The Literal Bible and Evolution

[Sir Pwn4lot]

Science is a work in progress, it seems to me. Today scientists tell you one thing and tomorrow they tell you the exact opposite thing. I don’t know if evolution is true or not.

By the way, twice you capitalized “evolution.†That isn’t necessary, is it?

It's all about standards of evidence and which beliefs are justified. Science doesn't claim to know that evolution or anything else is right, it simply claims that they're the most justified beliefs to have.

Everyone has different standards of evidence, if your standard is too low you end up accepting too many false things, if it's too high you end up rejecting too many correct things. You can't have different standards for different areas, there's the same constant standard. This is why some people believe in UFO's and some don't, they have different standards of evidence.

We can't know anything beyond "I think therefore I am", and thus anything more is uncertain. There are two courses of action here:

• 1. Don't believe anything, just sit in the corner and don't progress at all
  2. Have standards of evidence that permit certain beliefs given that they're supported by sufficient evidence and have been proven to work

I choose the 2nd. We might not be right all the time, but if we set our standards of evidence right then we'll have the best beliefs we can possibly have with the evidence presented.

In this way, science changes when new evidence comes in (Instead of just ignoring the mountains of contradictory evidence like superstition)


Science is just logic, there's nothing dubious at play here. The Scientific method simply entails verifying your claims.

There's no other way of obtaining knowledge other than through scientific means where your conclusions aren't just as justified as they are for any other view. If you want to claim that faith is a good way of obtaining knowledge then it can just as properly be applied to Islam or Russel's Teapot.

I challenge anyone to present a better way of obtaining knowledge than science.

PS: No, it's not necessary to capitalize evolution, but it's just a habit we've gotten into ;)

 

[Son of Israel]

Hi,

I am researching a book I am writing about the disconnect between belief in the Theory of Evolution and the Literal view of the Bible. I wonder if some of you would answer some questions I will provide below. Unless I don't understand something I won't bother following up on a response, so this isn't some kind of troll or anything.

The questions are:

1. What does a literal view of the Bible mean to you?
It would mean that I wasn't allowing the Holy Spirit to guide my comprehension of His meaning

2. What does evolution mean to you?
to me it means that for many millions of years down through the eons, God brought forth eras of life forms, closed them out and brought other eras of life forms and closed them out, on and on... the evidence is irrefutable as well as fascinating as to how God did this

3. Do you think evolution and the Bible are incompatible and why or why not?
The modern day concept of evelotion (Darwinism), is bunk of course, because God uniquely creates each creature and each creature produces offspring after its' own kind (Gen 1:11,12,21,24,25

4. What do you think holds some Christians back from accepting Evolution as fact?
from Darwinism? As a Scientist, I would say it is basic intelligence. Even for an unlearned person, if they have any ability to study into it, they will see that it has no scientific merit. For it is an unsubstantiated theory. It is part of an unenlightened scientist's blind religious faith. It is the atheists unprovable holy grail that they blindly bow down to.

5. What do think holds some believers in Evolution back from believing in the Bible?
see preceeding answer

Thanks for answering.

As for myself, I am a writer in my 30's who has grown up in the Mainline Churches of Christ, a group which takes the Literal view of the Bible fairly seriously. I still attend and am raising my family in the church.

Thanks,

Dave T

 

[ChevyRodeo]

yes. Type 1 and type 2 errors. Research Methods is all coming back to me !

 

[elijah23]

It's all about standards of evidence and which beliefs are justified. Science doesn't claim to know that evolution or anything else is right, it simply claims that they're the most justified beliefs to have.

Everyone has different standards of evidence, if your standard is too low you end up accepting too many false things, if it's too high you end up rejecting too many correct things. You can't have different standards for different areas, there's the same constant standard. This is why some people believe in UFO's and some don't, they have different standards of evidence.

We can't know anything beyond "I think therefore I am", and thus anything more is uncertain. There are two courses of action here:

• 1. Don't believe anything, just sit in the corner and don't progress at all
  2. Have standards of evidence that permit certain beliefs given that they're supported by sufficient evidence and have been proven to work

I choose the 2nd. We might not be right all the time, but if we set our standards of evidence right then we'll have the best beliefs we can possibly have with the evidence presented.

In this way, science changes when new evidence comes in (Instead of just ignoring the mountains of contradictory evidence like superstition)


Science is just logic, there's nothing dubious at play here. The Scientific method simply entails verifying your claims.

There's no other way of obtaining knowledge other than through scientific means where your conclusions aren't just as justified as they are for any other view. If you want to claim that faith is a good way of obtaining knowledge then it can just as properly be applied to Islam or Russel's Teapot.

I challenge anyone to present a better way of obtaining knowledge than science.

PS: No, it's not necessary to capitalize evolution, but it's just a habit we've gotten into ;)

I’ve got nothing against science. I think curiosity is a good thing. However, Isaac Asimov pointed out that the Lord, a few thousand years ago, could have created a world that scientifically APPEARED to be billions of years old.

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

I’ve got nothing against science.

That's nice.

I think curiosity is a good thing.

Agreed

However...

Uh oh, here is comes lol, we were getting along so well up until now

Isaac Asimov pointed out that the Lord, a few thousand years ago, could have created a world that scientifically APPEARED to be billions of years old.

Think you could provide the quote? It only takes a second, I try to do it where I can, and it adds a load of credibility to your argument.

Anyway, I have a few objections:

1. "Could have" means almost nothing, There "could be" a giant celestial teapot floating in space on the other side of Saturn, but we can't substantiate this with evidence, so belief is unjustified.

2. The Bible points to God not being deceitful: my lips will not speak wickedness,
and my tongue will utter no deceit. Job 27:4 ---- If the Christian God is real, then I doubt he would deliberately deceive us by making the world appear to be 4 billion years old.

3. What reason exactly would he have for doing this?

 

[elijah23]

I’ve got nothing against science.

That's nice.

I think curiosity is a good thing.

Agreed

However...

Uh oh, here is comes lol, we were getting along so well up until now

Isaac Asimov pointed out that the Lord, a few thousand years ago, could have created a world that scientifically APPEARED to be billions of years old.

Think you could provide the quote? It only takes a second, I try to do it where I can, and it adds a load of credibility to your argument.

Anyway, I have a few objections:

1. "Could have" means almost nothing, There "could be" a giant celestial teapot floating in space on the other side of Saturn, but we can't substantiate this with evidence, so belief is unjustified.

2. The Bible points to God not being deceitful: my lips will not speak wickedness,
and my tongue will utter no deceit. Job 27:4 ---- If the Christian God is real, then I doubt he would deliberately deceive us by making the world appear to be 4 billion years old.

3. What reason exactly would he have for doing this?

I read the Asimov thing years ago and wouldn’t know where to look to find it now. What does it matter? It’s got nothing to do with Asimov. What he said was true—the Lord could have created a world a few thousand years ago and made it appear scientifically like it was billions of years old. You think that would be deceptive and therefore the Lord wouldn’t have done it. I don’t see why it would be deceptive. Maybe he wanted the world to be just the way it was but didn’t want to sit around for billions of years waiting for it to happen by itself.

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

I read the Asimov thing years ago and wouldn’t know where to look to find it now.

Yeah I know, it doesn't really matter, but it always helps. Nevermind.

the Lord could have created a world a few thousand years ago and made it appear scientifically like it was billions of years old. You think that would be deceptive and therefore the Lord wouldn’t have done it. I don’t see why it would be deceptive. Maybe he wanted the world to be just the way it was but didn’t want to sit around for billions of years waiting for it to happen by itself.

So wait, are you saying what I think you're saying (I need clarification)? Are you saying that He created the universe 6 thousand years ago then made it look like it was 13.7 billion years old? I don't see why it needs to be 13.7 billion years lol, he could just snap his fingers.

My point is, making it look like it's billions of years old is deceptive.

 

[elijah23]

I read the Asimov thing years ago and wouldn’t know where to look to find it now.

Yeah I know, it doesn't really matter, but it always helps. Nevermind.

the Lord could have created a world a few thousand years ago and made it appear scientifically like it was billions of years old. You think that would be deceptive and therefore the Lord wouldn’t have done it. I don’t see why it would be deceptive. Maybe he wanted the world to be just the way it was but didn’t want to sit around for billions of years waiting for it to happen by itself.

So wait, are you saying what I think you're saying (I need clarification)? Are you saying that He created the universe 6 thousand years ago then made it look like it was 13.7 billion years old? I don't see why it needs to be 13.7 billion years lol, he could just snap his fingers.

My point is, making it look like it's billions of years old is deceptive.

Asimov has nothing to do with it. I’m not saying the earth is only a few thousand years old. I’m saying the earth COULD be only a few thousand years old—anything is possible with the Lord. It is the Lord’s creation. Scientists study that creation. Not the other way around.

 

[Son of Israel]

There's no other way of obtaining knowledge other than through scientific means where your conclusions aren't just as justified as they are for any other view. If you want to claim that faith is a good way of obtaining knowledge then it can just as properly be applied to Islam or Russel's Teapot.

I challenge anyone to present a better way of obtaining knowledge than science.

I gladly accept that challenge! Science is fun. Nothing beats finding out new stuff! But for obtaining 'true' knowldege, nothing compares to being given to know the deep things of God by His Spirit that the carnal scientific mind can't even begin to grasp the mysteries, let alone establish perimeters to even fathom most empiracal knowldege.


1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

 

[ChevyRodeo]

I basically agree the earth is millions of years old, but

Ever wonder how dating things millions of years old is accurate if there is no control ?

 

[veteran]

The problem is, there's true science, which will always agree with God's Word. And then there's pseudo-science, which is about interpretations of discoveries that are designed to fit a particular agenda of men.

And a lot evolution theories about the origin of man involve pseudo-science, a small piece of jaw bone that eventually gets turned into a supposed whole skeleton that is purposed to fit a certain political agenda. The fake drawing of a human embryo made to look like those of animal embryos still exists in a lot of school biology text books, even though it was proven to be fake over 100 years ago. That's an example of the pseudo-science evolutionists have been caught making up in order to fit their political agenda.

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

I gladly accept that challenge! Science is fun. Nothing beats finding out new stuff! But for obtaining 'true' knowldege, nothing compares to being given to know the deep things of God by His Spirit that the carnal scientific mind can't even begin to grasp the mysteries, let alone establish perimeters to even fathom most empiracal knowldege.

Lol, so what exactly are you proposing? Faith?

For example, this is what I propose:

1. Observe facts
2. Create an unsupported explanation that fits those facts
3. So some experiments to verify your prediction
4. Publish your results
5. Listen to criticisms, adjust hypothesis as required
6. Repeat until there are no more logical criticisms (Or at least not very many)
7. You now have a proven explanation.


What are the steps according to your process?

I basically agree the earth is millions of years old, but

Ever wonder how dating things millions of years old is accurate if there is no control ?

It's quite simple, we know the rate at which radioactive isotopes decay to an extremely high precision, this is the only reason that we can exactly calculate the yield of nuclear weapons (Which uses the exact same principle as radiometric dating).

In the nearly 70 years of radiometric knowledge nobody has ever been able to increase or decrease the rate of decay by a significant amount, and even that would certainly not be possible in nature.

Personally I (having some knowledge of nuclear physics) think radiometric dating is the most persuasive, simply because it's highly accurate if you do it correctly, but there are also other methods. There's at least some conclusive evidence from each area of Science.

The only reason Creationists think the Earth is 6000 years old anyway is because a man calculated the age of the earth through genealogies in the Bible lol.

The problem is, there's true science, which will always agree with God's Word.

No true Scotsman fallacy lol. "True" science doesn't have to agree with God's word at all. It will, however, point to God if he's there.[/quote]

Personally I don't see the need for science to conform to your religion; God is in a realm from which we have no data because no one's been there and back with some yet. Why deny the state of the nature that you believe God created?

And then there's pseudo-science, which is about interpretations of discoveries that are designed to fit a particular agenda of men.

I agree. Just look at intelligent design.

And a lot evolution theories about the origin of man involve pseudo-science, a small piece of jaw bone that eventually gets turned into a supposed whole skeleton that is purposed to fit a certain political agenda.

Sigh, Science isn't like politics or religion; it's completely independent of the emotional or political agendas of those who do the experiments, simply because you can go and re-do it yourself. Scientists are happy when they're proved wrong.

Just wondering if you can provide any instances of what you claim where the Scientific community accepted it as evidence?

The fake drawing of a human embryo made to look like those of animal embryos still exists in a lot of school biology text books

Then it's unconstitutional and you can take them to the supreme court + sue them for all they have. The textbooks are required to be scientifically accurate representations of the real world, although sometimes this is violated (See "Of Pandas And People")

even though it was proven to be fake over 100 years ago.

Please provide a source as to what you're referring to.

That's an example of the pseudo-science evolutionists have been caught making up in order to fit their political agenda.

What political agenda? Surely millions upon millions of dollars, hundreds of awards and a place as one of the greatest scientists of all time is worth more than their "political agenda". That's the result if you disprove evolution via natural selection. Go ahead.


Lol, and you wanna say they have political agendas? What about your religious agenda? This is the great thing about Science, it's impossible to hide the truth, because each person can do the experiment again if he/she likes. Science is insanely self-critical (As evidenced by the fact that you're talking to me from a few thousand kilometers away with a global network with linked computers that can perform at up to 2TFLOPS)