inconsistent Creationists

Post Reply New Topic

In July of 2012 I started corresponding with someone who contacted me through my web site. This person asked me why I accept evolution, and he gave me links for me to check out some creationist web sites he suggested. I have patiently visited several such sites now and pointed out the most egregious errors on them to this person. The most recent site he sent me to is "Contender Ministries." I found something very ironic on their web site on their Mail Bag page, so I wrote the following to their contact form on August 2, 2012. I neither expect a reply nor for my letter to be published on their site, but time will tell.

Well, as I see it, the thing about evolution/creationism is a matter not necessarily of accepting/rejecting the evidence, but rather a matter of interpreting what the evidence means. The same evidence YOU use to support evolution could also be used to support creationism.

I mean, this debate could rage on and on just like a debate on free-will vs. determinism, so I'm not interested in wasting time on it.

It looks to me like the main point they were trying to make had to do with an argument against Unitarian Universalism. I dated (and severely corrupted, with great pleasure I might add) a young UU lady, and in the course of doing so attended her church once. It's a church that sometimes claims to be "liberal Christianity," but this particular church showed little trace at all of being a Christian congregation. I happened to be present on "visitor's day," and the "preacher" railed against Christians. I mean, here is a "church" that purports to be all-inclusive and their leader is insulting Christians? Wow...

Anyway, I got to know a little bit about UU, and among other things many of them seem to blindly accept moral relativism, which is inherently flawed. Nah, I'm being too nice again...it's inherently FALSE. If you want to talk about inconsistency, dig into the practices of the UU church. Even at their very core, if God is One, why accept spiritual pluralism? Also, if all religions are right, then Christianity is right...so how can you accept the Christian God and also accept universalism--that is, everyone will ultimately find their way to heaven and God's grace? This is inconsistent with what the Bible teaches. The answer is that UU ultimately fails at inclusion since they are friendly to any and every view except Christianity. I doubt any UU is actually going to come out and say that, but this seems to be true in practice. And it's not just inconsistent...combined with the plague of moral relativism, it's incoherent.

Incorrect. The arguments for creationism and Intelligent Design have been ripped to shreds, and I mean that almost literally, by the scientific community. It isn't even a debate by this point.

meh...

It all looks like confirmation bias to me.

I'd tell you to bring that argument to the scientific community, but we've also completely trashed the "It's just confirmation bias" argument a million times as well.

Although, since I'm in a sporting mood, if you'd like to attempt the argument with me, I can take it apart piece by piece for you.

Excellent! Can I have a ringside seat? Maybe sell some tickets on the side.

I've read the so called intelligent design arguments too and they are so full of absurd holes they end up relying on faith again rather than anything fact based and for the most part just serve to show that the proponents of intelligent design know bugger all about science and the scientific process. It is a last, laughable attempt to say "It was God wot dun it". Even the Catholic church, the biggest Christian organisation in the world, have long since accepted evolution rather than try to hang on to creationist absurdities. Gone are the days when they can burn heretics for saying the Earth isn't the centre of the universe and that it revolves around the sun.

I await the amusement... if AngelRho is up for it.

One condition: All proceeds must go toward the funding of scientific research!

Nah... Time is at a premium for me lately, so I'd better not.

Besides, I don't really DISbelieve evolution either. I just disagree on the importance attached to it, particularly when certain proponents of evolution hold it up to spirituality. In short: You leave my religion alone, I'll leave your science alone. My attitude is that when science is perverted to oppose any and all spirituality, it stops being science and crosses over into something it has no business meddling with.

My main criticism for the purpose of this thread is that the OP is getting in the middle of an apparent Christian creationist's criticism of UU. All TBG sees is that challenging UU incoherency based on evidence of absolutes is inconsistent with what he believes is their stance on evolution. He completely ignores the fact that the creationist happens to be right in this case.

Evolution has managed to bring together every aspect of biology. It's importance cannot be understated. Evolution provides the "why" to just about every biological question. "Why is this protein the way it is?" "Because this form of the protein confers the greatest fitness." "Why are these two proteins so similar?" "Because evolutionary mechanisms derived one from the other/both from a common ancestral form of the proteins/etc." Anyone that has ever studied biology at a university level would know all of this. In that capacity, it provides the best guidance for biological inquiry.



Science as a whole tends to take this role, actually, since religions make claims of supernatural phenomena. As they do such, it is within the realm of science to discredit such claims if they are incorrect. However, I would agree that science has no place in things such as morality and such. That's more the purview of philosophy.



I'll leave your religion alone when it stops making bogus claims of the supernatural. And I don't need you to leave my science alone, it's more than capable of sticking up for itself.

Newton's "law of universal gravitation" is really just another theory and Einstein's theory of General Relativity explains things that the earlier so-called "law" does not. Relativity and Evolution will always be scientific theories because there is no graduation ceremony. Cretos just like to abuse the term "theory" and make it seem somehow inferior.

Scientific theory != Homer Simpson's theory about what's under the couch.

Exactly how will you go about scientifically proving supernatural claims are bogus? Naturalism rejects the supernatural from the outset. It is beyond the purview of science to exam the non-physical world. If it ain't falsifiable, it ain't science. This is dangerous territory to wander into because once you start making those kinds of claims, the burden of proof is no longer on me to attempt to prove "+God," but rather on you to prove "-God." If you're trying to convince me "-God" using a naturalist argument, then you've got your work cut out for you.

That is incorrect. All the scientific evidence found so far supports evolution and none falsifies it. Creationism makes very few claims that are testable, but so far, NO evidence yet found supports a literal reading of Genesis as the actual history of what really happened and those claims which can be tested have been falsified.

Think about it for a moment. In the past forty years there have been at least a dozen major court cases that challenged the teaching of evolution in public schools in the USA. If there were any scientific evidence at all to support their position, the creationists have had at least a dozen chances to present it. Every time creationism goes up against evolution in a fair fight in a court of law the creationists come out looking like fools because they have NOTHING that falsifies evolution and NOTHING that supports their position.

Take it as you will for what that means. Either Genesis is not meant to be read literally as a science or history text, or God lied to us in His book, or God lied to us by planting false evidence of many different types that all appear to show evolution is just as much a fact of nature as gravity is. Evolution is just as much a "theory" as gravity is, no more no less.

The official position of Christianity used to be that the sun travels around the earth based on the same style of Biblical interpretation that causes some denominations to deny the fact evolution happens. Eventually the weight of evidence forced Christians to admit they were wrong about that, and now no Christians I know of still insist the sun travels around the earth (I could be wrong). Eventually this will happen with evolution too.

Already MOST Christians worldwide accept that whether or not evolution happens it is not crucial to their faith. It is the hardcore Biblical literalists who are having a problem with it. They think if evolution didn't happen then no Adam, no fall from grace, no need for salvation, and the whole Gospel story falls apart. Maybe they're right, but if so, then like I said earlier that makes God a liar one way or another. Who would want to worship a Creator who plants so much false evidence that could lead anyone who uses their eyes and their brain to eternal damnation?

It is important to distinguish between Creationist as one who believes in a Creator, versus Creationist as one who ignores, denies or distorts the evidence of the physical world to support their interpretation of a Bronze Age myth. Many religious or spiritual people worldwide believe in a Creator without denying that evolution happens. To do otherwise is just as silly as to insist the earth is flat in spite of all evidence to the contrary. From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible shows many clear signs that the people who wrote it had a flat-earth cosmology. Why don't the fundies insist for equal time in science classrooms for the "flat-earth theory" and let the children decide? This controversy is just as ridiculous as that. I am amazed to be having this discussion in the twenty-first century, and I fear for the future of America, our species, and our planet if the fundies get their way and succeed in sabotaging the science education of our children.

Even if the Bible isn't a reliable source for science or history, that does not mean that there may not be spiritual truth in it. A mythology is expressed by and for a particular culture in terms of the language and imagery of that culture. So if the people who wrote the Bible thought the earth is flat, to me that does not diminish the spiritual teachings in it.

If you allow for "Gap Theory," your whole misinterpretation of Genesis falls apart. We've discussed this before, and I don't care to expend a lot MORE time just repeating myself. To sum it up: It's entirely possible from a literal reading of Genesis 1 that verse 1 and verse 2 do NOT refer to a single act of creation but rather two separate events. The days of creation that follow possibly belong to the second creative event. If the divine inspiration comes to the prophet in the form of a vision, then what he sees is everything as it appears in time-lapse, not necessarily as it IS. If that is the case, then the Bible is not incorrect in the creation account. The evidence that is INTERPRETED as unduly favorable for God-killing evolution can readily be explained as having originated in a previous dispensation (or era). This explanation has been around for over 100 years now, and it's appalling to me that Bible critics so conveniently overlook it. But I guess you just see what you WANT to see...

Also, much of what is written in the Bible comes from the perspective of an earth-bound observer. This is common sense. If you walk outside, the earth appears flat, and the sun appears to rise in the east and set in the west. Whether this is reality is irrelevant--and besides, a bronze-age observer isn't going to be equipped to test whether or not this is true--moreover, he's not really going to have much reason to even CARE. All a farmer needs to know is that certain patterns in the sky mean it's time to plant crops, while other patterns mean get ready for winter. Other sections of the Bible that describe the earth and the relation of the observer to it are poetical statements and not intended as a statement of absolute fact. That isn't to say that there aren't statements intended as fact in the Bible, but the Bible is, after all, a compilation of various texts that serve various purposes, and those purposes are unified in relating theology. So if you are to prove beyond a doubt that it is false in its entirety, let's see it. If not, it's time to move on.

I agree, God cannot be disproven.

However, the whole system works perfectly with or without management from upstairs...

Also there is a very great difference between proving or disproving the existence of a supreme being and proving or disproving why there are various species in the world.

Scientists aren't interested in proving that Genesis is wrong, or that God does or doesn't exist. It just so happens that uncovering what really happened has proved a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 wrong. This has caused people who want Genesis 1-3 to be literally true to try and undermine the stuff that shows Genesis is not literally true (the days cannot be literally 24 hour periods). The scientists pointed out that the evidence for evolution couldn't be undermined, and then people like Dawkins started attacking religion when held in place of science. Evolution is NOT "God-killing" and very few people claim it is, science shows that Genesis 1-3 are not literally true.

If you really want to know why Genesis cannot be literally true, well, Genesis 1:

1) The seas are created before land- not true
2) The seas are created before the atmosphere- not true
3) The earth is created before the sun
4) Day and night exist before the sun
5) The Moon is created within 24 hours of the sun
6) All sea creatures and all the birds are created in 24 hours
7) All green plants are suitable food for all creatures that move on the ground and all birds- not true, many green plants are poisonous, many animals need to eat meat to survive.

Genesis 2:
1) There were shrubs long before there were humans
2) Man was not formed from dust, but evolved gradually from apes.
3) Women were not made from men's ribs
4) There was probably no "first human" as such.

Genesis 3:
1) Serpents can't talk
2) Snakes do not eat dust

This is from National Geographic: