Question for Creationists

[blader]

If there were equal observable evidence for evolution as for newton's laws of gravity, would you accept this evidence, or would you dismiss it on grounds that it does not agree with the Bible?

It seems to me that since Christians hold the Bible to be infallible, then there is no possible amount of observable evidence that would ever convince a Creationist Christian that evolution is a valid theory, so it seems kind of hypocritical to hear Creationist Christians complain about the "lack of evidence supporting evolution."

 

[flyingpenguin]

I can't speak for all Creationists, but I do not think that any amount of evidence would convince me of evolution.

The reason for that is simple. Like you said, the Bible is infallible and God is infallible. I think that evolution is a creative way to try and prove otherwise.

Any evidence you see for evolution, to me as a Bible believing Christian, is just evidence for a divine Creator whose power is beyond imaginable. I am not going to try and figure out how He did it. He said He created the world, and that is all I need to hear.

However, I don't see how this is at all hypocritical....at least not from my standpoint. As you can see from my posts, I don't think that evolution is true, but that doesn't make me a hypocrit. I am not saying one thing and doing another.

And if I remember correctly...wasn't Newton's law of gravity disproven by the Theory of Relativity?

David

 

[blader]

Originally posted by flyingpenguin
I can't speak for all Creationists, but I do not think that any amount of evidence would convince me of evolution.

The reason for that is simple. Like you said, the Bible is infallible and God is infallible. I think that evolution is a creative way to try and prove otherwise.

Any evidence you see for evolution, to me as a Bible believing Christian, is just evidence for a divine Creator whose power is beyond imaginable. I am not going to try and figure out how He did it. He said He created the world, and that is all I need to hear.

However, I don't see how this is at all hypocritical....at least not from my standpoint. As you can see from my posts, I don't think that evolution is true, but that doesn't make me a hypocrit. I am not saying one thing and doing another.

Have you ever used "there's not enouogh evidence for evolution" in a Creationism/Evolution debate? What I'm trying to get at is, it's hypocritical to use that as an argument, when you admit that no possible amount of evidence would convince you anyway.

And if I remember correctly...wasn't Newton's law of gravity disproven by the Theory of Relativity?

David

Newton's law of gravity wasn' t "disproven." Relativity is just a more accurate representation.

 

[randman]

Well, I for one, can imagine how both the Bible can be true, but that God created through evolution. That is what I used to believe, but after I looked at the evidence, I cam to believe evolution, that is common descent, did not occur.

 

[Morat]

  Whatever evidence you looked at, randman, didn't seem to stick to you. At the very least, you seem to have a hard time repeating the evidence coherently, and end up, instead, repeating mangled strawmen. I'd enjoy seeing you laying out evolution, and it's stregths, in a way that indicates you actually understand it the way biologists do.

 

 

[flyingpenguin]

If you take the Bible literally, then how can you believe in evolution? The Bible says He created the world in 6 days and that Adam came from the dust and Eve came from His rib. How can you see evolution in that?

And I do not believe that the "there is not enough evidence for evolution" is hypocritical at all. I never said you should believe in Creation because of science. I just said there wan't enough evidence in evolution. Those are two completely different statements.

David

 

[Morat]

  It is hypocritical. You just admitted that no evidence whatsoever could convince you evolution is a valid theory. Therefore, claiming that there "isn't enough evidence" is hypocritical and decietful.

   That statement, because of your previous admission, could mean anything from "no evidence" to "evidence powerful enough to convince anyone but people who refuse to ever consider it".

   So which is it? None at all? Or tons? And how can you even judge, if you freely admit you are biased beyond any hope of objectivity? You cannot objectively measure the validity of evidence, because you freely admit you refuse to accept evidence for it.

 

[dkewatson]

Originally posted by flyingpenguin
If you take the Bible literally, then how can you believe in evolution? The Bible says He created the world in 6 days and that Adam came from the dust and Eve came from His rib. How can you see evolution in that?

David

Well a literal interpretation of the Bible is flawed.  Besides the numerous other fossils which disprove a 6 day creation a new one was just found.  The "Toumai" (believed to be the oldest hominoid to date) was found in Chad last year and was dated back to aroudn 6-7 million years ago.  Are you telling me all of this data is wrong?  Or did "God" place it there and make it appear old to test your "faith" of him?

--Dan

 

[randman]

If I were a theistic evolutionist...I can play this game, but realize that I am not.

First of all, "let the waters bring forth" suggests evolution.

Secondly, Adam was indeed a special creation, but when he fell, something happened. The whole creation was radically changed so that death was part of the creation, and along with that, a host of new physical principles were enacted. What happened?

Well, God could have changed the whole creation from the very beginning, and have let another group of men evolve with the principles of the world and death in them. That would explain Cain's marriage to someone who lived in the land of Nod.

I know this is far-out speculation, and I am not a theistic evolutionist, but the Bible can be fitted into evolutionary ideas to some extent. Even the idea of "kinds" reproducing after their "kind" can fit into evolution as any evolutionary changes are gradual, but once again, I don't see the proof for evolution on the data.

Just remember that God doesn't lay put everything in detail all the time. We have to have faith and walk with Him, and His ways are higher than our's. Evolutionists have done science a disservice in trying to make their ideas stand against belief in God.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by flyingpenguin
If you take the Bible literally, then how can you believe in evolution? The Bible says He created the world in 6 days and that Adam came from the dust and Eve came from His rib. How can you see evolution in that?

I rest my case.

And I do not believe that the "there is not enough evidence for evolution" is hypocritical at all. I never said you should believe in Creation because of science. I just said there wan't enough evidence in evolution. Those are two completely different statements.

David

Yes, exactly. You don't see anything wrong with complaining about "lack of evidence" when you yourself admit that no possible amount of evidence would convince you anyway? I could have all the evidence in the world and you would be saying the exact same thing you're saying now "not enough evidence".

 

[blader]

Originally posted by randman

Just remember that God doesn't lay put everything in detail all the time. We have to have faith and walk with Him, and His ways are higher than our's. Evolutionists have done science a disservice in trying to make their ideas stand against belief in God.

Creationists have done their religion a disservice in trying to make their own ideas stand against belief in science.

 

[flyingpenguin]

When I say there is not enough evidence for evolution I am not saying "there isn't enough evidence to convince me and therefore you should scientifically accept Creation."

Typically if I were to say something like that (and normally I don't do that), I would be saying it from the standpoint of "there isn't enough evidence to teach it as though it were law and that there is no other point of view."

As for whether a literal interpretation "is flawed" I ask you Dan, how do you determine what you can take literally and what you can't? Do you let science do that for you? If you find that something is against the grain do you just give up your beliefs for something different?

And when did science start determining the strength of religion?

David

 

[dkewatson]

Originally posted by flyingpenguin
When I say there is not enough evidence for evolution I am not saying "there isn't enough evidence to convince me and therefore you should scientifically accept Creation."

Typically if I were to say something like that (and normally I don't do that), I would be saying it from the standpoint of "there isn't enough evidence to teach it as though it were law and that there is no other point of view."

As for whether a literal interpretation "is flawed" I ask you Dan, how do you determine what you can take literally and what you can't? Do you let science do that for you? If you find that something is against the grain do you just give up your beliefs for something different?

And when did science start determining the strength of religion?

David

There are really only 2 sound (even though that can be argued) interpretations of the bible, 1) it must be taken literally (everything) or 2) it must be taken metaphorically.  To claim a mixture of both is not sound since where and who draws the line of what is literal and what is metaphorical.  I based my previous post on the assumption that the bible was to be taken 100% literally.  Thus science can determine the strength of religion.  If science can prove the earth is older then 6000 years, religion loses credibility.  If science can prove evolution, religion loses credibility, etc.

--Dan

 

[blader]

Are there any other takers on this question? Npetreley, you seem rather loudly silent on the issue. =)

 

[Jerry Smith]

You reckon YECreationism deserves status as a separate denomination? I live right smack dab in the middle of the Bible belt, so I would get a hearty chuckle out of driving by a sign that says "First YEC Church of Chattanooga" with a marquis reading "Don't be deceived by the Father of Lies, let the Church help!"

 

[Westeez]

I posted a reply on here before but it must have got deleted somehow. As a person who has a deep respect for science and a person who is majoring in a scientific field (physics) then naturally if someone proved evolution to be a fact then I would believe in evolution. Hence I would become a theistic evolutionist.

Yes Blader I am a creationist.

 

[seebs]

I'd be curious to see what kinds of "proofs" you would like to see that you haven't. I consider evolution to be about as well-supported as most quantum theory, and better than some.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Westeez
I posted a reply on here before but it must have got deleted somehow. As a person who has a deep respect for science and a person who is majoring in a scientific field (physics) then naturally if someone proved evolution to be a fact then I would believe in evolution.

What standard of proof? Has anyone "proved" quantum electrodynamics by that standard?

Would this necessarily be "proof" that you were personally cognizant of, and able to comprehend in all of its intracacies? Or would you be willing to accept some of the results as published by scientists in the field of biology without having to digest the century and a half of research they have done in detail?

Hence I would become a theistic evolutionist.

Wouldn't it be better to become a theistic physicist, who accepted the work of those who worked in other fields of science, until you were given a strong reason not to? How many "theistic physicists" do you find working in evolutionary biology - even among the conservative Christians who work in that field or a related one?

Yes Blader I am a creationist.

I notice the "little" c in "creationist".... are you a theological creationist like many others, including evolutionary biologists, or are you a "scientific" creationist who denies the work of scientists who work in the field of biology?

If you are the former, then a hardy welcome to you!

If you are the latter, then welcome - but I hope you are ready for debate!

 

[Westeez]

What standard of proof? Has anyone "proved" quantum electrodynamics by that standard?

Would this necessarily be "proof" that you were personally cognizant of, and able to comprehend in all of its intracacies? Or would you be willing to accept some of the results as published by scientists in the field of biology without having to digest the century and a half of research they have done in detail?

I said that if evolution was prooved I would naturally believe in it. I didn't say that someone would have to proove evolution before I would believe in it. In short If I concluded that there was significantly more scientific evidence supporting evolution than creation then I would believe in evolution. 

Wouldn't it be better to become a theistic physicist, who accepted the work of those who worked in other fields of science, until you were given a strong reason not to? How many "theistic physicists" do you find working in evolutionary biology - even among the conservative Christians who work in that field or a related one?

I thought the term theistic evolutionist was given to a person who believes in theistic evolution. Whether that person be a physicist, biologist, geologist, accountant, garbage man or whatever. Thats why I said I would become a theistic evolutionist.

I notice the "little" c in "creationist".... are you a theological creationist like many others, including evolutionary biologists, or are you a "scientific" creationist who denies the work of scientists who work in the field of biology?[I/]

Obviously since the majority of professional biologists and geologists are evolutionists, then I believe in a minority position within the scientific community. But the minority is not always wrong. If I were a professional biologist and/or geologist then I could study all available evidence and come to a conclusion based on first hand evidence. However since I am a layperson (note I have started a physics major and until I have completed it I still class myself as a layperson and not a professional scientist) then the best thing I can do is look at both sides arguments and counterarguments. I believe that this is best done by viewing debates between evolutionist scientists and creationist scientists on various topics within the Creation-Evolution controversy.

 

[seebs]

I'd be interested in seeing what arguments you have found compelling, or uncompelling; you seem to be seriously interested in learning about the world.

I envy you the study of physics, a bit; I haven't the right sort of brain for it, but it's one of the fields in which I think you can get closest to seeing the mind of God.