• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Are there any creationist resources (sites, books) to do not misrepresent science and evolution?

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private

FYI, but blatant copy pasting from other web site is a violation of the forum's policies regarding respect of copyrights.

Likewise, copy pasting giant walls of text with zero commentary is poor form and not conducive to a discussion.
 
Upvote 0

Psalm 27

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2020
1,130
541
Uk
✟137,222.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
19th century geologist and lawyer Charles Lyell (1797–1875) is renowned for popularizing the idea that the world’s geology reflected an old age of the earth (i.e. much older than the Bible’s 6,000-year timeframe of history), thus paving the way and providing some traction for Charles Darwin’s evolutionary ideas.

But was Charles Lyell truly viewing the rocks from a scientifically objective perspective?

In his private correspondence, Lyell admitted to the strongly anti-biblical (“anti-Mosaical”) nature of his ideas. In 1829, just a few months prior to the publication of the first volume of his Principles of Geology, Lyell wrote, in a letter to fellow old-earth geologist Roderick Murchison:
Lyell’s ideas on geology influenced Charles Darwin to think in terms of millions of years, paving the way for his theory of evolution. (Image from Voyage that Shook the World)
I trust I shall make my sketch of the progress of geology popular. Old [Rev. John] Fleming is frightened and thinks the age will not stand my anti-Mosaical conclusions and at least that the subject will for a time become unpopular and awkward for the clergy, but I am not afraid. I shall out with the whole but in as conciliatory a manner as possible.The Great Turning Point: The Church’s Catastrophic Mistake on Geology—Before Darwin, Master Books, Inc., P.O. Box 726, Green Forest, AR 72638, USA, 2004, pp. 225–226, citing Brooke, J., “The Natural Theology of the Geologists: Some Theological Strata”, in Jordanova, L. and Porter, R., Images of the Earth (British Society for the History of Science, Monograph 1, 1979), p. 45."

Edward Bailey’s biography of Charles Lyell writes that at that time, “A few days in Paris allowed Lyell to enjoy a lecture by Prévost ‘on diluvium and caves, a good logical refutation of the diluvian humbug’.”British men of science: Charles Lyell, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, London, Great Britain, 1962 p. 75."

By the following year, we see that Charles Lyell has a clear agenda, i.e. to “free the science from Moses”.3 That is what Lyell wrote on 14th June 1830 in a letter to George Poulett Scrope:

I am sure you may get into Q.R. [Quarterly Review] what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the [church] party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose [Bishop] Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the British Critic and Theological Review. They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems … . Probably there was a beginning—it is a metaphysical question, worthy of a theologian—probably there will be an end. Species, as you say, have begun and ended—but the analogy is faint and distant. Perhaps it is an analogy, but all I say is, there are, as Hutton said, ‘no signs of a beginning, no prospect of an end’ … . All I ask is, that at any given period of the past, don’t stop inquiry when puzzled by refuge to a ‘beginning,’ which is all one with ‘another state of nature,’ as it appears to me. But there is no harm in your attacking me, provided you point out that it is the proof I deny, not the probability of a beginning … . I was afraid to point the moral, as much as you can do in the Q.R. about Moses. Perhaps I should have been tenderer about the Koran. Don’t meddle much with that, if at all.

If we don’t irritate, which I fear that we may (though mere history), we shall carry all with us. If you don’t triumph over them, but compliment the liberality and candour of the present age, the bishops and enlightened saints will join us in despising both the ancient and modern physico-theologians. It is just the time to strike, so rejoice that, sinner as you are, the Q.R. is open to you.

Lyell’s secretive scheming not only deceived the church to accept his false ideas that undermined the Gospel, but he set geology on a wrong path for over a century
P.S. … I conceived the idea five or six years ago [1824–25], that if ever the Mosaic geology could be set down without giving offence, it would be in an historical sketch, and you must abstract mine, in order to have as little to say as possible yourself. Let them feel it, and point the moral.”The Great Turning Point: The Church’s Catastrophic Mistake on Geology—Before Darwin, Master Books, Inc., P.O. Box 726, Green Forest, AR 72638, USA, 2004, pp. 226–227, citing Lyell, Katherine (Lyell’s sister-in-law), Life, Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell, Bart. (London: Murray, 1881), .268–271."
Lyell, the lawyer par excellence, was involved, not in scientific investigation but political game playing to ensure his uniformitarian ideas would be accepted by the church, even though he knew they clearly contradicted the plain teaching of Scripture.the physical part of Geological inquiry ought to be conducted as if the Scriptures were not in existence”. Lecture II at King’s College London on 4 May 1832—quoted in Rudwick, Martin J.S., Charles Lyell Speaks in the Lecture Theatre, The British Journal for the History of Science 9(2):147–155, 1976, DOI:10.1017/S0007087400014734. Such a view might be reasonable if the Bible did not describe any events relating to the formation of rocks on earth. But the Bible does speak of such events, i.e. Creation Week and the Flood. Thus Lyell’s approach is like trying to write a history of British settlement in Australia in the 1700s by merely studying surviving buildings and other remnant artifacts around Sydney but intentionally ignoring written eyewitness testimony from that time. Or like writing about the life of Jesus on earth without reference to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."
Lyell’s secretive scheming not only deceived the church to accept his false ideas that undermined the Gospel, but he set geology on a wrong path for over a century, as geologists now recognize:

“Lyell also sold geology some snake oil. He convinced geologists that … all past processes acted at essentially their current rates (that is, those observed in historical time). This extreme gradualism has led to numerous unfortunate consequences, including the rejection of sudden or catastrophic events in the face of positive evidence for them, for no reason other than that they were not gradual.” Science 262:122–123, October 1, 1993. Warren Allmon, Director of the Paleontological Research Institution in Ithaca, NY, and Adjunct Associate Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Cornell University, was reviewing Ager, D., The New Catastrophism: The Importance of the Rare Event in Geological History, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1993."
Your point being? Your post is about geology, not evolution and it's stuff that happened 200 years ago.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
19th century geologist and lawyer Charles Lyell (1797–1875) is renowned for popularizing the idea that the world’s geology reflected an old age of the earth (i.e. much older than the Bible’s 6,000-year timeframe of history), thus paving the way and providing some traction for Charles Darwin’s evolutionary ideas.

But was Charles Lyell truly viewing the rocks from a scientifically objective perspective?

In his private correspondence, Lyell admitted to the strongly anti-biblical (“anti-Mosaical”) nature of his ideas. In 1829, just a few months prior to the publication of the first volume of his Principles of Geology, Lyell wrote, in a letter to fellow old-earth geologist Roderick Murchison:
Lyell’s ideas on geology influenced Charles Darwin to think in terms of millions of years, paving the way for his theory of evolution. (Image from Voyage that Shook the World)
I trust I shall make my sketch of the progress of geology popular. Old [Rev. John] Fleming is frightened and thinks the age will not stand my anti-Mosaical conclusions and at least that the subject will for a time become unpopular and awkward for the clergy, but I am not afraid. I shall out with the whole but in as conciliatory a manner as possible.The Great Turning Point: The Church’s Catastrophic Mistake on Geology—Before Darwin, Master Books, Inc., P.O. Box 726, Green Forest, AR 72638, USA, 2004, pp. 225–226, citing Brooke, J., “The Natural Theology of the Geologists: Some Theological Strata”, in Jordanova, L. and Porter, R., Images of the Earth (British Society for the History of Science, Monograph 1, 1979), p. 45."

Edward Bailey’s biography of Charles Lyell writes that at that time, “A few days in Paris allowed Lyell to enjoy a lecture by Prévost ‘on diluvium and caves, a good logical refutation of the diluvian humbug’.”British men of science: Charles Lyell, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, London, Great Britain, 1962 p. 75."

By the following year, we see that Charles Lyell has a clear agenda, i.e. to “free the science from Moses”.3 That is what Lyell wrote on 14th June 1830 in a letter to George Poulett Scrope:

I am sure you may get into Q.R. [Quarterly Review] what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the [church] party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose [Bishop] Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the British Critic and Theological Review. They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems … . Probably there was a beginning—it is a metaphysical question, worthy of a theologian—probably there will be an end. Species, as you say, have begun and ended—but the analogy is faint and distant. Perhaps it is an analogy, but all I say is, there are, as Hutton said, ‘no signs of a beginning, no prospect of an end’ … . All I ask is, that at any given period of the past, don’t stop inquiry when puzzled by refuge to a ‘beginning,’ which is all one with ‘another state of nature,’ as it appears to me. But there is no harm in your attacking me, provided you point out that it is the proof I deny, not the probability of a beginning … . I was afraid to point the moral, as much as you can do in the Q.R. about Moses. Perhaps I should have been tenderer about the Koran. Don’t meddle much with that, if at all.

If we don’t irritate, which I fear that we may (though mere history), we shall carry all with us. If you don’t triumph over them, but compliment the liberality and candour of the present age, the bishops and enlightened saints will join us in despising both the ancient and modern physico-theologians. It is just the time to strike, so rejoice that, sinner as you are, the Q.R. is open to you.

Lyell’s secretive scheming not only deceived the church to accept his false ideas that undermined the Gospel, but he set geology on a wrong path for over a century
P.S. … I conceived the idea five or six years ago [1824–25], that if ever the Mosaic geology could be set down without giving offence, it would be in an historical sketch, and you must abstract mine, in order to have as little to say as possible yourself. Let them feel it, and point the moral.”The Great Turning Point: The Church’s Catastrophic Mistake on Geology—Before Darwin, Master Books, Inc., P.O. Box 726, Green Forest, AR 72638, USA, 2004, pp. 226–227, citing Lyell, Katherine (Lyell’s sister-in-law), Life, Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell, Bart. (London: Murray, 1881), .268–271."
Lyell, the lawyer par excellence, was involved, not in scientific investigation but political game playing to ensure his uniformitarian ideas would be accepted by the church, even though he knew they clearly contradicted the plain teaching of Scripture.the physical part of Geological inquiry ought to be conducted as if the Scriptures were not in existence”. Lecture II at King’s College London on 4 May 1832—quoted in Rudwick, Martin J.S., Charles Lyell Speaks in the Lecture Theatre, The British Journal for the History of Science 9(2):147–155, 1976, DOI:10.1017/S0007087400014734. Such a view might be reasonable if the Bible did not describe any events relating to the formation of rocks on earth. But the Bible does speak of such events, i.e. Creation Week and the Flood. Thus Lyell’s approach is like trying to write a history of British settlement in Australia in the 1700s by merely studying surviving buildings and other remnant artifacts around Sydney but intentionally ignoring written eyewitness testimony from that time. Or like writing about the life of Jesus on earth without reference to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."
Lyell’s secretive scheming not only deceived the church to accept his false ideas that undermined the Gospel, but he set geology on a wrong path for over a century, as geologists now recognize:

“Lyell also sold geology some snake oil. He convinced geologists that … all past processes acted at essentially their current rates (that is, those observed in historical time). This extreme gradualism has led to numerous unfortunate consequences, including the rejection of sudden or catastrophic events in the face of positive evidence for them, for no reason other than that they were not gradual.” Science 262:122–123, October 1, 1993. Warren Allmon, Director of the Paleontological Research Institution in Ithaca, NY, and Adjunct Associate Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Cornell University, was reviewing Ager, D., The New Catastrophism: The Importance of the Rare Event in Geological History, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1993."
So nothing but weak attempts to libel the founders of geology. It appears that your source does not understand the scientific method. The findings of Lyell and others was not accepted due to their personal philosophies. It is accepted because the evidence supports it. Their ideas have been tested and confirmed. Minor problems were fixed and new discoveries have been made since then.

Like evolution all of the scientific evidence supports old Earth geology. There is no scientific evidence for YECism. For a definition of scientific evidence read my sig.

It is very telling when a group has to try to attack the character of people that they disagree with and not their ideas. It tells us that those ideas could not be refute by those that oppose them. This whole thing is pretty much just an ad hominem attack and not a refutation.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. Read Genesis 1 for yourself :)
Fine, but how did he do it? We know that a literal reading of Genesis is incorrect. You as a Christian should try to learn how we know that.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Lyell influenced Darwin
Of course he did. Scientists influence each other. And both scientists have been shown to be essentially correct.

Once again, don't attack supposed personal philosophy. That has nothing to do with science. You might as well admit that you are wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
You know? I know that Genesis is accurate
No, you only believe. If you knew you could support your claims with evidence. And the Bible is the claim. It is not the evidence.

You would be doing yourself a huge favor is you learned what evidence is.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. Read Genesis 1 for yourself :)

Or you can read and respect the request in the OP. Since you appear to have little interest in doing that, I'll ask that you take your posts elsewhere. Otherwise you'll be reported for trying to derail the thread.

Last time a poster came in and was deliberately disruptive, they got the ban-hammer rather quick.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
No, you only believe. If you knew you could support your claims with evidence. And the Bible is the claim. It is not the evidence.

You would be doing yourself a huge favor is you learned what evidence is.

Can I ask that this thread not be detailed, please.

I just had a previous thread hopelessly derailed and I foresee this one going down exactly the same path. It's bloody frustrating trying to have any sort of focused discussions here.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
It’s the book the op needs to read to answer creation sceptics
But it is not a book which contains an accurate representation of the theory of evolution. What the OP is asking for is a creationist source which portrays the theory of evolution accurately while arguing against it.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
What the OP is asking for is a creationist source which portrays the theory of evolution accurately while arguing against it.

Exactly.

For anyone that wonders what that looks like, I suggest they go read the works of Todd Wood. Then if they can find any creationist sources that grant a similar respect for science insofar as portraying it accurately, by all means present them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Site Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,221
3,311
U.S.
✟697,694.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Exactly.

For anyone that wonders what that looks like, I suggest they go read the works of Todd Wood. Then if they can find any creationist sources that grant a similar respect for science insofar as portraying it accurately, by all means present them.
You have to admit, this is sort of a catch 22 question for creationists though. You only accept Wood’s work because he puts evolution in a positive light (even though he apparently doesn’t hold with it at all). If a creationist presents a scientific article that challenges your view, you would paint it as creationist nonsense.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
You have to admit, this is sort of a catch 22 question for creationists though. You only accept Wood’s work because he puts evolution in a positive light (even though he apparently doesn’t hold with it at all). If a creationist presents a scientific article that challenges your view, you would paint it as creationist nonsense.

The problem is that creationists do not tend to follow the scientific method. It is why the term "Creation scientist" is thought to be an oxymoron. Wood followed the scientific method and had to admit that evolution is strongly supported by evidence. The same cannot be said, as yet, of creationist beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
You have to admit, this is sort of a catch 22 question for creationists though. You only accept Wood’s work because he puts evolution in a positive light (even though he apparently doesn’t hold with it at all). If a creationist presents a scientific article that challenges your view, you would paint it as creationist nonsense.

I don't think it's a catch-22 at all. It's possible to disagree with something, but still present that something in an fair and accurate manner. Doing so only lends credibility to the disagreement.

When creationists resort to creating strawman caricatures of the scientific method and evolution, they only hurt their own credibility. Case in point was that site another poster linked earlier in the thread that claimed that evolution is not testable. That's a blatantly false claim; other than hoping that their audience doesn't know any better, I don't see the point of spreading misinformation like that.

And for the record, I don't agree with Todd Wood's work myself. But I do find it fascinating. Where I to share his creationist views, I would likely approach things in a similar manner he does. He's not satisfied with blanket claims like "DesignerDidIt". He's trying to figure out the details. And he doesn't need to resort to strawman caricatures of evolution in the process. He recognizes what creationists are really up against and what they need to do if they ever hope to topple the scientific theory that is evolution. I respect him for that.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Andrewn

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
Site Supporter
Jul 4, 2019
5,846
4,331
-
✟724,827.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
You have to admit, this is sort of a catch 22 question for creationists though. You only accept Wood’s work because he puts evolution in a positive light (even though he apparently doesn’t hold with it at all). If a creationist presents a scientific article that challenges your view, you would paint it as creationist nonsense.
No, not a positive light, an accurate light. Let me give you an example:

1. I don't believe in Christianity because I don't think Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose from the grave three days later.

2. I don't believe in Christianity because I don't think Jesus Christ was an Olympic figure skater who is going to take us all to heaven on ice skates.

Neither statement is a positive statement about Christianity, but which one describes Christianity more accurately?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0