The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

2Scoops

PDN wrote: »

The following scientists, according to wikipedia, believe in theistic evolution:

* Kenneth R. Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, author of Finding Darwin's God (Cliff Street Books, 1999), in which he states his belief in God and argues that "evolution is the key to understanding God." Dr. Miller has also called himself "an orthodox Catholic and an orthodox Darwinist" (the 2001 PBS special "Evolution").
* Derek Burke, Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Warwick
* R. J. Berry, Professor of Genetics at University College London
* evangelical Christian and geologist Keith B. Miller (no relation to Kenneth) of Kansas State University, who compiled an anthology Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (Eerdmans, 2003)
* biologist Denis Lamoureux of St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta, Canada who has co-authored with evolution critic Phillip E. Johnson Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins (Regent College, 1999)
* biologist Darrel Falk of Point Loma Nazarene University, author of Coming to Peace with Science
* biologist Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief in which he has suggested the term BioLogos for theistic evolution.
* biologist Joan Roughgarden, teaches at Stanford University; author of various books including Evolution and Christian Faith: Reflections of an Evolutionary Biologist.
* paleontologist Robert T. Bakker
* microbiologist Richard G. Colling of Olivet Nazarene University, author of Random Designer: Created from Chaos to Connect with Creator
* paleobiologist Prof. Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University, well known for his groundbreaking work on the Burgess Shale fossils and the Cambrian explosion, and author of Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe

Another list of scientists that just goes to show... rather little indeed!

I want a list of journalists that believe in theistic evolution - now that would impress me! :pac:

Ekancone

stevejazzx wrote: »

e) Is he therefore responsible for the bad stuff which befalls mankind or is that again mankinds fault?

Simple rule of thumb for this one:

When something good happens, it was God/Jesus.

When something bad happens, it is because of mans sinful nature.

Hope that clears things up.

Ekancone

PDN wrote: »

Sorry, I'm not really following what you are saying.

If you find two pieces of data to be mutually contradictory, would you therefore conclude that one of them is false? Or might they both be true?

Contradicting 'what' exactly? You need to put this into context. In maths, as someone stated above, you can have two seemingly contradictory statements such as:

1+1=1 AND 1+1=2

But it depends whether you are using Boolean algebra or ordinary (Mesopotamian?) algebra.

If you two pieces of data are found in science that seem like they both couldn't exist in tandem according to the latest theory, then you need to follow the process Bonkey outlined above until you arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.

Galvasean

2Scoops wrote: »

Another list of scientists that just goes to show... rather little indeed!

I want a list of journalists that believe in theistic evolution - now that would impress me! :pac:

Find one yourself. I really don't know why you keep asking. You could have found it by now.

PDN

daithifleming wrote: »

Contradicting 'what' exactly?

If two pieces of data are 'mutually contradictory' then they contradict each other.

Ekancone

PDN wrote: »

If two pieces of data are 'mutually contradictory' then they contradict each other.

I updated my post, see above.

PDN

daithifleming wrote: »

Contradicting 'what' exactly? You need to put this into context. In maths, as someone stated above, you can have two seemingly contradictory statements such as:

1+1=1 AND 1+1=2

But it depends whether you are using Boolean algebra or ordinary (Mesopotamian?) algebra.

If you two pieces of data are found in science that seem like they both couldn't exist in tandem according to the latest theory, then you need to follow the process Bonkey outlined above until you arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.

OK, you have two pieces of data to assess. One indicates that a particular piece of rock is at least 1 million years old. The second indicates that the rock was formed 6000 years ago. Do you believe that they can both be true? Or, would accepting one as true necessarily mean that the other is false?

Ekancone

PDN wrote: »

OK, you have two pieces of data to assess. One indicates that a particular piece of rock is at least 1 million years old. The second indicates that the rock was formed 6000 years ago. Do you believe that they can both be true? Or, would accepting one as true necessarily mean that the other is false?

In science, there is no true and there is no false. Those statements belong in mathematics. In science, we deal in probability. Theories are generally held to correctly predict the data >95% of the time. Laws generally make predictions that are >99% accurate. But 100% accuracy, or 'truth', is statistically impossible. There are an infinite number of variables to rule out. Only God could do that.

PDN

daithifleming wrote: »

In science, there is no true and there is no false. Those statements belong in mathematics. In science, we deal in probability. Theories are generally held to correctly predict the data >95% of the time. Laws generally make predictions that are >99% accurate. But 100% accuracy, or 'truth', is statistically impossible. There are an infinite number of variables to rule out. Only God could do that.

So, according to science evolution is not true and Creationism is not false. But you believe that evolution is more probable than Creationism. Okey dokey.

As I'm not a scientist I'll probably stick with my belief in the law of non-contradiction.

PDN

2Scoops wrote: »

Another list of scientists that just goes to show... rather little indeed!

It goes to show exactly what I intended it to show - that it is incorrect to say that only Christian theologians believe in theistic evolution. I'm not quite sure what other irrelevant point you would wish it to show.

PDN

stevejazzx wrote: »

So your conclusion is what?

My conclusion is that Killbot2000's argument can only convince those who have already rejected the concept of an omnipotent God, and as such is pointless grandstanding when employed against theists. It is similar to a Christian advancing, as an argument against an atheist, that God must exist because the Bible says so.

God 'bucks' (your word) the laws probabilty to suit himself? If so, many questions need to be asked

a) why set up those laws in the first place

I don't believe God set up any laws of probability in the first place. I believe that 'laws of probability' are simply a human construct on the basis of how we have observed things to work. They are, however, not necessarily a good guide to what happened before or after the period observed.

b) is everything a result of God infering? Is there really free will

I'm not quite sure how God can 'interfere' in something He has Himself created. God created free will and so it does really exist.

c) when does God 'buck' his own laws? Is it only when a particularly difficult situation arises? Or can it be when he just wants to do something funky?

I refer you to my answer to (a) as regards the existence of 'laws'. God can do whatever He wants. Nothing is 'particularly difficult' to an omnipotent God.

d) How do we know he's manipulating his own laws of probability and why did create them to begin with

Have you been taking lessons on how to ask the same question over and over again?

e) Is he therefore responsible for the bad stuff which befalls mankind or is that again mankinds fault?

Human beings are responsible for the consequences of their own actions. It could be argued that God is ultimately responsible in that He could conceivably have created a world that was without any evil whatsoever - however, in that case I believe we would never have the capacity to enjoy love and other manifestations of free will. My own opinion is that my existence with the ability to love is worth any attendant suffering I may encounter.

f) doesn't a supreme being who 'bucks' his own laws fall into the imperfect category? Isn't God perfect?

Once again, I don't believe that 'the laws of probability' are actually laws at all. Even if they were, that would not imply imperfection.

For example, I can pass a 'law' to young relatives in my house that they are not to answer the door to strangers, or to receive gifts from strangers. Then I see the postman coming up the driveway with a parcel that I know contains my daughter's birthday present. So I call out to her, "You can open the door. I know I told you not to, but this time, and this time only, it's OK." No imperfection necessary.

It goes on and on PDN..total and utter contradiction.

Your opinion, of course. However, apparently the scientists here are not constrained by the law of non-contradiction, so there may be hope for them yet.

pH

PDN wrote: »

Human beings are responsible for the consequences of their own actions. It could be argued that God is ultimately responsible in that He could conceivably have created a world that was without any evil whatsoever - however, in that case I believe we would never have the capacity to enjoy love and other manifestations of free will. My own opinion is that my existence with the ability to love is worth any attendant suffering I may encounter.

Just for the record then, do you believe that you will continue to have free will in heaven (and therefore acts of evil can be committed there) or will your eternity in heaven be spent without free will (and by your own argument without love)?

PDN

pH wrote: »

Just for the record then, do you believe that you will continue to have free will in heaven (and therefore acts of evil can be committed there) or will your eternity in heaven be spent without free will (and by your own argument without love)?

Free will can be used to choose an irrevocable condition.

For example:
If you freely choose to lose your virginity then you no longer have the free will to become a virgin again.
If you freely choose to poke your eyes out and become blind, then you no longer have the free will not to be blind.

I believe that, if you have freely used your free will to love God, and if you continue in that love until death, then in heaven you will no longer have the free will to stop loving God.

Ekancone

PDN wrote: »

So, according to science evolution is not true and Creationism is not false. But you believe that evolution is more probable than Creationism. Okey dokey.

Indeed. Evolution is as probable as the theory of gravity. Creationism is as probable as the tooth fairy. Just to put things into perspective. I'm not joking.

PDN wrote: »

As I'm not a scientist I'll probably stick with my belief in the law of non-contradiction.

I'm not a scientist either. I just try not to be ignorant of science because I appreciate its fruits.

bonkey

PDN wrote: »

So, according to science evolution is not true and Creationism is not false. But you believe that evolution is more probable than Creationism. Okey dokey.

As I'm not a scientist I'll probably stick with my belief in the law of non-contradiction.

I'm not a scientist either (I'm a mathematician, by qualification), but I see things slightly differently.

Science - as already mentioned - does not deal in what is true and false. However, I would also disagree that science deals in probability. Science deals in models which are designed to match observation. It makes no comment on whether those models are true or not, nor indeed whether they are probably true or not.

So, correctly speaking, when dealing with science we would not have "evolution is true" or indeed "evolution is probably true", but rather "evolution is currently the model with the best, falsifiable fit to the data".

That model doesn't care if the universe is really only 6000 years ago, no more than it cares if the universe is actually some complex computer program running in a reality we can't begin to comprehend. What it says is that our observations are consistent with the model, not that the model is true.

When it comes to Creationism, the first thing one should note is that its proponents do not claim to have a better model. They claim that the existing model is not what happened.

The second thing one should note is that Creationism is centered around some unfalsifiable premises, which are sufficient grounds to say that it is not scientific (but not sufficient to say that it is not true...because we're not dealing with truth).

If its any consolation, the day that so-called Creation Science makes a falsifiable prediction that differs to science, where the outcome has yet to be observed and observation supports the Creationist prediction, then there'll be a change in attitude to its value and utility.

Note, I'm talking about the interpretation of the data (as, for example, with the recently-cited challenges to the accuracy of C14-dating). Think more along the first practical test of Einstein's theory of relativity against Newton's established models. They predicted significantly different outcomes to a previously-unmeasured event, having agreed in advance on the measurement etc. The event was measured, from multiple locations, indepedantly of each other. Those measurements were each double-checked and more, with multiple qualified, independant witnesses, and then compared with each other for accuracy.

This is the type of benchmark that is set for even the beginnings of acceptance. It is why String Theory is not (currently) generally accepted as "real" science and may never be. I see no reason why that bar should be lowered for Creationism.

It is worth noting that this distinction between "model", "truth" and "probably true" is not universally shared. You'll find many (including posters here) who will argue that we can somehow apply logic to decide that the best model is the most-probable-to-be-true. Truth, even in mathematics, is a very tricky thing to define. In my personal opinion, truth is - at best - a question of philosophy, and neither one of faith nor of science.

bonkey

daithifleming wrote: »

Indeed. Evolution is as probable as the theory of gravity. Creationism is as probable as the tooth fairy. Just to put things into perspective. I'm not joking.

Given my previous post, responding to PDN's side of things, I'll offer my two bits on this too before heading off for the evening.

My perspectivce is that with respect to the relevant, available data in each case, the evolutionary model is as close a fit as our (various) gravitational model(s), and that the Creationist model(s) is (or are) as close a fit as the tooth fairy.

I would again stress, though, that none of that is a comment of what is truth.

Galvasean

Page 666 on the Christian board... surely a sign of the end times! :eek:

wolfsbane

bonkey said:

This last bit is the important one. There is nothing that gets one held in higher esteem in scientific circles than finding a flaw in an existant theory. The more "solid" the theory...the closer it is held to being the "truth" that you mention in your question, the higher the esteem gained from knocking it off its pedestal. Indeed, some scientists have gained in esteem when they showed their own previously-accepted theories to be incomplete or flawed.

That's all very good, and I especially appreciated you going on to acknowledge how individuals sometimes fail to put it into practise.

But let me put the missing ingredient into the mix:
Your discovery not only overturns years of consensus scientific opinion on the matter, but it also totally supports the Christian claim that God made the universe 6000 years ago and we are the descendants of the original couple.

Now your scientific view takes on a society-challenging implication. You are seen as not only being an innovative scientist but as one who has given credibility to Christian 'fundamentalists'.

Still happy to be the innovator? Still think your colleagues would be queuing-up to celebrate your discovery?

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

You are missing the point.

If YEC find some piece of evidence that falsifies the 6000 year date they conclude that this evidence must be wrong, even if they don't know how, and stick to the 6,000 year date.

Therefore it is not falsifiable, since YEC are not prepared to accept any evidence that can falsify it.

It is not science.

They would be obliged to say that piece of evidence appears to contradict their theory. If they believed it actually contradicted it, they would have to abandon it.

If you found a piece of evidence that falsified any date older than 6000 years, would you not do the same? Is that not science?

wolfsbane

bonkey said:

Quote:
Hmm. What examples can you give of these experiments in the field of evolution?

Less than 48 hours ago, wolfsbane, you thanked another poster for the link to the New Scientist article regarding 'myths about evolution' and said you'd keep it close.

I suggest you go and use it, because either you didn't read the content linked to, or you've already forgotten it.

I may be very dim, but I have went through most of the first list without finding anything yet. All I've encountered is mention of bird-song changing and drug-resistant bugs, etc. Nothing about evolution. Creationists and Evolutionists both agree on selection and adaption.

wolfsbane

bonkey wrote: »

I would additionally point out to the interested reader that in the last two posts from wolfsbane that I have responded to, he has firstly claimed that evolutionary scientists are not challenging their beliefs, and then asked what experiments in the field of evolutionary science are being carried out.

The implication being that wolfsbane has made claims about what is occurring in an area, and then suggested ignorance of what is occurring in said area.

(The alternative is that Wolfsbane is suggesting that no work is being carried out in the field of evolutionary theory which could possibly produce a result which could falsify such theory. If wolfsbane would like to clarify that such a falsifiable claim is indeed the position he is taking, I'll be happy to accept that, as long as he accepts that a single counter-example proves him wrong)

No, I meant the former.

I am unaware of any research by evolutionists seeking to falsify evolution as the mechanism by which life is as is. But I am not a scientist and I'm not read-up in the journals, etc. So I'm open to correction. Just refer to any such research site and I'll check it out.

2Scoops

Galvasean wrote: »

Find one yourself. I really don't know why you keep asking. You could have found it by now.

If you miss the bus, just wait for the next one.

wolfsbane

JimiTime wrote: »

To the Christian Posters: Do you believe that evolution as the 'how it happened' is a problem? if so why?

To Bonkey: Do you believe, that evolution is fact. By fact I mean, not just 'its the best explaination' or 'on the curremt evidence'. Would you as a person, not a scientist, say its a fact?

It would require such a hermeneutic that all of the bible could be made to mean anything. Once we allow what appears to be historical narrative to be taken as poetic/symbolic, we must in honesty apply the same standard to the birth, life, death, or resurrection of Christ, for example. And it has so been applied by liberal theologians. But if Christ is not raised, then your faith is in vain - or maybe Paul meant that poetically too? No doctrine can be determined, no event known as history.


to me, the only sensible response to the conclusion that evolution is the 'how it happened' is agnosticism. Maybe God exists, but we cannot know anything about Him. All we can know is what we find out by science.

Ekancone

bonkey wrote: »

Given my previous post, responding to PDN's side of things, I'll offer my two bits on this too before heading off for the evening.

My perspectivce is that with respect to the relevant, available data in each case, the evolutionary model is as close a fit as our (various) gravitational model(s), and that the Creationist model(s) is (or are) as close a fit as the tooth fairy.

I would again stress, though, that none of that is a comment of what is truth.

I will accept that.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Only in the Creationism thread could we argue whether or not one plus one equals two... :pac:

....and could I point out that the argument that 1+1=2 is "false" was made by an Evolutionist!!!!!

....so when Evolutionists claim that 1+1=2 is "false".......should anybody believe them when they also claim that conclusions of Creation Science are "false"????

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

bonkey said:

That's all very good, and I especially appreciated you going on to acknowledge how individuals sometimes fail to put it into practise.

But let me put the missing ingredient into the mix:
Your discovery not only overturns years of consensus scientific opinion on the matter, but it also totally supports the Christian claim that God made the universe 6000 years ago and we are the descendants of the original couple.

Now your scientific view takes on a society-challenging implication. You are seen as not only being an innovative scientist but as one who has given credibility to Christian 'fundamentalists'.

Still happy to be the innovator? Still think your colleagues would be queuing-up to celebrate your discovery?

I am astonished that you could come to this conclusion from that excerpt from Bonkey's post, I really am. I know you already admitted that you will twist whatever evidence is out there to suit your beliefs, but wow. This is something else.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

It would require such a hermeneutic that all of the bible could be made to mean anything. Once we allow what appears to be historical narrative to be taken as poetic/symbolic, we must in honesty apply the same standard to the birth, life, death, or resurrection of Christ, for example. And it has so been applied by liberal theologians. But if Christ is not raised, then your faith is in vain - or maybe Paul meant that poetically too? No doctrine can be determined, no event known as history.


to me, the only sensible response to the conclusion that evolution is the 'how it happened' is agnosticism. Maybe God exists, but we cannot know anything about Him. All we can know is what we find out by science.

Does it really have to be that black and white, all or nothing? Could you pick a couple of passages from the bible that gives you this dichotomous belief? I'm just curious.

J C

robindch wrote: »

1+1=2 is not a "proposition", but a conclusion which results -- after much crunching of symbols -- from the application of rules to axioms. If you use different rules, or different axioms, you'll reach a different conclusion.

For example, in Boolean Algebra, the string "1+1=1" is "true", while "1+1=2" is "false".

...so that's HOW they do it!!!!

.....the Evolutionists simply use a 'different axiom' or change the rules to suit their Materialistic views.....and hey presto.....
.....they can then believe that 1+1 doesn't equal two, that Muck did spontaneously Evolve into Man......and that the tightly specified and highly complex information codes observed in living organisms just appeared of their own volition!!!!:D

.....very convenient things....these axioms!!!!!!:D

toiletduck

wolfsbane wrote:

Still happy to be the innovator? Still think your colleagues would be queuing-up to celebrate your discovery?

Wow...

J C wrote:

.....very convenient things....these axioms!!!!!!

JC, I know you claim you're a scientist but using what has been said about boolean logic to show up the "Materialistic views" of "Evolutionists" really shows that you haven't a clue.

J C

JimiTime wrote: »

What is the issue with a christian believing that evolution was the method God used to bring species to where they are?

Neither Science or Theology supports such a belief!!!!:D

1. God didn't say that He used Evolution to Create Man.......and to remove ALL doubt, He said that He Directly Created the first woman from a bone extracted from the first man.......try explaining that in an Evolutionary framework!!!
...or try to explain what was meant by that particular 'allegory'!!!!!!!!!!

2. Saying that God has (and presumably still is) using Evolution to 'develop' lifeforms is similar to saying that God causes the sun to rise every morning.
One could believe that God is somehow causing on-going Evolution and the rotation of the Earth.....but we have perfectly valid scientific explanations for both Evolution (within Kinds, using pre-existing information) and the rotation of the Earth.....and therefore no external intelligent input is needed to maintain or explain either process!!!

3. The critical question about sunrises and life is NOT how they are currently sustained .....they are clearly self-sustaining using the present accepted laws of physics, chemistry and biology (with or without any undetected Divine sustinence)........
......the critical question is how life and a rotating Earth was produced in the first place.......Creation Science provides a logical explantion, that is in accord with the observable evidence .....and Materialists have no real explantion for either biogenesis or a rotating Earth !!!!

4. As already pointed out, Evolution has never been observed to produce different Kinds and is dependent on pre-existing information.

5. Evolution is also incapable of spontaneously generating life......so Theistic Evolutionists have to believe in a separate Theistic Life Generation mechanism as well as a Theistic Evolution mechanism.......
...and as believers in Theistic Life Generation are practically Creationists........this makes Theistic Evolutionists de facto (old earth)Creationists.....with a 'pinch' of Evolution thrown in!!!!!:D

6. As mutation is supposedly the prime generator of the diversity upon which Evolution supposedly 'runs'.......the Theistic Evolutionist must believe in a God continuously interfering with life through mutations.....and obviously not making a very good job of it.....at least in so far as the vast majority of mutants are concerned!!!!!:eek:

7. So the Theistic Evolutionist God is NEITHER omnipotent nor omniscient......and CURRENTLY carries out His work in such an invisible manner that it looks for all intents and purposes as if only purely materialistic forces are at work!!!!:D