See Todd Wood’s take on this.
This comes up so often that Biologos should have a numbered Frequently Answered Questions page like Talk.Origins.
And to clarify, Todd Wood is a young earth creationist scientist, which gives weight to his concessions in this post.
What is your definition of religion? In religious studies, a religion is that which involves a devotion to or reverence for some transcendence. So what is transcendent about evolution, especially when it is traditionally criticized by many creationists for refusing to recognize the role of the supernatural. How can something be both simultaneously: recognize the transcendent (as in religion) while also rejecting the transcendent (as in the philosophical naturalism which many creationists claim has taken over modern science?) [Of course, I reject that claim. Modern science is methodologically naturalistic because the great Christian philosophers of previous centuries defined it thus. And that should not be confused with the philosophical naturalism of atheism.]
Evolution is a “faith-based premise”? So you simply IGNORE the piles and piles of evidence of evolutionary processes everywhere we look and entire new industries based upon using what we’ve learned about evolution to create new products.
Show me any evolutionary biology textbook used at major universities in the USA which make any such statement about such a “presupposition.”
Besides, methodological naturalism (not philosophical naturalism) is at the heart of the Scientific Method because great Christian pioneers of modern science—like Newton, William of Ockham, Descartes, Lavoisier, and so many other heroes of the “creation science” movement—saw the necessity of limiting the procedures of science in that manner, even while they remained devout Christians!
Frankly, it sounds like you are getting your “science education” from creationist websites written by propaganda merchants. Furthermore, I would like to know how your define the word evolution. (I’ve got a strong suspicion you have a limited of understanding what it is and the vast quantities of evidence which supports the Theory of Evolution.)
Indeed, if you don’t recognize the ubiquitous and obvious nature of evolutionary processes, than I’m very interested in hearing your explanation of why God would fill his creation with so much evidence of an evolutionary history which never actually happened. Is God a trickster who plants false evidence?
Do you have a grasp of what are the primary categories of evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution? (I ask because I’ve rarely met an anti-evolution activist who did. Indeed, long ago I fell into that category myself. I hate evolution and barely had a clue what it was.)
2 Likes
Hello,
I was just reading through all of the posts, many of which are very extensive, and go into such great detail, and I wanted to thank-you all for the time, thoughtfulness etc. that you have contributed in answering my arguments and pondering.
I am not “IGNORING” the piles of evidence of evolutionary processes everywhere because I have not yet found any great evidence in the support of Macro Evolution. Just because every atheistic scientist in the world agrees on something means doesn’t that Christians Scientists should agree with them…
“At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.” (Matthew 11:25)
I am surprised that you do not at least partially agree with this statement.
Although Evolutionists are very unlikely to admit this in their text books. The study of origins is beyond the scope of science, and is fundamentally a subject of the supernatural. In my understanding this is a primary argument that Theistic Evolutionists use in support of their claim that God was the originator of our origins.
Can you show me any evolutionary biology textbook, or any textbook any-where that gives any non faith based (real scientific) for the origin of the originator…
I have extensively studied the evidence for Evolution, both in official education, and through private research.
I believe I have an understanding of the primary evidence supporting the theory of evolution, but if not, I am here to learn. I believe that Micro Evolution exists, but have heard little or no real evidence for Macro Evolution
Could you could give me your three best scientific arguments for Macro Evolution?
Did you see my post today, about the free online course about the Emergence of Life ? It sounds like just what you are looking for!!! You’ll learn a lot but must put some effort into it.
Perhaps you are not looking for the wrong kind of evidence?
DEDUCTIVE reasoning is one of the key kinds of evidence:
- If large Reptiles and large mammals were all mixed together in a global flood, we would expect all the remnants of these creatures to be discovered together - - in their death throes.
Marine dinosaurs mixed with whales… T-Rex’s mixed with Elephants and Giraffes … and frankly, even terrestrial and marine creatures mixed together as well!
But in the layers of rock that surrounds the entire earth, we don’t find fossils of large mammals mixed with fossils of dinosaurs. Instead, what we is that large giraffes, elephants, zebras, rhino’s, etc. do not appear until millions of years after the age of dinosaur bones ends. Certainly you don’t think God invoked a SECOND period of creation with a whole new bunch of animals, right?
This is the logical PROOF that large animals emerged, virtually from nowhere … from populations of smaller mammals.
- Millions of years after large mammals appear… we find fossils for WHALES … (not mixed in with dinosaurs or even with earlier kinds of larger terrestrial mammals. This shows that whales had to appear, out of virtually nowhere, from OTHER kinds of mammals, who were not built for existence in the waters of the world.
Are you following, @dd35 ?
I take it by “macroevolution” you mean universal common descent?
Since you say you’ve studied the evidence extensively, obviously there’s some of it that you do not find convincing. Could you give us some examples of which evidence has failed to convince you, and why?
Why not admit that you found the evidence for evolution (of all sorts, whether "micro"or “macro”) but you are rejecting that evidence? Or perhaps you could say that you didn’t find that evidence compelling?
After all, considering that the evidence is easy to find all over the Internet and university bookstores full of textbooks as well as any local library, finding the evidence is not the problem.
It is not a question of “atheist scientists”, “agnostic scientists”, “theist scientists”, or even “Roman Catholic scientists” or “Protestant scientists”. That’s not how science works. Why not simply say that SCIENTISTS agree in their overwhelming affirmation of the Theory of Evolution and of Common Descent? Focusing on “atheist scientists” is rather bizarre when one considers that non-atheist scientists and even evangelical scientists overwhelmingly affirm Common Descent.
(1) Argument from Genetic Fallacy alert.
(2) Every atheistic scientist in the world also agrees on The Germ Theory of Disease and Newton’s Laws of Motion. Does that mean that theistic scientists should stay clear of the Germ Theory of Disease and Newton’s physics as well as the Theory of Evolution? Do you seriously think that being an “atheistic scientist” somehow negates their peer-reviewed scientific research? What would you think of an atheist who declared the data and scientific analysis published by the Human Genome Project invalid because Dr. Francis Collins, the former Director of it before taking the NIH Director appointment, is an evangelical Christian? Do you really think it wise to resort to the Genetic Fallacy as one of your arguments?
Frankly, do you have any idea how lame that sort of argument of last resort sounds? (“You, as a Christian, aren’t going to agree with those godless atheists, are you?!” Does that sound convincing to you? Do you think it would persuade any of us who have taught at both state-supported universities as well as private Christian universities and seminaries? Are we likely to cower at the attempt to associate us with those “evil atheists”?)
You see, I could play the same game. I could ask you if you really want to promote pseudo-science arguments made popular by convicted felon and con-artist Kent Hovind, whose “Dr. Dino” reputation and bogus “five PhDs” which he allegedly earned while in prison for 55 criminal fraud counts has made him the laughing-stock of videos and bloggers worldwide?
So, now you have resorted to proof-texting of the worst sort: pretending that Matthew 11:25 somehow says that Christ-followers (or is it referring to just Christians who happen to agree with you in your dislike of the Theory of Evolution??) have been given special insight into the errors behind evolutionary biology that the entire biology academy has somehow failed to see. [Prepare for the argument that some tiny percentage of scientists in the relevant fields of the biological sciences don’t like the Theory of Evolution, so surely they have been granted this special Divine wisdom that sees the problems with evolution.]
I’m really surprised that you do not recognize how weak these kinds of arguments are—and how they sound like desperation.
The Theory of Evolution is not a philosophy. And if you want to ignore the vast quantities and CONSILIENCE of evidence, you are being dishonest. I’m fine with someone saying that they personally find the evidence uncompelling. (Everybody is entitled to their opinion.) But to pretend and deny that the evidence exists tells me that a discussion would be futile. I too strongly recommend what Young Earth Creationist has written in PLEADING with his YEC brethren to drop this “there’s no evidence” tactic. It has brought much damage to the credibility of Christians in general. Many non-believers cite it as a blatant example of dishonesty if not utter blindness.
So if the scientists of the world refuse to accept your bizarre claims, they are simply “unlikely to admit this in their textbooks.” I guess geographers are also very unlikely to admit that the planet is a flat surface. There are lots of false statements that scientists are “unlikely to admit”.
No. Origins of all sorts of things are within the realm of the scientific method.
No. Scientists publish their research related to the Big Bang all the time without any reflection on “the supernatural”. Of course, philosophers and theologians often do because that is what those academic disciplines explore. They are not confined to the LIMITATIONS of the Scientific Method----limitations which the great Christian philosopher-scientists like Isaac Newton, William of Ockham, Descartes, Lavoisier, Boyle, Copernicus, and countless other worked hard to define and refine.
It sounds like you are confusing Ultimate Causation and Proximate Causation, aka Ultimate Origins and Proximate Origins. This is basic philosophy that you can easily research online.
Sure. Libraries are full of such books.
The originator??? So now you are asking about God? Obviously, you need to look in theology and philosophy books. Not into science books. Perhaps this is the source of your confusion. You are expecting science books to address your theological questions.
And yet you are asking us to explain evidence that you should have learned about long ago in the most basic evolutionary biology textbooks. So it is clear to me that you do NOT have such an understanding of the Theory of Evolution.
That sounds like standard Young Earth Creationist website sloganeering. See Dr. Todd Wood pleadings that these tactics end. Whether or not a given individual is sincere when using them, a lot of non-believers are prone to think them insincere. Dr. Wood is very concerned about the harm done to the progress of the Great Commission when people resort to such groan-worthy arguments.
You’ve heard it. And if you actually read the textbooks you claim, you’ve had full opportunity to recognize the quantity and quality of the evidence. So why don’t you follow Dr. Wood’s advice and the recommendations of countless of your Christian brethren who actually work in the relevant fields of science and just say, “I don’t find the published evidence compelling.” You could even explain for that evidence, exactly what it is that you find inadequate about it. You are telling us that the entire scientific academy–both “atheistic” and “theistic”— is somehow wrong while you (according to the scripture you quoted) have been granted by God special insight which so many of your Christian brethren have NOT been granted. So please explain how that happened. I am very sincere in saying that I really want to know why/how you “succeeded” in getting direct tutoring from the Creator when they rest of us missed out. I mean that.
(Frankly, it sure sounds like a modern version of Gnosticism to me. You are claiming a special “inside track” on Divine knowledge.)
Why ask us to explain them to you when you said that you already have a thorough understanding of the Theory of Evolution? That doesn’t make sense to me.
And because you apparently think that some distinction between “micro” and “macro” evolution is important to your argument, why not explain to us what mechanism or process or boundary serves to keep “micro–evolution” confined or limited so that “macro-evolution” doesn’t happen, like we see happening throughout the biosphere. (And because Young Earth Creationist have shifted their definitions of micro versus macro evolution over the past half century, why not explain yours?)
In summary, I think you will find it difficult to approach this entire topic with the idea that (1) all of the science textbooks are wrong, (2) every university Dept of the History & Philosophy of Science is wrong in their explanations of how Christian philosophers came to define the methodological naturalism of science and free science from its former imprisonment to tradition and Greek philosophy and even folk science, and that (3) you have been granted a special divine importation of knowledge about science. (The Bible says that the Holy Spirit will teach Christ’s disciples certain spiritual truths essential to faith in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit will impart the fruits of the Spirit, but there is no promise of scientific insights as some sort of shortcut to study. It certainly sounds like you are repeating an error which centuries of Christian theologians have begged Christ-followers to avoid.)
If you believe you have found some grand flaw in the Theory of Evolution or Common Descent, by all means present your evidence and I would be the first to urge you to publish it for peer-review. But if all you are going to do is casually state that all of the scientific academy is wrong because God gave you a special granting of knowledge that trumps their science, I do wish that you would “cut to the chase” and specially declare it just like an Old Testament profit would declare, “Thus saith the God of Israel: I declare this unto you…” (I’m NOT being mocking. I’m totally serious. If you are claiming to speak for God, tell us the message and we will assess that message according to the standards established for the prophets of Israel.)
.
3 Likes
Once again: the child test. Is that where we should go to get the truth about the Theory of Evolution? Ask the nearest child? Why not quote the scripture where the Apostle Paul says that when he was a child he thought like a child—but now he thinks like a mature adult. Why not use that as a proof-text?
This tactic of declaring the science academy wrong because “atheistic” scientists are allegedly plotting to promote the Theory of Evolution always seems to follow these same patterns. The definitions of religion, science, and even philosophy are tossed about in amateurish/populist ways that obfuscate the issues and pretend that Christian philosophers and scientists didn’t hash this out centuries ago. The Gnostic declaration that implies (or outright declares) that “I’m right and you are wrong because God specifically imparted me with superior wisdom about this science topic” is so gnashing-of-teeth promoting that I can help but feel a little embarrassed that this is being posted on yet another forum webpage for the millionth time.
It would be far more constructive (if that is a word that is not a huge overstretch) if there would at least be a concrete argument that “Evidence #3 in the popular 29 Arguments for Evolution” is wrong because _______ and I believe that it is better explained by _______, and that this evidence over here entirely debunks _______."
Every university mathematician of any renown that I’ve ever known talks about regularly receiving emails and letters from people outside of the academy who declare things like “I have discovered a proof for _________” or “I can square a circle using just a compass and straightedge”. Such individuals never seem to think it surprising that someone with no mathematical training and entirely outside of the academy would somehow have figured out what professional mathematicians have somehow missed. They also get frustrated when they find that the university professor has no time to waste on their “discovery”. Yet, anybody who has ever been appointed to a university faculty knows exactly the attitude that I’m talking about—and that those individuals can totally waste whatever amount of time is granted them. Not only is there never a discovery buried in their detritus. They are also absolutely impervious to instruction. Indeed, any professor who teaches an introductory 101 course in virtually any academic department routinely get at least one of those eager, over-confident undergrads in every such class. And not once have I ever found such students to be the class prodigy. (It is usually much the opposite.)
I am not being condescending because I’m talking about me when I was a earnest Young Earth Creationist who was enamored of “creation science”. I truly believed that God had granted me scientific knowledge that the science professor lacked----and Biblical studies knowledge that the Religious Studies professor lacked.
I affirm the Theory of Evolution and Common Descent because God filled his creation with overwhelming evidence for that history of the origins of the biosphere we observe today! God did it, his creation says it, and I believe it----and that settles it!
I could adopt your tactics and say that you are insisting that God is a deceiver and that he filled his creation with deceptive evidence so that we would get confused by the contradictions between his scriptures and his universe. Why not trust BOTH of God’s revelations to us. He gave us the scriptures and he gave us a universe filled with its own history for us to understand. Frankly, the interpretations of God’s book of creation (the universe) are a lot more in agreement among scientists than are the interpretations of God’s book of scripture (the Bible). Not even Young Earth Creationist ministry leaders can get their stories straight about the history of the earth according to scripture----while the published science found in textbooks is remarkably consistent. So let’s not play the game which pretends that the Bible is a clearer science textbook than an actual science textbook.
As a Young Earth Creationist in the “creation science” fan base, I was very frustrated by the constant conflict between science and my tradition-based interpretations of Genesis. Yet today I can praise God for a consistent revelation from God in both his scriptures and in his universe. Hallelujah! And learning about the evolutionary processes God used to diversify life on earth has filled me with praise for the Creator and left me with utter awe for one so wise as to establish laws of physics which made life on earth inevitable and produced constant creativity, adaptation, and wonder! I marvel at the great works of God which tell me that God is far more powerful and wise than that puny deity I once imagined from the tradition-bound declarations of my denomination’s Sunday School handouts.
Yes, I prefer that Creator God of the Bible any day to that limited, create-them-one-kind-at-a-time, imaginary deity who had to constantly hang about to monitor and repair that error-prone, never-quite-under-control, unruly creation that he couldn’t get right the first time! The God who can create a universe with physics capable of producing life and powerful evolutionary processes which crafts life for every imaginable environment—that’s the impressive God of Creation who I worship.
2 Likes
It might be worth calling attention to the article “How to Disagree” by Paul Graham here. He defines seven levels of disagreement, ranging from “name calling” at level 0, right through to “refuting the central point” at level 6.
Epithets such as “atheist scientists” or “evolutionists” or what have you fall firmly into the lowest category, name-calling. Furthermore, the label “atheist scientists” is very often completely untrue.
Excellent point. And I find especially bizarre some of the combination labels which recently appeared on other threads, such as evolutionist geologists. It betrays their belief that all of the worlds geologists are engaged in a vast conspiracy to help out their evil evolutionary biologist brethren. I’ve even had anti-evolutionist explain to me that the geologists work overtime to give their biology colleagues the “billions of years necessary to make their evolution lie sound more plausible.”
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.