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

[Speedwell]

Scientists such as James Hutton and Charles Lyell proposed the concept of millions and billions of years for the different ages and rocks to form (when they appeared to have no beginning or end), which was a pretty bold statement for the day, I suspect. Darwin bought it and based his book on it, observing small changes and projecting them backwards in time. Mainstream science bought it all, especially after dating techniques were developed, so here we go… now everything must conform to the deep time paradigm and evolution.

And as long is there is no contradictory evidence and no better explanation of the evidence we have now, that's how things will stay.

I’m still not date-stamping, but if someone even asks questions like “Are dating techniques a reliable certainty?” or “Aren’t there missing links in evolution?” you’d think the scientific circle got tasered.

LOL! And of course it's not like you were telegraphing an anti-science ideology framing your questions in that way. No, "science" has to be **afraid** of your "truth."

So, Divine intervention is not a part of mainstream science… I get it, but its sort like the shell & pea game, if you upend two shells and there’s no pea under them, then it would be reasonable to assume that in all likelihood (or at least a strong possibility) it’s under the remaining shell whether you uncover it or not. I know analogies are easily turned, and please don’t say someone could be cheating, but it just saves a lot of words… you know what I’m saying.

The God of the Gaps, in other words. But the "gaps" are getting smaller every day, and those gaps not where God ever was, anyway.

 

[pitabread]

Scientists such as James Hutton and Charles Lyell proposed the concept of millions and billions of years for the different ages and rocks to form (when they appeared to have no beginning or end), which was a pretty bold statement for the day, I suspect.

IIRC, in Lyell's time the age of the Earth was still thought to be in the millions of years (tens to hundreds of million). I believe it wasn't until the 1900's when the age estimates were moved upwards into the billions of years based on the discovery of radioactive decay.

The current consensus age of ~4.6 billion wasn't reached until the latter half of the 20th century.

Mainstream science bought it all, especially after dating techniques were developed, so here we go… now everything must conform to the deep time paradigm and evolution.

The development of the age of the Earth over time was based on collective understanding of geology, physics, etc., developed over time. This is also why the age of the Earth kept changing, because as new data came in, the conclusions about the Earth's age were modified to account for new data.

Given this context, it doesn't make sense to accuse science of being strictly dogmatic given the history of how these conclusions developed and were changed based on observable evidence.

The reason the "deep time" paradigm exists is simply because that is what the Earth looks like. Same thing with evolution, cosmology, and everything else in mainstream science. These conclusions are simply based on what things look like based on the collective accumulation of data.

 

[inquiring mind]

And of course it's not like you were telegraphing an anti-science ideology framing your questions in that way.

I’m not anti-science; I just question some interpretations and accepted norms, as I do with some religion.

 

[Speedwell]

I’m not anti-science; I just question some interpretations and accepted norms, as I do with some religion.

And the snarky insinuations of your "questions" are just a coincidence.

 

[inquiring mind]

I haven't watched the video yet.

I understand, trying to watch it may have the same effect on you as trying to watch CNN has on me.

 

[inquiring mind]

And the snarky insinuations of your "questions" are just a coincidence.

I think you're misinterpreting my visualization statements with being snarky... I just don't like to write anymore than I have to.

 

[pitabread]

I understand, trying to watch it may have the same effect on you as trying to watch CNN has on me.

Oh, it's not that. Believe me, I'm more than happy to digest creationist material. I've probably read more creationist literature than most creationists.

It's simply the fact that it's a ~2 hour movie and I'd have devote that uninterrupted time to watch it.

 

[Speedwell]

I understand, trying to watch it may have the same effect on you as trying to watch CNN has on me.

I watched about the first 15 or 16 minutes of it, but couldn't stand to continue--it's a profoundly anti-Christian video.

 

[inquiring mind]

Oh, it's not that. Believe me, I'm more than happy to digest creationist material. I've probably read more creationist literature than most creationists.

It's simply the fact that it's a ~2 hour movie and I'd have devote that uninterrupted time to watch it.

You mentioned earlier about what things look like, Todd Wood is speaking of that as well if you want to watch him. Begins at 1:12:40

 

[inquiring mind]

I watched about the first 15 or 16 minutes of it, but couldn't stand to continue--it's a profoundly anti-Christian video.

I didn't get that from it... why do you think so?

 

[Speedwell]

I didn't get that from it... why do you think so?

From the very beginning of the video it associates old-Earth and evolutionary science with atheism and opposes it to the narrow literalist reading of Genesis demanded by right-wing Evangelical extremists, as if that were the only acceptable view for a theist. It essentially denies the existence of over two billion devout Christians.

 

[pitabread]

From the very beginning of the video it associates old-Earth and evolutionary science with atheism and opposes it to the narrow literalist reading of Genesis favored by right-wing Evangelical extremists, as if that were the only acceptable view for a theist. It essentially denies the existence of over two billion devout Christians.

Paul Nelson disavowed his participation in the video for this reason: New Film Is Genesis History? Presents a False Dichotomy: I Dissent from My Role in It | Evolution News

 

[inquiring mind]

Paul Nelson disavowed his participation in the video for this reason: New Film Is Genesis History? Presents a False Dichotomy: I Dissent from My Role in It | Evolution News

He should've withdrawn if he doesn't even believe what he said... odd that only the philosopher and none of the scientist withdrew... don't you think?

 

[pitabread]

He should've withdrawn if he doesn't even believe what he said... odd that only the philosopher and none of the scientist withdrew... don't you think?

It's not that he didn't believe what he said. It sounds like it's more in the context of how things were presented.

Remember that documentary filmmakers gather loads of footage before editing it together to create a narrative. It sounds like it's the narrative that was ultimately presented that he wasn't in agreement with.

 

[inquiring mind]

From the very beginning of the video it associates old-Earth and evolutionary science with atheism and opposes it to the narrow literalist reading of Genesis demanded by right-wing Evangelical extremists, as if that were the only acceptable view for a theist. It essentially denies the existence of over two billion devout Christians.

I don't remember hearing the word 'atheist'... I may watch it again.

 

[inquiring mind]

It's not that he didn't believe what he said. It sounds like it's more in the context of how things were presented.

Remember that documentary filmmakers gather loads of footage before editing it together to create a narrative. It sounds like it's the narrative that was ultimately presented that he wasn't in agreement with.

I guess the scientists were okay with it???

 

[pitabread]

I guess the scientists were okay with it???

Who knows? You'd have to ask them.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't remember hearing the word 'atheist'... I may watch it again.

Beginning with the discussion of paradigms (about 14 minutes in) "without a creator" was the phrase used to describe the old Earth paradigm.

 

[Speedwell]

He should've withdrawn if he doesn't even believe what he said... odd that only the philosopher and none of the scientist withdrew... don't you think?

Not really. A philosopher could be considered to be more sensitive to such a theological false dichotomy than a scientist who was a theological layman, however devout a YEC he might have been.

 

[inquiring mind]

Not really. A philosopher could be considered to be more sensitive to such a theological false dichotomy than a scientist who was a theological layman, however devout a YEC he might have been.

That... or he could've been the only one actively teaching at a university, in which case a lot of pressure to rethink his position would most likely be brought to bear. I can picture the science dept. in the dean's office, can't you.