please help me understand debate creation vs evolution

[lucaspa]

Your post really struck a nerve with me. I'm not really sure anymore I want to know how this "debate" ends. If I become convinced that naturalistic evolution took place, I will have to concede that the evidence then suggests that God doesn't exist. I can't rationalize the "facts" to make them fit my "faith" as many do.

Look at the second quote in my signature. Now, what do you mean by "naturalistic"? Let me give you a hint: to say "God did not do it" is no more scientific than to say "God did it". Let me give you another hint, your worries about "naturalistic evolution" mean that you are accepting the basic faith of atheism as true. Why do you want to do that?

Why would God create the universe one way and leave evidence that He did it another way? I think a more accurate and pointed question would be: Why would God create the universe, inspire someone to say He did it one way yet leave no evidence whatsoever to support that He had anything at all to do with it or that He even exists?

He didn't. You aren't looking at the audience of Genesis 1. You are lifting Genesis 1 out of its time and place and reading things into it that you think should be there, but that God didn't put there. Ask yourself, what were the Hebrews of the time facing and how woudl they have heard Genesis 1?

From the times that Jesus referred to Noah's time, the condition of the world then and comparing it to "the last days" it would seem that He believed it. I suppose that can be debated and rationalized away to Him referring to a parable but saying that "as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." seem like He is comparing a past event with a future event. If He believed something that was just a story, then I have to question how God-like His knowledge was.

Karl has given a good account of the level of knowledge of Jesus as a human being.

However, there is another way to look at it. Jesus was using a story everyone knew to illustrate a point he was making. The story doesn't have to be true for Jesus' point to be true. The story is just helping people understand the point. For instance, I can say Arnold Schwartzenegger (particularly in his younger days) has a Herculean physique. That tells you something about Arnold's physique, doesn't it? Because you know about how strong Hercules was said to be. It doesn't matter than Hercules is fictional. The point isn't Hercules, it's Arnold's musculature! The point above was that the coming of the Son of Man would be unannounced and people would be surprised, just as the people in the Noah story were surprised. The point is surprise, not whether Noah's Flood was history.

Why couldn't He just make it easy to read and understand without having to decipher what is real and what is allegory?

Did it ever occur to you that the book was easy to "decipher" at the time? Just that it has gotten harder because we have forgotten so much what the times were?

Have you ever watched the Monty Python shows? We in the US miss so much of the humor because they are lampooning people that we don't know: the queen, prime ministers, celebrities in Britain, etc. We have to decipher it while it is much clearer to the Brits at the time. Same with the Bible.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

I've been doing some reading and things are starting to come together a lot better now. Like your signature says, I'm taking closer look at my interpretation of the Bible. And thanks for the civil, informative response. Times of change and revelation aren't good times to be attacked and flamed.

 

[lucaspa]

I've been doing some reading and things are starting to come together a lot better now. Like your signature says, I'm taking closer look at my interpretation of the Bible. And thanks for the civil, informative response. Times of change and revelation aren't good times to be attacked and flamed.

Well, we hate to see people fall over the creationist cliff. Such horrible splatting sounds when they hit the bottom!

 

[pressingon]

lucaspa --

To quote....

Well, we hate to see people fall over the creationist cliff. Such horrible splatting sounds when they hit the bottom!

I know your comment was made in jest, but I'd like to suggest that you please be a bit more sensitive to those whose faith may be a little less independent of God's chosen method of creation. Evolution MAY be the way God created (although I'm far from convinced), but it's a theory that holds quite a slippery slope. As an impressionable youth, my faith in the big bang, evolution, etc., wholly convinced me that God did not exist at all, hindering me to coming to any faith in him for years. I'm thankful the Lord finally got my attention again and taught me to trust Him and His word, finally seeing the wonderful complexity of His creation and becoming convinced it was truly our Lord's handiwork!

Maybe that's a foreign concept to you seasoned theistic evolutionists who see no conflict between evolution and your faith, but as one who's lost faith and regained it as a result of this mess (through the grace of God, certainly no effort of my own), I can testify to the negative impact evolution and other scientific theories can have on one's relationship with God. As has been mentioned here in prior posts, trusting God is difficult when you can't even believe His Word becuase it conflicts with everything that seems true.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand....

lucaspa, fragmentsofdreams --
First... I'm not a geneticist, but I have researched this independently to further understand God's creation (in the process bolstering my faith). As you both seem to have some background in this field (or at least some good resources), I beg your forgiveness in advance for any amateur mistakes I may make in my explanations.

fragmentsofdreams --
By "information", I mean genetic base pairs, rather than observed physical traits resulting from varying combinations of genes. My understanding is that mutations, in the sense of odd combinations of existing genes, may produce new physical traits, but certainly not new complex structures. Are not wholly new genes (from new combinations of genetic base pairs) necessary for that? Would mutation of a few base pairs in an existing gene be sufficient to create such (given that most genes consist of many thousand base pairs)? If not, how does the new gene get created without hampering the organisms which inherit it in the "development" stages to the point that they cannot survive (or rather, reproduce)?

lucaspa --
I've read your explanation of how information increases (or Dembski's, I guess), but I fail to see how what you've described actually creates new genetic information. It reshuffles existing genes amongst organisms within a species, but does not create new genetic base pairs (or resequences such) in order to create new genes. What you've described seems to me just to be the standard reproductive process and associated shuffling of genes, which may produce new genetic traits via combination of existing genes. New information necessary to create new complex structures (requiring wholly new genes)? I don't see it.

Further, if life is just "chemistry and evolution", why can't scientists reproduce life from basic elements (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc.) in the lab? Or have I just had my head under a rock all my life and missed the announcement?

That's it with responses (whew!). Just a few further questions on associated Biblical issues that I haven't seen raised yet....

If evolution is wholly true, what does that say about the book of Genesis? Were Adam and Eve real? If not, what's the basis for original sin? At what point can you begin to trust the Bible? Can you trust any of it?

Interesting discussion, everyone. I doubt anyone's minds will be changed by any of this, but interesting discussion nonetheless. Wish I had more time to share my viewpoint with you all (sorry folks, I love my wife and son more than you all ), especially given that my viewpoint seems to be contrary to those of most everyone else here. A little more understanding between creationists and theistic evolutionists would go a LONG way.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Pressingon - the reason that I (I cannot speak for Lucaspa, but I would not be surprised if he thinks the same) so strongly debate here is to dispel the notion that evolution is contrary to Christian faith. It is that false dichotomy that damaged your faith, not evolutionary theory itself.

The simple fact as I see it is that evolution is how the variety of life we see around us came to be. Truth will out; insomuch as Christianity is preached as being dependent upon creationism, it lacks credibility amongst the scientifically literate. Moreover, those who tie their faith into creationism are in very great danger of losing it when they discover - as many do - that creationism is false. Better to disconnect the two before a crisis point is reached.

My major concern is not to turn creationists into theistic evolutionists. It is to counter the dangerous teaching that Christian faith in any way depends upon creationism.

The authority and errancy/inerrancy of the Bible is a seperate issue; I know theistic evolutionists who argue fervently for both. As it happens, I am not an inerrancist, so I'm not in a position to argue that particular case.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

lucaspa --

To quote....



I know your comment was made in jest, but I'd like to suggest that you please be a bit more sensitive to those whose faith may be a little less independent of God's chosen method of creation. Evolution MAY be the way God created (although I'm far from convinced), but it's a theory that holds quite a slippery slope. As an impressionable youth, my faith in the big bang, evolution, etc., wholly convinced me that God did not exist at all, hindering me to coming to any faith in him for years. I'm thankful the Lord finally got my attention again and taught me to trust Him and His word, finally seeing the wonderful complexity of His creation and becoming convinced it was truly our Lord's handiwork!

Maybe that's a foreign concept to you seasoned theistic evolutionists who see no conflict between evolution and your faith, but as one who's lost faith and regained it as a result of this mess (through the grace of God, certainly no effort of my own), I can testify to the negative impact evolution and other scientific theories can have on one's relationship with God. As has been mentioned here in prior posts, trusting God is difficult when you can't even believe His Word becuase it conflicts with everything that seems true.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand....

lucaspa, fragmentsofdreams --
First... I'm not a geneticist, but I have researched this independently to further understand God's creation (in the process bolstering my faith). As you both seem to have some background in this field (or at least some good resources), I beg your forgiveness in advance for any amateur mistakes I may make in my explanations.

fragmentsofdreams --
By "information", I mean genetic base pairs, rather than observed physical traits resulting from varying combinations of genes. My understanding is that mutations, in the sense of odd combinations of existing genes, may produce new physical traits, but certainly not new complex structures. Are not wholly new genes (from new combinations of genetic base pairs) necessary for that? Would mutation of a few base pairs in an existing gene be sufficient to create such (given that most genes consist of many thousand base pairs)? If not, how does the new gene get created without hampering the organisms which inherit it in the "development" stages to the point that they cannot survive (or rather, reproduce)?

Well, if you define information as genetic base pairs, a simple insertion mutation will add a new base pair and therefore add new information.

The evolution of complex structures that some claimed were irreducibly complex has been shown to be merely a long chain of mutations, each of which gave the organism a slight advantage. For example, the flagellum.

A gene might get copied and inserted into a new locations. This would allow the copy of the gene to be modified without disrupting the original. Also, genes are often reused for novel purposes wihtout need for modification. A mutation that causes a gene to be activated in a cell that usually does not express it could have a dramatic change in the function of the cell, possibliy with beneficial results.

 

[pressingon]

fragmentsofdreams --

While I accept that insertion mutations occur (at quite an infrequent rate, genetic duplication is a remarkably accurate process), what I do not accept is the notion that genetic information can be added by this process over time to create new genes necessary to generate new complex structures. Given the immense number of genetic base pairs that make up individual genes (several thousand typically, sometimes even hundreds of thousands), the rates of genetic mutation, and the number of abnormalities that can occur due to changes in even one or two base pairs, I fail to see, from a probabalistic standpoint, how organisms could obtain completely new genetic information necessary to evolve new biological features in the manner described.

Anyway, my doubts (or short-sightedness, depending on the viewpoint you take) aside, where is the evidence for this kind of evolutionary action? The flagellum, you reference, for example.... I've read the research, but it appears to me that the researchers have simply identified potential methods for the development of the structure. What does the genetic sequence for each such structure look like? Could the end-state genetic sequence clearly be identified from the genetic sequence of each transitional stage? Where is the evidence?

I guess what I'm getting at is this: evolution can certainly appear to make sense when we look at the physical characteristics of organisms that appear similar. We can envision ways in which one organism would change to another, and as such naturally assume that such step-by-step development occurred. But can we really be certain? Do we have the genetic information from each stage clearly illustrating the development of more advanced forms from more primitive forms? Do the odds make sense?

I am yet to be convinced.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I know your comment was made in jest, but I'd like to suggest that you please be a bit more sensitive to those whose faith may be a little less independent of God's chosen method of creation. Evolution MAY be the way God created (although I'm far from convinced), but it's a theory that holds quite a slippery slope. As an impressionable youth, my faith in the big bang, evolution, etc., wholly convinced me that God did not exist at all, hindering me to coming to any faith in him for years. I'm thankful the Lord finally got my attention again and taught me to trust Him and His word, finally seeing the wonderful complexity of His creation and becoming convinced it was truly our Lord's handiwork!

the issues of the slippery slope to unbelief dominant the discussion of YEC.
The problem is that the YEC essentially 'grease the slope' and 'remove all the potential handholds and ledges on the slope' with their position.

the first part is to separate science from scientism, the observations and low to mid level theorizing from the high level metaphysics of naturalism. Naturalism usually relies on evolutionary theory as a key supporting pillar, but science is not metaphysics.

the second part is to understand that lots of believing Christians don't interpret Genesis the YEC way, to do so is not destructive to the faith, just different than the YEC interpretation. To make it a salvation issue is the ultimate 'greasing of the slippery slope', that will speed anyone with an interest in God's book of Works away from the YEC circle.

the last part is to engage with the issues, study not just the science, but the metaphysics of naturalism, to study the issues of hermeneutics involved and most importantly get a grip on the history of the ideas, for it is here that the most clarity appears to emerge.

i sympathize with your message, but the way out of the slippery slope dilemma is clear enough, study to show yourselves approved of the Lord, need not be ashamed of the Gospel. For the same God who wrote the Scriptures-the book of God's words, created the universe-the book of His works.

 

[mark kennedy]

1) Is evolution fact or theory?

Both actually but evolution is defined as the change in genetic frequencies in a populations over time, the real question is not whether or not there is such a thing as evolution but how far does it go. Now the theory of evolution goes so far as to claim the descent of all living systems from a single common ancestor, some kind of a unicellular organism. Its important to discern the fact from the fantasy of evolution.

2) Do evolutionist and creationist use the same facts they just interpret them differently?

For the most part they do exactly they just have radically different views on how conclusive some of the facts are.

3) There has never been any macro evolutions documented?

Its very rare as any Darwinian evolutionist will tell you and certain conditions but be present for it to occure. Its called equilibrium or Natura non facit saltum (Nature does not make leaps). For the most part even though evolution takes place the tendancy is for the species to revert back to the original condition.

4) There have been no transitional bones found?

Modern evolution lays claim to tens of thousands of such transitional fossils. The tetrapods are possibly the largest group of fossils. The emphasis is on a morphology of species from one taxa to the next. The creationist claims that most often the monstrocities (mutations; germinal, somatic, nonssense, nonsense,frameshift...etc.) are changes within a species and incapable of bringing about the vast diversity of life as we know it.

A little about myself. I am an electrical engineer from schooling and have only looked at this debate in my spare time for about 6 months now. And these two questions I cannot seem to see in the debates. My personal take on it all is we all have the same facts and all ignore ones that do not quit fit. Creationist ignore more facts than evolutionist from what I notice.

This is a problem for me as well, I would suggest that you learn what you can from both groups and do your own thinking. You have studied higher math so I'll offer you one little equation that is used to calculate how evolution does not occur. Its called Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium and is used to calculate allele frequencies that do not change. Here is the equation, p2+2pq+q2, In this idealized state, we can calculare the proortion of genotypes and phenotypes in a population. In other words its a ratio of genotypes to phenotypes.

Personally because of my belief I am a Creationist, though I admit more facts point to evolution than to creationism. Personally I would prefer yes/no answers and websites I should read.

Thank you for your time in helping me understand all of this stuff!!!!

Finding websites is no problem just put creation/evolution and you will find plenty of webpages to wade through. Here are a few creationist websites.
The collapse of the Theory of Evolution
Creationists fight back
Darwinism Refuted

For a fascinating look at the problems with human trasitional fossils this one is the best I have ever seen.

The Smithsonian Human Family Tree

Now for the evolutionist point of view I have found none better then Talk Origins. It has extensive pages on the various aspects of both the evolutionary model and Creationists are published there as well.

I have a couple of essays I think are must reads for the Creationist who is serious about learning the profound fallacy of Darwinian evolution.

Jettison the Arguments or the Rule
Homology a concept in crisis

 

[pressingon]

The problem is that the YEC essentially 'grease the slope' and 'remove all the potential handholds and ledges on the slope' with their position.

How does the YEC viewpoint "grease the slope"? Blind acceptance of science as the authority regarding truth (without testing, prayer, and consultation of Scripture) seems to me to have more of a greased slope effect.

What I would encourage (as a YEC who holds to the viewpoint that the Bible is inerrant) is that we, as believers who have been given the gift of the Holy Spirit to discern truth, would consider looking at the evidence supporting long ages and evolution, test it, and pray about it whole-heartedly (seeking the wisdom of the Spirit to guide us into truth). If then, after testing the evidence spiritually, scientifically, and in consultion with Scripture, one finds the Lord leading you to believe that evolution and long ages are indeed truth, one should accept it. I, for one, have yet to find anything about evolution / long ages that meets that kind of testing as I have applied it.

... understand that lots of believing Christians don't interpret Genesis the YEC way, to do so is not destructive to the faith, just different than the YEC interpretation. To make it a salvation issue is the ultimate 'greasing of the slippery slope', that will speed anyone with an interest in God's book of Works away from the YEC circle.

I've never argued to the contrary. I do not believe evolution and long ages are true, but I also believe one can be saved if they hold that belief.

I debate against evolution / long ages because I've found that such beliefs seem to contradict Scripture, and that such beliefs hold a slippery slope which can lead believers away from God. My prayerful acceptance of Biblical inerrancy and YEC have led me to a much deeper walk with my Lord, as I can now see a wholly consistent picture that God has painted for us, both in Scripture and through His creation.

To get this same consistency and hold to evolution / long ages, it seems to me that one has to compromise the plain reading of Scripture.

i sympathize with your message, but the way out of the slippery slope dilemma is clear enough, study to show yourselves approved of the Lord, need not be ashamed of the Gospel. For the same God who wrote the Scriptures-the book of God's words, created the universe-the book of His works.

I hope that I'm simply misunderstading what you've written, but it seems to me that you're implying that those who hold to the YEC viewpoint are not studying the Word appropriately.

I've found that the more I read God's Word and pray about it, the more convinced I am that the Genesis account is indeed true, as written. To accept evolution / long ages as factual, it seems to me that I must also accept that Scripture contains errors. Maybe that's not a big deal to you, but to me, that's compromising my faith.

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

pressingon, Karl used an excellent analogy in a post in an earlier thread that was going along these lines which I believe might be useful for you, I hope he will forgive me for nicking and adapting it.

Let us say I feel like a cup of tea. I go and put the kettle on and sit down again. Someone comes into the room as the water in the kettle is boiling and asks "why is the kettle boiling?".

One person replies "well, YN turned on the power to the kettle, the electricity flowed through the fillanment and due to the resistance of the metal it heated up. This then heated the water by conduction and convection and the kinetic energy of a large proportion the the mollecules began to exceed their binding energy. After a while, the vapour pressure of the heated water exceeded that of the air, and large amounts of water vapour began to be given off - the condition known as boiling.

Another person answers "because YN wanted a cup of tea".

Now, these are very different answers to the same question, is one wrong? Are there errors in one account? No - they are just answering the question from different perspectives. Those of us who are Thiestic Evolutionists do not believe that early Genesis is 'wrong', we do not believe that "Scripture contains errors" (that would compromise my faith too); rather, we believe that it is like the second answer. We believe that God was not trying to give a scientific account of creation - the people to whom Genesis was written had no comprehension of the things needed to have a scientific understanding - He was trying to make various theological points and correct various heathen ideas in the myth-like language they were used to.

I hope this helps.
God bless,
YN.

 

[pressingon]

I don't dispute your analogy, YN (or Karl's, rather)... I do not claim that the Genesis account of creation was a scientific explanation either. I simply accept it for what it says... that God spoke things into existence over six literal days. How COULD you give a scientific account of those moments of creation, anyway? After all, if creation occurred as plainly written in Genesis, it was a supernatural event, one which no amount of naturalistic science could explain.

As I stated in my previous post, when I test ideas (science, moral, or otherwise), Scripture also comes into play. I firmly believe that only the Holy Spirit can guide us into truth... if the Spirit inspired Biblical texts, it's only logical to search there for truth. Of course I don't go seeking a "scientific" explanation... but I do go looking for verification of truth. If the Bible presents creation at 6,000 years ago (don't get me wrong, I'm not tied to that date precisely), if our best science tells us that life arose billions of years ago, there's a conflict, one which deserves further investigation. What were the assumptions behind the science? Is it possible these were incorrect? Is there another explanation altogether? These things are only good science, in my opinion...

Anyway, in spite of all the scholars who claim evolution is fact, there still remains a lack of proof sufficient to convince me... specifically, repeatability of the events they claim to understand so well. I would claim, that should the origin of life be supernatural... we'll NEVER succeed in duplicating its creation. Time will tell, but my bet is on Christ returning to take God's children home first.

 

[G_Spot_Tornado]

We are home!

 

[pressingon]

We are home!

Not according to Jesus (bold emphasis mine):
[sup]1[/sup]"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. [sup]2[/sup]In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. [sup]3[/sup]And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am." (John 14:1-3)

Or the apostle Paul (bold emphasis mine):
[sup]12[/sup]Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. [sup]13[/sup]Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, [sup]14[/sup]I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

[sup]15[/sup]All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. [sup]16[/sup]Only let us live up to what we have already attained.

[sup]17[/sup]Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you. [sup]18[/sup]For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. [sup]19[/sup]Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things. [sup]20[/sup]But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, [sup]21[/sup]who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body. (Philippians 4:12-21)

Of course, if you don't interpret Scripture plainly, these probably don't mean to you what I take them to mean (a guarantee of heavenly citizenship thanks to the salvation enabled by Christ's sacrifice and our acceptance of the gift).

 

[The_G_Tornado]

And I notice that the word home is not used once in those verses.



Edited under protest because of interfering from above so to speak!




NOW TELL ME: WHERE IS THE WORD HOME?
ARE YOU A PROFESSIONAL THEOLOGIAN?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I don't dispute your analogy, YN (or Karl's, rather)... I do not claim that the Genesis account of creation was a scientific explanation either. I simply accept it for what it says... that God spoke things into existence over six literal days. How COULD you give a scientific account of those moments of creation, anyway? After all, if creation occurred as plainly written in Genesis, it was a supernatural event, one which no amount of naturalistic science could explain.

That's not the point. The point is that if Genesis 1 were literally true, I would expect the world to look 6000 years old, and there not to be evidence of common descent of species. Since neither of these are true, I have to call into doubt the literality of Genesis 1.

As I stated in my previous post, when I test ideas (science, moral, or otherwise), Scripture also comes into play. I firmly believe that only the Holy Spirit can guide us into truth... if the Spirit inspired Biblical texts, it's only logical to search there for truth. Of course I don't go seeking a "scientific" explanation... but I do go looking for verification of truth. If the Bible presents creation at 6,000 years ago (don't get me wrong, I'm not tied to that date precisely), if our best science tells us that life arose billions of years ago, there's a conflict, one which deserves further investigation.

Scripture only presents such a scenario if you assume it is literal. If you don't, it doesn't. What I see it presenting is a myth containing a spiritual message, which has little or no bearing on a scientific description of how the universe and biodiversity came into being. It is, as Galileo said, the purpose of Scripture that it teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. God lets us work that out on our own.

What were the assumptions behind the science? Is it possible these were incorrect? Is there another explanation altogether? These things are only good science, in my opinion...

They are. So present what the assumptions are and why they are incorrect. Show why an alternative explanation is better. That's good science. I've posted two excellent lines of evidence for evolution in this forum - no-one has even attempted to show why any form of creationism has a better explanation for them. Why is this?

[quuote]Anyway, in spite of all the scholars who claim evolution is fact, there still remains a lack of proof sufficient to convince me... specifically, repeatability of the events they claim to understand so well.[/quote]
And yet you believe in a religion that is based upon events in the past that cannot be repeated? Why the double standard?

Methinks you misunderstand the criterion. It is not repeatability of the actual events or phenomena under examination that is important in science; it is rather that the examination of the evidence is repeatable - different labs can analyse human chromosome no. 2 and say "Yep - it's got the termination sequences right in the middle. Split it there and you get the two ape chromosomes absent in humans. We agree." Different labs can examine the human, chimp and gorilla genomes and say "Yep - these retro-viral insertions are common to all three; these only the chimps and humans have; there aren't any that the humans and gorillas have that the chimps don't".

I would claim, that should the origin of life be supernatural... we'll NEVER succeed in duplicating its creation. Time will tell, but my bet is on Christ returning to take God's children home first.

Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps we'd better look at the more established and well documented and evidenced science that you disagree with - evolution.

 

[pressingon]

Karl --

Let me preface my response to your last post with a bit of thanks. To date, although we have wholly conflicting views of our origins and quite possibly will never see eye to eye on these issues, we've been able to keep the discussion civil. I greatly appreciate that... from what I've seen in here, so often this kind of discussion degenerates into name-calling and personal insults, conduct that is certainly not becoming of Christians. I hope that we can keep our discussions at that level. In case you ever take any of my comments or posts personally, please know that it is never my intent to insult you, your intelligence, or your faith. (That applies to everyone, here, not just Karl!)

On to my response:

That's not the point. The point is that if Genesis 1 were literally true, I would expect the world to look 6000 years old, and there not to be evidence of common descent of species. Since neither of these are true, I have to call into doubt the literality of Genesis 1.

Question: what would a 6000 year old world look like, if not like the world we see today? How would any of us know the difference between a 6000 year old earth and a multi-billion year-old earth anyway, outside of our own human interpretation of observations? I would submit to you that these things you claim to be "true" are only true from your perspective using your particular interpretation of observations (not to exclude others who share a common view with you, of course).

They are. So present what the assumptions are and why they are incorrect. Show why an alternative explanation is better. That's good science. I've posted two excellent lines of evidence for evolution in this forum - no-one has even attempted to show why any form of creationism has a better explanation for them. Why is this?

Often times, the first two (presenting assumptions and why they are incorrect) can (and are) done, but are dismissed by evolutionists simply because YEC's cannot give a better scientific explanation.

This is somewhat true with the things you've pointed out (I've only read over one, the uterine deformities). Is it possible that your explanations are incorrect, and that we (humanity) simply don't know what causes these things?

And yet you believe in a religion that is based upon events in the past that cannot be repeated? Why the double standard?

I don't believe there is a double standard, actually, because I draw a distinction between creation as a supernatural act of God and creation via a scientific law or principle. Scientific principles are testable and repeatable (further discussed below); supernatural acts of God are not (at least by me, God could do it all again if He chose to). Again, how could science begin to explain a supernatural act such as a six-day creation?

Methinks you misunderstand the criterion. It is not repeatability of the actual events or phenomena under examination that is important in science; it is rather that the examination of the evidence is repeatable - different labs can analyse human chromosome no. 2 and say "Yep - it's got the termination sequences right in the middle. Split it there and you get the two ape chromosomes absent in humans. We agree." Different labs can examine the human, chimp and gorilla genomes and say "Yep - these retro-viral insertions are common to all three; these only the chimps and humans have; there aren't any that the humans and gorillas have that the chimps don't".

I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one Karl. Repeatability is a key aspect of science. How can you verify that something is a natural law if it cannot be repeated? Without verification that a theorized explanation actually works, you're just left with a theory. Independent development of that theory by multiple parties does not make the theory fact. I guess what I'm saying is that it's wholly possible that multiple parties can come to the wrong conclusions... if they can test those conclusions and see that the process works, you've got proof.

Other comments:
One of the sticking points (and biggest frustrations) in the creationist / evolutionist (theistic or not) seems to be when evolutionists ask for creationists to give better explanations for our origin than theirs. Creationists generally cannot offer better explanations as to how God created; we simply believe that he spoke and it happened. Does this make us look foolish in the eyes of others? Often times, yes. Does that mean we're wrong with our questioning of currently accepted theories? I don't think so, personally.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Karl --

Let me preface my response to your last post with a bit of thanks. To date, although we have wholly conflicting views of our origins and quite possibly will never see eye to eye on these issues, we've been able to keep the discussion civil. I greatly appreciate that... from what I've seen in here, so often this kind of discussion degenerates into name-calling and personal insults, conduct that is certainly not becoming of Christians. I hope that we can keep our discussions at that level. In case you ever take any of my comments or posts personally, please know that it is never my intent to insult you, your intelligence, or your faith. (That applies to everyone, here, not just Karl!)

We do our best. It is possible to have a rational discussion on almost anything.

On to my response:

Question: what would a 6000 year old world look like, if not like the world we see today? How would any of us know the difference between a 6000 year old earth and a multi-billion year-old earth anyway, outside of our own human interpretation of observations?

Have you ever been to Iceland? Iceland is a very young island - still in formation. It looks it, too, especially in the central area where it is youngest. The same methods that lead us to conclude that Scotland's rocks are x million years old leads us to conclude that Iceland's are far younger. If the earth were only 6000 years old, I'd expect it to look more like Iceland. Or Hawaii.

I wouldn't expect all the radioactive isotopes with a half-life of less than 10^8 years to be completely absent, except the ones that form from the decay chains of long half-life isotopes, especially when these are the only possible isotopes that are actually absent from the world.

I wouldn't expect all the different ways of measuring the age of the earth to be in agreement, and to agree on such an ancient age.

I would not expect to be able to see light from stars millions of lightyears away.

I would submit to you that these things you claim to be "true" are only true from your perspective using your particular interpretation of observations (not to exclude others who share a common view with you, of course).

As Lucaspa is fond of pointing out, YEC was the default position in the West where the modern scientific method was devised. That was originally the view of those who first realised that the earth was in fact millions of years old. It was the evidence itself that swung them; a 6000 year old model was simply not consistent with any possible interpretation of the evidence.

Often times, the first two (presenting assumptions and why they are incorrect) can (and are) done, but are dismissed by evolutionists simply because YEC's cannot give a better scientific explanation.

That's how science works. A model is rejected when a better one is presented. Einstein replaced Newton because his model was a closer fit to the actual behaviours of objects at very high velocities or in very stong gravitational fields.

This is somewhat true with the things you've pointed out (I've only read over one, the uterine deformities). Is it possible that your explanations are incorrect, and that we (humanity) simply don't know what causes these things?

Quite possible. It's possible that our explanation of why the sun rises (the rotation of the earth) is incorrect, and we simply don't know the real cause.

I don't believe there is a double standard, actually, because I draw a distinction between creation as a supernatural act of God and creation via a scientific law or principle. Scientific principles are testable and repeatable (further discussed below); supernatural acts of God are not (at least by me, God could do it all again if He chose to). Again, how could science begin to explain a supernatural act such as a six-day creation?

It wouldn't. But what it would do is show that the current condition of the universe is consistent with such a model. It isn't.

I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one Karl.

It's not me you're disagreeing with; it's the entire scientific method.

Repeatability is a key aspect of science.

No. It's consistency of observation.

How can you verify that something is a natural law if it cannot be repeated?

Without verification that a theorized explanation actually works, you're just left with a theory. Independent development of that theory by multiple parties does not make the theory fact. I guess what I'm saying is that it's wholly possible that multiple parties can come to the wrong conclusions... if they can test those conclusions and see that the process works, you've got proof.

No. Science never does proof. Ever. All we ever have are repeated observations. We have repeated observations that objects accelerate towards the earth at 9.8 ms^-2. but it's not proof. We cannot be absolutely sure that tomorrow someone isn't going to find a situation where this doesn't happen, and have to modify or completely replace the law of gravitational attraction. What we do have are repeated observations that this is how things happen, so the law we have is probably pretty close to the reality.

This matter was raised in the 1999 Talk Origins Feedback (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/oct99.html) I'd like to reproduce Wesley Elsberry's excellent response:

No matter how many people look at it, the Berlin specimen of Archaeopteryx lithographica continues to clearly display feather imprints. Observation... and repeatability... all right there.
A necessary aspect of scientific research is that it proceeds by intersubjective experience. This does not make necessary that all phenomena have to be reproducible in a lab in order to be explored via scientific methodologies. Historical events sometimes leave behind evidence, and this evidence allows us to make observations and inferences with just as much validity as those which result from laboratory work.

Evolution as such has been observed, both in the lab and in the field. There is evidence of evolutionary change in populations, whether the correspondent wishes to recognize it or not.

The only real difference between the repeatability you seek and what we actually have is that in one we set things up and then watch, and in the other we merely watch.

You realise, of course, that if conclusions about the past from observation in the present are invalid, we must let out all the criminals who were convicted on any evidence other than actually being caught in the act?

Other comments:

One of the sticking points (and biggest frustrations) in the creationist / evolutionist (theistic or not) seems to be when evolutionists ask for creationists to give better explanations for our origin than theirs. Creationists generally cannot offer better explanations as to how God created; we simply believe that he spoke and it happened. Does this make us look foolish in the eyes of others? Often times, yes. Does that mean we're wrong with our questioning of currently accepted theories? I don't think so, personally.

As I've said before, science works by forcing out one model with a better one. Creationists try to change the rules, and insist that their model be accepted as valid even though it is a worse match for observation, because it fits in with the religiously derived conclusion they have an a priori attachment to. I'm afraid it simply won't work.

It also may interest you to know that theistic evolutionists also believe that he spoke and it happened. This is not the sticking point; literal interpretation of Genesis 1, and insistence that it is a scientifically accurate model, is.

 

[pressingon]

As Lucaspa is fond of pointing out, YEC was the default position in the West where the modern scientific method was devised. That was originally the view of those who first realised that the earth was in fact millions of years old. It was the evidence itself that swung them; a 6000 year old model was simply not consistent with any possible interpretation of the evidence.

I would not go so far as to say any possible interpretation...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

(BTW, I know you don't care much for the source, but it illustrates my point that not all agree.)

Interestingly, I've heard a similar thing used in support of the creationist position. The argument that creationists cannot produce good science seems to surface from time to time, and it's often pointed out that a number of the founders of modern science held to a creationist viewpoint. That's a sidebar to this discussion though.

Quite possible. It's possible that our explanation of why the sun rises (the rotation of the earth) is incorrect, and we simply don't know the real cause.

Is that REALLY a good analogy Karl? I find it hard to believe that you believe your uterine deformity evidence for evolution is as factual as rotation of the earth.

It's not me you're disagreeing with; it's the entire scientific method.

Everything I've ever learned about science, from my very first introduction in elementary school to the classes I took in physics, chemistry, etc. while obtaining my engineering degree, indicate to me that the scientific method is made up of the following steps:

1. Observation and description of a particular phenomena of interest.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis explaining the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict something.
4. Testing the hypothesis experimentally to verify its validity.
5. Repetition of steps 3 and 4 to refine the hypothesis.

I fail to see where what you're describing does anything with step 4, specifically testing the PROCESS of evolution.

You realise, of course, that if conclusions about the past from observation in the present are invalid, we must let out all the criminals who were convicted on any evidence other than actually being caught in the act?

I'm trying to understand where you pulled that from my post. I don't believe I ever stated that conclusions about the past could not be made from present observation. If it was implied somehow, it was not my intent.

A major difference between science and law (at least from my point of view) is that the burden of proof of guilt in a court of law appears to be much greater than the burden of proof required for most to accept some scientific theories as fact.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I would not go so far as to say any possible interpretation...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

(BTW, I know you don't care much for the source, but it illustrates my point that not all agree.)

What is interesting is that the only people who hold to this position (bar, possibly, a few cranks I know not of) do so out of a religious conviction that the obvious thrust of the evidence must be wrong.

Interestingly, I've heard a similar thing used in support of the creationist position. The argument that creationists cannot produce good science seems to surface from time to time, and it's often pointed out that a number of the founders of modern science held to a creationist viewpoint. That's a sidebar to this discussion though.

And an interesting one. The fascinating point is that those of them who were around when the old earth evidence was first recognised shifted easily to an old earth position. They were, first and foremost, scientists and were willing to change their minds on things. This is the problem with AiG and ICR.

Is that REALLY a good analogy Karl? I find it hard to believe that you believe your uterine deformity evidence for evolution is as factual as rotation of the earth.

Not on its own. It's a tiny fraction of a per cent of the total body of evidence. I used it because it's easily understood.

Everything I've ever learned about science, from my very first introduction in elementary school to the classes I took in physics, chemistry, etc. while obtaining my engineering degree, indicate to me that the scientific method is made up of the following steps:

1. Observation and description of a particular phenomena of interest.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis explaining the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict something.
4. Testing the hypothesis experimentally to verify its validity.
5. Repetition of steps 3 and 4 to refine the hypothesis.

I fail to see where what you're describing does anything with step 4, specifically testing the PROCESS of evolution.

Let me give an example.

1. Phenomena observed - amphibians appear later than fish in the fossil record. They are also intermediate in some respects - their eggs, hearts and skins for example, between reptiles and fish.
2. Hypothesis - amphibians evolved from fish.
3. Prediction: in the fossil record, shortly before the oldest known amphibia, we should be able to find fossils of more fish-like amphibia.

Now - this is where your model is a little oversimplified. What we actually do at step 3 is formulate a null hypothesis. This is because we can disprove things in science, but not prove them. The Null Hypothesis in this case is that amphibians have no evolutionary relationship with fish.

4. This is where we test the Null Hypothesis. We predict what result we will get, or observation we will make, if the Null Hypothesis is false. In this case, the existence of a transitional form between fish and amphibia falsifies the null hypothesis that there is no connection between them.

We find Acanthostega So, as you say, we repeat 3 and 4 to refine, and to ensure this wasn't a fluke. It keeps happening - do it with land animals and whales and you find Ambulocetus. Do it with reptiles and birds and you find Archaeopteryx. And so on.

This is how the scientific method is applied to evolution.

I'm trying to understand where you pulled that from my post. I don't believe I ever stated that conclusions about the past could not be made from present observation. If it was implied somehow, it was not my intent.

It's implied because if we can't test evolution if we can't reproduce it, we can't prove a murder unless we re-enact it. In both cases, we use the scientific method as described above.

A major difference between science and law (at least from my point of view) is that the burden of proof of guilt in a court of law appears to be much greater than the burden of proof required for most to accept some scientific theories as fact.

A very different process really. You could rather argue that the burden of proof of innocence is much lower than the proof required for scientific theories. But scientists don't talk of proof in any absolute sense; our theories are always tentative and provisional. What the scientific method does is refine theories so that they approximate closer and closer the reality. Newton wasn't wrong, really, he was just not as right as Einstein. What we can be sure of is that evolution is more right than YEC.