Creationism vs. Evolution - Thoughts?

[James Flagg]

Hehe, yeah brother. I, and billions of others have "thoughts" on this subject. :smilewinkgrin:

You'll mostly hear the same stuff over and over and over and over and over again.

"Evolution is only a theory"
"A theory is the endpoint of the scientific method, and is not synonymous with the colloquial use. Heliocentric and electromagnetic 'theory', for example".

One thing I have noticed, sadly, is that Creationism is given short shrift outside of the Fundamentalist Christian subculture.

 

[James Flagg]

Evolution is only theory, not fact. And it constantly changes. God's Word never changes.

love,

Sopranette

With all due respect, this isn't a valid criticism of any science. It's like saying, "The science of medicine is constantly changing."

Darn right it is, any science had better "keep changing" all the time, otherwise is ceases being science and becomes dogma. Only religions have this luxury.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Creationism -- good science
Creationism -- correct

Evolutionism - junk science
Evolutionism - wrong

You may be right, but what qualifications do you have to differentiate between good science and junk science?

Do you review scientific papers for a living?
Have you ever submitted a paper to a peer-reviewed scientific journal?
Do you understand the peer-review process?
Do you understand the difference in the review process between being published in a reputable journal versus being published in journals with poor reputations?
Have you read peer reviewed scientific articles to evaluate their scientific quality?


Maybe you have done all these things and we should respect your view of scientific quality. Or maybe you have done none of these and simply pick and choose "science" that agrees with your view and call it "good science".

 

[James Flagg]

[. . .] Or maybe you have done none of these and simply pick and choose "science" that agrees with your view and call it "good science".

My money is on this option.

 

[JustPassingThru]

You may be right, but what qualifications do you have to differentiate between good science and junk science?

I dare say few of us have the qualifications to judge the goodness of science. But none of that concerns me, and I wonder why these discussions have to turn at all disagreeable.

I believe God reveals His nature to us through both His Word and His creation. When they seem to disagree, we have misunderstood one or both of His revelations. There is not -- and probably cannot be -- any agreement on who has misunderstood what. So what? That doesn't make God less real, or His plan for our lives less relevant.

I simply fail to see why we have to fight this battle.

 

[Sopranette]

With all due respect, this isn't a valid criticism of any science. It's like saying, "The science of medicine is constantly changing."

Darn right it is, any science had better "keep changing" all the time, otherwise is ceases being science and becomes dogma. Only religions have this luxury.

Respect noted and apreciated. However, I do not consider my views on this subject to be dogma. It is the Living Truth. Truth never changes.

love,

Sopranette

 

[Gold Dragon]

Hello Guys,

I guess what I was interested in is are there theologians who have created a synthesis between what science 'can' confirm (i.e. an old earth) and the Scriptural testimony?

Thanks.

Do you want the common Old-Earth theological positions out there or are you looking for something a little more cutting edge?

The main views are
Gap creationism
Day-Age creationism
Progressive creationism
Evolutionary creationism/Theistic evolution

 

[Gold Dragon]

I dare say few of us have the qualifications to judge the goodness of science. But none of that concerns me, and I wonder why these discussions have to turn at all disagreeable.

I believe God reveals His nature to us through both His Word and His creation. When they seem to disagree, we have misunderstood one or both of His revelations. There is not -- and probably cannot be -- any agreement on who has misunderstood what. So what? That doesn't make God less real, or His plan for our lives less relevant.

I simply fail to see why we have to fight this battle.

Definitely. I totally agree with your view and plan to keep my disagreements agreeable in attitude. :thumbs:

 

[Sopranette]

I've heard science described once as a dance of seven veils, only with an unknown number of veils to pull away, and the ultimate Truth is at it's core. We may never reach that ultimate Truth through science.

love,

Sopranette

 

[James Flagg]

I dare say few of us have the qualifications to judge the goodness of science. But none of that concerns me, and I wonder why these discussions have to turn at all disagreeable.

I believe God reveals His nature to us through both His Word and His creation. When they seem to disagree, we have misunderstood one or both of His revelations. There is not -- and probably cannot be -- any agreement on who has misunderstood what. So what? That doesn't make God less real, or His plan for our lives less relevant.

I simply fail to see why we have to fight this battle.

I've met plenty of Christians who would agree with you and absolutely could not care less about C vs. E.

We all pick our battles, and for some this is a big one.

 

[James Flagg]

Hello Guys,

I guess what I was interested in is are there theologians who have created a synthesis between what science 'can' confirm (i.e. an old earth) and the Scriptural testimony?

Thanks.

There is (used to be?) an Old Earth Creationist named Hugh Ross whom you might want to read up on.

I don't know anything about him other than he believed in a 4 billion+ y/o earth and (at least attempted) to reconcile that with Genesis.

 

[BobRyan]

Creation studies are "good science" - evolutionism is "junk science"

Isaac Aimov (NOT a fundamentalist Christian - but a stellar atheist icon for evolutionists to follow) admits that the "storytelling" of molecule to human brain evolutionism requires the assumption of a "MASSIVE DECREASE in entropy" contrary to ALL evidence in science

Appollo 16 science experiments SHOW an oxygen rich source for our early atmosphere CONTRARY to what "evolutionism NEEDED".

Atheist Darwinist Heckel: Heckle's "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" argument used fraudulent artifacts and illustrations to make his point -- (Note fraud is the "norm" in junk sciences like evolutionism).

Simpson's smooth transitional form horse series was SHOWN to be a contrived fraud though it lingers in some text books as if it was valid science. "Fraud is the norm for junk science"

All of these frauds and gaps between the beliefs of evolutionists and the facts of science are admitted today by atheist darwinist evolutionists!

So why are some Christians soooo slow to come around on this? As if the Bible is causing them to "believe in evolutionism no matter what the facts in science"??

Abiogenesis is still nothing more than junk science if one is looking to actual lab experiments - nothing of the kind has ever been shown to be scientifically 'viable' yet believers in evolutionism - must believe in it "anyway" .

If evolutionists must rely so heavily on faith OVER good science -- why not become Christian and have the best of BOTH?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

There is (used to be?) an Old Earth Creationist named Hugh Ross whom you might want to read up on.

I don't know anything about him other than he believed in a 4 billion+ y/o earth and (at least attempted) to reconcile that with Genesis.

Hugh is a good example of an evolutionist that admits to the clear facts of intelligent design.

Atheist Darwinists like to "imagine" that that is in fact "creationism" -- it is not as every Bible believing Christian knows. It is just a pejorative way for atheist darwinists to refer to evolutionists that admit to intelligent design because in so doing - those ID evolutionists are undermining atheism (but NOT evolutionism).

 

[Gold Dragon]

Creation studies are "good science" - evolutionism is "junk science"

Isaac Aimov...
Appollo 16 ...
Heckles ...
Simpson's ...

I guess your answer to my questions is no.

And if I showed you the context of the above 4 quotes and situations would you be open to considering that you were wrong about those 4 situations?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Hugh is a good example of an evolutionist that admits to the clear facts of intelligent design.

Are you sure? The last I checked, Hugh considers himself to be a Creationist--he just doesn't believe the world is only a few thousand years old.

As for my opinion, I believe in creation (obviously), but I'm not dogmatic either way about how (or young) old the earth is. I do believe that Adam was a literal historical figure--as was Noah, Abraham etc--and (without debating the scope or the particular logistics) that the Fall, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel were all basically historical events. (Edit: I also believe that micro-evolution and some speciation have occurred)

 

[Gold Dragon]

Hugh is a good example of an evolutionist that admits to the clear facts of intelligent design.

Atheist Darwinists like to "imagine" that that is in fact "creationism" -- it is not as every Bible believing Christian knows. It is just a pejorative way for atheist darwinists to refer to evolutionists that admit to intelligent design because in so doing - those ID evolutionists are undermining atheism (but NOT evolutionism).

Thanks for the reminder. I forgot about the Intelligent Design view in my list.

I do not think Hugh Ross would be appropriately classified as an ID proponent. He self-describes as being a progressive creationist who does not believe in evolution.

I also do not understand the term "ID evolutionist" since ID proponents also do not believe in evolution.

 

[BobRyan]

ID proponants like BeHe, Johnson and others calling themselves theistic evolutionists and promoting ID DO believe firmly in evolutionism.

Atheist Darwinists object to that very strongly and have urged that the courts discount it because the ID proponants happen to be Christians that do not present a completely "natural" explanation for origins.

 

[BobRyan]

Are you sure? The last I checked, Hugh considers himself to be a Creationist--he just doesn't believe the world is only a few thousand years old.

My understanding is that Does not believe in a literal 7 day creation week for creating LIFE or for creating the Geology of earth.

 

[BobRyan]

Here is a better definition of Hugh Ross's (evolutionism helped by God when it get's into transitional form trouble over the billions of years)--

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0821ross.asp

In summary, Dr Ross accepts Astronomical Evolution (Big Bang and billions of years) and Geological Evolution (evolutionary geological time scale encompassing billions of years). He does not accept Biological Evolution per se, but teaches that God created millions of creatures (species) in ‘batches’ over billions of years (but using the basic evolutionary time scale and order of events), with death, struggle, extinction and disease occurring all along the way.

It is Stephen J Gould's "Punctuated equillibrium" argument with God stepping in between the punctuations.

 

[Darron Steele]

Creationism vs. Evolution - Thoughts?

I think religious objections, arguments over religion, and anti-Christian propaganda are all irrelevant to the issue. Religion has nothing to do with the most serious defect of evolution.

Secular scientists need to stop pretending like objecting to evolution is a `religious war against knowledge.' It is not. The scientific method was designed to be a tool for studying the truth of nature without an ulterior agenda or bias. Secular scientists who claim to revere the scientific method need to be professionals, and use it rightly and responsibly.

Secular science needs something more credible than a theory that human beings are heavily-mutated apes. It has long been time for secular scientists to `go back to the drawing board' for a genuinely credible theory of human origins.