Creation, Evolution, and faith

I hope I'm am doing this the correct way as this is my first proposed topic since joining. I've admitted here that I am a little behind most here when it comes to the knowledge of creation vs. evolution. There is still a ton for me to digest and learn.I'm taking the thread titled "Personal Philosophy" found here EvC Forum: Personal Philosophy kind of running with it in my own topic that I would like to expound on. Many replied and I would like a more detailed discussion on some of the things that were said.Since discussions on geology, astronomy, genome, mutations, ect are a little (and sometimes way) out of my league at this point, I would like to just discuss/debate presuppositions from both sides. I'd first like to stipulate to the fact that creations believe what they do based first and primarily on faith. It's certainly debatable if this faith is backed by facts (I believe it is in my early studies, but that's not the point of this discussion). I would hope that all YEC would stipulate that faith in the inerrant Word of God is the presupposition for our beliefs. The Bible is chalked full of faith references. To name just some:Hebrews 11:1 pretty much gives the Biblical definition of faith in saying, "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."Hebrews follows up with many examples of faith displayed in the Bible such as, vs. 3, "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what is visible".vs. 7, "By faith, Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world......".And of course a the Bible clearly says one is saved by grace, through faith.So, I would be terribly amiss if a creationist/Christian were to deny faith as their presupposition, even within the creation/evolution debate. Science just can not completely validate the Bible or creation. We depend more on faith and the Word of God, and I'm not ashamed to admit that on a primarily science forum.Now, my post takes the turn here. I believe the above can be said for the evolutionist. Here's where I get confused on terms however. When I say evolutionist, I am talking about the evolutionist who believes in no ID or God who started the process, but the scientist who believes that natural selection is the sole catalyst in the process from the start of nothing, to what we see now. With that being clarified, I hope, I propose that evolutionists start with a presupposition of faith, just from a different worldview.Charles Darwin created a theory, not based on fact, but on his philosophy of life and belief system. I understand much, an earth's time in fact, as been learned about science since Darwin proposed his theories in the 1800's. But the fact is, Darwin had faith and did not deny this. For example, a few of his quotes:"This difficulty, though appearing insuperable, is lessened, or, as I believe, disappears, when it is remembered that selection may be applied to the family, as well as to the individual....""The electric organs of fishes offer another case of special difficulty; it is impossible to conceive by what steps these wondrous organs have been produced; but, ...we must own that we are far too ignorant to argue that no transition of any kind is possible."Then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.Other more modern day evolutionists such as T. H. Huxley admitted his belief in evolution was an act of philosophic faith. And Herbert Spencer admitted that, Even in its most defensible shape there are serious difficulties in its way."So I believe imo, that evolution requires faith. More specifically then even these Darwin quotes, I believe it requires faith from the outset, but not so much once science is involved. What I mean is, no one knows how evolution started. How the process began. Was it a big bang? Was it an ocean of soup charged by energy? What was it? In order to believe in evolution, no matter what science may tell us, it takes faith from the outset to believe that something scientific started it. No one can reproduce the beginnings in a lab, as far as I know. We still can't reproduce something out of nothing, even with all of our modern technology. Everything that we know is formed from something else in existence.So, does evolution require faith? I believe it does. Rahvin stated in the thread I mentioned above that it doesn't matter what started it all...well, why doesn't it matter? Isn't that a fairly important question that needs to be answered?Thanks in advance for your responses. I look forward to a spirited debate on this topic. For the record, my quotes come from the NIV Bible and from "Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin. Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

Hmmm...ok, allot to digest here. I'm sorry if I don't get to everyone's reply and specifically address concerns, I'll try my best over the next few days. My schedule is awful this week.First, I'll just address Dr. A's second post. First, I know it looks like I'm heading to a conclusion that evolution is a religion but I did not say that anywhere in my post. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of the start of things for evolution as it's never been explained to me, even in public schools that I attended, although evolution was taught. Second, I guess I have no clue what evolution is as I'm getting what appears to me to be different answers from just about everyone as to what is evolution. I guess I should simply ask, "what is the board's consensus on the definition of evolution"?Second, just because I believe in faith, I don't think evolutionists MUST also believe in faith just because it's opposed to my beliefs. I understand, and very basic level, that evolution occurs all around us. I understand that Darwin did tons of field studies to back up his theories but not all were able to be backed up, nor was he able to foresee the complexity of life that technology would reveal later on. He himself questioned the theories that he could not come up with through his own studies, mainly due to limited knowledge at the time.I'm not saying evolution, as it occurs around us, isn't sane or backed by science. I'm not asking anyone here to drop science on the side of the road, go to church, and claim faith as the only logical conclusion for life. I'm asking for answer to a beginning to it all. I guess I put too much mundane nonsense in my original post and should have just asked: how does evolution explain the beginnings of the universe and can it be proven scientifically. If it can't, then there is faith involved, to whatever degree that may be. If it can, then I stand corrected.I'll try to get to others soon. Thanks again for the discussion.

Subbie, thanks for the post.I do NOT disagree with any of the things you listed that Darwin theorized. I believe every one of those things have and can be proven in a lab or in nature or wherever. I don't see in that list a starting point however. That is what I'm looking for. I bought a copy of Origin of Species two weeks ago, thumbed through it and am going to start reading it probably next week. Does Darwin address the first stage or origin of matter and where it came from and can that be proven?

These last three posts were tremendously helpful. I never viewed "evolution" in the way it was just presented. I need to reread those posts and digest the information a little bit more but at first read they all make sense. Thanks for helping to clarify.

First of all, I'd like to thank kbertsche, PaulK and Taq for a lively discussion on this subject. I apologize for being late in responding to anything here. I was in Illinois for 5 days visiting my 90 year old grandfather who lives in the middle of nowhere so I didn't even bother to bring my labtop with me.Second, in ref to the above quote, that is pretty much what I was trying to get at. I'm glad kbertsche was able to cut through my jibberish and give a succinct summary of my position. I'm going to reread the last 3.5 pages and try and get involved, if I'm up to the discussion that is. Thanks again.

I understand what he is saying in this and it's not an inconsistency, imo. Both creationists and evolutionists view history/science through their presuppositional lens. In other words, both come to the table thinking, without evidence to what is being theorized, either in the terms of Global Flood or millions of years.Take this crude example: Tons of dinosaur foot prints are found running in the same direction. The evolutionist automatically assumes that millions of years ago followed by a theory that the dinosaurs were running from predators looking to eat them. The creationist automatically assumes thousands of years ago followed by a theory that the dinosaurs were running from a global catastrophic flood, Noah's flood. Who's right? Neither side can absolutley prove their theory, but both came to the table with a presupposition opposite of the other. Both can agree that something happened to the dinosaurs in this specific case, both can agree that the dinosaurs were running from something looking to wipe them out, but the conclusion is different. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is what he is trying to say in the post.Again, I apologize for the first grade level analogy............Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

It's not necessarily the conclusion I would draw in that example. Likely it would be but it's def not 100% provable and never will be. I start with an assumption that the Bible is true, that Noah's flood did occur, and thus much can be explained in light of a world wide catastrophe that completely changed the landscape.Has there not been major flaws at times in radiometric dating??? People were not around when rocks were formed, whether you are a creationist or evolutionist this is a true statement, so we can only guess about their content or how quickly radioactive elements decayed millions of years ago, or say, pre-Flood. Take Noah's flood out of the equation and most believe that there have been other catastrophic events around the world, including an ice age (yes, YEC believe this, it's just a difference of when it occurred) so how do we know how these events affected dating methods. No human was supposedly around to observe any of it, right? Thanks for your post Huntard and sorry to send this into a radiometric dating thread...that wasn't my intent but I opened the door.

Again, excuse my ignorance but I believe this is a form of uniformitarianism as coined by the deist James Hutton? If not, I apologize, if so, I have to ask again....how do we know? How do we know light traveled at the same speed it does today 40 million years ago? Or that the way we date rocks today has any connection to the way they decayed 110 million years ago? IMO, it's a logical conclusion that scientists have "faith" that the present is the key to the past.

Peepul, excellent post here. I would disagree on some very small things but you laid out your argument in plain clear language that anyone can understand. This is pretty much the point I was trying to get at in the op. I think science can obviously explain better after we reach letter A then what theology can do as I've admitted there is more faith involved in creation then in science. I still believe that before letter A (I'm thinking of an alphabet analogy here, as in the starting point that is known) science can't explain what came before A. Science can hypothesize, theorize and guess what might have happened but please correct me if I'm wrong, it hasn't proven what came before A. Pretty true statement here except I also think reason can lead one to Christ (God). It has before if someone like Josh McDowell (one of the leading apolgists) can set out to prove atheism yet convert to Christianity, primarily, based on his writings and sermons, based on reason and logic. At this point, I'm not arguing if he was right or wrong, I'm just saying, logic and reason (along with the working of the Holy Spirit) lead him from atheism. The Bible, if you believe, has verses that back this reasoning up:Romans 1: 19-20: For what can be "known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, "have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.These verses are primarily talking about divine revelation and how it is expressed in the design of creation. The invisible God is revealed in the visible medium of creation. Paul also stresses here that mankind not only has the opportunity to know God through general revelation, but that the revelation yields real knowledge.So, I agree with others that posted, I don't see "blind faith" in religion...there is reason for the faith. Obviously many discard those reasons as nonsense.Anyhow, very nice post Peepul.

You are correct. It is hard to get Christians to be able to defend their faith through reason and/or apologetics. It's pretty sad really. Most Christians go to church on Sundays, hear a sermon, go home, and never open their Bible, let alone a commentary, and study. Same can be said for allot of evolutionists though and by that I mean the layperson on the street. Obviously this board is a rare case of both sides trying to learn the others arguments and increase their knowledge in both the area of evolution and creation.Now, as far as evidence goes, if you're looking for laboratory tested evidence for the Bible, you won't get but there is more then enough historical evidence that validates many parts of the Bible. If I can believe that C was written X amount of years ago by Y author, and that fact can be validated through archaeology, the fulfillment of prophecy, the structure of scripture, and ancient history, then I can logically and reasonably believe other parts of the Bible. One small example, for a couple of thousands of years, many doubted the real existence of Pilate. Ultimately, in 1961, his name was found on an archeological inscription confirming from an outside source that indeed, Pilate did in fact exist and was a real person.http://www.biblehistory.net/Pontius_Pilate.pdfIf you read this link, you'll see that other things have been found, such as written letters confirming that Pilate had Jesus crucified just as the Bible says. Is this a scientific proof such as confirming that mutations occur?? Yes, and no. Yes, archeology is a science, no, it's not mixing chemical A with chemical D to get a result in a lab. This is just one small example where you can see that LOGICALLY and without "blind faith", one can believe the Bible (this part at least for the sake of the example). Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

Just for clarification, I didn't throw out McDowell's name necessarily because he's famous, but because he came to Christianity through what he says is reason and evidence. If you don't believe that, take it up with him. I know converts from both side claim reason and logic and in the case of the Christian to Atheist convert, usually science. I apologize on my ignorance, I can't comment on Strobel. I just made a post before I read yours on just one of the archeological finds, one of hundreds, maybe thousands that independently validate parts of the Bible. I'm not going to list them all here as book upon book has already been written on the subject. My simple point is, it isn't blind faith for me at this point. Maybe it is for some who just don't care to study these things and have to be able to defend their faith. I have logically but A, B, C, D, ect together to come to the conclusion that the Bible is believable. Do I have to take certain things on faith? Of course, but because I, and it can be proven through the things I listed in my previous post, have evidence of much of the Bible, why should I not logically believe all of the Bible.

You are correct. I used a poor choice of words. The Roman historian Tacitus (AD 55-117) and the Jewish historian Josephus (in AD 93), mention him by name in connection with the death of Christ, but the stone I mentioned is the only 'hard' evidence of his name dating from the first century. (info from "Nothing but the Truth" by Brian H. Edwards, 2006, pp 402-403). I was referring to the letter by Justin Martyr who wrote his letter around 150 AD claiming there were letters of Pilate in the archives. Will they ever be found? Who knows....maybe, maybe not, but for you, you have every reason to not believe Justin Martyr, I have every reason to do so. It's just the difference of where we stand.I'm not trying to derail this thread by discussing archeology and such. I'm just laying out the logical reasons why one can believe the Bible. You may say there is no logical reason but your definition of what is logical isn't going to be like mine and vice versa when it come to anything really. I may logically say it's warm out when it's 50 degrees, you may say logically it's cold out. We can discuss the archeological finds and what not in another thread at a later date I suppose.

I can see that many are missing the point in why I posted (my posts today) what I did. No where did I say that archeology or certain finds prove the resurrection of Christ or the divine creation by God of Adam and Eve. No where did I say that nor will I.The thread started off about faith and moved to logic and reason, which is fine. If anybody here wants to just make the claim (which kb is arguing against, even though we disagree on probably everything else) that there is zero logic in the Christian belief then fine, there's really no sense in me trying to convince you otherwise. All I'm saying, that in my brief studies, there is enough evidence for me to belief A, B, and C, in the Bible, thus I can believe X, Y, and Z. Faith fills in the rest but it's not blind faith. If we want to debate all these other things such as archeology and prophecy and problems that Christians run into in the Bible, we can do so in another thread.I'm of the belief that although I disagree with it, evolutionists believe based on reason and logic and a little bit of faith to fill a few holes. In a more extreme example, those who believe in aliens probably think that do with some reason and logic. They believe the photos they see or the "first hand" accounts of those that have been "probed" (for lack of a better word). Most of us might find this ridiculous but in their mind it's completely true.

Huntard,Fair question and for the record, I don't consider your question as a cheap shot, it's a legitimate question to ask.For one, the Illiad doesn't claim to be the Word of God and lay out the plan of salvation. The Iliad pretty much just claims (without so much as saying it) to be just that. You may say the same thing about the Bible, but the Bible CLAIMS to be the Word of God. A christian believes the Bible to be inspired by God himself through man...another claim the Iliad does not make...clearly being written by a fallable human being. That, in a nutshell, is the main difference.

Theodoric,As I said, it validates that PART of the Bible. I did not say it proved Adam and Eve, Eden, ect. I thought I was clear in that.I also hope you realize that 50 years after the event is sooner then what the Gospels were written. The earliest reference to the book of Matthew is probably in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans by Ignatius of Antioch around 110 AD. Some have dated it as early as 50 AD but many critics of that date do so because of the destruction of Jerusalem between 80 and 100 AD.Mark is probably the earliest gospel written around 70 AD so if you accept the 50 years mark for the letter, or for anything prior to any of the gospels that independently validate portions of the Bible then you are admitting to an independent source outside of the Bible. Justin Martyr didn't write any of the gospels either.