Why the Christian creation myth

[xianghua]

Young Earth creationism, of course. As to your version of creation de novo, you haven't given us enough information about it to tell. But by the evidence it would have to have been so long ago and involve such a small a number of different kinds of creatures created "de novo" as to be functionally equivalent to universal common ancestry.

how precisely?

 

[xianghua]

Specify the name, or names, of any educated person, who applying the scientific method, believed this to be the case. The Greeks had measured the Earth's circumference a couple of centuries before Christ.
Name a reputable scientist who insists upon the reality of bigfoot.

i didnt said they are scientists. but many scientists do believe in creation rather then evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

how precisely?

"Common ancestry" is usually framed as descent from a single abiogenesis event--for simplicity's sake. But all scientists realize that multiple abiogenesis events must be considered a possibility as well. Life may have emerged on this planet more than once and in more than one place at one time.

But the "de novo creation" of relatively modern types--reptiles, mammals, birds and fishes--has been conclusively ruled out for a long time now.

 

[PsychoSarah]

here is a list, including biologists:

Creation scientists - creation.com

Ok, so let's evaluate this list. I will list all the names that are biologists, as well as geneticists. Also, I will only be using names that the site itself provides links for, because many have names too generic for a Google search to easily find them (which means they probably aren't particularly prominent in their scientific field or in creationist circles). I also won't bother mentioning books people participated in, because those aren't published research:

Dr. Jim Allen : his primary work is in dairy cattle breeding. All his mentioned work in terms of evolution is vague and difficult to find. Not exactly the best example, so we move on. The website link incorrectly calls him James Allan.

Dr Raymond G. Bohlin: He's the director of research for the very biased Probe Ministries. And that's it, his academic career is rather lacking.

Dr Kenneth B. Cumming: Dean of a religious university.

Dr David DeWitt: Neat guy, but his research is in Alzheimer's disease, not evolutionary biology.

Dr André Eggen: I am not kidding, this guy's research is in cattle also. Plus, from what I can find, he's a creationist because he was raised that way, not due to anything challenging the theory itself.

Carl B. Fliermans: Used to be a great researcher in fungal diseases, which he even won awards for in the early 1990s (making him the best in terms of scientific career thus far, but alas, no evolution here). Now he belongs to Answers in Genesis, so not exactly without bias.

Robert H. Franks: There is a biology professor with this name, but for the life of me, I can't find anything that shows he's actually a creationist. No statements or interviews or bios, nothing, that state that he's a creationist. The most famous individual with this name is actually an economist. This seems like a bust, probably should just mentally cross him off the list.

Maciej Giertych: Denial that benign mutations exist (even though plenty have been recorded, such as one in humans that results in bones so thick that it was discovered because a family had a strange history of very few injuries despite being involved in accidents that should have crushed bones or even killed them). I see a lot of empty claims, but no published articles from him finding evidence to back his claims. Weird one, but I'll say this guy definitely counts thanks to his active work in relevant fields and his lack of biases based on who he works for. So, we have 1 that counts so far.

Dr Pierre Gunnar Jerlström: Hired by a ministry, and his academic accomplishments are unrelated to evolution. Mostly studies protein functions.

Arthur Jones: Nice for him to want to standardize "kinds" rather than just using whatever definition is convenient. He counts as number 2. Sad that his name is generic so it makes looking up his work rather difficult.

Dr Lane P. Lester: Biased based on who he works for, since he makes money off of writing articles for a creationist magazine. Lackluster scientific career.

Yeesh, long list to get through, might have to finish later, but I was about 1/3rd the way through, and only found 2 on this list with careers relevant to evolution that didn't have huge biases that would encourage their disagreement with evolution. For example, it is not uncommon for those that work at religious universities to have to state that they are creationists in order to work there.

 

[Speedwell]

Robert H. Franks: There is a biology professor with this name, but for the life of me, I can't find anything that shows he's actually a creationist. No statements or interviews or bios, nothing, that state that he's a creationist. The most famous individual with this name is actually an economist. This seems like a bust, probably should just mentally cross him off the list.

Be prepared to find some ringers. Once, when we were going through this exercise over on the old Beliefnet, one of our colleagues got his name put on the list as a researcher at a fictitious university. Great laughs.

And nobody before 1840 counts as a creationist. Lyell published in 1840, putting a stake through the heart of YECism.

 

[AV1611VET]

And nobody before 1840 counts as a creationist.

Jesus is -- and that's all that counts.

And as for Lyell, he's in aitch.

 

[Abraxos]

Yes and no. I don't consider that the case for a historical Jesus is strong enough to warrant the acceptance of his existance to the same degree that I accept the historical existance of Julius Ceasar for example.

On the other hand, I have no problem assuming it was a real person around which the chrisian religion was developed.

So I have no "definitive" belief or disbelief about it. Nore does it keep me awake at night.
But as said, for the sake of discussion etc, I have no problem assuming there really was a human named Jesus / Joshua / some other variation around which the christian religion was developed.

I personally think that is a fully rational position to take. It's fully understandable from a layman perspective that despite that the person Jesus most probably having existed, the supernatural aspects that surround him do warrant a certain degree of skepticism on the accuracy of the gospels (and to a larger extent the Bible).

However, to a more seasoned scholar on the matter would recognize that there are 5 minimal facts that were compiled from 2,200 scholarly sources of resurrection writings from 1975 to the present, from scholars whether were atheist, skeptic, liberal, or conservative, all accepted it as fact. Though the facts are sound and incontrovertible, the premise of the resurrection is a matter of controversy because it deals with the resurrection. That said, it should be noted that many have tried to refute the resurrection of Jesus only to have ended up becoming Christians themselves because of the facts and evidence for the resurrection.

It is not. It is a perfect analogy.
It goes to show how falsifying hypothesis 1, does not lend extra credence to unrelated hypothesis 2.



Sure. The thing is though, a global flood makes testable predictions (global geological layer of sediments, universal genetic bottleneck,...) and when tested, these predictions do not check out. Which falsifies the flood story.

Evolution on the other hand, is an extremely solid scientific theory that accounts for all the facts, is contradicted by none and has extreme explanatory power.

The science is pretty much settled on this.



But it can't.... in fact, the opposite is true.



Are you really going to pretend here that your religion (or indeed any religion) does not require "faith"? Come on now....



The actual evidence and science, falsifies the flood story.
The actual evidence and science, is completely inline with evolution.

I get that you like to believe there is no actual evidence of a worldwide flood, but the point was that your analogy was weak (as in false) because it was based on the notion that I was referring to Noah's flood being true because all I had to do was believe it to be true without facts and evidence. I was actually asserting the point that if Noah's worldwide flood was true based on the physical evidence (which there is plenty of) and the ToE being falsified, then the validity of the creation account goes up by 20 to 45% give-or-take.

Sure. But kids don't get to decide what is good and bad science, because they lack the knowledge to do so. Note that by "kids", I'm talking about 12-year olds.
"kids", instead, need to be taught what science is and how they can differentiate good science from bad science. And they are taught exactly that.

Afterwards, when they have a good grasp on logical thinking, reasoning, the scientific method and to ability to identify reasoning errors and fallacies... that's when they are in a position to make such evaluations. And even then.............

Take a scientific publication from genetics, for example. Or theoretical physics.
Most well educated adults, who's subject of expertise is NOT genetics or theoretical physics, wouldn't understand a word of what is written in those papers. How, then, would well-educated adults be able to evaluate the "science" in those papers?

If well-educated adults can't even do it, how do you expect kids to do so?
You'ld basicaly need to become a geneticist to be able to evaluate the science and conclusions of a technical genetics paper.



Sure. But that is a loooong process of learning and specific studies. Someone with a high school diploma, is not going to "forward research" or introduce "new understandings" in fields like genetics, geology, chemistry, biology, theoretical physics, astronomy, etc.



Simply teaching them the current conclusions, theories and understanding of the sciences involved, is not "indoctrinating" them. That's educating them.

I disagree. Telling kids (or let's say the future generations) what to decide on what is "good" and what is "bad" despite seemingly good intentions, is still indoctrinating them to adhere to the biases of the evolutionist teachers, or Steven Anderson-type pastors, or the Islamic stewards, etc. Good and bad become relative to the currently accepted paradigm in certain environments. Being objective on the facts rather than predetermining what is good and bad allows much more space to experiment and test what is accurate and what is dogmatic assertions.

Yes. Biology is the field. The theory of evolution, is a scientific theory within the field of biology, to explain the diversification of biological things. And it is the only game in town...



It seems you might need some education on the subject as well.
I'm sure it has been told to you countless times before, but both "micro" as well as "macro" are powered by the exact same process. The only difference here is time / amount of generations.

Moving 1 inch = micro movement.
Moving 1 mile (1 inch at a time) = macro movement.

Evolution works by the gradual accumulation of micro changes.
1+1+1+1+1......+1+1 = big number.



There is no distinction. It's the same process.

I'm sorry, it's really not and I'll explain why.

Microevolution is observed to only involve in the changes through colouring, size and shape, or minor genetic alterations caused by a few mutations. These observable changes never involve an increase in complexity as the theory of evolution relies on. Macroevolution requires thousands if not millions of "successful" mutations through countless trials and errors. (micro + time ≠ macro).

Spoiler: Illustration between Macro & Mircoevolution

The key differences here is that microevolution can be thought of as a "horizontal" (or even downward) change, whereas macroevolution, if it were ever observed, would involve an "upward" beneficial change in complexity.
When you think about it, a gradual accumulation of small changes on a body part defies logic and basic biology.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That said, it should be noted that many have tried to refute the resurrection of Jesus

That would have been an exercise in futility, since it is an unfalsifiable claim.

only to have ended up becoming Christians themselves because of the facts and evidence for the resurrection.

Argument by anecdote - not really impressive.
On top of that, I'ld say that people who actively said out to "disprove" an unfalsifiable claim, were set up for failure from the get-go.

I get that you like to believe there is no actual evidence of a worldwide flood

What I "like" has nothing to do with it. It's just what the facts are. A worldwide flood makes very testable predictions. And when tested, it is found that the predictions do not match reality (no global flood layer, no universal genetic bottleneck). Hence: falsified.

, but the point was that your analogy was weak (as in false) because it was based on the notion that I was referring to Noah's flood being true because all I had to do was believe it to be true without facts and evidence.

The analogy was no in terms of "types of things to believe". The analogy was in terms of "disproving claim X, does nothing to advance claim Y".

Trying to advance claim Y by trying to poke holes in alternative claim X, is what is called "negative evidence". To advance a claim's credibility, you need positive evidence in direct support of that claim instead.

I was actually asserting the point that if Noah's worldwide flood was true based on the physical evidence (which there is plenty of) and the ToE being falsified, then the validity of the creation account goes up by 20 to 45% give-or-take.

Which is not correct, as I explained.

I disagree. Telling kids (or let's say the future generations) what to decide on what is "good" and what is "bad" despite seemingly good intentions, is still indoctrinating them to adhere to the biases of the evolutionist teachers, or Steven Anderson-type pastors, or the Islamic stewards, etc.

No. It's teaching them science and how the scientific method works. There's nothing "indoctrinating" about teaching them the current state of knowledge, theories, science.

If you teach them proper science, you also teach them that theories aren't the equivalent of "Truth", capital "T".

Good and bad become relative to the currently accepted paradigm in certain environments. Being objective on the facts rather than predetermining what is good and bad allows much more space to experiment and test what is accurate and what is dogmatic assertions.

Facts aren't "good or bad". Facts are facts.

I'm sorry, it's really not and I'll explain why.

It is, no matter what you say.
Only creationists (typically, the creationists that understand very little about evolution) pretend that micro and macro are somehow two different processes. But they are not.

Microevolution is observed to only involve in the changes through colouring, size and shape, or minor genetic alterations caused by a few mutations. These observable changes never involve an increase in complexity as the theory of evolution relies on. Macroevolution requires thousands if not millions of "successful" mutations through countless trials and errors. (micro + time ≠ macro).

As I said....

Evolution works through the gradual accumulation of micro changes. That's what the process is. You understand what the word "accumulation" means, right?

The key differences here is that microevolution can be thought of as a "horizontal" (or even downward) change, whereas macroevolution, if it were ever observed, would involve an "upward" beneficial change in complexity.
When you think about it, a gradual accumulation of small changes on a body part defies logic and basic biology.

No. The idea that 1+1+1+1+1+.....+1+1+1 equalling a big number does not "defy" logic.
Denying that you'll end up walking miles while moving 1 inch at a time, is what defies logic. And math. And reason. And common sense. And reality.

 

[Rodan6]

Blind faith is "faith", but it is the weakest kind. Those that cling to glaringly illogical doctrines such as creationism invest their faith in tenants that cannot be sustained. God desires that we seek the truth wherever we can find it, cultivating a "logical faith" that is indestructible.

 

[Ophiolite]

i didnt said they are scientists. but many scientists do believe in creation rather then evolution.

If they are not, or were not scientists, then their views upon the geometry of the Earth are irrelevant. That makes your observation regarding such a faulty belief irrelevant. Thus, I hope we can agree that ignorance on the part of sections of the general public about scientific matters, have no relevance in regard to the accuracy scientific observations, hyptheses or theories. Do you agree? Please confirm.

Practically no scientists in the field of biology or geology doubt evolution. (A small proportion of them believe in a creator who has realised his creation through the process of evolution.) The views of scientists in other fields, unrelated to evolution, have about the same value as those of the general public: practically none.

Therefore I strongly dispute your claim that many scientists believe in creation rather than evolution. If you wish to maintain this assertion you need to provide evidence to support it.

 

[Speedwell]

Jesus is -- and that's all that counts.

And as for Lyell, he's in aitch.

Right. Another faithful believer in Christ sent to hell for not believing in a literal and inerrant Genesis as well.

 

[AV1611VET]

Blind faith is "faith", but it is the weakest kind. Those that cling to glaringly illogical doctrines such as creationism invest their faith in tenants that cannot be sustained. God desires that we seek the truth wherever we can find it, cultivating a "logical faith" that is indestructible.

Then let's get logical.

Theo-logical.

Question: God creates the earth ex nihilo. What evidence would that leave behind?

An ion trail? plasma? time crystals?

What exactly?

 

[AV1611VET]

Right. Another faithful believer in Christ sent to hell for not believing in a literal and inerrant Genesis as well.

Who said anything about Hell?

Doesn't "Heaven" start with "aitch"?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Then let's get logical.

Theo-logical.

Question: God creates the earth ex nihilo. What evidence would that leave behind?

An ion trail? plasma? time crystals?

What exactly?

Assuming you mean a 6,000 year old Earth, we should have DNA for far more fossils than we actually do, since DNA can last for millions of years.

 

[AV1611VET]

Assuming you mean a 6,000 year old Earth, we should have DNA for far more fossils than we actually do, since DNA can last for millions of years.

Forget a 6000-year-old earth.

Let's say an apple or loaf of raisin bread.

A nail, a tin can, a marble, an atom, a Venus fly trap, a drop of water, a blade of grass, a toothpick, a wallet, a shoe, a clipboard ... a anything.

What evidence should that leave behind? an ion trail? plasma? time crystals?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Forget a 6000-year-old earth.

Let's say an apple or loaf of raisin bread.

A nail, a tin can, a marble, an atom, a Venus fly trap, a drop of water, a blade of grass, a toothpick, a wallet, a shoe, a clipboard ... a anything.

We both know that a creationist account like yours doesn't assert that fossils were put into the ground ex nihilo, because that would be an intentional deception. So, all fossils should be 6000 years old or less. So, why don't we have DNA from Cambrian creatures?

 

[AV1611VET]

We both know that a creationist account like yours doesn't assert that fossils were put into the ground ex nihilo, because that would be an intentional deception. So, all fossils should be 6000 years old or less. So, why don't we have DNA from Cambrian creatures?

You don't understand what I'm asking, do you?

 

[PsychoSarah]

You don't understand what I'm asking, do you?

You don't know that your question is irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if today, I created a T. rex, that T. rex wouldn't produce a fossil in 6,000 years that appeared the same as one many millions of years old.

 

[xianghua]

Ok, so let's evaluate this list. I will list all the names that are biologists, as well as geneticists. Also, I will only be using names that the site itself provides links for, because many have names too generic for a Google search to easily find them (which means they probably aren't particularly prominent in their scientific field or in creationist circles). I also won't bother mentioning books people participated in, because those aren't published research:

Dr. Jim Allen : his primary work is in dairy cattle breeding. All his mentioned work in terms of evolution is vague and difficult to find. Not exactly the best example, so we move on. The website link incorrectly calls him James Allan.

Dr Raymond G. Bohlin: He's the director of research for the very biased Probe Ministries. And that's it, his academic career is rather lacking.

Dr Kenneth B. Cumming: Dean of a religious university.

Dr David DeWitt: Neat guy, but his research is in Alzheimer's disease, not evolutionary biology.

Dr André Eggen: I am not kidding, this guy's research is in cattle also. Plus, from what I can find, he's a creationist because he was raised that way, not due to anything challenging the theory itself.

Carl B. Fliermans: Used to be a great researcher in fungal diseases, which he even won awards for in the early 1990s (making him the best in terms of scientific career thus far, but alas, no evolution here). Now he belongs to Answers in Genesis, so not exactly without bias.

Robert H. Franks: There is a biology professor with this name, but for the life of me, I can't find anything that shows he's actually a creationist. No statements or interviews or bios, nothing, that state that he's a creationist. The most famous individual with this name is actually an economist. This seems like a bust, probably should just mentally cross him off the list.

Maciej Giertych: Denial that benign mutations exist (even though plenty have been recorded, such as one in humans that results in bones so thick that it was discovered because a family had a strange history of very few injuries despite being involved in accidents that should have crushed bones or even killed them). I see a lot of empty claims, but no published articles from him finding evidence to back his claims. Weird one, but I'll say this guy definitely counts thanks to his active work in relevant fields and his lack of biases based on who he works for. So, we have 1 that counts so far.

Dr Pierre Gunnar Jerlström: Hired by a ministry, and his academic accomplishments are unrelated to evolution. Mostly studies protein functions.

Arthur Jones: Nice for him to want to standardize "kinds" rather than just using whatever definition is convenient. He counts as number 2. Sad that his name is generic so it makes looking up his work rather difficult.

Dr Lane P. Lester: Biased based on who he works for, since he makes money off of writing articles for a creationist magazine. Lackluster scientific career.

Yeesh, long list to get through, might have to finish later, but I was about 1/3rd the way through, and only found 2 on this list with careers relevant to evolution that didn't have huge biases that would encourage their disagreement with evolution. For example, it is not uncommon for those that work at religious universities to have to state that they are creationists in order to work there.

what? i only need to show that there are biologists who reject evolution and thats it. therefore the claim that many biologists reject evolution is true. clear and simple.

 

[PsychoSarah]

what? i only need to show that there are biologists who reject evolution and thats it. therefore the claim that many biologists reject evolution is true. clear and simple.

But you fail to realize that biology is a broad subject, and it is entirely possible for a biologist to be ignorant about evolution. Plus, at least 1 person I found on that list has no record of being a creationist at all, so that list is rather suspicious.