Posted on 02/08/2005 10:26:54 AM PST by DannyTN
Home | Feedback | Links | Books
A Theory of Creation
|
By having the terms defined with more clarity (and less bias), and with a measure of information provided, one should have little difficulty seeing that the theory of creation not only exists, but also stands up rather well to a rigorous side-by-side comparison with its evolutionary counterpart. It has predictive value, is internally consistent, is no less falsifiable than evolution, and consistently explains at least as many phenomena allegedly explained by evolution.
The vocal proponents of evolution have demonstrated time and again that they are not interested in this kind of straightforward clarity or information. They object to its presentation, excuse themselves from paying much attention to it, then return to hacking up their favorite straw-man caricatures and congratulating each other on a job well done. (Dont let this happen to you!)
Vocal proponents of evolutionism such as are found at Talk.Origins have employed willful ignorance and arbitrary double-standards to question the scientific legitimacy of the creation science model. They then go to great lengths to avoid responsibility for using such unscientificif not outright deceptivetactics to disparage their worst nightmare: the truth.
Timothy Wallace
[1] The Talk.Origins Archive Welcome FAQ (as of 25 April 2000), apparently authored by Andy Peters, Onar Aam, Jim Acker, Wesley Elsberry, Mark Isaak, Bill Jefferys, Jim Loats, Thomas Marlowe, Paul Neubacher, Tero Sand, Thomas Scharle, Paul Schinder, Chris Stassen, Brett Vickers, and Kurt vonRoeschlaub. [RETURN TO TEXT]
[2] ibid. [RETURN TO TEXT]
[3] Two extensive online book lists are A Young-Earth Creationist Bibliography by Henry M. Morris and Master Creation/Anti-Evolution Bibliography by Eric Blievernicht. Periodicals include the peer-reviewed Creation Research Society Quarterly and Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, and the popular-level Creation Ex Nihilo Magazine. [RETURN TO TEXT]
[4] Such fundamental assumptions are strictly religious/philosophical in both models, and therefore incapable of empirical falsification. [RETURN TO TEXT]
[5] Although much external evidence (e.g., ancient records and archaeological research) points to the accuracy of the Bible (as properly understood), this evidence does not necessarily render the reliability of the Bible an empirically falsifiable postulateparticularly to the mind and will predisposed to resist the moral implications inherent in the Bibles message. Some links for serious inquirers might be The Textual Reliability of the New Testament. [RETURN TO TEXT]
[6] The creationary postulate that the ultimate Primal Cause of time, space, and matter/energy was the Creator-God of the Bible is not empirically falsifiable, although evidence does point to a beginning of time, space, and matter/energy. The evolutionary postulate that time, space, and matter/energy are either self-created or eternal in nature is empirically falsified, in that empirical evidence (i.e., the principle of entropy) points to a beginning of time, space, and matter/energy, and no unequivocal empirical evidence exists that time, space, and/or matter/energy can spontaneously exist via natural processes where none existed previously. Serious inquirers might be interested in reading Sarfatis If God Created the Universe, then Who Created God?, How to Think About God, by Mortimer J. Adler (New York, 1980: Macmillan). (Adler was a professor at UNC Chapel Hill, Chairman of the Board of Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Dir of the Institute of Philosophical Research, and Honorary Trustee of the Aspen Institute for Hamanistic Studies. A self-described pagan, he nevertheless formulated a rationalistic argument for the existence of God either beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of reasons for that conclusion over reasons against it. His argument hinges on causation. [RETURN TO TEXT]
[7] The creationary postulate that complexity, variety and adaptability in living organisms and ecological systems are potentially inherent and complete in original populations as created and manifested over time through genetic variation and natural selection would be falsified by the demonstration that natural processes alone are unequivocally capable of producing these phenomena, were such a demonstration possible. The evolutionary postulate that complexity, variety and adaptability in living organisms and ecological systems have increased over time, starting from zero, via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years, on the other hand, is becoming falsified by a growing body of empirical data indicating that natural processes alone are unequivocally incapable of producing these phenomena. [RETURN TO TEXT]
[8] The creationary postulate that massive amounts of coded genetic information were inherent and complete in the original populations as created, and that the sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation would be falsified by the demonstration of an unequivocal, empirically verifiable increase in new genetic information over time. The evolutionary postulate that massive amounts of coded genetic information have increased over time starting from zero, via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years, is becoming falsified by a growing body of empirical data pointing only to a net decrease in available genetic code, and the emergence of no unequivocally new genetic information. [RETURN TO TEXT]
[9] It has not been demonstrated empirically and unequivocally that similarities, ranging from genetic to morphological, between various organisms are either indicative of Creators prerogative to employ similar/identical structures and information sequences for similar functions in different organisms, or that they are residual evidence that multiple different organisms descended from common ancestors. Falsification for either interpretation therefore remains impossible. [RETURN TO TEXT]
[10] The creationary postulate that the fossil record, comprised of billions of organisms quickly buried in sedimentary rock layers laid down by water all over the earth, is a product of the biblical global Flood and its immediate aftermath has not been falsified. The evolutionary postulate that the same fossil record is a product of millions of years of gradual or intermittent burial likewise has not been falsified per se, though no empirically observed similar uniformitarian process can be demonstrated to support the claim. [RETURN TO TEXT]
[11] If the Ice Age could be shown unequivocally to conflict with the creationary paradigm, it would serve as a form of falsification. But the Ice Age is essentially predictable in the aftermath of a high-energy catastrophic Flood as postulated in the creation model, whereas the evolutionary model offers no firm and unambiguous explanation for the Ice Age. [RETURN TO TEXT]
[12] The Entropy Law, as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, finds no disagreement with the creation model, which points to a space/time/matter beginning, followed closely by constant degradationotherwise creation could be easily falsified via a demonstration that it violates the Entropy Law. The evolution model, on the other hand, requires a mechanism-free and consistent increase in order, complexity, and new genetic information, which amounts to an outright contradiction to the Entropy Law. [RETURN TO TEXT]
[13] The loose and distinctly variable stratigraphic sequence in the fossil record, with its many exceptions, presents a pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations, which fits the creation/flood model well, whereas a highly consistent and strictly uniform record would only serve to falsify it. The evolution model calls for a fairly strict and uniform stratigraphic sequence, but ends up with many problematic and unpredicted (i.e., out-of-order) anomalies which essentially falsify it. [RETURN TO TEXT]
[14] This aspect of the creation model would easily be falsified if uniformitarian dating methods unanimously and consistently agreed on any one age of the earth contradicting the biblical creation estimate. Instead, they vary wildly, spanning a range from little or no apparent age to billions of years, strongly suggesting that they are unreliable as a rule, and that the various processes measured to produce them are likely residual effects of the high-energy, catastrophic processes and conditions of the flood. The evolutionary model seeks confirmation in carefully selected samples of carefully selected methods of uniformitarian dating but is falsified by the remainingand equally legitimatedates obtained from the many other processes available for determining unformitarian dates. [RETURN TO TEXT]
Austin, Steven A., Grand Canyon -- Monument to Catastrophe (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1994).
Behe, Michael J., Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Free Press, 1996).
Bergman, Jerry, The Criterion (Richfield, MN: Onesimus Publishing, 1984).
Bergman, Jerry and George Howe, Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional (St. Joseph, MO: Creation Research Society Books, 1990).
Cooper, Bill, After the Flood (Chichester, England: New Wine Press, 1995).
Denton, Michael J., Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1986; originally published in England in 1985).
Gange, Robert, Origins and Destiny (Dallas: Word, 1986).
Gentry, R. V., Creation's Tiny Mystery (Knoxville, TN: Earth Science Associates, 1986).
Gish, Duane T., Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993).
Gish, Duane T., Dinosaurs by Design (El Cajon: Institute for Creation Research, 1992).
Gish, Duane T., Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1995; an enlargement of Dr. Gish's The Challenge of the Fossil Record, and before it, Evolution: The Fossils Say NO!).
Ham, Ken, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Wieland, The Answers Book (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1991).
Ham, Ken, The Lie: Evolution (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1987).
Humphreys, D. Russell, Starlight and Time (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994).
Johnson, Phillip E., Darwin on Trial (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991).
Johnson, Phillip E., Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997).
Johnson, Phillip E., Reason in the Balance (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995).
Lammerts, Walter E., ed., Why Not Creation? (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970).
Lubenow, Marvin, Bones of Contention (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992).
Morris, Henry M., The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984).
Morris, Henry M., ed., Scientific Creationism 2d ed. (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985).
Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? Rev. ed. (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987).
Morris, John D., The Young Earth (Colorado Springs, CO: Master Books, 1994).
Oard, Michael, An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990).
Schaeffer, Francis, No Final Conflict (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1975).
Slusher, Harold, S. and Stephen J. Robertson, The Age of the Solar System (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1982).
Slusher, Harold S., Origin of the Universe (San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1980).
Spetner, Lee, Not By Chance! (New York: Judaica Press, 1996).
Thaxton, Charles B., Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (Dallas: Lewis & Stanley, 1992; originally published by Philosophical Library, 1984).
Thompson, Bert, Creation Compromises (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 1995).
Vardiman, Larry, Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993).
Vardiman, Larry, Sea-Floor Sediment and the Age of the Earth (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996).
Whitcomb, John C. and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964).
Wilder-Smith, A. E., Man's Origin, Man's Destiny (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968).
Williams, Emmett L., ed., Thermodynamics and the Development of Order (Norcross, GA: Creation Research Society Books, 1981).
Wieland, Carl, Stones and Bones: Powerful Evidence Against Evolution (Acacia Ridge, Australia: Creation Science Foundation, 1994).
Woodmorappe, John, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996).
Woodmorappe, John, Studies in Flood Geology (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993).
This site has received over |
visits since November 1997 |
© TrueOrigin Archive. All Rights Reserved.
powered by Lone Star Web Works
thanks for posting this article. It appears to be an informative and logical disection of people whose belief is evolution.
The gospels don't match each other either...
Of course, this is what brought one trial attorney to Jesus. He said that whenever you have several witnesses who's testimony are pretty much identical, it means there is collusion. Real, and sincere witnesses will give slightly different testimony but will remain consistent with the key facts.
That is why one of the gospels says that the two men on crosses beside Jesus reviled him, yet another says that one "came to his defense." Yet both may be right, for one can revile one minute and have a change of heart the next.
Of course those who want to condemn the Bible call this an obvious discrepency...
The attorney would have thought that the gospels were "made up" if they matched too closely.
Thats a fair point.
There does seem to be a consistent view in the Bible that the earth is flat, however. Given that the dominant view of men was that the world was flat until quite recently, this doesnt seem too surprising. H
owever, it might be a good reason for not viewing the Bible as word-for-word fact.
"I agree with them on the point that ID/Creation is not science, it is religion."
I concur.
The Creation account of the Bible is inspired poetry meant to convey the greater meaning of God's infinite power of creation to a simple people in a simple time. In this light, it still has powerful value as an inspired message.
To attempt to literally translate it as modern science is completely insane and a hindrance to scientific progress.
The charts shown in the article mostly consist of the same tired and overwhelmingly refuted arguments posited by the deceptive and/or scientifically illiterate over decades past. (i.e. the inability to add information to genetic code, when in fact genes have been observed to replicate, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics argument, which only can be applied to closed or relatively simple systems where the entropy can be quantified).
Are you a trial attorney?
Dan 4:6 Therefore made I a decree to bring in all the wise [men] of Babylon before me, that they might make known unto me the interpretation of the dream.
Dan 4:7 Then came in the magicians, the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers: and I told the dream before them; but they did not make known unto me the interpretation thereof.
Dan 4:8 But at the last Daniel came in before me, whose name [was] Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god, and in whom [is] the spirit of the holy gods: and before him I told the dream, [saying],
Dan 4:9 O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods [is] in thee, and no secret troubleth thee, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and the interpretation thereof.
As you should have noticed the verse referencing the circle stated AS a curtain and AS a tent. The word AS is used as a comparison, or is that to hard to understand.
The CONTRADICTION you stated was found in a dream. Are you saying that if a character in the Bible has a dream that dream must coincide with every other passage in the Bible, or should we see that since it is a dream it is obviously not literal. It seem that the more people try to find fault with the Bible the more they just prove they have not read it. You will NOT find a contradiction unless you take passages out of context.
no and i don't understand how that would make me less qualified to detect that your argument laughable.
WOW!
I try to keep from readin too much into some of the things the Bible says. For example, when the Bible talks about the "four corners" of the earth, some pundits would argue that that is proof that the word of God says the world is flat AND square.
In fact, when we say today that the sun "sets," we don't literally mean it moves around the earth. But everyone who lives here knows exactly what we mean.
Same is true with the Bible. It is rife with the usage of "figures of speach," That is all the circle of the earth, four corners of the earth, "rabbit chewing cud" and "four legged insects" stuff is all about. The point that was meant to be communicated was, in fact communicated.
When I say the meal will begin at sunset, I am not making a statement about the earth, the sun and their relationship to the cosmos and physics.
I am merely letting all "normal" people who live around me when we will eat. 8^>
>>no and i don't understand how that would make me less qualified to detect that your argument laughable. <<
That is because you do not know what you do not know.
Ask an EXPERIENCED trial attorney about the concept some time. I have a feeling you are in for a surprise. ;^>
Good article on the GA evolution controversy:
http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/11-23-04.asp
I agree.
I find it a curious paradox that so many of the men of science, that are named or quoted, first began as priests, monks or theologians. Many compulsively religious people continue to look for signs, as in the Shroud of Turin, and ignore the whispers of God that men like Gregor Mendel listened to.
It's sad, really. Science is God beckoning us to understand His miracles. If only we would listen, instead of preach.
Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection
Wow! How did all those animals fit on Noah's Ark?
It shows that one can fill a 55 gallon drum with a tablespoon of shit.
"I try to keep from readin too much into some of the things the Bible says."
I agree; and that was my original point to a gentleman who earlier made a tortured point about how Nephilim might be neanderthals.
Here's a good story:
A black Baptist preacher had a very good friend who was a noted biologist. As they met for lunch one day, the biologist was excited because he believed he had discovered (after 25 years of research) that the world was made up of 5 major elements -
Time
Force
Energy
Space
Matter
The Baptist preacher began laughing and replied to his friend - You could have saved yourself 25 years of research by simply reading the first line of the Bible.
Time - In the beginning
Force - GOD
Energy - created
Space - the heavens
Matter - and the earth.
I actually saw the black preacher on TV telling this story - 20 years ago - It's stunning in it's simplicity.
It is not a matter of literal. Different parts of the Bible are written for different reasons. These four books are unique in that they are four eyewitness accounts of Jesus life. The Gospel of Thomas was not considered authentic.
What is so exciting about them is their obvious inconsistencies in ways that follow the personalities of the real human beings. It smacks of authenticity, while "made up" gospels would almost certainly not survive the test of time.
It is like asking a man and his wife about the same person. The woman said she was wearing a red polka dot pants-suit with white spiked heals and white hat and climbed into her convertible and left.
The guy says she was wearing a red dress and climbed into a beautiful matching red Porsche Boxter.
Now which was it, a pants-suit or a dress? Was it polka dot or not? Was one of them lying? How germane is it?
Would you say, in a court of law, that these two testimonies match? If they both mentioned the exact same details, (red Boxter, white spiked heels, convertible top, "polka dot pants suit" and white hat) would you not suspect collusion because of the unnatural precision.
Yet, if one were to make up the gospels, that is exactly the way they would read: "See, they match perfectly so they must be authentic!"
That isn't how eyewitness testimony works. It is as C. S. Lewis noted: Christianity has just enough odd twists to preclude it from being "invented" by humans.
His book "Mere Christianity" covers this nicely.
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.