Thanks Alita,

I had heard of the picture.

I think this above given answer is also true across the spectrum: "I used to believe, (the way I think most people believe who haven’t had the opportunity to look at this up close), that science was more empirical, more experimental, and there was more protection built into the system to protect scientists against their own biases. Now that I have seen what is really going on underneath the surface, my automatic reaction to anything I am told that is validated by science is that I am much slower to accept it. I have seen what’s going on, and scientists are human beings. As such they are influenced by philosophical and political baggage. That affects way they look at the world."

Add economic and this is true of the hot topics today regarding "evolution","environmentalism" etc. in my opinion.

pat

Re the Nazi connection:

I find it ironic that those who accept "Darwinism" in science overwhelmingly reject it as a political mandate, whereas those who reject evolution (predominantly political conservatives), are much more likely to use it as a political program (social Darwinism).

"Liberals", who generally do not subscribe to creationism, are the ones who want universal health care, gun laws, more humane sentencing laws, abolition of the death penalty, educational assistance, etc. In Europe,where about 5% go to church, people take care of each other on a societal scale that we can only dream of: Everybody has health insurance,whether they work or not and public colleges and universities are almost entirely tuition free.

Conservatives, many of whom (in the US) reject evolution, don't mind seeing people struggle for existence (like the 46 million that have no health care), and the millions more that struggle to pay for education, and conservatives are the ones who constantly preach the virtues of projecting strength.

Americans in the Guilded Age, led by such Christian luminaries as John D. Rockefeller, opposed welfare because it encouraged unfit people to keep swimming in the common gene pool. In a famous Sunday school lesson, Rockefeller held up a beautiful long-stemmed rose, explaining that the rose had grown that large and beautiful because all the minor buds had been lopped off. He, of course, was the ultimate human rose.

What made the Salvation Army so radical was the fact that they declared the "unworthy poor" worthy of Christian charity, contrary to the dictates of social darwinism (the natural state of humanity?) Interestingly, EGW argued that helping the poor was not something the Adventist church needed bother itself with. It should be left to the Salvation Army (in the Spalding/Magan collection, I believe.)

I don't believe that creationism creates social darwinism, but what is it about faith in a Creator that keeps people locked into such an ideology? And if secularized societies are better at bringing "Jesus values" to the people than those dominated by religious thinking, of what value is religion to society?

Ah, back into the green fray, eh? : )

A general sense of skepticism toward truth claims in one thing, broad generalizations contra caring for our planet is another.

Remember that an attitude of skepticism lies behind good science as well, except that unlike most armchair, blog readin' opining, science also contributes evidence to the discussion.

Hey, even the folks at the very conservative Hot Air realize the difference between ideology and scientific research.

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.

Crouch: That’s right.

Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Crouch: Good word, good word.

I found a lot to recommend about Expelled, but this leaves me wondering if Ben Stein missed the point of his movie. Science does not lead to Dachau; ideology perverting science led to Dachau. The Holocaust occurred when raving anti-Semites and materialists latched onto scientific theory as a philosophy, making it into a rationalization for what they would have done regardless.

How could Stein say this without a hint of irony? The best themes in Expelled take Academia to task for the same destructive sin. Instead of pursuing all paths of scientific pursuit, the academics have imposed their philosophy and their ideology against religion as a means to keep anyone from testing the theories of random, accidental beginnings of life. In a similar manner to what’s seen in the global-warming debate, dissenting voices are excoriated as heretics and idiots, rather than letting the science speak for itself.

Instead of making the proper point that Stein makes in the movie, he now suggests that science itself is evil. That’s absurd. Scientific knowledge has for centuries gone hand in hand with the quest to come closer to God through understanding His creation, as Stein’s own movie argues. The application and expansion of science has led to huge advances in life, health, knowledge, and living standards. Can evil acts come from scientific advances, and can some scientists be evil? Of course — as with any other profession, but the acts come from overt human actions, not from the science.

The pure scientific method ignores ideology in favor of reproducible results, which leads to knowledge — not genocide. Expelled wants Academia to stop applying ideology to science, which is absolutely correct. Stein’s quote above discredits that message and makes the effort sound like an argument against science altogether, and Stein’s broad accusation against scientists is grossly unfair. It sounds like Stein is applying his own ideology instead of supporting the scientific method.

Yup, Mr. Stein's right, because mass killing didn't exist pre-theory of evolution.

Maybe those hard working scientists at Loma Linda University aren't as bad as Stein and Pat sloppily intimate.

http://llu.edu/llu/research/index.html

Alex,

If in context Stein meant that in regards to science... that comment is absurd. Don't wish to join the green fray again as I have better things to do with my energy...but local issues of "preservation", yes. Manmade global warming that will destroy the planet...can't go there and in my opinion neither has science.

As to the movie, my understanding is that parts of the movie show discrimination to the "intelligent design" folks in academia but have not seen it and not sure that's where I want to spend a Sunday afternoon. Maybe if it ends up at Blockbusters.
------------
Aage--I thought HK offerred a good dual system of Health care. They had a Gov. medical health system for all with a low "service charge" and a "private system" for those who wanted it and could pay for it and felt that choice best met their"economic personal value alternatives."

Isn't part of an Ethical program one that offers choices? The political,social,religious,economic assumptions/fear of "classical" US economic conservatives such as myself is that ever increasing gov't is generally accompanied by fewer personal choices and less individual responsibility. Both lead to bad outcomes.

regards,

pat

PS. Alex, I am a health care professional though retired. You have a bad habit of intimating people falsely my friend to acheive your own personal objectives(Stein and Pat comment). You need growth in that area.:~)

Pat
You said:"Isn't part of an Ethical program one that offers choices?"

I say it's more important to offer them help. There are close to 30.000 people who needlessly die in this country every year because they can't get adequate health care. These people don't care about the role of government in a conservative-liberal debate. They just want to live, and if it's in our power to do something about it, we should. I don't attach the same hopes to Jesus as most Americans do, but I actually think that He and I would agree on this one.

--aage

aage,

A careful reading of my post does not rule out a "general gov't sponsored" program for all as a possibility at this time in history where gov't tax policy has created a two tier system in the US while driving up cost and utilization. There are many state programs presently that offer assistence to the less fortunate as does medicaid.

It is my understanding that many countries that offer national health care do not allow private programs to exist and my comment was directed towards that policy.It is possible that with both in existence each would be encouraged to offer better service and care to exhibit the credible reason for their existence. Also this offers a means of evaluation of care and cost.

pat

Hey Pat, just having a little fun.

I did want to note how easily you let a Hollywood actor articulate a scientific view for you. . .and where that broad brush leads.

This guy can't even parse history correctly. Compare him to LLU's environmental science professor, Bob Ford, who studies the sort of stuff - climate change, earth science, poverty, and overall sustainability - that you are knocking.

http://www.llu.edu/llu/grad/natsci/ford/

http://www.wiley.com/college/geocases/cases/case8/abstract.html

It's just amazing to me how easily some folks just grab onto the views of "movie stars."

Alex,

Yea...Kind of like Al Gore and Michael Moore movies. A careful reading of my post would not endorse him (Stein) as I have not seen the movie. I offered general comments as to what I had heard not observed.

As to "having fun" in your assertions, I suggest it is a practice of discrediting others views that seems to occur not infrequently by half truths or guilty by association. I feel one must accurately portray anothers views on a particular subject and not develop a false "strawman" before proceeding to say where one disagrees if necessary. That is the practice I "attempt" to follow in my life.

I read this interview with keen interest, and I'd like to see the movie now.

My interest stems from a large part of my education for this quarter - a class at La Sierra U. with John Webster (an "academic elite" in Mathis' words--trained at Princeton): Contemporary Issues in Theology: Faith and Science.

In addition to educating us (aspiring theologs) on Sceintific issues and concepts through reading, we are also benefitting from a broad Spectrum of invited guest lecturers, all the way from Loma Linda's Geoscience research institute to top Adventist theologians to researchers and professors in Physics and Biology.

With the perspectives I've gained from the class, and based on this interview (I haven't seen the film), one of the glaring omissions in this movie seems to be the omission of the many, many commited Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc. who remain active in their faith communities while at the same time being on board with the tenets of evolution.

Mathis' implication that the movie is balanced because it includes the insights of Richard Dawkins (a walking caricature) is not very impressive to me.

Aage - the irony you note is not lost on me either.

While those on the right deride evolution on the one hand, they tend to favor "Social Darwinism" as the best model for economic growth, prosperity, wealth, whatever.

Hitler used Passion plays to goad anti-semitism. Does that imply that Christianity is to blame for the holocaust?

Expelled should be an embarrassment to the Christian community. The core story of the professor who was expelled for publishing an ID article is far more complicated than is presented. The article which he published had been rejected for publication by the magazine's review panel... and yet he used his position as editor to push it through anyway. If the article had been on the ripples of draining bathtubs and he had carried out a similar stunt he rightfully should have been fired.

Repeatedly the film discusses both Evolution and Ambiogenesis as if they were the same topic. Evolution is not concerned with how life began, that is the reason it does not address it. I assume this text box would fill long before all of the factual errors this film makes.

Intelligent Design provides no evidence. Lack of evidence for a positive does not make evidence for a negative. It's not a question of freedom of speech. A person is free to say whatever they want about whatever they want within reason in this country but if you attempt to advance a scientific idea it's going to be judged based on the evidence provided.

Conclusive evidence that an intelligent creator was responsible for the spark of life and consequent evolution would be the greatest discovery of the last 300 years. Every scientist on the planet would give their right hand to make such a discovery.

Maybe we will find evidence for ID. But until then it's unsubstantiated speculation. And I feel as if it's an insult to all of the Adventist scientists across the country who believe in Evolution (as compatible with Christianity) to insinuate that they're part of some sort of global conspiracy to carry out intellectual and academic fraud. A person can reach whatever conclusion they wish after hearing both sides of an argument but to only ever investigate one viewpoint and then celebrate one's ignorance is shameful.

Expelled is nothing more than a soap box for a few disgruntled employees who got fired. The media has been right to recognize it for the pandering for cash fraud that it is.

Jared,

I think you overstep "the right" and social Darwinism. I suggest the "right/conservative socio-political-economic" limited government view in the US is more like "classical Liberalism."

The tendency to Eugenics/Social Darwinism were perhaps more accurately found in Hitlers concepts and socialist such as H.G. Wells who looked to more government intervention for orderly societies.

We do have to take great care with labels.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
"However, there were few "social Darwinist s" after the 1880s who advocated capitalism and laissez-faire. Most of them demanded a strong government that would intervene in the economy or society to weed out inferiors. They did not believe the marketplace could do that. For example, Ludwig von Mises, an advocate of laissez-faire, argued in his book Human Action that social Darwinism contradicts the principles of liberalism."

PS.
It is also interesting to me that many "modern progressives" that demand "free will" of God often in the area of socio-political economics" want more government input which often removes individual choices and "free will."

I want to make clear that laissez-faire is not a perfect system but I feel it offers the most people in a pluralistic society opportunity. I feel local social programs best deal with the unfortunate and is less likely to be politicized and removed from the electorates input.

"Some social Darwinists argue that governments should not interfere with human competition by attempting to regulate the economy or cure social ills such as poverty. Instead, they advocate a laissez-faire political and economic system that favors competition and self-interest in social and business affairs. Social Darwinists typically deny that they advocate a “law of the jungle.” But most propose arguments that justify imbalances of power between individuals, races, and nations because they consider some people more fit to survive than others."

[snippety]

"Many people believe that the concept of social Darwinism explains the philosophical rationalization behind racism, imperialism, and capitalism. The term has negative implications for most people because they consider it a rejection of compassion and social responsibility."

("Social Darwinism" encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia)

I would say that the description above is generally consistent with Right Wing politics and economics. Because I agree with you, Pat, that we ought to take great care in using labels at all, I chose "right" rather than "GOP".

Obviously there are exceptions to every generalization!

By the way, how many times did you edit your post?

Quite a few times Jared...is that permissable?

Since we posted at the same time see my last PS. I will not be voting for a GOP President by the way. :~)

Pat

Sure, sure. Permissable...it's just that every time I was about to post a response, something new popped up that altered what you were saying...Hard to respond to that's all.

And of course there was no insinuation on my part that those who denounce evolution are automatically right wingers, nor that those who are right wingers are necessarily GOP for whatever that might be worth.

Sorry for the inconvenience Jared,

Just trying to add supportive comments not alterations per se to my thoughts.

pat

I actually don't see any irony.

Darwinian evolution is an amoral viewpoint that individual self determination will result in the fittest surviving. It makes however no moral or judgemental decision in the 'selection'. The process itself is more of a reflection of the result than an actual process in of itself.

Social darwinism also advocates a survival of the fittest however the only social darwinism that actually in any way resembles darwin's theories is to apply a total Laissez-faire policy in which the market will self regulate and balance through survival.

The reason I don't find any contradiction is because of the fundamental difference that progressives and conservatives see the human race.

The conservative assumption is that the human race has free will, is in control of their destiny and shortcomings are the result of an individual's lack of motivation.

The progressive/liberal assumption is that the human race has marginal to no free will and we're the product of circumstance.

Evolution is process where a species is not really in control of their destiny. If they survive, they survive. If they die, they die. Free Will and Self Determination do not come into play. Aka A man sins because he just an animal like any other, a bird flies because wings produced more competitive offspring, a person dies because of chance.

ID and Creationism on the other hand operate on the assumption that the system was designed in such a way that A) free will exists and is the determining factor. Aka... A man sins because he chooses to, A bird can fly because god gave it wings, a person dies because it's their time.

If you believe in self determination then the poor are poor because they haven't worked hard enough.
If you believe someone is poor because they were born into a system from which they have a very hard time escaping then you're more inclined to advocate social programs to ensure everybody gets food, healthcare, housing etc...

Oops. I don't know how to edit but first sentence should read:
Darwinian evolution is an amoral viewpoint that individual PRE determination will result in the...

amongst other grammar and spelling mistakes. :D

Gavin,

You say, "The conservative assumption is that the human race has free will, is in control of their destiny and shortcomings are the result of an individual's lack of motivation.
The progressive/liberal assumption is that the human race has marginal to no free will and we're the product of circumstance."
--------
Fair enough except "for all shortcomings being due to lack of motivation"...So you would say we need a select few progressive/liberals or enlightened ones that use the state to rule over us and save us from our circumstance? That "concept" is what frankly scares me to death as well as it did the "classical liberals" that formed this country (US)and gave us a Constitutional Republic of "limited government"!

pat

Whoa. That's quite the leap of logic there: "If we assume there is no free will then there should be a select few dominating the many."

That's not the logical conclusion at all. If all men are fallible then none can be trusted; that's a safe conclusion of all political persuasions.

All I'm suggesting is that at the very least all of man kind should be given the benefit of the doubt and be given the basic necessities of life. Food, Water, Health Care, Education, Shelter and Justice. We're all unique individuals with different drives and motivations. There are many an individual who aspire to nothing more than cable tv and a microwave meal. But the challenges of success for someone of poverty are astronomical compared to those born to wealth.

Was it not Christ's message to tend to the poor and the disadvantaged? That is not a political position. It's a moral imperative that no one should go hungry. No one should have to sleep under a bridge.

I would much rather live by "There but by the grace of God..." than "Lazy bum".

Pat,

as a Scandinavian I read your comments with interest. However, I do feel that you are not very well-informed about conditions in Europe. You say,
"I want to make clear that laissez-faire is not a perfect system but I feel it offers the most people in a pluralistic society opportunity. I feel local social programs best deal with the unfortunate and is less likely to be politicized and removed from the electorates input."

I imagine that we in Scandinavia learn a lot more about the US, than what people learn about us. From the knowledge I have, I cannot see that in the laissez-faire system of the US more people have opportunity than in Scandinavia. What your system gives is greater opportunity to a selected few. On the other hand, a lot of people have limited opportunities because of poverty.

I don't think that it is true that (western) European countries do not allow private alternatives for health care neither. The question that is discussed here is to what degree they should be sponsored by the government - either through fundings to private institutions or through tax cuts for private health insurance programs.

It is also strange reading this discussion here, since what is considered leftish in the US would regarded as centrist in Scandinavia. The statements about "the left" I would see as accurate about the socialists in Scandinavia, but the connection to liberals in the US, I think is a bit over the top.

I wrote a long post about the movie but decided it was just too cranky and deleted it. For anyone considering spending some hard-earned money and time on seeing this wing-nuttery, here are a couple of reviews. There are plenty more, almost unanimous in their panning. And not because scientists hate God for pete's sake.

Arthur Caplan, the bioethicist, says it's not just bad it's immoral.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24239755/

Michael Shermer reviews it in Scientific American.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-michael-s...

Shermer was in the film and talks about the false pretenses used to get him to appear. BTW, his story is echoed by PZ Myers and Dawkins. PZ Myers wasn't even allowed to attend a screening - he was asked to leave by security when he was just standing in line with his family waiting to get in. Little bit of irony considering the topic of freedom of expression.

The National Center for Science Education does a great job examining the claims made by the movie.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

IDers saying that scientists lie and distort information is like the Clintons pointing a finger at Obama's questionable associates - only more so. Do you really want to go there? Makes my head want to explode.

Hey Guys,

Don't know how "Expelled" got to here but I'm content to let it go back.

The only system I think is a holistic representation of God's plan on earth is the biblical theocracy. No system on earth is like it. "Free enterprise" and "private property" were a "part" of it along with the 7yr. and 50 yr. release. Consideration for the poor was always a part of the plan but not the point around which the plan was focused.

Christ offered no political-social-economic system to be practiced in His time nor the "times of the gentiles."

Extreme division of labor,labor unions,unsound currency and monetary practices catering to "Wall Street Investment Banks" did not exist.

I look forward to Christ the King and His Kingdom consumated at His coming and I am glad we disagree on these issues in a place like Spectrum rather than arguing them as "official" church policy.

regards

It's not just biologists and ethicists mad about the movie's distortions either. Here's the Anti-Defamation League's response:

http://adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm

I could keep linking all day but I think one can begin to get the picture. It's sad and frustrating to me that this is the sort of thing linked to Christians and science. It just fulfills a stereotype of Christians as conspiracy-minded yodels who can't think critically to save their lives. And yes, Stein is Jewish and trying to play on that but his target audience is Christian. I'll bet money it won't be Jews packing the theater seats (not that they are being packed mind you.)

Pat
You stated:
"Christ offered no political-social-economic system to be practiced in His time nor the "times of the gentiles."

Wouldn't you say that that dreadful liberal word "compassion" sums it up? It is not easy to get a handle on who Jesus was, but if "Jesus is what Jesus does", I think we can safely say that he was not an American-style conservative. To the extent that he had a social program, it focused on social justice and solidarity with the poor. He even went so far as to say--and when was the last time you heard a sermon on that word--that it was easier for rich people to enter heaven than for a camel to go through a needle's eye.

American Christians (in particular) have spent a lot of energy trying to widen the needle's eye and to grease the camel, but I'm still waiting for the animial to get through.

Social darwinism, I suspect, is the normal condition of humanity and Jesus fought against it. Today secularists and evolutionists are more likely to pursue that part of his agenda than creationists, and still find that ironic.

Aage

I find the discussion regarding ID and Evolution quite interesting. I come from a country with aparently one of the highest rate of people believing in the Evolution theory. I am not surprised. The Evolution theory is the only theory which is taught in schools here, and anyone wanting to believe something else is considdered a complete “lunie”. I remember a History teacher who mocked all those stupid christians that had in the old days believed in the Creation story. Everybody except me laughted at his comment. We sometimes seem to forget that, as the name suggests, it is still a theory as it has not yet been proven.

But the society today seems to urge that the evolution IS true and not to be disputed. Is that really science? Isn’t science supposed to be looking at the evidence and looking for answers from that? As I am not from the States I haven’t been able to see the movie and if it is based on putting forth some conspiracy theories as the posts here seem to imply I am indeed saddened.
The ID approach is NOT that at all. It looks at the evidence found in rocks and fossils but comes to a different conclusion than the evolution theory. Why is this approach so greatly despised (as it seems)? Isn’t real learning about studying different views and then coming to some intelligent desision based on that study (using critical thinking)? Should the schools be allowed to hold forth one opinion and totally abolish the other? If it hasn’t been proven, and is still a theory, why is it ok to put forth one theory as the indisputible truth, without mentioning another posibility, even though there are scientists who are getting to the conclusion of ID instead of Evolution? Isn’t that more forcing than teaching?

Aage,

One last try and I am done on this as it is not the topic of discussion.

What is justice to you? Does it show partiality to the rich or the poor? Lev.19:15. Is "compassion" Mercy or Justice?

The gospel is not "liberation theology" and Mt.5:3 is not speaking of an economic class of people when it refers to the "poor in spirit." It is referring to the "attitude" of those who are called and respond "to repent" Mt.4:17 and recognize their need. This is not limited to any economic class of people but the need of all humanity.

The rich "may" be more inclined to trust in their wealth and thus not see their need of repentance and God. The poor and others on the other hand "may" burn with covetousness and envy and utilize politicians and those profiting from providing services etc. to obtain by legislation what lawfully belongs to others. Collectivism often does what we would dare not assume is proper as individuals. Is their partiality in "graduated" income tax. Why not "graduated tithe" payments?

"Americans Christians"(your words) are no more or less sinners than other people of the world. That is a personal observation.

Christ did not preach to each according to his need and each according to his ability. He did preach and show mercy to the rich and poor. His concept of justice would not be different from that which was written in Torah.

"You and I" go and do likewise as He who did it without seeking the support of the State as the enforcer of His message...that's my point.

Leave "Christ's Kingdom" out of it labeling systems as "anti-Christian" and find your comfort level somewhere between Adam Smith and Marx. I am ok with that freedom if not by force.

regards
pat

PS. "Separation of Church and State" is not to make the state become "applied Christianity" either.

It was less than 200 years ago when the "germ theory" was presented. As has likely been previously mentioned, gravity is still called a theory. So to call ID a theory similar to evolution, is a misuse of the term. ID is an ideology, and in 1999, William Dembski who wrote "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology," made this statement:

"[A]ny view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient....[T]he conceptual soundness of a scientific theory cannot be maintained apart from Christ."

Pretty clear as to the ideology behind ID. One must first believe in God, and Christ, and supernatural events to accept this concept. The supernatural has no place in evolution. If one accepts miraculous events, then any explanation is sufficient, and such a religious idea as Dembski describes, would unite religion in the state-supported schools which is totally contradictory to the U.S. constitution.

Dembski even contradicts himself. In 2004 he wrote in The Design Revolution: "Intelligent design is not an evangelic Christian thing, or a generically theistic thing....Intelligent design is an emerging scientific research program. Design theorists attempt to demonstrate its merits fair and square in the scientific world--without appealing to religious authority."

When have its merits been demonstrated in the scientific world, and how were they accepted?

Important point that Elaine makes above. Here it is again in other words:

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality.

Two distinct meanings that should be correctly separated in conversations about science and scientific theory.

Thank you Wikipedia for helping us with the confusion over what a scientific theory is.

Here's an even better way of putting it:

According to the National Academy of Sciences,

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena

Creationism and ID are attempts to circumvent our cultural embarrassment of basing beliefs on faith. I think most of us would be very comfortable with creationism presented as "faith", as in:"I believe that God literally created the earth in seven days. I can't prove it scientifically but I still believe it."

It is when believers are no longer content with resting their beliefs on faith and want scientific credentials to enhance the prestige of their faith that things go wrong. Creationism and ID is an inherently impossible project: to use scientific principles to prove beliefs that can't be falsified by trying to falsify the current scientific consensus.

The driving force behind so-called scientif creationism is not faith--but rather a lack of faith.

The whole notion that ID isn't theological is also nonsense.

If Ambiogenesis is false and a higher power designed all life on earth (remember ID almost universally implies that there is no speciation (although no ID advocate will actually tell you what a species is)) then that higher power must have come into existance somehow.

If it's a Trinity style God figure then it existed for all time. If it's not a theistic viewpoint then you're left with some sort of alien. Now these aliens could be physical beings like us or some sort of higher dimensional spirit but regardless the fact remains that they at some discreet point in time came into existance. How did they come to exist? ID doesn't state that we don't have enough evidence to prove 'how' Ambiogenesis occured. It states that there is evidence that it *can't* occur.

If you accept that Ambiogenesis is impossible then you have to assume that even if we weren't created by God, we were at least indirectly created by one of his creations.

I don't see how you could be an atheist and an ID proponent.

Pat,

I see a disconnect.

We don't have to have the theocratic to have the Biblical.

When I read through the story of monarchy in the First Testament, the whole theocracy thing seems like a very mixed bag (2 Kings). Slavery, autocratic economic whim, very costly foreign wars, constant abuse of the religious sensibilities of the people by priests in league with the rulers.

As you note there were some good things (pre-king often - there's scholarly debate whether Jubilee was actually practiced as written), but when Christians want to talk about the prophetic witness (See Haggai) for redistribution, you say, come Lord Jesus. I want Jesus to come to, but I'm not going to politically ignore the least of these until then.

So, let's be clear here: the Biblical theocracy is a myth.

Even at a literal level, one must pause and wonder: if God whispering into a king's ear produced Saul, David, Solomon, Ahab, it's pretty clear why the prophets actually railed against the idea of theocracy.

I walk past five to ten homeless people on the way to work every day and I can assure you that they don't, as you intimate, "burn with covetousness and envy," rather, they burn with hunger and mental issue. And over 100,000 are vets with mental illness, due in part to killing for you and me.

The National Alliance to End Homelessness writes:

A landmark study conducted by researchers from the University of Pennsylvania found that supportive housing―independent housing linked to comprehensive support services―provided major reductions in costs incurred by homeless mentally ill people across different service systems―$16,282 per person in a housing unit year round. When all the costs of supportive housing and public services are considered, it costs the public only $995 more a year to provide supportive housing to a mentally ill individual than it does to allow him or her to remain homeless.

Perhaps we can have the Biblical principles of justice without waiting for the theocracy? That does seem to be what America's founders aimed toward.

Sandra, you asked some good questions and you aren't the first to bring them up. A couple people above have addressed the theory issue but I wanted to go a little further with your point about criticizing the theory of evolution.

Actually the different components of evolution have been tested, scrutinized, poked, and prodded for over 100 years. Scientists are continuing to refine and modify aspects of it as new data come in. The reason the MAIN concept of evolution (common descent with modification) is not really challenged anymore by scientists is because it has shown itself over and over to fit the facts. Kind of like the theory that the earth goes around the sun. Exactly how that common descent with modification occurs though has been the subject of fierce debate and continues to be so.

Evidence contrary must fit the definition of science to be considered a scientific rebuttal. ID, in almost all of its many forms, does not fit that definition. Scientists reject ID, not because it criticizes TofE, but because it does it in an unscientific way and still pretends to be science. Scientists fight to protect the way science is done. Saying you are doing science does not mean you are.

If ID wants to be taken seriously, it needs to lay out its hypotheses, test those hypotheses, publish in peer-reviewed journals, and show a willingness to modify based on results. The fact that only the first of these has happened just gives rise to the head exploding irony of ID accusing biologists of doing what it is doing in spades. We're calling untested and untestable hypotheses science so they must be too. If ID wants to be a legitimate scientific player it must follow the rules. Coming up with an hypothesis and going straight to the school boards to try and teach it as science is frowned upon.

There are certainly ways TofE could be turned upside down scientifically. As the biologist Haldane famously said, if one could find a rabbit in the precambrian layer, evolution would be falsified. If fossils were actually distributed haphazardly, or even somewhat haphazardly, TofE would never have gained traction. The fact that scientists can now study transitional fossils, predict what time period they should look in for more specific transitional fossils, and then go to that fossil layer and find those fossils that show the transition is pretty amazing. And not one single fossil in the millions discovered has ever been so out of place that it calls common descent into question.

So yes, science is about critical thinking and testing and retesting. ID has marketed itself as fitting the scientific bill but that's what it is, marketing, not reality. That's not to say that some forms of ID don't have theological significance. Many people believe in some form of ID and that is great. There are forms of ID that are beyond the reach of science and are not contradictory. It's just not science and should not be taught as such.

Alex,

Since you ask me as the webmaster to speak on this issue that is not on topic, I will.

You say the Biblical theocracy is a myth. I ask, Myth or covenant not obeyed leading to captivity! As to Haggai please site the text for "redistribution." They were to quit building their homes before building God's temple. "Redistribution" as defined and according to covenant and other covenant stipulations did remain law post exile.

So what is your point? The state has not taken the place of the kingdom of God in the NT. All society has not become "the church." Nor, I suggest, has the state become the vehicle for applying various understandings of Christians for "justice and redistribution."

If you want to apply your own specific model for "social justice and Compassion" on an economic continuum between Adam Smith and Marx go ahead with all the help you can muster...but don't call it "Christianity" and "justice" where no such directive and explicit information is given in the NT for the "gentile" State and age.

Vote as you will and let the church remain about its work of building the Kingdom of God "that will not pass away." The kingdoms of this world will. That is my point!! I look for the eternal Sabbath Jubilee to begin at His coming and not before.

regards,

pat

PS. Alex you have once again not had a careful reading of my words and misquoted me...I said the poor "MAY" covet and envy. Heard of the subjunctive and "possibility"?

Got a kick out of the post where this fellow tries to make it sound so logical and reasonable how someone could be an Adventist and an evolutionist.

I've learned never to underestimate the human capacity for self-deceptiion.

Cliff

None of us are immune. Tom

Cliff
Intellectually, I'm with you. The two don't go together. I can understand, though, why people don't want to let an inconvenient truth, such as evolution, drive them out of the only spiritual home they have ever known. I'm too much of a fundamentalist at heart to remain a member of a church whose basic beliefs I don't share but I have stopped judging those who choose differently.

I don't know what kind of spirituality could grow out of theistic evolution--I haven't read Teilhard-- and what kind of God would be consistent with it. Most Christians, I suspect, compartmentalize, in the tradition of Decartes, accepting evolution as scientific truth and redemptive Christianity as religious truth.

I would be interested in hearing from those in this situation, how they make sense of their faith in the face of evolution. Cliff, you and I have chosen the easy path (or should I say 'paths', since we have ended up on opposite ends.) Those you criticize have a much tougher job intellectually and spiritually, and I enjoy my time with them more than with my own or your kind.

Aage Rendalen

I don't think that we're going to solve a nuanced discussion about a Christ-following economics here. I'm wary about folks who cloak their true thoughts in subjunctives. The poor and the wealthy think many things. Let's not create deniability syntax. Just say what you really think.

What I like about Haggai is that it is a very clear prophetic call. I see a direct message from God away from consumption into a deeper, permanent, earth-bound, relationship.

2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: "These people say, 'The time has not yet come for the LORD's house to be built.' "

3 Then the word of the LORD came through the prophet Haggai: 4 "Is it a time for you yourselves to be living in your paneled houses, while this house remains a ruin?"

5 Now this is what the LORD Almighty says: "Give careful thought to your ways. 6 You have planted much, but have harvested little. You eat, but never have enough. You drink, but never have your fill. You put on clothes, but are not warm. You earn wages, only to put them in a purse with holes in it."

7 This is what the LORD Almighty says: "Give careful thought to your ways. 8 Go up into the mountains and bring down timber and build the house, so that I may take pleasure in it and be honored," says the LORD. 9 "You expected much, but see, it turned out to be little. What you brought home, I blew away. Why?" declares the LORD Almighty. "Because of my house, which remains a ruin, while each of you is busy with his own house. 10 Therefore, because of you the heavens have withheld their dew and the earth its crops. 11 I called for a drought on the fields and the mountains, on the grain, the new wine, the oil and whatever the ground produces, on men and cattle, and on the labor of your hands."

12 Then Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and the whole remnant of the people obeyed the voice of the LORD their God and the message of the prophet Haggai, because the LORD their God had sent him. And the people feared the LORD.

13 Then Haggai, the LORD's messenger, gave this message of the LORD to the people: "I am with you," declares the LORD.

I wonder: Why postpone God dwelling on earth, with us, and creating community like we believe God is present?

Alex,

Nothing you quoted from Haggai has anything to do with "redistribution." The people were not fulfilling their mandate to rebuild the Lord's house/temple that later Christ was to visit in God's plan. They were building their homes as a priority. They were under God's corrective judgment for doing so and therefore were not receiving the blessings of covenant. Hag.1:9 "You expected much, but see, it turned out to be little. What you brought home, I blew away. Why?" declares the LORD Almighty. "Because of my house, which remains a ruin, while each of you is busy with his own house. 10 Therefore, because of you the heavens have withheld their dew and the earth its crops. 11 I called for a drought on the fields and the mountains, on the grain, the new wine, the oil and whatever the ground produces, on men and cattle, and on the labor of your hands."

And imagine this...it was God's "global warming" program!

If "subjunctives" are used in the Bible, which they are, it is good enough for me.

It simply means in Greek and English grammar, if you haven't had any... that something is/might be possible. Would you agree that not all rich trust in their wealth and that some, yet not all poor might be envious and covetous of the rich? If not... you do not understand human nature.

God does not build "an agenda" around the rich or poor. He is a God of justice and mercy to both.

pat

Cliff,

I suggest those who feel that we humans evolved rather than Creation week are simply the end product of naturalistic philosophy. Miracles are off the table and most of scripture becomes "myth" and non historical to be reframed to their personal liking.

Yet, I remain open to the possibility of an "old universe" which God created earlier and inhabited in a "young creation week" about 6-10K years ago. I do not feel that possibility violates the integrity of Gen.1:1,2.

Regards,

pat

Pat-

I'm with you. It would seem that moral integrity alone, if nothing else, would force one to choose one or the other, but to meld both?

Well, I'm not going to judge folks hearts. It's their minds, sometimes, that baffle me, though.

Cliff,

J.Gresham Machen, D.D. left Princeton and with other departing professors formed "conservative" Westminster Theological Seminary in 1929. He was NT professor at Princeton from 1915-1929 before being a part of the formation of Westminster.

Machen had earlier pursued theological studies in Germany for a year in 1905 before coming back to the states for further study. “In a letter to his father, he admitted being thrown into confusion about his faith because of the liberalism taught by Professor Wilhelm Herrmann. Although he had an enormous respect for Herrmann, his time in Germany and his engagement with Modernist theologians led him to reject the movement.”

Seeing the onset of the "German School" and “modernist” theology and its scholarship coming to Princeton he wrote, "Christianity and Liberalism." Eerdmans, 1923.180 pp. Interesting and “prophetic” read perhaps describing “apostate Protestantism.”

Machen once said," The worst sin today is to say you agree with the Christian faith and believe in the Bible, but then make common cause with those who deny the basic facts of Christianity.” 1924.

Regards,
pat

Pat
It's a bit like evolution: the scientific study of the Bible
brings to light some very disturbing and inconvenient truths. The problem we face is whether to confront these problems head on ("the German school") or use our faith to invalidate the facts.

Case in point: the dating of the Book of Daniel. Only your faith can save you from the facts and the conclusion that it was not written in the fifth century before Christ. Or, not to mention, the case of King David and the double monarchy. According to the eminent archeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman archeology can only account for some 3500-5000 people living in Jerusalem and the highlands of Juda during the 10th century BCE, far less than needed for a minor empire. King David and King Arthur enjoy about equal historical support.

"Liberalism" is a way of integrating such facts with one's faith, as opposed to ignoring the facts or contesting them.

I would think most Christians are "liberal" to some degree or other. Even conservatives pick and choose what they find acceptable in the Bible. They reject slavery even though scripture approves of it, and no matter how much believers are against granting equal rights to homosexuals, they do not believe that they should be killed, as mandated by Lev 19. (Adventists, who generally do not believe that Paul's crusade was to free gentile believers from obedience to the Torah (Epistle to the Galatians), have yet to explain--from the Bible--why they have declared the Torah nul and void.) Christians listen to Jesus preaching about turning the other cheek but few have ever attempted to take it literally.

Integrating science and Biblical truths into one faith experience is difficult, no matter how one approaches it. I have chosen the easy way and walked away from the attempt. I take a keen interest both in science and in Biblical studies but I make no attempt at synthesizing the two.

Aage Rendalen

Aage,

If you choose to believe that the Bible is not God's inspired word then that is your choice. If it is not, your faith in "the faith" delivered to the saints is no better than your next theory or "eminent" scholar. Welcome to true "liberalism."

It is God's word or it is all but "dung" and we who claim to be Christians are of all people to be most pitied as deluded…and, some obviously believe that.

Your choice my friend. No need to point out reputable scholars who hold just the opposite view i.e. Edwin M. Yamauchi as regards Daniel dating. “Liberalism” obviously does not accept 5th century BC dating rather chooses the time of Antioochus E. or later because after all God doesn’t know the future in their world and obviously it had to be written after the historic events took place.

Experientially, the Bible talks to me and satisfies my soul. In it I find a God of Justice and Mercy who loved me and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for my sins and all who trust in Christ and call upon Him in faith.

I find in God's word the only reason I can possibly hope for and expect lasting peace and righteousness to someday exist at His coming. I find the hope of eternal life and a resurrection to live in His presence with ones I have loved who have also embraced Him.

If your hope in your understanding works...fair enough but it isn't Christianity. It knows not the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit that produced my Bible and who are revealed in it through Holy men of old who were moved by the Spirit to write it. “Liberalism” creates a private reformulated myth called “Christianity” but one that is unrecognizable in the Scriptures that I hold dear.

regards,
pat

Pat, speaking as one of those who accept that humans evolved, I have to beg to differ on your characterization. As a theistic evolutionist, I do believe beyond a naturalistic philosophy. Otherwise I'd be an agnostic or atheistic evolutionist. The theism part says there is a God that is more than the natural world. It also says that God is currently present in this world or I'd be a deistic evolutionist.

I believe that miracles can and did occur. Science is not the end all and be all for knowledge IMO. Although God has often chosen to be hidden in my life, I do believe that I am still drawn to God in ways I can't explain or articulate well.

And Cliff, you're right you probably don't want a peek in my mind. As someone who has never been very good at compartmentalizing, it's not a pretty picture :) I think on my death bed, my dying words will be, "But it doesn't all make sense yet!" And I know it won't in this lifetime and that's ok - doesn't stop me from trying though. Thankfully, I believe that there is a God and I do hope that one day it will.

Cliff you speak as if every word of the bible is unerring historically and is to be believed.

The Christian faith has a long and illustrious history of transmuting scientific claims in the bible to "moral tales" case in point our view of earth as 4 cornered table with a metal sky into a poetic view of the earth.

If science hadn't so overwhelmingly disproved that to be the case we would still probably just accept it without thought as literal truth.

Does Christianity depend on King David having existed? Does it change what the stories mean to you in any way? What about Noah-- it even somewhat raises the question: "Can you accept Christ as your savior and not believe he ever actually lived." The automatic answer I'm sure is "No." Although I'm not sure how accepting a man who lived in Judea as your savior is any more significant in the universe's metaphysics of salvation than accepting the 'concept' of Christ.

I would be concerned about tying historical/scientific claims to the Bible. The less probable any element becomes the less approachable the religion becomes. Without evolving with the times a strict non-conforming perspective will eventually result in Christianity being viewed in the same light as Norse mythology. As was mentioned by previous commentors and myself, it's not as if the Christian faith doesn't have a history of theological revisionism.

You say it's somewhat absurd to try and marry Christianity and evolution as compatible. I say as damaging as it can be, there isn't really a choice. Christianity can either become irrelevant and die or throw its combined philosophical and theological resources at resolving the problem. Some denominations have already blazed this trail (notably the Catholics).

Evolutionary Theory isn't slowing or coming unravelled. If anything it's building momentum and strength. Seems pretty silly (and poor church leadership) to place the church smack dab in the middle of its tracks instead of catching a ride.

The church's work to verify the health benefits of the SDA diet and lifestyle seems to be the correct course of action. If the church's beliefs are true then they should be testable.

We're all liberals in respect to the church circa 100BC.

How does one reconcile the biblical teaching of the fall of man into sin, and the need of salvation and a savior with evolutuonary theory? When did the need for salvation come onto the scene in this scenario? Did it evolve also? Or is the concept of sin and salvation now to be assigned to the scrap heap of moral mythology as well?

I, like Cliff, cannot wrap my mind around the concept of theistic evolution. It seems like an oxymoron to me, when compared with a straightfoward reading of the biblical worldview. Is it any coincidence that the rise of the naturalistic worldview was also accompanied by the rise of agnosticism and atheism within the scientific community from the 19th c. onward?

Personally, I came from that worldview before I met Christ...before he saved my life when I called out to him. For me to now believe that the Christ/salvation story is simply a myth of antiquity, or my own psychological necessity, would be for me an absolute denial of him, what I know he has done in my life, and what I believe the Bible teaches he has done through history. Yes...salvation history.

To me, scientists who insist on the mutual exclusivity of the evolutionary and biblical worldviews are at least being honest with the incompatibility of the two. I, for one, cannot cross back over the line that has been drawn, nor can I try to amalgamate them together.

Thanks...

Frank

Pat
Faith works for you, it doesn't for me. In that sense you're better off than me. But I find it fascinating to explore these issues with people who don't think like myself, and I appreciate the fact that you're tolerant enough to indulge me.

Gavin
I think you're spot on when you write:

"Without evolving with the times a strict non-conforming perspective will eventually result in Christianity being viewed in the same light as Norse mythology."

This is already happening in Europe, where 5% or less go to church. Of course, your approach would also reduce Christianity to the level of a story. This, though, need not be fatal. Norse mythology did not die because it was a story but because people liked the new story (Christianity) better. That, it seems to me, would be the challenge of the 21st century, retelling the Biblical story in such a way that it will be relevant to this age. (Wasn't that,by the way, what Joseph Campbell tried, with his "hero with a thousand faces" ?)

And again, I think you put it very well:

"You [Cliff] say it's somewhat absurd to try and marry Christianity and evolution as compatible. I say as damaging as it can be, there isn't really a choice. Christianity can either become irrelevant and die or throw its combined philosophical and theological resources at resolving the problem."

For many of us there really isn't a choice. For others, there still is, and that's what makes the conversation interesting.

Should the word “science” automatically mean that we throw God out of the picture? Didn’t the scientists start to look at science because they knew that there was a God and that therefore there had to be some logic in the world around them? Well, today’s science doesn’t accept that there is a God, and therefore the belief in God and the study of science has to be totally separated. But what if the science actually points to a God, as I believe it does and many others? You can say that I’m being biaz, because I come to the “science table” with the assumption that there is a God. But can’t the atheist then in the same way also be biaz, as they come to the “science table” with the other assumption?

There are many assumptions made in Evolution to make the theory work, and like I said, there are different ways of looking at the evidence at hand, Evolution only looks at it from one angle. When we study the matter scientifically, we do run into many problems with the evolution theory. Where is the evidence for macroevolution? From all the fossils that have been digged up, are we seeing a lizzard with half evolved wings or something in that effect? We do se micro-evolution, but is that really evolution?

Scientists are now discovering that there is a gene switch that goes “on and off” depending on the environment. They are seeing many cases of this in the nature. So what is said to be micro-evolution, isn’t it merely the ingenious design of our God who has put these possibilities into our genes so that we could adopt to different circumstances?

Evolutionists can tend do get quite biaz in their thinking and reasoning, look for example at the tooth incident. They dig up a tooth, and make up the entire Nebraska man from this one tooth, only to find out to their horror that the tooth actually comes from a big pig –a little bit ironic don’t you think? Is that really good science?

Anyways, I think that in the end, you can find reasons to believe either in the ID or the Evolution theory, because ultimately it does end in faith, on both sides. You can still make an intelligent conclusion in believing in the ID theory, when looking at the evidence around us. I won’t go into that, as we can debate endlessly about the two poles (geological timescale versus sediments made in the Flood; what to do about animals that defy evolution e.g. Bombardier-beatle etc.). What I have a hard time understanding, though, is the need to try to merge the two opposite ideas together in one?

It has filled me with peace and assurance to study this matter, and to realise for myself that the God in which I believe designed me just the way I am. I have found that all the pieces and perplexities on the evolution side come together pretty well when looking at it from the ID perspective.

So if we belive in God, why having a hard time believing in the Creation? I at least believe the Bible when it tells us about how God created this world in 6 days. And what about the 4th commandment? “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” Why? “For in SIX days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.” Didn’t God himself write this on the tablets? Does God lies?

I've seen the film twice. At the first showing in a public theater, the audience clapped and cheered at the end. At the second, which got out at midnight, there were only 6 people. :)

This film ought to be required screening for all SDA college students around the world. We need to get out the message that the supposed science vs. religion conflict is really religion vs. religion conflict--Naturalism vs Christian creationism.

Ellen had it spot on more than a century ago when she counseled that no student should go to a secular college unless they had very strong faith in the Bible. Back in 1864, only a few years after Darwin published Origin of the Species, She wrote "I have been shown that, without Bible history, geology can prove nothing. Relics found in the earth do give evidence of a state of things differing in many respects from the present. But the time of their existence, and how long a period these things have been in the earth, are only to be understood by Bible history. It may be innocent to conjecture beyond Bible history, if our suppositions do not contradict the facts found in the sacred
Scriptures. But when men leave the word of God in regard to the history of creation, and seek to account for God's creative works upon natural principles, they are upon a
boundless ocean of uncertainty. Just how God accomplished the work of creation in six literal days, he has never revealed to mortals. His creative works are just as incomprehensible as his existence." Ellen Gould Harmon White, 1864

She knew or was shown that one's world view determined how one interpreted geology. Kuhn's paradigm driven concept of science finally caught up with Ellen in the mid 20 century.

SDA's used to be the leading edge in Creationism in the first half of the 20 century. But then students, either weak in faith or not understanding that the issue was not science vs. religion, obtained Geology degrees at public universities getting sucked into the malaise of Naturalism, or worse yet, Methodological Naturalism (which is demonically a deistic form of atheist Naturalism). The result is that all kinds of theistic evolutionism have invaded Adventist classrooms and pulpits. How scandalizing!!! The assumptions required for the scientific method to be done all come from the Bible.

Because of that, now, SDA's are basically a back-water in the Creationism movement as Morris and Whitcomb (and hundreds of other evangelicals and fundamentalist), etc., have pressed on such that Creationism is never identified with SDA's any more. Organizations like Answers in Genesis (AiG) have become shining beacons around the globe. It is ironic that AiG preaches that Genesis has the foundation of all Christain doctrine and yet the Sabbath goes completely over their heads!

As I said in the email exchange before the 2003 Faith and Science conference in Glacier View, any SDA professor, teacher or preacher that promotes any form of naturalism or evolutionism should be immediately canned and removed from church membership. (I'm not talking about teaching ABOUT naturalism or evolutionism, because everyone should know all about it. But rather, teaching naturalism and evolutionism in the place of or in combination with the revealed truth of fiat Creation and the global flood.)

I may seem hard nosed, but just look where compromise and being wishy-washy has gotten us!!!

Allen Roy
Undergrad student of Paleontology
Montana State University
Age: 57

Roy
In principle, you're right that facts don't speak; they need to be put in a context to do so. If the Biblical flood narrative had been able to make sense of the facts, it would have been viable as a scientific theory. Evolution is considered a better framework because it offers a framework that makes better sense of the world of facts.

The flood story raises more questions than it solves, and I suspect that that is why creationists have moved away from the issue of evolution to that of the origin of life (ID).

Just curious, what made you sign up for paleontology at a university which rejects creationism as a looney fringe science? And how have you been received?

Sandra saying "there is no evidence of 'macroevolution'" is nothing more than saying the words. There is EXTENSIVE evidence of transitional fossils. And there is NO other theory which attempts to emplain how through chronologically we see a consistant and unbroken 'evolution' of species. (And yes there is a lizard with half formed wings. Also genetic studies have found that dinosaurs and birds are the closest genetic relatives.)

The tooth example is a red herring. It involves BAD science. Exactly the sort of science ID advocates. The strength of the scientific method is that con-men and cooks like the pig tooth get caught and exposed.

You can reject evolution on faith. But the evidence is not flimsy. I have no problem with people believing it's all a big hoax by the devil and the poor scientists are getting duped by a master scheme. But to suggest the science isn't solid is just blind ignorance. (This from someone who for the first 16 years of their life was an avid creationist. I spent a year reading every single claim/counter claim I could find and found not a single position on which ID didn't fold under indisputable fact, overwhelming contradictory evidence or simply poor reasoning.)
---

Frank I think it's a pretty universally accepted fact that the human race is flawed and imperfect. There is a universal desire to be more than what we are. What is the fall of man except an acknowledgement that we are flawed? What is the salvation of Man other than our path to perfection? Do you need us to have at one point been running around with fig leaves with lions and sheep? What does that contribute? What is the significance to your faith that the world was created in the order it was created in Genesis 1:1 (For that matter do you care that it's a different order immediately thereafter?)

---

I'm sorry but the youth are leaving the church in droves. I've read countless articles on "why". It's been listed as because people don't say "Hi". It's because they aren't invited to potlucks. It's because they aren't enjoying the music. It's because they aren't wanting to wake up early. It's because they're lazy and want to have fun not sit in church. It's because they didn't get enough biblical theology training to fully appreciate the bible. It's because they aren't sufficiently trained in self investigation.

I have a very simple answer. It's because they don't believe it. They're rejecting it. There are oposing arguments for how old the earth is and how that came to be. The SDA church has decided that its members have to choose. It's members are choosing to leave. I don't think an 'exit survey' would have very many people specifically picking out ID vs. Evolution. But just put a:

I think it's all BS. [X]

checkbox on the list of questions and I think you'll get an accurate picture of the reason people are leaving the church.

The church is taking an enormous gamble by tieing its future to junk science. Like Aage said "look at europe". The European church moved far too late in taking actions to modernize and conform to public views of science and was marginalized as a result.

What is more important to the church? The Gospel of Christ? or the Gospel of Dr. Hovind?

Aage

1. Noah's Flood has is not an hypothesis, it can never be a hypothesis, it is a fact based on the truth of God who said "Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets."

As a fact, Noah's Flood is part of the paradigm that creationary geologists interpret the geologic record within. We do not go looking for data to prove the flood true. Anyone who tries to do that is committing circular reasoning. Rather we interpret the data of the geologic record knowing that the flood is responsible for most of it.

2. Evolution (actually Evolutionism) is not a hypothesis, it is a fact within the religious belief of Naturalism. It is the dominate paradigm within which the geologic record has been interpreted. Evolutionary interpretation is completely irrelevant to creationary geologists.

3. What does not make sense is trying to make a "flood hypothesis" within the paradigm of Naturalism and Evolutionism. It is impossible to find such a "flood hypothesis" in Naturalism because it is automatically eliminated by that actualistic world view. It is only to evolutionists that it 'raises more questions than it solves.'

4. I am studying paleontology, besides loving Dinosaurs, to obtain a full knowledge of the evolutionary "party line" at a "partly line" school. And to more fully develop my understanding of flood geology and development of a flood model. I am finding that most of the supposed conflict between "geology" and creationism is just hype and exists only if you look at it from within naturalism. The very same data can be fit in a global flood paradigm. I did not come here to engage in debate or convert my professors or fellow students to creationism.

I'm not saying that there are not problems in interpreting the geologic data within Flood catastrophism. However, I have found in cases where I have taken a really close look at the data, the issue is primarily one of perception and naturalistic interpretation. There is much more to be done. We need hundreds and hundreds of creationary geologists where now we have few.

Gavin:
1: The Gospel of Christ

According to John 1 Jesus is the Word by whom everything was created. So the line above should read:

The Gospel of Christ the Creator.

If people are leaving the church because of creationism, it is obvious they know next to nothing about the real creationism/naturalism debate. It has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with which religious belief you choose to believe in.

Allen

To all,

I recently purchased the book, "The Evolution Controversy" by Fowler & Kuebler, Baker Academic,2007.

It seems highly objective and I believe correctly points out that “all views have difficulties.” They point out that creationism has the most. I think that should not be surprising within itself as it is the least investigated from a scientific standpoint.

However, neither Neo-Darwinism or Meta-Darwinism offer us the "problem free" answers that some on this strand would like us to believe and insinuate. He points out that Robert Pennock of the former school and author of "The Tower of Babel" states that "there remain any number of gaps, that yet to be explained" in terms of how certain complex structures are formed via natural selection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_T._Pennock

The authors point out such comments are seldom emphasized to the public in the debate.

Regards,
Pat

Allen
When I said the Flood "model" raises more questions than it solves, I was referring to some of the implications of a literal Noah story, such as:

1. When floods are caused by rain, you would expect torrents of water come shooting out of the mountain valleys and sweeping everything before it and creating the very opposite of a geological column.

2. The oceans would become brackish, killing all fish that could not live in such an environment (if the suspended silt hadn't already killed them). Noah would have needed aquariums.

3. Is it really possible to envision the platypus waddling down Mt Ararat (if waddling is what they do on land) wile trying to figure out whether to swim across the Indian Ocean or go by land?

4. The Flood took place 2500 BC, if you trust the Bible's chronology, and it left the world with only eight human beings. Obviously, that creates a problem when it comes to accounting for the Egyptian pyramids that were built prior to 2000 BCE (both with respect to time and manpower), not to speak of the Sumerian culture (which should, by Biblical reconing have been antedeluvian).

It's an honest thing to believe the Biblical story but it is not easy to argue that it does a good job of accounting for the scientific facts we have to make sense of.

You said that "I am finding [at Montana State University] that most of the supposed conflict between "geology" and creationism is just hype and exists only if you look at it from within naturalism." I'm sure if you came clean to your fellow students and professors, you might have to revise that statement. But good luck to you. As you said, there is a need for creationists to know palentology and geology, the way it is taught (but is often misrepresented in creationist literature.)

Aage Rendalen

1. "When floods are caused by rain, you would expect torrents of water come shooting out of the mountain valleys and sweeping everything before it and creating the very opposite of a geological column."

Who says the Flood was anything like floods today? Naturalists! Not Creationists.

[note: the following is a quick and partial synopsis of a flood model. This is a model proposed within the assumption that the Flood was real. It is not an attempt to prove a Flood hypothesis.]

Sure rain was a part of the Flood, but the account also mentions breaking up of the "fountains of the great deep" and the "opening of the windows of heaven" neither one of which are associated with post-Flood floods. It is highly likely that the 170 or so known asteroid impact found throughout the geologic record all occurred during the Flood. Hundreds of asteroids impacted the earth during the Flood. Each impact would have associated catastrophic impact-tsunami, impact-quakes, and impact-ejecta of rock, water and steam high into and above the atmosphere. The asteroids would have come through "the windows of heaven". The accumulative effective force of these asteroids could have triggered global catastrophic plate tectonics that totally rearranged the continental plates on the earth causing earthquakes, earthquake-tsunami, global volcanism venting vast amounts of rock, dust, water, and vapor into the atmosphere. This breakup of the continents and global oceanic basins is likely what is meant by the breakup of the fountains (reservoirs) of the great deep (oceans).

Such a scenario would start by burying the life forms of the shallow seas and then work upward overtaking various ecosystems as thousands of tsunamis go farther and farther inland. This is what is generally found in the geologic record.

2. "The oceans would become brackish, killing all fish that could not live in such an environment (if the suspended silt hadn't already killed them). Noah would have needed aquariums."

[Hmmm. Did you just cut and past from Talk.Origins archive? For the record: CreationWiki has responded to every T.O. nonsense.]

Boy, there are a lot of Naturalist assumptions there.....

A. At sea during heavy rains the surface becomes fresh and drinkable. (I have surfed in such weather and drank from ocean) Since there were extremely heavy rains for at least 150 days of the most violent part of the flood, one can be certain that the surface of the existing oceans far from land would have fresh water with degrees of brackishness at depth. Where tsnumai sweep ashore ripping up vast amounts of soil and depositing the mud across vast reaches of the continents one would expect to find millions of dead fish. Hmmm. imagine that! That's exactly where you find millions of dead fish buried in mud.

B. It has been proven that nearly all fish and aquatic life can survive and even adapt to various degrees of brackish or pure water.

3. "Is it really possible to envision the platypus waddling down Mt Ararat (if waddling is what they do on land) wile trying to figure out whether to swim across the Indian Ocean or go by land?"

Why not? They don't have to get there in one generation. It may have taken many generations, some clans dying here, others surviving there to move on. This would have happened during the warm "ice age" triggered by the Flood. The oceans would have been quite warm and perhaps some 300 meters lower in elevation. This would leave only a narrow straight to cross to Australia. And, this ignores possible assistance by humans who were also spreading across the globe.

4. "The Flood took place 2500 BC, if you trust the Bible's chronology, and it left the world with only eight human beings. Obviously, that creates a problem when it comes to accounting for the Egyptian pyramids that were built prior to 2000 BCE (both with respect to time and manpower), not to speak of the Sumerian culture (which should, by Biblical reconing have been antedeluvian)."

You got to be kidding?!! The Egyptians and Sumerians were all post flood. All the dates that supposedly put them Pre-flood were developed by -- of all people -- Naturalists! Imagine that! There is no flood, so there are ancient societies! I find it incredible that anyone believes in such dates and for that matter in 30000 year old cave men! What rubbish.

"I'm sure if you came clean to your fellow students and professors, you might have to revise that statement. But good luck to you. As you said, there is a need for creationists to know paleontology and geology, the way it is taught (but is often misrepresented in creationist literature.)"

I have plenty of opportunity to talk with professors and students about creationism. One professor fervently declared that there is no way that they would allow an open creationists to get a Masters or PhD. This is exactly what the movie Expelled is exposing. I'm living it.

While there are some Creationists who are an embarrassment to creationism--such as Hovind--those geologists that publish in CRSQ, Journal of Creation, and Origins (GRI) are all well educated and represent Geology in it proper light.

[to those reading, here is what will happen next. Aage will go to T.O. (or some similar site) and cut and past another, longer, list of "problems." Then if I am unable to answer one or more of them, then that will prove that the flood "hypothesis" is invalid. This can go on and on ad infinitum.

The fact of the matter is that I don't have an answer for EVERY objection raised. This is partly because I am only one creationary geologists and there are so few creationists working on flood models.

I may not have an answer for every objection that could be raised. But, I start with the assumption that a Global flood did happen as described by God in Genesis. I don't need any "scientific proof" that it happened. I have the sure word of God.

When I develop a 'Flood Model' I do so knowing that there was a global flood and knowing that all evidence from the rock record can be interpreted within that truth. My Flood model may not be able to explain everything yet, but in time I know that more and more evidence can be understood within the paradigm.

I also know that even if my "flood model" were shown to be false and flawed (I have modified my model several times as new evidence has come to light), that would not nullify the fact that there was a global flood. It would just show that my concept of it was in limited.]

Allen

Having actually attended classes and spent vespers with Adventist professors who take evolution seriously and listened to their deep personal faith, I have to smile at how out of touch some of the commentators sound on this thread.

Tossing off ultimatums like they should be "canned," or implying that their minds are more "deceived," misses both the goals of Christian community and open intellectual curiosity.

Having grown up surrounded by parents and teachers who provided the best of creationist teaching - as a kid, I attended the Institute for Creation Research - as I aimed to openly examine the weight of evidence, I found speciation and long-chronology to be more consistent with the available evidence.

(In the discussions that I've seen flare up in the two years of the Spectrum Blog, I've consistently seen that those most hostile toward evolution tend toward attacking others rather than demonstrating a rich scientific vocabulary.)

More importantly, I found evolution to be more filling to my soul. Yes, evolution increases my faith in God and there are millions of folks who have the same experience.

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/evolution/christian_evolutionists.html#chr...

Of course, that may seems like foolishness to some of the wise ones here, but my testimony is that I've found a more personal and active God eminently evident in creation's ways.

Pat I'm not sure what you mean by the statement that creationism is the least studied. Do you mean that scientists have not studied the hypothesis that the Christian God created the world? Or do you mean that scientists have not studied the hypothesis that all life appeared suddenly about six thousand years ago - give or take a few thousand?

If it's the former, I wonder how you would propose scientists would go about studying that. And if it is the later, I would seriously beg to differ. That hypothesis has been very well studied and completely discredited. (And if it is something else entirely then I am sorry for jumping the gun.)

Doesn't it seem strange that there are NO scientists suggesting that life appeared suddenly a few thousand years ago except for those motivated by religious belief? If there was enough evidence to support that hypothesis wouldn't there be secular scientists arguing that life seems to have suddenly appeared? They wouldn't have to connect it with God at all, they would just be supporting the concept that life appeared suddenly. There is not one. Nobody saying, "You know that God creating stuff is crazy but they have a point about life appearing suddenly about six thousand years ago."

Either there is a world-wide conspiracy of secular scientists (and many Christian scientists) suppressing evidence or there isn't any evidence. And anyone who knows how scientists love to show each other up would realize the likelihood of getting a group of scientists to go along with something like that is nill. If things were really as murky as creationists like to pretend, they would have at least a reasonable secular contingent backing a young earth/sudden life hypothesis.

Note that this is separate from arguing the merits of evolution. This is arguing the merits of a young earth/sudden life hypothesis. Both need to stand on their own strengths and weaknesses. Overturning the theory of evolution would, in no way, suggest that sudden life creationism is correct.

Alex
Evolution is a slippery word. All creationists recognize that there is common ordinary genetic variation which helps organisms adapt to environments. However, that it not what evolutionists mean by evolution. What they really mean is what should truely be called Evolutionism, i.e. the religious belief that all life forms have a common ancestor. This is completely contrary to the Genesis account that God created many life forms on the planet over a period of 6 days.

The reason why rich scientific rhetoric is not used is because the issues are not scientific, they are philosophical and religious.

Carl Sagan succinctly described naturalism this way. "The Cosmos [i.e., Nature] is all there is, has ever been or ever will be." This is a philosophical statment of faith, for the only way that anyone can know if the Cosmos is all there is, has ever been or ever will be is if they know everything there is to know about it and that they have always existed. [Hmmmm. I wonder who does know everything there is to know.....always existed......] And no scientist would ever claim that, for then they would have no need to scientifically study nature. They already know it all.

This religious faith states that there is no god, because nature is all there is. This religion is atheistic at heart.

Because there was once no life and yet now there is, and since there was no god to mess with things, Abiogenesis is an undeniable fact of the Cosmos. This is not a hypothesis, it is not a theory.

Also, because there was once only a single organism and now there are many, and since there was no god to mess with things, then Evolution[ism] by common descent is an undeniable fact of the Cosmos. This is not a hypothesis, it is not a theory.

There are theories about HOW Evolutionism has occurred such a Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, Punc-Ec and probably others. Even if one or all of these hypothesis were completely falsified the fact of Evolutionism would remain unfased. It must be true because there is no other acceptable way for organisms to get here.

So attacking Evolutionism is not about science. It is about attack a religious belief. Science cannot prove it true. Science cannot prove it false. But science can be done within and interpreted within Naturalism and Evolutionism.

Those that are out of touch are those who think they can mix theism and atheism in a witches caldron. It's no laughing matter to smugly smile about.

Allen

Beth:
"Or do you mean that scientists have not studied the hypothesis that all life appeared suddenly about six thousand years ago - give or take a few thousand?"
"That hypothesis has been very well studied and completely discredited."

The creation of organisms on Earth by God about 6000 years ago is not an hypothesis and it never has been.

How do you propose testing such a thing.

"Hey, god, get in this test tube and create some life. Oh yes, and do it 6000 years ago so I can see you do it. Do it again. OK, now, again!"

It is impossible for the scientific method to study something that is not repeatable by human effort. And it must be repeatable or the scientific method is useless.

Your claim that no one is studying a hypothesis of a young earth creation is true! There is no such hypothesis! It is a fact because God says it is so. Logically there can never be such a hypothesis. Why is it that you could even think that there could be such a hypothesis?

Hello? Anybody home?

If there is a conspiracy, it is in inventing a straw man, ripping it apart, and claiming you proved you point.

Allen

Isn't that the problem? How do you create a "naturalistic" evaluation of a "supernatural event" weather a old earth/or young earth young creation of life about 6-10,000 yrs.ago.? I don't have the answer.

Does science have the answer of how a dead man was raised to life?

Does naturalistic origen have problems or are they glossed over? They should point out their problems and develop test which challenge their theories plausibility on their weak points and prove them false.

Although I appreciate aspects of Carl Sagan's humanism, I don't find the necessary warrant for his naturalistic reductionism. There is a difference between natural selection and naturalism. I actually find non-reductive physicalism, as articulated by Nancey Murphy very helpful.

The error that all too many folks make lies in conflating science and naturalism. Don't believe me? Try out the logic of conservative Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga: