You are right on the money. And I believe this extends to other areas. If you throw out the whole earth is 10,000 years old and created in 7 literal days, the account of creation in Genesis and throughout the bible is remarkably consistent with science. The events of creation viewed in the proper context fit very well with what would be required to "teraform" a planet to make it suitable for life.
These were nomadic tribes - what 'unit of time' were they most familiar with? A day. It was simple, it was direct, and it got across the point 'this stage vs that stage'.
I don't think that the Bible is completely and utterly hogwash... I *do* think that it is an oral history that is no more or less scientifically valid than other oral histories one finds around the globe. Some is based on fact, some on wishful thinking, and all of it's been muddled through the years through various flawed human translations.
Thinking that it is 100% infallible is just... inane, in my opinion. Of course, thinking that it's 100% false is similarly useless in my mind. Mine it for cultural and historical references just like one would any other anthropological resource.
I always find it the scary when scientists who will not believe in Darwinism and refer to the Bible for answers get to so much attentions simply because they are scientists (and supposed to know better).
Scientists should not "believe in Darwinism," they should believe in the Method and know the limits of their powers of observation. That's what worked for Darwin, after all, and Einstein, and Newton, and all the other minds who advanced science. You keep a close eye on the world, be mindful of the limits of your eyes, and follow the math. As soon as you turn a theory into a dogma, you've strayed from the scientific model.
It's a given that this or that scientific model is going to fail to explain something about the world. Any Christian knows that we all see through a glass darkly, so theologically this is true trivially. Many scientists take it on faith that there are holes in Relativity theory (and many hope to be the person who finds one); so-called "Darwinism" is actually a collection of evolutionary theories which have themselves been evolving recently in a number of very interesting ways because of Chaos theory and new material evidence; etc.
Creationism is just used as a shibboleth. From my admittedly rather limited exposure, there seems to be very little critical work done on the text that's supposed to be the foundation of the belief (example: the first word of the first book of Genesis, in the original Hebrew, is "and," which fact is pregnant with implication), so it's just set up as a way to distinguish "us" from "them." Its unprovability and hostility to the prevailing secular model is actually helpful in this role. I worry, in fact, that some people have reacted by abusing evolutionary theory in a similar way, creating a "Darwinism" dogma that is valuable chiefly because it is hostile to the prevailing Christian model, and using that to distinguish "us" from "them" as well, and then the two camps butt heads in a completely content-free battle of dogmas, and everyone - Christians and biologists alike - loses.
Darwin was a very honest scientist. He said of himself that he is not a brillant brain, but a slow thinker, who need time in order to make his studies.
There is actually work being done to provide a testable creation model. It is hypocritical to mention science and faith together if you are not going to apply rigorous investigation to that faith. That's where the testable models come in to play. Do recent scientific discoveries support or discount predictions made from the model?
In reguard to creationism being soley a way to separate one group from another I disagree. Does it happen? Sure. Does it happen even within the scientific community? Yep. I would be more than happy to point you towards critical research that is being done on a testable creation model.
Darn the smart scientist guys for being able to say it better than me.
Quote:
One reason we evangelicals have had so little impact on secular society with our creation teachings is that we try to teach Genesis without presenting a testable creation model. We either focus all of our guns on what is wrong with naturalism or we duck the issue by claiming that Genesis presents no specific creation model. Thus, we are perceived by society as either negative or cowardly.
This situation stems from Christians' failure to apply the scientific method to their interpretation of Genesis. A great irony, here, is that the scientific method comes from the Bible and from biblical theology. The core of this method is an appeal to the interpreter to delay drawing conclusions until both the frame of reference and the initial conditions have been established. If we approach Genesis in this way, we discover that we can, indeed, discern there a scientifically plausible, objectively defensible account of creation.
Darn the smart scientist guys for being able to say it better than me.
I don't think anyone has a particular problem with the *methods* of creation in Creationism, but rather the *one basic assumption*... that it had an intelligent, conscious, demiurge behind it.
Unless you can produce a testable model for *that*, then the entire basis behind the one fundamental difference between Creationism (in any form) and secular teachings will remain a substantial gulf.
So... just produce a scientifically testable model for the existence of God, and you're all set!
Science is based upon observations. Darwin build his theory after years of observations, including long travels by sea (remembe the mythic ship called Beagles)
Creationism based his theory on a holy book, the bible. You can call this an observation. But the observation of nature, is very different than the observation of an holy book.
So even if the creationism theory is testable, it has failed the step one of science : the observation.
Newton made his theory with the help of an observation : the fall of an Apple (certainly not on his head, like the myth say). He did not make it, because he read it in a religious book.
In science observations of phenomena, (natural or experiences), come always in first, buiding a theory came after. Some times even big scientist like Einstein commited the mistake to tweak an observation in order to made it work with the theory he wanted to demonstrate, but he admitted his error later.
You don't build a theory because you want to believe in it, you build it because the experiences or observations you made lead this to this conclusion.
I guess the same thing could apply to the inverse. I want a testable model that shows there isn't intelligent design in the universe.
Ah, but science doesn't *require* the absence of intelligent design, so it's safe. Even if there is a God, the evolutionary model still is our best explanation of the mechanisms of the rise of various lifeforms.
Scientific methods merely discuss and try and explain the 'how'.
Only religion tries to delve into the 'why'.
Creationism (wrongly) mixes the two, then tries to foist it off as 'how'.
Put it this way... if God did indeed say *poof* and suddenly all the lifeforms popped up complete and whole, then why all the evidence *for* evolution? Satanic influence to throw us off? I don't buy it. For one thing, the *only* place that Christianity tries to explain the mechanisms of life is Genesis, and as you and I agreed, put in the proper context, there is no fundamental contradiction with most accepted scientific views of planetary and biological formation.
So the only sticking point left is "Was there a demiurge?" Since that *can't* be tested by science, it is solely outside science's range, and science (rightly) makes no claim to know one way or another.
Religion should follow suit, in my opinion, and stick to the 'why' questions.
Creationism based his theory on a holy book, the bible. You can call this an observation. But the observation of nature, is very different than the observation of an holy book.
So even if the creationism theory is testable, it has failed the step one of science : the observation.
Newton made his theory with the help of an observation : the fall of an Apple (certainly not on his head, like the myth say). He did not make it, because he read it in a religious book.
No it hasn't. Even without the bible we would still have creationism. That comes from teleology. That is observations point to order and design in the universe. That argument is one used in defense of bible base creationism, but it is not exclusive to it.
What we have here is akin to a crime investigation. We have a confession of one party saying, "I did it, and here's how it went" and the other side saying, "no it was natural causes". Now it is the job of the scientists to observe/test whether the facts support side a, b, or neither.
You have a third party pointing a finger at the alleged perp, who the police can't seem to find anywhere or any evidence of, other than the third party's word.
And then you have the police detectives looking at the crime scene and gathering evidence.
Saying that you have a 'confession' *assumes* that there was a perp in the first place! That's a bit... assumptive.
Quote:
Now it is the job of the scientists to observe/test whether the facts support side a, b, or neither.
Actually, that's not the way it works. You observe, *then* you create a hypothesis to meet the facts.
What you want is for a hypothesis made in the absence of observation to be disproven by later observations.
I might as well say "There's a purple unicorn behind my head that only I can see, if only I could see behind my head." and then ask you to disprove that. "I don't see it." "Well, that's because you can't." "Then look in a mirror?" "Um... he doesn't have a reflection." "Well, then, I can't help you." "AH-HA! SEE!? There *IS* a purple unicorn behind my head that only I can see!"
Religion gets into assumptive realms that are outside this model of thought. There is no 'faith' here, other than in the peer review system. ("Uh guys, *someone* checked this, right?") and that, at least, has demonstrable quantifiable checks and balances in it ("I didn't." "Not me." "Yeah, I did." *whew* "Oh good.") Are there assumptions in science? Sure. But none that can't ultimately be checked out experimentally, in my experience.
Proving God exists (by providing *one* concrete example) should be infinitely easier than disproving His existence (by disproving all possible examples). So it's not the job of atheists or such to do that - it's the responsibility of those purporting His existence. Give one concrete example, and no, the Bible doesn't provide said proof, since I can also hand you the Koran, the Torah, and such, all of which claim to be the One True Writings. \ Such an example must *not* rely on the assumption of His existence in the first place.
Science is how, religion is why. They shouldn't have to be mixed.
Some times even big scientist like Einstein commited the mistake to tweak an observation in order to made it work with the theory he wanted to demonstrate, but he admitted his error later.
At the same time his "error" has proven to be true...
The scientific method does not come from the bible.
I am sorry, that simply is an overstatement of the largest proportion. People were doing science before 100 AD, and they were doing it well, esp in Asia...
I'm wondering how many of the christians here have read and critiqued Augustine, boethius or any of the other early christian philosophers. I'm reading selections of them now, and a lot of the ideas being put forward here are really crude versions of what they were trying to argue 1000 years ago. Those arguments have since been poked so full of holes.
Put it this way... if God did indeed say *poof* and suddenly all the lifeforms popped up complete and whole, then why all the evidence *for* evolution? Satanic influence to throw us off? I don't buy it. For one thing, the *only* place that Christianity tries to explain the mechanisms of life is Genesis, and as you and I agreed, put in the proper context, there is no fundamental contradiction with most accepted scientific views of planetary and biological formation.
You make some errors here.
First. The bible contains many more references by different authors to creation, and causality outside of Genesis.
Quote:
The Bible?s prophets and apostles stated explicitly and repeatedly the two most fundamental properties of the big bang, a transcendent cosmic beginning a finite time period ago and a universe undergoing a general, continual expansion. In Isaiah 42:5 both properties were declared, ?This is what the Lord says?He who created the heavens and stretched them out.?
The Hebrew verb translated ?created? in Isaiah 42:5 is bara? which has as its primary definition ?bringing into existence something new, something that did not exist before.?7 The proclamation that God created (bara?) the entirety of the heavens is stated seven times in the Old Testament. (Genesis 1:1; 2:3; 2:4; Psalm 148:5; Isaiah 40:26; 42:5; 45:18). This principle of transcendent creation is made more explicit by passages like Hebrews 11:3 which states that the universe that we humans can measure and detect was made out of that which we cannot measure or detect. Also, Isaiah 45:5-22; John 1:3; and Colossians 1:15-17 stipulate that God alone is the agent for the universe?s existence. Biblical claims that God predated the universe and was actively involved in causing certain effects before the existence of the universe is not only found in Colossians 1 but also in Proverbs 8:22-31; John 17:24; Ephesians 1:4; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2; and 1 Peter 1:20.
The characteristic of the universe stated more frequently than any other in the Bible is its being ?stretched out.? Five different Bible authors pen such a statement in eleven different verses: Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15; and Zechariah 12:1. Job 37:18 appears to be a twelfth verse. However, the word used for ?heavens? or ?skies? is shehaqîm which refers to the clouds of fine particles (of water or dust) that are located in Earth?s atmosphere,8 not the shamayim, the heavens of the astronomical universe.9 Three of the eleven verses, Job 9:8; Isaiah 44:24; and 45:12 make the point that God alone was responsible for the cosmic stretching.
What is particularly interesting about the eleven verses is that different Hebrew verb forms are used to describe the cosmic stretching. Seven verses, Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 51:13; and Zechariah 12:1 employ the Qal active participle form of the verb natah. This form literally means ?the stretcher out of them? (the heavens) and implies continual or ongoing stretching. Four verses, Isaiah 45:12; 48:13; and Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15 use the Qal perfect form. This form literally means that the stretching of the heavens was completed or finished some time ago.
Second. All the evidence for evolution.
I disagree with this. Life did aparantly "pop up". They are finding fossile evidence of life at 3.8 billion years ago. This is immediately after the hadean era of earth. The fact that life showed up in abundance so early, and possessing complex faculties such as photosynthesis flies in the face of the evolutionary model. Also evidence of further sterilization events on earth makes this problem even larger. In addition there is a lack of evidence for primordial soups, the problem of homochirality, a lack of viable chemical routes to life, and others. It seems that the evolution model has some serious holes. This leads to theories of panspermia, and directed panspermia.
To say that all the evidence points to evolution is very naive. Am I going to change your mind and you will suddenly believe in God and creation? No. Can I maybe offer some insight that shows evolution is not nearly as solid as some would have you believe? I hope so.
Here's an argument I found real quick when searching and thought was interesting (but it's not the one I was looking for):
Quote:
Douglas E. Kreuger, in his book What is Atheism? A Short Introduction (Prometheus Books, 1998 ), exposes the weak analogy essential to the famous evidentialist argument from design (also called the teleological argument ['teleology' is the doctrine that purpose is inherent in nature]). The teleological argument argues that, since nature exhibits evidence of design, then there must be a designer. The designer said to be established by this argument is said to be God. The argument is usually punctuated by an analogy between a known artifact, such as a pocket watch, and the universe as a whole, in order to show why it (the universe) must be the product of a designer.
Kreuger:
Quote:
The argument from design is an argument by analogy. The more common the similarities between the analogates (the things compared), the stronger the analogy, and, consequently, the stronger the argument. The fewer similarities, the weaker the argument. Important to the argument from design, then, is the number of similarities between the analogates. In this case, the analogates are human artifacts and the universe. How much do they have in common?
All the artifacts in our experience have been made of preexisting material. If the universe is like an artifact, then, it must have been made of preexisting material. But the theist denies this and claims that god created the universe ex nihilo, out of nothing.
All the artifacts we have seen have been built by beings with physical bodies. Thus, we may conclude that the universe was built by a being with a physical body. But the theist denies that god has a physical body.
Our experience with artifacts shows that they are built by labor, by physically moving material together or apart. Thus, we should conclude, if the universe is like an artifact, that it was built by labor. However, the theist, especially the Christian, denies this and says that the entire universe was created by god uttering magic words (see Genesis, chapter 1).
Large and complex ships, houses, buildings, and other constructions are built by groups of people working together. Thus, the universe, if it is like a large and complex artifact, must have been built by many gods working together. But the theist denies this. Polytheists, perhaps, would not deny this.
If an artifact has flaws, one can conclude either that the designer or builder was ignorant, sloppy, or just did not care about the outcome enough to put more work into it. The universe has stars explode and collide; there are earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, and other natural disasters which cause huge loss of life, and which are not in any way caused by human action; there are genetic disorders such as spina bifida which kill humans and cause intense agony; there have been several worldwide extinctions in the past which resulted in the deaths of 90 percent or more of the species existing in the world at that time, and so on. Thus, we may conclude that god was either ignorant, sloppy, or just did not care enough about the outcome to make the universe any better than it is. But the theist denies this.
There are many other disanalogies between the universe and an artifact, but it should now be clear that the theist denies that the universe is like an artifact in many important ways. Thus, the analogy between the universe and an artifact seems to be simply the result of the theist's selection of one aspect of what we know of artifacts - that they are often orderly - and the denial of may other characteristics about artifacts. The theist must admit that the universe and artifacts are more dissimilar than similar. Since the theist makes the analogy only with regard to a single trait, the analogy between an artifact and the universe is incredibly weak, and, as a result, so is the argument as a whole.
The scientific method does not come from the bible.
I am sorry, that simply is an overstatement of the largest proportion. People were doing science before 100 AD, and they were doing it well, esp in Asia...
I think you misuderstand. It doesn't mean that people read the bible first and then started doing science. I agree that is a stupid idea. It means that the methods and thought processes of science are very much a part of the bible. Maybe instead of saying "comes from" we could use "is a part of".
Do you know the content of the fossils from 3.8 B years ago?
Did they do photosynthesis? How could you know unless you had an actual life-form in hand? In fact (IIRC) these fossils most resemble auxotrophs that operate on chemical energy, no photosynthesis required. In all honesty, I think life is pretty easy to make given a few million years and all the chemicals that a star spews out. This fact is what is in contention and until we find life in other systems there will be no stopping the irrational non-sense that is the judeo-christian creation story. Even then, I suspect these semi-rational creation "scientists" will suggest that the creation story is still valid because it is feasible that all life throughout the universe had its beginning on a planet 15 B years ago...
Comments
You are right on the money. And I believe this extends to other areas. If you throw out the whole earth is 10,000 years old and created in 7 literal days, the account of creation in Genesis and throughout the bible is remarkably consistent with science. The events of creation viewed in the proper context fit very well with what would be required to "teraform" a planet to make it suitable for life.
These were nomadic tribes - what 'unit of time' were they most familiar with? A day. It was simple, it was direct, and it got across the point 'this stage vs that stage'.
I don't think that the Bible is completely and utterly hogwash... I *do* think that it is an oral history that is no more or less scientifically valid than other oral histories one finds around the globe. Some is based on fact, some on wishful thinking, and all of it's been muddled through the years through various flawed human translations.
Thinking that it is 100% infallible is just... inane, in my opinion. Of course, thinking that it's 100% false is similarly useless in my mind. Mine it for cultural and historical references just like one would any other anthropological resource.
Originally posted by KANE
I always find it the scary when scientists who will not believe in Darwinism and refer to the Bible for answers get to so much attentions simply because they are scientists (and supposed to know better).
Scientists should not "believe in Darwinism," they should believe in the Method and know the limits of their powers of observation. That's what worked for Darwin, after all, and Einstein, and Newton, and all the other minds who advanced science. You keep a close eye on the world, be mindful of the limits of your eyes, and follow the math. As soon as you turn a theory into a dogma, you've strayed from the scientific model.
It's a given that this or that scientific model is going to fail to explain something about the world. Any Christian knows that we all see through a glass darkly, so theologically this is true trivially. Many scientists take it on faith that there are holes in Relativity theory (and many hope to be the person who finds one); so-called "Darwinism" is actually a collection of evolutionary theories which have themselves been evolving recently in a number of very interesting ways because of Chaos theory and new material evidence; etc.
Creationism is just used as a shibboleth. From my admittedly rather limited exposure, there seems to be very little critical work done on the text that's supposed to be the foundation of the belief (example: the first word of the first book of Genesis, in the original Hebrew, is "and," which fact is pregnant with implication), so it's just set up as a way to distinguish "us" from "them." Its unprovability and hostility to the prevailing secular model is actually helpful in this role. I worry, in fact, that some people have reacted by abusing evolutionary theory in a similar way, creating a "Darwinism" dogma that is valuable chiefly because it is hostile to the prevailing Christian model, and using that to distinguish "us" from "them" as well, and then the two camps butt heads in a completely content-free battle of dogmas, and everyone - Christians and biologists alike - loses.
There is actually work being done to provide a testable creation model. It is hypocritical to mention science and faith together if you are not going to apply rigorous investigation to that faith. That's where the testable models come in to play. Do recent scientific discoveries support or discount predictions made from the model?
In reguard to creationism being soley a way to separate one group from another I disagree. Does it happen? Sure. Does it happen even within the scientific community? Yep. I would be more than happy to point you towards critical research that is being done on a testable creation model.
One reason we evangelicals have had so little impact on secular society with our creation teachings is that we try to teach Genesis without presenting a testable creation model. We either focus all of our guns on what is wrong with naturalism or we duck the issue by claiming that Genesis presents no specific creation model. Thus, we are perceived by society as either negative or cowardly.
This situation stems from Christians' failure to apply the scientific method to their interpretation of Genesis. A great irony, here, is that the scientific method comes from the Bible and from biblical theology. The core of this method is an appeal to the interpreter to delay drawing conclusions until both the frame of reference and the initial conditions have been established. If we approach Genesis in this way, we discover that we can, indeed, discern there a scientifically plausible, objectively defensible account of creation.
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
Darn the smart scientist guys for being able to say it better than me.
I don't think anyone has a particular problem with the *methods* of creation in Creationism, but rather the *one basic assumption*... that it had an intelligent, conscious, demiurge behind it.
Unless you can produce a testable model for *that*, then the entire basis behind the one fundamental difference between Creationism (in any form) and secular teachings will remain a substantial gulf.
So... just produce a scientifically testable model for the existence of God, and you're all set!
Creationism based his theory on a holy book, the bible. You can call this an observation. But the observation of nature, is very different than the observation of an holy book.
So even if the creationism theory is testable, it has failed the step one of science : the observation.
Newton made his theory with the help of an observation : the fall of an Apple (certainly not on his head, like the myth say). He did not make it, because he read it in a religious book.
In science observations of phenomena, (natural or experiences), come always in first, buiding a theory came after. Some times even big scientist like Einstein commited the mistake to tweak an observation in order to made it work with the theory he wanted to demonstrate, but he admitted his error later.
You don't build a theory because you want to believe in it, you build it because the experiences or observations you made lead this to this conclusion.
I guess the same thing could apply to the inverse. I want a testable model that shows there isn't intelligent design in the universe.
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
Aha, I've got it! Just kidding
I guess the same thing could apply to the inverse. I want a testable model that shows there isn't intelligent design in the universe.
Ah, but science doesn't *require* the absence of intelligent design, so it's safe.
Scientific methods merely discuss and try and explain the 'how'.
Only religion tries to delve into the 'why'.
Creationism (wrongly) mixes the two, then tries to foist it off as 'how'.
Put it this way... if God did indeed say *poof* and suddenly all the lifeforms popped up complete and whole, then why all the evidence *for* evolution? Satanic influence to throw us off? I don't buy it. For one thing, the *only* place that Christianity tries to explain the mechanisms of life is Genesis, and as you and I agreed, put in the proper context, there is no fundamental contradiction with most accepted scientific views of planetary and biological formation.
So the only sticking point left is "Was there a demiurge?" Since that *can't* be tested by science, it is solely outside science's range, and science (rightly) makes no claim to know one way or another.
Religion should follow suit, in my opinion, and stick to the 'why' questions.
Creationism based his theory on a holy book, the bible. You can call this an observation. But the observation of nature, is very different than the observation of an holy book.
So even if the creationism theory is testable, it has failed the step one of science : the observation.
Newton made his theory with the help of an observation : the fall of an Apple (certainly not on his head, like the myth say). He did not make it, because he read it in a religious book.
No it hasn't. Even without the bible we would still have creationism. That comes from teleology. That is observations point to order and design in the universe. That argument is one used in defense of bible base creationism, but it is not exclusive to it.
What we have here is akin to a crime investigation. We have a confession of one party saying, "I did it, and here's how it went" and the other side saying, "no it was natural causes". Now it is the job of the scientists to observe/test whether the facts support side a, b, or neither.
You have a third party pointing a finger at the alleged perp, who the police can't seem to find anywhere or any evidence of, other than the third party's word.
And then you have the police detectives looking at the crime scene and gathering evidence.
Saying that you have a 'confession' *assumes* that there was a perp in the first place! That's a bit... assumptive.
Now it is the job of the scientists to observe/test whether the facts support side a, b, or neither.
Actually, that's not the way it works. You observe, *then* you create a hypothesis to meet the facts.
What you want is for a hypothesis made in the absence of observation to be disproven by later observations.
I might as well say "There's a purple unicorn behind my head that only I can see, if only I could see behind my head." and then ask you to disprove that. "I don't see it." "Well, that's because you can't." "Then look in a mirror?" "Um... he doesn't have a reflection." "Well, then, I can't help you." "AH-HA! SEE!? There *IS* a purple unicorn behind my head that only I can see!"
Observe *first*. Hypothesize. Test. Observe. Repeat.
Religion gets into assumptive realms that are outside this model of thought. There is no 'faith' here, other than in the peer review system. ("Uh guys, *someone* checked this, right?") and that, at least, has demonstrable quantifiable checks and balances in it ("I didn't." "Not me." "Yeah, I did." *whew* "Oh good.") Are there assumptions in science? Sure. But none that can't ultimately be checked out experimentally, in my experience.
Proving God exists (by providing *one* concrete example) should be infinitely easier than disproving His existence (by disproving all possible examples). So it's not the job of atheists or such to do that - it's the responsibility of those purporting His existence. Give one concrete example, and no, the Bible doesn't provide said proof, since I can also hand you the Koran, the Torah, and such, all of which claim to be the One True Writings.
Science is how, religion is why. They shouldn't have to be mixed.
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
I guess the same thing could apply to the inverse. I want a testable model that shows there isn't intelligent design in the universe.
Wasn't it kant that demonstrated why cosmological proofs of god don't work?
I'll have to check it out tonight when I get home.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Some times even big scientist like Einstein commited the mistake to tweak an observation in order to made it work with the theory he wanted to demonstrate, but he admitted his error later.
At the same time his "error" has proven to be true...
I am sorry, that simply is an overstatement of the largest proportion. People were doing science before 100 AD, and they were doing it well, esp in Asia...
I'll post more when I get home to my books.
Put it this way... if God did indeed say *poof* and suddenly all the lifeforms popped up complete and whole, then why all the evidence *for* evolution? Satanic influence to throw us off? I don't buy it. For one thing, the *only* place that Christianity tries to explain the mechanisms of life is Genesis, and as you and I agreed, put in the proper context, there is no fundamental contradiction with most accepted scientific views of planetary and biological formation.
You make some errors here.
First. The bible contains many more references by different authors to creation, and causality outside of Genesis.
The Bible?s prophets and apostles stated explicitly and repeatedly the two most fundamental properties of the big bang, a transcendent cosmic beginning a finite time period ago and a universe undergoing a general, continual expansion. In Isaiah 42:5 both properties were declared, ?This is what the Lord says?He who created the heavens and stretched them out.?
The Hebrew verb translated ?created? in Isaiah 42:5 is bara? which has as its primary definition ?bringing into existence something new, something that did not exist before.?7 The proclamation that God created (bara?) the entirety of the heavens is stated seven times in the Old Testament. (Genesis 1:1; 2:3; 2:4; Psalm 148:5; Isaiah 40:26; 42:5; 45:18). This principle of transcendent creation is made more explicit by passages like Hebrews 11:3 which states that the universe that we humans can measure and detect was made out of that which we cannot measure or detect. Also, Isaiah 45:5-22; John 1:3; and Colossians 1:15-17 stipulate that God alone is the agent for the universe?s existence. Biblical claims that God predated the universe and was actively involved in causing certain effects before the existence of the universe is not only found in Colossians 1 but also in Proverbs 8:22-31; John 17:24; Ephesians 1:4; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2; and 1 Peter 1:20.
The characteristic of the universe stated more frequently than any other in the Bible is its being ?stretched out.? Five different Bible authors pen such a statement in eleven different verses: Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15; and Zechariah 12:1. Job 37:18 appears to be a twelfth verse. However, the word used for ?heavens? or ?skies? is shehaqîm which refers to the clouds of fine particles (of water or dust) that are located in Earth?s atmosphere,8 not the shamayim, the heavens of the astronomical universe.9 Three of the eleven verses, Job 9:8; Isaiah 44:24; and 45:12 make the point that God alone was responsible for the cosmic stretching.
What is particularly interesting about the eleven verses is that different Hebrew verb forms are used to describe the cosmic stretching. Seven verses, Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 51:13; and Zechariah 12:1 employ the Qal active participle form of the verb natah. This form literally means ?the stretcher out of them? (the heavens) and implies continual or ongoing stretching. Four verses, Isaiah 45:12; 48:13; and Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15 use the Qal perfect form. This form literally means that the stretching of the heavens was completed or finished some time ago.
Second. All the evidence for evolution.
I disagree with this. Life did aparantly "pop up". They are finding fossile evidence of life at 3.8 billion years ago. This is immediately after the hadean era of earth. The fact that life showed up in abundance so early, and possessing complex faculties such as photosynthesis flies in the face of the evolutionary model. Also evidence of further sterilization events on earth makes this problem even larger. In addition there is a lack of evidence for primordial soups, the problem of homochirality, a lack of viable chemical routes to life, and others. It seems that the evolution model has some serious holes. This leads to theories of panspermia, and directed panspermia.
To say that all the evidence points to evolution is very naive. Am I going to change your mind and you will suddenly believe in God and creation? No. Can I maybe offer some insight that shows evolution is not nearly as solid as some would have you believe? I hope so.
Douglas E. Kreuger, in his book What is Atheism? A Short Introduction (Prometheus Books, 1998 ), exposes the weak analogy essential to the famous evidentialist argument from design (also called the teleological argument ['teleology' is the doctrine that purpose is inherent in nature]). The teleological argument argues that, since nature exhibits evidence of design, then there must be a designer. The designer said to be established by this argument is said to be God. The argument is usually punctuated by an analogy between a known artifact, such as a pocket watch, and the universe as a whole, in order to show why it (the universe) must be the product of a designer.
Kreuger:
The argument from design is an argument by analogy. The more common the similarities between the analogates (the things compared), the stronger the analogy, and, consequently, the stronger the argument. The fewer similarities, the weaker the argument. Important to the argument from design, then, is the number of similarities between the analogates. In this case, the analogates are human artifacts and the universe. How much do they have in common?
All the artifacts in our experience have been made of preexisting material. If the universe is like an artifact, then, it must have been made of preexisting material. But the theist denies this and claims that god created the universe ex nihilo, out of nothing.
All the artifacts we have seen have been built by beings with physical bodies. Thus, we may conclude that the universe was built by a being with a physical body. But the theist denies that god has a physical body.
Our experience with artifacts shows that they are built by labor, by physically moving material together or apart. Thus, we should conclude, if the universe is like an artifact, that it was built by labor. However, the theist, especially the Christian, denies this and says that the entire universe was created by god uttering magic words (see Genesis, chapter 1).
Large and complex ships, houses, buildings, and other constructions are built by groups of people working together. Thus, the universe, if it is like a large and complex artifact, must have been built by many gods working together. But the theist denies this. Polytheists, perhaps, would not deny this.
If an artifact has flaws, one can conclude either that the designer or builder was ignorant, sloppy, or just did not care about the outcome enough to put more work into it. The universe has stars explode and collide; there are earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, and other natural disasters which cause huge loss of life, and which are not in any way caused by human action; there are genetic disorders such as spina bifida which kill humans and cause intense agony; there have been several worldwide extinctions in the past which resulted in the deaths of 90 percent or more of the species existing in the world at that time, and so on. Thus, we may conclude that god was either ignorant, sloppy, or just did not care enough about the outcome to make the universe any better than it is. But the theist denies this.
There are many other disanalogies between the universe and an artifact, but it should now be clear that the theist denies that the universe is like an artifact in many important ways. Thus, the analogy between the universe and an artifact seems to be simply the result of the theist's selection of one aspect of what we know of artifacts - that they are often orderly - and the denial of may other characteristics about artifacts. The theist must admit that the universe and artifacts are more dissimilar than similar. Since the theist makes the analogy only with regard to a single trait, the analogy between an artifact and the universe is incredibly weak, and, as a result, so is the argument as a whole.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Spar.../Fallacies.htm
The scientific method does not come from the bible.
I am sorry, that simply is an overstatement of the largest proportion. People were doing science before 100 AD, and they were doing it well, esp in Asia...
I think you misuderstand. It doesn't mean that people read the bible first and then started doing science. I agree that is a stupid idea. It means that the methods and thought processes of science are very much a part of the bible. Maybe instead of saying "comes from" we could use "is a part of".
Did they do photosynthesis? How could you know unless you had an actual life-form in hand? In fact (IIRC) these fossils most resemble auxotrophs that operate on chemical energy, no photosynthesis required. In all honesty, I think life is pretty easy to make given a few million years and all the chemicals that a star spews out. This fact is what is in contention and until we find life in other systems there will be no stopping the irrational non-sense that is the judeo-christian creation story. Even then, I suspect these semi-rational creation "scientists" will suggest that the creation story is still valid because it is feasible that all life throughout the universe had its beginning on a planet 15 B years ago...