Evolutionary fatwa
Ben Stein has been expelled again. University of Vermont President Daniel Fogel, displaying the cowardice we have come to expect from men in his position, acquiesced to pressure from protesters angry that Stein was to be Vermont’s spring commencement speaker. Stein, an economist, writer, and actor, graciously offered to bow out as opposition mounted, and Fogel, likely wiping beads of sweat from his head in relief, accepted.
The chief source of antagonism toward Stein, explained a journalist for the Chronicle of Higher Education, is his co-authorship and starring role in Expelled, a documentary lampooning apostles of the Church of Evolution. “The theory of evolution, as modified since it was proposed 150 years ago by Charles Darwin,” offers the Chronicle in a serene tone that is the hallmark of monks and lunatics, “is widely accepted by scientists as the best explanation for the natural world.”
This is like saying that the existence of paint shops is the best explanation for cars. It may well explain why we see a red Mustang convertible here and a blue one there, but aside from offering a hint about the variegated traits of cars, as an explanation for the automobile it is quite poor. The Chronicle writer might better have written that natural selection is widely accepted by scientists as the best explanation for species variation, which is a far weaker claim but decidedly less marred by the religious fervor that so seems to offend the sort of people who take it upon themselves to police the ranks of university commencement speakers.
Scientists had finally advanced so far, goes the joke, that they anointed one of their number to tell God he was no longer needed. “We can make nature do whatever we like,” sneered the scientist toward the heavens, including make a man. “Prove it,” thundered a voice within a cloud. “Make a man just as I made Adam.”
“No problem,” chuckled the scientist, who bent down to scoop up a handful of earth.
“No,” said the Almighty. “Get your own dirt.”
The theory of evolution, in short, is no “explanation for the natural world,” for the simple reason that while it offers some compelling arguments about why this particular plant or that specific turtle occupy their respective corners of the earth, it can tell us nothing about where dirt comes from.
This is a small matter to the evolution disciple, however, because his imperative is not that creation be explained so much as that it not have a Creator. Leaping from species variation to “an explanation for the natural world,” he turns back after his faith-filled jump to snicker at the benighted Christian who, whatever his intellectual failings, at least has the good sense to hold to a theory of first causes that includes a first cause.
But this is all the most dangerous kind of heresy, which is common sense, and people who traffic in it must be shouted down lest anyone listen too closely. Hence the angry response to the University of Vermont’s selection of Stein, and the university president’s obsequious promise to “use a more consultative process” for future commencement speaker selections, which means consulting the troublemakers in order to produce a narrower sort of speaker in the future, under the guise of being inclusive and broad-minded. The result is a victory for the worst kind of religious dogma, which is that of a religion that fancies itself objective science.














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top174 Comments to “Evolutionary fatwa”
Oh brother.
I expect this kind of know-nothingness from Tokarev and most of the resident posters. I would have hoped for better from Tony.
The theory of evolution, in short, is no “explanation for the natural world,” for the simple reason that while it offers some compelling arguments about why this particular plant or that specific turtle occupy their respective corners of the earth, it can tell us nothing about where dirt comes from.
Please. Tony, read some real science, please? The theory of evolution doesn’t attempt to tell us where dirt came from (although other branches of science can and do.)
The theory of evolution is specirfically and solely concerned with the development of organisms over many successive generations, as influenced by mutation and environment.
I myself believe there may be some merit in intelligent design arguments, but I also remain firmly convinced that they are the province of philosophy and theology, not science. Science can only tell us about what can be observed or inferred from observations. Whether or not there is an invisible guiding hand is not within its ability to answer.
Report comment to moderator
This is a small matter to the evolution disciple, however, because his imperative is not that creation be explained so much as that it not have a Creator.
And this canard again. Tony, really.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Your disagreement isn’t with me, it’s with people who think the processes of natural selection and the theory of evolution are an “explanation for the natural world.”
Report comment to moderator
Steve, I don’t want to get into this debate all over again. But posts like your astound me. This is a CHRISTIAN news magazine. As such, the Christians have serious reservations about evolution and are allowed to discuss it and debate here. This is not a liberal science class that wants to stifle any debate on the matter. Please, consider that your disdain for our debate, in a Christian medium, to be in bad taste.
Report comment to moderator
I thought this was about Ben Stein. When I first read about this, I read that when told of the discontent, Stein calmly withdrew stating that he didn’t want to be bothered defending his view if those angry with him didn’t bother to read it and know what it was. All he really said was that evolution theory has some elements that can’t be proven and that something in addition to evolution was going on. Stein is not a hard core intelligent design person. The University of Vermont kicked a reasonable person to the curb in favor of insisting that no other view is acceptable. He said, so be it.
Report comment to moderator
“I expect this kind of know-nothingness from Tokarev and most of the resident posters. I would have hoped for better from Tony.”
You must mean know nothing Chronicle authors, because they did the poor job of representing your theory. Tony merely quoted.
I mean really Steve, when the pro-evolution media cant get its definitions right, then how can you expect anyone else too? “Scientist” need to do a better job of communicating even amongst their own favored ranks.
Report comment to moderator
Ben Stein put his own laudatory quotes on the front cover of the Expelled! DVD. If that isn’t enough to make you feel just a little uncomfortable (let’s not even mention the other problems with the movie), I don’t know what is.
If the University of Vermont had chosen a speaker who advocates a tiny, minority position with “scientific” support like electrosensitivity, or even a position that you disagree with (say, global population control), would you still think that it was such a travesty that he step down? Or are you only offended on his behalf because of his support of one of your particular beliefs?
Also, the obfuscation of scientific naturalism and the theory of evolution in this post makes me wince. There are many orthodox, Jesus-loving, Bible-believing Christians who subscribe to the modern scientific consensus on evolution and have rejected the atheistic add-ons that negate the criticism that was made in the post.
Report comment to moderator
BrotherDan:
If there were an actual debate to be had, I’d agree with you. The problem is that evolutionary science is pretty sound and well-supported, and most of the arguments against it rely on various misconceptions and distortions.
There is nothing “liberal” about evolutionary science. It’s just science.
Report comment to moderator
All he really said was that evolution theory has some elements that can’t be proven and that something in addition to evolution was going on. Stein is not a hard core intelligent design person.
Stein is not a scientist. Why should a lawyer lecture on science anymore than a biologist should lecture on law?
Report comment to moderator
But it is science that will brook no one even asking a question about it, hence it is “liberal” science, which is no science at all. Science should be willing to question itself. Evolutionists — who do not have answers to all questions — have no business shutting other ideas down. But that’s the liberal way. If it weren’t, no one would be planning to hold hearings on why conservative talk radio should be curbed. Why should they care if they believe in free speech?
Report comment to moderator
And professors ought to be able to behave a little better than five year olds.
Report comment to moderator
Tony:
Your disagreement isn’t with me, it’s with people who think the processes of natural selection and the theory of evolution are an “explanation for the natural world.”
They are an explanation of the aspects of the natural world they pertain to. If the Chronicle’s description was too broad, it doesn’t change the fact that the Creationist/ID wing of Christianity is attacking evolution directly.
Some of the ID leaders, such as Behe, are quite happy to accept evolution for the most part, just adding their notion of design for a complex mechanism here or there. However, their disciples tend to overlook that and insist that they are undermining evolution per se — even when the authors themselves go out of their way to say they’re doing no such thing or even intending to.
And I’ve yet to hear a good explanation for why Christians back ID anyway; for those who think evolution presents a theological problem in losing the idea of a literal Adam and literal Fall, ID does nothing to fix that.
Report comment to moderator
Science should be willing to question itself.
Scientists question each other and their theories all the time. That’s one of its strengths, the willingness and ability to change as new information comes in.
But scientists rightly feel no obligation to consider every wild idea someone puts up. Nor should they, or can they, investigate ideas that fall outside the realm of science.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
I’m glad we are in agreement.
MLTW,
I’m sorry I wasn’t clear enough in my post. I don’t assert that anyone who accepts natural selection is an atheist. I’m simply making the point that anyone who looks to evolution as an explanation for existence is misguided about what that theory has the power to explain.
Report comment to moderator
anyone who looks to evolution as an explanation for existence is misguided about what that theory has the power to explain.
I admit I’m relieved. I agree with this statement.
Report comment to moderator
“And I’ve yet to hear a good explanation for why Christians back ID anyway; for those who think evolution presents a theological problem in losing the idea of a literal Adam and literal Fall, ID does nothing to fix that.”
If there is no literal Adam and Fall, then Jesus has no reason to be literal either. Those who think that evolution presents a scientific problem for a literal Adam and Fall, are unsubstaniated in their assertions.
Report comment to moderator
Two quotes from University of Vermont President Daniel Fogel about Ben Stein:
It was the legitimate concern among members of the community regarding the implications of granting an honorary degree to someone whose ideas fundamentally ignore the basics of scientific inquiry.
“This is not, to my mind, an issue about academic freedom or the openness of the campus to all points of view. Ben Stein spoke here last spring to great acclaim,” UVM President Dan Fogel said. “It’s an issue about the appropriateness of awarding an honorary degree to someone whose views in many ways ignore or affront the fundamental values of scientific inquiry and I greatly regret that I was not attuned to those issues.”
Ben Stein is a liar and an idiot. Fogel did the right thing.
Oh, and TONY WOODLIEFF, like most brain-dead Christians, you’re a scientifically illiterate hick.
Report comment to moderator
Next week perhaps someone who “dubunks” plate tectonics will be speaking at San Francisco State. Oh, I forget, there’s nothing about continents staying put in the Bible so no one cares enough to get excited about it. We’re on firm ground here, even in San Francisco.
Report comment to moderator
THORN wrote: “If there is no literal Adam and Fall, then Jesus has no reason to be literal either.”
No shirt Sherlock. Your Jeebus is a myth.
Report comment to moderator
If there is no literal Adam and Fall, then Jesus has no reason to be literal either.
Please explain why that is so.
I can see plenty of need for a literal Saviour, even if, which I believe, Adam and the Fall are not literal. And millions of other Christians who accept what science has to say on evolution and human origins likely agree with that as well. So, I challenge that as a reason for asserting that evolution can not be God’s mechanism for creating life as we know it on Earth, including Mankind.
Report comment to moderator
I forgot to mention astrology. A myth has to reach a critical mass for people to defend it passionately. Astrology is getting closer, though. Perhaps about twenty years ago I made fun of astrology on line (pre-WWW), calling it an example of a “cargo cult,” and someone got very worked up about my sarcasm and posted messages to me in a stern way chastising me about my lack of respect for an ancient and revered source of wisdom.
I just discovered there is a college that gives four year degrees not that far from where I live that teaches astrology.
Perhaps they will welcome Ben Stein as a commencement speaker one of these days.
From their web site:
Do I have to believe in astrology in order to attend Kepler?
No. The Kepler program does not encourage or discourage belief in astrology.
The Kepler College curriculum teaches how astrology, as an example of the cultural application of cosmology-a philosophical belief that cosmological events can be linked with human concerns-has been an influence on various cultures in different time periods. We also teach how astrology was utilized and practiced in different time periods and different cultures. None of this information requires belief, just curiosity.
Report comment to moderator
The last few weeks my church has had a Sunday school class on creation, which I’ve been attending. I knew that I needed to get “up-to-date” on recent creation discoveries, but really it has blown my mind. Any honest Christian, aware of the discoveries of the last twenty years or so, simply has no need to accept evolutionary dogmas as “proven.” That includes such things as the age of the earth that have caused many to waver. We haven’t even gotten to biology yet (the only discipline I’ve kept up with much at all), but the videos in the class, the discussion, and the magazines I’ve taken home (mostly copies of Creation by Answers in Genesis) all show that a lot of things that weren’t yet answered twenty or thirty years ago have been answered today.
The video on how the eruption of Mt. St. Helens changed geology is alone mind-boggling–the formation of canyons, sedimentary layers, etc., in a much faster period of time than even creation-leaning scientists had guessed possible. Fascinating stuff, and any honest Christian really needs to look into it before granting evolutionary scientists even such basic “truth” as the age of the universe. The only reason that evolutionary science hasn’t collapsed completely is it cannot–granting the mere possibility of a Creator is too dangerous to atheists. Creation scientists are mocked too thoroughly even to get a foot in the door, but they are busy doing phenomenal work, and proving their theories and simultaneously disproving long-standing beliefs of evolutionary science (like how long it takes to form caves, sedimentary rock, petrified wood, canyons, etc.). Really truly fascinating stuff, and we have nothing whatsoever to apologize for.
Report comment to moderator
In re: 20
Because if the Fall is merely some symbolic aspiration rather than a literal reality, then Christ’s death and ressurection are meaningless. What do you need a Savior with a literal death for, if sin is not literal? Sacrificial symbolic lambs and oxen would have been enough.
“So, I challenge that as a reason for asserting that evolution can not be God’s mechanism for creating life as we know it on Earth, including Mankind.”
And I challenge the assertion that one mechanism (evolution) is responsible for all life, God ordained or not. You have no evidence of such from science. To assert that Genesis must be symbolic because we have some mechanism, evolution, for life CHANGING…not beginning, is poor reasoning at best.
That is always distinguished by evolutionists especially here. That evoultion merely discusses change from a common ancestor. It does not discuss origin/beginnings. Therefore it has no say on Genesis origin story.
Report comment to moderator
#17 BobXXX
Speaking as this post’s resident representative Brain-dead Christian and scientifically illiterate hick, I’m livid and demand an apology that you would unilaterally place Mr Woodlief within our ranks.
I know Brain-dead Christians, I know and work with scientifically illiterate hicks. And Tony you’re no brain-dead Christian scientific illiterate.
Report comment to moderator
#20 If thru one man sin entered all of humanity, the corollary is that thru the death of one sinless man salvation could come and did come to all humanity willing to acknowledge needing it.
Report comment to moderator
#18 said:
“Next week perhaps someone who “dubunks” plate tectonics will be speaking at San Francisco State. Oh, I forget, there’s nothing about continents staying put in the Bible so no one cares enough to get excited about it. We’re on firm ground here, even in San Francisco.”
Actually, the movement of the plates occurred with Noah’s flood. So maybe Bible believers would be upset with someone who “debunks” plate tectonics. Unless of course they’re presenting the view that it all happened rather quickly (years), and debunking the view that it occurred over millions of years.
Report comment to moderator
The way I look at it is that the religious authorities have been in a snit ever since Science got out from under their control. Folks like Ben Stein (albeit, a minor player) are trying to bring it back under the control of the religionists.
Report comment to moderator
The left is the only major group today in America who discriminate against any and all who disagree with their insane whacked out views. This is just another example of it.
But they feel, being as egotistical, prideful, thin skinned and fearfully paranoid as they are, they must be bigoted and narrow minded because their ideas need defending at all costs even of they are insane and they have to kill you – for their own good, if not your own, of course.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. #22,
I certainly don’t wish to burst your bubble, however, I would strongly encourage to check out the “other side” because many of the important creationist discoveries of the last 20 years that you seem so excited about can be easily understood as part of an old-earth or evolutionary framework. Talk Origins FAQ has a lot of great resources in this regard.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: If there is no literal Adam and Fall, then Jesus has no reason to be literal either. Those who think that evolution presents a scientific problem for a literal Adam and Fall, are unsubstaniated in their assertions.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here.
In any case though, that is the theological problem some Christians see in evolution. (Well, one of them.) My point being, if that is the problem, then ID does nothing to lessen it.
So why, I ask again, are some Christians so intensely concerned about getting ID into schools, since it doesn’t solve the theological problem?
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. The only reason that evolutionary science hasn’t collapsed completely is it cannot–granting the mere possibility of a Creator is too dangerous to atheists.
Sigh.
The myth will never die, I guess.
Have you read Francis Collins? John Polkinghorne? Or any of the many other Christian authors who have no problem with evolution?
This linking of atheism and evolution is a pernicious lie. They have very little to do with each other, if anything.
Report comment to moderator
Awstar: Actually, the movement of the plates occurred with Noah’s flood.
Evidence?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
While one may safely say that a good many thoughtful Christians have little problem with natural selection theory (and while Darwin himself intermingled this concept with what he called evolution theory, I think it makes sense for a lot of reasons to refer to it that way rather than to evolution), I don’t think one can say with equal confidence that a significant percentage of evolutionists have little problem with Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
Because if the Fall is merely some symbolic aspiration rather than a literal reality, then Christ’s death and ressurection are meaningless.
But that is precisely what I am asking you to demonstrate – why lack of a literal Adam and a literal Fall render Chris’s death and resurrection meaningless.
I still agree that Man falls short of perfection. That we need a saviour to bridge the gap between God and man, because we are unable to do so on our own.
I agree with the point of Genesis, that we are pretty screwed up – fallen if you will – that things aren’t going as God would like them to, and that it is Man’s fault. But.. but… but…
I do not agree that it was one literal act by one literal first person that is to blame.
From a strictly logical perspective you are saying that
If P (Adam and his Fall are literal) then Q (we need a Saviour, which is Christ) implies
If not P, then not Q.
Stated differently “B, if and only if A”
Why must the “and only if” part of this hold?
Report comment to moderator
Keep up the good work Thomas.
Adam means man. Eve means woman. Specific historical ancestors, general group of ancestors, even specific historical ancestors representing a group; the meaning is the same either way.
Man is fallen, the first man (humans) desired to be like God, and we have followed in their footsteps. How is that unbiblical?
Report comment to moderator
Scripture says Man was formed from dust, but that God breathed the breath of life into him. In other words God took an existing species and stamped his image onto it, gave it a transcendent spiritual portion.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G is never wrong, just ask him.
Report comment to moderator
Macro evolution is the view that creatures develop and change major organs. Most Christians(the orthodox type) disagree that this happens. They believe that creatures only tolerate minor variations such as skin color. The animal is in a box, so to speak, and may move around but cannot leave the box.
Take a reptile. It cannot develop a wing because wings are not available in the box. They forget that all animals have the same basic composition, which is DNA. If animals can evolve in minor ways then major ways the major ways are also available since both are made of DNA.
In our analogy, all animals are in the same box, a quite large box. The only obstacle is irreducible complexity, the idea that wings for example are vast assemblies of moving parts that cannot come together peicemeal. ID theorists point out a certain flagular (they spell it right) motor. Recently, they had cause to blush when it was discovered than certain (though not all) parts of the motor can function without the rest.
Irreducible complexity is ID’s best argument. Evolutionary theory has had only limited success dealing with it. Remember though that limited success is still success, and many other elements of the theory are much better supported, such as fossil transition.
Report comment to moderator
Bob: Steve G is never wrong, just ask him.
On the contrary, I am often wrong.
Not this time, though.
Report comment to moderator
Tony:
While one may safely say that a good many thoughtful Christians have little problem with natural selection theory (and while Darwin himself intermingled this concept with what he called evolution theory, I think it makes sense for a lot of reasons to refer to it that way rather than to evolution), I don’t think one can say with equal confidence that a significant percentage of evolutionists have little problem with Christianity.
Most people who accept evolution are ordinary, intelligent folks, many of whom are quite religious. If you look only to the scientists who are most vocal about it, such as Dawkins or Denett, you do see an apparent convergence of evolution and atheism. But if you look to the vast majority of people who are scientifically literate enough to realize that evolution is well-supported and, really, a pretty mundane idea, you’re going to find a lot of them in the pews on Sunday morning.
The ginning up of this into some kind of a conflict is really sad because it’s completely unnecessary, and it has the consequence of causing at least some people to believe that they have to reject science in order to be true to their faith.
Report comment to moderator
#32 SteveG: “Evidence?”
Mid-Oceanic Ridge and Ocean Trenches
Report comment to moderator
Evolution explains the what, when, where, and how of the diversity of life. The Bible explains all the foregoing plus why. Therefore, the Bible beats out Origin of the Species. Good thinking, Tony!
STEVE G: And I’ve yet to hear a good explanation for why Christians back ID anyway; for those who think evolution presents a theological problem in losing the idea of a literal Adam and literal Fall, ID does nothing to fix that.
Well said.
I.D. is a Trojan horse of paganism. Not only does it fail to fix, but it introduces notions of eternality that clash with the Judeo-Christian concept of creation ex nihilo, a beginning in time. Intelligent Design claims heretically that something which is not God made your DNA. Ironically, the alternative hypothesis that one dumb, blind algorithm or another made your DNA is perfectly God friendly. Evolution is so compatible with time, which God made, day by day, and which is a crucial ingredient in the creation story. If God contemplated contemplated creation continuously in time, shouldn’t biologists, too?
I hope Tony is smart enough to be a six-day, 6,000-year creationist, because saving a role for a Creator is not enough. He’s got to say the natural world is the product of an ancient Near Eastern literary character. The stakes go well beyond preserving a First Adam so that there can be a Second. The Bible’s explanation of why — it’s answer to the problem of evil — is so unsatisfactory that Tony can’t afford to give an inch regarding the explanation of what, when, where, and how.
Report comment to moderator
Awstar: Those are evidence of plate tectonics. They are not evidence that a worldwide flood caused movement in the plates.
Try again?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
I suspect you’ll find that most people simultaneous accept evolution and that God created all the animals, just as they believe the government ought not to overmanage the economy while guaranteeing everyone a job. By “evolutionists” I mean folks who have a firm grasp of what natural selection entails, and who further believe that it accounts for all diversity of species, just as by Christians you presumably mean those who know some semblance of what resides in the Nicene Creed.
And among the former, more selective crowd, I think you’ll have a tougher time arguing that there isn’t an outsized hostility toward religious faith, it being supplanted with faith in a theory that has no first cause.
Report comment to moderator
How many people here actually watched Expelled?
The documentary was not really about design or evolution, it was about freedom of speech. It documented case after case of the absolute intolerance for any ideas or even the suggestion that some things appear to be designed.
Credentialed scientists at the Smithsonian and universities and research labs around the country live in fear for their careers if they might ever let certain words slip that would ruin everything they’ve spent their lives working for.
Evolution is not really about science, since the same exact science is used to support design. Evolution is primarily a competing world view to the notion that an intelligent being created the universe with purpose.
Evolution offers an imperfect explanation of descent, yet any dissent is immediately squashed by the ministry of information.
Report comment to moderator
Xion #45
You claim that evolution is not about science and that it is a world view. When you say world view, I assume you mean a sytematic answer to the seven (sometimes reduced to four) fundamental questions. One question asks whether God exists.
Evolution is a proposition that all animal life is related by descent from a common ancestor and that it develops by natural causes. How can that be used to say that there is no God? You may be struggling with a package deal which throws in with evolution a philosophy that has nothing to do with science.
God does not create today, yet he is still God. Why could he not have created the world ex nihilo so that it would then operate by material causes? It does so now, perhaps it has done so since the beginning. Remember that we see natural causes in play now, but God is still in control.
Report comment to moderator
#42 I’m not sure where you were going with that Scroop, but I kinda think I agree at least with the last part …
“saving a role for a Creator is not enough. He’s got to say the natural world is the product of an ancient Near Eastern literary character. The stakes go well beyond preserving a First Adam so that there can be a Second.”
There is no mandate that Christians believe Genesis, but those who are willing to explain away the first 10 chapters of Genesis won’t ever fully understand the rest of the Bible.
Christianity relies on an original world created perfect and without death, followed by original sin of the first Adam to explain the redemption of man by the second Adam. Conquering death eternally at the cross (I Cor 15) isn’t as meaningful without understanding that death entered the world by sin. The restoration of all things in Revelation doesn’t mean much without something to be restored to.
I’ve debated evolution for decades always open to the possibility that maybe it is true, yet never has even a spec of compelling evidence surfaced. It is simply a lengthy hand crafted story carefully woven together but without substance.
For Christians that may be interesting but it really isn’t all that important. The point is that the story of redemption has a beginning a middle and an end. Throw out the beginning and the end no longer makes sense.
Report comment to moderator
#46 You claim that evolution is not about science
I explained what I meant by that. Plenty of people believe in God and evolution. I made no statement about that in #45.
If both creationists and evolutionists use the same science then it is incorrect to say that one is scientific and the other is not.
Furthermore there is no scientific smoking gun that shows conclusively that either evolution or creation has occurred.
And lastly, while evolutionary language is prefaced to every scientific article or textbook it is a vestigial organ that is entirely unnecessary to the actual science at hand. It is no different than prefacing every fairy tale with “Once upon a time…”.
The scientific method doesn’t require a fanciful history lesson to precede every experiment.
Evolution is rightly a cosmology and has nothing to do with actual modern science. Nevertheless it is constantly jammed in there anyway with religious fervor.
Report comment to moderator
Xion has a point in #47. The problem is that the first 10 chapters of Genesis are not supported as literal fact by any evidence.
We have a pretty good idea how organisms developed. It wasn’t by sudden creation. We have a pretty good idea how languages developed. It wasn’t at the tower of babel. We know what kinds of signs floods leave behind and there’s no signs of a global flood.
Death has been in the world since the beginning (and why would God create predators with the need to eat meat and sharp teeth and claws for killing it, and also create prey animals with speed and other defenses to avoid being killed, in a world where he intended there to be no death?).
The Christian who thinks as Xion does has the choices of either fatally wounding the self-contained belief system, or denying everything we know about the natural world in order to maintain it.
And Xion, I seriously doubt you are open to the possibility that evolution is true. Your entire belief system would have to be totally remade if you ever became convinced of it, so there is no way you can consider the evidence objectively.
Report comment to moderator
Evolution is not really about science, since the same exact science is used to support design. Evolution is primarily a competing world view to the notion that an intelligent being created the universe with purpose.
If by “design” you’re referring to intelligent design, allow me to point out (yet again) that intelligent design IS evolution. It is just evolution with the added claim that a Designer helped it along in certain places.
If by “design” you mean sudden, literal-Genesis Creation, then the “same exact science” does not support it in any way.
Report comment to moderator
From #28:
The left is the only major group today in America who discriminate against any and all who disagree with their insane whacked out views. This is just another example of it.
If we substituted the word “llama” for the more generic word “left” would the comment need to be altered in any way?
Report comment to moderator
I think this entire thread appeared without the word “Darwinism” appearing once. Is this change in terminology an example of evolution in action?
Or is it intelligent design?
Report comment to moderator
Men Like Trees Walking (post 29),
Who cares if they can be “can be easily understood as part of an old-earth or evolutionary framework”? I’m not saying that they “prove” creation and a young earth, but that they give evidence consistent with such. And since the Bible clearly talks about God as Creator, and Genesis is more easily read as presenting a young earth (though “proof” of an old earth wouldn’t discredit the Bible, since it doesn’t state the age of the earth unambiguously, as it does unambiguously state that God created it), then evidence that “fits” the Bible should be seen as good news, and not as just something that could be made to fit the other side as well.
In other words, if we have the Bible and the science fits, who cares if the science “could be made” to fit a system that biblically cannot be true? And even allowing for the possibility that an old earth and the like can match up with this evidence, evolutionists still haven’t even begun to address where the universe came from and where life came from. So if, for the sake of argument, this particular evidence happens to fit both sides equally, creationists are still WAY ahead. It’s only if this evidence ends up NOT fitting a creationist viewpoint that it’s relevant bad news.
And by the way, re an earlier post, there is no modern scientific consensus on evolution–that’s part of what I’m saying here, that very credible scientists don’t buy that argument; the fact that atheistic scientists pretend that “they aren’t really scientists” proves nothing. Some would define science to exclude supernatural intervention, but that’s a philosophical exclusion and not a scientific one. I urge you to do more research on this, because I see you as buying into the system as though there’s no credible alternative–on this issue you are living up to your screen name, and seeing in a somewhat blurry fashion, I believe.
Report comment to moderator
In other words, if we have the Bible and the science fits, who cares if the science “could be made” to fit a system that biblically cannot be true?
Way to look at it objectively there, Cheryl.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G.,
There actually is LOTS of evidence for a global flood–that’s a big part of what that video I mentioned earlier was addressing.
Re the question of whether one can throw out creation and still keep Jesus (addressed by you and several other posters, some of whom are trying to keep parts of the Bible and throw out other parts)–the clear biblical answer is no. Fundamentally, if we can’t trust the Bible in Genesis, we can’t trust it anywhere. But also, if God is not our Creator, then He has no authority over us and cannot save us or damn us. Basically, if He isn’t our Creator, then He’s a fraud for pretending to be either our Creator or our Savior. Indeed an awful lot rests on the first few chapters of Genesis being true. And an awful lot is answered by the first few chapters of Genesis being true.
Just a few of the questions that are answered include how we got here (Creation), why we are simultaneously so “good” and so bad (the Fall), and the fossil record and all the other things that evolutionary scientists have been trying to reconcile for generations while frantically refusing to accept the possibility of a global flood.
And do tell how modern languages developed, since it wasn’t one original language, and we don’t see any evidence of primitive languages anywhere, and thus Babel is the BEST explanation that fits the evidence.
Interestingly, this whole paragraph (copied below) shows that you probably haven’t kept up with the most current findings, since on all of these levels, the most current findings fit the biblical record best:
We have a pretty good idea how organisms developed. [How? The fossil record certainly hasn't come up with anything that fits neo-Darwinism in anything close to a compelling fashion, nor does DNA, nor does anything else in biology that I've ever heard of.] It wasn’t by sudden creation. We have a pretty good idea how languages developed. [How? This one isn't friendly to your side.] It wasn’t at the tower of babel. We know what kinds of signs floods leave behind and there’s no signs of a global flood. [I wouldn't bet on this one, if I were you. If you're honest about wanting to know the truth, look up the video on Mt. St. Helens that I referenced earlier. Many other data are also supportive of a worldwide flood. Again, this one will be increasingly hard to defend in the days ahead.]
Report comment to moderator
Steve, It’s not being “unobjective” to say that if Option A fits points 1, 2, 3, and 4, and Option B “can be made to fit point 1,” we shouldn’t be terribly excited about Option B. Also, I believe that Men Like Trees Walking claims to believe other portions of the Bible, and we have no authority to pick and choose like that. If the first half of Genesis is fiction, so is the rest of the Bible. So he’s on very shaky ground, trying to keep a bridge supported with only one half of it anchored.
Report comment to moderator
CherylD: And do tell how modern languages developed, since it wasn’t one original language, and we don’t see any evidence of primitive languages anywhere, and thus Babel is the BEST explanation that fits the evidence.
Uh huh.
Except, Cheryl, we DO see evidence of primitive languages.
All of the languages of the world developed out of a small number of original ones, all traceable to specific regions. Asian languages use similar systems of pictographic alphabets, while Romance languages (those derived from Latin, including Italian, French, Spanish and Portugese) have similar vocabularies and grammatical structures. The original tongues of the Americas, likewise, share commonalities. Across central Asia we find the Cyrillic alphabet for Russian and other languages in that region, and the Semitic languages of the Middle East have their own common features.
The similarities of languages in various regions, and the significant difference between the languages of one region or the languages of another, point very strongly to the independent development of several linguistic families and the subsequent development of specific languages within those families.
No doubt you saw a video or read an article in which someone, in a tone of great knowledge and authority, told you that we have no evidence of primitive languages. He or she misled you.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl said: The fossil record certainly hasn’t come up with anything that fits neo-Darwinism in anything close to a compelling fashion, nor does DNA, nor does anything else in biology that I’ve ever heard of.
We’ve been through this before, I think. You’re just a fountain of half-baked misinformation, Cheryl. Sorry to sound harsh, but you say things like this frequently and buddy, you’re just plain wrong. You listen to people who say what you want to believe, because you don’t want to look outside your Bible, and so you believe it. But you are being misled.
I will try to see the video you mentioned. Is it online? A link would help.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I’m not here to convince anyone of anything. Even IF I had the proper credentials and was able to transform myself from business services expert and piddler with exotic animals into a real biologist sympathetic to ID, it is still doubtful I’d make headway against the more determined Darwinians. No doubt they hate that term. Granted, as they’ve pointed out, it is almost akin to name-calling, in that saying that someone steeped in geological studies is a thusly a “Tectonianist”, and the like
However, there IS a philosophical bias at work here, and a worldview at stake. Else, evolution via the Darwinian mode would not be a crutch to atheist thought. And while atheists typically pretend to stick to this one issue and claim no other motives for banishing God from public discourse and the schools, it seems that with a few noted exceptions (Ayn Rand, et al), most ARE of a certain political and/or ideological persuasion in modern times and truly believe in the Escalator Myth of upward human progress. However defined. The stamp of “Science” this ends up being a kind of Good Housekeeping Seal of Philosophical and Scientific Approval to some preordained ideology about the future of mankind. First, however, we must dispense with those icky Christian beliefs that are acting as anchors and chains, restraining the glory of mankind as a pure and good animal, along the lines of Rousseau. The corruptions apparently being economic, political, ideological, or religious in nature.
Yes, I suppose that technically it IS possible to merge the notions of evolution and some kind of residual faith into one package. But the grand metaphysical story of “Darwinism” gets a name for the very reason that, as Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins both point out, among many others, that compromise is not really a viable option if we think things through and take literally the notion that nature is mechanistic only. Dawkins is on record as saying–along with many public school textbooks as well–that notions of “God” or “Creation” are now “superfluous”; in light of the fact that if everything can be explained via purely mechanistic forces, why even bother positing a God at all? Even if one exists in some nebulous, ethereal sense, why even bother with a God who is so removed from the whole process? Well….
Good point.
Dennett, for his part, chimes in to say that Darwinism gives us a “universal acid” that eats away not only all notions swimming around in the head about God, but all “superstitions” as he calls them, and this includes notions of soul, love, and other supposed fictions such as words like “meaning.” Everything is just one form of survival input or another. So again, why posit a God? Why bother? So while it is possible to compromise on the literalness of Genesis and the like, the more determined atheists have found good favor with Darwin for a stronger reason than the purity of Science. This needs to be noted. I agree with both SteveG and Tony on some points. With SteveG, I agree that there COULD be some compromise on the issues, which I’d suppose he’d say is not compromise per se, but rather the recognition from Christians of where science has taken things and a move from literal. The problem here, though, is that there is no solid agreement that passages that seem literal should be taken any other way. According to all linguists I’m aware of who specialize in the context of and tenses of the New Testament Greek, Christ spoke of Adam as a human man–not a process.
And, while Polkinghorn and many others do have your take on things (I think?), you know as well as I do that as the NAS has an agnostic/atheist percentage of about 92 percent, this is NOT the majority take of most biologists when queried about God. The usual comeback that “science cannot find God”, or that in Stephen Jay Gould’s words, the realms of science and faith are “separate Magisteria” that cannot overlap, is belied by the very fact that Dawkins and Skeptics like Michael Shermer very much think Science for her part can and should investigate what they think is the poppycock of “supernaturalism” and religion. Thus Shermer’s and others’ belief among prevailing theories about religion that it is some kind of “false positive” in the evolution of the human brain in seeing a false connection of some kind to order that does not in fact even exist. The fact is that Science can very well investigate anything it pleases, from the bizarre to the mundane. There is no line of demarcation per se. With Tony, I agree that the process of how some life forms came to be is not in itself indicative of Who created from the soil itself or any other raw material, the whole Universe. But as SteveG pointed out, that is not, strictly speaking, the point that Darwin could have addressed. However, having said this, there are some cosmologists of an atheist bent who’ve gone to extremes to work around the “theistic” problem implied in Big Bang cosmology and “ultimate origins.” So while Darwin and his contemporaries cannot rightly be said to even have the ability to discuss “ultimate origins” questions about where the Universe came from, their buddies, the physicists, are guessing they can work around this problem one way or another.
As shown HERE, for example, it seems Darwinian thought is an all-encompassing worldview that most certainly means that when Darwinians say all notions of God or ID are “superfluous”, they mean what they say. I’ll give you one thousand buckaroos if anyone in this forum can find a positive spin for God from what Darwin has laid down in the link above. Any takers?
I thought not.
While I certainly disagree with the above link and the author’s conclusions about the meaning of life overall and his take that God is thusly nixed by the dynamic duo of Darwin and Dawkins, the tendency needs to be noted that, philosophically, in a universe of mechanistic change and horror and gore as the mode by which organisms advance in complexity, the atheist need not expound too far to demonstrate that Christian compromise with notions of evolution is strained, at best.
So, this is a mission of inquiry.
I am wondering about the motives, however, of some here, including and especially a SteveG, whose name I see from time to time of various posting sites, it seems.
Is your mission here to make some kind of compromise out of all this and show Christians the True Path to Darwinian glory? Or is this yet another incremental step, akin to what goes on in the public schools, of making sure the next generation slowly extricates itself from any notion of God–with Darwin as the ultimate backup singer to the New Chorus?
Your answer could reveal much.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG said, in part:
Stein is not a scientist. Why should a lawyer lecture on science anymore than a biologist should lecture on law?
Stein did so because he has the RIGHT to do so. Like someone else said, this is about free speech as much as science, per se. Stein is well-known and comfortable around the camera, and this is an asset to any kind of position. Quite frequently, Steve, we see in politics and other other areas of note as well, that spokespersons are hired to make some kind of point that others would have a difficult time doing if not used to the limelight. Further, actors and such can cover a wide range of commentary in one sitting easier than most other professionals. One could ask if just as justifiably if politicians have any input–or should–on complex issues like energy policy and global warming and other areas where professional input is there but is not quite as eloquently presented or canned for consumption. Maybe they should speak. Maybe not.
But hey, they say all’s fair in love and war.
With media attention constantly pouring to all manner of unproven and speculative “science”, is it so terribly unfair for the ID movement to use a well known figure to present a case. Ever hear of Albert Gore and the coming age of the Carbonari Elite armed with a whole array of taxes? Further, Stein did some of the talking, but mostly this WAS a detailed presentation of both sides and several interviews, with the chief difference in this case is that unlike what PBS is about to show tomorrow night, Stein asked pointed questions of BOTH sides, without much tenditious thinking leading him on or goading the interviewees.
Report comment to moderator
#42 SteveG said: Awstar: Those are evidence of plate tectonics. They are not evidence that a worldwide flood caused movement in the plates.
Try again?
If a man lies on the floor dead with a gun in his hand and a bullet hole in his head, is the gun evidence of murder or suicide? By your definition of evidence, the gun is evidence of murder and all other explanations MUST be disregarded.
Stein was right and you are so wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. #53,
I actually spent many years as a young-earther and went to many similar Sunday School classes on creationism as you did. I’ve talked to plenty of Christians and non-Christians about the subject, and I’ve researched both sides independently about as thoroughly one can without getting sidetracked from life in general. Your urging me to do more research on this is thoughtfully noted, but I am fairly certain that I’ve already probably done more than you (I’ve read just about every genetics-related article on Answers in Genesis, for example.) I say this not to be dismissive or disrespectful of you, but merely to say that I know a little bit more about what I’m talking about than I feel like you’re giving me credit for.
What I was alluding to in my earlier post is that the evidence is far more consistent for an old earth and evolution from a common ancestor. It ends up being pretty inconsistent if you assume a young earth. My investigation of both sides of the issue helped to convince me of this, and frankly most Christians who study the subject seriously or are scientists come to similar conclusions. For example, the American Scientific Affiliation. The number of scientists who challenge the modern scientific consensus on evolution and an old earth make up a very small minority– that’s why it’s called a “consensus.” Just because a few experts (many of whom have no significant background in biology, geology, paleontology, or astrophysics even though they write profusely about them) doesn’t mean that all the others who have worked on these subjects for decades are wrong. It’s not that creationist scientists aren’t scientists at all– but they’re a tiny minority, their work is usually not verified by their peers, and oftentimes they don’t even have years of training in the subjects that they offer opinions on (which is usually considered to be an important prerequisite for speaking authoritatively.) Science works by consensus from the best evidence that we currently have, and right now the best evidence indicates common ancestry and an old earth. We don’t try healing chronic back pain with magnets because a couple of doctors say it works; the medical community at large has come to the consensus that that’s not good medicine based on observation and experimentation. If you are not familiar with the decades of work that have been done verifying claims about the scientific integrity, I would once again encourage you to visit the talkorigins site. I was really surprised by how much evidence there is for evolution once I actually allowed myself to look for it.
I still very strongly believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God and that the universe was created by God from nothing. But the young-earth creationist viewpoint, in my opinion, isn’t a particularly credible stance.
Report comment to moderator
Wakefield Tolbert: Good post.
I have said it before, but it bears repeating, that I do see some merit in ID. I think the evidence in favor of gradual development of organisms over vast periods of time is strong, but I have no problem believing that there was some element of design involved … possibly in setting the initial conditions such that evolution could take place, possibly in some irreducibly complex systems. (I am leery of the argument from complexity though, because as presented it usually boils down to, ‘Gosh, I can’t figure out how this could have evolved slowly, so it MUST have been a Designer.’ Those arguments are dangerous because (1) They are almost always overturned with time and further study and (2) They relegate the Designer to the most subtle and nearly-invisible actions.)
My argument is and has been that whether or not there was a divine hand involved is properly the realm of philosophy and theology, not science. (And by the way, that goes for Dennett and Dawkins every bit as much as Behe and the mathematician IDer whose name I can’t recall just now.)
Put simply, the science can tell us what we can see. What we can’t see is beyond its ability to speak to.
And if the IDers were arguing that it should be taught in schools as philosophy and theology, I’d be right there with them. My problem with Stein and his supporters is they want the philosophy taught as science, and it doesn’t belong there. (Nor does atheism; but since evolution does not necessitate atheism, it can and should be taught in a just-the-facts manner, and leave the metaphysical speculation in either direction for other classes.)
Dawkins is on record as saying–along with many public school textbooks as well–that notions of “God” or “Creation” are now “superfluous”; in light of the fact that if everything can be explained via purely mechanistic forces, why even bother positing a God at all?
I know Dawkins says this, but I do not believe public school textbooks do, not in America at least. Please show me any that do, and that are actually in use.
The usual comeback that “science cannot find God”, or that in Stephen Jay Gould’s words, the realms of science and faith are “separate Magisteria” that cannot overlap, is belied by the very fact that Dawkins and Skeptics like Michael Shermer very much think Science for her part can and should investigate what they think is the poppycock of “supernaturalism” and religion.
Skeptics of religion usually embrace evolution. But that’s looking through the wrong end of the scope. Are most people who embrace evolution also skeptics of religion? I don’t know if there’s any reliable studies on the question, but my instinct is that no, they’re not.
However, it’s quite valid to investigate claimed paranormal and miraculous events. If you can show, for example, that a statue of Mary is not really weeping but that the water on its face is just normal condensation, you may have debunked a claimed religious miracle, but you’ve done nothing to disprove the existence of God.
I am not so skeptical as Shermer and I am certainly not an atheist, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with unmasking fraudulent or mistaken claims of miracles and supernatural activity. The fact that much of it is false does not mean all of it is.
But those are not inquiries into the very existence of God. That question does remain beyond the scope of science. As it should.
I am wondering about the motives, however, of some here, including and especially a SteveG, whose name I see from time to time of various posting sites, it seems.
Is your mission here to make some kind of compromise out of all this and show Christians the True Path to Darwinian glory? Or is this yet another incremental step, akin to what goes on in the public schools, of making sure the next generation slowly extricates itself from any notion of God–with Darwin as the ultimate backup singer to the New Chorus?
Your answer could reveal much.
I don’t know what you mean about seeing me at “various sites.” I post in many threads on this site, but if you’ve seen a SteveG at another site, it’s not me. This is the only discussion forum I’m involved in.
My motive here is that I enjoy a robust debate, mostly. But on this particular topic, I think that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and that any valid theology has to find a way to include it. This can accord just fine with a less literal view of Scripture, but not with a literal reading of Genesis. I am, I admit, rather taken aback that some people take the position that they won’t accept anything that requires them to take Genesis non-literally. To me this is like seeing an insect with brown wings but insisting it really has white wings, based on the fact that your guidebook says this species has white wings.
So, motive? Just to ask people to think about why they believe what they do. Any belief — religious or otherwise — that can’t hold up under scrutiny needs to be modified or discarded.
Report comment to moderator
Awstar: #42 SteveG said: Awstar: Those are evidence of plate tectonics. They are not evidence that a worldwide flood caused movement in the plates.
Try again?
If a man lies on the floor dead with a gun in his hand and a bullet hole in his head, is the gun evidence of murder or suicide? By your definition of evidence, the gun is evidence of murder and all other explanations MUST be disregarded.
Stein was right and you are so wrong.
So your evidence that the flood did cause it is that the flood might have caused it?
So far, I’m not impressed.
And since there’s no sign that any such worldwide flood happened to begin with, even less impressed.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for your words, Menliketreeswalking.
The trained scientists in my life appreciate the long day creationism discussed at reasons.org.
Report comment to moderator
Where is the scientific smoking gun that proves once and for all that evolution occurred? Let’s have it. If there were such a thing, then the debate would be over.
And so, what is left is simply conjecture and faith. And the means for advancing that faith is ridicule and censorship as Stein’s documentary so clearly showed. This means of evangelism is amply evident here.
Taking disjointed bone fragments and weaving them together into a clever story does not make it true. If it were true, then I would follow truth wherever it leads. I have no interest in a religion that is not true. And so far the religion of evolution falls short.
It is very fascinating to watch evolutionary myth-making in progress, as was so eloquently documented in Expelled. If it can be imagined, evolutionists believe they have proven something. This pattern is repeated millions of times over in nearly every book or article. Imagination and speculation is as good as fact.
When scientists in Expelled were asked where life came from they said on the backs of crystals or from aliens. These brilliant minds had no problem imagining that life came from other life, not even realizing the tautology. Yet even the slightest deviation from the sacred dogma is enough to end the brilliant careers of many American scientists.
Report comment to moderator
“In any case though, that is the theological problem some Christians see in evolution. (Well, one of them.) My point being, if that is the problem, then ID does nothing to lessen it.
So why, I ask again, are some Christians so intensely concerned about getting ID into schools, since it doesn’t solve the theological problem?”
I could care less about ID. I think its a waste of time to go that route as well.
My point is that if we are defining evolution as the change of species from a common ancestor and not origin/beginnings, then the mechanism offers nothing on Genesis. You cant have your cake and eat it too here. You cant claim that Genesis has no literal evidence based solely on evolution, because evolution defined by evolutionsists does not discuss beginnings.
Report comment to moderator
“Macro evolution is the view that creatures develop and change major organs. Most Christians(the orthodox type) disagree that this happens. They believe that creatures only tolerate minor variations such as skin color. The animal is in a box, so to speak, and may move around but cannot leave the box.”
Misconception. Macro is at least the point where a “new” species can no longer interbreed with the previous species.
“If animals can evolve in minor ways then major ways the major ways are also available since both are made of DNA.”
So your saying the increment changes? I thought evolution was only small incremental changes over large amounts of time? What are your “major ways”?
“Irreducible complexity is ID’s best argument.”
Who cares if its ID’s. It still shows that they are limitations to evolution. Your “major ways” arent achieveable via small increments.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: Genesis does, however, say that God (actually, “the gods,” elohim, but that’s another conversation) created the plants and animals in finished form in a short period of time. The physical evidence doesn’t support that, and does support the gradual development of many different species from a common point of origin.
Taken as allegory, Genesis works well. God “created” these creatures in the sense that He set up the system to produce them through natural processes. Taken as literal fact, however, it does not fit the evidence.
Xion: Where is the scientific smoking gun that proves once and for all that evolution occurred? Let’s have it. If there were such a thing, then the debate would be over.
If Creationists would read the evidence fairly and not reject all of it and wave their holy book around as a valid alternative, the debate would be over.
There is no single “smoking gun,” but there are literally hundreds of bullets. You refuse to see them.
And so, what is left is simply conjecture and faith.
Once you exclude everything that doesn’t fit your narrow world view, I guess so. But for the rest of us, it’s your side that is resting on conjecture and faith.
Report comment to moderator
In re: 34
“I do not agree that it was one literal act by one literal first person that is to blame.”
Why not? If you believe the rest, what holds this back? The bible is quite explicit throughout that Adam is real and he was created without sin and in the image of God. But even evolution would have to take it back to one man and one woman.
On what basis do you not agree that it is a literal description, if some incident still must occur?
Report comment to moderator
“Genesis does, however, say that God (actually, “the gods,” elohim, but that’s another conversation) created the plants and animals in finished form in a short period of time.”
Where does it say finished form in a short period of time, Steve?
Report comment to moderator
“Scripture says Man was formed from dust, but that God breathed the breath of life into him. In other words God took an existing species and stamped his image onto it, gave it a transcendent spiritual portion.”
Last time I checked, dust is made up of inorganic material.
Report comment to moderator
Where does it say finished form in a short period of time, Steve?
All plants in one day, all sea creatures and birds in another, and all land animals in one more, and the whole shebang complete in six days.
You could, of course, argue that it’s not a literal 24-hour day. Old-Earth Creationists and theistic evolutionists do make that argument. But those who insist that Genesis must be literally true in every way respond that a day is a day.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: Last time I checked, dust is made up of inorganic material.
Umm … no. Dust is made up of all kinds of things, organic and inorganic alike. Skin cells, dust mites, pulverized bits of food, insect droppings and such on the organic side, bits of minerals and metal and such on the inorganic.
Report comment to moderator
Remember the ten plagues of Egypt, Thorn?
Some of those plagues destroyed all of the grain or all of the cattle in the land of Egypt. After that so did some of the next plagues. This leaves two options:
1) Moses was an idiot and had no idea what he was writing about.
2) Moses uses metaphors and figures of speech, like everyone else who has ever lived with the exception of B. F. Skinner.
Don’t get hung up on dust.
Report comment to moderator
#69 SteveG There is no single “smoking gun,” but there are literally hundreds of bullets. You refuse to see them.
I see them. You’ve fired at least a hundred at me in all our conversations. But what you refuse to acknowledge is that imagining a solution is not the same as proof.
For example, someone here said that cows evolved into whales as this PBS documentary explains. They say,
“Some details remain fuzzy and under investigation. But we know for certain that this back-to-the-water evolution did occur, thanks to a profusion of intermediate fossils that have been uncovered over the past two decades.”
So we don’t really know how it happened, but one thing we know is that it is TRUE. How? Because the skull found in Pakistan looks a little bit like Archaeocetes, the earliest whale, etc..
Well, no one knows that Archaeocetes is the earliest whale or that any of the supposed intermediate forms are actually intermediate. Resemblance isn’t proof of lineage. A vivid imagination is required to fill in the gaps. But that stops no one from claiming IT IS TRUE!
And all people who don’t revere your faith are morons who shall be promptly fired. That is how this religion is spread, by fear and intimidation, not actual evidence.
Report comment to moderator
Supports of evolutionary theory:
1) Transition fossils in the right time, location, and sequence. I can reference my source if you so wish. In fact I reccomend it.
2) Long scale time span. My authority won’t cut it, and this medium doesn’t facilitate in depth discussion, so I suggest reference.
3) Genetic similarity and observed changes in human time.
My mind froze up and I cannot think of more. SteveG, interced on my behalf. I only have two references (though they are excellent).
Do you know any good readable sources? None of the new atheists please, it’s hard to see beyond the spit.
Report comment to moderator
Evolution does not contradict scripture.
Richard Dawkins would like you to think so. He believes our God is a God of confusion and obscurement, whom we summon to explain what we do not understand. Some posters on this site act as if he were so.
In truth, we need God to explain what we do understand. The world is consistent, frequently good, and beautiful. It is never neutral. All that which is good is a reflection of God’s invisible attributes, including what is good about Richard Dawkins.
God made the world from nothing so that it would develop and run itself, much as deists view things. He also continually holds it up and mantains it, so that it would dissapear if he ceased. He has interceded spiritually and historically.
Report comment to moderator
“All plants in one day, all sea creatures and birds in another, and all land animals in one more, and the whole shebang complete in six days.”
Where does it say the word ALL, Steve?
Genesis Ch 1
“And God said,(H) “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants[e] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. 12The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.”
I fail to see where it says all? It does say each according to their own kinds. It does appear that they are fully formed as man was or as the dog in your back yard is. Hebrews discusses out of nothing and I believe Colossians does as well.
However, Genesis also goes on to say that they reproduce even before the fall.
Evolution is simply the variation or incremental change in DNA from generation after generation of reproduction correct?
How does that conflict with a literal interpretation of Genesis?
God establishes the ancestors fully formed in the least. Fully formed or complete in that sense does not say anything against variation from future reproduction.
The issue here is obviously not the mechanism of evolution itself, but the time constraint imposed on it and the clear asumption that it must account for ALL of life.
Musing has even mentioned on a previous thread that the number of common ancestors is unknown. Considering evoultion doesnt discuss the first ancestor/s I fail to see how you can refute the literalness of Genesis by that mechanism.
Report comment to moderator
In re: 74
My main point was that dust has never been considered a species.
In re: 77
1. Geological strata and fossils were layered via a global flood (cant have fossils without a solvent like water)
2. Based on the concept that decay rates have never changed. I argue they have.
3. Similarities are hardly proof. As even yo umentioned above the same box is gonna have simililar properties. It also means it will have the same limitations. It offers nothing to display that you can get a bird from a reptile.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG:
Are most people who embrace evolution also skeptics of religion? I don’t know if there’s any reliable studies on the question, but my instinct is that no, they’re not.
Among astronomers–probably not. Among biologists? Well, most who’re in the popular press, on PBS, and other outlets to the public eye are most assuradly atheistic or highly agnostic. And physicist Steven Weinberg would agree.
So too would scientists as various as E.O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, B.F Skinner, Francis Crick (and Mr. Watson too), Francis Fukuyama, William Provine, Eugenie Scott, PZ Meyers, Stephen Jay Gould (”If God had made the Panda, surely He’d have done a better job!”), Carl Sagan, science philosophers Richard Rorty and Michael Ruse, education expert John Dewey, the editorial staff of Scientific American and Discover Magazine, and hundreds of others less well known whose names would fill 100 blackboards in small print, not to mention the literal thousands of internet sites by graduate students and organizations that bash religion in the alleged “defense” of science and other euphamisms.
While your line of reasoning certainly has some merit on several isolated points, Steve, it seems from my reading and from the personal testimony of all the above and more that there very much IS a philosophical stake in all this. Michael Ruse and Richard Rorty, just as two examples, wax perfectly lyrical and philosophical when they claim that not only is science at stake, but the harmonious glory of mankind via socialistic planning is needed after we get rid of those pesky religious nuts–the ones not easily led by the nose on various economic and political issues the Left sees as “progress.” Before these gentlemen we had education reformer John Dewey, who worried aloud about the rabid individualism that is anathema to modern society and social conformity but said individualistic thinking and independence fostered by religion’s own version of “skepticism” of modern society, etc.
My apologies if I thought I’d seen you elsewhere. It seemed you or your namesake were on some kind of mission.
In any case, a couple of quickie points since I don’t have the time today:
First, while it is true not all scientists hailing from the biological fields have a particular world view, that is generally the case that they do. The exception demonstrates the general rule.
This is not so much a matter of viewing the wrong end of a scope as it is understanding what kind of scope we’re using here.
Second, as to mircles per se, I don’t believe in them or the supernatural. Heresy!
Wrong. Strictly speaking, there is no such entity as the “supernatural” in the common usage of the word, IMO.
Fellow Christians–be not of great panic. Let me explain.
I think God would work well in the natural realm to get things done and that what you and I have understood by the ancient writings to be miracles are those events that are still unexplained but had a rational explanation not understood at the time and beyond the abilities of humans to duplicate. God can work in any manner He pleases. So I think it is wrongheaded of Shermer and Co. to argue that Christians are benighted numbskulls akin to trusting in Tarot Cards and ouija boards and ghost stories. That said, and as science confirms, there is more to what the Universe contains that what we see. As with faith, some things are known by sheer default of other possibilities, not direct observation. Black holes come to mind. Dark matter. Radio signals. WiFi internet connections that “digitalize” in the non-material realm forms of energy that nontheless affect the material realm, etc. etc. etc. Such is the case in my opinion about issues we have little knowledge of but certainly exist at some higher level. To think that matter is all there is is belied by science as well as the faith of your average peasant. A God who created the Universe by any method is one who can speed up processes of whatnot and do anything else He’d please. Either God has something to do to interact with the known universe, or alternately He does not. Those are the chocies. I reject the idea some “deists” had that God might be around but does not interact in world affairs, or stands back and apart long after getting the Clock wound up and we’re all just on our own. The Scipture seems to indicate, at least, that God is active in human affairs both in visible and invisible, sustaining ways often unseen–like the very structure of matter all around.
Third, while I don’t have the direct quotes or the books in front of me at the moment, I do remember several books of various levels, both public school and college courses, with quotes to the effect of “why would some Creator deign to make pig’s feet dangle uselessly over the mud–evolution is a better explanation than some god, as Darwin showed us.”(high school textbook my wife showed me from her school days), as well as “the Universe is all there is–nothing more need be stipulated” (colege text on physics).
Now granted, I would agree that it is NOT the responsibility of secular publishers teaching to a wide and mostly secular audience to include mentions of God. OK. Granted. We can’t force that issue even if we all agreed it would be a good idea. (Which it probably is not.)
But let no one be fooled that mockery is not present as well. This IS a philosophical battle as well as a scientific one.
Report comment to moderator
Scepter Alert
We’re getting a lot of complaints about BobXXXX’s personal attack on Tony. I’ve sent Bob an email reminding him of our Rules of Engagement. Please let me or Mickey know if you see another similar attack.
Thx.
Report comment to moderator
#77 Provost – Supports of evolutionary theory:
1) Transition fossils in the right time, location, and sequence. I can reference my source if you so wish. In fact I reccomend it.
How do you know they are at the right time and location or how they got there?
2) Long scale time span. My authority won’t cut it, and this medium doesn’t facilitate in depth discussion, so I suggest reference.
Long time scale is required for evolution. The Bible says nothing about it. And obviously the universe was created fully formed with apparent age. Plus no one knows what the pre-existing conditions were, so radioactive decay methods simply assume the maximum as evolution requires or they are “adjusted” if they disagree with the age that is expected. That is not proof of anything.
3) Genetic similarity and observed changes in human time.
These are my favorites. Taxonomy is simply a means of categorization. It does not provide proof of lineage.
As for observed changes in human time, we have never observed one species changing into another. And even if we could intelligently design such an experiment it would not prove that such things occur without intelligent design. It would prove precisely the opposite.
Evolution does not contradict scripture.
“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned” Rom 5:12
You need to explain how there was no death before Adam.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
There was no human death before sin. Romans says also that life comes to men through Christ. Note the mortality rate among Christians. Life means ressurection. The animals will not recieve that.
Attributing a stratigraphy to a world wide flood poses some funky problems. The layers farthest down show only the most basic life. As the layers approach the surface fossils become more complex. A worldwide flood would distribute the fossils evenly.
It would be deceptive of God to put an apparent age on the universe. It would reduce and confuse the knowablity of the universe contradicting his character.
Radioactive decay rates show no sign of having changed. Demanding evidence that they have is absurd. We also think gravity has remained the same.
Yes taxonomy is a tool of classification, but we classify similarities. Cat breeds, for example, are artificial.
Report comment to moderator
Animals are machines. They cannot die as we can. They can only break down. Death is the seperation of a soul and a body which were meant to be together, hence the doctrine of bodily ressurection.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G., It looks like this is the video in question (about Mt. St. Helens): http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/sthelens-vs.html. The description matches, so I think it’s the same one, but I can verify it within the next few days. (I don’t have the contact information of the person who owns the copy I saw.)
Men Like Trees, that you are familiar with the debate is noted. I have no idea which of us has studied this more; if I’m not mistaken, you’re half my age, and thus chances are my cumulative study is more than yours–but your own study is noted. But how do you reconcile it with what you say to be your belief in Scripture? I, for example, am willing to “allow for” an old earth, since Scripture doesn’t give us the age of the earth. (I tend to believe in a young earth, since that seems a more “natural” reading of Scripture, and I believe the evidence points that way. But it’s not a matter of faith for me–my faith won’t be shaken one iota if I’m ever proven wrong, because Scripture won’t be proven wrong by such a proof–though it seems a highly unlikely proof.) I’m not willing to allow for day-age (though I know many thoughtful Christians do), simply because “evening and morning was the fifth day” seems too precise to be read in any way other than a literal day. Adam was a special creation of God, not the result of an evolutionary process–I know no other possible alternative. It doesn’t matter how many kinds of finches God originally created (even if He only created one kind with genetic diversity in its offspring, there’s less variety in finches than in dogs), but there’s nothing in either Scripture or science to support the idea that a gecko (a lizard) and a hummingbird (a bird) have a common ancestor. By the time you veer off in that direction, there’s not a whole lot of trust in Scripture left. And science truly does not demand that, since the evidence isn’t there.
Scripture treats Adam and Eve as literal human beings, and as the very first humans. Do you accept that? If you don’t, then you really might as well stop accepting the rest of Scripture, since none of the rest of it can be trusted either.
I’d recommend the above video to you as well, if you haven’t seen it. It’s a few years old, but I hadn’t happened to see it yet until recently, and it’s astounding.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: Evolution is simply the variation or incremental change in DNA from generation after generation of reproduction correct?
How does that conflict with a literal interpretation of Genesis?
OK, fair enough, I can buy that. Now see if you can get Xion or Michael Martin to see it.
Do tell me how you read the heavens separating the waters above from the waters below, though.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: How do you know they are at the right time and location or how they got there?
Basic geology and paleontology can give us the time and the how. These line up with what we would expect if the theory of evolution is accurate.
Xion: Long time scale is required for evolution. The Bible says nothing about it. And obviously the universe was created fully formed with apparent age. Plus no one knows what the pre-existing conditions were, so radioactive decay methods simply assume the maximum as evolution requires or they are “adjusted” if they disagree with the age that is expected. That is not proof of anything.
Radioactive decay is one of many methods used to determine age. There are numerous methods based on well understood geological and cosmological principles that all point to the universe being at least several billion years old. Any “adjustments” in these figures are small and are made as we get a better understanding of reality. There is literally no evidence that our universe is as young as a few thousand or even a few million years old.
Xion: These are my favorites. Taxonomy is simply a means of categorization. It does not provide proof of lineage.
As for observed changes in human time, we have never observed one species changing into another. And even if we could intelligently design such an experiment it would not prove that such things occur without intelligent design. It would prove precisely the opposite.
Speciation has been observed in a number of types of organisms. Major morphological changes have been observed both in the wild and in laboratory experiments. What hasn’t been observed is any limit to the amount of evolution that can occur over time.
Beyond that, creationists/ID proponents have still not rigorously defined where micro-evolution ends and macro-evolution begins. This is a clear case of moving the goal-posts and does not constitute a valid criticism of the theory of evolution.
Report comment to moderator
Provost (post 77),
I don’t have time to interact with all the posters on this thread, and frankly I’m a layperson with scientific interest but not enough training to do more than scratch the surface. But scratching the surface is really all that’s necessary on this one:
Supports of evolutionary theory:
1) Transition fossils in the right time, location, and sequence. I can reference my source if you so wish. In fact I reccomend it.
2) Long scale time span. My authority won’t cut it, and this medium doesn’t facilitate in depth discussion, so I suggest reference.
3) Genetic similarity and observed changes in human time.
1) This is regularly stated and regularly refuted. Convincing “transition fossils” have simply never been brought forth, and the location and sequence is definitely suspect. (I don’t know enough to deal with potential “transition fossils” on the monera level–I want to see higher level animals, at least insects. So far even “transition fossils” such as the bird with a long tail bone–I can’t spell it and I’m stubborn about not writing words I’m likely to misspell–are fully functional birds or whatever they are. We don’t have scales in the process of becoming feathers, for instance. And a number of species presumed to be extinct for thousands or millions of years have been found living, and exactly like the fossils representing them.)
2) This has been dealt with adequately by creation scientists. Nothing in geology or astronomy requires this, and in fact there’s much evidence against it. Dating methods aren’t all that reliable, and nothing in biology requires long ages except that clearly all animal life couldn’t have evolved in a few thousand years. In other words, evolutionary presuppositions require age; evidence itself does not. With the evidence of quick formation of caves and their formations; petrification; canyons; sedimentary layers; etc., we simply can no longer look at geological formations and say they must be old.
3) No creationist will dispute this. We have new dog breeds even in my lifetime. But we have no new species, and not even a step in that direction, even with the most fervent breeding. Microevolution simply isn’t evidence (not even “weak evidence”) for neo-Darwinism. Genetic similarity isn’t proof of evolution, either–it might be proof of a single Creator, in the way all Monet’s paintings show similar design.
But again, there are people who are better than I am at all these discussions, and I have other things I need to do today, so I’m going to sign off.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D.: [...] there’s nothing in either Scripture or science to support the idea that a gecko (a lizard) and a hummingbird (a bird) have a common ancestor [...]
This is patently false. There is overwhelming evidence to support the idea that a gecko and a hummingbird (as well as ants, squids, E. coli, and mushrooms) all share a common ancestor. If you want to ignore the evidence, you are welcome to, but please don’t pretend to know things that you are clearly unfamiliar with.
Report comment to moderator
” A worldwide flood would distribute the fossils evenly.”
Based on what? Complexity of its DNA? Dont think so.
Bones must be incased in wet sediment and rapidly if it wishes to fossilize. That poses several issues for the millions of years theories, mainly, erosion.
Considering that at least the same types of fossilized animals remain consistent across their respective strata, fossils are distributed evenly. How else do you get “time eras” for T-rex’s. Its because you typically find T-Rex bones in the same strata.
Fossils would not distribute evenly, because each different animal has a different size, shape, density, specific gravity, buounancy, particle size, environment in which it lived, etc etc.
But T-rex’s will always be found with other T-rex’s…and of course regardless of which theory you wish to go with there, there will be the few random exceptions.
“It would be deceptive of God to put an apparent age on the universe. It would reduce and confuse the knowablity of the universe contradicting his character.”
HUH? How does earth being finite, contradict God’s infinite, eternal character?
“Radioactive decay rates show no sign of having changed. Demanding evidence that they have is absurd.”
Considering the ratio of carbon 14/13 changes every year, I’d say its certainly quite possible. But lets get into other isotopes. At some point, these isotopes are created on earth, either by God or by some event. Either way, if some event has changed or produced more isotopes, then our calculations are off. As these are always based on ratios.
A massive flood would have knocked off plant life, thus the ratio of carbon 13 to 14 would drop to almost nothing, as 14 is continually produced from Nitrogen decomposing in the atmosphere.
Its also quite possible other isotopes would be formed during the flood from various reactions.
The point here is that science has often simply assumed non changing rates, and for the last several hundred years, that would be true. But we dont have much data before that, and it is not safe to assume.
Report comment to moderator
In #52, I prematurely mentioned that no one had used the term “Darwinism” yet. Of course it then popped up several times. Monkey see, monkey do.
I suggest we start describing the theory of gravity as Newtonism and theory of relativity as Einsteinism.
From now on please refer to plate techtonics as Wegenerism. (Say it fast 10 times.)
Psychoanalysis is rather more like a religion, so people often do say Freudian.
Germs, diseases, and vaccines are somewhat controversial. We do talk about Pasteurization. I do think I have hit on a major psuedo-science principle here.
Seriously, science and religion are different. A major scientific theory may be discovered and promoted by a major figure but his or her discovery is not cast in stone or worshiped. It’s not usually maligned or cursed. It is subject to change as new evidence is discovered.
Well, I have to admit I am coming across different schools of thought among conservative Christians on old earth versus new earth, etc.
While there are three main branches of Christianity, apparently there are about 39,000 different denominations. Perhaps this splitting started with Lutheranism, but should there be a better name for this obsessive schisming? Are there scientific principles that apply to such evolution of Christian belief?
Report comment to moderator
“Do tell me how you read the heavens separating the waters above from the waters below, though.”
Ocean’s above, water chambers below…hydroplate theory as Brown bases that visualization off such a passage that your referencing. The hebrew word I believe is raqia for expanse in day 2. I assume thats what your referring too. Used in this passage, it is without its usual “of the heavens” that follows it in other passages. Standing alone it lends more to the translation of a some form of solid expanse. A reasonable explanation can be found here:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ37.html#wp4104880
God calls the expanse, Heaven. Pre-fall, thats certainly what Adam would have thought of it, earth was paradise. You have to realize and remember that God created earth with the intention of it being paradise or a Heaven. Sin of course wrecked that. But he gives some other good references that may help with a biblical understanding of Genesis 1:8a.
Good question though.
As far as Xion and Mr. martin go, I think I’d have an easier time than with you
Report comment to moderator
Hi Random Name,
I see “Darwinism” appearing 4 times in this thread, not counting your uses of it in #52 and #92. CherylD used it quoting an external source (that’s the first appearance of it), and SteveG requoted that quote (that’s the second appearance). Then Wakefield Tolbert used the term twice in #59 (third and fourth use). Did you read his take on the use of the term? It’s interesting. You should interact with it.
How do you define “several”?
Report comment to moderator
“There is literally no evidence that our universe is as young as a few thousand or even a few million years old”
Then by all means, please explain Helium in Zircon….
Report comment to moderator
Greetings Random Name.
We can do all the above, as you suggest in #92. There are very many schools and downright fads in science that get labeled–quite correctly–as being a trend on one kind or another. Thus for example Socio-Biology is making a comeback, whether we like its ugly implications about human nature, or not. At one time the Marxists claimed to have science on their side for all things economic. Hmmm. (On this topic I’ll leave current political trends alone for the moment even if this fad is back in vogue as well.)
My use of the term “Darwinism”, or of “Darwinian” derivation, of course, is two things, the first but not the strongest reason being sheer convenience to separate out the different ideas from Darwin himself, who today if he continued his writing to the effect that he gave credence to a Designer, would be labeled one of those “pseudo-science” advocates also, vs. the New Darwin pitch meisters like Dawkins, who take this to mean something far more mechanistic, and as a final knockout punch against God. Second, the term stipulates that, contra what we’re always told, there IS a philosophical bias in academia for this particular flavor of the writings of Charles Darwin.
Now granted, since I know what’s coming next I’ll just go ahead and admit the typical response:
1) Darwinists will say they hate and don’t even use the term.
RESPONSE: re-read what the Darwinians say about the meaning of life on earth–or, rather, the lack thereof….
2) They will follow up and claim that the “science” behind this mechanistic force that turns planarian worms into college professors and the whole grand metaphysical story is sound from seeing how German Shepards can mix with the Taco Bell doggie so easily and thus gene flow means that all beings came from one ancestor.
RESPONSE: Not even getting into the difference between human inspired breeding for various reasons by FORCE, as not quite analagous to random natural fluctuations working this magic of modling the animals, we have the problem presented by Behe and others in the ID movement that in the first place you have to have something present from a-biotic life generation to even get started. Second, you have to make sure genetic drift is generally not deleterious and harmful. Third, many component parts seen in “irreducibly” complex organic structures cannot function in some “in-between” state, nor is their evolution adequately explained. Bend but slightly an outboard motor’s blades, and you won’t be going far. You’ll burn gas, yeah, but you won’t make it to shore. Such is the case with many analagous structures found in nature. Human sperm cells, flagellum, cicilia in human lungs that process mucus, and the organelles (miniture organs) inside cells that are vital to processing fuel and waste materials, etc.
And then there is the eye, which unbelievably and with an affront to common sense, we now see a claim from Darwinists that this structure evolved in increments not once, but dozens of times.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: Fossils would not distribute evenly, because each different animal has a different size, shape, density, specific gravity, buounancy, particle size, environment in which it lived, etc etc.
If that were true, then we would find all fossils with similar size, shape, density, etc. in the same strata. We do not.
This is the kind of pseudoscience that sounds good, until you examine it. In fact fossils are NOT distributed based on the factors you note. If they were, we would find fossils of sabre-tooth tigers, modern leopards and small dinosaurs — all about the same size and similar shape — in or near the same strata. Instead we find them spaced apart, and yet, surprisingly for your assertion, grouped with other animals, some of which are much larger and some of which are much smaller.
Report comment to moderator
Gwf81 Radioactive decay is one of many methods used to determine age.
The rubidium isotope decays into strontium. The ratio provides the age. Well, how much rubidium did you start with?
Speciation has been observed in a number of types of organisms.
All cases of “speciation” in a lab involved intelligently designed genetic experiments. If anything, these intelligently designed experiments say more about intelligent design.
In several cases they were able to produce a generation that became reproductively isolated, in nearly all cases due to sterility. And there is no evidence that these were actually a different species, since the very definition of species is controversial.
There is no correlation whatsoever between carefully engineered minor genetic variations in a lab and proof that pond scum became cab drivers simply because there was enough time.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: Based on what? Complexity of its DNA? Dont think so.
Bones must be incased in wet sediment and rapidly if it wishes to fossilize. That poses several issues for the millions of years theories, mainly, erosion.
Considering that at least the same types of fossilized animals remain consistent across their respective strata, fossils are distributed evenly. How else do you get “time eras” for T-rex’s. Its because you typically find T-Rex bones in the same strata.
Fossils would not distribute evenly, because each different animal has a different size, shape, density, specific gravity, buounancy, particle size, environment in which it lived, etc etc.
But T-rex’s will always be found with other T-rex’s…and of course regardless of which theory you wish to go with there, there will be the few random exceptions.
The point is that fossils have not been sorted with respect to size, shape, or density. What we find is that organisms that we would expect to find in a particular strata, we do find in a particular strata (e.g. dinosaurs in the Mesozoic era, mammals in the Cenozoic era, etc). It’s not as simplistic as finding tyrannosaurs with other tyrannosaurs.
Thorn: Considering the ratio of carbon 14/13 changes every year, I’d say its certainly quite possible. But lets get into other isotopes. At some point, these isotopes are created on earth, either by God or by some event. Either way, if some event has changed or produced more isotopes, then our calculations are off. As these are always based on ratios.
A massive flood would have knocked off plant life, thus the ratio of carbon 13 to 14 would drop to almost nothing, as 14 is continually produced from Nitrogen decomposing in the atmosphere.
Its also quite possible other isotopes would be formed during the flood from various reactions.
The point here is that science has often simply assumed non changing rates, and for the last several hundred years, that would be true. But we dont have much data before that, and it is not safe to assume.
There is no evidence to suggest that radioactive decay rates have changed and that is enough in itself to assume non changing rates. Beyond that, there is no reason to expect the behavior of sub-atomic particles to be anything other than consistent. You are simply looking for loopholes without providing any support for your conjectures.
Also, you don’t seem to understand the basic principles of radiometric dating. I suspect you are just parroting something you read on a creationist website without understanding what it means.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: God calls the expanse, Heaven. Pre-fall, thats certainly what Adam would have thought of it, earth was paradise. You have to realize and remember that God created earth with the intention of it being paradise or a Heaven. Sin of course wrecked that. But he gives some other good references that may help with a biblical understanding of Genesis 1:8a.
Good question though.
wow, that is some impressive gymnastics, but I’m afraid it doesn’t wash. It’s God, not man, that calls the expanse Heaven.
More fatal to your pseudoscience though, just a couple sentences later in verse 9, it’s very clear the waters UNDER the heavens that God has gather “into one place” to uncover some dry land. This is obviously the ocean, not your hypotehtical sub-surface water.
Try again?
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: Then by all means, please explain Helium in Zircon….
I don’t have to, it’s already been done.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html
Report comment to moderator
I think that evolution is a clever theory which is fun to discuss, but it also has a lot of holes. I enjoy talking about the holes. That is how science advances, by discussing things we don’t yet understand. But even teaching the holes is highly frowned upon as challenging the sacred dogma. Can you imagine a class that discussed the problems with evolution?
As Stein’s documentary exposes, discussing the holes is essentially off limits for many scientists who don’t want to lose their careers.
What is even more bothersome is the intellectual dishonesty that calls a flimsy theory with lots of holes fact. Time and again when I ask someone for evidence what I get is a story for how something might have happened. What is factual about that?
The best you can do is collect enough evidence to dispel doubt, but the dispelling of doubt is more properly termed faith. Why is this so hard for the faithful to admit? It’s no big deal really, but the believers will attack people who disagree with them, as the movie Expelled so eloquently shows.
Report comment to moderator
“If that were true, then we would find all fossils with similar size, shape, density, etc. in the same strata. We do not.”
My point is that there are more factors at work than simple size and shape. You can make a concrete boat, float. Environment, similiar locations are going to play a role as well. However in a giant water column thats flucuating, your going to get some form of sorting. We arent dealing with just bones here, we are dealing with the whole animal and the whole plant. Fossilization occurs as the flood ends. The factors at work are many, but they will treat each species the same way, with few exceptions, yet exceptions will happen. So like species will be grouped as in a T-rex should always be next to other T-rexes. Dino’s will be next to Dino’s. Small dino’s with big dino’s because they shared the same environments for starters.
Considering that evolutionists claim a consistancy in the fossil record. I’m simply stating the consistancy is not based on lineage.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: The rubidium isotope decays into strontium. The ratio provides the age. Well, how much rubidium did you start with?
Actually, scientists can extrapolate what the original concentration of strontium-87 was to determine how much rubidium has decayed. This is accomplished by measuring the strontium-86 concentration, which is non-radiogenic.
Xion: All cases of “speciation” in a lab involved intelligently designed genetic experiments. If anything, these intelligently designed experiments say more about intelligent design.
In several cases they were able to produce a generation that became reproductively isolated, in nearly all cases due to sterility. And there is no evidence that these were actually a different species, since the very definition of species is controversial.
There is no correlation whatsoever between carefully engineered minor genetic variations in a lab and proof that pond scum became cab drivers simply because there was enough time.
It must be nice to merely assert that there is no evidence against your position, but it simply isn’t the case.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm
This was an accidental, fully natural experiment that shows significant morphological changes. Where is your evidence that this cannot continue further given more time?
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. #86,
To answer your question, I reconcile the scientific understanding of evolution with Scripture by understanding that Genesis 1 & 2 tell us that God created the world out of nothing and is sovereign over it, and that He established the gender roles as we understand them. “Evening & morning” is simply descriptive poetic language meant to speak to the Hebrews in their cultural context and establish Yahweh as the true Creator God who is a God of order and power. I personally believe that Adam & Eve were real people, but other intelligent Christians (like C.S. Lewis) didn’t believe that necessarily. If the important part of Genesis 3 is that all have fallen short of the glory of God and that we as a species are cursed, it really doesn’t matter a whole lot. In any case, all Christians believe that God breathing into Adam was a supernatural event (either after the body was created out of nothing or evolved after millions of years) and that being in His image is far and away the most important point of the creation. The argument that if you don’t take Genesis 3 literally, you shouldn’t take anything else literally is silly because the form and structure of Genesis 1-11 is very different from Genesis 12-50. Commentaries have made this distinction between “Primeval History” and “Patriarchal History” for centuries and I don’t think that it’s inappropriate to understand the primeval history portion a little differently.
There is a lot in science to suggest that a gecko and a hummingbird have a common ancestor. I don’t wish to belabor the point of who has studied more (being twice my age, you probably have spent more time total studying), but from the arguments that you’re throwing out, it doesn’t sound like you’ve studied both sides thoroughly. I could be entirely wrong about this, and I don’t wish to smear you. For example, you mentioned only one “transitional fossil” and dismissed it right way, when in fact there are many more examples worth mentioning. Also, the claims about Mount St. Helens ought to be evaluated in light of other findings. Again, this is only the impression that I get from reading your posts, and even that is only that you just seem unfamiliar with some of the basic evidence for evolution. If you haven’t yet, I would encourage you to explore the talkorigins site a little.
Report comment to moderator
“More fatal to your pseudoscience though, just a couple sentences later in verse 9, it’s very clear the waters UNDER the heavens that God has gather “into one place” to uncover some dry land. This is obviously the ocean, not your hypotehtical sub-surface water.”
Youve got water/solid/water. The solid will readily deform, pushing the water underneath into larger pockets, thus pushing up on other areas of the solid. Thus land falls, then rises in other areas. The water on top, recedes into the newly formed oceans. Remember at the start, there is water covering the whole earth. God splits it on day 2, and by day 3, it readily forms land/oceans.
So under the heavens works just fine, as the water under the solid is moved and the water on top is moved as a result.
Report comment to moderator
#104 So then, they started with lizards and after “large scale evolution” occurred, it was discovered that they had evolved into LIZARDS! Good work!
Report comment to moderator
Sorry GWF81, it appears you link is questioning merely Humphrey..not Gentry. It is Gentry who originally found that the Helium rate of escape from Zircon is relatively high.
Your author’s beef does not appear to be with him. It rests mostly in criticizing Humphrey’s sample practice and equation useage.
That doesnt counter Gentry’s conclusions. Humphrey was attempting even lower rates, but even Gentry’s show a relatively fast rate. I’ll gladly give you a couple orders of magnitude, but your still looking at a million years or so at most.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: Oh, I see. So when the text says “heaven” it really means Earth, and when it refers to the water receding to reveal the dry land, it really means water under the Earth [which doesn't actually exist] moving so that the Earth collapses in places and lets the surface water collect in the depressions.
Too bad God didn’t think to mention any of those nuances when dictating the story.
Report comment to moderator
“Where is your evidence that this cannot continue further given more time?”
Its your job to show that it will. You cant just extrapolate.
So far Xion is right, and frankly I have no problem with a lizard “evolving” to a different lizard. No one here disagrees with you there. But proving it will go farther, is up to you.
Although whats interesting here to note, is that, this was called extremely rapid evolution. If it only took 36 years….gee…guess we dont need the millions after all do we?
Report comment to moderator
“it really means water under the Earth [which doesn't actually exist] moving so that the Earth collapses in places and lets the surface water collect in the depressions.”
Well we have two incidents already of water below 5 miles having been found while drilling. Its a prediction there will be lots more to be found as the technology to drill that far, grows.
Look you asked, so i gave you an explanation based on the Hebrew usage of the word and other Scripture. Sorry if actually trying to understand Scripture is mental gymnastics
Thats the fun part really, discovering the nuances that God doesnt explain step by step… in English.
Raqia is used for expanse not Heavens. So vs. 9 continues on discussing the waters “under the heavens”. I dont believe they are the same word, and I havent looked yet but I imagine the hebrew used for Heavens vs. heavens will be different as well.
But the point at the end of the matter is that God forms the dry land and oceans through one mechanism really on one day.
Do you offer an alternate explanation Steve?
Report comment to moderator
Men Like Trees,
Have I thoroughly explored “the other side”? No. I have, however, read much that assumes and even teaches evolution. (I have read Origin of Species, for one–though admittedly many years ago.) The fact is that I trust God and believe He got it right (He was there!), so no, I haven’t explored the other side “with an open mind” any more than I’m likely to listen to slander of my husband from one of his enemies “with an open mind” if I ever get married.
Science fascinates me. I don’t, however, have a mathematical mind (beyond basic math–I test high on math tests that test one’s math ability compared to the general population, but math was my lowest score on my ACT and mathematical formulas and the like are simply beyond my understanding). In other words, most of my exploration is of necessity on a lay level, though my lifelong fascination with animals (and much reading and some study) gives me an edge in zoology. But my limitations are real, and are the reason I only go to a certain depth.
The early chapters of Genesis are absolutely not poetry, by the way. Whatever the “kind” of history, they’re presented as true history (and treated other places in the Bible like true history). Nor would any readers of the book who read it more than a few hundred years ago have come to any possible conclusion other than that the days of Genesis 1 were literal days. In other words, God was being deceptive if He was presenting them as “days” when He really meant something else and if “the truth” couldn’t be discovered until modern experts came along.
Both sides of this debate have a bias–those who believe in Darwinian evolution (I use that term to be specific because the word “evolution” simply means change) and those who believe in biblical creation. Somehow it’s considered biased to have the starting point that Genesis is true, but not considered biased to have the opposite starting point, that Genesis is not true. Having been raised in Scripture from infancy, I can’t “start over” and pretend to be reading the Bible for the first time, or as though I don’t believe it. It does actually hold up to scrutiny, but I’m an insider and cannot pretend I’m not, just as I’m a woman and can never experience what it’s like to be a man. But I’m no more biased for having that starting point than anyone else on this issue, even those whose bias is on the other side. (I’ve heard it said, and I think it’s true, that scientists would have “proven” a worldwide flood by now if the Bible didn’t teach it. There’s much physical evidence for it, along with much oral-history evidence for it. But if you accept the Flood as an actual event, it throws out the ability to disbelieve the Bible, and it also throws out so many nice alternative explanations to things like canyon formation and fossils.)
Anyway, I do think I’ve seen a good portion of the “evidence” for evolution (from a lay perspective, as qualified above), and it simply doesn’t add up. It actually often looks downright silly and self-contradictory, with most of it based on speculation and not actual evidence. And since what we have on earth and in space can be answered by creation scientists and doesn’t in fact need to throw out the Bible, then it seems fair to continue to accept that God spoke accurately.
In other words, if there was more in creation science that doesn’t make sense than in evolutionary science, there could be legitimate room for doubt–and obviously that’s where you’ve found yourself, though for some reason you still want to hold on to a basic belief in God. But since the physical evidence can be construed (interpreted) either way, since much of it fits the biblical record better, and since those who have accepted the Bible’s narrative have the additional evidence of God’s own eye-witness word, there seems more than enough reason to tip the balance toward God’s side of things. That’s where I stand, unapologetically and without embarrassment. And it doesn’t really matter much whether I’m “vindicated” by further advances in science bringing most scientists to admit that Genesis is true or not till eternity. Either way, I’m satisfied that God can be trusted, and I stand with Him.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, MLTW, I’m bookmarking your links to come back to later. I’ve spent too much time on this today.
Report comment to moderator
#105 MLTW the form and structure of Genesis 1-11 is very different from Genesis 12-50.
I am fluent in Hebrew and read the OT in Hebrew every day. What exactly is different between the two sections?
“Evening & morning” is simply descriptive poetic language meant to speak to the Hebrews in their cultural context
I speak with Jews and a rabbi at least once a week. We use the words morning and evening all the time and it means morning and evening.
Please explain what a Christian is to do with Rom 5:12:
“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned”
Provost explains it away by saying death is spiritual death. It certainly was, but physical death was caused by the fall as well. Did the Second Adam have a bodily death, burial and resurrection? Did Jesus rise again literally or figuratively?
I am not saying that Christians are required to believe in Gen 1-11, however those who don’t will never fully understand the plan of redemption. It would be like having the end of a book without the beginning.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: Look you asked, so i gave you an explanation based on the Hebrew usage of the word and other Scripture. Sorry if actually trying to understand Scripture is mental gymnastics
Thats the fun part really, discovering the nuances that God doesnt explain step by step… in English.
Raqia is used for expanse not Heavens. So vs. 9 continues on discussing the waters “under the heavens”. I dont believe they are the same word, and I havent looked yet but I imagine the hebrew used for Heavens vs. heavens will be different as well.
Nope.
Look at this Hebrew-English interlinear Bible page.
The word translated as “heavens” in verses 1, 8 and 9 is shmim. The word rqio is translated as firmament. God creates the firmament divide the waters above from the waters below.
According to the interlinear Bible, the most literal translation of rqio is “atmosphere.” So, God creates the atmosphere to separate the water above from the water below. This accords well with the common ancient belief that the sky was a dome over the Earth, with water above it.
Then, in verses 8-10, it’s the water below the atmosphere that become the seas. There is no way to read this as water below the land move around so some land collapses and get filled with water. Your hydroplate thingy is adding ideas that simply are not there.
As far as water under the Earth, there are indeed pockets here and there. For the hydroplate theory to hold up, especially with your wrinkle that it’s the absence of subsurface water that leads to land collapse to form oceans, there must be water below all land, and in sufficient volume to actually support the land mass.
If that is the case, every geologist in the world will faint.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. #112 & #113,
If you need to quit any time, that’s fine by me. I totally understand the weariness that comes from spending too much time on any one blog, and I hope that our discussion has been fruitful for you.
I think it is entirely appropriate that we read the Bible believing that it is the inspired, inerrant Word of God as you do. That’s the way I read it, too, and anything else is going to get us into trouble. A truly unbiased person would probably read the Bible without any preconditions or prejudices, and you’ll never find anyone out there without both.
However, when we approach the Bible, we have to let it speak to us and bring as little baggage as possible with us when we exegete. If we give up the preconception that has been drilled into us as evangelicals because we’re so terrified of those evil evolutionists about the six-day thing, we see the big-picture themes of Genesis 1 & 2 are way, way more important than whether or not the word “yom” refers to a 24-hour period or not (and, by the way, there is at least one place, in verse 2:4, where it most definitely does not mean a 24-hour period.) And there were other people reading Genesis (like Augustine) who thought that chapter 1 meant that God created the world instantaneously– so it’s not just in the last hundred years when this has come up. Once we have allowed the text itself to speak to us (and we “eat the book” as Eugene Peterson says), we turn next to commentaries, historical background, natural revelation, and yes even modern science to help us understand what’s going on.
I think you’ve created a false dichotomy by saying that the young-earth creationist viewpoint is “God’s side” and the evolutionary creationist viewpoint is not (I feel like that’s the distinction you’re making.) Obviously, a simplistic reading of the text would push one towards a six-day sort of viewpoint. But a simplistic reading of a lot of texts would push us into all kinds of crazy things, and so we always have to be thoughtful in how we interpret the Bible. Again, I don’t want to throw out the Bible by any means and neither does any other evolutionary creationist. We still affirm its historic truth, but God’s natural revelation must, at some level, be incorporated into it. You clearly do not find the evidence for evolution compelling and I do, and so I guess that’s where we diverge. I’m perfectly okay with agreeing to disagree on the issue if that’s where we can agree is the difference.
Report comment to moderator
Xion #114,
You do not seem genuinely interested my answers, but I will offer them anyway. You are probably better prepared to talk about Genesis than me, but you have to admit that the first 11 chapters are, at the very least, a distinct literary unit.
You also sing that that God’s mercies are “new every morning,” and you certainly have a bit of a figurative meaning in that phrases, don’t you?
I think the “spiritual death” interpretation is entirely reasonable. If physical death was caused by the fall, did anything die before the fall? Cells? Insects?
The Gospels are an entirely different genre of literature from Genesis 1 and thus the literal or figurative nature of their subjects are a bit easier to separate out. Of course I believe that Jesus was a real human being who died and rose again, and an evolutionary creationist viewpoint on Genesis does not impinge upon that basic, fundamental Christian belief in any way. We are still sinful people born into a sinful race in need of Christ, our savior.
Report comment to moderator
Xion:
I’ve been a little unclear. Man’s death as caused by the fall is spiritual and physical both. Men did not die before the fall. The great evil of human death is the seperation of the spiritual from the physical.
You say:
“Provost explains it away by saying death is spiritual death. It certainly was, but physical death was caused by the fall as well. Did the Second Adam have a bodily death, burial and resurrection? Did Jesus rise again literally or figuratively?”
We have a spiritual and a physical death. Christ only had one. He rose literally and figuratively together. His ressurection happened in real time just as the fall did.
Note that Romans 5:12 is not quite literal itself. It attributes death and sin to one man. As I recall Eve was also involved. Could this not mean humanity unanimously sinned?
Report comment to moderator
Man’s death is caused because we are animals and all animals die.
There is nothing to indicate that we have a “soul” that survives our death; as far as I can see such beliefs are nothing more than wishful thinking and inability to accept our mortality.
Humans evolved from common ancestors of other primates. The Garden of Eden is a myth. Most cultures have “creation myths”; Christians can apprehend that the stories of Greek Gods and Norse Gods and so on are creation myths, but are overcome with credulity when presented with the Judeo-Christian creation myth.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, MLTW, I do indeed find it hard to reconcile “inerrant” with the idea that Genesis 1-11 aren’t actually true, even though they’re recorded as true history, in historical language. And the thing is, it’s so very unnecessary to let evolutionary science trump Scripture. I hope that you continue to study this.
I do think that a person can be a Christian and believe what you do, but I think it’s a sad place to be, and a place that will bring you grief someday–maybe on the other side of the grave, maybe when you have children and one of them takes your belief to the logical end of unbelief, or maybe when you are convinced this side of the grave that you have been deceived. But I believe that one way or another, it will bring you grief when you realize what a waste it has been to try to hold these two irreconcilable positions together, and to be willing to cast doubts on some of God’s truthfulness because of the philosophy of atheistic scientists. They do have a bias, and it isn’t a holy one.
Report comment to moderator
So Cheryl, is there water above the sky, as Genesis says?
Report comment to moderator
# 13, Steve G: I know, lots of room and stuff since then. Ah, well. And…nice wreath!
“But scientists rightly feel no obligation to consider every wild idea someone puts up. Nor should they, or can they, investigate ideas that fall outside the realm of science.”
May I ask what the definition of “realm of science” is? I thought science was observing the world around us, and drawing provable conclusions from this? If science is observation and theorizing, then why cannot it be applied to the world of faith? Faith can be observed and theorized. Charity, generosity, love, etc., can be measured and tabulated.
That’s one of my main pet peeves with current scientific naturalism: it wimps out on anything that’s not “naturalistic.” They don’t want to do the heavy work involving spirituality, especially if it involves spiritual blindness and things we just can’t see or hear (like, um, much of the invisible light spectrum, among other things).
I suspect the only thing more dangerous than scientists trying to control the debate over science, is scientists ignoring whatever they’re not comfortable investigating.
Report comment to moderator
Kennethos: I thought science was observing the world around us, and drawing provable conclusions from this? If science is observation and theorizing, then why cannot it be applied to the world of faith? Faith can be observed and theorized. Charity, generosity, love, etc., can be measured and tabulated.
Those are not evidence of the existence of any particular God. They’re evidence of a person’s desire or nature to exhibit those traits (and the branches of science that deal with behavior — psychology, sociology and related disciplines — do indeed study them.)
Whether the person has those desires due to the influence of a deity .. how would you measure or test for that? The person may believe that’s the cause. You may even be able to document a change in behavior after a conversion experience. But how would you ever know whether it really ws due to a divine influence, or just the person’s belief in a divine influence?
It just can’t be subjected to the kind of inquiry that science is able to do.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. #120,
I hope I haven’t been unclear– I still believe that Genesis 1-11 is very true and God-breathed. I just don’t think that it is necessarily a detailed historical facts-and-figures play-by-play in the sense that we would understand historical non-fiction written today. God is still very much the Creator and our spiritual death is still very much rooted in a historical Fall; He has not been deceptive to us in any way but has certainly not made it easy for us. I think that by understanding evolution from a Christian standpoint and teaching my children the same I will prevent them from ever having to choose between what their God-given reason & natural revelation leads them to and what their parents’ faith leads them towards, as I have seen happen, sadly, with many friends. It’s been a pleasure dialoguing with you, grace & peace to you.
Report comment to moderator
CherylD: maybe when you have children and one of them takes your belief to the logical end of unbelief,
What’s more likely is that they will grow up and learn more about science than you ever told them, and, if they have been raised to believe that the truth of Christianity depends on the literal truth of the Genesis story, they will leave it all behind.
On the other hand, if they grow up believing that the truth and power of Christ is there whether the Genesis story is literal or metaphorical, they’ll be much more likely to remain faithful.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name:
There is no scientific/empirical/materialistic evidence that man has a soul. That’s to be expected because souls are none of the above. There is plenty of objective evidence. A materialist such as yourself must deny blatant realities like beauty, goodness, and justice. You can only call them illusions.
You have assumed that all man’s senses are empirical and materialistic. The only analog for such folly I can think of are buddhists, well known for denying only their materialist senses. A hundred thousand years of common human experience-love, art museums, family, self-sacrifice, even ingenuity-deny that we are only mindless machines.
Report comment to moderator
By the way, Random name, creation myths are not simply wrong. They are vague memories, corrupted, and often taken literally.
Report comment to moderator
Is this thing on.
Report comment to moderator
in re: 115
Thats not correct according to your own link. Vs 8a says shmim, every other encounter is eshmim.
This is also the case with rqio, as its lrqio in vs 8a and brqio elsewhere. Elsewhere it has always been translated expanse/atmosphere as its always followed by “of the heavens”. But the usage in vs 8 is different. Im no language scholar, but when you change spelling, phrase, and the surrounding words, it often changes the meaning. The point is, the 2nd day is clearly depicting that the waters are seperated by some firmament.
To say thats its created some atmosphere expanse on day 2 flys in the face of day 1. Day 1 we already have the heavens created (eshmim). Thats not a day 2 or day 3 event. So rqia is not the sky,space, heavens in vs 8. Standing alone in that verse, has led many translators to believe it means a solid firmament.
Its the water under the heavens that is gathered, surface water. If there is some distinction between surface water and water above a dome…well that just confuses Day 4, as sun, stars, moon are created “in the heavens”. It would be like saying theres water above the heavens as well which would make no sense if you apply the same meaning to rqia on day 2. Further, why would the Hebrew not use better words that clearly mean a dome/canopy if that was the case?
Sorry if I confused you though. I’m saying there is a literal subterra water formed, not an abscence. It is mostly absent now except for pockets, because of the flood
Day 2, water is split in two by a firmament/solid. In a water/solid/water interface, if the solid is deformed at all, it will naturally sink, thus pushing the subterra water outward, which in turn raises the solid in other areas and creates a depression for the surface water to continue to fill, which raises the soild further, till it becomes land above the surface water. rqio standing alone is often translated as firmament. This is the only place where I believe it occurs in the Bible. Everywhere else but vs 8 its followed by of the heavens, which would be well translated as an atmsophere, sky, space etc.
So when we arrive at day 3, the water under the heavens (eshmim) is gathered and the land rises. The land cant rise if there is no subterra water forcing pressure upward. (A water bed example might help) Void spaces arent necessary.
Thank you for admitting that there are pockets of subterra water. Surface water cant subside below 5 miles. Anything we find below that depth raises the big question of where it came from, the account in Genesis seems to state just where it came from.
Other passages in the Bible that mention the subterra water are:
Psalm 24:2
Psalm 33:7
Psalm 104:3
Psalm 136:6
2 Peter 3:5
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: I am pretty sure there are no pockets of subsurface water that aren’t accounted for by known principles of geology. As I said, if we ever discover that conditions under the surface are what they’d need to be for the hydroplate speculation to work, every geologist alive will faint dead away.
It could happen, I guess, but it would mean geologists are completely wrong about just about everything.
I’ll leave the debate over the Hebrew here, as I am not a Hebrew scholar, nor do I claim to be. I will just reiterate what I already said, that the interlinear shows that while there are different words used for “heaven” and “firmament,” God calls the firmament “heaven” and it is distinct from “earth.”
Report comment to moderator
Provost: creation myths are not simply wrong. They are vague memories, corrupted, and often taken literally.
I think they are meant to impart information about the nature of the universe, the divine and the relationship between man and God/gods … just not in a literal way.
The word “myth” has taken on the unfortunate connotation of “untruth.” As classically understood, a myth was a story intended to communicate a powerful and important truth. It was not intended to be taken as literal fact, but neither was it mean to be dismissed as “just” a story.
Report comment to moderator
meant, not mean
Report comment to moderator
“I am pretty sure there are no pockets of subsurface water that aren’t accounted for by known principles of geology.”
Considering that there have been no other theories on subsurface water below 5 miles or a prediction of it, I’m not sure what your referring to as accounted for. I’m sure theyll dream up new theories to compensate. The two places they have been able to drill past 5 miles, and found water, they did not expect it and they had to quit because it was too hot to drill through.
“It could happen, I guess, but it would mean geologists are completely wrong about just about everything.”
Wouldnt be the first time
“God calls the firmament “heaven” and it is distinct from “earth.””
He does call it Heaven, he doesnt call it of the heavens. It stands alone and is named. And that means it is also distinct from earth as well, as earth is obviously referring to the planet itself in vs 1 and elsehwere in Ch 1.
Report comment to moderator
You have assumed that all man’s senses are empirical and materialistic. A hundred thousand years of common human experience-love, art museums, family, self-sacrifice, even ingenuity-deny that we are only mindless machines.
Translation:
It is true because I believe it is true and say it is true with with great intensity and certainty.
This is the rhetorical style, most characteristic of Joel Mark, I refer to as Grand Dudgeon..
Beauty, goodness, and justice are abstractions based on perceptions, emotions and imagination. They prove nothing more than that humans share enough commonality that they have similar enough experiences that we respond to each other’s words describing our perceptions, emotions, and imagination.
I call myself a radical agnostic because there are many issues, claims, and questions whose truth I can’t evaluate. It is possible that man has a soul; I freely admit that I don’t know. So my belief that he does not is a matter of “faith.” Perhaps we need a word for “lack of faith.”
In any case, over the course of history humans have believed many untrue things in great numbers. That many people have believed certain ideas in great numbers for a long time only demonstrates that many people have believed such ideas for a long time.
A hundred thousand years of common human experience-love, art museums, family, self-sacrifice, even ingenuity-deny that we are only mindless machines.
Have humans really been around for a hundred thousand years? You must be an old earther.
In any case, again, the vague and subjective abstractions you cite demonstrate only that humans share enough common experience and intellectual and emotional traits that we respond to each others’ vague verbal utterances.
Report comment to moderator
(in a generous tone…)
NPR did a segment today on how (loosely) “some ministers are OK with evolution, even though the majority of believers are anti-science.”
So everything is cast in the science vs. faith narrative. Don’t insult our intelligence. I don’t buy it. Doesn’t anyone read Nancy Pearcey or Francis Shaeffer? A little science/a lot? Where did we get science? Our perspectives are far too narrow in a debate along the wrong axis.
Stein’s Expelled made a lot of sense – exposing how we are nearly incapable of having generous dialogue – battle lines are drawn, and insecurities (it seems) abound. Or maybe I mean emotions.
Every evolution thread here goes to 100, sometimes 400 posts. Is there a way to make money by creating a forum for arguing?
Everyone has “their” data, and sometimes the same data lead to the opposite conclusion, based upon our pre-conceived worldviews.
While it is futile to argue with the convinced, even entrenched, we continue… maybe because its fun – the Great Western Conversation.
But I still do not understand the emotion, all the ad hominem stuff on this topic in particular. Perhaps the argument (naturalism v. creationism) truly is moral, and facts merely fungible?
Report comment to moderator
Sorry about the excessive Victoria Bold.
By the way, Random name, creation myths are not simply wrong. They are vague memories, corrupted, and often taken literally.
Again, what you say is in the realm of possibility.
My theory is that myths are a combination of explanations for origins from pre-scientifc times. (Science still cannot explain origins, of course, but it provides much more evidence about early conditions than were available to our ancestors.
Myths are “true” in the sense that they explain many human characteristics and problems in metaphorical and poetic ways.
Humans respond to Aristotle’s description of tragedy because it describes an emotional truth. It is true, again, because we share certain common traits and reactions which we can express in language. It does not prove anything about the origin or nature of the universe beyond that.
The Garden of Eden myth expresses a perception that human beings are imperfect and destructive. This is not a “scientific truth” per se, but one could collect much scientific and observable evidence that supports it.
In terms that humans literally originated with one man and one woman formed fully formed with the power of speech and the ability to disobey a dubious entity we describe as “God,” I consider it highly unlikely.
According to the Diné, they emerged from three previous underworlds into this, the fourth, or “Glittering World”, through a magic reed. The first people from the other three worlds were not like the people of today. They were animals, insects or masked spirits as depicted in Navajo ceremonies. First Man (’Altsé Hastiin), and First Woman (’Altsé ‘Asdzáá), were two of the beings from the First or Black World. First Man was made in the east from the meeting of the white and black clouds. First Woman was made in the west from the joining of the yellow and blue clouds. Spider Woman (Na ashje’ii ‘Asdzáá), who taught Navajo women how to weave, was also from the first world.
I snipped a bit of a Navajo creation myth I found on the web. It probably contains metaphorical truths about human nature as well, but does not tell us literally how humans began. I would be surprised to find any Christian arguing that it (or hundreds of other such myths) do.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name:
“Beauty, goodness, and justice are abstractions based on perceptions, emotions and imagination.”
Transalation: They are illusions.
I have tasted and experienced such things as you deny. I have seen and heard such things as you affirm; rocks, trees, and seas. With a benign arrogance you dismiss the transcendent senses, I know you as an image bearer of God once felt while arbitrarily confirming sight, touch, hearing, smell, and taste which themselves vindicate only common experience rather than each other. I hope you have merely explain away the transcendent rather than having deadened yourself to them with all the fury of a man who takes his own eyes.
You arbitrarily accept five senses. I have felt beauty and know I am not alone. You resist instruction by calling my attempts to describe the results of a spiritual sense “vague and subjective”. Truth is, most anyone can taste an apple, you have burnt out your mouth and only experience a chalky bulb of fibrous impressions.
I’m not an old earther. I am a theistic evolutionist.
Report comment to moderator
Reality is not wholly material or wholly spiritual. It is both. Every last atom, every photon of light, has moral value.
Report comment to moderator
It is true because I believe it is true and say it is true with with great intensity and certainty.
Random Name: You, of all people, should find no fault with this logic, for it is the very method of your assessment of moral “rights and wrongs.”
Also, I just recently noticed your last email to me of a couple days ago. I’ll respond soon as I can.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G. (121),
Does any passage in the Bible say this is the case today? Didn’t think so.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl: Is there any evidence outside the Bible that it ever was the case?
No.
Report comment to moderator
Mountaineer,
I think the reason that the evolution threads get so heated is that it’s not a topic that the jury is still out on. The evidence for evolution from a single common ancestor is overwhelming while the vast majority (if not all) of the arguments for creationism have been thoroughly debunked. I don’t think anyone in this thread is being intentionally dishonest, but many of the purveyors of creationist literature (Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort etc) are incredibly unscrupulous. Expelled is a prime example of the level these people are willing to sink to and probably a big part of why Ben Stein is no longer speaking at UVM.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Report comment to moderator
“The evidence for evolution from a single common ancestor is overwhelming”
Please GWF81 your misrepresenting evolution. Evolution does not discuss origin. You have no idea how many common ancestors there were. Evolution is merely the slight variational change through reproduction. It says nothing about how many there were originally.
When you say there is a “single” common ancestor this is discussing origin, further you would need at least 2 common ancestors to reproduce (at least animally).
This is really where the problem comes in and becomes “heated”. People like you cant stick to your own definitions. Evolution cant debunk creationism, it doesnt speak to origins. Creationism speaks to origin.
But maybe your just meaning YEC. In which case the issue would not be the mechanism, but time, of which evolution appears to be independent of. Your lizards are an example of that
My predictions for the next 50 years is that we will find mounting evidence that A. evolution does not require millions of years and B. evolution is limited to kinds (i.e. your lizard will always be a lizard)
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: The evidence is very supportive of a single, single-celled, common ancestor. For several billion years, the only life on Earth was microbial. The emergence of the various higher-level taxonomic groupings is evidenced in the fossils. (For example, there were no birds or mammals for most of the age of the dinosaurs, not until very very late in it.)
What evolution doesn’t try to do is explain how life itself began in the first place. Creationism does attempt to explain origins, but pure Biblical Creationism can’t account for the discontinuity of “kinds” appearing. If God made all the plants on one day, all the fish and birds on the next day and all the land animals on the day after that, he surely didn’t make any effort to leave physical clues to that effect.
You know, a passage of Scripture occured to me last night as I was thinking about these threads: “God is not the author of confusion,” (1 Cor. 14:33.)
If that is true, then it seems reasonable to conclude that the real truth of Creation is just what the scientific work reveals, and the Creation story is meant to communicate spiritual and moral truth, not historical (as myth in general does.) Because if God created suddenly and in a short time, but let it appear that creation happened slowly over a very long period of time, that would make him very much the author of confusion.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn, SteveG:
Neither of you are going to persuade one another. May I suggest you recommend good readable books to each other? I tend to base my conclusions off reading such materials.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn,
Misunderstanding on your part is not inconsistency on my part. You are correct in saying that evolution does not address origins. However, once that original organism arrived (whether by natural or supernatural processes), we have a very clear idea of what happened. Your claims about at least two organisms being required for reproductions indicates a profound lack of knowledge about evolution and biology. Have you ever read a book by someone who does not share your position on this?
Report comment to moderator
“You know, a passage of Scripture occured to me last night as I was thinking about these threads: “God is not the author of confusion,” (1 Cor. 14:33.)”
I’m sorry if your confused.
“but pure Biblical Creationism can’t account for the discontinuity of “kinds” appearing. If God made all the plants on one day, all the fish and birds on the next day and all the land animals on the day after that, he surely didn’t make any effort to leave physical clues to that effect.”
I fail to see what you mean by discontinuous? God creates out of nothing to start with. He gives a mandate to go forth and fill the earth. Theres no indication of finality, its obvious animal numbers will increase (with or without death). How many are created according to their kind is not a set number here. If the mechanism of evolution is a part of that on going process of multiplying and filling the earth including diversity, then there is no inconsistancy. It doesnt negate God having a starting collection of biological life. Its obvious that environment, food, and many other factors will effect the progression of a species.
“Because if God created suddenly and in a short time, but let it appear that creation happened slowly over a very long period of time, that would make him very much the author of confusion.”
Its obvious that “large scale” evolution can occur in 3 decades according to GWF81 source on lizards. Not millions of years. As we concluded earlier, evolution is independent of time. Your confusion seems to center on the issue of things “appearing old”.
But if we have based that idea off of two major assumption…evolution requires millions of years, and radio dating, both are based on reactions and mechanisms that are independent of time.
Even isotopes are not created by time, but by reactions, events, and mechanisms taking place. We base those calcs on ratios assuming certain initial conditions to guess at time.
What appears old can just as easily be a young earth having been tossed through a garbage dump.
Report comment to moderator
“Misunderstanding on your part is not inconsistency on my part. You are correct…”
What, I’m correct but I misunderstood? Make sense please.
“However, once that original organism arrived (whether by natural or supernatural processes), we have a very clear idea of what happened.”
Clear idea? HAHAHAHAHAHA One single cell runs into so many problems that there has been so many different “clear ideas” its hard to keep track. Whats your clear idea? I’m sure yours is clear in your head. I doubt its clear to even half the evolutionists out there.
” Your claims about at least two organisms being required for reproductions indicates a profound lack of knowledge about evolution and biology.”
I guess you missed the point that I said at least animals. Mainly cause I knew youd get picky here and ignore the main point. A female cat must mate with a male cat, to produce off spring. In order for speciation to occur there must be two of them and reproduction. What part of that biology do you not understand?
” Have you ever read a book by someone who does not share your position on this?”
Yup. Have you?
Report comment to moderator
GWF81:
Well I have to say that was a crisp little précis you have there regarding evolution vs. “creationism”, as commonly defined. I don’t know anything about Ham and Comfort, other than its hard to nail down anything solid about their very general statements that God created the world and man. Though this might not be true in your case and of those like Dawkins and Dennett and some others from the hard core atheist front, but it seems that with all this compromise on “evolution does not negate the notion of God” talk going around, it is ironic for all this incessant attacking of ID and Stein and Bill Dembski.
After all, if we were to take Darwin’s statements to heart, he’d end up being one of those icky and “unscientific” “Creationists” also, since he mentioned the Creator, and some of you guys have lumped all ID and Creation into one category. That’s a wide brush to paint with, and belies that great liberal secularist tradition of nuanced understandings about the world. Another problem is that the very term “evolution” is endlessly malleable and elastic, meaning that dogs can be changed from wolves into angke biters by force as well as micro changes in bacteria resistance, not to mention T-Rex having kinship with your chicken sandwhich.
But the mechanism for one example does not always serve as a meaningful analogy to the other. We know there are upper limits to genetic flow.
Report comment to moderator
PS–
The reason Ben Stein is not allowed into the inner sanctum of some university speaking has (painfully obvious) far more to do with Politically Correct Notions that float around these days more than his input about science. The war is philosophical, not scientific per se. The latter issue is the supposed pretext only for larger goals. Stein’s exclusion is no different that the haranging and harassment seen against conservative and/or Christian speakers, conservative activists and writers and economists like Charles Murray and Thomas Sowell, not a few radio personalities who irk the Left, and not to mention culture critics of PC notions about Islam like David Horowitz. Much is at stake philospophically, when it comes to the public schools continuing spiral into absurdity and rank enforced secularism, and the advocates of social control know that the materialist-only vision MUST be one. Religious people irritate social planners, as John Taylor Gatto reminds us, for the very reason they are not easily controlled by governance and government authorities and socialist visions.
Report comment to moderator
#150 certainly delivers one of the most intense concentrations of righteous indignation crammed into one brief message I’ve seen for a while.
Religious people irritate social planners, as John Taylor Gatto reminds us, for the very reason they are not easily controlled by governance and government authorities and socialist visions.
After all, as theocrats originally devised the whole mind control and indoctrination gig with such great skill, it must rankle indeed to be outdone by secularists at their own specialty.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name: You, of all people, should find no fault with this logic, for it is the very method of your assessment of moral “rights and wrongs.”
I’ll have to work on my backhand stroke.
Report comment to moderator
Oh goody, John Taylor Gatto.
You’re up Random Name. My blathering at #13something needs a crushing.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: What, I’m correct but I misunderstood? Make sense please.
*sigh* More misunderstanding… You misunderstood that I was not talking about origins. Comprehend please.
Thorn: Clear idea? HAHAHAHAHAHA One single cell runs into so many problems that there has been so many different “clear ideas” its hard to keep track. Whats your clear idea? I’m sure yours is clear in your head. I doubt its clear to even half the evolutionists out there.
Are you serious? Any disagreements between “evolutionists” are limited to minor details about which mechanisms have the highest relative importance for certain types of evolution. This idea of evolution being a “theory in crisis” is pure fabrication. There is no dispute among scientists about whether evolution from a single common ancestor is responsible for the diversity of life. This has been the case since early in the 20th century.
Thorn: I guess you missed the point that I said at least animals. Mainly cause I knew youd get picky here and ignore the main point. A female cat must mate with a male cat, to produce off spring. In order for speciation to occur there must be two of them and reproduction.
Do you really think that evolutionary biologists think that there was a long line of non-cats and then, POOF! a cat? Evolution is gradual. Species have ill-defined boundaries. Speciation events do not occur in a single generation. The theory of evolution does not require that two cats be born to non-cats at the same time. In fact, it specifically says that this won’t happen!
Thorn: What part of that biology do you not understand?
I think you just broke my irony meter.
Thorn: [regarding reading a book about evolution]Yup.
Apparently not a good one. I haven’t read it yet, but based on the reviews, Jerry Coyne’s new book is excellent. If you are really serious about discovering the truth and not merely pushing an agenda, it might be worth your while.
Thorn: Have you?
Of course! I used to read this stuff all the time when I thought evolution was false. Over time, I discovered that it is pretty much all dishonest drivel with no factual merit.
Report comment to moderator
I just re-read my post. Don’t I come off high and mighty?
Report comment to moderator
Wakefield Tolbert: [...] with all this compromise on “evolution does not negate the notion of God” talk going around, it is ironic for all this incessant attacking of ID and Stein and Bill Dembski.
Intelligent design is a mushy field. One version suggests that an intelligent designer “helped evolution along,” which I don’t have much of a problem with. The other version is creationism in sheep’s clothing, which is demonstrably false. As far as I know, both Stein and Dembski support this last version.
Wakefield Tolbert: [...] We know there are upper limits to genetic flow.
Do you have any support for this? It sounds like a baseless assertion to me.
Report comment to moderator
Honest question – Is intelligent design strictly limited to the field of biology, or does it include the observations that the planet seems uniquely positioned to allow life and the physical world extremely so?
GWF81 (142) True. Questions that aren’t answered don’t go away – we all have a stake in this one.
you said:
“The evidence for evolution from a single common ancestor is overwhelming while the vast majority (if not all) of the arguments for creationism have been thoroughly debunked.”
I have a college degree, have read widely, and I’m no fundamentalist, (just wanna stay out of the boxes) but I have found that quite the opposite is true, and I am surprised to see folks still so strongly defending evolution as an origins theory. “expelledexposed.com” has a serious arm waving tone – its hard to take seriously. The folks on that site claim they are open minded when the opposite seems to be true. The PC movement has hit science, and the debate really no longer involves “science”.
We cannot follow the evidence where it leads, both because of the political pressure to stay within the evolution “consensus” and the naturalism indoctrination we were subjected to as kids.
We would all benefit from a broader perspective on these issues, but human nature (and the current academic climate) might preclude such a possibility.
Report comment to moderator
GWF81,
I’m on chapter 3 of Coyne’s book, which I got last week on inter-library loan. So far I’d say it’s well-written, although I thought he could have limited himself to a few less times repeating, in the introduction, that evolution is true. Since the title of the book makes it clear that’s what he’s out to show, I’d rather he just get on with the business of showing what he’s going to show.
I’ve been looking for several years to find a good book that lays out the arguments for evolution and the creationist arguments against it side by side. I was reading one last fall, from the library, but before I could finish it our new puppy decided it was a chew toy.
So I decided to read this, take notes on Coyne’s major points, look for a creationist book to see how it addresses those points, go back to this one or another, if I need to, to check those out, etc.
Report comment to moderator
GWF81 said, in part:
The other version is creationism in sheep’s clothing, which is demonstrably false. As far as I know, both Stein and Dembski support this last version.
First of all this is rather odd, in that most detractors and mudslingers at ID make no such fine lines of distinction.
Second and more importantly, however, regardless of as far as you seem to know, if you check out Dembski’s site you’d see your last assertion is far from the case. That has been answsered over and over. The same is the case for upper limits on genetic flow. Breeders have known since ancient times that forcing the issue creates genetic damage. You might get the desired effects, with a mean smart snarling dog, but then you also get, say, hip displaysia in german shepards, vegetables that have to be babied and can’t withstand the elements on their own, and other genetic liabilities that are not “liabilities” seemingly, as we merely work around them. The examples are endless. I’d say that’s basic, but not all that baseless. Contrast that with much of what you’ve said, which is the standard stock repetition of Eugenie Scott. And that would be proximate to the goal of “baseless.”
Then we have the dynamic duo of Random Name and Provost. Interestingly, mockery is so easily of John Taylor Gatto, especially so from people for whom its painfully obvious they have no idea what he means when he says the public schools have for the most part failed us, that the goals of these social engineers are in point of fact of dliuted admixture of socialism and nanny state obeisance and boot licking, and that to that end they claim their only success rates. As we see.
And while its arguable the “theocrats” (whomever that demon is)might have honed indoctrination to a high art form in some distant age, today (as the recent election amply demonstrates) we see that instead of high minded notions that guided people and indeed entire civilizations for thousands of years is now supplanted with base and vulgar desires of getting the goody from someone else’s hide. Granted, that deals more with the “here and now” than religion, but this flavor of secularism and philosophy is a religious faith just the same. We might ask the victims of Stalin’s purges, the Little Red Brevities of Mao, or for that matter the REAL faithful–modern Europe. In the latter case, its Europe and its secularist ethics living on faith. Faith in government, faith that lack of fecundity and sumptious benefits akin to pouring champagne out of someone else’s bottle, are the path to the Shining Future. More fool them. That’s not to say we won’t soon be following. I’m sure we will. All this talk of “free” this and “free” that is quite funny in a gallows way.
Its the icky rednecks and bible thumpers of the Deep South–the ones who have jobs, for example who are more rationalistic about life and what it takes to get things done without outsourcing one’s primal decisions to yet another government busybody’s input. (no–real jobs–not working for government or some other creepy outfit). These are the ones who have the cultural confidence that secular America is mostly losing. Oh yeah–they also have kids at replacement level once in a while. I’d say that’s a leg up (literally at that) on secularism.
This is the direction Gatto–among many others–was warning about. The public schools are the reproductive system of radical liberalism, and contrary to popular thinking, they are no more “typical part of ‘Americana’” than sushi and chopsticks. They are intellectual imports from people determined to create conformity and mass opinion and obedience.
Report comment to moderator
MLTW,
The last few days have been crazy for me, especially yesterday, so I didn’t get onto the blog at all (I don’t think I did, anyway). But as I went to bed last night, I thought of one more question to ask you if you are still lingering here: Assume for a moment that all we had was creationist science, but you had read that and analyzed it. (It’s OK to assume you’d also read corrections to any errors in data–that is, if someone specifies something as two pounds and it was actually three. But you have not read any information from a whole different philosophical viewpoint.) Has what you have read from a creationist viewpoint proved to be erroneous (not just disputed, but absolutely impossible to reconcile with the data)? Or in comparing the evolutionary answers and the creation answers, are you merely saying that evolution has better, perhaps more sophisticated answers? That is, when evolutionary scientists and creationist scientists look at the same data, do you see that the creationist are blatantly false, or does the evolutionary answer simply seem better and more complete?
I ask because I truly believe that “the benefit of the doubt” should be given to God. I personally find the creationist answers compelling, as a rule; when I find things that don’t ring true, I assume later information will correct it. (No scientist is inerrant.) But if you simply believe that the evolutionists have more complete answers, and not that the creationists’ answers are blatantly false, remember (1) which one has more money; (2) which one doesn’t even try to address the issue of origins; and (3) which one fits more naturally with what your God has said about origins.
When your wife and the next-door neighbor have an argument, it’s better to assume as a starting point that your wife is the one telling the truth, and even if details don’t end up matching up, trying to reconcile that with something other than deceit. (She may have remembered something wrong, or might not have had all the facts, for instance.) But unless and until your wife is proven to be a liar, trust her–and once you have proven her to be a liar, then quit trusting her, rather than pretending that she’s trustworthy in everything but this one large area. (I don’t think the argument that God didn’t mean Genesis 1-11 to be an accurate record of history holds up under scrutiny. If it’s false, ditch God. Don’t stand on the fence making excuses for Him.)
Anyway, I’m just curious which of the two possibilities you’d say is more accurate–and examples you might have of clear inaccuracies in creationist thinking. (BTW, it goes without saying that inaccuracies in research don’t prove the starting point is flawed; God might still be the ex nihilo Creator if all His scientists are dunces. But tell me why the scientists can’t be trusted, NOT why evolutionary scientists happen to have “better” answers.)
Report comment to moderator
Moutaineer:
Astronomy has had much confirmation of things some would just as soon cover their eyes about. Namely, the Cosmos is not self-extant, did in fact HAVE to come to us ex nihilo, had therefore a starting point, and there is only one sample size from which to choose, regardless of all this stuff about “multi-verses” and anthropic principles and so forth. Then at a less abstruse level, we have books like The Privledged Plant, and entire tables composed by astronomers like High Ross. He goes over in more detail those parameters highly unlikely to occur elsewhere in the Universe (yeah, despite its sheer size). Robert Rood and James Trefil calculate that we are probably alone in the universe after all, despite the late night radio tales and Herculean searches by SETI. Ross, for his part, goes over the several models common in cosmology and other common objections to a theistic beginning so reviled by some.
If such came about by random chance with this level of input and complexity, then I wish to borrow this chance and win, say, the Powerball Lottery–several THOUSAND times in a row after one scratch off. Just one. Then I’ll be a believer in the Great Randomness.
So yes, the short answer is that at least in that area Astronomy has some input.
Report comment to moderator
Wakefield Tolbert:
For others’ clarity, I wanted to note that the book you cited is The Privileged Planet.
Report comment to moderator
Wakefield: The same is the case for upper limits on genetic flow. Breeders have known since ancient times that forcing the issue creates genetic damage.
That doesn’t mean there are “upper limits.” It just means that you can’t overclock the process and expect a good result. You can’t drive from New York to Seattle in 12 hours, but that doesn’t mean there is an “upper limit” on how far you can drive .. given enough time.
You might get the desired effects, with a mean smart snarling dog, but then you also get, say, hip displaysia in german shepards, vegetables that have to be babied and can’t withstand the elements on their own, and other genetic liabilities that are not “liabilities” seemingly, as we merely work around them.
You’ve just undermined your own argument. In the natural evolutionary process, the one change that aids (or doesn’t hinder) species survival would continue to passed down and become more and more prevalent, while those that are harmful enough to prevent reproduction would be eliminated through natural selection.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG
So what? Theoretically speaking its also possible to move from Seattle to Alpha Centauri. There is no actual physical barrier to objects doing this. Though at the speed of your car, assuming a road could be made that far in transit, would take millions of years. And that’s the closet star system to our own Sun. So, there IS a PRACTICAL barrier to what humans can live through.
The issue is not so much revving up the process into high gear as the realization that even with the most exotic technology should you make such a trip everyone you’ve known in your life will have been dead for millennia upon your untimely return. Assuming you live to tell the tale yourself. Which is also unlikely.
I’d say that’s an upper limit in and of itself, and most probably the limits of human endurance would be passed long before that. There are objects that travel that far, yes, but remember that celestial objects are not living beings with their characters bottled up. The evolution of life on earth would be the equivalent, in a such a blind watchmaker process, of moving from Atlanta to the other side of the Cosmos (15 billion light years) by sheer force of default and accident. I think Behe covered this with his hedgehog analogy crossing a dangerous road where the genetic drift is challenged in far more numerous ways than just everyday concerns about eating and reproducing.
Your other part–survival of the fittest, is a tautology. If it survives it is fit. If not, then not. Therefore beings evolve because they evolve. Sounds crisp, but the problem here is that we don’t see in the fossil record these smooth transitions over great epochs of time. It’s a “just so story”, as Dawkins plainly admits, and means nothing more than raw assertion of the type you get from your brother in law when he promises to pay the rent.
What we actually see from the fossil records are sudden–almost radicalized–changes within a (relatively) narrow time frame, like the Cambrian Explosion, where the notion of genetic drift must of have met with far more environmental resistance and challenge that some calm model of nurture. It’s like saying the someone survives after being told to slowly dig a hole, with the added provision that with every tiny scoop you take, someone is over your shoulder hitting your skull with a sledgehammer.
What are your chances of adaptation here. Slim, at best.
Nature is red in tooth and claw, as Lord Tennyson said, and the abilites of creatures to “deal” with the carnage in the modern age is no real indication of what they had to overcome in the distant past. Today’s world is very benign. In the past things were ugly, geologists tell us.
The retort from the Darwinians is to the effect of:
“ Well, you folks just don’t believe in the reality of digging holes very slowly. So THERE–bleah! TAKE THAT!”
At the very least you can have survival of the fittest without the prior arrival of the fit in the first place. IDists believe this would indicate a predisposition to evolve and adapt rapidly–also known as “front end loading”, or having a large genetic complement from the very start–since the arrival of transition and nascent organs is not found, but rather the presence of “vestigial” organs is well known. In other words, in the standard model of evolution from the textbooks, we see that systems fail by default and creatures lose abilities but never seem to gain by the same route. In fact they can’t.
Speaking of scientists of the past, and hedgehogs, both in form and in metaphor:
http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/
We see the functionality of darwinism acting like said hedgy.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline,
Thanks for the info. I think I will probably end up reading it.
Report comment to moderator
Wakefield Tolbert,
In this very thread I posted an article about wild lizards developing a new organ in their digestive tract over a period of 36 years. Also, Richard Lenski’s experiment with E. coli documents the development of a capability that no other E. coli has (namely, the consumption of citrate).
Your hole digging analogy betrays your unfamiliarity with the thoroughly documented mechanisms of evolution. I would suggest that you read something that wasn’t written by a creationist or quoted out of context by a creationist.
Report comment to moderator
Sad Tony – Championing an obvious charlatan like Ben Stein in the name of some misguided sense of intellectual freedom deprives you of the miniscule amount of credibility you had in the first place.
You know NOTHING about this subject, and yet you opine and editorialize and blow hot air.
Get a CLUE.
Report comment to moderator
I guess I should be more grateful – Whenever my enthusiasm for science education begins to wane, I need only come to WORLDMAGBLOG to remember what a crisis we’re in …
Report comment to moderator
“This is a small matter to the evolution disciple, however, because his imperative is not that creation be explained so much as that it not have a Creator.”
This is patently false – another Steinian lie – but since you belong to the first church of Stein, I guess it’s no surprise you swallow it hook, line, and SINKER.
Report comment to moderator
Your other part–survival of the fittest, is a tautology. If it survives it is fit. If not, then not. Therefore beings evolve because they evolve.
And that’s really all evolution is, which is one reason I don’t understand the great denial Creationist Christians are in about it. It is not some great mystery.
One small correction, though: It’s not “survival of the fittest.” An organism doesn’t need to be “the fittest” in order to survive, it need only be fit enough to survive long enough to reproduce.
Sounds crisp, but the problem here is that we don’t see in the fossil record these smooth transitions over great epochs of time.
Well yes, actually, we do. But I’ve grown weary of trying to convince people of it when they’re dead-set insistent on denying it. The information is out there if you will seek it out.
Report comment to moderator
Wakefield says – “Then at a less abstruse level, we have books like The Privledged Plant, and entire tables composed by astronomers like High Ross. He goes over in more detail those parameters highly unlikely to occur elsewhere in the Universe (yeah, despite its sheer size)”
I read Guillermo’s book and reviewed Ross’s latest book (”Why the Universe is the Way it is”) for NCSE. They are both complete crap.
Report comment to moderator
Re Hugh Ross’s latest, which builds on “Privileged Planet”
Hugh Ross agrees with Leibniz. All’s for the best in the best of all possible worlds, and you’re living in it. As founder and president of an old-earth creationist ministry, Reasons to Believe, Ross also thinks nature and the Bible are complementary sources of truth. Both are necessary for a complete picture of our cosmic purpose. In his catechetical book, “Why the Universe Is the Way It Is,” nature speaks first in the form of a cosmological fine-tuning argument from design. Fundamental properties of the universe and unique features of planet Earth are improbably arranged, hence designed solely for our benefit. The remainder of the book cites Bible chapter and verse to dispatch the pesky problem of evil with an eschatological solution. Do you sometimes have difficulty seeing the Designer’s purpose in a life-destroying tsunami, earthquake, or pandemic? All will become clear when the “best possible world” of this age gives way to an even better “perfect” world of the next. But purpose is still discernible in events of this world, including the greatest of tragedies. You must simply look harder. Ross explains that the quest for meaning is like playing “Where’s Waldo?” in the children’s book series of the same name. Why is the universe so big, old, dark, lonely, and in decline (chapters 2–6)? Ross finds the Waldoes and points them out. Like Christopher Durang’s Sister Mary Ignatius, he “explains it all for you.”
Ross’s version of the cosmic fine-tuning argument resembles that of several Discovery Institute Fellows, although he parts company with their efforts to promote a non-supernatural designer in public science education. Physicists have understood for quite some time that life as we know it could not exist if any of several cosmic constants deviated from their observed values by one part in 1040 or some similarly large number (for example, see Rees 2001). Why is this true? The anthropic principle points out that, were it otherwise, we wouldn’t be here to ask the question. But is our existence due to a colossal fluke, some yet-undiscovered natural law(s), divine design, or a rarity made inevitable by membership in a super-huge, random, and mostly sterile set of multiple universes (the “multiverse”)? For Ross, design is the only option worth talking about. To make his case, he recites from an expanding litany of gee-whiz antecedents to existence (chapter
and ignores competing explanations.
In the standard design solution to fine-tuning, a Designer is used to explain the narrow range of cosmic parameters that allow us to be here. To use an analogy that Ross doesn’t, material facts of our existence are like cards in a highly improbable hand drawn from a very large deck. Their putative unlikelihood is explained if an Intelligent Dealer picked them out on purpose. There are 2,598,960 possible five-card hands that can be drawn from a deck of only 52 cards. The chances of drawing any one in particular are thus already pretty low. But we’re not likely, a posteriori, to see a miracle in every hand drawn. What is the prior expectation for a special hand, then, like one that contains two pairs? Since there are 123,552 different ways to get two pairs in a five-card hand, the probability is 123,552/2,598,960 — about 5%. It is somewhat unlikely to get this result in a single deal. If you were dealt 20 hands in succession, however, you would not find it remarkable to get two pairs in at least one of them. Is the special “hand” of our existence vastly more improbable? Ross says yes, but he’s still answering after the fact. He doesn’t know the number of ways intelligent life could be arrived at or the number of attempts that have occurred, or even the initial range of possibilities (the “deck”). Despite repeated claims, he has no way to determine if we’re likely or not.
Fundamental properties of the universe are necessary but insufficient conditions for life in it. So Ross’s Designer works post-Big Bang to make a habitable planet and put life on it as per Genesis 1. That was the week that was, says Ross, but it actually lasted several billion years. Incredulous readers are referred to Ross’s other books to connect Genesis to the fossil record. Meanwhile, he expands the fine-tuning argument along the lines of Discovery Institute Fellows Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards. Gonzalez is an “intelligent design” martyr recently beatified in Ben Stein’s movie Expelled (see RNCSE 2008 Sep–Dec; 28 [5–6]). He and Ross published on this topic as early as 2000 in the religious journal First Things (Gonzalez and Ross 2000). At that time, Gonzalez also collaborated with paleontologist Peter Ward and planetary scientist Don Brownlee who argued in Rare Earth (2000) that our galaxy is probably not host to much extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI). This boldly marketed anti-ETI conjecture was captured in a groan-inducing parody worthy of a Yoko Ono lawsuit: “Imagine There’s No Spacemen” (sic) ( http://www.astro.washington.edu/rareearth/rareearthsite/rareearth.mp3 ).
Ward and Brownlee contended that to support complex intelligent life, a planet needs an improbable combination of things like a large moon, plate tectonics, a nearby Jovian planet, and location in a “Galactic Habitable Zone” (GHZ). Gonzalez and Richards went further in The Privileged Planet (2004; reviewed in RNCSE 2005 Jan–Apr; 25 [1–2]: 47–9) and saw God where the former merely doubted ETI. Earth is not only rare; it’s a miracle! To make the case, they hyped the importance and rarity of each and every condition necessary for life as we know it. Ross follows suit and, for instance, champions a highly restrictive GHZ that is simply not borne out by quantitative modeling. On the basis of numerical simulations that neither Ward, Brownlee, Gonzalez, nor Ross bothered to make, Prantzos (2008) reports that it is currently impossible “to draw any significant conclusions about the extent of the GHZ: it may well be that the entire Milky Way disk is suitable for complex life.”
Exaggerated claims like an extremely limited GHZ surround a more serious central blunder in the rare earth argument from design: discounting the multi-planet solution. Design proponents often cite a testability criterion to reject undetected multiple universes in favor of a cosmological Designer who, coincidentally, is also unobserved. In the terrestrial version, however, Ross expressly ignores the fact that huge numbers of planets are within sight of being detected . By Ross’s own calculations, there are of order 1021 stellar systems in the observable universe alone. Current observations and theory suggest that nearly all these will contain planets of some kind. But neither Ross nor Gonzalez demonstrates, quantitatively, that a generic planet has less than 1 chance in 1021 of ending up with properties that could support complex life. There is therefore no reason to exclude the origin of a habitable “rare earth” solely from natural causes, given the size of the universe and ubiquity of planets.
This is just one more Waldo that vanishes under scrutiny like the face on Mars at high resolution. Sadly for Waldo searchers, it happens time and time again in Ross’s latest book. In the end, one finds many reasons to doubt but few reasons to believe.
Report comment to moderator
“Paste” didn’t translate well in a couple instances.
“1040″ should be 1040
“1021″ should be 1021
Report comment to moderator
and apparently WMB doesn’t literally translate html that shows in the preview either! (40 and 21 are exponents)
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!