No, it wouldn't be fruitful to try to suggest that Walhout's statements were not contrary to our confessions or to scripture. It couldn't be done. It does not make me happy to suggest that someone (anyone) should be found to lose his credentials or even to ask for an apology, especially an older gentleman who is "retired". I find it sad. and disgraceful. and sad that it is necessary to even suggest it. Of course, you are allowed to say it may not be charitable. Which is a judgement, and it is a judgement that might seem to forbid people from asking for truth or conformity to confessions by those who should know better. The problem is that this statement/article went to innocent helpless homes in our crc churches. The problem is that if it is possible to make such statements in such a way without consequences, then is there any point at all of elders being enjoined to engage in "being firm and consistent in rebuke and discipline"? Is there any real point in examining pastors, or in examining those who wish to make profession of faith? What is the point? What does it really matter what they believe? What does it mean on page 995 (hymnal) where it says that a minister "must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it."?
Lubbert, again I disagree. I am not lumping people together who should not be lumped together. In fact, on the Banner thread on this topic, Andy Luchys seems to be in a different camp.
I agree with you that there are different possibilities, yet, I believe it makes sense to defend the possibility that one thinks is most likely, not those that are less likely. My supposedly "singular" notion of the natural world is not singularly held by me, but is held by many others as well.
Frankly, you have not well explained your point on fallacy. You claim that defending a particular viewpoint merely on the basis of material observation means that walhout and I have the same paradigm, even though different interpretations. I have already disagreed with this in detail in response to your point, which you seem not to be aware of. I have raised objections to his assumptions based on his paradigm, even though it is not my primary paradigm. My paradigm is that God can do whatever He wants to, and that it is entirely legitimate for God to do so, no matter how "unnatural" it may seem to be. But if someone suggests a theory that contradicts the more obvious writing of scripture (taking a virtually nonsensical figurative approach to scripture), then it is entirely legitimate to bring up material and physical objections to such a theory, which is what I have done.
Merely arguing towards/within someone else's paradigm, does not mean that I have adopted an identical paradigm.
Maybe the understanding of this phrase underlies the problem in the discussion we are having. What does it mean that the church is reforming? What are we reformed by? What are we reformed to? I think we should understand that this phrase does NOT mean, to be reformed by the world. Instead, it means to be reformed by scripture, and by the Spirit of God. It does not mean that the church is to be reformed to worldly standards or beliefs, but rather to service of God and our neighbor in love that honors God as creator, saviour and lord, and honors scripture as God's word.
"Dr. Case-Winters suggests that the phrase Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda has been misused or misinterpreted by Reformed Christians on both ends of the theological spectrum. The Reformers understanding of the phrase was neither conservative nor liberal, but “radical, in the sense of returning to ‘root.’” They believed that the church had become corrupt and wanted to return to a more authentic faith and life. “The cultural assumption of the Reformers’ day,” she notes, “was that what is older is better.” (Presbyterian Hist Soc News)
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?
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.
“Helder uses disagreements between scientists who totally disagree with YEC as proof that YEC must be correct. “ Again, Norman, let me reiterate that she does not do this, in spite of what you say. If you look closely at the argument, what she is doing is using a refutation of a particular evolutionary hypothesis of an evolutionist by another evolutionist, to demonstrate that the piece of evidence does not support an evolutionary explanation for the Cambrian explosion. Did she say that this proves that YEC must be correct? No, not as I read it. What she said was that YEC model or theory would expect a sudden appearance of fossils rather than a gradual appearance of fossils. The evolutionary model or theory expects a gradual appearance of fossils. Thus in this case, the Cambrian explosion meets the general expectations of the creation model more easily than meeting the expectations of the evolutionary model. Any explanations for the Cambrian explosion within the evolutionary paradigm, so far do not work. It doesn’t really matter whether it is YEC scientists or evolutionary scientists who have discredited the arguments for various evolutionary explanations for the Cambrian explosion.
You seem to worry about all the work done, the field work, the expense, the gathering of evidence, etc., that it is not getting enough credit. But that is not the point. Was it Edison who said about his many many efforts to develop a light bulb, that it was not a waste of time, but merely a learning about how many ways one cannot make a light bulb? I would say this is somewhat similar. If we knew all the results ahead of time, we would not have to do the research.
Finally, you do ask some very good questions, such as where are the missing genera and species in the Cambrian layer –why are they not there? And why are different types of animals in different layers sometimes – and how prevalent is this? Why are Precambrian fossils usually single celled without bones? However, a few questions of yours are making wrong assumptions, such as that YEC would accept 50 million years of Cambrian explosion. On the other hand, a good question of yours is how are other apparent “explosions” of mammals and flowered plants explained? And what is the problem with old earth creation science? Good questions, regardless of whether answers yet exist or not.
In your postulation (in your next installment) that YEC is bad for science and bad for faith, you will need to distinguish between attitude and process. Yes, ocassionally some YEC seem to have a reduced respect for scientific endeavor. But YEC science itself is in the same mode as any other type of science, in that it needs to investigate, experiment, satisfy confidence levels, and resolve incongruities. A couple examples of how evolutionary theory has been bad for science include the assumption that Coelanth fish was extinct when it wasn’t, and that tonsils and appendixes served no purpose, but were mere evolutionary residuals, and that only 1% of the DNA was valuable while 99% was “junk DNA”. YEC science assumptions would be that people would not expect useless stuff in the DNA, and now over 80% of the DNA has been found not to be junk DNA, and investigation is continuing. And tonsils and appendixes have been discovered to have a purpose, in spite of, not because of, evolutionary assumptions and presuppositions.
Is evolutionary theory good for science when it leads researchers to prematurely claim that there is 99% or 97% dna similarity between chimps and humans? When actually there is a 12% difference in size of the genome to start with, not counting a whole bunch of other differences, and that the similarity is no where near 99%? Is this good science?
Not saying who should be selected as director, but I think the significant leadership should come from synod (the elders), not from a CEO, not from a pope, not from a director. This would have implications for who might be selected as exec director, since he would operate as one who effects the decisions and purposes of Synod. As Larry suggested CEOs built the recession, which is true, yet politicians, theologians, and church politicians also can sometimes be mistaken, and cause huge problems. Capabilities and experience relevant to the requirements of the task do not ensure perfect success, yet they are beneficial for getting the job done.
An alternate possibility is that a preacher/pastor is retained for a period of five years. Then he could be renewed in his term, or perhaps not renewed, depending on the wisdom of the church council. This would make his term more similar to that of the other ordained elders, who serve for limited terms. Perhaps we could discuss the pros and cons of such a process. What would that do for freedom to preach? for security of position? for refreshment of ministry? for a focus on God? etc.
Strip mining of coal covers much more land globally than Canada's oil, which is a target of convenience, an irrational concentration of effort by enviros: From the July issue of Scientific American: " Other forms Of fossil fuel add more to the world's carbon budget, yet they do not draw as much ire (as oilsands). Perhaps they should. ln 2011 U.S. coal-fired power plants emitted nearly two billion meb·ic tons of greenhouse gases-roughly eight times the amount produced by mining, refining and burning tar sands. Many coal mines around the world create just as visible a scar on the landscape and an even bigger climate change legacy. Yet mines like those in Montana and Wyoming's Powder River Basin are not the targets of highprofile protests such as those facing Keystone XL; protesters do not tic themselves to the tracks to block the kilometers-long trains that carry coal from the basin day after day. The U.S. Geological Survey suggests that basin alone holds 150 billion metric tons of coal that could be recovered with existing technology. Burning it all would send the world flying beyond any trillionmetric- ton carbon budget. " (by David Biello)
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.
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. )
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.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
No, it wouldn't be fruitful to try to suggest that Walhout's statements were not contrary to our confessions or to scripture. It couldn't be done. It does not make me happy to suggest that someone (anyone) should be found to lose his credentials or even to ask for an apology, especially an older gentleman who is "retired". I find it sad. and disgraceful. and sad that it is necessary to even suggest it. Of course, you are allowed to say it may not be charitable. Which is a judgement, and it is a judgement that might seem to forbid people from asking for truth or conformity to confessions by those who should know better. The problem is that this statement/article went to innocent helpless homes in our crc churches. The problem is that if it is possible to make such statements in such a way without consequences, then is there any point at all of elders being enjoined to engage in "being firm and consistent in rebuke and discipline"? Is there any real point in examining pastors, or in examining those who wish to make profession of faith? What is the point? What does it really matter what they believe? What does it mean on page 995 (hymnal) where it says that a minister "must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it."?
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Lubbert, again I disagree. I am not lumping people together who should not be lumped together. In fact, on the Banner thread on this topic, Andy Luchys seems to be in a different camp.
I agree with you that there are different possibilities, yet, I believe it makes sense to defend the possibility that one thinks is most likely, not those that are less likely. My supposedly "singular" notion of the natural world is not singularly held by me, but is held by many others as well.
Frankly, you have not well explained your point on fallacy. You claim that defending a particular viewpoint merely on the basis of material observation means that walhout and I have the same paradigm, even though different interpretations. I have already disagreed with this in detail in response to your point, which you seem not to be aware of. I have raised objections to his assumptions based on his paradigm, even though it is not my primary paradigm. My paradigm is that God can do whatever He wants to, and that it is entirely legitimate for God to do so, no matter how "unnatural" it may seem to be. But if someone suggests a theory that contradicts the more obvious writing of scripture (taking a virtually nonsensical figurative approach to scripture), then it is entirely legitimate to bring up material and physical objections to such a theory, which is what I have done.
Merely arguing towards/within someone else's paradigm, does not mean that I have adopted an identical paradigm.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
"Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda"
Maybe the understanding of this phrase underlies the problem in the discussion we are having. What does it mean that the church is reforming? What are we reformed by? What are we reformed to? I think we should understand that this phrase does NOT mean, to be reformed by the world. Instead, it means to be reformed by scripture, and by the Spirit of God. It does not mean that the church is to be reformed to worldly standards or beliefs, but rather to service of God and our neighbor in love that honors God as creator, saviour and lord, and honors scripture as God's word.
"Dr. Case-Winters suggests that the phrase Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda has been misused or misinterpreted by Reformed Christians on both ends of the theological spectrum. The Reformers understanding of the phrase was neither conservative nor liberal, but “radical, in the sense of returning to ‘root.’” They believed that the church had become corrupt and wanted to return to a more authentic faith and life. “The cultural assumption of the Reformers’ day,” she notes, “was that what is older is better.” (Presbyterian Hist Soc News)
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
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?
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
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.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
“Helder uses disagreements between scientists who totally disagree with YEC as proof that YEC must be correct. “ Again, Norman, let me reiterate that she does not do this, in spite of what you say. If you look closely at the argument, what she is doing is using a refutation of a particular evolutionary hypothesis of an evolutionist by another evolutionist, to demonstrate that the piece of evidence does not support an evolutionary explanation for the Cambrian explosion. Did she say that this proves that YEC must be correct? No, not as I read it. What she said was that YEC model or theory would expect a sudden appearance of fossils rather than a gradual appearance of fossils. The evolutionary model or theory expects a gradual appearance of fossils. Thus in this case, the Cambrian explosion meets the general expectations of the creation model more easily than meeting the expectations of the evolutionary model. Any explanations for the Cambrian explosion within the evolutionary paradigm, so far do not work. It doesn’t really matter whether it is YEC scientists or evolutionary scientists who have discredited the arguments for various evolutionary explanations for the Cambrian explosion.
You seem to worry about all the work done, the field work, the expense, the gathering of evidence, etc., that it is not getting enough credit. But that is not the point. Was it Edison who said about his many many efforts to develop a light bulb, that it was not a waste of time, but merely a learning about how many ways one cannot make a light bulb? I would say this is somewhat similar. If we knew all the results ahead of time, we would not have to do the research.
Finally, you do ask some very good questions, such as where are the missing genera and species in the Cambrian layer –why are they not there? And why are different types of animals in different layers sometimes – and how prevalent is this? Why are Precambrian fossils usually single celled without bones? However, a few questions of yours are making wrong assumptions, such as that YEC would accept 50 million years of Cambrian explosion. On the other hand, a good question of yours is how are other apparent “explosions” of mammals and flowered plants explained? And what is the problem with old earth creation science? Good questions, regardless of whether answers yet exist or not.
In your postulation (in your next installment) that YEC is bad for science and bad for faith, you will need to distinguish between attitude and process. Yes, ocassionally some YEC seem to have a reduced respect for scientific endeavor. But YEC science itself is in the same mode as any other type of science, in that it needs to investigate, experiment, satisfy confidence levels, and resolve incongruities. A couple examples of how evolutionary theory has been bad for science include the assumption that Coelanth fish was extinct when it wasn’t, and that tonsils and appendixes served no purpose, but were mere evolutionary residuals, and that only 1% of the DNA was valuable while 99% was “junk DNA”. YEC science assumptions would be that people would not expect useless stuff in the DNA, and now over 80% of the DNA has been found not to be junk DNA, and investigation is continuing. And tonsils and appendixes have been discovered to have a purpose, in spite of, not because of, evolutionary assumptions and presuppositions.
Is evolutionary theory good for science when it leads researchers to prematurely claim that there is 99% or 97% dna similarity between chimps and humans? When actually there is a 12% difference in size of the genome to start with, not counting a whole bunch of other differences, and that the similarity is no where near 99%? Is this good science?
Looking forward to your next conclusion.
John Z
Posted in: Who Will Lead Our Denomination?
Not saying who should be selected as director, but I think the significant leadership should come from synod (the elders), not from a CEO, not from a pope, not from a director. This would have implications for who might be selected as exec director, since he would operate as one who effects the decisions and purposes of Synod. As Larry suggested CEOs built the recession, which is true, yet politicians, theologians, and church politicians also can sometimes be mistaken, and cause huge problems. Capabilities and experience relevant to the requirements of the task do not ensure perfect success, yet they are beneficial for getting the job done.
Posted in: Some Denominations Have Bishops; We Have Article 17
An alternate possibility is that a preacher/pastor is retained for a period of five years. Then he could be renewed in his term, or perhaps not renewed, depending on the wisdom of the church council. This would make his term more similar to that of the other ordained elders, who serve for limited terms. Perhaps we could discuss the pros and cons of such a process. What would that do for freedom to preach? for security of position? for refreshment of ministry? for a focus on God? etc.
Posted in: Climate Change - Wither Now?
Strip mining of coal covers much more land globally than Canada's oil, which is a target of convenience, an irrational concentration of effort by enviros: From the July issue of Scientific American: " Other forms Of fossil fuel add more to the world's carbon budget, yet they do not draw as much ire (as oilsands). Perhaps they should. ln 2011 U.S. coal-fired power plants emitted nearly two billion meb·ic tons of greenhouse gases-roughly eight times the amount produced by mining, refining and burning tar sands. Many coal mines around the world create just as visible a scar on the landscape and an even bigger climate change legacy. Yet mines like those in Montana and Wyoming's Powder River Basin are not the targets of highprofile protests such as those facing Keystone XL; protesters do not tic themselves to the tracks to block the kilometers-long trains that carry coal from the basin day after day. The U.S. Geological Survey suggests that basin alone holds 150 billion metric tons of coal that could be recovered with existing technology. Burning it all would send the world flying beyond any trillionmetric- ton carbon budget. " (by David Biello)
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
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
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
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. )
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
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.