I’m extremely grateful to those who helped me grow in my Christian faith. Still, it breaks my heart to see so many honest followers of Jesus believe that one must deny evolution in order to be a Christian. That is due partly because of a lack of information, but also due to the spreading of misinformation (for example, the ministry of Dr. Adauto Lourenço). I continue to find the subject of evolution completely fascinating, and learn more and more everyday. I do not think that the knowledge of the theory of evolution should interfere in a destructive way with anyone’s beliefs.
It breaks my heart as well.
----------------
Now playing: Ira Stein & Russel Walder - Engravings II
via FoxyTunes
Thanks for the Support Jim!! I hope and pray that we can change this "sad story" in a story of hope and search for the truth.
ReplyDeleteBTW Your blog is GREAT! Filled with good links and information!
Paz de Cristo
You are quite welcome. Thanks for the kind words about the blog.
ReplyDeleteThe real puzzle would seem to me to be how to be an atheist and a creationist at the same time (or, at least, an ID-ist).
ReplyDeleteThe other side of that question is the challenge that I have put to creationists on occasion: "find me an atheist or agnostic that actually accepts the arguments for a young earth." I don't know of any nor have I ever heard of any. Without that radical interpretation of scripture, the arguments don't make sense.
ReplyDeleteNo, the question should be, if it is to match the one above it, "Find me an atheist or agnostic who accepts the arguments for an old earth and also for creation".
ReplyDeleteCreation doesn't imply young earth. Yet old earth doesn't imply evolution. The truth can lie with old earth creationist atheism. But it's hard to be an atheist and a creationist.
Anonymous, my point is that, despite all of the blather about scientific creationism being real science, there are no people that I know of that support that young earth model that are not evangelical Christians and, when pressed for solid, hard evidence, don't retreat to the idea that if you don't believe what they do, you are a heretic.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true that the old earth model does not imply evolution, if you subscribe to an old earth model and do not accept evolution, what you are left with is progressive creation. This is the viewpoint of people like Hugh Ross and Alan Hayward. The problem here is that to your average geneticist, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. You then have to explain ERVs, chromosomal fusion, cytochrome C sequences, homologies and a whole host of other genetic abnormalities shared between humans and the higher apes, Then, to the palaeontologist you have to explain the vast created wasteland that is the fossil record, in which 99% of all species that have ever lived have been "killed off" by the creator. While it might be argued that all of these things fall under the banner of "argument from personal incredulity," evolutionists have a mechanism to explain them.
Jimpithecus, please forgive my having used the Anonymous label for the two comments above. It is merely ineptness on my part while attempting to shield my identity from what may result (socially) from these comments. I trust that you will understand.
ReplyDeleteJimpithecus, dwelling on young earth creationists is like racing against cripples. It borders on the dishonest, if sound debate is what you want. For your sake, refrain from it.
"You have to explain [...] homologies and a whole host of other genetic abnormalities shared between humans and the higher apes [...]"
You do realise that "genetic homology, therefore descent with modification" is a standard Logic 101 non sequitur? At the very least, convergent evolution is evolution's own way of pointing this grave fallacy out. Not that I will stop using it, but we should know that it is no different from "workmates, therefore identical twins" or some such.
"Then, to the palaeontologist you have to explain the vast created wasteland that is the fossil record, in which 99% of all species that have ever lived have been 'killed off' by the creator."
No paper has ever mentioned that we have had 100 times as many species in the planet's history as we do today. Can you locate it?
But let's grant that we did have them. I do not see why their being "killed off" somehow impinges on the credentials of the creator as a creator. Perhaps, it can point at the earth as harsh on life, but to use it as an argument against a creator is totally baseless, even self-contradictory.
And need I remind you that evolution hasn't, to date, found an explanation that would give rise to more than 100 times as much genetic information as we have today in the space of just 500 million years?
"While it might be argued that all of these things fall under the banner of 'argument from personal incredulity,' evolutionists have a mechanism to explain them."
And we are saying that their mechanism is a wrong explanation. Evolution doesn't just explain what we interpret in nature as homologies, mistakes, or vestiges. (Evolution of the gaps, anyone?) It explains all of life's history, and it takes a non-trivial amount of intellectual dishonesty to pretend that it fares better than any of the sixty-one other theories that attempt to do the same job.
What do you have against this stuff of Hugh Ross? (I've never given it any attention whatsoever.) To put it another way, what makes his ideas fail in light of what you know and cite, while evolution survives?