Is Evolution a Radical Idea?

That seems to match my memory. I don't know of any statistics. However, psychologists are the most aware of the possibility of self-delusion or auto-hypnosis as an explanation of religious experience.Some fundamentalists will also admit to there being psychological explanation. They will use such an explanation for religious experience in mormonism, new-age religion, or some other "heresy", but will insist that it is the holy spirit for their own particular favored variant of theology.

I can't believe you're going to attempt to use Ussher's calculation to disprove geology. You mean to tell me that some 17th Century anglican preacher's calculations of the begats is going to trump the actual physical evidence from the rocks? It isn't geology trumping God, Faith. It's the physical evidence from God's creation in nature that trumps one man's opinion. For over 2000 years prior to Ussher, nobody tried to tie the geneologies to real time? Tell me - based on the geneologies in the Bible - at what age did each of the parents have the children? And how long did they live? IOW, on what basis do the years of the geneologies equate to actual years? Even beyond the fact that outside of the Bible itself, there's no basis to assume that the founders of that lineage even existed (i.e., A&E). This isn't "humanistic science" trumping God - a logical impossibility. It's waaaay extra-biblical Faith. If you're going to take the text as written, you'd better not drag in things that aren't in there. Rather, this is the ultimate in ad hoc-ianism attempting to trump science. Except the age of the earth isn't God's revelation. It's human interpretation of what is written in your Bible. You can't have it both ways. Either human intellect is capable of interpreting nature, or it isn't. If it isn't, then human intellect is also incapable of interpreting the Bible - making Ussher suspect, among others. Remember Linnaeus' quote? Creationis telluris est gloria Dei ex opere Naturae per Hominem solum ("The Earth's creation is the glory of God, as seen from the works of Nature by Man alone"). Nature - for a believer - should the the thing proclaiming the hand of God. Not some minor preacher from the 17th Century. Which trumps which, Faith? Note that I'm trying to argue from within the believer perspective. In the case of what you have written here, I wonder why you are denying the fact that God also gave us the intellect with which His creation is to be evaluated. I wonder which aspect God is more likely to accept: denial of His ultimate gift which allows us to see what He clearly wrote in works of His own hand when it conflicts with the text of a book compiled by man, or the reverse? Maybe it's not the folks who go with science over an old book - no matter how revered - who are in trouble. An intellect which, if you accept the divine premise in the first place, is also something that came from God. Why do you deny this gift? As I noted in the part you didn't quote:

quote:

---

...it's the "believer" who fails to grasp the beauty and evidence of biology, rather than the other way around.

---

In other words, the Bible-olater is denying the quite plain hand of God by denying the fruits that God has provided: the rational mind which allows us to dimly sense the work of the creator.

Faith saith: Only that and the man-made theory of plate tectonics, and the man-made theory of the expanding universe, and the man-made theory of the speed of light, and the man-made theory of genetics, and the man-made theory of geology, and the man-made theory of archaeology, and the man-made theory of solar system formation, and the man-made theory of neurology, and the man-made theory of star formation, and the man-made theory of germs as a cause of illness...

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

quote:

---

Real science is done despite the faulty assumptions it rests on. Also, proving the theory false is very hard since it rests on so much elaborate interwoven speculative scaffolding by now with so much embedded scientific data it appears to be inextricable (though much of it really fits creationism better).

---

Then you must conclude that thousands of scientists must then be either liars working furiously to perpetuate an enormous conspiracy against the rest of humanity, and/or the rest of them must be such imbecilic morons to have been constantly and continually making the same enormous mistakes when testing the ToE.That is the inevitable, logical conclusion of your claim.

Not the conclusion I come to as I've many times explained to deaf ears. Neither liars nor morons. The scientists who worked within now-discredited scientific paradigms in the past were far from morons or liars. I figure the ToE has a lot of charisma going for it, and 99.99% of scientists don't take on the theory itself or work on the cutting edge of it, but simply work within it, taking it for granted, accepting the various ways it is justified, casting their work in its terms. Taking a LOT for granted, MANY assumptions. Where would they get the motivation from to challenge it anyway? There are psychological reasons as well for sticking with it. Someday the ToE will collapse and then everybody will have a good hard look at what was really holding it together, but until then there's no fault in accepting it as is.

Point was that geology and physics are human-originated works. The creation of God is barely scratched by them. Well, geology and physics are not the works of God. Those are works of men.The creation is also mute, anglagard, at least to us fallen human beings who are spiritually blind to its message about the Creator. How long did it take humanity anyway to get to the point of understanding anything at all about how it operates? Really, this idea that the creation just "talks" to us about itself makes no sense.And do you see the Creator in it? Do you detect His character from it? Does it jibe with what He says about Himself in His written word? Does it teach you about our sin nature, about the disobedience of our first parents?God speaks to us through the Word. The Word is unique to Him and to human beings as made in His image. Animals don't speak words. We understand through words, we don't grasp a whole lot if we're just left to wander in the physical universe, especially since we're fallen and blind to the glory of God it reveals to someone who really does know how to read it. And we'd grasp nothing at all if left to do so without words. God SPOKE the universe into existence. The medium of language is essential to any kind of knowledge. Yes, very humble of you. If you could really read the creation you would learn about the same God who inspired the Bible. God made us to understand, to communicate, with words. Scripture is clear that what creation does say to those who are tuned in, is that the God who made it is very great indeed, and it is God who should be the focus of our learning from the creation, and loved and worshipped for it, not the creation itself. But because we are blind to what the creation says about Him, in His mercy He chose to communicate with us via the clear medium of language, in the book He personally inspired.

I think it goes a little further than that. It says that the evidence from nature and conscience is sufficient to render a man who refuses to acknowledge the God who created both without excuse.You got mail btwEdited by iano, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I figure the ToE has a lot of charisma going for it, and 99.99% of scientists don't take on the theory itself or work on the cutting edge of it, but simply work within it, taking it for granted, accepting the various ways it is justified, casting their work in its terms.

---

All current science, in any field, is always based upon past findings.If the findings of the scientists of the past are erroneous, then why don't current scientists notice that the predictions they make on the basis of that historical work constsntly fail to be borne out?Why do they instead find that using past findings as a basis for current work leads to successfully borne out predictions?

quote:

---

Taking a LOT for granted, MANY assumptions.

---

So, thousands of scientists, according to you, are just really bad at doing science if they accept the ToE, is that correct?

quote:

---

Where would they get the motivation from to challenge it anyway?

---

Er, maybe because toppling the ToE would instantly propel them into the scientific celebrity stratosphere and put them in such rarified company as Einstein, Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin.They would become internationally famous, and would certainly win the Nobel.Faith, what do you think scientists do all day?Do you imagine that they sit around agreeing with each other about every single thing?To be a scientist is to challenge and test theory.They do their best to falsify their own theories.They try to break them. Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

---

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

Well, of course, human originated science is naturally flawed, naturally likely to be at odds with the truth in some places, but most of it is not as fantastic as the ToE. The ToE does contradict the written word of God and so do the time factors in the rest of what you list, but the practical sciences in general do not contradict it. A Bible believing Christian has no problem with most of it. Astronomy is a problem, great ages are a problem, but all the practical sciences are not. Archaeology is not a problem though we may dispute some of its dates. Neurology is no problem, germ theory is no problem, genetics is no problem, and 99% of geology is not a problem, and most of astronomy too. Only the time factor. Some day we'll understand how to put it all together, but we don't yet.

Faith asserts: You have got to be kidding. YEC is not compatible with the entire field of geology and astronomy, and large parts of physics, chemistry, anthropology, linguistics, and history.Remember this thread? I do: http://EvC Forum: YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution -->EvC Forum: YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond EvolutionWant to go for round 2?ABE - on second thought, YEC is pretty much against all of anthropology and linguistics as well.Edited by anglagard, : revision of depth of YEC destruction of knowledge

I was clear on that thread that specific assertions and theories within the various sciences are incompatible with YEC. But that the daily work of science itself is not in question.

Of course it is. How would anyone do geology without real geology? How could anyone do thermodynamics without the actual laws of thermodynamics? How could anyone do paeleontology while denying the existence of intermediate forms? How would Tiktaalik have been discovered by "Flood Geology". How would archaelogists get by without dendrochronology and radio-carbon dating --- or admitting the existence of the Stone Age? How would astronomers do astronomy if they had to pretend the universe was compatible with YEC fantasies? How would information theory have any use or content if it was replaced with the gibberish of Werner Gitt? How would the study of genetics get on if we denied common descent? How the heck would you do behavioral ecology without the concept of an ESS? And how could anyone study morphology and deny common descent?Have you ever wondered why there's no creationist prospecting company? Why it is that scientists have jobs finding oil and coal and other valuable mineral deposits, and creationists don't? After all, you guys have the word of God to tell you what to think, whereas scientists just have Evil Atheist Lies. And strike oil.

YECs don't deny "real geology" just certain theories. No YECs deny thermodynamics that I know of. Well, it would be a very different science certainly, but whatever is an actual fact is not questioned. Fossils can certainly be dug up and compared. All interesting creatures from before the Flood, quite a wealth of life to bring their Creator to mind.If what you mean by doing palaeontology is theorizing about what descended from what, that's just making castles in the air, which is what most of the ToE does. Easily. One of the amazing creatures God made that demonstrates the amazing fecundity and variability of the original life forms. No denying the Stone Age, just its dates. They'd have to theorize about how some branches of humanity got into that primitive situation after the Flood when before they were capable of building a huge ship like the ark. There are other ways archaeologists date things than radio-carbon dating and dendrochronology. Astronomy is indeed a problem for YECs. Perhaps some understand how to resolve the problem. I don't. In which case, even under YEC assumptions they could only proceed as usual until further notice. No idea what you are talking about. Why would information theory change and who is Werner Gitt? A LOT better. It's laboring now under false ideas about how it works, about mutation for one thing. The study of the genome would proceed as usual. Perhaps it can't be done. Some things are dispensable after all if they are working under a delusional theory. But I don't know what an ESS is or behavioral ecology so I can't say. The way Linnaeus did I would assume. Yes, this one has been run by us here. The actual role played by dating appears to be minuscule, and the relevant factors involved in finding oil have to do with physical configurations of the land which are only incidentally and irrelevantly tied to dates.

Saying it won't make it so. Then I suggest you brush up on your YEC. That would include the existence of intermediate forms. Saying it won't make it so. Please answer the question. How would Tiktaalik have been discovered by Flood Geology? They would indeed "just have to theorize", 'cos where would they find facts to confirm their theories? There are, and they agree with those methods, so you'd have to throw those out too. You betcha. It should be evident from my remarks that Werner Gitt wishes to replace information theory with some rubbish of his own. This is very popular with YECs. Funny how all those geneticists are wrong about mutation. Or perhaps, Mr "I-don't-know-what-a-microsatelite-is", you are, and adhering to fundie doctrine would mean rejecting much of what they know. You betcha. Linnaeus suffered from paucity of data. This completely fails to answer my question: why are there no creationist prospecting companies?Let's hear from Glenn Morton:For years I struggled to understand how the geologic data I worked with everyday could be fit into a Biblical perspective. Being a physics major in college I had no geology courses. Thus, as a young Christian, when I was presented with the view that Christians must believe in a young-earth and global flood, I went along willingly. I knew there were problems but I thought I was going to solve them. When I graduated from college with a physics degree, physicists were unemployable since NASA had just laid a bunch of them off. I did graduate work in philosophy and then decided to leave school to support my growing family. Even after a year, physicists were still unemployable. After six months of looking, I finally found work as a geophysicist working for a seismic company. Within a year, I was processing seismic data for Atlantic Richfield.

​

This was where I first became exposed to the problems geology presented to the idea of a global flood...

​

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

​

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

​

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either.So, tell me, how are people meant to stay YECs when they're exposed to the facts?

Glenn Morton has been answered by creationists, as you must know. In any case, one man's opinion does not a rebuttal make.