Is Creasionism a Bad Choice?

[stephen]

An examination of the writings of several prominent evolutionists has shown that young-earth creationists are rarely accurately portrayed (Bell 2002). They create the impression that creationists are either scientifically incompetent or that the quality of their work falls below accepted scientific standards (Kulikovsky 2008). The aim of such ploys is to dismiss or diminish arguments in support of the biblical teaching of creation. These tactics, however, do not stop with secular evolutionists.

Recently Dr. Francis Collins, a world-renowned geneticist and founder of The BioLogos Foundation wrote that, "Young Earth Creationism has reached a point of intellectual bankruptcy, both in its science and in its theology. Its persistence is thus one of the great puzzles and great tragedies of our time. By attacking the fundamentals of virtually every branch of science, it widens the chasm between the scientific and spiritual worldviews, just at a time where a pathway toward harmony is desperately needed (Collins 2007, p. 177). Collins and president of BioLogos professor of biology, Dr. Darrel Falk, think that the young-earth creationist "perspective is the equivalent of insisting that two plus two is really not equal to four" (Collins 2007, p. 174). Young-earth creationism is therefore an unnecessary and profoundly dangerous choice between the available alternatives (Collins 2007, pp. 178, 211). Collins words his preferred choice as follows: "I find theistic evolution, or BioLogos, to be by far the most scientifically consistent and spiritually satisfying of the alternatives" (Collins 2007, p. 210).

Philosopher Dr. Francis Beckwith agrees with Collins, explaining that he is sympathetic to atheist Richard Dawkins' bewilderment of why Dr. Kurt Wise -- a Harvard University trained paleontologist -- "has embraced what appears to many Christians as a false choice between one controversial interpretation of Scripture (young-earth creationism) and abandoning Christianity altogether" (Beckwith 2009, p. 58).

Seemingly, Wise's only mistake is that he has not chosen theistic evolution. Totally absent from Beckwith's discussion, however, is a presentation of the reasons why Wise chose to believe that young-earth creationism is a true representation of the biblical record of creation.



Is Young-Earth Creationism a Bad Choice? - Answers in Genesis

[TBC: "And God spoke all these words, saying...For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:1, 11).]

 

[David777]

Very interesting thread Stephen.

Creationism the belief that God created the
heavens and the earth and all it contains as
Genesis states.

This creationism belief is the logical outcome
of a literal approach to reading the scripture.
A literal approach is the only approach to reading
the scriptures.

When one examines the scientific propositions
at some depth it is very clear that science is
a belief system at its core. Most folk would be
unaware of the foundational assumptions and
axioms inherent in science. Personally I was
stunned at the major assumptions that studies
in science accept without question. Also, science
never advertises their assumptions, nor are they
taught except in philosophical science.

Do science and Christianity clash?

They do not clash and never will, the scripture
is the direct revelation of the creator to mankind.
Creationism is not the result of analytic thought
processes, nor is it fiction.

When God speaks one would be well advised to
listen and take the information disclosed to heart.

Life is about reconciliation to our creator, not
the accumulation of knowledge based on
unprovable assumptions. Science has only
one outcome, death, where as Christianity
contains life eternal. No choice, no clash, no
other option.

 

[Asanima]

Very interesting thread Stephen.

Creationism the belief that God created the
heavens and the earth and all it contains as
Genesis states.

This creationism belief is the logical outcome
of a literal approach to reading the scripture.
A literal approach is the only approach to reading
the scriptures.

So you are saying that there exists no metaphors in the scripture?

When one examines the scientific propositions
at some depth it is very clear that science is
a belief system at its core. Most folk would be
unaware of the foundational assumptions and
axioms inherent in science. Personally I was
stunned at the major assumptions that studies
in science accept without question. Also, science
never advertises their assumptions, nor are they
taught except in philosophical science.

What sort of assumptions?

Do science and Christianity clash?

They do not clash and never will, the scripture
is the direct revelation of the creator to mankind.
Creationism is not the result of analytic thought
processes, nor is it fiction.

When God speaks one would be well advised to
listen and take the information disclosed to heart.

Life is about reconciliation to our creator, not
the accumulation of knowledge based on
unprovable assumptions. Science has only
one outcome, death, where as Christianity
contains life eternal. No choice, no clash, no
other option.

This is assuming that science can and never will be able to find a way for humans to attain eternal life through medical research or technology, right?

 

[David777]

Hello asanima.

In your response to my post you did ask,

"What sort of assumptions?"

What is an assumption?

Consulting the Oxford dictionary will provide
a definition for our purpose.

"Something that is accepted as true without proof."

I will provide you with one of the crucial
and basic assumptions that science is forced
to adopt.

Uniformity of process across time and space:
All past phenomenon can be understood as the
result of processes presently acting in time and space.

This "uniformity" must be assumed to be true,
otherwise it would be impossible to attempt to
understand any phenomenon in science. Here is
the crux of the problem, if uniformity of process
was not uniform in any way in the past then the
conclusions that science derives would be erroneous.

Lets consider rock strata formation for example,
it is believed or assumed that rock strata have been
deposited over vast periods of time. A slow and
gradual process that produced the phenomenon
of the rock strata we observe.

As you would be aware asanima the earth recycles
the deepest rock strata so there is no way that we
may study those strata as they have been removed
by tectonic forces. Since we are unable to scientifically
examine these deep rock strata it is unknown what
conditions prevailed on the earth in the distant past.
Was the process uniform in the past or not, are the
forces occurring today identical to those in the past?
There is a crucial missing link in geology, evidence
is missing. Observations can not be made on these
deep strata and never will be made.

So the assumption of gradual deposition is made
and so it follows that the earth must be very old
indeed.

The truth is science has not a shred of evidence to
support the assumption of vast periods of time within
the geological processes of strata formation. No
geologist has really any idea how old the strata are,
it is an assumption of uniformity that is held.
Observation of the past phenomenon is impossible,
assumptions are proposed and science morphs into
a belief system.

There is the basic problem in science and hence the
mandatory need for the assumptions. When science
views phenomenon the "initial states" are absent,
science studies the post, later conditions. Science
is compelled to assume, science has no recourse
but to assume. Science is unable to observe the
process of strata formation. That is why science is
ultimately a belief system in itself, impossible to
prove only ever assumed asanima.

No one with integrity would accept this assumption in
science as the data is non existent.

 

[David777]

Hello again asanima.

You said,

"This is assuming that science can and never will be able to find a way for
humans to attain eternal life through medical research or technology, right?"

We live on a planet with a use by date asanima.
Global warming, dwindling resources, soil
salinity, decreasing privacy, increasing government
control, etc. Go ahead and achieve a longer life on this
planet asanima if you wish, though you may become
very dissatisfied with the environment you live in.

It would also imply that you would be working for
most of eternity in order to supply your needs and
wants. In addition there would be the constant
repetition of every event over and over again, ground
hog day. Not for me asanima, death is my release
from this very limited earthly existence.