[_ Old Earth _] The Evolution Lie

[Milk-Drops]

Craig said that a 61/2 ka Earth isn't plausible and later went on to say YEC is dodgy. I'm not sure he considers all Creationism implausible. What's the definition of Creationism btw ?

Whenever I see speakers speaking about creationism, they tend to speak about those who get their information from either Answers in Genesis or the creation institute. So usually a creationist is commonly refered to Young earth creationists who are completely against scientific claims of a 14+ billion year old universe and common decent.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Duari listens to Craig:

"I don't think it's plausible" -- "I am going with the flow of contemporary Cosmology and Astrophysics"

He uses the Kalam Cosmological Argument as an introduction. After his initial argument, he elaborates and uses the knockdown argument of Morality.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/in-defense-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument

Duari restates again:

"His knockdown argument is Morality, not Evolution. He doesn't win arguments because he believes in Evolution, he wins them based on his arguments as a Philosopher. Which is what I said, and taught in my last post."

He is tough on Atheism because of his Philosophical arguments. No claim was ever made about him being pro-creationist.

His "knock down" arguments however face a similar problem as the Kalam argument. It fully depends on the existance of the God of the Bible in the first place. However this also depends on whether he is arguing with a Bright, pearl, +, Objectivist, secular humanist, Nihilist, Marxist, etc.

Craig tries to make the argument that Christian morality is flawless and that Atheist's morality if flawed, however Atheism doesn't have a position on morality because is not a moral position in the sense that it advocates only the position of a god claim. Atheism is a negative label in the sense that its not an assertive position, but a position from one of the people mentioned above would be more interesting.

 

[Barbarian]

Craig said that a 61/2 ka Earth isn't plausible and later went on to say YEC is dodgy. I'm not sure he considers all Creationism implausible. What's the definition of Creationism btw ?

The notion that God created each kind separately and miraculously, instead of using nature, as He says He did.

He made a tongue slip when he gave the age of the world as ~ 13.7 Ga did he ?

Yep. That's a better number for the age of the universe, and for the Earth. I believe the best current estimate is about 4.8 billion years for the Earth.

 

[agua.]

Whenever I see speakers speaking about creationism, they tend to speak about those who get their information from either Answers in Genesis or the creation institute. So usually a creationist is commonly refered to Young earth creationists who are completely against scientific claims of a 14+ billion year old universe and common decent.

Ah ok sure. So OEC , TE, and ID aren't in the same category as YEC ? ( boy any more initialisms and IDK what will happen ).

The notion that God created each kind separately and miraculously, instead of using nature, as He says He did.

Craig seems to accept that ID is a viable alternative to ToE. Does this mean he accepts Creationism ? ( Is ID a form of Creationism ) .

 

[Milk-Drops]

Ah ok sure. So OEC , TE, and ID aren't in the same category as YEC ? ( boy any more initialisms and IDK what will happen ).

Occastionally one of the mentioned groups will be brought under the negative creationist lable, usually ID spokeman. Its usually a blanket term for what I mentioned earlier. For the most part it doesn't matter if a person believes in a creator or a first cause, etc. However people tend to get thrown into the creationist label when certain arguments popular amonst big names start getting stated.

Craig seems to accept that ID is a viable alternative to ToE. Does this mean he accepts Creationism ? ( Is ID a form of Creationism ) .

ID actually is creationism repackaged. The Discovery institute renamed their possition to ID when creationism was ruled not scientific. Almost all the same arguments are used and instances of creator are usually replaced with designer. There was a court case where the discovery institute was trying to get the text book, "of Pandas and People" into school curriculum, but some investigators found that is was a carbon copy of the original text book banned when creationism was found to be unscientific and the creationism movement was found to be propagandists.

There is nothing wrong with believeing in a creator. However the term creationist has been tarnished by some political cherlatins.

 

[agua.]

ID actually is creationism repackaged. The Discovery institute renamed their possition to ID when creationism was ruled not scientific. Almost all the same arguments are used and instances of creator are usually replaced with designer. There was a court case where the discovery institute was trying to get the text book, "of Pandas and People" into school curriculum, but some investigators found that is was a carbon copy of the original text book banned when creationism was found to be unscientific and the creationism movement was found to be propagandists.

There is nothing wrong with believeing in a creator. However the term creationist has been tarnished by some political cherlatins.

Interesting. So Mr Craig in suggesting ID is a viable alternative to ToE isn't suggesting TE ?

 

[Barbarian]

Craig seems to accept that ID is a viable alternative to ToE. Does this mean he accepts Creationism ? ( Is ID a form of Creationism ) .

Yeah, it's a form of creationism, but some of the people like Behe, accept that evolution is a fact. Behe just thinks that God had to step in now and then, to patch it up to make it work right. Odd thing; most Catholics think God is more capable than that.

Craig is a fellow of the Discovery Institute which seems jarringly out of touch with his observation that creationism is not a plausible explanation for life's diverstity. On the other hand, Michael Denton is also a fellow of the Institute, and asserts that everything we see in nature was brought about by natural causes.

If ID is willing to accept anything from YE creationism to methodological naturalism, it would seem to me that they no longer have any focus in biology whatever. It makes more sense when you realize what the Discovery Institute is actually about:

Governing Goals

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

So, it's a religion, with the intent to somehow remove "materialistic" explanations of science with a belief that God did it. The punch line that they don't get is that the "materialistic" things were done by God. The origin of life as recorded in Genesis, for example.

Once you realize it's a kind of "big tent" religion, a sort of Luddite Universalism, then the coalition of guys like Denton (little more than a belief in some kind of teleological principle), Jonathan Wells (moonie), Philip Johnson (YE creationist), Michael Behe (Catholic evolutionist), and Michael Dembski (philosophical crank) makes sense.

Yeah, I know they "updated" the document, after it leaked out, with language that was less aggressive and more open to ID as an "alternative." Most people are more honest about their motives when they think no one outside the movement are listening. So I'm thinking the updates are for public consumption, and the secred document is a better measure of their real intent.

It seems that as far as Craig is concerned, theism is a much bigger issue than the truth or falsity of creationism, or even the bizarre collection of conflicting ideologies in the Discovery Institute.

 

[agua.]

Yeah, it's a form of creationism, but some of the people like Behe, accept that evolution is a fact. Behe just thinks that God had to step in now and then, to patch it up to make it work right. Odd thing; most Catholics think God is more capable than that.

Can you give me the " most Catholics " definition of evolution and where God fits in ? I'm guessing God knew, and designed the process to produce, the finished product from the beginning.

Governing Goals

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

So, it's a religion, with the intent to somehow remove "materialistic" explanations of science with a belief that God did it. The punch line that they don't get is that the "materialistic" things were done by God. The origin of life as recorded in Genesis, for example.

I'm not seeing the difference here because it seems both you and they believe God did it. So it's basically the methodology of Creation that's the difference ?

Once you realize it's a kind of "big tent" religion, a sort of Luddite Universalism, then the coalition of guys like Denton (little more than a belief in some kind of teleological principle), Jonathan Wells (moonie), Philip Johnson (YE creationist), Michael Behe (Catholic evolutionist), and Michael Dembski (philosophical crank) makes sense.

I'm not sure what Luddite Universalism is. Anti-technology everyone will be saved ? Or is the universalism like any Creationism platform is ok.

Yeah, I know they "updated" the document, after it leaked out, with language that was less aggressive and more open to ID as an "alternative." Most people are more honest about their motives when they think no one outside the movement are listening. So I'm thinking the updates are for public consumption, and the secred document is a better measure of their real intent.

It seems that as far as Craig is concerned, theism is a much bigger issue than the truth or falsity of creationism, or even the bizarre collection of conflicting ideologies in the Discovery Institute.

Yes I get this impression of Mr Craig as well. ( and agree with him if this is his position so long as theism = Jesus ). What I find interesting though is how the water has been muddied through the introduction of the many different ways that God may have created. ( some plausible some not ) In my mind create is what God did and the arguments concerning how distract from the why. It's interesting how much airtime it gets now though.

What do you think ?

 

[Milk-Drops]

Interesting. So Mr Craig in suggesting ID is a viable alternative to ToE isn't suggesting TE ?

I'm not quite sure what TE is, but Mr. Craig's argument is Kalam based and not traditional ID. Traditional ID focuses around bringing up controversies within science and appealing to Complexity. However Craig focuses on first cause and disagrees with my ID proponents ideas.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Yeah, it's a form of creationism, but some of the people like Behe, accept that evolution is a fact. Behe just thinks that God had to step in now and then, to patch it up to make it work right. Odd thing; most Catholics think God is more capable than that.

Can you give me the " most Catholics " definition of evolution and where God fits in ?

Most of us consider Him to be omnipotent; a lesser demiurge might tinker with creation to get it right, but not God. "Design" is what limited creatures do. God is the Creator.

I'm guessing God knew, and designed the process to produce, the finished product from the beginning.

No "design." Created.

The religion of ID:

Governing Goals

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

So, it's a religion, with the intent to somehow remove "materialistic" explanations of science with a belief that God did it. The punch line that they don't get is that the "materialistic" things were done by God. The origin of life as recorded in Genesis, for example.
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing the difference here because it seems both you and they believe God did it.

The difference is, we don't have to make up "just-so" stories to support our beliefs. Science is too weak a method to help with faith. If they lack faith in God, science won't help them.

So it's basically the methodology of Creation that's the difference ?

No. It's not just a lack faith in God's power; it's also lack of faith in faith itself. Science is not able to repair that for them.

Barbarian observes:
Once you realize it's a kind of "big tent" religion, a sort of Luddite Universalism, then the coalition of guys like Denton (little more than a belief in some kind of teleological principle), Jonathan Wells (moonie), Philip Johnson (YE creationist), Michael Behe (Catholic evolutionist), and Michael Dembski (philosophical crank) makes sense.

I'm not sure what Luddite Universalism is.

Read the Wedge Document. Luddites were people who were scared of knowledge and technology, and wanted to return to a imagined golden age before it all got so complicated. Ditto the IDers. They imagine a time when everyone did science, using God and faith as a guide.

Or is the universalism like any Creationism platform is ok.

More like, "if you can't stand having people do science without invoking (God, Rev.Moon, teleology, etc.) then you belong with us."

Barbarian chuckles:
Yeah, I know they "updated" the document, after it leaked out, with language that was less aggressive and more open to ID as an "alternative." Most people are more honest about their motives when they think no one outside the movement are listening. So I'm thinking the updates are for public consumption, and the secred document is a better measure of their real intent.

Barbarian continues:
It seems that as far as Craig is concerned, theism is a much bigger issue than the truth or falsity of creationism, or even the bizarre collection of conflicting ideologies in the Discovery Institute.

Yes I get this impression of Mr Craig as well. ( and agree with him if this is his position so long as theism = Jesus ).

Well, the ID movement is a big tent, as they say. You can worship a lot of things, including the universe, and even something you don't know for sure exists. All these are compatible with ID, although Genesis is not.

What I find interesting though is how the water has been muddied through the introduction of the many different ways that God may have created. ( some plausible some not ) In my mind create is what God did and the arguments concerning how distract from the why. It's interesting how much airtime it gets now though.

Since what one believes as to how He did it is immaterial to one's salvation, it's not something a Christian needs to be concerned with, other than the problem of creationism being an efficient atheist-maker.

What do you think ?

I think when God said that He used nature to make living things, that's what happened.

 

[turnorburn]

God didn't say He used nature to make living things but He did have something to say about it..

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

tob

 

[agua.]

Most of us consider Him to be omnipotent; a lesser demiurge might tinker with creation to get it right, but not God. "Design" is what limited creatures do. God is the Creator.

Ok. Can you outline for me the "most Catholics" understanding of evolution and how it looks ? If it's compatible with the ToE can you tell me ( loosely ) God's contribution.

The difference is, we don't have to make up "just-so" stories to support our beliefs. Science is too weak a method to help with faith. If they lack faith in God, science won't help them.

No. It's not just a lack faith in God's power; it's also lack of faith in faith itself. Science is not able to repair that for them.

Sure ! This concerns non believers though or are you saying Craig et al are lacking faith ?

Read the Wedge Document. Luddites were people who were scared of knowledge and technology, and wanted to return to a imagined golden age before it all got so complicated. Ditto the IDers. They imagine a time when everyone did science, using God and faith as a guide.

Oky doky.

More like, "if you can't stand having people do science without invoking (God, Rev.Moon, teleology, etc.) then you belong with us."

Interesting.

Barbarian continues:
It seems that as far as Craig is concerned, theism is a much bigger issue than the truth or falsity of creationism, or even the bizarre collection of conflicting ideologies in the Discovery Institute.

Well, the ID movement is a big tent, as they say. You can worship a lot of things, including the universe, and even something you don't know for sure exists. All these are compatible with ID, although Genesis is not.

This sounds more akin to Freemasonry than Theism. Seriously though do ID's invoke other God's aside from Yahweh ? Does Mr Craig ?

Since what one believes as to how He did it is immaterial to one's salvation, it's not something a Christian needs to be concerned with, other than the problem of creationism being an efficient atheist-maker.
I think when God said that He used nature to make living things, that's what happened.

I think it depends on the definition of Creationism and aside from the murky pool of different meanings; God created. I agree YEC has become a large stumbling block for many people ( needlessly ). I also think God , in some manner I don't know, brought forth life from Earth.

 

[agua.]

God didn't say He used nature to make living things but He did have something to say about it..

tob

God caused the Earth ( and seas ) to bring forth life maybe this is what Barbarian means. Have you found it interesting that there is no reference in the Creation account of God making water ?

 

[Barbarian]

God didn't say He used nature to make living things

Well, let's take a look...

Gen. 1:[24] And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

The YE doctrine of "life ex nihilo" is contrary to Genesis. God used nature to create life.

Of course, there are always those who would improve on His word:
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

God is not a big old white-bearded guy in robe and sandals.

 

[agua.]

God is not a big old white-bearded guy in robe and sandals.

Oh man now I gotta imagine a new image. :D

 

[turnorburn]

Some people put their faith in the things of man others put their faith in God.. why they would do this goes back to the beginning.. When Satan asked Eve that damnable question "hath God said" he started something that won't be off the record until Jesus comes..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Some people put their faith in the things of man others put their faith in God.

God says that He created life by natural means. YE creationism, a man-made doctrine says "life ex nihilo."

why they would do this goes back to the beginning.. When Satan asked Eve that damnable question "hath God said" he started something that won't be off the record until Jesus comes..

We wouldn't have YE creationism without it. Satan correctly reckoned that it would be an effective way to remove people from God.

 

[turnorburn]

now your telling us how Satan thinks..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Um no, God did.

 

[turnorburn]

then how does God reckon it would be an effective way to remove people from God...

tob