What Makes Creationism a Valid Scientific Alternative?

[RickG]

i am a Creationist and most of us do not want Creationism taught as science...we like it where it is...in the church.

God bless you. That is exactly where it belongs.

What we don't want is evolution, which is simply a worldview, being taught in our schools as science.

So teach only the part of science "you" want and ignore the rest? You probably don't realize, but many of the physical sciences not even related to biology have found physical evidence supporting evolution. It's not just a biology thing.

Leave origins for college where the minds being taught have had time to develop to the point where everything should be questioned instead of brain-washing children who think everything a teacher says is fact.

Put your mind at ease, evolution is not taught in depth in the public schools. Generally it only covers a chapter or two in a textbook and only touches on general basics. Been there, done that.

To me teaching evolution in grade school is very Hitler-like...one of those "believe this or get a bad grade" brain-washing techniques.

Evolution is not taught in grade school. Again, been there...done that. Recognition of God is not as absent from the public schools as you may think.

 

[RickG]

The following is why evolution is not compatible with scripture:

1) Evolution would imply that the account of Adam & Eve was merely allegory and that they were not historical figures. If this were the case, it would not make sense to include Adam in Jesus' geneology.
2) If the first Adam was not a historical figure, how can you say the last Adam was.
3) Biblical creation says death followed the creation of man and resulted from original sin. Evolution says that death preceded the creation of man and was in fact the vehicle for his creation. In this case, sin would have had no consequences. This undermines the gospel.
4) Evolution says that the birds evolved from the reptiles. Creationism says that the birds were created before the reptiles.
5) The genesis account of creation brackets each day of the six days of creation with a morning and and evening, making it clear that they were literal days.
6) God set aside the sabbath every 7th literal day to commemorate the day He rested from creation.
7) Jesus spoke of Adam as a literal historical figure.
8) Creation was finished after the 6th day.

Not only is evolution not compatible with scripture but even basic principles of science are not compatible with scripture. Perhaps Genesis 1 was meant to be a story about God's creation rather than a factual narrative. I like to look at it as an allegory. That way I don't have to stick my head in the sand or make things up and misrepresent the known science to believe in God.

 

[Elendur]

Not only is evolution not compatible with scripture but even basic principles of science are not compatible with scripture. Perhaps Genesis 1 was meant to be a story about God's creation rather than a factual narrative. I like to look at it as an allegory. That way I don't have to stick my head in the sand or make things up and misrepresent the known science to believe in God.

But that's half the fun! *Pout*

 

[mathetes123]

Not only is evolution not compatible with scripture but even basic principles of science are not compatible with scripture. Perhaps Genesis 1 was meant to be a story about God's creation rather than a factual narrative. I like to look at it as an allegory. That way I don't have to stick my head in the sand or make things up and misrepresent the known science to believe in God.

But allegorizing the creation account in genesis does not reconcile the two as my 8 points demonstrate. How do you explain these apparent conflicts?

 

[46AND2]

But allegorizing the creation account in genesis does not reconcile the two as my 8 points demonstrate. How do you explain these apparent conflicts?

.

 

[SkyWriting]

Not only is evolution not compatible with scripture but even basic principles of science are not compatible with scripture. Perhaps Genesis 1 was meant to be a story about God's creation rather than a factual narrative. I like to look at it as an allegory. That way I don't have to stick my head in the sand or make things up and misrepresent the known science to believe in God.

Science requires the recreation of events to confirm the results.
Because one cannot force God to repeat His actions, nothing
God does can analyzed though the scientific method of discovery.

 

[SkyWriting]

Those who argue that evolution is not compatible with christian theology never stop to ask if it is compatible with the evidence. Wonder why that is?

If Jesus heals a blind man, Jesus does not give the man fetus eyeballs.
So if you happen to be standing alongside Jesus and examine the man,
the "evidence" would suggest the man was never blind in the first place.
Is this evidence some trick or just the failing of mans belief?

 

[AV1611VET]

If Jesus heals a blind man, Jesus does not give the man fetus eyeballs.
So if you happen to be standing alongside Jesus and examine the man,
the "evidence" would suggest the man was never blind in the first place.
Is this evidence some trick or just the failing of mans belief?

Excellent point!

 

[RickG]

But allegorizing the creation account in genesis does not reconcile the two as my 8 points demonstrate. How do you explain these apparent conflicts?

Originally posted by mathetes:
1) Evolution would imply that the account of Adam & Eve was merely allegory and that they were not historical figures. If this were the case, it would not make sense to include Adam in Jesus' geneology.
2) If the first Adam was not a historical figure, how can you say the last Adam was.
3) Biblical creation says death followed the creation of man and resulted from original sin. Evolution says that death preceded the creation of man and was in fact the vehicle for his creation. In this case, sin would have had no consequences. This undermines the gospel.
4) Evolution says that the birds evolved from the reptiles. Creationism says that the birds were created before the reptiles.
5) The genesis account of creation brackets each day of the six days of creation with a morning and and evening, making it clear that they were literal days.
6) God set aside the sabbath every 7th literal day to commemorate the day He rested from creation.
7) Jesus spoke of Adam as a literal historical figure.
8) Creation was finished after the 6th day.

1. Exactly.
2. Last Adam?
3. Genesis = Allegory
4. Evolution does not say birds developed from reptiles, it says they developed from a specific line of theropods.
5. Even without the sun for 3 evenings and 4 mornings. How can there be an evening and a morning without the sun? It also implies that God did all his work at night, i.e., an evening and a morning. Night shift I guess.
6. Fits quite well as an allegory.
7. Implied.
8. Actually after the 6th night according to scripture. (evening & morining)

In all seriousness, in light of all known science and the supporting physical evidence, 99.99999999999999% of earth history was not created in 6 literal days.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Science requires the recreation of events to confirm the results.
Because one cannot force God to repeat His actions, nothing
God does can analyzed though the scientific method of discovery.

Science requires repeatability of experiments, not repeatability of the phenomena being studied. A flood that happened three weeks ago can be part of a scientific study, and the experiments done on the silt and water can be repeated by other scientists.

The flood itself doesn't occur at scientists' behest, yet studying a flood that happened three weeks ago is a scientific endeavour. Why? Because the experiments that are done to the flood can be repeated, and that's all that's needed for it to qualify as science.

So you're wrong when you say that God's actions don't fall within the purview of scientific scrutiny. That God can't be forced to repeat his actions, doesn't mean the actions themselves can't be studied, nor that the experiments done concerning them can't be repeated.

So, suppose God causes a flood to occur three weeks ago. Why can't we study the remnants of that flood? What physically prevents us from getting samples of silt and water and deriving data? What physically stops other scientists from getting other samples and repeating those first experiments?

 

[miamited]

I'm a Bible-affirming Christian but I don't understand the question and your answer. I certainly affirm God as Creator but my reasons are not scientific. If "creationism" is referring to "Young Earth Creationism", I certainly can't make a case for it from scientific evidence or from any scriptural evidence. And you can't use the scientific method to make "creationism" a scientific theory or even "to prove God." So how is creationism a SCIENTIFIC alternative. It makes no sense---unless you decide to change the definition of science. Is that your intention or meaning?

Sorry.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[verysincere]

The following is why evolution is not compatible with scripture:

1) Evolution would imply that the account of Adam & Eve was merely allegory and that they were not historical figures. If this were the case, it would not make sense to include Adam in Jesus' geneology.
2) If the first Adam was not a historical figure, how can you say the last Adam was.
3) Biblical creation says death followed the creation of man and resulted from original sin. Evolution says that death preceded the creation of man and was in fact the vehicle for his creation. In this case, sin would have had no consequences. This undermines the gospel.
4) Evolution says that the birds evolved from the reptiles. Creationism says that the birds were created before the reptiles.
5) The genesis account of creation brackets each day of the six days of creation with a morning and and evening, making it clear that they were literal days.
6) God set aside the sabbath every 7th literal day to commemorate the day He rested from creation.
7) Jesus spoke of Adam as a literal historical figure.
8) Creation was finished after the 6th day.

1) No. Evolution does NOT require an allegorical view of Genesis 1. For example, there are various Framework Hypothesis theories which don't require allegory. Clearly you have no graduate level training in this field.

2) I never stated whether or not Adam was an historical figure. (And an actual Adam poses no problem. And by the way, ADAM is simply the Hebrew word for MAN---as in HADAM, "the human one".)

3) No. The Bible only makes that reference to HUMAN death---not any and all death. Your tradition is adding something to scripture which isn't in the text. The "death" that was introduced was death to the IMAGO DEI type of human represent by Adam and his descendants.

4) No. It is not at all clear that the Hebrew text is chronological in Genesis 1. See Framework Hypothesis.

5) No. It is most likely an idiomatic construction, probably with a meaning of "from beginning to end was...." (Even common sense would tell you that a complete 24 hour day is NOT composed of the period from evening to morning! Evening to morning is a single NIGHT! If a 24 hour day was indicated, it would have said just what the Hebrew culture says today: evening to evening! So if you believe in being literal, then start being literal!)

6) Yes. So what? He also used the 6th year and weeks of years! See Leviticus! The sabbath is NOT just about DAYS. The SABBATICAL year is the seventh year. And the Jubilee Year was the sabbath of sabbatical years! So much for your "day theory"! As usual, your creationist TRADITIONS are based in part upon an ignorance of the Biblical text!

7) Yes he did. So do I. Evolution poses no problem for that.

8) Yes. So what?

It sounds like you have very little familiarity with the Hebrew text (or the Old Testament in general.)

 

[verysincere]

But allegorizing the creation account in genesis does not reconcile the two as my 8 points demonstrate. How do you explain these apparent conflicts?

No it does not reconcile the two. And I don't allegorize the Hebrew text of Genesis 1. I don't have to. Genesis 1 is quite compatible with the theory of evolution ---if one is willing to read the Hebrew text within the Hebrew culture within which it was written. I was a young earth creationist for many years until I realized that it was not compatible with the Biblical text and not compatible with the evidence in creation. Genesis 1 harmonizes with evolution quite well. Once I realized that, I no longer had to insist upon your false dichotomies.

Show me someone who insists on a false dichotomy between Genesis 1 and affirming evolution and I will show you someone ignorant of Hebrew exegesis and culture and ignorant of the scientific evidence in God's creation. Seeing how the Genesis text is fine with evolution and ALL the evidence from biosphere affirms evolution, there is no reason to reject the theory of evolution. It is fact and there is zero doubt within the scientific community EXCEPT those who have religious traditions which obligate them to deny the facts. (I RARELY encounter an evolution-denier who doesn't have religious reasons for doing so.)

 

[mathetes123]

No it does not reconcile the two. And I don't allegorize the Hebrew text of Genesis 1. I don't have to. Genesis 1 is quite compatible with the theory of evolution ---if one is willing to read the Hebrew text within the Hebrew culture within which it was written. I was a young earth creationist for many years until I realized that it was not compatible with the Biblical text and not compatible with the evidence in creation. Genesis 1 harmonizes with evolution quite well. Once I realized that, I no longer had to insist upon your false dichotomies.

Show me someone who insists on a false dichotomy between Genesis 1 and affirming evolution and I will show you someone ignorant of Hebrew exegesis and culture and ignorant of the scientific evidence in God's creation. Seeing how the Genesis text is fine with evolution and ALL the evidence from biosphere affirms evolution, there is no reason to reject the theory of evolution. It is fact and there is zero doubt within the scientific community EXCEPT those who have religious traditions which obligate them to deny the facts. (I RARELY encounter an evolution-denier who doesn't have religious reasons for doing so.)

I think you will find most Jews will disagree with your interpretation of the Hebrew text.

 

[verysincere]

I think you will find most Jews will disagree with your interpretation of the Hebrew text.

And that matters why???

Most Jews disagree with YOUR interpretations of the Old Testament. So are you saying that that proves that you are wrong?

(And by the way, even modern Jews who are trained in Biblical Hebrew in their sabbath classes are in most cases untrained in Hebrew exegesis. If you think that they are automatically "experts" on the Pentateuch, you've clearly never listened to papers at an SBL conference where the top scholars in the field meet to discuss these topics. Indeed, I'm a native speaker of modern English but it does NOT make me an expert on the Old English of Beowulf!)

 

[46AND2]

(snip)...Show me someone who insists on a false dichotomy between Genesis 1 and affirming evolution and I will show you someone ignorant of Hebrew exegesis and culture and ignorant of the scientific evidence in God's creation. (snip)...

When you have to go to the extremes of learning ancient Hebrew exegesis and Framework Hypothesis, which are outside the purview of the vast majority of people today (and even more so for people in antiquity), it begins to strain the credulity of divine authorship, imo.

This is supposed to be God communicating with his people. When you have to stray from simply relying on the Holy Spirit to read the Bible in a straightforward manner, it's difficult to reconcile that with a document that is supposed to be a guide for each and every person on earth.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

And that matters why???

Most Jews disagree with YOUR interpretations of the Old Testament. So are you saying that that proves that you are wrong?

(And by the way, even modern Jews who are trained in Biblical Hebrew in their sabbath classes are in most cases untrained in Hebrew exegesis. If you think that they are automatically "experts" on the Pentateuch, you've clearly never listened to papers at an SBL conference where the top scholars in the field meet to discuss these topics. Indeed, I'm a native speaker of modern English but it does NOT make me an expert on the Old English of Beowulf!)

Hah, reps for that last comment .

 

[verysincere]

When you have to go to the extremes of learning ancient Hebrew exegesis and Framework Hypothesis, which are outside the purview of the vast majority of people today (and even more so for people in antiquity), it begins to strain the credulity of divine authorship, imo.

This is supposed to be God communicating with his people. When you have to stray from simply relying on the Holy Spirit to read the Bible in a straightforward manner, it's difficult to reconcile that with a document that is supposed to be a guide for each and every person on earth.

Genesis communicates with people just fine. It is only when you insist upon reading it for a scientific account that you run into problems.

And if your viewpoint is correct, then there shouldn't be so many Bible passages upon which Christians disagree!

No, just because people who have failed to make the investment in learning the skills necessary to translate and interpret the scriptures disagree on the meaning of countless scriptures does not somehow determine which interpretation is correct. And claiming that every Bible passage must be interpreted identically by the lowest common denominator of Bible reader is a doctrine NOT FOUND IN THE BIBLE!

But yet again we see how TRADITION inserts itself into the average person's understanding of the Biblical text. Yes, the Bible CAN be understood by the average person---but NOT in every day. Many mysteries and disagreements will always be associated with the Biblical text. (Moreover, Young Earth Creationism and its interpretations of Genesis are plagued with countless contradictions and problems. So just because tradition may be comfortable to us---as it once was with me---doesn't make it true. The idea of a 6,000 year old earth is rubbish. The Bible never makes that claim and the scientific evidence denies that claim. Rubbish remains rubbish. Tradition tends to be flawed because it is based on human wishes and usually fabricates ideas out of thin air.)

 

[AV1611VET]

When you have to go to the extremes of learning ancient Hebrew exegesis and Framework Hypothesis, which are outside the purview of the vast majority of people today (and even more so for people in antiquity), it begins to strain the credulity of divine authorship, imo.

This is supposed to be God communicating with his people. When you have to stray from simply relying on the Holy Spirit to read the Bible in a straightforward manner, it's difficult to reconcile that with a document that is supposed to be a guide for each and every person on earth.

Well-said.

Mark 12:37b And the common people heard him gladly.

VS style is more in league with ... well ... judge for yourself:

Genesis 3:1b Yea, hath God said,

 

[46AND2]

Genesis communicates with people just fine. It is only when you insist upon reading it for a scientific account that you run into problems.

And if your viewpoint is correct, then there shouldn't be so many Bible passages upon which Christians disagree!

No, just because people who have failed to make the investment in learning the skills necessary to translate and interpret the scriptures disagree on the meaning of countless scriptures does not somehow determine which interpretation is correct. And claiming that every Bible passage must be interpreted identically by the lowest common denominator of Bible reader is a doctrine NOT FOUND IN THE BIBLE!

But yet again we see how TRADITION inserts itself into the average person's understanding of the Biblical text. Yes, the Bible CAN be understood by the average person---but NOT in every day. Many mysteries and disagreements will always be associated with the Biblical text. (Moreover, Young Earth Creationism and its interpretations of Genesis are plagued with countless contradictions and problems. So just because tradition may be comfortable to us---as it once was with me---doesn't make it true. The idea of a 6,000 year old earth is rubbish. The Bible never makes that claim and the scientific evidence denies that claim. Rubbish remains rubbish. Tradition tends to be flawed because it is based on human wishes and usually fabricates ideas out of thin air.)

But this is my point: it isn't necessarily laziness, or what have you, of people not learning those things, but also inability. People in the 1500's could not have conceived of the framework hypothesis, nor could they readily learn ancient Greek/Hebrew.

And we aren't talking about minor disagreements in interpretation, but major ambiguities. And if you have a divine being as a translator, those major discrepancies should not exist.

If there is a language gap for people of today, at the very least God could have made certain that the people translating the Greek for us were getting the proper nuances across.