Replies

Based on the definition given by the website that initiated this thread to begin with then isn't 'proven theory' an oxymorn?

Not exactly sure what you are referring to here (maybe some other portion of the article's hosting website?) As for the articles lead-in, I took it to be one of those annoyingly clever rhetorical questions that authors like to use these days. As a term of scientific inquiry, "proven theory" is certainly not an oxymoron. Theories exist to be proven or disproven (or, in the context of this article, to inhabit the "not yet proven" middle ground).

But presents nothing to support his own.

Absolutely true. As I acknowledged in my original post, the author simply makes the claim without presenting any evidence to support it.

We are supposed to accept that this is a binary argument. If Evolution is wrong then biblical creation must be right.

Yes, that's the proposition that is being presented by the author. But what if they both are wrong? In other words, can we imagine an instance where the current theory of evolution is in error and that the Genesis Chapter 1 account is not a factual account? For my part, I am absolutely convinced that Gensis is not a complete or even particularily accurate account. Does adherence the current theory of evolution similarily allow its supporters to acknowledge that it might be wrong, too?

Science doesn't work that way. Competeing theories should present their evidence and judgement based on that. There is a litereal mountain of evidence that evolution supporters use to argue their case.

All the author is pointing out is that some portion of the scientific community itself feels the evidence to support the theory of evolution as currently understood is lacking. Following that presentation, the author makes his illogical and unsupported jump to Biblical creation.

Where is the evidence of Biblical creation except in the Bible itself?

Actually, outside of Genesis Chapter 1, there are no references to the specific act of creation. To be honest, it doesn't appear that the creator God was very interested in explaining the act to a wandering Middle Eastern shepherd people or their descendants. The purpose of the Bible's author lies in other directions.

Would the Creation account be better if it started out with 900 volumes of absolutely undecipherable high order physics and chemical equations instead?

There are occasional references in the remainder of the Old and New Testaments to the natural order, usually contrasting it to humanity. Here's one that I like from Romans:

"1:20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:

1:21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened."

I do not cite these verses in criticism of anyone or any belief (including no belief at all) but to highlight that believers have just as much right as scientists to point to nature for examples as evidence to bolster their claims. So the evidence that you call for from the author is not going to be found in the Bible. Rather, it is going to be found in nature. And that, I believe, is the entire purpose of the website the original article was posted on.

I attach the following link (which I just came across this afternoon) as relevant to this discussion:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060721-102631-6908r.htm