I was at at a science teacher training day recently (new curriculum = erm….its time for a change = reinventing the wheel = increased workload) and I put the question to a science supervisor for our education board that it was a shame that the idea of creation or even its less religious brother ‘intelligent design’ was not even considered or discussed in science curriculums in Northern Ireland.
I did not throw verses from Genesis at him; I simply pointed out that surely it was not conducive to learning that we should be taught a theory as if it was fact, when there are people (respected present day scientists included) who did not believe that theory. Indeed there are well established scientists (who would not have the scriptural bias that I have) who have come to the conclusion that the complexity of life at a molecular level does more than point us to intelligent design, it leaves evolutionary theory without an answer to the conundrum that is called ‘irreducible complexity’ (I will explain that in a later post – yes, this is a series).
His answer……… “most Scientists in Britain accept an evolutionary understanding of life on this Earth, so therefore we must teach it as fact”.
This is the same guy (and he is a really nice guy by the way, just lost in his sin and blinded in his understanding like I used to be) who quoted:
“If we don’t teach students to think, then we only think we are teaching”
I am a creationist, and a scientist and a thinker (I hope), and it makes me very sad when a mindset that has no foundation in God’s word is blindly taught to pupils. Pupils, who on the most part do not have the knowledge to argue against what many of them find very strange – the idea that life is a meaningless drift of biological progression, when their souls (even when they have little or no interest in the bible) tell them otherwise. I am in my tenth year of teaching and I could probably count on one hand the number of pupils who preferred the idea of having evolved out of a pool of slime to the idea that they were wonderfully made.
How, ironic it was , on the same day, to ‘try out’ science games that contained the names of two revered scientists who were both creationists – who believed that the laws of nature that they studied and proved experimentally, had been established by the one true God and Creator of the Universe – Lord Kelvin (I passed his statue most days when I studied at Glasgow University), a brilliant physicist, inventor and engineer who throughout his life was an outspoken opponent of Darwin’s evolutionary theories.
There was also Isaac Newton, who I am hesitant to include because he held to certain heretical teachings, but who nonetheless is important to mention because behind all his science (mainly known for discovering the law of gravitation and formulating the basic laws of motion) was the conviction that God made the universe with a mathematical structure.
T
A Threefold Cord (is not easily broken) 
February 9, 2008 at 10:35 am
I’m a midwife, one of the things that amazes me about the birth of a baby is the way the baby rotates in the mum’s pelvis ready to be born – fearfully and wonderfully made!
February 9, 2008 at 1:38 pm
. . . and the scientific evidence in favour of creation or ID is?
February 9, 2008 at 6:28 pm
I can’t imagine how difficult it must be to be required to teach something so antithetical to your own beliefs. I don’t know what kind of freedom you have to speak up about them in class. Here in the “Bible Belt” it’s still somewhat allowed to answer if a student brings it up, and different schools use different combinations of evolution, intelligent design, and creationism. Sadly, it’s mostly evolution. But I encourage my own children to speak up in class about their own beliefs. As yet, they can’t be stopped.
February 9, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Do you encourage them to speak up about the evidence in favour of creationism? If so, what do they say?
February 9, 2008 at 11:44 pm
I will reply with another question – Can you prove that there is not a God! Of course you cannot.
Where is the evidence to disprove that divine intervention created and perpetuated life on this planet? Your faith is that evolution must be true because you cannot accept even the possibility of special creation; this refusal to accept such a possibility is not because you have conclusive evidence to prove evolution, but rather because you prefer to ‘believe’ in a theory that leaves no room for an alternative.
I cannot prove creation ‘scientifically’ anymore that you can prove evolution scientifically.
We both have a bias; mine means that when I am made aware of the incredible amount of information present in and processed by a single cell, using irreducibly complex mechanisms that would be deemed a revolutionary work of genius in a materialistic setting, I see the hand of God. You interpret the same phenomenon in a naturalistic, evolutionary framework and come up with a different conclusion.
I will not pretend that what I believe does not have presuppositions. I will fully accept that the Bible is my starting point. Will you admit that it is your naturalistic presuppositions which exclude the possibility of divine creation in your understanding?
Here is something else I believe. I believe that I am a sinner and that I cannot be accepted by my creator on the basis of my own merits, but only by the sacrifice provided by God, when the Lord Jesus died on the cross – He was punished instead of me to restore my relationship with Him – my creator, my Father, my King. This is the message of the Bible, right from Genesis (the creation chapter) to the end of the book, and it changed my life.
February 10, 2008 at 9:08 am
“I will reply with another question – Can you prove that there is not a God! Of course you cannot.”
Why on earth do you make this an either or question? That is making this issue into a false dichotomy.
There are billions of people world wide who believe in a god and accept the scientific evidence that supports evolution. Did you know about this;
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/clergy_project.htm
So there are lots and lots of religious people who don’t attempt to deny huge swathes of scientific evidence – why do you?
Next you talk of proof. You teach science and yet don’t seem to know how science works at a very basic level.
Science does not work by finding one fact to prove something. If you want to continue claiming this then perhaps you can give us an example of this kind of thing from another branch of science to back up your claim.
Let me give you an idea of the sheer volume of the evidence you appear unaware of.
Here are a few (29) lines of independent evidence all of which support the Theory of Evolution;
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
My own favourite is ERV’s.
When science turns up such huge swathes of evidence, any one of which could show evolution to be wrong, and instead we find that they all support evolution, then science starts to call evolution a theory and not a hypothesis. Just like quantum theory for example.
Whilst I have shown your line of argument about “proof” does not sit in the realms of scientific debate, lets take your argument forward anyway, it won’t take long;
Logically I can point out that you can’t prove that Leprechauns can’t exist but presumably don’t want the rainbow theory of the origin of the universe taught as science.
Yes of course people have biases. My only bias is to follow the evidence. Evidence that you didn’t even seem aware of, very odd for a science teacher.
Why don’t you take the view that your god is so amazing he only had to set things up and then evolution did the rest – why wouldn’t you think this?
“I will fully accept that the Bible is my starting point.”
As I said, my bias is to follow evidence, my reason is that this approach has been shown to be reliable and productive throughout human history, it works. It does not end up in me denying or contradicting any evidence.
What is the reason for your bias? You didn’t give one but I would be interested to hear it.
“Here is something else I believe. I believe that I am a sinner and that I cannot be accepted by my creator on the basis of my own merits, but only by the sacrifice provided by God, when the Lord Jesus died on the cross – He was punished instead of me to restore my relationship with Him – my creator, my Father, my King. This is the message of the Bible, right from Genesis (the creation chapter) to the end of the book, and it changed my life.”
Good for you. I showed earlier that huge numbers of people believe in god and don’t feel the need to deny the evidence in favour of evolution.
So getting back to the question I politely asked you twice before;
What evidence for creation (I’m not asking for proof, just some evidence that positively indicates it was your god, something along the lines of the 29 evidences I link to above) do you discuss with the kids?
February 10, 2008 at 2:10 pm
The letter from the clergy linked to above would not have been and still would not be endorsed by any Bible believing Christian.
“Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook.”
Virtually all Christians have and still do not only accept the Bible as authoritative in not only faith and practice but also so far it goes in relation to science and history also. There claim is verifiably false in terms of theology and history.
Furthermore they erect a false straw man argument when they say the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally as they would a science textbook..this is a deceitful false argument which casts aspirtions on those of us whom no doubt would be viewed as neanderthal ignoramuses…..Bible believing Christians read the Scriptures as they were meant to be read and reflecting the genres it is written in, some is literal, some is poetical, some symbolic…the Creation narrative of Genesis 1 & 2 is clearly and almost universally viewed as historical narrative.
JP
February 10, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Hi JP,
Can you back any of these claims up with any kind of evidence? I showed you mine – people can go and look at the links for themselves.
Please verify your assertion in terms of “theology and history”.
PS you seem to have ignored everything else I said.
– – –
Lets ask again;
What positive evidence in favour of creationism should be “discussed with the kids”?
February 11, 2008 at 9:22 am
Erm…..design? The fact that many awesome creatures we see today would not have survived if it had taken them millions of years to evolve? The camel for instance…..lets say its feet did not develop their soft pads for a while. Well, then it would not be able to travel easily on the sand. Or its unique facial features to block out the sand. The bee- where did it learn to do its honey dance? If it took a long time to work it out then not enough pollen would have been found ……….these may seem simplisitc arguments to you and indeed I am no scientist. But if you simply sit back and look at the physical evidence around you will se design. As for backingit up- Have you read anything by Profs Andy Macintosh and Stewart Burgess, to name a couple of prominent Christian scientists?
My mum was a science teacher and she taught evolution as the theory it is, rather than solid fact which it is not.
On another matter altogether, you ask why we make an issue of creation when ‘many who believe in god accept evolution.’ My answer? 1- I am always wary of those who claim to believe in God (with a capital G) but will not accept scroptures account. 2- This goes way deeper than simply was it/wasn’t it. Our concern is that evolution denied God’s existance.Explain away our origins and take the need to believe in and obey God away/. These arguments are going to lead a lot of people to hell. You are probably reading this and thinking ‘ what a load of rubbish’ and I know i will not change your view point so I won’t even try. I am justtrying to show you that there is far more at stake here than the priving of ID and evolution. Oh and on the subject of evidence, there is plenty of historical evidnce that the scriptural accounts of many things are true. Food for thought. Anyway, my wonderfully created baby needs some attention now :)
February 11, 2008 at 11:30 am
I see.
You seem unaware that the Theory of Evolution shows how design arises without a designer. This simple fact negates the argument you are making.
The fact that evolution does this is pretty amazing and counterintuitive but that what the evidence in the natural world shows us. Many people of faith see this as one of God’s crowning glories. How the world is set up so that this happens naturally strengthens many people’s faith. It doesn’t for me, but I can see how that happens.
Yes camels do vary and those with better survival traits do better than those without – that is how natural selection works after all.
Why couldn’t camels say half as well adapted live in less harsh conditions?
The honey bee dance is pretty well explained by evolution – are you unaware of the research done in this regard? Who told you it shows evolution to be false? Someone is telling you lies.
Would you like some recommendations on basic evolution theory? After all, if you are going to argue it isn’t true you did at least ought to understand the basics of what it is.
The three basic things are –
Variation – your baby is not an exact copy of you.
Natural selection – not everything breeds successfully and this is in part thanks to there genetic make up and how this interacts with the world around them.
Genetics – traits are passed down the generations.
That’s the basic theory – which bits of that do you have a problem accepting?
I went to see Macintosh in York not long ago – I was very disappointed – I wrote up the details of his talk and the many errors and ommissions in it here;
http://cogitatute.blogspot.com/2007/10/meeting-prof-mcintosh-free-speech-and.html
His two main false claims were about the fossilisation process for fish ( I list many papers which directly contradict his claims ) and in the evolutionary pathway for birds lungs ( I list one pathway in my blog entry ).
Do you think he doesn’t know these claims are false ( in which case he is not very competent is he ), or he does know and is lying? I’m not sure which.
Most of the rest of his talk was make up of logical fallacies – I do go through it line by line so please feel free to show where I have gone wrong.
Please feel free to make any comments there or here.
I do understand your motivations. In my opinion this motivation doesn’t make lying about the evidence OK.
Wanting something to be false doesn’t justify denying the evidence. Not by my godless ethics anyway.
I would be genuinely interested to see your evidence that the scriptures are true.
– – –
I’ll ask again for the fourth time now – what positive evidence is there for creation that we should discuss with our kids in science classes?
(Claims of design ignore the basic fact that evolution shows how design arises without a designer)
February 11, 2008 at 11:31 am
oops no ability to edit for typos -sorry.
February 11, 2008 at 11:38 am
psi….
Evidence?
Go to any theological seminary, or library anywhere and read anything by anybody written prior to the evolutionary revolution and you will see that the presupposition of all Christians has been in accordance with what I say. Can I provide documentary evidence that I am correct? No more so and no less so that I can provide documentary evidence that water is wet…it is the presupposition of Christian humanity in all ages prior to the evolutionary revolution, and is still maintained by the vast majority of evangelical Bible believing Christians….the doctrine is referred to as the infallibilty of Scripture, or inerrancy.
The last 160 years has seen the rise of the new view that the Bible must be harmonised to science but until Darwin came up with his theory the Bible was accepted as authoritative in relation to science, history, ethics and anything else, that it speaks of. It is not authoritative on mitosis, sublimation nor on Thermodynamics because it does not speak on these issues.
What the scientist does not understand or does not wish to hear is that back of our committment that the Scriptures as authoritative, is our committment to the God who is perfect in knowledge because he is the source of all things, therefore since the Bible portrays itself as the Word of God it of necessity must be perfectly accurate in everything which it asserts. This is what separates us from a blind kind of faith in a document, we only revere the document because of the author.
Therefore those who would sign the above referenced document are making a statement not only about the Bible but also about God Himself..they are saying either a) He doesn’t know stuff, or b) He has said stuff that is false – both would be defined by historic Christianity as blasphemy.
Sure enough the Bible is not a science textbook, but when scientific theory conflicts with the correctly nuanced interpretation of Scripture then the theory is wrong. Emperical Science has never nor will it ever conflict with Scripture. Archaelogy findings and honest historical investigation has never and never will conflct with Scripture because all these disciplines are merely observations of a God created reality. Indeed when the German Higher Critical movement of the 19th century decided to demythologise the Scriptures and harmonise them with science they too came up with theories, a great number of them have now been jettisoned even by liberals as embarassingly false.
I have absolutely no fears whatsoever that science will at sometime disprove the Bible – by faith I believe such a thing is completely and totally impossible.
I do not interact with your other points because I am not a scientist, my interest is in theology, and my point was to point out that anyone who signs the aforementioned document is signing a document which is simplistic at best, deviously false at worst, and one which displays an amazing ignorance of Historical and Biblical Theology.
JP
February 11, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Hi JP,
Thanks for this. We seem to be talking at cross purposes. Telling me that other people agree with you isn’t evidence. I don’t say that you should believe in evolution just because lots of people do. I can give you evidence – see above.
In fact this kind of argument of your is a logical fallacy called the “argument ad populous”.
I was asking for evidence that the bible is literally true (or should I say your particular interpretation of your particular translation).
A list of people/the types of people who agree with you does not make it true. Telling me how sure you are it is true does not constitute evidence either.
Do you have some actual evidence that it is true?
Re your water comment – science could help a lot with this, we could define water chemically and describe a way to make it from hydrogen and oxygen. We could describe how to test it. We could agree a definition of wetness in some way and then show the methods used to test this.
These thoughts could then be peer- reviewed to try to spot any holes in them and then the methods and results could be independently reproduced and verified (or not) in laboratories around the world. That would count as evidence in the normal meaning of the word.
Put it another way – If you were to give me your best reason for thinking it is all true in order to convince me – what would that be. And yes I do think rationally so just saying that it is so is not convincing.
What would you tell me?
– – –
Still waiting for any kind of positive evidence in favour of creation to discuss with kids in science class.
February 11, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Begging your pardon sir or madam but within the framework of my comments , I am presenting exactly the same level of evidence that you presented in one of your points above which is the only one I am commenting on- you stated
“There are billions of people world wide who believe in a god and accept the scientific evidence that supports evolution. Did you know about this;
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/clergy_project.htm
The evidence you presented is a list of “clergy” who make assertions about the Bible and God…I have pointed you to literally hundreds and thousands of books and authors who presuppose precisely the opposite to your evidential list. So “argument and populous” is equally your own logical fallacy.
I’m not out to prove anything to you or convince you of anything I’m providing evidence that your above statement is hyperbole – “millions of people” you claim, and you surprisingly, for such a convinced scientific person, present as evidence a document signed by at best 11,183 people I believe – hardly convincing is it. Not very scientific?
Again I say I am not trying to convince you of anything I’m just pointing out to anyone that’s interested that you yourself are quoting and providing misleading and fallicious evidence regarding the amount of people who synergise evolution and faith in God.
And as to your opening comment to me, please note I have not actually interacted at all with you concerning evolution…so beat that drum against somebody else.
Can I also say that your attitude has come across as being extremely condescending throughout this discussion. Please cut out the arrogant comments such as “still waiting for any kind of positive evidence…” Perhaps some people have other things to do some of the time, give them time to comment.
JP
February 11, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Hi JP,
It’s Mark,
My comments about religious folks were not given as evidence of any kind in support of evolution.
I think I misunderstood which of my points you were addressing.
So you don’t accept that there are many many religious folk who accept evolution – that’s what your point is? Ok.
Catholics? Anglicans? Shall I list more religions that don’t deny scientific evidence? Is this really a contentious point at all?
Thanks for the advice on how I come across.
Please note that I keep on putting the key question on the bottom of my posts to try to stop it getting lost in the other points.
like so;
Anyone got an positive evidence in favour of creation that we should be discussing with kids in science class?
February 11, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Hi, Psiloiordinary, T here,
Now that I have the time this evening I will address your question:
‘Anyone got an positive evidence in favour of creation that we should be discussing with kids in science class?’
…….in my next comment – which I will post tonight (I am looking after my children at the moment). I will also address other comments you have made, like whether I, and other scientists a lot cleverer than me, do actually understand ‘…..how science works at a basic level’.
T
February 11, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Mark
Sorry to be troublesome but you are still permeating straw men arguments and until scientists stop doing this we will get nowhere.
“Catholics? Anglicans? Shall I list more religions that don’t deny scientific evidence? Is this really a contentious point at all?”
I know no Christian who does deny scientific evidence.
As you know fine well the point we deny is that evolution is evidenced by empirical research, and we are not on our own. I am extremely glad that drug research etc. does not proceed on the same basis as most biological scientists proceed in relation to origins, if it did they would be killing people left right and centre. As T above has pointed out there are many eminent scientists who agree with us. We are not dumb idiots and “flat earthers”, and scientists need to stop treating us as if we are, I myself have two third level qualifications including a BSc at honours level, so do us the favour of treating us with at least some respect.
As for your assertions regarding Catholicism and Anglicanism I think respectfully this displays again a certain lack of understanding on your part. For a start historically Catholicism places Church Authority (i.e man’s thoughts) as an equal and parallel guide in all things. Anglicanism is widely influenced by the old fashioned Higher Critical movement of the 19th century and has de facto left the Bible as their sole authority. So really even the two groups you quote are pretty irrelevant to the discussion we are having.
Now when you consider the many millions of evangelical christians around the world, millions in China alone, then you may well find that our friends in the website you quote are in a very small minority of those who see no problem harmonising.
So, yes it is an extremely contentious point. And the fact you think it is not merely points to a genuine lack you have of actual understanding of the issues involved or an incredibly dismissive attitude.
JP
February 11, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Hi JP,
Am I correct in interpreting you to mean that although these folks call themselves Christians, because they don’t think the bible is inerrant they don’t count as christians? Please correct me if this is wrong.
That would certainly make my point false – in a rather strange way. Moving goalposts anyone?
Surely you don’t deny that many millions who call themselves christians do accept the scientific evidence which supports evolution?
Let’s be clear – I am not denying that there are also millions who do think any evidence which contradicts the bible must be false.
– – –
If you don’t deny any evidence then what about the evidence for evolution I linked to earlier?
What about the points I made about Macintosh earlier – don’t these count as denial?
– – –
How does the moon being a light on its own merits as it where, and not simply reflecting the suns light, fit in with your view?
How about the birds blood cure for leprosy (Leviticus I think) – it doesn’t work – fit in with your view?
– – –
Hi T,
I look forward to your reply. Please don’t forget my point about your request for one bit of proof and the 29 independent lines of evidence I linked to. I look forward to seeing some of the positive evidence in favour of creationism which we should discuss with kids in science class.
Why not tell me what you think about the two errors(?) made by Macintosh.
Regards,
Mark
February 11, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Just thought it important to say that I appreciate the chance to discuss these issues with you folks.
Most site like this strictly censor any commentors that don’t agree with them.
Please feel free to comment away on my blog – a contrasting view always helps the debate along.
February 11, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Mark
Just for fun let me add some more conclusive “flaws” in the Bible which are obviously unscientific….
The turning of the water into wine…..chemistry?
The floating of an axe head….gravity?
The crossing of the Red Sea…..hydraulics, gravity?
The plagues in Egypt……biology, migration patterns?
The disease on Moses hand, now you see it now you don’t…..magic??
Jacob’s bizarre breeding programme for spotted sheep……
And last but not least the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus Christ….?
Scientifically provable? absolutely not, explainable by scientific investigation, absolutely not?….historical fact? Yes it’s called the supernatural that thing that scientists cannot countenance…..and every religion I know of believes in that, apart that is from anybody who put there name to the list above! They must have a lot of holes and scribbled out bits in their Bibles.
As for your examples.
What does the moon look like to you? A light or a mirror, does the Bible say the moon is a light “source” or just a bright thing in the sky? Remember the Bible is not a science textbook it is to explain things to people, the main lesson is that God made the two “lights” it does not explain what they were because it did not need to…that was up to us to find out and so science has empirically proven by bringing back rocks etc. that the moon is not made of cheese, and that it is a reflector not a source. No problems for me here. Neither does the Genesis account tell of the fact that not everything that swims in the sea is a fish, it doesn’t mention cetaceans or seals, or penguins….but that is not its purpose.
Bird’s blood and lepers – nothing at all to do with healing the leper but making him ceremonially clean under the Old Covenant Religous laws. Lepers were healed in the Bible but by supernatural means.
“Am I correct in interpreting you to mean that although these folks call themselves Christians, because they don’t think the bible is inerrant they don’t count as christians? Please correct me if this is wrong”
My opinion would be that it is difficult to call yourself a consistent Christian if you do not approach the Scriptures the way Christ did. It is clear that Christ believed the Scriptures were infallible and without error and that they were in totality the Word of God. However that was not my intention, my intention was merely to point out that the two groups you mention are atypical of 2000 years of Church History and I would say atypical of the majority of Christians by any definition even today in their approach to evolutionary theory. Even the Catholic church is very much unsure as to what it thinks on this matter.
JP
February 12, 2008 at 2:36 am
Mark,
You stated:
‘I will reply with another question – Can you prove that there is not a God! Of course you cannot.”
Why on earth do you make this an either or question? That is making this issue into a false dichotomy.’
This was not meant to represent a dichotomy, any more than not being able to prove that Leprecahuns exist proves that current evolutionary understanding is not true. It was simply a point to bring you to the point that you wish to bring me to – that I cannot use science to prove that life was divinely created any more than you can use science to prove that there is no God.
You also stated:
‘There are billions of people world wide who believe in a god and accept the scientific evidence that supports evolution.’
I am aware that many people believe in God and also accept evolution – this is called ‘theistic evolution’, which I would argue against theologically, because I take the position that their position is not consistent with the biblical historical record of creation, and as a result, other connected theological beliefs. However, it is important to note that most of this group will not accept the Bible as their sole authority in interpreting the natural world around or indeed in matters of theology either – I do. This is based on the authority that God gives to His scripture when he writes:
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2 Timothy 3:16
A minority of people, mistaken I believe, would cite the word of God as their sole authority but also accept evolution – I will address this issue in a later post.
You also talked about, ‘…….. huge swathes of scientific evidence…..’ and ‘……sheer volume of the evidence’ and wondered why I denied this or seemed unaware of this. I really do not deny the vast amount of research and facts that have been considered by evolutionists, you simply assumed this – what I do not accept is that it is conclusive evidence for evolution, but rather is conjectured or extrapolated to fit within an evolutionary framework.
Thank you for your link. I will admit that I have not had time yet to survey it comprehensively, although I doubt that I would find anything I have not encountered from evolutionary teaching, if not specifically, then certainly as a group or type of evidence. Here are some links that examine how the same evidence is interpreted differently within a biblical creation framework:
The following link addresses the phenomenon of whales with hind limbs:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/whale_leg.asp
And this of vestigial organs in general:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/446.asp
They are only two examples, but surely one has to admit that there is more than one possible answer to the evidence that is presented.
If I had opened the link you provided and discovered observable evidence of the plethora of transitional creatures whether fossiled or currently living that you would expect but which are absent, then I might have evidence of evolutionary process on this planet. If someone could categorically demonstrate that irreducibly complex biological mechanisms were logically possible within the realms of chance, I would have to concede you had a point. If genetic change could be shown to be an upward accumulation of more information rather than merely an information downgrade or shift then I would admit that evolution was possible genetically. If natural selection could be observed to produce another species rather than a variation of a species then I hope I would be willing to accept that the evidence was very strong in favour of an evolutionary history. As it stands that evidence is missing and I hope to examine in a later post, the problems that modern fossil evidence and molecular science presents to Darwin’s theory.
At this point I wish to address the conviction you have of my scientific incompetence:
‘You teach science and yet don’t seem to know how science works at a very basic level.’
I will not address this personally, because I am in good company. Your comment also addresses the abilities of eminent scientists past and present ,who believed that God had supernaturally created the Earth and the entire Universe, and who also employed scientific technique and obtained measurable results, which they repeated and tested until the results they observed were shown to be consistently repeatable with all variables accounted for. The results they obtained were obtained in real time and observable and in the case of Isaac Newton for example, the laws he observed and tested became the principles that much of physical science was based upon and still is based upon. The man behind the Apollo moon mission was the creationist rocket scientist Wernher von Braun. Another creationist, Jules Poirer, designed some vital navigational equipment used in the space program. They both believed in supernatural creation, but also surely understood the realm of science that they worked in, well beyond a basic level.
Let me now address the issues of presuposition or bias that I talked about. You stated:
‘Science does not work by finding one fact to prove something. If you want to continue claiming this then perhaps you can give us an example of this kind of thing from another branch of science to back up your claim.’
I agree with you that real time science, where measurable entities are observed and nothing is left to assumption and variables are eliminated from the testing process, does not work ‘…by finding one fact to prove something’. However, in the realm of evolutionary science were one is working with information that happened in the past, assumptions have to be made – it is not lab science. Let me give you a few quotes by evolutionists that will admit this fact:
‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic’
‘We cannot identify ancestors or “missing links,” and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee (another evolutionist) is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions’
‘(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal’
(all quotes taken from the following link: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=455)
As I have already pointed out, unless each statement of evidence that is used to support evolution can in no way be shown to have another possible explanation in a creation framework, then it should not be presented as irrefutable fact. It does not matter how much evidence is available, it must be categorized no higher than it extends on its own merit, not promoted to the level of conclusive proof on the basis of sheer volume.
To answer your question of what evidence I would (like to, but it is not on the syllabus) discuss in favor of supernatural creation , I will only give you a few brief examples. I also must respect the level of understanding of my students, and will certainly not be discussing protein functional redundancy in any great detail, but there are areas of science that these kids should be given the right to assess and discuss from both angles:
Example 1: The phenomenon of anatomical homology as evidence of a common ancestor, or evidence of a common template by a designer because it is a superior design to other designs – and the requirements of life are similar for similar organisms.
Example 2: Discussing the ‘irreducible complexity’ of the ‘simple cell’. This may seem to be to complex for the majority of secondary pupils – however, an understanding of the irreducible complexity of a mousetrap is sufficient to at least consider on a basic level the simple essence of a phenomenon that perplexes even the most intelligent evolutionary thinkers.
Example 3: Looking at the evidence for the dating of the Earth’s rocks and examining the assumptions that must be made. Evidence of rocks that have been shown to be falsely dated should be considered to highlight the problem of formulating an age for the Earth. It would also be useful to consider whether fossils should be used to support rock age and visa versa.
Example 4: Examining the documented ‘missing links’ – the lack of any true, transitional organisms (never mind the vast numbers you would expect) is evidence that Darwin’s theory is at least not backed up by the recorded fossil history (the Archaeopteryx is not so popular a missing link now apparently), by his own definitions of what evidence should be present.
Example 5: Looking at creatures or parts of creatures that do not fit into the logic of evolutionary development and ask the kids to come up with intermediary creatures or parts that would have had enough advantageous features to merit evolution to the next stage (this sounds like fun as I love the amazing creatures that seem to have magically appeared from an evolutionary point of view, e.g. the eye, the amazing navigation system of the turtle, the amazing defense mechanism of the bombardier beetle, the pistol crab……the list is a very long one.
You also stated:
‘What is the reason for your bias? You didn’t give one but I would be interested to hear it.’
The reason for my bias or my presupposition is simply the authority of scripture and the truth that is contained in it. People think that truth should be interpreted independent of God, but His word states:
‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Psalm 111:10); ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (Proverbs 1:7). ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).
The bible defines itself as the word of the creator of the Universe and presents an assessment of humankind and of God, their separation from Him by sin, and of the reconciliation of mankind with God. This theme is consistently presented from the beginning of its many separate books to its last, even though it was penned by different authors over a period of time. Yes, some parts can be misinterpreted, and some parts can be rejected by those who believe they are above their creator. It has stood the test of time in being shown to be historically impeccible but it is the message contained in that history that is crucial to its understanding – one of a creator who reaches out in love to a people that has turned its back on Him and provides redemption – through the Lord Jesus Christ, a true historical character whose mission on this Earth was foretold as far as several thousand years before His arrival.
To conclude, I fully accept your reply to my testimony of what scripture has done for me ….. ‘Good for you’, for I would not wish simply to appeal to my personal experience to define the message of creation, of the fall of mankind into sin and separation from its Creator and of that Creator’s plan to redeem all who would turn from their sinful ways and follow Christ. Rather I must appeal to the authority of God’s word:
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
John 14:6
I would like to leave you with a few links that will allow you to further consider the ‘other perspective’:
http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html
http://www.arn.org/docs/berlinski/db_deniabledarwin0696.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/bias.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/506.asp
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/434//
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/appendix1.asp
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_caic/
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_creationsci/
I AM NOW CLOSING THE COMMENTS FOR THIS POST.
T