alwight
New member
Just remember that this way of doing things can make it more complicated to respond to.:AMR:Hi Alwight,
I apologize for the rather extensive delay in answering your post. for some reason I can't get into the thread sometimes, and it always seems to be when I'm ready to work on my reply to you.
I'm trying something new. I'm inserting comments in your quotes in a different color.
Let's be more optimistic and hope that science sometimes can get it right quite quickly given it's based in evidence and can be falsified it is wrong.So you want me to embrace something that may be wrong, but is generally ok and may get stuff right eventually--perhaps not until after I am dead? What do you you want me to do with this thing you call science? Embrace it for what purpose?In my more lucid moments perhaps.
Well, my mission here as I see it is to steer you away from a fundamentalist doctrinal adherence and to embrace science. Not as a religion but as something that best explains the facts and evidence, which it may not always get right of course, but is arguably getting there and generally doing a good job.
I can understand that you may want an eternal life of bliss and everything but you understand presumably that what we may want and that which is actually true are not always the same thing?So I can use a cell phone or fly in an airplane? Ok, considered it embraced! But if you want me to use science as you described it to discern morals and how I should act and how to prepare for eternity--I'm pretty confident it will come up short based on your description. For those things I (and everybody else that cares about eternal life) need something else to cling to for that time period beyond our earthly existence. Something that we can hold to with a "fundamental and doctrinal adherence" perhaps.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
I certainly don't expect science to guide me morally while it often throws up dire moral issues that we as humans have to deal with as best we can.
What it does for me is to offer rational explanations and testable conclusions based on the available evidence.But what does it do for you? And why would you be a missionary for a doctrine you consider to be fickle, or perhaps "evolutionary" in the sense that it gets better with age?Creationists however have a fixed predetermined doctrinal time limit in which everything has to be made to fit into, whereas science takes whatever time the evidence seems to require which strangely enough always seems to dovetail well with other scientific disciplines without too much fettling. Hence the generally accepted scientific epochs and the clarity of how long ago something probably happened in actual Earth years.
I'm not too clear how exactly you separate allegory from fable here?Here's the crux of the matter. Only a literal Genesis is of any use. If it's allegorical, there's no point in it at all. But if it's literal, then we have to decide whether it's fact or fable--like all literature. And if it's fact, then we have to decide what to do with it in light of "scientific" declarations of fact that contradict it. As you said, science is a multi-discipline field, and though you've said that most branches seem to agree, that's not really the case. The "laws" of physics and general observation don't fit with the story of evolution.You seem to me to have your own background agenda to maybe find some doubt for doctrine to occupy, rather than to honestly seek to correct your own understanding or science if it is wrong. Science is about being wrong sometimes and being corrected by the evidence. There's nothing wrong with questioning science, but simply doing so because it doesn't fit with a pre-concluded religious agenda isn't exactly going to help put science on a better track imo, unless what you say is based in fact and evidence, rather than perhaps an adherence to a literal Genesis.
I think you'll need to explain specifically how laws of physics and observations are somehow at odds with Darwinian evolution, since that might be interesting.
You make scientists seem pretty stupid if they are somehow able to simultaneously believe in two contradictory things.If our understanding of the past needs to be guided by what we observe today, then we should recognize that pouring a bunch of sunlight (energy) onto a creature does not cause that creature to have more capable offspring. Pouring a bunch of sunlight onto anything tends to degrade that thing. Radiation causes mutations and mutations are overwhelmingly harmful. That's what science says. Creatures we dig up were not in some intermediate state of operability--they all seemed to have advanced complexity that works for what it was <designed> for.
However it's the sun's energy that makes life on Earth possible through photosynthesis.
Every fossil discovered was once a fully operational creature not some kind of half way point. Any mutations that do happen are just that, mutations, they can be neutral, harmful but sometimes beneficial. Beneficial mutations in individuals are more naturally selectable and therefore more likely to pass on their genes to the next generation.
Someone told me today that some American YECs think that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife.
We can leave aside dogs here since that involves artificial selection, while Darwinian theory relates to natural selection.Even with fettling, we can't get animals to evolve into other types of animals or even into much better of an animal. Dogs bred with special features are often deficient in other areas. Mutated flies don't have useful mutations or survive better. They're just grotesque. Bacteria that seem to achieve some kind of mutational benefit by surviving against antibiotics are not more fit for normal bacterial existence, they are less so. That's what science tells us.
Bacteria evolving immunity to antibiotics is simply evolution in action.
For a start Darwinian evolution is a scientific theory not a story. It stands or falls on real evidence, not by a belief in ancient mythology.The evolution story needs just as much as the biblical story to be judged for its literalness and factuality. And it's failing, despite the grand hoopla of the fawning press, academia, and governmental sanction.
So what evidence do you think says that the Earth is young?I can if it's trueThen perhaps for you there is hope, but I think you are perhaps trying to fudge your own beliefs albeit with at least some desire to value the core conclusions of science generally.
Cognitive dissonance?
Do you really think that the Earth is young because real facts and evidence indicate that is so, or are you more compelled to presuppose that the Earth is young because that's what Genesis would have us believe, if presumed to be an inerrant historical narrative? You can't really have it both ways.
Creationism at least can't be taught as science because it isn't science. But maybe you'd like astrology or phrenology to be taught as science too?Squelched science is where the courts have to intervene to say a particular viewpoint is not allowed to be taught, like the Scopes trial (yes I include that one) or the Dover decision. Squelched science is trying to punish climate change deniers.Differing opinions are one thing but evidential support is what tends to settle scientific arguments. I don't know what you mean by "squelched" science. Science isn't about someone's opinions it's about being demonstrably falsifiable should it be false. Science is being constantly challenged by science itself but creationism doesn't contribute anything of value to that process.
[those genealogies are sure entertaining--they ought to make a movie out of those things!]Yes but your holy scripture was actually written by people with sophisticated language skills who were just as able as we are to "spin a yarn", to use allegory, to embellish, to use folklore myth and legend. They wanted to be heard and to be entertaining,
lain:[That's a conclusion based on the evidence, but it's not the only conclusion. See how easy this is?]they weren't simply putting down what they saw outside, they had an agenda as we all do.
I don't think accusing me of trying to drive people away from Jesus Christ is at all fair, many Christians can accept both science, an old Earth and have faith in Jesus, and I haven't suggested otherwise here. My mission is for reason and rationality based in science, facts and evidence, not an evidence free literal adherence to a specific ancient scripture.[Ok, if I judge for myself and come to the YEC conclusion, why do you think you need to be a missionary for something else????? On the other hand, if your mission leads toward strengthening false conclusions that can drive people away from a saving faith in Jesus Christ, toward eternal damnation, you can see why we would push back a little, right?]There are always a few with strong personal opinions outside the herd perhaps, which is a good thing too, but as I say it's evidence and facts that usually forces science together in the end, not doctrinal beliefs.
Science provides conclusions that we can compare with the evidence to judge for ourselves how believable or not it is. Nothing is deemed to be proven truth.
Except YECs typically don't care what science concludes, if it seems to contradict Genesis then it must automatically be considered wrong.[Sometimes we can be a little too fervent in our denials before the facts are completely known, admittedly. Sometimes we don't understand the scriptures well enough to figure out how they apply to a certain scientific discovery or conclusion. Sometimes the scientific conclusions are wrong. All 3 conditions need to considered regularly.]An honest creationist.
Science at least isn't written in tablets of stone.
There was, a couple of years ago, but now seems to have largely gone away. The scientist in charge who found the supposed "soft tissue" that excited YECs is very much a Christian but nevertheless dates the demise of her dinosaur to well over 60 million years ago iirc, despite her findings.
Firstly I will concede my bias that imo if anything of scientific value is to be found on creationist websites then it is purely coincidental, or perhaps taken from a more scientific source if they think something helpful to YECism exists. Say if it can be pointed to as a possible contradiction or can be quote mined. I accept my bias here and will try to keep an open mind, but for them a literal Genesis will always trump any science that seems to contradict it, there are no open minds to be found there.
I can tell that you don't find Dawkins at least to be particularly inspiring, I wonder why.[Science isn't a religion, but men that do science are very religious, just sometimes the religion is Christianity, sometimes it's atheism, sometimes it's something else. Richard Dawkins is one of the most religious men I know. Very fervent! He's definitely a missionary!]Science otoh isn't a religion and it expects to be wrong sometimes.
Sure, scientists are humans too, but science is accountable to evidence and peer review. Bad science can be falsified, as it sometimes is, but Genesis is assumed to be inerrant by YECs come hell or high water.So you agree that scientists can and will do this too?Not too sure what you mean by "better than art". A painting is what it is, but clever words can be used to paint a mental picture that needn't always relate to facts. Many legends and myths are part of many cultures, it's just human nature to tell stories and to embellish.