quote:

ORIGINAL: falcnjet

This is my first post, and as a Christian interested in this topic I have to say that this forum is no different than most on this subject. People, especially Christians, have strong feelings on matters related to origins. So much so that the discussion gets disrespectful very quickly. I would encourage everyone to be respectful of other Christians in their comments.

quote:

(falcnjet) The world has sold us very hard on a lie for a long time, and from every quarter. The secular rallying cry seems to be, “Creationism is not science, it’s religion.” We hear this constantly from media, academia and science sources.

You may be surprised that I don't think that’s far off the mark. The doctrine of creation is not science, I'll just concede that. But the idea of creation, in itself, isn’t really religion, either.

quote:

(falcnjet) Creation is a paradigm, or a philosophical belief that all things must have a beginning, that complexity comes only from intelligence, so since the earth abounds with complex life and complex laws and systems, there must have originally been an intelligent Creator.

quote:

(falcnjet) But these same sources also say, “Evolution is science”. But is it? When you think it through with an open mind, evolution is just like Creation in that it’s also a philosophical belief system.

quote:

(falcnjet) It is based on the paradigm, or philosophical belief, that there is not, and cannot be a God, so all things must have a natural explanation.

quote:

(falcnjet) Whether or not you believe that the two philosophies can be integrated, evolution is a philosophy based on this assumption, and all explanations of origins that it generates come from a materialist point of view, never for a moment allowing for the possibility of a supernatural explanation (or even a natural one that's consistent with scripture).

quote:

(falcnjet) So because of its philosophical commitment to a paradigm, evolution is not science either. It is an effort to explain the past without God. This is true whether or not one believes it is consistent with being a bible-believing Christian.

Neither paradigm is "science" as such. Science is the tool with which we try to explain our world. It's not a term properly applied to a philosophy about the past.

If you hold the tenets of evolution and the tenets of creation up against logic, or up against any given scientific evidence, you will always find that creation’s tenets are consistent with the evidence. You will often find that the tenets of evolution are illogical and don’t really fit. Every single piece of evidence ever found on God’s Earth, when properly understood, speaks at least as loudly in support of the narrative Creation account in the Bible, as it does of the hypothesis of evolution. Most fit the Creation/Flood scenario much better. So which philosophy requires more faith?

quote:

(falcnjet) The reason the world doesn’t seem to know this, is that unlike evolutionists, believers in Creation aren’t out there publicizing everything they find as “proof” of creation. No evidence found in the present can ever actually prove either paradigm. This is because scientific evidence can only support the possibility that one or the other of the explanations of the past is true. In order to prove that your explanation of the past is correct, you would have to have historical evidence of that fact -- like an eyewitness, or a written account (sound familiar?). In other words, if you look at a fossil, or a geological stratum, you may be able to justifiably say, “This very well could have come about in this way.” But no matter how convinced of the probability of that you may be, you can never say you have proved it because it happened in the past, and it is unrepeatable. The truth is that even if you could repeat it in the present, you would not have proved that it happened that way in the past.

quote:

(falcnjet) While God has made his world discoverable, and I believe delights in our discovery of it, he also values faith. We can’t prove creation. But we can use observational science to show that what we see today is much more consistent with our faith than it is with the faith-based theory of evolution.

I'd be happy to discuss these ideas with anyone who is honestly seeking the truth in this forum. There is much exciting evidence in the present that God's word can be trusted. I find it exhilarating to be a Christian in a time when science is revealing time and time again that the inspired writers of God's word never erred, and never misled, even about things they could not possibly have known anything about.

With love in Christ,
Don Wilson

quote:

ORIGINAL: falcnjet

But these same sources also say, “Evolution is science”. But is it? When you think it through with an open mind, evolution is just like Creation in that it’s also a philosophical belief system.

quote:

It is based on the paradigm, or philosophical belief, that there is not, and cannot be a God, so all things must have a natural explanation.

quote:

Science is the tool with which we try to explain our world. It's not a term properly applied to a philosophy about the past.

quote:

If you hold the tenets of evolution and the tenets of creation up against logic, or up against any given scientific evidence, you will always find that creation’s tenets are consistent with the evidence.

quote:

The reason the world doesn’t seem to know this, is that unlike evolutionists, believers in Creation aren’t out there publicizing everything they find as “proof” of creation.

quote:

No evidence found in the present can ever actually prove either paradigm.

quote:

I'd be happy to discuss these ideas with anyone who is honestly seeking the truth in this forum. There is much exciting evidence in the present that God's word can be trusted. I find it exhilarating to be a Christian in a time when science is revealing time and time again that the inspired writers of God's word never erred, and never misled, even about things they could not possibly have known anything about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: falcnjet

This is my first post, and as a Christian interested in this topic I have to say that this forum is no different than most on this subject. People, especially Christians, have strong feelings on matters related to origins. So much so that the discussion gets disrespectful very quickly. I would encourage everyone to be respectful of other Christians in their comments.

quote:

The world has sold us very hard on a lie for a long time, and from every quarter. The secular rallying cry seems to be, “Creationism is not science, it’s religion.” We hear this constantly from media, academia and science sources.

You may be surprised that I don't think that’s far off the mark. The doctrine of creation is not science, I'll just concede that. But the idea of creation, in itself, isn’t really religion, either. Creation is a paradigm, or a philosophical belief that all things must have a beginning, that complexity comes only from intelligence, so since the earth abounds with complex life and complex laws and systems, there must have originally been an intelligent Creator.

quote:

But these same sources also say, “Evolution is science”. But is it? When you think it through with an open mind, evolution is just like Creation in that it’s also a philosophical belief system. It is based on the paradigm, or philosophical belief, that there is not, and cannot be a God, so all things must have a natural explanation.

quote:

If you hold the tenets of evolution and the tenets of creation up against logic, or up against any given scientific evidence, you will always find that creation’s tenets are consistent with the evidence.

quote:

You will often find that the tenets of evolution are illogical and don’t really fit.

quote:

Every single piece of evidence ever found on God’s Earth, when properly understood, speaks at least as loudly in support of the narrative Creation account in the Bible, as it does of the hypothesis of evolution. Most fit the Creation/Flood scenario much better.

quote:

The reason the world doesn’t seem to know this, is that unlike evolutionists, believers in Creation aren’t out there publicizing everything they find as “proof” of creation.

quote:

This is because scientific evidence can only support the possibility that one or the other of the explanations of the past is true. In order to prove that your explanation of the past is correct, you would have to have historical evidence of that fact -- like an eyewitness, or a written account (sound familiar?). In other words, if you look at a fossil, or a geological stratum, you may be able to justifiably say, “This very well could have come about in this way.” But no matter how convinced of the probability of that you may be, you can never say you have proved it because it happened in the past, and it is unrepeatable. The truth is that even if you could repeat it in the present, you would not have proved that it happened that way in the past.

quote:

While God has made his world discoverable, and I believe delights in our discovery of it, he also values faith. We can’t prove creation. But we can use observational science to show that what we see today is much more consistent with our faith than it is with the faith-based theory of evolution.

quote:

I'd be happy to discuss these ideas with anyone who is honestly seeking the truth in this forum. There is much exciting evidence in the present that God's word can be trusted. I find it exhilarating to be a Christian in a time when science is revealing time and time again that the inspired writers of God's word never erred, and never misled, even about things they could not possibly have known anything about.

quote:

isn't "belief in a creator" religion? Can you make the distinction between "belief in a creator" WITHOUT "belief in a creation?

quote:

"Complexity comes only from intelligence" requires intelligent creator. Could it be that the paradigm is misstated? Perhaps the intelligence is to be found within the parameter of the understanding, instead of the production. IOW, complex evolution would require intelligence to comprehend what it is that is under consideration.

quote:

Is it possible science itself IS religion? Science (Geometry: a math science) expects us to believe that what I can see does not exist; i.,e., "a line has no width, a point has no dimension." And at the same time, another branch of science insists that I believe that what I cannot see is really there; i,.e., atoms, quarks, mesons, and all the little no-see-ums of the scientific community.

quote:

Both science and religion have a deity; i.e., Jehovah and Darwin. Both have prophets; i.e, Moses and The Professors. Both have elements of heresy; i,.e., Christianity, and students who dare to question in class. Both have temples; i.e., glorious places of worship, grand centers of academia. And the list of similarities goes on ad infinitum.

quote:

But are the two mutually exclusive? I have known some who practice the religion of science who believe also in God.

quote:

Why would ANYTHING natural be expected to be consistent with scripture. Is not scripture itself from beyond the natural?

quote:

Isn't the phrase" when properly understood" usable by both camps?

quote:

Isn't it also true that if you CANNOT repeat it in the present, you would not have proved that it DID NOT happen that way in the past?

quote:

No, it is science.

quote:

This is false. Evolution makes no claims about the existence or non-existence of gods. Evolution is not based on any assumption about gods. Evolution is based on evidence & the scientific method.

quote:

On the contrary, the Discovery Institute, the Creation Museum, ICR, and many individual creationists take their results directly to the people, through press releases, popular books, and talks. Conspicuously, they do not present their results in peer-reviewed science journals. Conversely, legions of evolutionary scientists will never have their work presented in so much as a newspaper article in the popular press, though they may have made contributions to the field through scholarly journals.

quote:

evolution has a great deal of evidence on its side, while naive young-earth creationism has been falsified. It is in direct conflict with the evidence. The only way to save YEC is to ignore (rather than explain) the contrary evidence.

quote:

We would all be interested to hear of the scientific results of which you speak. New voices are always welcome.

quote:

ORIGINAL: falcnjet

quote:

Why would ANYTHING natural be expected to be consistent with scripture. Is not scripture itself from beyond the natural?

This may just be a little communication problem. In other words, I may not understand you properly, so forgive me if that’s the case.
EVERYTHING natural is consistent with scripture. If scripture is the word of the Creator, then it would be consistent with everything He created.
Just to be sure we’re talking about the same thing, let me give an example:
We see in nature lots of layers of sedimentary rock under our surface environment. Evolutionists claim that this is due to millions of years of slow sedimentation occurring at mostly the same rate it does today. Creation scientists, who begin by believing God’s word, have shown that such sedimentation can occur, and has occurred, in mere hours, and that in a massive water event, sediments of different density sort themselves out into layers of similar density. So, knowing this, it’s not hard to see that a worldwide flood would result in vast areas of sedimentation over all the continents of the earth. This is a NATURAL event, consistent with and supporting what scripture has to say.

quote:

(theo) isn't "belief in a creator" religion? Can you make the distinction between "belief in a creator" WITHOUT "belief in a creation?

(falcnjet) Religion can be defined a lot of ways. Let’s say belief in a Creator is a faith-based belief system, just as is belief in a random, accidental collision of molecules bringing about all we see.

quote:

(theo) "Complexity comes only from intelligence" requires intelligent creator. Could it be that the paradigm is misstated? Perhaps the intelligence is to be found within the parameter of the understanding, instead of the production. IOW, complex evolution would require intelligence to comprehend what it is that is under consideration.

(falcnjet) I confess and apologize that it’s hard for me to fully grasp your meaning here. But if I do understand, it sounds like you’re equating the intelligence necessary to understand the processes of evolution with the intelligence necessary to create. If so, these are vastly different. Firstly, one comes after the fact, and one before.

quote:

(falcnjet) Second, the intelligence necessary to create matter from nothing (let alone staggeringly complex matter that obeys staggeringly complex laws) is an intelligence that by simple logic, must be greater than what it has created. The level of intelligence required to understand, to some degree, how this creation works doesn’t compare in the slightest. I hope I understood you correctly.

quote:

(theo) Is it possible science itself IS religion? Science (Geometry: a math science) expects us to believe that what I can see does not exist; i.,e., "a line has no width, a point has no dimension." And at the same time, another branch of science insists that I believe that what I cannot see is really there; i,.e., atoms, quarks, mesons, and all the little no-see-ums of the scientific community.

(falcnjet) Well, as I said, there are a lot of ways to define religion. But there are a lot of concepts in life that are not tangible, yet completely believable. And we also know that our senses sometimes fool us, so we often disregard our senses in favor of what we know to be true. I should point out that this is an ability unique to humans, who are made in God’s image. I wouldn’t think that all such things could be called religion.

quote:

(theo) Both science and religion have a deity; i.e., Jehovah and Darwin. Both have prophets; i.e, Moses and The Professors. Both have elements of heresy; i,.e., Christianity, and students who dare to question in class. Both have temples; i.e., glorious places of worship, grand centers of academia. And the list of similarities goes on ad infinitum.

(falcnjet) I don’t think anyone on either side of the argument sees Darwin as a deity, or academic evolutionists as prophets. Regarding heresy and temples: hmm, interesting concept. But truly I think it’s off point.

quote:

(theo) But are the two mutually exclusive? I have known some who practice the religion of science who believe also in God.

quote:

(theo) Why would ANYTHING natural be expected to be consistent with scripture. Is not scripture itself from beyond the natural?

(falcnjet) This may just be a little communication problem. In other words, I may not understand you properly, so forgive me if that’s the case.
EVERYTHING natural is consistent with scripture. If scripture is the word of the Creator, then it would be consistent with everything He created.

quote:

(falcnjet) Just to be sure we’re talking about the same thing, let me give an example:
We see in nature lots of layers of sedimentary rock under our surface environment. Evolutionists claim that this is due to millions of years of slow sedimentation occurring at mostly the same rate it does today. Creation scientists, who begin by believing God’s word, have shown that such sedimentation can occur, and has occurred, in mere hours, and that in a massive water event, sediments of different density sort themselves out into layers of similar density. So, knowing this, it’s not hard to see that a worldwide flood would result in vast areas of sedimentation over all the continents of the earth. This is a NATURAL event, consistent with and supporting what scripture has to say.

quote:

(theo) Isn't the phrase" when properly understood" usable by both camps?

quote:

(theo) Isn't it also true that if you CANNOT repeat it in the present, you would not have proved that it DID NOT happen that way in the past?

(falcnjet) Completely true. No one can prove, in an operational science sense of the word, that anything did or did not happen in the past (except for some basic things). The more complex the historical process would have to be, the less likely any explanation of it can be trusted.
As Christians though, we don’t have to fully understand something to know that it’s true if it is dealt with in scripture. The bible claims inerrancy, and we either believe it or we don’t. You said it yourself, “The testimony of scripture is better than the experiments of science.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: falcnjet
Professors are fired from colleges for having Creationist ideas. Not long ago, one was fired from the Smithsonian simply for allowing an article sympathetic to intelligent design to be published.

quote:

ORIGINAL: falcnjet
... but evolution itself is a historical hypothesis about how things came to be the way they are today.

quote:

The fact is that species change over time. Evolution happens. This has been so widely observed andso well documented that the fact can no longer be denied except by denying reality itself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: falcnjet
But what I mean to say when I say that evolution is not a science per se, is that science is used in an effort to support evolution, but evolution itself is a historical hypothesis about how things came to be the way they are today. In that sense, it is on equal footing with any other such hypothesis. Where science comes in, is in the attempt to convince others that the hypothesis is an accurate representation of truth.

quote:

quote:

This is false. Evolution makes no claims about the existence or non-existence of gods. Evolution is not based on any assumption about gods. Evolution is based on evidence & the scientific method.

With respect, this indicates a misunderstanding of the scientific method. The scientific method applies only to operational science; the testing of repeatable processes in the present. It cannot be applied to historical science because the processes that are being explained cannot be repeated in the present.

quote:

It may be technically true that evolution makes no claims regarding God

quote:

Well, I don't know where to begin here. Firstly, many who read this forum will never have heard of the Discovery Institue or Answers In Genesis (the ministry behind the Creation Museum), or ICR (Institute for Creation Research), or at least they will not have a good familiarity with them.

quote:

Everyone has been exposed to The Discovery Channel, The History Channel, daily newspapers, TV news shows, National Geographic, Time, Newsweek, and so on.

quote:

Not long ago, one was fired from the Smithsonian simply for allowing an article sympathetic to intelligent design to be published.

quote:

quote:

evolution has a great deal of evidence on its side, while naive young-earth creationism has been falsified. It is in direct conflict with the evidence. The only way to save YEC is to ignore (rather than explain) the contrary evidence.

Falsified by whom? In direct conflict with what evidence? In what way do young-earth creationists ignore evidence? You've opened the door; give me some examples.

quote:

(theo) Science (Geometry: a math science) expects us to believe that what I can see does not exist; i.,e., "a line has no width, a point has no dimension."

quote:

I have no argument with that at all. But this is not evolution. It is one of the four elements required for evolution; natural selection (the others are spontaneous generation, mutation, and enormous time).

quote:

Evolution provides no mechanism for adding information to cells. No mutation has ever been shown to increase useful information in the DNA.

quote:

In other cases, clock-speeding is hypothesized in the absence of any evidence.