Evidence for God from Science

On one hand they argue that macroevolution over long time scales is impossible but yet they seem to accept the idea that there was explosive speciation (evolution) after the flood. The use the same mechanisms as evolution does (selection, genetic drift, mutation) but this somehow happened in a geologic blink of the eye.

Well, this is true. And I see this as a rather significant challenge for YECs to explain. This doesn't mean they don't have explanations; only that I haven't seen an explanation that (to my way of thinking) satisfactorily explains the rapid rate of speciation needed to produce such a large number of species from such a small original population in such a (geologically and biologically)) short period of time. But basically they believe that speciation can occur,but it is constrained in the sense of only working within the limits of genetic variation found in kinds. But just because they haven't produced an explanation that is satisfactory to me does not mean they have not or never will produce one.

Not to mention that they cannot agree on what exactly a "kind" is.

Well, this is not as problematic as you might think. Can biologists decide on a working definition of a species? There are likely a dozen species concepts I can think of, but this does not prevent a biologist from proclaiming that speciation has occurred. And I find this even more paradoxical when they use a biological species concept to define them, even though introgressive hybridization may occur - and sometimes commonly does between the two species in question. YECs are working on this, and there is a new and developing field called baraminology that seeks to define "kinds". I have been watching this with some interest in recent years. While I do not think their methods are objective and empirical enough to identify kinds (if, in fact, they do exist), they are decidedly more empirical than previous definitions (which usually involved something along the lines of "it's sort of synonymous with families, but we're not exactly sure").

I continue to ask, where do YEC's draw the line for microevolution.

It is a fair and valid question to ask.

Suddenly playing the devil's advocate now? How could they test something on timescales untestable?

I wasn't aware it was "suddenly". But here are some tests I could think of: find a single vertebrate fossil in Pre-Cambrian rock. Identify a major group of organisms that arose before their most recent common ancestor in the fossil record. Reconstruct the phylogeny of a wide range of taxa and demonstrate that genetic discontinuity exists. Demonstrate that the Earth is geologically too young to have produced the genetic variety seen today from a common ancestor(s). Demonstrate that a group of organisms identified as closely related on the basis of comparative anatomy, physiology or morphology do not share the same patterns of relatedness based on genetics.

Now, I am unaware of any compelling experimental data in any of these fields that that has, to date, done this. But to say that they can not disprove macroevolution is quite different than saying they have not.

They could only test microevolution, which has already been proven.

Do we prove things in science? I thought that was mathematics...

On the Cambrian fossil record

First of all it is very hard to make a fossil. Just bury a dead animal in the ground, comeback in a couple of years and what you find will never become a fossil, decay destroys the remains. So to make a fossil requires a few things, the first thing is the dead animal must be buried alive or just after death. The second is the remains must be sterile so decay cannot take place. The third is hot, high pressure liquid with a high mineral content around the remains. Fossils can be made with a hot pressure chamber today. People trying to make fossils in a natural environment have not been successful so this brings a question to all fossils as to what they really represent. The first assumption is that all species that were alive at the time of the fossil layer are in the mix. Since this is all the data we have in the record then we cannot jump to conclude a complete record. For all we know the gap may be more meaningful than the record itself. Since fossils are hard to make then a sudden group of fossils does not necessarily mean an explosion happened at that time. It may just mean the conditions were not around until that time to make fossils. Cambrian fossils are not everywhere on the earth, does this mean life only existed on part of the earth? Maybe the events which made the fossils occured in areas where those lifeforms lived and areas that had other lifeforms did not produce fossils. I do not know but I allow the possiblity of additional species beyond the record.

First of all it is very hard to make a fossil. Just bury a dead animal in the ground, comeback in a couple of years and what you find will never become a fossil, decay destroys the remains. So to make a fossil requires a few things, the first thing is the dead animal must be buried alive or just after death. The second is the remains must be sterile so decay cannot take place. The third is hot, high pressure liquid with a high mineral content around the remains.

True true

Fossils can be made with a hot pressure chamber today. People trying to make fossils in a natural environment have not been successful so this brings a question to all fossils as to what they really represent.

we can make and do numerous things under experimental conditions in the lab. Most of the things we do under laboratory conditions are impossible to test in nature. We control the inputs, outputs, and the variables to be tested. I am not really surprised we haven't made a fossil under natural conditions because we cannot replicate the pressure and temperature in the field. What do you think a fossil represents?

The first assumption is that all species that were alive at the time of the fossil layer are in the mix. Since this is all the data we have in the record then we cannot jump to conclude a complete record.

true, you are not going to find every organism in that particular community all in one spot. But you can correlate the layers based on the types of fauna present and determine that they lived together. Index fossils were only around for a fixed period of time and they only occur as fossils with organisms that lived at the same time. And in the case of Cambrian lifeforms, you only find primitive creatures in those layers, and only marine creatures at that.

For all we know the gap may be more meaningful than the record itself. Since fossils are hard to make then a sudden group of fossils does not necessarily mean an explosion happened at that time. It may just mean the conditions were not around until that time to make fossils.

You say fossils are hard to make, and they are indeed rare, but the majority of the fossils we have are of marine origin. So, if we have fossils of marine organisms in the fossil record from the Cambrian till the present, why would the fossil record suddenly show very little in the way of advanced life in the Pre-Cambrian rock? If you believe all kinds were here from the beginning, we should see vertebrates and modern fishes from the oldest to the youngest rock. As long as we had oceans on the planet, we should have fossilization since we supposedly had erosion and sedimentation from the beginning. Trilobites fossilized by the millions, surely we'd have a single conch shell in there somewhere with them? Surely one "Pre-Cambrian" vertebrate should have fossilized?

Cambrian fossils are not everywhere on the earth, does this mean life only existed on part of the earth?

Cambrian fossils are not everywhere on the Earth because few places have eroded enough to expose rock that old. It's not because fossils from that era are patchy in distribution. The U.S. has areas in the west eroded down to Jurassic and Cretaceous rock. That is where we find dinosaurs. The Applachians are eroded further where we find Carboniferous fossils. Other areas we have rock that is geologically young and we find Ice Age Fauna. Canyons are one of the few places where we can see how the layers are stacked, and they correlate very well (both age and fossil type). It isn't the fossils that are patchy, it is the exposed rock of that age that is patchy.

Maybe the events which made the fossils occured in areas where those lifeforms lived and areas that had other lifeforms did not produce fossils. I do not know but I allow the possiblity of additional species beyond the record.

I also don't understand how you can have "preferential" areas of fossilization that show a primitive fauna and assume everything else just happened to be elsewhere in an "bad fossilization" zone. If you live in shallow water marine environments, coastal plains, flood plains, and freshwater systems, you are exposed to low erosion-high depositional conditions. These same conditions that buried the fossil we do have today should still have buried and fossilized anything living in those seas. Yet, without exception with have only faunas corresponding with the ages given to us by modern science. We have a fauna unique to the Cambrian, one unique to the Devonian, and so on. There is no intermixing of these faunas in the fossil record. This pattern doesn't matter how rare or common a fossil is

Well, this is not as problematic as you might think. Can biologists decide on a working definition of a species? There are likely a dozen species concepts I can think of, but this does not prevent a biologist from proclaiming that speciation has occurred. And I find this even more paradoxical when they use a biological species concept to define them, even though introgressive hybridization may occur - and sometimes commonly does between the two species in question. YECs are working on this, and there is a new and developing field called baraminology that seeks to define "kinds". I have been watching this with some interest in recent years. While I do not think their methods are objective and empirical enough to identify kinds (if, in fact, they do exist), they are decidedly more empirical than previous definitions (which usually involved something along the lines of "it's sort of synonymous with families, but we're not exactly sure").

I think evolution itself is the reason why the definition of species is so vague. You have the biological species concept in which a species must be able to reproduce and produce fertile offspring. Yet we have lots of examples of hybridization between fairly different species (both fertile and infertile). We have the morphological species concept in which things that look different should be considered different. Yet we have species identical in shape, form, and habitat yet they differ only in color patterns. We also have things that have different forms, shapes and habits interbreeding. We think that things separated by barrier are different yet we don't know if they would merge again with their ancestor is re-united.

Anyways, I think the ambiguity of the "species" is due to the constant ongoing evolution of those species. There are species that are divergent enough to the point where they will not breed with a related species (see humans and apes), nor would they be able to! Then you have forms that will interbreed occasionally yet they produce infertile offspring. These are less divergent but still only distantly related. Then you have the multitude of related forms that will interbreed and produce viable offspring. These species, although selection has often changed their phenotypes, are more closely related to each other so their gametes are still compatable. This just shows a close evolutionary relationship in which the species have not evolved (diverged) enough. Frankly, I think they are "confused". They see patterns from the opposite sex and think, "hey this looks kind of like me, lets see if we can reproduce". Many creatures will choose a mate of their own species but will settle for a related species if their own isn't available. I guess they do anything to propagate! Once you get to intraspecies relationships, all bets are off. The definitions of morphotypes, forms, races, and subspecies is confusing. Mostly it's some vicariant event that has separated the species apart. They aren't diverged enough to satisfy the biological species concept but I guess they are good enough for the morphological and geographic one?
So far from the YEC "kind", I think evolution is responsible for the vagueness of the term "species".

I wasn't aware it was "suddenly". But here are some tests I could think of: find a single vertebrate fossil in Pre-Cambrian rock. Identify a major group of organisms that arose before their most recent common ancestor in the fossil record. Reconstruct the phylogeny of a wide range of taxa and demonstrate that genetic discontinuity exists. Demonstrate that the Earth is geologically too young to have produced the genetic variety seen today from a common ancestor(s). Demonstrate that a group of organisms identified as closely related on the basis of comparative anatomy, physiology or morphology do not share the same patterns of relatedness based on genetics.

Now, I am unaware of any compelling experimental data in any of these fields that that has, to date, done this. But to say that they can not disprove macroevolution is quite different than saying they have not.

I meant "suddenly" as in you were debating with Frank and everyone else, all of this time being pro-evolution and now you seem to be throwing the YEC's a bone like you are straddling the fence now.

To be honest, I think science is closer to solving evolution than YEC's are to any of that. They don't exactly have a sparkling record of doing good science. They are mostly concerned with spiritual issues. Who knows what they do with the millions they are given each year.

Do we prove things in science? I thought that was mathematics...

I was pretty sure you and most people accept microevolution? It's been demonstrated...

To the credit of the ID group they have stayed away from the ages of the earth argument. As most people on this board should know by now that I do lean towards YEC and support several models for that belief. But these are models and not demonstratable facts so on threads like this one I try and limit my comments so I do not bring in those models. I think that all of this discussion can take place with assumed old age and the argument stills has merit on its own.

The root of the ID groups argument is that the complexity of some organic parts does not allow for these parts to be made from the processes we see around us. So to argue this point we have to look at the known mechanisms of change and also look at their underlying assumptions. One of these assumptions is the Cambrian explosion. I think it is unwise to assume that the Cambrian layers of fossils has to force us to fit the known mechanisms of change into yet another assumption about the Cambrian fossils. I think a better approach is to look at the mechanics of change and see what the understanding and data leads to.

Himan -

I think evolution itself is the reason why the definition of species is so vague. You have the biological species concept in which a species must be able to reproduce and produce fertile offspring. Yet we have lots of examples of hybridization between fairly different species (both fertile and infertile).

Well, this is part of it. There is every reason to expect that species that have recently formed will hybridize - particularly if the reproductive isolating barrier has not fully formed. However, there are 2 points worth noting here; first, that the biological species concept does not work in lots of situations. It does not work for organisms that reproduce asexually such as all bacteria and virsues, some plants and likely some fungi as well as a couple of vertebrates. It also does not work for any organism found in the fossil record. And it doesn't work well with cryptic species. So there's a lot of times it doesn't work very well, or at all. Second, the fact that it doesn't work in so many cases would suggest to me that it would be a little unfair to criticize creationists for their inability to clearly define kinds. So my objection was more over your disdain for YECs' inability to define the working taxonomic grouping in their field of study when biologists have such a tough time defining theirs.

I meant "suddenly" as in you were debating with Frank and everyone else, all of this time being pro-evolution and now you seem to be throwing the YEC's a bone like you are straddling the fence now.

I wasn't intending to throw anyone a bone much less debate. Just because YECs can't agree on what a kind is, and research in this field is currently not compelling enough to me doesn't mean that research isn't ongoing or that it isn't compelling to some people. I just wanted you to be aware of the kind of response you might get making such an argument. I personally feel that much of the criticisms leveled against YECs is unwarranted, and feels a little like Christian persecution to me. This is not say that all criticism is unwarranted, just a lot of it. Does this help you understand where I am coming from a little more clearly? I haven't stated my personal opinions on theology or science. But I have a little training in the latter and an interest in the former, and find some of the ideas they generate fun to toss around.

I was pretty sure you and most people accept microevolution? It's been demonstrated...

Well, not to split hairs, but nothing is ever proven in science. Proofs are what you do in mathematics. In science, you either disprove or reject ideas, or you find ever increasing levels of support for them. Just because microevolution seems to be a universal phenomenon here on earth, there is no exhaustive series of experiments that have been done that might show it didn't work under some sets of conditions, or that it works the same way in some other corner of the universe. It's a philosophy of science thing, but sometimes we can get tripped up over the smallest things.

I wasn't intending to throw anyone a bone much less debate. Just because YECs can't agree on what a kind is, and research in this field is currently not compelling enough to me doesn't mean that research isn't ongoing or that it isn't compelling to some people. I just wanted you to be aware of the kind of response you might get making such an argument. I personally feel that much of the criticisms leveled against YECs is unwarranted, and feels a little like Christian persecution to me. This is not say that all criticism is unwarranted, just a lot of it. Does this help you understand where I am coming from a little more clearly? I haven't stated my personal opinions on theology or science. But I have a little training in the latter and an interest in the former, and find some of the ideas they generate fun to toss around.

Ok, thanks. I get what you're saying. I sometimes come across as sounding harsh when it comes to talking about YEC beliefs. I don't mean to be rude, but coming from a science background the concepts of evolution and Old Earth seem to fit everything we see on Earth. The rates of this and that match what we see in biology. Phylogenetic studies all seem to confirm Old Earth ideas.
Now I see YEC as "old-fashioned" and I get frustrated when they seem to think "disproving evolution proves creationism". They can talk about IC, origins of life, and additive genetic information all they want, but it doesn't do anything to directly support YEC. In fact, they really don't have anything to test it. And when they make up stuff where we have no evidence (regarding the flood and slow processes occurring over only 6000 years), it makes it frustrating to me. So I'm really just saying "bear with me" here

Well, not to split hairs, but nothing is ever proven in science. Proofs are what you do in mathematics. In science, you either disprove or reject ideas, or you find ever increasing levels of support for them. Just because microevolution seems to be a universal phenomenon here on earth, there is no exhaustive series of experiments that have been done that might show it didn't work under some sets of conditions, or that it works the same way in some other corner of the universe. It's a philosophy of science thing, but sometimes we can get tripped up over the smallest things.

valid point. But as far as theories go, microevolution seems one of the stronger ones to support. And in nature, there always seems to be an exception to the rule!

So my objection was more over your disdain for YECs' inability to define the working taxonomic grouping in their field of study when biologists have such a tough time defining theirs.

I don't agree. A "kind" only needs to be defined as a kingdom, phylum, class, order, genus, or species. A kind is probably not finer than that because of the numbers involved. The only group that I listed there that is confusing to delineate is the "species". And many creationists do not want a "kind" to be a species since the numbers of animals involved in the Ark process would be too great. So that means that genus or above would be a kind.
Soooo.... if a "kind" is defined at a taxonomic level of genus or above, science has no problem defining what a genus is and what a family is and so on. So, surely if scientists can differentiate between these, then creationists can come to a consensus on what a kind is?

The root of the ID groups argument is that the complexity of some organic parts does not allow for these parts to be made from the processes we see around us. So to argue this point we have to look at the known mechanisms of change and also look at their underlying assumptions. One of these assumptions is the Cambrian explosion. I think it is unwise to assume that the Cambrian layers of fossils has to force us to fit the known mechanisms of change into yet another assumption about the Cambrian fossils. I think a better approach is to look at the mechanics of change and see what the understanding and data leads to.

[/quote]
valid point, although I don't know what more we can get from the Cambrian rock, unless there is an undiscovered layer between Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian that shows the "beginnings" of this explosion, or at least the explosion in progress. From what we have now, we can make both creationist and secular theories.

All

quote="Himantolophus"]Now I see YEC as "old-fashioned" and I get frustrated when they seem to think "disproving evolution proves creationism". [/quote]

Many would argue that the Bible is old fashioned. In fact I know there are chruches out there right now changing scripture in order to bring it up to their view of the world. I view things differently, I see the Bible as timeless and the most magnificent document ever created. I tend to view the data surrounding a scientific inquiry as a stand alone type of authority. It should be outside of worldviews and is not owned by any opinion on the data. So if two opinions come from the data and neither can be supported or weakened by other data then they should stand with equal weight. But alas I don't live in that world. In this world opinions are built on opinions and dogma sets in. Even new data cannot fight against dogma. I have posted several samples of this on this forum. Many people build a castle around themselves with a worldview to support their core beliefs of the universe. These people attack the messenger who has the nerve to suggest their view of the world is wrong. So the bottom line is I guess I am old fashioned. When I see a worldview rooted in atheism I don't get frustrated I get sad. I am not tied to any opinion in science, so tomorrow I could view some new research and let myself be taken on any direction the data will lead me. I am not sure that many in main stream science can say the same thing.

I don't see the Bible on a balance scale with science. It is not an either or issue with me. I am sad to say that many people in and outside of science feel it is on a balance scale and they feel the need to toss one or the other. Where one deals with the mechanics of the creation the other deals with the creation of a new heart. So when I see a group of people like the ID types I say "who cares". But when I see a wave of outright hate from some activist scientist I feel compelled to join the fight. The fight has little to do with ID and has everything to do with worldviews. For the most part we have Christians on one side and atheist on the other. This ID proposal is just a battle ground for the two groups. Now when you look at the two groups just who is doing God's work? In a pure sense they both are. The fight over truth is just. But again I don't live in this world of "pure sense". I think that most scientist are staying away from this debate and I give then credit for that. In my view this makes the most sense given the conditions we live in.

Many would argue that the Bible is old fashioned. In fact I know there are chruches out there right now changing scripture in order to bring it up to their view of the world. I view things differently, I see the Bible as timeless and the most magnificent document ever created. I tend to view the data surrounding a scientific inquiry as a stand alone type of authority.

Does it take away from the Bible in any way to interpret it differently? What about all the progressive creationists who feel "millions of years" does not disagree with the Bible? I think interpretation is the main reason for this struggle. Unfortunately we cannot know for sure exaclty who's interpretation is correct.

Many people build a castle around themselves with a worldview to support their core beliefs of the universe. These people attack the messenger who has the nerve to suggest their view of the world is wrong.

The creationist "castle" has been around much longer... they seem to me more stubborn in their walls than the evolutionists are. The words you posted can easily be used to refer to YEC's as well.

When I see a worldview rooted in atheism I don't get frustrated I get sad. I am not tied to any opinion in science, so tomorrow I could view some new research and let myself be taken on any direction the data will lead me.

Who's to say evolution is an atheist agenda? And there are numerous examples of science finding new data and refuting itself. That's what science is supposed to do. Most of the stuff accepted in the 1800's has been either refuted, changed, or added to in the last 200 years.

But when I see a wave of outright hate from some activist scientist I feel compelled to join the fight. The fight has little to do with ID and has everything to do with worldviews. For the most part we have Christians on one side and atheist on the other. This ID proposal is just a battle ground for the two groups. Now when you look at the two groups just who is doing God's work? In a pure sense they both are. The fight over truth is just. But again I don't live in this world of "pure sense". I think that most scientist are staying away from this debate and I give then credit for that. In my view this makes the most sense given the conditions we live in.

yes, there are outspoken mouths on both sides. But notice how science continues it's pursuits despite what the creationists and IDers are trying to do. All published material is still focused on evolutionary timescales and processes. Scientists consider the YEC's a peculiar sideshow on the sidelines of real science. They go about their business as usual. It seems it is the YEC's and ID's, not the secular scientists, as the ones who want to put the issue in the spotlight. They feel somehow threatened by evolutionary ideas, like their religion will be refuted or something. They put out all of these books and open these "creationist museums" simply to stir the pot and get media coverage. And with all the conservative Christians in this country, they feel they can change things. So, if anyone has the agenda, it's the ID's.

Himantolophus wrote:yes, there are outspoken mouths on both sides. But notice how science continues it's pursuits despite what the creationists and IDers are trying to do. All published material is still focused on evolutionary timescales and processes. Scientists consider the YEC's a peculiar sideshow on the sidelines of real science. They go about their business as usual. It seems it is the YEC's and ID's, not the secular scientists, as the ones who want to put the issue in the spotlight. They feel somehow threatened by evolutionary ideas, like their religion will be refuted or something. They put out all of these books and open these "creationist museums" simply to stir the pot and get media coverage. And with all the conservative Christians in this country, they feel they can change things. So, if anyone has the agenda, it's the ID's.

If your words are true then please explain why some with ID support ancestral evolution? Ahh... perhaps you are meaning the Creationist ID proponents again in which case I apologise.

Himan:

Now I see YEC as "old-fashioned" and I get frustrated when they seem to think "disproving evolution proves creationism". They can talk about IC, origins of life, and additive genetic information all they want, but it doesn't do anything to directly support YEC. In fact, they really don't have anything to test it. And when they make up stuff where we have no evidence (regarding the flood and slow processes occurring over only 6000 years), it makes it frustrating to me.

Well, again you might want to tread cautiously here as I see a few potential limitations in your reasoning. First, IC is an idea attributed to ID, not YEC. The lines are blurred between the two camps because (a) many people from belong to both camps (some YECs accept the idea of IC and some IDers may accept some or all of a literal interpretation of Genesis) and (b) ID has been deliberately mute on what they do and do not accept vis-a-vis the ToE...which makes point (a) possible. So there is no reason that I can think of that would discredit the ToE if a bona fide IC structure was found in nature. Second, there actually are ways that YEC can test their ideas - geological and physical evidence pointing to an young age for the Earth, for example. Demonstrating genetic mechanisms that could account for rapid and divergent speciation would be another. And some tests do exist - it is really a matter of whether you accept them or not. Now, it is safe to say that disproving evolution does not validate YEC as the alternative scientific explanation - it may become an alternative theistic explanation, but then again it remains just that whether ToE is discredited or not. And it is further safe to say that YEC will always be limited in the evidences it accepts and the lens through which they interpret them because it starts with a series of statements derived from theological scripture as inherently true. Finally, it is safe to say that some tenets of YEC (such as the instantaneous formation of humans) will be untestable. So YEC is fundamentally unscientific, but that is not to say that tests - scientific tests - can not be devised to test some of the statements in its operating system.

I don't agree. A "kind" only needs to be defined as a kingdom, phylum, class, order, genus, or species. A kind is probably not finer than that because of the numbers involved. The only group that I listed there that is confusing to delineate is the "species". And many creationists do not want a "kind" to be a species since the numbers of animals involved in the Ark process would be too great. So that means that genus or above would be a kind.

Well, let's set a few things straight - first, Linnean taxonomy is a series of hierarchical artificial constructs. Groups are assembled based on the number of features they share in common, and there is no universal consensus on what organisms belong in any groupings at any taxonomic level. Some scientists argue that the 5 kingdom system should be abandoned in favor of a three domain system. And some even argue for a four domain system. There is, therefore, disagreement at even the very highest and most inclusive level of taxonomy. So there is anything but universal consensus on taxonomic groupings at any level because the practice of taxonomy is subjective and is not intended to reflect the evolution of the organisms it groups. Heck, you could apply Linnean taxonomy to produce a taxonomic classification of shoes in your closet or food in your refrigerator. And your system might be very different than mine. Second, phylogenetic analyses routinely revise classical Linnean taxonomies because phylogenetic analyses are objective and not open to interpretation, and because Linnean taxonomies are not intended to reflect evolutionary relationships. 20 seconds on Google and I found this study that failed to support classical Linnean taxonomic groupings of any of the families or genera they studied. So again, I would refrain from being so dogmatic here. There are, as I have already mentioned, problems with identifying what a kind is and is not. But given that classical methods of taxonomy in science can be misleading in representing the natural groupings of organisms, together with a rather limited working definition of a species ought to make you reconsider how strenuously you use your belief in the success of these methods to criticize the lack of success of YECs in their theirs. Just a thought.

Himantolophus ,

Himantolophus wrote:Does it take away from the Bible in any way to interpret it differently? What about all the progressive creationists who feel "millions of years" does not disagree with the Bible? I think interpretation is the main reason for this struggle. Unfortunately we cannot know for sure exaclty who's interpretation is correct.

There are limits to the interpretation of the Bible, some groups including this board have some guidelines and to wander from them destroys the purpose of this board. There are other groups out there with, let us just say fringe ideas, I would place Satanic cults in this group because their beliefs started with the Bible. So I for one do not accept just any interpretation of scripture. And in some cases I do not respect the view some hold on some verses. That does not mean I get to use this forum to push my views in some unpolite manner. Now I will admit there are some verses that can be read many ways but the context must always be viewed with the rest of the Bible in mind. I have posted a second level of communication about the Book of Job, I am sure that some will not accept my view. I have no problem with that. Because all second level communication I have found re-enforces scripture, then those who search for their own views in some twisted interpretation are not being guided by the Holy Spirit. The Kabbalah and some others see a change to scripture and they see the additional layers as more meaningful. They have drifted far from the context of the text. They are wrong and I pray their eyes are openned.

Just as there are mainstream theories of science there are mainstream beliefs for scripture. I hold to the mainstream beliefs for scripture but do not hold to the mainstream theories of science. So when ID came along it seemed to me a very good idea. I had no attachment to the old school and I think that science needs a good shake. I can only see science getting stronger with ID not weaker. So where is the problem?

If your words are true then please explain why some with ID support ancestral evolution? Ahh... perhaps you are meaning the Creationist ID proponents again in which case I apologise.

I mean the Young Earth creationists. OEC and other "middle ground" ideals are hard for science to argue against because for the most part they agree with science except they involve God in the process. ID's are also hard to refute because the two sides are untestable. We don't know if evolution in fact created IC structures just as we don't know if God did.

Just as there are mainstream theories of science there are mainstream beliefs for scripture. I hold to the mainstream beliefs for scripture but do not hold to the mainstream theories of science. So when ID came along it seemed to me a very good idea. I had no attachment to the old school and I think that science needs a good shake. I can only see science getting stronger with ID not weaker. So where is the problem?

You could give 100 people the same Bible and they'd proably come up with a dozen different interpretations of the text they read. Without even delving deeper into the meaning of the text, or looking for hideen code, they come to their own conclusions. My point is that the YEC interpretation has no more weight than the OEC's interpretation since they are based off of the same words. The problem is that Christians have so many points of view on the subject, that you cannot really say who's is the strongest.
You say ID is stronger with scientific progress, but what form of ID? There are ID's in the YEC camp and ID's in the theistic evolution camp and at all points in between. You compare that to evolution, which also has endured scientific progress unhindered, but the same theory is accepted by people of all races and creeds. It seems to me that the creationist folks can't get their act together on a "grand theory" of their own and the evolutionists have.

Second, there actually are ways that YEC can test their ideas - geological and physical evidence pointing to an young age for the Earth, for example. Demonstrating genetic mechanisms that could account for rapid and divergent speciation would be another.

but they haven't yet

And some tests do exist - it is really a matter of whether you accept them or not.

not in peer-reviewed literature = not good enough

And it is further safe to say that YEC will always be limited in the evidences it accepts and the lens through which they interpret them because it starts with a series of statements derived from theological scripture as inherently true. Finally, it is safe to say that some tenets of YEC (such as the instantaneous formation of humans) will be untestable. So YEC is fundamentally unscientific, but that is not to say that tests - scientific tests - can not be devised to test some of the statements in its operating system.

That's the flaw and the reason they can't be published. They already claim to know the end result and they place their "lens" over the evidence. Then it suddenly all seems to fit the YEC mindset. If they could approach something without the Bible bias and approach a study like the scientific method states, then maybe they'd have more luck getting their ideas seriously looked at. It is hard for them because: 1. you can't test supernatural creation 2. you cannot go back in time and prove the Earth is that old 3. speciation today is not fast and 4. geologic processes are slow. If they can find a way to test creationism in a true scientific way, more power to them. They just have a lot of work to do!

So again, I would refrain from being so dogmatic here. There are, as I have already mentioned, problems with identifying what a kind is and is not. But given that classical methods of taxonomy in science can be misleading in representing the natural groupings of organisms, together with a rather limited working definition of a species ought to make you reconsider how strenuously you use your belief in the success of these methods to criticize the lack of success of YECs in their theirs. Just a thought.

Yes the arrangements within systematics and taxonomy is open to our interpretations but the placement of organisms within groups is fairly stable. Most of the problems nowadys is regarding the bacteria and single-celled organisms. The placements of all of these types of bacteria is very confusing, mainly because new types are being discovered today. Of course new discoveries are going to shake up the taxonomy. It seems like the most recent textbooks are accepting the "domain arrangement" over kingdoms because of these discoveries.
BUT, if you go into Phyla and lower (until species) the taxonomy of the major groups is fairly stable. Yes, new genera, families, and even orders are discovered and they are placed within the given taxonomy. The arrangement of Phyla in the "tree" is still up to interpretation (Arthropoda, Annelida, Mollusca at a phylum level for example) but the defintions are fairly stable. Species that seem to straddle taxonomic groups demonstrate evolution.

Himan:

You could give 100 people the same Bible and they'd proably come up with a dozen different interpretations of the text they read. Without even delving deeper into the meaning of the text, or looking for hideen code, they come to their own conclusions. My point is that the YEC interpretation has no more weight than the OEC's interpretation since they are based off of the same words. The problem is that Christians have so many points of view on the subject, that you cannot really say who's is the strongest.

And you could find 100 scientists who disagree on what a species is, when a species has formed and where those species belong in a taxonomic classification system. And I have had discussions with many creationists who are anything but spurious when it comes to interpreting Biblical text to understand historical events - some of them on this board. So the purported discord you see is not the reason that creationism of any form fails to qualify as a science - it is because a central portion of their explanatory model is insulated from scientific inquiry. But they are certainly no less systematic and thoughtful in developing their model than a taxonomist is in determining the placement of a new species in a taxonomic hierarchy.

You say ID is stronger with scientific progress, but what form of ID?

I did?

There are ID's in the YEC camp and ID's in the theistic evolution camp and at all points in between.

As someone who, if memory serves, professed to believe in the intervention of god at some point in the creation of the cosmos, I'm curious why you don't consider yourself an IDer? At what point do you check your religious beliefs at the door and begin practicing science? I mean this in no mean-spirited sense, only that it seems rather germane to the discussion at hand. If you maintain such theistic beliefs, than surely you must fit somewhere along the ID spectrum you say exists. And at what point is your set of beliefs more valid than anyone else's along the spectrum? Just curious.

but they haven't yet

But that's not the point. You said they couldn't test their ideas. I say they can - and have. I don't disagree that they haven't conclusively demonstrated the Earth to be 10k years old to my satisfaction. But that is a very different statement than "In fact, they really don't have anything to test it.".

They just have a lot of work to do!

I agree. And if you have ever visited the AiG website (or its sister sites) you'd see that there are lots of people working on testing the questions you say they can't test. I'm just trying to present a more balanced opinion here, Himan - not paint you into a corner.

Yes the arrangements within systematics and taxonomy is open to our interpretations but the placement of organisms within groups is fairly stable.

I disagree. There is routine taxonomic revisions at every taxonomic level in the Linnean hierarchy, and the placement of groups is anything but stable. There are revisions in families, genera,, orders, classes, and phyla and at all points therein (superclasses, infraorders, tribes and the such). And if things are so settled, why do we have one group of scientists arguing for a 3 domain classification system or a 6 kingdom system while high school biology texts still use the 5 kingdom system? My point is only this - you argue for stability in taxonomy based on stable definitions. I suggest that the definitions may exist, but it is an inherently subjective discipline subject to constant revision. Moreover, creation scientists have been honing in on methods that would seek to describe kinds using objective methods, and there is a rich body of literature on this subject in the creation literature. I hasten to add that I do not personally believe the methods are, as yet, objective and refined enough to identify kinds if they do exist. But that is a significantly different statement than saying that they do not approach the question methodologically or that taxonomy in the scientific community is a done deal.