The Creation Museum

[Bucklion]

Based upon what I wrote about theology, I don't see how this is asking me clarify anything I said.

Okay, non-smartass remark: I've retired from the evolution-creationism discussions on these boards--though I still like to comment from time to time on the discussion itself. From my perspective most people in this discussion, here and elsewhere, really aren't interested in holding a conversation and trying to understand the others' points of view. So, yes, I could respond to your question, and in doing so, point out where I see incorrect assumptions in the very question you ask. But at the end of the day, to what benefit? Are we really seeking to understand and inform each other or are we just trying to demonstrate what we think are the errors in the perspectives of those with whom we disagree?

I think we should all go to the ESPN evolution boards...they are easier to understand anyway.

 

[muffler dragon]

I agree that both can co-exist if one is a deist (belief in a creator, but not a personal god that interferes in our day-to-day lives and suspends the laws of nature), however if one is a theist (belief in a personal god) I don't see how the two can be compatible.

Would you mind elaborating/clarifying the two emboldened words so that I might better understand your usage of them before I respond?

 

[muffler dragon]

To which I replied a post that refutes that statement - with the caveat that I was only referring to those that take a pledge of innerancy. As a non-literal Bible believer, thinking that the Colorado River wound its way through the Grand Canyon for a million years would not in any way interfere with my faith like it would in some. In some literalists, it not only would not co-exist "just fine", it would lead to a crisis in faith, and require a rejection of the core belief of my religion.

As a former adherent of YEC, I can attest to the validity behind this.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Based upon what I wrote about theology, I don't see how this is asking me clarify anything I said.

Hmmm.... I guess I wasn't clear - I wasn't trying to call you out on the carpet for something you said. Was more of a generalized question which occurred to me as I contemplated the idea of young earth v. what the Bible is.

Okay, non-smartass remark: I've retired from the evolution-creationism discussions on these boards--though I still like to comment from time to time on the discussion itself. From my perspective most people in this discussion, here and elsewhere, really aren't interested in holding a conversation and trying to understand the others' points of view. So, yes, I could respond to your question, and in doing so, point out where I see incorrect assumptions in the very question you ask. But at the end of the day, to what benefit? Are we really seeking to understand and inform each other or are we just trying to demonstrate what we think are the errors in the perspectives of those with whom we disagree?

I can't, nor will I try to, force you to answer my question. I don't know what assumptions I'm making since it's a question. I mean, if you disagree that the Bible was never intended to be a scientific text, that's fine, I suppose but I don't know why your characterizing it as an assumption of mine.

Indeed, as you ask: Are we really seeking to understand and inform each other or are we just trying to demonstrate what we think are the errors in the perspectives of those with whom we disagree?

How can I understand the position in question (creationism) if I don't even know the answers to the premise questions. To this extent, maybe I am making an assumption in asking the question. I dont know... like I said, I'm not gonna force you to participate.

 

[Brewtus]

I guess this is the point I was making...you seem to be one of those who believes that if one believes in religion (as you describe it there) they can't believe in science...I would vehemently disagree.

I'm specifically referring to the scientific method - the technique for validating "truth" by gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence. There are serious inconsistencies in the critical thinking skills of someone who claims to following the scientific method to discern truths about the world while at the same time accepting the miraculous claims of the Bible and religious teachings.

Would you mind elaborating/clarifying the two emboldened words so that I might better understand your usage of them before I respond?

I was referring to a God that performs miracles which are counter to the laws of nature - turning water in to wine, parting the Red Sea, raising people from the dead, etc.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Another question I would have is - if we agree that G-d created the universe, shouldn't that universe testify as to His truthfulness? Stated differently, as it regards the "young earth" people - where is the Biblical support for the idea that G-d created anything to merely appear old to our senses despite being incredibly younger (Billions of years v. a couple thousand).



As to the issue I've long argued - that the Universe itself tells us about G-d, am I incorrect in supporting that with the following verses from the Bible:

Psalm 19:1-4:

1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
3 They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
4 Yet their voice[b] goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.

Job 12:7-12:

?But ask the animals, and they will teach you,
or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you;
8 or speak to the earth, and it will teach you,
or let the fish in the sea inform you.
9 Which of all these does not know
that the hand of the LORD has done this?
10 In his hand is the life of every creature
and the breath of all mankind.
11 Does not the ear test words
as the tongue tastes food?
12 Is not wisdom found among the aged?
Does not long life bring understanding?

Or Romans 1:18-20

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God?s invisible qualities?his eternal power and divine nature?have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

So, my question is, assuming I'm just wrong about what these passages mean - where is the support for the idea that what we observe with our senses is not to be trusted?

 

[muffler dragon]

I'm specifically referring to the scientific method - the technique for validating "truth" by gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence. There are serious inconsistencies in the critical thinking skills of someone who claims to following the scientific method to discern truths about the world while at the same time accepting the miraculous claims of the Bible and religious teachings.

I would disagree both from a personal standpoint as well as an understanding POV. What I mean by that is twofold: 1) being a theist as well as a scientist, I don't see any deficiencies in my critical thinking skills and this ties into 2) the commonality or "understanding" POV. It would be easy to dismiss theists due to their beliefs if there was such a brush applicable that you are painting with. However, this brush simply doesn't exist.

I was referring to a God that performs miracles which are counter to the laws of nature - turning water in to wine, parting the Red Sea, raising people from the dead, etc.

Personally, I am of the mindset that there are unexplainable considerations throughout the history of existence that lend themselves to situations outside of our understanding of the laws of nature. Thus, we haven't determined what exactly the laws are in ALL instances. Additionally, the text of the Tanakh (as I'm not going to discuss the Christian Bible) was written at a point in time when quite simply there was no other means to explaining phenomenon. Thus, it's a semantics issue. Along with this, as a non-literalist, it's quite easy to view the "old" testament as having no issues whatsoever with modern-day science. And our disconnect may simply be a matter of you not having the knowledge of how they can operate together.

 

[scarletmike]

I was referring to a God that performs miracles which are counter to the laws of nature - turning water in to wine, parting the Red Sea, raising people from the dead, etc.

I hate to interject, but are you saying that I cannot possibly be of rational mind and sound thinking since I believe (and have seen first-hand) the result of things that can only be described as miracles? That I (and a great many others I know) are certifiably crazy because we believe what we were told by certified doctors in a reputable hospital (people that have to adhere to scientific standards), that a person I know should not naturally be alive today? The doctors themselves said that there is no possible natural way for her to have healed what was wrong naturally in a matter of hours. They have no explanation, and still have none. She should have lost all of her blood several times over (they could barely keep up with the pace, they replaced 1.5-2 bodies worth of blood by the time it was all said and done), yet she's still with us.

Am I stupid, or lacking of critical thinking skills because I believe that what happened was nothing short of an unnatural miracle?

I guess from here on out you can consider all of my posts the ravings of an unsound mind. You paint with far too broad and coarse a brush, Brewtus.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

There's a lot to be said. Honestly due to time constraints and there being only one of me and lots of you (which is fine) it's hard to get to everything in a timely manner. I have delved into this topic more than I meant too.

Be ready for a novel.

First of all I don't consider a 6 day literal creation as a necessary theological foundation to my beliefs about God and his plan for this universe. However, I do believe that creationism is the best hermeneutical representation of Genesis chapter 1 along with the rest of the Bible. I do believe that 6 day creation has ramifications for other Biblical Theology. I am willing then to obviously submit that I may be wrong about this particular issue. I hope this at least gives credence to the thought that I have at least considered evolution. Furthermore, I believe what I believe about the Bible because of Jesus Christ. I honestly don’t have much of choice any more. I have no doubt about Him or His time here on earth and most especially that He Died on a cross at Golgatha and rose again. We can talk about Biblical/Theological problems/perceived problems, plenty of which I won’t have an answer to because I don’t know everything (or even close), but the Cross and the Resurrection can’t be taken away from me and override any of my other doubts. Most of that is for another thread and another time.


All of that of course is a preface. What I find interesting is that many scientists before Darwin were Theists (very many Christian). For many it was their belief in a creator that inspired their look at creation that gave them the idea that if a Supreme Being created the earth they would find order and patterns in creation. They went about finding evidence and testing that evidence. They started with a similar presupposition that creationists have today.


Now, the reason why “creationism isn’t science” is because it starts with a presupposition. But everything has presupposition. Even the idea that science must have no presupposition is a presupposition (though heavily repeated one). Stephen Hawking and George Ellis have written: ‘…we are not able to make cosmological models without some mixture of ideology’.The Big Bang is based on the Copernican Principle: the universe has no edges and no centre—it looks everywhere broadly the same. This principle, it is important to note, is not a conclusion of science, but an assumption thought to be valid. Therefore the Big Bang is like creationism in that it has a presupposition as its base. The presupposition may be widely held, but so was the Bible.

But then we also have this issue of Hypothesis. From Wiki: A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. I graduated highschool. I took chemistry and AP Chemistry, biology, and earth sciences. ( I CLEPed a college level natural science course for my Bacheor’s in Computer Science). I remember scientists in all these fields using hypothesis to figure what to test and how to test. Now before the hypothesis gets tested it sounds a lot like a presupposition. Not many if any scientific experiments are executed without their being a hypothesis to prove true or false.


Now if I’m going to submit that it’s possible that I’m wrong then what I’m left with is theory, right? It seems certainly possible that I’m interpreting the Bible wrong. But if I hypothesize that the physical universe was created in 6 days like I interpret the Bible to say then I have something to test or to gather. Now, I can’t repeat the event, though it would be obviously cool if I could, so I have to look at the evidence around me to see if it’s true. (I know you have a “but” here; we’ll come back.)

Another “problem” with “Creation Science” is that there seems to be no useful theory from it. One of the more recent examples touted by evolutionists as evidence the study genetics play a major role in disease prevention. Creationists made that discovery on Mt Sinai when God gave the command against incest. We’ve discovered that copying errors lead to genetic deformities. We’ve discovered that most of the time these copy errors are recessive. There’s a built in mechanism for dealing with copying errors by having identical chromosomes. But, if people with the same copying errors (siblings, parent/child) have children they no longer have the dominant gene to have proper expression. A creationist would theorize that then we would see rising genetic deformities from copying errors even in non incestual couples because our DNA has increasing copying errors since creation. We can see that Creationism does provide some predictive outcome for data that we observe.


But evolution says natural selection, mutation, and survival of the fittest, are repeatable and observable. I agree. I don’t deny speciesiation or specialization. What they don’t do is prove that one kind can become another kind. My problem with evolution is that from what I’ve read and can tell the primary mover in evolution must be a gain in genetic information from kind to kind. Nearly all the examples cited by evolutionists are losses in genetic information. The “improvements” are only improvements in the sense that they help the species while the stimulus is present, but once removed are less fit.


I also believe the evidence shows some natural devices such as blood clotting can’t be evolved even if the mechanism for doing so is present. The relationship between the clotting agents is so dependent on each other that if evolved at different times would make the organism completely unfit, unlikely to even be born, let alone reproduce.


There’s a lot of response there. But the first thing that really bothers me right now is the “fact” that creationists aren’t scientists. Let’s say I disagree. It is not established fact. It is the opinion of many. Like I said you tell one of those guys that it’s a fact that they aren’t scientists. Let’s ask them if that’s offensive. The second is idea of presuppositions. One group admits theirs while one denies theirs. Doesn’t change that they are there.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

I agree that both can co-exist if one is a deist (belief in a creator, but not a personal god that interferes in our day-to-day lives and suspends the laws of nature), however if one is a theist (belief in a personal god) I don't see how the two can be compatible. Christians (and Jews and Muslims) by definition are theists and I don't see how one can believe that a supernatural being regularly interacts with our natural world while conforming to the tenets and requirements of the scientific method.

And one complains about a theists presupposition. You presuppose that everything can be explained by science. If it's not a presupposition then go ahead and prove it.

 

[Brewtus]

[/FONT][/COLOR]

I would disagree both from a personal standpoint as well as an understanding POV. What I mean by that is twofold: 1) being a theist as well as a scientist, I don't see any deficiencies in my critical thinking skills and this ties into 2) the commonality or "understanding" POV. It would be easy to dismiss theists due to their beliefs if there was such a brush applicable that you are painting with. However, this brush simply doesn't exist.

I was claiming that there are serious inconsistencies in the critical thinking skills of those who use the scientific method to accept certain truths about the universe, and then suspend that method when accepting matters related to God/the Bible/religion. I don't know what your personal beliefs are, so I can't point to any specific inconsistencies, but if you believe in the Judeo-Christian God how can that belief hold up to the same scrutiny as other truths you hold based on the scientific method?

I hate to interject, but are you saying that I cannot possibly be of rational mind and sound thinking since I believe (and have seen first-hand) the result of things that can only be described as miracles? That I (and a great many others I know) are certifiably crazy because we believe what we were told by certified doctors in a reputable hospital (people that have to adhere to scientific standards), that a person I know should not naturally be alive today? The doctors themselves said that there is no possible natural way for her to have healed what was wrong naturally in a matter of hours. They have no explanation, and still have none. She should have lost all of her blood several times over (they could barely keep up with the pace, they replaced 1.5-2 bodies worth of blood by the time it was all said and done), yet she's still with us.

Am I stupid, or lacking of critical thinking skills because I believe that what happened was nothing short of an unnatural miracle?

I guess from here on out you can consider all of my posts the ravings of an unsound mind. You paint with far too broad and coarse a brush, Brewtus.

First of all, I've never called anyone "stupid" or "crazy". I have no issue with you personally believing in miracles, but you can't expect anyone else to accept your assertion at face value. Unusual circumstances that might not have a clear explanation aren't supernatural by default. For one individual who survives against great odds, there are many who do not. And I'm not one to share much about my personal life, but I was in a very serious accident many years ago and my doctors told me at that time that I shouldn't be alive. I was very fortunate and somehow beat the odds. But not once did I ever consider a supernatural explanation because one wasn't needed. My survival, while unlikely, could be explained by natural processes and a bit of luck.

If an amputee ever spontaneously grows a limb or a child with Downs Syndrome wakes up as a normal child one morning, then I'll seriously consider a divine explanation. But until then, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

 

[muffler dragon]

First of all I don't consider a 6 day literal creation as a necessary theological foundation to my beliefs about God and his plan for this universe. However, I do believe that creationism is the best hermeneutical representation of Genesis chapter 1 along with the rest of the Bible. I do believe that 6 day creation has ramifications for other Biblical Theology. I am willing then to obviously submit that I may be wrong about this particular issue. I hope this at least gives credence to the thought that I have at least considered evolution.

I would like to recommend the following book to you:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Big-Bang-Discovery-Harmony/dp/0553354132"]Amazon.com: Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible (9780553354133): Gerald Schroeder: Books[/ame]

It may provide a different interpretation and understanding of the text than you had previously.

Furthermore, I believe what I believe about the Bible because of Jesus Christ. I honestly don?t have much of choice any more. I have no doubt about Him or His time here on earth and most especially that He Died on a cross at Golgatha and rose again. We can talk about Biblical/Theological problems/perceived problems, plenty of which I won?t have an answer to because I don?t know everything (or even close), but the Cross and the Resurrection can?t be taken away from me and override any of my other doubts. Most of that is for another thread and another time.

Feel free to PM the answer to me (if you even want to send one), but I'd like to ask: where do you draw the line between knowing enough answers and not when it comes to your personal soteriology?

 

[muffler dragon]

I was claiming that there are serious inconsistencies in the critical thinking skills of those who use the scientific method to accept certain truths about the universe, and then suspend that method when accepting matters related to God/the Bible/religion.

I got that. It's just a broad brush especially when you put a qualifier into your statement such as "certain". There are very few (if any) "certain" truths in science that are suspended by the G-d I happen to believe in. Truthfully, for me, it comes down to interpretation. I would bet dollars to pesos that you don't know Hebrew (let alone the intricacies therein). Well, neither do I. However, I have personal resources as well as historic references that explain things in a light much different than modern Christianity. It's those such options that I follow or render legit (at this present moment) that don't conflict with the scientific method.

I don't know what your personal beliefs are, so I can't point to any specific inconsistencies, but if you believe in the Judeo-Christian God how can that belief hold up to the same scrutiny as other truths you hold based on the scientific method?

And here is where I actually need to draw a distinction. Reason being: Judeo and Christian are thrown together as though they are synonymous. For me, this is not the case. I was a Christian, but no longer am. I believe in the G-d of the Tanakh (or loosely understood as the G-d of the Christian "Old" Testament) which is not the same as Jesus.
Depending upon the means of interpretation of the Tanakh (Jewish Bible), there isn't a whole lot that causes problems for a symbiotic relationship with science as a whole.

 

[Brewtus]

And one complains about a theists presupposition. You presuppose that everything can be explained by science. If it's not a presupposition then go ahead and prove it.

Theoretically I believe that everything has a natural explanation, but there are currently huge gaps in our knowledge about the universe. But I don't substitute ignorance with a divine explanation. It's acceptable to not know something in science - we don't know how the universe came to be or exactly how life first started on this planet - but that doesn't make the scientific method less credible.

And I've stated this before and will do so again: I not 100% certain that God or a creator doesn't exist. I think it's very unlikely, however I do accept the slight possibility.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

[/SIZE][/FONT]

I would like to recommend the following book to you:

Amazon.com: Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible (9780553354133): Gerald Schroeder: Books

It may provide a different interpretation and understanding of the text than you had previously.



Feel free to PM the answer to me (if you even want to send one), but I'd like to ask: where do you draw the line between knowing enough answers and not when it comes to your personal soteriology?

I may look into the book.

As it is the thing that is most important to me in my life, I don't have a problem answering in public. But also as the most important it requires great reverence and thought.

If I had to sum it up it one sentence as simply as possible: I have accepted the free gift of Jesus Christ's death, burial, and resurrection as the only satisfaction for my sins against God.

I have a slight internal debate about the word only. It might be superflous, but I think leaving it out is more problematic than keeping it in.

I also debate about adding something along the lines of what James talks about in his epistle about how faith changes you because I'm no proponent of easy believism either, but that's dangerous too.