Evolution and the Bible

[notto]

Denying that creationists are anti-science,

Originally posted by Matthew

That is absolutely incorrect, as well as being an ad hominem. Answers in Genesis (a YEC organization), has professional scientists on staff.

But these "scientists" need to adhere to a Statement of Faith that is anti-scientific.

This statement of faith includes the following:

By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

How can one be a scientist if they would not accept evidence that contradicts a religious book?

Can you list any other scientific organizations that have a statement of faith?

AIG also considers themselves a ministry and although they may have scientists on staff, these scientists have a clear agenda to preach the gospel and adhere to their statment of faith that states that if they find evidence that contradicts the bible, it MUST be wrong. This is contradictory to what science is.

How does AIG explain the fact that 99% of mainstream scientists working in the fields of geology and biology accept an old earth and evolution? Is it because the evidence is conclusive enough to support this high acceptance among those working with it every day? Nope, it is because, man is decieved and the Bible is true. They think that all of these scientists (even the Christian ones) have been indocrinated and decieved (by Satan?). This is not a scientific position. This is a conspiracy theory.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/189.asp

Here is an article from AIG that demonstrates:

1) AIG equates evolution with atheism (which is not true because many Christians work in the field of biology and accept evolution)

2) AIG believes in a conspiracy to indocrinate.

3) AIG believes that any teaching of evolution is anti-God and has the destruction of Christianity as its focus.

They are anti-science.

 

[notto]

Originally posted by Matthew


Really? I don't think so at all. One can simply have a common structure that prohibits dissent. Do you know of any peer-reviewed journals that would accept explicit creationist articles if they have evidence?

All of them would. The problem with creation "research" is that while it might shed some doubt on a particular part of old earth or evolution evidence, it often ignores all other lines of evidence to the contrary.

There are probably 10 independent lines of evidence that support the theory of evolution.

There are probably 10 independent lines of evidence that support an old earth.

If a creationist displays data that casts doubt on any of these lines of evidence as valid, it would be published. The problem is that creationists will take doubt in one small piece of one line of evidence and use it to justify throwing the rest out. This is just trying to poke holes in the theories and does nothing revolutionary toward changing the theories.

If they can come up with distict lines of evidence that contradict each of the mainstream, accepte and tested lines of evidence of an old earth and evolution, the scientific community would take notice. Currently they don't do this and take the poking route.

Also, creation research often assumes their conclusion or other unupported assuptions in their research (as noted by their statements of faith). The problem with this is that they have no independent line of evidence to support their assuptions. They assume that the earth is young to explain evidence that shows the earth is young. In order to be valid, they would need to have independent lines of evidence to show this and would need to account for ALL evidence to the contrary.

Creation science does not encorporate new evidence into their theories or change there theories in the light of new evidence. True science does. Has the position of creationists concerning the age of the earth changed to accept new evidence? Could their position ever be changed? Again, ready their statements of faith. Has the theory of evolution changed in its short history? yes it has, to include and explain new evidence. Has the old earth theories in geology changed in its short history? yes it has, to explain and include new evidence.

Old earth evidence is well supported and is backed by several independent lines of evidence.

Evolution evidence is well supported and is backed by several independent lines of evidence.

Untill creation science can provide the same, does not use a religious text as evidence, does not rely on the God of the gaps argument or willy nilly escapes from physical laws (change in speed of light and radioactive decay rates), does not demand that scientists assume a conclusion or adhere to a statement of faith, or can provide a theory that explains all of the evidence better than current mainstream theories, it will simply continue to try to poke holes in evidence that doesn't fit its agenda, and continue to be ignored by mainstream science.