If scientists agree, it must be true.

[Micaiah]

This seems to be the line of argument used by TE's to support their belief in evolution.

For the athiest, evolution is part of the explantion on how we came to be, without reference to God. Many of the strongest proponents for evolution this century have been athiests. They clearly have an axe to grind. If God doesn't exist, then evolution forms an important part of the explanation of how we came to exist from nothing. I'd suggest at this time it is about the only explanation.

I'd also suggest a scientist's beliefs on evolution are coloured by their own world view or religious convictions. I'm thinking here not about the small scale changes we see within a species which some call evolution, but rather the idea that people evolved from a single cell over millions of years. If so, and if most scientists are not Christian, there is a basic flaw in appealling the consensus of the scientific community to support our beliefs on Creation.

 

[notto]

I'd also suggest a scientist's beliefs on evolution are coloured by their own world view or religious convictions.

Then why is it that scientists who have studied the evidence in detail and who are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, Buddhist, etc. all accept it and have no problem retaining their faith. If scientists beliefs are colored by their world view of religious conviction, how does it reach this concensus.

The logic of your argument escapes me. Please explain why this concensus within the scientific community can be reached and why the only people who seem to doubt this consensus are the ones that openly admit that they will not accept it due to their religious beliefs.

There is no doubt within the legitimate and objective scientific community that evolution happened, that the world is old, and that the global flood never happened.

This should tell you something and can't be explained by the religious beliefs of those that come to consensus because they widely varied in their religious beliefs.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Some consensuses are positive statements, agreeing that something is the best model to explain data. New data or new models can change these consensuses. Sometimes, the old model is a good approximation of the new under normal circumstances, such as how Newtonian mechanics is an approximation of Relativistic mechanics. Other times, the old model is completely abandoned, such as the phlogiston model of combustion.

Other consensuses are negative statements, agreeing that a model is falsified. Generally these do not change. Newtonian mechanics will not supercede Relativistic mechanics, nor will phlogiston theory ever be able to better explain fire than oxidation.

The problem is that a lot of Creationists seem to think that if can point out a hole in the new model, the old model will return. This isn't how things works. Even if something replaced relativistic mechanics, it could not be Newtonian mechanics.

 

[shernren]

Well if a lot of scientists are agreed on it, it might not be true. We can be assured, though, that it will most probably be scientific. One thing the YEC community seems to refuse to admit is that YECism is not scientific. But they don't seem to acknowledge the possibility of it being unscientific but true. They seem to be caught in a polarization that says "either unscientific and untrue, or scientific and true". Now, tell me if that polarization is a Christian idea or an atheist idea.

 

[neverforsaken]

when i was a fundamentalist i thought those who believed in evolution were believing in it like a religion. but i have found out that it really isnt like a religious belief at all. its more like a scientific method. the theory changes based on the evidence uncovered.

 

[Micaiah]

From another thread. I said:

I'm speaking here about the gospel which I understand you and I both accept as God's truth. I think you will agree with me that those in society who believe the truth concerning Christ are in the minority.

I'm interested to know how many Christians agree with the statement I made. Take it at its face value.

 

[notto]

From another thread. I said:




I'm interested to know how many Christians agree with the statement I made. Take it at its face value.

The religious beliefs of a scientist have absolutely no impact on the validity of a theory. Evolution is accepted by people of all nationalities, religious beliefs, political inclinations, gender, age, upbrining.

You might as well say that because the minority of those that accept and study germ theory of disease are Christians that Christians should not accept it.

Your point isn't really a valid one. There is no correlation between religious beliefs and scientists who accept evolution with the exception that the only people who reject it do so because it is against their biblical beliefs. Evolution isn't accepted because of religious beliefs but it is rejected because of it.

In must the same way a heliocentric solar system was accepted base on evidence but rejected due to religious belief.

The majority of people who accept a helicentric solar system are Christian. Should it be rejected on this basis?

 

[Micaiah]

Why is it so hard to get a straight answer to a straight question. I would have thought this was one aspect of Christianity on which we can agree.

Can we try again? Please answer the question posed rather than trying to second guess the reason it is being asked, which is incidentally off the mark.

 

[notto]

Yes, Christians are in the minority. That has no bearing on the validity of the scientific theories that a community of scientists has consensus about. Just because atheists or others accept it, does not mean that Christians should reject it. To do so would be foolish, stubborn, and illogical (not to mention dogmatic).

The consensus of scientists from all backgrounds, beliefs, etc, only shows that they reached the conclusion objectively. This contrasts heavily with creation scientists who openly admit that they will reject any evidence that is conflicting with their religious beliefs (dogmatic).

What was your point?

 

[Micaiah]

Thankyou Notto. Glad we can agree that as Christians we are a minority group. I'm interested whether others agree.

 

[notto]

Thankyou Notto. Glad we can agree that as Christians we are a minority group. I'm interested whether others agree.

And then we can discuss if we are a minority group in banking and engineering as well.

 

[Numenor]

I'm speaking here about the gospel which I understand you and I both accept as God's truth. I think you will agree with me that those in society who believe the truth concerning Christ are in the minority.

I'm interested to know how many Christians agree with the statement I made. Take it at its face value.

Which society are you talking about?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Thankyou Notto. Glad we can agree that as Christians we are a minority group. I'm interested whether others agree.

Left-handed people are also a minority group...what's your point?

 

[Micaiah]

Which society? Well lets start with the world.

My point is to see if we can agree on the statement above. What do you think.

 

[Numenor]

Which society? Well lets start with the world.

My point is to see if we can agree on the statement above. What do you think.

Please define what you consider to be "God's Truth".

 

[Micaiah]

It was stated clearly above. I am speaking about the gospel. I assume you agree with the statement of faith required to join in this discussion. Lets begin with that as a definition of the gospel.

 

[Numenor]

It was stated clearly above. I am speaking about the gospel. I assume you agree with the statement of faith required to join in this discussion. Lets begin with that as a definition of the gospel.

Ok, ignoring the glaring errors in the OP for just now, I would agree. Christians are probably in the minority in 'society' (however loosely defined that term may be).

 

[LewisWildermuth]

From another thread. I said:

I'm speaking here about the gospel which I understand you and I both accept as God's truth. I think you will agree with me that those in society who believe the truth concerning Christ are in the minority.



I'm interested to know how many Christians agree with the statement I made. Take it at its face value.

In the industrialized world, with the exception of Japan and China, I would disagree. The largest religious group among scientists would likely be some form of Christianity. Now YEC beliefs among publishing scientists would be a definite minority position, but over all Christianity would still be the largest single group.

 

[shernren]

The largest religious group among scientists would likely be some form of Christianity. Now YEC beliefs among publishing scientists would be a definite minority position, but over all Christianity would still be the largest single group.

Maybe so, but then again numbers may be one thing while vocalness is another. It seems that both creation science and atheist science are examples of disproportionately vocal opinions. Again, it also depends on which particular field you talk of. For example I don't really know of Christian witness in the quantum mechanics field (my particular chip-on-the-shoulder), none that are vocal at least.

Micaiah, can I venture two guesses at where you're heading? Are you either going to say that creation science is rejected not because it is wrong, but because it is Christian in a majority atheist scientific fraternity? Or are you going to say that creation science fails peer review not because it is wrong, but because it is in the minority without good support?

 

[Numenor]

Micaiah, can I venture two guesses at where you're heading? Are you either going to say that creation science is rejected not because it is wrong, but because it is Christian in a majority atheist scientific fraternity? Or are you going to say that creation science fails peer review not because it is wrong, but because it is in the minority without good support?

Predictable, isn't it.