Replies

The part that confuses me is, why is this necessary? Why does it matter the method God used in His creation?

People have posed long and involved discussions on the complexity of life and DNA, and posited that it just simply could not have arose from mere Darwinian "survival of the fittest" evolution. But that should only make Christians even more in awe of God. That He took a mere collection of molecules and arranged them in such an order that after 2-3 billion years they would produce humanity. Just think of the odds of that!

The sheer improbability of it suggests divine intervention. For 2-3 billion years of random molecule interaction to firmly arrive at humanity is a statistic impossibility. If a divine plan isn't being followed there, then that was a really foolish gamble on God's part. There is more than enough ample room for God and evolution to co-exist.

I've been browsing these evo threads since first coming to FR. It's been a funny and sometimes sad ride. Some of the faces have changed in the debates, but the debates, if you could call it that, have pretty much remained the same. In a nutshell:

1. Creationist says evolution is flawed because of A.
2. Evolutionist explains A and provides reference links.
3. Creationist never reads link, ignores explanation, and continues with assumption.
4. Repeat ad nauseum.

The blatant dishonesty, misrepresentation and misunderstanding of some of the creationists has been embarassing. Having faith is fine. Criticizing a theory is more than welcome in the scientific community; it's actually a staple of the scientific process. There's just one little catch; you had better know what it is that you are talking about in order to have your contribution taken seriously.

Wasn't it around the twelfth century that certain factions in the middle east ceased the scientific process because it went against religious scripture? That really did the future of their people wonders. If Kansas has their way, the picture and sentiment in post #2 might not be too far off.

For 2-3 billion years of random molecule interaction to firmly arrive at humanity is a statistic impossibility.

It isn't random, as most people use "random." Some creationists make a point of tripping themselves by saying that anything not under active guidance is random. That would make the falling of a cannonball "random," a usage most people would not accept. It is after all falling and cannot go any way but down.

Every creationist argument from improbability I've ever seen has been based upon a naive model. Mostly, things have to jump together all at once from a whole lot of very simple components.

Then the creationist will rail about evolution, but he didn't model evolution. He modeled things poofing together from atoms, dirt, or whatever in one afternoon, which sounds like the version of events he DOES support.

1. Creationist says evolution is flawed because of A.
2. Evolutionist explains A and provides reference links.
3. Creationist never reads link, ignores explanation, and continues with assumption.
4. Repeat ad nauseum.

The blatant dishonesty, misrepresentation and misunderstanding of some of the creationists has been embarassing. Having faith is fine. Criticizing a theory is more than welcome in the scientific community; it's actually a staple of the scientific process. There's just one little catch; you had better know what it is that you are talking about in order to have your contribution taken seriously.

I have been reading these threads as well and I agree with your take on it for the most part.

I am not sure that ALL the creationists are being blatantly dishonest. I suspect some are simply not capable of critical thought, and are accustomed to thinking passion equals logic etc.

The blatant dishonesty, misrepresentation and misunderstanding of some of the creationists has been embarassing.

Sometimes we pause to tell them how this has to be playing out there, but that's dismissed as an ad hominem attack. Then, as you say, we loop around some more.

The sheer improbability of it suggests divine intervention. For 2-3 billion years of random molecule interaction to firmly arrive at humanity is a statistic impossibility. If a divine plan isn't being followed there, then that was a really foolish gamble on God's part. There is more than enough ample room for God and evolution to co-exist.

This is an unconvincing argument. Suppose someone with really, really superhuman bladder control and no need to sleep or eat sits at a continuously operating roulette table for for a full week and writes down each number as it comes up. (No betting involved). This amazing person then calculates the odds of getting that exact result. If the wheel has the usual "0" and "00" slots, I think the odds work out as 1 in 38ⁿ, with n being the number spins -- you math mavens may pitch in here, please. But it doesn't matter, because the event had, in fact, happened.

This is not an argument against God. It's an argument about silly applications of mathematics.

The blatant dishonesty, misrepresentation and misunderstanding of some of the creationists has been embarassing. Having faith is fine. Criticizing a theory is more than welcome in the scientific community; it's actually a staple of the scientific process. There's just one little catch; you had better know what it is that you are talking about in order to have your contribution taken seriously.

Very well put. It is very similar to the celebrities who spout off about politics. Like the "shut up and sing."

The sheer improbability of it suggests divine intervention. For 2-3 billion years of random molecule interaction to firmly arrive at humanity is a statistic impossibility. If a divine plan isn't being followed there, then that was a really foolish gamble on God's part. There is more than enough ample room for God and evolution to co-exist.

The way I look at it, God created "chance" itself. If the weather is "scattered showers", did God make it rain in one place, but not the other? Or was it "chance" that decided it?

You can answer that question just about any way you like. But the bottom line is that Gods creation is where the evidence for evolution was derived. Evolution is fact, whether the creationists believe it or not.

That's what the evolution critics fail to understand about science. They correctly point out that criticism of a theory is accepted in science. They fail to realize that mere criticism is insufficient to overturn the established theory. In other words, criticizing a theory is acceptable, but the burden of proof is on the critic to show that the accepted theory is incorrect, not on the scientific community to show that the critic is wrong.