I don't get creationism

[Mr. Neil]

YoYo, I think you missed the point of my post as nothing you said had anything to do with what I wrote. My point was that evolution is not a contradiction to theism. You can have faith in creation, but the evidence that scientists find is that life evolves. I even mentioned that creationists create a false dichotomy between God belief and evolution, which seems to have gone right over your head. Do you know what a false dichotomy is? You talk about evolution as though one cannot believe in God if they accept the theory, but that's a bogus assumption.

 

Do you understand my point? There's no reason that a person who places his faith in Christ should immediately ignore the theory of evolution based on a belief in scripture. Many Christians accept the theory, because they've seen the evidence, and the recognize as a natural process created by their God. A natural process, I might add, which is no different than that of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics.

 

Like I said, if God created the universe, then he created it to function. Evolution is a function which enables life to adapt and survive through environmental change. It would be silly to think that life couldn't do that.

 

If you want to have faith in the scripture, fine, but there is more to learn about our world than what's in the Bible.

[Guest chaste4JC]

Wow... tons of responses... I don't know if I can get my head to stop spinning long enough to respond to everyone, so I'll just respond to this one thing:

 

I also believe that most peoles beliefs, and criticism againist creation is based more upon the "bad, uncomfortable" experiences that one had when involved in Christianity.

Actually, my experiences in my former church were overwhelmingly positive. Until I started asking questions. I started reading about evolution on the assumption that it was full of holes and easy to debunk. I wanted to write a guide for teenagers on how to fight evolutionism in the science classroom and the real world. So I spent a lot of time reading Hovind and the rest, taking notes, etc. Finally I decided I was smart enough that, if I read actual evolutionist books - by actual evolutionists - I might be able to notice holes that the others didn't pick up on. (Then more people would read my book, you see, because it would contain new information.)

 

I found a lot of holes I hadn't seen before. The only problem was, those holes were in creationism - not evolutionism. The first thing I noticed was that we tend to think of evolution as starting with the big bang, and that the theory specifically has nothing to do with God. But evolution is a BIOLOGICAL process. It only refers to what happens on Earth, after the universe has already been created, after life has already been created. The second thing I noticed was that what we call "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is the same exact thing: microevolution LEADS to macroevolution.

 

But anyway, it just kept piling on as I found misconception after misconception. And I started wondering how so many people could have gotten the theory of evolution so wrong. So then I started researching the pasts of major creationist apologists, and found that almost all of them were frauds. That was incredibly depressing, because these guys had been my heroes.

 

All the while, I'd been asking my church leaders all these questions. And with every new question, they soured a little more toward me. I'd been a favorite with everyone because I was a smart young girl who was going to debunk science. Now they were starting to say I was backsliding - just from asking questions! I said, "If we're right, we should be able to prove we're right using every tool possible - spiritual, emotional, logical, scientific. If we're right, the whole earth should SCREAM, 'God made me in 6 days!'" And people kept telling me that the scientists were atheists who were specifically working to make people forget about God, and that the scientific method was fraudulent, etc. etc. All of which I knew was completely wrong. So I announced to my youth group that I was going to write a new book - one about how Christians CAN accept evolution, and it can fit in very nicely with the rest of Christianity. Their eyes practically popped out of their heads, everyone started arguing with me, and I just got so tired of it all that I decided to leave.

 

But before that, everyone in the church was a very good friend to me and supported me in a lot of different ways. But I've learned that they don't like having their worldview poked at - even just a little. It's funny, because they always complained about how the non-Christians they preached at never bothered to open their minds to the possibility, not even a little bit. And they're willing to open their minds even less.

[Mr. Neil]

I found a lot of holes I hadn't seen before. The only problem was, those holes were in creationism - not evolutionism. The first thing I noticed was that we tend to think of evolution as starting with the big bang, and that the theory specifically has nothing to do with God. But evolution is a BIOLOGICAL process. It only refers to what happens on Earth, after the universe has already been created, after life has already been created. The second thing I noticed was that what we call "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is the same exact thing: microevolution LEADS to macroevolution.

Speaking of Hovind, I've done a lot of research on his antics, I've begun to notice patterns in his arguments. The man doesn't really argue with his opponents. He argues past them. He has a pre-programmed argument in his head from which he does not deviate, and in this argument is the exact misconception you just described.

 

To really drive the point home, go to Hovind's creation website and find his video debate download section. There's a fascinating example of Hovind's robot-like brain at work as he debates against Dr. James Paulson, a proponent of evolution. Should you download this debate, immedately fast-forward ahead two hours until you're almost at the end of the debate. At approximately two hours and thirty seconds, Hovind uses Romans 1 to attack atheists. He then says the following...

 

 

If you are here and you have been taught or believe in the evolution theory and believe there is no God, I'm sorry, God says you are without excuse.

And then he trails off with his "come from a rock" lie and tells a few of his boring anecdotes in which he allegedly confronts atheists.

 

Once you've had enough of listening to Hovind ridicule atheists, restart the debate from the beginning, and listen to Paulsen's opening statement. Before even a minute is over, Dr. James Paulson reveals that he believes in God and that evolution is part of God's devine creation. So why is Hovind going off about atheists? Because Hovind either can't get it through his thick head that evolution is not a synonym for atheism, or he doesn't have the testicular verility to admit when he's made a mistake. Possibly both.

 

In less than one minute, Paulson completely destroys Kent Hovind's primary argument. But then Hovind uses it anyway, proving that he doesn't actually listen to the people with whom he debates.

 

The man is a totally incompetent buffoon.

 

 

But anyway, it just kept piling on as I found misconception after misconception. And I started wondering how so many people could have gotten the theory of evolution so wrong. So then I started researching the pasts of major creationist apologists, and found that almost all of them were frauds. That was incredibly depressing, because these guys had been my heroes.

Believe it or not, a lot of real scientists are to blame, because they didn't see creationism as threat, and they were wrong. They forgot that although any literate person can look at the theory of evolution and see that it's valid, it's much easier to sway public opinion with the usual array of political manipulations and lies.

 

And that's what creationists do. Without a single fact in their favor, they use emotional appeal to win a public popularity contest. The misrepresent the controversy as though its a contest between theories and that creation should be taught out of the interest of fairness, when in fact the plain and simple truth is that creationism just ain't science.

[Caretaker]

It is great to see someone, whether Christian or not, to perform honest research. I think your friends, or "friends" if you prefer, have missed the point of genuine research and inquiry. They expected you to go out to assume that creationism was true and to find ways to prove it. By making an assumption like that, and rejecting evidence to the contrary, one can "prove" anything. It is called a logical fallacy, assuming a statement to be true in order to prove it true.

 

In honest inquiry, you can make a hypothesis, but you cannot assume it is true preemptively, and must accept any conclusion you come to whether it is for or against your hypothesis.

 

Unfortunately, it seems your church leaders and friends have some growing up to do if you are to try to convince them of your research because they refuse to accept any conclusion that contradicts The Hypothesis™.

[Caretaker]

BTW, I consider it a strong trait in a person to have the ability to put his or her own beliefs under scrutiny.

 

If a belief really is true, then there is nothing to worry about by putting it under scrutiny.

 

If it is false, then putting it under scrutiny is what will reveal that.

 

 

Oh, and I might consider asking your church leaders this: "Do you feel that your position is so weak that it cannot withstand honest inquiry?"

[Caretaker]

Oh, and slip them a copy of Father Dan's Easter Challenge.

[Guest zarathustra]

To find holes in the genesis stories (there are two- chapters 1 and 2), you don't need to read evolution textbooks. The holes are found in genesis itself. For this reason I recommend that everybody reads genesis questioning it as it is read (line by line) because it makes absolutely no sense. For instance how can there be light on the first day without a star? (the sun, moon and stars are created later). It makes no sense. The text goes on to say that God divided light from darkness to create the first day and night. Does this make sense? Are there really discrete days and nights in the universe? Isn't the "day" really the earth turning toward the sun and the "night" the earth turning away from the sun? But the earth at this point in the story hasn't been formed yet! Makes no sense. Or how about the water above the earth held by the firmament, the fact that the the sky is heaven and that birds fly in heaven (vrs 20) (Does this mean anyone who has flown in an airplane has been to heaven!). I could go on line by line through genesis 1, but wont. The point is that Of course none of this makes sense to our modern ears. It makes sense to ancient jewish ears who thought their god lived on high. Indeed, the lack of reference to the creation of hell (only heaven above and earth are created) in verse 1 is consistent with ancient jewish theology. Ask a christian when god created hell.

The second Genesis story (chapter 2) isn't even consistent with Genesis1. In Genesis 2 adam is created before the animals. However, in genesis 1, the animals are created before Adam. Makes no sense. In Genesis 2 God in his infinite infallability creates animals to make a suitable helpmate for Adam. God fails at this and then so he makes Eve. Now before Eve is created does Adam have a penis and testicles? Unless he was having sex with the animals he would not need his equipment. Another question - when animals were created, were they created male and female. If so why would god have create male and female animals but only create humans as male? Makes no sense.

 

Bottom line - the flaws of creationism are found at its source. Any person with a brain who can read will see the flaws in the genesis story.

[Mr. Neil]

Zarathustra, I see you spoke briefly about the sky and the firmament. This is an interesting problem for inerrantists, such as creationists. Have you seen Reggie Finley's presentation "Is Heaven The Sky"?

 

If you haven't seen it, I strongly recommend you download it...

 

http://www.infidelguy.com/heaven_videos.html

 

 

Or if you don't want to wait for the movie to download, you can just read the essay...

 

http://www.infidelguy.com/heaven_sky.htm

 

I think you'll find this presentation most fascinating.

[SmallStone]

If this helps, Jesus said in the scriptures that He was not opposing the commandments of Moses but yet He was fulfilling them. Just as Christians must believe by faith in the Gospels, also there must be faith in the Old Testament including  Genesis's explanation of the creation of this world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then YoYo, why aren't you out slaying homosexuals in the street? Do you sacrifice animals to your god? Do you keep the sabbath (Saturday)? Do you live by 'eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth'?

 

Sorry. I was just overcome by my Extreme Salad Bar Christian gag reflex.

[LloydDobler]

The thing about mainstream christianity is there are lots of subtle extremist viewpoints that lead to bigger assumptions and nonsense beliefs. Things like:

 

Sex is only meant for creating children

Alcohol is only meant for getting drunk

Music is only meant for praising god

 

and of course, the one relevant to this discussion

 

Evolution is meant to prove god doesn't exist.

 

With that as your foundational belief, it's easy to immediately dismiss evolution as a person of faith. Most people who assume that, don't bother to study it that far and figure out what the hell evolution even is. I know I didn't. I watched Ken Ham seminars and laughed all the way to church at those idiot scientists who were scoffing at god like the builders of the tower of babel! muahahah!.... etc.

[Kryten]

Chaste4JC,

You have run into the wall of faith that defines the Christian mind. Remember the process of getting saved. You believe in your heart and mind that Jesus died for you and rose again. With that, you must believe the bible is true. Then you listen to other Christians, read Christian propaganda, and accept more and more of what they feed you. Facts and logic are not considered. Questioning with an open mind is severely discouraged. The whole concept of faith is to accept something without evidence to back it up. Science and discovery are the natural enemy of religion-- and as much as they want to frame Christianity as a relationship, it's a religion. You went searching and discovered new (to you) evidence. You used logic and reason. You asked questions. That is not good behaviour for a sheep.

Keep in mind the emotional commitment Christians have in their beliefs. They cannot easily accept your radical ideas because of pride, peer pressure, and the deep-down desperate need to remain convinced they are not waisting their lives on a lie. I encourage you to keep learning and think for yourself.

 

Kryten

 

 

P.S. I was SOOOO tempted to call you, for fun, Chaste4now, but I thought it would be disrespectful. So I didn't. But I wanted to. Really bad. No offense.

[Guest zarathustra]

Zarathustra, I see you spoke briefly about the sky and the firmament.  This is an interesting problem for inerrantists, such as creationists.  Have you seen Reggie Finley's presentation "Is Heaven The Sky"?

 

If you haven't seen it, I strongly recommend you download it...

 

http://www.infidelguy.com/heaven_videos.html

Or if you don't want to wait for the movie to download, you can just read the essay...

 

http://www.infidelguy.com/heaven_sky.htm

 

I think you'll find this presentation most fascinating.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Mr. Neil,

Thank you for the excellent site!

[Flyby Stardancer]

I think it's really great the way you went out and actually researched, chaste4CJ. And you're write, evolution ISN"T incompatible with faith and Christianity. My best friend comes from a religious family, and her father's a biology teacher. Obviously, she understands evolution VERY well (got a 5 on the AP test in biology!), as does her father, and they both accept it. I think you really should write the book on how evolution isn't against Christianity! (applauds)

[I Broke Free]

The following was taken from my local newspaper this morning. (Letters to the Editor)

The hindrances of science in the past which some have attributed to religion have actually been caused by having imperfect men in authority. True religion does not negatively impact science but only keeps it within ethical bounds.

Also, it is human nature for those who have been oppressed not to want to be equal with their oppressor but to want to change places with him. This is exactly what we have seen with the evolutionists in authority in the scientific community, where research outside their evolutionary view is not accepted even though the theory of evolution itself is as silly as the belief in a flat earth.

The law of entropy says that everything wears down, everything wears out. The sun burns down, rocks wear down, energy is reduced to lower forms, living things get old and die, houses become dilapidated and fall down, everything in nature obeys this law.

Yet evolutionists would have you believe man came into being through an upward spiral from a simple life form to more and more complex life forms, quite impervious to the law of entropy. Could it be that evolution, the ascent of man from amoeba, has only ever existed in the minds of men?

If anything exemplifies the ignorance of creationists, this has to be it. I learned in tenth grade how to easily rebut such an argument.