Today is "Break Out Your Ape Suit Day"

Today is "Break Out Your Ape Suit Day"
by Motte Brown on 02/12/2009 at 12:08 PM

Ok, so I made that up. Today is really Darwin Day, a day commemorating the birth of Charles Darwin on February 12, 1809. But don't worry, it's not a public holiday ... yet.

In case you haven't noticed, evolution is becoming quite popular. Even confessing Christians are jumping on the bandwagon. It's not surprising really. Just look at the controversial Clergy Letter Project which began in 2004. As of today, almost 12,000 confessing Christian clergy in the U.S. have signed the "Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science." It begins,

While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

What a contrast to today's Boundless article from Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, "Lousy Creationist Arguments." Instead of separating religious truth from scientific -- as Bible illiteralists -- Dr. Sarfati unapologetically offers his framework for all considerations ... Scripture.

The authority of the Bible is the main emphasis of Creation Ministries International. We don't try to "prove" the Bible with science; rather, we accept the Bible's propositions as true without proof, i.e. as axioms or presuppositions.

All philosophical systems, not just Christianity, start with axioms. There are good reasons for accepting the axioms of Scripture as true, because it can be shown that they lead to a consistent view of physical and moral reality, which other axioms can't provide.

Genesis contains a number of Hebrew grammatical features that show it was intended to teach a straightforward history of the world from its creation. Genesis, backed up by the rest of Scripture, unambiguously teaches that:

The heavens, Earth and everything in them were created in six consecutive normal days, the same as those of our working week (Exodus 20:8-11).
Earth is about 6,000 years old, since Jesus said mankind was there from the "beginning of creation," not billions of years later (Mark 10:6).
Adam sinned and brought physical death to mankind (Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22).
Since man was the federal head of creation, the whole creation was cursed (Romans 8:20-22), which included death to animals, with the end of the original vegetarian diet for both humans and animals (Genesis 1:29-30).
God judged the world by a globe-covering Flood, which Jesus and Peter compared with the coming Judgment (Luke 17:26-27; 2 Peter 3:3-7). This destroyed all land vertebrate animals and people not on the ocean-liner-sized Ark.
God then judged the people by confusing their language at Babel — after they had refused to spread out and repopulate the Earth after the Flood.

It's important to realize that all "facts" of science do not speak for themselves, but are interpreted within a framework.

Evolutionists start with the axiom of naturalism or materialism, i.e. God (if He even exists) performed no miraculous acts of creation.

Biblical creationists interpret the same facts and observations, but within the framework outlined above.

So before you break out your ape suit and throw a primordial soup dinner party, consider which framework you choose to interpret facts and observations, Scripture or the one used by The Clergy Letter signees.

Worldview | Mail This | Share on Facebook

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. kaj said the following at 1:18 PM on Feb 12:

February 12 is also Abraham Lincoln's birthday!

2. Emma said the following at 1:38 PM on Feb 12:

We live in scary times when "almost 12,000 confessing Christian clergy in the U.S. have signed the "Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science.""

3. Jeremy said the following at 2:41 PM on Feb 12:

"We don't try to "prove" the Bible with science; rather, we accept the Bible's propositions as true without proof, i.e. as axioms or presuppositions."

Yikes. Axioms, if indeed taken as axioms, cannot be argued to be true or false. Thus if you take the Bible's propositions as axiomatic, you have immediately abdicated the possibility of convincing anyone else that they are true.

Biblical truths should not be taken as axioms, but rather seen to be true because of their correspondance to reality. And indeed, painful though it might be for some to admit, this does affect our interpretation of Scripture. When a passage, taken literally, is demonstrably false, it is of no value to insist that it is contradictorily true. Instead, under the assumption that it is true, we must try to adjust our understanding.

As an example, consider Matthew 24:34. Jesus, after describing his second coming, says, "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." If we take literal interpretation as axiomatic, we have no choice but to insist that the generation to which he was speaking is still alive. If, instead, we understand that for something to be true it must correspond to reality, we can begin to look for alternative interpretations that preserve Biblical truth without sacrificing rationality.

4. Texas Craig said the following at 2:45 PM on Feb 12:

Yes, far too many people have bought into the "scientific consensus" about evolution. It is constantly stated as "fact" when it is not "fact" as that term is generally understood legally.

Part of the problem is the media, which constantly uses headlines that over-reach even what the scientists quoted in the article will say. For example, the scientist might say "this fossil appears to be some evidence supporting the hypothesis that this type of bird was in fact a carnivore, and not a herbivore." The headline will then read "Fossil proves bird was a carnivore."

:-)

Whenever I hear evolutionists reference things from supposedly millions of years ago that we allegedly "know as fact," it reminds me of a humorous cartoon from a number of years ago, where future scientists and anthropologists are examining things from our time. They conclude that a toilet was in fact a drinking fountain, an oven was used to incinerate our trash, and a garbage can was actually a food storage device, among other silly things!

5. Neto said the following at 3:10 PM on Feb 12:

@Texas Craig: I do recall that cartoon... it was a complete series published back in Reader's Digest in the mid 80's. Dunno if we saw the same thing...

6. Kelsey said the following at 3:14 PM on Feb 12:

I had never heard about the vegetarian diet of all animals before the fall until recently. It doesn’t make much sense to me. Carnivores are physically and biochemically designed to eat and digest meat, not vegetation. How does this work exactly? Did God change their whole makeup after Eve and then Adam at the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, or did they slowly lose the ability to break down the more complex vegetable products? I’m not trying to be argumentative; the science on this one just doesn’t seem to line up.

7. Neto said the following at 3:14 PM on Feb 12:

*sigh*

I know I might stir some controversies or ego with my comment.

But frankly, I can't imagine how would it be to live in a country like the U.S., and I was wondering if that Clergy Letter Project would gain followers around here...

It feels weird to think what christianity has become in certain places of the world.

8. Jethro said the following at 3:26 PM on Feb 12:

Whatever way you cut it the overwhelming majority of scientific research favors evolution over creation. You just can't spin your way out of that.

9. Craig M said the following at 3:32 PM on Feb 12:

"The authority of the Bible is the main emphasis of Creation Ministries International. We don't try to "prove" the Bible with science; rather, we accept the Bible's propositions as true without proof, i.e. as axioms or presuppositions."

I like this post. At least it's honest. The young earth folks have decided that the proposition that the world is 6,000 years old is unfalsifiable. No matter what the physical evidence really shows, it will be read into this predetermined, "axiomatic" conclusion. All this talk about looking at the evidence, about "science," is a bluff. And that's fine. If I felt I had to choose between my faith in God and my understanding of science I'd choose my faith too. I admire your willingness to make that choice out of devotion and conscience. I (and tens or hundreds of millions of other Christians, including C.S. Lewis, Benedict XVI, Francis Beckwith, J.P. Moreland...) don't believe such a choice is necessary, and I'm not sure why this website seems to be so determined to pick a fight about it. But regardless, if you HAVE to see a conflict between God and what science seems to say about the history of the world, you've made the right choice. I have a lot more in common with you than with the materialists, who believe that ultimately there is no God, no right or wrong, and no meaning to life.

So begins the third round of intranecine bloodletting....

10. kaarina said the following at 3:51 PM on Feb 12:

Where did the 6,000 number come from? We have records of human settlements and activity on this planet dating from 10,000 years ago. Even if you want to limit the age of the earth to correlate with signs of humanity, many people argue "modern humans" arose much earlier than that by dating the remains of human bones found.

I don't "buy" the theory of evolution but archeological findings of human settlements provide weighty suggestion that 6,000 years is much too young. Unless you are taking issue with the common methods of dating human remains and provide an alternate dating method from which you drew your number?

11. Samaria said the following at 4:37 PM on Feb 12:

I'm going to stay out of this one. I'm pretty tired of it by now, and I've already given my thoughts and beliefs on the matter several times already. My only critique is that Boundless, instead of focusing on Abraham Lincoln and his wonderful contributions to the US, have decided to focus on something that, when it comes down to it, isn't integral to our faith (not that Abe Lincoln is either, but it makes more sense to focus on him than good ole' Darwin).

BTW, thank you for introducing me to that clergy letter. I love it.

Samaria

12. JB said the following at 4:50 PM on Feb 12:

Motte,

Thanks for this article and this discussion. I think this is really the more productive (and more interesting) aspect of evolution to address.

Where I differ with Dr. Sarfati is that I don't think one needs to be a materialist in order to use evolution as a scientific theory. Empirical natural science absolutely does invoke certain axioms, materialism and induction among them, in order to do its work. These cannot be shown to be true within the framework of science, and, I think, outside of that framework we have good reasons to holding these axioms to be false. Some particularly sloppy thinkers, like Richard Dawkins, have made the error of believing the foundational axioms of empirical natural science to be self-evidently true and have formed an entire philosophy around these principles, mistakenly claiming that this philosophy is "scientific."

The better way of doing science is to adopt these axioms only provisionally for the purpose of doing a task. Just as an engineer invokes Newtonian physics to solve a problem knowing full well that the principles she is using are actually false, we can adopt a materialist framework to investigate empirical phenomena without being deluded into thinking that this framework is generally valid.

13. Jo said the following at 4:52 PM on Feb 12:

Here's a genuine question for Dr Sarfati or anyone who wants to answer: I've read that the names Adam gave to the animals corresponded to their characteristics. The lion's name for example, means 'In the sense of violence'. How do names like this make sense if animals were not carnivorous before the Fall?

It kinda seems like a small point, and I'm not even sure that it matters hugely if animals WERE carnivorous before the Fall, but anyway it's got me stumped.

14. Josh M said the following at 4:56 PM on Feb 12:

"As an example, consider Matthew 24:34. Jesus, after describing his second coming, says, "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." If we take literal interpretation as axiomatic, we have no choice but to insist that the generation to which he was speaking is still alive."

Actually, Jeremy (#3), there is another approach to that question, which is held by a number of Christian leaders and is considered more orthodox than the now more popular views.

15. (The Canadian) Andrew R said the following at 5:34 PM on Feb 12:

Craig M (9)

Great post, man. Really helped me finally put all the pieces of Sarfati's argument together, and I really admire how polite and graceful you were about it.

16. Texas Craig said the following at 6:07 PM on Feb 12:

Jethro said: "Whatever way you cut it the overwhelming majority of scientific research favors evolution over creation. You just can't spin your way out of that."

I agree with you that the overwhelming majority of scientists favor evolution. But, when you use the term "scientific research" you are implying that factual evidence supports evolution over creation. However, the conclusions drawn from research are often subjective. In essence, in evolutionary theory, the scientists start out with a hypothesis and then look for evidence to prove or disprove that hypothesis. Because of the nature of the evidence we are dealing with, it often is not definitive but rather is subject to intepretation. So, whenever it arguably could fit with the hypothesis, the scientists fit it there.

This is the problem when talking about theory of origins. Unlike other scientific theories which can be replicated and definitively proven to be true, origin theory cannot. Scientists would help their cause if they would acknowledge the obvious limitations and not be so combative in fighting alternate views. To me, the disdainful nature of so many in the scientific community reveals the biased and subjective nature of their position. Thankfully, the fact that something is the "majority view" has never made it true or untrue, right or wrong.

17. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:45 PM on Feb 12:

NB: the Clergy Letter Project was started by a rabid antitheist, Michael Zimmerman. Talk about unequal yoking!! But no wonder Samaria, who thinks that Jesus was mistaken and trusts antitheistic sites for "information", loves it. As Churchill said, appeasement is feeding your friends to the crocodile one by one in the hope that it will eat you last — see also Chamberlain and the Church.

18. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:52 PM on Feb 12:

So, because some people can't work out how or why, they deny the clear statement from Genesis 1:29–30:

“ And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.

And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.”

How hard is that to understand? For more on the theological support, see The carnivorous nature and suffering of animals by Dr Robert Gurney. For explanations of how carnivory and pathogenicity arose after the Fall, see the articles under creationontheweb.com/carnivory.

19. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 7:06 PM on Feb 12:

Jeremy and Craig M evidently haven't checked out the article hyperlinked to the words “axioms or presuppositions”. Naturally, the biblical axioms do correspond to reality, even if they can't be proven to. There is nothing blind about accepting this, and I argue that they are the only set of axioms that allow us to make sense of reality.

And Jeremy, in previous blogs, I've refuted the dishonest straw man of “literalism”, so drop it. Of course, I use an originalist or grammatical historical hermeneutic, which tries to understand what the words would have meant to the original reader in their context at the time of writing—see Should Genesis be taken literally? and Is Genesis poetry / figurative, a theological argument (polemic) and thus not history? I.e. if the passage has the genre of historical narrative, I take it as history; if it is poetic genre, I take it as poetry, etc.

20. Brian said the following at 7:45 PM on Feb 12:

Jethro (#8),

I'm sure you will agree that the vast majority of "scientists" are in academia. I believe you will also agree with me that the "overwhelming" majority of scientific research has been done by members of academia. It is well-known and universally accepted that the academic community is dominated by liberals (and therefore their ideologies as well). I think you will also agree that in general, the academic atmosphere does not look favorably on the Christian worldview, and is sometimes downright hostile. So in effect, your statement merely states what would be expected from a community of scientists that, in general, do not acknowledge the validity of the Biblical perspective of Mr. Sarfati (Jon).

Oh, and with all due respect Jon: A little humility goes a long way. When you post on blogs using your complete degree title, it comes off as very pompous. I'm sure that's not what you're intending, but it affects the way people perceive your tone. Is that the image of Christ that you want people to see?

21. Bob, Cherry Valley said the following at 8:32 PM on Feb 12:

So sad, so much energy spent on spinning. Evolution is indeed a fact, in the common, ordinary sense. The world and the things in it keep changing, in ways that are observable, measurable, and eventually, by all the evidence, irreversible (as in "you can't unscramble an omelet"). For example, you couldn't make a '57 Chevy today if you tried -- you couldn't find exactly the same materials and if you could they'd be 52 years old and would have changed in any event. (You can make a car that looks just like a '57 but it can't be identical.) An ash tree will be somewhat different from one 50 years ago, even from the same location, and thus, so will a baseball bat or electric guitar body.

There are some things that don't change, usually process-type things,e.g., all organisms have parents, so far as we can tell, the seasons change in predictable order, and so on, but no child is exactly the same as another (including twins) and no winter or summer the same as another either. Spiritual truths may also reflect deeper levels of unchanging reality.

And there is directionality to many of the changes we can identify -- including to the relative distribution of various alleles of genes within a population of a biological species. This is directly observable and is, among other things, one of the foundations of genetics. And this, ladies & gentlemen, IS evolution, an example of the ceaseless change that occurs in the phenomenal world.

Natural selection is an explanation for how this happens, i.e., the pressures that favor one form of a gene over another as measured by success in leaving offspring, and this too has been reliably observed. But that is a partially separate point from the one I'm making -- that evolution is a simple, basic, unmistakable fact about the world, and about living things in the world.

22. Celebrindal said the following at 8:45 PM on Feb 12:

Brian (#20),

I don't see how using his earned degree title makes Dr. Sarfati pompous. As the author of the article mentioned, he is merely referencing his credentials to speak on the subject at hand (and perhaps making it easier for us to identify him as the author rather than an unknown person).

On the other hand, I can see how referring to a person you do not know by a shortened form of his first name without his permission could be considered rude.

23. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:55 PM on Feb 12:

Brian (#20), I have it set up with my title automatically appearing precisely to refute the "no real scientist believes in biblical creation / doubts goo-to-you evolution" canard. In "real" life, e.g. my chess club and work, most people address me by my first name or even a hypocoristic form of it.

24. Jeremy said the following at 8:58 PM on Feb 12:

"Actually, Jeremy (#3), there is another approach to that question, which is held by a number of Christian leaders and is considered more orthodox than the now more popular views."

Preterism is indeed gaining an odd amount of popularity, but I would find it difficult to describe as "orthodox" anyone who thinks the events described 3 verses prior to my quote have already occured:

"Immediately after the distress of those days 'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'

At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other." (Matthew 24:29-31)

25. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 9:13 PM on Feb 12:

kaarina (#10), why trust archaeological “dates” over the Bible? Where the ~6000 comes from should be clear: Adam was created on Day 6; he was 130 when Seth was born, who was 105 when Enos was born … Terah was 70 when Abraham was born … who left Haran 430 years before the Exodus, which was 479 years before Solomon started to build the Temple, which was 37 years before the Kingdom was divided, which was 390 years before Nebuchadnezzar deported the people of Jerusalem in 584 BC.

See Biblical chronogenealogies and The Forgotten Archbishop.

NB, I am not quibbling over a few years, but arguing that 6000 is in the right ball park. Many great exegetes agreed.

26. Samaria said the following at 9:30 PM on Feb 12:

Dr. Sarfati:

I know you don't like me, nor do you agree with me. That is okay. Quite frankly, you are more than welcome to dislike and disagree with me. I only ask that you stop painting me as some closet atheist/humanist/etc. and treat me properly. If you insist on believing that I profess to a false Christ, you are more than welcome to (I certainly won't stop you), but it's rude, disrespectful, and totally uncalled for to (1) keep drawing up past conflicts, (2) make snide comments about me "behind my back", and (3) make no apologies for it. If I have offended you in any way, I am very sorry and ask your forgiveness for it, but please, leave the high school drama to me, an actual high schooler.

In short, keep my name out of it. Refer to me as "some people" if you must, but I ask that you do not mention me from this moment forward. I do not appreciate your nasty remarks about my beliefs.

Respectfully,

Samaria

27. Matthew said the following at 7:02 AM on Feb 13:

Again, I just don't like how this post tries to make evolutionary creationists out to be bad Christians who have been suckered in by the naturalists and don't respect the Bible. We do! We love the Bible! We simply disagree with you on matters of interpretation & hermeneutics just as we might disagree on the issues of baptism or predestination. I think it would be far more useful to treat this issue like we would treat any of those.

28. Jim H said the following at 9:07 AM on Feb 13:

Jo #13,
A very interesting question you pose. I have read Genesis many times and had never thought about that.

But here is a possible theory. We don't know what Adam's original name for the lion was. Most people think that Moses wrote Genesis (under the supervision of the Holy Spirit) and if that is true, it was clearly a few thousand years after the Fall and the Hebrew name for "lion" may have changed to reflect its post Fall nature. Also, Moses wrote Genesis after the Tower of Babel when God scattered people over the earth and created different languages, so Adam may not have even spoken Hebrew. We just cannot know for sure either way.

Of course this is just a theory...

29. Ian said the following at 9:40 AM on Feb 13:

Dr. Sarfati,

In post 18 you refer to "the clear statement from Genesis" and ask "How hard is that to understand," but might it not be the case that clarity (or perhaps "intuition") of exegesis is a presupposition of your hermeneutic?

And what of the possibility that the ancient authors' understanding of history was significantly different than our own? What were their views on evidence and sufficient reasoning? I would contend that we can never return to the mind of the original author and that the act of interpretation is much less intuitive, accurate and corresponding, in general.

Speaking of correspondence, you're clearly assuming a fairly straight-forward and simple correspondence theory of truth and I've always found such a position complicated by our questionable (in)ability to know "things-in-themselves." While I am far from a relativist, it would seem to me that human reason and perception are rather more complicated and limited than we tend to want them to be.

30. Adam said the following at 11:46 AM on Feb 13:

Hey Everyone!

First of all, everyone has presuppositions, even the evolutionists. Everyone has something they just take for granted about the world. For instance, consider the laws of logic. How are you going to prove the truthfulness of the laws of logic? Well, you could do it in one of two ways. You could do it in a logical method, or in an illogical method. If you do it in a logical method, you will beg the question, and if you do it in an illogical method, you will refute the laws of logic. The point is that everyone has their ultimate commitments to which they will not relent. That is the nature of a worldview. To call it "unfalsifiable" is simply not understanding the issue. For instance, consider this excellent analogy by John Frame in response to Antony Flew's analogy of the gardener:

Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. A man was there, pulling weeds, applying fertilizer, trimming branches. The man turned to the explorers and introduced himself as the royal gardener. One explorer shook his hand and exchanged pleasantries. The other ignored the gardener and turned away: "There can be no gardener in this part of the jungle," he said; "this must be some trick." They pitch camp. Every day the gardener arrives, tends the plot. Soon the plot is bursting with perfectly arranged blooms. "He's only doing it because we're here - to fool us into thinking this is a royal garden." The gardener takes them to a royal palace, introduces the explorers to a score of officials who verify the gardener's status. Then the sceptic tries a last resort: "Our senses are deceiving us. There is no gardener, no blooms, no palace, no officials. It's still a hoax!" Finally the believer despairs: "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does this mirage, as you call it, differ from a real gardener?" [from http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa146.htm]

You see, the point that Dr. Sarfati is making in his article is that the facts do not speak for themselves. They need to be interpreted in a framework. Evolutionists will interpret the facts within the framework of naturalistic biochemical evolution, where as a Christian will interpret each fact through the lens of the scriptures. In fact, if you want unbelievers who say the same thing, Q.V. Quine, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Thomas Kuhn, and many other people who are not believers will agree with me that this is how we think.

Now, how do we go about proving which framework should be used? I would argue that, because of what I have just said above, it is impossible to argue which position is correct by discussing how closely it corresponds to reality, because these two competing presuppositions are what are being used to interpret reality. Instead, I think we need to ask which of these presuppositions provides us with the preconditions for intelligability of reality. That is, we need to ask whether atheistic evolutionary biology or the scriptures provide us with the preconditions for being able to understand reality at all. I would argue that, unless you accept the scriptural view of reality, you cannot understand reality at all.

For example, Richard Taylor has an argument that can be used to do this. Taylor asks ourselves to imagine that we are on a train traveling from England to Wales. On the way there, we see an arrangement of rocks on the top of a hill that seems to be arranged in such a way as to convey the message "The British Railway welcomes you to Wales." Now, Taylor recognizes that there are, indeed, to rational conclusions from this. The first is that there were actually people who arranged the rocks in such a fashion so as to convey the message "The British Railway welcomes you to Wales." The second is that these rocks eroded over time, and that they rolled down the hill in a certain way so as to form the rock formation that you see that appears to convey the message "The British Railway welcomes you to Wales." Taylor points out that, while both of these are rational conclusions, if you take the position that these rocks came into formation by naturalistic processes, it would be irrational for you to conclude that you have information that you are entering Wales from the arrangement of the rocks.

Now, apply this logic to biology. We could assume that our organs of sense perception were created, or that they evolved by naturalistic processes over time. However, if we take the evolutionary approach to Biology, why is it then rational to assume that our senses function to give us information about the external world? Because of the naturalistic nature of biochemical evolution, one could never know if their senses were meant to function in the way we are using them, namely, to give us information concerning the external world.

Hence, far from corresponding to reality, evolutionary Biology destroys our knowledge of reality.

I would also argue that naturalistic evolutionary Biology destroys science altogether. Science is based on the assumption that we can expect future instances to be like past instances. It operates under the assumption that there are uniformities in nature that, therefore, can be studied and understood. However, how what rational reason does an naturalistic evolutionary biologist have for believing that there are, indeed, these uniformities in nature?

For instance, we assume that mixing vinegar and baking soda will always cause a fizz, just like it has in the past. So that, if I get up from my desk chair, and go to the cafeteria, and take out some baking soda and vinegar, I can expect that mixing them together will cause a fizz. However, given the assumptions of naturalistic evolutionary Biology, what rational reason do I have for believing this? You might say, "because of the way the molecules of these substances react with each other." However, that only throws the question back one step further, and that is, how do you know that these molecules will always react in this way? How do you know that the electrons will always react in such a way to produce a fizz everytime baking soda and vinegar are mixed?

You see, for the Christian it is very easy. For the Christian, God has promised in the Noahic covenant that he will keep nature uniform [Genesis 8:22], and we trust in God's promises. However, for the naturalistic, evolutionary biologist, how does he know that nature has these uniformities? How does he know that the future will be like the past? Remember, if he cannot know these things, then he cannot do science.

Hence, I would argue that naturalistic evolutionary biology, far from corresponding to reality, destroys our knowledge of reality, and destroys any ability we have to do science. Ultimately, the proof the Christian presuppositions that Dr. Sarfati has presented as the foundation of his arguments is in this, that without Biblical presuppositions, you can't prove anything.

God Bless,
Adam

31. Christina (in green) said the following at 12:17 PM on Feb 13:

About Jethro's first comment and TC's response...

I have a shirt that says "When all else fails, manipulate the data..."

Sometimes it pays to be a math major...

32. Ian said the following at 12:39 PM on Feb 13:

But #30, Adam, is there one, single "scriptual view of reality?"

The very variety of these posts indicates that there are multiple interpretations of scripture. It seems to me that each of us carry a host of presuppositions as we interpret anything and everything. We all possess biases and assumptions and these are what makes interpretaion possible, at all.

Also by virtue of the "fact" that there are so many conflicting interpretations of not only scripture but also the world and reality itself, I'm inclined to believe that we're effectively incapable of ever getting anything one-hundred percent "right," i.e. getting our thoughts to correspond to "the way things really are." What I find truly amazing and heartening, however, is that despite the finitude and fallibilty of our human condition, God and His Word are both sufficient.

33. Adam said the following at 2:20 PM on Feb 13:

Ian,

Ian, yes, there are multiple interpretations of scripture, and not all of them are valid. If you make a linguistic manuver in your interpretation that you would not do in interpreting any other text, then you have clearly shown that you are not engaging in exegesis of the text. We take the same rules that you are now using to interpret me, and we interpret the scriptures with them, and if you sway from those rules, then you are making an invalid interpretation.

God Bless,
Adam

34. Marcus Aurelius said the following at 3:09 PM on Feb 13:

I am not a Christian but support Christians to beleive as they wish
However, I am often scared you guys are one step away from restarting the Witch Trials and buring people at the stake again.

Yes my real name is Aurelius

35. Ian said the following at 3:51 PM on Feb 13:

Adam,

I concede that some interpretations might be "better" than others, although I hesitate to say "more accurate than others" and I have suspicions that parsing out "better" might be more difficult than one would initially think.

As for "make a linguistic manuver [sic] in your interpretation that you would not do in interpreting any other text," I rejoin with the following: "il n'y a pas de hors-texte": "there is nothing outside the text." Part of what I take to this to mean is that -everything- is "hors-texte," every cognition an act of interpretation. In this light, what maneuvers -don't- we employ? I'd hazard the response "very few."

It's my "bottom line" that philosophy and science are actually much less powerful than we think they are, if we take them to be tools for the rendering of metaphysics. What philosophy does best, I believe, is as Wittgenstein said, viz. "to shew the fly out of the bottle."

36. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 4:50 PM on Feb 13:

Marcus Aurelius,

You don't have to be afraid. The Bible calls for a *peaceful* presentation of our faith to non-Christians, as ultimately only God can convert people. Physical force will not convert anyone. The witch trials and burnings at the stake were examples of Christians *disobeying* the Bible, not obeying it. It is Muslims whose Koran calls for the killing of non-Muslims.

37. Jim H said the following at 5:27 PM on Feb 13:

Marcus #34,
What was it about this discussion that inspired you to make such an ignorant comment? Or are you just trolling?

38. Adam said the following at 6:19 PM on Feb 13:

Ian,

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but, as I said, it reduces to being unable to understand what anyone says, and makes communication absolutely impossible. Given what you have just said, you shouldn't be writing anything at all, because meaning is going to be nothing more than the difference between my brain and your brain, because there are no rules that anyone relies upon to interpret anything.

So, there are two choices. It is either the Christian view of language that says that there are rules for interpreting meaning, or it is your view of langauge that reduces to no one being able to understand what anyone else says. Yet, you are on this forum interpreting what I say, and what everyone else says. Thus, you are having to borrow from my position on language in order to even have this discussion.

In other words, it might be that you are picking the best interpretation of my words, but nothing can truly be accurate in the area of interpretation, and thus, we cannot communicate with each other at all.

God Bless,
Adam

39. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:31 PM on Feb 13:

Marcus Aurelius (#34): you have far more to worry about from your fellow misotheists. Dinesh D'Souza points out in Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history:

“The problem with this critique is that it exaggerates the crimes attributed to religion, while ignoring the greater crimes of secular fanaticism. The best example of religious persecution in America is the Salem witch trials. How many people were killed in those trials? Thousands? Hundreds? Actually, fewer than 25. Yet the event still haunts the liberal imagination.

...

“These figures are tragic, and of course population levels were much lower at the time. But even so, they are minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.”

40. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:48 PM on Feb 13:

Ian (#29): yes, as Paul wrote to Timothy, God "breathed out" the Scripture so that it would teach, correct, reprove and train (2 Timothy 2:15–17). For this, it must be understandable. See also my answer to a similar question that began, “Isn’t it possible that, since the ancient Israelites would not know about the universe beyond simple concepts, God simplified his description of the creation to a point where they could understand it?”

It is also instructive to see how the rest of the Bible treats Genesis as history. So who are we to think they are wrong, and worse, claim that even Jesus made mistake when He affirmed Genesis?

41. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 7:00 PM on Feb 13:

Samaria (#26), personal like or dislike doesn't come into it, I promise.

You may well want to be regarded as a fellow sheep, but what are the rest of us sheep supposed to think when you go to the wolves to find ammunition to attack other sheep?

Finally, again, the main problem is not that you have a different view of Genesis or creation, but that you claimed that Jesus Himself was mistaken.

42. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 7:11 PM on Feb 13:

Hey, does anyone actually want to discuss the main topic of the article, which is Arguments creationists should NOT use. Such a list doesn't make all creationists happy. See Maintaining Creationist Integrity and feedback on that one, Commended for aiming for accuracy.

43. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 9:06 PM on Feb 13:

Kaj (#1): February 12 is also Abraham Lincoln's birthday!

Good pickup! See Lincoln's legacy at 200 by Mark Alexander.

The man who freed Confederate slaves but specifically not Union ones is certainly a major figure in American history. Dr Walter Williams (himself African-American) points out:

The hypocrisy of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. His Secretary of State William Seward said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free." The New York World wrote, "He has proclaimed emancipation only where he has notoriously no power to execute it. The exemption of the accessible parts of Louisiana, Tennessee, and Virginia renders the proclamation not merely futile, but ridiculous." The London Spectator mocked, "The principle (of the Proclamation) is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States."

44. Morgan said the following at 11:52 PM on Feb 13:

I sympathize greatly with Samaria (26) and request that we all read my favorite blog post by Ted Slater, "Communication Sandwich."

http://www.boundlessline.org/2008/02/communication-s.html

Let's love each other and be a light to the world! <3

45. Jo said the following at 4:10 AM on Feb 14:

Jim #28:

"...the Hebrew name for "lion" may have changed to reflect its post Fall nature. Also, Moses wrote Genesis after the Tower of Babel when God scattered people over the earth and created different languages, so Adam may not have even spoken Hebrew."

In other words, Adam may have named the lion something completely different, since Genesis doesn't actually tell us what he named the animals, only that he did. Yeah, that's a good theory. Brings up the question, why did Genesis mention that Adam named the animals? What is the importance of that? The passage leads me to assume that the animals' names were passed down from Adam, but perhaps it's simply demonstrating the authority and responsibility that God gave to Adam and humankind in general. Hmmm.

Still would like Dr. Sarfati's response a well if he has any other ideas? (#18, if it was directed at me, didn't address the question at all.)

46. Brian P said the following at 11:05 AM on Feb 14:

Dr. Sarfati (#23),

I appreciate your explanation of your reasoning for using your complete title. I stand by my statements that using your complete title may be perceived as haughty by some readers. However, I also realize that my tone was very disrespectful and for that I apologize. In admonishing you, I violated the very standards I was defending.

I appreciate the work you are doing by challenging the prevailing church "wisdom" when it comes to Biblical interpretation of Genesis.

Brian

47. Chris said the following at 12:32 PM on Feb 14:

From the article:

Death and suffering of nephesh animals before sin would be contrary to the Biblical framework above. It is more likely that God withdrew some of His sustaining power (Col. 1:15-17) at the Fall so that the net effects of the Second Law would now lead to overall decay.

On what basis do you make the claim that is "more likely"?

48. Craig M. said the following at 12:34 PM on Feb 14:

I agree that you shouldn't use these creationist arguments. Definitely. :)

Read a review of "The Last Superstition" by philosopher Edward Feser, apparently a devastating take-down of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc. Looks like an excellent read that would interest a lot of people on this thread. He starts with the classical philosophers and works forward to undermine the materialist "logic" of the new atheism crowd. Thinking of picking it up this weekend. Just saying, some of you might enjoy it too.

49. Samaria said the following at 12:56 PM on Feb 14:

Samaria (#26), personal like or dislike doesn't come into it, I promise.

You might, however, like to think how it looked the first time I saw you. I, with an earned science doctorate from a secular accredited university, wrote a guest article; from your august heights of highschooler wisdom and knowledge, you decreed that it was wrong despite refusing to read it or the references which provided primary sources.

You may well want to be regarded as a fellow sheep, but what are the rest of us sheep supposed to think when you go to the wolves to find ammunition to attack other sheep?

Finally, again, the main problem is not that you have a different view of Genesis or creation, but that you claimed that Jesus Himself was mistaken.

Yes, Jesus was mistaken regarding Genesis as science. He was spiritually and morally perfect, not academically. I don't apologize for believing that, but I do ask that you go back and properly read what I had to say: it's not the pre-Darwin creationists I fault and blame, it's the modern day ones who ought to know better.

So what you're basically saying is that, because I go to atheistic sources for scientific information regarding evolution, I'm suddenly not to be regarded as a fellow sheep. Last time I checked, you're supposed to take me at my word when I say that I'm a follower of Christ. I didn't know that the acceptance of evolution and encouraging my fellow Christians to do so as well made it alright for creationists to disregard my profession of faith.

I believe I made a point - as did others more advanced in their studies - that your references weren't reliable because they were faulty. It was a valid concern and I wasn't the only one to have it. Yes, I am a high school sophomore, but that does not mean that I'm not as knowledgeable as you are. If Timothy didn't allow the elders to look down on him due to his youth, I would assume that you wouldn't play the role of the condescending elder as well.

Dr. Sarfati, as I took responsibility for my tone, I would appreciate it if you took responsiblity for yours. Again, please forgive me if I did you any harm. I do my best to treat you as a brother in Christ, but I find it difficult to do it if you don't treat me as a sister in Him.

Respectfully,

Samaria

P.S. Please do not be so hostile to non-Christians. They may or may not be "wolves," but just as you would smart if any non-Christians dared to call you ignorant or close-minded or dense, it does no good to call non-Christians offensive names.

50. Jim H. said the following at 1:00 PM on Feb 14:

Jo #45
I believe God allowed Adam to name the animals to consummate the Divine order - that He delegated dominion over the earth to man.

51. Ted Slater said the following at 2:59 PM on Feb 14:

Samaria (#49) you wrote, "Jesus was mistaken regarding Genesis...."

Whoa. Jesus was PRESENT at creation. He was very aware of what happened, historically, at creation, having been there when it took place. You are treading very dangerous ground to say that Jesus was "mistaken." God has *never* been "mistaken" about anything. Ever.

You went on to write, "Yes, I am a high school sophomore, but that does not mean that I'm not as knowledgeable as you are."

Again, whoa. Yes, in fact, you are absolutely NOT "as knowledgeable" as Dr. Sarfati. I can say without hesitation that you have issues of pride and arrogance that, until you humble yourself, are going to keep you from growing in maturity and godliness. My words are redemptive, Samaria, not merely harsh; may you see them as such.

I'm really stunned, Samaria, at your sophomoric (look that word up in your dictionary) attitude. Do you really not see how silly you're being here, claiming at 15 years old to be "as knowledgeable" as someone who's earned his Ph.D.? Whew. Let me guess: You attend a public high school, right?

52. JB said the following at 3:39 PM on Feb 14:

Dr. Sarfati,

I read the article you posted which was a response to Kent Hovind. At one point in the article you say,

"It is like saying that there is no conceivable fossil evidence that would validate evolution, and comes dangerously close to Gosse-type arguments that the mere presence of a fossil can never prove anything. For instance, one can never prove that the fossil was not created in the rocks to look like that."

Do you have any articles you could direct me to which speak to this position a little more? I'm trying to gather a picture of creationist epistemology, which this article seems to flirt with but doesn't address directly.

53. Samaria said the following at 3:52 PM on Feb 14:

Ted 51:

Actually, I go to an independent private school that costs $22,000 a year. Before that, I attended a private high school (AIMS) that went for nearly 30k, and before then a private middle school (AISNE) that costed as much as Harvard. I am well educated, thank you. The school I attend is in the AIMS; both AISNE and AIMS are a "sister associations" of AISGW, among which are Sidwell Friends and Georgetown Day - schools that Obama considered for his girls. These schools are top-notch, so thank you for assuming that I'm an unlearned girl from a lowly public school. (I won't mention the millions of exceptional students from public schools you just insulted.)

John 1:1-3: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.” I do not get how this translates into Human Jesus knowing everything there is to know about science. Yet again, I only see more emphasis that God - and by extension, Jesus - was present at creation (which I've never denied), but nothing that debunks creationism or evolution. It just reiterates what happened at the beginning of time and Who was there (whether that was 6 thousand years ago or a few billion). Matthew 19:4, Jesus said that God created them male and female. Well, yes. Who's denying that? I'm just disagreeing with you on how He did it.

So, my point: Jesus, in His human form, had no more scientific knowledge than anyone else of His day. The way I see it, believing that doesn't take away from Jesus' divinity or purpose. I just look at it as Jesus being more human to be accessible to the mortals.

You misunderstood me, and that's my own fault. Indeed, I do not know as much as Dr. Sarfati or even other theistic evolutionists, but that does not mean that there wasn't a possiblity that I did. I may know little, but I knew enough to see through his faulty arguments. Even when I held my own among college students and adults, Dr. Sarfati still treated me as some bumbling child. Yes, I have much to learn; I do not deny that, but that does not mean I'm ignorant.

Yes, I do have issues with pride and arrogance. It's something I struggle with on a daily basis, and I'm constantly convicted. If for nothing else, Ted, I thank you for your concern.

-Samaria

54. Jethro said the following at 3:55 PM on Feb 14:

So just to clarify, we can't trust the scientists who believe in evolution because they look at the data through skewed lenses and make it fit their models. Creationist scientists however have no such bias?

To ask a question I've asked before, but no-one has ever answered, why is it that everyone who looks at the data and believed in creationism just happens to have been a Christian first? One would think that if the evidence was as obvious and overwhelming as Dr Sarfati claims it is, belief in creationism would be far more prevalent. Especially among learned individuals.

55. Texas Craig said the following at 4:26 PM on Feb 14:

Ted stated: "Let me guess: You attend a public high school, right?"

Ted, now YOU are being sophomoric! On what basis are you even interjecting that into this issue? That is just silly. I would imagine that the percentages weigh in favor of Samaria attending a public high school, but I do not see how that is at all relevant to this issue. Perhaps you could explain, or apologize. Namely, show the same strength of character you are asking a sophomore to show.

56. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:14 PM on Feb 14:

Samaria, you explicitly called me a liar. This would count as being disrespectful to an elder, something Paul also warned against (1 Timothy 5:1). Really, comparing your limited highschool knowledge to Timothy's is ridiculous.

Of course, you couldn't demonstrate a single error in my post. And a Ph.D. chemist like me knows what he's talking about when showing up the problems for chemical evolution in chirality, condensation polymerization, instability of building blocks etc. BTW, all the linked articles refer to primary research from recognized journals in the field.

Last time I checked, Jesus warned about "false Christs" to come. A "Jesus" who was mistaken about anything He taught is a false Christ. There are many professing Christians who are not, such as the former Bishop Spong. Further, why even bother to trust Him on anything else if He was mistaken on Genesis? Jesus told Nicodemus:

"If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" (John 3:12).

Later on He said:

“If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (John 5:36–47).

He also cited Abraham with approval:

“If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” (Luke 16:31)

So you need to repent of this unbelief in Him and all-too-ready trust in atheistic evolutionary "science". Because He warned that:

"all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him." (John 5:23)

NB: imputing claiming that the Son makes mistakes is either honouring Him less than the Father, or implying that the Father makes mistakes too since Jesus preached with the full authority of God the Father (John 5:30, 8:28).

57. Samaria said the following at 7:31 PM on Feb 14:

Dr. Sarfati:

I didn't have to demonstrate anything. Others did it for me, and far more better than I could have. I argued what I was able and allowed others to argue things I wasn't.

I apologize for any disrespect I have shown you. Ted, this apology is for you as well. It's for anyone else who's been slighted by me, as I'm beginning to understand that the number is (most likely) high.

Like I said before, you're more than welcome to think that I profess to a false Christ. I know that I don't, I know that my Christ is what the Nicene Creed says He is, who Christ Himself professed to be, and I am secure in that knowledge. Whatever anyone else says about my faith is irrelevant.

Respectfully,

Samaria

58. Lindsay said the following at 7:43 PM on Feb 14:

Dr. Sarfati,

I wonder if I might hijack this thread briefly to ask your advice on something. Let me first say that I admire your stand for creationism and the authority of God's word. I have read some of your articles, and I agree with pretty much all that I have seen.

I am graduating with an M.A.T. in biology this May, and I have an opportunity to work on a Ph.D. next year at a secular university. The professor I have been corresponding with is in quantitative and spatial ecology, and I am very interested in his current research. However, he does not yet know that I am a creationist. It has been my experience that evolutionists usually have a skewed understanding of creationist views. Merely saying that I am a creationist will probably cause him to discount my experience and potential, and he may not want me in his lab. However, to hide my views now may only delay the inevitable, and I don't want to find, a year or two into my research, that this issue is going to be an insurmountable obstacle in my path. Do you have any advice for a creationist who is also a serious science student entering a field that is overwhelmingly evolutionist?

59. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 7:52 PM on Feb 14:

JB: a biblical creationist view rules out the common dishonest atheopathic straw man, i.e. that we believe God planted evidence to test our faith. Rather, of course God is not deceptive; evolutionists deceive themselves by ignoring what God has plainly stated in Scripture and preferring their own naturalistic explanation. See The Parable of the Candle.

Jethro: lots have people have come to believe in creation from the evidence, e.g. Sonia. Trusting the biblical axioms is not an act of blind faith. By contrast, your apparent trust of the majority conflicts with what Jesus said about taking the narrow gate rather than the one taken by the many ... (Mt. 7:13).

60. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:01 PM on Feb 14:

Prof. Craig: I can see why Ted thought that Samaria attended a government school. See what Dr Thomas Sowell says about another product of the government schools about the age Samaria is now, who displayed a similar inflated opinion of his own knowledge:

There is a special kind of letter that bothers me more than the most idiotic obscenities. That is the letter from some teenager (or younger) who is writing because his school has led him to believe that he ought to have opinions on some issue or other — and ought to express those opinions to strangers he has read about and expect those strangers to take up their time discussing his opinions.

This particular issue is not the point. The point is that people expect to have their opinions taken seriously just because these are their opinions.

...

If this were just one kid who has gotten too big for his britches, then it would only be a small part of the passing parade of human foibles. But school children all across the country are being encouraged or assigned to engage in letter-writing campaigns, taking up the time of people ranging from journalists to congressmen and presidents. Worse, these pupils are led to believe that having opinions is more important than knowing what you are talking about.

Few things are more dangerous than articulate superficiality. Glib demagogues have been the curse of the 20th century and tens of millions of human beings have paid with their lives for the heady visions and clever talk of political egotists. Yet the danger is not that a particular child will follow in the footsteps of Lenin, Hitler or Mao. The danger is that great numbers of people will never know what it is to know, as distinguished from sounding off.

They will be sitting ducks for the demagogues of their times. [Written 10 years before the election of the glib socialist christophobic demagogue Obamov proved his point.]

...

It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.

61. Jethro said the following at 8:33 PM on Feb 14:

Dr Sarfati,

Serious question: have you ever submitted any of your papers to recognized peer review journals like Science, Nature or any of the major chemistry publications? If so, what responses have you gotten?

If the science is so strong why do those journals not publish more articles like yours?

62. Craig M said the following at 8:54 PM on Feb 14:

Hey everyone, here's an idea--why don't we leave the 15-year-old alone instead of getting all prickly that a high-schooler disagrees with us. You know, a clever word and a knowing pat on the head and some grace? Yikes. And while we're at it, maybe we could not spend our time smugly peering down our noses at the godless masses in--gasp!--public schools. Maybe we could recognize that by even having a strong belief in God, Samaria is a light--however flawed--in her school, and treat her like a sister? Just saying. Why is the smart-alecky 15-year-old the only one who seems to be able to summon an apology for anything, ever? Also, maybe we could lay off the credential-thumping just a little? Everyone reading the discussion knows the difference between a PhD and a high-school chemistry class, and gets that it's silly to compare those two levels of technical knowledge; you don't have to beat her to death with it. Believe it or not, a LOT of people on this board have advanced degrees from elite institutions, and we all try to refrain from invoking them. If our arguments are sound and our manner charitable, that should speak for us just fine, shouldn't it? Again, YIKES.

And while we're at it, I think the benighted adolescent has a reasonable point. Are we really suggesting that Christ in his human form had a sophisticated undersatnding of, say, Newtonian physics or molecular chemistry? Such knowledge would appear to not be central to His mission; isn't it at least possible that He laid down some Divine knowledge just as He laid down some Divine power for a time? There are times that the Bible says Jesus "could not" perform miracles; doesn't that at least arguably imply that He refrained from access to all his Divine attributes at least sometimes? I guess I'm not saying that He didn't know these things intellectually--He may have--but I don't think believing that He did is a sine qua non of faithful Christianity. Am I alone here? This must be an area of theology that has been explored by our forbears; does anyone know their thoughts?

63. Texas Craig said the following at 9:16 PM on Feb 14:

Jethro (#54):

The point is not that creationists are without bias - they are not. No one is. We all bring a bias into our perceptions.

Rather, the point is that the "evidence" and "scientific findings" need to be understood through this lens. The problem is that the media, many educators, and many in society act as if "the evidence" simply, objectively, and quantifiably points solely to evolution and creationists are idiots who just choose to ignore the hard evidence. That is the problem, because that is simply not true. Rather, creationists believe the evidence can also be read to support their views. When we understand that all people bring a bias into their perceptions of the evidence, then we will be more generous in recognizing that creationists are not simply throwing out science and taking their beliefs solely upon faith, but rather are construing the evidence through their own lens (worldview, or beginning hypothesis). Evolutionists will disregard the beginning worldview because it allegedly is not materialistic and, thus, "unscientific." In so doing, they are attempting to disparage the lens through which creationists view the evidence, all the while acting as if their own lens is somehow "pure." That is the fallacy in all of this, and it is why we discuss the biases that shade the interpretations of the evidence, because people need to understand that the evidence can often be interpreted different ways and does not just simply "point to evolution." Rather, it has been interpreted by evolutionists as pointing to evolution. That is a huge difference.

To me, the fact that so many evolutionists do not even want "criticisms" of evolution discussed in schools is telling. Real truth should not fear being challenged and critiqued. Evolutionists ridiculed the State of Tennessee for banning the teaching of evolution (as addressed in the Scopes trial), but now they are doing the same thing - vigorously fighting to expel any challenges to evolutionary theory. It is both ironic and revealing - revealing mainly of the spiritual battle that underlies this issue.

64. Lukas said the following at 12:04 AM on Feb 15:

Regarding the main article, I think its a good start, but I'd add a few more.

65. Jim H. said the following at 10:19 AM on Feb 15:

Samaria,
Jesus in His divine nature is all-knowing and infallible, sharing those attributes with the Father. But it is true that Jesus in his human nature was not omniscient.

Luke 2:52 (NIV)
And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

Matthew 24:35-36 (NIV)
35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
36 “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,a but only the Father.

However, the limited knowledge that Jesus' human nature possessed was perfect and infallible because it came from the Father:

John 12:49-50 (NIV)
49 For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. 50 I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.”

So to say that Jesus was in error is to say that the Father was in error because everything Jesus ever said or did on earth was from the Father. Anyone who proclaims an errant Jesus proclaims a false Jesus and speaks heresy.

66. JB said the following at 12:45 PM on Feb 15:

Texas Craig,

I agree with you that a set of empirical facts can be read within a large number of frameworks such that there is no neutral viewpoint from which to critique the "truth" of a framework. Thus, a set of fossils and genetic sequences can be read to support evolution, young Earth or old Earth creationism, ancient Greek myth, or the intervention of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And I further agree that those who argue that the framework of modern empirical natural science is somehow more intrinsically true than any other are making a philosophical claim which needs defending (and which I think is not true.)

However, the fact that none of these frameworks have a superior claim to representing the "truth" of the data set independent of additional evidence does not mean that they are all equally valuable. The reason that empirical natural science is so popular around here is that it's useful - it gives us computers and spaceships and antibiotics. Despite the fact that science can't make a claim that the germ theory of disease is fundamentally true, many people favor scientific explanations of disease because they have a tendency to yield the power to intervene when we get sick.

The advantage that science has over other frameworks in interpreting empirical phenomena is that it gives us a method of refining explanations such that they become increasingly useful. Additional data points are found either to be congruent with the governing theory or the theory gets modified or replaced to account for the discrepancy.

Within a scientific framework, evolution is undoubtedly the best thing going to explain the origins of species. Creationism is also perfectly consistent with the available evidence, but only because creationism is consistent with all possible data sets. The reason to prefer evolution to creationism is not the superior truth claim of the scientific framework but the superior utility of the scientific method in temporal pursuits.

Where we get into trouble is when people begin claiming that evolution and creationism are akin to competing empirical theories which can be differentiated based on empirical observations. This kind of sloppy thinking leads to increasingly confused debates (like the present one, in my opinion) because we begin conflating unlike issues, vary our use of terms, and generally argue in a way that gets us nowhere.

That being said, I'm a Christian because in the Bible I hear the Word of God addressing the most profound issues imaginable - the meaning of existence, sin, redemption, salvation, etc. all of which science can tell us nothing about (and certainly can't refute.)

67. Craig M. said the following at 1:19 PM on Feb 15:

Jim H.--that sounds right to me. I'd still love to see how theologians have dealt with the issue though. I'm ready to be set straight or corrected on the question of the extent of Christ's knowledge, but have really never heard it thoroughly addressed by competent authority. Certainly any argument that Christ was "mistaken" about a matter of spiritual substance is dangerous. I don't think that Jesus making a factual mistake, though--thinking that cold water was hot before drinking it, for instance--would undermine His divine nature in any way.

Of course, there is a lot of interpretation to be done in considering some of Christ's teachings. His own disciples profoundly misunderstood His real intent on many occasions. They thought, for instance, that He was promising to literally demolish and rebuild the temple in Jerusalem in three days. In retrospect we see this as metaphor.

So the questions seem to be: 1) which recorded assertions of Christ are spiritual and which, if any, merely factual? And 2) to what extent is Christ speaking metaphorically, illustrating spiritual truth (the reality of the Fall or His resurrection, for instance) with easily-understandable stories? And finally, 3) did Jesus in fact make errors in dealing with purely factual matters?

Very interested in the thoughts of orthodox (small-o) Christian theologians over time on these questions. If there are acknowledged answers to these questions then it seems to me we should accept instruction openly and be ready to be corrected. Does anyone know where to start reading?

68. Jo said the following at 2:57 PM on Feb 15:

Craig M, #62:

I could not agree more. I seem to remember believing some fairly unorthodox things when I was in high school, but I kept learning and grew out of those things as I understood more and more. So did I believe in a false Christ back then? Of course not. I've simply got to know Him a little better as the years have gone by.

As for Ted's comment (#51)...
"I can say without hesitation that you have issues of pride and arrogance that, until you humble yourself, are going to keep you from growing in maturity and godliness..."

Wow. I believe you when you say that you're trying to be redemptive rather than condemning, but an overriding attitude of pride and arrogance is a pretty big thing to diagnose from a single comment, especially when *all* of Samaria's recent posts have been apologies for the way she might have come across in previous ones. She was clearly wrong in suggesting that her knowledge was equal to Dr. Sarfati's, but we've all said things without thinking, and she more than anyone else in this debate has owned her mistakes and sought forgiveness from those she has offended. I hate to keep banging on about it, but many posters have been offended by Dr Sarfati's posts too, yet I haven't seen anything close to an apology from him, and you haven't challenged his behaviour like you have Samaria's. It does seem unfair to single her out.

69. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 3:10 PM on Feb 15:

Lukas (#64), "a few more" can be found at Arguments we think creationists should NOT use, the 8th most hit page on the CMI website.

Jethro (#61): see Creationism, Science and Peer Review, which points out the advantage of peer review but then documents its many shortcomings in practice, including rejecting top research while admitting fraud, as well as an all-too-common role in protecting the ruling paradigm. So it is folly for anticreationists to hide behind it instead of dealing with the arguments. is why, to keep the advantages and overcome its drawbacks, creationists have started their own journals, e.g. CMI’s longstanding publication now titled Journal of Creation, which is really a professional, peer-reviewed scientific journal.

70. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 3:36 PM on Feb 15:

Samaria (#57), will you please specifically withdraw and apologize your accusation that I am a liar?

Now you say, " I know that my Christ is what the Nicene Creed says He is"

OK: "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made."

Doesn't sound like someone who would teach something false about the Creation, since He was there before it and was involved in it.

"who Christ Himself professed to be"

To add to what Ted Slater, Jim H and I have pointed out, He also said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). The Greek ἐγὼ εἰμί (egō eimi I am) parallels God's revelation of his name to Moses (Ex. 3:14 אהיה אשר אהיה ’ehyeh ’asher ’ehyeh; the LXX, translated c. 250 BC, has ἐγὼ εἰμί ὁ ὢν (egō eimi ho ōn I am the being)).

Jesus contrasted Abraham's γενέσθαι (genesthai) denoting that he came into existence, with His own "am" which avoids the past tense because He just exists. It is very clear that He is claiming to have pre-existed Abraham, who died long before He was born, but even more: that he didn't even come into existence. That's why Jesus' enemies planned to stone him: He was clearly claiming to be God, who pre-existed all creation.

Craig M (#62), we have already explained the difference between Jesus not knowing something (like the day or the hour of His second coming, knowledge of the Father alone), and teaching something that is false, considering that He spoke with authority of His Father (John 5:30, 8:28).

Don't copy Samaria in falling for the old Kenotic Heresy, which abuses Phil. 2:6–11. The ‘emptying’ was really an addition of human nature (‘the Word became flesh’ John 1:14), not any subtraction of the divine attributes. In reality, Jesus voluntarily surrendered the exercise of His powers, e.g. omniscience, independent of the Father’s authority (which is why He didn’t know the day or the hour of His return), although He could immediately switch them on at will, e.g. to know what people were thinking. But he never surrendered such absolute attributes as His perfect goodness, truthfulness, mercy, etc.

Therefore, what Jesus did preach, He proclaimed with absolute authority (Matt. 24:35, 28:18). Indeed, Jesus Himself said, ‘The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life’ (John 6:63). Therefore, what Jesus did preach, He proclaimed with absolute authority (Matt. 24:35, 28:18). Indeed, Jesus Himself said, ‘The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life’ (John 6:63). He also gave the sober warning:

‘If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels (Luke 9:26).’

Do you really want to tell Him that you were ashamed of His teaching on Genesis?

71. Texas Craig said the following at 3:56 PM on Feb 15:

Well said, Jim H. and Craig M.

Samaria, I applaud you for your humility and willingness to apologize. That shows a great deal of maturity. Do not let any of the jabs taken at you discourage you. However, it is always wise to listen to your critics, weigh what they say, and then learn from their criticism. Sometimes, we learn that we may be wrong in our beliefs, and sometimes we simply learn how to deal with false and malicious attacks. Either way, we can always learn and grow from any criticism.

If you genuinely are a high school sophomore, I am amazed at your emotional wisdom, as displayed by your very measured and tactful responses. If you can match that emotional wisdom with intellectual wisdom, you will go far. It seems that you have shown much intellectual wisdom already. But, be very careful when discounting the words of Jesus. I think Jim H.'s analysis is spot on. Namely, we recognize that Jesus may have been limited in His knowledge on earth, but that the knowledge He chose to display should be accepted as true and accurate. Thus, I would caution you against saying that He was "wrong" in anything He said. As soon as you start going down that path, you open the door to "truth" simply being of your own making--i.e., what you choose to accept as true from scripture. Your subjective beliefs are no more sturdy than sand and are no foundation upon which to build your life. Remember, Jesus is the "way, the truth, and the life." You can and should build your life upon the foundation fo His words, and all of them are trustworthy and true.

Peace and grace!

72. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:01 PM on Feb 15:

Lindsay (#58) thank you for your generous comments.

It was quite reasonable for you to ask about this. I wanted you to have better advice than I could give, so asked my colleague Don Batten, a Ph.D biologist and plant researcher. He was delighted with your achievement so far, and strongly encourages you to obtain a PhD and pursue this, because we (Christians) need to be taking back our academic institutions from the humanist domination. But he advises that you should keep your creationist views hidden until it is safe. If you writes anything in a public forum, then it should be with a pseudonym and written in such a way that you and your institution cannot be connected with it. Watch Expelled! if you haven't, for proof of discrimination against dissenters from materialistic evolution.

Christians need to become ‘street wise’ and realize that the enemies of the Gospel are ruthless. We should not make it easy for them by providing an obvious target! (We can see how far it has got with Britain and Canada, which fine Christian ministers for dissenting from the gay agenda, and Sweden has even imprisoned such pastors.

Now if you are confident in his potential supervisor’s fair-mindedness, you might share things privately with him up front, but Dr Batten advises that you should still be coy publically, otherwise potential thesis examiners can get wind of your creationist views and find an excuse to fail you.

73. Lita Cosner said the following at 9:51 PM on Feb 15:

Samaria,

Forgive me if you've learned the lesson Dr. Sarfati and Mr. Slater were trying to get across, but let me reiterate as someone who was once (not as long ago as I'd like) an ignorant, arrogant highschooler myself, and is now constantly being humbled in submission to God's Word.

You say, "I do not know as much as Dr. Sarfati or even other theistic evolutionists, but that does not mean that there wasn't a possiblity that I did." No, there's no possibility in any possible universe that any highschooler would know as much about Dr. Sarfati in an area which he's probably been writing and debating on for longer than you've been alive. I've been debating on the topic probably since you were in grade school, but I don't know nearly as much as people like Dr. Sarfati. It would be a large step in wisdom to recognize your superiors and learn from them, but that would take humility on your part, and since you seem to think you are more knowledgeable than the Lord of creation about what He did, I can see how you find it difficult to be humble to a mere human being!

The people who are criticizing you are not doing so because you're a highschooler. They are doing so because you are ill-informed, and the only thing that would keep your views from being outright heretical is their inconsistency.

Yes, a Jesus who was mistaken is not the true Jesus. The thing that troubles me most is how you can trust someone who you believe to be wrong about the origin of the world for the salvation of your soul. Read John 3:12 and consider the implications. Now answer: why do you believe Jesus when He says that He is the only way to be saved, if He was wrong about mere earthly things? Because He died for you? What if He was wrong again?

Craig M #62: Your error comes from a misunderstanding of the kenosis doctrine. When Jesus became incarnate, He temporarily gave up the independent use of His divine attributes apart from the Father's will. This is why we have statements like Mark 13:32 "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." This was a strictly temporary limitation of knowledge, and entirely voluntary. Even so, He had access to knowledge no mere mortal could have.
I don't know how much knowledge Jesus accessed during His time on earth about Newtonian physics or atoms or quasars; His knowledge was temporarily self-limited by His submission to the Father so He may not have have thought about those things, and frankly I see no reason for him to have. I do know that the Father gave Him access to all the knowledge He needed at any point in time, so that even the smallest thing He commented on was absolutely and entirely without error.

A Jesus who could be mistaken about creation is not the Lord and God of creation, and certainly not a trustworthy source for information about our eternal fate.

74. Craig M. said the following at 11:25 PM on Feb 15:

Interesting. I obviously agree fully that every word of instruction from Christ was directed by the Father, and I don't believe in any diminishing of Christ's divine nature in the incarnation. Parsing Almighty God's intent isn't like arguing James Madison and constitutional law, so I'm going to back away slowly at this point, and maybe genuflect a few times on my way.

75. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 12:09 AM on Feb 16:

Lindsay (#58), after I wrote #72, I saw Ask God What Your Grade Is by university criminology professor Mike S. Adams about a rabidly atheopathic community college instructor who denouced a Christian student — and anyone who dared support marriage = one man + one woman — and the administration did nothing except blame the christian victim. The article title is what the christophobic instructor wrote on the evaluation form.

76. Brendan said the following at 1:23 AM on Feb 16:

Adam #30

Actually, using the rules of logic we can build set theory. From set theory and first order logic we can build almost all of modern mathematics. Using the tools that we get from mathematics, we can build models of nature that can make predictions, which can then be tested with experiment to see if the model aligns with reality.

Because mathematics is so well suited to studying nature, that implies that mathematics itself must have some grounding in reality, and in turn, logic too, must therefore be true.

We can go about this another way. Looking at God's work, he seems to create order out of chaos. Therefore it makes sense that the reality that he has created is logical. Otherwise, we couldn't even begin to create models of nature, because nature would be inherently chaotic and unpredictable.

77. Samaria said the following at 7:31 AM on Feb 16:

Dr. Sarfati (70): No, I do not take it back. Perhaps it was best left unsaid, but it's much too late for that. I meant what I said.

Others: Thank you. I'll take what you've all said and consider them. It's plenty to think about.

78. Jo said the following at 10:20 AM on Feb 16:

Re: #72

It's completely off-topic, but I gotta say that it isn't common practice in Britain to fine ministers who refuse to employ practising homosexuals. Employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender, race, sexuality etc, as long as they can show that they have reasonable grounds for requiring a particular type of candidate.

Don't get me wrong, the UK certainly is hostile to Christianity, but our laws do currently protect churches in most cases, as long as they are savvy enough to follow the right procedures.

79. Samaria said the following at 11:51 AM on Feb 16:

Jim H. (65):

I've spent most of my morning on creationist and pro-theistic evolution websites, and I've been reading my Bible all morning. Though my pro-evolution stance hasn't changed (and, let's be honest, probably won't), I've come to the conclusion that you're totally correct. I was wrong when I said that Jesus was mistaken, and I thank you - and the others - for not only pointing that out to me, but also explaining it to me.

Respectfully,

Samaria

80. DP said the following at 2:48 PM on Feb 16:

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3736

Since this article seems to be thrown around a lot by Dr Safarti, I have a few questions...

Where in this article does it say that Jesus believed in a literal 6 day creation? Actually, much more importantly, where in the Bible does it say that?

81. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 4:16 PM on Feb 16:

Samaria (#79), now that admission takes guts and deserves much respect. A faulty view of Jesus is far more serious than a faulty one about creation, which genuine Christians can disagree with.

82. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 4:21 PM on Feb 16:

DP: that article Genesis: Bible authors believed it to be history explains what you asked. Ex. 20:8–11 affirms literal creation days, and Jesus quoted Gen. 1:27 and 2:24 about a literal man and woman who God made "from the beginning of creation" not billions of years after creation began. The article as a whole documents that other Bible authors took Genesis as real history: the people, events and even the order of events.

83. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 4:29 PM on Feb 16:

Jo: how common is "common"? The gay activists have oppressive power in Britain. See for example We show tolerance to ‘gays’ and get tyranny in return by Peter Hitchen, about how the Homonazi Gedankenpolizei force approval of homosexual behaviour, and even took children away from loving grandparents to give to a gay "couple" to adopt. I also documented how a bishop was fined for refusing to hire a practising homosexual. The BBC execs also admitted a pro-gay and christophobic bias.

84. a.k. said the following at 4:32 PM on Feb 16:

If God created Adam & Eve as fully formed, mature human beings, then why couldn't He have created a mature Earth?

And what Biblical evidence is there that the first six days were "normal"? Lifespans of people in Genesis (e.g. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) were exceedingly long - far beyond what we would consider "normal" today. i would just say that the Bible is silent about the precise nature/length of days, because that is ... true. Why make pronouncements that cannot be verified? It just makes Christianity look far more man-centered than it is or needs to be.

i see no Biblical reason to shut God into a box & presume to know how He created the universe. Read the book of Job! God's intelligence, power, & glory is beyond comprehension. That doesn't mean we should rule out any rational/scientific explanation - do you know for sure that God in His infinite wisdom did not build within Creation some type of evolutionary biology that poses no challenges to Scripture? i certainly don't think it's out of the question; neither do other strong Christians who hold this position.

He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end. (Eccl. 3:11)

As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything. (Eccl. 11:5)

Then Job answered the Lord and said:
"I know that you can do all things,
and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me, which I did not know." (Job 42:1-3)

85. k. said the following at 4:59 PM on Feb 16:

Dr Sarfarti - I'd have a lot more respect for you, if you had posted a more gracious response to Samaria.

86. Lindsay said the following at 9:15 PM on Feb 16:

Dr. Sarfati,

Thanks for the advice. I will keep it in mind as I continue my studies. Please thank Dr. Batten for me as well.

I have heard about Expelled!, but I haven't yet seen it. I read the article you posted about the student with the rabidly atheistic professor; it was very sobering. Thankfully, in spite of my enrollment at a secular university and the fact that my creationist views are known to my professors, I haven't had any experiences like that so far. My professors respect my knowledge of biology and are willing to write recommendations for me, although we have had some interesting discussions on a few occassions. I would like to think that I would receive the same fair treatment at a larger university, but I know that I should prepare for the very real possibility that my experiences may be quite different.

I agree with Dr. Batten that we need more creationists in the scientific realm, and that forms a large part of my desire to obtain a terminal degree. It would be very helpful as I complete my research to have a mentor who has a creationist worldview and has been through a similar situation. Is there a way that I can contact you or other scientists from CMI or have you contact me? I can't exactly post my email address here, but can you obtain mine from Boundless?

Whether that contact ever occurs, I do intend to keep up with current creation research. I really should subscribe to Journal of Creation. I'm sure that will be a valuable resource, although I probably shouldn't take it with me to class.

Thanks again.

87. Marcus Aurelius said the following at 12:59 PM on Feb 17:

Greetings everyone,

Thank you to those who took the time to respond to my post.

I am a non-Christian and do not agree with Christians on many things.

However, I think that is OK. I also find that one of the great things about the USA. We can disagree and still be good Americans.

I will not mention the disagreements as this is not the appropriate forum.

Thanks to everyone once again.

88. Jethro said the following at 3:05 PM on Feb 17:

Dr Sarfati,

Pointing me to an article by CMI/AiG about bias in research is a little liek the pot calling the kettle black. You might also note that you never actually answered by original question: have you ever submitted to Science, Nature etc? I'm guessing that's one form of peer review you don't want to subject yourself to...

89. Jo said the following at 4:13 PM on Feb 17:

Dr Sarfati, #83:

Again you're citing isolated cases, which aren't even addressing the same issue as before (churches being 'forced' to employ homosexuals).

I'm not defending my country; it is, as you say, largely 'Christophobic' and panders to the gay agenda. My only point was that employment law actually does recognise reasonable exceptions from 'equal opportunities', and churches simply need to know where they stand and follow the right procedures.

This is all irrelevant to the actual discussion, so I won't say any more on it. But as I have lived in England all my life and have sat through at least four 'equality and diversity' courses for my work, I will respectfully suggest that I know what I'm talking about in this particular area.

90. Philip said the following at 5:17 PM on Feb 17:

I am sure that nobody will deny that even if you accept that the bible is incompatible with evolution (as I do), it does not follow that any particular creationist argument is valid. My situation is that I do not find the creationist arguments at all persuasive, nor the philosophy of science behind them reasonable, while the evidence and arguments for evolution seem to me to be extremely strong. I don’t know how to resolve this. The idea that God would make it falsely appear that evolution is true doesn’t work to resolve the tension. So I don’t try to resolve it because I know that if I do, I’ll be tempted to compromise my view of scripture. It would be convenient for me to accept the arguments against evolution and pretend there is no tension, but I won't deny my view of the scientific arguments either, even while I cannot finally say that evolution is true.

91. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:07 PM on Feb 17:

Jethro (#88): FYI, I co-authored a paper in Nature when I was 22. So do you have an actual argument against the evidence I adduced, or are you still going to hide your inability behind "peer review"?

Jo (#89): for one thing, Peter Hitchens is also English. For another, sometimes an outsider can see more clearly than an insider who's like the proverbial frog slowly boiled in water.

K (#85): I don't crave your respect, but I fail to see your problem with my post #81. Try dealing with the actual arguments.

92. Lukas said the following at 11:32 PM on Feb 17:

Dr. Sarfati:

Just for some clarity, is there any evidence in creation that could conceivably convince you that the earth is old?

93. Jo said the following at 2:13 AM on Feb 18:

Dr Sarfati, #91...

Okay, really this is the last time I'm going to reply on this subject.

"for one thing, Peter Hitchens is also English."

I know that. He's Christopher Hitchens' brother. Regardless, he says nothing in that article about the laws regarding equal opportunities employment, which was the ONLY thing I was correcting from your original post.

"For another, sometimes an outsider can see more clearly than an insider who's like the proverbial frog slowly boiled in water."

I know that too. But since I stated quite clearly, "I'm not defending my country; it is, as you say, largely 'Christophobic' and panders to the gay agenda.", I fail to see just what it is that you see more clearly than I do in this instance. If I was wrong about the law you would be addressing that, rather than twisting my words.

94. Jethro said the following at 2:53 AM on Feb 18:

Dr Satfati,

There seems to be some confusion here.

First, you did not initially answer my question. Asking you again for an answer is hardly 'hiding behind' anything. I congratulate you on being published in such a respected journal. Pray tell, what was the article about? Was it creationist in content?

Second, what 'inability' am I supposed to be hiding. I don't see the connection between my question and your answer...

95. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 5:45 PM on Feb 18:

Lukas (#92): is there anything that would convince you that materialism is wrong? Nothing would convince Lewontin. Is there any evidence that would convince you that the Creator who was there knows more about when He created than scientists who were not there?

Jethro (#94): the attitude of materialists like you is hypocritical: demand that creationists must publish in secular journals; but then when one did manage this, the editor was berated for publishing it. So creationist research is not science because it's not published in secular journals; and secular journals should not publish it because it's not science.

Please re-read Creationism, Science and Peer Review about how peer review can shore up a paradigm, has allowed fraudulent papers through, and rejected research now known to be groundbreaking.

Robert Higgs pointed out:

‘Peer review, on which lay people place great weight, varies from important, where the editors and the referees are competent and responsible, to a complete farce, where they are not. As a rule, not surprisingly, the process operates somewhere in the middle, being more than a joke but less than the nearly flawless system of Olympian scrutiny that outsiders imagine it to be. Any journal editor who desires, for whatever reason, to knock down a submission can easily do so by choosing referees he knows full well will knock it down; likewise, he can easily obtain favorable referee reports. As I have always counseled young people whose work was rejected, seemingly on improper or insufficient grounds, the system is a crap shoot. Personal vendettas, ideological conflicts, professional jealousies, methodological disagreements, sheer self-promotion and a great deal of plain incompetence and irresponsibility are no strangers to the scientific world; indeed, that world is rife with these all-too-human attributes.’

So once again, try to refute my actual arguments, instead of hiding behind the establishment gatekeepers.

96. Morgan said the following at 7:24 PM on Feb 18:

Dear Ted,

In my last post I encouraged people to read your awesome post about communication sandwiches. I was pretty disappointed to read your post (51) that ended with "Whew. Let me guess: You attend a public high school, right?"

Does Samaria need humility? Yes, we all need to be more humble (myself more than anyone else). But I am shocked with the way you, the editor of Boundless, and Dr. Sarfati, a contributor, talked on this blog.

:-( I don't know if you will even read this four days later, but I hope you do and that you will hold yourself to the high standards I know you are capable of in the future.

Your sister in Christ,
Morgan

97. Lukas said the following at 11:22 PM on Feb 18:

a) I am not a materialist, therefore I already believe materialism is wrong.

b)Lewontin was a metaphysical naturalist, not just a methodological naturalist. Science cannot address the metaphysical, period. Lewontin cannot speak with any authority as a scientist on matters that extend beyond the realm of science.

c)I already believe that the Creator (aka God) knows more about how and when he created the universe, more than scientists or biblical exegetes who were not there

98. Philip said the following at 11:11 AM on Feb 19:

Dr Sarfati, which arguments are your opponents supposed to be refuting?

99. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 7:22 PM on Feb 19:

Lukas (#97): then why not take God at his Word? How is your view of origins any different in any practical way from materialism?

Philip (#98): the arguments in my articles published on Boundless.

100. Lukas said the following at 11:28 PM on Feb 20:

100

Lukas (#97): then why not take God at his Word? How is your view of origins any different in any practical way from materialism?

As far as I know, the Lord never said "...so then I created the world in 4004 BC". The 6000 year interpretation is just that; an interpretation. True, it would be nice and convenient if the world bore the hallmarks of an instantly created planet and a worldwide flood, but I am just not seeing it. For example: G. Brent Dalrymple cites 12 different studies of west-Greenland rocks analyzed through 5 different radiometric dating techniques (including U-Pb, Pb-Pb, Rb-Sr, Lu-Hf, and Nd-Sm) and they all agreed upon a date of 3.6 +- .1 Ga BP or so. I would be inclined to think that maybe the logical conclusion would be that maybe the rocks truly are as old as reported in the literature, as opposed to invoking completely unsubstantiated claims of nuclear-decay acceleration, or systematic error amongst unrelated groups of geochronologists to explain away the correlation. One could also bring up the point that there are no naturally occurring nonradiogenic nuclides with a half-life of less than 80 Ma or so.

There are truly some mysteries of origins in science (including abiogenesis as you correctly pointed out), but some things (age of earth/solar system) are quite well documentated and explicable in terms of our current scientific understanding.

Contributors

About Us

Relevant Boundless Articles

GOOGLE THIS BLOG

SUBSCRIBE VIA EMAIL

Newer Post | Older Post