Reasons To Believe...wow

[daveleau]

I have been attending a theological reading group at our church, which has never focused on origins theology (in my time there), but a doctor (nephrologist) attends that is attempting to start a chapter of Reasons to Believe in our town. Our town is primarily young earth, and while I disagree (more and more as I read and study), I will never disparage these many fine Christian men and women for their different belief in this disputable and non-salvation-centered theology. In discussion with the doctor, he turned me onto Hugh Ross and his website www.Reasons.org (site for Reasons to Believe). All I can say is WOW!!! Regardless of your belief in origins theology, this man is worthy of reading. He teaches long and hard about how we are to treat each other in disagreement (with kindness and careful instruction) and how we should be intimately knowledgable of other arguments so we can be honest with our own beliefs (not knowing the credible alternative beliefs makes it very difficult to do so).

A couple of things Ross is astute at pointing out:
--It is a myth that old earther theology is synonymous with theistic evolution or a support of non-theistic evolution (as Ross firmly believes and teaches the facts about evolution's fatal and unresolvable flaws- even from a theistic evolutionary standpoint).

--It is also a myth that old earth creationists hold to a liberal or errant view of Scripture.


I am currently reading AMatter of Days by Ross, and I plan to follow up with Creation as Science by him. It would be so wonderful if his attempts to get Creationism taught in classrooms as a competing 'theory.' So many children today are taught of evolution alone, and the scientific backing (which is prevelant) for Intelligent Design from a scientific standpoint does so much for laying ground work for evangelism of our youth for Christ.

I hope you will view the website to enhance your knowledge of good, solid scientific teaching grounded in a conservative and inerrant view of Scripture. The site has massive amount of data to help in your quest for becoming a good apologist, whether your decision is to use this to support old earth Creationism or to use in your discussions against this theory. Knowing both sides of an argument is the only way to be an effective apologetic voice.

God bless you, and I hope this site's information edifies you. And, please remember that tearing each other down in these debates does not edify the Body of Christ, but instead works against the Body.

In Christ,
Dave

 

[Jase]

I am currently reading AMatter of Days by Ross, and I plan to follow up with Creation as Science by him. It would be so wonderful if his attempts to get Creationism taught in classrooms as a competing 'theory.' So many children today are taught of evolution alone, and the scientific backing (which is prevelant) for Intelligent Design from a scientific standpoint does so much for laying ground work for evangelism of our youth for Christ.

I'm sorry, but creationism and ID do not belong in a science classroom. They are not scientific theories, and they have no evidence. Not to mention, the Constitution forbids it unless you also include creationist views from all religions around the world.

 

[laptoppop]

I'm sorry, but creationism and ID do not belong in a science classroom. They are not scientific theories, and they have no evidence. Not to mention, the Constitution forbids it unless you also include creationist views from all religions around the world.

I would agree that creationism is "not a scientific theory". To be a scientific theory one must abandon supernaturalism, and God is active and alive.

I would strongly dispute that there is no evidence. I am working on a reasonably cogent post laying out why I think the geologic structures and fossils support creationism better than anything else. My life is crazy busy right now - I use these forums more as relaxation than other things, so it takes a while to gather things together.

The constitution forbids the government from forming its own state-required religion. period. People don't often quote the second part -- the government is forbidden from getting in the way of freely excercising religion as well. The writers of the constitution recognized that forbidding religious expression is the same as establishing a governmental agnostic or humanistic or even atheistic religion.

 

[laptoppop]

Ross & co. make a number of interesting points. I disagree with some, agree with others (I'm a YEC). I have no problem with fellowshipping in Christ with him and others (even TEs <grin>). I'm giving it my best effort, trying to present information and be open to changing. It won't be until we are all home together that we really know. This is a bit of a hobby to me. LIFE is Jesus.

 

[daveleau]

Ross & co. make a number of interesting points. I disagree with some, agree with others (I'm a YEC). I have no problem with fellowshipping in Christ with him and others (even TEs <grin>). I'm giving it my best effort, trying to present information and be open to changing. It won't be until we are all home together that we really know. This is a bit of a hobby to me. LIFE is Jesus.

An outstanding post. While I lean to OEC, I am not dogmatic about this theology because of the room that both provide with evidence. I try to keep my mind open to God's truth.

I have to disagree with the others that there is scientific basis (not incontrovertible proof, but then again there is only evidence of evolution). Check out the site, and you will see the evidence, as it is plainly and exhaustively laid out. As a person scientifically trained and published in international journals (not said to puff myself up, but to state that I am well versed in both science and Christian theology), I cannot deny the evidence of Creation, as the earth is a direct representation of God's work. He did create Scripture as His specific and inerrant voice, and He also provided Creation as His generic revelation pointing to Him. It is not fool proof, as God did not give us the when, and gave us little of the how. He did give us the who, which is the most important aspect. And, evolution is one group's belief that has little factual evidence for speciation, yet it is allowed. Competing evidence should be taught in schools, yet unfortunately it is not. Nothing in the US Constitution says anything about what can be taught in schools. The Constitution bars the establishment of a state religion over other religions. This is not done by teaching a competing scientific statement devoid of theological belief. A reasonable argument against it from a Christian standpoint could be that it teaches a form deism, yet the evidence when read does not affirm any one religion over another (except deism over evolution- both being pre-religious belief system), but instead confronts the lack of evidence for evolution (speciation) with evidence of architectual design in the universe.

God bless you,
Dave

 

[Jase]

I would agree that creationism is "not a scientific theory". To be a scientific theory one must abandon supernaturalism, and God is active and alive.

You can't investigate supernaturalism, so of course science, the study of the natural world, would exclude it.

I would strongly dispute that there is no evidence. I am working on a reasonably cogent post laying out why I think the geologic structures and fossils support creationism better than anything else. My life is crazy busy right now - I use these forums more as relaxation than other things, so it takes a while to gather things together.

Geology is one of my favorite fields, so it will be interesting to see what this evidence is.

The constitution forbids the government from forming its own state-required religion. period. People don't often quote the second part -- the government is forbidden from getting in the way of freely excercising religion as well. The writers of the constitution recognized that forbidding religious expression is the same as establishing a governmental agnostic or humanistic or even atheistic religion.

The constitution is very vague. There are far more implications in the freedom of religion clause than what you are stating here. Forcing students to learn Christian creationism in a government funded school is a violation of the 1st Amendment. I'm a political science/law student, I've studied a fair amount of constitutional law.

 

[random_guy]

An outstanding post. While I lean to OEC, I am not dogmatic about this theology because of the room that both provide with evidence. I try to keep my mind open to God's truth.

I have to disagree with the others that there is scientific basis (not incontrovertible proof, but then again there is only evidence of evolution). Check out the site, and you will see the evidence, as it is plainly and exhaustively laid out. As a person scientifically trained and published in international journals (not said to puff myself up, but to state that I am well versed in both science and Christian theology), I cannot deny the evidence of Creation, as the earth is a direct representation of God's work. He did create Scripture as His specific and inerrant voice, and He also provided Creation as His generic revelation pointing to Him. It is not fool proof, as God did not give us the when, and gave us little of the how. He did give us the who, which is the most important aspect. And, evolution is one group's belief that has little factual evidence for speciation, yet it is allowed. Competing evidence should be taught in schools, yet unfortunately it is not. Nothing in the US Constitution says anything about what can be taught in schools. The Constitution bars the establishment of a state religion over other religions. This is not done by teaching a competing scientific statement devoid of theological belief. A reasonable argument against it from a Christian standpoint could be that it teaches a form deism, yet the evidence when read does not affirm any one religion over another (except deism over evolution- both being pre-religious belief system), but instead confronts the lack of evidence for evolution (speciation) with evidence of architectual design in the universe.

God bless you,
Dave

Please give examples of scientific competing evidence as all "competing evidence" is nothing more than misunderstanding of science or pseudoscience. Second, speciation* has been observed.

*My psychic powers will predict that you'll say, "a fly is still a fly or still the same kind", which is exactly what evolution predicts.

 

[gluadys]

As a person scientifically trained and published in international journals (not said to puff myself up, but to state that I am well versed in both science and Christian theology), I cannot deny the evidence of Creation, as the earth is a direct representation of God's work.


A reasonable argument against it from a Christian standpoint could be that it teaches a form deism, yet the evidence when read does not affirm any one religion over another (except deism over evolution- both being pre-religious belief system), but instead confronts the lack of evidence for evolution (speciation) with evidence of architectual design in the universe.

May I ask what field of science you have been trained in? I find it hard to believe that, if you are trained in biology, you would be unaware that speciation has been directly observed, so there is no lack of evidence for it. I am glad on the other hand that you do recognize the earth as a direct representation of God's work. This, I have constantly maintained, makes it a reliable witness to God's action.

Might I also gently remind you that theistic evolutionists as well as young and old earth creationists do not deny Creation. Our debate is over the method God chose to use in creating biodiversity. This also clearly involves one's hermeneutical position in regard to understanding scripture.

 

[jereth]

I personally think that it is worthwhile looking closely at RTB, and that there is plenty of valuable and insightful material on the site. Hugh Ross comes across to me as both an honest Christian and an honest scientist. RTB serves as a good reminder that Christianity is not simply polarised into YEC and TE (as it sometimes seems), but there is a spectrum of views. OEC serves as an isthmus between the 2 great continents of YEC and TE, and many a TEist has crossed over from YECism via OECism (including myself).

Where Hugh Ross falls down, IMO, is in trying to read modern science back into the ancient scriptural text -- the same error committed by YECists. I'd respect him more if he abandoned the day-age view in favour of a sound literary hermeneutic.

 

[artybloke]

Where Hugh Ross falls down, IMO, is in trying to read modern science back into the ancient scriptural text -- the same error committed by YECists. I'd respect him more if he abandoned the day-age view in favour of a sound literary hermeneutic.

This, I feel, is the crux of the problem. There seems to be something about the scientistic idea that the only form of "truth" is scientifically verifiable "factual" truth that is very difficult to shift. Or perhaps it's not as strong as that, just the suspicion that non-verifiable non-factual truth isn't as true as fact.

To me, there is no need to try and force the stories of creation and the flood into scientific moulds which they don't fit into. It doesn't stop the stories from being true in the metaphysical and spiritual sense which was intended by the original authors.

 

[shernren]

I think it's instructive to look at the strange relationship between AiG and Hugh Ross. They both deny evolution, they both believe that they have the same plain interpretation of the Bible ... and they both wouldn't go near each other with a ten-foot pole.

If what is so plain to one party can be anathema to another, doesn't that rather shake the whole idea of plain interpretation?

 

[Wadsworth]

I have been attending a theological reading group at our church, which has never focused on origins theology (in my time there), but a doctor (nephrologist) attends that is attempting to start a chapter of Reasons to Believe in our town. Our town is primarily young earth, and while I disagree (more and more as I read and study), I will never disparage these many fine Christian men and women for their different belief in this disputable and non-salvation-centered theology. In discussion with the doctor, he turned me onto Hugh Ross and his website www.Reasons.org (site for Reasons to Believe). All I can say is WOW!!! Regardless of your belief in origins theology, this man is worthy of reading. He teaches long and hard about how we are to treat each other in disagreement (with kindness and careful instruction) and how we should be intimately knowledgable of other arguments so we can be honest with our own beliefs (not knowing the credible alternative beliefs makes it very difficult to do so).

A couple of things Ross is astute at pointing out:
--It is a myth that old earther theology is synonymous with theistic evolution or a support of non-theistic evolution (as Ross firmly believes and teaches the facts about evolution's fatal and unresolvable flaws- even from a theistic evolutionary standpoint).

--It is also a myth that old earth creationists hold to a liberal or errant view of Scripture.


I am currently reading AMatter of Days by Ross, and I plan to follow up with Creation as Science by him. It would be so wonderful if his attempts to get Creationism taught in classrooms as a competing 'theory.' So many children today are taught of evolution alone, and the scientific backing (which is prevelant) for Intelligent Design from a scientific standpoint does so much for laying ground work for evangelism of our youth for Christ.

I hope you will view the website to enhance your knowledge of good, solid scientific teaching grounded in a conservative and inerrant view of Scripture. The site has massive amount of data to help in your quest for becoming a good apologist, whether your decision is to use this to support old earth Creationism or to use in your discussions against this theory. Knowing both sides of an argument is the only way to be an effective apologetic voice.

God bless you, and I hope this site's information edifies you. And, please remember that tearing each other down in these debates does not edify the Body of Christ, but instead works against the Body.

In Christ,
Dave

AMEN!! Outstanding words of wisdom.

 

[daveleau]

May I ask what field of science you have been trained in? I find it hard to believe that, if you are trained in biology, you would be unaware that speciation has been directly observed, so there is no lack of evidence for it. I am glad on the other hand that you do recognize the earth as a direct representation of God's work. This, I have constantly maintained, makes it a reliable witness to God's action.

Might I also gently remind you that theistic evolutionists as well as young and old earth creationists do not deny Creation. Our debate is over the method God chose to use in creating biodiversity. This also clearly involves one's hermeneutical position in regard to understanding scripture.

BS Biology degree from non-religious based school, attended semester long class specifically on evolution, worked in (and published in) genetics lab focusing on endocrinoology for 5 years before joining the USAF for aviation.

There is evidence of related aspects between species that have been used to "prove" speciation, yet there is no evidence that complex forms from one species have turned into another. This evidence usually focuses on one tiny aspect and is reported as proof of speciation, when millions and millions of links through genetic mutation must follow in kind to create a new species. And, as is observed today, a single "incorrect" mutation can cause death or sterility. Speciation is a fallacy that scientists have taught in schools from incomplete data. If you have faith in speciation, then good on you. I am not going to try to convert you to another belief system of the great chasm of creation beleifs. But, do know that yours is just as much belief based as others are. There is evidence of similarity between animals, but no direct evidence that speciation has occurred. Mitochondrial DNA is a similarity, as are genetic percentages. The percentages are skewed as well, as they only take into account part of the genome and ignore wobble bases because "they don't count", when in fact any difference/similarity counts, even if the transcription is the same between wobble bases. But, none of this proves speciation. It proves similarity, and as Edgar Allen Poe put it so well- "Only this and nothing more."

The key intent of this thread is for people to read. Read the site. No one here knows it all. I don't. You there reading this post- you don't know it all. Check out the evidence proposed at reasons.org. I have spent a fair amount of time reading his book and the site, and theya re compelling. And, hey, if you disagree, at least you can find the holes in your own argument and reenforce them with knowledge.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

This evidence usually focuses on one tiny aspect and is reported as proof of speciation, when millions and millions of links through genetic mutation must follow in kind to create a new species. And, as is observed today, a single "incorrect" mutation can cause death or sterility. Speciation is a fallacy that scientists have taught in schools from incomplete data.

http://www.sciencecases.org/maggot_fly/maggot_fly_notes.asp
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ento.47.091201.145312

i think that ignorance is the only reason to deny that speciation has been observed in process. not only in plants but in insects as well.

 

[gluadys]

BS Biology degree from non-religious based school, attended semester long class specifically on evolution, worked in (and published in) genetics lab focusing on endocrinoology for 5 years before joining the USAF for aviation.

Thank you. Just one semester on evolution then. Is that right? Any work in population genetics?

There is evidence of related aspects between species that have been used to "prove" speciation, yet there is no evidence that complex forms from one species have turned into another. This evidence usually focuses on one tiny aspect and is reported as proof of speciation, when millions and millions of links through genetic mutation must follow in kind to create a new species.

So, my next question. What defines a species?

Are you familiar with G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-3820(198007)34:4<730:AMGIOS>2.0.CO;2-J

As you will note, the criterion used here was sexual isolation. Do you have a problem with this as a defining criterion for a sexually reproducing species? If so, what would you replace it with?

There is evidence of similarity between animals, but no direct evidence that speciation has occurred. Mitochondrial DNA is a similarity, as are genetic percentages. The percentages are skewed as well, as they only take into account part of the genome and ignore wobble bases because "they don't count", when in fact any difference/similarity counts, even if the transcription is the same between wobble bases. But, none of this proves speciation. It proves similarity, and as Edgar Allen Poe put it so well- "Only this and nothing more."

This is so much guff. My brother just brought me copies of a number of photographs of my parents, their siblings, my grandparents and great-grand-parents.

My daughter and I went through them, noting the similarities between her and various of these relatives. We are not unusual in this interest in seeing what similarities exist between parents and children and siblings and cousins. Everyone does it.

Why? Because we know from long experience that, despite some exceptions, similarity and relationship tend to go together.

This even applies legally. For what is a DNA-based paternity test other than a test of how similar a child's DNA is to that of the putative father? Yet no one dismisses a court's judgment of paternity on the basis that the DNA merely shows similarity, not relationship.

The key intent of this thread is for people to read. Read the site. No one here knows it all. I don't. You there reading this post- you don't know it all. Check out the evidence proposed at reasons.org. I have spent a fair amount of time reading his book and the site, and theya re compelling. And, hey, if you disagree, at least you can find the holes in your own argument and reenforce them with knowledge.

I am very familiar with all the anti-evolution arguments. I learned OEC thirty years before I even heard that YEC was still alive.

I find none of their arguments compelling. Rather, I find them again and again attacking straw men, not the theory or fact of evolution.

 

[Gwenyfur]

I'm sorry, but creationism and ID do not belong in a science classroom. They are not scientific theories, and they have no evidence. Not to mention, the Constitution forbids it unless you also include creationist views from all religions around the world.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=9

Perhaps you should read this...that "wall of separation" came from a letter from correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and teh Baptist Association. Not from the 1st Ammendment of the Constitution...

Study harder

 

[jereth]

I think it's instructive to look at the strange relationship between AiG and Hugh Ross. They both deny evolution, they both believe that they have the same plain interpretation of the Bible ... and they both wouldn't go near each other with a ten-foot pole.

If what is so plain to one party can be anathema to another, doesn't that rather shake the whole idea of plain interpretation?

Hugh Ross considers YECism anathema.
Hugh Ross considers TEism anathema.
AiG believes Hugh Ross has sold out the bible (pretty much) as badly as TEists.

Yes, very interesting relationships.

 

[Dannager]

I hope you will view the website to enhance your knowledge of good, solid scientific teaching grounded in a conservative and inerrant view of Scripture.

Good, solid scientific teaching can never be grounded in an inerrant, literal reading of Scripture. The two are incompatible at their very core. Pick one or pick the other, but don't pretend for a second that you can accept modern scientific finding at the same time you hold Genesis to be a literal account.

 

[theFijian]

Good, solid scientific teaching can never be grounded in an inerrant, literal reading of Scripture. The two are incompatible at their very core. Pick one or pick the other, but don't pretend for a second that you can accept modern scientific finding at the same time you hold Genesis to be a literal account.

innerant view of scripture != literal account

 

[The Lady Kate]

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=9

Perhaps you should read this...that "wall of separation" came from a letter from correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and teh Baptist Association. Not from the 1st Ammendment of the Constitution...

Study harder

Thank you... most of us are already well aware of where the exact phrase "separation of church and state" comes from. But regardless of where the words originate, the idea of remaining religiously neutral, and not using government authority to promote any one religious ideology over another, is inferred in the Constitution... at least according to a long history of Supreme Court decisions.

So while we appreciate the history lesson, it really doesn't change SCOTUS's rather dim view of government institutions promoting anybody's religion under the guise of science.

As you said, "study harder."