The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Quote pH
Let's take dogs for example, most would argue that at least at some levels dogs have more genetic diverity than the original wolf population. They certainly have a much wider range of sizes, coats, characteristics and specialities, whereas a wolf is pretty much a wolf.

While dogs are not an example of natural selection, they are an example of evolution via a form of selection, breeders chose which animals to breed rather than leaving it up to nature.

I've asked this before, would it really be so hard to believe that in 100,000 years time the pekinese could no longer breed with the great dane?

Firstly, your assumption that the original Dog Kind looked like a Wolf is probably not correct.
The original Dog Kind contained all of the genetic information that eventually led to all domestic dog breeds as well as ‘wild dog’ species, such as Wolves.

Modern dog breeds are the result of extreme artificial selection and they illustrate how genetic diversity disappears very rapidly when a population is subjected to high unrelenting selection pressure. Pedigree animals like the Pekinese are examples of extreme Micro-evolution – to the point where they have lost practically ALL genetic diversity. This loss is proven by the fact that if you breed a pedigree Pekinese with another pedigree Pekinese – you invariably get a Pekinese.

It is indeed possible through isolation/speciation, that the Pekinese may at some point in the future, no longer be able to breed with Great Danes. Indeed today it is physically difficult, if not impossible for such a mating to occur due to the relative size differences between these dog breeds.

However, please do bear in mind that speciation or isolation of PRE-EXISTING genetic material, to the point where cross breeding becomes difficult between different creatures, is a NARROWING of the gene pools involved and NOT an increase in genetic information as proposed by Macro-evolution.

Macro-evolution is postulated as an information INCREASING mechanism. If Macro-evolution existed then by repeatedly breeding Pekinese dogs you should get something other than Pekinese – and eventually, perhaps a Wolf or maybe even a ‘Wolf in Sheep’s clothing’!!!


Quote Scofflaw
where in the Bible does it say that it is the word of God?

There are many passages of scripture that implicitly declare the Bible to be the Word of God.

The following passage of scripture EXPLICITLY states that EVERY word in the Bible is the Word of God :-
2 Tim 3:16 states that “ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD-BREATHED and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (NIV).

The infallibility of the Word of God is underscored by Jesus Christ Himself in the following passage:-
Mt 5:17-18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”(NIV).
BTW the above passage does not imply that Old Testament Covenant Law continues to apply to Christians – it merely confirms that the Word of God is infallible and that it’s prophecies will all be fulfilled.

The eternal validity of the Word of God is confirmed in the following verse:-
Mt 24:35 “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (NIV).

Jesus Christ also confirmed both the veracity and the importance of EVERY WORD in the Bible in Mt 4:4 when He said “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on EVERY WORD that comes from the mouth of God.” (NIV)

God is also more than capable of ensuring that His Word isn’t subsequently corrupted and this is confirmed in Prov 30:5-6 which states that “EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. DO NOT ADD TO HIS WORDS, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar”.

This was one of the reasons why such great care was taken by the scribes when copying the scriptures.


Quote Whiskey Priest
To JC and wolfsbane - you are not Christians, you are book-worshippers.

Could I say that Christians do not WORSHIP the Bible (which would be idolatry) – they merely RESPECT it as the infallible Word of God.


Quote Scofflaw
if creation science is not science (and I for one hold that view), then its exclusion from the scientific arena follows logically, as does the fact that there is no scientific debate.

You can “hold the view” i.e. BELIEVE almost anything. However, your beliefs have no bearing on the objective scientific validity of Creation Science nor indeed on the equally objective scientific invalidity of Macro evolution.

As I have stated previously, the only observationally i.e. scientifically valid conclusion at present, is that DNA had an external intelligent source. Science cannot identify this source – but it can validly conclude that such intelligence existed at the time that life originated.

The evidence for Creation is both overwhelming and repeatably observable – and so there is no issue in relation to it’s scientific validity.

Because Macro-Evolution does not have any repeatably observable evidence for it’s hypothesis it is therefore by definition, scientifically invalid.

Macro-evolution attempts (but fails) to explain how primordial chemicals evolved into advanced life forms such as Man. It has NO repeatably observable evidence for the sketchy mechanisms it advances to explain how this supposedly occurred – and so it is a stuck at the speculation stage in the scientific process – or ‘the leap of faith’ stage as others on this thread have described it.
The ‘big need’ of macro-Evolution is for mechanisms to provide INCREASED genetic information – and to date no plausible mechanism has ever been identified that meets this need.

Natural Selection doesn’t provide a mechanism to GENERATE semantic information – it merely SELECTS alternatives amongst pre-existing semantic information. Mutations are equally not observed to generate semantic information – they merely degrade it.


Quote Scofflaw
The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on, nor all thy piety and wit, shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.

The above principle DOES indeed apply to the Word of God.

However, ALL of the writings of Mankind ARE fallible and therefore subject to revision.

All of Science is tentative – including the theories of Creation Science.

However, Macro evolution still hasn’t even got to the stage of proposing a valid scientific theory to explain it’s position – and as it has no evidential support, it remains firmly within the realm of Scientific Speculation.

Evolutionists may continue to BELIEVE that ‘chemicals evolved into man’ through unknown and unobserved processes. However, this belief will continue to have a major credibility problem unless and until plausible observable mechanisms are identified for Macro evolution.

Indeed, the credibility of evolution will continue to be questioned by the public at large, when the overwhelming observable (i.e. scientific) evidence for Creation is presented to them and all of the predictions flowing from this evidence continue to be validated.
This explains why 85% of Americans accept the EVIDENCE for Creation and reject the BELIEF of over 90% of their scientists in Macro evolution.

Stating that Creation Science isn’t science is NOT proof of Macro evolution and indeed it merely draws attention to Macro evolution’s own scientific invalidity.

The fact that the evidence for Creation CAN be observed while the evidence for Macro evolution CANNOT means that the scientific debate is definitively determined in favour of Creation at this point in time.

Son Goku

J C wrote:

Bernouilli probability is valid – DNA behaves as a constrained, tightly specified information storage and retrieval system and not as a molecular free-for-all such as is encountered with liquid state chemicals – and to which distributive probability applies.

Molecular free-for-all? Do you even know what you're talking about?
Distributive probability applies whenever you have an ensemble as your domain and a continuous process as the event.
DNA is certainly an ensemble and so are its constituents, and chemical processes are continuous.
Which is why phrases like "the chances of its formation...." make little sense.

It doesn't matter if DNA is tightly specified or constrained, that has nothing to do with it.

No matter how you recombine “-^%?>,!!!*&$#@&**??#@£;@<£\\.~ “?’!'” you are NEVER going to get useful information.

It is patently useless and hasn’t the POTENTIAL to ever be anything else but useless as an information source.

JC, what do you mean when you say evolution only causes a decrease in information?
Why does it only cause a decrease?
And clearly define what you mean by information in a genetic context first.

Morbert

J C wrote:

I have never claimed that Professor Gould was anything but a committed Evolutionist. However, he did declare gradual evolution (as proposed by Darwin and still held by neo-Darwinian evolution) to not be supported by the fossil evidence.

As the above quote confirms, Prof. Gould went on to propose the hypothesis of Punctuated Equilibrium to explain the myriad of ‘missing links’ that are found throughout the fossil record.
Punctuated Equilibrium was popularised as the ‘Hopeful Monster’ theory – but it fizzled out when it was pointed out that at least two identical ‘Hopeful Monsters’ with the inclination and the ability to mate with each other would have to be produced millions of times, to explain all of the ‘missing links’ out there.
‘Mainstream’ evolutionists have never accepted Punctuated Evolution – and it was largely abandoned several years ago.

It appears you do not know what punctuated equilibrium is. You have confused it with the concept of macromutation/saltation; a concept which has been rejected by evolutionary biologists everywhere. The fact that you would make such a simple confusion leads me to believe, and I mean no offence, that you are parroting a string of misconceptions and assertions to disguise the fact that you do not know what you are talking about.

Punctuated equilibrium deals with the rapid emergence of new species due to environmental effects on small populations of a species. It does not contradict Darwin's theory, and Macromutation has nothing to do with it. And your claim that it has 'fizzled out' means you are ignorant of both past and current research (References available).

An increase in genetic information has never been OBSERVED. The Pedigree animal example on my previous post illustrates how selection always REDUCES genetic diversity aka information. That is one of the reasons why scientists are so concerned currently about the loss of biodiversity – if Macroevolution existed it would provide new biodiversity and there wouldn’t be any need to worry.

Yes, selective pressure always reduces genetic information, nobody would claim otherwise, but mutations can *increase* genetic information. Problems with artificial selection arise because mutations are too infrequent to have a strong impact over such short time. Yet despite this, we have observed numerous examples of increasing genetic information within a gene pool that benefits a species. (References are naturally available upon request if you'd like some)

I agree that “noise” is obviously under no OBLIGATION to be harmful to an organism. However, “noise” is always OBSEREVED to be deleterious – just look at the effect of a build up of “noise” on a sequentially recorded video tape – after five or six sequential recordings the tape will become un-viewable due to the presence of excessive “noise”.
In fact, there are auto-repair systems in cell nuclei to repair the damage caused by the intrusion of “noise” into the cellular reproduction processes. “Noise” is a fundamentally damaging process that decreases an organisms chance of survival – and it is observed to degrade genetic information, just like Mutations.

The so called increase in information from “noise” as postulated by Shannon Information Theory is an increase in USELESS syntactic information – but NOT an increase in USEFUL semantic information.

I'll rephrase my previous request: If you *still* wish to claim that mutations do not increase "useful" genetic information, then you must provide rigorous definitions of "meaningful/semantic" and "useless" information in the context of molecular biology and hence explain how they can be applied to biological systems.

And Shannon Information Theory postulates no such thing. If you want to hold on to your claim, then you're going to have to back it up.

I have already said that increase in genetic information that benefits a species has been witnessed/observed and documented, and I am willing to provide examples and references. Couple this with the vast amount of evidence for the evolutionary history of life I mentioned earlier (and am willing to expand upon even further than morphology and biochemistry), and you have an overarching structure of information that supports evolution (call it macroevolution, call it microevolution over longer periods, it's all the same) in an immensely powerful way.

The fidelity of genetic material is indeed high and rightfully acts to remove mistakes in the copying process. Yet this process is not perfect, and occasionally it fails, these mistakes are often fatal, but a great many of them are either neutral or beneficial.

No matter how you recombine “-^%?>,!!!*&$#@&**??#@£;@<£\\.~ “?’!'” you are NEVER going to get useful information.

It is patently useless and hasn’t the POTENTIAL to ever be anything else but useless as an information source.

Information for what? Again you're not extending your analogies to biology. A random sequence of G, A, T, and C may not be meaningful to you or I as an information source, but it may have beneficial genetic phenotypes.

So again I'm going to ask you to define what you mean by useless/deleterious genetic information. And define what would, hypothetically, be useful and meaningful genetic information.

Morbert

Random mutations are not OBLIGED to have deleterious effects – but they are OBSERVED to have such effects in the vast majority of cases. The very rare cases where short term benefit results, such as bacterial resistance to antibiotics are still observed to be as a result of a loss of genetic information.

Evolution works via an accumulation of short term benefits. But you still haven't defined what you mean by "loss of useful genetic information"

J C wrote:

Unfortunately, high unrelenting selection pressure would probably eliminate the “brothers and sisters” as well. The reason that we hit ‘selection walls’ is because of the limits of pre-existing genetic information in organisms – and not because of mutations.

No, these brothers and sisters would be selected by nature. Just because the careless, arbitrary, and tenacious nature of artificial selection does not accommodate for the rate of beneficial mutations does not mean they do not exist. And I can provide many examples of where they do.

Fossil preservation is a rare event today.
However, there are literally “elephant graveyards” of the stuff in some rocks – and this can only be explained by catastrophic processes operating on a very large scale.

Catastrophic processes can help fossilisation, yes. But they don't need to be on a very large scale. I don't see how this relates to limestone.

Let’s look at a few facts then :-

The Earth is 70% covered by water.

If the Earth was smooth with no mountains or ocean troughs, there is enough seawater to cover the entire planet to an average depth of 2.7 Kilometres (or 1.6 miles).

There is a widespread distribution of sedimentary rocks across the world and these rocks are known to have been formed through the deposition of massive quantities of sediment under water.

These rocks contain the fossilised remains of billions of different animals including representative types of all creatures alive today, as well as considerable numbers of creatures that aren’t.

There is evidence of a mass extinction caused by drowning in the contorted, writhing positions of many creatures entombed in the fossil record.

There is evidence of massive earth movements with aquatic fossils in mountain ranges and terrestrial fossils in ocean troughs.

All of the above and many more facts point towards a global catastrophic flood that nearly destroyed all life on the Planet.

The fact that the folklore tales of many diverse peoples from the Australian Aborigines to the Canadian Eskimos recall this catastrophe also points towards it’s veracity and it’s recent time proximity – of the order of thousands rather than millions of years.

So you've basically said that, because the earth is covered in 70% water, and the land is not static, a rapid wide scale flood probably happened? And just to clarify, there is no evidence of mass extinction by drowning. Sudden smothering/suffocation by material is often evident, as such processes aid fossilisation, but how does that point to massive wide scale extinction? And I remember asking you for evidence of such a rapid process, basaltic erosion deposit patterns near fissures, or erosion evidence along fissures, or a ratio of terrestrial/oceanic fossils that reflects a rapid change from vast amounts of land to vast amounts of ocean. And you still haven't addressed the problem of the sudden release of heat from either underground fountains or aboveground water canopies. A rapid global flood would result in such evidence, yet none is found. The bottom line is geology does not reflect a global flood, as is expressed by the geological community. So if you want to claim otherwise, then I'd kindly ask for evidence that meets the rigorous requirements of geology. Either that or claim that geologists don’t know what they’re talking about.

J C wrote:

As I have stated previously, the only observationally i.e. scientifically valid conclusion at present, is that DNA had an external intelligent source. Science cannot identify this source – but it can validly conclude that such intelligence existed at the time that life originated.

yes, you have stated that many many times, yet you have not backed it up.

zod

PARIS (Reuters) - The Roman Catholic Church has restated its support for evolution with an article praising a U.S. court decision that rejects the "intelligent design" theory as non-scientific.



Pennsylvania Judge John Jones ruled that intelligent design was a version of creationism, the belief that God made the world in six days as told in the Bible, and thus could not be taught without violating a ban on teaching religion in public schools.

http://today.reuters.com/sponsoredby/amex/article.aspx?type=innovationNews&storyID=2006-01-19T155619Z_01_L19111788_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-CATHOLIC-EVOLUTION.xml

It was not science, despite claims by its backers, he said.

This literal reading of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, is a tenet of faith for evangelical Protestants, a group that has become politically influential in the United States.

Many U.S. Catholics may agree with evangelicals politically, but the Church does not share their theology on this point. Intelligent design has few supporters outside the United States.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

As I have pointed out, being a majority doesn't make one right. There are scientists who hold the oposite view to the majority. Some of them are known personally to me and I can vouch for their personal integrity and modest lifestyle. They are neither liars nor fools, so I am open to their analysis of the creation/evolution debate.

And being in the minority equally doesn't make one right. It's all about the evidence, and I'm willing to say thatthose scientists who hold the opposite view do not have a scientific proposal regarding creationism.

Maybe it is my failure to grasp what you are asking for: I assumed you were asking for a statement of ID's proposition against evolution. To me that is evident: simply put, irreducible complexity falsifies the Theory of Evolution; lifeforms we observe cannot be produced by the mechanisms postulated by evolution.

Irreducible complexity is no problem for evolution. I can expand on this if you like.

But maybe you are asking for ID's own theory of origins - a scientific explanation of how the Designer did it? If so, ID can have no answers. It would be like me asking you to explain where energy came from, of to expalin its eternality if it did not originate.

Intelligent Design claims to explain the origin of the complexity of life (namely, an intelligent designer). Therefore it is important to place that claim within the framework of science if it wishes to be considered science.

wolfsbane wrote:

I was speaking to a scientist friend tonight, a Professor Emeritus at a leading U.K. university, and asked him about the ID debate. He is a YEC. He suggests the best work on ID is that of Behe, in his 'Darwin's Black Box', where one gets good definitions of ID. My friend thinks Demski overstates or complicates ID in an attempt to keep it separate from creationism.

Darwin's black box deals with

I also looked at a few sites:http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=111005B
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

After reading those links (one I have already read), i still can't find a thoery of ID. Could you highlight where the theory is?

And does your Professor friend have a scientific theory of ID?

Wolfsbane wrote:

By the math on probability of irreducibly complex organisms arising by chance?

Where is this math?

Wolfsbane wrote:

How could it be applied to biology? A bit beyond my ken, but what about regarding the design we have as the best possible and so not to be tampered with in an attempt to improve? With man's increasing knowledge, how long before genetic engineering moves from repairing defects and selecting specialities to thinking we can make a better model?

I mean how could the definition of ID be applied to biology as opposed to the usefulness of it from Engineering perspectives.

i.e. Define 'intelligently designed biological system'.

Wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, I can't see how ID could be falsified in your sense of the term. Just like Evolutionary Theory. But ID's main thrust - do falsifiy evolutionary theory regarding irreducible complexity, could be tested. If several of the alleged irreducibly complex functions could be shown as not so.

It's not my sense. It's the sense of science, and there are many ways in which evolution could be falsified. The problem is ID does not actually address biological evidence. It merely smudges paley's watch metaphore.

And again, if you would like me to demonstrate the concepts of irreducibly complex systems and evolution, I'd be happy to.

Wolfsbane wrote:

[Sternberg].

Your opinion on his treatment by the 'scientific community'.

If the accusations are correct, then it is a severe ethical breach. But why should we believe the accusations?

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Quote Scofflaw
where in the Bible does it say that it is the word of God?

There are many passages of scripture that implicitly declare the Bible to be the Word of God.

None of your quotes mention the Bible. The Bible does not mention the Bible. How you know it is the word of god is unknown.

J C wrote:

Quote Whiskey Priest
To JC and wolfsbane - you are not Christians, you are book-worshippers.

Could I say that Christians do not WORSHIP the Bible (which would be idolatry) – they merely RESPECT it as the infallible Word of God.

I tend to agree with him (or her). I wouldn't say you literally put it up on a pedestal and bow down before it, but in the looser sense.

J C wrote:

Quote Scofflaw
if creation science is not science (and I for one hold that view), then its exclusion from the scientific arena follows logically, as does the fact that there is no scientific debate.

You can “hold the view” i.e. BELIEVE almost anything. However, your beliefs have no bearing on the objective scientific validity of Creation Science nor indeed on the equally objective scientific invalidity of Macro evolution.

As I have stated previously, the only observationally i.e. scientifically valid conclusion at present, is that DNA had an external intelligent source. Science cannot identify this source – but it can validly conclude that such intelligence existed at the time that life originated.

No wonder you're confused - you're presenting your conclusions here as 'evidence'. No, DNA did not have, or need, an "external intelligent source" - that is your belief, but it is not an observation.

J C wrote:

Quote Scofflaw
The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on, nor all thy piety and wit, shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.

The above principle DOES indeed apply to the Word of God.

However, ALL of the writings of Mankind ARE fallible and therefore subject to revision.

All of Science is tentative – including the theories of Creation Science.

However, Macro evolution still hasn’t even got to the stage of proposing a valid scientific theory to explain it’s position – and as it has no evidential support, it remains firmly within the realm of Scientific Speculation.

Evolutionists may continue to BELIEVE that ‘chemicals evolved into man’ through unknown and unobserved processes. However, this belief will continue to have a major credibility problem unless and until plausible observable mechanisms are identified for Macro evolution.

Indeed, the credibility of evolution will continue to be questioned by the public at large, when the overwhelming observable (i.e. scientific) evidence for Creation is presented to them and all of the predictions flowing from this evidence continue to be validated.
This explains why 85% of Americans accept the EVIDENCE for Creation and reject the BELIEF of over 90% of their scientists in Macro evolution.

This is particularly feeble. Not all the 85% are YECs or Biblical literalists, yet you quote the figure as if they were. Nor are Americans everyone on the planet - they are a nation whose identity derives at least in part from their sense of themselves as God's chosen people. Heck, I don't think that figure is even right - last time I saw it it was a lot smaller.

J C wrote:

Stating that Creation Science isn’t science is NOT proof of Macro evolution and indeed it merely draws attention to Macro evolution’s own scientific invalidity.

The fact that the evidence for Creation CAN be observed while the evidence for Macro evolution CANNOT means that the scientific debate is definitively determined in favour of Creation at this point in time.

Nope. Much as you'd like it to be. You might simply be talking rubbish here, possibly because you have no understanding of how science operates. On the other hand, you might be saying "we cannot observe macro-evolution in action, but we can observe the world around us, which is evidence of God's Creation having happened", which is nearly exactly reversible by the 'evolutionist' to say "we cannot observe Creation in action, but we can observe the world around us, which shows evidence of evolution having happened".

No-one denies that you can determine who committed a crime without witnessing the crime - this the domain of forensic science. Geology, evolutionary biology, palaeontology, archaeology, are all forensic sciences. Their conclusions come not so much from observation of processes in action (although these are useful referents), but of the results of processes. You seem unwilling to accept that forensic science is possible...

wolfsbane

pH said:

A racehorse and a gun-dog, along with a cow and a wheat plant are all man-made 'improvements'

Generally I've no problem with selective breeding. It is the mouse-genes-in-rhubarb sort of messing I find crazily dangerous. When it is applied to humans it becomes very wicked.

Also, there are no 'Scientific Reasons' against boiling babies alive in oil, just very good moral ones, what's your point?

Agreed. Without the concept of God, morality is whatever those in power wish it to be: as experimentation in the Nazi death camps showed. As eugenics in the liberal democracies showed. As the abortion industry continues to show.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Agreed. Without the concept of God, morality is whatever those in power wish it to be: as experimentation in the Nazi death camps showed. As eugenics in the liberal democracies showed. As the abortion industry continues to show.

Almost all non-Catholic western nations adopted some eugenics legislation - certainly the US had the largest eugenics movement outside Nazi Germany. In addition, it is largely the Catholic countries that outlaw abortion. Hmmm. I wonder what that indicates?

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

You are not being persecuted, you are being ridiculed.

Discriminated against in employment; ridiculed as purveyors of false science; as a danger to children's minds. A good start on the road to being removed from the universities; burning their books; being sent for 're-education' to special camps. It has already happened in Communist regimes. The treatment of creationist scientists and even evolutionists who respect them has a proven track record in atheism's treatment of those who oppose it.

You cast Evolutionary Theory as incompatible with faith, and you think that Science mirrors your position. It does not. Creationism excludes itself from science, but you exclude evolution from faith - and you'll note that others on this board, who are Christian, do not do so.

I said no such thing. It is incompatible with the Christian faith, but one can believe in many other sorts of gods and fit it in with evolution.

You say Creationism excludes itself - it does not publish - but you then rule out anything it tries publish as not scientific and so not to be published. Very convenient.

Evolutionary theory makes various testable assertions about the world. If these were found to be false, then the theory would be knocked down. Contrary to your stubbornly held opinion, it is not a faith.

When Creationism challenges these assertions, you dismiss them as rubbish. When ID raises the objection of the mathematical improbablity/impossibility of evolution, you dismiss that as inapplicable. OK, if you have serious problems with the science/math of Creationism you should say so. But you should not then try to portray your opponents' arguments as non-science. Both sides in any scientific agreement must consider the other's arguments as invalid - but not 'non-science'.

The amount of truth-bending that JC does is the kind of mental contortions that are required to be convinced of the truth of 'Flood Geology'. It's pure and simple rubbish.

This is an example of the impossibility of falsifiying evolution to you: any argument produced by your opponents is truth-bending rubbish. That makes the Theory of Evolution non-science in your terms.

I did geology at college (to post-graduate level, so I'm at least as qualified as the handful of scientific supporters of Creation),

The thousands of scientific supporters of Creation would respect your credentials. A pity you do not do the same.

I can safely say, from my own examination of the evidence, and consideration of your theory (and as I said, we covered YEC and Creationism on my courses), that your assertions regarding most of Biology are equally inaccurate.

My assertions are mostly second-hand, as I've acknowledged. It is the status and credibility of the scientists who presented those assertions that is important.

The bottom-line on the scientific front of the creation/evolution debate is this: who is the layman to believe? The majority of scientists who uphold evolution as the unquestionable truth? Or their peers who say it is just an incorrect interpretation of the facts, driven by a desire to avoid the existence of God and strengthen by the threat of ostracism against dissidents? The disgraceful behaviour of the evolutionary establishment strongly supports them being in error.

As a Christian I would reject evolution for theological reasons. But creationist scientists have scientific reasons for doing so.

Creationism itself cannot be tested. The only prediction it makes is that God made the world, and the explanation of any evidence is 'God made it so'. If you prefer this as an explanation of the world, that is your option. If you wish to claim that it is scientifically testable, then give me an example where 'God made it so' does not explain the evidence.

Christian creationism is testable in all the areas it has presented. Christian creationism does not just say God made it all in 6 days: it also includes the other great event that would have lasting and world-wide effects - the Flood.

Although you act as if the abandonment of literal biblicism is recent and unreasonable, it is anything but. You should bear in mind that Creationism, and a literal reading of the Bible as scientifically accurate, were perfectly normal parts of science until the late Victorian era.

This is self-contradictory. But I'm glad you admit my position is the historic Christian one.

I have read, out of historical interest, Victorian papers on geology and biology that have a creationist basis. They were abandoned not because of some secular conspiracy, but because they did not work as a practical basis for science.

That is your opinion of the reasons for it being abandoned. I suggest it was the lack of Christian faith in the majority of scientists. Most jumped at the chance to 'come out'. How come science managed quite well up until then? What practical difference did belief in evolution bring to scientific research? Creationists were driven to discover by the desire to display the magnificence of their God's creation. Is that less of a motivator than mere curiosity or search for glory? I think not.

Creation science has been tried, found lacking, and abandoned. Since then, the Bible has not changed. The case you are arguing has been closed for years. Time to move on.

Not by creationist scientists, nor by multi-millions of Christians. Yes, the Bible has not changed. When the current ideas of science differ with the Bible's teachings, Christians should know which is the imagination of men.

robindch

> It is the mouse-genes-in-rhubarb sort of messing I find crazily dangerous
> When it is applied to humans it becomes very wicked.

I don't think you have a grasp of either the technology, or the ethics which govern it.

Firstly, rhubarb and mice already share quite a lot of genetic material owing to their common ancestry (I'm not interested in opening a creationist debate at this point; this is a fact, whether creationists are able to accept it or not). Distant-relation transgenic transfers like that are rare and when carried out, are carried out for good reasons. The "Frankenstein" propaganda from the likes of The Sun and various environmental organizations is disingenuous, inaccurate and unwarranted and derives from an ignorance of what's going on fanned by overly lurid imaginations and the simpler fact that you can make a lot of money by scaring people half to death about something.

Secondly, when genetic engineering is applied to human problems, the benefits can be enormous. Consider that the majority of the world's diabetic insulin is produced by bacteria + yeasts which have had human genes inserted:

http://www3.iptv.org/exploremore/ge/what/insulin.cfm

Similar procedures produces interferons, hormones, treatments for haemophilia and anaemia, any many other beneficial substances. Genetic engineering simply speeds up and redirects the natural processes of evolution and is carried out -- whether its opponents choose to accept the fact or not -- for the benefit of humanity.

A good simple guide to some further uses of GE lives here:

http://www3.iptv.org/exploremore/ge/uses/index.cfm

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

I don't see any mention of the Bible (and certainly not the King James version!). Also, I think if you were going to accept that one, you'd have to accept Matthew 5:17, which rather indicates that there is no New Covenant.

Nope. Still too vague.

'Bible' is our English title for what Jesus termed the 'Scripture'. More precisely, He spoke of the OT part of our Bible. After His ascension to heaven, His apostles wrote the part we call the NT. Together they make up the complete Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The Bible.

You are quite wrong about Mt.5:17 ruling out a New Covenant. Christ came to fulfil the requirements of the Old Covenant by living a sinless life - that was the demand of the Law of Moses - and so qualified Himself to be the substitute for His people when He bore the punishment for their sins.

In fact, the OT clearly promised the abrogation of the Old Covenant and the setting up of a New:
Jeremiah 31:31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

robindch

> A good start on the road to being removed from the universities;
> burning their books; being sent for 're-education' to special camps.
> It has already happened in Communist regimes. The treatment of
> creationist scientists and even evolutionists who respect them has
> a proven track record in atheism's treatment of those who oppose it.

Be careful not to overdramatize your cause and forget what your own intellectual forebears spent most of the Middle Ages doing, lest you make yourself look uninformed and arguably, a bit silly.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

While I'm here, I might as well make a further point on the subject of your assertion that anyone not reading the Bible literally is doing something new. This is not the case - the Bible has been read allegorically since the Church Fathers.

Some of the Church Fathers read some of the Bible allegorically. The whole Church regarded the creation account as literal at least. Some said it had also allegorical meanings.

You, on the other hand, are a Baptist, which is, in fact, a new movement (relatively - if you claim Anabaptists as predecessors, you can get back about 400 years), and not the main strand of Christianity.

I'm happy to acknowlege Baptist roots in both Anabaptism and the Reformed Churches. It is also undeniable that separatist churches existed throughout the Christian era. Many were heretical. All were persecuted to death. All were ridiculed and lied about to some extent. But some were true believers and held to the Scriptures rather than the traditions of men. Their brethren who remained in the established Church were also a tiny minority.

I'm sure you have some explanation of how your novelty is actually a return to fundamentals (despite the fact that I bet you're not reading the Bible in Aramaic, or Hebrew, or even Greek), when in fact it is no such thing, but a bizarre literalist (and Anglophone) departure from the Christian norm.

We share the fundamentals of the faith, and therefore salvation, with all who hold to the historic creeds of the Christian Church.

I have a little greek from my Theological studies, but I do use the translations. Just like the early church did with the Hebrew Scriptures.

Baptists originated in Europe, as I recall. As I have pointed out, my 'literalist' view on creation is the historic Christian view, whether one takes that as Roman or Reformed.

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote:

The treatment of creationist scientists and even evolutionists who respect them has a proven track record in atheism's treatment of those who oppose it.

Do you honestly think only atheists oppose creationism?

Asiaprod

bluewolf wrote:

Do you honestly think only atheists oppose creationism?

I have alreaady explained long ago that Buddhist also do not believe in creationism. Maybe he forgot that.

Asiaprod

Asiaprod wrote:

I have alreaady explained long ago that Buddhist also do not believe in creationism. Maybe he forgot that.

Maybe. Maybe he also does not realise that so many christians do not agree with creationism. Especially since the catholic church agrees with evolution.

Scofflaw

Really, I despair. Wolfsbane, you are utterly unreasonable. You either do not address my points, or you simply shake your head and say "no, that isn't true". At no point have you offered anything remotely approaching a scientific argument, from the facts, which at least JC has done. When reading the Bible, you are perfectly willing to contradict Christ rather than abandon any of your tenaciously held opinions. When presented with facts, you turn your head, or claim conspiracy. Other faiths are clearly beyond the pale, where you even know about them.

Scientists are not a global elite of secular fanatics. They are ordinary people, and many of them are deeply religious. At no point in scientific training is one urged or encouraged to abandon one's faith. Indeed, the question does not arise. You, on the other hand, suggest the following reasons for the abandonment of 'creation science':

wolfsbane wrote:

I suggest it was the lack of Christian faith in the majority of scientists. Most jumped at the chance to 'come out'.

Quite casually you throw away the Christian faith of many scientists, and the very difficult struggles of those who themselves had to abandon creationism because it was not scientifically tenable. Disgusting.

I wish you much pleasure of your closed mind.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

I'm willing to say thatthose scientists who hold the opposite view do not have a scientific proposal regarding creationism.

After reading those links (one I have already read), i still can't find a thoery of ID. Could you highlight where the theory is?

Either you haven't bothered to read the creationist material, you dismiss it as non-science because it is not evolutionist, or we are talking at cross purposes about the nature of creationism and ID.

I won't go over the second again and I will assume the first is incorrect. So maybe the problem is what you expect of creationism/ID. I get the impression from all you have said that you are asking them to explain how God did it. Any explanation of how the data is consistent with ID and inconsistent with evolution would therefore fail to meet your requirements - am I right?

If that is the case, you are barking up the wrong tree. That would be like me demanding an explanation of the eternality of matter of an evolutionist. Both evolution and creationism begin with matter. Evolution, as I understand it, says it always existed. Creationism says God spoke it into existence. Neither offer a scientific explanation of how that came to be. We say a fully mature universe came into being over 6 days. You say it began as energy and evolved to what we see today, maybe returning to its former state to begin all over again. Creationism has to show it is consistent with the observed historical record, e.g. regarding the oldest living things, geological record. Evolution likewise, but it also has to show how great complexity has come from much simpler arrangements of atoms, in aeons-long defiance of entropy.

And again, if you would like me to demonstrate the concepts of irreducibly complex systems and evolution, I'd be happy to.

Yes, that would be interesting - if you can make it a non-technical explanation.

If the accusations are correct, then it is a severe ethical breach. But why should we believe the accusations?

Seemed the more credible to me, in view of what actually happened. Also in view of other testimonies I have heard from scientists who received the similar treatment from other institutions.

Let me share with you one example of this mindset. It comes from academia, though not the science end.

Someone very dear to me was studying at a U.K. university and part of the course involved Biblical Studies. She had a fair background in this and I was there if needed to give advice. I had a DipTh. from the same university. You may imagine my surprise when her modules in Biblical Studies were allmarked Fail - not low, but Fail. I reviewed them for her and could see no reason for this. She asked for an explanation and was told it was because she held to the view that the Book of Daniel had been written before the 1st Century BC. I had reminded her to be able to discuss the various theories concerning the dating of Daniel and had observed she did so in her exams. She asked me to meet with her and her departmental head to see what was the meaning of this. The lady spoke to the lecturer and returned to say she was failed because she held to the view that the Bible was the word of God and so Daniel was written when it says it was. I pointed out that scholarship was not about opinions but about knowledge - if this girl showed she understood the liberal theories as well as the conservative ones, that is all that should be required. The embarrassed head seemed to accept that but did not want to confront the lecturer on the matter. She offered the girl an alternative course.

Now that lecturer's behaviour is liberal facism in my book. The girl was more than half way through the year and would have had to catch up on all that work to begin a new course. She did not feel able for it emotionally and left the university. Her planned career was destroyed by this man. That is just one example I can personally vouch for. So when I hear others report similar things, I give them a careful hearing.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Almost all non-Catholic western nations adopted some eugenics legislation - certainly the US had the largest eugenics movement outside Nazi Germany. In addition, it is largely the Catholic countries that outlaw abortion. Hmmm. I wonder what that indicates?

That the liberal elite who run the West, especially America, are utterly Godless and Nazis-in-waiting? That Catholic countries at least have some remnants of Christian morality?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

The "Frankenstein" propaganda from the likes of The Sun and various environmental organizations is disingenuous, inaccurate and unwarranted and derives from an ignorance of what's going on fanned by overly lurid imaginations and the simpler fact that you can make a lot of money by scaring people half to death about something.

OK, I'm ignorant of the science of it all and depend like most people on listening to the various scientists make their case pro and con GE. When bona fide scientists - not creationists, to the best of my knowledge - warn about the dangers of inter-species GE, I wonder what is in it for them to lie?

I'm not saying they are or aren't. Perhaps it is just a big disagreement as to their assessment of the matter. But when the Governments of the U.S.A. and the U.K. re-assure us all is well, I get concerned.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Be careful not to overdramatize your cause and forget what your own intellectual forebears spent most of the Middle Ages doing, lest you make yourself look uninformed and arguably, a bit silly.

They weren't my 'intellectual forebears'. My sort of folk were on the receiving end. I dare to say that there were very few 'liberals' who put their heads above the parapet, when the believers were faithfully standing for the truth of the gospel.

wolfsbane

bluewolf said:

Do you honestly think only atheists oppose creationism?

No. Many types of religionist do so, and sad to say, many Christians of today.

robindch

> That the liberal elite who run the West, especially America,
> are utterly Godless and Nazis-in-waiting?

Don't want to deflate too many illusions on what after all, is just a dull monday afternoon, but despite the conservative media and their religious friends going on about it constantly, there's no such thing as a "liberal elite who runs the west".

You'll recall from the news that the USA is run by a christian fundamentalist president supported by a christian congress, heavily financed and elected by a tightly-managed christian fundamentalist electorate, all egged on by the nastiest and most unpleasant conservative media in any democracy I can think of.

If you're going to use a cliche, do please try to use one which is mildly accurate.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Really, I despair. Wolfsbane, you are utterly unreasonable. You either do not address my points, or you simply shake your head and say "no, that isn't true". At no point have you offered anything remotely approaching a scientific argument, from the facts, which at least JC has done.

I'm not a scientist, so my comments can only address the logic and central thrusts of the debate. I merely point out that other bona fide scientists refute your interpretations of the data.

When reading the Bible, you are perfectly willing to contradict Christ rather than abandon any of your tenaciously held opinions.

:eek: :eek: Where?

When presented with facts, you turn your head, or claim conspiracy.

No, merely remind you that your claims are not the facts, but only your interpretation of them - refuted by other scientists.

Other faiths are clearly beyond the pale, where you even know about them.

Certainly. The claims of Christianity, Islam, Judaism are all mutually exclusive. Any honest scholar will tell you that. Just because 'liberals' within those religions seek to change the historic position, that's no reason for impartial observers to side with them.

Scientists are not a global elite of secular fanatics. They are ordinary people, and many of them are deeply religious.

I'm sure many are. Indeed the thousands of creationists would be in that camp. But what of the majority and of the elite from them that control the scientific institutions?

At no point in scientific training is one urged or encouraged to abandon one's faith. Indeed, the question does not arise.

Yes, as long as you go along with the received truth of evolution.

You, on the other hand, suggest the following reasons for the abandonment of 'creation science':...Quite casually you throw away the Christian faith of many scientists, and the very difficult struggles of those who themselves had to abandon creationism because it was not scientifically tenable. Disgusting.

I find it sad they did not join their creationist colleagues and show how the data is consistent with creationism. By their weakness they have branded their brothers and sisters in Christ as liars. That is truly disgusting.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

You'll recall from the news that the USA is run by a christian fundamentalist president supported by a christian congress, heavily financed and elected by a tightly-managed christian fundamentalist electorate, all egged on by the nastiest and most unpleasant conservative media in any democracy I can think of.

If you're going to use a cliche, do please try to use one which is mildly accurate.

Really? Then abortion has been banned? Creationism is taught alongside evolution in the schools? Homosexuality is not promoted by the media and opposition to it is not violently suppressed by the law?

The Lord Jesus said:
Matthew 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them. 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

robindch

> Really? Then abortion has been banned? Creationism is taught
> alongside evolution in the schools? Homosexuality is not promoted
> by the media and opposition to it is not violently suppressed by the law?

Your inability to stick to the point is remarkable! Well done!

I wasn't talking about these things, I was actually pointing out that (a) there's no such thing as a liberal elite running the USA, although outfits like Fox News + christian fundamentalist leaders make lots of money out of saying that there is and (b) the USA is ruled by a bunch of christian fundamentalists, whom I would have thought you'd have been both aware of, and actively supporting.

However, if you understood the US Constitution and the function of the Supreme Court within the administrative framework -- which you do not -- you would understand why these things you're ranting about have occurred.

And if you understood how politics operates in the USA -- which you do not -- you would also understand why it is that the christian fundamentalists are jumping up and down, hyperventilating, and voting conservative in favour of the same things now, as they were when they formed a significant proportion of the electorate of Ronald Reagan, the first modern president to realise that it was really easy to lead religious conservatives, by the nose, all the way up to door of the voting boot.

Have you ever considered that it might be very easy for a religious leader to guarantee a political leader *your* democratic vote? 'specially if the same religious leader stands to gain, oh, let's say, a sackful of money under some vague, but well-financed, "faith-based initiative"?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

However, if you understood the US Constitution and the function of the Supreme Court within the administrative framework -- which you do not -- you would understand why these things you're ranting about have occurred.

I do understand the balance of powers set up by their Constitution. But why do you think the Supreme Court permitted abortion since Roe vs Wade? Because the liberal elite had control of the Court. Why do you think there is such a fight going on about who gets the vacant posts? Granted, it is all a show, since I think Bush and co. are part of the liberal regime - but it shows the principle, that the ideology of the judges determines what is the law.

And if you understood how politics operates in the USA -- which you do not -- you would also understand why it is that the christian fundamentalists are jumping up and down, hyperventilating, and voting conservative in favour of the same things now, as they were when they formed a significant proportion of the electorate of Ronald Reagan, the first modern president to realise that it was really easy to lead religious conservatives, by the nose, all the way up to door of the voting boot.

Precisely my point: the ruling elite can present themselves as anything from Looney Left to Hard Right, but it is by their fruits you know them. Presidents and policies change - but the liberal practises roll on unaffected. The majority of Americans may well be conservative in their morality, but regardless of who they vote for, power is going to remain with the elite. If the elite decide a new approach is needed, they will see it is done, no matter what the prols think.

Have you ever considered that it might be very easy for a religious leader to guarantee a political leader *your* democratic vote? 'specially if the same religious leader stands to gain, oh, let's say, a sackful of money under some vague, but well-financed, "faith-based initiative"?

Absolutely. They are birds of a feather. Both know what to say to keep their flocks happy, while they fleece them.

St_Crispin

As far as I know, the reason that Roe Vs Wade resulted in the decision it did is because it's correct constitutionally. The supreme court are there to interpret the constitution, not change it.
It has nothing to to with being liberal or conservitave. It's got to do with intreprting a document.

BrianCalgary

St_Crispin wrote:

As far as I know, the reason that Roe Vs Wade resulted in the decision it did is because it's correct constitutionally. The supreme court are there to interpret the constitution, not change it.
It has nothing to to with being liberal or conservitave. It's got to do with intreprting a document.

It would come down to being liberal or conservative. What would you view as your authority of morality?

If you are liberal it would be whatever is right for you, therefore the right to choose for oneself would be the overriding principle.

Whereas being conservative you would say that the right of the unprotected child would be the overriding principle and that in becoming pregnant you have given over your right to self.

That is the problem with the courts having such power, the constitutional and legal decisions becomes the view of the judge or supreme court while the wishes and opinions of the majority become irrelevant.