What is the general opinion today regarding creation vs. evolution?

[notto]

As I said, you are incorrect. They made their move because the evidence led them in a different direction.

You've got it backwards.

Not scientific evidence, otherwise, you would think they would have published it.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

cindymc,

you are mistaken. This is a common Creationist lie that is easily dismissed by the statistics on this issue.

 

[cindymc]

Thanks, just understand, I hold you in no less esteem or regard for your beliefs in strict creation, I hope you wouldn't judge others' Christianity for their belief in Theistic Evolution. If we both have Christ as our savior, we can argue over the rest when we get to heaven.

Sounds good to me!

Not scientific evidence, otherwise, you would think they would have published it.

Just read that book I mentioned, it talks about the many falsehoods people take as fact when it comes to evolution, and it also talks about the evidence that points in the other direction. Maybe later I'll post some more info on this...this topic is really interesting, imo.

 

[PaladinValer]

You are committing the Fallacy of Appealing to Authority. Lee Strobel's book isn't authentic in the discussion of the validity of evolution.

 

[KleinerApfel]

Same old thing here isn't it?

If a TE says a reference is authentic and accurate, it is.
If a YEC says a reference is authentic and accurate, they are mistaken.

I haven't read that Lee Strobel book, but have read others of his, and his credentials as an investigative writer are exemplary in my opinion.

Blessings, Susana

 

[artybloke]

If a YEC says a reference is authentic and accurate, they are mistaken.

That's because all true scientific research is backed up by evidence. Creationists have no evidence; what they have instead is a Rationalist philosophical appraoch to truth coupled with a supernaturalist idea of creation, and no evidence whatsoever.

When a YEC is actually honest about the evidence, they know full well that there is none for their case and that creationism is a falsified hypothesis. Honesty is not a quality they're much known for though.

 

[KleinerApfel]

Evidence always requires evaluation and interpretation to be of any use.
We differ in that part, but the evidence we have available to us is all the same.

Why do you find it necessary to refer to groups of people with a different view from yours either ignorant or liars?

I keep coming back here to try to have a pleasant discussion, but it's very difficult.
Talk to me nicely and I might stay! In fact, I'll probably pop back from time to time anyway - just can't seem to keep out of here!

God bless you anyway, Susana

 

[notto]

Evidence always requires evaluation and interpretation to be of any use.
We differ in that part, but the evidence we have available to us is all the same.

But evaluations of evidence are not all the same and do not have the same value. YEC evaluations tend to be adhoc and contradictory to other evidence that is available.

YEC has been falsified by many independent lines of evidence and the evaluation of that evidence using scientific method.

 

[artybloke]

Why do you find it necessary to refer to groups of people with a different view from yours either ignorant or liars?

When YEC "scientists" stop quote-mining and misrepresenting other peoples' results, then they'll deserve to be called honest.

When YEC "scientists" publish some solid peer-reviewed research in which the results have not been determined beforehand, then they will deserve the name of scientist.

Until that day arrives, they are either ignorant or liars.

 

[PaladinValer]

Same old thing here isn't it?

If a TE says a reference is authentic and accurate, it is.
If a YEC says a reference is authentic and accurate, they are mistaken.

I haven't read that Lee Strobel book, but have read others of his, and his credentials as an investigative writer are exemplary in my opinion.

Blessings, Susana

What does being an investigative writer have to do with evolution? If he doesn't have credentials in the field of evolutionary biology, he is not fit to give any professional opinion on the subject.

This isn't an opinion; its a logical fact.

 

[cindymc]

What does being an investigative writer have to do with evolution? If he doesn't have credentials in the field of evolutionary biology, he is not fit to give any professional opinion on the subject.

This isn't an opinion; its a logical fact.

Did you not read my post? He isn't the one giving the opinions, scientists he interviewed are, scientists that at one time were nonbelievers. Sorry if that wasn't made clear!

 

[Freedom777]

Satan has nothing to do with the teaching of valid science in schools.

Right, Satan does not have anything to do with the teaching of valid science,only the unscientific master story telling of the evolutionary framework.

 

[Freedom777]

2. Evolution isn't a religion; its science. It rightfully belongs in the science classroom and if I were to be a biology teacher instead of a history one, I'd include a chapter on evolution in my curriculum.
3. So I'm now Satanic? Oy vey

Wrong, the theory of evolution is a relgion not science.

 

[notto]

Right, Satan does not have anything to do with the teaching of valid science,only the unscientific master story telling of the evolutionary framework.

Nice Rhetoric. Substantiate it and you might have a point.

Is Satan also responsible for the teaching of world history, geology, and astronomy? All of these falsify the YEC assertions.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Wrong, the theory of evolution is a relgion not science.

.............No.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Wrong, the theory of evolution is a relgion not science.

 

[cindymc]

You're taking his comment too literally, but I understand exactly what he's saying. Here are some quotes


"Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator."—R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.




"It is a religion of science that Darwinism held, and holds men's minds... The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith." -Marjorie Grene, Encounter, November 1959, p. 48.


"What is at stake is not the validity of the Darwinian theory itself, but of the approach to science that it has come to represent. The peculiar form of consensus the theory wields has produced a premature closure of inquiry in several branches of biology, and even if this is to be expected in `normal science,' such a dogmatic approach does not appear healthy."— *R. Brady, "Dogma and Doubt," Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 17:79, 96 (1982).


[Evolution]“…a full-fledged alternative to Christianity…Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” - Michael Ruse. Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians. National Post (May 13, 2000). pB-3.


"I would rather believe in fairy tales than in such wild speculation. I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable. God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts." -Sir Ernst B. Chain, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1945), as quoted by Ronald W. Clark, The Life of Ernst Chain (London: Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1985), pp. 147-148.


"... post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. -Colin Patterson, The Listener (Senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London.)



"The fact is that in recent times there has been increasing dissent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting, moreover, that for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regretfully, as one could say." -Wolfgang Smith, Mathematician and Physicist Prof. of Mathematics, Oregon State University Former math instructor at MIT

 

[notto]

Without context, those quotes mean nothing. Simple dishonist quote mining by creationists, which it typical. I would suggest that Satan is repsonsible for the dishonesty shown in such exercises because clearly there is an intent to mislead and bear false witness.

Here is the article that the quote from Ruse comes from. It is plainly obvious that the quote is out of context.

Try again.

http://www.jodkowski.pl/ek/MRuse002.html

Notice the conclusion.

"
Darwinism is a terrific theory that stimulates research in every area of the life sciences. In the human realm, for instance, discoveries in Africa
trace our immediate past in ever greater detail, while at the same time the Human Genome Project opens up fascinating evolutionary questions as we learn of
the molecular similarities between ourselves and organisms as apparently different as fruit flies and earthworms. Surely this is enough.

There is no need to make a religion of evolution. On its own merits, evolution as science is just that -- good, tough, forward-looking science,
which should be taught as a matter of course to all children, regardless of creed.

But, let us be tolerant. If people want to make a religion of evolution, that is their business. Who would deny the value of Mr. Wilson's plea for
biodiversity? Who would argue against Mr. Gould's hatred of racial and sexual prejudice, which he has used evolution to attack?

The important point is that we should recognize when people are going beyond the strict science, moving into moral and social claims, thinking of their
theory as an all-embracing world picture. All too often, there is a slide from science to something more, and this slide goes unmentioned --
unrealized even.

For pointing this out we should be grateful for the opponents of evolution. The Creationists are wrong in their Creationism, but they are right in at
least one of their criticisms. Evolution, Darwinian evolution, is wonderful science. Let us teach it to our children. And, in the classroom, let us
leave it at that. The moral messages, the underlying ideology, may be worthy. But if we feel strongly, there are other times and places to
preach that gospel to the world."

 

[notto]

When YEC "scientists" stop quote-mining and misrepresenting other peoples' results, then they'll deserve to be called honest.

Just to emphasis your point, its happening right here in this discussion.

 

[Aduro Amnis]

I woudl like to ask you mhess13, your profile says you've been a Christian for 3.5 years, 30 - 3.5 = What did you believe for the first 26.5 years?