If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

[AussieLover]

latin homo english man
latin sapiens enlgish wise
latin sapiens english wise


right now science is calling our *smirk* evolved form "homo sapiens sapiens"

wise wise man?????

haha!! that's kinda funny!! LOL

 

[Dannager]

Speaking of redundancy, isn't using "haha" and "LOL" in the same reaction redundant?

 

[AussieLover]

Speaking of redundancy, isn't using "haha" and "LOL" in the same reaction redundant?

oh well. lol.

 

[Scholar in training]

Venerable Bede has said something interesting about the reaction YECists have towards evolution:

"Dawkins makes various snide and unnecessary asides about what he thinks of religion like mentioning how he saw it coupled with UFOs on a bookshop's shelf, or using a waving statue of Mary to say we should never look for a supernatural explanation. Actually, the main problem with Dawkins is that far too many Christians actually agree with him. Instead of realising his point of view on religion is both irrelevant and rubbish he has persuaded lots of normal people that there really is a conflict between science and faith. So, given the choice of either rejecting those nasty atheistic theories or their entire way of life, religious people have become more hostile to science. Like so many successful demagogues, Dawkins has made his opponents appear extreme."

http://www.bede.org.uk/Evolution.htm

He thinks that the problem started with atheists promoting a dichotomy between faith and science.

 

[Dannager]

Venerable Bede has said something interesting about the reaction YECists have towards evolution:

"Dawkins makes various snide and unnecessary asides about what he thinks of religion like mentioning how he saw it coupled with UFOs on a bookshop's shelf, or using a waving statue of Mary to say we should never look for a supernatural explanation. Actually, the main problem with Dawkins is that far too many Christians actually agree with him. Instead of realising his point of view on religion is both irrelevant and rubbish he has persuaded lots of normal people that there really is a conflict between science and faith. So, given the choice of either rejecting those nasty atheistic theories or their entire way of life, religious people have become more hostile to science. Like so many successful demagogues, Dawkins has made his opponents appear extreme."

http://www.bede.org.uk/Evolution.htm

He thinks that the problem started with atheists promoting a dichotomy between faith and science.

Yeah, Dawkins' personal opinions can be a little out there. Fortunately, his science and research are both solid.

 

[shernren]

Actually, the main problem with Dawkins is that far too many Christians actually agree with him. Instead of realising his point of view on religion is both irrelevant and rubbish he has persuaded lots of normal people that there really is a conflict between science and faith.

But isn't that true?

Atheist: The Bible is scientifically disprovable, therefore it is false.
Scientificofundy: The Bible is true, therefore it is scientifically provable.

Am I the only one who is seeing a substantial resemblance between the two views?

And surprise, surprise, we even have a YEC analogue of Dawkins' selfish-gene theory:

The Bible has long made it clear that the creation of the original groups of fully operational living creatures, programmed to transmit their information to their descendants, was the deliberate act of the mind and the will of the Creator, the great Logos Jesus Christ.

from http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/information.asp

 

[rmwilliamsll]

But isn't that true?

Atheist: The Bible is scientifically disprovable, therefore it is false.
Scientificofundy: The Bible is true, therefore it is scientifically provable.

Am I the only one who is seeing a substantial resemblance between the two views?

And surprise, surprise, we even have a YEC analogue of Dawkins' selfish-gene theory:

The Bible has long made it clear that the creation of the original groups of fully operational living creatures, programmed to transmit their information to their descendants, was the deliberate act of the mind and the will of the Creator, the great Logos Jesus Christ.

from http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/information.asp

the YECist and the atheist materialist seems to have a lot in common.
polarization of the debate into just their two alternatives, effectively eliminating the middle concilatory positions.

your observation is even better when using the books of God metaphor

creation-God's book of works:
unreliable, deceives people-YEC
only reliable information-AM

scripture-God's book of words:
only reliable information-YEC
full of errors-AM

the right way to look at the issues are that both are from the same hand, a God that would not deceive, would not lie, but that human beings are sinful and misinterpret both books to fit their bent away from God.

both positions are modern, both treat Scripture and the creation in the same way, literal, without nuance, scientifically, historically, with their favorite book unerring and in need of no correction from the other book.

for the moderness of this fundamentalist position see Karen Armstrong's _Battle for God_. where she builds on the ideas of mythos and logos...

 

[SallyNow]

The overwhelming majority of those professors teaching such science believe that the naturalistic process of evolution explains life totally. They see no need for a higher being such as God. They believe this because one can explain away God with such theories. These same schools that teach evolution, do not teach the existence of God in those courses. In fact, if you go and ask the professors that teach these courses it would be rare to find one that actually does believe in a god.

These universties are teaching atheism through evolution and your approving...how very sad.

Has it perhaps occured to YEC's that professors who teach the science of evolution do not feel qualified to teach a course on religion? Or that profs who teach religious history/theology courses do not feel qualified to teach science courses?

I know a lot of Christians who are also teachers or professors. They even teach *shock* science.

The universities are teaching many different things-but they are not teaching atheism. In universities there are courses on science, on evolution, on theatre, on Christianity and on the various religions of the world. Most universities that I know of have a church or Christian group right on campus.

Go to any (respected) university website. Chances are high you will find courses on a lot of things, including some on religous studies and some on evolution theory.

For instance, in Theatre History, one learns theatre history-but a TH student doesn't learn the math that has helped the theatre survive through the years. Math is a huge part of theatre, but it isn't taught in theatre history. Why?

Because it can be taught much better by profs whose expertise is in math.

The same goes for courses on evolution and courses on religion-they are two different subjects, and although they touch on each other, it is not until the much higher years, once the basics have been taught and the various reseach skills have been developed by the students that the professors can really delve into the evolution/theology matter at a deep level with students.

 

[shernren]

your observation is even better when using the books of God metaphor

creation-God's book of works:
unreliable, deceives people-YEC
only reliable information-AM

scripture-God's book of words:
only reliable information-YEC
full of errors-AM

(taking C.S. Lewis' "looking at vs. looking along")

Well, that's what we see when we look at YECism. But looking along YECism I think the formulations are a little different. Looking along YECism there are two major formulations of the YEC hypothesis:

1. The supernaturalistic hypothesis, or the Apparent Age Theory.

In othe words, the world was created 6,000 years ago with evidence of being created 4.5 billion years ago, etc.

That is well described by your formulation but surprisingly, I think it has less in common with an atheistic position than with a middle, TE position. The atheist logic is:

Words = true -> works = A.
Works = B.
Therefore words = false.

where A is young-earth evidence e.g. no radiodating gives ages beyond 6,000 years and B is the actual state of scientific observation.
But while the AA theorist says that the works deceive us, he is rejecting any logical link between the observed state of the world and the truth of the Bible. In logic:

Words = true <-x-> works = A.

Because of this the AA theorist is free to believe that words = true while observing that works = B. I think that position is actually close to TEism, and for me that was my intermediate position while I was going from scientific YECism to TEism. Both AA and TE reject this statement:

Words = true <-> works = A

but for different reasons: AA because we are reading works wrong to arrive at that ("a 6,000-years-old earth might not necessarily show only 6,000-years-old minerals") while TE, because we are reading words wrong to arrive at that.

2. The Naturalistic Hypothesis, or the scientific creationisms approaches.

Whereas for scientific YECism or scientific OECism the logic looks like this:

Words = true <-> works = A.
Works = A.
Therefore words = true.

The logical proposition itself is (words <-> works) is nearly identical to that of the atheist's (words -> works) except that one is an iff while the other is an if. In other words for the YECist, YEC evidence must prove the Bible's truth, while for the atheist it is not necessary. That is a very important point many creationists do not seem to get. If scientific evidence for a creationist hypothesis can be found, that does not necessarily prove the main point of the Bible (that God loves man, etc.) whether or not it proves the peripheral "points made in the Bible" such as YECism. This is because any scientific evidence they find for a creationist hypothesis must necessarily be naturalistic and therefore is not obligated to the existence of a God.

The important point I am making is that for atheism and for scientificofundyism, scientific conclusions and the truth of the Scriptures have a direct logical relationship. In my mind that is what marks them as being extremely similar. The reason they reach different conclusions is because they have different inputs and therefore different outputs. This is dangerous because if a person can be made to see that "works = B", without at the same time being shown that "words = true <-x-> works = A", the logical conclusion immediately switches to the atheistic conclusion that words = false. Whereas the value of AA and TE formulations (as philosophically distressed as AA is) is that within those logical formulations there is no way to reach the conclusion that words = false through science.

Come to think of it, doesn't that show that TEs support biblical inerrancy more than scientificofundys?

 

[shernren]

I am so not a logician. The "atheist" part looks shoddy. Brickbats also encouraged in the meantime.

[EDIT: Since my Physics lecturer is absent today I have an hour to do just that - fix it up - right now! ]

I can say with confidence that atheists believe this:

words = true -> works = A

but I'm not entirely sure if I can say that they don't believe the converse:

works = A -> words = true

For all I know, this may be true of some atheists which may explain how creationism can convert them into believing the Bible. But I'm pretty sure I can't say this for all atheists. So I'm just using the "lowest common denominator" logical statement to describe them as a whole.

Like I've said, I'm no professional logician, and I wouldn't be surprised if the others here can find error in my post.

 

[shernren]

My point eloquently proven by creationists themselves.

From http://www.christianforums.com/t2503627-a-question-for-young-earthers.html

So if you believe Christ, you gotta believe the flood, the creation, Jonah, all that stuff, or else you're saying the scriptures are broken and calling Christ a liar.

This is the crux of the problem with evolution.

It undermines the Gospel of Christ.

I would cease to believe in God if evolution were proven beyond all doubt. ... Evidently, only fools, scoffers, and those following evil desires believe anything other than what Genesis says.

That is the main reason I am a young earth believer, that is what God has said.

if evolution is a fact, the Bible simply disintigrates under all but the lightest scrutiny.

In the same way, if I found out that we absolutely evolved from apes over millions of years; or there couldn’t have been a global flood; or that Jesus never rose from the dead, it would mean my faith was based on a lie and would be in vain.

The Bible supports a young-earth theory.

All quotes are lifted without editing and are interpreted within context. 7 (what a nice number) restatements of the basic idea behind scientificofundyism:

words = true <-> works = creationist

which atheists agree nearly 100% with. So the crux of scientific creationism is in agreeing with the enemy?

 

[gluadys]

I am so not a logician. The "atheist" part looks shoddy. Brickbats also encouraged in the meantime.

[EDIT: Since my Physics lecturer is absent today I have an hour to do just that - fix it up - right now! ]

I can say with confidence that atheists believe this:

words = true -> works = A

but I'm not entirely sure if I can say that they don't believe the converse:

works = A -> words = true

For all I know, this may be true of some atheists which may explain how creationism can convert them into believing the Bible. But I'm pretty sure I can't say this for all atheists. So I'm just using the "lowest common denominator" logical statement to describe them as a whole.

Like I've said, I'm no professional logician, and I wouldn't be surprised if the others here can find error in my post.

Can you translate the formulas into layperson's English? I dont understand the sense of <-> or even -> as you are using it.

 

[shernren]

Can you translate the formulas into layperson's English? I dont understand the sense of <-> or even -> as you are using it.

Sorry. I got caught up in the high of this and forgot that these symbols might not be self-evident to all.

The -> basically means "if, then". A -> B == "If A, then B". For example:

I am sick -> I will not be in college

== "If I am sick, I will not be in college."

So given I am sick -> I will not be in college:

If "I am sick" is true, then "I will not be in college" is also true.
"I am sick, therefore I will not be in college."

If "I will not be in college" is false, then "I am sick" is false.
"I will be in college, therefore I am not sick."

Note that the other two possible conclusions ("I will not be in college, therefore I am sick" and "I am not sick, therefore I will be in college") are not completely valid conclusions from the given statement. They are in fact logical fallacies.

The <-> means "if and only if, then". A <-> B == "If and only if A, then B" or "If A, then B, and if B, then A". This may also be stated using the word "iff": "Iff A, then B" == "If and only if A, then B". For example:

I am sick <-> I will not be in college

== "If and only if I am sick, then I will not be in college."
== "If I am sick, then I will not be in college; if I will not be in college, then I am sick."

Given I am sick <-> I will not be in college I can confidently say the following:

I am sick, therefore I will not be in college.
I will be in college, therefore I am not sick.
I will not be in college, therefore I am sick.
I am not sick, therefore I will be in college.

and all four will be logically consistent. Note that the last two are not fully consistent with the not-so-strong "->" above.

And for general knowledge here's another useful and common shorthand: ~A means "not A". For example, the statement ~"it is raining" would be "it is not raining", though I generally don't know anyone who would state it like such

 

[gluadys]

Sorry. I got caught up in the high of this and forgot that these symbols might not be self-evident to all.

Thanks mucho.

 

[Willtor]

The only problem is we can't do upsidedown A's and backwards E's. Those really help discussions that can be boiled down to sets, and prove who is responsible for showing what.

 

[nolidad]

Are these the first 15 links you got from a Google search? What do Splenda (tm) and Tanning Beds have to do with evolutionary mutation?

I was asked to show research proving nearly all mutations are harmful, and these show mutations as a result of enviornment, and seeing how mutations are one of the 2 main engines supposedly powering evolution......

Dannager writes:

Yeah, I'm kind of confused about that, too. nolidad, you did check those links before you threw them on here, didn't you? How come the first two have nothing to do with evolutionary mutation?

BTW before I forget can someone show research by demonstration (you know like how splenda has shown to be a mutagen and tanning beds) that many many mutations are neutral? I accept some are but the percentages I suspect are just extrtapolations without real empirical evidence to support them.

Well they do produce mutations and mutations are one of the "big causes" of evolution, unless of course you are now saying that only some mutations are within the scope of evolution and some are not involved at all with the hypothesis? I bet that if people developed an immunity to ultraviolet rays from constant exposure to tanning beds some scientists would hoot out and say "evolution in progress".



Scholar in training writes:

Dawkins makes various snide and unnecessary asides about what he thinks of religion like mentioning how he saw it coupled with UFOs on a bookshop's shelf, or using a waving statue of Mary to say we should never look for a supernatural explanation. Actually, the main problem with Dawkins is that far too many Christians actually agree with him. Instead of realising his point of view on religion is both irrelevant and rubbish he has persuaded lots of normal people that there really is a conflict between science and faith. So, given the choice of either rejecting those nasty atheistic theories or their entire way of life, religious people have become more hostile to science. Like so many successful demagogues, Dawkins has made his opponents appear extreme."

No actually most Bible believing Christians hold science in high esteem. It is science falsely so called they hold in contempt.


rmwilliams11 writes:

the right way to look at the issues are that both are from the same hand, a God that would not deceive, would not lie, but that human beings are sinful and misinterpret both books to fit their bent away from God.

I couldn't agree more!!! That is why we have opinions on the origins of the universe written by men who were not there but profess to be able to give us a multibillion year history and bible scholars who tell us that the bible is not to be accpeted as a literal work when it comes to the parts that deal with history and science.


shernren writes:

In othe words, the world was created 6,000 years ago with evidence of being created 4.5 billion years ago, etc.

false statement for a "billion" year old rock looks just like a hundred year old rock and the suppossed irrefutable radiometric methods of dating are invaslid as accurate chronometers.

All quotes are lifted without editing and are interpreted within context. 7 (what a nice number) restatements of the basic idea behind scientificofundyism:

And yes Jesus validated both the flood and Adam and Eve as expounded in the word-- so to say evolution is true and the global flood is myth or just localized is to call into question the veracity of Jesus.

The bible declares a young earth. It is not wrapped in symbolic or apocalyptic languages. It is straightrforwardly written and verified over and over and over again in scripture.

 

[KerrMetric]

No actually most Bible believing Christians hold science in high esteem. It is science falsely so called they hold in contempt.

No it isn't since they often cannot tell the difference. Creationism is inherently anti-intellectual on a good day and downright terrible otherwise.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The bible declares a young earth. It is not wrapped in symbolic or apocalyptic languages. It is straightrforwardly written and verified over and over and over again in scripture.

no those ideas are the language of appearences, of naked eye observation astronomy. These ideas are part of the cultural complex that God by necessity uses to communicate in the Scriptures to us, they are the accommodations to human communication which has to occur embedded within a cultural and scientific grid matrix. They are not the message of Scripture but rather analogous to the envelope a love letter is mailed in, not the transcultural, the forever valid component that is required to be believed, that is authoritative for all time and all cultures. They are the reason for the step between exegesis and application where the Word is preached and applied.

you are confusing the envelope with the letter inside.

 

[nolidad]

no those ideas are the language of appearences, of naked eye observation astronomy. These ideas are part of the cultural complex that God by necessity uses to communicate in the Scriptures to us, they are the accommodations to human communication which has to occur embedded within a cultural and scientific grid matrix. They are not the message of Scripture but rather analogous to the envelope a love letter is mailed in, not the transcultural, the forever valid component that is required to be believed, that is authoritative for all time and all cultures. They are the reason for the step between exegesis and application where the Word is preached and applied.

you are confusing the envelope with the letter inside.

Well your reponse says nothing in a lot of garbled philosophy. Jesus never went to the intellectual, but to those who could just simply accept what He said as Almighty God without all these fancy philosophical gymnastics.

He told Adam He created in six solart days--He meant it! Even without the vast modern scinentific terminology people use today--God in the simplicitly of the Hebrew and Aramaic languages could have conveyed evolution in simplisitic terms. But He didn't did He? NO! It took unbeleivers to propound a theory approx 5900 years after creation and becausae they couch it in pseudo science and throw in some facts it makes frail folk jettison the simplicity of Scripture for the complexity of human sophistry.

Evolution on the "macro" scale is an impossibility and falls outside the realm of swcinetific law and fact and within the realm of philosophy. All that we observe and can test and verify according to the scientific method proves scripture true. Despite the eloquent elucidation you just emitted.

 

[KerrMetric]

It took unbeleivers to propound a theory approx 5900 years after creation and becausae they couch it in pseudo science and throw in some facts it makes frail folk jettison the simplicity of Scripture for the complexity of human sophistry.

No it is science. The pseudoscience is the shoehorning Creationists pull to try to appear scientific.

Evolution on the "macro" scale is an impossibility and falls outside the realm of swcinetific law and fact and within the realm of philosophy.

Nonsense.

All that we observe and can test and verify according to the scientific method proves scripture true. Despite the eloquent elucidation you just emitted.

Afraid it is not so. Either you have misunderstood or the people telling you this have - or are lying.