Creationists critiquing creationism

[Piet Strydom]

y experience as an undergraduate, a grad student, and a teacher, refutes Stein's ideas. But of course, Stein had no such experience, and was only gathering what others told him. My creationist professor who taught my first immunology course would have laughed at him; he had no problem getting tenure. I learned about evolution from a zoology prof who was a devout Episcopalian, and the department chair.

Dont understand me wrong.
I am always cander with what anyone tells me. and I always suspect first od all, deliberate deceit, either ignorant claims.
In the issue of Ben Stein, I do agree that whatever any person does to connect Creationism with science, can easily be countered by Evolutionists, and vice versa.
For example, the evolutionist will counter the "appearance of life as designed", with yes, it will seem as if living beings was designed to be the way it is, but this was due to evolution constantly hammering away at micro systems that failed to evolve.

I will see natural geological wonders shaped by nature, and will claim it happened in a short span of time, and the evolutionist will claim it was done over millions of years.

It does not matter what evidence the one presents, the counter arguments will always enable the opposite ideology.

And for that I can forgive both Atheist and Creationist, for the result will always be:"You can not prove the existance of a Creator, just as you done have evidence to the contrary.

What I do love about guys such as Ben Sein, and especially John Lennox when they speak to evolutionists, is how the evolutionist gets confronted with theur own theories.

Richard Dawkins looked like a fool when Stein caught him claiming that life came from outer space. Dawkins with such a claim actually destroyed evolurionary ideas that life spontaneously developed here on Earth. To him any intelligent formation on Earth could not erupt from lower non intelligence. Therefore, Richard Dawkins is a failure to which I decided that his views on the origins of life literally sucks.

When Lennox cornered Dawkins to name Darwins' book on Evolution, he forgot and said "Oh my God!"
It is even today a huge comical joke that the foremost Atheist would ask God to help him remember.

Therefore, if it is Stephen Gould, Hawkin, Dawkins, Stein, Carr, Lennox, or who ever, I ignore the wrong, and investigate the facts.
Even I will not do everything propper, but if there is only one ything to be admired, it is the sincerity of what a person holds in his belief or disbelief.
It is not the Jihadi who is the daemon killer, but the Imaam who indoctronated him.
Nor the evolutionist who disbelieves in the existance of God, but his educator.
No, the Jihadi is perhaps guilty, just as the evolutionist, of not persuing further insight. And the Christian believer in a Creator who dont investigate the accusations made against his God, and the Bible, isallowing free reign to the accusers against his religion.

Short of it all.
You can learn from everyone, and were given a logical mind to find the facts in the haystack.

 

[The Barbarian]

Nor the evolutionist who disbelieves in the existance of God, but his educator.

Unlikely. I used to review a lot of biology textbooks. Never read even one that denied God.

There were a lot of us in those classes, and it would have been trouble for any atheist trying to fit his atheism into evolutionary theory.

 

[The Barbarian]

In the most general sense, a creationist is one who believes God created all things. In that sense, Darwin was a creationist.

We tend to associate creationism only with the modern doctrine of YE creationism, but it's not strictly true.

 

[The Barbarian]

Dont understand me wrong.
I am always cander with what anyone tells me. and I always suspect first od all, deliberate deceit, either ignorant claims.

I didn't intend to question your honesty; if I gave that impression, I'm sorry that I did. It's not what I intended to do.

 

[Job 33:6]

I've spent a lifetime in biology. So some actor making up stories doesn't affect my experience very much.



My advisor was a Nixon republican. I can remember when signed up for classes, and I opted to give one dollar to Earth day, he smiled and said "I don't know why you'd want to do that." He was a pretty good guy, anyway.

On the other hand, my taxonomy instructor was an advisor to the Students for a Democratic Society. It's a lot more mixed than the actor would have you believe. Stein lost my respect forever, when he told a religious shock jock that scientists put his family into the Nazi gas chambers.

Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust
New York, NY, April 29, 2008 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued the following statement regarding the controversial film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.

Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness.

Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.
Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Stein has no credibility with anyone interested in the truth.

I too would agree that "expelled" seems to misrepresent the scientific community. I've worked with many geologists, and know otherwise many geologists beyond myself, who are Christian and are successful in our careers. Though I haven't really met any young earth geologists, of the hundreds I've met or worked with over time.

I don't think anyone is hiding anything, rather this idea of fearing oppression and hiding beliefs just seems to be...well, probably more of a media ploy.

 

[9Rock9]

I'm pretty critical of a lot of creationist claims and sources despite being a creationist, myself.

I don't really know what I believe about our origins other than I reject the standard young earth creationist view.

I'm open to anything, really. From old earth creationism, to gap theory, or even theistic evolution.

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

I'm pretty critical of a lot of creationist claims and sources despite being a creationist, myself.

I don't really know what I believe about our origins other than I reject the standard young earth creationist view.

I'm open to anything, really. From old earth creationism, to gap theory, or even theistic evolution.

Hi you did not state why you have rejected a young earth. It would be useful for you to present some of those ideas why you reject it for others to engage you with answers to your questions.

 

[9Rock9]

Hi you did not state why you have rejected a young earth. It would be useful for you to present some of those ideas why you reject it for others to engage you with answers to your questions.

I think the biggest thing is how much the view gets lambasted by everyone who isn't YEC. I'll concede that it's the most straightforward reading of Genesis 1, but it doesn't seem at all compatible with modern science.

I don't believe that scientists are all in on a massive conspiracy to debunk evangelical Christianity. I think they might have preconceptions and biases that affect their interpretations and conclusions, but still trying to earnestly figure out the truth.

The other issue is death before the fall. I believe the Bible is only talking about human death. Even then, it could be just a spiritual death instead of a physical one.

I'd wager it's pretty likely that an elephant roaming the Garden of Eden would accidentally trample an insect, for example.

I don't know how likely it is that a tiger would start out only eating plants, but turn into a carnivore after Adam and Eve sinned.

Also, YEC seems fairly new compared to other views of creation. Didn't Augustine think creation was an instantaneous event, for example?

YEC seems to have come about after an archbishop traced the chronology back to 6000 years or something?

 

[Job 33:6]

I'd wager it's pretty likely that an elephant roaming the Garden of Eden would accidentally trample an insect, for example.

I've never thought of it that way before. But that's pretty sound logic.

The alternative involves T rex having foot long, serrated (like a steak knife), railroad spike sized teeth, and jaw muscles strong enough to crush through bones, all so that it could eat coconuts.

But at the end of the day, it never really was a debate over evidence or science. But rather it's a dispute over philosophical views.

 

[The Barbarian]

Also, YEC seems fairly new compared to other views of creation. Didn't Augustine think creation was an instantaneous event, for example?

The initial creation. He thought that God had created the seeds in that creation, from which everything else developed as He intended.

 

[9Rock9]

I've never thought of it that way before. But that's pretty sound logic.

The alternative involves T rex having foot long, serrated (like a steak knife), railroad spike sized teeth, and jaw muscles strong enough to crush through bones, all so that it could eat coconuts.

But at the end of the day, it never really was a debate over evidence or science. But rather it's a dispute over philosophical views.

My only real stumbling block with non YEC views is Exodus 20:11.

 

[Jamsie]

My only real stumbling block with non YEC views is Exodus 20:11.

Exodus 20:11 reiterates what we know from Genesis 1 which many believe to be a week. Scripture speaks to 6 days not to a week. What is actually stated is 6 days within which God Commands, and largely by mediate fiats. If one compares vs. 3 clearly the "..and there was light." is explicitly immediate but subsequently one will notice the command is to created matter. "Let the Land...", Let the water..", etc. and clearly the command is directed so as to "produce" or "bring forth".

A look at Genesis 1 with "sufficient delicacy" (GKC) and it’s construction reveals quite a bit to consider. “And God said, ...” clearly this establishes that all of creation was actualized by God’s spoken command or fiat. Each day begins with those very words, so that the commands of God were the source of all creation, the sole and only operative agent. (Psalm 33:6 – Heb. 11:3 – 2 Peter 3:5) One will also note that His commands were all sufficient certainly requiring no further action on God’s part.

If then the command/fiat was all sufficient it would then be that "God made..." is explanatory- parenthetical, unless one would counter scripture to suggest that the command was not sufficient. On each day it is clear that God has not Done something but rather to have Said something, not to have Made something but to have Commanded something. One will notice that God did not command as -"And God said, let there be vegetation and there was vegetation" or "And God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures, and there were living creatures'. ... but this was not the case, why? Rather God choose mediate creative processes...seems clear.

So the verses in question do not actually state that God made anything directly but through mediate creation. The question then becomes, how? Creation was obviously a supernatural event however so were the processes that we see today invoked by God at the outset? Is it not possible that God set in motion at the beginning all of the "laws" for the incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced?

So if one understands 6 days of commands yet no requirement for duration for the fulfillment of those commands ... we remain with 6 days. As noted above - I would suggest that based on the plain reading of the account that "what was so" is God setting in "motion all of the laws for the incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced". The immutable God ordered the processes then just as we see today.

So yes, in 6 days God created and allowed all of His mediate commands to unfold in His time... and we can give credence to Romans 1:20. For as God gave us reason we can come to understand much of "what has been made".

 

[Job 33:6]

My only real stumbling block with non YEC views is Exodus 20:11.

Yea. Some suggest non-literal interpretations. But personally, I just consider that those who wrote scripture, while inspired by God, they were regular people. It's fair to propose that PhD physicists and geologists weren't around 2,000 years ago.

So when I run into concepts that contradict each other, I just resolve them by saying, well, some concepts, such as the deep age of the earth, just weren't understood by people of the past. And so we naturally will come across information presented in scripture that is going to be scientifically inacurrate.

But I'm also a scientist, and not a biblical scholar, nor a theologian. So, while I am comfortable with my conclusions about earth, my conclusions on scripture are still pending resolution as the Christian body attempts to resolve these questions through a biblical lense.
.

 

[The Barbarian]

My only real stumbling block with non YEC views is Exodus 20:11.

I don't see any reason to think that an allegory, later repeated in scripture, changes it to a literal account.

 

[The Barbarian]

So yes, in 6 days God created and allowed all of His mediate commands to unfold in His time... and we can give credence to Romans 1:20. For as God gave us reason we can come to understand much of "what has been made".

That makes a lot of sense, although I tend to agree with St. Augustine that the "yom" of creation represented different categories of creation, not literal time periods.

 

[J_B_]

What do you think of Gerald Aardsma's "virtual history" concept?

The term doesn't sound promising, but I'm not familiar with it. The only reference I could find was in the "Encyclopedia of American Loons" - not a title that promises an objective presentation of the idea. If he's saying that we in the here-and-now are viewing the past through an altered lens, I don't think that's a totally implausible idea - as long as it doesn't require the fluidity of physics.

I've had thoughts along those lines myself, which means I could be reading my thoughts into Aardsma's idea.

 

[The Barbarian]

he term doesn't sound promising, but I'm not familiar with it. The only reference I could find was in the "Encyclopedia of American Loons" - not a title that promises an objective presentation of the idea.

Yeah, that's an unfortunate thing. Calling creationists "loons" is really not helpful. That's particularly true for Aardsma, who has done a thoughtful job of interpreting evidence in a creationist context, and who avoids calling evolutionists names.

Aardsma is no lightweight when it comes to science, unlike many other YE creationists. He's knowledgeable and intelligent.

Look here...
Dr. Aardsma
BC Correspondence: Virtual History

 

[J_B_]

Yeah, that's an unfortunate thing. Calling creationists "loons" is really not helpful. That's particularly true for Aardsma, who has done a thoughtful job of interpreting evidence in a creationist context, and who avoids calling evolutionists names.

Aardsma is no lightweight when it comes to science, unlike many other YE creationists. He's knowledgeable and intelligent.

Look here...
Dr. Aardsma
BC Correspondence: Virtual History

Thanks. After a quick read, I'm not picking up the distinction he's making between virtual history and embedded age, so I'll have to come back later and try again. In the mean time I'll remain naively self-satisfied with my own thoughts.

 

[9Rock9]

Yeah, that's an unfortunate thing. Calling creationists "loons" is really not helpful. That's particularly true for Aardsma, who has done a thoughtful job of interpreting evidence in a creationist context, and who avoids calling evolutionists names.

Aardsma is no lightweight when it comes to science, unlike many other YE creationists. He's knowledgeable and intelligent.

Look here...
Dr. Aardsma
BC Correspondence: Virtual History

Yeah, the whole "loon" thing is what took me so long to let go of YEC. I adhered to it mostly out of spite than actual doctrinal conviction.