or religion. You must initially assume:
1. You exist.
2. You are sane.

In addition, science and religion share some assumptions about the universe. You have stated one of the five: unity. This assumption comes to religion by way of belief in one God. The rules that govern the universe will continue to govern the universe because we assume there is only one God and He is constant.

Anyway, I think that some of the creationists on this board probably couldn't have their position on creation classified as a belief because they do believe strongly that it is a conclusion based on evidence. Of course, it'd be a personal thing -- just because a person believes the evidence leads to a conclusion of creationism does not mean that it isn't a belief, it's more whether the person came to the conclusion based on evidence or because it conveniently fit their belief.

This is where we begin to slide from the idea to the person. Creationism itself is not a belief. It's a scientific theory. It used to be the accepted scientific theory -- until scientists (all of whom were theists and many were Christian ministers) showed it to be false.

So now what happens when a person refuses to admit the evidence that shows a favorite idea to be wrong?

That's an interesting question. Merriam-Webster offers this definition of "belief":
"1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group"

What should we call it when people cling to a tenet when it has been shown to be false?

 

[Dannager]

"Yes, but there is still only one correct interpretation, and that lies with the interpretation that explains the most observations and evidence."
Usually, but not always.

No, always. The conclusion that explains the most observations and evidence collected is always the correct choice. Even if it turns out to be false in its ultimate veracity, at the time it was supported by the evidence and it was thus correct to choose that conclusion.

Don't try to wiggle creationism into the room you create by using the word "usually".

"Real science must remain neutral with respect to the supernatural. Science is based on methodological naturalism, and to throw that out means throwing out every single conclusion science has come to over the years."
Which is why science can never speak authoritatively about the historical reality of this planet, which includes a supernatural God who loves us and acts in real ways.

If I found someone who believes that computers are a gift from God and that their transistors operate not on electricity but on divine will, nothing I could show them in terms of experimentation would convince them otherwise, despite the fact that no other naturalistic conclusion can be drawn. You are that sort of person. You believe what you believe because you believe it and will not acknowledge even the most bullet-proof of evidence to the contrary of your beliefs.

 

[gluadys]

Sometimes evidence can be interpreted in more than one way. What some circles conclude others don't based on the exact same evidence. This is especially true in geology. I have some friends who are geologists who are atheistic and some who are christians. I am in the oil business and I use the christian geologists at times to help me find oil. BTW, they use the same tools to interpret the possible location of oil.

Anyway, I think Mallon has said most of the posters here are Christian so how would the Christian's here who refuse to believe in a global flood interpret Luke 17:26?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Nothing Jesus says here requires the flood to be global. In fact, he uses the story of Sodom and Gomorrah to make the same point in the next verse, and that certainly was not global.

 

[laptoppop]

No, always. The conclusion that explains the most observations and evidence collected is always the correct choice. Even if it turns out to be false in its ultimate veracity, at the time it was supported by the evidence and it was thus correct to choose that conclusion.

Don't try to wiggle creationism into the room you create by using the word "usually".

The difference I would propose is that if we have two models, both possible, even if one is considered more likely than the other, as Christians we should prefer the model which is most consistent with Scripture.

In the case of origins, I don't even see it as needing to go to that length. A global flood does a much better job of explaining the geological evidence that we have than any other explanation.

 

[laptoppop]

Do you really want to go that far Laptoppop?

If we opened 2.1 even further than it already is, to incorporate the concept that creationism (small c) and TE/EC as beliefs, we'll set a precedent that will shut down all discussion across CF on any issue over which there is disagreement?

You're right, as usual. No, I don't want to shut down discussions. I *would* like to shut down name calling, insulting groups, accusations of deliberate lying and systemic dishonesty, etc. I just don't know how to help this forum move in that direction.

I have called YECs on it when they imply that TEs are somehow less Christian. I'd love to see TEs call each other on it when it is implied that YECs are somehow less intelligent.

 

[Mallon]

I'd love to see TEs call each other on it when it is implied that YECs are somehow less intelligent.

Well, I hate to say it, but it can and has been shown that YECs are less intelligent -- or at least less educated -- than those people who accept evolutionary theory.

That much is fact. I agree that it should not be used as a blanket statement, though, and that individuals should not be singled out and labelled "stupid." Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

[laptoppop]

This chart could also be interpreted as the rate of successful indoctrination by the educational establishment.

 

[Assyrian]

The difference I would propose is that if we have two models, both possible, even if one is considered more likely than the other, as Christians we should prefer the model which is most consistent with Scripture.

In the case of origins, I don't even see it as needing to go to that length. A global flood does a much better job of explaining the geological evidence that we have than any other explanation.

What ever happened to the global flood being too complex to model?

 

[laptoppop]

The global flood as a single unified piece of computer modeling is too complex with too many unknowns -- even as we currently use simplified models for global weather mapping. If we can't do it for today's data, how could anyone expect it for the past?

However, we can model pieces of the flood. For example, ICR has done some great computer modeling of the flow of currents over continents. We can look at formations and deduce if they could have been formed by a global flood -- or if they virtually require a global flood in the case of huge thick pure deposits. We can also look at the results of local floods and compare them to formations and understand the correlation.

One point of vocabulary that I have not expressed clearly. There is "modeling" as in creating a computer model, or simulation program. There is also a "model" as in a proposed hypothetical explanation to explain the physical observations.

 

[shernren]

However, we can model pieces of the flood. For example, ICR has done some great computer modeling of the flow of currents over continents. We can look at formations and deduce if they could have been formed by a global flood -- or if they virtually require a global flood in the case of huge thick pure deposits. We can also look at the results of local floods and compare them to formations and understand the correlation.

So, what characteristics of formations cause you to deduce that a global flood formed them?

What characteristics of formations would cause you to deduce that a global flood did not form them?

Right now, it seems like the only criterion flood geology uses is this: "If a formation exists, it was formed by a global flood." I don't see how that works. Does anybody else?

 

[random_guy]

This chart could also be interpreted as the rate of successful indoctrination by the educational establishment.

So if we show the same chart for belief that the Earth goes around the Sun (which I assume it would look similar), it would only show the successful indoctrination rate by the education establishment, not that some people are less educated than others?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

In the case of origins, I don't even see it as needing to go to that length. A global flood does a much better job of explaining the geological evidence that we have than any other explanation.

And naturally, that's why the entire field of geology rejects the idea.

 

[MoinkMan]

Iam not really sure

 

[chaoschristian]

Iam not really sure

Greetings and welcome to the Origins Theology Forum. May your stay here be both joyful and prosperous.

 

[Mallon]

This chart could also be interpreted as the rate of successful indoctrination by the educational establishment.

Are you in a position to make that judgment, pop?

 

[laptoppop]

Are you in a position to make that judgment, pop?

Oh yah. But my degree is from Biola University -- a very conservative Christian university -- so I've been indoctrinated "properly" <grin>.