Tackling runaway evolution
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
“The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines.” (Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition).
Creationism is not “against” modern science! In fact, the Biblical mandate to “subdue” the earth (Genesis 1:28) requires us to understand it, which is what science is all about. “Creation Science” is simply the practice of science with the assumption and acknowledgement that there is a creator God, versus the now standard operating assumption of naturalism (that nature is “all there is”).
No one, including creation scientists, disputes that so-called “micro-evolution” (variation within a type of organism) caused by natural selection occurs and may be responsible for the large number of species found within a type. Almost all touted evidences for evolution are of this category (like Darwin’s finches, the “peppered moth”, or bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics). However, it is important to note that “micro-evolution” is a misnomer, as it implies that “a little” evolution is taking place. In actuality, NO evolution is taking place, as no increase in complexity (such as the development of a new organ) is being generated, but merely the emphasis of some already present traits over others.
Large scale change of one type of organism into another, so-called “macro-evolution”, is beyond the ability of mutation coupled with natural selection to produce. Evolutionists acknowledge this is a “research issue”. Even non-creation scientists (such as Denton and Behe) have written books giving the hard scientific facts that document why this is impossible.
The “geologic column”, which is cited as physical evidence of evolution occurring in the past, is better explained as the result of a devastating global flood which happened about 5,000 years ago, as described in the Bible. Even evolutionists acknowledge that the fossil record is one of “fully-formed abrupt appearance” and “stasis” (that is, no change over time).
The belief that the atoms of a “Big Bang” eventually produced people ALL BY THEMSELVES (that is, without any intelligent guidance) is contrary to the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the fundamentals of Information Theory. The universe is known to be “running down” yet evolution postulates it is “building up”. Atoms to people evolution is much more a “religious belief” than a scientific fact.
There is no reason not to believe that God created our universe, earth, plants, animals, and people just as described in the book of Genesis! (Creation Science homepage)
Four years into the 21st century, CBS News conducted a poll to determine what Americans believed about evolution and creation. In the heady dawn of this new technological, internet-oriented age, surely the citizens of the world’s last great superpower understood and had embraced evolution. This theory of life’s origins and diversity had been promulgated vociferously (oooo, how do you like that?) through the 20th century, much to the concern, dismay and alarm of Christians and other world faiths.
However, the 2004 CBS survey showed that perhaps evolution was more of a hard sell than its proponents had realized. Of course, many of these same proponenets had walked away with billions of dollars in government-funded research throughout the 20th century, so their continued claims of science paled in comparison to the benefits and paychecks being distributed in the name of science. In addition, more recent polls continually show that the majority of Americans favor creationsim being taught in school alongside evolution, in addition to widely-held convictions about the involvement of God in the origins of life.
In addition, it showed that Republican voters at the time were far more likely than Democrats to support the idea of a divine creation as opposed to evolution. Interesting. It doth appear that God hath leaked out of the Donkey Party.
More through intuition than anything else, I suspect that most Christians in America today have opted simply to not think about creation vs. evolution. They stay out of the whole discussion. They feel like it’s over their head, and perhaps by ignoring it, they hope that it will go away.
However, I think it’s the responsibility of every person, whether Christian or not, to examine deeply tenets, theories and beliefs that may challenge their assumptions and religious beliefs. As an example, I offer the Mormons. Here is a supposed Christian group (many of us would say they’re a refined, successful heresy or cult) who claims that their fonder, Joseph Smith was visited by an angel named Moroni and shown golden plates upon which a divine revelation was given to him. Of course, these plates have been “lost,” and of the vast civilizations that this revelation claimed existed on the continent of North America, no evidence has, as yet, been found. If I were a Mormon, living in one of the most highly advanced cultures in the world, I would allow myself to be challenged and begin to look at whether there is any evidence for my beliefs. After all, Joseph Smith didn’t live 2000 years ago. Rather, he lived 150 years ago.
It would be hard for me to be a Mormon and unquestioningly swallow the teachings of a church that emerged little more than 150 years ago, has no empirical evidence or archeology to back its claims, and who can, by simple fiat of its leaders, change its beliefs.
Back to evolution. Do you see why it would be important to study, research, read, and assimilate information about evolution? As Carolyn and I visited the Museum of Natural History in D.C. earlier this week, we had to patiently endure the fact that evolution was splashed against every wall. Two years ago in NYC, it was the same way in the musuem there.
The quote I started the article with is key:
The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines.
What does it mean that all our modern scholarship is based on the theory of evolution being true? As the information from the Creation Science homepage above makes clear, few people argue that microevolution takes place; however, what is highly questionable is whether macroevolution has taken place. There is good evidence to suggest that it hasn’t (and even more, the lack of evidence suggests that it hasn’t).
If evolution is “the central unifiying concept of biology” and a “critical component” of other sciences, and only 13% of Americans believe that evolution occurred purely as a biological phenomenon, then there is obviously a great disconnet between science and commonly held beliefs. I would also suggest that there is a great void in our wallets as a result of evolution being touted and promulgated heavily for the past 80-90 years.
However, just last April a Canadian university professor was denied a $40,000 grant by the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council because he based his entire premise for research on evolution’s being proven fact.
“The committee found that the candidates were qualified. However, it judged the proposal did not adequately substantiate the premise that the popularizing of Intelligent Design Theory had detrimental effects on Canadian students, teachers, parents and policymakers. Nor did the committee consider that there was adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of Evolution, and not Intelligent Design theory, was correct. It was not convinced, therefore, that research based on these assumptions would yield objective results. In addition, the committee found that the research plans were insufficiently elaborated to allow for an informed evaluation of their merit. In view of its reservations the committee recommended that no award be made.”
Janet Halliwell (a chemist, and SSHRC’s executive vice-president) said the scientific world’s understanding of life is “not static. There’s an evolution in the theory of evolution.” Bravo to the Canadians for resisting this unbelievable juggernaut of scientific arrogance that has drained governmental (and private foundations’) checkbooks for too long.
For example, consider the fact that the budget of the National Institute of Health is more than $28 billion annually. There are dozens of institutes housed underneath this. It appears that President Bush’s administration have demanded more accountability for scientific funding, according to this article:
many in the life sciences community, not used to high levels of scrutiny during the years of massive NIH funding increases, are now chafing because they are experiencing what scientists in other fields have experienced all along. As Henry Kelly, president of the Federation of American Scientists, noted in McCook’s article, “So far, most of [biologists’] experience with Congress has been showing up and asking for money and going home.” Daniel Kevles, science historian at Yale University, says in McCook’s article, that politicians now spend “more time debating issues related to climate science, biodiversity, reproduction, and molecular biology. So for biologists, it’s natural to wholeheartedly believe that politics is interfering more in research, because it’s something they largely have not encountered for years.” Couple this with the NIH budget transition from flush to flat and the increase in biologists seeking positions and the perception is that they are somehow under assault and the situation seems dire, but this is merely a matter of adjustment that other fields have had to accommodate. As Kevles, put it “there’s nothing written in the laws of man or nature that says funding appropriations have to go up in proportion to the demand.” Kei Koizumi, director of the R&D Budget and Policy Program at the AAAS, was more blunt saying that, “[m]any other disciplines have a hard time sympathizing about [an NIH budget of $28 billion] not being enough.” (emphasis mine)
The NIH does not necessarily endorse evolution. Let me qualify that. However, with such overt propaganda for evolution on the walls of our national museums of “natural history,” it sickens me that our tax monies and government funding is being used in such a specious and deceitful way to convince us of a theory that is itself continuing to change and adapt to new findings. Perhaps the science establishment would feel more at home in the Mormon church where official pronouncements from on high are swallowed hook, line and sinker.
I take some comfort, at least, in the observations that most Americans aren’t buying it. Unfortunately for them, they really are. Each time they pay taxes.
I think it would be at least a person’s time and investment to buy a book here or there, or spend some time doing some Googling and cursory research to examine and sustain their beliefs/opinions rather than playing ostrich with an issue. Here’s one book that looks interesting.
I’d be interested in knowing where you fall on the spectrum:
- • Informed conviction
- • Naive ostrich
- • Loosely stitched assumptions
- • Dogmatic defender
Nuff said for now.
March 11th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
I thought your comments that you would find it difficult to be a Mormon given several concerns. The words I found most interesting were “unquestioningly swallow.” Having been a Mormon for nearly half a century now, I’ve found that Mormons are expected to question and to search out answers. It seems to me, though, that you have focused on some of the wrong things. Lots of evidence exists for ancient civilization in Meso America just no conclusive evidence that this is tied to Book of Mormon civilization. But this doesn’t mean that the scientific method is absent in those who accept the claims of Mormonism. That is, someone performs an experiment, gets data which others verify and then publishes that data to the world. If others want to find out if the data is valid, they examine the claims of the scientist, the reliability of his witnesses and then try to replicate the experiment. You suggest that the gold plates were “lost” but Joseph Smith said he returned them to the angel after several other men saw and handled them. It seems to me that the case in favor of Joseph Smith’s account is on at least as firm a standing as is the case for the resurrection of Christ. We have the personal witness of at most four people who claimed to have seen the resurrected Christ and eleven who saw the gold plates. If the Book of Mormon were specific enough to check against archeology that might be a valid criticism; but it’s very vague on precisely where this civilization occurred. However, the text remains for analysis as do the statements of its witnesses. There’s lots to analyze but most people only want to check what’s unavailable. What would you think of someone who rejected Christianity because the body of Christ somehow got “lost?”
March 12th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
jeff…
i would classify myself as being in the “informed conviction” category… my conviction being informed by the bible. Christians have to decide if God’s Word is really God’s Word, without error. if we’re going to call genesis into question, we can call the virgin birth and the resurrection into question as well, and once you’ve done that, what separates Jesus from any other god or religious leader.
alma…
the Christian faith is BASED ON the fact that the body of Christ, while not “lost”, is NOT anywhere to be found, because He has been raised from the dead and sits and the Father’s right hand. if there was a body to be found, Christians are living and believing a lie. in the case of mormonism, it would serve your cause well to be able to produce the plates, especially given mr. smith’s shady past (bank fraud, “glass looking” (or money digging)…
also in 1961, hugh nibley, mormon apologist, wrote that if the charges against mr. smith turned out to be true, “it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith’ and would be ‘the most devastating blow to Smith ever delivered.’” 10 years later, the evidence came to light.
add to that this problem with the gold plates: they were supposedly buried by moroni in 421 AD, yet contain several hebrew-to-english translation errors also found in the KJV bible, which was published NEARLY 1200 YEARS after the “fact.” i would think that yes, it WOULD be difficult for anyone interested in facts to be a mormon.
(information above gathered from http://www.exmormon.org and http://www.whatismormonism.com)
March 13th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
dean…
I know that the resurrection is the foundation of Christian belief. My point was that there is more first hand testimony for the gold plates than for the resurrection even though evidence for both is non-existent. As for your willingness to disqualify Joseph Smith for an alleged “shady past” are you as willing to use the same standard for prophets such as Moses and Abraham? I recall that Abraham lied about his wife and Moses was a murderer.
For the record, Joseph Smith was never convicted of bank fraud, (while Jesus was convicted of heresy…) but he was found civilly liable for the losses in the Kirtland bank–and his creditors were all paid. If you’ll look a little further, Joseph Smith was charged with being a “glass looker” but the LDS Church has maintained since 1831 that he was honorably acquitted. Your claim that Hugh Nibley’s assertion might have been validated in 1971 is mere speculation on the part of Smith’s critics. Nibley was referring to an alleged confession to being a fraud that surfaced in anti-Mormon pamphlets with the publishers claiming to have the original court proceedings from 1826. When challenged to produce those originals, the publishers admitted they didn’t have them. Nibley stated that should those alleged originals surface it would be a damaging blow to Smith; but he knew the claim was bogus. What did appear was a document that Wesley Walters claimed to find in Bainbridge court records demonstrating that Smith had been arrested. (The fact that the good Rev. spirited the document out of the courthouse before witnesses could validate it and thereby destroyed its provenance is another story.) There are photocopies of this document on the web, and if you’ll look at it, you’ll find that it doesn’t establish anything more than what Mormons conceded in 1831: Joseph Smith was arrested. But honestly, if being arrested counts against Joseph Smith, why doesn’t it count against Jesus, Peter, Paul, Tyndale, or Savonarola?
The gold plates had no English on them. The English is Joseph Smith’s translation. If you fault him for including language errors from the prevalent Bible of the day, do you also fault the apostles (and an angel) who did the same thing?
March 13th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Jeff, You would throw out this great fodder for comment whilst I was on vacation. As a result, this comment may come late in the game, but let me respond:
1) I was also going to point out the two inaccuracies in Mormon belief that Alma responded to in his first comment. Having conversed much on LDS beliefs with a good friend of mine, I am somewhat knowledgeable, I’d say. I’ll also point out that LDS “leaders” don’t change beliefs, but much like the Roman Catholic faith, Mormon’s believe that their prophet on earth does receive instruction from God. As for Mormon’s changing their tune alongside new findings…isn’t that what Creation Scientists have been doing for years?
2) In my experience, most conservative Christians in America only want to look as deep as the “monkey into man” time frame of macro-evolution. Even evolutionists still dispute the exact lines of descent of modern primate populations…this is small potatoes. What anti-Darwinist people often fail to realize, however, is that there is absolutely undisputed evidence in astrophysics that proves the universe began in the “big bang.” Smart Christians (at least those who also have scientific training) understand that the discovery of the big bang seals the age of the universe and also the age of the planet. So-called “young earth” creationism has become silly in its back-stepping and downright ludicrous in its wild assumptions about a creation of “seven twenty-four-hour periods.” Anyone who has read any of the astrophysical evidence will at least admit an “old earth” creationism is more likely, one in which the big bang and geological and biological evolution exist as mechanisms under the will of the creator.
3) In a final note: the statistics on acceptance of evolution which include only America are not representative of the globe. All other Western nations are much more accepting of evolutionary theory AND are aware that the United States (from a global perspective) tends to be highly conservative, especially in favor of traditional Christian beliefs. As Americans, we tend to see our nation as liberal (we are much more than at any time since the great depression), but we are still global conservatives, have always been so, and our bias against evolution is one thing that sets us apart from the rest of the world.
March 13th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Alma,
Your arguments are cogent, but they are also ludicrous to me. We have enormous documentation for the New Testament, its lives, and our Lord. Thousands of textual sources combined with the historical evidence of a movement that turned the world upside down.
With Joseph Smith, all we have is his word - one that I’m not willing to accept. In fact, I think Joseph Smith was a false prophet. If Joseph Smith never existed, we would still have Christianity. He added nothing to it except confusion and false doctrine.
Today the LDS church is a monolithic and extremely wealthy organization. I’m deeply impressed by the thousands of young people it has mobilized, though I’m chagrined that they are taught that their mission somehow adds to their standing before God and that someday their complete obedience will result in themselves being gods of their own planet.
I will admit that there are other branches of real Christianity that are corrupt and in error as well. There is not one strand that is perfect. However, what the LDS church has wrong, it has it REALLY wrong. It’s teachings are misleading, confusing, and damaging. I’ll be glad to correspond via email with you about this, if you’d like. I doubt I’d have the room n this forum.
Again, I appreciate the time you’ve taken to respond; however, your knowledge has not led you to truth.
…
Mark,
I’m surprised and shocked that anyone as educated as you would say, “absolutely undisputed evidence in astrophysics that proves the universe began in the big bang.” That too is ludicrous. What evidence? Can we really have indisputable evidence for something like this?
There are hundreds of scientists that would line up to dispute your statement. I will agree that it’s a “a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe.” (This from NASA).
In addition, at least one (and there are many more) astrophysicist - George F. R. Ellis - has called it like he sees it, when he says that any explanation of the origins of the universe begin primarily in one’s philosophical worldview. He said, “People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations…. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” (italics mine) Source.
There have been significant alternative theories proposed, even in the last four years. Others are also asking questions. The Big Bang Theory does seem to answer a lot of questions, but it has also left others significantly untouched.
There are many highly intelligent people (way beyond you and I) that actively dispute even some of the most basic premises behind the theory.
In fact, Mark, I’m somewhat shocked that you would assert such a thing when in 2005, numerous headlines proclaimed that the Big Bang had even been disproved, with a Nobel laureate, Hannes Alfvén, the father of plasma physics, reigning in to say that cosmologists are mistaken in some of their most basic premises.
And again, please, where are you getting such statements like this: “All other Western nations are much more accepting of evolutionary theory?” The dispute over evolution is not just from American scientists but it’s a worldwide one.
And finally, I think there’s been a lot of change in Mormon belief, as you pointed out. The almost 4000 changes to their scriptures (in just the past 150 years!) are not significant. To say that the Mormon prophets are receiving instructions from God, one has to conclude that the God they are serving must be very confused.
Their positions and beliefs have changed (by official pronouncement, changing what Joseph Smith said) in some significant social arenas, including racism, abortion, and even polygamy.
Sorry, I just couldn’t let these assertions remain as stated. They were quite dogmatic, and at the very least, I’d like to at least shove the pendulum back toward the middle here.
For more reading:
Kurt Johmann’s Debunking the Big Bang
March 14th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Thought it was interesting that in this week’s Newsweek, there’s an article on the revolution of evolutionary theory.
Basically, they are now “discovering” that evolution didn’t happen in a sequential fashion, but rather that some evolved species were living at the same time as “unevolved” species.
You know, this may be waaaay too simplistic, but I find it somewhat entertaining that the evolution folks just can’t grasp that perhaps God created life as we know it. That would certainly explain why the species were existing at the same time, and why there’s a damning lack of evidence for macro evolution. The “evidence” that is claimed to represent macro evolution is controversial and disputed.
Read the article at Newsweek and scratch your head, like I did. And they wonder why people don’t want evolution taught in schools as a fact? They just can’t get their facts straight. It’s a revisionist approach to science.
By the way, if you want a far more entertaining view on this same article, read Scott Adam’s blog entry (Dilbert creator) about it, called “Fossils are Bull%&*#.”
March 14th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Jeff,
I’m quite certain that you’ve no wish to join in a protracted debate with me about astrophysicists (especially since neither of us is an astrophysicist), yet I must point out that you are the one who seems to be willfully (wishfully, perhaps) accepting outdated and unsupported suppositions, not me. I read that horribly embarrassing article by Kurt Johmann only to discover that he is as ***ludicrous*** as they come. Here’s three reasons why:
1) Johmann’s entire article is based on his admittedly “cold” reading of the book Seeing Red by Halton Arp, but he is completely unaware that Arp’s theory of redshift quantization was completely discredited in the 1990’s by studies using the Hubble telescope. Arp still staunchly believes in his hypothesis that big bang theory is wrong—he has staked his fame on it—but a true scientist would have abandoned a hypothesis when it turned out to be insupportable. As it turns out, Johmann’s article is just as misguided about the implications of redshift (namely the implication that all observable matter expanding into space can be mathematically traced back to a single point of origin 15 billion years ago).
2) Kurt Johmann is not writing this article scientifically: he has “borrowed” an outdated weapon from a loner scientist, and his intention is to obfuscate known facts so as to confuse people and prod them to join his position against the mainstream scientific community (sounds almost like what you’re accusing Joe Smith of doing!). Laughably, his best argument in the article is “you don’t know what you don’t know”: this is a fallacious argument since it applies equally to everyone (even him) and does absolutely nothing to bolster or diminish either side. It’s meaningless, pseudo-intellectual misdirection. The very purpose of studying red shift is to discover what we CAN know, which is a lot more than Johmann would like for us to.
3) Lohmann proves himself to be nothing more than a radical conspiracy theorist when in the last section of his essay, titled “Black Holes as Symbols of Imperial Domination” he asserts that the United States has officially supported current astrophysical theories because they “symbolically” depict our nation which, in Johmann’s words is “dominating” “all-powerful” and “destructive.” Johmann goes so far as to write that, “Like a black hole, the American empire is an all-powerful entity that crushes other peoples (destroying their defenses, and murdering their defenders), and then absorbs those crushed peoples into itself (enslaving the survivors), with the result that the empire is bigger and more powerful than it was.”
Surely, Johmann is NOT to be taken seriously either in his outdated scientific speculations OR in his conspiracy-theorist hate speech. I hope this is not the best article out there that argues against the accepted interpretations of redshift, because I am SO not impressed.
March 14th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
I know I am totally out of my league here, and probably should stay out of this (and I know I may lose you guys because I’m not using the huge words, and extreme intellect that has been so heavily displayed here), but here goes…
By my understanding, scientists are basing how they say the earth was created on what they see. Since when do believers go by what is seen, vs what God says?
If we believe that God can do what He says He can do when He says He will do (or did) it, then how is it so hard to believe that He created the earth in 6 days, and rested on the 7th?
It seems to me that too much research has been going into trying to disprove that God created the universe - or that there even is a God. Call me brainwashed or “anti-intellectual” but I choose to not allow the truth (what the Bible says) to be changed by scientists, many of whom would desire to discredit that foundation of truth with things that appear real to their five senses. As a response, creation scientists are trying to prove these secular scientists wrong with the same tactics to defend what we know (based on FAITH). So now, we have James Cameron doing a documentary saying that he found the bones of Jesus, and has Christians trembling. Am I worried? Am I going to change my belief and say, “maybe Jesus was crucified and resurrected ’spiritually’ and continued until his ‘physical’ death? PLEASE!
March 14th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
TJ,
Maybe not out of the “league,” but you are certainly way out in left field by arguing that faith is naturally anti-science (since faith and the senses are opposites for you). Not even a creation scientist would agree with that extreme view.
It is also quite egoistic to assume that all scientists (oh, and James Cameron) are simply out to destroy your own personal belief system. Perhaps we would all like to be martyrs in our far-flung fantasies, but the fact is that scientists are among the most objective people in our society and they seek TRUTH where they can.
This might sound like an overly bold statement, but if you think about it, it is not: God didn’t say that he created the universe in six twenty-four hour periods. That was the simple-minded assumption of men who read the scriptures much, much too literally. if the Bible DOES speak the truth, then it must also corroborate with known facts. “Young-earth” creationism doesn’t do it. And, of course, young earth creationism isn’t the only option on the table for Christians, no matter how vociferously they have proclaimed it so in the past.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Mark - Please don’t misunderstand me here. I don’t believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. There are gaps of time that are left unaccounted for in Scripture. For instance - Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” could have happened at any time in the time line prior to “And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. I AM naive enough to believe that on days 1-6, God created those things in 24 hour days. Why not? The Bible clearly defined the day described as 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Do we just leave the supernatural abilities of God out of the equation as the evolutionary science does?
Bottom line of what I’m saying - unless it “banged” because God said it, no one can convince me that the supposed “big bang” happened.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Mark,
I did not provide a link to Johmann’s article as a primary source for what I wrote, yet you zero in on it and try to portray it as the only argument against the Big Bang. No fair. It was listed only as another source to read of someone who has identified problems with the big bang. Go pick apart the NASA reference or some of the others.
He and Arp and others have not found “the answer” but scientists like these see the holes in the big bang theory and are trying to posit alternatives.
You said, “A true scientist would have abandoned a hypothesis when it turned out to be insupportable.” Don’t be naive. Scientists, like I pointed out earlier, start out with a hypothesis that is informed by their worldview. The set of conclusions they reach (or any of us reach) are always colored by what our presuppositions are. There are hundreds of scientists who tenaciously cling to their findings and beliefs in spite of other evidence every day. Go read a science textbook from the 80s and then read one today. You’ll find differences because of new discoveries and findings. Yet, those scientists in the 80s (or any earlier generation) thought they had it right enough to establish as fact and teach to children. Today, some of those teachings have been discredited as more advances are made. Perhaps the next 10 years will produce more that will discredit the big bang theory, and we’ll look back on these days with a twinge of embarrassment. Every generation tends to think it’s more advanced and smarter than those that came before it. It’s generational egoism.
I think the healthiest thing any of us can do is to regularly repeat these words, “I don’t know,” instead of writing absolute statements about science and theories that cannot be supported.
—
TJ,
I would agree with Mark in saying that faith is not anti-science; however, after reading your comment, I don’t think you were saying that.
There is a dismaying tendency to divorce faith from science, when in actuality, it is the reality of God that enables the study of His Creation.
I honestly don’t know how old the earth is. There are smarter people than I who are creationists and astrophysicists and the like who put forth some intriguing theories.
What Mark fails to consider is that the writer of Genesis teaches us that God created the world as we know it in six days, and that God’s creative act (along with the existence of Adam and Eve) is affirmed in the New Testament.
His statement, “..if the Bible DOES speak the truth, then it must also corroborate with known facts” is simply not justifiable. If that is the case, then Christ cannot have risen from the dead. He cannot have performed any of His miracles, and our faith is naught, and we of all people, are to be pitied.
If we choose not to believe what the New Testament writers wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then what do we pick and choose what to believe?
Genesis 1-11 is huge for Christian theology. In fact, it’s interesting that:
a. Every New Testament writer refers to the early chapters of Genesis (Genesis 1–11).
b. Jesus Christ referred to each of the first seven chapters of Genesis.
c. All New Testament books except Galatians, Philippians, I and II Thessalonians, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and II and III John refer to Genesis 1–11.
d. Every chapter of Genesis 1–11, except chapter 8, is directly referred to somewhere in the New Testament.
I think at the very least, we should all realize that we may not ever know anything conclusively about the age of the earth. Some speculate that it’s 4.5 billion years old, and others dogmatically assert that it’s only 6000 years old. Me, I am not casting my hat into any dating ring (I’m sure Carolyn’s relieved.)
On the other hand, I affirm the God, through Jesus Christ created all that we know. It was His will that allowed reality to be formed. I do not know if this was in six 24-hour time periods or in longer eras.
However, I reject the idea that man came from monkeys or lower life forms. It’s clear in the biblical record that God created man ex nihilo, or “out of nothing.” Not from what had already existed.
The New Testament affirms this, and Jesus’ miracles in the NT portray Him as being Lord over Creation by raising the dead, changing water into wine, walking on the water, and speaking to a storm. Whatever God chooses to do, it is done.
If God chose to create the world in six literal days, I’m fine with that. If he chose to create it over the course of eras, I’m ok with that too. The issue of when God created the world should never be a test of heresy or fellowship, however. It is an interesting and intriguing mental exercise, but one that should be approached in a spirit of conversation and of faith seeking understanding.
My brain hurts.
For an interesting website defending the Old Earth Perspective from a biblical point of view:
• God and Science
March 14th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
yes, Jeff, thank you - I don’t believe that faith is anti-science. It does further build your faith to be able to see the fruit of what you believe, and with science there is a great opportunity for that.
March 15th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
[...] did it all come from 15 03 2007 There was a very engaging discussion over at Jeff Noble’s blog this week, and I got wrapped up into it. The discussion was concerning the origin of the [...]