How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[Reasoning]

The photoelectric effect demonstrates that light is formed of particles. The two-slit experiment demonstrates that it is merely waves. Both have been repeatedly verified.

The only thing to conclude is that there is a more fundamental truth that allows light to be waves and particles. This is only one of several paradoxes in science. Mysteries are part of the human experience. I don't lose confidence in science because of them, nor does it affect my faith in God when there are mysteries about Him.

What do you mean with a more fundamental truth? Do you mean that we are still unsure? Because then you are right. The double slit experiment is often referred to as 'proof for consciousness outside the brain', and that is a very wrong interpretation. But I'm not sure if you meant that

 

[46AND2]

The photoelectric effect demonstrates that light is formed of particles. The two-slit experiment demonstrates that it is merely waves. Both have been repeatedly verified.

The only thing to conclude is that there is a more fundamental truth that allows light to be waves and particles. This is only one of several paradoxes in science. Mysteries are part of the human experience. I don't lose confidence in science because of them, nor does it affect my faith in God when there are mysteries about Him.

COULD there be some explanation beyond our comprehension to deal with these? Sure. ok. But, unlike the particle-wave duality, we have no evidence that the god paradoxes ARE TRUE in the first place.

 

[The Barbarian]

COULD there be some explanation beyond our comprehension to deal with these? Sure. ok. But, unlike the particle-wave duality, we have no evidence that the god paradoxes ARE TRUE in the first place.

It's one thing to deny the supernatural on faith, but it's quite another to say that if the supernatural exists, it has to be simpler than nature.

That seems logically insupportable to me.

 

[The Barbarian]

What do you mean with a more fundamental truth?

I mean that there must be a reality behind what we see, that has aspects of particles seen one way, and aspects of waves, seen another. Picture a three-dimensional object moving through a two-dimensional universe. Imagine say a coffee cup moving through a room in that universe, observe by the inhabitants. What would they make of it? That's pretty much what light is for us.

The double slit experiment is often referred to as 'proof for consciousness outside the brain', and that is a very wrong interpretation.

I think so, too. Whatever light really is, it's nature, not God. It's created, not Creator.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

They call it random with respect to fitness because the mechanisms that change DNA can not determine ahead of time whether the change in DNA will be beneficial, harmful, or neutral. As it turns out, the ability to change DNA sequence in this manner is built into genetic systems.

Could you clarify something here? I understand that creation-believing scientists fully accept that there is a massive amount of genetic variation pre-programmed into our genes by God, partially for the purpose of helping the species to survive in different and changing environments. Is this the same thing that you are talking about here?

 

[The Barbarian]

Could you clarify something here? I understand that creation-believing scientists fully accept that there is a massive amount of genetic variation pre-programmed into our genes by God, partially for the purpose of helping the species to survive in different and changing environments. Is this the same thing that you are talking about here?

There is no "pre-programming." He had no need to tinker like that. Being God, He created the universe to bring all of that forth without His additional intervention. He maintains it as He created it. Creation-believing scientists (like myself) realize that there is no possible way for all some ur-felid to have all the alleles required to make the diversity of cats.

To put it in perspective, Adam and Eve could have had at most, four alleles for each gene locus. Yet humans have dozens of them. The rest would have had to evolve.

 

[pat34lee]

So, as long as you're dismissing anything you don't agree with as inspired by Satan, let me ask this:
Why do you believe that the creation account is literal truth, and not a story on the same level as, say, Jesus' parables?

The style of writing, for one. Genesis was written as history, not allegory.
From the history of the world, to the history of God's dealing with mankind,
to the people he called to be his messengers to the world.

 

[pat34lee]

Citation for this? Sounds like something you made up off the top of your head.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9900/
http://www.indepthinfo.com/biology/apoptosis.htm
http://www.salk.edu/news-release/th...oes-viral-a-way-in-for-new-cancer-treatments/

If God's message is so important, why would he allow his enemy to inspire people to write something that isn't true? Shouldn't he have the power to stop this?
It sounds like a mistake a human would make not a God.

Free will. With choice comes the ability to do evil. The real question is why he hasn't
let us destroy ourselves, and the answer is mercy.

 

[pat34lee]

To put it in perspective, Adam and Eve could have had at most, four alleles for each gene locus. Yet humans have dozens of them. The rest would have had to evolve.

It sounds like you think God didn't or wasn't able to plan ahead.
Everything we needed was there at the beginning. It has only
gone downhill since then.

 

[bhsmte]

The style of writing, for one. Genesis was written as history, not allegory.
From the history of the world, to the history of God's dealing with mankind,
to the people he called to be his messengers to the world.

What is your evidence, that Genesis is credible history?

 

[TLK Valentine]

The style of writing, for one. Genesis was written as history, not allegory.

How can you tell? Or can you? Were you told it was a historical style, or can you spot the differences yourself?

 

[Hoghead1]

I find it a bit hard to believe, The Barbarian, that you are a scientist. Now, maybe I am wrong. I would appreciate it if you would present your credentials, so that I can be sure you are who you say you are.

 

[Hoghead1]

Wen it comes to the Bible, TKL Valentine, there is a whole literary science devoted to studying the different literary styles. I doubt, however, Patlee34 is using any of this material. The Pentateuch has a very bumpy literary style, indicating more than one author. This is not at all apparent in English, as the translation tends to wash out key differences. However, some can be somewhat noticed. For example, Gen, 1 and Gen. 2 appear to have been written by two different authors at two different times, with Gen. 2 much earlier. Gen. 1 is very sing-songy, like a chant, something for a worship service. Gen. 2 is narrative, and its chronology sharply contradicts that of gen. 1.How do you know if something was written by one or two authors or earlier and later or anything of the like? This is based on differences in spelling, punctuation, word usage, phrasing, content, and a number of other factors. For example, a text with inconsistent spelling would be taken to have been written earlier than a text with standardized spelling and punctuation. To an English speaker reading the Genesis in English, it may well look like Gen. and Gen. 2 come from exactly the same period. Now, that is because the translation came that way. if you could see this and other texts in Hebrew, there would be flaringly major differences. Reading Gen. 1 and 2 would be analogous to someone reading a paragraph in modern English, followed by a paragraph ins sixteenth-century English.

 

[Hoghead1]

I'm not sure what you mean by God planning ahead, Patlee34. Do you mean cold GOd, before the foundations of the world were ever laid, have predetermined the entire course of events, right down to the smallest detail? If so, my answer is no. God presides over beings who have some degree of free will. Therefore, God cannot decide or make our decisions for us as to what is to happen. The future is open-ended, indeterminate both for God and for ourselves. It world simply be ridiculous for God to sit down and try and plan it all out ahead. There are too many unknowns. If, for example, God thought way ahead and decided he wanted Shakespeare to write plays, there is no way ahead o time this could be quarantined. Shakespeare's plays will occur only if Shakespeare decides to write them, and Shakespeare will write them only if no one decides and successfully attempts to knock him of, etc., etc. Hence, the distant future is too "iffy" for God to bother planning for. God knows ahead of time that he or she will always work to maximize beauty, but that's it. Everythign else is up fro grabs. God is the great risk taker.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
To put it in perspective, Adam and Eve could have had at most, four alleles for each gene locus. Yet humans have dozens of them. The rest would have had to evolve.

It sounds like you think God didn't or wasn't able to plan ahead.

You're thinking of God as a creature like us, only more capable. That's the wrong way to think. He doesn't need to plan. He just created the universe with everything it needed to become what He wanted.

Everything we needed was there at the beginning.

See above. Populations have the ability to mutate and change over time to fit their environments. That's what they needed, and His creation made it possible.

 

[The Barbarian]

The style of writing, for one. Genesis was written as history, not allegory.

History didn't even exist as a human activity at the time the Israelites were writing down God's word. So no. And the wording, as Augustine and many other Christians noted, make it clear that it was not a literal account of creation.

 

[lasthero]

Free will. With choice comes the ability to do evil.

So free will is bad, then.

 

[The Barbarian]

I find it a bit hard to believe, The Barbarian, that you are a scientist. Now, maybe I am wrong. I would appreciate it if you would present your credentials, so that I can be sure you are who you say you are.

I was kind of an academic bum, having done work in zoology, bacteriology, psychology, and and chemistry. I finally took enough electives to get a degree, and then went back to school to get a graduate degree in Systems, focusing on human performance and safety. I worked for many years as an ergonomist, primarily as a consultant in workplace redesign, analysis of force on lifting and other tasks, and was a voting member of the Human Factors society.

I also worked as an industrial hygienist for a time. I got my CSP by examination, and I was certified in my state as a safety engineer.

I've been studying biology for well over a half-century. Now, let's see what you've got.

 

[The Barbarian]

he future is open-ended, indeterminate both for God and for ourselves. It world simply be ridiculous for God to sit down and try and plan it all out ahead. There are too many unknowns. If, for example, God thought way ahead and decided he wanted Shakespeare to write plays, there is no way ahead o time this could be quarantined. Shakespeare's plays will occur only if Shakespeare decides to write them, and Shakespeare will write them only if no one decides and successfully attempts to knock him of, etc., etc. Hence, the distant future is too "iffy" for God to bother planning for. God knows ahead of time that he or she will always work to maximize beauty, but that's it. Everythign else is up fro grabs. God is the great risk taker.

So God is unable to know what will happen in the future? Doesn't sound very much like God to me.

 

[Hoghead1]

It may not resonate with your concept of God. But who says your concept is correct? I gave you a solid case why it is irrational to assume God knows the future as definite ahead of time. Again, God is all-knowing and that means God knows everything as it is, in full detail, and the, in turn, means God knows the future as it is in it own nature, and that means as open-ended indeterminate, a realm of possibilities, nothing definite. Attributing any other knowledge of the future to God would be attributing false knowledge to God. Scripture does in fact speak of the future as iffy for God, as in the case of Sodom and also Jer. 18, where God warn and then sits to see what happened, before taking action. If he know the future ahead of time, he wouldn't have had to wait around to see what happened, before he decided his next course of action.