Replies

And for those that reject the Genesis account of creation out of hand, I wonder if you have spent effort in proving or disproving the Bible?

Why should those who don't accept the creation story of your religion waste time trying to disprove it? There are countless religions out there with their own creation stories; are those who accept science to set out to disprove each and everyone, or is your religion the only one that gets special treatment inthis respect?

My lack of extensive knowledge of evolution is suggested as a disqualification to my competence to judge it.

When you suggest that rats giving birth to cats would be evidence for evolution, yes your credibility comes into question.

Yet on the other hand, lack of Bible knowledge is seen as no disqualifier to rejecting the Genesis account. Why the double standard?

There's a double-standard, but not the one as you suggest. Evolution is backed by an extensive history of multiple lines of evidence. The Genesis account...is written in the Bible. That's about it. It isn't our fault that a literal reading of the Genesis account is contradicted by observed reality, and it isn't our responsibility to "disprove" an assertion not supported by evidence in the first place, yet many Biblical creationists insist that their creation story -- out of all the others -- somehow be given "equal treatment" with evolution despite the total disparity of evidence.

There's a double-standard, but not the one as you suggest. Evolution is backed by an extensive history of multiple lines of evidence. The Genesis account...is written in the Bible. That's about it. It isn't our fault that a literal reading of the Genesis account is contradicted by observed reality, and it isn't our responsibility to "disprove" an assertion not supported by evidence in the first place, yet many Biblical creationists insist that their creation story -- out of all the others -- somehow be given "equal treatment" with evolution despite the total disparity of evidence.

A literal reading of Genesis is refuted by observed reality? Since when is the creation all life on earth an observable event? Origins is just not something that can be observed and replicated.

Why should the Genesis account of creation be accounted special treatment over Darwinism and all the other faith-based explanations for the unobservable? The Genesis account should not get special treatment. As the verse in I Thessalonians states, we are to prove all things. The Bible itself doesn't demand special treatment for itself. But how do you prove the Genesis account? You can't prove it directly no more than you can prove that creation came from a big primordial elephant or that millions and millions of mutations arose out of a can of magic primordial soup. Origin stories are just not amenable to the scientific method no matter what the source. But we can prove if the Bible is true or not from evidence that can be logically evaluated. Is the quality of Biblical teaching the work of charlatans or is it the truth? Is the unity of Biblical teaching arising from a work of many authors merely an accident or is it unified because it is true? Is the large amount of the New Testament devoted to the mundane topic of verification of the word typical of the work of religious fakers?

The question for all claims is whether it true or false by the rules of logic. The relevant question concerning the Bible is whether it is true or false. Once we accept it as truth in that which it is possible to observe and deduce, then we must accept it as truth in describing that which cannot be observed by any mortal man-the beginnings of life. To say that the Genesis account is false in that which is unobservable is to say that the Bible is false. But how can a man who is not willing to examine the evidence in favor of the validity of the Bible be so presumptious to say that he knows that it is false? Blind faith indeed.