Replies

No. :-)

They are forcing "findings" to a faith based fixed world view as apposed to modifying a model based on the discovery of new evidence.

I would like to re-characterize your assertion!

1. Top on the list for Bible based groups is to introduce people to the Creator of the universe. (by commission)

2. The evidence so clearly demonstrates a non-naturalistic origin to life and our universe, that to secularize the discussion would be foolish.

3. Scientists don't know the model, so they are an unreliable source for truth regarding shaping peoples ideas about reality.

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.

5. We honor the honest pursuit of discovery, but wish to emphasize that truth is a creation of Jesus, by definition.

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.

John 1:1-4
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. (emphasis added)

Jesus created the universe, therefore He is a better source of truth than His creation.

John 4:23-26
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

Meaning resides in our spirits. Therefore; God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Jesus here asserts His authenticity for being the source of all spiritual truth.

John 3:10-21
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

A spiritually dead person seeks for meaning for their life in the material world. Therefore Bible based groups do not align with the ID movement.

I pray that the Creator of the universe speaks to your soul through His word.

First, let's qualify this reply that it is an "argument" (in the literal/dictionary sense of the word; “A discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal”) as apposed to my particular stance. Second, this is not to be taken as a religious bash against anyone faith.

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.

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?

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.