Creationist view of an evolutionist. HELP ME!

Hello there,I am writing a thesis on the evolution-creationsm debate. For this thesis i am looking for a convinced, educated creationist living in the US, to answer the following questions.1. What is the worth of the evolutionary theory to you?
2. How do you view the modern day tendency towards accepting evolution as a fact?
3. What was the key point in your life, that made you choose for the creationist point of view? (Or did you never even consider evolution?)
4. What type of creationist are you? (Young earth model / Old earth model / Intelligent design / other).
5. Do you accept the teaching of the evolutionary theory in schools?
6. Feel free to comment on any critical subjects.Thank you very much,CATHOLIC University of Nijmegen
Department of EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGYAs you can see, i am surrounded by both aspects of the discussion and will give an equal and honost attention to both of them. I do not try to prove anything, I am just making an inventory about views throughtout the world.Please email the answer to bpenders@sci.kun.nl

Penders,I thought the Catholic church accepted evolution?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

The point of view of the catholic church has nothing to do with the research i am doing. However, do not forget that there are official opinions (Rome) and local opinions.
e.g. the catholic church in holland does accept evolution (as does Rome), it also tells people to use condoms, to feel free to have sex for pleasure and to commit eathanasia, if there is a reason (and the doctor agrees (Rome does certainly not agree with that).

Penders,Sure, no problem, my answer is winging it's way towards you as we speak (on the evo thread). It just seemed odd that you capitalised CATHOLIC, in the university of nijmegan.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

From your other topic:

quote:

---

5. Do you accept the teaching of the creationist point of view in schools?

---

I think this would be a good question to ask the creationist side, also.Of course, it does make a big difference, in as what creationism is being taught as, and where this teaching is being done.Is the creationism to be taught as theology, or as science?
Is it to be taught in addition to or in place of evolution?
Is it to be taught in a religion operated school, or a non-religion operated school?Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 07-25-2002]

quote:

---

4. What type of creationist are you? (Young earth model / Old earth model / Intelligent design / other).

---

I find it interesting that there is no analogous question for the other thread, such as, "What kind of evolutionist are you?"There is pretty much only one kind because science is based upon evidence tyhat everyone can see and examine. All the different factions of Creationism, OTOH, will never agree because they are all based upon revelation rather than evidence.IOW, one is science and the other is religion. Simple.[Fixed missing [ in quoted section. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 07-29-2002]

Penders1. What is the worth of the evolutionary theory to you?
It explains population genetics, adapation, optimization of pre-existing genes and speciation. For us evolution, together with principles of genetic recombination, explains the diversification of life from created kinds.2. How do you view the modern day tendency towards accepting evolution as a fact?
This saddens me becasue there is little or no distinguishment made between evidence of optimization of pre-exisiting genes (as seen in population genetics, viral evolution etc) and the general lack of evidence for the origin of genuine novelty (novel gene families, organs and cellular systems). Anatomical and moelcular homology is seen as evidence of evolution when it equally well is evidence of a common designer. Mainstream science has 'jumped' the gun in extrapolating from microevoltuion to the origin of all life and I am saddened at both scientific and spiritual levels.3. What was the key point in your life, that made you choose for the creationist point of view? (Or did you never even consider evolution?)
I was brought up in a Christian household and both I and my father became creationists at the same time (I was about 15). We discovered that the Old Testmanet is well supported by archeology and that the themes of the Bible are interwoven in an incredible way from Genesis to Revelations that defies natural explanation. I have had an ongoing Christian experience since that time which has further reinforced this view.4. What type of creationist are you? (Young earth model / Old earth model / Intelligent design / other).
I am a Young Earth Creationist: creation week origin of Precambrian rocks, creation of distinct genomes/kinds, tectonically induced flood accounting for much of the Phanezoic, microevolutionary diversification of kinds5. Do you accept the teaching of the evolutionary theory in schools?
I accept that evolution is the predominant theory but consider it to be presumptious to teach it to children without the alternative of deisgn. This does not stop me froming sending my children to state schools. I would love to see acknowledgment that an alternative model based on creation/flood exists and that the proponents of it (us) expect it to explain the data in a primarily physical way post-creation. I am utterly convinced that science has jumped the gun on evolution and a gradual explanation for the origin of the geological column.6. Feel free to comment on any critical subjects.
No comments really.I have also emailed this through.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-25-2002]

quote:

---

5. Do you accept the teaching of the evolutionary theory in schools?
I accept that evolution is the predominant theory but consider it to be presumptious to teach it to children without the alternative of deisgn.

---

How do you tell the difference between a natural system that we do not understand and a system that has been intelligently designed?If you can't answer that question, then there is no positive evidence for ID, therefore it isn't science, and should not be in the science classroom.

quote:

---

I would love to see acknowledgment that an alternative model based on creation/flood exists and that the proponents of it (us) expect it to explain the data in a primarily physical way post-creation.

---

Why should Christian Bible-based non-science, relavatory rather than evidenciary, be taught as science?

quote:

---

I am utterly convinced that science has jumped the gun on evolution and a gradual explanation for the origin of the geological column.

---

150 years of study and survival of repeated tests is "jumping the gun?"

Just as a reminderI am not here to criticise any opinion, or to doubt any personal argument. However I would like to add that this particular part of this forum, hopefully will not strand into an endless discussion. It is there to exchange views, and not to comment upon themTank you.

1. What is the worth of the evolutionary theory to you?
---The evolution theory to me is of course wrong. I believe in God and the Bible so I'm not going to curve around it, I'm going to be blunt. The evolutionary theory though isn't a theory. It's an hypothesis. Its good in determining many things. However, when it tries to blatently kill God, is when they've over stepped there boundaries. I think people who believe that life emerged naturalistically need to have a great deal more faith than people who reasonably infer that there's an Intelligent Designer. For many years they've been trying many different synerios to see how life emerged without creative imput (God). They haven't been able to do it. Despite all their efforts, they haven't even come up with a single possibility that even remotely makes sense. And there's no prospect they will. In fact, everything is pointing the other way - in the unmistakable direction to God. Today it takes a great deal of faith to be an honest scientist who is an athiest2. How do you view the modern day tendency towards accepting evolution as a fact?
---Evolutionists/athiests are in some way running the country now. What I mean by that is this. Many movies (i.e. Planet of the Apes, Jurassic Park, Evolution ect...) are making people think that evolution is the truth. And some of those people, who mind you, don't understand anything about evolution are easily taken. If you truly study evolution you will come to a point where you'll see that God is not only there but he is needed if life was to be made. Many scientists have reached that conclusion. But for some, their philosophy gets in the way. If they're persuaded ahead of time that there isn't a God, then no matter how compelling the evidence, they'll always say, 'Wait and we'll find something better in the future.' But thats a metaphysical argument. Scientists aren't more objective than anybody else. They all come to questions like this with their preconceived ideas. I've come with the preconceived idea that there is a God true, and a lower level of evidence probably would have satisfied me. But what I've found is absolutely overwhelming evidence that points toward an Intelligent Designer.3. What was the key point in your life, that made you choose for the creationist point of view?
---Well I've always been a creationist. But until reasently. I was just blind by tradition. I went to an athiest website once to see what they were all about and my faith was tested as I thought well mabe there right. However, on further study of it all, I found that they missed key points and they just never gave a secound thought about religion. They only looked at one side of the argument. Now, with scientific facts and archaeological historical data, I know that theres a God.4. What type of creationist are you? (Young earth model / Old earth model / Intelligent design / other).
---I would say I'm a young earth model. If you look at facts, not fiction, you'd be surprised at what you'd find.5. Do you accept the teaching of the evolutionary theory in schools?
You can teach it in schools, so long as you teach that its a hypothesis instead of a fact. Which of course it is not and thats just lying to young minds and corrupting them. Its just not right.6. Feel free to comment on any critical subjects.
If people would just look at both sides of the argument and truly study evolution and creationism two things would happen. The people who believed in God before would know for a fact he exists and two, the evolutionists after there study of creationism and a further study in evolution would make them change there minds or at the very least, make thm think over there preconceived ideas

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

​

I find it interesting that there is no analogous question for the other thread, such as, "What kind of evolutionist are you?"

​

There is pretty much only one kind because science is based upon evidence that everyone can see and examine. All the different factions of Creationism, OTOH, will never agree because they are all based upon revelation rather than evidence. (emphasis added)

---

Hi schrafinator and all,If you think there is "only one kind" of Evolutionary theory, I think you should have a look at this link:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/anti-darwin.htmlThe article deals with opposition to Darwinism, which exists within Evolutionary biology just as it does within fundamentalist Christianity (except, of course, that Evolutionary biologists who oppose Darwinism can usually form a valid scientific argument). In discussing anti-Darwinism, the article lays out a conceptual framework for evolution, summarising the different theses within the theory. It's not exactly a light bed-time read (I had to read it twice to come to grips with it, but then maybe I'm a little slow on the uptake), but it's well worth a look - as is most of the material at Talk.origins.By the way I'm new here. Not registered yet - for now I think I'll just keep prowling a little more... no, not prowling. What's the word? Lurking? Yes, I'll lurk a bit more (heaven help me, I almost typed "trolling"!).Cheers,JB

quote:

---

Originally posted by ViewOfWorld:

​

If people would just look at both sides of the argument and truly study evolution and creationism...(edit)...the evolutionists after there study of creationism and a further study in evolution would make them change there minds or at the very least, make thm think over there preconceived ideas

---

I wouldn't be too optimistic.JB

Penders, doesnt that leave pending that there are two opposable views?This may be so in some LEGAL content but under a "free for all"?I went on to state that with respect to HUMAN origins there may in fact be a binary division such, as you may wish represented and I attempted to hold to in Public TV format access but I have never thought anything like this once I permitted every bio-change and the possiblity of life anywhere.One simply needs reason with Kant about right and left to have a reason to doubt that even with best intentions to keep these things seperate that they will (be). I have no idea if conservation of entropy and conservation of energy should be considered one and the same (in a given faculty of thought/reason) for instance.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-07-2003]

Schraf still wonders:How do you tell the difference between a natural system that we do not understand and a system that has been intelligently designed?If you can't answer that question, then there is no positive evidence for ID, therefore it isn't science, and should not be in the science classroom.PB: For the umpteenth time for you (since you have such a bad memory):Positive evidence for Design can be recognised in (genetic) redundancies. It has been demonstrated recently that genetic redundancies have NO association with gene duplication (and thus falsified the back-up-hypothesis) and they do NOT mutate faster than essential genes. That is clearcut evidence for design. If I have to re-re-repost the references, please let me know.Maybe it is a good idea to save this message, or better use it as screen saver Best wishes,
Peter