Thinking to Believe

November 16, 2020

29 Responses to “Certainty”

1. derekmathias Says:

   
   November 16, 2020 at 10:19 pm

   I have to disagree on this point. Certainty is the end of learning, exploration, consideration, imagination, compromise and humility. You can be 100% sure of something and be 100% wrong, and that is true of essentially everything. And with 100% certainty there is no option or avenue to correct one’s mistaken thinking.

   When it comes to religion, there are literally thousands of religions out there, and virtually all of them have believers who are 100% certain their religions are right. Clearly they cannot all be right, but they can all be wrong. And when people of differing religions are 100% certain they are right, the end result is inevitably division, tribal thinking, devaluation of others, and bloodshed.

   Lack of certainty is the basis of scientific explanations. No scientific explanation is ever considered 100% correct. A claim can be proven false, but never proven correct. Every explanation is subject to change by the next piece of credible evidence that comes along. And lack of knowledge cannot be filled with what one desires, but only with “we don’t know…yet.” This is why science doesn’t stagnate, and why it is so successful—it is ALWAYS open to correction. To paraphrase Ashley Montagu, science has proof without any certainty; religion has certainty without any proof.

   Unfortunately, the problem with apologetics is that every single argument put forth by apologists has been refuted as either a logical fallacy or an error of fact (this is no exaggeration). It’s not hard to find these refutations; simply Google your favorite apologetics argument along with the word “debunked,” and you will find numerous explanations for why these arguments fail. This is because religion ultimately falls down to faith, not evidence. Anyone who aspires to be an apologist can’t simply learn the apologist arguments and hope to succeed; he or she must learn the counter arguments to avoid losing to them.

   LikeLike
2. theotherapologetic Says:

   
   November 18, 2020 at 2:26 pm

   Are you certain that atheism doesn’t have any certainties? Atheism ultimately fails because it is base on faith, not evidence. Debunking is in the eye of the beholder.

   LikeLike
3. Naz Says:

   
   November 19, 2020 at 5:37 am

   1Co 15:12  Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 
   1Co 15:13  But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 
   1Co 15:14  And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 
   1Co 15:15  We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 
   1Co 15:16  For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 
   1Co 15:17  And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 
   1Co 15:18  Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 
   1Co 15:19  If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. 
   1Co 15:20  But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 
   1Co 15:21  For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 
   1Co 15:22  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 
   1Co 15:23  But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 

   The Apostle Paul wrote most of the new testament and in the verses above he speculates what it would mean if Jesus did not rise from the dead and if this Christ was just a big hoax.

   I think it’s very telling and naysayers should consider why Paul would pen these verses, especially in light of the arguments you may here today about the bible being made up of fairy tales and falsehoods. He would not be helping his own cause by speculating that the resurrection was a hoax.

   It would appear to me that this man had a great degree of certainty in the resurrection of Christ and that he was sincere in the things he wrote. Moreover, the point of these verses is to emphasize that the resurrection of Jesus is the cornerstone of everything Christians believe. For those confused about religions and flavors of Christian doctrine, this passage nicely distils what it’s all about – life and death.

   Ultimately the answer to the question of life and death is paramount to everyone. Philosophical debates are interesting and stimulate the mind, however, we need answers and we need certainty when it comes to life and death.

   Naz

   LikeLike
4. derekmathias Says:

   
   November 19, 2020 at 2:07 pm

   “Are you certain that atheism doesn’t have any certainties? Atheism ultimately fails because it is base on faith, not evidence.”

   Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in gods. There’s no faith involved at all.

   For some more detail (since I can be a bit pedantic 😉 ), theism means a belief in gods, and atheism means lacking a belief in gods. Gnosticism is a claim of knowledge of gods, and agnosticism is lacking a claim of knowledge of gods. Thus, a gnostic theist believes in gods and CLAIMS they exist; an agnostic theist believes in gods but does NOT CLAIM to know which, if any, exist; a gnostic atheist does NOT believe in gods and CLAIMS to know they don’t exist; and an agnostic atheist does NOT believe in gods but does NOT CLAIM to know they don’t exist. Thus, “I believe God DOES NOT exist” would be an accurate statement for a gnostic atheist to make, whereas “I DO NOT BELIEVE God exists” would be a more accurate statement for an agnostic atheist. In my experience, the great majority of atheists are agnostic atheists.

   Agnostic theists and agnostic atheists make no claims of knowledge and thus they can’t fail because their beliefs aren’t based on faith.

   As an analogy, if I claimed to have a billion dollars, would you believe me? Probably not. I mean, it’s possible I have $1 billion but highly unlikely. So you would probably withhold belief based on likelihood (not faith), but wouldn’t claim certainty (because you’re aware you could be wrong).

   LikeLike
5. derekmathias Says:

   
   November 19, 2020 at 2:13 pm

   “I think it’s very telling and naysayers should consider why Paul would pen these verses, especially in light of the arguments you may here today about the bible being made up of fairy tales and falsehoods.”

   “That God cannot lie, is no advantage to your argument, because it is no proof that priests can not, or that the Bible does not.” — Thomas Paine, Founding Father

   LikeLike
6. Naz Says:

   
   November 20, 2020 at 6:35 am

   Derek, all I am trying to say is that if Paul was trying to pull the wool over our eyes, he would not be talking in this way about the resurrection, playing the devils advocate. I think it shows sincerity in the writing and that should be taken into account in trying to determine the truthfulness of Paul’s claims.

   If you want to pass it off as all lies, so be it, that’s your choice.

   Naz

   LikeLike
7. derekmathias Says:

   
   November 20, 2020 at 2:26 pm

   Naz, my apologies, I should have been more clear than a glib quote. I didn’t intend to imply that Paul was lying, but perhaps that his source was. I suspect Paul was a sincere believer, and I think he was making a sincere appeal for why his fellow Christians should believe in the resurrection (evidently there was some disagreement). But sincerity of belief is not evidence of truth, otherwise pretty much every religion would be true.

   LikeLike
8. Naz Says:

   
   November 21, 2020 at 7:20 am

   Derek, no apologies necessary, I just wanted to clarify my point. You are free to express yourself anyway you see fit.

   From your response, I’m glad you understand my point. There are many that say the apostles were conjuring up lies to promote the idea of the resurrection where in fact the opposite was true. At least passages like this should at least legitimize their sincerity which says something for their eye-witness testimony.

   The idea of people coming to a faith in God from others words is not unusual. Surely there is more involved than just believing what someone tells you, but that has been the norm since even the bible days. Jesus himself even prayed that people like us might believe through the words of the apostles. I’m not an apostle, but here I am like Paul, trying to convince you to believe in Jesus Christ for the salvation of your soul.

   Joh 17:20  “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 
   Joh 17:21  that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 

   Cheers !

   Naz

   LikeLike
9. derekmathias Says:

   
   November 21, 2020 at 5:01 pm

   “You are free to express yourself anyway you see fit.”

   I appreciate that.

   “I’m not an apostle, but here I am like Paul, trying to convince you to believe in Jesus Christ for the salvation of your soul.”

   That desire is understandable. The problem here, though, is that belief isn’t a matter of choice (one just has to try to “choose” to believe in Santa Claus to realize you can’t simply choose to believe in something, despite the common phrase “I choose to believe that…”). And for some people, myself included, belief only occurs with sufficient evidence. And the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence must be.

   Beyond belief, though, is whether the being who desires to be worshiped deserves to be worshiped. Having studied the Bible in multiple versions myself, I would find it very difficult to follow someone who committed or condoned essentially all the behaviors I associate with evil rather than good.

   LikeLike
10. Peter Says:

    
    November 21, 2020 at 7:19 pm

    https://muddlingthroughtheuniverse.wordpress.com/2017/09/04/certainty-vs-faith/

    LikeLike
11. Naz Says:

    
    November 23, 2020 at 6:18 am

    Derek, if I eluded that you can simply “choose” to believe, that’s not what I meant. Of course anybody that comes to faith must be convinced in their own mind to some degree. How exactly that works I really don’t know. Why some people believe more easily and others do not is a bit of a mystery to me but I don’t want to over analyze it frankly.

    Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, absolutely !

    When I look at creation and the complexity of life from a purely scientific point of view, not to mention our complex nature as human beings, you cannot convince me that all of this happened by some cosmic chance. To me it makes perfect sense that a God must be the first cause. To believe in any other explanation would require more faith from me than it does to believe in God based on the evidence we have from nature and writings such as the bible. I am not a scientist, but my vocation is of a scientific nature and I am not convinced that evolutionary science qualifies as extraordinary evidence to fit the extraordinary universe that we live in.

    As for God condoning and committing acts of evil, I think I may have an idea of what you may be referring to and I’m thinking we may have talked about this in a previous post long time ago, not sure ?

    Regardless, those arguments would need to be scrutinized and put in context. That God meted out severe judgment on humanity is not a secret. Is it evil to punish evildoers ? I know it’s not that simple to you and surely you will try to define what is evil and what degree of punishment is fair or unfair. This is where the debates come in and we can debate until the cows come home in trying to put ourselves in God’s shoes and play judge. This is an exhausting exercise. We don’t have perfect knowledge nor do we have the mind of God so I think we stand on shaky ground if we try to judge and criticize every nuance of what God should have or should not have done in the past. I will admit the old testament law was strict and severe at times with no room for mercy, but that is the nature of living under the law. However even in some of the most harshest judgements we still see cases of God’s mercy peeking through giving humanity another chance. By all accounts, if God was not merciful, humanity would have been wiped out long ago for the evil they have committed on the earth. You may look at God and see Him as committing and condoning evil. I look at humanity as the prime mover and initiator of all the evil on this earth.

    Cheers.

    Naz

    LikeLike
12. derekmathias Says:

    
    November 24, 2020 at 1:00 pm

    “Why some people believe more easily and others do not is a bit of a mystery to me but I don’t want to over analyze it frankly.”

    To me too. But training in critical thinking makes people less likely to believe.

    “When I look at creation and the complexity of life from a purely scientific point of view, not to mention our complex nature as human beings, you cannot convince me that all of this happened by some cosmic chance.”

    Well, technically that’s an argument from incredulity fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity). It’s worth keeping in mind that EVERY time we have discovered a scientific explanation for something, it has ALWAYS turned out to be from a natural cause. There’s never been anything verified that was presumed to be natural that turned out to have a supernatural explanation.

    “To believe in any other explanation would require more faith from me than it does to believe in God based on the evidence we have from nature and writings such as the bible.”

    Quantum mechanics is extremely weird but one of the most thoroughly verified theories in physics, and one of its predictions is the creation of multiple universes through natural means. A timeless, spaceless, fluctuating quantum void could produce a zero-energy universe where the positive energy is exactly canceled out by negative energy (a.k.a. gravity), resulting in a universe from “nothing” (a quantum field is not absolute nothingness, but it is what you have when you remove all conventional matter and energy from an area). This may occur infinite times, resulting in infinite universes, and we happen to be in one that supports life as we know it. We can’t yet confirm this explanation to be true, but it is supported by the math and it doesn’t require envisioning the supernatural, much less a creator god. No faith required.

    “I am not a scientist, but my vocation is of a scientific nature and I am not convinced that evolutionary science qualifies as extraordinary evidence to fit the extraordinary universe that we live in.”

    Well, my degree is in evolution science (literally evolution science, not the related fields of biology, geology, paleontology, etc.), so I do know something about this topic. From a scientific standpoint, the evidence for evolutionary theory is overwhelming, arguably the most well-established theory in all of science, certainly in biology. The reason for this is that it made numerous testable predictions that could have proven the theory false (that’s the “falsification” requirement of the scientific method), yet which turned out to be supported by the evidence. I could give you dozens of critical examples, but that would make for a REALLY long comment (although I’ll provide them, if you wish). So I’ll just give you one of my favorite examples:

    Researchers knew that if tetrapods (first land quadrupeds) evolved from lobe-finned fishes, there would HAVE to be a transitional species possessing specific characteristics of both the ancestral and the descendant species that existed between the appearance of the latter and the appearance of the former in the fossil record. Researchers knew where to look based on the locations of the tetrapod fossils (found in geological strata dated 370 million years ago) and lobe-finned fish fossils (found in strata dated 385 million years ago). So they started digging, and eventually FOUND that transitional species fossil, which they named Tiktaalik roseae. Keep in mind that there would be no possible way to have predicted the existence and description of Tiktaalik if evolutionary theory weren’t true.

    “As for God condoning and committing acts of evil, I think I may have an idea of what you may be referring to and I’m thinking we may have talked about this in a previous post long time ago, not sure ?”

    We may have. I’m not sure either. But it involves many, many passages like the following two that describe God behaving in ways we would not consider acceptable from a good person:

    • 1 Samuel 15:3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

    • Leviticus 25:44-46 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life.

    “Regardless, those arguments would need to be scrutinized and put in context.”

    That’s true. I always endeavor to make sure I have the context correct.

    “That God meted out severe judgment on humanity is not a secret. Is it evil to punish evildoers ? I know it’s not that simple to you and surely you will try to define what is evil and what degree of punishment is fair or unfair.”

    Well, I just avoid that problem by pointing out acts that are atrocities against the innocent, or behavior we essentially ALL consider immoral. Like the two examples above. In 1 Samuel, God basically orders his people to rip babies from their mothers and hack them to death, and in Leviticus he allows people to buy other human beings as slaves for life. He even condones beating a slave so badly she can’t even crawl to her feet for a day or two:

    • Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

    “By all accounts, if God was not merciful, humanity would have been wiped out long ago for the evil they have committed on the earth. You may look at God and see Him as committing and condoning evil. I look at humanity as the prime mover and initiator of all the evil on this earth.”

    That’s where I see the biggest problem. If you believe God is all knowing and all powerful, as the Bible says, then you have to acknowledge that he could have created any of an infinite variety of universes he could imagine with his infinite mind. And he HAD to have known–before he even created this universe–that if he chose to create this specific universe, sin would result, right? All that has to be true by definition if God is all knowing and all powerful. Thus it has to mean this is the universe God WANTED to exist. Sin can’t be an unfortunate consequence of free will (even if we ignore all the biblical evidence that God determines everything and thus free will is only an illusion), because God COULD have chosen to create one of the infinite universes where Lucifer didn’t rebel and Adam and Eve didn’t disobey…universes that MUST be possible to exist if choice actually exists. So the only rational conclusion is that God WANTED sin to exist, he WANTED humanity to fall, he WANTED the world to become wicked, he WANTED to drown the world in a flood, and he WANTS billions of people to end up burning in hell. So doesn’t that make him the one entirely responsible for the existence of sin in our universe? What other reasonable conclusion is there?

    For this reason, I conclude that only three of the following four options is possible:

    1. God exists
    2. God is good
    3. God is all powerful
    4. Evil exists

    But which three?

    LikeLike
13. Naz Says:

    
    November 26, 2020 at 12:28 pm

    Derek, nice reply !

    It’s going to take me some time to unpack and respond to this.

    For now, I will answer your last question with a caveat.

    I choose 1,2, and 4.

    I would choose 3 as well but for the sake of answering your question I will not. God is all powerful but that does not necessarily mean he overrides our free will to choose and act as we want. So for the sake of your question, God is “not” all powerful.

    I can back that up with scripture but for brevity I won’t at this time.

    More to come later when I have time.

    Cheers !

    Naz

    LikeLike
14. derekmathias Says:

    
    November 27, 2020 at 1:35 pm

    “Derek, nice reply !”

    Thanks. 🙂

    “It’s going to take me some time to unpack and respond to this.”

    No rush.

    “I would choose 3 as well”

    There are a couple problems here, though, starting with the Bible contradicting option 3:

    • Matthew 19:26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.”
    • Job 42:2 I know that YOU CAN DO ALL THINGS; no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
    • Revelation 19:6 For our Lord God ALMIGHTY reigns.
    • Jeremiah 32:27 I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. Is ANYTHING too hard for me?

    We also know evil exists (#4). So that leaves jettisoning #1 or #2. #2 is supported by the Bible:

    • Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.”

    However, an evil God would have no problem lying about being good, of course, so the only thing we can really trust is behavior (actions speak louder than words). The problem there is that throughout the Bible God commits, condones and even orders murder and genocide, animal and human sacrifice, torture, child and animal abuse, theft, slavery, rape, incest, cannibalism, betrayal and lying…basically all the behaviors we ourselves use to identify evil persons. Add to that the choice God evidently made to create THIS universe, rather than one where everything wouldn’t go wrong, and the whole concept of hell (where it seems even babies who die not born again end up going), and it becomes difficult to see how such a God could be good. So I don’t think we can throw out #2.

    #1 can be thrown out if some different god exists. It could even be the Christian God…but that means the Bible contains some significant mistakes and hyperbole.

    “God is all powerful but that does not necessarily mean he overrides our free will to choose and act as we want.”

    But I’m not sure where the notion that we have free will comes from. Nowhere in the Bible does it say free will exists, or that the choices we think we’re making are our own. It does stress the importance of making the right choices, true, but being able to make choices doesn’t require free will. In fact, even simple animals that clearly don’t have free will are perfectly capable of making decisions. Computers can even be programmed to make decisions, and clearly they don’t have free will. What the Bible does say about humans being in control of their choices indicates the exact opposite of free will by clearly stating that God plans everything, including our very steps. Here are just a few passages out of the many I have collected:

    • Proverbs 16:4 THE LORD WORKS OUT EVERYTHING to its proper end—even the wicked for the day of disaster. [He doesn’t just determine SOME things, he determines “EVERYTHING,” including what the wicked do.]
    • Proverbs 16:9 In their hearts humans plan their course, but THE LORD ESTABLISHES THEIR STEPS. [God even determines our very steps!]
    • Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its EVERY DECISION IS FROM THE LORD.
    • Proverbs 19:21 Many are the plans in a person’s heart, but IT IS THE LORD’S PURPOSE THAT PREVAILS.
    • Proverbs 20:24 A PERSON’S STEPS ARE DIRECTED BY THE LORD. HOW THEN CAN ANYONE UNDERSTAND THEIR OWN WAY?
    • Proverbs 21:1 In the Lord’s hand THE KING’S HEART IS A STREAM OF WATER THAT HE CHANNELS TOWARD ALL WHO PLEASE HIM.
    • Ephesians 1:5 He PREDESTINED us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS PLEASURE AND WILL.
    • Ephesians 1:11 In him we were also chosen, having been PREDESTINED according to the plan of HIM WHO WORKS OUT EVERYTHING in conformity with the purpose of his will.
    • Jeremiah 10:23 LORD, I know that PEOPLE’S LIVES ARE NOT THEIR OWN; IT IS NOT FOR THEM TO DIRECT THEIR STEPS.
    • Jeremiah 13:23 Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots? NEITHER CAN YOU DO GOOD who are accustomed to doing evil.
    • Jeremiah 43:11 He will come and attack Egypt, bringing death to those DESTINED FOR DEATH, captivity to those DESTINED FOR CAPTIVITY, and the sword to those DESTINED FOR THE SWORD.
    • Psalm 37:23 A MAN’S STEPS ARE ESTABLISHED BY THE LORD, and the LORD delights in his way. [God delights in establishing a man’s steps even when he sends him down the wrong path?]
    • Psalm 90:9 WE SPEND OUR YEARS AS A TALE THAT IS TOLD.
    • Psalm 139:16 Your eyes saw my unformed body; ALL THE DAYS ORDAINED FOR ME WERE WRITTEN IN YOUR BOOK before one of them came to be.

    Interestingly, those last two Psalm references may give a hint about how we can FEEL like we have free will without actually having it. Think of God as a writer and that we are the characters in his novel. We think we have free will and that all our thoughts and actions are ours to make, but the reality is that the writer plans EVERYTHING that happens, both in thought and action. The difference is, characters in a novel can’t actually suffer, and thus there is no harm in having horrible things happen to them.

    Anyway, I tend to go on long, but it seems to me these are all serious points that every person should ask himself or herself before considering devoting their life to Christianity.

    LikeLike
15. Leona Last Says:

    
    December 13, 2020 at 1:29 am

    Hi Derek:

    Here’s my analysis of #1, 2, 3, and 4.

    In a nutshell #’s 1, 2, & 3 falls into one category. God is this, God is that and God is something else.

    The Source exists, and it is not us.

    The attributes given to the Source are mere reflections of the human experience. In this way, we create the Source in our image and then falsely claim that the Source created us in its image.

    All the Omni’s ascribed to that catch-all term “God”: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, come from man.

    I draw your attention to the middle “Omni”, a description that consists of the word “science” used here to mean “knowing”; that is, Omniscience means all-knowing. I note this for what it does not say about God: omni-believing. I find that most interesting, don’t you?

    Lastly, good and evil is a two-sided coin, and cannot exist alone as we know it. Good is the obverse side of the coin and evil is the reverse side of the coin.

    You can think of many analogies to confirm this but here’s a very simple one.

    Two mothers are walking along separate paths in the park, each has a child walking alongside. Suddenly the pair of mothers come too close to each other as the paths cross and are startled by the unexpected encounter, one was fearful and took flight and the other was angry and chose to fight. The angry mother runs after the fleeing mother, catches up, grabs her, overpowers her, fights with her, takes her to the ground, and beats her unconscious. The dead mother’s child is clearly traumatized by the evil assault and continues running away as fast as her little legs can carry her hoping to find help.

    On the other hand, the assailant-mother, puffed up like a wrestler in the ring, nods to her child at the success and the young lion cub runs toward the fallen corpse and begins gnawing on the warm, blood-moistened flesh of the slain mother as the zebra child wonders about her mother’s peril and wonders about her own good fortune to have escaped with her life.

    Thus the two-sided coin of Good and Evil is omnipresent and in the eyes of the beholders.

    Think of the US Presidential election.

    Thank you.

    LikeLike
16. Naz Says:

    
    December 13, 2020 at 11:10 am

    Derek, I can give you a partial response, sorry for the delay.

    Critical thinking

    I don’t agree that training in critical thinking will make one less likely to believe. A large part of why I believe is because I used critical thinking to sort out opposing views and I decided that there is enough common sense and validity that the God of the bible is true. I think it takes more than critical thinking though, and I would be lying if I said that this was purely an intellectual exercise.

    Darwin

    I am not going to try and pretend that I can match you in a discussion about evolution. I believe in natural selection and that animals in cold climates with more fur are more likely to survive than those without fur … etc. I have no problem with this. However, I have a big problem believing that certain species can change into other species by small incremental changes over billions of years. The building blocks of life contain information in the DNA which I do not believe can be coded by random mutations over long periods of time. The information to make a complex organ like an eye cannot occur by chance. I am not counting out the possibility of beneficial mutations on a micro scale but I think it’s a stretch to take this to a macro level and presume that fish can eventually evolve into human beings. I don’t want to offend, but that notion is foolishness to me and is bad science since there is no proof that such things could ever happen, and it is after all just a theory. The key thing for me is “information”. Since we have discovered the marvel of DNA, it has become even more apparent to me that a super intelligent mind was at work providing the information to create all life on earth. I believe that mind was God Himself.

    Slavery

    God does not condone slavery. A careful study and reading of the old testament will reveal the following :

    1) In both the Old and New Testaments, the words used to denote slaves did not necessarily carry the same connotations that we associate with slavery today. Only by understanding the biblical texts and the cultures that produced them can we understand what is being referred to in the Bible.

    2) The stealing and selling of human beings, such as has been common throughout human history, is a capital offense according to Old Testament law.

    3) In almost every instance, the kind of slavery governed by Old Testament law was debt-slavery, where an individual would offer labor in exchange for an outstanding debt that he could not pay. The laws that govern such transactions are given to protect the rights of such slaves, who could only serve for a maximum of six years.

    4) The Christian community was a counter-cultural movement in which social distinctions were all but erased. Jesus is the true Lord, and masters and slaves were expected to treat each other as beloved brothers and sisters and equal members of the body of Christ.

    If you are interested in reading more about this, I put a link below that I recommend. Bottom line, God does not condone slavery and we must look at the biblical context in order to understand the term “slavery” and how it applied under God’s laws in the old testament.

    https://emergencenj.org/blog/2019/01/04/does-the-bible-condone-slavery

    More to come on these topics :

    1) Genocide
    2) Free will
    3) God is good

    Cheers !

    Naz

    LikeLike
17. derekmathias Says:

    
    December 15, 2020 at 4:50 pm

    Hey Naz. This is going to be long, but I’ll try to keep it concise:

    “I don’t agree that training in critical thinking will make one less likely to believe. A large part of why I believe is because I used critical thinking to sort out opposing views and I decided that there is enough common sense and validity that the God of the bible is true. I think it takes more than critical thinking though, and I would be lying if I said that this was purely an intellectual exercise.”

    Well, critical thinking requires skepticism, a minimization of bias, and an empirical approach to claims. If something cannot be demonstrated to be true, then the critical thinker should withhold judgment rather than believe true or false. If one has a jar full of sand, the critical thinker will recognize that the total number of grains of sand must be either odd or even, but not commit to one or the other without counting every grain first.

    “However, I have a big problem believing that certain species can change into other species by small incremental changes over billions of years.”

    This happens to be my specialty, since my degree is in evolution science. I have studied and worked with the evidence for many decades, so I do know a thing or two about the subject. It’s a complex topic, but I think I can simplify a few basics:

    For a theory to be scientific, it MUST make testable predictions that could potentially prove it false (this is called falsification). Untestable predictions, predictions not actually made by the theory, and gaps in the theory are irrelevant, since no theory in science is ever complete. Only the TESTABLE PREDICTIONS matter. So what DOES evolutionary theory predict? Well, if all species evolved from a common ancestor, then we can make the following predictions:

    1. Transitional species MUST have existed.
    2. NO species can have existed before its ancestors did (no human fossils could exist in Cambrian rock formations, for example).
    3. ALL species must be constructed using the same basic architecture that can be modified in some way.
    4. The more recently two species shared the same ancestor, the more of that same basic architecture they must share.
    5. There MUST be some mechanism that introduces change to that basic pattern, upon which natural selection can act.
    6. The Earth MUST be billions of years old in order to account for the slow process of evolution.

    There can be no exceptions to these predictions, and all of the predictions were made BEFORE any evidence for them was discovered. So what does the evidence show?

    1. The first recognized transitional fossil–Archaeopteryx–was discovered two years AFTER Darwin predicted transitional species had to exist. Since then we have discovered hundreds or more transitional species in the fossil record (despite fewer than 1% of species ever being fossilized). We’ve even managed to predict the physical characteristics a transitional species between fish and land vertebrates would possess, and where it would be found in the fossil record…and then we went out and FOUND it (Tiktaalik).
    2. In undisturbed geological strata, we have NEVER even once found a descendant species appearing in the fossil record BEFORE its ancestral species appeared—meaning, for example, that no human fossils have ever been found in Jurassic formations.
    3. A century after Darwin’s time we discovered that ALL species use the exact same architecture for inheritance: DNA (or the simpler RNA for the simplest life forms).
    4. DNA comparisons show we share approximately 99.5% of our genes with other humans, 98% with chimpanzees, 93% with monkeys, 92% with mice, 90% with cats, 84% with dogs, 80% with cows, 60% with chickens, 44% with fruit flies, 26% with yeast, 18% with plants, and 7% with bacteria.
    5. The DNA of all species is constantly being modified by a variety of different mutations. Every human being, for example, contains about 60 mutations not possessed by his or her parents. Natural selection tends to weed out the deleterious mutations and preserve the beneficial.
    6. Dozens of different dating techniques discovered over the past century have revealed the Earth to be 4.543 billion years old with a 1% margin of error, long enough for the evolution of species to have taken place.

    For these reasons, over 99% of all life and earth scientists–the very experts who study the relevant evidence–accept evolutionary theory as true.

    “The building blocks of life contain information in the DNA which I do not believe can be coded by random mutations over long periods of time.”

    Well, the natural origin of life–“abiogenesis”–has yet to be duplicated (not an easy task, since such an event is unlikely to have left any surviving evidence). However, we know the basic chemistry that would have been available on the premordial Earth (we can even see it in comets and on other planets), and so researchers created various atmospheres based on those molecules–including ammonia, methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, water, etc.–and combined them with the expected temperatures, atmospheric electrical activity and ultraviolet light of an early Earth, and let them “cook” for a while. They found that even under a wide variety of different prebiotic conditions, it only takes a few days to spontaneously form dozens of the complex organic molecules essential for life.

    The repeated heating, cooling and irradiation of these molecules, as would be expected on a prebiotic Earth, can also cause the spontaneous formation of ribonucleotides. And ribonucleotides exposed to certain clays can spontaneously assemble into strands of RNA. Not only is RNA capable of self-reproduction, which is a fundamental requirement for life, but it’s very close in structure to DNA, which is the genetic blueprint of almost all life. Furthermore, the most primitive life on Earth is actually based on RNA, so finding a natural pathway to the formation of RNA is a huge step.

    Not only that, but simple fatty acids that also form naturally in prebiotic conditions AUTOMATICALLY assemble into structures closely resembling cell membranes. And under the right conditions, DNA inserted into those cell membrane-like structures can successfully replicate.

    If life couldn’t form on its own from basic chemistry, we would not expect to see any of these results. But if life DID form on its own, all this is exactly what we would predict.

    “The information to make a complex organ like an eye cannot occur by chance.”

    Ah, but we see EXISTING life forms possessing every stage in the evolutionary model for the human eye. For example, flatworms only have light-sensitive pigment, but it allows them to detect shadows moving over them. Limpets have their light-sensitive cells in a cup, which allows them to determine the direction of light. Nautiluses have a cup that is almost closed over, which allows the small hole to sharpen the image. Ragworms have a transparent cover over the hole, which protects the interior. Abalones have filled the cup with coagulated fluid, forming a lens that can focus light. And mammals have co-opted muscles around the eye to vary its focus. Each step is an improvement for the individual, and thus something that can be selected for and evolve, and each step is something easily achievable through mutation. Mathematical models show it would take only 1,829 tiny steps over fewer than 400,000 years to achieve an advanced eye from a simple light-sensitive patch of skin.

    “I am not counting out the possibility of beneficial mutations on a micro scale but I think it’s a stretch to take this to a macro level and presume that fish can eventually evolve into human beings.”

    Again, it’s all about the testable predictions. Evolutionary theory predicted that a transitional form HAD to have existed between fish and tetrapods (the first four-legged ancestors to all mammals, including us) between 370 million and 385 million years ago. No one had ever found fossils of such a creature, but evolutionary scientists were able to describe what it would have had to look like, based on the physical characteristics of lobe-finned fishes and tetrapods that had previously been discovered. They also predicted exactly where it would likely be found in the fossil record. Researchers then went to the predicted region (an island off Canada with 375 m.y.a. rock formations), and there they discovered the fossil remains of Tiktaalik, a transitional species that looked exactly like what scientists had predicted.

    If Tiktaalik had not evolved, there would have been no way to make such a prediction. And if it had been a special creation, one could never have predicted it would exist. That’s one of the many reasons we can be confident that all species evolved to their current state. (Note: the fossil record shows speciation often occurs with multiple branches, most of which eventually go extinct. That means Tiktaalik may not be our direct ancestor, since another similar species may have survived instead, but at the very least Tiktaalik was a cousin to us.)

    “I don’t want to offend, but that notion is foolishness to me and is bad science since there is no proof that such things could ever happen, and it is after all just a theory.”

    As I noted above, what makes a scientific theory is its testable predictions. A good theory makes many such testable predictions. Thus, evolutionary theory is one of the most confirmed of all theories in science. The evidence is found in the fossil record, genetics and comparative anatomy, and confirmed by cross-checking with numerous different sciences (biology, geology, paleontology, chemistry, etc.). I could provide a LOT more evidence, but I think this post is too long already. But ask and ye shall receive.

    I should also note that a “theory” in science is NOT what people mean when they say something is “just a theory” (e.g., “guess”). The definition of a scientific theory is: “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not ‘guesses’ but reliable accounts of the real world” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory). Thus, a theory in science is equivalent to what people commonly refer to as a “fact.”

    “God does not condone slavery. A careful study and reading of the old testament will reveal the following”

    You may want to check your sources, because the examples you provide directly contradict what the Bible says. I highly recommend reading Exodus 21 (it’s a very short read) to see for yourself. For instance, the prohibition against stealing people and the freedom after six years claim only applied to HEBREW slaves:

    • Exodus 21:2 If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything.

    Non-Hebrew slaves not only had no such rights, but they could be passed down to one’s children:

    • Leviticus 25:44-46 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life.

    And most slaves came from either purchasing or as spoils of war. For example:

    • Deuteronomy 20:10-11 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you.
    • Numbers 31:17-18 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. [Only virginal girls got to live, but they were forced into sexual slavery.]

    And that slavery was every bit as brutal as pre-Civil War slavery. In fact, it was fine to beat a slave so badly they couldn’t even crawl back to their feet for a couple of days:

    • Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

    And it’s not just the Old Testament. The New Testament condoned slavery just as much as the OT:

    • Ephesians 6:5-7 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord.
    • Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
    • 1 Timothy 6:1 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered.
    • 1 Peter 2:18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

    So I think those who claim biblical slavery wasn’t so bad are ignoring the Bible and substituting wishful thinking.

    “The Christian community was a counter-cultural movement in which social distinctions were all but erased.”

    Well, again I don’t think that’s true. Fully HALF the human population was regarded as property under men:

    • 1 Timothy 2:11-12 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
    • Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
    • 1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man.

    And that’s in addition to the Bible devaluing all humanity:

    • Isaiah 64:6 “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags.”
    • Luke 18:19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.”
    • Romans 3:10-12 As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”
    • Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

    So if we apply critical thinking to the evidence…what does that say about the morality of God in the Bible?

    As you can see, I’ve thought about these issues quite a bit, and I’ve done extensive research into both science and the Bible. It concerns me that so many people claim the Bible as the source of their morality…and at the same time ignore the inconvenient passages that are anything but moral.

    LikeLike
18. Naz Says:

    
    December 20, 2020 at 6:43 am

    Derek, I appreciate the time you’ve taken to craft your response. However, we will both go back and forth ad nauseum and be right where we started. In other words I feel like we’re both “pissing in the wind” 🙂

    I think at the crux of this discussion is a fundamental difference at the core of our being with regards to what Evolution and the Bible means. While I say that Darwinian Evolution is foolishness, you claim God is immoral. Both of us our convinced in our own mind.

    There is a great chasm between our worldviews and this cannot be reconciled through a purely intellectual exercise. I can no doubt write a lengthy response of how you’ve taken bible passages out of context but I don’t think that would be useful because, like myself, you are already convinced in your own mind and there is nothing I can say to change that. Similarity, there is nothing you can tell me scientifically about evolution that can sway me. I am not “anit-science” but really, we cannot even get the science straight with Covid-19 never mind trying to figure out the origins of life ! You see, my confidence in humanity’s attempt to explain these things is not too high. I would say the same thing about “climate change” but don’t get me started.

    I know from your point of view this is an objective exercise where you can lay everything on the table and make a judgment call on what is true and what is right. You take Darwinian evolution at face value combined with some bible passages that depict violence, slavery etc … and voila its obvious right ? No, I don’t believe it’s that simple.

    As the song goes ….

    Oh life, is bigger
    It’s bigger than you
    And you are not me
    (Losing my religion REM)

    Both of us can make all the rationalizations for our positions but in the end it will not be enough. For every point, each of us can counter with a counter-point. And on and on we go… Please don’t take this as a “cop out” or that you have stumped me and I have no response to give you as I bow to Darwin. On the contrary, I take this stance because there are far too many things I can say in response to your last post.

    I say all of that to say that we should probably end our discussion here. I think it’s pretty clear where we stand on this and respectfully I think we should agree to disagree. I like a good debate just like the next guy, but I have never found a lengthy debate will resolve anything. At worst, I have seen it degenerate into offensive name calling which is pretty ugly. I’m glad we’ve kept it civil and respectful.

    The only last thing I would ask of you is how you find yourself on this blog ? Are you a former member of the United Pentecostal Church ? Were you ever part of a church group ? Was there a time in your life where you once believed the gospel of Christ ? I’m just curious, these answers can at least provide me with some perspective as I reflect on our dialogue.

    Thanks for the discussion and Merry Christmas.

    Cheers !

    Naz

    LikeLike
19. Leona Last Says:

    
    December 25, 2020 at 9:30 am

    DEREK:

    WONDERFUL SUMMARY.

    Enough.

    Naz says:
    “we will both go back and forth ad nauseum and be right where we started.:

    No Naz. Derek will not go back and forth ad nauseam, you will.

    Derek offers educated knowledge; you offer belief into whatever fantasia your imagination can conjure just as your ancestors did.

    Derek’s “craft (of) response” is something a wise person will copy, paste and save. Your response Naz is not worth copying, pasting, and saving but placed into make-believe, A Belief-folder that can go no further than your ancestral mimicry and we can call that folder, to coin a phrase, “The ‘pissing into the wind’ Folder.”

    Thank you Derek for sharing the wonder of learning.

    Goodbye Naz as you assume the fetal position in your you know what Folder.

    LikeLike
20. Leona Last Says:

    
    December 25, 2020 at 9:33 am

    BELIEVERS dread the advance of knowledge as vampires do the approach of daylight, scowling at the rooster heralding the fatal end of darkness and the end of the deceptions on which they feed.

    Ad Nauseam Note the correct spelling Naz.

    LikeLike
21. derekmathias Says:

    
    December 25, 2020 at 2:54 pm

    Hey Naz,

    “Derek, I appreciate the time you’ve taken to craft your response. However, we will both go back and forth ad nauseum and be right where we started.”

    But are we? I’m not seeing a lot of back and forth. You made some statements about evolution and the biblical morality without supporting those assertions, and I happen to have studied both subjects quite a bit. So I provided the scientific evidence for the former and the biblical evidence for the latter. Have I not made the compelling case?

    “While I say that Darwinian Evolution is foolishness, you claim God is immoral. Both of us our convinced in our own mind.”

    I’m ALWAYS open to changing my mind when presented with credible evidence. It’s because of evidence that I came to my conclusions in the first place. I had hoped to have provided you with sufficient evidence to show that evolutionary theory is not foolish; it’s actually supported by overwhelming evidence (after all, it’s enough to have convinced well over 99% of the experts on species origins: the scientists who spend their lives actually studying the evidence in detail). I can provide you with much, much more things in biology, geology, paleontology, etc. that only make sense in the light of evolution, if you are open to changing your mind through evidence.

    I’m also willing to have my mind changed about the moral nature of God. I’ve provided some of the evidence to support my position, but I’m certainly open to evidence to the contrary. And there is some, of that I am aware, but it’s mostly people and God himself declaring God good. The problem is, actions speak louder than words….

    “There is a great chasm between our worldviews and this cannot be reconciled through a purely intellectual exercise. I can no doubt write a lengthy response of how you’ve taken bible passages out of context but I don’t think that would be useful because, like myself, you are already convinced in your own mind and there is nothing I can say to change that.”

    No, that’s not how it works! I think a closed mind is a dead mind, which is why I am always open to evidence that could change my mind. And this can be reconciled through a purely intellectual exercise because we are debating two topics that both have abundant evidence to reference. I’ve also taken great pains to not take the Bible out of context; not only have I researched them through countless articles, but I’ve even vetted them with biblical scholars. However, if you can point to specific instances where I’ve taken something out of context, I’m willing to listen. I only ask that you be open minded as well in your evaluation of the evidence.

    “Similarity, there is nothing you can tell me scientifically about evolution that can sway me. I am not “anit-science” but really, we cannot even get the science straight with Covid-19 never mind trying to figure out the origins of life !”

    Oh, but that reveals a misunderstanding of how science works. In reference to the COVID issue, at the beginning we had very little data to work with, we had no concrete evidence that masks worked in daily life, and we needed masks for medical personnel (for all their work, not just COVID) and couldn’t risk a huge run on masks…so the recommendation was not to wear masks. Then the data started coming in from a variety of studies and observations, and it became clear masks actually are quite effective in preventing coronavirus infection. So the recommendation changed. That’s not a weakness of science…that’s its very strength: ALL claims are subject to change based on further evidence (this is why all claims MUST be falsifiable and repeatable, so that they can be tested and verified). This is why science constantly improves–it has a built-in error checker and there is no such thing as declaring something true without supporting evidence. Compared to ANY other method of information gathering and understanding of phenomenon, science is by far the most effective method developed. It’s why we’ve gone from rocks and sticks and thinking the sky is a dome over a flat Earth to computer technology, understanding the history of the universe and traveling to other worlds.

    “I would say the same thing about “climate change” but don’t get me started.”

    Oh, please do! I know quite a bit about the evidence supporting climate change. That’s another thing that started with little data, but over the decades the science has become extremely clear, enough to convince almost 100% of climate scientists.

    “You take Darwinian evolution at face value”

    No, I would never do that. I’m a scientist at heart, so I take NOTHING at face value. All claims MUST be demonstrated with sufficient credible evidence. After all, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The reason I accept evolutionary theory (that’s a better term than “Darwinian evolution,” since the science has advanced far more than Darwin envisioned) is because I’ve actually worked with the evidence in the process of getting my degree.

    “combined with some bible passages that depict violence, slavery etc … and voila its obvious right ? No, I don’t believe it’s that simple.”

    I look forward to learning why you don’t think it’s that simple. Keep in mind, the Bible says God is all knowing and all powerful:

    • Matthew 19:26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.”
    • Job 42:2 I know that YOU CAN DO ALL THINGS; no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
    • Revelation 19:6 For our Lord God ALMIGHTY reigns.
    • Jeremiah 32:27 I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. Is ANYTHING too hard for me?
    • 1 John 3:20 God is greater than our hearts, and HE KNOWS EVERYTHING.
    • Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: HIS UNDERSTANDING IS INFINITE.
    • Job 37:16 those wonders of him who has PERFECT KNOWLEDGE.

    I think that simplifies things tremendously, since it renders EVERYTHING God does as optional, by definition. And nothing can be unless he chose it to be that way.

    “Both of us can make all the rationalizations for our positions but in the end it will not be enough. For every point, each of us can counter with a counter-point. And on and on we go…”

    Why can’t it be enough? If we simply look at the evidence with clear eyes and an open mind, the conclusions should be clear.

    “Please don’t take this as a “cop out” or that you have stumped me and I have no response to give you as I bow to Darwin. On the contrary, I take this stance because there are far too many things I can say in response to your last post.”

    Then say them. I’m not shy about providing my evidence, and as a blog writer I’m sure you aren’t either.

    “I like a good debate just like the next guy, but I have never found a lengthy debate will resolve anything. At worst, I have seen it degenerate into offensive name calling which is pretty ugly. I’m glad we’ve kept it civil and respectful.”

    Well, you won’t see me calling you names. I always prefer to keep it respectful. But I beg to differ on the notion that a good debate can’t resolve anything. It’s true that it’s hard to change the mind of the opponent, but this is a public forum and others read these things. Those are minds that can be swayed because they have no dog in the fight.

    “The only last thing I would ask of you is how you find yourself on this blog ? Are you a former member of the United Pentecostal Church ? Were you ever part of a church group ? Was there a time in your life where you once believed the gospel of Christ ? I’m just curious, these answers can at least provide me with some perspective as I reflect on our dialogue.”

    Honestly, I can’t remember how I found this blog. But I think it happened not long after I joined WordPress.

    I grew up all over the world and lived for years in half a dozen different countries. My parents weren’t religious, but they encouraged me to explore the religions of the nations we visited and make my own choices of which to follow. So I did just that, going to churches, temples, synagogues and other places of worship, participating in the rituals and learning the beliefs and customs of the various religions. A Pentecostal church was not among them, but various other Christian denominations were.

    Curiously, none of the Christian churches encouraged actually reading the Bible from cover to cover, but I did it anyway, in several different versions. That was when I discovered all the things they never teach you in church or Bible study groups.

    The one thing I learned from all this experience is that almost all religions make a virtue of faith and de-emphasize evidence. They all have their miracles and prophecies and arguments, which vary surprisingly little in substance. I started studying science to understand “the other side.” That’s where I learned how important it is to base belief on evidence.

    “Thanks for the discussion and Merry Christmas.”

    Thank you too, and Merry Christmas.

    LikeLike
22. derekmathias Says:

    
    December 25, 2020 at 4:29 pm

    Oh, one other thing, Naz: evolution and Christianity don’t have to be mutually exclusive. You implied you are Pentecostal, and it’s worth pointing out the one of the most accomplished paleontologists who has contributed greatly to evolutionary theory is Robert Bakker, who also happens to be a Pentecostal preacher. Here are a bunch of articles about him, in case you’re curious:

    https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS737US737&sxsrf=ALeKk020XpiD-qc8x0kTXFU3nSeFie9qrA%3A1608942162632&ei=UoLmX6TzJZnE0PEPmpiV-AM&q=robert+bakker+pentecostal+preacher&oq=robert+bakker+pentecostal+preacher&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIFCCEQoAEyBQghEKsCMgUIIRCrAjoECCMQJzoHCCEQChCgAVDNtgJYjcECYKbNAmgAcAB4AIABuwGIAbwJkgEEMC4xMJgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXrAAQE&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwik5MTQsOrtAhUZIjQIHRpMBT8Q4dUDCA4&uact=5

    He’s even celebrated by the old earth creationist community for helping bridge the divide between Christianity and science:

    https://www.oldearth.org/commentary/drbob_csc7.htm

    There are many other esteemed scientists who are Christians (Francis Collins, head of the NIH probably being the most famous), although none of them are young earth Christians (since you really can’t be a good scientist if you ignore scientific evidence to fit an unchangeable worldview). They all accept the evidence for evolution.

    LikeLike
23. Naz Says:

    
    December 26, 2020 at 9:57 am

    Derek, thanks for the response.

    For clarification I’m not Pentecostal, but I used to be, although that is hardly relevant for our discussion.

    I feel like I need to make a closing comment in light of some disparaging comments from Leona who is actually my old foe Leo, before he had the sex change.

    The main point I gathered from you is the term “EVIDENCE”. Point well taken, I understand where you are coming from. All I can say is that evidence must be interpreted and as you know there can be many interpretations of the same evidence. Even the bible has many passages which have been interpreted differently by Christians and non-Christians.

    There are many scientists that don’t hold your views of the evidence. As a non-scientist like myself, I must weigh all interpretations when looking at things like the fossil record and genetics. Despite your attempt to educate me on evolution there us still an overwhelming amount of common sense that I cannot escape when considering the claims of that all life evolved spontaneously on the earth through purely natural processes. To name a few,

    1) Why do we not see transitional species existing today ? We have cats and dogs, not dats and cogs … Yes their are varieties in species but all species are distinct, present and unchanging.

    2) According to scientific evidence there are still major gaps in the fossil record to account for the evolutionary process. While one might say, these missing links will eventually be found, I am saying why haven’t we found more of them? And are they even there ?

    3) It has been reported that man and chimp DNA is 90-95% similar. What is not often said is that this still accounts for millions of differences at the genetic level which is still significant for delineating between man and monkey. Moreover, why does the similarity in DNA point to evolution ? Similarities in DNA can also point to an efficient intelligent designer who used the same building blocks to create different species.

    4) The theory of evolution contradicts the the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states that all systems in the real world are going downhill to a state of decreasing complexity and disorder, thus increasing in entropy. Evolution is swimming upstream on this one. At the most basic level evolution cannot happen period. Mutations themselves are not organizing in nature but disorganizing in accordance with the 2nd law. Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only “sieve out” the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order.

    5) Lastly, the theory of evolution has developed into a religion that is based on faith. The gaps in the fossil record, claims of transformations never observed, and belief that matter arose from nothingness make this a more of a religious belief system than any kind of natural science.

    I will add some quotes for emphasis from evolutionists :

    . . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky’s claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1

    Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4

    Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9

    It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .10

    Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees — fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner — new features are often “cut and pasted” on different groups at different times.11

    Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.14

    No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found — not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the “first law”), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18

    Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.25

    We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.27

    Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change “our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern.”34 Then he went on to say that: “The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought.” Therefore, he concluded that “we must construct something to take its place.”35

    1. Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Sudden Origins (New York, John Wiley, 1999), p. 300.

    4.Jeffrey H. Schwartz, op. cit., p.89.

    9. J. O. Long, The Rise of Fishes (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1995), p. 30

    10. Niles Eldredge, The Pattern of Evolution (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1998), p. 157.

    11. Neil Shubin, “Evolutionary Cut and Paste,” Nature (vol. 349, July 2, 1998), p.12.

    14. N. A. Takahata, “Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics (vol. 26, 1995), p. 343.

    18. E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, “A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics,” Physics Today (vol. 53, April 2000), p. 32.

    25. Ruse, Michael, “Saving Darwinism fron the Darwinians,” National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3.

    27. ewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.

    34, 35. ulian Huxley, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), p. 222.

    Cheers Derek, Happy New Year !

    Hey Leona, congratulations on your transformation. This is the proof of evolution we’ve been looking for !

    P.S. Be mindful of the panty hose, I here they tend to ride up ….

    Naz

    LikeLike
24. derekmathias Says:

    
    December 27, 2020 at 3:12 pm

    “The main point I gathered from you is the term “EVIDENCE”. Point well taken, I understand where you are coming from. All I can say is that evidence must be interpreted and as you know there can be many interpretations of the same evidence.”

    Well, first off, it’s precisely because different people will interpret evidence differently that the scientific method requires both testable predictions that could prove the claim false and that others can reproduce the same results of any tests. No other system of study even comes close to the effectiveness of this system, as all the scientific understanding and technological achievements have revealed.

    Second, evaluating evidence requires expertise and experience (you wouldn’t want an electrician to identify whether that mole on your neck is malignant or not, right?). And the most educated people experienced with the evidence in regards to evolution vs. creationism are the scientists in the relevant fields of biology, paleontology, geology, and so forth. So when well over 99% of all such relevant scientists and scientific organizations accept evolution and reject creationism, it’s worth considering that they may know what they’re talking about.

    Third, what about the remaining fraction of 1% of relevant scientists who hold the opposing view? What’s the ONE THING that separates them from regular scientists? It turns out the organizations they belong to have a statement of faith that requires them to IGNORE evidence that contradicts their biblical worldview. Don’t take my word for it, see their websites for yourself:

    From the Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith: “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record” (https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/).

    From the Creation Ministries International Doctrines and Beliefs: “No interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record” (https://creation.com/what-we-believe).

    From the Creation Research Society Statement of Belief: “The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs” (https://creationresearch.org/statement-of-belief/).

    From the Institute for Creation Research tenets: “The Bible … is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological” (https://www.icr.org/tenets).

    So no matter how much evidence there is supporting evolution or contradicting biblical creationism, they HAVE TO ignore it. This makes them terrible scientists by definition. The problem is that they begin with a conclusion and then search for evidence to support that position, which is fallacious reasoning. Actual scientists do essentially the OPPOSITE: they do their best to prove their own claims FALSE (that’s the testable predictions part I mentioned above). Why do that? Because they know that the peer review process and reproducibility requirements will do exactly that, and nothing is worse for a scientist than to make claims, only to have other scientists prove them wrong. If a scientist can’t prove his own work false, it reduces the odds that others will find mistakes in the research. This is how bad scientists are revealed. And creation scientists outright ADMIT they are bad by ignoring evidence.

    “Despite your attempt to educate me on evolution there us still an overwhelming amount of common sense that I cannot escape when considering the claims of that all life evolved spontaneously on the earth through purely natural processes.:

    Well, science has little use for “common sense,” since it has been proving common sense wrong for many centuries. It was once common sense that the sun revolves around the Earth. It’s STILL “common sense” that something cannot occupy two different places at the same time, or that matter cannot teleport randomly, and yet quantum mechanics proves both those claims wrong. It’s ALWAYS best to look at what science can demonstrate before resorting to a common sense claim.

    So let’s take a look at your examples:

    “1) Why do we not see transitional species existing today ? We have cats and dogs, not dats and cogs … Yes their are varieties in species but all species are distinct, present and unchanging.”

    Ah, but we DO see transitional species everywhere…and, in fact, ALL species are transitional. That is, one million years from now there will be numerous new species in many lineages, and today’s species are transitional forms between them and our ancestral species. For example, seals and sea lions are land animals that evolved to life in the ocean. Their ancestral species (Puijila darwini) existed about 20 m.y.a. (million years ago) and resembled today’s otters (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2009/04/22/puijila-the-walking-seal-a-beautiful-transitional-fossil/). As long as there is further selective pressure to become even more aquatic, in another 20 million years they will likely more closely resemble whales. So today’s seals and sea lions are transitional species to those future fully aquatic species. See how it works?

    And we don’t see “dats and cogs” because cats and dogs are separate lineages that diverged about 42 m.y.a. from a common ancestor that resembled Dormaalocyon latouri, which lived as far back as 55 m.y.a. (https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/scitech/science/343965/cats-and-dogs-had-a-common-ancestor-and-here-it-is/story/)

    Scientists don’t just make this stuff up. We study the unique anatomical features linking species to their ancestral species and follow them through the fossil record. That’s how we know a wolf-like species called Pakicetus evolved into all today’s modern whales starting over 45 m.y.a. (https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03)

    “2) According to scientific evidence there are still major gaps in the fossil record to account for the evolutionary process. While one might say, these missing links will eventually be found, I am saying why haven’t we found more of them? And are they even there ?”

    The answer is that it’s unlikely those fossils are there. Keep in mind that fewer than 1% of species that have ever lived are ever fossilized. So the BEST we can hope for is snapshots of species evolution through history. But just as we can take one random photograph of a person every year or two for his entire life and still recognize the similarities in the person as well as the gradual changes as he grows, so can we see the equivalent in thousands of lineages throughout the fossil record. There will ALWAYS be gaps in the fossil record, and that’s to be expected considering the rarity of fossilization, but as I mentioned in my previous post, it’s not the gaps in a theory that validate it, it’s the testable predictions that matter.

    “3) It has been reported that man and chimp DNA is 90-95% similar. What is not often said is that this still accounts for millions of differences at the genetic level which is still significant for delineating between man and monkey. Moreover, why does the similarity in DNA point to evolution ? Similarities in DNA can also point to an efficient intelligent designer who used the same building blocks to create different species.”

    Chimpanzees actually share about 98% of their genes with humans, but those genes are ordered differently than ours. This logically accounts for the differences between us. The reason this points to evolution, not creation, is that the number of shared genes is a testable prediction made by evolutionary theory. It HAS to be true in order for evolution to be true, but NONE of this was known when Darwin first postulated the theory. It was a prediction that wasn’t discovered to be true until many decades later.

    Creationism could never have predicted that result because an all-powerful creator could just as easily have made every single species with completely unique DNA, or even with completely different types of DNA for each species. Creationism doesn’t DEPEND on shared DNA, and the more dependencies predicted by a claim that turn out to be supported by the evidence, the more certain we can be that that claim is true.

    “4) The theory of evolution contradicts the the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states that all systems in the real world are going downhill to a state of decreasing complexity and disorder, thus increasing in entropy. Evolution is swimming upstream on this one. At the most basic level evolution cannot happen period. Mutations themselves are not organizing in nature but disorganizing in accordance with the 2nd law. Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only “sieve out” the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order.”

    Actually, no. The 2nd LoT applies ONLY to closed systems (https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/cellular-energetics/cellular-energy/a/the-laws-of-thermodynamics), and the Earth is not a closed system at all. We get virtually all our energy from the sun (plants do it directly, herbivores get it from the plants, and carnivores get it from the herbivores). Our solar system IS a closed system, which is why when the sun burns out, everything that depends on it will die. But that won’t happen for billions of years.

    And this should be pretty obvious. After all, if the 2nd LoT prevented evolution from occurring, then it would also prevent a fertilized egg from growing into an adult. If everything were “going downhill to a state of decreasing complexity and disorder,” then a single cell could not multiply and grow to an adult. We grow because a human being is not a closed system; we acquire our energy from outside sources…just as the Earth acquires energy from an outside source, the sun.

    “5) Lastly, the theory of evolution has developed into a religion that is based on faith. The gaps in the fossil record, claims of transformations never observed, and belief that matter arose from nothingness make this a more of a religious belief system than any kind of natural science.”

    On the contrary, faith has nothing to do with how science works. As I pointed out, what matters is the TESTABLE PREDICTIONS that could potentially prove a claim false, then you test those predictions. If the evidence turns out not to be what you predicted, you must either modify the claim to fit the evidence if possible, or discard the claim if not. Since evolutionary theory makes numerous such testable predictions, none of which have proven it false and instead have only strengthened it (through the discoveries of heredity, DNA, comparative anatomy, radiometric dating and a much more filled out fossil record), virtually the entire relevant scientific community has high confidence that evolutionary theory is true.

    Faith, OTOH, is the opposite of how science works. Faith is belief without evidence, or even belief in the face of evidence that contradicts the claim. If you have evidence, you don’t need faith, and evolution is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence.

    “I will add some quotes for emphasis from evolutionists”

    I hate to say it, but using out-of-context quotes that within context do not indicate what you’re implying is called “quote mining,” which is a type of fallacy. None of those quotes you’ve included are a problem for evolutionary theory because they refer to arguments WITHIN the theory or aren’t relevant to the theory at all. I’m guessing that you found these quotes on one of the creationist organizations I warned you about above for their lack of scientific integrity (Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, Creation Research Society, Institute for Creation Research). Am I right? There is a reason the scientific community doesn’t take these organizations seriously, and it’s because they are scientifically dishonest.

    Naz, as you can see, what may seem to you to be strong problems with evolutionary theory are actually not problems at all. I do have the advantage of having my degree in evolution science, and I’ve studied the topic my entire life, so I don’t blame you at all for not knowing the facts. But I hope the corrections I’ve provided make it clear that evolutionary theory is not just scientific, but the best explanation for the observed evidence.

    Having said that, it doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. But it does mean that if he does exist, he created the world using chemistry and evolution, not what it says in Genesis.

    LikeLike
25. derekmathias Says:

    
    December 27, 2020 at 3:17 pm

    “WONDERFUL SUMMARY.”

    Thank you, Leona.

    (But don’t be too harsh on Naz–he’s been polite.)

    LikeLike
26. Naz Says:

    
    December 29, 2020 at 12:29 pm

    Derek, I know you’re trying really hard but I am unmovable in my stance, as you are.

    I’m not “anti-science” but as you know and as you have stated, what humanity is learning and discovering keeps changing and “evolving” if I may use that word. I don’t trust the scientific method to explain the past and origins. I think a lot of the so-called evidence can be misread and misinterpreted based on the atheist world view. I simply do not have the confidence in evolution to explain the origins of life from nothing. To dissect the details you have presented does not make it any more believable for me because I know that it’s all an interpretation game and really neither you or I know what’s going on behind the scenes as these scientists release their findings. You can’t guarantee me that they are all intellectually honest when many of them depend on grants and funding to continue their work which they must show is making progress. This isn’t some sort of hobby that these intelligent people are engaged in for fun. There is big money involved and that’s where I need to weigh human nature into the equation before I believe anything of what they say. I am very skeptic of people (not you) and their motivations.

    A gleaned a few of your statements that I have a rebuttal for :

    1) “So when well over 99% of all such relevant scientists and scientific organizations accept evolution and reject creationism, it’s worth considering that they may know what they’re talking about.”

    Who makes the call that they are relevant or irrelevant ? Humanity for the most part is out of touch with God by definition. Worldly unbelieving scientists are making the call and writing the books. That proves nothing to me. Nobody is unbiased.

    2) “It turns out the organizations they belong to have a statement of faith that requires them to IGNORE evidence that contradicts their biblical worldview. Don’t take my word for it, see their websites for yourself:”

    I have been to these sites and all I can say is that they don’t “ignore” the evidence to the contrary altogether. They will provide alternate plausible explanations based on the biblical worldview. I don’t see a problem with that. Atheist scientists do the same thing when they encounter a piece of evidence. When have you seen a Atheist scientist admit that certain species were fossilized by rapid burial due to the flood when the evidence clearly shows that? They won’t give any heed to the notion of a worldwide flood based on their belief system. No one is unbiased.

    3) “It’s ALWAYS best to look at what science can demonstrate before resorting to a common sense claim.”

    That’s a strawman argument. You can’t take something at a small a scale and project it to explain the entire universe ! I don’t have to tell you about the complexities of the universe, surely some lab experiment cannot take into account the real life variables in the universe, nor the scale.

    As for the sun revolving around the earth, that’s just ignorance not common sense.

    4) “in another 20 million years they will likely more closely resemble whales. So today’s seals and sea lions are transitional species to those future fully aquatic species. See how it works?”

    Yes I see how it works … it’s magic ! I don’t have 20 million years to figure it out. Seriously, stating that their are transitional species all around us is really playing a game with features of creatures. Just because there are some resemblances in features does not make them transitional. That’s a leap unsupported by real science and just assumed to fit the evolutionary theory. It can also be said that the Creator uses the same genetic material to create a myriad of different species some of whom have similar features. As I said previously, information cannot spontaneously generate to form functional organs, limbs etc.. at the macro level.

    5) “The reason this points to evolution, not creation, is that the number of shared genes is a testable prediction made by evolutionary theory. It HAS to be true in order for evolution to be true, .. ”

    I just don’t buy it ! Maybe the science is over my head which it probably is but I have zero confidence in these sorts of statements which I cannot understand at the scientific level. I would need to take this statement as an act of faith or simply reject it. So I reject it, I don’t have the faith that it takes.

    6) “Creationism could never have predicted that result because an all-powerful creator could just as easily have made every single species with completely unique DNA, or even with completely different types of DNA for each species. Creationism doesn’t DEPEND on shared DNA”

    Yes He could have, but isn’t it the mark of a master designer to use the same material to make a variety of species ? Humans and animals are both from the earth, this is where we came from, it is not unconceivable that we have similar genetic traits. Again, at the genetic level even a 98% (whatever that number means) similarity there are still millions of differences between us and a chimp.

    7) “and the Earth is not a closed system at all. We get virtually all our energy from the sun”

    Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.
    The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

    8) “virtually the entire relevant scientific community has high confidence that evolutionary theory is true.”

    Again, creation scientists are deemed irrelevant by the Atheistic scientists. It’s up to the populace to decide what is scientific fact and what is not. I don’t just believe everything I hear or read because a scientist wrote it. The scientific community is not my guide and as I already said I put no confidence in mankind to tell me the truth, especially when it comes to the most important question of all which is the nature of our existence.

    9) “Faith is belief without evidence, or even belief in the face of evidence that contradicts the claim. If you have evidence, you don’t need faith, and evolution is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence.”

    Heb 11:1  Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 

    I don’t believe for a second our existence is some trivial scientific happenstance of mutations over billions of years. Life is bigger than that and faith is the substance and the evidence of that. I know that is not a scientific statement and it was not meant to be. I choose to believe in something more than matter and for me there is an abundance of evidence for me to conclude that with confidence. Moreover, I don’t need to be able to explain every iota in order to keep that belief because I realize the complexity of the universe and that I cannot attain to all knowledge of all things.

    Cheers !

    Naz

    LikeLike
27. derekmathias Says:

    
    January 4, 2021 at 6:15 pm

    “Derek, I know you’re trying really hard but I am unmovable in my stance, as you are.”

    I don’t know about you, Naz, but I am not unmovable in my stance…apart from my positions always being driven by credible evidence. Being unmovable in one’s stance is the end of growth and understanding, and that’s not a place I would ever want to be.

    “I’m not “anti-science” but as you know and as you have stated, what humanity is learning and discovering keeps changing and “evolving” if I may use that word.”

    But that is precisely the STRENGTH of science, not a weakness. When a claim is made absolute, with no mechanism for change in the face of potential contrary evidence, then advancement in one’s knowledge becomes impossible. It’s precisely because every claim in science is subject to the next piece of evidence that science is so effective, simply because so much of what people have always thought is true…isn’t. A flat Earth, heavier things falling faster than slow things, gravity being a force, stars being tiny lights in a hole in a dome covering the Earth…all of these were wrong beliefs that science has proved wrong. NOTHING in science can be too sacred or precious to question and contradict with evidence, because that has always led to false views.

    “I don’t trust the scientific method to explain the past and origins. I think a lot of the so-called evidence can be misread and misinterpreted based on the atheist world view.”

    But evolution has nothing to do with atheism. As I mentioned, many prominent scientists are Christians, yet they have no problem accepting the evidence for evolutionary theory. The pope himself–head of over a billion Christians–has stated there is no conflict between evolution and theology. In fact, MOST Christians accept evolution, and most people who accept evolution are Christians. Evolution is a conclusion based on observation, not something atheists came up with to support some “atheist world view.” Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in gods. It’s not a belief IN something, a world view included.

    “I simply do not have the confidence in evolution to explain the origins of life from nothing.”

    Evolutionary theory only describes what happened to life AFTER it appeared on Earth. It has nothing to do with the first appearance of life nor the formation of the universe.

    “To dissect the details you have presented does not make it any more believable for me because I know that it’s all an interpretation game and really neither you or I know what’s going on behind the scenes as these scientists release their findings.”

    Well, that’s not true. My degree is in evolution science and I actually studied the evidence myself. To suggest that scientists are working behind the scenes to corruptly interpret evidence doesn’t work. Error-checking is BUILT IN to the scientific method. If a scientist makes a claim, he has to defend every single step in the peer review process…which is why scientists work hard to DISPROVE their own work (after all, the scientists in the peer review process will try to do just that). Furthermore, all claims MUST be repeatable by other scientists who would use or challenge the claims, and if their results conflict, the error is hunted down and corrected. That’s why there are relatively few hoaxes in science…because other scientists (who are a naturally skeptical bunch) expose them.

    This is not an interpretation game. Just as an experienced doctor can determine an illness from a set of obscure symptoms far better than an electrician, so can an experienced paleontologist identify a huge amount of data from just a few pieces of fossil evidence far better than a creationist.

    “You can’t guarantee me that they are all intellectually honest when many of them depend on grants and funding to continue their work which they must show is making progress.”

    For the most part, yes, I can. As I pointed out above, the peer review / reproducibility requirements of the scientific method expose intellectual dishonesty. It’s true that scientists who work for private companies can be overridden by corporate powers, but again, that’s why there’s the reproducibility requirement.

    “Who makes the call that they are relevant or irrelevant ? Humanity for the most part is out of touch with God by definition. Worldly unbelieving scientists are making the call and writing the books. That proves nothing to me. Nobody is unbiased.”

    Relevancy is based on the area of study. Biologists, paleontologists, geneticists, geologists, etc. all study areas that are relevant to evolution. Materials scientists, computer scientists, statisticians, meteorologists, etc. are not relevant scientists because they don’t study anything related to species origins.

    “I have been to these sites and all I can say is that they don’t “ignore” the evidence to the contrary altogether. They will provide alternate plausible explanations based on the biblical worldview. I don’t see a problem with that.”

    But that is by definition BAD SCIENCE. In science you do NOT start with a conclusion and search for evidence to support that, or “reinterpret” evidence to fit the conclusion. That automatically subjects one to confirmation bias, and it’s the number one reason the scientific community doesn’t take creationists seriously. If you have an claim in science, it MUST make testable predictions that could potentially prove it FALSE (as I described above). Then those predictions need to be tested, and if the evidence doesn’t fit the predictions, the claim MUST be either changed to fit the evidence or discarded.

    For instance, evolutionary theory REQUIRES that transitional forms exist, or else it’s false. This prediction was made BEFORE the first transitional form was found and recognized. Since then we’ve found thousands of transitional forms in the fossil record and living today. But creationist organizations don’t make ANY testable predictions that could prove their claims false…because they START with the assumption that their beliefs are true, and thus any evidence that contradicts their claims is what must be modified (“reinterpreted”), rather than changing or discarding the claim itself. In other words, they do science exactly BACKWARDS. See what I mean?

    Try it for yourself: can you come up with ANY testable predictions that could prove creationism false that haven’t already proven it false?

    “Atheist scientists do the same thing when they encounter a piece of evidence. When have you seen a Atheist scientist admit that certain species were fossilized by rapid burial due to the flood when the evidence clearly shows that? They won’t give any heed to the notion of a worldwide flood based on their belief system. No one is unbiased.”

    That’s simply not true. There isn’t really any such thing as an “atheist scientist.” There are scientists who are atheists, sure, but that’s not the same thing. Scientists are true to the evidence REGARDLESS of whether they are atheists or not (because otherwise it’s a great way to lose your job). They are simply scientists, and any religious position is irrelevant to that. Not so with creation scientists, who are religious first, scientists second…and whatever is secondary is automatically capable of being corrupted by the former. Thus, scientific evidence can potentially change the mind of an atheist, but as you mentioned in your first sentence of this post, it can’t change the mind of a creationist.

    Additionally, I’ve yet to meet ANYONE in my field who denies evidence of rapid burial due to flood…it’s just that the evidence shows that in ALL cases it’s local, never universal. Furthermore, the entire fossil record is sorted by lineage (with the further back you go in the fossil record, the less similar species are to living species), not by flood dynamics. That is a testable prediction that contradicts creationism.

    “That’s a strawman argument. You can’t take something at a small a scale and project it to explain the entire universe ! I don’t have to tell you about the complexities of the universe, surely some lab experiment cannot take into account the real life variables in the universe, nor the scale.”

    I’m not sure what you mean here, nor how my claim is a straw man. Common sense is not evidence, and the evidence often contradicts common sense. You said “common sense” is why you don’t accept abiogenesis as possible, but I provided you with a summary of the evidence. The hypothesis makes testable predictions that could falsify it–that the basic building blocks of life should be able to form naturally under prebiotic conditions–and that is exactly what the evidence has shown to be true. This is exactly why scientists take the abiogenesis hypothesis seriously. Under the creationism model, there is no reason to predict this.

    “As for the sun revolving around the earth, that’s just ignorance not common sense.”

    Well, ALL “common sense” claims are based on knowledge, and the failure of a particular common sense claim is a lack of knowledge. It was indeed “common sense” that the sun revolves around the Earth because people didn’t feel like the Earth is moving, whereas the sun actually moves across the sky. Thus, science disproved a common sense claim.

    “Yes I see how it works … it’s magic ! I don’t have 20 million years to figure it out.”

    That is EXACTLY why we look at the fossil record, because we can observe the fossils that existed over millions to hundreds of millions of years. We can track individual features in their skeletal structure to determine the changes that occurred over time periods we can’t directly observe because of our short lives. As that link I provided to you shows, we can track the skeletal structures of the evolution of whales from a wolf-like, land-based ancestor. Just one such example includes the gradual progression of the nostrils from the end of the snout up to the top of the head as the blowhole evolved. That sort of progression is EXACTLY what evolutionary theory predicts we should find. Creationism cannot account for that.

    Even more impressive is the discovery of Tiktaalik, which I also mentioned and linked for you. If creationism is true, and lobe-finned fish did not evolve into land-based tetrapods, then how could researchers have possibly predicted exactly what the transition between the two would look like and where to find it? You can postulate that God created land vertebrates using evolution, but it would be a denial of evidence to claim such a progression didn’t occur. That’s the problem with those creationist sites that I linked to you, since they deny the evidence that proves their claims wrong. They don’t even follow basic science procedures.

    “Seriously, stating that their are transitional species all around us is really playing a game with features of creatures. Just because there are some resemblances in features does not make them transitional. That’s a leap unsupported by real science and just assumed to fit the evolutionary theory.”

    What I stated was, “As long as there is further selective pressure to become even more aquatic, in another 20 million years they will likely more closely resemble whales.” The part you cut out is the part about selective pressures. With selective pressure for an increasingly aquatic life, it’s virtually GUARANTEED that sea lions will become whale-like. It’s certainly not an unsupported leap because we see the SAME THING happened in the fossil record with whales. Of course, if the environment changes and land-based food sources become more readily available to them, then they will evolve into more land-based creatures. That’s why I specified selective pressure for more aquatic life.

    “It can also be said that the Creator uses the same genetic material to create a myriad of different species some of whom have similar features.”

    But that’s NOT a testable prediction that could prove creationism false, and that’s the problem. You can’t use that as evidence to support creationism. The BEST you can say is that it’s compatible, which is easy to say. The reason we can be confident in the evolutionary explanation is because genetic similarity was a testable prediction made BEFORE anyone had any idea about genetics. Evolutionary theory REQUIRES that genetic similarity, whereas creationism doesn’t, which is why evolution is a theory and creationism is not.

    “As I said previously, information cannot spontaneously generate to form functional organs, limbs etc.. at the macro level.”

    But that is a false assertion. We can OBSERVE new features evolving in the fossil record. To keep it simple, look at that whale evolution link again. Notice that the wolf-like species had only a simple tail? Observe how it progresses into a full whale fluke. That’s a new feature. Throughout the fossil record we see the same thing: existing features modify gradually over time until they become a radically different feature. An even more stark example: theropod dinosaurs evolving wings. Those wings didn’t pop up out of nowhere (THAT would require divine intervention!), they evolve from EXISTING features, in this case the theropod arms. Here, look at the progression of fossils from oldest to youngest to see how the wing evolved in each of the observed major steps: http://www.dinosaur-world.com/feathered_dinosaurs/wing_evolution.htm

    “I just don’t buy it ! Maybe the science is over my head which it probably is but I have zero confidence in these sorts of statements which I cannot understand at the scientific level. I would need to take this statement as an act of faith or simply reject it. So I reject it, I don’t have the faith that it takes.”

    It’s actually pretty simple, and there is no faith at all involved, just evidence. As with all scientific explanations, you have to ask a testable question. In this case, IF all life evolved from a common ancestor, then the farther back you go in the fossil record, the less similar species should generally be to modern species. This is because once a species has diverged from the main line, random genetic differences will continue to occur and be selected for down the separate lineages. Simple enough?

    Carry that forward to today, and the species that are alive today must therefore be the current survivors of that multi-branching tree of life. So, if we can determine approximately when one lineage diverged from another, we can calculate how genetically different the existing species should be from each other (average mutation rates are pretty standard). Thus, when we look at the fossil evidence for when our early ape ancestor diverged into the chimpanzee and human lineages, which occurred less than 7 million years ago, there should be about 7 million years of genetic difference between chimpanzees and humans, right? And when we look at birds, which diverged from our lineage in the fossil record 330 million years ago, there should be far more genetic divergence. And when we look at plants, which diverged 450 million years ago, there should be much more genetic divergence. That is a testable prediction!

    Sure enough, we share 98% of genes with chimpanzees, 60% with birds and 18% with plants. And we can do and have done the same tests with any living organisms. See how it works? This is EXACTLY the type of fossil-genetic relationship evolutionary theory predicts…but creationism can’t account for it at all.

    “Yes He could have, but isn’t it the mark of a master designer to use the same material to make a variety of species ?”

    No, that’s called shoehorning, which is a fallacy. And to show you why it’s a fallacy, look at how many DIFFERENT types of eyes that exist: human eyes are very different from insect eyes, which are very different from octopus eyes, which are very different from flatworm eyes. They share very little in common…so do you conclude that “different design, different designers”? Because that’s the logical conclusion if you claim that “same design, same designer.” This is precisely why I brought up this point that creationism could never predict that all species MUST be based on the same architecture. Such a thing MUST be true for evolution, but it doesn’t have to be true for creationism…and thus DNA evidence strongly supports evolutionary theory but does nothing to help creationism. Again, the BEST you can say is that it’s compatible, which means little.

    “Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.”

    How solar energy supports complex life is a completely different topic. But, in fact, we DO know that nearly ALL life is powered by the sun (a few organisms thrive on deep ocean vent chemistry). That means the Earth is an open system, and thus it is not subject to the effects of entropy. The 2nd LoT argument simply has no bearing on this issue. And we KNOW how solar energy is absorbed by chlorophyll and converted into chemical energy, which is the basis for the entire web of life based on it…and that includes us. Once you have the basis for energy conversion, complexity can evolved through mutation and selective forces. But again, that’s not the 2nd LoT argument.

    “The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it.”

    The 2nd LoT makes two claims: “It states that as energy [not heat!] is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted.” That’s true, all energy transfers lose energy, and the Earth wastes plenty of energy. “The Second Law also states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state.” https://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html . The key word there is “isolated,” which the Earth is not, and thus the claim does not apply.

    “All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.”

    Exactly. And that is what life is. There is no conflict with evolution because evolution occurs through selective forces. For a simple analogy from chemistry, if you mix hydrogen and oxygen and heat or ignite it, you automatically get H20 (water), which is more complex than either hydrogen or oxygen. It takes that external heat or ignition source to cause the reaction, just like the Earth requires the sun’s energy to cause mutation and natural selection.

    “Again, creation scientists are deemed irrelevant by the Atheistic scientists.”

    No, they’re not. Literally MILLIONS of scientists in the US today, and a THIRD of scientists in fields relevant to evolution believe in God (https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/)…yet roughly 99.85% of them accept evolution and reject creationism. This has NOTHING to do with atheism and EVERYTHING to do with the evidence. Creationist organizations REQUIRE their members to ignore or “reinterpret” evidence that contradicts biblical literalism, which means they are not doing science, they’re doing religion. If you can’t provide testable predictions that could falsify your claim, you’re not doing science. THAT is why creation scientists are deemed irrelevant.

    “It’s up to the populace to decide what is scientific fact and what is not.”

    No, it’s not. Just like it’s not up to the populace to determine whether stars are pinpoints of light in a dome covering a flat Earth, it’s not up to the populace to determine what is scientific fact. EVIDENCE is what determines scientific fact, and the people who devote their lives to studying and working with the evidence are the scientists in the relevant fields. You wouldn’t want, say, a farmer to perform brain surgery on you, and you shouldn’t want that same farmer to interpret fossil or genetic evidence, either.

    “I don’t just believe everything I hear or read because a scientist wrote it. The scientific community is not my guide and as I already said I put no confidence in mankind to tell me the truth, especially when it comes to the most important question of all which is the nature of our existence.”

    That is a shame, really, since science is the BEST method humans have developed for understanding our universe. Nothing else even comes close.

    “Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

    That is exactly what I mean. It’s HOPING for something to be true, despite not seeing any evidence for it. Faith is not a path to truth. How do we know this? Because there is literally NOTHING that cannot be believed based on faith. There are THOUSANDS of religions in the world, and within Christianity alone there are TENS OF THOUSANDS of denominations, all disagreeing with other denominations on even fundamental things, like the requirements for salvation. If faith led one to the truth, there would only be one faith, just like there is only one scientific method.

    “I don’t believe for a second our existence is some trivial scientific happenstance of mutations over billions of years.”

    You almost certainly would if you studied the evidence, just like 99.85% of the life and earth scientific community. That’s because every major prediction of evolutionary theory that could have proven it false turned out to be true. You can’t say that about creationism, since it makes no testable predictions that could falsify it (at least none that haven’t done so already).

    “I choose to believe in something more than matter and for me there is an abundance of evidence for me to conclude that with confidence.”

    Oh, it’s fine to believe that there is something more than “matter,” but that doesn’t require you to ignore the evidence for cosmology, abiogenesis and evolution. As I noted, a third of life and earth scientists who accept evolution believe in God. Both things could be true…although the evidence doesn’t support biblical literalism.

    LikeLike
28. Naz Says:

    
    January 7, 2021 at 7:26 am

    Derek, I am not going to dissect every argument but I will try to be more general and I have some good sources that I found that I want to share with you for your review.

    Starting with your last point, where you said that one third of scientists who accept evolution believe in God. Yes, I am aware of that, however, that view is contradictory to the central message of the scriptures. One who believes in God must believe in the authority and veracity of the scriptures. To throw out creation in favor of evolution poses some serious theological and logical problems that cannot be reconciled.

    Special creation is necessary for the teachings of the bible to make any logical sense. I do believe in a literal Adam and Eve and this is central to the basic doctrine of salvation which supersedes any discussion of science or biological evolution. The bible is not intended to be a science text and it does not go into great detail about the natural sciences. It is very clear on origins and this is crucial for the cohesiveness on the overall biblical message. Regarding these scientists, I can’t speak for what they actually believe but when challenged they would be hard pressed to intellectually hold to evolution and believing in a God apart from the scriptures. Furthermore, if these scientists can throw out genesis, then they can selectively start discarding portions of scripture which they do not find palatable. Eventually they will come to Jesus Christ and I wonder what they would think of Jesus’ own words that He is the only way, the truth and the life ! I wonder ,,,, you see my point .. moving on …

    The majority of your previous argument focused on how evolution “predicts” the evidence that is seen in the fossil record when it comes to transitional species etc. … Well I found that interesting in that I never believed that evolution could do such things and always presumed (without doing the scientific leg work) that surely there were things that evolution did not predict or got completely wrong. In fact, I stumbled across a wonderful web site that is scientific in nature that has an abundance of information regarding this very thing. One article in particular shows how evolutionary theory fails badly at making predictions and that based on this fact, it is not a good theory.

    It is further argued that evolutionists will often make vague arguments of how these contradictions show the science of evolution is always “evolving” and these contradictions are merely research projects and not challenges to the “fact” of evolution.

    Below is the conclusion of the article. I will attach the links.

    I would like to hear your rebuttal on this article but keep in mind that the argument to delegate these contradictory findings to opportunities for new discoveries in evolutionary theory is not a convincing argument to me. These contradictions are direct challenges to evolution as a viable scientific theory. How much can you change the theory to fit the evidence until the theory is no longer a valid starting point ?

    The third link I posted below on animal-egg orientation also presents a good article in the same vane.

    Cheers !

    Naz

    #########################################################
    What false predictions tell us about evolution

    Ever since Darwin evolutionists have been certain of their theory. They hold that evolution is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt. Evolutionists arrive at this conclusion from a wide range of powerful arguments based on contrastive reasoning where evolutionary theory is compared to alternative hypotheses derived from the concept of independent creation. (Hunter 2014) Evolutionists have found these alternative hypotheses to be false, leaving evolutionary ideas as the only remaining possibility. This process of elimination, which traces back to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, is based on comparing scientific evidence with expectations derived from independent creation. Therefore the motivation, justification and truth claims for evolutionary theory entail metaphysical beliefs about independent creation.

    This raises the question of how evolution fares without the metaphysics. That is, how does evolution compare with the scientific evidence? Evolutionary theory holds that the biological world (and more generally the cosmos as well), arose from the interplay of chance and natural law. In other words, evolution holds that the species arose spontaneously. From a strictly scientific perspective, this is a high claim. It is perhaps not surprising that, setting the contrasting reasoning aside and focusing exclusively on the science, evolution’s fundamental predictions fail badly. The above sections reviewed several fundamental predictions of evolutionary theory, once held with great conviction, that have all been found to be false, much to the surprise of practitioners.

    Philosophers have debated the role and importance of predictions in the historical sciences, and how they are related to explanatory capacity. (Cleland 2011; Cleland 2013; Turner) The predictions described above do have strong implications for evolution’s capacity to explain phenomena. For most of these predictions, the falsification has been followed by one or more proposed theory modifications to accommodate the new data. These modifications are often vague and they cause the theory to lose its parsimony. Perhaps most importantly they refute evolution’s common cause argument and remove its so-called “smoking gun.” The evolutionist’s claim has been that in biology we find a wide range of observations that seem unlikely or bewildering, but that in a stroke evolution parsimoniously explains and makes sense of them. Evolution brings a consilience to the data.

    The above predictions illustrate that there is no such consilience. Evolution’s predictions, and associated explanations, do not make sense of the observations. Consider, for example, the pentadactyl structure prediction discussed above. In Darwin’s day the five-digit pentadactyl structure was observed in a wide variety of species. Why should the same type of structure be used for such a wide variety of tasks? Evolution’s common descent provided a single, simple explanation. The pentadactyl structure arose from a single common ancestor. The associated prediction is that the pentadactyl structure should continue to appear in species according to a common descent pattern. The failure of the pentadactyl structure to form this pattern does not merely represent a false prediction. This common cause argument had been celebrated for more than a century as a compelling proof text. It appears consistently in the literature and is one of evolution’s “smoking guns.” The falsification of this prediction means the loss of this compelling argument. And it means the introduction of non parsimonious explanations, calling for the pentadactyl structure to repeatedly evolve and disappear in various lineages, as the data require.

    Yet contrastive reasoning, evolutionists argue, prove that evolution is a fact. This illustrates the tremendous importance of the role of contrastive reasoning. If all we had was the science there would be no basis for believing the species have spontaneously arisen, much less that such an idea is a fact. But evolution is not a typical scientific theory. In spite of the consistent failure of fundamental scientific predictions, there remains no doubt amongst evolutionists that evolution is a fact. Its high standing is underwritten by extremely powerful contrastive proofs which render its scientific puzzles less crucial. Those puzzles are interpreted as research questions, not challenges to the fact of evolution. That fact, for evolutionists, has already been established by the philosophy and theology that support evolution’s contrastive reasoning. From a strictly scientific perspective, evolution is not a good theory.

    References

    Cleland, Carol. 2011. “Prediction and Explanation in Historical Natural Science.” Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 62:551–582.

    Cleland, Carol. 2013. “Common cause explanation and the search for a smoking gun.” Geological Society of America Special Papers 502:1-9.

    Hunter, C. 2014. “Darwin’s Principle: The Use of Contrastive Reasoning in the Confirmation of Evolution.” J International Society History of Philosophy of Science 4:106-149.
    Turner, Derek. 2013. “Historical geology: Methodology and metaphysics.” Geological Society of America Special Papers 502:11-18.
    #############################################################
    Links :

    https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/home

    https://www.discovery.org/p/hunter/

    https://evolutionnews.org/2020/01/new-research-on-animal-egg-orientation-shows-unexpected-diversity/

    LikeLike
29. derekmathias Says:

    
    January 11, 2021 at 5:59 pm

    “Starting with your last point, where you said that one third of scientists who accept evolution believe in God. Yes, I am aware of that, however, that view is contradictory to the central message of the scriptures. One who believes in God must believe in the authority and veracity of the scriptures. To throw out creation in favor of evolution poses some serious theological and logical problems that cannot be reconciled.”

    No, it doesn’t for literally BILLIONS of Christians. Even in the US, which is one of the most religious nations in the developed world, fewer than a quarter of Christians believe in a literal reading of Genesis (https://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx).

    How is that possible? Well, most Christians don’t believe the Bible is meant to be taken literally. Many believe it was written by fallible humans who captured the essence of Christianity but not the absolute truth. The gospels weren’t even written until DECADES after Jesus lived, and the OLDEST surviving full copies of the gospels are from 300+ years later. And even those copies are transcriptions of oral traditions that have been translated multiple times and copied countless times, so that meanings inevitably change and errors creep in. Comparisons of the oldest copies of the Bible with each other show literally thousands of differences between them, more differences than any later editions. So many errors and changes means it’s really not reasonable to think the Bible is inerrant (which is why few biblical historians do). And that’s BEFORE we get into how so much of the Bible should be interpreted, which is the reason there are tens of thousands of different Christian denominations, all of which disagree with other denominations on matters both trivial and critical, including the requirements for salvation.

    “Special creation is necessary for the teachings of the bible to make any logical sense. I do believe in a literal Adam and Eve and this is central to the basic doctrine of salvation which supersedes any discussion of science or biological evolution.”

    And that’s a problem, because the evidence just doesn’t support any of that. Specific to Adam and Eve, mitochondrial DNA passes from mother to offspring without recombination from the father, and it mutates at a regular rate. Using the mutation rate and tracking the mitochondrial DNA in different ethnicities back in time to a common ancestor, the most recent woman (dubbed “Mitochondrial Eve”) from whom all current women descended in an unbroken line lived about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. Note that this only represents the single surviving female lineage, not the first female human who ever lived. The woman was part of an already existing population. (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429904-500-found-closest-link-to-eve-our-universal-ancestor/)

    And using the steady mutation rate of Y chromosome DNA, we can trace back to the oldest common ancestor from whom all current men descended in an unbroken line. This leads to a man who lived between 237,000 and 581,000 years ago. Note that this only represents the single surviving male lineage, not the first male human who ever lived. As with “Mitochondrial Eve,” this “Chromosomal Adam” was part of an already existing population. (http://haplogroup-a.com/Ancient-Root-AJHG2013.pdf, http://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html)

    But this is just the tip of the iceberg. I have literally dozens of examples of clear evidence like this that shows the Earth and universe cannot possibly be 6,000 years old, nor could there have ever been a worldwide flood that destroyed human civilizations, nor could there have ever been an exodus in Egypt for millions of people for decades.

    None of this disproves the existence of God or Jesus, of course, but it does disprove a literalist interpretation of scripture. Perhaps God created the universe to evolve to the state where life finally became sapient, and two people at some point literally or symbolically became beings with souls. Who knows? But there are over a billion Christians who believe that. Is it not hubris to believe that your specific version of Christianity is right and the other tens of thousands are wrong? They think the same of you, you know.

    “Regarding these scientists, I can’t speak for what they actually believe but when challenged they would be hard pressed to intellectually hold to evolution and believing in a God apart from the scriptures.”

    But they DO. I’ve worked with many of them. They both accept the scientific evidence AND believe in Christianity…only they are theistic evolutionists or old earth creationists. They don’t interpret scripture literally because they see far too much evidence that contradicts that option. Thus, their approach allows them to reconcile the two just fine.

    “Furthermore, if these scientists can throw out genesis, then they can selectively start discarding portions of scripture which they do not find palatable.”

    But that is what ALL Christians must do in order to believe in the Bible. Otherwise, how else can one reconcile God being the only good being and all powerful, while he simultaneously condones and orders so many evil behaviors, like slavery and the brutal treatment of slaves?

    • Leviticus 25:44-46 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life.
    • Deuteronomy 20:10-11 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you.
    • Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

    Or contradictions like this:

    • John 1:18 No one has ever seen God.
    • Exodus 33:20 “But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”
    • 1 Timothy 6:15-16 God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see.
    • Contradiction: Genesis 18:1 The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day.
    • Contradiction: Genesis 32:30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”
    • Contradiction: Exodus 6:2-3 God also said to Moses, “I am the LORD. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty.”
    • Contradiction: Exodus 24:9-11 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of sapphire, clear as the sky itself. But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.
    • Contradiction: Exodus 33:11 The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend.
    • Contradiction: Numbers 12:6-8 he said, “Listen to my words: “When there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, reveal myself to them in visions, I speak to them in dreams. But this is not true of my servant Moses; he is faithful in all my house. With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the LORD.

    Or the possibility all those who make it to heaven will have their minds wiped of ALL their memories of their former lives on Earth:

    • Isaiah 65:17 “See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.”

    Or that free will doesn’t actually exist. Here are just a few examples I’ve mentioned before:

    • Proverbs 16:4 THE LORD WORKS OUT EVERYTHING to its proper end–even the wicked for the day of disaster. [He doesn’t just determine SOME things, he determines “EVERYTHING,” including what the wicked do.]
    • Proverbs 16:9 In their hearts humans plan their course, but THE LORD ESTABLISHES THEIR STEPS. [God even determines our very steps!]
    • Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its EVERY DECISION IS FROM THE LORD.
    • Proverbs 19:21 Many are the plans in a person’s heart, but IT IS THE LORD’S PURPOSE THAT PREVAILS.
    • Proverbs 20:24 A PERSON’S STEPS ARE DIRECTED BY THE LORD. HOW THEN CAN ANYONE UNDERSTAND THEIR OWN WAY?
    • Proverbs 21:1 In the Lord’s hand THE KING’S HEART IS A STREAM OF WATER THAT HE CHANNELS TOWARD ALL WHO PLEASE HIM.
    • Ephesians 1:5 He PREDESTINED us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS PLEASURE AND WILL.
    • Ephesians 1:11 In him we were also chosen, having been PREDESTINED according to the plan of HIM WHO WORKS OUT EVERYTHING in conformity with the purpose of his will.
    • Jeremiah 10:23 LORD, I know that PEOPLE’S LIVES ARE NOT THEIR OWN; IT IS NOT FOR THEM TO DIRECT THEIR STEPS.

    This is just a sampling of the MANY examples I have collected from the Bible where Christians must figure out a way to reconcile what they believe from what the Bible literally says. I’m sure you must just ignore most of the above passages, or you interpret them as not being literally true, or you add more to the narratives to make them sound more palatable…since I’m sure you couldn’t accept God being fine with beating slaves half to death, the Bible containing contradictions, or that humanity doesn’t have the free will to choose salvation or damnation. You see what I mean?

    “The majority of your previous argument focused on how evolution “predicts” the evidence that is seen in the fossil record when it comes to transitional species etc. … Well I found that interesting in that I never believed that evolution could do such things and always presumed (without doing the scientific leg work) that surely there were things that evolution did not predict or got completely wrong.”

    There is a huge difference between what a theory predicts vs. the details within the theory. For instance, the theory predicts that transitional forms absolutely must exist, because without them the entire theory would make no sense. But it DOESN’T predict which transitional fossils will be found, or when or how a particular feature evolved. Those are the details WITHIN the theory that start as hypotheses that are then either proved false or supported by the evidence. That’s true of EVERY theory in science. So yes, there are PLENTY of predictions within evolutionary theory that have been wrong…but those are predictions of hypotheses within the theory, not the predictions of the theory itself.

    To explain it as an analogy, if the police were to find a person who had been shot to death a dozen times, they could be highly confident that the person was murdered. They may not know who did it, nor when, nor why, etc., but those are details to be investigated and debated by the crime scene investigators. Some of the answers may never be determined, but the one thing that is clear is that the deceased was murdered. The creationist equivalent in this scenario would be someone claiming that because we don’t know who did it, we can’t conclude the victim was murdered, and thus it must have been an elaborate suicide by an invisible device that hasn’t been found yet. See what I mean? Sure, the creationist can put forth that hypothesis…but without some serious evidence the police aren’t going to take that claim seriously.

    “I would like to hear your rebuttal on this article but keep in mind that the argument to delegate these contradictory findings to opportunities for new discoveries in evolutionary theory is not a convincing argument to me. These contradictions are direct challenges to evolution as a viable scientific theory. How much can you change the theory to fit the evidence until the theory is no longer a valid starting point ?”

    Okay, I’ll rebut it. But to answer your question, if a theory can’t be changed to fit the evidence, it must be discarded. That is what happened to Newton’s gravitational theory, which was superseded by Einstein’s general relativity. (It’s also what happened to Lamarck’s hypothesis of evolution by acquired characteristics, which was superseded by Darwin and Wallace’s theory of evolution by natural selection.) The new theory MUST account for all the evidence of the previous theory AND do it better, with better supporting evidence.

    “Ever since Darwin evolutionists have been certain of their theory. They hold that evolution is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt.”

    Already this starts off poorly by referring to people who accept evolution as “evolutionists.” Is a person who accepts gravity a “gravitationalist”? Or a person who accepts germ theory a “germist”? No, those terms don’t make sense and neither does “evolutionist,” so anyone using that term does not instill one with confidence that they know what they’re talking about. To put it in terms that will likely resonate with you, if someone claiming to be an expert on the Bible starts out by saying “Two Corinthians” rather than “Second Corinthians,” they’ve lost a lot of credibility right there, right?

    But that’s not evidence against the claim, so let’s continue….

    “Evolutionists arrive at this conclusion from a wide range of powerful arguments based on contrastive reasoning where evolutionary theory is compared to alternative hypotheses derived from the concept of independent creation. (Hunter 2014) Evolutionists have found these alternative hypotheses to be false, leaving evolutionary ideas as the only remaining possibility. This process of elimination, which traces back to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, is based on comparing scientific evidence with expectations derived from independent creation. Therefore the motivation, justification and truth claims for evolutionary theory entail metaphysical beliefs about independent creation.”

    No, this is false. First, as I’ve pointed out before, the scientific definition of a theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not ‘guesses’ but reliable accounts of the real world” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory). Notice there is nothing to do with “eliminating” alternative hypotheses, but instead repeated confirmation through observation and experiment.

    Second, eliminating any number of false hypotheses does NOT make any remaining hypothesis true. This is because explanatory claims in science can only ever be proven false, NEVER true. This is called “falsification,” and it’s a bedrock of any scientific hypothesis or theory.

    Third, a hypothesis or theory MUST make testable predictions that could potentially prove it false. A process of elimination, as claimed in the paragraph, can only discard false claims, it cannot prove another claim true. Only with evidence supporting the testable predictions can we gain high confidence that a claim is likely true, and without that supportive evidence there is no way to gain that confidence. But even with all the supportive evidence in the world we can only have high confidence, NEVER absolute certainty.

    Fourth, evolutionary theory has NOTHING to do with creationism. It’s not a reaction to it at all. Well before Darwin, it was clear that one can purposefully breed different species, and that species that appear similar to other species tend to be geographically closer than more distant species, and that some traits pass on to offspring while others don’t, and that fossils are often radically different from living species, etc. It became clear even to 19th century naturalists, geologists, etc. that species aren’t fixed but instead changeable over time and under certain conditions. So the question they asked was, what would cause this? Notice how there is NO reference to a creator here at all. In fact, many of those naturalists, geologists, etc. were devoutly religious, and it BOTHERED them that species could change, which seemed to contradict scripture. But the evidence kept piling up, so they had to follow where it led without preconception. Eventually it led to a naturalistic explanation for all species…but that is not at all how it started out.

    “This raises the question of how evolution fares without the metaphysics. That is, how does evolution compare with the scientific evidence? Evolutionary theory holds that the biological world (and more generally the cosmos as well), arose from the interplay of chance and natural law.”

    Also false. Evolutionary theory refers ONLY to the formation of new species AFTER the first life appeared. It has nothing to do with abiogenesis nor cosmology. And metaphysics doesn’t enter into evolutionary theory at all.

    “In other words, evolution holds that the species arose spontaneously. From a strictly scientific perspective, this is a high claim. It is perhaps not surprising that, setting the contrasting reasoning aside and focusing exclusively on the science, evolution’s fundamental predictions fail badly.”

    Again false. First, the appearance of the first life is abiogenesis, not evolution. Second, as I pointed out above, evolutionary theory made NUMEROUS testable predictions (transitional forms, uniform architecture, mechanisms for changing that architecture, ancient Earth, etc.) that could have proven it false but that instead ended up being fully supported by the evidence. Again, there is NO WAY that creationism could have predicted the existence of transitional fossils like Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik, yet evolutionary theory REQUIRED that they exist. This is the sort of evidence that validates a theory.

    “For most of these predictions, the falsification has been followed by one or more proposed theory modifications to accommodate the new data. These modifications are often vague and they cause the theory to lose its parsimony.”

    And here it’s clear that the writer is making the same mistake virtually all creationists make: confusing the predictions of the theory with the predictions of the hypotheses concerning the DETAILS of the theory. For instance, because the fossil record is so thin, with fewer than 1% of all species being preserved, it’s not reasonable to expect every species that has ever lived to be found, and that means the specific evolutionary details of many specific features will never be fully mapped out. In such cases, conjecture is the best we can do…but we ACCEPT that it’s conjecture, and that’s why it’s vague. But the testable prediction is that transitional forms MUST exist, so those that we CAN find are powerful evidence in support of the theory. To date we have discovered HUNDREDS of transitional species in the fossil record. Here are many of the major ones: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

    “In Darwin’s day the five-digit pentadactyl structure was observed in a wide variety of species. Why should the same type of structure be used for such a wide variety of tasks? Evolution’s common descent provided a single, simple explanation. The pentadactyl structure arose from a single common ancestor. The associated prediction is that the pentadactyl structure should continue to appear in species according to a common descent pattern. The failure of the pentadactyl structure to form this pattern does not merely represent a false prediction.”

    First, evolutionary theory does NOT predict that all species must have a pentadactyl structure. That’s one of those hypotheses WITHIN the theory. However, it is one that DOES support the theory because we have multiple examples in the fossil record of the five-digit original structure EVOLVING AWAY in the fossil record. The evolution of horses is a great example, where we see the small, multi-toed Eohippus lose digits as we move up through the fossil record, until today’s modern horses have just ONE digit on each foot: https://www.minnano-jouba.com/images/Evolution+process+of+horses.jpg

    Furthermore, “atavisms” are genetic remnants that deactivated as a species evolved (because they no longer serve a survival function and thus it saves energy when mutations cause them to become smaller and eventually disappear), but can be “switched on” by a mutation that activates the long-dead genes. An occasional atavism for horses is the activation of the genes for those extra toes: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ThoZR437oic/VHsVawE3XMI/AAAAAAAAAMQ/EijMSvY2_8w/s1600/two%2Btoes%2B1.jpg. We humans even have atavisms, including the appearance of our primate ancestor tails: https://www.geekpr0n.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/lessthanhuman_featured.jpg.

    Thus, atavisms are among the many hypotheses within evolutionary theory that have turned out to be supported by the evidence.

    “If all we had was the science there would be no basis for believing the species have spontaneously arisen, much less that such an idea is a fact. But evolution is not a typical scientific theory. In spite of the consistent failure of fundamental scientific predictions, there remains no doubt amongst evolutionists that evolution is a fact. Its high standing is underwritten by extremely powerful contrastive proofs which render its scientific puzzles less crucial. Those puzzles are interpreted as research questions, not challenges to the fact of evolution. That fact, for evolutionists, has already been established by the philosophy and theology that support evolution’s contrastive reasoning. From a strictly scientific perspective, evolution is not a good theory.”

    Again false. If evolutionary theory weren’t true, then we would not expect all the testable predictions to be true. In fact, evolutionary theory is one of the MOST well-supported among ALL theories in science. Creationists can’t accept this, so they conflate hypotheses within the theory to the theory itself, they use current gaps in some knowledge to dismiss the entire theory, they make false claims about science, and so on. What they DON’T do is the one thing that would give creationism scientific legitimacy, and that is to provide testable predictions that could prove creationism false, and then provide the evidence that instead supports it. This is why well over 99% of life and earth scientists don’t take creationism seriously. Creationists just don’t do science.

    “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” — Theodosius Dobzhansky (geneticist)

    LikeLike

Leave a Reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ