Science and God Compatible?
A new book produced by scientific advisers to the government in support of evolution says science and religion, as two separate ways of human understanding, can be compatible and it is possible for one person to embrace both.
“Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience,” reads “Science, Evolution and Creationism,” published by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine.
Read about it here.
[From me]
To me the answer is for sure! God created the universe and however He chose to make it is His decision. I don’t believe in evolution myself but it wouldn’t shatter my faith if I found out that God created the world using evolution. I believe in a literal translation of the Genesis story. My belief is that God created Science so of course they are compatible.
What do you think?
Science confines itself to the study of the natural world. If you believe that God exists outside of the natural world then the two are completely compatible. In fact, there are a lot of scientists who have various faiths.
But if you make a claim that God has in some way interacted with the natural world then that claim becomes testable by science and, so far, all such claims have come to nothing.
It’s easy, if you say that God can do something observable then there will be plenty of people keen to test it.
It works the other way too; science can’t make any claims about the existence (or non-existence) of a supernatural being. The closest science can come to that is the study of the phenomenon of belief itself.
Whether science and God are compatible depends upon the God in question. Science is compatible with the deists God for example.
God as described in the Bible (when the Bible is taken as historically true) is not compatible with science, since history according to science (according to archeology, paleography, paleoanthropology, paleoclimatology, and others) does not fit the history according to the Bible.
The tools of science are constantly improving and scientists make new discoveries all the time. Thus science is constantly refined.
Science changes the literal interpretation of the Bible. That is, science affects what is interpreted literally and what is taken figuratively. The Church once believed quite certainly that the Sun revolved around the Earth by a literal interpretation of the Bible. More recently, some Christian denominations still teach that the Earth was created 6000 years ago and man was created on the 6th day of creation. The majority of denominations have abandoned this literal interpretation in favor of science.
The early changes in biblical interpretation were made kicking and screaming (kicking and screaming of “apostates” that were killed and tortured by the Church). More recently, the kicking and screaming has been confined to court cases and to public debate.
If the trends continue, maybe some day science and God will indeed be compatible.
Definitely too much fear of evolution. As if the existence of God depended on evolution being wrong. And if we let scientists prove evolution right, then God is dead. Shame.
I believe in a six day theory of creation, but like you said, if evolution were true, it wouldn’t rock my world.
If you were to concede that evolution is indeed the way God created man, what would you think of the story of Adam and Eve and how sin entered the world?
A3,
I don’t know. But I’ve never seen any credible evidence that Evolution is correct.
Kevin,
Whether there is evidence for evolution that you would consider credible is a different topic. I’m wondering about your statement that
Considering the hypothetical case that you offered, in which you find out that God created the world using evolution, I’m wondering how you would resolve evolution with your faith in the story of Adam and Eve and original sin.
Could you resolve the two, or would finding out that evolution is true shatter your faith after all? If you could resolve the two, how would you resolve them?
I have a feeling, I’m going to get labeled…
Since I don’t see the Bible as a book of science I think it’s a fools errand to test it against current understandings of science. Nor am I going to hold the Biblical authors to the same rigorous standards that I would a contemporary historian. Herodotus, the father of history, didn’t get it right either. Obviously, I’m not a hard literalist in my approach to the text.
Here’s my very limited stab at the subject. I figure that the Biblical writers should be read within their time period. Some scientific, historical, folk knowledge gets incorporated into the text. (It seems I don’t subscribe to the idea that God quoted the text to the human writers and the writers bring a bit of their own sensibilities to their work). I do think the Bible is pretty clear that our lives and world are not the result of us winning the cosmic lottery where billions of random events/substances/environmental factors combined to produce people.
I think that part of what’s going on in the the Torah and the Deuteronomic history is similar in some respects to an epic poem. I think the core question being dealt with is: what does it mean to be in covenant with God?
As for cosmology, science can’t agree on the nature of the universe either, so I don’t feel so bad. Is the universe expanding? If so, what is the cause? Is the expansion uniform? What is the shape of the expansion?
My own take on cosmology is that the universe(s) are somehow the result of God’s action. I believe that God is above/beyond the created order, but chooses to superintend it from time to time. Mainly I think that God is interested in us (for reasons known only to Him) and acts to perfect us ethically. I believe we are created and I believe we are flawed. I believe God is working to solve that problem. I think the Bible is less interested in whether we started out as mud pies on the bank of a river and more into the perfection of our being?
Kevin, after you’ve answered A3 I’d like to invite you (again) to put forward the problems you have with the theory of evolution by natural selection.
You’ve said before that you don’t find it credible but you’ve not said what it is you have problems with. I suspect that you’ve not actually taken the time to understand how the theory works and that your casual dismissal of it is a way of avoiding having to confront your interpretation of how we all got here. That’s a pretty blunt accusation, I know, but I make it because I’ve been guilty of exactly the same thing myself.
Also, you say you’ve not seen any credible evidence that Evolution is correct - what kind of evidence would you find compelling?
My problem with evolution is I don’t believe the world just happened. I just got back from the Chiropractor & was looking at a poster of the human body. It just didn’t come from nothing. There had to be creator.
If evolution is credible-show me the missing link. Scientists can’t even agree on global warming.
Thank you Kevin.
One of the most common misunderstandings about evolution is that it has something to do with the Big Bang. It doesn’t. In fact it doesn’t even deal with how life began in the first place. All it deals with is how living things cope with change over the generations.
Here is evolution in a nutshell:
When a creature reproduces its offspring are always different in some way. They mutate. Some mutations are not beneficial and the offspring don’t survive to reproduce while others have beneficial mutations and are able to have more offspring because of them. These beneficial mutations, however slight, get passed on to their offspring and, over time, a species gradually becomes better suited to its environment.
A good example of this are moths. Say you have a population of brown moths and one day some of them find themselves in a forest that has trees that have a more grey-ish bark. The birds are going to have a field day because the moths are going to stand out like sore thumbs against the bark of the tree. If the moths don’t get completely cleaned out and they continue to breed it’s quite likely that some of the offspring will be ever so slightly greyer in colour. When the greyer ones grow up their brown friends will be more likely to be eaten by the birds and so the next generation is more likely to have quite a few browney-grey moths. This will continue until pretty much all the moth population is nice and camouflaged when they sit on the bark of the trees.
It’s actually a really exciting process and if I still believed in God I would consider evolution one of his finest works.
So I teach at a university that’s run by the most conservative branch of American Lutheranism. As part of that job, I’ve learned about something that Luther termed “the paradox.” The idea as I understand it there is that God is so much bigger than humanity that we’re never going to fully understand God and that all truth is God’s truth, so we don’t have anything to fear by searching for truth.
That’s helpful for me in thinking about these issues, and I think that’s kindof what Kevin is pointing to when he says that it wouldn’t bother him if he found out that God had created the world using evolution. I’ve never understood this obsession among certain kinds of Christians with proving that evolution didn’t happen. As a teenager, I was taught that if I didn’t believe in a literal, 6-day account of creation, then I couldn’t believe that anything else the Bible said was true. Then I grew up and realized how ridiculous and intellectually insulting that is. As a pastor once said, do you really think God is going to ask your opinion as to how God created the world? I don’t think there’s a real tension between using the mind God gave me to be intellectually honest about the fact that there is compelling evidence for the theory of natural selection and believing that the universe didn’t just happen by accident. And I wish that more believers would stop worrying so much about it and get to doing the things that Jesus specifically instructed us to do - to care for the poor and oppressed and spread the good news that the kingdom of God is here.
Also, one of the coolest things about the scientific method is that it’s completely transparent and it’s totally open to criticism no matter who you are.
People make observations about the world and, once they’ve gathered enough information, they’ll form a hypothesis as to what they think might be causing what they’ve observed. Anyone is welcome to attack their hypothesis and big kudos goes to those that can find flaws in it. If flaws are found then people will try to adjust their hypothesis and resubmit it for criticism. If they fail it’s thrown out. If it stands up for long enough it eventually becomes a theory. Theories are still open to criticism and if you are able to disprove a theory you’ll probably become world-famous overnight.
It’s easy to sit back and criticise the scientific method (especially if you choose to focus on old, flawed hypotheses) but my challenge to anyone who finds it unsatisfactory would be to come up with a better method. If you can, you’ll also be world-famous overnight.
I think TIA sums up my belief best. I believe in God & His word reveals Him & His ways to the world. I don’t spend my time trying to refute every method & belief . There have been people who have done that to me-I guess they have too much time on their hands.
I spend my life trying to know God & serve Him better. If I spent my life trying to prove everything that was wrong I wouldn’t get to know Jesus. I see this among believers & non-believers.
Damian,
I leave room in my life for the supernatural. I’ve seen God do things that reason & the scientific method can’t explain.
OK dude. I’ll leave you be now. All the best Kevin - I genuinely hope all works out well for you.
Damian,
Where are you going? I enjoy your insight. You make me think & I need that.
Oh, sorry, I thought you were shutting the conversation down. My mistake.
Since God tells us we don’t know his timetable, why should we as humans think we can understand His six day timeframe. I had a wonderful professor in the biology dept. at Samford that basically said something along the lines that evolution (as Damian described it in post 10) could have been used as part of God’s plan of creation. He created all in His version of 6 days but species have changed over time. If we accept the literal 6,000 year-old view, how then do we explain dinosaur fossils? Are all scientists who find and study fossils making them up (trust me, I’ve had Bible study teachers claim this)?
In short, I agree with Kevin in that my God is bigger and more complex than I can ever understand and that’s okay with me. I don’t understand rocket science either but that doesn’t mean the shuttle doesn’t take off. My faith is big enough to have questions and be okay with not having answers.
At the same time, I agree with TIA that there are more important things Jesus called us to do…go and make disciples sound familiar? If we as Christian denominations and Christians in general would leave the silly stuff alone and focus on growing in our own walks, making disciples and meeting the needs of others, Jesus would be a lot happier with all of us.
BTW, Damian, that was probably the best description of evolution I’ve seen in a long time. I may have to file that one away to use with students some time.
There are thousands of top scientists who believe in Biblical creation.
Natural Selection works to some extent but that sure doesn’t prove the big Theory of Evolution, that we are the result of chance lightning charges striking the primeval ooze, creating the basic building blocks of life. To go from that act of faith to finish the evolutionary tree takes a lot of faith, more than i can come up with.
I accept the Bible account that God created the world in six progressive time periods. Each time period lasted an indefinite length.
That is up to God. He is in no rush and is not a part of time anyway.
I believe what God said that He created the KINDS of animals and that each was to reproduce after it’s own kind….. but not between. Could there be natural selection within that kind? I have no problem with that. That small part of Darwin is OK. Have as many Finch beaks as you want. Throw in all the dinosaur lizards you want, big ones, small ones. But they are still overgrown lizards that reproduce after their own kind, lizard.
However, when God made Adam, he created him perfect the first time, in the (spiritual) likeness of God. Then he created beautiful Eve. If God is really God, this was chump change for Him.
When I consider what it would take for the human eye to exist, evolution has no answer for me. I’ve listened to their theories and they sound silly, making huge leaps of faith. So many eye parts would have to gradually come together over millions of years with no purpose or function until they all came together to make the eye function. What guiding force motivated these parts? Mister Evolution? I asked an eye surgeon if the eye could have evolved into existence. He laughed. “No way!”
The Big Bang proves our universe had a beginning and implies a creator. Our orderly and intricate world and universe shouts at me, “CREATOR”! “The heavens declare the glory of God.” The many fulfilled prophecies in the Bible, stamp supernatural on it. The amazing person, life and teachings of Jesus Christ demonstrate to me, God in the flesh.
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”
Frank
Frank, my question has always been, “in the beginning of what?”
So far, the answer to my question seems to be that Christians, like TIA, OLM, and Angie for example, who are “not biblical literalists” (my label so as not to disappoint OLM
) don’t have a big problem reconciling evolution with their belief in Christianity.
Biblical literalists seem unable to talk about how they would reconcile their beliefs about the Bible with evolution, judging at least by their reluctance on this post to address the issue. Despite claims to the contrary, it seems that accepting evolution would indeed shatter their faith. The discussion about why evolution is true or false, vs. how evolution would affect their faith, seems to be a common maneuver for avoiding this difficult issue. To be fair, the maneuver is quite understandable and forgivable given the difficulty of the subject.
This goes a long way to explain Damian’s observation that Kevin (and I’ll add “and others”) don’t seem familiar with the basic tenets of evolution, and it explains why their denunciations of evolution don’t address its actual claims. They can’t afford to understand it because they have too much at stake: they risk discovering that evolution makes sense - which they believe is diametrically opposed to the biblical literalism at the root of their faith.
Tex,
All God was saying in Genesis one was in the beginning of us and of the universe we see. What else?
AAA,
If it is true that the current evolution being taught is true, that we are the result of chance events in a universe with no purpose and laws, that no intelligence was needed to bring this into being, if that is true, that kills my Bible and God and any faith I have. How is that for beating around the bush?
If that is true, I would have to agree with Friedrich Nietzsche:, that God is dead and we have killed him. Therefore, there is no meaning in life. No love, no truth, no morals, I should live only for myself. Mass murder is OK, if I can get away with it. Why not? Rape, lying, torture, genocide…….. Hey go for it fellows. Who of you are going to tell me I am wrong. What is wrong, anyway. Hey, I am God!
If you atheists were more honest, you would have to agree with everything I just said but who can live like that? And what is honesty anyway? Therefore you make up laws and go to war to protect you from atheists who live by the real conclusions of their FAITH, people like Pol Pot, Hitler (A devoted follower of Nietzsche), Stalin, Mao. These people put their atheism into action.
Atheists, respond! What have I not understood?
Frank, one doesn’t have to be an atheist to be a despotic fiend - pleanty of atrocites have been committed by those who professed a belief in a deity. All human societies have to have laws against behaviours which threaten the stability and cohesion of the group- atheists are no exception. To imply that we as a group endorse rape and murder is almost funny.
Damian- regarding adaptation to environment, the Australian aborigine is an outstanding example of a human type best fitted for survival in our very harsh climate and landscapes. Biologists believe that within 500 years, the white Caucasoids living here will have developed heavier brow ridges as a defence against the terrible glare of our sun. Any thoughts on this, anyone?
Francoise,
True, religious people have committed atrocities but they were going against what they claimed to believe. A Christian who would do this would be condemned by God. Evil is in all our hearts, including mine. I condemn their acts too. So what? What conscience does an atheist have and where does it come from? We Christians condemn evil, no mater who does it. Sin is sin.
Atheists have no set standards to hold them back, except what they choose to follow for their own purposes. One man can adopt one standard and another man can adopt a completely different standard. Which one is right? It is a flip of the coin. Survival of the fittest wins. Right?
By Darwin’s standards, the only reason Hitler and Stalin were wrong was that they didn’t win. Wait, Stalin did win because he got away with killing over 20 million of his own people. Atheism and evolution triumphed again.
But something down inside all of us says, “Hitler and Stalin were evil.” But what is evil? Who decides that? Is all this funny? I don’t think so. It’s sad. All I am doing is pointing you to the conclusions of what you say you believe, as Nietzsche was honest enough to do.
Human societies do have to adopt laws for self protection. Otherwise chaos reigns. But what is so wrong with chaos? Yeh! But where do those laws come from? Why is killing another person wrong if it suits my purposes and I can get away with it? Do you as a group endorse rape and murder? Not as a group, but what standard do you appeal to to condem it? Silence!
In the French Revolution it was “right” for the mob to cut off the heads of the aristocrats for any reason they chose and later the mob cut off their leader Robespierre’s head. He had no basis to tell them they were wrong for them to kill him other than he didn’t like it. Your rules are quite arbitrary.
In the last century atheism was responsible for over 100 million deaths but evolution should applaud this thinning out of our world. Would you like for your loved ones to be thinned out? Why not? They are just the chance results of millions of years of evolution and don’t matter anyway.
Atheism and it’s conclusions fleshed out is never funny, just sad.
Frank
Frank,
The options you offer are so extreme that I can’t find them credible. I feel like I’m reading you to say.
All Atheists = Stalin
All Atheism = The complete absence of morality/ethics
Which seems as ludicrious as saying:
All Anabaptists = the Munster Rebellion
All Catholics = the Spanish Inquisition
All Independant Churches = David Koresh and His Branch Davidians
God = the entity who was thirsty for the blood of every man, woman, child and animal of the Amelikites.
No Religion = No Morality, Ethics, Law
All Christians = Little Amway people trying to brainwash folks into their cult
Stephen Girard, one of the wealthiest men in US history was a confirmed atheist and a dedicated philathropist. His fortune was given away for the benefit of poor people upon his death.
Warren Buffett, a solid agnostic, made headlines for giving away an incredible fortune for the benefit of others.
It seems pretty reasonable to say that whenever a group of people live together, there is going to be law of some sort. There will be virtues, morals and other sorts of approved conduct.
If you are saying that atheism is anarchy, then I could not disagree more. If you are saying that atheism leads people to a state of nature where people will be club each other over the head willy nilly, then I could not disagree more. If we want to bring social darwinism into the picture, I’m not sure that US Christians would have a leg upon which to stand.
Frank,
Thanks for the direct response to my question. There is nothing about the process of evolution that precludes the hand of God. Some Christians who believe in evolution believe that God set the universe in motion in a way that evolution unfolded precisely according to His plan. Others believe that God had a constant hand in guiding evolution’s otherwise chance events. Possibly you don’t understand the basics of evolution, or possibly the theatrical response was another dodge, albeit a much more entertaining one
I’ll leave it to you to clarify if you care to and I’ll respond to your comments about morality in the mean time:
There is good evidence to suggest that humans (and some other primates as well - bonobos are probably the most notable non-human example) evolved a sense of morality. Unlike other primates, humans develop ethical norms, thanks to our more highly evolved language and reasoning abilities in addition to our sense of morality. The resulting ethics get passed down from generation to generation, and each generation builds on the ethics of the previous one. In our more recent history, as humans acquired writing skills, the passing along of ethics left a written record. The various books in the Bible are a few of the many examples of accumulated ethics (as well as myth, law, social norms, wisdom,. etc).
I doubt your sincerity when you say that you would kill and steal if you stopped believing in God (I hope I am correct in doubting that - but just in case I’m not, praise the Lord, Brother!
). Most people are born with an rough sense of morality which is then refined through nurture. I’m betting you are no exception.
Returning to my question, about how your faith would change if you came to accept evolution: the church once feared that accepting that the Earth was not the center of the universe would undermine faith. As time progressed, it became impossible for most people to maintain a belief that the Earth was the center of the universe. But accepting the science didn’t undermine faith, it simply required Christians to re-evaluate certain aspects of their faith. Christianity seems no worse for wear as a result. Why do you feel that the biblical creation story is fundamental to Christian faith?
Francoise,
I don’t think the Caucasoids will evolve heavier brow ridges. But they might one day develop Ray Ban Aviators with lighter glass lenses
One little man,
I didn’t say “ALL” atheists are……….etc.
I applaud “good” atheists who act in a humanitarian way. That is their choice and I am pleased and relieved they do. Hooray! Way to go atheists, to act in a way that makes you look like you are living by the “Golden Rule”. You are living better than many of my professing Christians are doing. Shame on us.
My question is, where does that inner compulsion to do good come from? It is contrary to “Survival of the fittest” and more in line with “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Now, who said that?
It seems you “nice atheists” want to be good people. I’m glad, but why? What standard drives you to live in a moral way in your atheistic universe of no morals?
…….Again Friedrich Nietzsche, your patron saint seemed to differ with you. He would not think my illustrations are extreme. In the 1800’s, he predicted that without God, the 20th century would be the bloodiest one ever and he was right.
What have I said that differs with the classic position of atheism? You may not like it but the illustrations I gave fit the template. It seems you want to live by the Christian ethics without God and accountability to him. Why?
Why do you distance yourselves from the atheistic tyrants I mentioned above? They are from your camp, not mine. True, atheism does not have to be anarchy but why be good? I’m glad you are but don’t see any reason for it other than your conscience is responding to the inner moral standards God placed in all of us. (Read Romans, chapter one and Mere Christianity by C S Lewis.) Also living a moral life is much most satisfying and gives you a lot more friends.
AAA,
I never said that I would kill etc if I did not believe in God. I meant that with my faith destroyed, every sin would be OK to do, not that I would do them. I have found that the Christian life is great even without a god (But I know He lives.)
If Darwinian evolution is true, there was no Adam, then Jesus’ words were false. Parts of evolution are true, that there are changes within species. No problem. The old earth is OK. Those and a few others do not conflict with the Bible. But to say Adam was the result of evolution, conflicts drastically with the Bible. “As in Adam, all die”, not, “as in Mr Neanderthal or in Lucy all die.” Sin entered the world through one man, not a chain of them. The misreading of the Bible to say the earth was the center of the universe was just that. Nothing in the Bible ever said that. So that argument is a red herring. Tying that to my accepting Darwinian evolution does not compute.
Frank
The fact that primates having a form of morals, reflects God to me, not evolution.
Mankind developed morals for a long time until the 20th century when many have found it very easy to ditch those morals.
Frank
Frank,
Christian here.
I’m no fan of Nietzsche. I have a hard time respecting a guy who thought the most powerful members of a society should dominate the weaker. I detested the watered down version of that philosophy we saw during the Reagan years in this country. Remember the “greed is good” we heard so much about? Lastly, I wonder how much of his philosophy was informed by his mental illness. Fortunately, I figure that atheism would be alive and well if Nietzsche had never lived.
However, if you want to look at an atheist I really respect, how about John Dewey? I don’t see Dewey contending for some sort of “dog eat dog” existence. Further, John Dewey thought that religion was an unreliable foundation for morality.
Further, I think you have to distinguish between atheists. For instance, the practical atheists among us who don’t look for a divine explanation for everything. Does anyone really believe that Apollo hitches up his chariot in the morning to drag the sun across the sky? Job found himself opposed to the religion of his day because he had done no sin to cause his suffering.
As for the golden rule, Socrates said this in the 5th century before Christ, “Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you.” The ethic of reciprocity crosses cultures, religions and time periods. Perhaps this is a good indication that it’s pretty solid truth? Leviticus points out that we should love our neighbors as ourselves.
As for atrocities committed in the name of God. It doesn’t take much to find passages like 1 Samuel 15.3 where God expressly orders those atrocities and then gets hacked off when Saul fails to carry out the atrocities as ordered. The story of God’s people doing God’s will is pretty bloody in our own Bible. Atheists don’t even have to look at crusades and inquisitions, the Bible presents some pretty unpleasant questions.
Bottom line, I’m not convinced that atheism leads to “Lord of the Flies”. It concerns me much more that I’m going to sit in Sunday School with some people tomorrow morning that would love to see a nuclear conflict in the middle east so that the rapture will hurry up and get here.
For what its worth, I think the fuel that drives atheism is a sadly typical lack of credibility from the church crowd.
Francoise,
I very much doubt the predictions of the ‘biologists’ regarding the brow ridges of white people. Firstly, with evolution, a new mutation have to be beneficial in such a way that it increases your chances of producing more offspring and, in this day and age, I can’t see any life-changing benefit for having heavier brow ridges. Secondly, humans are going global and for the foreseeable we’re going to be homogenising rather than specialising. As A3 indicated, we’re using technology to bypass evolution more and more. As we become masters of our environment evolution starts to take a back seat. The only reason I could see for the heavier brow ridges would be a by-product of cross breeding with aborigines.
Frank,
By what you’ve written in the last few posts I can see that you have very little understanding of what the theory of evolution is all about. I’ve already pointed out what evolution is and what it isn’t in comment #10. Your statements are a jumble of mixed and misguided polemic:
The Discovery Institute has compiled a list of 700 scientists who expressed scepticism with regard to Darwinian evolution. Many of those would qualify on anyone’s list as ‘top scientists’ and the fact that someone is sceptical about the process of evolution by no means makes them advocates for Biblical Creationism. Unless you have figures to back up this kind of claim you are being dishonest.
Also, if you think that something is more likely to be true because of the number of scientists who support it then you should find the theory of evolution extremely compelling.
Here you’ve mixed up abiogenesis (the beginning of life) with evolution. As I’ve mentioned before evolution doesn’t have anything to do with this in exactly the same way that the rules of baseball don’t discuss how the spectators should eat their hotdogs. Also, there is absolutely no faith involved in the workings of the theory of evolution. If you try to take it apart of find problems with it a scientist will never fall back on “well, it’s just what I believe”. Instead, it’s an accumulation of observations and facts - that’s how science is done.
Fine, I have no argument with what you believe. Believe me, there are a lot worse beliefs out there!
I truly don’t believe you’ve listened to their theories at all. Or, if you have listened to them you haven’t grasped it at all. Once again, no faith is required. If you feel slighted that I make this statement then I suggest that you write your interpretation of how evolutionary theory could account for eye development.
I’ll take it that you were treating this as separate from evolution but you’re making a huge jump thinking it implies a creator. If the current thinking is right then matter and time were created in the Big Bang. If time didn’t exist before the Big Bang there there was no ‘before’.
Right, that’s comment #18 addressed. On to the other ones…
Frank,
Oops! Sorry - forgot to close the first quote!
Heh, I’ve just re-read my last comment and where I write “Many of those would qualify on anyone’s list as ‘top scientists’” I actually meant to write “NOT many of those…”. Oh what a difference a ‘not’ makes eh?
Anyway, further to that paragraph, I came across the Clergy Letter Project
where 11,094 American Christian clergy of different denominations have signed a letter that states, in effect, that they reject creationism and intelligent design.
I have to admit that I didn’t expect this at all and I’m totally staggered. I also admit that the argument from popularity doesn’t prove a thing but I’ll definitely be pulling this one out the next time I hear that “There are thousands of top scientists who believe in Biblical creation”.
Take a look at it yourself and, if this causes some discomfort, I fully encourage you to fully investigate all aspects of the argument so at least you can make an informed decision.
AAA, Damien and others,
As to the thousand scientists, I misspoke and did not check my notes on that one. You are right about the 700. Forgive the slip.
I love talking with you guys. You make me think and make some interesting points. Thanks.
I will be out of pocket for awhile but will continue later. Bye for now.
Frank
Hey no problem Frank. Good on you and take care.
Frank,
Great talking to you too. See you back soon I hope!
Damian,
Thanks for posting the reference to the Clergy Letter Project! What a great find!
Thousands who understand that the universe exists, if that’s what you mean by “believe in creation.”
Only a few dozen who believe in creationism.
Ed,
Quite right! Even Michael Behe, senior fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, and probably one of the most well-known advocates for intelligent design, believes in evolution. Creationists often like to draw a distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Michael Behe accepts both as fact.
Add A Comment