Creationism's damage to Christianity

[Lightshine]

Yes, satan is big and evil and attacking Christian because its right.

Now Carico, if you're getting these messages, make sure that you come to or come back to the Religion and Spirituality section of Yahoo Answers, I'm sure your point of view on a lot of subjects will benefit the community there.

[Carico]

An interesting YouTube video, found on Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy.

It's an oxymoron. If people believed Jesus in the first place, then they would also believe that God created the world. But since they really don't believe Jesus, then they don't believe that God created the world either.

[humanguy]

Wow! This place is great! Now all I have to do is find the bar...

[Pseudonym]

Wow! This place is great! Now all I have to do is find the bar...

Don't say "bar" around Emery.

[Carico]

Wow! This place is great! Now all I have to do is find the bar...

Yeah, I know. Those who try to escape reality and avoid the truth need a drink! I would too if I believed that animals can turn into humans. But since they don't then I'm comfortable with reality and the truth so I don't need a drink.

[tirtlegrrl]

carico wrote: If people believed Jesus in the first place, then they would also believe that God created the world. But since they really don't believe Jesus, then they don't believe that God created the world either.

Boy won't a whole bunch of observant Jews, Muslims, etc, who don't happen to believe in Jesus' divinity be surprised to be told they don't believe God created the world. I'm pretty sure they do in fact believe it, although some of them may also believe God created the world through evolution.

[Carico]

carico wrote: If people believed Jesus in the first place, then they would also believe that God created the world. But since they really don't believe Jesus, then they don't believe that God created the world either.

Boy won't a whole bunch of observant Jews, Muslims, etc, who don't happen to believe in Jesus' divinity be surprised to be told they don't believe God created the world. I'm pretty sure they do in fact believe it, although some of them may also believe God created the world through evolution.

Actually, they are told by Christians that they don't know God and they're not surprised, they just kill those who tell them that like the Jews killed Jesus & the Muslims kill the infidels. So the "gods" they believe in aren't the god of love, but murder; Satan. As Jesus told the Jews, "Your father is the devil, the father of lies. He was a murderer from the beginning."

[tirtlegrrl]

carico wrote: Actually, they are told by Christians that they don't know God and they're not surprised, they just kill those who tell them that like the Jews killed Jesus & the Muslims kill the infidels.

You know, I'd like you to come up with one news article detailing widespread violence from observant Jews against Christians. You supposedly hate slander, yet here you are railing against a whole ethnic group for the attitude of one mob 2000 years ago. Where are you getting your information? Or are you, like your "deluded" scientists, making up facts to justify your intolerant attitude toward those who have been raised in virtually the same belief system, minus a few details?

[Rian]

Psuedo, How is Carico damaging Christianity? She may be brash, but she isn't saying anything untruthful.

Denying the factual nature of evolution is untruthful. It may not be lying, but it's definitely anti-truth.

Moreover, it's extremely important. Evolution is the framework by which everything in biology, and an increasingly large amount of medicine, makes sense. It damages Christianity if Christians are seen as being unable to handle plain facts.

"factual nature" of evolution? Are you talking about macroevolution? If so, even some non-religious universities admit the conjectural aspect of the thing.

And you could take away the concept of macroevolution and not damage anything in biology (except the field of evolutionary biology). The only way macroevolution is tied in, that I've ever seen, is by a backwards extrapolation of current observed facts (animal X must have evolved this trait because it was useful in such-and-such a way).

Facts are facts, and people shouldn't have problems with facts, but people need to be able to discern between conjecture and fact, and there is a great deal of conjecture in the field of evolutionary biology, and it needs to stay labeled as conjecture.

Now if you are NOT talking about macroevolution, but instead about observable facts, then that's a different matter (always keeping in mind, of course, that there's a chance that what we think of as a fact may not be, for many reasons).

I think there's support for both evolution and creationism, and also things that tell against both. I think some form of creationism is overall more likely than the current form of evolution.

[Pseudonym]

"factual nature" of evolution? Are you talking about macroevolution?

"Macroevolution" is a field of study, not a separate natural phenomenon. It's kind of like how microfluidics and oceanography are separate fields of study of the same underlying phenomenon (in this case, fluid flow).

If so, even some non-religious universities admit the conjectural aspect of the thing.

If by that you mean the details, that's true. There is a certain amount of conjecture in reconstructing the timelines (especially pre-Ediocaran, since organisms without bones tend not to produce fossils) and phylogenetics. It's well-informed conjecture, though.

And you could take away the concept of macroevolution and not damage anything in biology (except the field of evolutionary biology).

If you took away evolution, then large slabs of biology, medicine and geology would be left without an explanation.

Then there's also the issue that the theory of evolution has predicted a few phenomena outside biology. One example is that evolution predicted that the Earth must be at least a couple of billion years old (otherwise there wouldn't be enough time for all extant species to have evolved), where geophysicists argued that it couldn't be older than a couple of hundred million, because if it were, the core would have cooled down. It was a few decades before radiation was discovered. We now know that 90% of the heat in the Earth's core comes from radiative heating and, moreover, we can now use radiometric dating to prove that the Earth is at least 4.55 billion years old.

If you deny evolution, you need to explain how fossils of modern species are not found in rocks from 500 million years ago. The timelines of whatever alternative theory need to match as accurately to geology as the theory of evolution.

In principle, it may be possible to come up with an alternative theory to evolution that explains the observed geology. But that hasn't happened. When you remove one fundamental part of science, you tend to pull down other large parts with it, which is why scientific revolutions tend to be refinements rather than replacements.

Now if you are NOT talking about macroevolution, but instead about observable facts, then that's a different matter (always keeping in mind, of course, that there's a chance that what we think of as a fact may not be, for many reasons).

I don't know what you mean by "macroevolution", so I can't really address that. But if you mean speciation, then that has been observed many times, both in the field and in the laboratory.

[mikedsjr]

So speciation has been seen in the lab to create a different species altogether?

[Pseudonym]

So speciation has been seen in the lab to create a different species altogether?

It depends what you mean by "species" (there are several definitions which different scientists accept, which are all more technically nuanced than your typical folk "definition") and "different [...] altogether" (it should be obvious that any observed instance of speciation will result in very closely-related species).

But given those caveats, the answer is "yes".

[Rian]

"factual nature" of evolution? Are you talking about macroevolution?

"Macroevolution" is a field of study, not a separate natural phenomenon. It's kind of like how microfluidics and oceanography are separate fields of study of the same underlying phenomenon (in this case, fluid flow).

I disagree, and I also think you're equivocating, but if you insist ... then what is the name of the thing that the field of study of macroevolution studies? For the sake of convenience, let's call it ... macroevolution!

Macroevolution is a description of something that scientists think happened. You can say it's a field of study, too, if you like, but the term is pretty widely understood to mean large-scale changes above the species level. Here's a nice link to a non-religious university describing macroevolution: here.

If so, even some non-religious universities admit the conjectural aspect of the thing.

If by that you mean the details, that's true. There is a certain amount of conjecture in reconstructing the timelines (especially pre-Ediocaran, since organisms without bones tend not to produce fossils) and phylogenetics. It's well-informed conjecture, though.

I'm fine with that characterization.

And you could take away the concept of macroevolution and not damage anything in biology (except the field of evolutionary biology).

If you took away evolution, then large slabs of biology, medicine and geology would be left without an explanation.

Do you agree that there is just a chance ... even a chance ... that the evolutionary explanation could be wrong? And if it WAS wrong, it wouldn't affect anything in these fields except the reason that many people thought was behind the things we see. That's what I mean. It wouldn't affect any actual ongoing studies of anything, because they're still there no matter if evolution is right or not. If you disagree, can you give me an example of a non-historical area of science that would be changed if evolution was taken away?

Then there's also the issue that the theory of evolution has predicted a few phenomena outside biology. One example is that evolution predicted that the Earth must be at least a couple of billion years old (otherwise there wouldn't be enough time for all extant species to have evolved), where geophysicists argued that it couldn't be older than a couple of hundred million, because if it were, the core would have cooled down. It was a few decades before radiation was discovered. We now know that 90% of the heat in the Earth's core comes from radiative heating and, moreover, we can now use radiometric dating to prove that the Earth is at least 4.55 billion years old.

Obviously, the earth could be billions of years old and evolution could still be wrong. Dating that far back is also conjecture (although certainly educated conjecture) - I'd hardly call it proof - and as you pointed out, scientists have been wrong before. Evolution has done so much prediction after the fact that I'm really not impressed with its few actual predictions that were right - if the dating supported other timeframes, you could be sure that evolutionists would manage to come up with something to adjust it to the new timeframe.

If you deny evolution, you need to explain how fossils of modern species are not found in rocks from 500 million years ago. The timelines of whatever alternative theory need to match as accurately to geology as the theory of evolution.

I agree, giving due weight to the dicey nature of backwards extrapolation through time.

In principle, it may be possible to come up with an alternative theory to evolution that explains the observed geology. But that hasn't happened. When you remove one fundamental part of science, you tend to pull down other large parts with it, which is why scientific revolutions tend to be refinements rather than replacements.

But if it SHOULD be pulled down, then the sooner the better. But as I pointed out, the theory of evolution doesn't really affect any of the non-historical sciences, anyway.

Now if you are NOT talking about macroevolution, but instead about observable facts, then that's a different matter (always keeping in mind, of course, that there's a chance that what we think of as a fact may not be, for many reasons).

I don't know what you mean by "macroevolution", so I can't really address that. But if you mean speciation, then that has been observed many times, both in the field and in the laboratory.

Are you unaware of the general usage of the term "macroevolution", or just unsure of how I'm using it? (the field of evolution seems to have some fuzzy definitions) I use it in the sense that I see most often, as in the link I provided above.

Just to be clear - I'm not a rabid evolution-basher. I think that it has some very good points. But I think that it also has some severe difficulties, and that people should keep an open mind, and a realization that this is a historical-type science, and is necessarily highly conjectural. The only thing that I object to is when people present the historical aspects as fact of the same type as produced by the non-historical sciences (and then typically go further and characterize anyone who objects in any way as stupid).

[Rian]

So speciation has been seen in the lab to create a different species altogether?

Scientists define species. It's no big deal. They see small-scale changes and define a species, then say that speciation occurs, and then claim that since macroevolution is just lots of speciation, therefore macroevolution occurs. Very disingenuous.

The article I linked to has a good and honest discussion - here's a bit that I like : "Examples of macroevolution are found in the organismal diversity all around us, but the process cannot be observed or experimentally manipulated due to the time frame involved. What scientists can do is compare the results of “natural experiments”, as seen in fossils and modern organisms, and make inferences from them."

Well-stated, IMHO, with none of the defensiveness that one often sees when evolutionists discuss macroevolution. Just the facts, plain and simple - and that's what I like to see. Let the thing stand or fall on its own merits.

[Pseudonym]

I disagree, and I also think you're equivocating, but if you insist ... then what is the name of the thing that the field of study of macroevolution studies?

I'm not equivocating. Those who are in the field of macroevolution study evolution. They just happen to study how evolution works over large time scales, rather than small time scales.

Here's a nice link to a non-religious university describing macroevolution:

That's a nice, succinct explanation. Note in particular:

Macroevolution is the study of evolution over geologic time (thousands to millions of years).

That's pretty much what I said, wasn't it?

Do you agree that there is just a chance ... even a chance ... that the evolutionary explanation could be wrong?

There's always a chance that it's wrong. However, a) there's no evidence that it's wrong, and b) if it were wrong, it would have to be replaced by something with equivalent-or-better explanatory power.

And if it WAS wrong, it wouldn't affect anything in these fields except the reason that many people thought was behind the things we see.

Were the atomic theory of matter proven wrong, then it would need to be replaced by a theory that explains the fact that explains all of chemistry, large bits of of condensed matter physics, and also the fact that we can image things that look pretty much like atoms. It could be done, but you'd have to do a lot of work to reproduce everything that the atomic theory of matter predicts. And there's a lot of it.

Similarly, were the theory of evolution proven wrong, it would need to be replaced by a theory which explains large bits of modern medicine, the fossil record, genetic homology, and large slabs of geology. There are literally millions of factoids from disparate fields of science that would be left without an explanation.

If you disagree, can you give me an example of a non-historical area of science that would be changed if evolution was taken away?

Agriculture.

Dating that far back is also conjecture (although certainly educated conjecture) [...]

It's as good as any scientific process gets. If radiometric dating doesn't work, then we need another explanation as to why nuclear power plants work.

[...] if the dating supported other timeframes, you could be sure that evolutionists would manage to come up with something to adjust it to the new timeframe.

Except, of course, that every time a new dating method appears, whether it's in astronomy, geology or physics, they all agree. None of the dating methods have to be adjusted because they all give the same answer.

This is a crucial point, which a lot of people don't appreciate: We have a lot of independent lines of evidence, all of which give the same answer, and none of which give an answer to the contrary. You can bet your life on evolution. Indeed, many people who receive modern medical care do precisely that.

But if it SHOULD be pulled down, then the sooner the better. But as I pointed out, the theory of evolution doesn't really affect any of the non-historical sciences, anyway.

Just to be clear - I'm not a rabid evolution-basher. I think that it has some very good points. But I think that it also has some severe difficulties, and that people should keep an open mind, and a realization that this is a historical-type science, and is necessarily highly conjectural. The only thing that I object to is when people present the historical aspects as fact of the same type as produced by the non-historical sciences (and then typically go further and characterize anyone who objects in any way as stupid).

Understood. And just to be clear, I don't think that the majority of those who disagree with evolution are stupid. There's a lot of common misunderstandings out there, and it's understandably difficult to sort through the combination of fact, half-truth and misinformation that is out there.