The TRUE reason for the EvC controversy, and why it can not be resolved.

Christians do not reject science. We do not believe in a flat earth standing on 4 columns, we do not believe the earth is the centre of the universe. We do not doubt that illness is caused by bacteria and viruses, and we are happy to use computers, which use principles of quantum physics.So, I bet evolusionists must be scratching their heads, asking "Why us?". Why does evolution cause so much contraversy? Why do we still debate creationism 150 years after Darwin?The reason is that the debate is not really scientific in nature, but it is rather a clash between world views.Modern Science assume two principles that is in direct conflict with the Christian worldview. These principle are not scientific in nature, but without it, science is not possible. They are naturalism and uniformism.Acording to this world view, there is nothing beyond the natural world (nature must explain itself), and the principles of nature can be applied to all historic and future events.In the Christian world view, God created a perfect world, but because of man's disobedience, nature was reduced to a fallen state. It is important to note, the scripture does not restrict this "fallen nature" to mankind alone, but all of nature. The implications of this fallen nature are war, disease, suffering, pain, famon, death and finally, eternal punnishment or hell. Fortunately, God is not only just, but also loving and mercyfull. His holyness demands that the evils of man (that includes christians!) must be punnished, but his love for us wanted to give us a way out. That way out was Jesus Christ, who came to sacrifice Himself to pay for our sins. His sacrifice lead to the salvations of Jews in the Old Testement, and Christians in the New Testemant. One day, he will return and judge the world.We are all guilty, but those who believed in Him, will be pardoned, to be taken to the new world, where once again, there will be no war, disease, suffering, pain, famon or death. This salvation must not be seen as a right, it is a privilage which no one deserves.In the christian mind, scientific naturalism and uniformism is only accurate, as long as it is applied to the world in its fallen state. Scientific observations are made in the fallen nature, and it applies only to the fallen nature. We can not make any scientific deductions about the perfect world that existed prior, and will exist after this world, because we have no observations made in that nature.Evolution is the logical conclusion to make, if you believe in absolute naturalism and uniformism, but this can never be acceptable for the christian. The bible clearly states that God who created nature, can, and did, change the nature of nature. If you're an atheist, I'll accept that you'll write me off as a nut right now, but if you're a christian, you should think twice before doing so. Do you believe you're going to heaven? Have you ever stop to think what heaven will be like? Do you think the scientific principles as we know them today can create an environment as blissful as described in the Bible? Do you expect evolution to continue in heaven as well? If God can create a perfect world after this world, why did He not do so the first time round? If God really did use evolution (which requires death and suffering), why would he promise a New Earth? Why punnish us for evil, because evil is build into evolution. (eg Death, pain, disease) And if we are not going to be held accountable, why did Christ bother? Put simply, evolution, and uniformism which underlies it, is bad theology, and makes no sence in the Christian world view. In a way, this assesment also cast a dark shadow over modern creationism: it too is trying to explain the perfect nature with the science of the fallen nature. Though I would not like to discourage them, I do think there could well be a problem this their approach.But now you might say that evolution has falsified the entire christian faith. Not so. Remember, evolusionists look at the data through a uniformist and naturalist (Which preassume that God had no/a very limited hand in creation) perspective. These are philosofical assumptions, not scientific ones. For instance, they assume that radio mentric decay was always constant (Always there?), but that assumption is made on observations made in a fallen nature. We have no way of knowing how radio metric decay would work in a non-fallen nature, or if it would even exists there. The origin of the universe, life and macro evolusion is not really a science in the classical sence of the word, as it deals with history. Unlike the laws of physics, history is not repeatable and testable. This is proven by the fact that, dispite our best scietific research tools, innocent people sometimes still end up en jail.This is the strongest arguement against the death penalty. If science can be so very wrong about something that happened only a few months ago, how can we be so sure about the origins of live? When it comes to history, even science can get it wrong. Science got a lot of historic facts wrong, and there is no way of telling how many of our current scientific ideas are wrong until they're proven to be so.From this I can make two deductions. First, this debate is pointless. Secondly, it is not going away any time soon. The debate on evolution vs creationism is not scientific in nature, but metaphysical. It is not a disagreement on something you can proof by repetision, as it deals with history. As such, you will never be able to completely disprove the oposing idea.To allow for a meaningful debate, one need to share a common ground. But in this debate, even the very nature of reality is called into question. With no metaphysical common ground, a meaningful debate on creation\macro evolution is impossible. In the end, it all comes down
to: Does God exist? If so, can He interfere with nature? If so, did he interfere with nature, if not, why do we call him God?Whether by God's design, or by evolutionary processes, no one can deny that mankind is spiritual in nature, who desires a higher purpose. Worldwide atheist rationalism is loosing ground to monoistic believe systems, because atheism can not provide this higher purpose.Where Creator/Creation spirituality seperates the creator from the creation, thereby allowing a rational study of nature, monoism sees the spirit and the physical world as interconected.This believe leads to magic and mystisism. You can take your pick which of the two are more damaging to science. Scientists must acknowledge that the origin of mankind can never be a cold, clinical, purely scientific issue. They, more than in any other field of study, have to be more sensitive to people when they publish their results, and acknowledge the underlying philosofical assumptions of the science they use, rather than to tell people their cherrished believes are ancient myths. It is a simple matter of good P.R. {Cleaned up the formating some. The original version was a mass of extra line breaks and uncertain paragraph divisions. I put the paragraph breaks where they seemed to have been intended, but such was largely a wild guess on my part. I did absolutely no edits of the content itself. Will submit the edits, and see how the results look. Further edits by the originator will probably be called for. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-20-2006 06:25 AM

Well, the basic arguement is that a meaningful debate between creationism and evolutionism is impossible, because they have no philosofical common ground.Science require that you view the world from a naturalist, uniformist perspective. This assumes that everything has a natural explaination, and that natural laws are eternal. This is the philosofical presumption necesary for science to work. Although this works for our daily life, it can not be proven to always have been the case.Christianity, and Creationism holds that the Earth was created in a perfect state, but due to the actions of man, man and nature itself was reduced to a fallen state. Creation would be restored to its original perfect state after the Second Coming. This implies that God can and did change the laws of physics itself, as a world without pain, suffering and death can not be explained by science as we know it today.Because of this contrast in world views (Theism vs Naturalism, and non-uniformism vs uniformism) the debate between Creationism and Evolutionism can not be resolved, but it won't go away either.I'm not quite sure where you'd put this topic, as this theme underlies all the various aspects of the debate.
-Radio metric dating depends on the uniformity of isotopic decay
-Reading of the geological column is based on the uniformity assumption.
-Macro evolution is the result of observed micro evolution + the uniformity assumption.
-etc.Basically, this arguement explores the philosofical foundation of the science of evolution - as well as all sciences that deals with prehistory.PS. I do my best to keep my english to the highest standards, but sometimes spelling mistakes still slip through. Sorry.

I'm not saying there is a conflict between theology and sciece, as so far as science is applied to the fallen nature, that is, from the start of sin, to the second comming.However, anyone who believes in the concept of "going to heaven" must admit that the principles of science are subject to change, and that God has the power and the will to do just that.If you asume, as science requires, that the nature is not "fallen", but has always existed in its current state, and will always exist the same way, then evolution is the only possible conclusion. However, if you believe in this, does that mean that evolution, and therefore death, will continue to exist in heaven as well? From this it should be clear that our findings on prehistory could also be wrong due to Gods interference with the laws of physics.Obviously, this discussion would only be meaningfull between people who share the believe in God and the hereafter. To someone who do not believe these things, the discussion will be pointless.

I'll take your word for it. I've been here before, and I know this place can be ruthless.I'll try again.

Why do so many christians reject evolution on theological grounds? Why are there so many people trying to find the science behind Genesis? Why do we accept a round earth, a non geocentric universe, but not evolution? (When I say evolution, I mean Macro Evolution) More importantly, how is it possible for anyone to go against the rationality of science?I have finally awnsered this question for myself. Dispite popular believe, there is no absulute guarentee that scientific findings are true, aspecially when it deals with "what happened", as past events are not repeatable. Science is based on two philosofical believe systems: Naturalism, which do not believe in any supernatural interferance in the natural world, and uniformism, which believes that the laws of nature are unchanging.To the Christian, these principles are mostly acceptable. We believe that God created order in the universe, so naturalism and uniformism makes sense, but only up to a point. For instance, the resurrection of Christ clearly goes against the uniformist and naturalist foundation of science. To try and use science to explain it, will be a fruitless endevour. We believe that God is above science, and therefore is not bound by the laws of science. We believe that he did interfere in them in the past, (called miracles) and will do so again in the future. When God created the universe, or at least, the earth, he made it good. But, because of mankinds disobedience, nature was reduced to a fallen state: death, disease, famon and other hardships became the order of the day. The bible is clear that it is not just man, but all of nature that was reduced to this fallen state. I believe that this indicates that the laws of nature themselves had changed, and that science, which assumes that these laws are unchanging, can not make any accurate conclusions about the time prior to this event. It is my believe that this change happened slowly, and was completed round about the time after the flood of Noah, when the age of people reduced to what it is today.God promises to change the laws of nature again after the Second Comming of Christ. On the New Earth, God promises that death, disease, famon and other hardships will no longer exists. Countless times the Bible refers to the old, decaying earth that will be replaced by a new, permanent earth. Surely, science as we know it today, can not make any predictions on what this new earth will be like. That is because science is based on observations made in nature in its "fallen state". Science can only make predictions in the time period between Man's disobedieance, and the Second Comming.For this reason, creation science itself is a folly. Creationism can never be science, because you can't explain the perfect world with the science of the imperfect. Creationism can be compared with the scientific study of heaven or hell.Evolution is based on the assumption of uniformism and naturalism. Science do not recognise the that we're living in a fallen state, and assume death and hardship to be normal. Based on this worldview, evolution is the only possible conclusion that one can make. But this clearly contradicts the Bible, and can't be proven one way or the other. Because the evolutionist and the creationist do not share the same philosofical worldview, any debate between them will be fruitless, because both base their arguements on different assumptions. The disagreement goes much deeper that just the origin of life, but to the very nature of nature, which is a philosofical question, not a scientific one.

I hope my arguement is clearer this time?

AdminJar.I've been on and off this forum over a couple of years now. Everytime I leave, I though I'm not comming back, but when I did, I forgot my log in. You can join or dump them or whatever. No evil intended, sorry.PaulKIf you use absolute uniformitarianism as only as a methodological constrain to find our origins, without actually holding it as a world view, aren't you practicing doublethink?As for the fossil record, they must be younger than mankind. We date these fossils using radiometric dating, on the assumption that radiometric decay was always constant. But, if we allow for a grace/fallen scenario, how reliable are these dating methods? Could radiometric decay be one of the results of the fall? Or did it behave in a different way? How does radio activity fit into a world with no death and no hardship? (Isn't radio activity lethal?) To try and debate what science was like before the fall (and will be like in heaven) is kind of like discussing the survace features of Alpha Centrauri 1. We just don't have any data of how the fall has affected science, apart from what God reveals.Let me make this very clear. I do not presume to have all the awnsers, and I don't think anyone does. (Even though dr. Hovin and dr. Dawkings likes to believe they do) My personal believe is that it was the flood. Of the exact nature of the flood, I am open minded. The Bible says the flood covered the whole world. The bible also says the whole world suffered from the great famon, and came to Egypt to buy their food. Does this also include the America's? The flood was big enough to kill all of mankind, but did mankind spread to cover the globe by then? Maybe the flood was due to the gravity of a passing object, that caused a tsunami that only covered part of the world at any point in time. Creationism attempt to awnser these questions, but since it reject absolute uniformitarianism, it is not a science, and its findings will always be speculative.If you believe in the Bible, you have good reason to believe that God has, and will change science. How can biology not change if we are to live in heaven in eternal bliss? When it comes to things that can not be repeated, (like the past or the future), science definitely becomes a world view. When you say evolution* is a fact, you do so based on the uniformitarianism assumption.PS. As I'm awnsering these emails from work, and as I know how quickly people respond in this forum, I'm going to try and stick to the rule of only comming here once a day.*Remember - I'm not refering to observable micro evolution.

JarYou have no problem with a God that created and destroyed life for billions of years, and then pick our one species to whom he promises eternal and blissful life?Science says once something is dead, it's dead, yet we believe in the resurrection. There is no proof for that either.If you're an atheist or a gnostic, I can still understand your objection, and I'm not here now to debate that position. I fail, however, to see how a Christian, who believes in Jesus and all the mirricles that goes with him, the Second Comming, and heaven and hell, and everything else that is unscientific and unprovable in the bible, object to genesis, simply because science says so.Science can only deal with the natural, it can't "proof" or "disproof" the supernatural. Science's natural awnser for our origins is evolution, but it can't proof or disproof a supernatural explaination. It is for this reason that science disregard the supernatural explainations: Not because it is false, but because it is not equipt to deal with such scenario's. The Bible says God spoke, and it was there. What features do you expect to find in such an event to proof that it happened? I can think of none.

I don't recall ever signing in as "compmage".I have been "Just Wondering", but as far as I know, that is all.

crashfrog.I think we're talking past each other. It's my fault, because I misinterpreted the word "uniformitarianism"What I mean to say, is the idea that natural laws always work the same way. Like, if E=mc2, then E=mc2 10 billion years ago, and 10 billion years from now, E will still be mc2.

I had a quick read through all the posts, and it seems like some posters miss that this is not an debate on EvC, but a debate on the debate on EvC.robinrohan is quite right. Christianity is much more than just secular humanism. If you believe that none of the stuff in the Bible actually happened, so be it, but then you can not call yourself a Christian. I'm not debating that.What I am saying here is, science is making philosofical assumptions on the nature of reality, which it should be doing to function. However, if you take the uniformaty of natural law, which we observed during the last 500 years, and you extend it to billions of years, you enter a realm where people can disagree with you, based not on scientific grounds, but on philosofical grounds. Aspecially where people already believe that the nature of reality has changed somewhere in the past, as is taught in the bible.The Christian evolusionist do not believe in Adam and Eve, in the Fall, in Noah's flood, and the tower of Babel because nothing in his scientific knowledge can account for it. Because evolution offers a purely natural alternative, that must be true. But if our ability to understand reality in a rational way is the measure of determining if past events are real or not, why stop there?Can science explain how Joseph forsaw the comming famon? Can it explain the 10 plaques of Egypt, the partition of the Red Sea, The events at Horeb? How about the day when the God made the sun stand still for Josua? Should we dismiss these events as myth as well?What about the virgin birth of Jesus, His countless miracles, His claim to be God, His resurection from the dead, and accention to heaven. Are these events real, or is it only hero worship in overdrive? By the way, if there was no fall, what would the point of Jesus's sacrifice have been?And while where busy, God promises that the dead will be ressurected, that they will be judged, and the elect will receive forgiveness for their crimes/sins. After that, the old earth will sieze to exist, and we will live on the New Earth. There will be no pain, suffering or death. By what scientific principle will God raize the dead? How will the people of a thousand generations fit on the earth? Not to mention the aweful long time you will have to wait for your trail, concidering the millions who need to go before you. By what biological principle can creatures live in eternal bliss, with no pain, suffering disease or death? Where will the space for all the people come from? Will the earth be larger than it is today? Wouldn't we then be crushed by the gravity?And if you've dismissed all of the above, what exactly remains that makes you a Christian? It is for this reason that many Christians utterly reject a reconciliation between macro evolution and theology, and also find it difficult to understand the reasoning of Christians who do accept it. In my mind, it constitutes doublethink. You either believe the supernatural in the Bible happened, or you don't. If you find yourself in some kind of middleground, chances are you no longer really believe in God's omnipotence, and you're shifting towards the "don't believe".To be a Christian, is to admit to God omnipotence, and therefore His ability to do things beyond the restraints of science and our understanding. There is actually two kinds of science. Although their outcomes are the same in most fields of study, their philosofical base differs.Christian science is build on the theological base that God created order in the universe, and it is therefore possible for man to study, understand and explain it. However, it also recognise that God is the creator of this order, and is therefore not bound by it. He can, did and will do things that do not necesarilly follow the laws which He himself imposed.Secular science holds that natural law formed nature, and that natural law is absolute. There is no divine interference, no supernatural creation. If something can not be explained by natural law, it is false.On everyday stuff, such as the shape of the earth, or the nature of illness and the universe, both reach the same conclusion. On the question of origin, they disagree on their philosofical base. The EvC debate is therefore philosfical in nature, not scientific, and can therefore not be resolved or concluded. Without a philosofical common ground, it is hard to see how evolution and christianity can be reconciled. Creationism will remain for as long as a theistic world view exists. Creationism might not be scientifically correct in the secular sence of the word, but since christians do not share the secular world view to begin with, creationism as an idea will not go away. Secular scientists who's trying to fight it, is just waisting their time.PS. The assumption on radio metric dating is not only based on how long the decay period is, but also the original composition of the material being dated. If C14 is a by product of the fall, it stands to reason that early animals had much less C14 than we'd expect them to have, appearing far older than they really are. But that's part of the evc debate, I'm debating whether there's any point in such a debate to begin with.-PS I appologice for language errors. English is not my first language, and I do my best to keep it cleanThis message has been edited by Gone full circle, 03-24-2006 02:51 AM

Creation science remains speculation, because we can't repeat any of the biblical events to study it. One can define the word "miracle" as an exception to natural law. Science is incapable of studying such exceptions. I'm not saying they should not be doing what they're doing, I'm just saying they can not claim their findings as facts. Dr. Hovin presents a world with more oxigin, higher air presure, and a protective watervapour shield to make it more suitable for life. Though it is proven that these measures would improve the conditions for life, I do not believe they will make you immortal.Creationism is more theologically plausable than evolution. creationism is not science, and science is not theology. If it's false because you can't explain it with current science, the logical conclusion is that heaven and hell is false as well.

Sir.Are you a Christian?If not, I do not see the point to debate christianity with you.If you are, I'd like to know what criteria you use in your "critical though" to determine whether an event in the bible is true or not. You are saying I should be crittical of Genesis 1, but not of Jesus's resurection? Do we spare that part of the bible from critical thought, just because without it, you don't have a christian religion?
I fail to see how you make that distinction. It is easier for me to understand how a non-christian can have objections to Genesis 1 than a christian.Faith is to be certain of that which you don't see. Faith is to believe and trust God like a child. If you think that makes me stupid, well, it comes to no suprise, as the Bible says God's wisdom is foolishness to men, and vice versa.Even though creationists like to sement their believes with scientific sounding arguements, evolusionists are correct about them: they are not practicing (secular) science, and they do not enter the origins discussion with an open mind. They believe in creation just like I do, and their arguements is to support this believe, not to question it.You are all right. All religions believe in the super natural, and to believe in the super natural, is to expand reality beyond the realm of science alone.

uniformism. The idea that the laws discovered by science are fixed and eternal, and that no exterior interference in these laws ever existed. Definition 2, basically.

I must call it a day. Chat to you tommorow again.