That has been the orthodox view since the first century!
We do not trust in a book, we trust in a Person. Teaching people that our faith rests on a book ends up producing people like Bart Ehrman who did exactly what such people taught – finding the least ‘error’ caused him to abandon Christianity completely.
That was one fun part of learning Greek totally apart from the New Testament: it was much easier to not smuggle in the familiar translations instead of actually translating, and thus to reduce expectation of what the text was “supposed to” say.
You actually just agreed with him because YECism sets up the first two chapters of Genesis as the foundation, not Christ. Of course churches that hold to YECism won’t admit that, but it gets emphasized over and over so strongly that it is the de facto teaching – and thus when those poor kids get to college and find that they were misled about Genesis, they quite logically conclude that the entire Bible can’t be trusted.
In practice, what’s the difference between science as Ken Ham sees it and secular science? How are those two different sciences actually done?
It should be that way, but that isn’t what happens at AiG which is led by Ken Ham.
If evidence contradicts the literal interpretation favored by Ken Ham then the evidence is thrown out.
Since Ken Ham, it has been a rejection of naturalistic answers even with mountains of evidence support them. It’s spelled out in their statement of faith.
It doesn’t. What science requires is a testable hypothesis which intelligent design proponents have failed to produce.
How are those scientific?
Orphan genes are often the product of a handful of mutations in DNA that was not previously transcribed. Other species have very similar DNA, the only difference is that it isn’t transcribed in those other species. It seems that you have confused gene with DNA.
If evolution were removed then we would lose one of the best tools for determining important functional genes in the genome and how to approach studying them. We use sequence conservation for much of this, and it only makes sense in the light of evolution.
There is mountains of evidence for evolution and an old Earth. No such evidence exists for YEC.
That’s false. Junk DNA is supported by positive evidence, not simply ignorance of what it might do. As we would expect, junk DNA accumulates mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift. Functional DNA should be susceptible to deleterious mutations meaning that we should see fewer mutations accumulate over time in functional DNA. About 90% of the human genome demonstrates a lack of sequence conservation which is one of the biggest pieces of evidence that it is junk. We know this because of evolution.
Prove it.
BTW, “non-coding DNA” is not a synonym for junk DNA. Scientists have known of functional non-coding DNA since the earliest days of genetics. Features such as ribosomal RNA and tRNA have been known about for many decades. Scientists have also understood the importance of non-coding promoters, such as the lac promoter in E. coli that was discovered back in the 1960’s. At no point did scientists say that all non-coding DNA was junk DNA.
But they haven’t discovered the purpose of 90% of the human genome. It is still considered junk.
I’m not so sure about that…
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… Through him, all things were made, and without him, nothing was made that has been made… And the Word become flesh and made his dwelling among us.” ~John 1
“Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them.” ~ Rev 21:1-3
I believe in God the Father, the Almighty, the Maker of Heaven and Earth. ~ Nicene Creed
I’d say that the Doctrine of Creation is fairly central in the above quotes. I’d also suggest that one of the reasons that Western Christians have been complicit in the ravaging of Earth is partly due to them thinking they can “survive without any thoughts on the subject”.
So many thoughts from this and others it is hard to be brief but I will try.
Science aligns with scripture pretty well. It is all in the interpretation and to say science is some kind of heresy is heretical in itself because sciecce tell us how our creator God did things. Scripture tells us what he did. Somewher in these threads the homeless came up. I would say that the use of scientific evidence to explain scriptural events such as creation, origin of man, the flood and the Tower of Babel is better for everyone as a first step in coming to Christ.
About time we all spoke truth. It does not make the Bible wrong. Science would not exist if it was not for God so use it with scripture particularly in Genesis. Not everything in the Bible incvites the application of science but some of it is supported by other evidence.The absence of evidence does not mean scripture is untrue.
In regard to Genesis 1 science agrees with Genesis 1 iin terms of what "“yom” applies to. Continuing with the six day creation is fruitless and untrue. You cannot argue with evidence, so let’s bury the six day creation position and move on to the interpretation that is scripturrally aligned with science.
As for Exodus 20 one cannot engage in scientism that room for miracles is not left possible. If God created he also can do miracles. In the final analysis, from God’s position perhaps everthing God does is a miracle. Somethings God has allowed us to see how He did it. Others, He has not.
Re the AGI position on faith I believe that is motivated by a position to not have faith in God under any condition. (Romans 1: 20) No excuses with God.
Who, not how.
And humanity’s ravaging of the planet has little or nothing to do with religion. Some of it was ignorance, most of it is self seeking and uncaring. Having dominion could be viewed as “Do as you wish”. Being in God’s image should mean behaving as God would. (perhaps there is a topic here?)
Richard
There are many articles to support my assertion of the demise of “junk DNA.” I’m surprised that others in this forum haven’t called you out for your response. Here are a few paragraphs from an article by Casey Luskin.
Flotsam and Jetsam No More
For those who follow the debate over origins, the demise of junk DNA is old news. But that hasn’t stopped leading evolutionary scientists from arguing that junk DNA refutes intelligent design.
For example, Francis Collins argues in The Language of God that our genome is full of “genetic flotsam and jetsam” (i.e., trash), making it “virtually inescapable” that we share common ancestry with mice. But as I explained then, numerous functions had been discovered for
noncoding DNA, and more have been found since, forcing revolution in biological thinking. In a sign of the times, a 2010 Nature article heralded this new era of genomics, noting that “biology’s new glimpse at a universe of non-coding DNA—what used to be called ‘junk’ DNA—has been fascinating and befuddling.” Many other scientific papers reporting functions for “junk” DNA have made similar remarks.
But no publication shook this debate so much as a 2012 Nature paper that finally put junk DNA to rest—or so it seemed. This major paper presented the results of the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) Project, a years-long research consortium involving over 400 international scientists studying noncoding DNA in the human genome. Along with 30 other groundbreaking papers, the lead ENCODE article found that the “vast majority” of the human genome shows biochemical function: “These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80 percent of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions.”
I know it is hard to give up a concept that helps to “prove” evolution, but it doesn’t help the credibility of the evolutionary community to hang on to something that we know is a poor argument.
Try So-called junk DNA plays critical role in mammalian development | Berkeley News
That would be confirmation shopping.
Because the response from @T_aquaticus was on point.
He is entitled to his opinion, but a geologist lawyer is hardly an authoritative guide to genetics.
Instead, may I recommend this recent book by biochemist Larry Moran
What’s in Your Genome?: 90% of Your Genome Is Junk
Evolution is just biology over time. There is no need to “prove” biology.
Junk DNA is still alive and well.
This paper is also worth reading:
Casey Luskin? Seriously? He’s a lawyer. I would suggest reading real scientific sources.
Their conclusion is known to be wrong, or at least uses a definition of “function” that is meaningless. To put it another way, their definition of function is so wide that true junk DNA would be classified as functional in their assays. For example, DNA that has no function can and is transcribed into RNA. This is because RNA transcriptase is leaky and will transcribe non-functional DNA. However, ENCODE counted this as functional DNA. It isn’t. They also counted DNA that binds transcription factors even though the DNA is not involved in actually controlling transcription of any functional gene. Again, we would expect random, non-functional DNA to bind transcription factors, so this isn’t functional DNA in any meaningful way.
The main issue is a theological one, not Scientific. YEC see deep time as undermining the gospel. Its the problem of evil that is the root of the tension, not the latest scientific hypothesis about this or that…
The topic is best approached by theological/ philosophical reflection not primarily a scientific debate. For example what is time? How is Christ connected to the creation of all things? That a good question to start a unifying discussion. The question left to strictly scientific debate is too shallow. Its like kids sitting in a inflatable kiddie pool whilst the ocean beckons!
Just read this…
In The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, Augustine wrestled with the idea of God creating in successive temporal increments. If time were a part of creation, it would be quite difficult to explain creation within punctiliar segments of time. Therefore, Augustine posited that the days of creation were actually non-chronologically successive, atemporal “moments.”
He stated,
“Here is a matter that is difficult to understand. God’s decree is not pronounced in
time, and it is heard, but not in time, by a creature that transcends all time in the
contemplation of truth. But when this creature transmits to beings of a lower rank
the forms (rationes) which are, so to speak, intelligible utterances impressed upon
its intellect by the unchangeable Wisdom of God, then there can be movements in
the temporal order in beings subject to time that are to be formed and governed.”
I’m neither talking about who nor how, but it. Creation is central to those quotations and to a Christian understanding of them. There’s infinitely more to the doctrine of creation than ‘how’.
Oh, I wish that were true. The reality is that a gnostic view of heaven + a theology of the rapture = a disposable planet.
I am sorry, but that is a both cynical and jaundiced view of human dynamics, let alone Christianity.
I do not know any Christian who ignores this life in the way you imply because of an overconfidence in what is to come.
Richard
Perhaps, it could be that we different people, from different backgrounds, operate in different Christian circles, therefore have different experiences. Though I appreciate that is not as easy as hand waving away a person’s perspective whilst you simultaneously assassinate their character.
Richard, as abhorrent as the thinking is that Liam described, he is right; it is a view that I’ve heard frequently expressed (over here in the U.S. at least) either outright or or couched in more palatable terms.
It presents frequently in a form like this:
“Jesus is coming again soon, and what really matters is preaching the Gospel to all nations. We need to focus on that, rather than a substitute ‘social gospel’.”
There are lots of variations, but the underlying thinking is similar to what Liam indicated.
Additionally, Christians in the U.S. are used to living in a geography that is so vast with enormous areas of low population density and apparently endless resources, we tend to treat the land (and people who had inhabited it before colonization) as disposable – like toddlers with toys. Use it up or contaminate it beyond use, and move on.
I recently talked with my mom (90) about some environment-related view she parroted from TV. “Mom, don’t you think it’s important to leave something livable for your grand daughters and following generations, much less people in poor countries now?”
She referenced this (christian) rabbi she listens to on tv: God promised not to destroy the world again…God will not allow humans to destroy the world … All the while I was thinking: As we watch it happen before us, but it’s too far away; it’s in somebody else’s yard. It’s their widowed grand daughters dying, starving, holding emaciated children, unable to afford food, much less health care.
In no way do I defend this view. But Liam is right; it exists. It’s all over the place here.
The expression and thrust was simplistic and callous. And your explanations of American examples involves a plenty that the UK does not have, even with the existence of North Sea Oil. I would also contest the notion that Christians in general would think that God would intervene, or at least prevent. Two world wars and a continuance of violence would deny this.
As for the notion of character assaination! How dare any of you! There is enough personal attacking here without looking for it or jumping to conclusions.
I reserve the right to defend Chrisitanity. If you are going to attack or critcise, kindly look to the orthodoxy not any USA extremeties.
Richard
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.