The introduction to Genesis, (and to the entire Scripture), ascribes everything to the living God, creating, making, acting, moving and speaking. There is no room for evolution without a flat denial of Divine revelation. One MUST be true, the other false. Man starts from nothing. He begins in helplessness, ignorance and inexperience. All of his works, therefore, proceed on the PRINCIPLE of evolution. This principle is seen only in human affairs; from the hut to the palace; from the canoe to the ocean liner; from the spade and ploughshare to machines for drilling, reaping and binding etc. But the birds build their nests today as at the beginning. The moment we pass the boundary line, and enter the Divine sphere, no trace or vestige of evolution is seen. There is a growth and development within, but no passing, change or evolution out from one into another. On the other hand, ALL of Gods works are PERFECT. Evolution is only one of several theories invented to explain the phenomena of created things. It is admitted by all scientists that no one of these theories covers all ground; and the greatest claim made for evolution, or Darwinism, is that it covers more ground than any of the others. The Word of God claims to cover ALL OF THE GROUND, and the only way in which this claim is met, (by the critics), is by a denial of the inspiration of the Scriptures, in order to weaken it. This is the special work undertaken by the higher criticism, which bases its conclusions on human assumptions and reasoning, instead of the documentary evidence of manuscripts, as the textual criticism does.

Attribution: The Companion Bible

For some of the posters to argue Scripture, gathering from their stance, equates to myself arguing with Ed Yourdon on function point analysis... I would be foolish to even enter the fray. Im not an IT man, Im an artist. My field of specialty is far removed from Mr. Yourdons; by the same token, I seriously doubt that he would ever presume to advise me on the elements of design. Perhaps Ive been lucky in that my work requires of me to rely upon my God-given talent, without the massive amount of study, although there was plenty required, that has to be undertaken to master a field such as Mr. Yourdons. So Ive had the leisure to study that which has interested me, namely, politics, history and Scripture. This post is merely the result of reading some of the highly erroneous statements disguised as factual information regarding creationism vs. evolution the last couple of days. I dont expect to alter your views, thats your job... but judging from the number of answers to these threads, there is interest here. I personally believe the masses are already spiritually starved for what they cannot find in the vast majority of todays churches. The fact remains though, you cannot have it both ways... to buy into evolutionary theory is to deny your Creator.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), October 19, 1999

Answers

Okay, so let's hear it...

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), October 19, 1999.

Patrick:

Those things that are caesar's should be rendered unto caesar.

I do not see any conflict between religion and science. Science is concerned with the mechanics of how things work, in as much detail as we can reach. Science does NOT properly address morality, or proper behavior. It concerns itself with true and false, but NOT with right and wrong. Science does not concern itself with what existed before the universe, or what happens to us after death, or the nature of our souls. These are all very important subjects, but science makes no claim to being the proper tool to address them.

Evolutionary theory has become controversial (while gravitational theory has not), because of what I regard as an allegorical tale written in the Bible. There is a sizeable chunk of the population for whom the Bible is their holy book, who choose to interpret that tale literally. When they do so, it appears to contradict an immense body of observations and a 150 year old effort to explain those observations. This subpopulation would prefer to discard all of these observations and explanatory efforts, *rather than* change their interpretation of that biblical tale. And this leads to conflict.

IMO, just as there are subjects properly part of religion and to which science does not apply, just so there are subjects properly within the scope of science and not religion. Science cannot investigate morality and should not try. Religion should not provide guidance about what can be observed and measured in the physical and temporal world, and should not try. I regard attempts by religion to step over the line and attempt to inhibit knowledge and understanding in a properly scientific discipline to be out of bounds.

So I regard religion as necessary and important to address issues appropriate to religion. Evolution is not properly one of them. The mechanics of life belong to science. The meaning of life belongs to God.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 19, 1999.

Flint,

You keep it up and I may have to reevaluate my earlier opinion of you. I'll address your post in just a bit, but right now, I have a pressing matter to attend to. P.S. how do you make this thing give proper paragraph?

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), October 19, 1999.

Ditto for me Flint. :)

-- haha (haha@haha.com), October 19, 1999.

Flint Takes On Another Bible Thumper Troll. Stay tuned.

-- (bandwith@wasters.com), October 19, 1999.

>> This subpopulation would prefer to discard all of thes observations and explanatory efforts, *rather than* change their interpretation of that biblical tale. <<

I believe the stubborness exhibited by fundamentalists over the literal interpretation of Biblical text can all be traced to one source. The Bible is the only source for the story of the Resurrection of Jesus. Once doubt over literal truth of Genesis is admitted, doubt over the literal truth of the gospels is a short step away.

Fundamentalists refuse to take that step, because they fear that doubt would be fatal to their faith. That is only a fear. It is not the truth. But they cannot know their fear is untrue until they take that step. Thus, they live in fear and in lies, in the name of love and truth.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 19, 1999.

Forget the Bible, guys, it will hardly pass for the kind of scientific rigor that Flint is looking for. However, if Flint would apply the same standard that he uses for gravity to evolution, he would find that it comes up way short. As in, not even close.

Meanwhile, Brian, everything that you said about Fundamentalists believing what they do out of fear can just as well be said of evolutionists who use their belief in evolution to keep them from considering creation accounts like that in the Bible. If evolution were DISPROVED, there would undoubtedly be a lot of atheists shaking in their boots.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 19, 1999.

The most mischief with Scripture has been done by those that take the figurative literally and vice-versa. However the Scripture is not open to interpretation as it will always interpret itself. Science, per se, is only of value when it observes and documents, but mischief is done as well when theory is put forth, as can be seen in the teaching of evolution. I for one will never accept the notion that my great-grandaddy was some sort of java-apeman. That is not to say that I read Scripture literally. It is my belief that there are very few that have understanding. There is no literal burning hell as this is simply molech worship; Easter? Nothing in the Scripture but admonishment to refuse such abomination. Rapture? Ezekial 13 says this is an abominable teaching. So goes the entire understanding throughout, by mans defiling hand these teachings go forth. You want to be careful not to make a (small g) god out of your science, for that will be idolatry as sure as bending knee to a graven image. Spiritual adultery is a greater sin than to fool around on the missus, and youll certainly be in enough trouble just for that... As an aside, dont you people mean trawl?

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), October 19, 1999.

KOS:

Except for some borderline activities like selective breeding and gene splicing, evolution is not an experimental science. It shares this misfortune with other fields like cosmology and astronomy. The *techniques* in both evolution and physics share the same basis, but physics allows for much more data collection via experimentation. In this respect, observational disciplines do fall short. It doesn't make them less valid in any sense, however.

In addition, your response to Brian is one I regard as being way off base. Science welcomes new ideas, the opposite of fearing them. The *goal* of science is to find ways to improve (or if necessary discard) existing theories. They are even now finding new and exciting ways to explain evolution. (For that matter, we're making strides in explaining gravity better as well).

If you study the history of science, you'll find that indeed the biblical account of creation slowed a number of scientific disciplines down substantially. You will find astounding (and today, amusing) constructs, making the most hilariously farfetched assumptions, to FORCE the planets to circle the Earth (hurt astronomy badly), and to explain seashell fossils on mountain tops (Noah's flood was used to explain this), and to explain whole fossils of creatures that no longer exist.

What I'm saying is, science gave the biblical creation account full credence even in areas where religion has no business. It was only when the body of evidence had grown to utterly overwhelming size that scientists were obliged to look elsewhere for explanations. We might well have antigravity and interstellar travel today had it not been for the inhibiting literal belief in scripture for so long.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 19, 1999.

Patrick:

"I for one will never accept the notion that my great-grandaddy was some sort of java-apeman."

But this is not what you are being asked to accept, exactly. Our understanding of speciation has been changing. Read Gould's ideas, for example. In his model, a small isolated group changed drastically within a very short period of time (exact mechanism unknown, we're still looking). It makes little sense to trace ancestry back through that brief period of transition. Your great-grandaddy was just like you, in terms of species. At least according to that one model. Unlike scripture, scientific theory is *supposed* to change.

You say you have studied hard to improve your understanding. Presumably this requires thought, so that your understanding can change for the better. Certainly I consider this preferable to simply memorizing the answers. Science works the same way. As I wrote earlier, some answers are immutable and require faith. But others take study and investigation and creative thought. Evolution falls in this latter category. Refusal to believe what science teaches is as limiting as refusal to believe what God teaches.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 19, 1999.

>> Brian, everything that you said about Fundamentalists believing what they do out of fear can just as well be said of evolutionists who use their belief in evolution to keep them from considering creation accounts like that in the Bible. If evolution were DISPROVED, there would undoubtedly be a lot of atheists shaking in their boots. <<

KOS, I have no doubt that what you said was said in full conviction of the truth. But it seems confused to me. In one breath you speak of evolutionists and in the next breath you speak of atheists, as if they were the same. Do you think a belief in evolution requires a disbelief in God? How do you account for me?

Do you think God turns His wrath against those who have concluded that He chose evolution to bring about the present marvels of life on earth? If so, does EVERY intellectual error we make entail the same measure of God's wrath, or just this one error? Is a literal belief in the creation story in Genesis a commandment of God? And if you have answers for these questions how do you know these things?

Sorry for all the questions. It is just that these are precisely the same questions I must live with in keeping my faith in God. I don't mind them so much now as I did at first.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 19, 1999.

There's an interesting colloquy in the letters column of the recent Scientific American. The letter writer says:

"I was fascinated by the speculation in [your article]. I counted four coulds, two mays, and one each might, probably, presumably and implies. Wow -- what conviction!"

The author replies:

"...ongoing scientific inquiry can rarely be related honestly without these words. You should worry more about the scientists who don't use conditionals than the ones who do."

Science is inherently conditional. The observations don't change, but the theories must. If an explanation cannot in principle be improved, it's not science.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 19, 1999.

Flint, You certainly seem to have unmitigated trust in that which is put forth in the scientific arena, I am inherently more skeptical than that, as my research has found that science, (as well as "religion"), has been used to put forth an agenda in the past, as I'm sure it will be in the future when the opportunity presents itself. You have to "prove all things" as your dear friend INVAR has stated repeatedly.

Take for instance "Nebraska man" - when pressed as to the origin of this *miraculous* finding, the anthropologists involved had to admit that the entire structure of this being was "projected" from the finding of a single tooth. Hardly convincing evidence to overturn my particular brand of serious study of the Scriptures.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), October 19, 1999.

Patrick:

I spoke elsewhere about the history of fraud and error in science. Scientists are fallible human beings, and tend to make errors of observation and errors of judgment. And sometimes they perpetrate hoaxes. Like all people, they have biases and agendas, and occasionally fabricate date to support unfounded ideas. I certainly don't want to sound like becoming a scientist imbues you with godlike objectivity, because it just ain't so.

As for "Nebraska man", you display some misunderstanding here.

1) There's nothing miraculous about finding teeth -- we find more teeth than anything else. When we find teeth, we try to figure out what grew them. Often in particular cases, we don't have much to go on. At best we can speculate, sometimes more accurately than others. Like finding a buried steering wheel and trying to 'project' the entire car from it. As you say, we are speculating. We aren't even forming a theory about such a tooth, only hypothesizing what it *might* have come from. And without further evidence, it remains a conjecture.

2) The fact that some particular cases involve insufficient data does not mean that the process itself is flawed. We recognize our limitations in these cases as what they are, just as we recognize fewer limitations when the data are rich and informative. You are guilty here of what is called synecdoche -- drawing an incorrect general conclusion from a single bad example.

3) The idea that scripture is being "overturned" is simply an error of category, I think. Scripture, as I wrote earlier, speaks to an entirely different topic than science. In a large sense, scripture deals with man's relationship with God, not with fossilized teeth. And science cannot investigate this relationship any more than scripture can tell us the mechanism by which life developed. There is no overlap, hence there can be no overturning.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 19, 1999.

Evolution? It's a tailor made 'divide and conquer' issue -- almost as divisive for that purpose as abortion. Let's talk about something that's at least halfway connected with Y2K and not something that will turn those preparing for Y2k against each other.

-- (sick@of.trolls), October 19, 1999.

Flint, The Scripture addresses fossils as well, and it is only through today's tortured teaching that the believers are misled. All wisdom comes from the Scripture and that is certainly to be trusted more than teachings from man's defiling hand. The agenda to which I spoke was far more than innocent hoax, and most in today's universities are so indoctrinated, that they see this as the status quo, unable to recognize even the outline of something so pervasive that it is all encompassing, and without meaning to offend, I sincerely believe you to be caught in this as well. It is only through laboriously questioning the teaching's premise with the true quest for truth and understanding, (which must be asked for from above), that one is able to finally begin to have the scales over the eyes removed. Understanding is at a premium on this planet, and very rare, indeed.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), October 19, 1999.

"Understanding is at a premium on this planet, and very rare, indeed."

Not all that rare, Patrick. Unevenly distributed, I'll give you that.

I've seen it argued that 'creationism' doesn't qualify as a scientific theory because it assumes the truths of all its claims, while showing no evidence for them. It certainly qualifies as a belief, held by many it seems, but the only argument that is ever brought to its support is that the proponent is convinced of its truth, citing Biblical authority.

This is the difference between a scientific theory -- subject to modification, even abandonment if and when observational evidence is shown to contradict it -- and a religious belief, held as truth no matter what facts appear. This doesn't contradict such religious beliefs -- it simply demonstrates that the theories of science are in a different category than the beliefs of the faithful.

Creationism assumes its own unquestioned validity. Science -- when conducted honestly -- always questions its theories when new evidence shows up.

Thus the question is often asked, "Should a religious belief be taught in the public schools?" Our Constitution is clear on this matter, and many States have answered in the negative.

Given the multiplicity of religious sects in America, this seems a prudent approach to public education. It would be enormously divisive if belief in the tenets of Buddhism, or Catholicism, or Islam should come to be taught in our public schools.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), October 20, 1999.

Tom, How is it the constitution is clear on this matter? If you're going to give me the establishment clause as "clear," then I respectfully submit to you that your constitutional knowledge is woefully lacking. Our earliest textbooks, (at the time of the constitution's writing/ratification were all based on the tenets of Christianity. If you were to read the writings of the founders you'd see where you were taught some very egregious errors to the reality. I'm really not trying to be the troll/trawl that I keep getting called, but I challenge any one of you on this forum to show me a "separation of church and state" in our founding documents... it simply doesn't exist there, and never came into vogue until the Warren court, (I believe it was), which was packed with frothing lefties, bent on communizing America. They were VERY successful, as we can see all ten planks of the communist manifesto in place today. If you really want a slap in the face, go to the congressional record, on Thursday, January 10, 1963, and read the 44 current communist goals placed into the record by Patricia Nordman, of Deland FL; this reads like a laundry list in retrospect, and it ought to be enough to wake up the sleepiest among us.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), October 20, 1999.

I am cross posting my latest response from a related thread.

Regards,

Will

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

Flint,"Any explanation that cannot be disproved is faith. Even those who hold to any given theory MUST be able to say, if *this* is observed (which is inherently observable), then my theory is false. If you cannot do that, you are making a statement of faith. "

Take the theory that the Sun revolved around the Earth. That was the prevailing theory, based on faith, for centuries. Once Copernicus correlated Tycho Brahe's observations, he was able to present a measurable counter proposal. Bing, end of faith based theory.

You think that evolution is comparable, as did scientific minds of the late 19th century, but deeper analysis in this century has shown gaping holes that cannot be resolved. THE THEORY IS FATALLY FLAWED.

But like any other faith based belief, the faithful will hear no evil, see no evil and speak none.

I am 45, Flint, and I grew up and was trained as a scientist and evolutionist. I understand this dogma intimately. My position today is based not on faith, but upon a closer examination of the data.

Flint,"Incidentally, did you follow that link?

Yes.

Flint,"Evolution is not mathmatical in any real sense."

Of course it is. This statement by you reveals your own lack of understanding here. All things in our universe must follow mathematical law. Probability does in fact determine our reality. To say otherwise is to rely on faith.

People don't grasp mathematics. Statistics and probability theory might as well be Martian heiroglyphics. Evolution is accepted blindly because it is easy for the common man to imagine anything happening if given enough time.

This isn't true, however.

While I am uninterested in a point-counter-point, I must take down one of the link's strawmen just a little.

There is NO evidence of evolution in the five million year old Cambrian explosion. Each animal in this era makes its first appearance fully developed.

IT WAS THE SUDDEN NATURE OF THIS 'EVOLUTIONARY' DEVELOPEMENT THAT LED WALCOTT TO REINTER THE BURGESS SHALE FOSSILS!

The idea of a massive multi-faceted evolutionary change occurring in a few generations simply does not stand up to the scrutiny of statistics. This was established in 1967 at the Wistar Institute Symposium which brought together leading bilogists and mathematicians in what turned out to be a futile attemt to find a mathematically reasonable basis for the assumption that random mutations are the driving force behind evolution.

I will close with a quote from Ilya Prigogine, Nobel prize winning chemist from "Physics Today"'

" The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of the spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore improbable, even on the scale of billions of years."

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), October 20, 1999.