- Sep 19, 2017
- 662
- 230
- 49
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Happy [belated] New Year everyone!
A note of encouragement to those who are biblical creationists. The dogmatic arguments against the historicity and truth of the Bible every year can leave one feeling discouraged, but there are many good reasons for believing the word of God and to question the long-held views of science (in particular evolution) and I'll list just a few below:
1. Yes, the ultimate purpose of the Bible is so that we can know God (and by His grace, come to salvation by faith in Jesus Christ); however, Christianity is not a "blind" faith and the Bible is also a historical book. Every year, archaeological evidence surfaces that fits with biblical accounts. Just recently I watched the following video regarding Mt. Sinai that some may find interesting:
2. Just at a time when church leaders today are expected and sometimes pressured to acquiesce to the evolutionary paradigm so as not to appear intellectually lacking, more evolutionary biologists continue to turn away from neo-Darwinian evolution. Worth noting, this hypothesis does a really good job of explaining the small changes that result in variability within created life forms; however, natural selection acting on random mutations lacks the explanatory power to show how new novel information is created, how new integrated systems are created, and how new body plans are produced. The following video (warning is long: ~2.5 hrs) goes into detail discussing the challenges of neo-Darwinian evolution and some of this time is Q&A, including rebuttals against the position that challenges exist within neo-Darwinian evolution with responses from the speakers:
(I do not advocate ID as a result of a "non-biblical higher power", and do want to point out that Stephen Meyer is a Christian and holds to an old earth view)
3. The beliefs held within science are not unanimous. For example, it is not only the hard-nosed conservative that rejects evolution on some religious basis as numerous groups from varying backgrounds and beliefs also find neo-Darwinian evolution difficult and unconvincing:
Questioning evolution is neither science denial nor the preserve of creationists
4. There is quite a bit of hype and popularization that goes on within mainstream science - perhaps to help generate interest and attract funding (which I'm in general not opposed to the idea of trying to gain interest/funding for a cause), but these efforts also cast a sort of light that creates the false perception that the "popular" views (therefore "good", therefore "true") and also be used to downplay anything to the contrary no matter how true, how relevant, or how well it fits the evidence. The following was written by Dr. Jason Lisle as follow-up to an interview he had with a CNN reporter where exactly this kind of thing happened:
The Rest of the Story – Jason Lisle's Blog
When it comes to the reconstruction of historical events, there is very little "concrete" evidence that results in definitive answers--that is the nature of the past: it happened, and now it is gone. I don't believe anyone here is opposed to good science, but rather question some of the assumptions and tenets by which evidence is interpreted to fit a particular scientific paradigm. Historical science is not the same as operational/observational science - historical scientific study (regardless of the area of discipline) always relies on some degree of assumptions and inferences and therefore does not conclusively prove or disprove anything. For example, a DNA study of my grandfather and myself would not conclusively show we are related (though it may hint to it); however, a review of birth records will conclusively prove we are related. If DNA cannot even conclusively show my grandfather and I are related, how much less then, can it conclusively show that various life forms are "evolutionarily related" though separated [allegedly] by hundreds of thousands if not millions of generations?
Remember, when someone is arguing that the Bible is wrong and evolution has been proven as a "scientific fact", but has no direct evidence of asserting their position from observation and cannot replicate it where the results can be confirmed, then they are arguing from a position of ignorance. As in the case of the unguided process of evolution, the creationist is not arguing from a position of ignorance, for the following reasons:
1. No experiment has been shown to replicate the life seen today from something like a one-celled bacteria and applying mutations then watching to see what natural selection will do. All this has ever produced is small variability within created life, but never resulting in new novel information, new integrated systems, and new body plans.
2. The fossil record does not support Darwinian evolution. There are approx. 17 known abrupt appearances of already complex life reflected in the fossil record (most well-known being the Cambrian explosion).
3. Aside from lack of conclusive evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution, there IS evidence in favor of these life forms being created. However you define information (whether Shannon's theory or otherwise), the only known source of information is from the mind of an intelligent being and Christians would say this "source" is God.
4. Rather than committing an informal logical fallacy of inference from #3 above, the Bible also affirms God did in fact create life and did not just stop there but also specified the general sequence and time span of these events. It cracks me up when this is cited as a "literal inerpretation" as if it is some kind of unnatural way of interpreting what is written. I expect everyone reading this to take what I have written literally, unless I should explicitly state otherwise (just to avoid confusion - ha ha). Again, we can attempt to infer otherwise by trying to reconstruct the past by applying assumptions used in a somewhat scientific study, or we can rely on the only written record of these events.
I hope this is of some encouragement. If anyone has other evidence supporting why they believe the biblical account of creation, please feel free to share! Again, it is by faith we believe, but Christianity is not a blind faith. Also, if anyone has reasons for why they do not believe the biblical account of creation and would like to share reasons for their position as well, those are also welcome.
God bless!
A note of encouragement to those who are biblical creationists. The dogmatic arguments against the historicity and truth of the Bible every year can leave one feeling discouraged, but there are many good reasons for believing the word of God and to question the long-held views of science (in particular evolution) and I'll list just a few below:
1. Yes, the ultimate purpose of the Bible is so that we can know God (and by His grace, come to salvation by faith in Jesus Christ); however, Christianity is not a "blind" faith and the Bible is also a historical book. Every year, archaeological evidence surfaces that fits with biblical accounts. Just recently I watched the following video regarding Mt. Sinai that some may find interesting:
2. Just at a time when church leaders today are expected and sometimes pressured to acquiesce to the evolutionary paradigm so as not to appear intellectually lacking, more evolutionary biologists continue to turn away from neo-Darwinian evolution. Worth noting, this hypothesis does a really good job of explaining the small changes that result in variability within created life forms; however, natural selection acting on random mutations lacks the explanatory power to show how new novel information is created, how new integrated systems are created, and how new body plans are produced. The following video (warning is long: ~2.5 hrs) goes into detail discussing the challenges of neo-Darwinian evolution and some of this time is Q&A, including rebuttals against the position that challenges exist within neo-Darwinian evolution with responses from the speakers:
3. The beliefs held within science are not unanimous. For example, it is not only the hard-nosed conservative that rejects evolution on some religious basis as numerous groups from varying backgrounds and beliefs also find neo-Darwinian evolution difficult and unconvincing:
Questioning evolution is neither science denial nor the preserve of creationists
4. There is quite a bit of hype and popularization that goes on within mainstream science - perhaps to help generate interest and attract funding (which I'm in general not opposed to the idea of trying to gain interest/funding for a cause), but these efforts also cast a sort of light that creates the false perception that the "popular" views (therefore "good", therefore "true") and also be used to downplay anything to the contrary no matter how true, how relevant, or how well it fits the evidence. The following was written by Dr. Jason Lisle as follow-up to an interview he had with a CNN reporter where exactly this kind of thing happened:
The Rest of the Story – Jason Lisle's Blog
When it comes to the reconstruction of historical events, there is very little "concrete" evidence that results in definitive answers--that is the nature of the past: it happened, and now it is gone. I don't believe anyone here is opposed to good science, but rather question some of the assumptions and tenets by which evidence is interpreted to fit a particular scientific paradigm. Historical science is not the same as operational/observational science - historical scientific study (regardless of the area of discipline) always relies on some degree of assumptions and inferences and therefore does not conclusively prove or disprove anything. For example, a DNA study of my grandfather and myself would not conclusively show we are related (though it may hint to it); however, a review of birth records will conclusively prove we are related. If DNA cannot even conclusively show my grandfather and I are related, how much less then, can it conclusively show that various life forms are "evolutionarily related" though separated [allegedly] by hundreds of thousands if not millions of generations?
Remember, when someone is arguing that the Bible is wrong and evolution has been proven as a "scientific fact", but has no direct evidence of asserting their position from observation and cannot replicate it where the results can be confirmed, then they are arguing from a position of ignorance. As in the case of the unguided process of evolution, the creationist is not arguing from a position of ignorance, for the following reasons:
1. No experiment has been shown to replicate the life seen today from something like a one-celled bacteria and applying mutations then watching to see what natural selection will do. All this has ever produced is small variability within created life, but never resulting in new novel information, new integrated systems, and new body plans.
2. The fossil record does not support Darwinian evolution. There are approx. 17 known abrupt appearances of already complex life reflected in the fossil record (most well-known being the Cambrian explosion).
3. Aside from lack of conclusive evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution, there IS evidence in favor of these life forms being created. However you define information (whether Shannon's theory or otherwise), the only known source of information is from the mind of an intelligent being and Christians would say this "source" is God.
4. Rather than committing an informal logical fallacy of inference from #3 above, the Bible also affirms God did in fact create life and did not just stop there but also specified the general sequence and time span of these events. It cracks me up when this is cited as a "literal inerpretation" as if it is some kind of unnatural way of interpreting what is written. I expect everyone reading this to take what I have written literally, unless I should explicitly state otherwise (just to avoid confusion - ha ha). Again, we can attempt to infer otherwise by trying to reconstruct the past by applying assumptions used in a somewhat scientific study, or we can rely on the only written record of these events.
I hope this is of some encouragement. If anyone has other evidence supporting why they believe the biblical account of creation, please feel free to share! Again, it is by faith we believe, but Christianity is not a blind faith. Also, if anyone has reasons for why they do not believe the biblical account of creation and would like to share reasons for their position as well, those are also welcome.
God bless!
