A Christian (and creationist)'s condemnation of "Creation Science"

Someone just posted the link to this site, at the Yahoo "sister" site:DWISE1'S CREATION / EVOLUTION PAGE
http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/new_index.htmlI don't believe I've ever previously encountered this site.I'll make no comment now, other that I thought this deserved it's own topic at this site.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[URL fixed (I hope) by Adminnemooseus on 8/19/2002]

​

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 04-05-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 04-05-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 08-18-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 08-19-2002]

Moose, interseting link.I, unlike this author, do have a place for "Creationism" creation scientists in the future of science even if it was originally thought only for moral/ethical needs that are becoming more apparent as man's luxuray impacts the environs here on Earth as we move into Space.This is not my place or time to comment more on 9-11, beyond some "repulsion" I may have mentioned, not rather the impulsive space, it occupies, etc. The more I read the WORK of Tesla the more I become convinced that the net IS creating a NEW economy through which current flows but my view on this will not be clear, even to me, until , nano-ecology begins to have a more than Western Antropological interest.The different perspective of creation scientists, that this site considers a "sham" will with the same evidence easily lead whether rather not restricted to baraminilogy as I currently talk about it, will off the choice in this new techonoligcal economy that needs to find peace first. Peace OUT

I really should add something.To the creationists:Is the extreme fundimentalist interpretation more harmful to Christianity and creationism, than just accepting old earth evolution as being God's process of creation?Mooseps: I'm using my old computer, which doesn't support the "signature" function.

Just posted at the Yahoo branch (Creationism comments from clergy in UK): http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,668482,00.html

quote:

---

Creationists 'harm religion'

​

Bishop attacks school's 'extraordinary' approach

​

The Bishop of Oxford yesterday fuelled the row over creationism in state funded schools by accusing teachers who promote anti-evolutionary theories of bringing Christianity into disrepute.

​

In an unusually outspoken statement for a senior Church of England clergyman, the Rt Rev Richard Harries said he was saddened that Christians should oppose evolution, which "far from undermining faith, deepens it".

---

See above link, for more.MooseAdded by edit (a sidebar link story, on the above page):Archbishop speaks out for faith schools
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,682094,00.html------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 04-11-2002]

If you're doing science, then the only possible choice is to follow the evidence wherever it leads.--Percy

Your concern about change is already embodied in the concept of tentativity. Theory can change in light of either new evidence or improved understanding. Relativity is an example of theory that came about through improved understanding. In other words, Einstein gathered no new evidence, he simply theorized better using existing evidence. The expanding universe is an example of theory that came about through the gathering of new evidence, primarily red-shift data gathered by Hubble.No one worships science as a god. Science is simply a way of understanding the physical universe. Our personal spiritual universe is the realm of religion.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

No one worships science as a god. Science is simply a way of understanding the physical universe. Our personal spiritual universe is the realm of religion.

​

--Percy

---

But many 'idolatrize' science, ... and 'sex', 'money', 'mutational models', etc., with great abounding faith. Might you agree?

I think you're playing semantic games. Might you agree?I think it very uncommon for people to confuse science, sex or money, no matter in how high esteem they may hold them, with faith in a loving Creator and in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.--Percy

All you're saying is that one shouldn't be asking science how to lead a good and Christian life, and who would argue?But contrariwise, one shouldn't be asking religion how to perform gene splicing or what the fossil record means.Coming back to the main point, no one worships science as a god. In particular, no one is using science to answer religious questions, and choosing to accept scientific answers to scientific questions is not a rejection of God.--Percy

Jet writes:

---

For the second time you make the blanket statement that "no one worships science as a god." If what you mean is that no one that you are aware of, or that no one who you would consider sincere and logical in their study of science would "worship science as a god", then I can accept your statement. But your statement, as it stands, is illogical in the sense that you can not possibly know the thoughts and intentions of all who look to science for answers.

---

Well, perhaps I lead a sheltered life, Jet. Why don't you tell us who you are thinking of that worships science as a god.As I said before, seeking scientific answers to scientific questions is not a rejection of God, indeed has nothing to do with God. I am not rejecting God when I seek out an auto mechanic to fix my car, an accountant to do my taxes, or a scientist to answer questions about science.I can well understand car trouble inclining one to offer prayers, but I bet you take your car to a mechanic and not a minister. When dealing with questions of the natural and not the spiritual world, why would you seek answers in a religious book?--Percy

Yet writes:

---

I think the more important question would be, "Why would anyone who isn't 100% positive about his assertions, deny that the Bible is the Holy Word of God and, in effect, call God a liar?"

---

Only men assert that the Bible is the Holy Word of God, and there seem to be a variety of opinions. God himself is strangely silent these days.Your sermon in another thread and your statements here seem to reflect some confusion as to the nature of the debate here. We're debating evolution and Creationism, not whether we should all be evangelical Christians.My question remains. When dealing with questions of the natural and not the spiritual world, why would you seek answers in a religious book?--Percy

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
Only men assert that the Bible is the Holy Word of God, and there seem to be a variety of opinions. God himself is strangely silent these days.***Perhaps God is silent, even absent, in your life. The same cannot be said of my, and multiplied millions of other lives.***JetOriginally posted by Percipient:
Your sermon in another thread and your statements here seem to reflect some confusion as to the nature of the debate here. We're debating evolution and Creationism, not whether we should all be evangelical Christians.***It seems you have mistaken a testimony for a sermon.***JetOriginally posted by Percipient:
My question remains. When dealing with questions of the natural and not the spiritual world, why would you seek answers in a religious book?--Percy[/B][/QUOTE]***The answer is quite simple. We are natural beings, existing within a natural world, reading the Holy Word of God from a natural book made of natural materials. The scriptures instruct us how do deal with both the spiritual and the natural world.......something no scientist or science textbook will ever be able to accomplish. I do not seek to uncover the answers to every question, for example, as to the age of the earth. It is as irrelevant to the study of the creation of mankind as it is to the study of the evolution of mankind. Only that which pertains to mankinds past, mankinds present, and mankinds future is relevant. And everything that needs to be learned and understood, is within the pages of Gods' Holy Word, the Bible.***Jet Shalom ------------------
"If you tell a lie long enough, and loud enough, and often enough, the people will believe it." Adolf Hitler.......Darwinian Evolutionist

I still don't see how that answers the question. Perhaps if I ask it in a more specific way:Why would you read the Bible to determine the age of the earth or the validity of evolution?--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
I still don't see how that answers the question. Perhaps if I ask it in a more specific way:

​

Why would you read the Bible to determine the age of the earth or the validity of evolution?

​

--Percy

---

***I will try to be more specific in my answers.1.) I would not read the Bible to determine the age of the earth. The Bible does not state the exact age of the earth, and besides, the age of the earth is irrelevant concerning my opinion as to the length of time that man has actually populated the planet.2.) I do read the Bible to determine that the TOE, as it pertains to man evolving from non-living matter into living matter through a process that took billions of years, is contrary to the Bibles' teachings and concepts of creation, and therefore the TOE is contrary to the Holy Word of God. In that regards, and IMHO, the TOE is a bunch of bunk, not at all scientific, even by your accepted definition of science, because it is not falsifiable.Let us not get into another discussion about how the TOE is not about the origin of life. Regardless of where you choose to begin your study, your journey along the path of life, whether at the very beginning before life actually appeared, or at some particular point after life made its' initial entrance, you still need to acknowledge the fact that life arose from non-life, whether through the process of abiogenesis or the process of a Creator breathing life into lifeless matter, or else you should state another theory on the matter of how life actually appeared on this planet.Either way you choose to view it, mans' true beginning, his adventure into life, came about as a result of life arising through, or out of, non-living matter. Even accepting a starting point where life already exists, the TOE cannot stand against, or be reconciled with, the Holy Word of God. To claim otherwise is to openly declare that what Paul writes in the book of Romans pertains to you personally. I have not yet met an evolutionist who was willing to admit to this. I sincerely doubt that you will be the first.*** Shalom Jet------------------
"KNOWLEDGE IS POWER! FEED YOUR BRAIN!".....................Jet"The scientist's pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. Now we would like to pursue that inquiry farther back in time, but the barrier to further progress seems insurmountable.It is not a matter of another year, another decade of work, another measurement, or another theory; at this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation.For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow

quote:

---

2.) I do read the Bible to determine that the TOE, as it pertains to man evolving from non-living matter into living matter through a process that took billions of years, is contrary to the Bibles' teachings and concepts of creation, and therefore the TOE is contrary to the Holy Word of God. In that regards, and IMHO, the TOE is a bunch of bunk, not at all scientific, even by your accepted definition of science, because it is not falsifiable.

---

First you say that you disbelieve the ToE because it goes against the Bible, which is fine.They you say that it is unscientific, to boot, which is wrong.Of course the ToE is falsifiable, just like any other scientific theory. It has been refined and changed as better information has come to light, so I suppose, in a way, small parts of it have been shown to be inaccurate, or holes have been filled in and questions anwered as we make new discoveries.I think you are confusing the fact that it hasn't yet been falsified with the idea that it is not falsifiable. I can think of many evidences, if discovered, which would falsify at least big parts of the ToE, such as finding a human skeleton in the same geologic layer as a dinosaur, for instance.