There is plenty of scientific, and common sense evidence to point towards creation
Such as? No, really, that is not a rhetorical question. I started studying "creation science" nearly 30 years ago, around 1981. I had first heard their claims (the live clam shell carbon-dated to thousands of years old and the story of the NASA computer that found Joshua's "lost day" when the sun stood still) back around 1970 at the on-set of the "Jesus Freak" movement, which coincided with the start of "creation science" (itself the anti-evolution movement reaction to having just lost their 1920's "monkey laws"). That NASA computer story was ridiculously false, so I immediately rejected "creation science" as false, but then in 1981 when I heard that it was still around, I thought maybe there might be something to their claims after all, so I started studying it. It didn't take me long to realize that their claims were completely and utterly false.
One of those false claims is the one that you have just repeated, that they have plenty of scientific evidence that points towards creation. For the past 30 years, I have been looking for that evidence and have repeated asked for it, including from "creation science's" top guns. So far, I have found none and no creationist has ever presented any of it.
In 1985, I went to a debate between the two top guns of creationism, Drs. Henry Morris and Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and two San Diego university professors, Thwaites and Awbrey, who had been running their own two-model class in which they gave half the lectures and leading creationists, many from the then-nearby ICR, gave the other half -- they finally had to drop the class after years of furious protests by the campus Christian clubs. Also in attendence was a creationist co-worker. At the end of the evening, my co-worker was stumbling out in shock, mumbling over and over again, "But we have mountains of evidence ... why didn't they present any of it? ... we have mounains of evidence ... why didn't they present any of it?". When he entered that debate hall, Dr. Gish was his hero; when i saw him again a few years later, he had nothing but contempt for creationists.
If creationists have so much "scientific evidence
for creation", then why don't they ever present it? All they ever do is set up the
false dilemma of the "two-model approach" (TMA) and then do nothing but attack their strawman "evolution model" (a caricature which only bears superficial resemblance to evolution) while refusing to discuss, defend, or even
present their "creation model". Even Dr. H. Morris personally insisted to me that any evidence against their "evolution model" constituted evidence
for their "creation model" -- an untrue statement, since their TMA is not a true dichotomy.
So if there is indeed so much "scientific evidence that points towards creation", where is it and what is it? No anti-evolution claims, please.
And as for "common sense", that means nothing. Common sense can only offer answers if it's based on knowledge of how something actually works, which most people's common sense does not.
For example, here are some common sense statements:
The sun and moon rise and set and move across the sky -- wrong; they only appear to do so because of the earth's rotation.
Heavier objects fall faster than light objects -- wrong; they fall at the same speed. It's just that lighter objects with higher coefficients of drag will be more subject to aerodynamic drag.
If a ball rolls down a corkscrew track and reaches the end and falls out, it will continue moving in a curved trajectory -- wrong; it will move in a straight line, albeit subject to gravity. This was an actual part of a scientific literacy test and the vast majority of test-takers answered that it would move in the same curved trajectory of the corkscrew track; we can't make that stuff up!
If you're driving along and your car starts to overheat, turning the air conditioning on will only make it overheat faster -- not anymore; that only worked when car engines were mounted in-line so that the radiator fan was turned directly by the engine. Now with traverse-mounted engines and front-wheel drive, radiator fans are powered by an electric motor which is controlled by one of the car's computers; in some cases where the computer has failed to detect that it needs to turn on the fan motor (I had a car with that problem) then turning on the A/C momentarily could get that computer to turn the fan on (which is what I found would work in my car's case).
To reiterate, the only way that you can get good answers from common sense is if you base it on a knowledge of how things really work. When we do base it on such knowledge, we find that the scientific explanations, including evolution, make the most sense. OTOH, creationists' "common sense" is based both on abject ignorance and contrary-to-fact claims, and so can only be relied upon to yield totally bogus answers.
In the mean time, it is possible that souls are at stake, but you aren't concerned with the possibility of interfering with a parents choice to raise there children as they wish or, the eternal destination of those kids.
You believe that there's a conflict between science and religion. Well, if the religion insists on teaching extra things that are contrary-to-fact, then there would necessarily be a conflict. However, that conflict is of that religion's doing, not science's.
Despite what you've been taught by your handlers, science does not conflict with believe in God nor can it be used to disprove God nor does it attempt to. Rather, it is certain religious groups (especially those who embrace the false theology of "creation science") that teach that science is used to disprove God. Rather, it is "creation science" which disproves God, in that it teaches that if its contrary-to-fact claims are found to be false, then God does not exist (or variations thereof; eg, then Scripture would have no meaning, then God is a Liar and must not be worshipped, then you must throw your Bible away and become an atheist).
Perhaps this little story will help make the situation clearer. A decade ago, I received an email from a creationist from whom I heard this particular argument for the first time:
quote:
I am a Christian, and I believe God to the creator, but I don't see how it can always be conclusively supported with given data. Now given, data doesn't lie, but I do not think that all data is intrinsically pure. In other words this: it has been tampered with by supernatural beings, namely satan himself. satan's (sic) main concern is that he takes as many people down with him as possible. If he can convince us that God doens't exist by "tampering" with geological data and other findings, then we will think that we are alone in this universe with no spiritual meaning, and that when we die, we are worm food. Has anyone ever expressed this view towards you before? How do you respond to it? I know it sounds like an easy cop-out, but God has given satan the power over the earth and spiritual warfare does take place every day. What are your thoughts?
Here is my reply:
quote:
An interesting view. No, I don't recall having heard it before. Of course, since it is impossible for us to know anything about the supernatural, we could come up with any number of supernaturalistic conspiracy theories to explain anything we want to. One that immediately comes to mind is Maya; all of our physical existence is just illusion anyway.
However, if it is a trick of Satan's, then it is a far more subtle and deadly trick than you think. At the end of my Quotes Page [ sorry, it's no longer on-line ever since my provider suddenly left the webhosting business ], I wrote from memory what a Christian had told me on CompuServe's Science Forum, circa 1997:
In order to ensnare Christians, Satan, the Great Deceiver, knows that he cannot fool them with single lies, so he always creates lies in pairs. The first and lesser lie is intended be alarming and to scare Christians and to drive them to embrace the second and more pernicious lie, trapping them there. That Christian viewed both creation science and evolution as lies, but evolution was the lesser lie which Satan uses to frighten Christians and to drive them to embrace the truly pernicious lie, creation science.
Think about it, Matt. You are trying to explain away the "lesser lie", but you do not see the "greater lie", even though it forms the basis of your entire argument.
Tell me, Matt, why would Satan's tampering with geological data convince us that God doesn't exist? Think about it. What assumptions have you made there? Haven't you embraced the "greater lie", the lie that science disproves God? The lie that forms the heart of creation science? Sneaky devil, isn't he? He snared you and you didn't even know it. And he didn't even have to tamper with the physical evidence; all he had to do was to trick you into believing that the evidence would convince you that God doesn't exist and then just let the universe do the rest.
He never answered back.
I WANT TO CHOOSE WHATS GOOD FOR MY KIDS!
As do all parents. But do you really know what's good for them? Do you really believe that ignorance and lies and deception are good for them? Do you really believe it's good for them to teach them that God cannot exist if the world is really how we find it to be, so they must exercise eternal vigilance in protecting themselves from ever learning anything about it? Do you really think that it's good for them to teach them that "creation science's" claims are found to be false, then they must become atheists? Do you really believe that?
We're talking about your kids and what's good for them! You need to really think about what you're teaching them and what the consequences are. Your kids are the most precious things in your life!
™ Version 4.2
(1)
