MaxBuck;889466; said:
Yes, that was pretty much the point I took issue with. Though I do not know whom you are characterizing as an "evolutionist" -- is it anyone who accepts macroevolution as essentially fully proved? Or is it more limited?
GB89, your post goes on to imply that things that are learned when we are children lack validity somehow. I sure hope not. I do not plan to revisit the whole 2+2=4 thing. :tongue2:
The fact that I learned some basic truths when I was young (and really, evolution theory was not taught to me until I was well able to reason on my own; preteen years) does not invalidate them in any way.
No, that wasn't my point. I was saying that no one goes out to look at the evidence without already having his mind made up one way or the other, based on his previous education. Since the evidence can lead you in either direction, what you ultimately settle on depends on what you believed before you looked at it. Let's take Americans as an example. We are all taught evolution as children. Thus, when we actually take the time to examine the evidence as adults, we already believe it leads in that direction. Men and women in scientific fields are much more strongly steered toward that conclusion by continuous repetition of the arguments in favor of evolution. They are like Pavlov's dogs, seeing evolution every time they are trained to see it, when looking at any fossils or breeding experiments.
I was also raised to believe in evolution and didn't really re-examine the question until I was in my 30's. Up to that point, I was like the rest: reflexively inclined to the evolutionist position by my previous education. When I took a hard look at the evidence from a creationist viewpoint, I found two things:
1. there is no actual evidence of an active evolutionary process either in the past or the present
2. the fossils and genetic evidence make more sense when viewed from a biblical perspective.
My mind wasn't changed by looking at the evidence. I was trained to react reflexively whenever I saw the evidence. My mind was changed when I decided to give the other side a fair chance, and re-consider the evidence from another viewpoint. Having done that, I decided that creation made more sense. But ultimately, I was persuaded by the internal evidence in the Bible, not by anything physical. I find the physical evidence to be circumstantial, and could be the result of any number of causes. If I'm looking at a criminal case, I would regard a confession by the perpetrator as stronger evidence then any physical items that might be found at the crime scene. In this case, we have a confession by the "perpetrator" in creation, and I regard it as stronger evidence than anything in the physical world. Having accepted that premise, I don't find anything in the physical world that contradicts the written testimony. Indeed, I find the physical world makes more sense from a biblical perspective than from a purely naturalistic one. I'm not accusing you of having a naturalistic viewpoint, I'm just saying that is what I was taught. I understand that your viewpoint is a synthesis of the two, and if that's what you believe then I can live with that. But I see nothing at all in the arguments of skeptics or scientists that compels me away from belief in a 6-day creation just as it is written in Genesis. I understand that many will ridicule me for this, but that is of no consequence. I will lose no sleep worrying about approval from the world. My chief aim is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.
if you missed it.
