What Would Convert You to Creationism?

[Willtor]

<Alot of us here debate with Creationists (usually without succes ...) about what it would take for them to believe in evolution. So out of interest, what would it take for the TEs here to start believing in Creationism? And if you did which form would you choose: Young Earth? Old Earth? Intelligent Design?

It would take God telling us that in His Word. Apart from all arguments and contentions, since I became a Christian and was baptized in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit time and time again has impressed that His Word is true and is the standard for all truth. God backs up the Word. He magnified His Word above His name, etc.

If you can hear that without closing an ear (i.e. yeah, yeah, yeah) then you can consider at least why someone who's listening to God would dare to take Him at His Word, even if you don't fully understand it.

I'm intrigued by the "gap theory". I'm not saying it is truth, but it could account for a much older earth and still have the Word true as it is written.

As Christians, the Holy Spirit will lead and guide us into all truth. All we have to do is have a humble and open heart, a teachable spirit, and seek the truth. I've had some very incredible personal experiences with God and they center around His Word and How He backs up what He says.

For starters, as far as evolution goes, it is not scientific. They put it in the textbooks as though it is, and it demonstrates a certain blindness. Don't close me off because I say that. The reason is that you have to be to duplicate that your hypothesis works in order for it to be scientific. They know it's impossible and yet they present it as such, even in college. So they are willingly ignorant of their own yardstick for scientific truth.

Christians tend to "blindly" believe the Word, because God is dwelling on the inside and He agrees with truth. The Word says everything reproduces after its own kind and it didn't spin off from some distant source. So, God's pretty big, and I don't want to argue with Him!

This isn't the point at all.

I think most of us here believe the Bible. It's just that we also think that the modern creationist interpretations are very weak and unsatisfactory both in terms of internal consistency and consistency with the external evidence.

 

[Hairy Tic]

Is this nonsense taking hold in UK now too?

I thought that only in USA could a head of state stand up, say "the jury's still out on evolution" and be applauded.

## This nonsense is unfortunately alive and well on the fringes of both Catholicism & Protestantism in the UK. Traditionalist RCs, being rather simple souls, tend to adopt as part of their traditionalism the (now outmoded) Papal criticisms of it, which is unhelpful. The US is a main source of literature & ideas for both RCs & Protestants.

Fundamentalist Churches such as the Free Church of Scotland are creationist because they are committed to belief in a six-day creation - whether this is true of all Calvinist Churches, I don't know.

 

[Willtor]

It's fairly uncommon in my denomination (PC(USA)), which is Calvinist.

 

[gluadys]

Definitely rare in the PCC (Presbyterian Church in Canada) and only slightly more common in the Christian Reforned Church--also both Calvinist. Of course, generally in Canada there is much less controversy over evolution.

Just listened to Michael Dowd's interview with Karl Giberson over on the Evolutionary Christianity web site. Giberson, who was raised in New Brunswick, thinks part of the reason for the intensity of the controversy in the US may be the constitutional separation of church and state. In a Canadian school, it's ok to talk about religion in a classroom (as long as it is not indoctrination) and these issues can be discussed more openly.

 

[theFijian]

## Fundamentalist Churches such as the Free Church of Scotland are creationist because they are committed to belief in a six-day creation

And where is the evidence for your sweeping generalisations?

 

[BrendanMark]

Alot of us here debate with Creationists (usually without succes ...) about what it would take for them to believe in evolution. So out of interest, what would it take for the TEs here to start believing in Creationism? And if you did which form would you choose: Young Earth? Old Earth? Intelligent Design?


For me? Aliens - or rather, how much the aliens resembled humans. If we did discover another inhabited planet, with human-like aliens (two eyes, two arms, two legs, walk upright, breathe oxygen etc.), an Earth-like atomosphere and Earth-like animals and plants, that would be a coincidence too far for me. Somebody must have planned it.

I would have to unlearn or reject everything I have ever learned about logic, metaphysics, theology, history, science, biology and medicine (new drugs for new strains of viruses is direct evidence of evolution).

I would have to become possessed by another, really. I came to believe in God and Christ through rejection of Relativistic Metaphysics and an acceptance of the eternal structure of logic and truth.

For it cannot be decided so readily whether logic and its fundamental rules can provide any measure for the question about beings as such. It could be the other way around, that the whole logic that we know and that we treat like a gift from heaven is grounded in a very definite answer to the question about beings, and that consequently any thinking that simply follows the laws of thought of established logic is intrinsically incapable of even beginning to understand the question about beings, much less of actually unfolding it and leading it towards an answer. In truth, it is only an illusion of rigor and scientificity when one appeals to the principle of contradiction, and to logic in general, in order to prove that all thinking and talk about Nothing is contradictory and therefore senseless. “Logic” is then taken as a tribunal, secure for all eternity, and it goes without saying that no rational human being will call into doubt its authority as the first and last court of appeal. Whoever speaks against logic is suspected, implicitly or explicitly, of arbitrariness. This mere suspicion already counts as an argument and an objection, and one takes oneself to be exempted form further, authentic reflection.
Heidegger, Martin – Introduction to Metaphysics [Yale, 2000, Fried, Gregory and Polt, Richard trans., p. 27]

Without God, no logic or science. The acceptance of Creationism is just humanist Relativism in disguise and rejection of the tradition and logic based on the reality of divinity.

 

[Son of Israel]

I'm more into evocreationlutionism.

 

[Kennesaw42]

Appeal to my TE brothers (and sisters?):

Any of us who went through public high school in the last half century had to sit through hours and hours of "evolution is science backed by tons and tons and tons of evidence" indoctrination. To level the playing field, and counter this one-sidedness, I challenge all your TE folks to work your way through the series of videos available at CMI (Creation Ministries International). The first video is here: Creation magazine LIVE! - Episode 1

I'm obviously a creationist, YEC in fact. I hope I'm allowed to post here; many like-minded with you guys seem inclined to post on the creationism tine of the fork.

Thanks for the fair hearing!

 

[Mallon]

Appeal to my TE brothers (and sisters?):

Any of us who went through public high school in the last half century had to sit through hours and hours of "evolution is science backed by tons and tons and tons of evidence" indoctrination.

Is this true for anyone else? I know I wasn't taught much evolution until I reached university. And all the way up until then, I was taught YECism at church.
In fact, I think if evolution were taught properly in high school, people would do a better job of seeing through videos like the one just posted. There's a reason why acceptance of evolution is strongly correlated with level of education.

 

[gluadys]

Is this true for anyone else? I know I wasn't taught much evolution until I reached university. And all the way up until then, I was taught YECism at church.
In fact, I think if evolution were taught properly in high school, people would do a better job of seeing through videos like the one just posted. There's a reason why acceptance of evolution is strongly correlated with level of education.

Well, hours and hours is certainly an exaggeration for any level prior to university. There is a lot more to study in science than evolution so one is not likely to get more than a single unit (four to five lessons) per year. That is if the teacher chooses not to skip the topic altogether as still often happens.

Haven't watched all of the video yet, but it seems mostly a combination of false dichotomy and guilt by association, with the association assumed a priori. I heard more about abortion than evolution.

 

[Kennesaw42]

"False dichotomy and guilt by association?" I suppose these high-sounding expressions from the field of logic are supposed to have the impact of great artillery rounds falling on my perilous position, whereas in fact, they fall far short of the mark. Maybe you could just point out an explicit example or two of where such logical fallacies were committed.

And "more about abortion?" I guess this just goes to show: People see what they want to see, find what they want to find.

"There's a reason why acceptance of evolution is strongly correlated with level of education." Even though this is a very smug and condescending remark, I would tend to agree with it nevertheless, but not for the reason you might think: The higher one advances in our educational systems, not only is he or she the more indoctrinated, but the more peer pressure one encounters, and the more doors one finds closing on the heretics. Such constraints will get you a correlation, for sure.

 

[Willtor]

In high school, I was taught evolution so badly that when I got to college I thought it was what my YEC church (and the various creationist orgs from which their teaching material came) said it was.

If high schools can be accused of indoctrination, they sure do a miserable job of it.

 

[Mallon]

"There's a reason why acceptance of evolution is strongly correlated with level of education." Even though this is a very smug and condescending remark

It's also demonstrably true.

The higher one advances in our educational systems, not only is he or she the more indoctrinated, but the more peer pressure one encounters, and the more doors one finds closing on the heretics. Such constraints will get you a correlation, for sure.

Obviously spoken by someone without an advanced education in the sciences. I'm in the final year of my PhD and I've experienced no such "indoctrination" or "peer pressure". Certainly not like at church, were I was denied communion because I came to accept biological evolution. THAT'S pressure. I've experienced no such thing in all my years at school. In fact, I've only been encouraged to think for myself there.

Don't fear what you don't understand, ken. You're coming off as a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

 

[shernren]

Kennesaw:

I'm from Malaysia, where there is no evolution in the high school education system. (Because the Muslims are running the show. What, you thought Christians had a monopoly on creationism?) We had a biology teacher who tried to insinuate that evolution was a good explanation for the biological features of organisms, oh, about twice a year. And with about a sentence each time. (She was a Buddhist, which makes for some interesting thoughts about the intersection between evolution and religion.)

When I got to pre-university studies, I had to choose between Biology and Specialist Math. I reasoned that I would need to write essays for biology and I wouldn't for math, so I got into uni without having done a single course in biology, and then went on to go through uni without doing a single course in biology.

Whether as a physicist or a Christian, I can count the number of times I have had a conversation about evolution (outside this forum) on the fingers of both hands. Possibly one. I went to a talk about science and Christianity by a local theistic evolutionist last year, long after my views had solidified.

Indoctrinated? Nahh. Indeed, I once wrote up a science project in school about how evolution and creation were both untested theories of biological origins. Believe it or not, I've considered the evidence from both sides, in my own spare time, with zero "pressure", and I simply think the evolutionists have got more stuff explained than the creationists.

With regards to the videos, I'd really love to watch them, but I'm not sure I'll encounter any arguments that I haven't seen and rejected before, so I don't know how fruitfully my time would be spent watching them. So why don't you pick out what you think is the strongest argument for creationism, and direct us to the relevant section of the relevant video?

And of course you're welcome to post wherever you like. Calling us "smug and condescending" won't get you very far if you think we're "indoctrinees", though. Takes one to know one.

 

[Mallon]

BTW, ken, given your age, I really have to question whether you were ever taught ("indoctrinated" of your usage) evolution in high school. After the Scopes Trial of 1925, evolution as a subject was largely removed from high school textbooks, and was not reinstated again until 1963 after the launching of Sputnik and the creation of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study in the states. You wouldn't have been in high school in 1963.

 

[gluadys]

BTW, ken, given your age, I really have to question whether you were ever taught ("indoctrinated" of your usage) evolution in high school. After the Scopes Trial of 1925, evolution as a subject was largely removed from high school textbooks, and was not reinstated again until 1963 after the launching of Sputnik and the creation of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study in the states. You wouldn't have been in high school in 1963.

In fact, I doubt that anyone outside of the scientific academics had much inkling of what evolution was about until cable TV brought us specialty channels such as Discovery--and then, of course, only if you had cable TV and chose to watch the science programs.

Some states still had equal-time laws until that was struck down in the late '60s and even then evolution was an optional topic in biology for a couple of decades until state curriculum standards started to include it. So it wasn't only in Malaysia that one could easily get a high-school education in biology without ever studying evolution.

 

[Kennesaw42]

I'm really quite amazed at the levels of condescension I'm encountering here.

That you guys all deny the monolithic stranglehold which the evolution lobby has on public education (not to mention the media and pop science culture, where you can't talk about a rat in a rainstorm without invoking "evolutionary ramifications") is nothing short of shocking, but, given the "freeness" of academic freedom, I shouldn't be surprised. I only have a BA (in Japanese; I've been a Japanese patent translator for 30 years), and anyone who works hard enough for a PhD has my respect for their diligence, but advanced degrees don't make one wiser.

Despite my age, which you have alluded to, I have a 16-year old daughter. Last year she took biology. Her textbook was the Prentice-Hall Biology co-authored by Ken Miller, a major current-day champion of evolution.

You may be right about biology teachers not spending that much time on evo; my daughter's teacher did not, in fact. But the doctrine utterly pervades the textbook. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that the entire book is structured around the theory, as though the primary objective of the book were not to teach biology, but to inculcate faith in the evolutionary hypothesis.

I have a little blog here which has a short piece I wrote on the subject in which I mention just a few of the problems faced by evolutionists. But every time I confront the loyal opposition here with any of these problems, I get no explanations, but just evasive "oh, Dr. Whatsey Whosey has dealt with that" at best, or, at worse, certain editorializations on my sanity.

The really distressing thing, though, is that, while recent advances in science, particularly in microbiology, which is giving us a picture of the unbelievable complexity of the cell and of the staggering volumes of encoded information which it processes, have secular evolutionists rocking on their heels, my fellow Christians of the TE persuasion seem to be little inclined to reexamine their position in the light of these on-going discoveries.

So let me ask you:

Let us suppose, hypothetically, that you were suddenly able to see what I see, namely that the evidence for design and creation of every aspect of reality is rapidly mounting, evidence that is increasingly embarrassing to evolutionists, then wouldn't you, as Christians, want to reexamine your positions? Wouldn't you be glad to have more reason to believe that God did exactly what he said he did in the Genesis ? As Christians, wouldn't you place the burden of proof on the exponents of evolution rather than on creationists? And should you not, even now, find creationist believers more kindred in spirit than materialistic evolutionists?

Yes, I am an old man. I've seen and read of and heard of a lot of things. And, even as a Christian, I must admit that there are a lot of things I'm unsure of. But there is one thing that I am absolutely certain of: the theory of evolution, of one species developing into another, whether of the classic or neo-Darwinian model, is untenable. Not just questionable. Not just suspect. Not just frought with difficulties. But untenable. Period.

Now, here's the thing. What is your gut response to that proposition? What emotion does it elicit?

If I were a TE, and were confronted with the news that recent scientific discovery had made the creationist interpretation all the more plausible and convincing, I would rejoice! Praise be to God and his Word, the veracity of which is being vindicated! I would gladly, happily, laughingly be willing to jettison the TE position, as the compromise with the world which it represents, and embrace the fully biblical position.

But I am afraid that some of you, reading this, will feel quite other emotions, which I need not enumerate. That I do not understand. That I find disturbing. And unspeakably sad.

 

[Mallon]

I'm really quite amazed at the levels of condescension I'm encountering here.

The only condescension I'm seeing is that some outspoken guy with a BA in Japanese thinks that he understands evolution better than virtually all professional biologists -- who have dedicated their lives (and monies) to studying the intricacies of life -- and is happy to insinuate that we're all brainwashed and "sad" because we don't accept the same arguments from incredulity and god-of-the-gaps theology that you do.

If you're just here to insult us, ken, you've done it. If you want to talk evidence, let's talk evidence. What do you feel is the single best piece of evidence in favour of miraculous design?

 

[crawfish]

Despite my age, which you have alluded to, I have a 16-year old daughter. Last year she took biology. Her textbook was the Prentice-Hall Biology co-authored by Ken Miller, a major current-day champion of evolution.

...and dedicated Christian. FWIW.

And should you not, even now, find creationist believers more kindred in spirit than materialistic evolutionists?

Why do you think we don't? I disagree with a lot of Christians on a lot of things, but I still regard them as my brothers and sisters in Christ. Evolution is important to me because it points to our credibility; if we are holding opinions that are contrary to reality, why are people going to believe us about the more important spiritual things?

Yes, I am an old man. I've seen and read of and heard of a lot of things. And, even as a Christian, I must admit that there are a lot of things I'm unsure of. But there is one thing that I am absolutely certain of: the theory of evolution, of one species developing into another, whether of the classic or neo-Darwinian model, is untenable. Not just questionable. Not just suspect. Not just frought with difficulties. But untenable. Period.

Now, here's the thing. What is your gut response to that proposition? What emotion does it elicit?

To be honest, you do not have the expertise or credibility to put any weight behind that opinion. The only Creationists I hear who claim there is absolute evidence that evolution did not happen are those least qualified to say so. The more credible YEC's who actually have training in relevant fields admit that it is more faith than evidence which guides their opinion.

If I were a TE, and were confronted with the news that recent scientific discovery had made the creationist interpretation all the more plausible and convincing, I would rejoice! Praise be to God and his Word, the veracity of which is being vindicated! I would gladly, happily, laughingly be willing to jettison the TE position, as the compromise with the world which it represents, and embrace the fully biblical position.

But I am afraid that some of you, reading this, will feel quite other emotions, which I need not enumerate. That I do not understand. That I find disturbing. And unspeakably sad.

As a TE, I get to glorify in God's creation and His word no matter what is discovered, not just when my own opinion is validated.

The question is: if tomorrow there was released information that proved macroevolution to a point where even you could not deny it, would you lose your faith or would you become open to alternate interpretations of Genesis?

 

[Kennesaw42]

I'm insulting, when both of these responders say that I'm "unqualified" to have educated views, blithely accusing me of arguing "from incredulity and god-of-the-gaps theology?"

But this reflects a mentality rampant in our society today, namely what I might call "expertolatry," i.e. the notion that "only the expert" can have a valid opinion, even on things that immediately affect our lives or even souls.

I've worked on patent infringement cases in courts of law and I've seen first hand how objective the so-called experts are.

So, basically, you guys are saying I have no right to voice an opinion here not to your liking, that I "do not have the expertise or credibility" (whatever that might mean) "to put any weight behind" my opinions.

I have just two things to say about that, and then I will excuse myself from your exclusive forum.

1. This is so typical. You are evidently unwilling/unable to deal directly with the myriads of objections to evo, so you cast aspersions on our intelligence, or accuse creationists or IDers of not obeying certain "rules of science" conveniently defined in your own favor.

2. I invite you all to come over to the "creationism" branch of these forums where you may argue these issues on the merits and not be insulted because you don't have a PhD. I regret to find no such intellectual freedom exhibited on this TE branch.

There is an old quote attributed, I think, to Brahms, but I've forgotten: "If 50 million Frenchmen believe a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing." (I mean no offense to the French, of course, being actually quite the Francophile.) Also, I'm quoting that from memory, so I may have the number wrong, but the point is clear nevertheless, n'est pas?

Don't see the point? Okay, it's this: 50 million PhD's may conclude among themselves that man evolved from so much primordial muck, while a child can perceive how preposterous that is. "Out of the mouth of babes."

Should Jesus have said "Unless you become doctors of philosophy, you can in no wise understand the mysteries of creation?"

But, seriously, hubris should have no place in dialog amongst Christians.

Adieu