Evolution or Creation (Young or Old Earth) Part 2

>> Thursday, September 16, 2010

The Age of the Earth: Thousands vs. Billions of Years

The earth will be demonstrated to be billions of years old:
If the earth is less than 3 billion years old, there would not be enough time for biological evolution to occur.

The earth will be discovered to be relatively young (e.g. more than 6,000 years, but less than 100,000,000).
(Note: Intelligent Design thinking does not require a young earth, but the Young Earth/Cataclysm model, by definition, does.)

Astrophysical Dating:

Light from distant objects in the universe suggests 10,000,000,000 light years as a possible age (and consequent size) for the expansion of the known universe from the Big Bang. The same light suggests that some of these distant objects contain chemical elements such as carbon, iron and uranium requiring multiple billions of years under current theory for these elements to form in second-generation stars. Thus, these second generation galaxies would require more than 16,000,000,000 years to mature and allow the light to reach the earth. By that time, the sun would have burned out and gone cold. The reality is that no one really knows how big the universe is, or from what distance light might really come, or even whether the speed of light has always been constant.

Today, most science textbooks state that the solar system including the earth is 4.6 billion years old. There is no evidence for this arbitrary age. The likely reason for science to propose this age is that it allows enough time for evolution to happen. As to the universe, the age printed in textbooks has doubled every twenty years over the last 140 years. In the late 1920’s it was estimated that the universe was only 2,000,000,000 years old. While at the time of Darwin half a billion years was accepted. Now, with the observations of the Hubble telescope, some are proposing 16,000,000,000 years or more. (Therefore 2 billion, plus or minus 14 billion years, or 16 billion plus or minus 14 billion!) These disparate ages indicate a lack of precision in the measuring processes. Coupling these disparities with contradictory measurements from other dating systems caused one well known Darwinian astronomer to state:

“There is no evidence based solely on solar observations that the Sun is 4.5-5.0 x 109 years old. I suspect that the sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the earth and sun. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that. Solar physics now looks to paleontology for data on solar chronology.”
From a speech by John Eddy at an astronomy conference Quoted by Kazmann in Geotimes 1978.

The theory that the sun is fueled by fusion, burning hydrogen into helium, has some experimental support. This allows for the possibility, but does not prove that the sun is billions of years old. Predictions stated that the sun would give off neutrinos as a by-product of the fusion process. The quantities of neutrinos measured on the earth coming from the sun, however, are fewer than predicted to produce the sun’s temperature. Another theory originally proposed by Sir Isaac Newton is that the sun is heated by friction through gravitational collapse. This theory, too, has experimental support since measurements over several hundred years have indicated a slow reduction in the diameter of the sun. Sir Isaac Newton’s theory has been discarded only because it does not allow for the sun to be billions of years old, thus making evolution impossible. One explanation for the missing neutrinos is that the sun is young and that its energy is produced from a combination of both nuclear fusion and heat caused by gravitational collapse. If heat from the sun is caused by a combination of these two processes, then the sun is not billions of years old.

Besides the question about how long the sun has been burning, there are a number of other astrophysical phenomena, which give maximum ages for the universe and the solar system that are much lower then the often-quoted 4.6 billion years. Some examples:

*Spiral galaxy arms cannot continue to maintain form after billions of years. Spiral galaxies, therefore, appear to be too young for evolutionary timescales.

*Venus, Uranus & Pluto spin backwards. Gravity would not allow this to happen for billions of years.

*In the Solar System, at least 8 moons rotate backwards in a reverse spin from what would be predicted from the laws of physics. This reverse spin implies a designed, relatively young universe. There is no current naturalistic explanation for a reverse spin.

*Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, & Neptune each have moons orbiting in opposite directions. Physical laws cannot explain how reverse orbits originated, nor can they explain how these orbits would be maintained for billions of years. Gravity should have caused the orbiting moons to slow each other down. Evolutionary time frames would have required that the moons crash into the mother planets a long time ago.

*The moon’s interior is still hot. There seems to be no other explanation for the fact that the interior of the moon is still hot except that it appears not to have cooled off yet! It must therefore be very young!

*The earth’s interior is still hot! So are a number of the other planets. These planets are thus still cooling off. There is no other hypothetical explanation for heat in the interior of the planets unless the solar system is not billions of years old!

*The moon is moving away from the earth at measurable rates. Assuming a 4.6 billion year old earth, it should have escaped the earth’s orbit several billion years ago.
There is no explanation as to how the Earth, or any other of the planets captured their moons into orbit. Nor is their any accepted scientific solution for the Sun to have captured the planets.

*The earth’s magnetic field has decayed by 6% in the last 150 years. Some scientists have proposed a maximum age of 20,000 years using a geometric decay profile for the magnetic field.

Go To Part 3


@bdul muHib July 15, 2009 at 9:21 PM  

Wow. I just don't even know where to begin, there are just so many errors in what you posted. But one I'll address: There is absolutely no evidence for the sun being powered by gravitational collapse. It was an idea floated by scientists before Einstein and our understanding of nuclear physics, and then was rejected by all scientists because it didn't agree with the data but rather the data contradicted it. The only time I've come across it was when Andy tried to encourage all the students at his school to follow this belief. I was shocked- it is so hard to keep up with the changing arguments of Literal Creationists, as they come up with new ideas all the time- but that's easy when there is no evidence. I investigated, and found that it was an outdated idea, and now is only advocated by Literal Creationists, and only a fringe element of them at that. I looked into it further, and discovered why- a sun powered by gravitational collapse means for a much younger Earth, which fits with their preconceived notions of Literal Creationism. (It was some time after I pointed out this reason that Andy came up with the idea that gravitational collapse was rejected because it didn't fit with evolutionary theory.)

Greg July 21, 2009 at 5:20 PM  

So what are the errors in this post?

It sounds like you new Andy, is that correct?

When you say you have done the research, what research did you do?

There will be many scientist that will always have a different
view point and that is where the debate comes in.

The evolutionist will never agree with the creationist on anything. You say that this view point is only supported by creationist which
is probably correct. There are two different models out there
and you have to look at the scientific evidence for what is true and which one is a lie. The evolutionist are always spitting out lies and you have to be mindful of that.

Why is it that you think that the Creationist are always coming
up with new ideas? You don't think that the evolutionist
are doing the same thing? The evolutionist find a fossil and all of a sudden it becomes Darwin's missing link. In this post, Andy points out how often the age of the earth has been changed in textbooks. You don't think that the evolutionist has changed their viewpoints?

The reason why you say it is an outdated idea is because it
supports a young earth. The evolutionist believe that it is
an outdated idea because they have to believe in an old earth. Their
theory requires an old earth and anything that doesn't conform to an old earth will be classified as an outdated idea.

The evolutions are constantly throwing evidence out the window
because it doesn't support their theory.

We can debate this over and over, but I can see that you have already
discussed this with Andy.

Evolution dominates the scientific
community because the Atheist have taken it over.

However, God does exists and someday you will have to answer to him.

I suggest you to study both sides thoroughly and objectively before
concluding that evolution is true.

@bdul muHib July 22, 2009 at 12:11 AM  

I am a bit confused as to who is posting what- you or Andy- on this blog.

I grew up as a Literal Creationist, and it was only later that God convinced me of the truth of evolution. I therefore extensively investigated and studied both the biology and theology behind these issues.

Yes, you're right, there is a great deal of controversy among scientists on evolution. To what extent is Gradualism true, or Punctuated Equilibrium? Is Cladistics the best way to go, or the classic method? How important is natural selection verses genetic drift? These keep scientists up late at nights. There are no serious biologists who accept either Literal Creationism or ID.

It depends on which kind of evolutionist and which kind of Literal Creationist you mean. Neither are monolithic categories, as I often pointed out to my students. A Theistic Evolutionist and a Literal Creationist are both types of creationists, though this often gets ignored because of the Literal Creationist propaganda.

There are actually many different models out there, but only one general scientific one. I have looked extensively into this, and what lead me to evolution was realizing how often the Literal Creationist leaders (not the rank and file) were lying- and the scientists weren't.

Yes, the Literal Creationists are always coming up with shifting arguments without evidence. The scientists are regularly coming up with new discoveries, for that is what science is about. Literal Creationists and IDists have no new discoveries- by their own admission. See repeated statements by the DI.

Actually, the reason I say it is an outdated idea is that science has completely rejected it. The reason scientists consider it an outdated idea is that there is no evidence at all for it, and a lot of evidence against it. It was accepted as a possibility before the discovery of atomic theory, and now it's not. It just so happens that it also doesn't fit with evolution. Then the Literal Creationists rediscovered the idea, and started propagating it as a way to have a younger Earth. (Though, it must be stressed, no where near a young enough Earth to fit with YEC ideas- by an order of magnitude of 20.) Read the history of the idea.

Someone has been lying to you about scientists throwing evidence out that doesn't fit. They consistently keep it. The evidence that is supposed to be against the theory doesn't actually exist; it's made up, or not understood, by Literal Creationists and IDists. I do not fault you; I also was lead astray by the Literal Creationists for many years, before I was lead to the Light. They are very clever.

Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Actually, most scientists are theists, and the overwhelming majority (like 99.9%) of biologists are evolutionists.

Yes, but that was a rather lame statement, Greg. We all have to answer to God one day.

I have studied both sides objectively and thoroughly for approximately a quarter century now. How long have you? (Though it must be admitted, for the initial decade of my study I didn't objectively consider evolution but rejected it out of hand.)

Anonymous July 22, 2009 at 3:35 PM  

Dear Abdul muHib,

as a newbie in creation-evolution controversy I am following with interest your comments.

Since you "have studied both sides objectively and thoroughly for approximately a quarter century now" I would like to ask you to give to Greg and to me and to others three (3) MOST CONVINCING pieces of evidence that in your opinion prove beyond any doubt that evolution really happened and that are sufficient to convince any non biased openminded person of the truth of evolution.

I am sure that after 25 years of study it would be no problem for you and you will help to many hesitating people to find the truth.


@bdul muHib July 26, 2009 at 7:40 AM  

Dear Mikulas:

While it is true that I have studied it enough to give you the argument, the problem is more twofold: the time to lay them out, which I don't have, and trying to decide from the many which are the three most convincing, as that task is a bit daunting- hence the return to problem (1).

I also must be clear that in science, there is no such thing as proof beyond any doubt. That's what religion is for. Even the courtroom has "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Science asks not for proof, but with evidence and experiments, something is true until it is proven false. That means that I do the experiments, gather the evidence, and accept it as true, always with the knowledge that one day, no matter how much I might value my theory, it could be and probably will be overturned or exceedingly expanded on. A clear example of this is how Einstein replaced Newton, and quantum theory replaces Einstein. Not entirely, but to a great deal, the previous theory is reshaped.

Now, that doesn't mean any old thing will do. It must explain reality better than the previous idea. Evolution has *so* many lines of evidence from so many places, it is difficult to imagine it being overturned, but all of science could one day be overturned. However, even the Discovery Institute, the main cheerleader for ID, admits that at present ID can't explain reality more fully than evolution.

All that said, three arguments:

1> Darwins are a unit to measure the degree of evolutionary change, where the alleles of genes are measured to change over the course of time. We can see organisms changing, and measure their Darwin rate. Smaller, faster-breeding organisms we see become new species, such as viruses, and over the course of a human lifetime, bacteria. Slower organisms, the macroscopic types, we see a rate of change, and the beginning of species diversification. But there have recently been some articles to indicate evolutionary diversification even among macroscopic organisms, within a human's lifespan.

2> Human Evolution. I know Literal Creationists claim there are many gaps and missing links in the fossil record, but this just isn't true. Firstly, a "missing link" is a Literal Creationist term, and one the popular press likes. As the Greeks pointed out, you can find any two fossils and claim there is a gap inbetween them, ad infinitum. There can be no pleasing some people. The sad fact (for the Literal Creationists) remains that there are *so* many fossils with so much diversification fitting all known lines of evidence, that humans are some of the best examples we have of evolution.

3> Whale evolution. I like this because Darwin himself proposed how a bear could become a swimming animal like a whale, and was roundly laughed at, though he was clear it was only a hypothetical suggestion. Literal Creationists loved to point out how there were no transitional fossils for the whale line, from the ancient hoofed carnivore mysonichids. Then we found a fossil in India in the early 90s. And one in Pakistan two years later. And another in Pakistan in the late 90s. And more in the Noughties. Today, the whale line is so well-attested to, that it, along with the human line, remains one of our best examples of a fossil lineage. I love this because it shows the predictive power of the theory of evolution, where we found exactly what we expected, and given enough time, we consistently find this.

These are only three examples, among many. Like I said, it is hard to pick and choose, as there are so many good examples and arguments, and I have little time. These are very specific, because evolution is science, and hence specific. Certainly, Literal Creationists will argue with all three points, and there is no way to convince many. Frankly, what is needed for most is a new way of reading the Bible, before they will accept evolution. But you asked for evidence in support of evolution, not how to convince the Literal Creationist.

Anonymous July 27, 2009 at 1:33 PM  

Dear Abdul,

thank for your response.

Will you please be more specific regarding the first and probably the most compelling evidence of evolution:

" smaller .. organisms we CAN SEE become new species, such as viruses, and over the course of a human lifetime, bacteria"

I know that your problem is time (you are not alone :-). Therefore I would appreciate at least a couple of links about it, i.e.

about the evolution of new species observable over the course of a human life.

Or do you mean MSRA bacteria?

Are there any peer revieved articles?


@bdul muHib July 28, 2009 at 4:27 PM  

Mikulas, there's a number of recent articles out there, and yes, peer-reviewed, of course. Don't have time to look them up- you might want to check out the Counter-Creationism Handbook as a good resource on some of them.

Greg July 28, 2009 at 5:42 PM  

@bdul muHib,

Most of the information on this blog is my opinion and research. However, I am just starting to post information that I gathered from Andy.

That is quite confusing that God convinced you of the truth of evolution. Why do you need to believe in God if evolution is true? Basically, what you are saying is that God convinced you that he doesn’t exist. That is pretty much what you just said. If you believe in God and evolution, you are going to run into major conflicts which most of the theistic evolutionist are unable to answer. You are on the verge of becoming an Atheist.

So again, you think that there aren’t any serious biologists who accept Literal Creationism or ID. So if I give you some of them, what are you going to say? Are you going to dismiss them as not serious biologist because they are Creationist? "He can’t be a serious biologist because he is a Creationist." Give me a break…

Dr. Ian Macreadie-Highly regarded Australian molecular biologist and microbiology. (Creationist) http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/i_macreadie.asp

Kenneth B. Cumming-Holds degrees (PH.D.) from Tufts and Harvard in Biology. http://www.icr.org/article/163/

Those are just a couple, but I can give you many more. I have posted many of them on my blog. You have to realize that the scientific community is dominated by Atheist and that isn’t because of the scientific evidence. It is because people today don’t want to answer to a God.

“Yes, the Literal Creationists are always coming up with shifting arguments without evidence. The scientists are regularly coming up with new discoveries, for that is what science is about. Literal Creationists and IDists have no new discoveries- by their own admission. See repeated statements by the DI.”

Again, you are spouting statements without any references. I have talked extensively about the IDA fossil which is a recent discovery and a fraud. And it is well known fact that the Lucy fossil is a fraud. If you have studied evolution so thoroughly, you would see many, many scientific lies. The Pitdown man was also a fraud. Infact, all of the evolutionary models are frauds and have been disproven. So you really need to go back to school if you think that the theory of evolution hasn’t spouted out lies and propaganda.

“Actually, the reason I say it is an outdated idea is that science has completely rejected it.”

Obviously it isn’t an outdated idea if Creation scientist still believe it. You have this assumption that only evolutionist are real scientists. Where do you get such arrogance?

I have also studied this extensively, and there are too many questions that evolutionist can’t answer. You haven’t given me any reason to change my mind. All you say is that you have studied it so therefore I should believe it. I have a taken many scientific courses where I the teacher could never answer my questions. I know you wouldn’t be able to answer my questions either because no evolutionist can. The fact that they find a fossil and try to prove evolution from it when the fossil is just a dead animal is stupid. The fact that evolutionist believe that something more complex than a computer can come into existence by chance is also stupid. The fact that evolutionist believes that intelligence comes from non-intelligence is also stupid. The fact that they believe one species will change into another species over millions of years by random mutations is a lie. I have studied this issue and apparently more than you. That is why I am still a Creationist.


Make sure you look at the counter arguments to what @bdul muHib is presenting. He hasn’t presented any evidence to prove evolution. That is because they really don’t have any.

I would present a counter argument to what he is saying, but I am out of time right now.

@bdul muHib July 29, 2009 at 3:50 PM  

Greg, I'm not saying definitely, but it just may be that God is bigger than you imagine.

Why do you need to believe in God if gravity is true? Who told you that belief in evolution is belief in the non-existance of God? If you truly believe that, then how do you deal with the fact that a number of those guys who came up with "The Fundamentals" (e.g. Fundamentalism) accepted the truth of evolution? Did the original Fundamentalists reject God?

Greg, there are no serious scientists who believe that the Earth is flat. If you give me some, yes, I will deny that they are serious scientists. I'm sorry. It's not a tautology.

Now, I should clarify, that doesn't mean that there aren't a very few biologists who have done real research (like Behe), and yet believe in Literal Creationism or ID. It means that when they speak on these matters, none of them are serious scientists. And when they don't speak on these matters, they remain a very few.

Actually, no, Lucy not a fraud; Ida not; and Piltdown was. We know Piltdown was because scientists (e.g. the evil evolutionists) unearthed the fraud.

You are looking for references, and I'm not interested in taking you to school. I might suggest the reference I gave, which you quoted, and then pretended wasn't there- the Discovery Institute. They have a website. Go to it, and look at their repeated statements on how they have no new discoveries. Maybe you reject them as speaking truth; that's none of my business to prove to you that they can be correct.

Dude, Greg, even if someone were to rise from the dead, you still would not believe. Why would I think anything I said would convince you? Your heart is hardened, and there's no way that I myself could come in there to change it.

But I will say you got some parts right. "The fact that evolutionist believes that intelligence comes from non-intelligence is also stupid." Yes, though I wouldn't use the word "stupid". That's a very convincing argument- if you were talking to someone who was arguing against Creationism.

"The fact that evolutionist believe that something more complex than a computer can come into existence by chance is also stupid...The fact that they believe one species will change into another species over millions of years by random mutations is a lie." Again, I wouldn't use "stupid"- it's just a little too pedantic- but otherwise, you're correct. That's why evolution doesn't argue either of those points.

I hope you didn't think evolution did, did you?

If I don't miss my guess, Greg, your entire blog is a counter-argument to what I was saying, so I'd have to believe that Mikulas has indeed read your arguments.

Greg July 30, 2009 at 2:14 PM  

I am not sure where you got the idea that Fundamentalist believed in evolution. Fundamentalist are the ones that do not believe
in evolution. But anyway, I know that many Christians believe in the theory of evolution. They do that because they can't stand up for truth. A Fundamentalist Christian is someone who believes that the Bible is the Word of God and that it was preserved without errors. So my point is that either the Bible is true, or it isn't. If I believe that it is true, then I would also have to believe in the book of Genesis which says that the earth was created in 6 days, not millions of years. If the book of Genesis isn't true, then maybe Jesus never existed, or maybe he never died on the cross. Any Christian who claims to believe in the Bible but can't believe in the book of Genesis might as well doubt the rest of the book as well. Now, I don't know if you are a Christian Evolutionist or just someone who believes in God, but the theory of evolution was devised to remove God and that is what it has been doing. (Remove God from the pledge of allegance, remove God from the classroom etc.)

Many Evolutionist say that only the crazy fundamentalist Christians don't believe in evolution, but that isn't true. There are many non-Christians and evolutionist that are also skeptical of their own theory.

"George Wald, an evolutionist, states, "When it comes to the origin of life, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48. May 1954)."

What is the one thing that is absolutely true about the theory of evolution that convinced you that it was true? That is what I would like to know.

I have more respect for the Atheist because at least they can take a side. But the theistic evolutionist are trying to combine
two theories that are incompatible. Evolution and God do not go hand in hand. They are at opposite sides and trying
to make them both fit doesn't work.

Of course there are no serious scientist that believe that the earth is flat. Because there is indisputable evidence that the earth isn't flat. However, there are serious scientists that believe in Creation and a Young Earth. You won't find a scientist that has a PHD who believes that the earth is flat, but you will find hundreds of scientists that believe in Creation. You aren't going to dismiss it that easily. If Evolution was indisputable, there wouldn't be a debate going on, and it is quite stupid to be comparing Creationist with Flatearthers and that demonstrates your ignorance of Creationism.

Lucy was a fraud! I have actually seen the fossil in Ethiopia and it wasn't that impressive. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1651429/posts.
Read my other post on many other frauds as well. Evolution is filled with false science and frauds.

I am sure I have read just as much books as you have on the theory of evolution. I started studying it when I was 19.

Why is it that you want to believe in Evolution? What is so fascinating about it?

You still haven't presented me with any reason to change my mind, so I don't know why you say my heart is hardened. Should I just change my view point because you said you have studied it for 25 years? Apparently you have only studied one side because if you really studied it objectively, you wouldn't believe it.

@bdul muHib August 3, 2009 at 9:39 AM  

1) Got the idea from reading history. See previous explanation.
2) If you believe the Bible is true, then you would do justice to the authors of the original texts, and consider their cultural viewpoint, respecting it, even it if it has a different perspective of the nature of time and truth.
3) Your posit on Genesis therefore Jesus doesn't follow logic, even remotely.
4) Your suggestion on the formation of the theory is incorrect.
5) Actually, very few non-Christians deny evolution, but that is rather immaterial to whether or not it is true, as is that the majority of Christians accept it.
6) Much of the suggestion that evolutionists are skeptical of the theory is quote mining, taking quotes out of context, as the Sci Am article you quoted was notable for doing. (Not by SciAm itself, but by the Literal Creationists.) Evolutionists are scientists- therefore they are skeptical of *everything*, most especially anything having to do with science.
7) There's nothing that's absolutely true about evolution. It's science. See above. I don't like repeating myself.
8) You could as easily (more easily) say that literalism and God don't go hand in hand. But that wouldn't be true, of course, because the Muslims do it very nicely, thank you very much.
9) Actually, there is no indisputable evidence for *anything*. This is core to science. See above. To the extent that there is any good evidence for anything, yes, there is just as much for the theory of evolution as there is for the theory of a round Earth.
10) There is no scientific debate currently on if evolution is true. There is plenty of scientific debate on in what ways evolution is true. There is also non-scientific debate on if the world is flat.
11) Read your post. Can't convince you, if you have ears but do not hear and eyes but do not see.
12) No idea how many books on evolution I've read. I only started reviewing every book of evolution I read in late 2000. Google evolution and Palosaari. Can't speak for how many before that; there were too many.
13) Who told you I believe in evolution?
14) As to why I accept the truth of evolution, because A) God told me to, and B) because it's got good evidence for it.
15) As to what is so fascinating about it, it is perhaps the most intrinsically beautiful theory we presently have in science, and frankly, far too complex and intricate to have been come up with by anything but a deity. But that's just my opinion.
15) I presented you with evidence and resources, but you decided that you wouldn't call that evidence, and didn't feel like looking up the resources. I'm not going to hold you in front of a page, Greg, and make you read something.
16) No, you should change your mind because of the evidence. For that, see above.
17) You've either not read what I wrote, or just decided I was lying. Either way, there's no way I can convince you I've studied both sides, if you decide not to believe that, and once believed even as you do, till God showed me the light. I understand I don't fit your worldview. Perhaps I don't exist.

Greg August 3, 2009 at 9:09 PM  

**Your posit on Genesis therefore Jesus doesn't follow logic, even remotely.

Assuming you are talking about my statement that if you deny Genesis, you might as well deny Jesus... Why doesn't that make sense? Either the Bible is reliable or it isn't makes perfect sense. You can't pick and choose what you want from it. Either you can trust what it says, or you don't!

**Actually, very few non-Christians deny evolution, but that is rather...

Again, you give me no references. You must be attending the same Church that Obama attends. It depends on your definition of what a Christian is because most of the country calls themselves Christian, but they aren't. The Atheist in this country probably calls themselves Christian. However, Bible believing Christians do not accept the theory of evolution.

**Much of the suggestion that evolutionists are skeptical of the theory is quote mining, taking quotes out of context...

Of course, you are going to give me a reason why that evolutionist was quoted out of context. It would have been helpful to support your position if you quoted me the actual quote to show why it was taken out of context.

**There's nothing that's absolutely true about evolution...

Again, all you do is quote yourself with no references, and no evidence. If evolution is science, then give me something scientific to support your position because so far you have just given me a lot of hot air.

**Actually, there is no indisputable evidence for *anything*. This is core to science. See above. To the extent that there is any good evidence for anything...

Again you can't even give me one piece of evidence for believing in evolution. The more I talk to you, the more I realize why I am not an evolutionist.

**There is no scientific debate currently on if evolution is true. There is plenty of scientific ...

Again, you haven't been paying attention. People don't pay attention to someone who believes that the world is flat, but millions of people are Creationist. That is a big difference. Do I need to quote you debates between evolutionist and creationist? Why are their debates going on between evolutionist and creationist if there isn't a debate going on? You really need to use some common sense. You couldn't give me one scientist that believes that the earth is flat, but I can quote you a hundred of scientists that do not believe in evolution. So how can you say that there isn't a debate going on? You sound like Richard Dawkins who is a complete idiot. You probably read his book and just started quoting him. The guy rather believe in Aliens than God.

** As to why I accept the truth of evolution, because A) God told me to, and B) because it's got good evidence for it.

God told you to? Did he tell you that when you were on LSD? I have never heard any intelligent person claim that God told them that they evolved from Ape like humans. Again, you don't have any evidence and that is why you keep saying you have good evidence for it. The God told you to is almost like saying, “Satan made me do it.”

**As to what is so fascinating about it, it is perhaps the most ...

The theory is a Joke...

Whale evolution...what another Joke. You probably think that Whales had legs too?

We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it’s good, we know it is bad, but because there isn’t any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation …
–Professor Jerome Lejeune, in a lecture given in Paris
on March 17, 1985, translated by Peter Wilders

@bdul muHib August 9, 2009 at 1:04 PM  

Dear Greg:

Things aren't always as black and white as you describe.

Yes, on the internet, usually in conversation, people don't usually provide references. But there are crosses I don't feel like dying on, like trying to prove to you that most non-Christians (in the meaning of the non-religious) don't have an issue with evolution, as the point is rather too obvious and simultaneously not one I care much about.

However, though it would be a great boon indeed to attend with Obama, he's not a Quaker, so that wouldn't work out so well. I do agree with you, however, that most of those who call themselves Christian are not, and that is much of what my parent's ministry was based on, calling the Church to return to be the Church in truth.

Again, your statements defy logic. You state that Bible-believing Christians don't accept evolution, as if it were an axiom. It is not. Maybe the majority, maybe not. I could argue Catholics, but I have a feeling you deny their Christianity. But since I accept the Bible, and believe in it, and accept the truth of evolution, I alone disprove your dogmatic statement. Add then in a host of others who believe in the Bible and accept evolution, and the statement no longer has much weight at all.

The problem you have, Greg, is that you are unwilling to accept when the practitioners of the field tell you about their field. It's like complaining that an engineer is not giving you sources for every statement, when you ask him to describe engineering. I don't have the time to go through every single source and explain the basics of science to you, such as the lack of absolute truth in science, when you so clearly reject it, and it would require enough sources for you to go to four years of college to understand and see it all.

Greg, if I tell you that red is the finest colour in the world, and you respond that, "No, the Democrats are wrong," how is that helpful? In the same way, if I tell you that there is no scientific debate on if evolution is real, and you respond that there are plenty of debates between evolutionists and creationists, this in no way responds to my statement.

No, haven't read Dawkins yet, though I plan to, as it's good to read those you disagree with, I believe. And yes, I caught that you called me an idiot.

I understand that you are denying the power of the Holy Spirit and what he told me. I can't really speak in your defense on that. But I will affirm and not deny that Satan and God are not the same, and would encourage you to also support this affirmation.

The lecture by Jerome is correct- in science, you teach what you have until something better comes along. That is very well stated.

If you've never heard an intelligent person support the idea that God told them about evolution, may I submit that you should move in wider circles? It is easy for all of us to think that the world we see and interact with is the whole world. All of us need to learn that it is not.

I see it was a mistake to dialogue with you. When I provide you with well-meaning answers, you respond with insults and that "it's a joke".

Anonymous August 9, 2009 at 9:15 PM  

To think that three purported intermediary species prove a direct line from land mammals to whales which would have required many thousands, if not millions of steps is silly. These supposed "links" only demonstrate that there might be the possiblity of evolution. Generally speaking when DNA sequence is analyzed, the proposed DNA evolutionary sequence is in direct contradiction to the supposed evolutionary sequence presupposed from homologous elements. Therefore, if a mammal seems to be an intermediary after comparing similar anatomy, this does not "prove" evolution, or even relationship! It may simply "prove" an intelligent designer used the same element in multiple species.
As an analogy, wheels are found on cars, trucks, baby carriages and airplanes. All of these, while having homologous elements, were designed intelligently by engineers, and executed by mechanics. Similarly, there is no "evolution" in going from a 2008 to a 2009 Mercedes. It all requires thought, design, manufacturing changes, etc. Similar design is not sufficient to prove evolution.

@bdul muHib August 10, 2009 at 6:01 AM  

Well, anon, in point of fact, considering the dearth of fossils predicted by evolutionary theory since the beginning of the theory, three fossils would be more than enough to indicate a lineage. You may not be aware that they are looking at far more than the overall shape of the fossils, but at intricacies in every single bone. Indeed, paleontologists are so good at what they do, that most of the time, they can figure out what an animal eats, how old it was when it died, if it was male or female, where it lived, and what stresses it was under, and who it was related to- all from only a few teeth!

But in the case of the whales, we have nearly complete skeletons, and a good deal more than merely three. Indeed, there are now so many fossils for the Cetacean lineage that it is one of the best preserved and most complete fossil records we know of! It is perhaps comparable only to the depth of the fossil lineage of our own species. This is significant because for a long time, about a century, Literal Creationists not only predicted no fossil lineage for whales, but mocked scientists for lacking it. And in science, prediction is everything, when you're talking about a viable theory. This is why Intelligent Design remains far less than a theory- even by the admission of it's own proponents in the Discovery Institute.

But scientists long predicted that fossils would eventually be discovered for the whales, and the prediction came true, throughout the 90s and the Noughties. We actually have fossils for nearly every step of whale evolution. Now, of course, as the Greek Philosopher Zeno pointed out in the 5th Century BC, there is always going to be an intermediary step- we can always discover two fossils, and the Literal Creationists will cry out "Oh, where is the link between them?!" But that just begins to be ridiculous.

@bdul muHib August 10, 2009 at 6:10 AM  

And remember, fossils are *never* (or 99% of the time) actual ancestors. Again, evolutionary theory predicts that ancestors are not discovered in fossils, because fossils are simply too rare. What we find are Great (x10 to the 1000th) Uncles or Cousins, not actually grandfathers.

Now, sadly, once again, most Literal Creationist websites are *way* behind the ball. So you'll often find their websites speaking of things like only three ancestors, speaking against the situation of the Cetacean fossil record before the 90s, which they loved to mock. In otherwords, they continue to mock the science from two decades ago! But science is incredibly fast and progressing. Unlike the humanities, a book published in science from 10 years ago is now out of date. I showed this rather dramatically (to toot my own horn) in my review of that rather horribly written book, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". I did an analysis of every date listed in the 85 edition. (There is a more recent edition, but there are few new sources in the recent edition.) The *average* source date, including references to the Origin of the Species and responding documents, was actually 1912! And most of the sources in the book were from around 1965! Needless to say, this well explains the lack of basic science in that book. Sadly, this isn't a unique case in the world of Literal Creationism. Scientists talk about what they know today, and the Literal Creationists respond to their arguments and evidence from twenty years ago.

A couple additional notes. Nearly every time, when the DNA is analyzed, it corresponds to the fossil record. I know there is misinformation out there, but it simply isn't true. In the exceedingly rare cases where it doesn't match up, the paleontologists or geneticists go back to the drawing board to see where they messed up. Indeed, one of the strongest lines of evidence for evolution is how well the various lines of evidence in completely separate fields (ecology, genetics, paleontology, geology, astronomy, biochemistry...) all predict the same general and specific results. And again, we find the same thing with whale evolution, with the genetic codes indicating the similarities between whales and their ancestors and relatives, closely following the fossil record.

@bdul muHib August 10, 2009 at 6:10 AM  

Now, as to your proposal for Intelligent Design and Multiple Creation Events, I would counsel carefulness here. I'm totally switching tracks, and recognize that I have no idea where your religious sensibilities may lie. For I'm speaking only for the Christian belief system. Such an idea, that God created multiple times, flies in the face of all we know of the miraculous from the Bible. Jesus is regularly very clear that miracles are a sign, and not just done willy-nilly. To be a sign, the one observing must have the awareness to be able to interpret the sign. If one is positing the miraculous at that stage, there is no one with that level of awareness able to perceive and appreciate the sign- just some lizards and hooved mammals and fish. While it could occur, theoretically, it would be contrary to everything God teaches us about miracles in the Bible.

Additionally, if God is creating repeatedly throughout time, one would expect him to do so today. Yet we have never seen any evidence of the Q-style flash-of-light creation event- none at all. This would then imply a dispensationalist heresy that he was creating like that but has now stopped.

Thirdly, if he is using this method, one is forced to ask why he would do so. It implies that the original creation wasn't that good. But perhaps the animals need to merely adapt to a changing environment? If so, well, then we have evolution. But the difference is that with this ID proposal, God is having to step in. It's a lot more simple. In the case of evolution, it is a gradual adaptation, and a good deal more complex. What I'm trying to say is that the ID proposal ultimately suggests a rather weak God, who isn't capable of creating a complex system of co-creation that forms creatures over billions of years. And for my money, I prefer a God who is capable of more than just snapping his fingers every time something goes awry.

Again, these last three arguments are purely theological and in no way scientific, and I recognize that if you aren't a Christian they really wouldn't apply to you.

Greg August 10, 2009 at 5:35 PM  

@bdul muHib,

Okay, I understand a little more where you are coming from now that my brother Andy told me a little bit about you. Just because you are in the field of science doesn’t make your science true. I realize that I am not an expert in science. I am in the field of computer science however. But, I don’t have to be a Biologist, or a Chemist to see the flaws in the theory of evolution. You might have a point if there wasn’t any scientist that believed in my point of view, but there are. In fact, there are hundreds of Creationist all around the world. How do you justify being a Bible believing Christian if you can’t believe in creation as told in the Bible? I realize that there have been many Christians trying to compromise Gods word inventing theories such as the Gap Theory and the Day Aged Theory, but those theories requires a lot of Bible manipulation. This is the same thing that cults do. They twist the Bible to fit with their idea of God instead of getting their idea of God from reading the Bible. You say that you have been studying evolution for 25 years and that might be true, but it is obvious that you have never looked at Creationism.

Andy shared with me that you refused to have an open debate or discussion while you were teaching at his school, and that he lent you two books to read which you didn’t do even though you had the books for months. You lent him two books as well, and he actually did read them. You stated that "Creation" and "Intelligent Design" isn’t science. Of course, I already know you believe that. Why don’t you believe in Intelligent Design? Don’t you have to believe in Intelligent Design to be a theistic evolutionist? If you believe in the Bible, don’t you believe that God created anything? Why should I accept what a practitioner in the field believes when he is totally wrong? There is nothing you are going to be able to say to me that will convince me in evolution just like there isn’t anything I could say to you to convince you. You don’t want to know the truth so you rather get your Theology from Atheists such as Dawkins, and Steven Jay Gould. Both of them are Atheists, but yet you want to use their material to support your Theistic view point which is ridiculous. You refuse to look at both sides even though you had the perfect opportunity. Andy has looked at both sides even reading the books you gave him. I have also read many books by Atheists such as H.G. Wells and a few others.

Again @bdul, in your other posts demonstrates your lack of understanding of the Bible. Why do you call dispensationalism a heresy? You call it that because you lack the understanding of the Bible. You don’t believe that God worked differently at the time of Christ? In the Old Testament, the Jews had to sacrifice a lamb, do they still do that? No! That is because Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. That is dispensationalism. God isn’t working today the same way he did in the days of the Bible…except of course telling you that evolution is true.

All I can say is that you have been completely brainwashed by the secular humanist. The Atheists have infiltrated the Christian Church convincing Christians to compromise their faith with Atheistic view points. That is actually pretty scary to me.

@bdul muHib August 10, 2009 at 6:26 PM  


Well, as Andy consistently never really got to know me, if he's your source, you do not understand where I'm coming from.

I thought he was your brother-in-law?

As for the scientists who believe in Literal Creationism, I've already addressed that above.

I'm a Creationist, lest you forget. I agree, there are hundreds, thousands, of scientists, but more to the point, biologists (for it doesn't really matter if one is a chemist, et.al., on this issue) who are creationists. They also happen to be evolutionists.

How do you justify ignoring the authors' intents in Genesis by interpreting those passages literally?

Yes, you're right, the concept of a Gap Theory or a Day Age Theory require manipulating the Bible, as do an Old Earth Theory, which is why I reject them all. Now, I embraced all those possibilities at one point, long ago, but I've already mentioned that.

I guess you're just accusing me of lying then, since I quite clearly told you I was a Literal Creationist for my first 20 some years of life.

Actually, I refused to debate Andy because we were in an authority-driven culture, and I didn't want to speak against him in public, and knew also that students would tend to give him authority regardless of what he said (which was later born out in practice) simply because of his position. Andy knew this.

No, he lent me one book. He then decided on his own that I didn't read it. I pointed out to him that I had read it, and discussed it with him. I declined his offer of another book as I already owned it, which I told him at the time (a couple times), and read the second book. He then went around claiming that I refused to read those books or borrow them from him. Since then he has repeatedly slandered me with these claims that I have not read the books. I say slander because initially, it is a mistaken impression (judgmental and assuming, certainly, but mistaken) to say someone hasn't read a book. It's lying when that person points out that they did indeed read it and discuss it with the individual, and yet you still continue to declare that they haven't read it, and go around telling people that they haven't read it. At a certain point it can become actionable slander.

As far as I know, I lent him one book, but it could have been two. I recall being disappointed with his take on the book, but that of course would be because of our difference of opinion. I was personally rather horrified with the lack of basic science and reasoning in the book he lent me, but I went into great detail on that book in my review on Amazon.

I will begin at the beginning, since you seem to be unaware of basics. "intelligent design" is the belief that God is intelligent and he designed the universe. Many of us have been quite happy to use that phrase for years, embracing that fact. Recently, a group headed by the Discovery Institute has coopted the phrase, such that there is now "Intelligent Design", meaning something much more specific, namely that God stepped in at times when things were too irreducibly complex. Now, the dirty little secret is that, while ID is a form of Literal Creationism, it doesn't fit with Old Earth or Young Earth Creationism, and in fact is diametrically opposed to them, for ID allows for evolution in most cases, and in fact encourages it.

I don't accept ID because, as it's supporters affirm, it has no evidence to support it at this point. Please remember- I know I've said it a few times before, so one would think you'd get it- I don't believe in evolution either.

Again, to repeat myself, again, as I've said numerous times, I'm a creationist. But so that you might know, I stopped beating my wife last week.

"Why should you accept a practitioner in the field when they are totally wrong?" Was this a statement intended to elicit humor? Why not ask, "Why should you accept a practitioner in the field when they are the spawn of Satan?"

@bdul muHib August 10, 2009 at 6:27 PM  

Yes, I'm glad you're finally reading and remembering what I said. I said earlier a few times that there is nothing I could say to convince you about evolution. There's probably nothing you could say to convince me because I'm already converted from the place where you once were, having looked at both sides so extensively.

Well, since I already mentioned I haven't read Dawkins, you are A) again accusing me of lying, or B) again refusing to read what I write. If A, why bother writing to me? If B, why should I bother continuing to write here?

Since I already mentioned numerous time that I used to be a Literal Creationist, your statement that I refuse to look at both sides implies either A or B, see above.

Actually, Andy read the book I gave him, but refused to actually look into it. Of course, he could say the same thing about me and how I read the books, were he to be honest and admit that I read them.

What you describe isn't actually dispensationalism, but no matter. To say that God is not the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and not working the same way he was in the "days of the Bible", yes, Greg, that is a heresy. But we all have our own private heresies; I don't judge your eternal salvation over that or anything.

I know you are scared. This drives you in everything you do. But John shows us that hate is not the opposite of love; fear is.

Greg August 11, 2009 at 12:21 PM  

No, Andy is my brother and of course Andy will be my source. You were the science teacher at his school. I have never met you in person, but he has. All I am saying is what he told me about you since he actually new you, and what is it with science teachers to be so into Evolution. There is another science teacher that has a whole blog about evolution, though I don't think he is a Christian. You know @bdul muHib, you might be a really nice guy, but I just don't get your Theology. I honestly don't understand why you are so into Evolution when you are a Christian. You are completely against the idea that God created things with a purpose and that he used his Intelligence to design our complex bodies, and you get your source from Atheists. That seriously makes absolutely no sense to me. What kind of church did you come from anyway? Did your church teach this type of Theology? You never found conflict with your views on Evolution and the Bible?

So when you say that you are a Creationist, you mean that you believe that God created everything, and then left the world to evolve. So instead of creating things perfectly as the Bible describes, he just created the cells and let evolution take over. Correct? So you don't believe that our cells are that complex? You do know that our cells are about a million times more complex than what Darwin thought?

Greg August 11, 2009 at 12:21 PM  

Not all biologist are Evolutionist. There are many Biologists with PH'ds in Biology that are Young Earth Creationist. I can give you scientists in all fields of science that are Creationist. I have already mentioned many on my blog. If a Biologist can get over their evolutionary bias and realize that the cell is to complex to evolve by random mutations, they will become a Creationist.

There was a time when most Scientist were creationist and the tide has turned not because of scientific facts, but by Atheistic influence. But again, Bible believing Christians will never be in the majority. If most Biologist don't believe in Creation, that is okay. They have no proof or evidence to support their theory, but yet they believe it. They have never demonstrated macro evolution in a labratory, but yet they still believe it. 99% of mutations are bad mutations, but yet they still believe that mutations will give rise to intelligence.

I rather stick with the Bible, which has always turned out to be correct, than with false science. The Bible talks about the world being round when people though it was flat. The Bible talks about the world being destroyed by fire and after we entered the nuclear age, people stopped laughing. The Bible describes the world being created in 6 days, and one day, people will stop laughing.

"How do you justify ignoring the authors' intents in Genesis by interpreting those passages literally?"
Now this statement makes no sense. You can talk to any Rabbi, and they will tell you that this is a literal statement. What makes you say that it isn't literal? When you read Ezekiel, Revelation, and Daniel and read the visions they had, there are statements that tell you that the vision needs to be interpreted. Genesis doesn't say that. Genesis is an account of Creation and there is no passage that says it shouldn't be taken literal. Why would the author write a book about Creation as a metaphore? That doesn't make any sense. When Ezekiel is talking about the future, it makes sense to interpret what he is saying because he doesn't understand what he sees. But, when the book of Genesis is talking about what has already happened, there is no need for interpretation. Why don't we say that Jesus dying on the cross was a metaphore, or how about him rising from the dead? Do you believe that he rose from the dead? You don't believe in Creationism, but you believe that Jesus rose from the dead. What else will you call a metaphore?

So you said you were a literal Creationist for 20 years and something happened to change that. So what happened again? God told you that evolution was true? Exactly how did he do that? Was it because you started to study science and was brainwashed by the Atheistic, Secular professors that believe in evolution? I have taken many science courses in my studies as well but luckly I new enough to withstand the evolutionary brainwashing.

I know all about ID by the way. That is why I don't hold to their view either. They do believe in an old earth, but believe that man is to complex to have evolved. They do have a lot of issues with their theory, and Young Earth Creationist is a much more solid view point.

Anyway @bdul muHib, maybe someday you will realize the truth of the Bible. There are many Atheists who use to be Christians, and many people in cults that use to be Christian, and many people who believe in Evolution that use to be Creationist. Apparently some Atheist got a hold of you and convinced that their theory is true.

I am not going to believe it until they can demonstrate it in a labratory. I will be the first person in line to become an Evolutionist when they can mutate a cat into a dog. Or maybe more realistically, when they can breed two different species and create a new one. That might convince me.

@bdul muHib August 11, 2009 at 3:20 PM  

Actually, I wasn't questioning that Andy was your source. I was expressing that I was confused, for I had thought he was your brother-in-law. Andy didn't actually get to know me, as was seen numerous times in our interactions, for the same reason that you probably have found yourself when sitting down with him, for I know numerous others have also found this: the many private debates we had consisted of my sitting in his room, listening, unable to get a word in edgewise, while he shared his beliefs. Thus you were quite correct earlier: he and I have never really had any debates- but for wholly different reasons.

I am into evolution because I find it beautiful. I find it a better revelation of God's existence than nearly anything else I've found. I'm into it because I love biology. (For I recognize that, those not into biology, wherever they might stand on the theory, wouldn't be into it.) There really is no other scientific theory out there that is so whole and intrinsic, so complete and expansive, so well supported, so nearly perfect.

Who told you that I was against the idea that God created things with a purpose and that he used his intelligence to design our complex bodies? I know it wasn't me, since I've stated the opposite a few times here.

Why do you insist on regularly ascribing beliefs to me that are the opposite of what I've stated here?

I'm curious to know which of the sources I've listed here are from atheists. I'm not saying some aren't, but I don't remember telling you any sources that were, and since most of my sources on the matter of evolutionary theology are Christian, that would be odd indeed. Not that there's anything wrong with atheists as scientific sources, because one's theology can be off but their science is good, just as I don't need my doctor, my car mechanic, or my banker to be a Christian to know they will do a good job.
It is, however, an important qualification in my pastor.

I grew up in the Jesus Movement. Our beliefs on this issue weren't codified, as we didn't really care about it (as indeed most Americans don't as well), but, as I've said to you numerous times, I believed in Literal Creationism at that point. So, no, I never found conflict at that time with my beliefs and the Bible- it was only later that I did, which helped me on the road to accepting the truth of evolution.

"So when you say that you are a Creationist, you mean that you believe that God created everything, and then left the world to evolve."

No, I don't. Augustine didn't go far enough on the predestination bandwagon, imo.

"So instead of creating things perfectly as the Bible describes, he just created the cells and let evolution take over. Correct?"

No. Why wouldn't evolution also take part in the formation of cells, and the origin of life also take place by the natural laws God put in place?

Actually, the Hebrew in the 1st Genesis Story doesn't say "perfect". It says good/very good. And the ID hypothesis, which you love so much, also, again, posits that the initial attempt wasn't perfect, and God has to keep on intervening. The difference between this and the theory of evolution is that the latter has a mechanism and a reason for a continual creation, and allows for God to set up a nearly perfect system for that creation, explaining how what we perceive as imperfect is actually part of a perfect system.

@bdul muHib August 11, 2009 at 3:21 PM  

But Greg, this is the fatal theological flaw in both ID and Literal Creationism. It argues God as watchmaker, rather than God as creator. It is removed and machine-like. God is an intimate creator (as the 2nd Genesis Story shows), deeply involved in his creation at every point. Thus he can no more just let evolution take over than he can create everything and step back from the process of creation. No! He is intimate in his creation in every moment, he is panentheistic. Any more than he is not at every moment involved in the Law of Gravity, yet the law operates according to its precepts, can he be uninvolved in the process of evolution and creation, yet they operate under the precepts he laid down from the beginning.

"So you don't believe that our cells are that complex?"

Who told you I don't? But of course, not in that superscillious "irreducibly complex" manner of Behe, which Miller so convincingly refuted. Complexity is not destroyed when we understand the manner in which it was formed; rather, it is only enhanced, if one's pursuit of biology is an act of worship. But you said "that complex". I think by this you mean too complex for God to use evolution to create. I submit my God is bigger than that, and there is nothing too complex for him to form- even something as complex as the process of evolution!

"You do know that our cells are about a million times more complex than what Darwin thought?"

So? Why do I care? DNA hadn't been discovered and genetics not rediscovered from Mendel in Darwin's day. Of course it was more complex than Darwin thought, and far more complex than we realize today, since science is continually in a process of discovery. Darwin had limited light microscopes and no electron microscopes. Of course he didn't understand the full complexity of the cell!

I have not yet read your second comment, and go to that now.

@bdul muHib August 12, 2009 at 5:58 AM  

Greg, you are quite correct- there are biologists who are Evolution Deniers. An extreme minority, but they do exist. For instance, consider Behe, who (in part) denies evolution, yet has published some good papers on cellular biochemistry. Again, scientists in other fields are rather immaterial, though there numbers are small, because science today is an extreme specialty, and no one really cares what a physicist thinks of the theory of evolution.

"If a Biologist can get over their evolutionary bias and realize that the cell is to complex to evolve by random mutations, they will become a Creationist."

Well, true, but they would become an IDist, and therefore rejecting OEC and YEC Literal Creationism.

"There was a time when most Scientist were creationist and the tide has turned not because of scientific facts, but by Atheistic influence. "

Well, if you want to argue that many 19th century Christian leaders were lead astray by atheism, including, as I said, the founders of Fundamentalism, then I'll accept your reasoning.

Macroevolution is a Literal Creationist buzzword. To the extent it is used in science (rarely), it means something different. And yes, we have repeatedly demonstrated it in the lab.

Really, Greg? The Bible has always been correct? "These three are one, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit..."? I know, you will say, "See, we found out the error- it shows the correctness of the Bible." Yes, after some 16 centuries. What other errors might there then be that we have not yet found? But I agree with you- the Bible is always correct. Just not always literally so.

"The Bible talks about the world being round when people though it was flat."

Actually, you can find as many verses arguing it is flat- and that's what the Church did for a long time. But this is the Islamic way of treating their holy book. Christians have a different method of exegesis.

"The Bible describes the world being created in 6 days"

This is true. In the 1st Genesis Story.

"You can talk to any Rabbi, and they will tell you that this is a literal statement."

Actually, not that the percentage of rabbis matter much, but the vast majority of rabbis and Jews accept evolution and believe Genesis to be a myth and metaphor. Only the ultraorthodox have an issue with it, and only some of them.

When you get some training in textual analysis, as Lewis had, you begin to see how it reads as myth- unlike, say, Genesis 12 on. Please don't misunderstand and think myth means that it is false.

@bdul muHib August 12, 2009 at 5:59 AM  

"Why would the author write a book about Creation as a metaphor?"

For many reasons, chief among them that the Ancients had different concepts of both time and truth than we do today. I know it's frustrating for us Moderns, but we dare not impose our own cultural values on them and thus do injustice to God's holy word.

Please. The Slippery Slope argument where if anything is metaphor than the whole thing is metaphor is just so much red herring- and a rather tired argument, to boot. Tell me, do you interpret the parables literally, or do you also believe that Jesus' death was a myth?

Greg, reading the Bible is more than just looking for literal indicators of how to read it. It is also looking at the cultural and literary contexts, to see how the authors intended it to be read. Again, we don't have a Qur'an, transmitted directly from God as a voice from Heaven. We have a large number of works and parts of works transmitted through inspiration (and occasionally a voice from Heaven) and the authors' individual cultures. In my opinion that makes ours a superior work, but it also makes it a good deal more complex.

Twenty years ago- Actually, through Intervarsity I learned how to read the Bible with respect to the context, and started to realize not everything should be interpreted literally through eisegesis, but rather through exegesis. I started to realize how often the folks like Morris and Ross that I had long followed had misled or even lied to me. How much Literal Creationism again and again was bending over backwards to make something work. Only after all that, was I able to look at the evidence for evolution literally in biology classes- as my professors can attest, to their chagrin. It was only after God straightened out my Biblical understanding that he could straighten out my scientific understanding. And I think this is a general rule in these cases, for we hold the Bible too dearly to do otherwise. God had to first cleanse me of the Morris brainwashing before I could see the Light. (Though I wouldn't for a moment actually correlate Morris actions with real brainwashing, accept rhetorically, since the latter is something too horrible and real.)

Actually, the IDists are rather split on if humans didn't evolve. They believe women didn't, but their not sure about men.

I know you have this deep and abiding distrust of anyone who isn't Christian, but again, as I've said before, I have to ask you- which atheist was it who got ahold of me?

"I am not going to believe it until they can demonstrate it in a labratory. "

No, even if someone rises from the dead, you still will not believe. Even though it has been demonstrated in the laboratory, you still will not believe. But again, this portrays a deep misunderstanding of basic science- albeit a popular one. Science only sometimes takes place in the laboratory. Postdiction and retrodiction are also very real methods in science. Perhaps like the IDists, you'd like to overturn all of basic science as well as evolution, but understand what you are doing.

"I will be the first person in line to become an Evolutionist when they can mutate a cat into a dog. Or maybe more realistically, when they can breed two different species and create a new one."

And since a cat turning into a dog and two different species breeding and creating a new one before our eyes would run contrary to everything evolution teaches, this in turn would very likely convince me that evolution was false, were I to see it.

@bdul muHib August 13, 2009 at 9:15 AM  

You may find this interesting, and I mean that- an article recently on Sojourners, from 7/22, when I was overseas, on the problems with Biblical Literalism. http://blog.sojo.net/2009/07/22/taking-the-bible-seriously-if-not-always-literally/ I thought it apropo for our discussion.

Greg August 13, 2009 at 10:43 AM  

"Tell me, do you interpret the parables literally, or do you also believe that Jesus' death was a myth?"

First, Jesus death wasn't a parable. I am the one asking you these types of questions of you. I believe in the Bible, but you are the one that picks and chooses what you want to believe. You believe in evolution, so you say that the 6 days of creation is a metaphore even though there isn't any Biblical evidence to even remotely suggest that.

I know how to read the Bible. You are the one that is confused. You have two religions. Your first religion is evolution and your second religion is Christianity. But, if Christianity contradicts your evolutionary religion, then you override the Christianity teaching an declare that passage a parable or metaphore. Like I said before, you need to read the Bible and get your teachings from the Bible. You do the same thing that cults do and that is you have a preconceived idea of what is true (evolution), and you manipulate the Bible to fit your pre-conceived idea even though there isn't anything in the Bible that remotely suggests that. I mean, if Jesus was the Son of God and evolution were true, don't you think that just maybe Jesus might of mentioned that. Instead of Jesus teaching that God created everything, maybe Jesus might of mentioned that we evolved. But since evolution isn't true, and God created man, Jesus didn't talk about it.

I am not going to say much more about ID since I really don't agree with them anyway. I think that the ID people are also compromising. They believe in intelligent creation, but don't necessarily apply that to God. And Yes, Global Warming is also a myth and false science. You really do believe what ever people tell you, don't you? You openly embrace all of the science out there no matter how stupid it is. The idea that whales had feet is laughable to me. By the way, you do know that 30 years ago people believe in Global Cooling. All the scientist were screaming, "The new Ice Age is coming" and now they are screaming about a heat wave. People shouldn't get all up in arms about the Earth changing its temperature. It is a proven fact that many of the holes in our ozone layer have now closed which would mean that it is a normal process.

Anyway @bdul,

You must be obsessed with this. Okay, you worship the theory of evolution, who cares. I get it. I post one time, and you post 10 which tells me that this is all you are thinking about. I don't know why you are so obsession with Andy either. You haven't seen him for 4 years, but yet you are searching for him on the Internet so you can argue with him about evolution. I think you didn't debate him because you didn't want him to crush you. Creationist tend to win debates and that is because Creationist have the evidence. http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Creation_Scientists_Tend_to_Win_the_Creation-Evolution_Debates

You aren't going to convince me of the theory of evolution. This is a free country so you could believe what ever you want. And after you die, you will find the truth. You really should look at that source that told you that evolution is true though. It most likely was Satan in disquise.

Good luck with your religion. I hope it satisifes you...

@bdul muHib August 13, 2009 at 3:07 PM  

Wow, Greg. You really do have trouble understanding basic facts and replacing them with assumptions, don't you?

Let's see...Yes, I'm obsessed with Jesus. Yes, I love my field of study and spend a good deal of time on it. Yes, as did the Early Church when responding to heresy and forming its theology in response, so repeated attacks from Andy and others a few years ago on this matter made me look more deeply into evolutionary theology, which I then found fascinating, and so I am therefore actually grateful to Andy for his earlier attacks.

You are correct, that Jesus' death wasn't a parable. I am glad that you caught on to what I was saying, and now understand better. I'm glad you saw the irony, too, that the very same questions you asked could be directed at you.

I know you don't like to read what other people write, and rather put your own words into their mouths. I know I've said it about ten times prior in this thread alone. But so you don't get to crow to your friends than you got me to say it: No, I still don't believe in evolution. Those are your words, not mine. I know what you are doing, and it's an old ploy, and frankly, I'd respect you more in the morning if you were at least a little imaginative in your sneakiness.

You know how to read the Bible? Good. Even the demons believe, and shudder. (Couldn't resist.) Exactly what evidence do we have that you know how to read the Bible? I know we have evidence to the contrary, but for your proposition- simply your assertion? I'm sure that's enough.

I could equally say- more equally say, to be oxymoronic- that your first religion is the late 19th century American invention of Biblical Literalism, and when that contradicts the living Spirit of God, you go with that instead.

We all need to read the Bible, and get our teachings from the Spirit, lest we elevate the Bible into an idol itself. We are not Muslim, you and I.

No...I would have no expectation that Jesus would mention evolution, any more than that he would mention Atomic Theory or Germ Theory or Cell Theory. One, he wasn't on about that stuff, and two, he wouldn't know about it, as his omniscience on Earth was quite obviously limited. However, this line of thinking, suggesting that everything true is in the holy book, is, again, very Islamic.

You honestly may be happier and more intellectually fulfilled with that faith.

You aren't going to say much about ID, except that you have, many times, using the arguments that come from IDists, just as Andy did. And actually, all the IDists do apply their hypothesis to God- just not in public always. And not all of them to the Christian conception of God, of course.

We covered the Global Warming bit, but since I pointed out the same trend in reasoning, I assume, by your lack of response, that you also reject the HIV link with AIDS. You really do reject everything scientific don't you- as long as people tell you to? But, in case you're not getting it, that would be just as hypperbolic as what you suggested of me.

But if by science you use the standard definition of something thoroughly researched and determined through experiment and retrodiction, then, yes, I openly embrace all the science out there no matter how seemingly counter-intuitive it is.

Actually, Greg, whales have feet. Your tense is off.

@bdul muHib August 13, 2009 at 3:08 PM  

Oh.my.word. You're still embracing that old canard about Global Cooling? My word. I know I already posted this, but since you don't bother to read evidence the first time you're given it, see http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/07/its-all-about-s.html There was no Global Cooling period. The vast majority of scientific articles on climate predicted warming - even back then. Those that predicted cooling reversed themselves. The trend in cooling that happened for a few years has now been shown to because of aerosols, e.g. the Ozone Hole, now beginning to close, because we stopped using those aerosols, and therefore stopped any downward trend in temperature. Of course, it was discovered long ago that aerosols wouldn't be enough to stop future global warming, and so you're right- it's a completely natural event, where humans realize their mistakes, correct them, and there begins to be some small reversal in nature.

So, while I recognize that you demand of me to give up much of my time to respond to you with extensive source sites, and then mock me when I don't (though, of course, as I've said numerous time, I did, and you chose to ignore them), no, I don't have more time to give to your demands. But convenient of you to then turn around and claim I'm spending too much time responding to you!

Actually, you may be new to Blogger, but it limits the space for each comment, and hence requires more than one post. It's easy to post falsehoods and half-truths; Greg, it takes much more space to respond with truth. But even so, I wouldn't have responded to the other articles, if I hadn't found out that you were attacking me in one of your other blog posts (though, to your credit, not by name). Oh, and one post was just to be nice by sending you an article I thought you'd find interesting. Silly me.

Nor would I have bothered to respond here as much, if you had not repeated the slanders that Andy has repeatedly made against me over the past three (not four- get your facts straight) years. Yes, when someone attacks me directly, I will respond with more force. You betchya.

But nice trying to cover up that you didn't even begin to respond to my points! Literal Creationists win arguments indeed. :-) I suppose it's by engaging in shouting matches with loyal followers. When in writing, evidently, they just don't bother to respond, and complain alternatively that their opponents are responding too little and too much.

Actually, and here's the interesting part, on a whim, for the first time in three years, I did a search for him, and came up with your site (and only your site). I was shocked he was repeating the same errors I'd heard before years earlier, and responded. I was much more shocked to hear you channel him in the slanders on my name. I would have kind of thought that, just as I think little of him, he thinks little of me. I should have known better, from all I hear from others of his attacks on me.

I'm sorry. Did you just quote from something called Conservapedia? Is this supposed to be a joke?

Yes, as I've said many times above, I won't convince you. I know you don't read what I write, but I'm glad you are at least agreeing with me.

Yes, I recognize that you reject the Holy Spirit's work.

I know that I won't convince you, or even get you to read what I write or look at the sources, much less actually consider my arguments. But it is my hope that, provided you don't delete these comments, which you have every right to, as after all it's your blog, others who come here will see some modicum of the truth.

  © Blogger template Palm by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP