Anti-evolution, pro science conservatives

WorldNetDaily ^ | 3/29/2008 | Gary Bauer and Daniel Allott

[wastedpotential]

Of all the factors that led to Mike Huckabee's demise in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes (insufficient funds, lack of foreign policy experience), there's one that has been largely overlooked: Huckabee's disbelief in the theory of evolution as it is generally understood – without the involvement of the Creator.

Perhaps you're thinking: What's evolution got to do with being president? Very little, as Huckabee was quick to remind reporters on the campaign trail. But from the moment the former Baptist minister revealed his beliefs on evolutionary biology, political commentators and scientists lambasted him. Some even suggested those beliefs should disqualify him from high office.

We believe most Americans

[Coyoteman]

Not once have I had a scientist tell me that I am going to hell, that I am not moral, that I can not be trusted or that I hate everyone save myself.

I have been called all those things by creationists and, truth be told, much worse things that I will not repeat on this site out of respect for the rules and proper behavior.

You are new to these threads--welcome.

But a tip from a veteran of the crevo wars. I have found it best to simply ignore some of the posters. They are witnessing, rather than doing science. Because they did not arrive at their beliefs through logic and evidence, they will not abandon those beliefs because of logic and evidence. And they will go to great lengths to twist and distort science until it comes out they way they believe it has to.

Now, I'll follow my own advice and go read a book.

[mrjesse]

I don’t think scientists have anything to gain by falsifying evidence in the long run. They never have in the past.

Just wondering, "They never have" what?

Never have have in the past falsified evidence, or never had anything to gain by falsifying anything?

Thanks,

-Jesse

[Fichori]

Concerning the Bible contradicting the Big Bang, for those who believe in an exegetic interpretation of the bible, they are completely contradictory.

In Exodus 20:11(God speaking):
"For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

The word used for made in Hebrew is or `asah {aw-saw'}.


Now down in Exodus 25:31 where God is telling Moses in what manner the sanctuary and related items should be made, he says:
"And thou shalt make a candlestick [of] pure gold: [of] beaten work shall the candlestick be made: his shaft, and his branches, his bowls, his knops, and his flowers, shall be of the same."

Once again, the Hebrew word for made is `asah.
So very clearly, in Exodus 25:31, God is telling Moses in what fashion he(Moses) is to construct the candlestick.
To suggest that `asah as used in Exodus 20:11 is somehow a different word than as used in Exodus 35:31 is pure eisegesis.


In essence, in Exodus 20:11 God is claiming to have made everything in six days(which are the 24 hour kind), and rested on the seventh.
And when he told Moses to make the candlestick, he used the same word.

So either God made everything or the Big Bang did, not both.


I apologize if I came across a little forceful, but I feel rather strongly about this sort of thing.


Sources: www.blueletterbible.org

[mrjesse]

Nor does acceptance of such facts and theories force one to accept a set of ethics,

Force, no. But people who decide to go rob a bank or whatnot are not forced to do it -- they have a set of morals, world view, and beliefs that convince them they can do it and get away with it. The fact is that certain ideas do logically lead to certain decisions. The news is full of stories of people doing things that they think they can get away with.

We have plenty of proof that the world is old, after all,

I guess I am not convinced that there is plenty of evidence that anywheres near proves that the world is old.

I know that a whole lot of people believe with all their hearts that the world is old, and I know that a lot of professors will say that there is ample proof, but I'm sort of an amateur scientist/engineer type of person, and I certainly believe in God and have faith in God and the Bible -- but I cheerfully admit that it is faith. And by the way, the Biblical account of creation makes a lot more sense to me, when I look around and see the world. But I see a lot of faith going on in the "science" department when it comes to the old earth and evolution, but the problem is they won't admit that they only believe, rather then know.

Anyway, as I was saying, with my scientific/engineering tendencies, I tend to be very skeptical of things that are asserted as science but cannot be demonstrated to me.

After all, the majority of scientists can be wrong. Now I'm not saying that the majority of scientists are all wrong, but that it is possible (How many people died from bloodletting?) -- it's happened before. And since it is possible, it is perfectly acceptable of us to question them when what they all say seems to not line up with reality.

God could have created the world with the appearance of age, I suppose, but that would involve God deliberately deceiving us.

It may be only because of our limited sight and knowledge that the world does appear old.

Let's that 5 milliseconds after God breathed into Adam and brought him to life, a highly educated modern doctor were whisked in to inspect him and give him a checkup. The doctor would notice several interesting things.

First he would notice that it was a full grown man. "This fellow is at least 30 years old." He would also notice that the blood pumping through Adams heart was well full of oxygen and he would know that Adam had been breathing for some time. Also he would note that Adam knew how to talk and walk, and knowing that these take a couple years to learn, it would be quite clear that Adam had not just come into being.

After all, I'm quite certain that God created Adam with oxygen in his bloodstream, otherwise Adam would have come to gasping for air.

So in the case of Adam, its quite clear that God created him with the appearance of having been alive for some time, and yet the purpose was not to deceive anybody, but rather because God wanted to create a full grown man.

So I consider it not at all deceptive if God had decided to create a full-grown universe.

as well as an old earth and the big bang, but none of these positions are incompatible with God. One can believe both, and they certainly work very well together;

Well, I guess that depends on which God you're talking about. But the Bible is really quite clear in describing that God created the world in 6 days. The Genesis creation account even specifies that each day had a morning and an evening. And the whole idea that "days" were eons or whatnot really raises lots of questions without answers. If you would like more information on the problems with the day-age /epoch/era idea, just ask. I or someone else here will be glad to get some information on it.

Keep up the good work,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Dr. Gould was the rare honest evolutionist.

The rest are dishonest, like all the evo supporters here, totally lacking in moral fiber, and unwilling to address the truth.

editor-surveyor,

I wish you weren't so right.
But the fact is that in the past few days I've seen so many claims to ample evidence supporting big bang, "goo to you by way of the zoo," and so on. And so often I have genuinely asked for the best evidence, and so far, I get none.

They sure do actually appear to be holding it by faith without admitting it, as a general rule.

They also have been, so far, completely unwilling to address the truth, or even discuss the actual issues.

I was really hoping to hear some answers!

Keep up the good work,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Not necessarily, though it's not quite what I meant in any case; there are very good societal reasons for ethics. "I don't rob you blind, because it's more profitable for me to do business with you for the next fifty years"

Some people believe that way. But it is clear that not everybody believes that way. The news is full of stories about people who believe that as long as they can get away with something without those around them turning on them or finding out, that anything is fine to do.

If you agree that it's possible and common for one person to believe in both Christianity and evolution/an old earth, then I really don't have much of a disagreement with you.

With my scientific / engineering tendencies, I tend to find out what something says before deciding what it means. And the Bible is quite clear in describing 6 twenty four hour days, each with an evening and a morning. Furthermore, it gives generations of people and their ages. In answer to your question, I have not found the Bible to be compatible with what the evolutionists claim.

And, if classrooms are as unruly today as they were then, most of the class probably missed it. And, well, of those left, most have probably already forgotten it once the test was over.

This almost sounds like "It doesn't matter if we're lying to the students and telling them that evolution is proven even though it isn't, because they aren't paying attention anyway" :-)

But my impression has been that by the time an average child is graduated from highschool, he has been quite thoroughly, for many years, taught evolution. And it can't help but influence his decisions later in life.

Keep up the good work,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Because they did not arrive at their beliefs through logic and evidence, they will not abandon those beliefs because of logic and evidence. And they will go to great lengths to twist and distort science until it comes out they way they believe it has to.

How would you describe your relationship with naturalistic explanation of the origins of the universe and life?

Would you say that you see it as certain as gravity, or more of a something that you fully believe but couldn't prove? Or somewhere between -- maybe some parts which you consider yourself to know and other parts which you hope will be proved someday?

For example, here on earth I'd gladly tell anybody that I knew that gravity was still working, and I'd be glad to demonstrate it to anybody. I consider that science. But whenever I'm about to sit down on a chair, I usually believe wholeheartedly that it will hold my weight -- but I don't know for sure until I try it. Somebody could have rigged it in the mean time since I last used it :=) But you see there is a difference between knowing and believing.

If I say "Oh, I believe that chair will hold me" I'm telling you about my belief or faith. But if I say "I tested it, and it did hold me," then I am talking about science and knowledge.

Thus I'm asking how you would describe your relationship with origins -- how much is belief and how much is knowledge?

It looks to me as if you believe quite a lot compared to what you know. But you know far more about yourself then I do, so I am genuinely interested to know how you see it, in your own words.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[Ohwhynot]

I'm still not certain I see the contradiction; God made the universe, and the Big Bang was his method, would be a simple reconciliation of the two. So long as God is still ultimately responsible for the creation of the universe, what would be the problem? He still made the universe, but did so through a means thoroughly incomprehensible to us. The process, to him, would be the same as the construction of a candlestick, to us.

As regards the issue of 24 hour days, however, I am forced to refer to Catholic doctrine, which states that the bible and science can never be in contradiction; any apparent contradictions are a result of insufficient understanding of the bible, or an insufficient understanding of the pertinent science. As the science (in my opinion) is quite clear that the stages outlined in Genesis took longer than a single day each(even if God created life in a single day, the natural processes that would need to take place to form the Earth would have taken millions of years), then references to a seven day creation of the universe must in turn refer to something else. What do they refer to? Well, my understanding of the bible is flawed, so I'm not terribly certain. Some say that the translation is flawed; others say the translation are completely accurate, but they were still intended as metaphorical ages; some say something completely different. I've largely left the argument to others, as the passages cited relate little to morals (beyond keeping the Sabbath holy), and my uneducated perspective would likely harm the understanding of others more than it would help.

Summarizing the above; if God caused the Big Bang, wouldn't he still have made the universe, in a very literal sense?

Mildly related addition to the above, does it matter terribly much? A flawed understanding of creation isn't going to damn me to hell, correct? This is a sincere inquiry - while I can understand why evolution/creationism arguments get heated, I've never understood why some old earth/young earth arguments have gotten heated.

My own apologies if I don't seem to be taking this seriously; on discussions that I haven't had in the past, I tend to tread lightly. You're not being too forceful in the least, though :) . So long as it's a polite discussion, a forceful stance from an informed person is likely to be thorough and well sourced - and thus, informative.

[Ohwhynot]

The fact is that certain ideas do logically lead to certain decisions.

True... But, that would be very shortsighted of them. Those people and institutions that they are directly harming are the same ones that they rely on for day-to-day life, and the risk rarely, if ever, exceeds the immediate rewards.

There is no reasonable philosophy based on evolution that justifies the consistent commission of conventionally immoral acts. Even homosexuality and promiscuity are immoral under such a philosophy, as it harms the number and quality of children; I could elaborate on this, but I suspect this diversion harms the overall quality of this post.

Force, no. But people who decide to go rob a bank or whatnot are not forced to do it -- they have a set of morals, world view, and beliefs that convince them they can do it and get away with it. The fact is that certain ideas do logically lead to certain decisions. The news is full of stories of people doing things that they think they can get away with.

True... But, the same can be said of certain Christians, correct? Specifically, the ones who say that because Christ died for our sins, they'll still get into heaven regardless of their actions.

One can say that they're not really Christians (and I would agree with you, incidentally), but they consider themselves Christians, and their morals, world view, and beliefs lead them to believe that they can get away with it.

If they haven't properly thought through the ramifications of their actions, I suspect they haven't thought through the ramifications of their philosophy; more than likely, they're just seizing on whatever justification for their actions that they can find.

I guess I am not convinced that there is plenty of evidence that anywheres near proves that the world is old.

Well... I'll provide what proof I can of this later, then. It's a bit late for me to be looking up sources (which means it's a bit late for me to be posting, but I can't seem to fall alseep), or I'd do it now.

But to give you the gist of my argument... Almost every field of science that deals with the natural world is reliant on the belief that the world is old to explain certain facts. People can argue the details of radiological dating and red shift for years (and it's my understanding that some have...), but that so much of science assumes the world is old is a much more persuasive argument in my opinion; not as an appeal to authority, but from the fact that most of science would be wrong if the assumption was false - meaning that all of the predictions that they have accurately made would need an explanation of why they were inadvertently correct.

In short, "It worked" is one of the most persuasive arguments that I can see, and when that argument can be made hundreds of times... Well, it's a bit of an uphill battle to validate another answer.

It may be only because of our limited sight and knowledge that the world does appear old.

Let's that 5 milliseconds after God breathed into Adam and brought him to life, a highly educated modern doctor were whisked in to inspect him and give him a checkup. The doctor would notice several interesting things.

First he would notice that it was a full grown man. "This fellow is at least 30 years old." He would also notice that the blood pumping through Adams heart was well full of oxygen and he would know that Adam had been breathing for some time. Also he would note that Adam knew how to talk and walk, and knowing that these take a couple years to learn, it would be quite clear that Adam had not just come into being.

After all, I'm quite certain that God created Adam with oxygen in his bloodstream, otherwise Adam would have come to gasping for air.

So in the case of Adam, its quite clear that God created him with the appearance of having been alive for some time, and yet the purpose was not to deceive anybody, but rather because God wanted to create a full grown man.

To follow your analogy to its logical conclusion, God may have created the world with the appearance of age, because he didn't wish to wait billions of years for it to finish on its own, and the universe wouldn't function correctly if the hallmarks of age weren't present? I see nothing wrong with that view.

To explain why, returning to your analogy, how would that doctor deal with Adam? As a thirty year old human, as would be appropriate. The ways one dealt with an infant wouldn't be appropriate, but the ways one dealt with an adult would, even if Adam would be technically less than a day old.

Returning this to the discussion of the world, it would still be in our best interests to treat the world as though it were old; if we're dealing, functionally, with a thirty year old male or a world billions of years old, we're best off treating it as a thirty year old male or a world billions of years old.

Can we agree with this point?

Well, I guess that depends on which God you're talking about. But the Bible is really quite clear in describing that God created the world in 6 days. The Genesis creation account even specifies that each day had a morning and an evening. And the whole idea that "days" were eons or whatnot really raises lots of questions without answers. If you would like more information on the problems with the day-age /epoch/era idea, just ask. I or someone else here will be glad to get some information on it.

Well... The bible might be clear on this, but so is science. As both the world and the bible are divinely created, and God doesn't contradict himself, either our understanding of Science or of the bible is flawed.

Working with your idea of a world created deliberately with the appearance of age... Well, again, why can't both accounts be true? God created the universe in seven days, as in the bible, setting out the universe with the natural processes that science is currently discovering. Physically, it's billions of years old, but chronologically, it's only a few thousand.

Now, admittedly, the above paragraph is likely dead wrong, but it's just one example of how the biblical story of creation isn't necessarily incompatible with science. In some way, the bible agrees with science, and science agrees with the bible - the reasoning might seem somewhat convoluted, but it is always sound.

The only problem is, it's going to be found by someone entirely more intelligent and informed than I ^_^0 .

[Ohwhynot]

Some people believe that way. But it is clear that not everybody believes that way. The news is full of stories about people who believe that as long as they can get away with something without those around them turning on them or finding out, that anything is fine to do.

True, but people who think that way are just as often Christians, Jews, Hindus, Confucians, and Muslims.

Immorality is a character flaw, not a flaw based on philosophy or belief in evolution.

With my scientific / engineering tendencies, I tend to find out what something says before deciding what it means. And the Bible is quite clear in describing 6 twenty four hour days, each with an evening and a morning. Furthermore, it gives generations of people and their ages. In answer to your question, I have not found the Bible to be compatible with what the evolutionists claim.

While I agree with you regarding the clarity of the biblical passages, I disagree with you as regards their intent... But, frankly, I'd probably end up doing more harm than good, if I tried to cover how I viewed the intent of those passages. I'll see if I can find a source similar to my own beliefs who covers it better.

This almost sounds like "It doesn't matter if we're lying to the students and telling them that evolution is proven even though it isn't, because they aren't paying attention anyway" :-)

But my impression has been that by the time an average child is graduated from highschool, he has been quite thoroughly, for many years, taught evolution. And it can't help but influence his decisions later in life.

Wait, wait, wait, that was in regards to discussion of the Big Bang, not evolution.

Evolution is covered in much more depth, and matters significantly more simply because it's a controversial issue, which the state has a responsibility to treat delicately.

I disagree with the assertion that it will influence his decisions, however; his peer group, family, and geographic location all have such significant influence on a persons character that it would be difficult to determine how much influence evolution could possibly have; especially since few people who believe evolution considers its implications as regards themselves.

Honestly, beyond basic literacy and numeracy, I question whether schools have any influence on children at all, beyond introducing them to a wide range of people and determining who is suitable for college. It certainly seems as though few walk away with anything beyond the basics.

And don't even get me started on the disgraceful state of "history" and "geography" classes...

[metmom]

Morals cannot be on the whim of men or society. That’s moral relativism. Some cultures, like Islam, say it’s OK to lie to others to advance their cause. To them, advancing islam IS moral.

Beauty is subjective. Those algorithms are based on the western ideal of beauty. Not every culture has the same concept.

Science just cannot deal with some aspects of reality. There are some things that just cannot be measured or reduced to physical components because they have none. And even if it can, it still would miss the essence of what it really is. Tracking the electrical impulses in the brain may show what is happening physically when a thought or emotion occurs, but they are the result of the though or emotion, they aren’t the thought or emotion itself.

[metmom]

Show me the verses in the Bible that tell us how old the earth is.

Not some man’s calculations based on assumptions about geneolgies and meanings either. Chapter and verse.

If the earth is older than the YEC model, all your arguments fall apart.

[metmom]

So science has measured something lots of time, then and gotten consistent results. That’s all that means.

[metmom]

I’m not saying it’s wrong. But that’s not the same thing as a litmus test about one’s view of the TOE, which is totally irrelevant to public policy making decisions, economics, diplomacy, etc.

People use all kinds of things every day without understanding how they work. Should every one be required to understand internal combustion before driving a car? Or how their computer works before being allowed to log on?

[metmom]

Not once have I had a scientist tell me that I am going to hell, that I am not moral, that I can not be trusted or that I hate everyone save myself. I have been called all those things by creationists and, truth be told, much worse things that I will not repeat on this site out of respect for the rules and proper behavior.

If you're new to this site, then where else have you had all those things said to you?

[metmom]

Never have gained anything from falsifying evidence, though Lord knows, they’ve tried.

[Ohwhynot]

If you're new to this site, then where else have you had all those things said to you?

To grant him the benefit of the doubt, it's entirely plausible that he's been treated poorly by creationists on other sites.

Just about any forum that treads into politics from time to time has seen its share of bitter debate on evolution/creationism...

[metmom]

Returning this to the discussion of the world, it would still be in our best interests to treat the world as though it were old; if we're dealing, functionally, with a thirty year old male or a world billions of years old, we're best off treating it as a thirty year old male or a world billions of years old.

Can we agree with this point?

Apparently many scientists can agree on this point. Science, like any tool, can be used if you follow its rules, even if the conclusions based on interpretation of some evidence is wrong. The scientific method works regardless of how old the earth is and whether or not you believe that God created it in 6 days or not.

[metmom]

Not once have I had a scientist tell me that I am going to hell, that I am not moral, that I can not be trusted or that I hate everyone save myself.

OTOH, scientists (or at least evos who pass themselves off as scientists, degree notwithstanding) on this forum, have routinely told creationists that they are liars (until the mods put a rather forceful stop to that), that they as Christians are less moral than atheists, that they will never amount to anything more that flipping burgers at the local fast food joint because of their *ignorance*, that they are equivalent to the Taliban and trying to force us back into another Dark ages.

These things are all the equivalent to what you say creationists have said to you; that is, they are the biggest insults they can think of.

BTW, if I warned you that too much drinking would destroy your liver, or that walking out in front of a semi truck would result in personal injury, would I be considered a bad person to warn you that your behavior is going to result in harm to you? Likewise for the warnings about hell. The only reason people tell you that if you don't change is that's where you'll end up, is it's a warning. Granted some people have come across with a certain, less than charitable attitude about it, and that's wrong. Myself, I wouldn't want to see anyone in hell, although, I must admit that I right now I feel a sense of satisfaction at the thought of seeing those who would fly planes into buildings, slice of the heads of those they disagree with, put suicide vests on children, or stone women for being raped, get theirs.

[metmom]

I’m not ignoring your response. I’m mulling over how to respond to it.