Scientific Creationism?

[Revmitchell]

Probably one of the most inane posts to grace this board.

 

[Craigbythesea]

I agree. Whether right or wrong, I think that there are two ways Christians allow their worldview to be shaped (in terms of this debate). Either it is shaped primarily by Scripture or it is shaped primarily by science (neither will view the other as an "equal partner", and rightly so).

I disagree. I for one hold to a world view that is shaped (in terms of this debate) by both the Bible and by science in nearly equal measure with the Bible taking first place. It is crucial, however, to distinguish between the Bible and the interpretation of it. The Bible, being God’s revelation to man, is a constant; but the interpretation of the Bible is constantly changing—being dependent upon such things language, culture, one’s level of education, one’s environment, etc.

Science does not offer evolution as fact, so the best that one can do is to advocate or dismiss the hypothesis. The problem comes in when some do mistake the theory as fact, or dismiss it under false pretense.

There are three words in this brief paragraph that are being used incorrectly:

Fact. Evolutionary biology teaches that the evolution of specific kinds of plants and animals is a fact.

Hypothesis. Evolutionary biology does NOT teach that the theory of evolution is a Hypothesis.

Theory. Evolutionary biologists and other scientists that are knowledgeable in that field use the word “theory” very differently than most Christians use the word. That is, evolutionary biologists and other scientists that are knowledgeable in that field use the word “theory” when speaking of the concept that all of the plants and animals alive today evolved from a common ancestor. They do NOT use the word “theory” when speaking of the evolution of specific kinds of plants and animals. Moreover, even when speaking of the concept that all of the plants and animals alive today evolved from a common ancestor, they do not use the word “theory” in the sense, “just a theory,” but in the sense of “a theory that is acknowledged to be a virtual fact.”

 

[JonC]

I disagree. I for one hold to a world view that is shaped (in terms of this debate) by both the Bible and by science in nearly equal measure with the Bible taking first place. It is crucial, however, to distinguish between the Bible and the interpretation of it. The Bible, being God’s revelation to man, is a constant; but the interpretation of the Bible is constantly changing—being dependent upon such things language, culture, one’s level of education, one’s environment, etc.



There are three words in this brief paragraph that are being used incorrectly:

Fact. Evolutionary biology teaches that the evolution of specific kinds of plants and animals is a fact.

Hypothesis. Evolutionary biology does NOT teach that the theory of evolution is a Hypothesis.

Theory. Evolutionary biologists and other scientists that are knowledgeable in that field use the word “theory” very differently than most Christians use the word. That is, evolutionary biologists and other scientists that are knowledgeable in that field use the word “theory” when speaking of the concept that all of the plants and animals alive today evolved from a common ancestor. They do NOT use the word “theory” when speaking of the evolution of specific kinds of plants and animals. Moreover, even when speaking of the concept that all of the plants and animals alive today evolved from a common ancestor, they do not use the word “theory” in the sense, “just a theory,” but in the sense of “a theory that is acknowledged to be a virtual fact.”

The problem with that theory is it ignores centuries of scientific development in terms of methodology. If biology holds the idea that creatures have evolved (rather than adapted) from one form to another to be a "scientific fact" then "science" has devolved from a true discipline to pseudo-science. And indeed, I believe this is what has happened.

Evolution is often taken as a "fact" simply because the evidence is viewed to be overwhelming. The problem, of course, is that the "evidences" are not actual facts but human interpretations of observable qualities and data put together into a theoretical format. Using your example of distinguishing between the Bible and the interpretation of it, just as many cannot see where Scripture ends and their theologies begin so also are some scientists blind to where their observable data ends and their theories begin. "Fact" is not always fact, "theory" is not always theory, after all....as Bill Clinton noted...what is "is" anyway.

I disagree that the Bible and human sciences are equals. As a science teaches that dead people stay dead. Scripture does not.

But my comment about the two not being equal is that sooner or later one takes priority in ones understanding. For example, if the Bible related something supernatural, it it factual or does our scientific mind make it allegory? Did the sin of Adam literally introduce death into the world or did it just assign to death a meaning? What does this mean in terms redemption?

 

[Craigbythesea]

Probably one of the most inane posts to grace this board.

This and very many of your posts are so maliciously mean and cruel that it staggers my imagination upon seeing that a human being could treat another human being is such an extremely malevolent manner for their own personal gratification.

 

[Craigbythesea]

If biology holds the idea that creatures have evolved (rather than adapted) from one form to another to be a "scientific fact" then "science" has devolved from a true discipline to pseudo-science. And indeed, I believe this is what has happened.

Fact: Everyday for the past hundreds of millions of years, countless species of plants and animals have, through the process of evolution, adapted to changes in their environment. This is a fundament fact of the science of evolutionary biology—and what uneducated people think about it is irrelevant.

Evolution is often taken as a "fact" simply because the evidence is viewed to be overwhelming. The problem, of course, is that the "evidences" are not actual facts but human interpretations of observable qualities and data put together into a theoretical format. Using your example of distinguishing between the Bible and the interpretation of it, just as many cannot see where Scripture ends and their theologies begin so also are some scientists blind to where their observable data ends and their theories begin. "Fact" is not always fact, "theory" is not always theory, after all....as Bill Clinton noted...what is "is" anyway.

Have you ever so much as met a scientist? Have you completed so much as one college course in any of the life sciences?

 

[JonC]

Fact: Everyday for the past hundreds of millions of years, countless species of plants and animals have, through the process of evolution, adapted to changes in their environment. This is a fundament fact of the science of evolutionary biology—and what uneducated people think about it is irrelevant.

Have you ever so much as met a scientist? Have you completed so much as one college course in any of the life sciences?

Wow, what a maliciously mean and cruel reply. It staggers my imagination seeing that a human being could treat another human being is such an extremely malevolent manner for their own personal gratification.

But to answer your question, yes. I have met scientists and I have taken college classes (both at an undergraduate and graduate level). At one time evolution and adaptation were separate things, guess science has adapted over the years.Do you believe a man can comment, with value, on God without having graduated seminary, or would his views there be irrelevant (like it is with science)?

I take it you did your post-graduate work in biology, so we differ in focus there (I stated off in psychology but ended up in seminary....I thought I was a career student for awhile Laugh). Where were you a graduate student anyway? And, since it seems to validate your view, where did you attend seminary?

Biology seeks natural factors to explain biological activities. The supernatural is not in the biologists scientific toolbelt. Do you believe the supernatural to be a myth we create to explain what is actually naturally occurring but simply evasive to our reasoning?

 

[Craigbythesea]

Wow, what amaliciously mean and cruel reply. It staggers my imagination seeing that a human being could treat another human being is such an extremely malevolent manner for their own personal gratification.

I am sorry if my questions offended you. I certainly had no such intention.

 

[JonC]

I am sorry if my questions offended you. I certainly had no such intention.

While I do find them offensive, I do not find them personally so (I am not offended). Partly because I do have college experience with biology, physics, and golf. The only one in which I failed to excel was golf Frown. Stupid game, but I like it. And partly because we don't know each other. When people disagree sometimes the first assumption is ignorance (I mean this both ways it can be taken).

 

[Craigbythesea]

I have met scientists and I have taken college classes (both at an undergraduate and graduate level). At one time evolution and adaptation were separate things, guess science hasadaptedover the years.Do you believe a man can comment, with value, on God without having graduated seminary, or would his views there be irrelevant (like it is with science)?

Evolution and adaptation have always been, and always will be, “separate things.” Through the process of evolution, plants and animals adapt to changes in their environment.

I believe from both my personal experience and the experience of others that having an excellent university and seminary education is invaluable for pastors and teachers of the Scriptures. However, I believe that a person lacking both can comment , with value, on science and on the Scriptures on a Christian message board provided that he or she does not stray from what he or she has actually learned from other sources. However, evolutionary biology involves a multitude of life and earth sciences and is, therefore, an extremely complex subject that requires years of study to get a good enough understanding of it to make one qualified to express an opinion on it either from the pulpit or on a Christian message board.

 

[JonC]

Evolution and adaptation have always been, and always will be, “separate things.” Through the process of evolution, plants and animals adapt to changes in their environment.

I believe from both my personal experience and the experience of others that having an excellent university and seminary education is invaluable for pastors and teachers of the Scriptures. However, I believe that a person lacking both can comment , with value, on science and on the Scriptures on a Christian message board provided that he or she does not stray from what he or she has actually learned from other sources. However, evolutionary biology involves a multitude of life and earth sciences and is, therefore, an extremely complex subject that requires years of study to get a good enough understanding of it to make one qualified to express an opinion on it either from the pulpit or on a Christian message board.

I agree. Yet even among those qualified by your standards there are fundamental disagreements. The question, btw, is not whether plants or animals adapt to their environments. Even those who reject evolution tend to affirm adaptation (that animals adapt is not dependent on evolution as its process). One problem is the idea that man is, indeed, classified as "animal." Scientifically man is "animal." Biblically, he never was. And yes, I am dealing with Darwin's contribution as this is what is taught in public schools as "evolution." (Again, one could argue creation through evolution, but in so doing most seem to ignore questions that deal with sin and death in relation to Christ as the 'New Adam' and the reconciliation of man to God).

So what I object to is the idea that Scripture as divine revelation is subject or equal to science. In other words, I find offensive the need of some to weigh God's Word with science, evaluate it within that discipline, and determine its meaning through those findings.

Anyway (and again), do you think that the supernatural is merely myth to explain something that occurs naturally but which is just beyond our grasp? For example, do you think that Jesus' healing of the man blind, Jesus being born of a virgin, the parting of the sea, the plagues, and the resurrection of Christ as a natural explanation?

 

[dad1]

Fact: Everyday for the past hundreds of millions of years, countless species of plants and animals have, through the process of evolution, adapted to changes in their environment. This is a fundament fact of the science of evolutionary biology—and what uneducated people think about it is irrelevant.

Fact: That is a [edited]. Prove it.
.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Fact: That is a [edited]. Prove it.
.

The denial of reality makes it no less real.

 

[dad1]

The denial of reality makes it no less real.

No reality involved in your imaginary [edited] old ages and same state past required to get them. Get over it.

 

[Craigbythesea]

No reality involved in your imaginary [edited] old ages and same state past required to get them. Get over it.

I have in two of my gardens about 65 decorative rocks of various sizes that are 95 million years old. I collected them some years ago from along the sea shore in San Diego, California. The age of the rocks, how they were formed, and the geological process that took them to San Diego is very well documented.

I also have in these and other gardens around my home hundreds of other rocks of various kinds, most of which are very much older then 95 million years old, but their precise age, how they were formed, and the geological processes that brought these rocks to what are now my gardens has not yet been documented with any high degree of certainty. However, God knows how old they are, how He formed them, and the geological processes that He used to bring them to what are now my gardens.

God was not sitting around up until several thousand years ago playing tiddlywinks with an imaginary friend. 4.54 billion years ago (a very well proven date), God created the earth, and He has spent 4.54 billion years making it the earth that we have to live on and enjoy today. Learning a little bit here and there about God’s timeline in creating the earth and the processes that He used is enjoyable to me, and I feel sorry for those people who are not able to enjoy these things simply because they choose to believe in one of the old interpretations of Genesis that robs those who believe in them of that experience—and countless other experiences as one enjoys the handiwork of God.

 

[dad1]

I have in two of my gardens about 65 decorative rocks of various sizes that are 95 million years old.

No you don't. You have blind faith and imagination. No proof,

God was not sitting around up until several thousand years ago playing tiddlywinks with an imaginary friend.

You wouldn't know when that was by your [edited] foolish so called dating.

4.54 billion years ago (a very well proven date),

Total [edited] and absolutely unproven and unprovable.

God created the earth, and He has spent 4.54 billion years making it the earth that we have to live on and enjoy today.

Says you..not Him.

Learning a little bit here and there about God’s timeline in creating the earth and the processes that He used is enjoyable to me,

Long as you throw out Moses and Genesis and the New testament and prophets I guess. No thanks.

Not believing in your dark and baseless [edited] does not make one unhappy at all. What a dishonest canard.

and I feel sorry for those people who are not able to enjoy these things simply because they choose to believe in one of the old interpretations of Genesis that robs those who believe in them of that experience—and countless other experiences as one enjoys the handiwork of God.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Greektim]

You all need to get on the Historical Creationism train. It's awesome!!!

 

[Randolf777]

Conservative?

Yes, I'm also very conservative. I grew up in a very conservative home where we were a family interested in science. There is nothing about Old Earth Creationism that is not compatible with the Word of God. It is Young Earth Creationists who are making a laughing stock of Christianity by those who do have an education in the sciences and are giving ammunition to non-believers to attack Christianity and run it out of schools because of the anti-scientific views.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes, I'm also very conservative. I grew up in a very conservative home where we were a family interested in science. There is nothing about Old Earth Creationism that is not compatible with the Word of God. It is Young Earth Creationists who are making a laughing stock of Christianity by those who do have an education in the sciences and are giving ammunition to non-believers to attack Christianity and run it out of schools because of the anti-scientific views.

Just stop. non-believers who are evolutionists laugh at Christians who do. Further, both have the same lens in which you view the world. You interpret the infallible and eternal word of God through the lens through the lens of science. The rest of us interpret science through the lens of scripture.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I have in two of my gardens about 65 decorative rocks of various sizes that are 95 million years old. I collected them some years ago from along the sea shore in San Diego, California. The age of the rocks, how they were formed, and the geological process that took them to San Diego is very well documented.

I also have in these and other gardens around my home hundreds of other rocks of various kinds, most of which are very much older then 95 million years old, but their precise age, how they were formed, and the geological processes that brought these rocks to what are now my gardens has not yet been documented with any high degree of certainty. However, God knows how old they are, how He formed them, and the geological processes that He used to bring them to what are now my gardens.

God was not sitting around up until several thousand years ago playing tiddlywinks with an imaginary friend. 4.54 billion years ago (a very well proven date), God created the earth, and He has spent 4.54 billion years making it the earth that we have to live on and enjoy today. Learning a little bit here and there about God’s timeline in creating the earth and the processes that He used is enjoyable to me, and I feel sorry for those people who are not able to enjoy these things simply because they choose to believe in one of the old interpretations of Genesis that robs those who believe in them of that experience—and countless other experiences as one enjoys the handiwork of God.

and you know these rocks are millions of years old how exactly?

I mean that all sounds very impressive, but please tell me how you know the ages of these rocks?

And please don't say they are documented to be those ages, I would like to know what your dating method is and for you to explain how the dating method works. Please and thank you friend.

 

[Smyth]

Yes, I'm also very conservative. I grew up in a very conservative home where we were a family interested in science. There is nothing about Old Earth Creationism that is not compatible with the Word of God. It is Young Earth Creationists who are making a laughing stock of Christianity by those who do have an education in the sciences and are giving ammunition to non-believers to attack Christianity and run it out of schools because of the anti-scientific views.

You're a laughing stock to me. You appeal to the intolerance of your camp to defend your beliefs.