Use of Science to Support Creationism

Ok, so I'm new here and was surfing around in some older threads when I found this one. After reading all of it, I realized I'd forgotten what the original question was anyway; then I looked up in the corner of this nifty page and found the topic name again.I was drawn to this thread because I am a creationist and an evolutionist. I have a bachelor's degree in biology, and it is through biology that I finally came to understand. I was raised in a Christian home, but by the time I hit college, I was through with God. Half-way through my sophomore year, I changed my major to biology. It was in those classes that I decided there HAD to be a God. I can't bring myself to believe that everything just spontaneously happened one day. I find the human body and the workings of nature too complex to rely purely on evolution as reasoning. Likewise, though, I find it impossible to believe that God would stick us on this earth and give us no ability to adapt. That makes no sense. To me, to accept one requires the acceptance of the other. It also requires discernment. There is some crap science out there just like there is some crap Christianity out there. I accept both science and Christianity, but there are some things I have to take on faith. I know that's anti-science right there, but I'm certainly not your average biologist and I never claimed to know everything. Some things I just know are right.I don't really care how old the earth is. I mean, does it really matter in the grand scheme of things? So the world's old--it doesn't matter WHOSE standards you're using, the world is OLD. But the scientist in me WANTS to know how old the earth is. And sometimes people think of things I've never thought of and that's why I'm here.The real question in this forum is this: Do you want to believe Creationism or not? If you want to believe, the evidence is out there, though you're never going to see a journal article written on the wonders of the human body, or on how truly intelligent plants must be. You have to take some of it on faith, and some of it you have to dig for to find the answers. I have very little difficulties reconciling my religious beliefs with my scientific beliefs. To me, science is a mechanism to understanding God.Boy! Richard Dawkins would spin in his grave if he could read this! He'd probably jump up out of his grave and start debating with me if he could.:-) Richard Dawkins--the man we all loved to hate in my Science and Religion course in college.And to some of you I'm probably the biggest kook in the world. What? A biologist who doesn't back evolution 100%? Come on, guys, you have to admit that there's some stuff involved in evolution that sounds just as far-fetched as a Divine Creator. We're really only given the option of choosing one over the other. But, because I believe in said Devine Creator, it makes it easier to say that I also believe that birds evolved from reptiles. Why not? Who says that God didn't stick the animals here and let them evolve as necessary for their survival? (I'm sure I'm about to get a verse from Genesis thrown at me over that one, but I contend that the week that God took to create the earth wasn't a traditional week in the way that we know it anyway). Besides, if we're going to say that there is a God (and some of us do), let's start treating him like the God that he is. If he basically created all forms of science and scientific laws as we know them, he can break them as he likes. If we take the creation of man as it says in Genesis, then man came from dirt. I think if God can do that, he can turn any reptile into a bird that he wants (and he can even use our lovable Archeopteryx lithographica to do that with if he so desires).Anyway, I've rambled on enough and this post probably belongs elsewhere and I'm either the next Einstein to some or the biggest idiot in the world to others. Meh, it doesn't really matter. I'm not the first person to think of this, I'm sure. And at the end of the day, the only person I have to answer to is myself.So, go ahead and rip me to shreds. I'm sure it's coming. But I don't really care.Thanks!
Megan

I apologize. I honestly believed that I read somewhere that Dawkins had passed into the Great Divide. Maybe I'm thinking of some other scientist that died around that time (or maybe it was wishful thinking).Anyway, here's my point. If I call myself a Christian (which I do), then I HAVE to take some things on faith. I'm kind of required to, guys, or I can no longer call myself a Christian. As hard as I tried to convince myself that there was no God, I couldn't do it. To those of you who succeeded, however, I applaud you. I also can't bring myself to believe that molelcules (and the correct ones at that) simply randomly managed to come together one day to create anything resembling life (that would be one of those far-fetched, hard to believe concepts. Although, I've read most of the evidence and the studies and I can see why some people find it plausible. Our proverbial primordial soup.) This may seem contrary to Occam's Razor, but if all things are assumed equal in this instance then the idea that a creator made the universe is as equally plausible as the idea that it created itself. Save the arguments that Occam's Razor eliminates the need for a God hypothesis because everything can be explained without him. Anyway, am I saying that it couldn't have happened the other way? Nah. I don't have all the answers. I don't think I want all the answers because that would make life so boring. Besides, none of us are going to know all the answers until after we're dead anyway, and after that what difference does it make? Well, I guess that depends on how literal you feel death is...but that's probably another topic for another forum.Look, I don't want to convert anybody, so calm down and stop being so defensive. Walk with your conscience and I'll walk with mine. Really, doesn't this all boil down to interpretation? So, our interpretations just don't agree. If you really want to be frightened, I'll share this with you: I'm going to be teaching high school biology. I believe it is important to put the information out there and let people make up their own minds (we all did). Will I teach creationism in my biology class? I don't think we're technically allowed to, and I'm not entirely certain that we're even allowed to teach evolution in Tennessee (still). I do believe that students get enough creationism (at least around here they do) at church. If I were allowed to teach creationism would I? I don't think I could teach it and still call it a biology class. I'll be honest, I don't have a classic form of hard-core evidence to support creationism. All I know about creationism is what I feel in my heart. Besides, it's not my responsibility as a teacher to impress upon my students my personal ideas, my responsibility is to make them think for themselves. I will teach them the things that we know (cells, DNA, genes, etc), and I will teach them the Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection (assuming, of course, that we're allowed to, which I think we are now that I think about it). What they do with all that information is up to them. Someone started us on this journey to find the truth for ourselves--right?Sidelined~
You asked what specifically I disagree with, and I know that I haven't covered that. Quite honestly, that would take up about a hundred more pages on both sides of the issue. There are things in Christianity I don't agree with and there are things in science I don't agree with. I don't even know that I've sat down and enumerated them in a detailed manner before. Perhaps that's something I should do. It will be a little while before I have a lengthy period of time in which to do that, but I thank you for setting my mind in that direction. Keep in mind, however, that my evolutionary point of view is primarily biological. While I understand chemistry and physics, I am no great master at either. Anything you could share with me regarding either of those two fields and their evolutionary evidence would be greatly appreciated.Hope this message finds you all well. I guess there is no scientific evidence to support creationism. But, then again, I don't think that matters to a creationist anyway. All the scientific support I need for God I see everyday--and so do other people. It's all a matter of perception and interpretation.Jar~I agree with you whole-heartedly. To deny one cripples both. The church I was raised in was staunchly anti-evolution. Everything about evolution was bad, Charles Darwin was the spawn of Satan, and the story of creation in the book of Genesis was taken as literally as it could be taken. It wasn't until I was in college that I encountered true, honest evidence that told me what evolution REALLY was and professors who were willing to really explain it. I don't attend that church anymore, and I feel sorry for the individuals who do. They preach "Question everything", but turned around and expected you to accept everything they fed to you as the rock-solid truth. How sad. Oh, and if you didn't accept it, you were a sinner--plain and simple. The Greeks preached moderation in everything (well, the wise ones did). Perhaps we should take their advice.This message has been edited by MeganC, 10-26-2004 09:49 AM

I never said that I didn't believe it before I went to college. I did. It was in college that I attempted to convince myself otherwise (what better place in the world to change your point of view--right?). I actually have a very good friend who went into college a Christian and came out an agnostic. It can happen. Just didn't work for me. Nothing especially wrong with that, just like there's nothing wrong with you not believing in God (as I assume you don't).Btw, my husband would love your quote. I bought him a binary clock for our anniversary. He understands it, but to me it just looks like a bunch of flashing blue lights.Sorry, I have to get the quote thing down. Give me time. A visit from the quoting elf. --AdminThis message has been edited by MeganC, 10-26-2004 09:56 AMThis message has been edited by Admin, 10-26-2004 10:08 AM

An interesting thought. I'd never really considered what would happen if the world should be hit by a asteroid tomorrow and the entire population of the world obliterated. Just a question: Are we dealing with just the demise of the human population or of all multi-cellular organisms? Since you specifically said Homo sapiens, I'll go with that, though I can only assume that most of the plants and other animals also inhabiting this planet would also suffer tremendous casualties. No, I don't think the bacteria left behind to rule the planet would begin worshipping a god. I don't think they'd care that we'd disappeared in the traditional sense of "caring" because, as far as I'm aware, bacteria are incapable of caring at all. If you are privy to any information that indicates otherwise, I'd be very interested in reading it. However, our disappearance would certainly leave its mark on the bacteria. Some would probably cease to exist entirely, having relied on humans as hosts or at least carriers. Others would adapt (do I hear Natural Selection calling?). Can we really assume that life would come about again in a few billion years? I guess you can, though none of us would be around to know it. I read somewhere years ago that someone (and I honestly don't know who it was) had suggested that this was not the first earth. That it was indeed a second or third earth (or perhaps more than that for all I know).As for the beliefs of the post-apocalyptic humans (if they are, indeed, humans for that matter), I really don't know what they'd do or believe. Are we assuming that all indications of a former civilization of any kind are also completely gone? Granted, after a billion years or so, I don't suppose there would be much left. Whether or not this be the case, we know that civilizations have been using gods to explain nature for centuries. The ancient Greeks, Romans, Norse, Native Americans, Egyptians--I honestly can't think of a civilization that didn't have a system of gods that they worshiped. Doesn't mean that such civilizations didn't exist, but it just means that I don't know of them. Would this new group of humans (let's call them humans, just for the sake of argument) choose to do the same? Who knows? Humans had been around for thousands of years before the Theory of Evolution came about.Now, I'll be honest, but I don't know what God you're talking about when you say that he holds humans in higher regard than other species. My God cares about everything on this planet, regardless if it's a human or a dog or a mosquito or a giant Redwood tree. However, because we are "conscious and sentient and intelligent" beings, we are regarded more responsibilty. I also tend to believe that humans probably require more work. I'm also confused about your saying that there doesn't HAVE to be anything, yet the natural state of the universe is for there to be something? I thought the natural state of the universe was towards disorder and decay. Or did I misunderstand the lecture on entropy? Further clarification would be appreciated.

I never said you couldn't say there wasn't enough evidence for God for you to believe. I, personally, have plenty of evidence. Like I said before, I see it everyday. I realize some people need more than just that, and that's fine. Here's the deal, there are certain facets of Christianity that, as a Christian, you HAVE to accept. Probably the biggest one is faith. I can't say that I'm a Christian but I have no faith anymore than an evolutionist can say, "I'm an evolutionist, but I don't believe in Natural Selection". With no faith, there would be no Christian FAITH (I know, not that many of you would mourn its passing).I don't say that I take everything on faith. For the most part, things tending to deal with the physical realm I need evidence for. I don't go out and say the grass is purple just because I believe it to be so. That would be stupid. Unfortunately, when you get into creation vs. evolution you don't have two scientists battling it out, you have scientists and Christians and politicians and the justice system and any number of other people. The scientists and the Christians tend to have vastly differing views. It would be easy for me to take one stance or the other if I weren't both. But I have to find a way to reconcile the two. I know the overwhelming evidence for evolution and there are things in there I just can't deny. I can't deny Natural Selection when it obviously occurs. If I accept Natural Selection then, by default, there are any number of things that I have to accept as well. BUT. . .I also know what I believe religiously which I cannot, in good conscience, deny because to do so would be to deny my faith and my Savior. That's not something I'm willing to do. I don't take the Bible literally--I don't think that everything in there is meant to be taken literally. With the exception of evolution, I don't take much science on faith. I don't need to--that's why it's called science. The problem with this topic is that it's NOT just science--it calls into question hundreds if not thousands of years of religious beliefs. To ask people to completely, unquestionably accept 100% of evolution as the full answer almost demands the end of religion. After all, if that's all it was, then there is no need for a god of any kind. I appreciate your specific question, Mark. To answer as directly as I can, no, I don't randomly take things on faith as I see fit just because something may or may not fit my personal beliefs. If I come across something new that I feel I absolutely have to have an opinion on, I'll research it and see what I can find. There are lots of things, though, that I don't feel the need to have an opinion on. For example, I don't care how old the earth is. I have no opinion on it. Whatever anyone has to say on that subject is perfectly fine with me. And, no, there's absolutely nothing wrong with saying that YOU don't have enough evidence for God. I think that's a perfectly valid way of feeling about it.

I realize now that perhaps I ask too much of people. But, since I appreciate candor, I will speak as candidly as I can, as long as you clearly understand that since I'm not GOD I don't know. And I also realize that, really, I'm wasting my time because you really don't care anyway. But I hope that, maybe, somewhere out there, someone will.a)If I am to understand the book of Revelation (which, granted, is a tough read), then all people will be judged by God. And I mean all. Now, if you're an atheist or what have you, it doesn't really matter to you since there is no God and no impending judgement. If you're Hindu, it doesn't matter because you don't believe in the Christian God anyway. I don't really know what pagans believe. It's all relative to your religious preference. I don't concern myself with trying to reach Nirvana, and Buddhists aren't trying to get into the Christian heaven.b)Where they will go, I don't know. Nor am I certain that hell is really a lake of fire. I think, in reality, hell is the absence of God. Either way, if it really exists, I don't wish anyone to go there.c)Given the number of Christian missionaries and television, radio, internet, etc., I believe the likelihood of anyone NEVER hearing of the Judeo-Christian God must be pretty slim by this point. However, I want to say that there is a type of "clause" in the Bible that says that if a man has sincerely never heard the word of God he will not be sent to hell. Hell is reserved more for those who have heard the word and choose to deny it, I believe. You can choose your decisions, but you cannot choose the consequences thereof. As for where these other people go, I have no clue. Perhaps they go to an alternate universe (a fascinating concept, by the way...).There, you asked, I answered to the best of my ability. I'm sorry if you don't like my answers, but I assumed that you wanted me to be honest. I didn't say there weren't things about Christianity that weren't pretty. But I have no control over that stuff--not my rules, I'm just playing by them. It doesn't make me a bad person anymore than it makes you a bad person. Maybe all I did was add fuel to your fire, I don't know. Like I said, I'm not here looking for converts. People here are either a) already converted or b) don't feel the need to be converted. But I will answer any questions that are posed to me as respectfully as I can. Everyone has reasons for believing whatever it is they believe and I can no more judge you for being an atheist than I can judge a Muslim for being a Muslim. Your religious (or lack of it) preference doesn't define you as a human being. Maybe I'm way off base and there is nothing, but I'm not going to know til I'm dead and by then it'll be a little late.Now, on to the aliens :-) . . .So ALIENS arrive from another planet, decide that this nice wasteland of a planet will be the perfect summer home, and move in. I would expect aliens to bring their own beliefs with them (since we're into splitting hairs, here). I don't think there would be anything to reconstruct. Now, would alien beliefs reflect creation or evolution? I have no flippin' clue. I would imagine that would depend on their culture, and since no one has actually communicated with REAL aliens, all I have to go on are old episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Alot of those civilizations had gods, too, I believe.

I don't argue Catholic dogma because I'm not Catholic, nor have I ever been. While I was raised Baptist, I am now Lutheran and the only use I had for the Catholic Church was the history that came along with my study on Martin Luther. In which case, I believe we can all agree that Indulgences were wrong. Whether or not Revelation "almost never made it into the Canon", I'm sure there are other useful references in the Bible that refer to God's judgement upon man. Since you seem so well versed in the Bible yourself, I will let you go look them up. Also, may it be said here that the only branch of the Christian church that even claims Purgatory is the Catholic branch. The rest of us want nothing to do with it. We also don't read from the Apocrypha. I have read exactly two books out of the Apocrypha and that was for a New Testament Studies class I took in college. The Catholic Church of the 1500's (and before and some after) was a horribly corrupt system full of money-hungry people. Even Dante saw fit to throw some Popes into Hell they were so corrupt. No, the Holy Spirit was no more moving in those men than it was in the men who flew the planes into the Pentagon and the Twin Towers.I'm not even going to touch the hell stuff. There's alot of debate about hell in the Christian church, so I'm not even going to bother.I never said that those who never heard the word of God went to the Father. I just said they didn't go to hell. Now, you see why there's debate in the Christian church about hell. So many different languages; so many different ideas of what hell is. Maybe Dante had it right--maybe there is some outer sanctum of hell where all the righteous pagans are held. I don't know.Anyway, you seem like a good person, 1.61803. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this intelligently and for respecting my beliefs (I get alot of "You must be an idiot" looks). I will try to look up specific verses--especially the part about those not hearing the word of God not going to hell. I honestly did read that somewhere--I just have to remember where it was.Granted, the Bible has its flaws. But I think it gets it's main point across well and the rest is just debate fodder.For what it's worth to you, God's peace be upon you.
Megan