The commentator, Anthony Furley, stated that it was more important to find out what people believed, than what their faith said they were supposed to believe. I wonder if this would also apply to Christians, and in particular, members of our denomination.
"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.
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?
“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…).
Norman, I agree that too many christians speak with loose lips on this issue. Your example points that out. But my point is that no one in your example said "I condemn you for being a good scientist". That is my point. So I think my contention still stands. They are upset because someone switched sides, or has a different point of view, not because they are a good scientist. If anything, their contention would be that good science is not being practiced.
Having just returned from a ghg conference in Animal Agric in Ireland, I would say there are many opportunities. Delegates from Japan and Brazil, Netherlands, Spain, Germany, Australia, NZ, Canada and the USA and many other countries, presented research, over 400 presentations. Some of this research showed what would not work, and some showed some promising reductions of methane with certain practices or feed additives. Interesting is that increased efficiency usually means reduction of methane and CO2 and N2O. What that means is that it should be possible to produce more food with less resources, which helps to solve the global food demand issue (9 billion people by 2050 anticipated).
On the adaptation side, the recent flooding in Southern Alberta also highlighted the likely costs of not anticipating greater weather fluctuations in the future. But the opportunity might be that setting up better irrigation infrastructure (water storage) might also reduce catastrophic flooding events. Anyway, thinking about opportunities, will make the costs of adaption become investments, rather than merely costs.
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.
“…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.
Norman, in your post about "knowing exactly how God does things" , I agree with you that we must follow the evidence. But we cannot be successful in knowing even partially how God does things if we assume God does not exist.
Jeremy, yes, there are also political and social opportunities, and I agree that it does not make much sense to send so much cash to a politically volatile region, which often uses the money against us, compared to utilizing resources which are closer at hand, including piping oil from a relatively friendly Canada.
You are not nuts. You are not crazy. Some seminary trained preachers preach the pure word of God, but some don't. Some established churches practices church discipline but some don't. Some administer sacraments purely, but some don't. A missional group may be as much "church" as any of these established churches, and may have the "marks" of the church, or may make similar mistakes or different mistakes than established churches. Preach the word in season, and out of season (indoors, and outdoors, and without doors...).
Posted in: What Is the Real Impact of Muslim Relations?
The commentator, Anthony Furley, stated that it was more important to find out what people believed, than what their faith said they were supposed to believe. I wonder if this would also apply to Christians, and in particular, members of our denomination.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
"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.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
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.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
“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…).
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Norman, I agree that too many christians speak with loose lips on this issue. Your example points that out. But my point is that no one in your example said "I condemn you for being a good scientist". That is my point. So I think my contention still stands. They are upset because someone switched sides, or has a different point of view, not because they are a good scientist. If anything, their contention would be that good science is not being practiced.
Posted in: Climate Change - Wither Now?
Having just returned from a ghg conference in Animal Agric in Ireland, I would say there are many opportunities. Delegates from Japan and Brazil, Netherlands, Spain, Germany, Australia, NZ, Canada and the USA and many other countries, presented research, over 400 presentations. Some of this research showed what would not work, and some showed some promising reductions of methane with certain practices or feed additives. Interesting is that increased efficiency usually means reduction of methane and CO2 and N2O. What that means is that it should be possible to produce more food with less resources, which helps to solve the global food demand issue (9 billion people by 2050 anticipated).
On the adaptation side, the recent flooding in Southern Alberta also highlighted the likely costs of not anticipating greater weather fluctuations in the future. But the opportunity might be that setting up better irrigation infrastructure (water storage) might also reduce catastrophic flooding events. Anyway, thinking about opportunities, will make the costs of adaption become investments, rather than merely costs.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
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.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
I read that already. You should read the third last sentence in that paragraph.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
“…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
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Norman, in your post about "knowing exactly how God does things" , I agree with you that we must follow the evidence. But we cannot be successful in knowing even partially how God does things if we assume God does not exist.
Posted in: Climate Change - Wither Now?
Jeremy, yes, there are also political and social opportunities, and I agree that it does not make much sense to send so much cash to a politically volatile region, which often uses the money against us, compared to utilizing resources which are closer at hand, including piping oil from a relatively friendly Canada.
Posted in: Of Elephants and Rabbits: Church Multiplication
You are not nuts. You are not crazy. Some seminary trained preachers preach the pure word of God, but some don't. Some established churches practices church discipline but some don't. Some administer sacraments purely, but some don't. A missional group may be as much "church" as any of these established churches, and may have the "marks" of the church, or may make similar mistakes or different mistakes than established churches. Preach the word in season, and out of season (indoors, and outdoors, and without doors...).