Science supports creationism?


(Emily) #1

I was told science supports Creationism. I was told that from a fellow Christian whom I respect. She is kind which I like. We can agree to disagree.

However it’s widely known that creationist ministries like AIG blantantly lie about evidence or quote mine. And God says don’t lie. So I can’t see how science supports creationism unless one has read that material.

People talk about being open but I can’t be open to material that lies when God said not to.

And the fossil record that supports Evolution? The "evil " atheist scientists didn’t stick them there. It’s because Evolution took place. -_-

I believe the Bible is true but not in the hardcore literal sense- earth isn’t 6,000 years old etc)

I’ve heard seeking truth, but I believe one seeks truth by what evidence is presented through science. Not “evidence” brought forth by creation “scientists”.

I am worried God is mad at me because I believe in Evolution even though I believe He did it. Stupid but I can’t shake that feeling.


Change and Time in Genesis
(Andrew M. Wolfe) #2

Sigh. Once these things get into your system, it can be really hard to get them out.

You’ll be in our prayers. I mean, really I can only speak for myself, but I suspect other regulars here will be praying for you, too. That kind of cognitive dissonance is really rough to fight through.

Since you refer to YEC as the “hardcore literal sense” of the Bible, I wonder if you’ve had time to dig into some of the materials that help people to understand Genesis at a deeper level. Perhaps your daily schedule doesn’t permit you the time to pore through a book like Walton’s Lost World of Genesis One, but maybe you could watch clips from the “From the Dust” movie or pore through some of the resources in the BioLogos blogs about Scriptural interpretation? If you really let some of those materials percolate, it could be a good antidote to this tension you seem to feel. You’ll find that there are many who take the Bible very seriously and because of that—not in spite of it!—they reject a YEC interpretation.

Normally I would try to be all irenic and tell you that YEC practitioners aren’t intentionally lying. And I’m sure that’s true of most if not all rank-and-file folks. But this evening I sympathize with your anger because one of my kids (at a small Christian elementary school) came home with a library book that he picked out because it looked fascinating, The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible, that boasted of endorsements from Henry Morris. I got all hot around the collar and told my kids that the book was full of lies and they needed to return it tomorrow. We opened to full-color illustrations of humans and baby dinosaurs snuggling in the Garden of Eden, and truth be told, I just wanted to set fire to the thing and pay the school the difference. Then I took a few deep breaths and explained things more calmly to them. (Much better: Make it a teachable moment!)

The point is, I echo your anger, and it’s justified. There are people out there who, inexplicably, continue actively spreading lies about clear scientific data, scientists, and the Bible, effectively creating crises of faith like the one you’re currently facing. I don’t want my kids to grow up and feel that same cognitive dissonance that you do. And you’re right, whether on purpose or not, these ministries are lying to people, and lying is inconsistent with Christian faith. As Augustine said, “All truth is God’s truth.”

Keep fighting the good fight. (That’s not a fight against other origins positions! I mean the fight to walk with Christ in the light of your conscience as best you know how.) You have a lot of folks in your corner.


(Jay Johnson) #3

Amen. I would have given you two “likes” for this entire post if it were possible. Thank you for your testimony.


(Albert Leo) #4

I know how you feel, Celticroots, As I matured I felt that God wanted me to use my mind–the finest gift He could have given any of his creatures. But in using it, I began to see things ‘in a different light’ than I was taught, and when asked to conduct an Adult Confirmation class, I found my reasoning had led me to disbelief in a current dogma of the Catholic Church: namely, that Adam and Eve were a historical couple and that their rebellion was an Original Sin that has been passed down to each of us. That ‘conflict in views’ (heresy?) was serious enough (even in these modern times) to convince me to stop conducting these classes. In 15th century Spain it might have led to my being burned at the stake. So take heart in what God disclosed to me (in an earlier post “The Miracle of the Panel Truck”) : Don’t Worry; Be Happy; God Loves You!
Al Leo


(Emily) #5

Wow. A kid’s book teaching creationism? That’s sad. I am glad you nipped that in the bud right then and explained it to your kids.

I have heard of those books although I haven’t had a chance to read any of them yet. But I want to. I’ll see if they’re available on Kindle.

With people who swing so strongly towards creationism (with modern science so much against it) I feel like I can never truly voice how I feel. Most of the churches in my area are really conservative on that sort of thing so I’ve always felt left out. Like I feel God is mad at me for learning about science and the reality of the world He created which is what science shows us. And I am tired of getting sent creationist websites by people. No one in this thread.


#6

It’s sad, but I can’t talk about science at my church. Sometimes I get tired of biting my tongue, but there really isn’t another option near me. That is why I hang out here.


(James McKay) #7

I know exactly how you feel. I ended up posting on Facebook that God values honesty and integrity more than He values our doctrines about the age of the earth or evolution.

The point I make to my YEC friends is that any claims they make about science can be fact-checked and potentially shown to be demonstrably untrue. I tell them that claims that can be falsified will just undermine their credibility in the eyes of anyone who checks them out or is confronted with evidence that contradicts them at any stage – either during their education or while they’re witnessing to their friends.

The thing is, many YECs don’t even know YEC itself that well – they just see some Answers in Genesis headlines on Facebook and forward them without even reading them. Most of them have never even heard of the RATE project (and when I tell them about it, they think it’s an atheist parody) and it’s common for them to come out with arguments that the Big Three YEC organisations tell them not to use – such as moon dust, Paluxy river bed tracks, or what have you.

Here are a few things that YECs need to know as far as fact-checking their claims is concerned:

1. Historical science does not rely on unverifiable assumptions. Scientists solve the “were you there?” problem by (a) making testable predictions from them, and (b) cross-checking studies whose assumptions are independent of each other.

Anomalous results and discordances do occur from time to time, and the YEC organisations tend to make a big thing of it. However, this just proves that there are corner cases where the methods can fail – usually for well-studied reasons. They fall far, far short of proving that general cases are consistently wrong by up to six orders of magnitude, as would be required to fit the evidence into just six thousand years. The fact remains that concordance happens far, far, far too often to be accounted for in a young earth.

2. Old earth ages do not come from old earth assumptions. Much of the evidence for an ancient earth comes from searching for oil. Geologists need to know how both how old the oil is and its thermal history. Too young, or too cool, and it will be “premature,” still solid, and impossible to extract out of the ground. Too old, or too warm, and it will be “post-mature,” generally uneconomical, and at worst baked into oblivion. Geologists are under strong pressure to come up with ages that are accurate, not ages that are ideologically convenient. (See the post “Can Young Earth Creationists Find Oil?” on the Age of Rocks blog for more details.)

3. The evidence can not be interpreted either way. YEC attempts to do so end up resorting to absurdities so extreme that even some YECs I’ve spoken to think they’re an atheist parody. The RATE project concluded that because billions of years’ worth of nuclear decay has happened (their own admission), nuclear decay rates must have been much higher in the past. However, this would have released enough heat to boil the oceans and vaporise the earth’s crust many times over (again, their own admission) if it were even possible. Their attempts to work round the problem were even more spectacularly absurd.

4. There is no known solution to the distant starlight problem. Every attempted solution resorts to bizarre esoteric physics that is unsupported by any evidence, makes predictions that are not observed, and in some cases is based on very bad handling of historical data. Even if they were able to come up with something that stood up to scrutiny, they’d still have to explain why there are galactic-scale structures out there such as colliding galaxies or active galactic jets that show clear and unambiguous evidence of millions if not billions of years’ worth of interaction.

Incidentally, you may hear them claim that the distant starlight problem is the same as the horizon problem. This, again, is completely absurd. The horizon problem concerns the first three seconds after the Big Bang, the scale of the entire universe, and physics that is poorly understood. The distant starlight problem, on the other hand, concerns the present day, scales just a fraction of the size of our galaxy or bigger, and physics that is very, very well established.

5. Human and chimp DNA really are 98% similar. I’ve seen some claims that this figure is based on cherry-picked subsets of the respective genomes. This is not true – whole genome comparisons have been carried out for over a decade (the first being published in Nature in September 2005). Comparisons giving lower figures such as 70% or 85% are based on flawed comparisons that configured the comparison software in ways that reported that human DNA is just 89% similar to itself.

6. DNA similarities include features such as endogenous retroviruses and pseudogenes. Endogenous retroviruses are DNA sequences that have clear characteristics indicating that they originated as viral infections which inserted their genetic code into reproductive cells (sperm or eggs) and then were passed on through the generations. There are several of these ERVs that occur in exactly the same place in the genomes of multiple primates, humans included.

Answers in Genesis has an article where they attempt to explain ERVs away. It makes a big thing of the fact that ERVs do actually have some function, which doesn’t answer the question of where they came from in the first place. It also makes the completely absurd claim that ERV similarities are just an assumption based on evolutionary presuppositions and circular reasoning. This is nonsense: ERV similarities are a direct observation.

7. Soft tissue remnants in dinosaur fossils are very rare, and only consist of the most durable components such as collagen. There are no reliable reports anywhere of DNA having been recovered from fossils dated at more than a million years or so. Since DNA can easily survive intact for thousands of years in ideal conditions, and will still be present (if fragmented) even in sub-optimal conditions, we would expect dinosaur carcasses with vast quantities of sequenceable DNA to be very common in a 6,000 year old earth. But they aren’t.

I tell my YEC friends that the only way the earth can be six thousand years old is if it were created with evidence for 4.5 billion years of history that never happened. Similarly, the only way that humans, chimpanzees etcetera can have independent ancestry is if we were created with evidence for a common ancestry that again, never happened. There are theological problems with this approach (the “omphalos hypothesis”) of course, but if they really are that wedded to a young earth, that’s the only scientifically coherent option that they’ve got.


(George Brooks) #8

Time for you to pick a new denomination - - one of the ones known to advocate, or at least tolerate, pro-Evolution views!


(George Brooks) #9

Here’s a ZOOM-IN to the key groups for you to consider !!!


(Benjamin Kirk) #10

This needs to be repeated.


(Brad Kramer) #11

7 posts were merged into an existing topic: Change and Time in Genesis


Change and Time in Genesis
Change and Time in Genesis
(Emily) #12

Sigh. Carnivores were never herbivores according to science. I don’t think you understand about Evolution. I have a hard time with it but it’s about mutations the animals have. Someone more knowledgable about Evolution could describe it better.

Modern science does not support Creationism. But it’s not a black or white issue with me. God used Evolution to create so I do believe He created. In light of the mountains of evidence for Evolution.
Of course any interpretation not in line with literalist thinking is viewed as wrong.

I Do believe Adam and Eve could have existed but we’re not the first humans. But the first humans to have knowledge of sin and chose to disobey God anyway.

And there was death before the Fall because an Eco system without death would not work because of over population. Human spiritual death entered after the Fall.

Unlike so many I don’t see a conflict between science and faith. There’s only a conflict if you interpret Scripture literally. I don’t.

Oh and I make a thread to vent. I am tired of creationists posting to try and convince me creationism is true.


Change and Time in Genesis
(Emily) #15

Wonderfully said. Sad some people want to make it this huge deal. If I want to learn about Evolution I’ll go to a site having to do with science. Or read about it in a book. The Bible is not a science book and isn’t supposed to be read or treated as such.

The Word tells you how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go.


(Christy Hemphill) #22

14 posts were split to a new topic: The doctrine of original sin does not work with the evolutionary model


The doctrine of original sin does not work with the evolutionary model
The doctrine of original sin does not work with the evolutionary model
The doctrine of original sin does not work with the evolutionary model
#23

Hello BIll,
What exactly do you mean by “science”? Are you referring to Cosmic Evolution, Chemical Evolution[aka abiogenesis] and Biological[Darwinian] evolution in particular or are you talking about ALL science e.g. biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics etc. in general?
I suspect it’s more of the former in which case it’s understandable that few people want to talk to you about it since they either don’t believe in it like you do or else they simply don’t want to enter into conversations with people who disagree with their viewpoint.


(George Brooks) #24

Expecting the Bible to be right about Creation is like expecting an Israelite priest to be right about slavery !!!

Leviticus 25:44-46

Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. [i.e. slaves]

Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen [slaves] for ever . . . but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor.**

.
.

As we can see, as long as you are not Israelite, you are subject to slavery … and all the slaves descendants too!

The advantage of this point for BioLogos supporters is you don’t have to get drawn into an argument about what science the ancients knew, or any of that. It doesn’t take science to conclude that slavery is wrong. And it doesn’t take sophisticated statistical analysis of bible verses to see the Israelite priests were wrong about slavery.


#25

So Jammycakes, what conclusion did YOU draw from their research? Was it a valid conclusion regarding an accelerated decay rate to be drawn from their experiments?
What about the research done by the evolutionist group who examined the rate of escape of Argon from feldspar crystals:
Harrison, T.M., Morgan, P., and Blackwell, D.D., Constraints on the age of heating at the Fenton Hill site, Valles Caldera, New Mexico.
If you cannot invalidate their methods and conclusion then even YOU have the problem of explaining what happened to the excess heat that would have been generated by the decay. Most of the critics of the project have been in personal contact with the researchers and their arguments have been put to bed, so quoting them isn’t going to help. But of course you have to make up your own mind as to whether the experimental process was valid and grounds enough to reach the conclusion the(RATE) researchers did.


The doctrine of original sin does not work with the evolutionary model
(Andrew M. Wolfe) #26

Just a quick guide to terminology:

“Cosmic Evolution” is called “astrophysics” outside Young-Earther circles
"Biological Evolution" is called “evolution” or simply “biology” outside Young-Earther circles
"Abiogenesis" is called “speculation” unless your name is Richard Dawkins or you otherwise write venomous antitheist screeds.

The first two are generally known as “science.” The last, as discussed previously, is not.

I know your comment wasn’t directed at me, but I thought I’d jump in and clarify the nonstandard terminology…


(James McKay) #27

First. The heat problem was their own admission. They themselves admitted that no known thermodynamic mechanism could have removed that amount of heat quickly enough, so they had to propose extremely complex solutions involving esoteric, bizarre, convoluted new laws of physics that are not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Problems of this level of severity are, quite frankly, a deal-breaker.

Second. Accelerated nuclear decay is an extraordinary claim, the kind that would win a Nobel Prize if it had any merit, not least because it flies in the face of both theoretical considerations and experimental evidence. As such, it needs extraordinary evidence to support it, including studies from multiple independent teams. The only evidence that we have are four disputed studies of uncertain reliability at best from a single team.

This isn’t a biased “evolutionist” response either. There are other examples from mainstream science that suffer from exactly the same problems. One particularly famous example was Fleischmann & Pons’s 1988 announcement of cold nuclear fusion. Other teams were unable to replicate it, and it’s now regarded by the scientific community as erroneous. This level of scrutiny is standard practice in science, and researchers are expected to address objections to their reviewers’ satisfaction, not try to argue their way past them.

Third. Even if these studies could be shown to have some merit, it is never made clear exactly how they are supposed to demonstrate accelerated nuclear decay. It is inferred solely from the fact that they can’t fit the evidence into six thousand years any other way.

Fourth. We need to ask ourselves why would God have gone to the trouble of miraculously accelerating nuclear decay in the first place and putting an extraordinary cooling mechanism in place to remove the heat? The only result of doing so would have been to make the earth look a whole lot older than it actually is. All they’ve managed to do is to propose a convoluted new take on the Omphalos hypothesis.

Fifth. The paper you cite merely shows that one event at Fenton Hill happened more recently than certain other studies suggested. There could be any number of explanations for the discrepancy, and further research may well shed some light on this. However, it places no maximum constraint whatsoever on the overall age of the earth, and fails to account for the numerous other studies elsewhere that place minimum constraints on the age of the earth far, far in excess of six thousand years.


The doctrine of original sin does not work with the evolutionary model
The doctrine of original sin does not work with the evolutionary model
#28

Let’s see. The list would be geology, biology, and astrophysics mostly. The problem is they make comments that are demonstrably false but I can’t make comment. If I were to do so I would be labeled an atheist. I even tried to gently point out that a set of arguments a member was using was identified as arguments that shouldn’t be used by AIG and ICR and the member quite speaking to me. Still uses those arguments btw. It is stronger than “they simply don’t want to enter into conversations”. It is I would be shown the door just for bringing it up.