Speaking about evolution/creation.

I just finished watching the first video (over 43 min. long). The following are some initial thoughts.

There's at least one problem with the math in the section on the miller-urey experiment: namely the trial and error over 13.5b years was calculated doing the combinations one at a time. I think any one who can think of how many amino acid molecules can fit in an ocean, would give a "hey, wait a minute" to that statistic.

The discussion in the comments section of this video show the difficulty of dealing with this topic.

If I were to shape an apologetic, it would go something like this:

I would talk about the difference between fact and interpretation of fact. Since evolution, as the transformation of a generational line of one species into another, has never been observed directly, it can only be posited as an interpretation of observed facts. Science has had many theories to explain facts over the centuries, some of these are still accepted to this day, and others have been overturned by theories that explain the facts better.

Evolution is the currently accepted way of interpreting discoveries in biology, geology and paleontology (etc.), but does that mean it is the only possible, or even the best way of interpreting those facts?

Further, no scientific has shown that the universe was not created. To suggest then that the universe was not created because it doesn't fit with current scientific theory puts faith in scientists in the same way Christians put their faith in God.

But apologetics is rarely effective means of evangelism.

Instead, I would try to talk with the person as a person. Only the Holy Spirit can change a heart and mind (which is why apologetics can't!). So, if He's at work in someone's life, I would pray for guidance in the discussion and try to find that place in the person's life where the Spirit is beginning to work. It may be in a marriage or family relationship, or a major health issue, etc. Since the Spirit seems to be attracted to chaos (Gen 1:2), He can often be found in those areas of someone's life that seems most out of control. Then prayerfully invite the person to talk about what's going on, and if they feel any hope, or assurance. Ask to pray with the person (most will accede). Let the Spirit convince the heart and the mind will follow.

(Note: this process can take weeks to years.)

Our hope, whether as pastors or non-ordained believers, isn't in out-sciencing the scientists. Our hope is in God's grace, through Jesus, applied to us by the Spirit. Let's stick to what we're good at!

Richard, you have made several good points.   First, about sticking to what we're good at;  perhaps you are right, but we should remember that Darwin was trained in bachelor regular degree as precursor to being a parson, not as a scientist.   And then, the claim of Ian Juby, robotics engineer, Dr. Carl Baugh, Dr. Austin, Dr. Jerry Bergman(two science PHDs and several master degrees), and other scientists, is that evolutionists are not practicing good science when they extrapolate or theorize about evolution.   So that makes sticking to what you are good at a bit of a conundrum. 

I think you are right that apologetics is rarely an effective means of evangelism.   But that doesn't mean it can't be useful, particularly in removing barriers to evangelism.   Just like offering cookies and conversation to someone who needs a relationship with a Christian, so apologetics can assist in reducing intellectual barriers to receiving and understanding who God is, particularly for scientists.  

There is also a great deal of difficulty in convincing people that they are sinners in need of the grace of God, if (a) god is random, or randomness is god, (b) if sin is merely evolutionary principles at work (c) if what we see is all there is (d) if there is a god, then he created death, competition, survival and all the associated behaviours so how could any of it be sin.  (e) if we are merely more sophisticated animals than the simple amoeba. 

As far as the math of amino acids is concerned, of course you are right, there is much room for many amino acids both in the sea and on land, and in fact there are billions and trillions of amino acids present there today, contained of course in dna and proteins and living organisms.  The fact that there is room anywhere, such as in space, say on Mars, or Jupiter or between the planets and stars is not really the issue.   After all, they do not exist there, even though there is lots of space.   The issue is for them to form first,  and then combine randomly by chance under random conditions, into useable amino acids which also have to combine randomly into proteins, which then have to randomly combine and form into organisms.  The stated odds of this happening were just for one simply protein.   Developing all the required proteins for simple life would have been vastly even less likely.  

Then these organisms had to have an environment that didn't kill them, which is different than the environment that they would have spontaneously developed in.  And it would have had to happen in a lot less than 13 billion years, since all the further evolution would have had to happen subsequently.  

And in spite of the great difficulty of randomly arriving at even a simple amino acid, or a simple protein, this still pales in comparison to arriving at an actual organism with all its many requirements for DNA replication and repair mechanisms, as well as all the concommitant necessary parts of even the simple single cell, and having that organism change into another organism in sequences to develop into the huge variety of species we have today, and having that happen randomly.   In addition, there are all the biological mechanisms present today for preventing that from happening, which would also have to be overcome, reducing the possibility  even further. 

The point is not only about the high improbability, but that basing science on such high improbabilities is not really science, but blind faith.   Any normal science that looked at something with such a high improbability, would normally postulate and conclude that it would not happen in that way.  

This video is just arguing a bit from credibility, from authority, along with some supporting evidence.   Ian Juby has another 24 free videos on you-tube dealing with issues such as radiometric dating of rocks and fossils, biogenesis requirements, various fossil combinations, hydroplate theory, sedimentary and igneous rock, Mount St. Helen's, flume sedimentation experiments showing cross bedding, etc., etc.   The point is he is doing this from a science perspective.   This  is more relevant to those who use their five senses to look at nature and observe and make conclusions about what they see.   For someone involved in science, it is like offering them cookies and coffee, or inviting them for dinner. 

John, my comment about sticking to what we're good at is directed at me and others who aren't scientists.

I was a philosophy major at Calvin in the mid to late 70's, so I guess I'm qualified to deal with the logic of the arguments, and that's what led me to comment on the statistical probability claim in the video, which seemed to be missing an important element (number of molecules being compiled) in the argument. However, I'm not enough of a scientist to suggest how many numbers of amino acid molecules an ocean might reasonably contain (or if the ocean is the best place to  combine the molecules) to adjust the argument.

I do know (and this wasn't mentioned in this video, but another one, that the Miller-Urey experiment was later proved invalid, since scientists now claim that hydrogen, being light, would not remain in the atmosphere long enough to be available for the conditions duplicated in the text (saw that on another video - Lee Strobels, The Case for a Creator). But again, since I'm not a scientist, I'm not qualified to verify the veracity of that claim either.

I do agree that, as a non-scientist, scientists seem to make a jump from observation to interpretation that parallels a heretic doing bad exegesis. It seems to me like a conclusion in search of evidence, rather than the other way around. I say "it seems to me" because I don't go to the symposiums, don't read the papers or journals, and only know what I pick up here and there and from watching nature-type shows on Discovery, National Geographic channel, and occassionaly PBS.

I guess an outside observer, such as me, can legitimately ask questions and raise suspicions about how they got their conclusions based on what seems like flimsy evidence. But if I ask the question, I'd better be ready to spend time trying to understand the answer. Perhaps a video like this would be a good basis for a discussion, but I suspect that a scientist committed to his/her world-view would spend more time picking apart the science, than dealing with the basic questions of how one can definitively exclude theism based on mere probability (if the probability is even there).

Since I'm not a scientist, but a pastor, I would approach such a person pastorally. Further, as a committed Christian, I believe in both the fallenness of the human mind and the power of the Holy Spirit. Reason (given the nature of the fallen human heart) is not a reliable tool to convince someone of the Truth (just talk to anyone having an affair: their logic is impeccable while being they are totally peccable at the same time!).

When I'm talking to someone who is going through a legal or medical problem, I don't feel qualified to give any more than the most general kind of advice - and even then, depending on the actual situation, will probably encourage them to seek the advice of a lawyer or medical doctor. I've learned enough to know that what seems most obvious isn't always right. Same is true here: it may seem obvious that inverted layers in the geological strata disprove the theory, but scientists have been looking at these for years and there seems to be a consensus. The obvious may not be right - though I'd be fascinated to speak with someone who was willing to discuss this and explain it (provided they allowed me to ask some pointed questions along the way).

I do agree that evolution is a world-view and a statement of faith. But that's why we need to deal with it from a spiritual perspective -- the same way we'd deal with a Budhist, a Hindu, an animist, a modern 'pagan,' or a Muslim. While each situation requires a specific kind of response, we tend not to fight the entire religious system, but talk to a person caught in a place of emptiness, who is really searching for God (even if they don't know it, even the Budhist who doesn't believe in a personal god!).

So, yeah. Let's stick to what we're good at, and what we're called to.

I appreciate your point, Richard.  Absolutely.  I guess however, like you might suggest someone go to see a doctor if they think they have cancer, or check out a carpenter if they need their roof fixed, it might be good to suggest some of these creation scientists if people have questions about evolution, and especially if evolution is challenging their faith.   I guess the other point is that not all scientists agree that macro-evolution is fact, and this would be important to know for someone who is struggling to reconcile a random universe with their understanding of God, sin, and salvation.   Dr. Jerry Bergman published a book which contains a list of 3000 scientists who do not accept macro-evolution, or are creationists.   And this does not contain those who did not want their name published because they did not yet have tenure at their university, and were afraid of their career implications.

I don't think everyone has to know everything in scientific detail about the problems with the evolutionary theory.   Even Ian Juby is explaining things in a very simple, down-to-earth, understandable way, that can be understood by scientists, but also by many non-scientists.  An actual scientific discussion would go much deeper.   However, having witnessed some of these "deeper" discussions, it turns out that the precepts behind evolution are actually very very shallow. 

In most cases, you get arguments like, "there is genetic diversity, and dna is made from similar amino acids, and there are similar pieces of dna in most organisms, and we find different fossils in different layers, therefore there must have been evolutionary decent."   As a philosophy major who has studied logic, you will quickly see the fallacy in that.    It is important for people to have a cursory understanding of the assumptions behind radiometric dating, because it sounds so precise, so "medical", so "scientific", ; how could it be inaccurate?   The word itself sounds authoritative, and so people simply swallow the whole thing.   Even scientists claim that you can test one method against another, without realizing that if assumptions for both methods are wrong, then the results will not be valid regardless. 

It is important for people generally to know these shortcomings and shallow reasoning, since evolution is such an accepted, predominant assumed theory, called fact, by many.   Many people get very upset when it is called a theory, since they feel that it is absolute undeniable and uncontestable fact.   So in essence, in spite of all the problems with the theory, there is little if any serious debate and discussion.   And christians get caught up in the after effects. 

Anyway, layers that were actually inverted   do not disprove evolution.   However, the methods used to prove the layers are actually inverted, are often based on the assumptions that prove the theory.   Many of these layers are called inverted simply because of the fossils they contain, in addition to containing certain types of minerals.   Maybe they are not inverted layers after all, just laid down in a different order in different places.    Then that yes would cast great doubt on the claims of evolutionists. 

It is interesting that some of the most well-known scientists of the past were actually incredibly well-trained in theology.  I'm told that Newton, Francis Bacon, and Galileo are some good examples of that.   Darwin, who was self-taught in science, and not trained in science (since he neglected his medical studies and didn't finish that program), and likely gained an audience mostly because his father had lots of money, was trained in theology and the liberal arts, at a time when science was often termed, "natural theology".  

Some earlier pastors were good at carpentry, fishing, and tent-making;  in many cases it enhanced their service.

I believe it is a pastoral thing to direct questioners to the websites and books of these creationists, even while acknowledging that these creationists are fallible too, but at least are questioning and challenging, and doing so from a perspective of glorifying God, rather than putting God on the shelf. 

There is another side to this discussion on evolution and creation that must be considered.  Rich ended his perceptive log with the comment “Let's stick to what we're good at!”,  At first I thought that he had said “Let’s stick to what we are called to”.   I would edit that idea further to say, “lets stand vigilant in our calling as shepherds of God’s flock”.  We are called to protect the flock that God has given into our care.

When students from our churches head off to Calvin College, we have a responsibility to protect them from potential heretical thinking.  When we have science teachers who come from our denominational school, and teach the theory of evolution as fact, it creates head and heart trauma.  We have a responsibility to respond intelligently but with great humility.

One of the most profound teachings in the book of Job occurs when God asks Job the simple question, “Where were you when I stretched out the heavens?”  The answer is so obvious that Job does not need to respond. 

When Howard Van Til wrote his book “The Fourth Day” his scientific views of astronomy relied on the principle of uniformity outlined in Newtonian Physics, which had been falsified by Einstein’s theory of relativity.  A simple adjustment in Van Til’s assertations needed to be made.  “It appears to me that the world is 4 million years old”—“but I wasn’t there when it came into being”

In Calvin professsor Schnieder’s article on “Recent Genetic Science and Christian Theology on Human Origin…” He uses Francisco Ayala’s genomic mathematical calculations to support his hermeneutical perspective.  Yet Ayala’s mathematics are significantly problematic. Schneider is not a scientist—only a theologian who does his theology with an arrogance that requires a sound rebuke “Hey Schnieder, where were you when God stretched out the heavens”.  He repeatedly makes assertions of certitude that expect the reader to accept them simply because he has arrogantly said they are true i.e. Job was written post-exhile, genomic sciences conclusions are---, “that paleo science has proved---that x,y, and z have occurred for millennium”.  Proof really requires having been there.  In fact there are actually plausible, scientific explanations of such phenomenon by adherents of short earth thinking.

When ever we look beyond the horizon of history our theories and “knowledge” are severely limited.   This is true for both sides of the debate.  I am neither a short age of the earth advocate nor a supporter of a long evolutionary perspective.  Evidence for both perspectives have some merit.   I am not even tied to a concordist hermeneutic, nor do I fully reject a more Barthian view of scripture--alla Schnieder an Harlow.  But I must always admit that " I was not there when God stretched out the heavens", and I am convinced that I see through a glass darkly, and I know that faith is based on evidence of things not seen---and my eyes have not seen everything. 

A guiding principle for all Calvin professors who claim to be interested in “academic freedom” --should be a guarded pastoral humility.   A keen awareness of the limits of their “knowledge”, and the care of young minds for whom they stand accountable.   They should be cautious of embracing ideas from world views where the adherents presupposition is that ther is no God.  And they should definitely protect the flock from being driven like a herd, by the next extrapolation of "scientists" who have "certitude" because of the most recent scientific discoveries.

Calvin itself should seriously—in the name of academic freedom and integrity, hire and engage scientists, and theologians who can also carry the other side of the debate with serious humility.   They should consider that they must also be vigilant to guard the hearts and minds of the whole Christian community that they serve.  There witness in this controversial area should be gracious, meek, and full humility.

Finally, all should be aware of the Lord's question “Where were you when I stretch out the heavens?”  The answer should be clear to all of us--"I wasn't there"

Great points, Dan.  It's of course important to protect the flock, and professors should not forget that.   On the other hand, as Christians, we know it sometimes will be tough.   Tough to live, tough to stand up to temptation and mockery, and tough to witness.    I agree that a certain degree of humility is also necessary for creationists.   Well, you said "serious humility".   And yes, true, perhaps.   But don't you find that often serious humility translates as timidity?   I would not like to see that. 

And that can impact our global mission.   If we do not have good answers for Genesis 1, and Genesis 11, and Exodus 8-11, we will begin to be very timid in explaining why John 1, or John 11, or John 20:31 are valid.   Especially for those working in the scientific community.   The global impact is then greatly diminished.   The global mission is then inhibited and reduced. 

We assume so often that our global mission is all about reaching out in missions or aid to foreign lands.   Yet at home and in Europe our church attendance has dropped to to 25-35% of the population.   Much of this is due to affluence, or irrelevant leadership, and to a great deal of excess humility translated as timidity.   But some of it is also due to ceding certain precepts and territory to Christ denying principles, values and philosophies, including the   philosophy of natural history.  It is ironic that while we confess and proclaim that God is lord of all of life, we often too easily allow certain disciplines and certain philosophies to kick God out of the picture, or to put God on the shelf in the back of the closet. 

I don't think we have to apologize, even though being humble, about seeking good answers to scientific ore real questions about how our perception of the universe and its parts fits with what God has revealed in scripture.   We know that when Christians are accused of being "flat earthers", that is not a scientific nor a valid claim, but it is made by Satan in order to discredit the followers of Christ.   The fact that the bible talks about the "circle of the earth"(Isaiah 40) is an inconvenient fact, and more conveniently ignored in the quest to discredit God.   It is relevant to the discussion on evolution to demonstrate the disconnect between scripture and those who discredit it.   But whether christians actually did believe or not in a flat earth at one time, is irrelevant to the truth or untruth of the theory of evolution or seven day creation.   Yet it is often brought up, which simply demonstrates again how much of this discussion is often not about science, but about discrediting scripture, and discrediting God. 

As Christians we need to provide tools for each other to demonstrate the power of Isaiah 40, the realithy of Genesis 1, and the significance of Genesis 11.   And this includes looking at the rocks and fossils from the perspective of the power and majesty of God.   How God can use the natural laws which He created and installed in the universe in such a magnificent and fantastic manner to bring about what we see today, in ways we can barely imagine. 

The verse in scripture that says something like, "the people say that things are proceeding as they have always done, going on as they always have, so where is the coming of Christ?  of that great day of the Lord?" warns of the fallacy of uniformitarianism.

" Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. " 

A certain  type of uniformitarianism can be lethal.   Fatal.  

Yes, we must have an answer to those who ask about the hope we have, and provide that answer respectfully (1Pe 3:15).

But I think the issue in how to do this is part of the answer. In my philosophy of religion class with Alvin Plantinga (he was still at Calvin when I was there - great teacher, BTW!), we learned to take on the great minds on their own turf and deal with their arguments. But at best we came to a draw. We couldn't prove God's existence (with the possible exception of Dr. Plantingas iteration of the ontological argument), but we could prove that the proofs challenging His existence didn't work.

The question we face is ultimately a world-view question: "What is a reliable source for truth?" Our culture has answered that question with the scientific method, and sees as real only those things that can be tested, are observable and repeatable. All truth is impersonal and sterile. It's the world view that has an average pew-sitter asking the question "What do you thing REALLY happened?" when someone is healed through prayer (instead of responding with gratitude and praise!).

When the Church abandons the world-view of the Bible, in which God is more real than matter itself (passim), where our struggle is ultimately not against what we can see, but what we can't (Eph.6:12), when it's not about proofs but power (1Cor. 2:4), etc., when it trades in the Truth (who IS Jesus) for mere truths about Him, or in other ways tries to lean on it's own understanding (Prov.3:5), the Church has already lost it's heart and it's power.

My guess, about college kids who loose their faith, is that they never saw the church be the Church: where God actually and perceptually lives by His Spirit (Eph.2:20), where the presence of God (Gal.3:5,e.g.) is more important than truths about Him (James 2:19!). What we have, in our Evangelical subculture is a salvation that is a mere, impersonal legal transaction, where (as Tozer puts it), "What He did for me seems to be more important than what He is to me," (A. W. Tozer, Born After Midnight (Camp Hill, PA.: WingSpread, 1989)).

The question post-modernism asks is not "Is it true that God exists?" Their question is "Is God real?" and by that they mean, "Can He be experienced?" The Bible's answer to that is without question: "Yes!" The problem for us who come out of modernism is that we instinctually mistrust experience, to the point where we exclude it altogether. While subjectivism may make a god and theology out of serendipity, the opposite extreme is no less a sin against the Truth.

All that to say this: What we're good at is bringing the powerful, life-changing presence of God Himself with us wherever we go. Why settle for mere logic and argument, when God is with us! Not to reject logic, nor argument, just to point out it's severe limitations, alongside the unlimited power of God.

Those videos are helpful in the sense that they expose the severe limitations and inconsistencies of the science. But the spiritual question raised concerning those who lose their faith after being exposed to the science is a completely different issue (IMHO), which exposes a kind of spiritual disease in the student, if not in the church that nurtured him/her.

Okay, I'm starting to ramble a bit. This world-view stuff is hard to talk about. It's so sub-conscious and foundational to our thinking we can have difficulty explaining it. So instead of rambling more, trying to say it better, I'll just stop.

You raise a number of interesting points, Richard. 

I agree that proof of God's existence is based on circumstantial evidence, and on eyewitness acounts.   Not on the basis of a repeatable scientific experiment.   The proof is seen in faith.  We see the proof by our faith.

"When kids lose their faith..."   of course, we confess (by scripture) that God does not lose anyone who belongs to Him, so perhaps they never had that faith to  begin with, although they thought they did, and others thought they did.   I'm reminded again of Charles Templeton, a preacher and a friend of Billy Graham.   But I would say that it does not have to do with their view of church;  it has to do with their view of God, and of themselves.   We are not christians first of all because of what we think of the church, although the church may be a place or group where we learn about God, and are brought closer to Him.  The church does not mean much by itself until we understand who God is, and what Christ has done for us. 

To say that the presence of God is more important than the truths about Him, is a bit hmm, a bit obfusicating, don't you think?   I mean, the presence of what God?   Why would He be present?   Why not distant?   or, if present, why would that be a good thing and not a bad thing?   You see, we cannot understand the presence of God without understanding who He is.   And that means knowing what is true about God. 

To say that God is present, means understanding that God is active, and that our lives are not accidental random events, which is to  understand a much different presence than the pantheistic notion that God is equal to what He has created.   God could be just as distant even though nearby, if our relationship to Him is not imbedded in His purpose for us, and our response to Him. 

The problem with God's presence being real, is that we need to have an understanding of God.  The problem  is that if God did not really create us good, or with the capacity to obey and love, and repent, if we are mere accidents of random events and natural selection, then our relationship with God is similar to us being a sitcom on television, and God watching.   Or our relationship is similar to us being rabbits in the forest, or carrots in the garden, and God simply harvesting us, even though He doesn't really need us, nor intend any future for us, nor really have a reciprocal relationship with us.  So that is kind of an existential problem. 

From a logistical and apologetics point of view, it is impossible for God to be real if God does not exist.   We would call that mental illness.   But yes, if God is real, and can be experienced, then we need to know who God is, what has he done, and what does He intend and desire for us.   Otherwise we are deceived by our experience, and we are creating God, rather than being God's creatures. 

A practical problem is that if scripture told the story of creation and Noah's flood as mere fables, to teach us lessons without the backing of reality, but with the substance and weight of 'Sleeping Beauty", or "Aesops Fables", then it becomes for us difficult to differentiate the resurrection from a moral fable, and it becomes difficult for us to give more weight to the parables of Jesus, or the prophecies of the day of judgement, the day of the Lord.   Nor can we then differentiate God's commands for us apart from the moral and ethical judgements of society.   Even while our faith may prevail, our witness becomes weaker and timid.  

For that reason, I believe God wants us to place Him and His scriptures into the context of the discussion of origins.  I believe that God wants us to realize that He is in control of current happenings and natural events even today.  That just as God reveals himself to us in nature, in the ordinary things of plants and animals and rocks and weather and bodies in space, so He also reveals himself to us in natural history, in earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes.   If we ignore God when we look at these things, our eyes will be darkened and we will see dimly. 

And if our eyes are darkened, we will not be able to share the light of the Word, and the light of the World, with the world.  And that will impact our global mission.   

John, I guess I'm less optimistic than you that we can ascend from truths about God to an experience of Him; a sort of Jacob's ladder of knowledge, if you will.

I suggest a qualitative difference between truths and the Truth. Even a cursory reading of the gospel of John suggests such a difference and challenges (I think) the entire foundation of western empiricism, which asserts that only facts are true. Other truths are derived from facts and depend on those facts for their veracity.

That epistemology is a house of cards waiting for a gust of wind. It's a sham, a shell game, a clever lie, at best a distraction. Despite it's intricate and careful construction, it's slight of hand, a magicians trick to make us look the other way, when the main thing disappears. In the end it is fact without meaning or purpose; a pretty veneer on a foundation full of holes, a foundation built on the assumption that we can know the creation without first knowing the Creator.

I choose not to stack the cards better than the atheists and agnostics. I'd rather find the answer 'blowin' in the Wind' -- the Wind of that Spirit who first brooded over the chaos in anticipation of creation, and still broods over it today. The emperor has no clothes, and this sort of science, for all its pretentiousness, has less to offer us as people, than the vacuum of space. It can, and has given us a few luxuries, a few medical breakthroughs, but it's also given us more efficient weapons, harmful and illicit drugs, nuclear disasters etc. But more significantly, this worldview undermines the concept of purpose and meaning in life. It would not be hard to say that this world view has gained us the world, while it has lost us our souls.

I also believe God wants us to put the Scriptures into the discussion of origins, and I believe the version recounted in Scripture more than the one told by the self-proclaimed 'scientists' because I don't trust them, and I do trust the Scriptures. But the scriptures don't focus their attention on the specifics of how God created things, but on His goodness, graciousness, and glory in creating. Brueggeman says it better. He says the Genesis account "...is concerned with God's lordly intent, not his technique" (italics his, Genesis. Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1982.). We don't have to bow at the alter of empericism, and do that false god proper obeisance to engage in the discussion.

The matter of origins is extremely important. It shapes our entire view of reality. For that reason, it's essential that we believers begin with the Scriptures, or better, the message and teaching of the Scriptures. The message there is that the creation is "good." That's so much more important than "true," especially when it's a holy God saying that word. "True" comes in at such a disappointing and distant second place, by comparison. The so-called creation scientists who try to make their own house of cards, also seem to trade in "good" for "true," and wonder why people aren't impressed with their findings.

So, what place does science have? I think a Christian scientist looks at facts in terms of meaning, rather than trying to derive meaning from naked facts. Telemeres, fossils and geological strata aren't merely facts in some way independent from the Creator. They are facts that express the mind of the Creator. Instead of explaining Him away, their purpose is to leave us in awe of Who He is. A good scientist will always see the individual facts as part of a web of facts, which is connected to other webs of facts, and others, and so on. An atheist scientist sees it all holding together with some sort of ineffable "unified field theory." We see it holding together with a persona, but ineffable God, all things hold together in Christ. The atheist scientist is practising a religion, and reading the book of creation through the lens of that religion, all his observations must support his basic, unspoken assumption that this fact must exist independent of a personal Creator. The lens is distorted and therefore so are his conclusions.

Though scientists accuse us of looking at the facts with our eyes closed, I'd suggest that they are the ones who are blind, not to the facts, but to their meaning. And as we as Christians look at the facts, we should see them in terms of what the really are: expressions of the mind of our Creator, regardless of what others say they are. We can look at them in awe, not shying away from the mystery, nor the paradox, and certainly not explaining them away as if a mere fact can trump the reality of God in my life and my heart.

My point about the church is just this: when the church is just about doing religious-looking things, and teaching theology, children of the church will leave it out of sheer boredom, if nothing else. If the best we have to offer are theological truths (no matter how well articulated), then we have a sort of practical deism, where, if God exists, He really isn't involved in my life. If we don't know God our Creator (that is personally, the way I know my family), and His Son, if we aren't growing in knowing Him better and better, then we're vulnerable to the waves and winds of this worlds doctrines (Eph 4:13-14). We don't need churches that teach us about God; we need churches that introduce us to Him, so we can meet Him for ourselves.

Okay, starting to ramble again. Time to stop.

Excellent points, Richard.  As Christians, we should always start with an assumption based on what Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.   No one comes to the Father except through me."  

And Jesus said, "Why do you call me good?   No one is good but God."

Gospel of John:   "In the beginning was the Word.  The word was with God.  The Word was God." 

These are our starting point. 

But when it comes to mission, we know that only God can bring someone to Him.   We cannot do it on our own.  Not by reason.   Not by being nice.   Not by bring coffee and cookies.   Not by apologetics or reason.   Even the answer to our prayers requires God's permission and plan and will.

Still, how do we be obedient to Him?   How do we prove He matters to us?   How do we know we are presenting and obeying God, rather than a creation of our own imagination?  

The epistle of John says that if we belong to him, we will obey His commandments.  And what does He command?   To believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and to love our neighbors. 

To love our neighbors sometimes includes apologetics, as well as coffee and cake.   If we ignore what impediments they have, or ignore their paradigm and their frame of reference, we are not getting to know our neighbors.   If we use apologetics merely as a tool to beat them down and defeat them, then we are not loving our neighbor, but if we use it as a way of protecting them from storms, from insecurity, from purposelessness and aimlessness, then we can love our neighbor and demonstrate God's love. 

If you regard belief in evolution like an addiction, then would you try to bring faith as a gift of God, and ignore the addiction?  Especially an addiction that is so difficult to reconcile with miracles, with faith, with knowledge of sin, and with a sense of sacrifice and forgiveness?  

That only facts are true, is semantics (to me at least).   That God exists, is a fact.   That God loves me is a fact.   That God has forgiven me is a fact.   Maybe empiricism is better described as talking about facts concerning what we can sense, feel, taste, touch, etc.   But I agree that empiricism is a small box to live in. 

I agree we depend on the work of the spirit.   Totally.   But scripture reminds us to test the spirits, to see whether they are of God, whether they are "true".   This testing is also the work of the Spirit. 

I don't think as Christians we ought to live in an either/or when it comes to faith and reason.   Faith guides our reason, and reason substantiates our faith.   So while I agree that knowing things about God is not the same as knowing God, God does not ask us to put our brains and thinking and reason into the garbage, nor separate our reason from faith as if reason was bad and faith was good.  God created us with reason, just like we are created with eyes to see and ears to hear.   And the Spirit makes the eyes and ears of our heart work properly;   he also guides our reason, and claims it for God/himself. 

Your last paragraph is interesting.   Maybe you express some things a bit different than the way I think of them.   I think I agree, that teaching theology is different than living theology, but then, that should be part of teaching theology.   Our theology should teach that God is involved in our life, always has been and always will be.   But I would argue that true teaching about God, is in fact actually introducing us to Him, so that we meet Him.   Otherwise it is false teaching due to omission of the vitality and presence of God. 

Great points, Richard! 

These ideas are very useful, by R.deRuiter; about the most 'real' so far in the discussion.

Hang in  there, bro!

Hey!?  I agree Richard's ideas are "real",  but are you suggesting that  comments made by Dan K and myself are not "real"?  And if so, which comments and why? 

It is hard to say ---but he seems more athentic, humble, open to God's variety, freedom to change.  To get a slight flavor of what I mean, please read pp. 138-141 from Scott Hoezee's Proclaim theWonder, Baker books.

cvz

Okay, I agree Richard is very open, and humble.   But authentic?   Everyone is authentic, especially here, I think.  

I have just gone through a Meyer's Briggs personality analysis, and have found it interesting how people of certain personality types relate to other personality types.    It is important to realize that being open to change, and being humble, does not make a person more "real" or authentic.   They are just different.   The fact that people are different, means they respond differently to different things and to different approaches.   Some people react with their feelings, while other people react with their logic and thinking processes.   People that are openly emotional are not more "real" than those who control the expression of their emotions;   they are just different people.   But it is important to realize how you react to something. 

If you react to someone's expression of love with cold logic, rather than with emotion, you will fall into the trap of suspicion. 

On the other hand, if you react to someone's expressions of details and facts and logic with an emotional reaction or with an expression of "feeling" about the personality of that person, then you will cause suspicion and frustration in the other person. 

So the reason I asked why you thought Richard was more real, was not really to discover your feelings so much as to find out how you would substantiate that statement.   So I can see he is more real to you in a very subjective sense;  it is simply how you "feel", but I cannot see how that applies to the discussion of whether we ought to consider emphasizing teaching more creation alternatives rather than going with and being swallowed up by the general cultural flow of evolutionary teachings.   Maybe you could make the connection and clear that up for me. 

I do not have scott hozee's book....  and would need a justification for getting it.... I would prefer your synopsis of the idea expressed in it.

John

FWIW, I'm not sure I understand the more 'real' or "authentic" moniker either.

I was talking about our epistemological starting point and strategy. I'm also passionate about not caving in to the noetic structure and assumptions of modern empericism. Finally, I think the church needs to focus more on what some call "hosting God's presence" than merely speaking God's truth(s) (not in a mutually exclusive sense, of course), and that failing in its primary focus, the children of the church are more in danger of being persuaded by competing truths.

I'd be curious about which of those things our friend finds me more "real" or "authentic."

I take it to be meant as a compliment, but I'm not sure what it means. But since I like being complimented, I'm looking forward to an explanation.

(Edited to include the "authentic" adjective.)

And while we're waiting for that explanation, I will just present a few "facts" that some people may not be aware of, at least as I understand them.   Fossils have been discovered of dragonflies that have four foot wingspans, and huge reeds that are 120 feet tall, not something that we would see today.   Some of these reeds, as well as tree fossils,  transect many rock/earth layers which are dated by evolutionary methods to be millions of years old, and different in age from each other.   A satisfactory answer as to how these reeds could survive long enough to be covered by so many different layers of different "deep time" ages has not been given.   The catastrophic deposition of water formed layers with trees and reeds embedded within them gives a much more satisfactory answer.  

A new short video on some scientists/mathematician conversion from evolutionary belief to skepticism and disbelief in evolution.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKPKuk6gF-4   This is part 2 of a new series by Ian Juby who interviews these individuals, Dr. Jerry Bergman, with several PhD degrees and masters degrees associated with genetics and medicine, and Alan Bergman, an actuarial mathematician.   This is interesting and enlightening from several perspectives.  In one case the change from atheism to belief in God accompanied the examination of the scientific evidence, and in the other case, the change from a sort of irrelevant theism to an understanding of Christ as Lord of Life, and how that opened up the eyes to the revelation of nature and the inconsistencies of evolutionary theory. 

Interesting recent news from London is that some scientists have discovered that neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light, thus putting Einstein's theory of relativity into a non-absolute finality.   It is this type of thing that keeps me humble about the state of our knowledge at any given time.  The fact that gravity can bend light, and also this new information about things faster than the speed of light demonstrate that theories we hold about "deep time" and past uniformity of present observed  processes are always subject to the discovery of new information.  In addition, any new information is also subject to subsequently as-yet undiscovered information.  (We don't know what we still don't know.  But God does know. ) 

John, Thats pretty cool news. neutirnos also shift between particle and wave. I person have believed that speed doesn't exist outside its specific  visual context. Scienctist can't understand the aparent increasing velocity of  univesal expansion which leaves the universe beyond human comprehension. The more we find out the greater the paradox. Scienice is not appart from God. Like you said or I think you said it is the heart of the believer that can enterprate the data of science and  see His Creation.

   Quatum mechanics has established that a particle can exist two places at once under certain criteria. That also speaks t His omnipresence. Sciece contains a bouty affirmation if one chooses that kind of postalate. We do live in God universe and science is a great tool of God in the correct context.

Hey Guys, The spell check is to quick for people with cognitive difficulties. I can't get through to webmaster. The new password rules and captcha makes it aa bit more of a problem. I'm sure would be helpful if you know what I mean.

We also half to remember science began to florish because of the churches of the time. They had the power and money to kick the reniesance into gear.

Richard, you said a while back, "The matter of origins is extremely important. It shapes our entire view of reality. For that reason, it's essential that we believers begin with the Scriptures, or better, the message and teaching of the Scriptures. The message there is that the creation is "good." That's so much more important than "true," especially when it's a holy God saying that word. "True" comes in at such a disappointing and distant second place, by comparison. The so-called creation scientists who try to make their own house of cards, also seem to trade in "good" for "true," and wonder why people aren't impressed with their findings. "" ""

I think this is an important statement.   It is one I disagree with however, for this reason.   It is a false (not true) dichotomy.  How do you know if the message in scripture, that the creation was created "good", is true?   How do you know what part of the creation is "good"?   How do you distinguish between what God declared "it was good", compared to what is not so good anymore?   Wouldn't you have to believe in the truth of scripture first, to believe creation was made good? 

Evolutionary theory would postulate that creation was not made good.   It just was.  And by our standards it would not be good, unless weeds, disease, strife, battles, murder, hatred and selfishness are good. 

It would seem that truth and goodness are inseparable.    The truth is also that God often turns evil for our good.   But that doesn't make the evil good on its own.  

John, of course I believe that the Scriptures are true, in every sense of the word 'true.'

But I think it's a mistake to get so embroiled in the factuality of the creation story, that we miss the message in the creation story.  Though I firmly believe that Genesis 1-3 is historically accurate, I don't think that those chapters are there primarily to teach us a history lesson. They are there primarily to teach us about the nature of our Creator, the creation, and us as creatures in relation to the rest of creation and our Creator.

While I also believe that the message of chapters 1-3 are rendered all but meaningless, if those chapters don't represent what actually happened, that message is still much more important than the mere factualness of it's setting. My point was that so much attention has been given to the factualness of the creation story, that the message of the Bible in that story is being lost.

The other part of my argument is that we must soundly and thoroughly reject the 'scientific,' AKA 'empericist' world view that sees mere, measurable facts as the only reliable truth. Such a world-view collapses in on itself and cannot even live up to it's own criterion, since that world-view can not be demonstrated emperically as either the only, nor the most reliable world-view for reliably discovering all the facts there are. We must thoroughly reject not only the conclusions of this world-view, but the world-view itself!

In other words Genesis 1-3 was not written primarily to be an apologetic against other creations myths (including the 'big bang' myth), it was written to invite us into fellowship with and worship of our Creator.

I do not take for granted, the "of course" part of your first statement.  There are  some even within the crc who do not "of course" take every part of scripture as "true".   In spite of their profession of faith.   In spite of their signing a form of subscription.  But I am glad you take every part of scripture as true. 

You are right we should not miss the primary message of the creation story, that God is creator and maker and that what He makes he declared good.   But earlier you said that "good" was more important than "true", (which while I understand you are refering to chronology and actual events as "true"), is misleading in the sense that truth is downplayed.  You see if there is no truth, then there is also no good.  Truth embodies both the realities of good and evil.  God is as much true, as he is good.  Jesus did not say "I am the Way, the Good, and the Life."    He said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."    Truth is good, even when it reveals evil.  Especially when it reveals evil.  

When we suggest that scripture's truth might be relativised, or that it is subjective, or that it is more important to be "good" than to be "true", then we are missing something about who God is.  When God allowed Satan to subject Job to misery, we can only say that God is good, because we know first that God is true.   And we know God is true through scripture, through His Spirit, through faith.  A false scripture hinders the work of the Spirit, and weakens our faith.  And that is not "good".   

God wants us to struggle with Genesis 1, with Genesis 11.   Not to toss it off as some allegory just because some quasi scientists (and real scientists) have decided that their world view does not permit Genesis 1 to be true.  

The great difficulty in arguing that Genesis 1 is not true in a meaningful sense, that creation did not happen in seven days, that things were not created in that order, but yet that creation was "good", is to discover a true basis for that conclusion.   If creation did not happen in seven days, then there is no basis for saying that creation was "good", since both conclusions are based on the same written word.  The basis for describing our relationship to the creator is also lost, since why should that be more true than creation by fiat in seven days? 

Thus you see that truth is more important;  it is primary.   Without truth, good does not exist. 

"Truth embodies both the realities of good and evil ."   I want to clarify this statement from the previous post, since it might be misunderstood.   It does not mean that evil can be equated to truth, since it opposes truth. 

What I mean by this statement is that truth embodies the struggle of good vs evil.   That Jesus is the truth, because he defeated evil, not just because he was good.  That truth reveals falsehood and evil to us, and also points out the good to us. 

"Good" requires truth, as "evil" requires falsehood.  

John, I think you missed my point again.

Here's what I said above, that you seemed to suggest I didn't say: "While I also believe that the message of chapters 1-3 are rendered all but meaningless, if those chapters don't represent what actually happened, that message is still much more important than the mere factualness of it's setting. My point was that so much attention has been given to the factualness of the creation story, that the message of the Bible in that story is being lost." (underscore added for emphasis)

In other words, while it is neccessary to view Creation as presented, the most basic truths in Genesis 1-3 are not the mere factuality 'that it happened this way and not some other way.' No. The basic truth is that God created this creation for life, particularly for human life, so that we could have fellowship with Him. A secondary truth is that the creation is harmonious and beautiful and good, even very good.

I also argue that emperical truth, is only somewhat interesting, even as it brings something to bear on this story. It's about as interesting as knowing which color socks Martin Luther King was wearing when he made his famous "I Have a Dream" speech, or what time it was precisely when he have the speech, and who exactly were in attendence. Yes, those details can be interesting from a certain perspective, but don't let those incidental details make you miss the speech! Now by saying those details are unimportant, I'm not calling into question whether he actually said anything, that he said it on a certain day or at a certain time, to certain people, while wearing certain socks. I'm just saying that those facts are a paltry distraction from what was said.

Similarly, when we focus on the mere factualness of the creation story, we miss the point. Not that there is no factualness there, it's just that the factualness of what's there is a paltry distraction from what we are being told there.

Richard, I definately did not miss your point.  In fact, I restated it and acknowledged it:  "You are right we should not miss the primary message of the creation story, that God is creator and maker and that what He makes he declared good ."  

You have now changed "true" to "factualness"... maybe a good thing.  

It is not that I deny what you are saying, in that if we focus on the factualness too much it may make us forget the underlying theme.  But the focus in the other direction is just as much a problem.   If we deny the factualness (not you, but others), then the underlying theme loses its validity.  Martin Luther's socks may not have made a difference to his speech, but the alternative to creation by fiat and the creation of man by God, is presently a never-ending process of evolution which makes a big difference to whether God created the universe "good" or not.   And it makes a big difference to whether man is truly in the image of God, and whether there is such a thing as sin or not.  

In the Martin Luther analogy, the significance of where he was, who was there, when he made the speech, and the state of the country at the time is very significant to the impact of the speech.   If he had made the speech in his bathroom to his mirror, or if merely written in some op-ed piece in the local paper, it simply would not have had the impact, and would not be seen to be important in the same way.   

When people are defending the literalness of Genesis 1, they do so primarily in order to validate the underlying theme.   It is not merely for the sake of the empirical facts themselves. 

Richard, I sense also a bit of an emotional reaction to some of these discussions.   Maybe like, "do we really have to get all so wrung out about this debate?"  I sense you want peace (which is a good thing) and not strife.   You want people's faith to hold together, and not be sidetracked by empirical arguments.   You also want a focus on spirit, as opposed to "facts", a spiritual/emotional connection with a good God, instead of a concentration and focus on cold facts and truths.  

I understand all of this, and I empathize with it.   But I also believe that we are to worship God in Spirit, and in Truth.   If we neglect truth under the guise of spirit, we will eventually discover that we have lost the spirit, and gained a false spirit.   I know this from discussions with buddhists and with bahai and with moslems.  It is the spirit of truth that is given to us, not the spirit of falsehood.   Annanias and Sapphira died for no other reason than that they followed the spirit of falsehood;  they lied about the empirical facts. 

It is absolutely important and essential to know and believe and sense/feel that God is good, and God is love.   This should become part of the blood flowing in our veins.  It should be the essence of every word coming from our mouths.   But it is the truth of this statement as found in scripture, that helps us to understand that God is good even when we do not feel that God is good in our personal lives, or in the lives of our friends or in the lives of strangers. 

It is falsehood and evil that wants us to put truth on the back shelf compared to the goodness of God.   But it is a false dichotomy (I am speaking more broadly than just Genesis 1, but the principle applies). 

If God is good, how can he allow evil?   If God is good, how can he allow the flood?   If God is good, how can He allow eternal punishment?  

But God must be true to Himself.   If we understand that, then we can understand God's goodness. 

And we must be true to God. 

Sorry to put in three posts here in a row.... but I came across an excellent expose of evolutionary paleotology, put together by Street Church Adelaide.  Youtube - "Evolution - A Crumbling Theory ( StreetChurch Adelaide )  

Facts are not always facts, even when it comes to empirical science.   Evil and falsehood not only wants to pervert scriptural truths, but it perverts scientific and "natural" evidence as well, if the motivation is there. 

" ""   

Sorry to put in three posts here in a row.... but I came across an excellent expose of evolutionary paleotology, put together by Street Church Adelaide.  Youtube - "Evolution - A Crumbling Theory ( StreetChurch Adelaide )  

Facts are not always facts, even when it comes to empirical science.   Evil and falsehood not only wants to pervert scriptural truths, but it perverts scientific and "natural" evidence as well, if the motivation is there. 

" ""   

For one thing, lets humbly admit that most of the evidence we have presently acccumulated as a scientific community fits with the evolutionary hypothesis, which is how scientists figure they can call it "a fact". I mean, how in the world can you argue with his "best" argument against Creationists about shared genes?  What is the sin in his particular claim?  Is he deceiving us? Or do we figure he's just too proud and puffed up to be taken seriously?

If Christians want to disagree with the preponderance of evidence (and the hypothesis which is supported by it) form another hypothesis and finish the gruelling process that other scientists must endure to overturn it. It's not good enough to hide behind our persecution complex and our propensity to call brothers and sisters "heretics" because we are afraid of being humiliated. I am truly tired of the nitpicking that armchair "scientists" among us love to do. It gives the appearance of wisdom, but it knows nothing of the power of testable, verifiable, peer-viewed truth. Let me know when you've got enough evidence to knock the stuffing out of the E theory.

Teaching the "controversy" in clever ways isn't science. It's scholasticism. Which is subterfuge .

Lets humbly admit that Dawkins is right on this score (it seems to best fit the evidence right now) and admit with him that Darwin was indeed a break-through genius. Of course, lots of geniuses came to ruin with new evidence. But we don't have the luxury of using this fact to "disprove" evolution.  Any more than medieval theologians thought that protestantism was a flash in the pan.

It doesn't mean Dawkins is right about God. It just means we must go our merry way without back-biting and find enough evidence to blow it all to pieces with our own scientific research. So far alI I see are Intelligent design "mysteries" and quandaries and clever suggestions. At best, they are comforting intuitions which have their own value. But they are not  research needed to squarely knock Darwin off his high horse. The "authorities" we now cite for the problems with evolution are those who seem to be preaching to the converted and many have questionable credentials in the area. Believe me, I've listened, read, watched a lot of it and its disheartening.

I for one, believe that Christ's "other" book of revelation will not deceive us if we listen to it just as carefully as we are supposed to do letting the Bible speak for itself, a discipline which long ago dissolved into pure politics and subjectivitism. That might be the more profound problem.  Christ is not a deceiver.  Those of you who figure you have the E hypothesis' number are indeed deceived. Get off your flannel board and do the work a good scientist is supposed to do today.

peace,

rinsen

Rinsen,

I think that there's something tangential but important in your last statement, and one that I would like your perspective on.  It seems that sometimes the scientific enterprise is conflated with the doctrine of general revelation.  I think that there is some overlap but at the same time important distinctions between the two.  You refer to it as "Christ's other book of revelation".  I have recently read it in the Banner as "creation revelation"...both of which draw squarely from the Belgic confession.  My only question would be, revelation of what?  Data, or a person?

I wonder if part of this debate also comes from differing ideas concerning the doctrine of general revelation...there are those who are "maximizers" of the doctrine, creating in effect a two-source model of authority, and there are minimizers, and there are those in between.  It was helpful for me in seminary when one of my professors was speaking about general revelation and then said "now, remember, general revelation is revelation *of God*.  He then went on to expound what he thought was a mistaken idea of general revelation, that it is primarily about data and not about the fact that the world is transparent to God's glory, only occluded by our own fallenness and spiritual darkness.

As one source I read says "the content of general revelation deals with God and various aspects of his being and activities.  Any efforts to widen the scope of general revelation to include information or theories about aspects of creation, humanity, or anything else besides God do not have support from the Bible, which limits the scope of general revelation to information *about God*.  General revelation performs the limited function of enabling all persons to know that God is and something of what he is like."  This person, one would think, would be a "minimizer" of the doctrine, which he would probably see as having been broadened too much by automatically linking it with the scientific endeavor.

Rinsen, you said, "I mean, how in the world can you argue with his "best" argument against Creationists about shared genes? ""

You didn't specify the entire argument.  But the way I normally hear the argument about shared genes is that since genes can be transferred from one species to another, or since genes in some species are similar to some genes in entirely different species, these species must somehow be related, and must have descended from a common ancestor.   It is an old argument.   (Correct me if I am wrong in this summary of the common genes argument). 

It seems to be a good argument since genes are instrumental in formation of structures of organisms.  However, all genes are made of the same types of materials;  they are just organized in different sequences.  If you want to use the argument of shared genes or common genes, it is as valid to say that because all organisms are made of carbon compounds (thus the term "organic" is related to complex carbon molecules), they must have come from a common ancestor. 

It would in essence be like saying that all living things on earth must have originated from a common ancestor simply because they are living. 

The counter argument to that is that the same creator created all living things because He used a common materials and common genetic patterning process.  

The E theory postulates that because a certain type of car looks like another type of car and is made of the same type of metal or plastic, it must have been made at the same factory.  We know that isn't true, although we also know it was likely designed in one office. 

Shared genes are consistent with evolutionary theory.   But shared genes are not inconsistent with creation science. 

The biggest problem with evolutionary theory still remains.  We do not see it in the fossil record;  there is a lack of intermediaries in proportion to existing and fossil species.   We also do not see it occurring today in a consistent and dominant way;  only we see what we think "might" be evolution occurring sporadically and rarely here and there.   Predictions of missing links are consistently proved wrong.  There is more speculation than proof about various intermediary species.   Conclusions about ancient prehistoric fossils are shown to be wrong when the same type of animals still exist today (such as coelanth).   Even radio active dating methods are not determinative, and have been found to be interpreted in various ways (because they rely on certain assumptions), and are made subject to the demands of the theory.  

For all these reasons, we can conclude that there is no preponderance of evidence for evolution.   The only preponderance of evidence is in the eye of the believer.   Say it often enough and you will believe  it.   Say "preponderance of evidence for evolution" often enough, and you will begin to believe it, but that doesn't make it so. 

Jeff, you could ask the same question of special revelation, couldn't you?  Data or Person?  I find that much of what my teachers have said about general revelation was rather obtuse and unhelpful -- even maudlin.  Shouldn't there be a sound hermeneutic for scientific research just as there ought to be a one for Bible research?  Both should be about letting the data speak for themselves, from the common, uncritical read of it to the specialized and scientific.  This is what's wrong with the debate -- are we rigorously and bravely stepping into the natural world only to "learn" what the Bible says about it?  Queen of the Sciences, I guess. 

It's interesting the way you pose the question, though.  I would have thought the opposite at first -- the general "data" and the special, "Person"

John!  Dawkin's argument is more subtle than that.  And he deserves a better answer than the one you just gave. But once again, we are faced with a God who assembles creatures "as if" they shared the same genetic script but actually, they don't. This is supposed to be an explanation?  Just like the various fossil strata  appear to be extremely old, and predictably laid down in layers going from more simple to more complex --- but that's just how they "appear". We Christians know better.  I would find this God quite vexing, if I were a natural scientist. 

Rinsen,

Like I said, somewhat tangential, but I would say that part of what is at issue is where theologians/Christians have tried to situatate the scientific enterprise within the loci of theology.  Protestants, especially in the last hundred years have tried to situatate it within the area of revelation.  As far as I understand, other traditions such as Catholicism, seem to have situated it more under the doctrine of creation and "natural law", without making much reference to revelation.

But that, in my understanding is the historical interpretation of the doctrine...both general and special revelation are primarily revelation *of God*.  If this is neglected I think the whole doctrine is somewhat skewed.  You could, I suppose make the same distinction in special revelation.  Jesus refers to the scribes and teachers of the law who "search the scriptures" for the least bit of information but miss the point...that they reveal himself.  This is only revealed by the illumination of the Holy Spirit.  They have the data but not the import of the data. 

Is data that is discoverable by unaided human reason by definition not revelation?  Is it rather, the medium of revelation?  And isn't that revelation about a Person?

John... I am so sorry you reject out of hand the rigorous work of creationists who first mapped the the Geological Times scale.  It has stood the test of time.  Moreover, radio dating is a different way of  confirming age... and guess what? It's consistent with what the Christian geologists already discovered. The theory of evolution had NOTHING whatso ever to do with the findings of carban dating.  You sound like a conspiracist.

I would like to get to Jeff's questions. But I have salesmen to meeet amd people to bury.  Soon

Cheers

Rinsen

Rinsen, I do not reject out of hand the geological time scale.   I merely question it.   There are instances where dating of certain rocks and layers has huge ranges, and where dating is revamped to suit the fossils contained in the layers.  I am not a conspiracist, but I have seen the impact of group think. 

You said, "we are faced with a God who assembles creatures "as if" they shared the same genetic script but actually, they don't. This is supposed to be an explanation?  Just like the various fossil strata  appear to be extremely old, and predictably laid down in layers going from more simple to more complex  "  

Actually creatures do share genetic building blocks, yes.   I did not say that they do not share the same genetic script in various parts.   They obviously have some similarities and some differences.   If they did not have differences they would be the same species, or even identical twins, etc..    What I did say was that these similarities in dissimilar organisms by themselves do not prove inheritance of origin.    They may demonstrate a similarity of planning and design. 

It is also interesting when looking at genome size, that some fish and amoeba and some plants have a much larger genome than mammals (homosapiens).   While other plants, bacteria, insects, and some fish have a smaller genome than homosapiens.   For example one measured amoeba genome was 670Gb in size, one fish genome was 130Gb in size, two plant genomes were about 130Gb in size, and the human genome is 3.2 Gb in size.  Some  bacterium had a genome three times as large as the human genome, while others were much smaller or similar to human genome in size.   From a genetic perspective, I'm not sure how that supports the simpler organism vs more complex organism theory. 

The fact that some fossil layers are old.... but what is old?   Is a thousand years old?   Is ten thousand years old?   Once a fossil layer is formed it does not visually look older.  Neither do the fossils.   So they are determined  old because of  fossils of strange animals we do not see anymore today, and because of radioactive dating....  but radio active dating is based on assumptions about parent rock materials.   When carbon material is still discovered in rocks supposedly millions or hundreds of millions of years old, then the carbon dating method is deemed invalid for that rock layer, but.... the carbon 14 is still there in amounts much larger than it should be.   When volcanic rocks less than ten years old are measured by Kr-AR methods to be millions of years old, then the method is deemed invalid, because the rocks are obviously too young to be measured.... but why does the method then not date them as young, instead of old?   How can we prove the assumptions for radio-active dating are actually right, outside of the previous preconceptions about the age of the rocks. 

It is interesting that fossils in the rock layers are generally also sequenced by size to some extent. 

When we have fossils that transect layers of rock that are "dated" as millions of years difference between layers, then how do we justify or explain the existence or survival of these fossils (half exposed and half buried) during the layering process?

You also said, "  The theory of evolution had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the findings of carban dating ..."    Well, you are partly right.   Without carbon dating, the theory of evolution was still orginally postulated.   But the theory of evolution had difficulty with shorter time frames of time, since mathematically the probability of evolutionary processes based on what we see today, required ever increasing amounts of time.   The radio-active dating methods began to give validity to these longer time periods.   But, the radio-active dating methods were based on certain assumptions about uniformitarianism for earth processes.   For example, one assumption is consistency in the rate of  formation of C14 in the upper atmosphere over time.  

You might find it oddly liberating if you were to really examine all the fundamental assertions of the E theory.  

I assume you believe at least some of scripture.   How do you decide when your perception of observable facts trumps scripture?   How do you know that your interpretation of observable facts is correct?   Would your observation of observable facts lead you to deny that Elijah, Elisha, Jesus and Peter raised someone from the dead?   Would it lead you to deny that Elijah's prayer for three years drought was answered;  was it going to happen anyway?   Would it lead you to deny that Jesus made the lame walk, the blind to see, and deaf to hear?   

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html 

this make any sense?  or is is it skewed and prejudiced?

and don't change the subject...*s*

  Y'all good people should read Genetic Entropy      by   J.C.Sanford; very scholarly work both scientific and math'l..

Would open a lot of eyes!!

J.C. used to be a scientist.

Still sounds like one.

But he has turned into

an apologist.

John, while you are reading and responsing to that article...

"...where dating is revamped to suit the fossils contained in the layers. I am not a conspiracist, but I have seen the impact of group think."  

Specifically, I would like to see the evidence for this claim in the first sentence of that quote. In the second sentence, I am guessing that when you see "group think", you tend to leave yourself out of that subgroup.  Only evolutionists are "group think" victims. I would wager the opposite, since through Christian publications, rallies promoting ID speakers, and social media like this one, the same examples, spins on evidence, and slogans are flung out to the masses, often without critique. And to ensure compliance in case someone does have a question, there is the quick threat of being a "Christ denier", i.e. " Would it lead you to deny that Jesus made the lame walk, the blind to see, and deaf to hear? "   That is fear mongering, my friend. It won't work with me but I am certain it works for many.  They must tow the line.

Jeff .....still thinking on your query, but wonderment takes a longer time than indignation to express itself. So might be Monday before I can give you a worthy reply. I got a sermon to finish and my head is elsewhere.thinking... ...  think         ... .. still thinking ...... 

To Rinse and hang dry:   The article by matson identifies "creationist" geologists as the ones who worked out the geologic column.   True, they believed God created.   But they believed also in a kind of blind watchmaker kind of god, who set things in motion and then merely watched it happen.  They are not creationists in the sense of how the bible describes creation. 

His comment that C14 has nothing to do with dating geological ages is a gross exaggeration.  It may not be the method used to date anything millions of years old.   But it is the method used to date things within the last 10,000 to 20,000 years.  So it is the beginning of the radio-active dating process. 

The problem with coal and other carbon artifacts is that all the C14 is not actually decayed away.   With better equipment, it is now detected.   Zeroing in instruments with carboniferous coal in the past merely assumed it was gone. 

Index fossils seem to a valid tool to correlate to strata.   However, this only says that certain strata (a type of rock layer) contained these fossils.   It says nothing about the age of the strata, nor the age of the fossil.   Therefore the index fossils are not useful for dating strata.   As an example, a certain layer contained fossils of the coelanth.   It is dated by evolutionary theory to be very old.   Other layers above that, and thought to be younger, do not contain the coelanth.   Yet, the coelanth fish still exists today.   So why do the younger layers not contain fossils of the coelanth?  

This same problems exists for many other fossils of animals and plants that still exist today. 

In reality, the geologic column does not actually exist anywhere on earth, except in the minds of evolutionists, and in school textbooks.   It is a theoretic arrangement of layers, which has monstrous gaps in any particular location on earth.   Matson's statement that the geologic column has been found in places on earth, is then clarified by his statement that "some of the geologic periods are missing either because they were never laid down at the location or because they have since eroded away."   Perhaps it is semantics, but....

The validity of various radio active dating methods is always dependant on assumptions.  Matson has made some good arguments about uranium-lead in zircon correlating to different layers somewhat consistently.  However, others have disagreed: 

" "The crucial problem with these methods, in accordance to the invalid assumptions, is the fact that Uranium minerals NEVER exist in a closed system, only and always in open systems.....    "Yet another factor to take into view is that the daughter products were most likely present from the beginning. There is no way possible to know whether or not the daughter components were actually absent from the original system. This possibility is evident in the case of modern volcanic eruptions. Sidney P. Clementson performed detailed studies on modern volcanic rock, and endeavored to obtain their radiometric ages. All of the uranium-lead ages he produced for the volcanic rock he studied were vastly older than the rock's true age. A majority of the tested rocks put forth ages of over a billion years, when in fact it was known that the rocks had been formed in very recent times." "  http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/radiometric.htm 

I should point out that generally Hovind is not used as an authority, although he has made some very good points over the years as an educator.   People like Ian Juby, who have actually examined many fossil sites and geological strata, and others such as Bob Gentry, have examined some of the E-theory claims in much more detail.   Have you seen Bob Gentry's work on zircon crystals?

I will look at the rest of the article later. 

"In reality, the geologic column does not actually exist anywhere on earth, except in the minds of evolutionists, and in school textbooks "

John.. that is completely false...  I guess you could wait to get to the end of the article before asserting your point of view.

I will help you with a quote to jar your memory...But It makes everything you say suspect.  You are willing to falsify/ignore the facts.  This is one of the reasons many our brightest young minds are abandoning the church... they not longer put up with such disregard for the truth and demogogary.

"John Woodmorappe, a young-earth creationist, has admitted that representative strata from the Cambrian to the Tertiary have been discovered lying in their proper order in Iran, by the Caspian, the Himalayas, Indonesia, Australia, North Africa, Canada, South America, Japan, Mexico, and the Philippines! (Woodmorappe, 1981, p.46-71. See especially, pp.62 & 67). Furthermore, Glenn R. Morton, a professional geophysicist, has reported that portions of Alaska also contain strata representing all these geologic periods lying in their exact textbook order. (Phone conversation between Edward Babinski and Glenn Morton, as relayed to me.) Sometime later he identified three wells for me in McKenzie County, North Dakota, which had penetrated all the geologic periods in their correct order. Morton also indicated that the East China Sea, the Juixi (pronounced jewshi) basin in China and many more areas could be added to the list. So, the geologic column definitely does exist! That is to say, there are a number of locations where every period of the geologic column from the Cambrian on up is present and in proper order. (Wherever we find relatively undisturbed areas without any of the obvious signs of mountain building, that strata is always in the textbook order. Some of the geologic periods may be missing, either because they were never laid down at that location or because they have since eroded away. However, the relative order of those present is preserved. See Topics G4b and G4c for a discussion of missing and out-of-order strata.).""

You need to read more broadly, John.  And don't dismiss people as "not one of us"

just because they have a different interpretation of the Creation story... You just might

have ex-communicated St. Augustine.

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=16835 

Here's a chapter by chapter breakdown of how Sanford's argument falls apart.

It's also a delightful dialogue between two people eager to get at the truth but sometimes get distracted by their own examples. My money is on the penguin.

Good question to ask, though -- why did Sanford publish this in a popular, paperback format with a UFO on the cover -- pssst... I think it sells better.  

I read that already.  You should read the third last sentence in that paragraph. 

Rinse and hang dry  - is that really your name?   My previous post is out of sequence because you added three other posts.  In response to your accusation of me not reading the entire article, you are mistaken, I had already read it and I referred to it too.  You should read this statement matson made, "Some of the geologic periods may be missing, either because they were never laid down at that location or because they have since eroded away.  "

In regards to radio-active dating methods you should check out these two sites, highlighting that sometimes methods have an error range of millions and hundreds of millions of years.  " youtube.com/watch?v=3wMV8Hw99yg&feature=relm fu"   on C14

or:  youtube.com/watch?v=bGB-PfFSV2w&feature=relm fu   on other rock dating methods.   (you have to get past a bit of humour first). 

sorry, youtube.com/watch?v=bGB-PfFSV2w&feature=relmfu

Rinse and hang:   yes I am aware of group think, and fully aware of it in many different contexts.   For that reason I tend to be as hard on those I "group" with, as on others.  

I didn't ask my questions about what you believe or don't believe in scripture in order  to be "fear mongering".   I asked it to understand how you differentiate between what you believe or accept, compared to what you do not accept.   If "science" says that there is no way that the flood could have happened, do you then accept the science and reject the story as mere fable?  If science says there is no way that Moses could have parted the red sea, then do you accept that conclusion?   If science says there is no way someone could be raised from the dead, do you then accept science and reject the resurrection?  The Bahai's take everything about the resurrection symbolically, and deny Jesus physical resurrection just as they accept evolution;  how are you different from that? 

The fear mongering is just in your own mind.   These are real questions, not rhetorical accusations. 

John...you are avoiding. You claimed outright that the geological column doesn't exist

in reality.  Matson showed you that it does.. in many places..especially where the strata

are not disturbed by mountain folding, etc ... Matson goes onto show how even though in

some place some strata are missing, because they were never laid down or because of

erosion, it's always the very same sequence.  It's a remarkable fact of life.   As Matson

points out, the odds of that happening are astronomical, especially when

each main strata has it's own characteristic stamp (eraly,middle,late). 

Instead of mining in his article for anything you can use against him, please answer yes or

no:   Does the geological column actually exist?  And if it does, why did you lie about it? 

My name is immaterial.. However,as you can see, I must be of Scandinavian      origin.

we are trying to get to the bottom of a truth...your probing to my belief in the real Christ was related how?

You inability to answer yes and no perplexes me.  Please don't google bomb me either.

I asked specific questions and I want your own answers.

I am asking on behalf of my brilliant son, who gave up along time ago. 

What's interesting also is how thick a single geological layer of rock can be.   For example, carboniferous rock (often limestone) can range from 300 ft to 42,000 ft.  thick.  42,000 ft is more than the height of mount Everest.  One layer, formed over a period of only 60 million years (out of 4,000 million).  Displacing most other layers completely.   Does this fit with a uniformitarian approach?  

We know, and have seen in certain places, hundreds of feet of sediment laid down in less than one year.   This is also evident in the fossil record.   Sediments can be laid down very quickly, and layered by water.  Yet, the geo-evolutionary perspective presented is always that of mountains slowly eroding to form sediment that eventually layers over the flat lands and creates more fossils.  Which type of sediment formation have we actually seen more of?  

John... I take it that despite the evidence presented by your own fellow creationists, you don't believe it exists.  I am absolutely flabbergasted.  You have lost all credibility with me for that one fact.  I deliberately chose Matson's article because he anticipates this "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" reaction yet you remain unconvinced.  Have actually you checked out these many places where the column is apparently complete and in order?  Have you checked it out and discovered that these geological surveys were a pack of lies?  Here again, this why we get so discredited. We pretend we've got all the answers (at least better answers than the E folk),  yet we need salve for our eyes and clothing for our nakedness.  We are the naked emperor here.  

The reason I have energy is that I have been following this column for some time, watching you spout all sorts of creationist drivel and leading people astray (scientifically and biblically). When I couldn't take it anymore. I registered. I made a provocative statement that would entice you out of the woodwork, and then I attempted to get you to make one of your absolute claims and hold you to it with the evidence. Instead, you descend into relative:  some do, some don't. That's waffling. This is not a theory we are talking about. we are talking about an (repeatedly) observed fact.  John,you MUST have some aquaintence with science.  What are your credentials in this area? 

Please stop insinuating that I must have a problem with my faith life.. your bait and switch tactics won't work with me.  You are attempting to make something out of nothing and it won't work.

Rinse 'n, I don't think you are really listening to what I said.   The article you quoted speaks for itself, and it contradicts itself.  If you can't see how it contradicts itself, then that is your problem.   I have a degree in science, as well as some postgraduate studies.  And a B.A. as well.  You have not answered my question:  Is an incomplete column still a column?   They (not I) claim that their geologic sequence columns are all missing a layer somewhere;  all have gaps. 

There are creationists who claim the column exists, and other creationists who do not.   Why should I choose one over the other?  I am just going by what they say about it.  Matson contradicts himself. 

It's off topic, but ... what did that have to do with anything?  who denies that there's some very thick layers?  who is the uniformitarian here?  who denies sudden floods and rapid burials of fossils?  How many more straw figures you going to put up, John?

Okay, I think I've proved a point, though i'm sure you will disagree. (not being a scientist, I am vulnerable here.. I could have been pointed to a place where even the secular scientic community admits there is no intact column in it's entirely and that Matson is so wrong-- whew!).   

Here's the next question:  You can also get info from Matson:   why are the sentimentary layers of our great oceans, the places where the biblical flood supposedly received all the water and wash out from the land,  the thinnest layers on the planet?

See you next week.  I am relentless.

which degree in science?  which area of expertise?

Dr. Karen Bartelt
Dr Bartelt is an Associate Professor of Chemistry
at Eureka College, Eureka, IL 61530  

"There are very few parts of the world that contain a complete geologic column, though there are at least 25. I would encourage anyone interested in the geologic column -- young earth creationists in particular -- to visit Glenn Morton's excellent and under visited website, especially the article entitled "The Geologic Column and Its Implications to the Flood." One has to go no farther than North Dakota to find a complete geologic column -- no textbook needed."

Dr. Karen Bartelt Professor of Chemistry
at Eureka College, Eureka

"What the young-Earth creationists would need to find in order to overturn the well-established and well-justified concept of the geologic column is something like a mastodon in Devonian sediments, or an ostrich in the Ordovician. Until then, I’ll accept Cambrian-Ordovician-Silurian-Devonian… as an observation that is in need of an explanation."

http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/stratigraphic-column-creati...

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm 

just to save you some trouble if you want to research it

Rinsen, I agree with you that some creationists believe that the entire geologic column is represented in a number of places on earth.   The unknown is really whether all of the sedimentation from each geo period is represented or not.   When erosion occurs, it is difficult to demonstrate how much erosion has occurred.   The thickest layers found on earth for the various periods when added together would make a 200 mile long column.  This might not be the maximum, since even those thickest layers could theoretically have eroded some.   The deepest column presently would be about 16 miles.   So it is possible that some of those "intact" columns could have had some erosion taking out portions of various time periods, even though the major time periods are still represented.  So for example if the Ordovician period lasted 80 million years, there may still be several millions of years not represented in that column for that period. 

So that may be a technicality about completeness of the column.   However, I agree that some creationists believe the entire geologic column is represented in a number of places on earth at a scale that satisfies them.   

Morton (see above link) and Matson anticipated that young earth creationist would reinterprete what constitutes a "geological column", either to duck the truth that intact columns exist or to reinterprete them according to rediculous flood analogies that have noempirical basis in fact.  Morton in particular shows how this is not only completely deceptive but demonstratively false according to the scientic evidence.

It's obvious we will get no were when people keep changing the parameters on this topic.  It was supposed to be a simple yes or  no question.  It seems as far as you are concerned that despite the evidence, only some creationist believe they exist.  You are not one of them. I suspect nothing could change your mind.  even

Interesting debate. And very telling.  It seems that a hypothesis related to "global witness" is easily dissolved into worries about protecting the "flock", seperating out wolves in sheeps clothing, and mincing words about very obvious points of fact, such as the geological column.  I don't think these are helpful ways of turning the tide that John Zylstra is lamenting.

I enjoyed Jeff's reminder that the two books of revelation both reveal God and not just any old (sorry) fact. This is something that every Christian scientist/apologist/philosoper would need to keep in mind. It might help us find a productive way out of the Bible/science debate without us reeking of paranoia and grasping at straws. 

Here is an example of why we are losing the "war":    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cuozzo_cg.html

Norman, I started to read the talk origins link, but it had so little science in it, I couldn't finish reading it.  I want to clarify that mine is not a lament.   My point is one of shifting direction, and realizing that there are implications of faith in the approach to the interpretation of Genesis 1, and that it is worthwhile to examine alternatives to evolutionary theory.  It is important to realize that the issue is not settled, and that various scientists including PhDs are discovering major problems with evolutionary theory, and are proposing alternatives.  Walt Brown is one example, and Creation Ministries International is another example.   I suspect neither one is 100% correct, but both are worth considering, and refinements are possible that make the alternatives more viable.  I have just  begun to have a look at Creation.com, and I appreciate their approach as well. 

This issue is partly about protecting the flock;  if you have difficulty being a witness to your children because of this issue, as many people do, then many children (or first mission field) are leaving the church because of it.  But it is also about our mission in the world to others for exactly the same reason.   If God is irrelevant (as evolution proposes), or if God created evil and death not as result of sin but as normal and "good", then our message of salvation rings hollow.   God reveals himself in the physical world, but usually we cannot understand this revelation without the context of scripture. 

Thanks for trying, John.

As for our first mission field, it seems to me that a strategy of demonizing any sort of science that isn't "young earth" or which refuses to abide the historical, logical and theological sense of Scripture (i.e. modern fundamentalism) will inevitably make a ghetto of Christian faith and "science".  In other words, it's not evolution that's driving thinking people away from faith. It's much of the church's public reaction to it.  

I believe that the above mentioned endeavor is mostly about preaching to itchy ears and is not at all interested in convicting skeptics, Christian or not.

Norman, I don't think it is about demonizing "any sort of science".  It's about drawing attention to the consequences of various approaches to science, as well as recognizing the impact that these approaches have had on people like Dawkins, Darwin, Templeton, etc.  Evolution as a theory can no more drive people away from faith than a wooden image of a sungod.  But our acceptance of it, especially in its totality, can definately encourage people to remove themselves from God.   Those endeavors that present information which shows the difficulties with the evolutionary theory, are attempting to encourage people not to reject the bible the way that Templeton or Dawkins have done. 

Can skeptics be convinced?  Not easily, but possibly.  It is difficult to change paradigms which have now existed for nigh on 100 years or more.  So they won't change quickly.  But that is no reason to give up, and it is no reason to ignore the difficulties with the evolutionary theory.  It is no reason to stop investigating alternative explanations of various phenomena.  It is no reason either to ignore God's preemptive powers, and our finite understanding and ability to see.  The very light that God created, limits our ability to see the present completely, since we are limited in our perception by the speed of light.   But our pride and human ego seems to ignore that fact, and resorts to our supposed superiority over God's power and word. 

This is a battle that is worth fighting.  Meanwhile, we also realize that God will sort it out for us in the end. 

There's plenty of pride and egotism to go around, John. That's for sure.

My take on it is based on shared experiences of young people with a natural tendency to skepticism and curiosity.  This is about a preacher telling them that if you shoot a skunk in the woods and let it rot for a couple of weeks, the bones are just as worthy as being called a "fossil" as any other. This is science teachers shutting down thoughtful student objections in the classrooms of our Christian Schools. This is indeed about demonizing fellow Christians because they are not YECs.   

Tell you what.  I have randomly selected a paper written by a present day YEC by the name of Helder --  "How to Respond to Secular Science". She is better trained in the sciences than I am.  But I want to show you how her approach is not at all interested in "winning the battle" against skeptics of any stripe. It's about triumphalism, propaganda, arrogance and ghetto science.

Give me a couple of weeks to give her paper a more careful read and go through it point by point. 

Norm, hope you enjoy her paper. 

Dear John... couldn't wait, huh?  :)

I am responding because you invited me to. You posed the question. I am trying to answer it. I don't waste time responding to all objections.  I just concentrate on ones pretending to be completely scientific and rational as well as claiming to be faithful to the Bible. I find many of these voices repeatedly bear false witness, encourage division in the Christian community, and seem to misunderstand the nature of science.  (Incidently, I also invest time and energy in refutions of claims like those of Dawkins. However it's American fundamentalism that's making this more difficult, not the other way around)

Allow me, then, to use Helder as an example of how NOT to respond to "secular science".  The first brief installment is just about ready.  Then you can have at 'er.

I see you removed your comment.  Thank you.

google search the title --- How Christians Respond to Secular Science

by Dr. Margaret Helder

to read the paper for yourself.

Norman, I have now read the paper by Margaret Helder, so await your analysis.  I am also reading an interesting book right now, by Jonathan Sarfati.  It is called "The Greatest Hoax on Earth?"  a refutation of Dawkin's "The Greatest Show on Earth".   I'm about one quarter way through, and it's impressive.  Between its detail in analyzing the faulty evolutionary arguments, including an analysis of various experiments such as the peacock's tail, and the spotted guppies, it shows the faulty logic employed to "prove" evolution.  You might find it interesting. 

Not sure if I want to read the same sorts of thing over and over again. See if you can catch what Scott and Branch say about Safarti's MO -- he agrees with the arguments of two evolutionists disagreeing with each other and uses this as evidence that evolution is wrong. If it's true, it's "parasitic science" indeed.

John ... If you would like some balance to your reading, or you would like a good example of the "damage" I see to our faith community BECAUSE of fundamentalist attacks on science, see  http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm 

nuff said for now.  tight lines.

"...Scott and Branch say about Safarti's MO -- he agrees with the arguments of two evolutionists disagreeing with each other and uses this as evidence that evolution is wrong. If it's true, it's "parasitic science" indeed." 

I have not seen this so far in his book.  I have not seen that he uses the mere fact that evolutionists disagree with each other as evidence that evolution is wrong.  His sense of logic is too strong for that.   I don't know where you get "parasitic science" as a concept in this instance.  Scientific conclusions almost always rely on other work, and Safarti gives credit, and even agrees with many experimental evidence and initial conclusions of evolutionary scientists.  He agrees that there is natural selection within populations, for example, but does not agree that it is proof of evolution.  I don't know if scott and branch are merely displaying their bias, but based on your comments alone, I would say that they are.

Hope you enjoy your fishing.
 

Dr. Margaret J. Helder's paper entitled "How Christians Respond to Secular Science" (March, 2012; www.frcna.org) is a good example of how not to respond to secular science. She is a fellow Canadian, a botanist, vice-president of the Creation Science Association of Alberta, associate editor of science and technology for Reformed Perspective, a writer, and a mother of six. She has expertise in areas I admire and I have no reason to doubt she is a woman of faith in Jesus Christ. She is also a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) with whom I respectfully disagree. 

Dr. Helder begins her paper with a section entitled "Setting the Stage."  She tells us about the irony of a sign featuring the words of Job 12:8 which at one time adorned the Royal Tyrrell Museum in Drumheller, Alberta. Helder correctly points out that the verse "Speak to the earth, and let it teach you" is directly followed in the Bible by "who knows not in all these that the hand of the Lord has wrought this?" 

 "The message of Scripture is unequivocal, that God is the creator of all things. Scripture does not sanction the idea of time and chance as agents of creation as the sign in the museum implied. Neither however does nature point to random processes as the creative agent. The sign in the Royal Tyrrell Museum therefore was wrong on two counts...Once Christians recognize that secular accounts of origins are contrary to Scripture, then they must devise strategies to deal with, and respond to the popular interpretations."    (p.1, paragraph 2-3)

I appreciate Helder's concern for accuracy and making sure things are not taken out of context, at least when it comes to quoting the Bible. Yet in her very first two paragraphs Dr. Helder has already misrepresented the position of evolution (presumably, the museum's perspective) no less than three times -- "the idea that random processes...brought about all things"..."the idea of time and chance as agents of creation"..."nature point(s) to random processes".

Every secular scientist would immediately recognize her initial descriptions of evolutionary theory are inaccurate, misleading, and in many ways the opposite of what evolutionary theory explains. Charles Darwin was not a nihilist. If Helder wants to reprimand the Royal Tyrrell for quote-mining and misrepresenting the Bible, she might also want to show good faith by accurately defining evolution theory from the start. At least in taking down the sign the museum avoided the additional charge of hypocrisy. Unfortunately Dr. Helder impales herself on it.

What follows these two paragraphs is a "Gish Gallop" avalanche of references -- creationist book titles, names of prominent YEC scientists and debaters, and a smattering of journal articles -- all apparently showing that creation science, especially in the last 30 years, has shaken the present scientific establishment to its core.

Her bravado is unbridled:  Creationists "generally win such debates". People are getting saved. Scientists are changing their minds. Most importantly, "children in the classroom and at home, were provided with quality creationist resources" and "for brief periods, the message of evolution was muted." According to Helder, creationism has put evolution "on the defensive." The pressure it brought to bear on the scientific establishment "may even have been a factor contributing to certain recent revisions in evolution theory. (p. 2, par.1, emphasis is mine -- citing a good example would have been nice).

Yet even after one day of researching these references, it is obvious that Helder's bravado is groundless. In fact, in the last thirty years, evidence for evolutionary theory has (by several orders of magnitude) far outstripped any positive accumulations put forward by creation science. A few YECs are humble enough to admit this (like Todd Wood, the DNA researcher whom Helder quotes in this paper-- cf. toddcwood.blogspot.ca/2010/07/nature-of-evolution.html). Most will not. In either case it makes little difference because as creationist Kurt Wise admitted, all the evidence in the universe cannot possibly persuade a YEC he or she might be wrong.

I will get to some of Helder's scientific claims in the next two installments.  For the moment, please note (p.2, par.1) that "well-illustrated", "quality", "appealing" publications are her main concern. "Faced with a continuous barrage of evolutionist propaganda and interpretations, many Christian laymen need answers. This is especially so for those people with children who are confronted by such material in the classroom."  Helder is a writer, after all, and every writer needs a market. In fact, one could describe the whole YEC/ID enterprise as an attempt to find a popular market despite scientific consensus.

She goes on to list the wonderful new assets that YEC has recently acquired to meet the challenge and bring "a positive Christian interpretation of nature closer to realization". The Institute for Creation Research now has an electron microscope and a spectrometer to measure low-level radiation in coal, for instance (I'm guessing this will help them chip away at the accuracy of radiometric dating, a field which has not been particularly helpful to creation science). The Van Andel Research Center in Arizona is a new base for creationists wishing to conduct studies in and around the Grand Canyon. She tells us rather cryptically that a new and important dinosaur bed in Wyoming has "recently come under Creationist control." 

I can't access the article about this particular dinosaur bed but, wow, that last quote sounds like a war dispatch, doesn't it?  Certainly a propaganda war.

NEXT -- Helder, Wood, and the nature of scientific theories

Norm, I don’t think Magaret misrepresented anything about evolution.  She has impaled herself on nothing.   You seem to join with a common claim that evolution is misrepresented as if to say, “you don’t really understand it”, particularly when an anti-evolutionist makes a strong position.   The fact is that for the present theory of evolution, random processes are foundational, along with natural selection and adaptations.  It is by calculating apparently random processes that probabilities are derived and probable ages are attributed to various processes and to various turning points in the process.    Furthermore, the idea of virtually unlimited time for these random processes to occur is also a foundational requirement for evolutionary theory to work.  This is no misrepresentation at all.   Whether Darwin was personally a nihilist or not is irrelevant to this.   I note you did not state what in particular was misleading about it, nor did you summarize a contrary position.  

If you think she is inaccurate, then do you think the processes are not random;  that they are directed, and therefore the use of random probabilities are not appropriate?   Do you think then that time is not an agent of creation, or a necessary requirement?   Do you think nature does not point to random processes?   And do you think that mainstream evolutionists would agree with you?   

  You make a comment about her bravado;  I say she is entitled to her perspective, and it is really irrelevant to the validity of the theory.   However, in what I have seen, it appears to be true that creationists often make undeniable and incontrovertible points and arguments about the science involved in “proving” or supporting this theory.   Yes, often creationists do "win" the debates. 

Todd Wood did not say that evidence for evolutionary theory have outstripped accumulations for creation science.  What he said was that he felt there was a certain amount of evidence for evolutionary types of things happening, such as allele frequency changes, evidence of speciation, and universal common ancestry.   But he felt there was another explanation for the evidence of common ancestry.   So, evidence is just evidence.   What is in dispute is what the evidence tells us, and how we understand the evidence.    And Todd does not accept a universal common genetic ancestry. 

Norman, Margaret is completely right that if all material is presented with only one particular view, then children will be influenced by it.  Therefore her comment is completely valid that laymen and children need answers, and need them explained and described in such a way that they can counter the prevailing undesireable way.   I don’t think evolutionists go out of their way to hide their publications, or to advocate that no one buy them, or publish them in shoddy inferior ways.   There is no reason why creationist scientists need to apologize for promotion of their materials either.   

John z

In Dr. Margaret Helder's presentation, "How Christians Respond to Secular Science (March, 2012), we are given a fairly typical sample of the claims of Young Earth Creationism or YEC. I believe such representations polarize and ghettoize our faith as well as misunderstand the nature of modern science.

In an initial installment I show how Helder misrepresents established evolutionary theory ("random processes" played out over time), exaggerates claims for the impact YEC has had on present scientific consensus, and demonstrates her paramount concern for a creationist publishing industry. I conclude these are evidence that she is part of a propagandist rather than scientific enterprise. I stand by these initial conclusions because I believe they survive mere denials (contra Zylstra).  

In this installment, I would like to take issue with Helder's rather unscientific view of scientific theory and consensus. In the next installment, I hope to offer a layman's critique of Helder's view that the Cambrian Explosion is fatal to evolutionary theory.

"Like a nuclear reaction that achieves critical mass, creationists over the internet are encouraging each other. Sometimes people who support a literal understanding of Scripture, are nevertheless nervous about creationist interpretations of nature. Such people fear that if/when a single creationist argument is found not to be supported by data, then the whole position may be discredited. Some people might indeed abandon their literal interpretation of Genesis on such a pretext. But this response, declares Kurt Wise, is not reasonable. The creationist position is a unified model. It stands whatever individual components may be lost. As Dr. Wise remarked: “We all MUST realize that the strength of the young-age creation model is not in any given argument, but rather inthe explanatory power of the model AS A WHOLE (p. 3; emphasis hers).

Helder is here accurately describing how Young Earth Creationists form their version of scientific consensus. It appears to be quite populist and uncritical of its own weaknesses. It also confuses a unified model like creationism with a unified theory like evolutionary theory. Ironically, the definition Dr. Wise uses to explain the "unifying power" of Young Earth Creation (details might be weak/lost/changeable but the whole is persuasive) is actually the definition of  "explanatory impotence" (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanatory_power).

Scientifically speaking, models are not theories. Models can be as small as a simple computer simulation or as great as a philosophical world view. Unlike a scientific theory, models can even be used to replace direct measurement and experimentation. They exist in scientific circles mostly to illustrate, visualize, simulate, encourage investigation in some aspect of empirical reality. By their very nature, models generally are not falsifiable. They are simply better or worse (helpful or unhelpful) representations of reality. A genuine scientific theory, on the other hand, MUST be based on direct measurement, investigation and experimentation.  

By suggesting that neo-darwinian evolution is merely one model of interpreting reality, Helder (via Dr. Kurt Wise), has minimized the enormous difference between creation science and evolutionary science. In one fell stroke, she appears to grant YEC equal legitimacy with evolution and a sort of immunity to criticism that no creationist would permit for evolutionary science. Yet we must remember that Dr. Wise has gone on record saying that no amount evidence could ever persuade him to change his creationist view point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise). That is the one advantage a model has over a well-established scientific theory. A model can survive any and all demands for evidence so long as people prefer it for whatever reason.  

Let me quote Todd Wood, the Young Earth Creationist and DNA researcher whom Helder has quoted approvingly in her paper:

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well."      

                                                                   (toddcwood.blogspot.ca/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html)

Dr. Todd Wood gets the difference between scientific theory and modelling and he has the decency to say evolutionary theory qualifies as true science even if he disagrees with it in places.  He certainly admits in many of his blogs that despite his excellent training and specialized knowledge, creation science has a long way to go before it can depose evolutionary theory as one that has the best correspondence with all the known data. His honesty reveals itself again in the following statements:

"I hope you can see better now how I think about creation. I accept the basic creationist dogma for reasons of faith (which will be discussed in a future post) and a some empirical observations. What is largely lacking from creationist biology are the low level theories that connect the model of creation to the empirical data... As I see it, we need five low level theories in creationist biology: design, imperfection, speciation, systematics, and biogeography."           (toddcwood.blogspot.ca/2009/10/nature-of-explanation.html)

What is dishonest in Helder's paper is an impression that all the "hard science" necessary to depose evolutionary theory as a valid scientific theory has already been done.  How can this be reconciled with statements such the following admission?  "Rather than trying to disprove evolution theory, with its constantly changing scenarios, creationists instead should concentrate on the positive details of their own model."  (p.3, par. 3)

Ignoring this advice and armed with a very slanted view of what constitutes a good theory, Helder launches into the mysteries of the Cambrian explosion and the defeat of secular science.  

Next -- the value of mystery and careful investigation.

“In an initial installment I show how Helder misrepresents established evolutionary theory ("random processes" played out over time)”,  Norman, I had to chuckle at your putting on the mantle of the language of scientific papers. But you have not shown anything about your proposition that Helder misrepresents evolutionary theory  other than simply asserted it.  If I was marking your previous post, you would fail on this account.  You have not shown how it misrepresents anything.  You merely make the conclusion.   In fact, although evolutionary theory is much more complicated than just random processes played out over time, this is still a foundational requirement for evolutionary theory.  Mutations are generally assumed to be random events, which allows natural selection to select for those with adaptive advantages.  I have not seen evolutionary theory postulate that mutations are not random events, or that they are somehow directed or controlled by unusual outside factors in general.  The theory does sometimes postulate unusual events precipitating higher rates of mutation, but it also assumes a certain randomness to these unusual outside events.  It does not assume an “outside hand”, nor an intelligent design. 

Now of course there is an apparent randomness in many things that we experience, such as the rolling of the dice, or the amount of rainfall we get in a given year, or the test scores of university students plotted on a curve.  But within all of this randomness is also a pattern, and a set of limits.  Evolutionary theory is beginning to recognize this and acknowledge this, but still relies on an inherent randomness for the basics of evolving from “goo to you” or from “mud to man”. 

“It also confuses a unified model like creationism with a unified theorylike evolutionary theory. Ironically, the definition Dr. Wise uses to explain the "unifying power" of Young Earth Creation (details might be weak or changeable but the whole is persuasive) is actually the definition of  "explanatory impotence" “

 Here Norman you make a partially valid point that models are a bit different than theory and that explanatory impotence often weakens the theory,    However, this has happened often with evolutionary theory as well.  The solution for evolutionists is to adapt or change or modify the theory.  This is understandable, because otherwise the theory would fail.  (For example, evolutionary theory predicted that the ancient coelanth fish was extinct, when it isn’t extinct.)   But this should also be permissable for the YEC models or the underlying theory.  Models of all types are constantly being adjusted and revised, just as much as any theories.  Models are just the workings out and details of various theories.  For example, there are many global climate change models which have different outcomes for temperature and precipitation, even though most  are generally all based on the general theory or assumption that global climate is becoming generally warmer due to human influence.  We can debate the semantics of whether the global climate theory is based on the models, or whether the models are an outcome of the theory.  Debating this is a sidebar and a distraction to the main issue however, of whether alternate or opposing theories have validity. 

The evolutionary theory and accompanying model makes a lot of assumptions about cause and effect, and also about whether   certain events   are only and solely explainable by the evolutionary theory.  Creationists are attempting to test whether these assumptions are true, and whether there are other alternate mechanisms for causing these events and artifacts.

I would disagree however, that models are not falsifiable.   A model that inputs incorrect data usually puts out a false outcome.  A model that ignores major necessary inputs also will put out a false outcome.  Some global circulation models for example suggest that climate change will result in 40% more rainfall in Ghana in the future, while others suggest that the outcome will be 65% less rainfall in the future.  If you argue that both are correct and neither one is false, nor falsifiable, then I would disagree.  In addition, models that do not reasonably accurately “predict” past events are also falsifiable.  This means they need to be changed to be useful or true.  Thus I have shown your statement about models to be false.

A scientific theory must not necessarily be based on investigation, measurement and experimentation, for it to be presented or postulated, although usually they are.  The meaning of “theory” in a scientific context has been revised to mean something entirely different than its basic meaning.  The scientific world does not like the fact that theory can be taken to mean something that has no validity, so they have adjusted the meaning of the word.  In some ways this is understandable and okay.  But the reality is that theories are formulated before they are proven, and then tested and adjusted.  For example, original theories of geocentrism have been discarded for the theory or conclusion of heliocentrism.  Presently, scientists are reluctant to publicly postulate or describe theories that they have not tested or verified to their confidence level.  And grand theories, such as relativity, gravity, and evolution, are generally assumed to have gone beyond mere theory to a set of accepted laws. 

But, an initial theory can be based on some primary observations along with accompanying assumptions.   Measurement and experimentation then comes after the postulation of the theory, as well as revising and adjusting the theory.   A theory provides a context for a hypothesis or several hyptheses to be tested.  Sometimes it is easily verified;  other times it is difficult to test or prove, or perhaps even impossible to prove.  Testing the theory of gravity or magnetism is relatively easy to test;  testing the theory of ground cover reducing soil erosion thru the hypothesis of “If a soil is bare it should exhibit more soil loss than if it is growing a crop” is fairly easy;    testing the theory of the existence of aliens in outer space is not so easy.  But regardless, the theory generally precedes experimentation.  So I have shown this your statement also to be false.   (In spite of wikipedia…). 

“…she appearsto grant YEC equal legitimacy with evolution and yet a sort of immunity to criticism that no creationist would permit for evolutionary science.”  Well yes, an element of partial truth in this.  But she obviously thinks YEC more legitimate than evolution, so not equal legitimacy.  And whether she grants an immunity to criticism is somewhat irrelevant, isn’t it?  After all, it won’t stop the criticism.  Many evolutionists have also done the same, you know, in accepting evolution religiously.  That’s why rather than discarding the theory, they simply adjust and revise in order to maintain their basic principles of common ancestry, undirected change through mostly random mutations selected in adaptations by natural selection over time.  Its quite amazing that they have been able to continue to revise and adjust so successfully to retain credibility for the basic theory principles. 

Your quoting Todd Wood is interesting, but you must be aware that other creationists would disagree with some of his statements, even while understanding why he makes them.   You see, while the evolutionary theory has been motivational and contextual for many scientific experiments and conclusions, the assumption is usually that only the evolutionary theory could provide that context.  Yet, there are many scientific discoveries, including in medicine, that do not require evolutionary theory as a foundation or assumption.  Even Todd agrees that while the evolutionary theory seems to provide a rational context for many scientific conclusions, he points out that he does not necessarily agree that it provides the only context or the only framework, and thus he disagrees with a common ancestry, in spite of most evolutionists believing firmly in it. 

I think Todd Wood’s request for five low level theories within the grand theory of creation is appreciated.  I think parts of them exist, but they could be formulated and stated more clearly and precisely. 

I find your last two paragraphs to be confusing….  I don’t think Helder is dishonest at all.   She believes the evidence she has seen and heard of definitely deposes evolutionary theory, although evolution theory is constantly adjusting and revising (as many valid theories often do).   Whether she is mistaken or not, she is definitely not being dishonest.  But you can’t survive on simply attacking someone else; you must in the end have a better alternative.  Part of that is simply faith, of course, but part of it also, is substantiated by a different interpretation of the evidence; this is what she is stressing. 

Ian Juby has put together some videos called “Persuaded by the evidence”, a conversation with five different individuals of scientific credentials and background.  These individuals had formerly believed and assumed that the theory of evolution explained everything, and then come to a realization that it didn’t.  This realization came to them after an examination and consideration of various parts of the theory.  You can see these videos for free on youtube. 

Personally, I don’t think the cambrian explosion is fatal to the evolutionary theory, because in some ways the evolutionary theory is like the theory of aliens.  There will be  and probably has been some explanation provided as to why the cambrian explosion took place;  however this will probably require some kind of unusual event to have occurred.  The unusual event is necessitated by the cambrian explosion itself, and thus will be proved by the cambrian explosion.  Great huh?   But of course, this explanation will demonstrate that unusual events are common?  Or how do we know they did not happen more often? 

Nevertheless, the cambrian explosion is not predicted by the bare evolutionary theory.  It needs an adjustment in circumstance or environment to explain it;  and that adjustment seems to remain to be hypothetical and speculative, ie; a sudden increase in oxygen?, a sudden increase in radiation?, etc.   The YEC theory already has a number of “unusual” circumstances within it.  Could it fit the evidence of these fossils? 

Looking forward to your explanation of the cambrian explosion.

John  

Norman, this particular youtube is also very relevant to this discussion, as it shows how some "proof" for evolution is simply false, as well as relates to the reaction of christian students to the teachings of evolution. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4wJsD6ETks

Another youtube which demonstrates in support of Helder's statement that evolution does not explain everything.  In this youtube it actually shows how evolutionary theory has hindered scientific pursuit by making the wrong assumptions. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUlLp0xmsZ0&feature=relmfu

Norman, I appreciate most of your comments, even when  I disagree.  But I would prefer if you didn't start to get personal about my supposed arrogance, or defensiveness or being hard of hearing.  All of those things may be true, as I am indeed an imperfect human being.  But they are quite irrelevant to the points we are discussing.  The reason I gave you a failing mark on your one statement is simply because you asserted something which was obviously not true.  This would be obvious to anyone, that you had not "shown" (demonstrated) something when you claimed you had.  This has nothing to do with your personality or mine, nor with my arrogance or lack of it.   However, I apologize for "giving you a mark" at all;  it was not something that I needed to mention. 

I'm only doing this once. I do not want to get distracted from my intention which is to demonstrate, from a layman's point of view, how Helder is doing a disservice to the understanding of science and why many are abandoning the faith because they don't want to be associated with YEC "science" or American -styled fundamentalism (contra Zylstra who is convinced that it's evolution and folks like Dawkins who are making unbelievers of us).

Because it seems this matters a lot to you, I will clarify what I meant by writing that Helder misrepresented established science and evolutionary theory. The context of my conclusion was Helder's condemnation of the Royal Tyrrell Museum's sign, remember? The museum had the audacity to quote Job 12:8, making it appear that both the Bible and nature teach evolution. Helder had every right to say that the museum abused the Scriptures by taking one line from Job while leaving out the completing thought made in that passage. It was a clever misrepresentation and I'm glad the museum took it down.

I simply pointed out that what’s good for the goose is what’s good for the gander.  If the museum was wrong for taking a little snippet out of the Bible and making it seem to support evolutionary theory, then Helder is even more wrong – hypocritical, in fact -- to go on and summarize evolutionary theory as time and chance and “random processes”.   It’s why I hauled out the memory of Charles Darwin whose main contribution to evolutionary theory wasn’t a theory of time or a theory of randomness but his break-through idea of natural selection. That idea is alive and well-evidenced in the museum and at the heart of the scientific enterprise. By leaving this critical piece out of her initial descriptions of evolution, like the museum did of Job, she not only misrepresents evolution but proves herself hypocritical.

Hope you get it now.  Don’t fall on your sword too soon. I have more to say that might interest you in the following installments.     

Apology accepted.

Friend Norman, I appreciate your elucidation of your perception of Helder's misrepresentation,  in other words highlighting that she did not mention natural selection when yes it is an essential part of the evolutionary theory.  However, I hope you are not suggesting that she was not aware of this component of the theory.  I believe that while it is a part of the theory, so is genetics itself, and so are basic principles of biology(mating or cell division) and physics and chemistry.  Yet Helder did not mention these either.  The reason I believe is because natural selection is too often overplayed as being evolution, while it is not.  

 Evolutionary ideas were not new at the time of Darwin or Wallace. Anaximander  of Miletus  (c.610–546 BC)  proposed that animals of different species derived from other species.  Lamark proposed transmutation of species well before Darwin did.  James Hutton, Charles Wells, and Patrick Matthew have mentioned natural selection, or at least described it, well before Darwin did.   Selection itself was practiced by people for many centuries in terms of breeding dogs, poultry, horses, bovines, and it is unreasonable to assume that people were unaware of selection also within the natural environment.    It is a common concept also accepted by creationists.  However, creationists limit natural selection to operating within the existing variability within a species or kind, and in fact even evolutionists must limit the ability of natural selection to act only on existing genomic information.   Natural selection by itself cannot create new genes, nor create mutations, nor create new morphologies.   It is not natural selection by itself that causes evolution;  rather it is the random mutations working over long periods of time that allows natural selection to work to create new species (by evolutionary theory).  Thus while natural selection is necessary for evolutionary theory, it is not as essentially separate from non-evolutionary theory compared to the need for random mutations and long periods of time, which evolutionary theory requires in contrast to other theories. 

In creationist paradigm, natural selection works to keep "kinds" or species reproducing after their own kind.  In the creationist paradigm, natural selection is recognized to generally work against the random mutations,  and does not promote them.  Natural selection  tends to reduce diversity and variability instead of increasing it, and thus does not favor evolution of species more than stability of species.   

John

Norman and John,

I'm impressed that you've continued the conversation this long and a little less impressed with the way you've been speaking to each other. You've gotten very good at debating the details, but I'm wondering what these details mean for the big picture. How do these theories impact the way we relate to God and to each other?

Marie!  Thanks for your interest. I've been trying to demonstrate from a layman's point of view that much of young earth "science" is actually destroying the faith of bright, curious minds who are extremely disappointed with YEC tactics and explanations.  I've been trying to do this not by attacking John and his positions personally, though I know he is a YEC, but by using Helder's paper "How Christians Respond to Secular Science" as an example of what is not helpful. 

Two days ago, after I invited a bright young man to read this discussion, he emailed me: "I read as much as I could before losing interest. How can he throw so much science out the window? .... I've lost the passion for debate on this subject. I feel at ease with my paradigm. I feel it makes sense. I can't say that I felt that way with a Christian paradigm...Science could allow for a god, but Christianity doesn't allow for science. End of story in my opinion." 

This is what I am afraid of.

I would also point to the experiences of brilliant, science-minded Christians like Todd Wood and Glen Morton who get repeatedly slammed for being, well, good scientists. (i.e.  http://www.icr.org/article/3132/ ).  John began this thread by saying that it's Dawkins and evolution who are destroying faith.  I disagree. Christians have had to deal with Bible-defying scientific claims and eloquent atheism for a many centuries. It's American fundamentalism, with its false scientific shibboleths, that is driving many people away from the camp of faith in Christ. 

I have two installments left in my critique of Helder's paper. The last will include some "so what" conclusions.

 "
 

Marie, thanks for your comment.   You can see that there is a divergence of opinion on whether acceptance of evolution leads to a decline in faith or not, especially among the average person on the street.  That was my main reason for starting this blog in the first place.  You see, if evolution seems to make Genesis One, or Genesis 1-11 a mere myth, then much of the foundations of our faith, such as one man bringing sin into the world (requiring Christ to redeem us), become very questionable.   It makes the early prophecies of a redeemer very questionable.   This is why people like Dawkins are not ambivalent about christianity, but actually hate it and love to denigrate and despise it by pointing out how evolution contradicts it.   They rejoice in the fact that evolution is an indicator for them that scripture is merely a man-made imperfect invention, instead of being the inspired word of God.  This context is what underlies the discussion of the details;  how does evolution jive with scripture;  how can we reconcile the two?  

Norman claims that some of young earth science actually adversely affects the faith of some christians due to unseemly tactics etc.   And I agree that sometimes this happens.   Sometimes our methods and our personal credibility hurt our positions.   We need to remember this, and stress honesty, integrity, and detail.   But it is a bit disingenuous to imply that evolutionists do not also often use unseemly tactics.   In my experience, vitriol and personal attacks are much more common by evolutionists, including by people like Dawkins.   

But, somehow, the discussion still needs to occur.   We need to trust that the truth will come out.   In some way, this will and does already affect our faith, and the faith perspective of many people.   When people use the phrase, "survival of the fittest" in reference to some stupid action by a drunk driver or the business practices of a ruthless businessman, they are using that phrase in the context of a value system that is supported by the evolutionary theory which supposedly brought about the existence of the human race.   Evolution is never merely a scientific theory, no matter how much people may want to insist it is.   It is also a world and life view, coloring our actions and our perspective.   And it is a considerably different world view than the one that scripture gives us. 

So, do YEC cause christians to leave the faith?   Or does acceptance of evolution theory remove the foundation of our faith?  Which is it?  or which is more likely more often?  

If we refined evolution to be evolution within certain "kinds", and if we acknowdged, as Todd Wood does that evolution did not create human beings, then perhaps there is a tenuous co-existence.   But, we must be aware that the general scientific community, including Dawkins and his kind, are not at all satisfied with such a co-existence.  They will not only disagree;  they will say it is unscientific to postulate such a compromise co-existence.   It is not creationists who are against science, but it is the rabid evolutionists who claim that YEC are not interested in science.   The fact is that YEC also find science very fascinating, because it is part of God's created world.  But they do not feel the need to adopt the entirety of the rabid evolutionist definition of science to include the necessity for "mud to man" evolution. 

When YEC make the detailed arguments, such as about the Coelanth fish, or about various fossil footprints, or about the way layers of sediment can form, or about polystrate fossils, or about missing layers of "time", or about clear unconformities, or lack of natural erosion in deep rock layers, or about genetic probabilities and disimilarities, YEC are indicating that they are very interested in science, and that they are objectively pointing out problems with evolutionists interpretation of the evidence.   Norman's "young man" says that Christianity does not allow for science, but obviously that is not true.  There are many Christian scientists.   So why does he say it?  Is it because he doesn't like the struggle or the way evidence is interpreted differently, or the way previously accepted conclusions are challenged?   So often people claim that christianity does not like science, merely because it challenges evolution.  To me this is a clear indication of antithesis.   It is also a clear indication of how evolutionists do not really enjoy the theory being foundationally challenged, and so they switch the terms "evolution" and "science"  as if they were synonyms, which they are not.  So if some people are turned off by the YEC examination of the evidence and the way they argue against the evolutionist position, then perhaps it is because their minds are already turned off to alternate explanations, or perhaps the whole discussion is simply too difficult to comprehend and understand.  

But, you must know, that this evolutionary perspective has greatly influenced human behaviour in the past, both for the assumed superiority of some races, as well as the assumed superiority of intellect and physique of some groups of people.   If humans are merely animals, as the theory suggests, then it has a huge impact on our value system.  As christians and scientists we cannot pretend that this is not an issue.  And if we ignore this issue, then we are failing to be witnesses in this world of how God relates to us, and how we relate to God. 

There is also the possibility of an OEC position (old earth creationist), which accepts an older age but without macro-evolution (mud to man).   But this position seems to be considered less often. 

I hope that clarifies a bit what this is all about.