The Scientific Method

[vossler]

Well, my list of "creationists who don't think TEs are inherently inferior, less Bible-believing, and more prone to lying than them simply for accepting a particular set of scientific theories" just lost another name. Soon the list is going to get so short that I'll misplace it, and it probably won't make a difference because I'm getting cynical enough to believe that they're all like that inside, it's just a matter of whether they're polite enough to obfuscate it or not.

Well I'm sorry to hear that, but just to make sure there aren't any misunderstandings, I never said or thought TEs were inherently inferior or more prone to lying. I do believe they don't believe in the Bible as it is plainly written and if I didn't believe that then yes I'd be lying.

 

[XTE]

Well I'm sorry to hear that, but just to make sure there aren't any misunderstandings, I never said or thought TEs were inherently inferior or more prone to lying. I do believe they don't believe in the Bible as it is plainly written and if I didn't believe that then yes I'd be lying.

Vossler, it's fine if you think we aren't better Christians because we think there is more metaphor in the Bible than you do, it's fine with me.

What isn't fine is that Creationism, if it shows it head(and it really hasn't for a good reason...) would spell disaster for the Christian faith. I can only imagine what would happen if Creationism instead of ID became the big debate, America would laugh HARDER I'm afraid and it would be a scary time.

Sure ID was brought on as an apologetic movement to get religion back in there. It was brought in to supplant Evolution also. It went in with all the wrong motivations and WITH NO EVIDENCE. It also went in with a lack of science.

I hope that Creationists can put the fear aside long to realize not everyone in this world is on their page but is somehow dependent(even a little) on them for progress. Selfishly holding onto some ideas like you were always right and will always be right won't get us anywhere.

Try this, demand Creationism on a public stage, I dare you.

You will see mass histeria and subsequent mass exodus. All of the sudden, EVERYONE WOULD DEMAND PROOF.

It should be meeting science with science and winning folks to Christ, not winning them over to my complete way of thinking.

Thank you and God Bless

 

[vossler]

What isn't fine is that Creationism, if it shows it head(and it really hasn't for a good reason...) would spell disaster for the Christian faith.

Imagine the travesty...Christians believing God at His Word. Talk about shock and awe!

I can only imagine what would happen if Creationism instead of ID became the big debate, America would laugh HARDER I'm afraid and it would be a scary time.

America needs a good laugh!

I hope that Creationists can put the fear aside long to realize not everyone in this world is on their page but is somehow dependent(even a little) on them for progress. Selfishly holding onto some ideas like you were always right and will always be right won't get us anywhere.

This isn't about 'us' being right, but about God being right. BTW, I don't live in any fear whatsoever.

Try this, demand Creationism on a public stage, I dare you.

That's just it, Creationists have always tried to get on the public stage, it's the evolutionists that are constantly thwarting their efforts. I wonder what they're afraid of.

I'm not too concerned if Creationism doesn't make it on stage because ulitimately it isn't my fight but the Lord's. That's the beauty of working for Him, you always win!

 

[XTE]

That's the beauty of working for Him, you always win!

Maybe Evolution is God's doing?

Self-affirming "No" in 3...2....(points to Vossler)!

 

[vossler]

Maybe Evolution is God's doing?

Self-affirming "No" in 3...2....(points to Vossler)!

Who knows...maybe your right, but it would take a Damascus road experience for me to believe it. If Jesus opens my eyes and shows me that truth, most certainly I won't deny it and accept it.

 

[theFijian]

I do believe they don't believe in the Bible as it is plainly written...

Well then you'll have to show us from scripture where it requires us to believe the bible 'as it is plainly written' to qualify to be called a bible-believing Christian. How do you derive this hermeneutic as the only correct hermeneutic from scripture?

 

[laptoppop]

In any case, "microevolution" within the "dog kind", say, involves changes as dire as going from 78 chromosomes to 42. http://www.christianforums.com/t3118925-mutation-rates-a-bigger-problem-for-yecists.html

Actually, this is a straw man arguement. The exact limits of a biblical "kind" are not likely to correspond exactly to the current classification schema, although it is likely to be similar. You have assumed that all of these variations would be lumped together in a "dog kind" and that only one pair of these invented "dog kind" was on the ark. For example, it is not possible to determine that there was not a dog pair and a jackal pair on the ark. The concept of a "kind" makes sense on a generic level (a dog is not a cat) but is hardly defined rigourously in Scripture. This is an area ripe for further investigation, especially given modern understanding regarding chromosomes, etc.
-lee-

 

[Mallon]

Actually, this is a straw man arguement.

How is it a strawman argument? You can't define your terms, so evolutionists have no way of knowing whether they are misrepresenting you or not.

You have assumed that all of these variations would be lumped together in a "dog kind" and that only one pair of these invented "dog kind" was on the ark.

That's not shernren's invention. That's the example the creationists keep using time and again. I'm willing to bet that "dog kind" is the number 1 example of "kind" used by creationists today.

This is an area ripe for further investigation, especially given modern understanding regarding chromosomes, etc.

The sort of baraminology you're advocating has been under way for ca. 20 years now. It has produced 0 results.

 

[jereth]

Thanks for your question, laptoppop. Here's my answer:

My question, especially for my TE friends, is if you would agree that the scientific method specifically excludes supernatural explanations.

The scientific method assumes that a natural process can explain the event in question; however it does not exclude the existence of the supernatural. The scientific method can neither establish nor disprove the existence of the supernatural. I agree exactly with the wikipedia statement.

If so, this may explain some basic impasses around here. If "science" precludes the actions of a living God in history

No, science does not preclude the action of God. You must be careful not to restrict God's action to the miraculous only. God acts both in miracle and in nature.

 

[theFijian]

The sort of baraminology you're advocating ...

I hadn't seen the word baraminology before and when I googled it I was asked 'Did you mean: criminology. Which I thought was ironic in a way.

 

[laptoppop]

How is it a strawman argument? You can't define your terms, so evolutionists have no way of knowing whether they are misrepresenting you or not.

I mean a strawman argument in that *he* defined a precise definition of "dog kind" and then poked holes in it as if it were commonly accepted to that level of detail. Yes "dog" is a commonly used example of a "kind", but the precise definition is not rigourous.
-lee-

 

[shernren]

Actually, this is a straw man arguement. The exact limits of a biblical "kind" are not likely to correspond exactly to the current classification schema, although it is likely to be similar. You have assumed that all of these variations would be lumped together in a "dog kind" and that only one pair of these invented "dog kind" was on the ark. For example, it is not possible to determine that there was not a dog pair and a jackal pair on the ark. The concept of a "kind" makes sense on a generic level (a dog is not a cat) but is hardly defined rigourously in Scripture. This is an area ripe for further investigation, especially given modern understanding regarding chromosomes, etc.

I mean a strawman argument in that *he* defined a precise definition of "dog kind" and then poked holes in it as if it were commonly accepted to that level of detail. Yes "dog" is a commonly used example of a "kind", but the precise definition is not rigourous.
-lee-

What's not rigorous?

1. Since God "commanded" all animals to breed according to their kind, all viable hybridizing species have to belong to the same kind. ("Commanded" in quotes because I believe that it is more accurate to read those as a phenomenological description of observed biology, rather than as a imperative command of God.) Wolves, dogs, coyotes, and jackals are all able to produce hybrids, even if they are sterile. Therefore they belong in the same kind.

2. Gish and Wieland also lump them together in one kind. You can argue with them if you want.

3. The Bible says clearly: Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
(Genesis 7:2-3 NIV) Indeed, if the requirements are extended to take more than one kind, then the Ark runs into serious space and food problems.

4. The genetic divergence between members of the "same kind" is too wide for mutation to have derived from a single ancestral pair approx. 4.5 kya.

Where have I gone wrong? If you want to separate them into separate kinds, you will have to explain the hybridization occuring between the different kinds. One piece of information I did not include (you might know why) is that with mtDNA studies, wolves exhibit more than 7% divergence from jackals. If evolution can't produce 5% divergence between chimps and humans in 5 million years, why should we expect it to produce 7% divergence between wolves and jackals in 0.1% of that time?

 

[vossler]

Well then you'll have to show us from scripture where it requires us to believe the bible 'as it is plainly written' to qualify to be called a bible-believing Christian. How do you derive this hermeneutic as the only correct hermeneutic from scripture?

Could you imagine what would happen if we'd question the plain written scripture everytime something doesn't go with what we believe or feel! Come to think of it I can, just look at what the Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches are going through right now. We're not that far from where people will say, what hermaneutic are you using to justify your belief that "Thou shalt not lie" really means in all circumstances?

The day is coming in many mainline churches where there is no such thing as the plain written scripture and we'll have to go back to needing a 'priest', 'theologian' or other 'godly man' to tells us what the Scriptures say. To me it's no different than needing a scientist to tell us our origins.

To all of that let me refer you to my signature line.

 

[laptoppop]

What's not rigorous?

1. Since God "commanded" all animals to breed according to their kind, all viable hybridizing species have to belong to the same kind.

I would claim that while a kind must be able to breed with its own kind, there is no injunction that says it cannot mix with another kind. Again, I think Scripture is not rigorous on this, so we're in the realm of speculation and discussion.

2. Gish and Wieland also lump them together in one kind. You can argue with them if you want.

They don't speak for me. <grin>

3. The Bible says clearly: Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
(Genesis 7:2-3 NIV) Indeed, if the requirements are extended to take more than one kind, then the Ark runs into serious space and food problems.

Good point, but this point goes more to limiting the overall number of kinds as opposed to determining a particular exact kind boundary.

4. The genetic divergence between members of the "same kind" is too wide for mutation to have derived from a single ancestral pair approx. 4.5 kya.

And now we've gone full circle.
-lee-

 

[theFijian]

Could you imagine what would happen if we'd question the plain written scripture everytime something doesn't go with what we believe or feel! Come to think of it I can, just look at what the Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches are going through right now. We're not that far from where people will say, what hermaneutic are you using to justify your belief that "Thou shalt not lie" really means in all circumstances?

Oh ok. So you can't show me in scripture where it plainly says we should take all scripture at it's plain meaning, Just wanted to check.

The day is coming in many mainline churches where there is no such thing as the plain written scripture and we'll have to go back to needing a 'priest', 'theologian' or other 'godly man' to tells us what the Scriptures say. To me it's no different than needing a scientist to tell us our origins.

Sounds like you want to be our priest cos you keep telling us we need to follow your hermeneutic. So when do I get to rise up on wings like an eagle (that's what it plainly says) cos that would sure be handy during rush-hour.

...unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise

The fact is that the context of Gen 1 is poetry, written to convey theological meaning. We don't need to ask scientists about our origins, we already know God made us.

 

[Willtor]

They don't speak for me. <grin>

That's the difficulty we're having. We're not really back to square one because we never left. Clearly, all of the TEs here think that all living things on Earth, today, have a common ancestor (in all likelyhood). If we are mistaken, we think it is because we haven't found a living thing, yet, that does not. But if you are going to make the case that they do not, and if your reason is that there is some sort of boundary that evolution cannot cross, you will have to make a positive statement about that boundary that can be tested. Otherwise, we have no reason to think that evolution does not accurately describe the diversity of life that we see, today.

Willtor's Question: What is a "kind?" Can you make a positive statement about it that we can test?

 

[vossler]

Oh ok. So you can't show me in scripture where it plainly says we should take all scripture at it's plain meaning, Just wanted to check.

I'm glad you're thorough.

Sounds like you want to be our priest cos you keep telling us we need to follow your hermeneutic. So when do I get to rise up on wings like an eagle (that's what it plainly says) cos that would sure be handy during rush-hour.

Obviously I'm in no position to change your beliefs because my responses are usually trivialize by you.

The fact is that the context of Gen 1 is poetry, written to convey theological meaning. We don't need to ask scientists about our origins, we already know God made us.

I'm glad you're clear on that.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Could you imagine what would happen if we'd question the plain written scripture everytime something doesn't go with what we believe or feel!

Yes, we would be doing exactly as Jesus commanded us to do.

Frightening isn't it?

 

[vossler]

Yes, we would be doing exactly as Jesus commanded us to do.

Please show me where Jesus commanded us to question Scripture whenever something goes against what we believe or feel.

This ought to be good!

 

[theFijian]

I'm glad you're thorough.

You can be thorough too if you put some effort in.

Obviously I'm in no position to change your beliefs because my responses are usually trivialize by you.

Perhaps if you put more thought into your responses then they wouldn't be trivial.

I'm glad you're clear on that.

If by that you mean I understand your signature better than you do, well thanks. Anyway, feel free to comment on the OP rather than trying to drag us all off onto tangents.