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

quote:

---

Evolusionists often say that creationism is not science. Now that I'm coming out of the closet and say: hey, you're right, it is not, you're the one treating it as if it is.

---

That's wrong and you are ignoring the whole thrust of my argument in saying so. My point is that even if we allow your ideas that nature may have been different you cannot resolve the conflict in that way. Evolution is still a live option and creationism still looks no better than it did before.

quote:

---

Religion require you to hold certain ideas as "absolute truth" or "dogma" as you call it. Without it, you have atheism. I can't produce any scientific evidence for God's existance. My believe in him is therefore no less dogmatic than my believe in Genesis 1.

---

Again you are ignoring my points. As I pointed out creationism is not rejected simply because it cannot be scientifically supported. It is rejected because it cannot explain the evidence as well as science can. EVEN IF we allow your idea that nature may have changed.

quote:

---

How many evolutionists here came to accept the creationist world view? None? That is because creationism allows for an omnipotent God, while evolusionists does not.

---

That is an outright falsehood. There are may people who beleive in evolution and in an omnipotent God. Kenneth Miller is a well-known example who even wrote a book on the subject (Finding Darwin's God)

quote:

---

your point of departure, not in scientific debate. This philosofical difference will also affect how you think about science, and how you define "critical thought".

---

And again you ignore my arguments. The "philosphical difference" you refer to played no part in them.So we come to the real difference. Creationists think that any view they beleive strongly enough must be true. As you beleive that your analysis of the debate must be true. And sometimes they beleive so strongly that they are incapable of reading and understanding counter-arguments. That is why we see posts like yours which completely mischaracterise the points they are supposedly answering. Or perhaps you have another explanation of how you managed to so completely misunderstand what I was saying ?

If Jesus was not a "historical personage," I guess it wasn't he that "brought the message." It's somebody else's message if Jesus never existed. We might want to find out who that somebody was and check his credentials. Perhaps Gone Full Circle's question was classificational rather than judgmental in nature.

---

"Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!"--T. S. Eliot

You're doing fine with your English, GFC, except that the spelling is "philosophical." However, I like your spelling of it just fine.

PaulK.

quote:

---

My point is that even if we allow your ideas that nature may have been different you cannot resolve the conflict in that way. Evolution is still a live option and creationism still looks no better than it did before.

---

I think it is you who don't understand my point. While I'm debating whether there is any point in EvC, you're debating EvC.My arguement is that the laws of nature changed, therefore we do not have the foundation of knowledge to use to explain things before the fall, and you're going : "So then how did things work before the fall?"Any possible scientific explaination to that question assumes that the laws of physics remained constant. If they changed, we would not have valid assumptions to work with and therefore you CAN'T explain it. Change a single law in science, and everything that depended on it collapse. If God decides that, from now on everything will be falling up, Newton's law is going to be of little use to you when you try and understand this brave new universe.Science exists because of the philosofical assumption of naturalism. It is the foudation of science. Creationism lies on a different philosofical base, that of theism. Because the conflict lies deeper than science and the methodology of science, you can not falsify the one using the rules of science. You must first believe in the materialist base of science before you can believe in science as an absolute truth. We believe God is a God of order, and therefore, some measure of science is possible in the theological frame of reference. We agree with 99% of the findings of science. However, once you go back to prehistory, the philosofical assumptions take over and those assumptions are not testable by the scientific method. The naturalist will assume business as usual, and conclude evolution is the most likely explaination. The theist will simply say that the creation event can not be scientifically scrutinised, as it is supernatural. Because the conflict lies deeper than science, the scientific rules of engagement are useless to resolve this debate.As for geology, fossils, etc, in the creationist world view, we can try and come up with awnsers and call it "creation science", and try and debate it on scientific grounds. But if God did decide to change the laws of physics, as I believe He did, then those creationist explainations are most likely to get it wrong anyway. How can you explain anything if even your basic assumptions of reality is wrong? Like I said before, Creation science is an effort to fortify fundementalist believes: If we can give it some scientific explaination, we might feel more confident that it happened. If an evolusionist blows holes in it, so what, well just patch it up with more scientific sounding explainations. But if your faith depends on you being able to give naturalist explainations for supernatural events, can you still call it a "faith"?

quote:

---

It is rejected because it cannot explain the evidence as well as science can

---

Make no mistake. Evolution is a pretty decent theory. I've tried to debate it before, and found it pretty hard to beat. There was one or two points scored, but not that much. It's WORST weakness against creationism, is the believe of the fallen state of nature. The evidence for evolution is strong, but take away scientific certainties, and your strong case becomes speculative: you become a fish outside the water.

quote:

---

That is an outright falsehood. There are may people who beleive in evolution and in an omnipotent God. Kenneth Miller is a well-known example who even wrote a book on the subject (Finding Darwin's God)

---

My bad. Let me rephrase. "That is because creationism allows for an omnipotent God WHO ACTUALLY USED HIS POWER TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS IN NATURE, while evolusionists does not."As I mentioned before. I find it difficult to see how a christian can reconcile his believes with evolution without using theological doublethink, and it would be interesting to follow such a debate. So far, everyone I've met who claimed to be both Christian and Evolutionist, turned out to be Gnostics instead, who doesn't really believe a word the bible says. If God intended for us to die and suffer from the beginning, from what exactly do we need salvation? Oh wait, God didn't provide salvation, because Jesus didn't really rise from the dead. What did Paul say? If we (as christians) don't in the resurection, then truely we are the saddest people of all. - The context being thousands of christians dying for their faith.If you do happen to believe in Christ and evolution, however, I don't think God will penalise you for that.So, in conclusion.I understand your point, and I can see you have difficulty of moving outside your paradigm. If you understood the point I'm making, you will not be pushing this point. Explaining the evidence rely on you making certain assumptions. If those assumptions are wrong, you will be unable to give a correct explaination. If I may use the example of Chucky in the movie "Childs Play". If the police arived on one of Chucky's murder scene, no detective, no matter how good he is, will be able to solve the case. It is because of the assumption that people kill people, not dolls. Untill this assumption is corrected, nothing would convince you that the poor kid is not a phycopath. The same arguement applies to nuture before its fallen state.

No, I'm showing that your arguments are essentially irrelevant to the debate.

quote:

---

My arguement is that the laws of nature changed, therefore we do not have the foundation of knowledge to use to explain things before the fall, and you're going : "So then how did things work before the fall?"

---

Not exactly. What I am asking is whether you have a plausible version of the way things worked beofre the Fall that would account for the physical evidence. In short I am asking you to show that you have a valid alternative to evolution rather than just an excuse to ignore the evidence.

quote:

---

Any possible scientific explaination to that question assumes that the laws of physics remained constant

---

And there are two problems with that. FIrstly it's not true, but more importantly I am not asking for a SCIENTIFIC explanation, so it is irrelevant.

quote:

---

My bad. Let me rephrase. "That is because creationism allows for an omnipotent God WHO ACTUALLY USED HIS POWER TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS IN NATURE, while evolusionists does not."

---

Then you're still failing to address my points because I have allowed exactly what you claim I do not (for the sake of argument).

quote:

---

I understand your point, and I can see you have difficulty of moving outside your paradigm

---

But I havemn't used the paradigm you suppose I am using at all. Thus you have proven that you do not understand my point.

quote:

---

Explaining the evidence rely on you making certain assumptions

---

Which in this case would be assumptions about what God is likely to do, probable consequences of the Fall and the like. All of which are outside of science. Thus arguing about what science would say is not truly relevant to my point.

Then I must be not getting what you're trying to say.Live as we know it today is mortal. All our biological knowledge is based on animals that die. However, God said that on the new earth, we will be immortal, as we were originally created, simmilar to Jesus after he rised from the dead.Can biology explain this phenomenon? No, because we have no samples to examine. Therefore, one of two conclusions are possible.1. The new earth is a myth, because it can not be explained.
2. God can change biology in order to make it do what He wants.Do I know what those changes are? Ofcause not. I don't have any physical sample to examine, how can I be expected to explain it then?
There is no way of knowing. I can not awnser you, because my I can not envision which laws God would change to get the desired effect. IF we as humans try to interfere in nature, we usually end up making things worse rather than better. Now you want me to say which laws God changed in order to make us mortal? The variables are infinate.Let's take the case of Chucky to court."Sir, are you trying to tell me the doll did it?""Yes sir""Can you explain how .....a child's toy.... is capable of commiting such a horrible crime?""No Sir""No further questions, your honour." >sneer<This case would never get this far, because the events goes against everything we believe is possible. Unless you can actually do a disection on the doll, there is no way to explain or proof the events, even if it happen to be true. The right explaination, if someone can actually find it, will be rejected, because it falls outside of what we assume to be possible.I can't tell you which laws God changed, I don't know what effect it would have, I can not give you an in depth, up to quantum physics level comparison between nature before and after the fall. I can not awnser your question, because Adam was not particularly interested in science before he ate that blasted fruit, so we have nothing to go on.You might not ask for a scientific awnser, but your question is still scientific in nature : HOW did it happen, what did the various parts consist of, how did they interact? We must know. How did God part the Red Sea? Heck, if I could awnser that, it wouldn't be a miracle, would it? The Bible says that when Eliah prayed, God made it rain. It does not give a in depth weather report, and my attempt to produce one will most likely be wrong.Part of the theistic paradigm is to accept that God knows a lot more than we do, and therefore we are incapable of explaining all His actions. I know that does not appeal to your scientific mindset, but that is part of the philosofical divide. They say creationism explains nothing. Ofcause it doesn't - the very act of divine creation is above our abilities. We can only create things through mechanical processes, using existing resources. God created everything from nothing, including matter, time, space, and the very laws of physics we take for granted. I can't expain that, I just believe it. That is the nature of religion.

quote:

---

Can biology explain this phenomenon? No, because we have no samples to examine. Therefore, one of two conclusions are possible.

​

1. The new earth is a myth, because it can not be explained.
2. God can change biology in order to make it do what He wants.

---

Or we can conclude that we don't know enough to ssy either way. Since we DON'T have evidence that needs to be explained - because it refers to something that might happen in the future - it isn't really analagous. Yuu simply don't have to generate the sort of explanation I'm asking for in this case - because there is no relevant physical evidence that requires explanation.In the case of Chucky all we have to do is assume that Chucky has the capability to murder before we can reasonably investigate it. In the case of your argument there is no equivalent assumption that would do the trick - and no hope of any reasoanble explanation.But at least your final paragraph indicates that you are coming around to my point of view on the true nature of the divide. Creationists are primarily interested in assuming that their beliefs are correct regardless of the evidence - and that rules out any compromise. Fortunately many Christians accept that reason is more important than assuming that creationists cannot be wrong.

I agree that evolution and Christianity do not mix. In order for the Christian to explain the current world, one needs the concept of the Fall, and if evolution occurred there could be no Fall.I'm not sure what you mean by "Gnostic." God abandoned the world?

Thats why we have a forum with a site with science forums and also faith/belief forums. Yet I beg to differ that most Christians who are not strict literalists are in fact Gnostic.Around these parts, we have two basic contrasting views among our Christian group:
1) Not all are "saved". God desires that all be saved, however, and He who began the good work is finishing it. Or...
2) Everyone is already saved (on the planet) God has done the work, and it is now up to us to behave appropriately. Just as the Pagans got it before the Pharisees and Sadducees, the atheists/agnostics will get it before the main church folk who are too haughty and exclusivist to see the big picture.Both sides agree, however, that it is not about a literal Bible in a word for word sense. Some of us disgagree over the origin of the basic thought contained within the Bible and if it can be shown to be cohesive..(Holy Spirit, maybe?) I maintain that it is the character behind the book that is important rather than the book itself.I disagree that Jesus is not literally necessary to make His philosophy valid. Jesus DOES need to live within us....yet who am I to frame the issue of the characteristics of my Omnipotant God, anyway??

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

Ok...It seems to me that you would basically take it for granted that "The Fall" occurred, based on your interpretation of Christian Scripture. I have no problem with that. However, it has to be noted that it is a belief that has its basis in faith, and faith alone. But, i get the feeling that you realise and accept that.
From my view, i give it to you, in that i regard such a scenario as a possibility. Of course, i also regard the possibility that i and all around me was created a second ago, complete with memories and a "false" history, with equal merit. Don't get me wrong, i'm not poo-pooing your belief; i'm just saying that either is a possibility.
The possibilities are endless and even science acknowledges its inability to test for many of them.There are, however, implications to all these possibilities, including that of "The Fall". From what i've read in the thread so far, i take it that you accept that current knowledge (based, as you put it, on a "fallen" reality) points to evolution being factual. It also points to the universe being billions of years old. For these reasons you will not dispute either. Yet, if this is the case, and it is the fall that resulted in a reality that corresponds to Old Earth and Evolution, then would that not mean that the christian God had caused it to happen, since He brought about the fall (not saying He was responsible for it, just that He made it happen)?The major implication of this is that the christian God has been extremely deceitful. Since it is He that brought about the fall, which resulted in us seeing the world as it seems. What sort of absolutely moral God would do that (based, of course, on our subjective morality)?
If that is the case then Christianity as a religion would be pointless; how can one worship a God that would not follow the ideals that are expected of His worshippers?

---

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

Form my experience in fundamentalist circles "Gnostic", like "post-modernist" seems to mean "someone who must be smeared because they don't believe as I do".

Hi, Paul. I guess that I can break it down to you as I believe it...(not that I understand much! )I believe that God created us long before we "created gods". Whether or not we had this instinct to "create gods" and/or be as gods ourselves came from a literal Fall or not is not too terribly important. The facts show that humans are imperfect, prone to ego-centrism, and passionate about unprovable belief systems.Likeminded believers can always cheerfully agree on most all interpretations of reality---provable or not. The challenge is the debates that are had between differing beliefs!Gnosticism, as I have always understood it, maintains that the origin of everything---be it God or be it Quantum Physics---can be figured out through human wisdom....in that enlightenment is the end result of continual education.Personally, I believe that education is a good thing for everyday life but that the deeper questions concerning our origins and our collective destiny will only be known through relationship and impartation from the Holy Spirit.Of course...how do I or anyone else convince someone who has seen no evidence of the Holy Spirit? Im still praying about that one!

No, the real point of "Gnosticism" is not rational knowledge, but a mystical knowledge of God. Arguably someone who claims that "Christianity is not a religion, it is a personal relationship with God" is stepping closer to Gnosticism in that sense than many people falely called "Gnostics".Another common belief is an emphasis on a spiritual reality - the material world is rejected as a "prison" of sorts, created not be God but by an enitity called the "Demiurge". The world of matter is to be rejected.

Isn't there something in Gnosticism about God abandoning the world?

I hope not! We are doing a pretty bad job of running the place without Him, thats for sure!