Can evolutionists handle the truth

Micaiah

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2002
2,444
37
61
Western Australia
Visit site
✟2,837.00
Faith
Christian
In a recent thread, I made the following statement.

The second claim made by evolutionists is that the axioms accepted by YEC's regarding Creation precludes them making worthwhile scientific contributions to scientific discussion on origins. YEC's argue that if properly interpreted, the empirical evidence confirms the truth of God's word. The advantage of this approach is that allows us to examine the claims of Scripture on Creation scientifically. The axioms of the evolutionist prevents him being able to come to learn this truth through scientific enquiry.

The important part for this thread is highlighted. If we assume for a moment that the YEC version of origins is correct, then there is no way that an evolutionists can come to an understanding of the Creator God through 'science'.

When getting knowledge through science the evolutionist assumes the following:

1. Science can only investigate the natural.

2. Only natural phenomena can be admitted in the study of origins.

3. Science cannot prove God exists.

4. Man's observations and reason are the supreme authority.

When getting knowledge through science the YEC makes his own assumptions:

1. There is no conflict on the matter of origins between science and the inspired word of God.

2. While science is primarily limited to investigating and interpreting the natural, if can verify what God says about Creation and demonstrate attributes of the Creator.

3. The inspired word of God is the supreme authority on Creation.

4. The YEC approaches the topic of origins assuming he will discover God. "Thinking God's thoughts after Him" is the way it has been described.

Given that the YEC method of getting knowledge on the subject is much broader than the naturalists, and draws from special revelation as well as science, I believe it is superior.

A typical response from the evolutionist is to claim the approach is unscientific.

The challenge here to the evolutionist is to recognise that if special creation is true, what he calls science cannot help him come to a proper scientific understanding of origins. In fact given the way he defines science it prevents him from coming to that understanding.
 
Jun 2, 2004
91
10
✟251.00
Faith
Seeker
What I´m interested in is, how does the creationism science method look like? If you are standing before a problem do you say: "Well, god did this" and stick to the next problem or do you try to find a solution with the tools you have. Which tools are these in "scientific creationism"? How does the axiom of a god help you in science?
 
Upvote 0
G

GoSeminoles!

Guest
Micaiah said:
When getting knowledge through science the evolutionist assumes the following...

4. Man's observations and reason are the supreme authority.

Science does not make this assuption. Science disallows appeals to authority, such as saying X is true merely because a government or a religious document or even another scientist says so. Only verified data can support or refute a testable hypothesis.

When getting knowledge through science the YEC makes his own assumptions...

2. While science is primarily limited to investigating and interpreting the natural, if can verify what God says about Creation and demonstrate attributes of the Creator.

This can be true, but only depending on how the person interprets Genesis. If it is a literal interpretation, then very little of science agrees with Genesis. Can science "demonstrate attributes of the Creator?" Impossible to say, since we have no way of meauring directly the attributes of the Creator and therefore no way to see how his attributes compare to those of his creation.

3. The inspired word of God is the supreme authority on Creation.

And this is the fatal logical flaw of creationism and it is what casts it in the bin labeled "religion" and not the one tagged "science." The reason is that there are many possible interpretations of the Bible and no way to determine which, if any, is The Correct one. Moreover, even if everyone agreed on The Correct version, what we see happening in nature trumps anything we read in a book, no matter who the author is, because we assume correctly that our senses accurately reflect reality. If the Bible says X but nature repeatedly reveals Y to us, then the Bible is wrong or our interpretation of it is wrong.

This is old ground. Christian naturalists in the 17th-19th centuries, who contributed greatly to fashioning the naturalistic approach of modern science, deferred to nature, not the Bible, when they perceived a conflict between the two. They reasoned that God reveals himself to us through the Bible and through nature. Since God cannot lie, an apparent conflict between the Bible and nature is due to human errors in the translation, editing, and interpretation of the Bible.

The challenge here to the evolutionist is to recognise that if special creation is true, what he calls science cannot help him come to a proper scientific understanding of origins. In fact given the way he defines science it prevents him from coming to that understanding.

The premise of your post is nonsense at the start because many scientists, including evolutionists, are religious. Regardless, I think every scientist will agree that science is only capable of discovering a portion of The Truth, the portion which can be found by measuring and testing nature. However, when what scientists have discovered in just this portion is substantially at odds with a literal interpretation of Genesis, no objective evaluation of all the evidence could support special creation.

Which leads to the obvious question: if special creation is The Truth, then why did God create a world in which all the scientific evidence points in the other direction?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dlamberth
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,436
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Micaiah said:
If we assume for a moment that the YEC version of origins is correct, then there is no way that an evolutionists can come to an understanding of the Creator God through 'science'.

There is no reason to assume that the YEC version of origins is correct, because the evidence provided by Creation itself precludes that possibility.

However, IF it is correct, then you are correct in stating that we cannot come to an understanding, not only of the Creator, but of Creation itself. Because if the YEC model is correct, then all of Creation is deceitful and God turns out to be rather capricious.

3. The inspired word of God is the supreme authority on Creation.

And this, right here, is the claim of the neo-creationist. Totally unfounded and unsupported by either scripture itself or any orthodox traditional surrounding scripture, it is nevertheless asserted as apriori truth.

It puts the YEC-model on untenable theological grounds within the context of orthodox Christianity, because not only does it deny the revelation of Creation as a reliable witness to God's truth, it also denies Christ himself of the supreme revelation of God.

Deny Creation, subvert Christ. That is the YEC theological model.
 
Upvote 0

AnEmpiricalAgnostic

Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany
May 25, 2005
2,734
186
49
South Florida
Visit site
✟11,486.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Micaiah said:
The challenge here to the evolutionist is to recognise that if special creation is true, what he calls science cannot help him come to a proper scientific understanding of origins. In fact given the way he defines science it prevents him from coming to that understanding.
If you consider your particular god’s existence an axiom then the only intellectually honest thing to do would be to recognize the bible as the man-made compilation of myths it is and seek to discover your creator through it’s works instead of dismissing scientific knowledge out of hand in favor of magic and superstition. Just a thought.
 
Upvote 0

AnEmpiricalAgnostic

Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany
May 25, 2005
2,734
186
49
South Florida
Visit site
✟11,486.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
just another skeptic said:
What I´m interested in is, how does the creationism science method look like?
It looks like this… you support science and reap the benefits from it until it conflicts with your particular interpretation of the bible. Then you dismiss science in favor of magic.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 2, 2004
91
10
✟251.00
Faith
Seeker
AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:
It looks like this… you support science and reap the benefits from it until it conflicts with your particular interpretation of the bible. Then you dismiss science in favor of magic.

:) Yes, I know, but I´m so naive to believe in the good and honesty of every person before I get to know them. So, maybe he has practicable scientific method. If not... well... I´ll stick with your explanation ;)
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Micaiah said:
When getting knowledge through science the evolutionist assumes the following:

1. Science can only investigate the natural.
Agreed

Micaiah said:
2. Only natural phenomena can be admitted in the study of origins.
In the scientific study of origins. You can study "origins" theologically if you like, it just isn't science.


Micaiah said:
3. Science cannot prove God exists.
True.


Micaiah said:
4. Man's observations and reason are the supreme authority.
Supreme over what?



Micaiah said:
When getting knowledge through science the YEC makes his own assumptions:

1. There is no conflict on the matter of origins between science and the inspired word of God.
OK, but what happens when science conflicts with your interpretation of God's word? You reject it.


Micaiah said:
2. While science is primarily limited to investigating and interpreting the natural, if can verify what God says about Creation and demonstrate attributes of the Creator.
Maybe the first part is correct, but how can science demonstrate attributes of the Creator?


Micaiah said:
3. The inspired word of God is the supreme authority on Creation.
Maybe, but only if it is interpreted correctly.


Micaiah said:
4. The YEC approaches the topic of origins assuming he will discover God. "Thinking God's thoughts after Him" is the way it has been described.
But if he interprets scripture wrong, it leads him down the wrong path.


Micaiah said:
Given that the YEC method of getting knowledge on the subject is much broader than the naturalists, and draws from special revelation as well as science, I believe it is superior.
It rejects anything that conflicts with the assumption that the YEC interpretation of scripture is correct. Therefore, how is it broader?


Micaiah said:
A typical response from the evolutionist is to claim the approach is unscientific.
Yes.


Micaiah said:
The challenge here to the evolutionist is to recognise that if special creation is true, what he calls science cannot help him come to a proper scientific understanding of origins. In fact given the way he defines science it prevents him from coming to that understanding.
I agree that if the YEC model is correct, it means that science cannot give us a true (not scientific) understanding of "origins." However, this would be the first time that science was unable to accurately describe an aspect of the physical world. The ball is in your court to show how science fails to describe origins correctly. So far, YECs have failed miserably in this goal.
 
Upvote 0

Micaiah

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2002
2,444
37
61
Western Australia
Visit site
✟2,837.00
Faith
Christian
GoSeminoles! said:
This can be true, but only depending on how the person interprets Genesis. If it is a literal interpretation, then very little of science agrees with Genesis.

If what is seen on this forum is any indication, the arguments are not convincing.

GoSeminoles! said:
Can science "demonstrate attributes of the Creator?" Impossible to say, since we have no way of meauring directly the attributes of the Creator and therefore no way to see how his attributes compare to those of his creation.

Our understanding of God's omniscience and omnipotence are enhanced by our understanding of His creation.

GoSeminoles! said:
And this is the fatal logical flaw of creationism and it is what casts it in the bin labeled "religion" and not the one tagged "science." The reason is that there are many possible interpretations of the Bible and no way to determine which, if any, is The Correct one. Moreover, even if everyone agreed on The Correct version, what we see happening in nature trumps anything we read in a book, no matter who the author is, because we assume correctly that our senses accurately reflect reality. If the Bible says X but nature repeatedly reveals Y to us, then the Bible is wrong or our interpretation of it is wrong.

No more or less flawed than an approach that ignores the possibility of the supernatural.

GoSeminoles! said:
This is old ground. Christian naturalists in the 17th-19th centuries, who contributed greatly to fashioning the naturalistic approach of modern science, deferred to nature, not the Bible, when they perceived a conflict between the two. They reasoned that God reveals himself to us through the Bible and through nature. Since God cannot lie, an apparent conflict between the Bible and nature is due to human errors in the translation, editing, and interpretation of the Bible.

Their error was to elevated human reason above God's truth.

GoSeminoles! said:
The premise of your post is nonsense at the start because many scientists, including evolutionists, are religious.

They should quickly recognise the handicap of relying only on 'science' to the exclusion of what God has revealed about origins.

GoSeminoles! said:
Regardless, I think every scientist will agree that science is only capable of discovering a portion of The Truth, the portion which can be found by measuring and testing nature. However, when what scientists have discovered in just this portion is substantially at odds with a literal interpretation of Genesis, no objective evaluation of all the evidence could support special creation.

The arguments on this forum are probably some of the most current and compelling arguments for evolution. I've seen nothing that lives up to the claims of the evolutionists. The general trend is that the more I look into the arguments and question what is being stated, the worse they get. Very few people on this forum have a proper understanding of the claims they make, and yet all make the same confident assertion as you that all the evidence is behind the evolutionists view of origins and discounts the YEC view.

GoSeminoles! said:
Which leads to the obvious question: if special creation is The Truth, then why did God create a world in which all the scientific evidence points in the other direction?

The strength of the argument seems to rely on making these confident assertions as often as you can. Not good science.
 
Upvote 0
G

GoSeminoles!

Guest
Micaiah said:
No more or less flawed than an approach that ignores the possibility of the supernatural.

I wish to incorporate the possibility of divine intervention into my weather forecasts. Please tell me how to do so, such that my forecasts will be more accurate.

They should quickly recognise the handicap of relying only on 'science' to the exclusion of what God has revealed about origins.

How can we verify that Genesis was inspired by Jehovah? How can we verify that your particular interpretation of Genesis is correct to the exclusion of all the other possible interpretations?

The arguments on this forum are probably some of the most current and compelling arguments for evolution.

So, you've chosen to educate yourself on evolution based on the arguments on a religious-based internet message board? Gee, and I used books written by real scientists who work in the field.

"If there's one thing I've learned it's that reading never taught me nothing, and books is the worst." -- Mrs. Yellowbeard.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

caravelair

Well-Known Member
Mar 22, 2004
2,107
77
44
✟10,119.00
Faith
Atheist
Miciah said:
The second claim made by evolutionists is that the axioms accepted by YEC's regarding Creation precludes them making worthwhile scientific contributions to scientific discussion on origins. YEC's argue that if properly interpreted, the empirical evidence confirms the truth of God's word.

they assert this fact, but refuse to test it. that's why it's not science.

The advantage of this approach is that allows us to examine the claims of Scripture on Creation scientifically.

no it doesn't, because science requires testing. by refusing to acknowledge evidence that contradicts their predetermined conlcusions, they are refusing to test their ideas, and thus refusing to do science. so no, this approach does not allow them to examine anything scientifically. all it allows them to do is offer pseudoscience to people that are not well informed enough to know the difference.

The axioms of the evolutionist prevents him being able to come to learn this truth through scientific enquiry.

scientists do not use any axioms that would prevent them from conlcuding things like a young earth or a global flood. in fact, the people who originally falsified these things were christian geologists who were looking to determine which layers were deposited by the flood, and discovered to their surprise that none of them could have been. the only thing preventing scientists from concluding YEC is that this is contrary to what the evidence indicates if examined objectively. it is only if you assume YEC that you can conclude YEC.
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
71
✟9,874.00
Faith
Other Religion
When YECs talk about "truth", it usually comes down to some sort of religious or spiritual truth. But one doesn't need to adopt the creationist (YEC) position to get that.

There are plenty of scientists that accept mainstream scientific findings, yet still hold very spiritual beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
71
✟9,874.00
Faith
Other Religion
Micaiah said:
Given that the YEC method of getting knowledge on the subject is much broader than the naturalists, and draws from special revelation as well as science, I believe it is superior.

A typical response from the evolutionist is to claim the approach is unscientific.

The challenge here to the evolutionist is to recognise that if special creation is true, what he calls science cannot help him come to a proper scientific understanding of origins. In fact given the way he defines science it prevents him from coming to that understanding.

I've repeatedly tried to get YECs to explain to me how they would analyse genomes using the YEC baseline instead of comparative genomics that use evolutionary techniques. So far, neither you nor any other creationist has even begun to explain how to do it.

I made an entire thread on it and even linked to a couple specific examples of actual research being done using comparative genomics. They give details on exactly how the techniques are used.

Now I'd like to see a creationist demonstrate the creationist equivilant. Failure to do so conveys the notion that creationism is NOT a superior science by any stretch. In fact, the lack of any practical application derived from so-called "creation science" suggests that it is completely useless.
 
Upvote 0

caravelair

Well-Known Member
Mar 22, 2004
2,107
77
44
✟10,119.00
Faith
Atheist
Micaiah said:
Given that the YEC method of getting knowledge on the subject is much broader than the naturalists, and draws from special revelation as well as science, I believe it is superior.

but the YEC method is NOT broader. in fact it is so narrow that it allows for only 1 conclusion, the one they have already decided is true before hand.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
71
✟9,874.00
Faith
Other Religion
Btw, here's something else which I've wondered about YECism.

YECs claim that biological organisms are seperated by "kind" barriers based on original creation. Yet, have YECs come up with any systematic classification of biological organisms based on this? No, they have not.

YECs claim the world's topography is the result of a world-wide flood that occured about 4500 years ago. Yet, have YECs come up with any stratigraphic classification based on flood geology? No, they have not.

YECs claim that the world and universe is about 6000 years old. Yet have YECs come up with any dating methods to independently verify the age of the Earth and universe in line with their beliefs? No, they have not.

I find it remarkable that YECs like to claim how superior their view of science and origins is, but they haven't even compiled the basic data based on that view. And to top it off, YECism has even been around before the modern scientific views that we have today. So they've even had a head-start.
 
Upvote 0

AnEmpiricalAgnostic

Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany
May 25, 2005
2,734
186
49
South Florida
Visit site
✟11,486.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Pete Harcoff said:
I find it remarkable that YECs like to claim how superior their view of science and origins is, but they haven't even compiled the basic data based on that view.
That’s because their currency is faith based belief. If enough of them merely claim that their spookyscience is superior then they will start the flock believing it. That’s all that matters.
 
Upvote 0

Edx

Senior Veteran
Apr 3, 2005
4,626
118
✟5,474.00
Faith
Atheist
Micaiah said:
When getting knowledge through science the evolutionist assumes the following:

1. Science can only investigate the natural.

Its not an assumption. We have no way to test for the superntural, and as far as we can scientifically say there is no such thing as the supernatural. If there is, and we can test for it, please tell us how to do that!

2. Only natural phenomena can be admitted in the study of origins.

See above.

3. Science cannot prove God exists.
Well, it cant. How is that an assumption? And if it did, you wouldnt need faith.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Pete Harcoff said:
YECs claim that biological organisms are seperated by "kind" barriers based on original creation. Yet, have YECs come up with any systematic classification of biological organisms based on this? No, they have not.
They are still working on that.


Pete Harcoff said:
YECs claim the world's topography is the result of a world-wide flood that occured about 4500 years ago. Yet, have YECs come up with any stratigraphic classification based on flood geology? No, they have not.
They are still working on that.


Pete Harcoff said:
YECs claim that the world and universe is about 6000 years old. Yet have YECs come up with any dating methods to independently verify the age of the Earth and universe in line with their beliefs? No, they have not.
They are still working on that.



Pete Harcoff said:
I find it remarkable that YECs like to claim how superior their view of science and origins is, but they haven't even compiled the basic data based on that view. And to top it off, YECism has even been around before the modern scientific views that we have today. So they've even had a head-start.
You are soooo silly, Pete. They have The TRUTH!!11!, they don't need no stinkin data base..
:amen:
 
Upvote 0