Creation, Evolution, and faith

quote:

---

And there you have it. Christian faith depends on what the Bible teaches. Christian faith is based on a set of ancient texts.

---

Of course. Who doesn't know this?

quote:

---

Science is not based upon any text in any comparable way.

---

Of course not. Science is based on nature, as Christianity is based on the Bible. This is the analogy that I've repeatedly tried to explain. Is something unclear about my explanation? I've repeatedly said that the main difference between religion and science is in the types of evidence that they employ, and this is all that you are noting.

quote:

---

Science uses reason and evidence to study nature. Agreed.

​

Religion uses reason and evidence to study alleged holy texts as a proxy for nature.

---

No, not as "a proxy for nature." Religion is not trying to understand the natural world, but the spiritual world.

quote:

---

Both are attempting to describe reality. The difference is that science tries to study reality as directly as possible, it cuts out the middle man (and to paraphrase Bill Mahr, when I say man it usually seems to mean someone with a penis). Religion seeks to study reality through a murky lens, that of it's chosen scripture (which it invariably places on a pedestal, another notable difference with science).

---

Absolutely not. Science only tries to study physical reality; this is the only reality that it CAN study. Religion tries to study spiritual reality, which cannot be addressed with science. Religion and science are NOT trying to study the same thing.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But are these claims "wholly unevidenced" in either endeavor? These truth-claims are not provable, of course. A step of "faith" is involved in both endeavors.

---

False. There is a major difference. It's about the framework within which each claim is judged.

​

Science can prove it's ideas to a very high degree - within the framework created by the assumption of a consistent observable reality.

​

Religion cannot do this. Religion cannot prove the reality of the Trinity, even with the framework of an observable reality.

​

Science can prove its claims within the framework created by methodological naturalism.

​

Religion must, almost by necessity, cast this aside when making claims about supernatural entities (like the Trinity). This leaves it open to the possibility of supernatural outside interference, even within the framework of a consistent observable reality.

---

There is a tremendous confusion of categories in your statements above. I'll try to unravel them.By "truth-claims" I mean questions like "Does God REALLY exist?" and "Do quarks REALLY exist?" For both, we can provide evidence but not proof. Believing in their actual reality (as opposed to their usefulness in a model) requires a step of faith. This is the metaphysical/theological level that you don't want to discuss.So let's leave this, and let's talk about your "frameworks." I agree with your scientific framework; we assume a consistent, observable physical world and study nature with an approach of methodological naturalism. In this framework, we can see convincing evidence for quarks (I am hesitant to use the word "proof" in science).But I disagree with your religious framework; it implicitly treats religion as science. The analogous Christian framework to the scientific framework above would be a consistent, observable, divinely-inspired Bible which is studied with proper hermeneutical methodology. Within this framework, we see convincing evidence for the Trinity. With the "frameworks" set up in an analogous fashion, the evidence or "proof" is analogous.You keep trying to judge religious claims on scientific grounds, as if it were a subset of science, but this doesn't make sense. Religion and science study different things, using different types of evidence. They ask different questions. They are analogous, but not equivalent. Neither is a subset of the other.

quote:

---

I don't understand what you are trying to say here?

---

I am saying that your claimed analogy is false. Christianity does NOT have an agreed "acid test" anything like that of science.

quote:

---

I see the reality of our scientific theories as analogous to the truthfulness of the biblical message.

---

Well we do have grounds for accepting the reality of scientific theory, even if they are less than certain. But you would need analogous grounds for your argument to make sense. Which is why your insistence on talking about the non-religious question of what the Bible says so interesting. If your best example of the use of reason and evidence is irrelevant, surely that tells us that your opponents have more truth on their side than you wish to admit.

quote:

---

I don't understand?

---

Your analogy left out ALL religious belief. You implicitly denied the entire religious content of Christianity. That's the point that you seem to miss.

quote:

---

The Christian faith rests, depends on theology and biblical studies, which involve reason and evidence. All of these are parts of Christianity. But the Christian faith is not equivalent to theology and biblical studies.

---

And Christianity involves faith commitments that go beyond anything that theology of Bible study can support. But as soon as you admit that, your argument fails.

In message 32 you also said:"But many aspects of religious faith ARE based on reason."We are talking about religious faith. You have stated that it is based on reason, but the only argument that you have put forth so far is "because the Bible says so". That is not reason. That is blind faith. Nowhere in science is a theory upheld "because the textbook says so". In science claims are tested independent of the claim. In religious faith the evidence is the claim. It is circular. It is blind. And that evidence is taken at face value without testing and without verification. It is taken blindly, hence blind faith.

Hi Meldinoor,Thanks for the discussion and sorry for the delay. Well, I wasn't think of a specific example, just what I had already said...the first step in the process and the ever changing landscape (or findings being a better word) of science. Scientists have faith, not blind faith, that if they can answer a "problem" such as this, New Study Contradicts Flower Fossil Dates | The Institute for Creation Research. Now, I don't think this article by any means brings down evolution but there is an admitted problem here by a scientist who certainly isn't a creationist. He thinks there is a problem here. The rest of the story not told is that he probably believes that an answer will be found at some point to this little problem so he has faith that this doesn't impact his thoughts on evolution. My point was, science is changing at an enormous pace. What students were taught 25 years ago even is not what would be taught today, at least some of it. What YEC believe about the Bible and 3,000 years ago won' t change, it hasn't changed and it won't. That's all I was referring to as far as that point goes.Take care,
Flyer

Have you read the actual study, or the article from which the quote is lifted (from Yale daily news)? There's another quote in there:

quote:

---

Either our methods are correct and the fossil record is way off, or the fossil record is good and our methods are not giving the right answers

---

And another:

quote:

---

It’s possible that our results aren’t correct, Donoghue said. You can always go wrong with a method.

---

So they're not even sure their methods are correct. I find it very weird why ICR would then go and conclude that this "find" dicredits somehow the evolution of plants. Also, 75 million years isn't exactly a long time geologically, and plants often lack "hard parts" that fossilize easily, which is why plant fossils are quite rare.All in all, this isn't a very convincing "hole". This won't impact evolution. Not one bit. Like the scientist said in the Yale paper, either his methods are wrong, which means they'll need to do more testing, or the fossil record is wrong (I doubt he said this, he probably meant "incomplete"). Either way, there is no doubt plants evolved. This is not based on faith, but on previous knowledge though. But don't you think that this change is a good thing? When new things are found out, should we not change what is taught? Should we simply have said "Well Mr. Einstein, that's all nice and dandy, but if you expect us to drop Newton, you can go pull the other one". Now look at what YEC's do. By your own admission, it will never change. It doesn't matter what evidence we show them, they'll maintain they are right, and the evidence is wrong. Don't you find that a strange way to go about things?Edited by Huntard, : Added second quote

But of course you haven't. Atheists are rational. If an atheist wants to start a charity, would he be nuts enough to make it an explicitly atheist charity, such that only about 5% of the population would want to work for it or contribute to it?

Hi Flyer, There is a difference between evolution and the theory of evolution. One being an observed phenomenon(evolvement), the other being our attempt to explain it(the theory).Scientist could be wrong on many, many things. Just as they could be wrong about how certain diseases mutate or a doctor could be wrong when he/she diagnosis you. But these errors are human errors, and don't have any impact on the observed phenomenon itself.What you seem to be arguing is that, because humans haven't successfully explained, in detail, the evolutionary course of every single living/extinct organism, that some how the natural evolutionary process doesn't happen. I would hope though, at least by now in this thread, that you can see how that belief would make no sense.- Oni

Hi Onifire,No I'm not saying that at all. I'm not saying that just because evolution can't explain everything that it should be discredited. I'm saying that since it can't explain everything, at this point, that there is some faith involved. I'm trying to keep the theme of faith here...not blind faith, but faith nonetheless. I for one, believe that some forms of evolution do take place...we'll part ways as to what extent that is but I do believe it occurs (in my limited knowledge of the subject).Well guys, at this point I'll probably step away from this thread until a new one pops up I can participate in. I've enjoyed this discussion. I will probably try to start a thread in a few days, maybe Thursday when I have 4 kids and a wife out of the house for the day, I would like to discuss the topic that this headed into and that is Christianity and "blind faith". I think there is still much to discuss about this subject that we haven't touched on. Thanks again for the many responses in this thread.I suppose if Kb, PaulK, Taq, and others wish to continue the foray here they can...its been enlightening and at times entertaining.Edited by Flyer75, : misspelled word

Since you've stated that you're leaving the thread, I'll respond with the knowledge that you won't reply back but with the hope that you'll read it and understand what I meant. My point was to better familiarize you with the terms you're using.It's not that evolution can't explain everything, it's that our theory of evolution doesn't explain everything. There is a difference between "evolution" and the "theory of evolution." That was my point.Human's have faith that they can explain natural phenomena, and we should have this faith since we've done a pretty good job so far. We landed on the moon! But it's the same method for research that we apply to everything. I'm sure many in the medical field have faith that one day, through research, testing, experimentation, trail and error, they'll be able to find a cure for AIDS or cancer. But their faith has no affect on the method used to achieve this goal.Likewise, scientist have faith that one day, through reasearch, experiments, testing, trail and error, they'll be able to explain how every known organism evolved. But their faith has no affect on the method used to achieve this goal. The method in this case is the theory of evolution.Take care,- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I don't understand what you are trying to say here?

---

I am saying that your claimed analogy is false. Christianity does NOT have an agreed "acid test" anything like that of science.

---

Sorry, but I've lost complete track of what you are talking about here. Can you please point me to the post where you described this "acid test"?

quote:

---

Your analogy left out ALL religious belief. You implicitly denied the entire religious content of Christianity. That's the point that you seem to miss.

---

No, I am simply trying to show that religion involves reason and evidence. So I am focusing on the reason and evidence that underlies and undergirds religious faith. I have affirmed the religious content of Christianity multiple times in this thread. Are you so desperate that you must completely mischaracterize my position?

quote:

---

And Christianity involves faith commitments that go beyond anything that theology of Bible study can support. But as soon as you admit that, your argument fails.

---

My Message 268 that you replied to when you wrote this said something very close to this: Please try to read what I actually say, not what you want to hear. It is very difficult to carry on a discussion with someone who ignores what I actually say and tries to twist my words to mean their opposite.

quote:

---

Sorry, but I've lost complete track of what you are talking about here. Can you please point me to the post where you described this "acid test"?

---

I didn't describe it. And one of the nice features of this forum is that each post links to the post it replies to and it's replies. So if you forget what you said - as you have done - you can simply follow the chain of links backwards.

quote:

---

No, I am simply trying to show that religion involves reason and evidence.

---

In reality you were objecting to the description of religious faith as blind faith. And if the only use of reason is on subsidiary matters then you haven't got much of a case. An example which leaves out religious belief altogether is therefore not much use.

quote:

---

Please try to read what I actually say, not what you want to hear. It is very difficult to carry on a discussion with someone who ignores what I actually say and tries to twist my words to mean their opposite.

---

I don't think that emphasising a point that you agree with can be described as trying to "twist your words to mean their opposite".

No --- faith would be required if someone said that at this point biologists did have an explanation for everything in biology. But no-one says that.The fact that there are some things that biologists don't know about biology doesn't put the things that they do know in doubt. It is not necessary for biologists to be omniscient about biology for me to agree that they know something about biology.

Gday, Actually, no, there is no evidence that ANYONE ever doubted the existence of Pilate. He is referred to as historical for every single century since his time.This is another one of false claims creationists like to spread.It's completely untrue.KapyongEdited by Kapyong, : Fixed tag

Also available is the kbertsche Posts Only link that appears in the left column next to his messages. He can use this one, which will center on his Message 280.--Percy

Scientist: From what the objective, empirical evidence we have so far, this is our best model to date which we hold tentatively and will always be open to change.Theist: We have no objective or empirical evidence of God, but we dogmatically believe that God exists anyway and this belief is not open to change or to challenge.How are these two the same?