• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Given that internet forums are inherently unproductive,

They are unproductive for creationists because, unlike books, their untruths can be directly countered with evidence.

I'm recommending this book.

This is a debate and discussion forum, not a suggested reading forum. Why should we read something that can not withstand scrutiny on a message board?

Its authors are more qualified to understand and articulate their position than the members of an internet forum.

I have a degree in zoology and work in a research lab that focuses on infectious diseases. That makes me much more qualified than the chemical and civil engineers that the book relies on.

One may object outright, given that it contradicts your worldview. But intellectual fluidity should at least allow you to learn what the opposing side has to offer.

What do they have to offer? Are you afraid to post it here? The review I read states that the scientists in the book use the same old canards that have been soundly refuted thousands of times on boards like these. What arguments do you find the most compelling?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
If that's all true, then it definitely is just a rehash of the same tired creationist arguments. The same tired creationists arguments that have been getting rehashed for decades--except maybe IC, although that is really just Paley's argument with a new name.

It all comes back to the simple fact that creationism is a religious belief and not science. If it was science, you'd have more people subscribing to it independent of any faith.

It all comes down to a gullible audience starving for even a modicum of scientific rigor for their religious beliefs. The last thing they want to do is challenge the claims made by creationists because it is the only hope they have of clinging to their beliefs. Punchy is a really good example. Unwilling to discuss anything, but telling people that they are ignoring evidence against their worldview and that they should watch such and such video or read such and such book. Like the old commercial said, "Where's the beef?".
 
Upvote 0

WilliamduBois

BenderBendingRodriguez
Mar 11, 2006
252
9
Desselgem, WVL, Belgium
Visit site
✟22,964.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Given that internet forums are inherently unproductive, I'm recommending this book. Its authors are more qualified to understand and articulate their position than the members of an internet forum.

But are they more qualified than 99.9% of scientists working in fields that actually have anything to do with evolution?

One may object outright, given that it contradicts your worldview. But intellectual fluidity should at least allow you to learn what the opposing side has to offer.

We "learn" what the opposing side has to offer here every day of every week of every year. Which is nothing except faith, misconceptions and sometimes worse.

Before we actually read the book, could you at least post the gist of a real argument in favour here?
 
Upvote 0

timeout

Active Member
Apr 27, 2007
108
2
✟22,749.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Here are the arguments:

1. the analysis of the sediments deposited by Mt St Helens after its famous eruption "proves" that the Grand Canyon could have been formed quickly

2. The first creatures crawling out of the ooze didn't have anything to eat, so how could they exist?

3. Pluto is an asteroid, not a planet

4. God is an actual life form because life must come from life.

5. problems with dating fossils

6. In a closed sytem all things will break down. So therefore, simple molecules could not make complex cells because that would violate the second law of thermodynamics.

***
My favorite is the one about the Grand Canyon, that was made in a day!
 
Upvote 0
P

Punchy

Guest
Before I invest any time in this, could you at least answer whether the book includes even one scientist who accepts a 6-day creation in spite of their religious beliefs or at least in the absence of religious beliefs that include a 6-day creation?

Could you name one scientific materialist who accepts Darwinian evolution in spite of his philosophical beliefs, or at least in the absence of a belief that precludes the supernatural?

Is it at all shocking that a professional scientist would consider inspired Scripture more reliable than uniformitarianism and naturalism in matters of origins?

What matters is not the presupposition of the scientist, but whether the available data can be reasonably interpreted through his worldview.

Though I'd recommend this book, I found Faith, Form and Time by Kurt Wise to be better, and definitely worth the read.
 
Upvote 0

TeddyKGB

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude
Jul 18, 2005
6,495
455
48
Deep underground
✟9,013.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Could you name one scientific materialist who accepts Darwinian evolution in spite of his philosophical beliefs, or at least in the absence of a belief that precludes the supernatural?
The fatal problem with this attempted role-reversal is that both Christians and philosophical materialists (among countless other faiths and philosophies) accept evolution. The only six-day creationists are six-day Christian creationists.
Is it at all shocking that a professional scientist would consider inspired Scripture more reliable than uniformitarianism and naturalism in matters of origins?
It wouldn't be overly shocking for, say, a psychologist, but it's tough to understand how a biologist or even a chemist might come to believe six-day creation in honest concordance with science and facts in evidence.
What matters is not the presupposition of the scientist, but whether the available data can be reasonably interpreted through his worldview.
Yeah, and the data can't be interpreted reasonably by six-day creation. Any "worldview" that invokes miracles or divine intervention admits a priori that it can't deal with the data.
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Is it at all shocking that a professional scientist would consider inspired Scripture more reliable than uniformitarianism and naturalism in matters of origins?

Uh, yeah. But then most scientists who are Christians are not hard-core literalists. They like to use the brain God gave them.
 
Upvote 0

flatworm

Veteran
Dec 13, 2006
1,394
153
✟24,922.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Could you name one scientific materialist who accepts Darwinian evolution in spite of his philosophical beliefs, or at least in the absence of a belief that precludes the supernatural?

Why does it have to be a scientific materialist? There are plenty of christians who accept evolution. Ken Miller and Francis Collins come to mind. Then there are those, such as Glenn Morton, who by sheer weight of evidence, were forced to change beliefs they held on religious grounds.


Your turn.

Is it at all shocking that a professional scientist would consider inspired Scripture more reliable than uniformitarianism and naturalism in matters of origins?

It is very shocking that they would consider a literal interpretation thereof to be more reliable than physical evidence, yes.


What matters is not the presupposition of the scientist, but whether the available data can be reasonably interpreted through his worldview.

No, presuppositions are vitally important to how we define reasonably. Science makes no assumptions beyond those required by everyone in their daily lives: That our senses provide us with information about a world outside of our minds, and that the rules of that world aren't subject to unpredictable and arbitrary change.

Though I'd recommend this book, I found Faith, Form and Time by Kurt Wise to be better, and definitely worth the read.

I think we've already been over that one.

Care to answer my question now, or will you admit that every single one of these eponymous 50 scientists hold their views on human origins because their religion so enjoins?
 
Upvote 0
G

GoSeminoles!

Guest
Actually, the first half of the book is devoted to scientific arguments for creation. It's worth reading at least to understand what real scientists who believe in a literal Genesis actually think, rather than what such irrelevant figures like Kent Hovind happen to say.


Does the book happen to idenitfy the scientific articles in peer-reviewed science journals detailing the evidence for a literal Genesis?
 
Upvote 0

CACTUSJACKmankin

Scientist
Jan 25, 2007
3,484
128
✟26,817.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Could you name one scientific materialist who accepts Darwinian evolution in spite of his philosophical beliefs, or at least in the absence of a belief that precludes the supernatural?
Has already been beautifully addressed.

Is it at all shocking that a professional scientist would consider inspired Scripture more reliable than uniformitarianism and naturalism in matters of origins?
Is it shocking that a SCIENTIST considers scripture more reliable than nature and the facts? YES!!! That is the opposite of the wa a scientist is supposed to consider an evidential heirarchy.

What matters is not the presupposition of the scientist, but whether the available data can be reasonably interpreted through his worldview.
Without certain presuppositions, there is no position that can be reasonably argued. The presuppositions have to be that the laws of the universe don't change and that information about how the universe works can be attained through observation and experimentation. Without these presuppositions, any claim can be made about the universe and no claim can be justified.
 
Upvote 0

Valkhorn

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist
Jun 15, 2004
3,009
198
44
Knoxville, TN
Visit site
✟26,624.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I notice my challenge remains uncontested....

Reposting for you.

Show me a paleontologist, a molecular biologist, or a geologist who believes these things. Show me a scientist who works in a field that creationism claims is wrong, who also conducts their work according to a young earth model. And then show me the scientific results that they have gathered using the young earth model, and show me how the scientific community has accepted those results.
 
Upvote 0
P

Punchy

Guest
There are geologists, paleontologists and life scientists who contributed to In Six Days. Most of them are involved in fields that do not accept the young earth model. Again, the majority of the essays were not written by creation scientists. As to whether the scientific community accepts their conclusions concerning Genesis, however, is irrelevant. What matters is not an argumentum ad populum, but whether these scientists who hold a creationist position succeed in reasonably stating their case. You will not know this, though, until you read the book with an open mind.

I was entirely skeptical of the young earth position until I realized that it was unanimously accepted by the early Church. To think that I could understand Scripture better than the church fathers is a little presumptuous. If one honestly considered what the rest of the Bible actually says concerning Genesis, it would be impossible to conclude that it wasn’t written as literal history. This is what the Church understood, and therefore, this is what I will believe. I find it refreshing that there are thousands of scientists outside the creation science community who feel the same way and are able to logically defend what they believe. That something is a minority view does not automatically mean that it's wrong. Every scientist holds a framework through which data is interpreted, and this is no different. Given that no humans were there to observe the actual events, having a particular framework is not only justified but necessary.

I have no intention to convert anyone to "young earth creationism," and I don't even find the term itself to have any real meaning. If a young earth is what the Bible teaches, then it's simply something what a Bible-believing Christian should accept and believe. One wouldn't call a Christian who actually believes that Jesus rose from the dead a "resurrectionist." So why have a doublestandard when it comes to believing the rest of Scripture? Furthermore, I have no intention to prove that God created in six days, given that such a belief can only be realized through God's revelation to the human heart. What matters is not whether such a position can be proved, given that "proof" in matters of prehistory is impossible, but whether the available data can be reasonably interpreted in accepting a literal Genesis. This is why reading such a book as In Six Days is important, to at least understand the arguments involved in accepting the historicity of Scripture.

Peace.
 
Upvote 0

Valkhorn

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist
Jun 15, 2004
3,009
198
44
Knoxville, TN
Visit site
✟26,624.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
There are geologists, paleontologists and life scientists who contributed to In Six Days. Most of them are involved in fields that do not accept the young earth model.

He asked for creationists that have applied YEC to get results.

Again, the majority of the essays were not written by creation scientists.

But they support 6-day creation?

As to whether the scientific community accepts their conclusions concerning Genesis, however, is irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant. If YEC could put forth applied results then it would be VERY relevant. But so far, it has not.

What matters is not an argumentum ad populum, but whether these scientists who hold a creationist position succeed in reasonably stating their case.

But if you cannot apply it to the real world, you are not really supporting your case.

You will not know this, though, until you read the book with an open mind.

In other words, if you read it and think YEC is somehow valid. An open-mind would see this for what it is and that is philosophy and religion, not science.

I was entirely skeptical of the young earth position until I realized that it was unanimously accepted by the early Church. To think that I could understand Scripture better than the church fathers is a little presumptuous.

To think that they understand science and the way the world works better than we do now is pretty presumptuous as well. They had no idea of things that we take for granted now (like Gravity, Heliocentric theory, the size of the Universe, the age of the Earth, etc.).

If one honestly considered what the rest of the Bible actually says concerning Genesis, it would be impossible to conclude that it wasn’t written as literal history.

So what? It was written by people who didn't fully understand how the world worked. They didn't know the true size and nature of the world and the universe.

This is what the Church understood, and therefore, this is what I will believe.

Ah, 'believe'. In other words, your statements are a matter of faith and not of fact.

I find it refreshing that there are thousands of scientists outside the creation science community who feel the same way and are able to logically defend what they believe.

Thousands? That is a bit of a stretch. Project Steve is already near 800. And, that is just Scientists who are named Steve who do not accept Creationism.

That something is a minority view does not automatically mean that it's wrong.

But if it isn't based on fact and is presumptuous and vacuous then it does mean it is wrong.

Every scientist holds a framework through which data is interpreted, and this is no different.

Science isn't democratic. Conclusions are based on facts, and the evidence is convergent, not divergent. The very idea that one could look at all the evidence and reach two separate (and only two?) conclusions is pretty silly.

Given that no humans were there to observe the actual events, having a particular framework is not only justified but necessary.

According to that logic, forensics would go out of the window. If no one is there to witness a murder, then I guess we should just scrap the case?
 
Upvote 0

CACTUSJACKmankin

Scientist
Jan 25, 2007
3,484
128
✟26,817.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I think that you'll find that 0.01% of almost any population will hold almost any view. There are scientists who accept ESP, homeopathy, and astrology. Does that make those valid? It isn't like this is a new proposal that we need to be mindful of. This is an idea that predated science and thus has already been subject to scientific scrutiny. Not only has it failed in the light of scrutiny, it isn't AT ALL consistent with the current view of science as to how the universe works.
 
Upvote 0

flatworm

Veteran
Dec 13, 2006
1,394
153
✟24,922.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
There are geologists, paleontologists and life scientists who contributed to In Six Days. Most of them are involved in fields that do not accept the young earth model. Again, the majority of the essays were not written by creation scientists. As to whether the scientific community accepts their conclusions concerning Genesis, however, is irrelevant. What matters is not an argumentum ad populum, but whether these scientists who hold a creationist position succeed in reasonably stating their case. You will not know this, though, until you read the book with an open mind.

You're dodging the question. Is there even one scientist in that book who doesn't believe in Creation on the basis of his or her religious beliefs? Is there even one who was convinced by the evidence first, and adopted the religious beliefs after?

I was entirely skeptical of the young earth position until I realized that it was unanimously accepted by the early Church. To think that I could understand Scripture better than the church fathers is a little presumptuous.

Stop right there. You would deny most of what we know about geology, biology, paleontology, and cosmology because people in the first few centuries CE were unaware of it?

Don't expect me to hold any respect for such nonsense. If you really prefer to live in Dark Ages, there's plenty of unused land in Siberia for you to build your hut. Leave the internet to those of us who aren't afraid to embrace what's been discovered post 500 CE.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
There are geologists, paleontologists and life scientists who contributed to In Six Days. Most of them are involved in fields that do not accept the young earth model.

This is incorrect. Only a minority of the scientists are biologists or geologists. From this review:

"Most of the fifty are Australians or Americans; there is also the odd Brit, Canadian, South African or German. Their testimonials, which vary from two to twenty pages long, are divided into two groups, "Science and origins" and "Religion and origins", but there is not really very much difference between the two. There are 9 biologists, 13 others connected with the life sciences, and 28 working in other sciences. Of the "other life scientists" (not strict biologists), five were trained in biochemistry, two in medicine, two in horticultural/agricultural science, and one each in genetics, organic chemistry, forestry and orthodontics. Of the 28 - the majority - trained in some field other than the life sciences, we have six trained in chemistry (not organic), five in some form of engineering, five in some branch of physics, three in meteorology, three in geology, two in geophysics, and one each in mathematics, geography, hydrometallurgy and information science. One might well ask what precisely an inorganic chemist or a hydrometallurgist might know about the evolution of life that would qualify them to speak about it with knowledge and wisdom, and one of the engineers, Stanley A.Mumma, quite unashamedly admits that his profession is unusually prone to creationism: "Engineers quite often need confidence in the literal accuracy of the Genesis account, while people educated in many other disciplines are quite satisfied to take it as allegory" (pp.300-1). But about a biologist or a geologist one can have no doubts: in theory, at least, they have the training and experience to know what they are talking about."

Even worse, in their professional papers these scientists state very contradictory things. For instance, Dr. Andrew Snelling is one of those scientists in the book. He has been a creationist for quite some time and is involved with Answers in Genesis. His creationist writings can be traced back to the early 1980's. So what does he write in non-creationist journals? Let's take a look.

"The Archaean basement consists of domes of granitoids and granitic gneisses (the Nanambu Complex), the nearest outcrop being 5 km to the north. Some of the lowermost overlying Proterozoic metasediments were accreted to these domes during amphibolite grade regional metamorphism (5 to 8 kb and 550° to 630° C) at 1870 to 1800 Myr. Multiple isoclinal recumbent folding accompanied metamorphism."--"Geology of the Mineral Deposits of Australia and Papua New Guinea" (ed. F E Hughes), published by the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne. pg. 807

WHAT!!??

You can read more about the doubletalking Snelling in the essay Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?
Again, the majority of the essays were not written by creation scientists.

Sorry, but I find this very problematic. Some of the scientists are long time creationists who have had no impact on the scientific field that they have a degree in. The review I linked to above lists Johnathan Sarfati, John Morris (son of Henry Morris who is anything but open minded), and Kurt Wise who openly admits he can't do science because of his creationists beliefs. This is quite a pitiful lineup.

As to whether the scientific community accepts their conclusions concerning Genesis, however, is irrelevant.

The scientific community only deals with evidence, not interpretations of religious texts.

What matters is not an argumentum ad populum, but whether these scientists who hold a creationist position succeed in reasonably stating their case. You will not know this, though, until you read the book with an open mind.

We won't know that until you start summarizing their arguments in this thread. Why are you so afraid to do so?

I was entirely skeptical of the young earth position until I realized that it was unanimously accepted by the early Church.

So much for being open minded. The early church also unanimously accepted geocentrism. Facts have no effect on you, do they?

To think that I could understand Scripture better than the church fathers is a little presumptuous.

To think that the early church fathers were infallible is even more presumptuous.

If one honestly considered what the rest of the Bible actually says concerning Genesis, it would be impossible to conclude that it wasn’t written as literal history.

Ahhh, nothing sweeter than the Atheist's Gambit.

his is what the Church understood, and therefore, this is what I will believe.

Then your belief in creationism was never a matter of evidence, was it?
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
72
✟9,884.00
Faith
Other Religion
This is why reading such a book as In Six Days is important, to at least understand the arguments involved in accepting the historicity of Scripture.

You don't seem to be reading people's replies.

It's not a matter of understanding the arguments at this point. It's a matter of whether or not there is anything new in that book. I've already read books on creationism. I know what creationists believe and why they believe it. Many creationist arguments go back decades if not centuries. If this book has nothing new to offer, then why should any of us bother reading it?

If a young earth is what the Bible teaches, then it's simply something what a Bible-believing Christian should accept and believe.

Which goes back to it not being a matter of science at all and why books like this are pointless.
 
Upvote 0