Need sources to begin investigation of creation vs. evolution-CC

[laughing lioness]

I wanted to second Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe. Big Thumbs up here.

[Lovedtodeath]

I read a neat book recently, borrowed from a library:

 

The Young Earth: The Real History of the Earth - Past, Present, and Future

 

Hope that link works (it's google books) so you can 'see' it.. it's also on amazon too but that's an older version, I think.

 

It was interesting - well, some of it anyway. Other parts were kinda dry & boring.. but it had a few interesting things to say.

 

Of course, that's more 'age of the earth' than 'creation vs evolution' .. but I figured I'd toss it in here anyway, 'case anyone was interested. :)

That's me! I love checking out YE theories. Especially if they have to do with dinosaurs. I am of course, made fun of for it by everyone. ;) I don't actually believe in YE, but I find it interesting.

 

If you ever read a creation science book or article that asserts the, "It's just a theory," idea then you can immediately put the book down and dismiss it. It shows a very basic misunderstanding of scientific terms and if a text can't even use basic terms correctly then it's not science.

 

The scientific equivelent of what you've described is an hypothesis. That's an idea that you set out to test to see if the evidence supports it.

 

A theory is formed to explain the evidence that already exists. In the case of evolution that's the fossil record, scientific laws, the diversity and patterns of life.

Thanks Dawn.

 

I just wanted to explain by "biased" comment. I simply meant that Answers in Genesis is quite obviously right wing, fundamental, born again Christianity. They are definitely "biased" toward creationism. Completely.

Yep. Definitely. Their statement of belief (Young Earth) is insulting to anyone who believes differently. I found their God's Design curriculum just fine other than that page though.

 

The OP (Julpost) stated she wanted "an informed opinion".

 

She surely will will not get to that objective by using materials from AiG, and it is a courtesy to let her know that up front, especially since AiG materials have been suggested as "good" resources.

 

Bill

:iagree:Bill, a new signature? :) Edited May 11, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Lovedtodeath]

I believe in creation according to kinds, old earth, evolution within species. I haven't seen evidence for more evolution than that.

 

I really enjoyed a show called Discovery Kids Ultimate Guide to the Awesome on Galapagos Islands. They described what Darwin saw that caused him to believe and write what he did. It was both interesting to me and simple enough for DD to enjoy. If you have cable, you might search for it.

[Marylou]

I also believe that since I've prayed for wisdom that God will lead me. That's a huge burden lifted from my shoulders. Imagine if I had to figure it all out on my own!

 

And just to throw something else out there! You have to remember that just because something like the earth may look old, it doesn't mean it has to be old!

 

God made Adam and Eve as adults who could procreate. They were fully grown. Now how did that happen? I don't know. I just am a firm believer that just because something looks one way doesn't mean it is that way.

 

Keep studying science and the Bible and you will learn the truth. Happy studying!

[H.S. Burrow]

Wowsa!!

That's why I love coming to this group for answers. I learned quite a bit just reading through all of the replies. The list of resources, articles, etc....I'm so excited to get started, thanks guys!

 

I hadn't thought about the fact that there probably isn't an unbiased source out there. I've been very confused about what each side really believes, not just what the opposing side claims. I started wading through a ton of stuff online last night and as my eyes started glazing over, I thought maybe I should start at the beginning. What do I believe about the Bible? I read somewhere that there is a second account of creation in another book in the Bible that is slightly different. So that might be a good place to start. I'd have to see that for myself. It would help me answer whether I should take the Bible figuratively or literally. I hear about all sorts of "facts", here, there, and everywhere...it would be impossible for me to track them all down and determine the level of truth in them.

 

Anyway, that's where I am right now. I've been thinking about this very topic this moring as I was cleaning out my refrigerator and now that my little one has fallen asleep in my lap, I think I can do a little studying before helping the older kids w/their history and then doing some outdoor chores. There simply isn't enough time in a day.....

 

I also believe that since I've prayed for wisdom that God will lead me. That's a huge burden lifted from my shoulders. Imagine if I had to figure it all out on my own!

 

 

It's not in another book, it's in Genesis and begins with chapter 2 verse 4.

[LilyK]

I just am a firm believer that just because something looks one way doesn't mean it is that way.

 

:iagree:

 

The appendix is a good example. It looked to have no function. It appeared to be nothing more than a vestigial organ. One of my college professors even used the appendix as an example to refute intelligent design.

Not too long ago, Duke University found that the appendix does indeed have a function. (It stores good bacteria for your GI tract) Not everything is as it seems.

 

happy researching! I second Darwiin's Black Box. I disagree with ICR and AIG, but it sounds like you want to hear from both camps, so why not check them out?

[Kathy in MD]

There is the general use of 'theory' to mean 'something that is not proven' and then there is the scientific use of 'theory' to mean:

 

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact." (US National Academy of Sciences)

 

Laura

 

DITTO!!!!!!

[iwka]

I agree with Eliana...

 

...just science and logic are the best companions on this journey...

[iwka]

I was also just thinking about how people think that this or that worldview would influence kids on their way to forming their own. In my native country the only existing position thought in public schools (there were no others then, Communism, you know :glare:) on which biology stands was evolution (always described as a theory). Amazingly, it did not alter our 95% Catholic population in their faith in God as a Creator, but gave us solid scientific knowledge.

 

Living in USA, I constantly hear religion thrown in with this particular issue (ID, creationism, evolution, old earth, young earth, theistic evolution etc), and most of it is useless in the scientific field, if taken on other than purely scientifically sound premises. That's why I think it's so hard to go between the two fields (theology and science), taking to consideration logic and "pure" scientific findings.

[Marylou]

 

And don't feel that your scientific conclusions need to match your spiritual ones... but that is another discussion!

 

Please, start another thread if necessary; I would like to know what you mean here.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Please, start another thread if necessary; I would like to know what you mean here.

:iagree:

[Kathy in MD]

I don't think that is what I said.

 

Unfortunately it seems to be a hard issue for christians to look at rationally.

 

rational |ˈra sh ənl; ˈra sh nəl|

adjective

1 based on or in accordance with reason or logic

 

Having sat through many heated dicussions in my adult Sunday school classes on whether the Theory of Evolution was correct or if the creation story is literally correct, I must agree. The discussions aren't always rational.

 

But then there are many, many issues where people aren't always rational and religion isn't always at the root of the disagreement. Let's imagine Rush Limbaugh locked in a room with one of my liberal friends. :lol:

 

Unfortunately ALL Christians are assumed to accept the Creation story as the literal truth and the Theory of Evolution as a falsehood. But this assumes that ALL Christians believe in a total, literal interpretation of the Bible. This is not true, for a variety of reasons I won't go into here.

 

But to believe that all Christians believe the same things is to ignore the facts. Just look at the wide disparity of Christian denominations. And how different their dogma is. Though physical wars of the middle ages between Christians aren't as common today, the verbal wars and membership poaching continues. No, Christians can not be lumped into any one monolithic group.

Edited May 11, 2009 by Kathy in MD

[FlockOfSillies]

Hey, yeah, that would be great! I'd appreciate it.

 

"Almost Mexico" -- are you in or near Ajo? My dad grew up there.

[Kathy in MD]

I dont think it does imply anything of the sort. And I am well aware of the diversity of christian thought on the matter. Especially given that I am a christian who finds little trouble combining a belief in God with a scientific understanding of the theory of evolution.

 

AIG is not a peer reviewed or scientific source for information about anything. It is religious dogma, which may or may not suit your particular brand of christianity. And that was the sole point of my post.

 

Sorry, but I also misunderstood the point of your post. So please ignore my post.

[BikeBookBread]

"Almost Mexico" -- are you in or near Ajo? My dad grew up there.

 

Nope...not near Ajo. I hate breaking the specter of anonymity! (Isn't that sad?) I'm closer to one of the two metropolis'.

[Kathy in MD]

This is a terminology issue which is very important to clarify when trying to understand the debates on this topic.

 

Theory in our everyday language usage has a different meaning than it does when used scientifically.

 

The simplest example I can think of is to reply that gravity is also a "theory".

 

 

Standards of evidence, or of support for an idea, depend on the field or area of study. Philosophical and theological positions are supported in certain ways - and belief is a relevant piece of information when discussing a theological position.

 

I don't want to debate this here, but I do want to highlight this for the original poster. This assertion (with which I vehemently disagree) is a frequent one from "creationist" and Intelligent Design proponents. (Some of my thoughts can be found in this thread)

 

Two other points:

 

1) my religion is Judaism. I am a traditionally observant, and deeply religious Jew. My faith in G-d is intrinsic to who I am. My understandings of mathematics, of chemistry, and of biology are based on my studies in those areas, and are completely unrelated to faith or theology - except that, from my perspective, to study G-d's works is an intrinsically awe inspiring process.

 

2) Religion deals with many issues of absolute truth. Science doesn't present us with Truths... it presents us with working understandings of the physical world we live in.

 

There's a lot more to say on all of this, but that isn't the point of this thread.

 

 

 

 

 

Darwin's Black Box is authored by one of the leading spokespeople for Intelligent Design. It does not present an accurate representation of the scientific position on evolution. (There are several sites which specifically counter some of Behe's assertions, based on more recent research than was available when he wrote the book.)

 

I didn't find it either challenging or intense, but I have a strong science background. ymmv.

 

 

To the OP: I would start with a basic biology textbook overview of evolution - Campbell's Biology is a strong text, perhaps you could try that.

 

After you've read through it and feel you understand it, look at the brief descriptions of supporting evidence. Try to make your own outline - what key facts are required to support this scientific theory?

 

Try looking a little more closely at some of those for example: based on what information do scientists hold that the earth is X # of years old?

 

Then you could take one of the creationist or ID arguments and try to pick out only those pieces which relate to the outline you created. Try to ignore the philosophical and other non-scientific arguments, for the moment. Focus on understanding the scientific topic and the arguments being raised against it. Some arguments might be hard to categorize: how can we evaluate the possible dating impacts of the Flood? Remember that a "hey, maybe this could have had a effect we can't calculate" is a fun mind exercise, but without more to it than that, you don't have a scientific question, you have a philosophical one... or one that with further research could become a reasonable scientific question.

 

Then you can find the scientific responses to the specific questions/challenges you've identified. At this point, I think the goal would be to understand the respective positions.

 

Then I'd try to create an outline for the scientific position for creationism (and, if you are interested, for ID). Remember that critiques of evolution, even if solid and supported, do not prove anything about an alternate viewpoint. Identify the key scientific supports and the evidence (strong evidence for the Periodic Table, for example, was when new elements were discovered which matched its predictions).

 

Then look at scientific responses to/criticisms of those positions - and the responses to those, as above.

 

Once you've worked through all of that, you should be prepared for further exploration.

 

...but I would strongly recommend staying focused on understanding a scientific topic scientifically.

 

Thank you for this post. This method would be usuful for all sorts of inquiries.

[iwka]

Kathy in MD said: (how do you insert those quotes from other people's posts? :001_huh:)

Unfortunately ALL Christians are assumed to accept the Creation story as the literal truth and the Theory of Evolution as a falsehood. But this assumes that ALL Christians believe in a total, literal interpretation of the Bible. This is not true, for a variety of reasons I won't go into here.

 

 

All Christians are assumed to accept that God is the Creator, but not a literal interpretation of the Genesis (and the rest of the Bible). Even in the first centuries Christians had two schools of thought about the interpretation of the Bible, allegorical and literal (and all in between). It all started from there, I mean Scripture interpretation.

 

For exemple, Catholics, which represent the majority of Christians, are not against evolution, but they are also Creationists (meaning that they believe that God was/is a Creator), but at the same time they are not interpreting Gen 1 literally (this is greatly simplified statement :tongue_smilie:). This is a great topic since 1996, when pope JPII stated that "evolution is more than hypothesis"

 

Pope B16 said this not long time ago:

The question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science

 

and on switching from one field to another:

I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science

[Lovedtodeath]

Great quotes!

[Julpost]

Does anyone know who Kent Hovind is?

[FlockOfSillies]

No problem! Just curious. Most people have never even heard of Ajo, LOL.

[LilyK]

Does anyone know who Kent Hovind is?

 

I know who he is. He takes a very agressive stance against evolutionists. What he believes is similar to ICR and AIG. I believe he is in jail right now for refusing to pay taxes, but you might want to double check that.

[BikeBookBread]

I know who he is. He takes a very agressive stance against evolutionists. What he believes is similar to ICR and AIG. I believe he is in jail right now for refusing to pay taxes, but you might want to double check that.

 

Additionally, Kent Hovind called some of Hugh Ross's beliefs heretical (on the age of the universe, etc), even though Mr. Ross is a confessing Christian who upholds the tenants of historic Christianity. My claim is not a myth, we have a VHS copy of said TV debate that was held on the Ken Ankerberg Christian talk show between Mr. Hovind and Mr. Ross in September of 2000. There are a million links on google to this debate from BOTH sides of the spectrum. Honestly, I have less of a problem with the tax evasion (although that is another serious issue) than I do with the calls of "heresy". That is a SERIOUS offense reserved for those who have denied the deity of Christ, the power of God, etc...not for someone's belief of the age of the universe.

[Peek a Boo]

Since science can only work from the information it has, scientifically the age of the earth would be older than I would believe it to be from a faith based perspective... but I wouldn't feel that scientific position challenged my faith in any way.

 

 

I think you did a fine job. :D

 

My simplistic answer is usually "God knows more than the scientists. We'll just wait for science to catch up w/ God. :)"

 

In the meantime, I see no problem w/ studying and knowing current scientific theories. We are not being asked by the scientific community to accept them as fact, simply to understand the process that they deem "scientific." :)

 

Our Scientific facts, methods, and knowledge change. God doesn't.

 

 

as for the OP, if she is looking for informed opinions, then yes, she will want to become very familiar w/ how AIG and ICR [and yes, even Hovind] present their stance. In doing so, she will also want to research the other secular resources as well. Being Christian doesn't make an individual [or group] correct, and it doesn't automatically make them wrong. ;)

 

happy researching, Julpost!

[Spy Car]

as for the OP, if she is looking for informed opinions, then yes, she will want to become very familiar w/ how AIG and ICR [and yes, even Hovind] present their stance. In doing so, she will also want to research the other secular resources as well. Being Christian doesn't make an individual [or group] correct, and it doesn't automatically make them wrong. ;)

 

happy researching, Julpost!

 

Except AiG completely distorts the Theory of Evolution. They are an intellectually dishonest outfit.

 

I remember one video where one of their presenters asks a room full of school kids, anyone who believes your grandparents were monkeys please raise your hands. That kind of stuff is just balderdash. And it's no end to the distortions though-out the Answers in Genesis materials. One logical fallacy (or outright untruth) after another.

 

This is the wrong place to go seeking anything remotely close to scientific truth.

 

And no one said because AiG is a "Christian" (of a certain sort) outfit that that is makes them "wrong". That is a "straw man fallacy" too. AiG is wrong because they are ignore reason, logic, the scientific method, and they have difficulty telling the truth.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Just so people get a flavor for how "off-the-wall" AiG is, Ken Ham attributes "racism" to evolutionary theory. No matter than racism pre-dated the Theory of Evolution by a long measure, or that the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with racism (except in the mind of Ken Ham).

 

And, get this, the legend of St. George and the dragon is pointed to as "evidence" that dinosaurs "walked the earth with man".

 

The traditional dates for St George (who may or may not have existed) are that he may have lived from around 270 to 300 CE. In other words, dinosaurs existed 1700 years ago. Preposterous!

 

Where is the evidence???

 

Bill

[laughing lioness]

The young earth, icr crowd has been nasty to Hugh Ross and RTB for years. I used to work for him and he is not only a deeply committed Christian with an innerant view of the Bible but a rock-solid scientist and brilliant to boot. The fruit of his life and ministry speaks for itself- many, many people led to Christ and discipled through his work and teaching.

[Marylou]

In the meantime, I see no problem w/ studying and knowing current scientific theories. We are not being asked by the scientific community to accept them as fact, simply to understand the process that they deem "scientific." :)

 

 

 

I completely agree with this.

 

And I also think people of all faiths should read Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion.

 

I think it was in this thread somewhere that someone said he/she would not read it, and I want to say, "why not?"

 

I always learn a lot when I read about the world views of others. It would be worth your time to read that book.

[Blessedfamily]

The young earth, icr crowd has been nasty to Hugh Ross and RTB for years. I used to work for him and he is not only a deeply committed Christian with an innerant view of the Bible but a rock-solid scientist and brilliant to boot. The fruit of his life and ministry speaks for itself- many, many people led to Christ and discipled through his work and teaching.

 

I usually stay out of this particular topic, but I must agree here.

[calandalsmom]

Unfortunately ALL Christians are assumed to accept the Creation story as the literal truth and the Theory of Evolution as a falsehood. But this assumes that ALL Christians believe in a total, literal interpretation of the Bible. This is not true, for a variety of reasons I won't go into here.

 

But to believe that all Christians believe the same things is to ignore the facts. Just look at the wide disparity of Christian denominations. And how different their dogma is. Though physical wars of the middle ages between Christians aren't as common today, the verbal wars and membership poaching continues. No, Christians can not be lumped into any one monolithic group.

 

 

I dont think anyone assumes all christians think the same way about this. Until the last few years and participating on forums with evangelicals I had never heard that people thought a literal view of creation was a real possibility.

Edited May 12, 2009 by calandalsmom

[LibraryLover]

This sort of discussion always reminds me of the young Christian geologist (raised as a creationist) who told his family, "God is bigger than the box we put Him in".

 

I am not a Christain, and I fail to see how science can be so easily denied. I would think it blasphemy to claim to know the heart of God.

[Peek a Boo]

Except AiG completely distorts the Theory of Evolution. They are an intellectually dishonest outfit.

................

This is the wrong place to go seeking anything remotely close to scientific truth.

...............

And no one said because AiG is a "Christian" (of a certain sort) outfit that that is makes them "wrong". That is a "straw man fallacy" too. AiG is wrong because they are ignore reason, logic, the scientific method, and they have difficulty telling the truth.

 

...and there are plenty of scientific resources that distort ID and the Biblical creation account. So if that's the route we are taking, then there are none credible, no not one .... ;)

 

we had quite an interesting thread awhile back w/ Phred about the ToE and ID: exact same evidence, different conclusion.

 

and again: the OP was asking about *opinion* --not just what the scientific community considers credible truth. If you are indeed that correct about AIG and ICR [and I'm not saying you're wrong], then she will figure that out upon closer inspection. Feel free to PM and/or email her plenty of examples of their fallacies. One needn't agree w/ a particular POV to be willing to study or understand it.

 

Now if you have another Go-To source that gives your idea of a credible argument for a Young Earth POV so she can better understand their stance, go ahead and suggest it. :D

 

I am not a Christain, and I fail to see how science can be so easily denied. I would think it blasphemy to claim to know the heart of God.

 

...and your idea of blasphemy and God's might differ greatly. For a Christian that believes God's heart has been revealed via scripture, this wouldn't be blasphemy, it would be reading the Very Clear writing Right There in The Book. :)

 

Science can be "so easily denied" because science has a looooooong history of being, well, wrong.

 

-----------------------------

disclaimer: I say all this having no definitive stance on how God created the world. Young Earth or Old Earth makes no difference to me. I'm content that He did. Or as Phred would say, i subscribe to the Goddidit view. ;)

[Peek a Boo]

And I also think people of all faiths should read Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion.

 

I think it was in this thread somewhere that someone said he/she would not read it, and I want to say, "why not?"

 

I always learn a lot when I read about the world views of others. It would be worth your time to read that book.

 

ah yes..... speaking of fallacies.......LOL!

 

that was quite an interesting book.

 

more pros and cons can be found at its wiki:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

 

in fact, I would say the most concise arguments for Julpost would probably be wiki itself:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_Creation

 

{more types of Creation stories on the right hand side bar}

 

and

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

[Spy Car]

...and there are plenty of scientific resources that distort ID and the Biblical creation account. So if that's the route we are taking, then there are none credible, no not one .... ;)

 

Citations please.

 

 

and again: the OP was asking about *opinion* --not just what the scientific community considers credible truth. If you are indeed that correct about AIG and ICR [and I'm not saying you're wrong], then she will figure that out upon closer inspection. Feel free to PM and/or email her plenty of examples of their fallacies. One needn't agree w/ a particular POV to be willing to study or understand it.

 

Well the Theory of Evolution is not an "opinion", it meets the very heavy burden of evidence necessary to be a scientific Theory. If you just want to make stuff up, and call it "opinion", what can I say?

 

...and your idea of blasphemy and God's might differ greatly. For a Christian that believes God's heart has been revealed via scripture, this wouldn't be blasphemy, it would be reading the Very Clear writing Right There in The Book. :)

 

Who said anything about "blasphemy"?

 

And plenty of Christians have no problems with the Theory of Evolution.

 

If you want "theology" to trump science, fine, but don't make up "fake science" or misrepresent genuine science and act as if it has some kind of "equal standing" intellectually. Because it does not. "Opinion" is not science.

 

 

-----------------------------

disclaimer: I say all this having no definitive stance on how God created the world. Young Earth or Old Earth makes no difference to me. I'm content that He did. Or as Phred would say, i subscribe to the Goddidit view. ;)

 

I miss that guy. Will he be back?

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

Who said anything about "blasphemy"?

 

This sort of discussion always reminds me of the young Christian geologist (raised as a creationist) who told his family, "God is bigger than the box we put Him in".

 

I am not a Christain, and I fail to see how science can be so easily denied. I would think it blasphemy to claim to know the heart of God.

 

I had no idea what any of this was supposed to mean, so I didn't reply.:tongue_smilie:

[Lovedtodeath]

Well the Theory of Evolution is not an "opinion", it meets the very heavy burden of evidence necessary to be a scientific Theory. If you just want to make stuff up, and call it "opinion", what can I say?

Wow! :boxing_smiley: Peek and Bill at it again!

 

Peek didn't call the Theory of Evolution opinion...

 

and again: the OP was asking about *opinion* --not just what the scientific community considers credible truth.

 

I don't even know where to begin and talk about a complicated subject! I want to have an informed opinion but am completely overwhelmed...I'm hoping someone can recommend sources to begin with that will help me to understand both sides. Maybe easy, for kids, type of books and then as I get the basics down, I can graduate to the more complex. Any help?

Thanks!

[Peek a Boo]

Well the Theory of Evolution is not an "opinion", it meets the very heavy burden of evidence necessary to be a scientific Theory. If you just want to make stuff up, and call it "opinion", what can I say?

 

 

I never called the ToE an opinion.

what was it you were saying about people who misrepresent a position?

 

Who said anything about "blasphemy"?

 

um, the person i QUOTED.... :D

And plenty of Christians have no problems with the Theory of Evolution.

 

I agree.

If you want "theology" to trump science, fine, but don't make up "fake science" or misrepresent genuine science and act as if it has some kind of "equal standing" intellectually. Because it does not. "Opinion" is not science.

 

 

ID isn't about making anything up. It's about looking at the evidence and coming to a different conclusion. That's all. That you continue to assert it is "fake" science fits your first call for a citation of the science community misrepresenting views. I'm guessing you can point to any number of scientists also calling ID "fake science." So thanks for making that pretty easy.

 

 

I miss that guy. Will he be back?

 

 

unfortunately, no. I think he was banned for good. If anyone knows if/where else he hangs out online, i'd appreciate the heads up. Or give him my email address :)

 

webnotions@yahoo.com

[fivetails]

Second book suggestion for the OP:

 

Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation - The Explorers Guide to the Awesome Works of God

 

This was the other library one I'd snagged - just started looking at it.. can't say much about the information yet, but it sure is purdy. :D

 

(What can I say, I'm visual. This book is beautiful bright hardcover and has fantastic illustrations! I've only read a bit, but even the way the info is set up on the pages appeals to me. If that makes any sense :tongue_smilie:)

[nmoira]

A couple of books, on the evolution side of the coin are these

 

The Sandwalk Adventures

This is a graphic novel, that tells the story of evolution in 5 chapters. My ds loves this book.

By the same author: Optical Allusions. It's about eyes, but talks about evolution with respect to eyes in great detail. Fascinating little book.

[fivetails]

Peek, you may want to either have someone pm you to GET your email, or split it up (name AT blablah DOT com) so as to avoid it getting picked up for spamwiches and crud. :spam:

[Peek a Boo]

Peek, you may want to either have someone pm you to GET your email, or split it up (name AT blablah DOT com) so as to avoid it getting picked up for spamwiches and crud. :spam:

 

that's ok --it's my "anonymous" one just for online purposes :D

[fivetails]

that's ok --it's my "anonymous" one just for online purposes :D

 

aaaah. Good then! :cool:

[Peek a Boo]

By the same author: Optical Allusions. It's about eyes, but talks about evolution with respect to eyes in great detail. Fascinating little book.

 

this was a cool book. I only got a chance to flip thru it. I need to go find it again for this year.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

ID isn't about making anything up. It's about looking at the evidence and coming to a different conclusion. That's all. That you continue to assert it is "fake" science fits your first call for a citation of the science community misrepresenting views.

:iagree:But, I am open to the idea that rather than calling ID "fake science", he was calling what AIG does "fake science".

[LibraryLover]

...

 

Science can be "so easily denied" because science has a looooooong history of being, well, wrong.

 

 

 

And Young Earth belief has been proven correct?

[Peek a Boo]

And Young Earth belief has been proven correct?

 

nope. It doesn't need to.

 

Your premise is flawed.

 

For the OP:

 

As Eliana already established so clearly earlier in the thread, The religious views of creation/evolution have nothing to do w/ scientific evidence or "proof" -- for them/us, the "proof" is in the personal conviction which our faith provides. If one is not convicted of that belief, then it certainly can never be a proof --they have not experienced it and it can't be scientifically measured.

 

Religion/ faith do not subscribe to a proof method: they are literally immune from proof. Which is why the God Delusion [and other books proclaiming there Is No God, Period] is such an....unscientific? .....book. Thus the irony.....

 

However, since the scientific community itself follows a proof method, it can indeed disprove that which it once held as true.

 

I guess I would clarify my statement and say that scientISTS have been wrong, just as ChristIANS have been wrong, but as far as God is concerned, a correct understanding of science [His world, after all] is completely compatible w/ a correct understanding of [His!] faith.

 

i think that's pretty much where we end up. For most people, There's not a concrete resolution to the debate.

 

Yet.

[Peek a Boo]

I wouldn't accuse ID proponents of making things up, but

 

1) looking at evidence and coming to a different conclusion can be done scientifically or non-scientifically.

 

2) Critiquing someone else's conclusions is not the same things as presenting an alternate *scientific* theory.

....

doubting a current theory is a fabulous place to start... but doubt isn't evidence. It's a spur to *find* evidence, perhaps, but not a case in and of itself... and even if our current (scientific) understanding of evolution were completely overturned, that wouldn't add one ounce of support to either ID or creationism - because it isn't a binary choice.

 

 

I do pretty much agree w/ you :)

 

My only thing is that most ID proponents are using the very same evidence and simply coming to a different conclusion --based on a different way of interpreting that data. And yeah -- it can NEVER become a "scientific theory" because science demands a tangible proof. ID can't provide that per the very essence of faith.

 

For PEOPLE and truth, it can absolutely be a binary choice.

For the rules of science, it can never be applicable. period.

 

Truth is not dependent on being accepted or proven by science. :)

[Peek a Boo]

:iagree:But, I am open to the idea that rather than calling ID "fake science", he was calling what AIG does "fake science".

 

sure! Bill can absolutely clarify if he feels that ID isn't fake science. :D

[Lovedtodeath]

it can NEVER become a "scientific theory" because science demands a tangible proof.

If there is tangible proof of evolution starting from nothing, or a single cell evolving into thousands of species, or one species involving into another, I have not seen it. Where is it? (Really, I will order the book from my library, etc.)

 

After all, I enjoy a good read about fire-breathing dinosaurs surviving the flood, :lol: so I could enjoy this too, don't you think ;)?

Edited May 13, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Spy Car]

ID isn't about making anything up. It's about looking at the evidence and coming to a different conclusion. That's all. That you continue to assert it is "fake" science fits your first call for a citation of the science community misrepresenting views. I'm guessing you can point to any number of scientists also calling ID "fake science." So thanks for making that pretty easy.

 

All the scientists. Michael Behe's whole department signed a petition disassociating themselves from his "junk science".

 

Michael Behe himself said under oath in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:

 

"There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".

 

He admits there is NO EVIDENCE, NO SCIENCE. Intelligent Design is a sham.

 

[quote name=Peek a Boo;946821

unfortunately' date=' no. I think he was banned for good. If anyone knows if/where else he hangs out online, i'd appreciate the heads up. Or give him my email address :)

 

webnotions@yahoo.com

 

Only a year, I think? I never knew what he did to get banned? He seemed like such a good addition to the forum. Sigh.

 

Bill

[Blessedfamily]

I do pretty much agree w/ you :)

 

:)

 

And I agree with you and Eliana both on too many points to quote. :001_smile: