Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[stumpjumper]

AFAIK Behe doesn't hold the monopoly on bacterial flagellum so I accept it just because Behe says so. This still has nothing to do with my statement about most evolutionist talking out of both sides of their mouths. It's true Behe isn't guilty of using this double standard even though he is an evolutionist.

Behe is the bio-chemist that detailed the IC of the bacterial flagella. So you are comfortable with selecting his idea (which he also uses to support common descent because virtually all bacteria have the same flagella structure) while ignoring the rest of what Behe states and then accuse him of talking out of both sides of his mouth?

I have made it clear before here that I saw this double standard in biology science long before I knew anything about ID, Behe,AIG or ICR. So DI didn't convince me, it was evolutionist themselves who convince me of intelligent design in nature. In another words you see Behe is just replace "evolution-in-the-gaps" to "God-in-the-gaps". All evolutionist got is make-believe story of how evolution did it with it's supernatural-selection powers.
The gaps you are referring to isn't gaps about science knowledge but gaps of how can we make evolution dogma fit into science.

Evolution is a fact and a theory. The fact is that evolution has occurred, is occurring and will continue to occur. The theory is how evolution happens and there are many places where our knowledge is incomplete and will remain incomplete. Young earth creation is the "make believe story" with absolutely no evidence to support the theory. By any measurement method the earth is extremely old (in the billions), there are many extinct species, hominids that are no longer around, etc. etc. What YEC's do is take a gap in scientific knowledge and say that the gap destroys our entire theory of biodiversification.

I am glad you are convinced of design in nature. So am I.

 

[Smidlee]

Behe is the bio-chemist that detailed the IC of the bacterial flagella. So you are comfortable with selecting his idea (which he also uses to support common descent because virtually all bacteria have the same flagella structure) while ignoring the rest of what Behe states and then accuse him of talking out of both sides of his mouth?

AFAIK Behe got his knowledge of flagellum by others. He only point out to the public what was very obvious in what was known by the scientist. I used flagellum because much has been learn by it in the recent years which has drawned a lot of attention. Flagellum shows just how dogmatic Darwinists has come to push their bias view. Also I didn't know Behe was working with the Japanese in their study of flagellum. In case you miss it here's a video of Japan research into nanomachines/flagellum.
www.nanonet.go.jp/english/mailmag/2004/files/011a.wmv

Evolution is a fact and a theory.
I am glad you are convinced of design in nature. So am I.

I figure you understood when I used evolution I was referring to "Darwinism". In that case I'm convinced of evolution (changes) also.
I'm not just convinced of design but intelligent design as well as common design. Intelligent design would also produce gaps in pure natural explanations we find in biology. This is how we can tell anything (not just in biology) is intelligent design or not.

 

[shernren]

Intelligent design would also produce gaps in pure natural explanations we find in biology. This is how we can tell anything (not just in biology) is intelligent design or not.

Really? I hope these gaps are nothing like the "irreducible complexity" of Behe's mousetrap.

 

[stumpjumper]

I figure you understood when I used evolution I was referring to "Darwinism". In that case I'm convinced of evolution (changes) also.
I'm not just convinced of design but intelligent design as well as common design. Intelligent design would also produce gaps in pure natural explanations we find in biology. This is how we can tell anything (not just in biology) is intelligent design or not.

In regards to the flagella and complex organs such as the eye, I am aware that many others support that they are too complex to have progressively evolved by mutation and selection. But, Behe is the "big guns" for that particular argument from the ID camp and he accepts macro-evolution.

When you say you accept evolution, do you also accept the accepted age of the earth and universal common descent. Any theory of biodiversification is going to have gaps. My problem with Behe's mechanism is primarily theological. What he argues is that God intervened or guided evolution by providing IC structures along the way. You run into a significant problem then with natural evils. Did God specifically design cancer cells, the AIDS virus, vestigal features, eyes on fish that live in the dark and serve no purpose, on and on. Dawkins could have a field day shooting down Behe's theology. My current view has God giving his Creation space to become an "other". Creation as letting be. At this point all Behe argues is that these structures are too complex to have evolved on their own. But, every time man has put God in a natural gap the gap closes.

 

[Smidlee]

In regards to the flagella and complex organs such as the eye, I am aware that many others support that they are too complex to have progressively evolved by mutation and selection.

Bingo. If mutation and selection is all you got then IMO evolution has already been falsified.

But, Behe is the "big guns" for that particular argument from the ID camp and he accepts macro-evolution.

What he means by macro-evolution is different what darwinism means by it. If I understand Behe right he believes that common descent is possible by a supercell which contains all the DNA information to form all life forms. Behe has the exact opposite position than Darwinists hold. Behe proclaims the darwin mechanic could never produce this complexes.(natural-selection/mutation)

When you say you accept evolution, do you also accept the accepted age of the earth and universal common descent.

The age of earth is well boring but I believe modern man is only been around around 6- 10 thousands years. I see evidence of universal common design not ancestors.

Any theory of biodiversification is going to have gaps. My problem with Behe's mechanism is primarily theological. What he argues is that God intervened or guided evolution by providing IC structures along the way. You run into a significant problem then with natural evils. Did God specifically design cancer cells, the AIDS virus, vestigal features, eyes on fish that live in the dark and serve no purpose, on and on. Dawkins could have a field day shooting down Behe's theology.

So you don't have any problems with Dawkins theology but againest Behe theology. Dawkins IMO seems to be a religious science nut. Here a nice picture of Dawkins www.centerforinquiry.net/cruise/archives/images/112.jpg
Like his shirt?

 

[stumpjumper]

Bingo. If mutation and selection is all you got then IMO evolution has already been falsified.

You know that's not even close to being true and mutation and selection are very well supported. Just because all the pathways are not and probably never will be discovered does not mean that there is not ample evidence to support evolution. Broken chromosomes which are the same in chimpanzees and humans, junk dna that all life share etc. are evidence for evolution. How does YEC account for all the extinct hominids, the pigmy homo-whatever (I can't remember the name) on that Island in Indonesia. Smidlee, you must realize the evidence is very strong for Universal Common Descent just not the same designer unless God felt the need to insert mistakes accross the board and use junk DNA.

What he means by macro-evolution is different what darwinism means by it. If I understand Behe right he believes that common descent is possible by a supercell which contains all the DNA information to form all life forms. Behe has the exact opposite position than Darwinists hold. Behe proclaims the darwin mechanic could never produce this complexes.(natural-selection/mutation)

I have read a few books and a good many articles by Behe and Dembski and I will admit that I am sympathetic to their position. I have also debated many of their claims and they just do not hold up. Mutation and selection can produce more functionally complex life forms even though it does not always do that.

I see evidence of universal common design not ancestors. So you don't have any problems with Dawkins theology but againest Behe theology. Dawkins IMO seems to be a religious science nut. Here a nice picture of Dawkins www.centerforinquiry.net/cruise/archives/images/112.jpg
Like his shirt?

I personally do not like Dawkins' philosophy very much but I have read one of his books. He has no theology. My main problem is that Behe believes that God guided evolution along its course to produce greater complexity and irreducibly complex features. Behe does accept universal common descent. I recently read an article by John Haught about Behe's ideas and it was complimentary to a degree. I believe that God provided a vision for Creation but not a path. If you say that God guided the path of evolution then you must say that God chose the bad mutations and guided them along with the good. My theology does not accept direct intervention by God into the course of our emergence although I do believe that God pulled us forward. (This would take about 20,000 words to put out but you can read my first blog entry for a start).

 

[Smidlee]

I personally do not like Dawkins' philosophy very much but I have read one of his books. He has no theology.

Oh please.How blind can you be? I'm amazed how Darwinists defends Dawkins even with all the wacky stuff he says. This guy is just as, if not more, religious than any cult leader I've read about. I heard a lot more religious comments come out of Dawkins mouth then Behe's. Again I see a double standard here.

 

[stumpjumper]

Oh please.How blind can you be? I'm amazed how Darwinists defends Dawkins even with all the wacky stuff he says. This guy is just as, if not more, religious than any cult leader I've read about. I heard a lot more religious comments come out of Dawkins mouth then Behe's. Again I see a double standard here.

Are you saying atheism is a religion?

Dawkins is a militant atheist yes. He does not have any theology however.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

I personally do not like Dawkins' philosophy very much but I have read one of his books. He has no theology.

Could you expand on how you differentiate between theology and philosophy?

My main problem is that Behe believes that God guided evolution along its course to produce greater complexity and irreducibly complex features.

Why is this a problem (aside from the lack of evidence)?

 

[stumpjumper]

Could you expand on how you differentiate between theology and philosophy?

I define theology as the study of God and describing the relationship between God and the physical universe.

A prerequisite for a theology would be to hold a belief in God or what would you be describing? Dawkins' philosphy sucks.

Why is this a problem (aside from the lack of evidence)?

I could give many reasons. Number one would be oddities because of continued evolution. If we are to say that divine intervention is neccessary for producing greater complexity then you must also say that divine intervention results in the continued evolution that produces physical oddities.

That and arguing from lack of knowledge of a mechanism is a non-argument.

 

[DeaconDean]

When I started viewing this I got tickled, Christianity is faith based. Faith that Jesus Christ was made manifest for me, died for me, rose from the dead for me. How come when it comes to God's word, we don't have Faith

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

When I started viewing this I got tickled, Christianity is faith based. Faith that Jesus Christ was made manifest for me, died for me, rose from the dead for me. How come when it comes to God's word, we don't have Faith

OK. Here's a challenge for you. Find the post where anyone said or implied they don't have faith in the truth of the Bible.

 

[vossler]

When I started viewing this I got tickled, Christianity is faith based. Faith that Jesus Christ was made manifest for me, died for me, rose from the dead for me. How come when it comes to God's word, we don't have Faith

They have faith, faith in man's ability to measure and define God's Creation. This translates to a faith that God's Word is held accountable to man's measurements and observations. So you see, in an indirect way, they really do have faith in God's Word.

 

[stumpjumper]

They have faith, faith in man's ability to measure and define God's Creation. This translates to a faith that God's Word is held accountable to man's measurements and observations. So you see, in an indirect way, they really do have faith in God's Word.

I would love to know what you mean by "God's Word is held accountable to man's measurement's". Does not God reveal his word in nature? Also, how does that apply to Creation Science?

 

[vossler]

I would love to know what you mean by "God's Word is held accountable to man's measurement's". Does not God reveal his word in nature? Also, how does that apply to Creation Science?

If I go out and observe a fossil in the ground and apply a measurement against it to determine its age and that age doesn't coorespond with the biblical account and then modify my interpretation of Scripture, I think that describes what I mean.

I'm not sure of what you mean with regard to Creation Science. Obviously, it must conform to the Word of God, what else are you thinking of?

 

[stumpjumper]

If I go out and observe a fossil in the ground and apply a measurement against it to determine its age and that age doesn't coorespond with the biblical account and then modify my interpretation of Scripture, I think that describes what I mean.

I'm not sure of what you mean with regard to Creation Science. Obviously, it must conform to the Word of God, what else are you thinking of?

So its okay to study God's Creation and take measurements as long as they correspond to a literal reading of the Bible (which is the minorty report as far as Biblical exegesis goes).

The only interpretation of Scripture that needs to be modified to fit the findings of modern science is a strict literal interpretation. God revealed Himself in the Bible, Creation, and the life of Christ. In fact, I think the findings of modern science have shown that belief in God and human freedom is even more reasonable. The Big Bang is proof that the universe had a beginning, incoporating evolution into a teleological argument shows that the universe has a purpose and an intelligence, and recent discoveries in QM shows that human freedom and God's will can coexist and makes divine intervention more plausible.

I have no idea why you feel that Christians who accept evolution are not placing faith in God's Word. In fact, its very insulting when someone makes a post like DeaconDan's and yours which followed in agreement. I have a lot of faith in God and the Bible. Enough to spend as much time on this thread as I have. Its starting to look like it was a waste of time.

 

[Critias]

So its okay to study God's Creation and take measurements as long as they correspond to a literal reading of the Bible (which is the minorty report as far as Biblical exegesis goes).

Ad populum.

The only interpretation of Scripture that needs to be modified to fit the findings of modern science is a strict literal interpretation. God revealed Himself in the Bible, Creation, and the life of Christ. In fact, I think the findings of modern science have shown that belief in God and human freedom is even more reasonable. The Big Bang is proof that the universe had a beginning, incoporating evolution into a teleological argument shows that the universe has a purpose and an intelligence, and recent discoveries in QM shows that human freedom and God's will can coexist and makes divine intervention more plausible.

I believe you aware that most of the creationists here, if not all, are not strict literalists. Are you a strict allegoricalist?

Can you present a scientific article by a secular scientists who holds to the evolutionary thought that claims the universe shows intelligence? How about Dawkins, does he claim there is intelligence out there?

I have no idea why you feel that Christians who accept evolution are not placing faith in God's Word. In fact, its very insulting when someone makes a post like DeaconDan's and yours which followed in agreement. I have a lot of faith in God and the Bible. Enough to spend as much time on this thread as I have. Its starting to look like it was a waste of time.

Because you have spent so much time here is not support for your faith in the Bible. It is more support that you enjoy debates and arguments.

 

[stumpjumper]

I believe you aware that most of the creationists here, if not all, are not strict literalists. Are you a strict allegoricalist?

Of course I do not read every part allegorically. I am also aware that most Creationists are not strict literalists. However, I have absolutely no idea why most of you insist on interpreting the very first part literally while accepting allegorical interpretations of other parts. If any part of the Bible warranted an allegorical reading it is the early chapters of Genesis.

Can you present a scientific article by a secular scientists who holds to the evolutionary thought that claims the universe shows intelligence? How about Dawkins, does he claim there is intelligence out there?

Of course I could present articles, books, papers, arguments etc. etc. by scientists about arguments for intelligence. Have you ever heard of the anthropic principle? Have you ever read a teleological argument?

Dawkins is one man and he is entitled to his opinions. Nice strawman.

Because you have spent so much time here is not support for your faith in the Bible. It is more support that you enjoy debates and arguments.

Thank you for judging the strength of my faith. Ever heard of judge not lest ye be judged. If you judge the strength of someone's faith by their view of our origin then you should probably open the Bible to the New Testament.

 

[Critias]

Of course I do not read every part allegorically. I am also aware that most Creationists are not strict literalists. However, I have absolutely no idea why most of you insist on interpreting the very first part literally while accepting allegorical interpretations of other parts. If any part of the Bible warranted an allegorical reading it is the early chapters of Genesis.

Because Hebrew linguistics render Genesis as a historical narrative that has been understood to be a historical account for over 2000 years.

Of course I could present articles, books, papers, arguments etc. etc. by scientists about arguments for intelligence. Have you ever heard of the anthropic principle? Have you ever read a teleological argument?

Dawkins is one man and he is entitled to his opinions. Nice strawman.

I don't spend much time reading about science. I find theology more fascinating.

I love God's creation, it is truly remarkable and breathe taking. I don't see how exalting men of science glorifies God.

Thank you for judging the strength of my faith. Ever heard of judge not lest ye be judged. If you judge the strength of someone's faith by their view of our origin then you should probably open the Bible to the New Testament.

Stumpjumper, in no way was I judging your faith. I did not make a comment about the strength of your faith. Where you got this, I don't know.

Because we spend time here arguing and debating is not support for our faith in the Bible. We may show our faith in the Bible by what we say, but the length of time we are here, or the back and forth debates that we partcipate in are not a measuring stick for our faith.

We come here to express our opinions of faith. We stay here because we like to debate/argue.

I will disregard your statement to me above.

 

[vossler]

So its okay to study God's Creation and take measurements as long as they correspond to a literal reading of the Bible (which is the minorty report as far as Biblical exegesis goes).

No, as long as they agree with the Bible, whether literal, allogorical or figurative whichever is applicable.

I have no idea why you feel that Christians who accept evolution are not placing faith in God's Word. In fact, its very insulting when someone makes a post like DeaconDan's and yours which followed in agreement. I have a lot of faith in God and the Bible. Enough to spend as much time on this thread as I have. Its starting to look like it was a waste of time.

This isn't that hard to see, is it? Please remember when I or other YECs state or imply your faith in God's Word is lacking, we're referring to Genesis, not the entire Bible. Although it can be an indicator of how other parts of the Bible are interpreted.

I couldn't begin to ascertain how much faith you have in God or the Bible, but from all indications, at least on this one issue, your faith in what God says is, IMO, is weak. What am I suppose to say, it's strong?

So if you implied from my response that I feel your faith is weak, I'm sorry, please forgive me that wasn't my intent. I truly don't know the strength of your faith and God is only one who can judge that.