July T.O. Feedback

[Valentine Pontifex]

The July 2003 Feedback (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul03.html) for The Talk.Origins Archive is up.

[Duvenoy]

Thanks, VP. every month, I wait with failing patience for it.

And now, I'm off to TO to get my fix.

doov

[WinAce]

Feedback #55 (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul03.html#f55), by Amy

I just had a question really. I was wondering why couldn't it be possible that the evolution theory and God's theory were both correct. I do not say this to sound racist, but God could have created the European humans and those from Africa evolved. Remembering the saying "white men can't jump" notice how Black people have an extra bone in their foot like the apes. Could it be that we come from two different worlds in more than one sense?

Bwahahahahahaha!!! :rolleyes: That's gotta be a troll.

[Gregg]

Obviously, people aren't sending their kids to these "privet" Christian schools for the high-quality English instruction:
Hi i'm a 16 kid who goes to school at kansas city christan school, a privet and christan school. everyone at the school are young earth creationest, and that is what i belive too, and we have to wright a papaer on creation vs. evoulotion. this is an interestion topic. It's funny because i am not really on the outside looking in, and i think evolution is kind of funny. There is so much evidence aginst it, but there is alot for it to. The only thing that evolution can't come up with is how do you get information from matter. they are two different things. and another thing is irrudusable complexatiy. like the bactiral flagela. With out all of the parts how can it work? It needs all of the parts two work. How can something like that evoleve. you can't start with one part and then get another, because one peice with out the other is just wasted space. and there is no need of it. I just want to know what any evolutionests have to say on the topic of irredusable complexity and try to explain how you can get infromation from matter
Thanx David

[Valentine Pontifex]

Gregg,

Where did you get that quote from? It is certainly not from the T.O. Archive. I can't even Google it.

[Gregg]

Originally posted by Valentine Pontifex
Gregg,

Where did you get that quote from? It is certainly not from the T.O. Archive. I can't even Google it. I'm sorry, I had been looking at the July archives this morning and then started browsing previous months. I left the window up and when I got home from work I forgot that I wasn't on July anymore.
Edit:I can't remember what month that was from now, but it might have been February or April.Ah, wait, I went back to the archives and the month I found that in was still highlighted. It was March 2003.

[Valentine Pontifex]

Originally posted by Gregg

Edit:Ah, wait, I went back to the archives and the month I found that in was still highlighted. It was March 2003.

That is strange. Google has the March 2003 cached but searches on what was written don't turn up anything.

[Gregg]

Originally posted by Valentine Pontifex
That is strange. Google has the March 2003 cached but searches on what was written don't turn up anything. What can I say, it's there. About 2/3 of the way down, I think.

[Zira_C]

Almost halfway down the page, from someone named bob day.
Creation or Evolution?
Christian intractability in the area of evolution has produced an honest class of atheistic scientists from which the human community still suffers. Not all scientists are atheistic, of course. Many see no conflict with evolutionary science and the Bible's allegorical explanations of creation. The issue doesn't need to be divisive at all. Some scientists believe that both accounts of creation-the seven-day creation account and the elongated evolutionary account-could be "correct." Scientifically, it is known that the faster a moving body moves, the slower time moves. For example, a seven light year journey from earth to Alpha Centauri and back would be a fourteen-year trip in all. During the fourteen-year trip, earth would have aged one hundred and fifty years! Time is now known to vary in relationship to speed.
Add to this, the "Big Bang" theory of creation, with its premise of an unimaginably rapid expansion of matter. Might a given set point, say "earth" not experience a much shorter length of time? Possibly, according to one scientist, seven days in length?
I read Chris Ho Stuart’s response, and I thought that it was a good reply to the allegorical nature of the bible, but it brought a question to mind that I would like to pursue.
If you read bob’s comment, it seems he is trying to present some sort of reconciliation for evolution and creation, by presenting his time dilation scenario. He does not do a good job however of separating out the issues of origin of man from the rest of the creation accounts in Genesis. I think the concept of miraculous origin of man is the central (if not the only) issue in this whole cre/evo debate. Creationists see evolutionary theory as explaining away their only evidence of God (a miraculous creation of man event).

I think that if bob had formulated his question more narrowly, to focus on man, his feedback wouldn’t have been so easily dismissed as mixing up allegory with scientific resolution. I would like to try to refocus his statement, to see if we can have some discussion on whether or not evolution and creation are mutually exclusive, non reconcilable entities.

I think bob is trying to say that you can have the miraculous explanation along side the non miraculous explanation, and be in a situation where there is no conflict between science and religion.

There is a conception that miraculous creation of man, and natural descent of man are mutually exclusive concepts. This is not a necessary conception, and has nothing to do with religion or science. The bible nowhere says these events are mutually exclusive, and science (being silent on matters of religion) nowhere says it either. Yet here we are locked in endless debate revolving around the mindset that if you can have one, you can’t have the other.

Look at it like this. Consider the birth of Christ. Roman Catholics hold that it was a virgin birth. And for them the birth of Christ was a miracle. But that miracle in no way means that women were not having entirely natural birth before the miracle, at the time of the miracle, and after the miracle. Miraculous birth of Christ in no way excludes entirely natural birth from occurring on the planet. Christ walking on water, in no way excludes anyone else from strapping pontoons on to their feet and walking on water as well. Turning water into wine, does not exclude anyone else from making wine themselves. I could go on, but the point is this. Miracles are miracles because the specific context in which these miracles happen defy explanation; but the miracles themselves do not prevent the same result from proceeding through completely natural means. This is how most miracles, it think, are reconciled with natural processes. Let both processes occur contemporaneously without having one process necessarily exclude the other.

The only place there is an exception to this reconciliation pattern, I think, is in the case of origin of man. Both sides of this debate, the people who accept evolution, and the people who deny evolution, hold that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive phenomenon. You can’t have a miraculously created Adam, and at the same time have a completely natural origin of man. Well why not? If I can have a miraculous virgin birth, and at the same time have non virgins give birth all over the planet, then why can’t I have a miraculous Adam, and contemporaneously, a natural origin of man. Where does the bible say that God created Adam miraculously, and couldn’t also create man through entirely natural means just like the fossil evidence indicates? Or where does science say that man evolved through entirely natural means, and that somehow precludes the idea that a God created an Adam miraculously? I think the argument has been framed in an “either/or” context for so long that people wouldn’t know a reconciliation if it walked up and bit them on the ass.

Science explains natural processes, and is silent on supernatural processes; it therefore cannot exclude supernatural processes from occurring alongside natural processes. A miraculous Adam created and then put in an isolated Garden of Eden (with a miraculously created Eve); along side an evolving population of hominids outside the garden, could easily have migrated out into the larger population. If his descendants were able to interbreed with the larger population, these descendants could have introduced their genes into the larger population. Conversely, if these descendants were reproductively isolated, they could have driven the larger population to extinction. Similar hypotheses have been advanced in explaining the displacement of Neanderthals by Homo sapiens (yeah I know I’m reaching here, but just indulge me for now).

Ultimately, an all-powerful creator could suspend or accelerate time in one population while allowing the other population to proceed along a timeline as documented by the geological record. Time slows down as you approach light speeds. 100 million years in one reference frame nowhere near the speed of light, could be 7 days (or any time period) to an observer in another reference frame near the speed of light. All-powerful creators though, are limited by nothing, including time, and frankly wouldn’t need to approach light speed in order to effect time dilation (of anything).

Note, I am not presenting this scenarios as my statement on what happened, I have no idea how (or if) miracles happen, or how (or if) they are incorporated into the physical world. I’m presenting this scenario to illustrate that evolutionary theory and a miraculous creation of man event are not exclusionary concepts. They can in fact be reconciled in the way other miracles are reconciled, by allowing for both processes to occur concurrently without having one process exclude the other.

I mean, go back and read bobs reconciliation. I think he is saying that, if you want to have both events occur together, then one way to understand how it might be done is to imagine that an all powerful creator manipulates time (his example of Alpha Centauri is to show that time is in fact a variable, and is subject to change).

Ho Stuarts reply jumps over this aspect of bobs feedback. Nowhere in the reply does he acknowledge that bob is talking about miracles (miracles are unexplained phenomenon). Yes a miracle could happen; no we would not be able to explain it. And further, we would not be able to use any natural explanation to disprove it. How can I disprove that Jesus turned water into wine by brewing my own wine starting with tap water. Yes the allegorical stories in the bible are just that allegories, yes the order of creation does not map to the evidence. But the issue I think that Chris missed from bobs reply is the issue about specifically reconciling the miracle of creation event with natural processes. Yes many Christians recognize that Genesis is not a literal account. But many think it is. According to Gallup 47% of Americans did in 1999 http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_Poll If people want to believe in miracles, does bobs scenario not give them a way to have their miracle, and the natural process as well, regardless of how unexplainable the miracle is (which is what makes it a miracle in the first place)?

Sorry for the long windedness. Any thoughts?

Zira

[Xixax]

Originally posted by Zira_C
Almost halfway down the page, from someone named bob day.

I read Chris Ho Stuart’s response, and I thought that it was a good reply to the allegorical nature of the bible, .....
Ultimately, an all-powerful creator could suspend or accelerate time in one population while allowing the other population to proceed along a timeline as documented by the geological record. Time slows down as you approach light speeds. 100 million years in one reference frame nowhere near the speed of light, could be 7 days (or any time period) to an observer in another reference frame near the speed of light. All-powerful creators though, are limited by nothing, including time, and frankly wouldn’t need to approach light speed in order to effect time dilation (of anything).
....... If people want to believe in miracles, does bobs scenario not give them a way to have their miracle, and the natural process as well, regardless of how unexplainable the miracle is (which is what makes it a miracle in the first place)?

Sorry for the long windedness. Any thoughts?

Zira

For those that must believe in God as a creator for some other reason than creation itself, it is the only way to reconcile their beliefs without ignoring, in fact purposefully ignoring, the overwhelming evidence against special creation.

However, the real question is "why"? Why invoke a creator where none is needed? It adds a layer of complexity and ambiguity that is unnecessary. There is no missing component that requires we interject an all powerful deity to fill.

So although they may have other reasons of personal experience or faith to believe in God, life on this planet isn't one of them. The possibilities of stretching and contracting time in order to create us is no more feasible and scientific than just saying he "poofed" us out of nowhere. Why go through the mental gymnastics required to produce such an idea?

In the end the acceptance of the evidence, the only honest thing to do, introduces no compelling reason to believe in a creator. Sure, it works if you are willing to call Genesis allegorical, but I don't see how it's worth the energy.

[Valentine Pontifex]

Originally posted by Valentine Pontifex
That is strange. Google has the March 2003 cached but searches on what was written don't turn up anything.

I saw it after you stated where it was. I am just commenting how puzzled I am that Google search comes up negative. Maybe Google is slipping.

[Duvenoy]

Originally posted by Valentine Pontifex
I saw it after you stated where it was. I am just commenting how puzzled I am that Google search comes up negative. Maybe Google is slipping.

Blasphemer! Heathen!

Google is all knowing. :notworthy
Google is the font of wisdom. :notworthy
All genuflect and praise the mighty Lord Google! :notworthy

The humble and unworthy, doov

[Valentine Pontifex]

Originally posted by Duvenoy
Blasphemer! Heathen!

Google is all knowing. :notworthy
Google is the font of wisdom. :notworthy
All genuflect and praise the mighty Lord Google! :notworthy

The humble and unworthy, doov

Okay. Just as long as you don't say that Google is God. (Ivanova is God...)

[Zira_C]

Xixax, don’t get me wrong. I’m not a creationist of any stripe, YEC or ID. And I agree with you, why invoke a creator when none is need. I’m just saying that the reality of the situation is that people do invoke a creator. I’m saying that we are locked in a debate that assumes mutual exclusivity for a miracle and a natural process where no such mutual exclusivity exists. Miracles and natural processes co-occur all the time. Look at my examples about walking on water or turning water into wine.

Whether you or I think miracles exist is beside the point. There are a large number of people who do think that miracles exist. Why can’t they be allowed to reconcile the two by allowing them the same reconciliation they use for everything else (or at least I think they use for everything else)? Why must creation of man be the one miracle that is mutually exclusive with natural processes.

Now I agree with you that special creation, any time it has been formulated into something remotely testable has been disproved. But I’m trying to be specific here. I don’t mean special creation of the first Homo sapien who gave rise to all other Homo sapiens down to you and me (filled with occurrences of flood geology and devils on the moon). That’s a creationist denial story (I’m no bible scholar, but I don’t think that such a tale is even in the bible). And I don’t mean the special creation of every species; that was refuted by common descent 140 years ago. What I’m talking about here is creation of a man called Adam from dust by a God. I don’t think we can say that science (which is silent on the concept of the supernatural) has disproved (or even can disprove) this. And if it can’t then how can we tell the 47% of Americans who believe in a miraculous creation (and who may not even be creationist) that their miracle has been disproved by science (where no other miracle they know of has been disproved by science)? We may have overwhelming evidence against special creation, but I don’t think we have overwhelming evidence against that. Why must creation and evolution be mutually exclusive where no other miracle vs. natural process (whether you believe in miracles or not) is?

Taking a practical view, these people are alive on the planet today, they work, they vote, they are close to the majority. I don’t think these people need to abandon their faith in order to accept science, I think reconciliations exist if the will is there to do it. How do you see it, do you think they have opportunity to reconcile their faith with science, or must they abandon their faith in order to accept science?

[Joe Meert]

At one point I had the information and invitation to answer some of the feedback, but lost it somewhere. Any chance of getting back in the loop?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Valentine Pontifex]

Originally posted by Joe Meert
At one point I had the information and invitation to answer some of the feedback, but lost it somewhere. Any chance of getting back in the loop?



Send a note to Wesley Elsberry.

Use the following email address though replace the period
with an at:
welsberr.antievolution.org

Do spammer's robots crawl IIDB? Best not to assume it.

[Duvenoy]

Originally posted by Valentine Pontifex
Okay. Just as long as you don't say that Google is God. (Ivanova is God...)

Oh, well, no. I certainly wouldn't go that far. But if you want the skinny on a god or two, true or false, Mighty Google :notworthy is the place to start looking. (Disagree. Audry Hepburn is god.)

doov

[Gregg]

Originally posted by Zira_C
Taking a practical view, these people are alive on the planet today, they work, they vote, they are close to the majority. I don’t think these people need to abandon their faith in order to accept science, I think reconciliations exist if the will is there to do it. How do you see it, do you think they have opportunity to reconcile their faith with science, or must they abandon their faith in order to accept science? But they DO have the opportunity to reconcile their faith with science. Millions have done just that. The Catholic Church did so in the case of evolution, and so have a number of Jewish organizations and Protestant denominations. No one's "denying" them the right to reconcile their faith with science. Richard Dawkins may be an outspoken atheist scientist, but he's just one man voicing his opinion, as is his right in a free country. He's not out trying to get laws passed that say God and miracles don't exist and that people who worship and pray will be arrested.

The problem is that a growing number of people are not willing to reconcile their faith with science, or even (in their own minds and hearts) hold to their unscientific beliefs in spite of science. Instead, they want to legally, publicly force science to conform with their faith. That's what this debate is about.

Gregg

[Zira_C]

Hi Gregg, I don’t think we are in disagreement here. The Catholic Church did just what I am suggesting. They reconciled their miracle with the scientific evidence by saying that science accounts for the physical, but religion accounts for the spiritual. That is, they allowed the miracle and the natural process to occur at the same time, as I have been saying in these last few posts. They did not abandon their faith nor deem that Genesis was allegorical. From what I can make of their statement (NCSE has a link to it, yes I'm too lazy to look for it), they see the creation story as one about creation of the soul, not one about creation of the body. They let natural processes create the body, and they let God create the soul. They allowed both process to occur together (just like other miracles).

The problem is that a growing number of people are not willing to reconcile their faith with science, or even (in their own minds and hearts) hold to their unscientific beliefs in spite of science. Instead, they want to legally, publicly force science to conform with their faith. That's what this debate is about.


When I say reconcile, I mean being able to accept both concepts together (I don’t think I’m using the word in an incorrect sense). Let’s face it miracles are unscientific. That’s what makes them miracles. There is no scientific explanation for them. If science explained it, then it would no longer be a miracle. If Jesus walked on water because he had inflatable pontoons on his feet, then it wouldn’t be a miracle anymore, it would be an explained phenomenon. So yes, in order to believe in a miracle, you must hold it in spite of science. What I’m saying is that it’s possible to have your miracle (an unscientific explanation), and have a scientific explanation exist along side it too. I’m saying that’s done in the case of other miracles, and I don’t see why it can’t be done in the case of origin of man.

It seems to me that creationists have framed this discussion as being a mutually exclusive one. If God created man, then evolution couldn’t have, and vice versa. And everyone is starting from the assumption that that is so. Well I’m asking is it? Are natural processes and miracles (whether you believe in them or not) mutually exclusive? I think reconciliations are possible by allowing both processes to occur together. Do you?

[Xixax]

Originally posted by Zira_C
Whether you or I think miracles exist is beside the point. There are a large number of people who do think that miracles exist. Why can’t they be allowed to reconcile the two by allowing them the same reconciliation they use for everything else (or at least I think they use for everything else)? Why must creation of man be the one miracle that is mutually exclusive with natural processes.

They are allowed in any meaningful sense. I just don't see why natural processes aren't miraculous enough for them. I for one am in awe when I think of how powerful the long term effects of natural laws can be. There is no further miracle needed. I personally believe, by lack of evidence to the contrary, that everything is a result of natural processes. However, if they want to believe that God set the natural laws in place at some point in the unknowable past ( "before" that nice big bang thing ), they are more than welcome to. If they mean the God of the Christian Bible... well, I may have something to say about that particular God, but it wouldn't be a conflict over any issue of biology.

I don’t think we can say that science (which is silent on the concept of the supernatural) has disproved (or even can disprove) this.

No more than it can prove or disprove everything was created twenty minutes ago with the appearance of age and past. The fact is though, science can provide evidence against this in that we share hereditary features with other living organisms. Hardly something we would expect to find if we were created separately from the dust of the earth.

And if it can’t then how can we tell the 47% of Americans who believe in a miraculous creation (and who may not even be creationist) that their miracle has been disproved by science (where no other miracle they know of has been disproved by science)?

Because it, for the most part, has been disproved as mentioned above. At the same time, why can't they accept what we know is true, common descent, and reconcile that with creation by believing that is how God chose to create us? That seems more reasonable ( and I strain to use that word when believing in a deity ) than believing in a "poof" creation from the dust when we have evidence against it.

How do you see it, do you think they have opportunity to reconcile their faith with science, or must they abandon their faith in order to accept science?

Of course not, unless their faith is based on bad science, which it shouldn't be. That is where these creationists are doing their faith and religion the most harm, probably without realizing it. If they continue to build up false battles between faith and science, they will continue to alienate large numbers of believers when science confirms what it has found to be true thus far. The more evidence we have for evolution, the more they will lose believers who have fallen for their lies.

They need to let science explain the natural, and let their religion and faith explain the supernatural. Science has no interest in the supernatural, it can't operate there. Religion and faith needs to realize the same holds true in reverse.

[Zira_C]

Xixax, I agree with most of what you say, but I still think I’m missing you with my point. The point I’ve been trying to make is that miracles are reconciled by allowing both processes to go on contemporaneously, not by having one process occur somewhere in the distant past, then when that’s over, have the other process occur. Your big bang scenario does not have God miraculously creating man, it has God miraculously creating evolution. Your scenario doesn’t reconcile miraculous creation with natural descent, your scenario simply eliminates the need for a reconciliation by eliminating the miraculous creation. Doing it that way still makes them mutually exclusive, if a theist is to accept evolution, they must abandon the concept of a miraculous creation. I’m trying to say that that need not be.

You seem to have a picture of reconciliation where theists say that evolution is how God created man. I’m saying great, it would be nice if they did that but I’m also saying that many don’t. More importantly, I’m saying that another reconciliation exists, one that has existed for other miracles; and that is to let both processes occur together temporally without one effecting the other.

I understand your point about creationists, they are blinded by faith to the point where black is white, but just bear with me, lets get off the creationists for a second. Lets look at the 47% of people in the Gallup poll I previously posted who think we were created (these are just average Joe’s not necessarily creationists). If reconciling miracles and natural processes will get them to no longer see evolution as a threat, then shouldn’t we be encouraging them to do that any way they can, not just the way we think they should? YEC and ID sure aren’t encouraging reconciliation. Their whole premise exists on selling people the idea that there is no reconciliation. It’s one or the other so choose; and the fight is on. Why are we playing into that? The less people thinking there is a conflict, the less motivation there is to destroy evolution I think.

[Don’t get me wrong, I know the straight forward thing to do would be to say c’mon theists, the world works just fine without layering a God on top of every explanation, suck it up and wake up, miracle shmiracle… Oh if it were only that easy]

[Xixax]

I know what you mean, but I just don't think it's any better than letting them not reconcile it at all. If you remove humans from evolution and make them a product of special creation, there is little advantage for us that evolutionary biology research can provide.

They might as well toss out all of science and just take "the good book"'s word for it.

Reconcile by believing God seeded "life" even, but to say we are a product of a miraculous creation but the rest of nature is a result of evolution flies in the face of the evidence. The same evidence that links us to other animals links animals to other animals.

I agree that we don't need to present evolution and faith as mutually exclusive ideas, but I don't think the way to do that is to let them have a miracle that doesn't exist. It's dishonest.

[Zira_C]

I’m not saying we are a product of miraculous creation separate from the rest of nature, I’m saying Adam is a product of special creation separate from nature. Where does it say, in science or otherwise, that we are all descendants of this guy called Adam (aren’t there a bunch of omitted books and skipped over begats in the Bible anyway)?

So Adam was created. That makes him my great grandfather because what, Henry Morris said so?