here is the latest tree of life database. You can trace every intermediate animal between you and the acron worm. Try it and then see if you still think millions of scientists are engaged in a worldwide centuries old conspiracy to intentionally lie to you.
creationist scientists are not scientists.
Martin — scientists are people just like anyone else. They can be influenced by things as well as be biased. But to say that 99% of scientists are intentionally trying to deceive and lie to people is a big claim … You need great evidence to support the idea that scientists of multiple fields of study: geology, paleontology, biology, cosmology etc., are all part of a interlocking grand scheme to trick people into thinking the universe is old. You need to read both sides: the proponents and the critics. You also need to ask yourself what the persons credentials are, and whether or not they’ve published peer-reviewed scientific papers that back up their claims.
-Tim
There are millions of scientists in the world doing research in an enormous number of fields. To believe that they all are part of a grand conspiracy to deceive Christians seems like paranoia.
1 Like
Here is another amazing result coming out today.
Martin, as someone who was much like you in the 1960’s—a passionate Young Earth Creationist professor who was determined to debunk the Theory of Evolution and teach all of those evil scientists the truths of creation—I must admit to cringing a bit when I see anyone resort to slogans and mantras. Does “a fairy tale for adults” really help convince anyone of anything? Plus, even if the Theory of Evolution were somehow completely false, the slogan makes no sense. The Theory of Evolution is NOT a “fairy tale for adults” because it has nothing to do with folklore or traditional stories. It is based upon evidence and the scientific method.
So if you think it is wrong and fails to explain the available evidence, why not use the scientific method to expose its errors? Instead, simply tossing about mantras and slogans (populist propaganda techniques) will not convince anybody of anything—except, possibly that you have resorted to slogans because you have no idea what evolution is, what the Theory of Evolution explains, and what kinds and quantities of evidence supports the theory.
Besides, if I were to say “Young Earth Creationism is just a fairy tale for adults”, would you be impressed? Would it help move the debate forward?
Have you managed to make a lot of scientific discoveries (or even confirmations) simply by casually looking out your back door? I haven’t.
And if you ONLY see "a bunch of people attempting to prove it by screaming “SCIENCE”, that tells me that you have never made an honest effort to learn what evolution is and what evidence supports it. (I spent much of my life teaching on university campuses, both Christian private graduate schools and public state universities. In neither environment did I observe anybody screaming “science”.
Besides, peer-reviewed published academic journals is where you will find the science—not a casual look out your back door and not around screaming people. Indeed, so far you’ve given me two wrong places where you apparently think science gets determined or should get determined. I assume you are joking because a person would have to be illogical and clueless to make a determination of the merits of ANY scientific theory in such a manner as what you described.
So, if we can all be serious for a bit, could you tell me the actual reasons you think the Theory of Evolution has not merit? However such a discussion can be of any value, I need to know if you know what evolution is and how it operates. What do you think the Theory of Evolution states and why do you deny it?
It sounds like you think “evolution” and “creation” or some sort of opposites—which is another reason why I have my doubts that you know what evolution is, what the Theory of Evolution states, and how you know that the Theory of Evolution is invalid.
And to set the stage for such discussion, I should emphasize that I am a Bible-believing, born-again Christ-follower who believes God created everything including all life on this planet. Thus, if I thought the Theory of Evolution denied God’s creation, I certainly would deny it! But, in fact, the Theory of Evolution says nothing about God or "creation’ per se because scientific theories CANNOT make theological statements—because the scientific method has no tools or procedures for doing so.
As to “intelligent design”, I certainly consider God the ultimate in intelligence and, as the Creator, I know that God designed an entire universe to function according to the physics and chemistry he decided to “engineer”. Yet, the term “intelligent design” generally refers to something quite different and something not necessarily scriptural. But I’ll not take that further without knowing exactly what YOU define "intelligent design: to mean.
I hope that you don’t consider such discussions adversarial—because it sounds like we share far more in common (such as the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior perhaps?) than in conflict.
1 Like
In my youth, I would have made similar challenges but would have cited Drs. Morris, Whitcomb, and Gish as my heroes.
Today, I prefer to put my faith in the evidence found in God’s Scriptures and God’s Creation. People have failed me too many times. So I became skeptical of human authorities who had once been my “heroes”.
(Hint: I rarely spend much time debating Stephen Meyer’s DARWIN’S DOUBT. I find it so filled with his misunderstandings of basic scientific facts and misrepresentations of the data. As a Christ-follower, that greatly concerns me. However, because he is a philosopher and not a scientist, I’m not all that surprised that he struggles so much to understand the science which he tries to deny. I’ve personally asked him to correct the many factual errors in his footnotes but to date he has shown zero interest in correcting his errors of fact. That concerns me and makes me very skeptical of his motivations—even though we probably agree on our mutual faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and most of the evangelical theology which associated with the scriptures that we both revere.)
Frankly, I left the creation science movement because I could no longer participate in such a planned program of promoting falsehoods and pseudo-science (and chronic dishonest quote-mining), even though I shared the same faith in Christ as my ministry colleagues. If there are lies you can identify in evolutionary science, I will certainly join you in denouncing them. As Christ-followers, we are called to pursue and proclaim the truth. I hope you agree.
2 Likes
Martin, it’s hard to communicate with people who are just saying, “Evolution is a lie,” and “Evolutionists are fraudsters”… They come off as being more akin to rant and tangents with little substance. Why not just discuss it objectively, honestly and openly? You seem like you are just letting off steam rather than actually trying to convince others of your position.
-Tim
1 Like
If you can claim the Stephen C. Meyer is a fraudster and the ID movement,then it is allowable for me to conclude the SAME for the evolution movement! is it not?
The “theory of evolution” states that all of the earth is related and we started in a swamp like environment millions of years ago, and somehow turned into humans!
Richard Dawkins does not speak for the entirety of the scientific community. His lambasting of the Bible and those who believe it have nothing whatsoever to do with evolution and whether or not it’s true. That’s his own philosophical worldview…
As I stated previously we are not talking about who believes in God or not — you, me and Mr. Molinist have pretty well stated that we agree with the God of the Bible. The issue is whether or not God used Instantaneous Creation or Creation-Through-A-Process. My inclination is towards the latter because A) That’s how God creates today, making and forming babies in the womb, which we can scientifically observe. B) we can observe genetic changes, natural selection etc., C) the word God used to describe creation in Genesis 1, are the exact same words are used to describe the creation of lightning, snow, the weather, and the process of baby-making. All of these things can be studied, in all their complexities, and which we know don’t just pop out of thin air. D) the poetic and theological nature of Genesis 1. E) the measurement of the speed of light indicates an old universe and Psalms 19:1-4 says that the heavens speak and give forth knowledge, so it seems to indicate we can learn something from the stars. F) Romans 1:20 says God’s invisible qualities since the creation of the world, have been clearly perceived, and being understood by what has been made. Gods world in others words is intelligible, comprehendable and study-able.
When I say Creation I mean that I believe God created all things in whichever manner he chose to do it in. When you say Creation, it’s a much narrower meaning … A particular doctrine of how God created, and how long.
If you respond to my message, please do so with less exclamation points and CAPPED-WORDS.
-Tim
Martin, now you’re just being deceptive and putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said Stephen Meyer was a fraudster … Where did you read that?
Other people have said the on this site, but not me. I don’t know enough about him to make judgement calls.
-Tim
I have found it impossible to convince others of how incorrect evolution is! How ever it is my hope that the other side finds it just as impossible to convince me of something I do NOT see and that is evolution! I have found this Bio-logos much more pro-evolution than not, the very way to figure that out is reading the things that the “friendly opposition” writes in reply to what I do! This is NOT meant to be mean to anyone on this site ,but Richard Dawkins would be proud . you are stating the same things he does! if you doubt that, check out his videos on you tube!
I love you brother,but I believe the bible 100%. he made man out of the dust of the earth, I believe that.
I think a more important issue is whether or not this is site is pro-Christian and pro-God … You equate evolution with anti-God / philosophical materialist / scientist etc., While this site simply tries to identify evolution as simply a scientific study. Science (by definition) can make no comment about the supernatural, and only studies the natural.
However … Were you to take yourself back in time to the times of the Ancient Hebrews, they would make no distinction between, “God creating through natural processes” or “God creating through supernatural means”. The book of Job clearly describes the Hydrological Cycle, and gives full credit to God being involved in it. And yet, this is a natural process, which we can observe and study… We can even predict to some degree. Yet by doing so we are not erasing God … We are attempting to understand God’s Creation.
As far as Dawkins goes you need to discern the difference between his scientific claims, and his anti-theistic / anti-religion bias. They are two different things. He makes fun of the Bible and those who believe it — those kinds of statements should have no affect on us as Christians. There are other evolutionary scientists who have no beef with Christianity or God.
-Tim
-
Genetic fallacy.and guilt-by-association fallacy
-
Dawkins is a scientist. Of course those who are science-literate are going to state many of the same things! (Stalin and Hitler concurred with Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation. Does that discredit Newton’s science?)
I do too.
I agree.
Me too. And the Theory of Evolution states nothing to deny that God made HA’ADAM (“the human one”) from “the dust of the ground” (that is, the chemical elements of the earth’s crust.) All biological life is made from dirt. We also see that truth stated in Ecclesiastes.
Science agrees with the the Bible on this. God in his wisdom chose to make humans (and all other animals, just as the Bible states) from “the dust of the ground”. The Bible does NOT state what processes God used to do that dust-to-humans transformation. We know that a long series of processes made increasingly complex organisms from the soil. And on a daily basis we observe human bodies converting soil (in the form of plants made from dirt and the animals which have eaten those plants) to human flesh as a routine conversion.
So I praise God that science has given us many specifics as to HOW God made humans (and other biological organisms) from soil so that we can know a lot more about the glorious ways of God than just the few general and summary statements in the scriptures.
Indeed, Genesis 1 also says that animals reproduce to produce offspring of the same variety/kind—and the Theory of Evolution says exactly the same thing. (Indeed, if ever we were to see animals producing offspring which were NOT of the “same kind”, that would totally debunk the Theory of Evolution. It is absolutely dependent on the reality that organisms produce offspring that are very very similar to them!)
So I do agree with you. I believe the Bible 100% when it says that God made man out of the dust of the ground and the Theory of Evolution explains how God went about doing exactly that. (We both believe the Bible 100%. Where we might differ is in our individual personal INTERPRETATIONS of various meanings of the scriptures. I was a Young Earth Creationist and “creation science” speaker, author, debater for many years so we probably share a great deal in common—and I praise God that we do. Now it is certainly true that in the entire history of the Church there has been continual conflicts between particular TRADITIONS surrounding the interpretations of the Biblical text but we should never confuse those TRADITIONS with the TEXT.)
1 Like
I know your frustration well. I was a passionate anti-evolution Young Earth Creationist in the 1960’s, excited by the book THE GENESIS FLOOD (1962, Henry Morris & John Whitcomb Jr.)
Now I know that the reason I found it impossible was because I was ignoring the absolutely overwhelming quantities and qualities of the massive evidence for evolution—and the incredible consilience of that evidence.
I was all too often arguing on the basis of my fundamentalist church’s TRADITIONS about the interpretation of Genesis 1. That was my main argument against the Theory of Evolution. I sincerely believed the Theory of Evolution contradicted Genesis 1. Simple as that.
Frankly, not until years later as I gained fluency in the Hebrew text that I began to see the flaws in my reliance upon TRADITION over and above the Biblical TEXT.
1 Like
We certainly are made of dust. The Psalms say “We are dust.” And the Book of Isaiah also likens us as “clay pots striving with our Maker the potter.” … However Isaiah knows that we as humans (in the scientific sense) are formed in our mothers wombs. So what is Isaiah saying? He’s saying that God has a purpose for us and that God is responsible for why we are here in the first place.
When I read the Bible, what I try to do is take off my 21st century glasses, and attempt to identify what it is the text is teaching, based on context, authorial intent, and study of Ancient Culture. If I read the Bible base on MY culture and the times I live in, then I’d probably come to an erroneous conclusion, that was never the intention of the text.
For 1, Deuteronomy says that bats are birds. And no one (creationist or evolutionist) would say that a bat is anything close to a bird. Apparently the definition of birds to Ancient Israel was simply creatures the could fly.
-
Reading Genesis 1-3 in a very strict hyperliteral-historical context is going to cause heartache. Their are two Creation Accounts — both of which have a completely different order for Creation. If the author was intending to teach quote-unquote “straight science”, then one of the accounts (the fist or second) has to be incorrect (or both). Meaning in the strict chronological sense. But seeing how the text behaves, and the fact that no attempt is made by the author to clarify the “discrepancy”, I look beyond it’s historical value, and focus on the teaching.
-
Much is made about equating God’s six days with our six days … People love to say, “They were just like our days!” … But that simply is not true. Only in God’s days, was the universe created. Only in God’s days was there there three instances of evening and morning with no sun and moon, followed by another three instances (evidently the sun and moon wasn’t the cause of it … So how do you interpret it literally? It’s like trying to imagine a round triangle or the smell of the color purple … It’s simply illogical). Only in God’s days was light and darkness separated twice … Why?
Genesis 4 strongly alludes to other people in existence besides Adam’s family … Who were those people, and why did the author chose to put those two stories right next to each other?
-Tim
1 Like
They most certainly are and are VERY well knowledgeable about both creation and evolution!-I hate to break it to you bu, too much of your pro-evolution side is showing! which also proves my point 100% {you can NOT be for evolution and the God of creation at the same time! It just does NOT work! and that is the same conclusion I keep repeating over and over! BIO-logos no matter how it attempts to “straddle the fence” fails to do so!
Martin, you haven’t been on the site very long so I’m just letting you know, Patrick is an atheist. He has no interest in building a bridge between God and evolution.
This isn’t the first time that challenges were met concerning traditions. Luther and Calvin were pretty adamant that a moving-earth was heresy. Now we read those same passages and think almost nothing of it. Augustine was sure that people didn’t exist on the other side of the globe, based on his belief that the equator was too hot to travel through … Coupled with the Bible verse, “Preach the gospel to all nations and all tongues”. After awhile the Antipodeans (as they were called) were discovered … And Christianity is still here.
As Mr. Molinist has said, we need to differentiate between traditions and the text … And not get overly caught up in traditions. We need to realize that God’s creation can be misinterpreted as well as God’s word can be misinterpreted.
-Tim