James wrote:Which model do you accept?
What does that have to do with the discussion? My personal position has absolutely nothing to do with this. Nor does Rich's, anyone's on this discussion board's, Hugh Ross', Ken Hamm's, or even your own. The point was that you attacked my statement that the Cambrian explosion fit perfectly into the picture creationism presents. Hey, in fact, the fossil record as a whole agrees with it. Now, the obvious implication is that if modern scientific findings accord with writings on the subject authored some four thousand years ago, then clearly the writer was in possession of knowledge from some external source. He claims divine authority, and, therefore, we have some credible idea to suppose that God exists. That's a standard argument that even you can accept. If the Bible is proven to be inspired, the existence of the Inspirer is obvious.
Now, to avoid this conclusion, you
have to argue that the evidence does
not match the biblical model. That is true by very definition. However, the evidence DOES match the day-age interpretation. What, then, can you do? You are forced to discount it as a "literary interpretation." That's a straw man, and you should easily be able to see why. You have to argue that you know the "real" interpretation, and that any other is invalid. You, therefore, have to take the Calendar Day approach, which clearly is not backed up by the evidence, label THAT the biblical model, and say all else is a false attempt on the part of the Christian to defend his or her faith.
Of course, the C.D. model is not the only model. It is not the popular model among scholars. Further, we can argue pretty well that it isn't the most theologically sound article. If you study where it came from, you'll find some interesting history there. So, your entire argument is moot . . . it's a straw man. So, my beliefs on the matter . . . well . . . they don't matter. Nor do yours. Here's the question:
Does the evidence presented by modern science agree or disagree with the biblical model?
Answer: it agrees with the day-age interpretation of Genesis 1-2, a position that has been argued and held for thousands of years.
You have to deal with the argument. Not the people arguing the argument.
James wrote:You are right to say this. But it must also be remembered that the motivation for a person to attack a theory is important. Would I be right in saying that if you were not a Christian then you would not attack evolution with such vigour?
The main thrust of my previous post was to establish that there is a bias in the Christian community towards disproving evolution. This is not a coincedence.
Of course our preconceptions have a strong influence on what we believe. I attack what I don't believe. Now, here's the problem: you insist that my disbelief in evolution is based on a preconceived faith, and therefore, my critique of it (or any creationist's critique) ought to be considered in that light. But that is just fallacious logic for several reasons.
First, the motivation behind the argument has absolutely NO bearing on the truth of the argument. A person who is afraid of water may argue that it is dangerous to swim in the ocean for (insert reasons). Now, suppose his fear is irrational. Does that change the fact that it is or is not safe to swim in the ocean? If his reason is that you are more likely to drown by swimming in the ocean than you are to die in an automobile accident, then we can easily dismiss his argument as silly. It fails to consider real probabilities. But, our dismissal is not based on his irrational fear. It is based on our own assessment
of the same evidence. Yes, his stat is correct, but it is a non-sequitur. It does not follow from this stat that one should not swim in the ocean. But, suppose he has discovered that this week there is a jelly fish infestation in the place you want to swim, and that it is impossible to swim without being stung. Regardless of his irrational fear, his argument is, in fact, true.
So, when we look to evolutionary theory, and more importantly its critiques, we cannot judge it based on its opponents and/or proponents. Rather, we must look at the evidence itself, regardless of the origin of the argument. To do otherwise is to commit a genetic fallacy.
Secondly, you have to assume that our faith is an
a priori faith, and I submit that it is not. Suppose I start advocating a steady-state model of the universe today. No one will accept it, and, assuming I have any kind of clout in the scientific community, I will be strongly rejected. If I am popular enough, someone will right a book or article critiquing my view. Why? Because we know enough about the state of the universe to reject this view as false.
In other words, it doesn't square with what we know already to be true. There is no reason to accept it.
Now, for the Christian, we say something to the effect that 1) Christianity is true, 2) Therefore, the Bible is God's Word, 3) therefore, that which disagrees with the Bible is false.
You can, of course, argue against that line of reasoning all you want (I certainly am not fleshing it out here!). But, keep in mind that, for the Christian, we know certain things to be true. We know that evolution cannot be squared with the biblical account, but we know the biblical account is true, because we know that the Bible is true, because we know it is the Word of God, because we know that the Christian God exists. The last of these we know because He has revealed Himself to us.
Please note that I am not arguing here "scientifically." I'm not trying to convince you that evolution is wrong because the Bible says so. What I AM saying is that
you cannot discount the Christian's presumption against evolution because you consider it an
a priori notion. If it were, of course, you'd have every right, but it isn't.
Interestingly enough, it is the evolutionist who disregards the Christian account of beginnings on the
a priori assumption. There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT CHRISTIANITY IS FALSE. Furthermore, as stated in this thread, modern science is backing up the Christian account of origins. All scientific inquiry into the question supports the Christian account. But, the evolutionist strongly attacks Creationism, but based on what? It is based on his own
a priori assumption that the Christian God does not exist and that materialism represents truth. It is, therefore, YOUR position that should be held in a sharper critique. In fact, let me just show you how feeble your position is. Watch:
"You are right to say this. But it must also be remembered that the motivation for a person to attack a theory is important. Would I be right in saying that if you were a Christian then you would not attack creationism with such vigour?
The main thrust of my previous post was to establish that there is a bias in the non-Christian community towards proving evolution. This is not a coincidence."
See?
James wrote:It is a big occasion for the Christian community when an atheist or agnostic admits the possibility of God or intelligent design. The piece on this website about Flew for example:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/flew.html
Indeed, as you say, why should Flew's religious beliefs be an issue?
Flew's religious beliefs have absolutely no bearing on the truth of the matter. No one, not even Rich Deem, argues that it does. However, his "conversion" is extremely significant because it goes a long way to prove that there IS evidence that points positively toward ID. A basic thrust of atheism is that there is no evidence for God. Flew, a person you cannot argue is biased in favor of God, has conceded that there is. It would be similar to Bush coming out and saying that he was wrong about the war. What position would that leave those of us in who believe the war was right? Certainly, his admission doesn't make it so, but it certainly lends very, very strongly to the case against it!
James wrote:No, I was referring to the use of language in the articles - words like 'short' and 'sudden' when describing time periods of millions of years are quite misleading. It is obvious the author is trying to imply improbability without justification by using these words.
To say that 'too much evolution took place' in such a short period may be a reasonable thing to hypothesise, but you are willing to draw a line at that. Someone who is truly looking for answers would dig deeper and investigate why so much evolution took place. That is the nature of science.
Are they misleading? How so? ALL--repeat--
ALL adjectives are subjective. "The house is big," or "He was driving very fast" are good examples. Big compared to what, and fast by what standards? Even apparently objective adjectives are subjective. "The sky is blue." But, what does that mean to the person who is color blind?
Now, the fact is, in evolutionary time periods, three to ten million years is a "short" period of time. But, short to what? It is certainly a long time to, say, make the general size of a population increase by, say, 1% total body mass per individual average. That would be totally believable. But, it is a very, very short to expect the kinds of changes that we have
observed to have occurred in the Cambrian explosion. As I said, compare that level of evolution with what "happened" throughout the rest of history. In fact, these "explosions" are so important, and indeed so common, that the entire theory has had to be modified. No longer do we consider gradualism--at least not in its traditional form--as valid, but rather, we have been forced to follow Gould into some form of punctuated equilibrium. This, I should add, we've done without any sort of mechanism.
Now, I'm not saying that we should stop here. Hey, go for it. Try to find ways to explain it. I'll even help you fund it! But, in the mean time, this is
exactly what the Bible tells us happened. That God said "let there be" and there was. Finding a confirmation of a theory and celebrating it as such is not the same as rejecting further research, and no one is arguing that it is except those of you who want to straw man the Christian position.
See, James, here's the point:
The Bible says the beginning came about in a certain fashion. When Moses penned the account some four thousand years ago, he did it with his own hand, using his own language, for the edification of his people, under the inspiration of God. He simply did not have the means, nor the purpose, of giving a scientific textbook explanation of beginnings. As a result, we know for 100% sure certain theological truths concerning the beginning. But, the HOW of that is open to interpretation. We, therefore, say, "If this, then that. But, if not this, but rather that, this this instead." When we discover the first premise is false but the second premise true, we look to see if "this" is indeed the case. In biblical studies, we have found it to be, in fact, the case.
What you, as an unbeliever, have to deal with is the simple fact that modern science is in perfect harmony with the Genesis account of creation in the day-age model. There is absolutely NO other religious account of the beginning that can claim this type of accuracy. NONE. Where did Moses get that kind of info? You know yourself that the Bible is far from vague. The creation account has some specific claims, and they are being continually confirmed. If, then, they are true, we are justified in our beliefs.
Are you?
