CREATIONIST TEACHERS

by badboy 53 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Awakened07

  Question: What would it take for an Evolutionist to believe in Creation?

  First, it depends a little on what you mean by 'Creation'. An 'evolutionist' can very well believe in a Creator.

  But - if evolution was falsified by DNA sequencing not showing evidence of common descent, if the fossil record didn't show evidence of gradually progressive complexity in species through time (that's a simplified statement, but accurate enough here), if animal species were scattered 'helter skelter' in the geologic column like rabbits found with dinosaurs, birds found before reptiles etc., if all dating methods didn't show evidence of a really old earth and universe, if there were no atavisms ("throwbacks"), no vestigial features, no signs of retroviral insertion points in DNA that must have occurred in a shared ancestor... To put it short, if the theory of evolution did not describe what we see in nature, then it would be falsified, and we'd have to look elsewhere for an explanation. That in and of itself would not mean everyone would have jumped on a literal reading of the Bible, but it would perhaps have become a story that was easier to swallow scientifically.

  As natural science cannot take invisible, unprovable entities into account for natural phenomena, it can only describe what we find evidence for in nature. If we thereby actually end up describing God's handiwork without directly referring to that God, that's just the way science has to be, as it has to be evidence-driven.

  Evolution theory was not created as an idea first, then attempted to be supported by evidence. Yes, many will say that some sort of evolutionary thought has been around since the ancient Greeks, but it didn't become a natural science until we (creationist naturalists, in fact, as there was no real alternative at the time) found "strange things" in geology and biology that didn't really fit with - for example - a literal interpretation of Genesis. Rock was older, and the layers were filled with species that no longer existed. As signs pointing to a gradual formation of species came about, the theory was fleshed out. Darwin's grandfather, although a creationist, wrote a poem I think it was, detailing evolutionary thought. But it was his grandson (and someone else at the same time, Alfred Wallace) that came up with the mechanism with which it would work. Not the beginning of life, but the ever changing property of life as seen in nature. Since then, a lot has happened, just as a lot has happened in cell- and germ theory since their inception, following further research and findings.
• 

  XJW4EVR

  "The Intelligent Design camp want to create the illusion that there is a debate. The point is that there is NO scientific debate, but political."
  
  No, the Evolutionist camp does not want ID, because a free exchange of ideas would crumble their atheistic worldview, that creation is not the product of randomness, but of a creative intelligence. There is scientific debate over this issue, sadly it is the evolutionists that are kicking dissenters out of their "sandbox", very much like a petulant 3 year old. There is scientific debate, as Ben Stein's Expelled has clearly demonstrated. The issue is whether or not evolutionists will allow their presuppositions and worldview to be questioned. The issue is political, I'll grant that, but the issue is still up for grabs in areas of academia that allow a free exchange of thought, which is what academia is supposedly about...the free exchange of ideas.
• 

  marmot

  Define what it is you consider "up for debate", please.
  
  Is it the process of species slowly changing over time and diverging due to to genetic change? That's evolution, and there is NO debate over this.
  
  Or is it the idea of life arising out of nothing? That's abiogenesis, and it could be argued that there is debate over this, but it's something that cannot be observed, tested, or proven.
  
  How life originally arose on earth is something nobody knows, right now, but what the scientific community DOES know is that once life began so did evolution. Fully-formed plants, animals and insects were not magically zapped into being, they came about through changes that lasted millions upon millions of years. The exact mechanism as to how this works is still a subject of research, but the underlying fact that life evolved is supported by DNA, the fossil record and comparative biology.
• 

  hooberus

  But - if evolution was falsified by DNA sequencing not showing evidence of common descent, if the fossil record didn't show evidence of gradually progressive complexity in species through time (that's a simplified statement, but accurate enough here), if animal species were scattered 'helter skelter' in the geologic column like rabbits found with dinosaurs, birds found before reptiles etc., if all dating methods didn't show evidence of a really old earth and universe, if there were no atavisms ("throwbacks"), no vestigial features, no signs of retroviral insertion points in DNA that must have occurred in a shared ancestor... To put it short, if the theory of evolution did not describe what we see in nature, then it would be falsified, and we'd have to look elsewhere for an explanation.

  The problem is that evolutionary theory is so flexible that evolutionists simply change it to prevent it from being falsified by any certain line of data. Often this results in evolution being retreated into unfalsifiability in the particular specific area. ReMine (who is not specifically a Bibilical creationist) documents several instances of this and concludes that evolution is now either falsified or unfalsifiable depending on how its defined. His book The Biotic Message should be read by anyone who really wishes to fully understand evolution: contents: http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm (available from www.creationresearch.org)

  That in and of itself would not mean everyone would have jumped on a literal reading of the Bible, but it would perhaps have become a story that was easier to swallow scientifically.

  For more on the Bible and science (see www.creationresearch.org)