Posted on 07/23/2004 1:48:15 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Most agree that the modern creation movement began in 1961 with the publication of The Genesis Flood, the classic work on flood geology. God has marvelously blessed in succeeding decades, and now there are scores of creationist organizations worldwide, with books and videos and seminars and websites multiplying rapidly. Not only has creation information become widely available, but the face of science has swung dramatically toward creation positions (i.e., recognition of the lack of transitional fossils, the acceptance of catastrophism in geology, etc.).
[Snip]
ICR remains distinct from other creation groups in its graduate-degree programs and staff of research scientists researching and gathering information made available to all the groups. Sometimes I wonder what could be accomplished if we had access to the huge government grants available to our evolutionary colleagues at universities, but we're winning without these grants.
The rather new Intelligent Design (ID) movement has also emerged, and has been quite effective in demonstrating the exquisite design in living things, quite beyond the ability of natural processes to produce, and the religious, naturalist underpinnings of evolution. Their membership spans a wide spectrum of viewpoints, from evolutionists, to New Agers, to Bible-believing Christians. As a tactical strategy, ID has chosen to be scrupulously secular in their presentation.
While ICR applauds the work of ID, sells their materials, and supports their efforts, we cannot join them. As a Christian, Bible-based organization, our goals are different. [Snip]
[Note: the article is copyrighted, so I've excerpted some portions.]
Patrick - And so do you! A simple acknowledgment of who Jesus is and how He died on the cross to pay for your sinfulness is all it takes for you to experience the love of God. I can attest that there is nothing in life as sweet as having a personal relationship with the One who shaped us and sustains us.
It is my prayer that you will be touched by God this week in a way that you will know He pursues you. He will not violate your free will, but He will touch you in a supernatural way. Be on the lookout!
P.S. Respond!
Now that that is out of the way here goes:
1. Top on the list for Bible based groups is to introduce people to the Creator of the universe. (by commission)
Evolution is a scientific theory that describes the evidence discovered to date. Should new credible evidence arise that undermines the current theory, it will either need to be scrapped, or modified to fit that evidence. Such is science.
Evolution does not address a creator in either a positive or negative way. However, the supporting evidence does overwhelmingly show both an ancient Earth and ancient universe measured in the billions of years.
By design, both creationism and ID do address a creator.
2. The evidence so clearly demonstrates a non-naturalistic origin to life and our universe, that to secularize the discussion would be foolish.
Have you looked at all the evidence? Think back to a few thousand years ago. There used to be Sun gods, Moon Gods, Gods of lightning, etc. As our knowledge grew, our understanding of the natural processes that govern our world superseded these “Gods”. I see no difference here. I have seen it called “The God in the gaps” theology.
3. Scientists don't know the model, so they are an unreliable source for truth regarding shaping peoples ideas about reality.
The models work remarkably well. Our understanding of the universe can be thought of as a series of “models”. These are modified as new data is introduced into the equation. Such is science. This not only includes evolution; but atomic theory, quantum mechanics, gravity, stellar formation, just to name a tiny few.
A scientific theory can be modified by data points when they no longer fit within the framework of that model. So I am certainly open to "junk" evolution should evidence (real, verifiable, peer reviewed) come along that is at odds with the evolutionary model. Religion on the other hand (being set down by God) has no checks and balances. Our notions of God are completely subjective as apposed to objective. So with that in mind, do you wonder that all of us (living in a solipsistic universe) have our own ideas of what God is? How then can you use "God" to define or help define the observed models we create to describe this physical universe?
Does your belief in the Bible allow you to rewrite or junk the parts of it that are shown to be no longer true as we continue to increase our collective knowledge as a species? Science works just that way. We junk or modify old theories and models as we discover new information that requires us to re-evaluate those models.
4. We do not resent scientists making discoveries (as we so frequently are characterized), we resent the scientists who wrongfully formulate ideas that lead ignorant individuals to believe the facts are all on the table, when, in fact, for science the table the facts are placed on is questionable.
Facts? Since when can theories ever become a fact? Hint, they cannot.
“As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.
In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.
Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have."
5. We honor the honest pursuit of discovery, but wish to emphasize that truth is a creation of Jesus, by definition.
And are you absolutely sure you know how that was done? If so, why are there so many arguments about this very thing within the Christian church?
The Holy Bible's claims about Jesus are consistent! Just so you don't believe these were my ideas. We believe the following to be the truth, and what science does, are the discoveries of the truth that Jesus created.
Are you absolutely positive that the Bible is infallible? If so, where is the proof?
I pray that the Creator of the universe speaks to your soul through His word.
I thank you for that prayer. :-)
As a final note:
I'm not sure how a persons personal belief system in anyway imparts itself onto a scientific theory. If a Geologist believed a person should be killed for damaging a geological structure, should we then throw out the science of geology? Obviously this geologist is immoral, but the science of geology is still sound. On another note how do we determine the morality of a society based on the Bible? Should we toss the Bible out also since people were put to death using that same book?
As I read many of the post of the creationists, I see a tremendous amount of credence given to a single Biblical verse or an interpretation from a particular scholar. The rub is how does anyone know if that verse is really the correct one. Is it argued from an imprinted engram, or is it argued from a personal revelation? From many observations, I have come to the conclusion that the environment directly influences the worldview taken on by the individual that this individual grew up in. This also includes the fundamental belief systems imprinted into the brain over the years. So people end up taking a particular stance on a many thousand year old writing colored by personal experiences and or a long-term environment that was inhabited.
I constantly hear from the various churches, “baby steps”. Why is this? It is because we learn this way. We have to allow the brain to build those neural interconnects to over a period of time. It’s not unlike flying an aircraft. What was so terribly difficult at first becomes absurdly simple as our brains adapt to the new directives we are imprinting on it. This is the same with the different religions. Over time people imprint the “truth” that is then defended vehemently because it’s “known to be true”.
So here is the rub. How can we determine on a pure faith based belief system, which is the correct model or “truth”? When I ask this question I get answers like; the Bible told me, my pastor stated it, or I prayed and God himself told me. Well, if there were immutable truths, wouldn’t everyone get the same answer when they prayed or read the same book? Since there is an ongoing fierce argument between the different religions, obviously this is not the case.
Now we will throw another monkey wrench into the equation. There have been a number of councils that have determined what is “truth” in scripture and what is not: i.e. the Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), the council of Nicea, etc. So here is another rub, if the word of God has been handed down, why the requirement for the councils?
There also seems to be contradictions in the Bible. For example, the resurrection stories from each of the different Gospels. They are different enough that just to say they were seen from different perspectives does not wash. I always have wondered which is the correct one or the “truth”. If there is that kind of discrepancy in the very thing that defines Christianity (the resurrection itself), how can we not suspect the other verses in this same book? I get answers like the Bible is divine because God stated it was. Well where did he state that but in the Bible. This is not unlike me writing a letter and then stating in that letter that it’s divine because God says so. Would you take that seriously? This is in effect what you are doing with the Bible.
Now we will throw a final monkey wrench into the works. There is a body of knowledge that has been painstakingly complied over thousands of years we refer to today as science. Unlike a belief system, science is a series of models that describe the universe we inhabit from both observation and experimentation. Again unlike an immutable text such as the Bible, science will revise its models as new evidence comes to light. This also gives rise to the false belief that science is shiftless sand that has no firm foundations. This is far from the case. Over the millennia we have made discoveries that we continue to build on as we obtain further knowledge and understanding. Do old ideas get thrown out? Of course! However, not without coming up with a better model to fit the observed phenomena in question. Take gravity for instance. It is a theory and no matter how much evidence accumulates, it will always remain a theory. One of my problems is that we don’t revise (or at least re interpret) the Bible as new facts come to light.
Now if an atheist looks at this, he will see a group of individuals or a church blindly following a faith system that has been handed down over thousands of years that ignore the basic findings of science. For example, there is not one shred of Geologic evidence for a word wide flood approximately 4-6 thousand years ago. However, there are groups that vehemently will defend such to their dying breath just because the Bible told them so. No wonder he/she (the atheist) sees the religion as a foolish waste of time.
So the question is where is the line drawn? Parts of the Bible already have been modified or rejected from what once was considered scripture via the councils. So why not take into account the findings from the scientific community.
I must commend you for your integrity. I can only guess that you had very principled parents that during your formative years passed on the need for character and intellectual honesty. It will be a pleasure responding to your post A.S.A.P..
Thank you!
Thoughtful post. Good luck with it.
Because the Dr. is far more qualified to respond to your inquiries, I refer you to him. He is a scientist of the first order, and exemplifies what I honor in scientific integrity. You fall into the same category, for which I pray you will give him a real listen.
Here is a listing of his other topics.
I will look. You have my word. :-)
There's no need to wade through all that material. It would be a far more efficient use of your time if you simply asked for the one or two best arguments contained therein.
And knowing is half the battle...
He is especially gifted at presenting the evolutionists arguments in great detail, then demonstrating the vast holes in logic that are needed to deny the evidence revealed by life's code.
Without the input of information life is impossible, because it requires so much integration even for the simplest life form. Something Darwin was ignorant of. The food industry literally banks on this understanding with billions of experiments every year as they subject organic material in an open system to energy and light transfer without the worry of a single new life.
I think you could learn how arbitrary information, like DNA, is not subject to natural laws.
If a species were specially created, there's no reason they should be utterly unrelated to other creatures.
The modern species one is a chicken and egg thing. Supposedly ancient species have been found with modern species, and when that happens one of the species (most like the "ancient" one) is reclassified. This is not taken to be a refutation of the Theory of Evolution, but just a mistake in the previous classification.
I would think it would very difficult, if not impossible, to disprove ToE in this way.
What the creationoids fail to grasp is that using their style of deciding what's atheistic, virtually everything would be so classified. Consider the humble, but honorable, trade of plumbing. Now imagine that your bathroom fixture is malfunctioning. You call a plumber. He arrives.
But does he even momentarily consider that God is causing your toilet to overflow? No! The Satanic tradesman simply assumes -- as a matter of his atheistic faith -- that there's some kind of materialistic blockage in the line, and he proceeds to clear it up in his materialistic way -- thus denying the glory of God!
Now that the truth of the matter is revealed, I trust that all loyal creationoids will cease using the satanic, perverted tradesmen known as plumbers. Instead, when a toilet backs up, the only proper action for a creationoid to take is to pray that the demons will be purged.
"Festival of Demon Turds" placemarker
I sincerely hope that your plumbing worked properly this morning. If not, I will join you in prayer that Providence will exorcise the demons.
For everyone else, you might want to make note of this: Bump Lists to Become Keywords.
Wow! It contains a a veritable cornucopia of Freaks, Weirdos, and Trolls, now all vanquished from FR.
Thanks for the great "FLASHBACK" moment in FReeper History.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.