YEC fear of Theistic evoltion justified?

[QED]

This thread is intended to address the hysteric paranoia that is common among creationists about the potential compatability of Biblical Christianity with mainstream biology, cosmology, and geology.

Why does Socrates, in this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=107914#post107914) and this one (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=107916#post107916) so adamantly - and hysterically - propound the idea that theistic evolution is a "compromise" with atheism, and also the greatest friend of atheists?

Why do Werner Gitt and Don Batten have articles on AiG stretching and reaching for ways that theistic evolution can be construed to carry perceived theological problems?

Is it an honest effort to keep Christians away from dangerous compromises?

Or is it that they are terrified that mainstream science and the Bible might really be compatible - and that Christians who realize this might not be forced to choose Creationist pseudoscience over the real thing, deflating the egos and bankrupting the organizations that depend on it?

Based on the frivoloty of the charges leveled against theistic evolution, and based on the fact that the attacks against it include ad hominem, lies, paranoia, and little else, I am putting my money on the latter explanation.

I shall begin by reposting a quote from a post by Vorkosigan:

But, sadly, there are prominent scientists, like the Harvard sociobiologist E.O.Wilson, who left their earlier Christian experience to become atheists because they faced hostility to evolution. Arguably, attacks by well-meaning Christians on evolution promote rather than counteract atheism.

This is a straightforward sounding statement of why theistic evolutionists are keen to critique creationism. It is also very shallow and superficial. Who is to say that E.O. Wilson was ever truly committed to the faith, if he is so easily scared away from it by creationist attacks on science? But the point is, on the surface, quite valid. It is the modern echo of a much older point of view: that Christianity associating itself with non-sense pseudoscience is a stumbling block to evangelism.

How does the creationist side respond? Socrates responds:

Yet the evidence from both AiG and the atheist here such as Vork and Korihor is that the compromisers at CIS as well as the likes of Lamoureux confirm them in their atheism by offering no challenges to this faith system.

In other words, the sin of theistic evolutionists is simply that they do not condemn evolution. Well, of course not - if the goal is to show the compatability between scripture and mainstream science so as to remove a stumbling block!

Socrates continues his response:

It's significant that anti-Christians everywhere target creationist organisations, showing that they are the only ones that truly are a threat to their faith.

Socrates (with high hopes) suggests that the fact that creationist organizations are attacked by "anti-Christians" is indicative of the "power" of Creationism. I suggest, alternatively, that this is merely his ego talking. Why?

Creationists are criticized by scientists of all faiths, including atheists and Christians. This indicates that it is the power of the pseudoscience (to confuse scientific issues) that is under attack, not the power of the Chreationist theology to evangelize.

But there are other reasons that I believe Socrates' suggestion is wrong, and I will discuss them as I continue this post.

I shall now move on to Augustine - a source that maybe everyone here will listen to with temperance, on the one hand because he was a committed Christian who found the Young Earth interpretation most convincing, and on the other because he was among the first to see the dangers to the Christian witness that come from binding Christianity to pseudoscience and narrow interpretations of scripture. Perhaps it was his experience with the heresies and pseudoscience of the Manicheans that taught him such caution. Nevertheless, his message is a sensible one.

It would be outrageous to believe that this YEC Christian from centuries before Darwin gave this warning in order to "compromise" with "atheists":

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.... Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

-Quoted in The Contemporary Relevance of Augustine's view of Creation, by Davis A. Young (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF3-88Young.html)

Likewise, it would be outrageous to believe that this 17th century echo of Augustine's view is an excuse to compromise with atheism or evolution:

It were happy for us if we could exempt Scripture from philosophical controversies. If we could be content to let it be perfect for that end unto which it was intended, for a Rule of our Faith and Obedience, and not to stretch it to be a Judge of such natural truths as are to be found out by our own industry and experience.

- John Wilkins

Augustine and Wilkins are attempting to protect the faith from scientific controversy. No one here will question their motives. But, if a modern Theistic evolutionist repeats the same argument, they are supposedly giving comfort to the enemies of Christ!

How does Socrates respond? By pretending that it is myself and Vork instead of unbiased, non-evolutionist Christians:

Of course, it suits adherents to the faith of materialism like QED and Vork to have compromisers who divorce the Bible from the "real world" of history. Much safer for them to relegate the Bible to allegedly subjective issues of faith and morality. It also means that Christians are less likely to object to evolutionary propaganda, because the atheists pat them on the head and say "Yes you can believe the Bible in matters of faith, but it's not a book about history".

Based on his words in his last two sentences, it is obvious that Socrates believes the Bible is a book about history, and that faith and morality are so unimportant that a belief that the Bible is intended to address them (such as Wilkins held) is a "relegation". Wilkins, Augustine, and St. Paul (according to 2Tim 3:16), all disagree with Socrates insistence that faith and morality are secondary and history is the main purpose of the Bible. What "materialistic" interests where these three Christians trying to protect?

Why does the expressed agreement with them by modern theistic evolutionists provoke such impassioned attacks from the likes of Socrates?

In my signature, I have a Biblical passage which I have seen Creationists use against theistic evolutionists, begging the question that evolution is the vain deception, rather than scientific creationism. I suggest that such question-begging can cut both ways - that the science of evolution and the pseudoscience of creationism are both traditions of men, as are the concommitant interpretations of scripture. This is surely the case, as I will show shortly. This suggestion seems to bring about such an hysterical reaction from Socrates that he is willing to resort to lies and ad hominem, instead of conceding the point or defending the infallibility of his exegesis.


Then QED quotes this excellent passage of Scripture in his sig, but of course as a committed anti-Christian he doesn't understand it a bit:

Once again, for anyone who is new here. My stated and actual position is not anti-Christian. It is pro-Christian. My stated and actual position is anti-creationism. Socrates is quite aware of this, yet he lies, saying that I am an anti-Christian. Socrates very specifically violates the forum rules, during a period when he knows that the forum is under heavy moderation, and after he has already had past posts containing this slanderous lie moderated. This is a mark of desparation, and I'm sure it will be duly noted by all here.

He doesn't stop with me. He indicts honest and faithful theistic evolutionists without even attempting to support his accusation with facts:

This of course applies so well to the compromisers, who do not take Christ at His word in supporting a recent Creation, a global Flood, and the reality of Jonah and the great sea creature. Instead, they adopt the materialistic belief system of atheists that God has not acted miraculously in Earth history, but euphemise it as "methodological naturalism".

Of course theistic evolutionists practice methodological naturalism in their scientific work. Socrates, if he is honest, will admit that his doctoral thesis was consistent with methodological naturalism. He didn't invoke the supernatural as an explanation for a single chemical behavior in this doctoral thesis.

And of course, the fact that theistic evolutionists practice methodological naturalism in their science does not mean, as Socrates would have you believe, that they believe God never intervened miraculously in nature. This is a falsehood.

And, of course, the fact that theistic evolutionists interpret Genesis, and perhaps even the words of Christ differently from Socrates does not mean that they dispute the word of Christ. This is another falsehood. They do dispute Socrates' interpretation of Christ's words as support for recent Creation, and a global flood. Some of them may also dispute Socrates' interpretation of Christ's words as support for the historicity of the story of Jonah and the 'whale', though I don't know specifically of that. As a class, they do not deny the words of Christ - they deny the interpretation of Socrates. This is the fourth consecutive falsehood in Socrates' hysterical attack on theistic evolution.

An argument that relies on so many falsehoods should be held in the highest suspicion!!!!!!

But Socrates does make a feeble plea that his interpretation really is God's word - "uninfected" as it were by anyone else's interpretation. After I point out that YEC is a tradition of men, he says:

Actually, it's what follows from the teachings of Christ uninefected by the principles of the world like materialism. That's why it was the consistent teaching of Josephus, the Church Fathers and Reformers, since they interpreted Scripture without the pollutant of naturalism.

The irony here should be obvious to anyone. Socrates relies upon tradition to prove that his view is valid. If that doesn't qualify his interpretation as a tradition of men, I do not know what is. The simple fact is that - while a literalist interpretation has been the most historically popular, it is still an interpretation, and still subject to error from man's fallibility. Even so, Augustine (who also held to the Young Earth interpretation and was a staunch literalist) was able to see the prosaic natural interpretation of the creation week as no more "literal" than a spiritual interpertation. He was sincere, and uninfluenced by modern materialism or even methodological naturalism in his conclusion that the creation week was properly interpreted as a metaphor used to communicate a timeless creative action to time-bound humans.

YEC type literalism and the types of interpretations accustomed to by theistic evolutionists are based on hermeneutic approaches that are man-made. Each has his argument for considering the validity of his own. YEC type literalism does have much to recommend it, and no one can blame a YEC type literalist for holding that view.

One can blame the YEC for insisting that science confirm that view when it does not. If the YEC wishes to hold that view in contravention to observational science, that is his right.

He should be honest enough to admit the same, instead of building a megalithic enterprise devoted to denying the validity of the science and to proposing pseudoscientific alternatives. Science is observation - not absolute truth. As such, it claims only to give answers from observation. In reporting those answers - even if they are ultimately wrong or mistaken - science does not err. Scientists should recognize that science is not omniscient, and should not criticize a faith-position on the basis of science. Likewise, those who hold the view from faith should not criticize the observation-based view on the basis of faith. They should recognize that the view stems from a different methodology. They should advocate their own methodology of faith as the best means for learning about nature, instead of trying to confuse the world about the difference between their view and the observation-based view.

The honest thing for the person who is committed to the YEC interpretation to do is to announce to the world: "This is how I interpret scripture. It means that I do not believe that the answer from science is accurate, but I cannot see a better way to interpret the scripture, and on this faith I will stand. I hope you will join me there. Here, let me explain to you, from a theological and scriptural perspective, why I see this view as best, and why I think that the correct interpretation of scripture is inconsistent with scientific answers to some of the same questions."

Instead of this honesty, we see attacks, ad hominem, lies, and falsehoods, designed to scare the curious Christian into believing science is incompatible with the Biblical God.

[Socratism]

QED,

I shall now move on to Augustine - a source that maybe everyone here will listen to with temperance, on the one hand because he was a committed Christian who found the Young Earth interpretation most convincing, and on the other because he was among the first to see the dangers to the Christian witness that come from binding Christianity to pseudoscience and narrow interpretations of scripture. Perhaps it was his experience with the heresies and pseudoscience of the Manicheans that taught him such caution. Nevertheless, his message is a sensible one.

Unfortunately, although a Christian, Augustine’s experience with heresies did not alert him to the fact that he was committing an even greater one by teaching that scripture must bow to contemporary science whenever there is a conflict between the two (sort of like many people feel today). The extremes that this led him to can be illustrated by the fact that he agreed with the Greek tradition that it didn’t take 6 days (as scripture teaches) for God to create the universe, instead he went along with Greek thinking that the task must have been done instantaneously. Thus, he came to believe that any scripture that disagreed with his early Greek training should be considered “symbolic”, for this approach would prevent scripture from being laughed to scorn by the world of the time.

In contrast St. Paul stated that scripture was “foolishness” to the Greeks (non-Christians), and refused to compromise with the world.


Augustine and Wilkins are attempting to protect the faith from scientific controversy. No one here will question their motives. But, if a modern Theistic evolutionist repeats the same argument, they are supposedly giving comfort to the enemies of Christ!

Although it is true that no one questions their motives, both Augustine and Wilkins also give aid and comfort to the enemies of God by their belief that contempory thought on Origins must be true and therefore scripture must have been speaking “symbolically”. They apparently have more faith in fallible human wisdom than a straightforward interpretation of the revelation from God throughout all of scripture, including the words of Jesus Christ Himself as well as Paul and the Apostles..

With “friends” like Augustine and Wilkins who needs enemies?


The honest thing for the person who is committed to the YEC interpretation to do is to announce to the world: "This is how I interpret scripture. It means that I do not believe that the answer from science is accurate, but I cannot see a better way to interpret the scripture, and on this faith I will stand. I hope you will join me there. Here, let me explain to you, from a theological and scriptural perspective, why I see this view as best, and why I think that the correct interpretation of scripture is inconsistent with scientific answers to some of the same questions."

Instead of this honesty, we see attacks, ad hominem, lies, and falsehoods, designed to scare the curious Christian into believing science is incompatible with the Biblical God.

Since I believe that scripture is incompatible with modern theories of Origins and since I also believe on scientific grounds that modern theories of Origins are demonstrably false, it would be a great lie for me to state that my disagreement with modern theories of Origins is based solely on my own personal interpretation of scripture.

I have already testified that I rejected evolution on scientific grounds prior to becoming interested in studying scripture. Many scientists at AiG have told similar stories. Your demand that they lie in order to satisfy your own belief in false modern theories of Origins is incredibly egotistical.

[$cirisme]

I don't know anyone who "fears" Theistic "evoltion", OR Theistic evolution.

:huh:

[Piebald]

/ot speak for yourself, theistic evoltion haunts my nightmares.

[QED]

Socratism:


Unfortunately, although a Christian, Augustine’s experience with heresies did not alert him to the fact that he was committing an even greater one by teaching that scripture must bow to contemporary science whenever there is a conflict between the two (sort of like many people feel today).

He didn't teach that. This is a false-hood by implication, the mark of a desparate attack, motivated by fear. He taught (rightly or wrongly) that interpretation of scripture must be consistent with observation of the real world, and that otherwise the interpretation was in error.


I also believe on scientific grounds that modern theories of Origins are demonstrably false, it would be a great lie for me to state that my disagreement with modern theories of Origins is based solely on my own personal interpretation of scripture.

You do not believe, on scientific grounds, that modern theories of science are false. This is impossible - the argument on scientific grounds has failed over and over again. You have, perhaps, been deceived by the pseudoscientific arguments at AiG (yes, that the creationist arguments are pseudoscientific is quite easily demonstrable). You may honestly believe that junk. But, if you were honest with yourself & the rest of us, you would admit that your interpretation of scripture prevents you from assessing the evidence in the spirit of real scientific inquiry - that is, looking for answers from observation alone - and accepting the answers that are found there.

It does seem very arrogant of me to accuse you of not being honest with yourself on this point, but you insist that you have "scientific grounds" for rejecting an old earth and evolution, yet you are completely unable to give a compelling scientific reason for doing so. Your best attempts so far have been attempt so undermine a single line of evidence here or there that supports mainstream scientific views. You have not come close to being able to present a testable model, or to present evidence falsifying the mainstream view. I would humbly ask you to reconsider whether you have scientific grounds for your view or if, instead, you have a practiced ability to interpret limited observational evidence in light of your faith-based view. If your answer is to continue your insistence that you have scientific grounds, I will not further dispute your claim, but will make every effort to point out to you and others in the forum why the grounds you rely on are pseudoscientific.

[QED]

Today @ 06:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=108171#post108171)
cirisme:

I don't know anyone who "fears" Theistic "evoltion", OR Theistic evolution.

:huh:

It is a deduction of mine from the intemperance and vacuity of Creationist attacks on theistic evolution that they are motivated by fear for the loss of YEC stature in the Christian community.

[TheFiveSolas]

QED,

You are yielding a two-edged sword on this one.

For instance, Vork posted in another thread that evolutionists fight creationists because they fear what they would do to their "freedom" if they ever came to power. In addition, evolutionists like yourself have been "hysterically paranoid" in your claims that anyone who would "compromise" by linking science to creation would be engaging in "pseudoscience".

It seems your sword can be turned effectively back upon your own position as well.

[QED]

FiveSolas -

You are right to note that evolutionist behavior can be criticized on occasion. Please bear in mind that I am not talking about the general creation/evolution debate - where individuals from both sides show the capacity to at least attempt a substantive argument. I am talkingvery specifically about the creationist attack on theistic evolution, which relies almost exclusively on falsehood, lies, invective and ad hominem. You will find no parallel for this in the general debate.

[TheFiveSolas]

QED,

Thanks for the clarification of what you were focusing on.

(We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming)

[Socrates]

QED:This thread is intended to address the hysteric paranoia that is common among creationists about the potential compatability of Biblical Christianity with mainstream biology, cosmology, and geology. Coming from someone who has not demonstrated the slightest respect for Biblical authority, that's a joke.

QED:Why does Socrates, in this post and this one so adamantly - and hysterically - propound the idea that theistic evolution is a "compromise" with atheism, and also the greatest friend of atheists? Quite obviously, because I see rabid atheists like Korihor encouraging theistic evolutionists like Lamoureux to participate and help do his dirty work of undermining Biblical authority.

QED:Why do Werner Gitt and Don Batten have articles on AiG stretching and reaching for ways that theistic evolution can be construed to carry perceived theological problems? And these highly qualified scientists back up their claims with logical arguments and sound exegesis.

QED:Is it an honest effort to keep Christians away from dangerous compromises?Yes.

QED:Or is it that they are terrified that mainstream science and the Bible might really be compatible - and that Christians who realize this might not be forced to choose Creationist pseudoscience over the real thing, deflating the egos and bankrupting the organizations that depend on it? What a pathetic argument, as well as a ridiculous ad hominem. For example, AiG's newletters make it clear that Ken Ham and other founders made great financial sacrifices to start the organisation, and other speakers have testified that they took big salary cuts to work at AiG. So the best financial thing for them is for AiG to become bankrupt so they could get far higher earning jobs.

Rather, it's because the leading creationist organisations see the destructive effects of compromise on the professed faith of young Christians, and the restoration of faith when Christians stand firm on biblical authority.

QED:Based on the frivoloty of the charges leveled against theistic evolution, and based on the fact that the attacks against it include ad hominem, lies, paranoia, and little else, I am putting my money on the latter explanation. A nice wee elephant hurl, as expected from QED.

QED:I shall begin by reposting a quote from a post by Vorkosigan: A known active atheist.


But, sadly, there are prominent scientists, like the Harvard sociobiologist E.O.Wilson, who left their earlier Christian experience to become atheists because they faced hostility to evolution. Arguably, attacks by well-meaning Christians on evolution promote rather than counteract atheism.

QED: But the point is, on the surface, quite valid. It is the modern echo of a much older point of view: that Christianity associating itself with non-sense pseudoscience is a stumbling block to evangelism. The only pseudoscience that so much of today's churchians compromise is evolution from goo to you via the zoo.

QED:How does the creationist side respond? Socrates responds:
Yet the evidence from both AiG and the atheist here such as Vork and Korihor is that the compromisers at CIS as well as the likes of Lamoureux confirm them in their atheism by offering no challenges to this faith system.

QED:In other words, the sin of theistic evolutionists is simply that they do not condemn evolution. Well, of course not - if the goal is to show the compatability between scripture and mainstream science so as to remove a stumbling block! No, their sin is that they provide no challenge to the materialist paradigm, just that atheists are more consistent with it.

QED:Socrates continues his response:
It's significant that anti-Christians everywhere target creationist organisations, showing that they are the only ones that truly are a threat to their faith.

QED:Socrates (with high hopes) suggests that the fact that creationist organizations are attacked by "anti-Christians" is indicative of the "power" of Creationism. I suggest, alternatively, that this is merely his ego talking. Why? No, it's a plain statement of fact, based on Jesus's teaching that the world hates his true followers. And it happens to be true that infidels hardly bother with theistic evolutionists, indicating that they are no threat to them.

And even on TWeb, the most vociferous defenders of evolution are atheists, as is true of the leading evolutionary propagandists.

QED:Creationists are criticized by scientists of all faiths, including atheists and Christians. Actually, people of one faith, materialism, euphemized as methodological naturalism. Sadly, even genuine Christians have bought into the fallacious fact-value and regarded the Bible as merely a book for private faith, not a record of real history. We see this in politics too, with the odious "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but we shouldn't impose personal morality on a woman's right to choose." And in my long experience, most professing Christians who support evolution have suspect views on other doctrines such as biblical authority and miracles.

QED:I shall now move on to Augustine - a source that maybe everyone here will listen to with temperance, on the one hand because he was a committed Christian who found the Young Earth interpretation most convincing, and on the other because he was among the first to see the dangers to the Christian witness that come from binding Christianity to pseudoscience and narrow interpretations of scripture. Yes indeed, but of course YEC is not a narrow view, but the result of established hermeneutical principles that notes that there is no difference between Genesis 1-11 and 12-50, in either style or the way it is understood in the NT.

QED:But, if a modern Theistic evolutionist repeats the same argument, they are supposedly giving comfort to the enemies of Christ! No, the modern TE is actually denying that the Bible is a true record of history. And it's not just me who thinks they are giving comfort to enemies of Christ, but the enemies of Christ himself. E.g. Korihor and Eugenie Scott, known atheists, love to parade compromising churchians to support the evolution that is so essential for their atheistic faith.

QED:How does Socrates respond? By pretending that it is myself and Vork instead of unbiased, non-evolutionist Christians:
Of course, it suits adherents to the faith of materialism like QED and Vork to have compromisers who divorce the Bible from the "real world" of history. Much safer for them to relegate the Bible to allegedly subjective issues of faith and morality. It also means that Christians are less likely to object to evolutionary propaganda, because the atheists pat them on the head and say "Yes you can believe the Bible in matters of faith, but it's not a book about history".

QED:Based on his words in his last two sentences, it is obvious that Socrates believes the Bible is a book about history, and that faith and morality are so unimportant that a belief that the Bible is intended to address them (such as Wilkins held) is a "relegation". Wilkins, Augustine, and St. Paul (according to 2Tim 3:16), all disagree with Socrates insistence that faith and morality are secondary and history is the main purpose of the Bible. What "materialistic" interests where these three Christians trying to protect? I never said secondary; I said that faith and morality can't be divorced from history and gave examples. 2Tim 3:16 says that ALL Scripture is God-breathed, not just the parts about faith and morality.


Then QED quotes this excellent passage of Scripture in his sig, but of course as a committed anti-Christian he doesn't understand it a bit:

QED:Once again, for anyone who is new here. My stated and actual position is not anti-Christian. It is pro-Christian. There has not been the slighest evidence of this, but rather of a complete contempt for Biblical authority and yoking with known atheists against the Bible. So if it looks like a dog, barks like a dog, smells like a dog, and joins other dogs in attacking the cats, then why should the cat trust him when he claims to be really pro-cat?

QED:My stated and actual position is anti-creationism. Socrates is quite aware of this, yet he lies, saying that I am an anti-Christian. It's not a lie, since I sincerely believe you are anti-Christian based on your posts here. And in one sense, any non-Christian is anti-Christian, since Jesus said that anyone not for Him is against Him. But QED has repeatedly gone further and attacked the authority of the Bible which was paramount for Him.

QED:He doesn't stop with me. He indicts honest and faithful theistic evolutionists without even attempting to support his accusation with facts:
This of course applies so well to the compromisers, who do not take Christ at His word in supporting a recent Creation, a global Flood, and the reality of Jonah and the great sea creature. Instead, they adopt the materialistic belief system of atheists that God has not acted miraculously in Earth history, but euphemise it as "methodological naturalism".

E.g. Kenneth Miller explicitly states that Genesis is a myth, contrary to the consistent interpretation throughout Scripture that it is real history.

QED:Of course theistic evolutionists practice methodological naturalism in their scientific work. Socrates, if he is honest, will admit that his doctoral thesis was consistent with methodological naturalism. He didn't invoke the supernatural as an explanation for a single chemical behavior in this doctoral thesis. And I have repeatedly explained that there is a huge difference between practising MN for the PRESENT, when God's main work is regular SUSTENANCE of His creation; and invoking MN for Earth history where God has plainly revealed that He acted supernaturally to created different kinds, curse Creation because of Adam's sin, judge the world by a global Flood, and confuse languages at Babel.

QED:And, of course, the fact that theistic evolutionists interpret Genesis, and perhaps even the words of Christ differently from Socrates does not mean that they dispute the word of Christ. This is another falsehood. They do dispute Socrates' interpretation of Christ's words as support for recent Creation, and a global flood. Some of them may also dispute Socrates' interpretation of Christ's words as support for the historicity of the story of Jonah and the 'whale', though I don't know specifically of that. As a class, they do not deny the words of Christ - they deny the interpretation of Socrates. This is the fourth consecutive falsehood in Socrates' hysterical attack on theistic evolution. Not false at all, because "interpret differently" is just code for "disbelieve". No-one would get away with this if we decided to "reinterpret" Dawkins' book to support special creation.

QED:But Socrates does make a feeble plea that his interpretation really is God's word - "uninfected" as it were by anyone else's interpretation. After I point out that YEC is a tradition of men, he says:
Actually, it's what follows from the teachings of Christ uninefected by the principles of the world like materialism. That's why it was the consistent teaching of Josephus, the Church Fathers and Reformers, since they interpreted Scripture without the pollutant of naturalism.

QED:The irony here should be obvious to anyone. Socrates relies upon tradition to prove that his view is valid. If that doesn't qualify his interpretation as a tradition of men, I do not know what is. Nonsense -- I have always justified YEC from the Biblical text. The above was to show that great commentators have always interpreted it that was -- when they relied on the text itself (i.e. the Word of God) rather than the traditions of men (e.g. methodogical naturalism).

QED:The simple fact is that - while a literalist interpretation has been the most historically popular, it is still an interpretation, and still subject to error from man's fallibility.It is the interpretation that follows the grammatical-historical approach. QED's existentialist nonsense that one interpretation is as good as another would never be allowed for the sorts of writings he believes.

QED: Even so, Augustine (who also held to the Young Earth interpretation and was a staunch literalist) was able to see the prosaic natural interpretation of the creation week as no more "literal" than a spiritual interpertation. He was sincere, and uninfluenced by modern materialism or even methodological naturalism in his conclusion that the creation week was properly interpreted as a metaphor used to communicate a timeless creative action to time-bound humans. Actually, Augustine was part of the Alexandrian school which was influenced by neo-platonism.

[QED]

I see I hit a nerve. I cannot hang around to unweave the web that Socrates has left for me tonight, but I will be back to it shortly. In the meantime, let's look at this rare glimpse of honesty he left us with:


It is the interpretation that follows the grammatical-historical approach.

Thank you for confirming again that your interpretation comes from a particular man-made approach. Goodnight for now.

[Dee Dee Warren]

QED, I do not AT ALL care for the tone of your opening post which I find to be unnecessarily and way overly inflammatory. It will remain, but my objections are noted. I would have objected to some of Soc's characterizations, such as "rabid," but in light of your opening post, I found his response quite controlled and NOT responding in kind. You cast blanket slanderous aspersions that are wholly inappropriate, especially right now. If you want specific examples I will provide them. I would think it is pretty obvious.

[AtheistArchon]

- I personally think QED is dead on. He's put much more time and effort into responding to Soc than Soc's commentary is worth, IMHO.

- Inflammatory? Soc supposedly stands upon the pillars of science and then claims biblical authority from them, despite their contradictory nature. He does not use science in any way, shape, or form in any of his arguments... they all assume biblical literalism (a-la YEC-ism) as a prerequisite, which negates the value of science to begin with. His responses here and elsewhere reflect that.

- I don't think that attacking someone for their narrow views (i.e. excluding members of even their own faith) is grounds for a warning. Especaially when the target admits as much.

[Socrates]

Well golly gosh, an overt atheist like AA thinks he's in a position to tell a Christian who his fellow Christians are. But once again, it's significant that the likes of AA don't even bother with theistic evolutionary compromisers, since there is no practical difference between them and atheists when it comes to world history.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Atheist Archon, please refrain from commenting on Moderator decisions in the thread. That post was indeed highly inflammatory regardless of whether you agree (it is possible to agree with inflammatory things) and if it had been made by a creationist, I would have had several calls to censor it. You have agreed it is an attack, but because it is an "attack" you agree with, it is peachy. Now suppose I were to "attack" the atheists in such a way.... All of a sudden things are different. We are also in a period of heavy moderation, and as such the tone is inappropriate.


I will elucidate one point and further comment on hypocrisy (not yours Atheist Archon at all nor that of some other posters), but in general in this area. QED used this phrase "This thread is intended to address the hysteric paranoia that is common among creationists about the potential compatability of Biblical Christianity with mainstream biology, cosmology, and geology." Yet Soc just got reported for daring to use the phrase "childish" with regards to one particular comment. Come on folks, let's get real here.

[AtheistArchon]

Atheist Archon, please refrain from commenting on Moderator decisions in the thread.

- Okay.

- But it's censorship when you can speak out and nobody else can talk to you about it or comment on it. If we're relegated to PM's and emails in such situations, then the mods should correspondingly refrain from making "immune" comments within the threads.

- On the flipside, I have nothing but praise for the mods of these forums thus far, especially when compared to other Christian forums available. I would just hate to see any of them here get too cynical (like me! =) ).

[TheFiveSolas]

Dee Dee:
Atheist Archon, please refrain from commenting on Moderator decisions in the thread.

Atheist Archon:
- Okay.


Atheist then goes on to call TWeb's rule "censorship". :doh:

(Child reaches for the cookie jar)

(Mother says, its almost dinner time so you can't have a cookie)

(Child says, "Okay Mom")

(Child then reaches for cookie jar)

:rofl:

[AtheistArchon]

- Hehe, I'm sorry. It's just a pet peeve of mine.

- It's actually how I got banned from CF. But then again, the mods over there are so... sensitive. =D

- Anyhow, I'll drop it now. Zip!

[Morpheus]

to socrates.


No, their [theistic evolutionists] sin is that they provide no challenge to the materialist paradigm, just that atheists are more consistent with it.

maybe you don't understand what materialism is. it is the view that all that exists is the material world. now, a theistic evolutionist obviously believes in some sort of supernatural being (hence, "theistic"). so i don't see how you can claim that theistic evolution presents no challenge to materialism, because it posits the existence of something that can't exist under a materialist paradigm.


And it happens to be true that infidels hardly bother with theistic evolutionists, indicating that they are no threat to them.

no. with regard to evolution atheists may not bother with them, since they agree there, but they deal with theistic evolutionists just as much as yec-ists on other issues. theistic evolutionists believe in a god, which is obviously a threat to atheism. many theistic evolutionists (such as myself) believe in the literal, physical resurrection of jesus christ, which is clearly a threat to atheism. atheists have to deal with theistic evolutionists as well as yec-ists on these issues, which greatly outnumber the single creation-evolution debate.


And in my long experience, most professing Christians who support evolution have suspect views on other doctrines such as biblical authority and miracles.

my experience would not coincide with yours. though a christian who is a theistic evolutionist is more likely to hold suspect views on these doctrines as opposed to a yec-ist, to say that "most" do is, from what i've seen, an exaggeration.

however, i think that the most important thing to remember through all of this is that insofar as one accepts and believes in the saving grace of god through jesus' death and resurrection, he is a christian regardless of how he interprets the creation account. would you not agree on this point?

regards.

[QED]

Today @ 03:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=108507#post108507)

Socrates:



QED:This thread is intended to address the hysteric paranoia that is common among creationists about the potential compatability of Biblical Christianity with mainstream biology, cosmology, and geology. Coming from someone who has not demonstrated the slightest respect for Biblical authority, that's a joke.



Coming from someonw who hasn't demonstrated the slightest comprehension of what "Authority" means, that's the sort of joke that makes you want to cry.



QED:Why does Socrates, in this post and this one so adamantly - and hysterically - propound the idea that theistic evolution is a "compromise" with atheism, and also the greatest friend of atheists? Quite obviously, because I see rabid atheists like Korihor encouraging theistic evolutionists like Lamoureux to participate and help do his dirty work of undermining Biblical authority.



Quite obviously not, since what theistic evolutionists undermine is the YEC ability to propagate the erroneous notion that science and the Bible are in conflict to begin with.




QED:Why do Werner Gitt and Don Batten have articles on AiG stretching and reaching for ways that theistic evolution can be construed to carry perceived theological problems? And these highly qualified scientists back up their claims with logical arguments and sound exegesis.


Actually not. I would be glad to quote from their article where they simply suggest that this or that "violates a concept" with no logical arguments or exegesis, and without mentioning how theistic evolutionists have already answered these so-called "concept violations". Or I could save you the embarrassment.



QED:Is it an honest effort to keep Christians away from dangerous compromises?Yes.



LOL. I hope so. If so, it will be possible for you to drop the arrogance and hysteria and have a reasoned debate with me about whether mainstream science and the Bible truly conflict, or whether mainstream science and certain interpretations of the Bible are where the true conflict lie!




QED:Or is it that they are terrified that mainstream science and the Bible might really be compatible - and that Christians who realize this might not be forced to choose Creationist pseudoscience over the real thing, deflating the egos and bankrupting the organizations that depend on it? What a pathetic argument, as well as a ridiculous ad hominem. For example, AiG's newletters make it clear that Ken Ham and other founders made great financial sacrifices to start the organisation, and other speakers have testified that they took big salary cuts to work at AiG. So the best financial thing for them is for AiG to become bankrupt so they could get far higher earning jobs.



Are you suggesting that any of the founders or staff actually want AiG to lose business? I have found that is rarely the case with media evangelists.




Rather, it's because the leading creationist organisations see the destructive effects of compromise on the professed faith of young Christians, and the restoration of faith when Christians stand firm on biblical authority.

Now if they would just see how important it is to preserve Biblical Authority by disentangling it from scientific theories that were proven false long ago, then everyone will be happy!



QED:Based on the frivoloty of the charges leveled against theistic evolution, and based on the fact that the attacks against it include ad hominem, lies, paranoia, and little else, I am putting my money on the latter explanation. A nice wee elephant hurl, as expected from QED.



A nice well-documented elephant hurl!




QED:I shall begin by reposting a quote from a post by Vorkosigan: A known active atheist.



Talk about rabid... A post from a known active atheist (a point which no one would ever have bothered to dispute) contains a quote from a Biblical Christian to which I refer, and your automatic ad hominem generator sees keyword atheist, and there you go... That's pitiful man. Control your reflexes.


QED: But the point is, on the surface, quite valid. It is the modern echo of a much older point of view: that Christianity associating itself with non-sense pseudoscience is a stumbling block to evangelism. The only pseudoscience that so much of today's churchians compromise is evolution from goo to you via the zoo.



OK, I tell you what. You get with Dee Dee & let's start a thread in the Boxing ring. Dee Dee uses a standard English language dictionary and posts a definition of "pseudoscience" that has diagnostic criteria. I will let the Journal of Evolution On-line edition represent evolution, you let the Answers in Genesis web-site represent creationism, and we shall have a contest to see who can identify more examples of the diagnostic features of pseudoscience from the other's representative literature.



Deal???




QED:How does the creationist side respond? Socrates responds:



QED:In other words, the sin of theistic evolutionists is simply that they do not condemn evolution. Well, of course not - if the goal is to show the compatability between scripture and mainstream science so as to remove a stumbling block! No, their sin is that they provide no challenge to the materialist paradigm, just that atheists are more consistent with it.



Their even worse sin is that they do not confuse methodological naturalism with a "materialist paradigm", and therefore they do not shoot themselves and the Christian witness in the foot by telling the world that Christianity is anti-scientific or that they are confused about the meaning of science.






QED:Socrates continues his response:

QED:Socrates (with high hopes) suggests that the fact that creationist organizations are attacked by "anti-Christians" is indicative of the "power" of Creationism. I suggest, alternatively, that this is merely his ego talking. Why? No, it's a plain statement of fact, based on Jesus's teaching that the world hates his true followers.

Let's see if I can follow the logic here. Whoever earns the most criticism is the most Godly? According to this view, maybe we should recognize that the Heaven's Gate cult is the persecuted faithful, and stop joining with the "world" to criticize them.

I think your persecution complex is just funny, especially considering the way you constantly spew vile invective against anyone and everyone you get a chance to, Socrates. Perhaps your behavior is meant to entice people to "persecute" you so that you can justify your egoic belief that you are the BEST Christian in the world?

Sure....


And it happens to be true that infidels hardly bother with theistic evolutionists, indicating that they are no threat to them.


It is telling that you think the best way to show your love of the Lord is by being a threat to infidels. Jesus witnessed to them and dined with them.


And even on TWeb, the most vociferous defenders of evolution are atheists, as is true of the leading evolutionary propagandists.


I'm sure they have their reasons. What better opportunity to make atheism look good than by showing off the obvious weaknesses of the Creationist "alternative?"



QED:Creationists are criticized by scientists of all faiths, including atheists and Christians. Actually, people of one faith, materialism, euphemized as methodological naturalism.


Methodological naturalism is not a faith, and it is all that is needed to conclude that evolution and an old earth are correct.


Sadly, even genuine Christians have bought into the fallacious fact-value and regarded the Bible as merely a book for private faith, not a record of real history.

Paul seems to agree with the genuine Christians that Socrates is complaining about. 2 Tim 3:16.


We see this in politics too, with the odious "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but we shouldn't impose personal morality on a woman's right to choose." And in my long experience, most professing Christians who support evolution have suspect views on other doctrines such as biblical authority and miracles.

Nice wee elephant hurl there, Socrates. As expected.


QED:I shall now move on to Augustine - a source that maybe everyone here will listen to with temperance, on the one hand because he was a committed Christian who found the Young Earth interpretation most convincing, and on the other because he was among the first to see the dangers to the Christian witness that come from binding Christianity to pseudoscience and narrow interpretations of scripture. Yes indeed, but of course YEC is not a narrow view, but the result of established hermeneutical principles that notes that there is no difference between Genesis 1-11 and 12-50, in either style or the way it is understood in the NT.



YEC is indeed a narrow view, because it requires a number of distinct passages to have very distinctinct interpretations, and fails if even one or two of those passages are correctly interpreted differently - yet, it does not acknowledge the possibility that it could fail at all.


QED:But, if a modern Theistic evolutionist repeats the same argument, they are supposedly giving comfort to the enemies of Christ! No, the modern TE is actually denying that the Bible is a true record of history.

The Bible never claims to be a true and complete record of history. It claims to be a true and complete message from God, concerning man's relationship to God.

The Bible doesn't claim or require that a naturalistic and historical interpretation is the only true or literal interpretation, at all.



And it's not just me who thinks they are giving comfort to enemies of Christ, but the enemies of Christ himself. E.g. Korihor and Eugenie Scott, known atheists, love to parade compromising churchians to support the evolution that is so essential for their atheistic faith.

Bleh??? Could you explain the difference between a "churchian" and a "Christian"? Could you prove that Lamoureaux (for instance) is the one, rather than the other? Did you know that the atomic theory is essential for atheism, too? Does that mean that Christians who accept it are double agents?



QED:How does Socrates respond? By pretending that it is myself and Vork instead of unbiased, non-evolutionist Christians:


QED:Based on his words in his last two sentences, it is obvious that Socrates believes the Bible is a book about history, and that faith and morality are so unimportant that a belief that the Bible is intended to address them (such as Wilkins held) is a "relegation". Wilkins, Augustine, and St. Paul (according to 2Tim 3:16), all disagree with Socrates insistence that faith and morality are secondary and history is the main purpose of the Bible. What "materialistic" interests where these three Christians trying to protect? I never said secondary; I said that faith and morality can't be divorced from history and gave examples. 2Tim 3:16 says that ALL Scripture is God-breathed, not just the parts about faith and morality.

2Tim 3:16 says that ALL Scripture is about faith and morality, not just the parts that have nothing to do with history. This is, perhaps, the biggest point of all. That the Bible is a document about faith and morality, and even the parts that are metaphorical or in some other way non-literal are important theological lessons. Socrates seems to believe that inspiration requires prosaic and mindless literalism. Many disagree.


QED:Once again, for anyone who is new here. My stated and actual position is not anti-Christian. It is pro-Christian. There has not been the slighest evidence of this, but rather of a complete contempt for Biblical authority and yoking with known atheists against the Bible. So if it looks like a dog, barks like a dog, smells like a dog, and joins other dogs in attacking the cats, then why should the cat trust him when he claims to be really pro-cat?

"It isn't a lie if I believe it" is no more excuse than crossing your fingers behind your back. The very simple fact is that Steadle, Dee Dee, Five Solas, Patroclus, and others are all CHRISTIAN cats which I have had a quite amicable relationship with. The very simple fact is that Socratism and Socrates are both CREATIONIST cats who have equated their interpretation with God's Word and are the same individuals with whom I have found conflict.

YOKING with atheists, by the way has little to do with acknowledging when they are correct on a point of science. To do otherwise wold be lying. Socrates "YOKES" with Dawkins to promote the false idea that a scientific theory (evolution) can possibly support a philosophical theory of atheism. Is this hypocritical of him? Or is he just abusing the Bible when he tosses around this sort of term without care for accuracy?



QED:My stated and actual position is anti-creationism. Socrates is quite aware of this, yet he lies, saying that I am an anti-Christian. It's not a lie, since I sincerely believe you are anti-Christian based on your posts here. And in one sense, any non-Christian is anti-Christian, since Jesus said that anyone not for Him is against Him. But QED has repeatedly gone further and attacked the authority of the Bible which was paramount for Him.

Once again, the George Castanza argument that it "isn't a lie if you believe it" doesn't hold water here. I have made my position clear to you repeatedly. You are without excuse.

Once again, Socrates falsely asserts that I have attacked the authority of the Bible, when I am in fact trying to defend it.

Socrates believes me to be non-Christian, when I have never suggested to him even once that I might be non-Christian, letting his hateful and arrogant presumption do his talking.


QED:He doesn't stop with me. He indicts honest and faithful theistic evolutionists without even attempting to support his accusation with facts:

E.g. Kenneth Miller explicitly states that Genesis is a myth, contrary to the consistent interpretation throughout Scripture that it is real history.

To meet your accusations, all theistic evolutionists must agree that it is myth, and must agree with the notion that it myth is not a valid vessel for God to use to communicate truth. You will have trouble finding evidence that either is the case.



This is the language of myth. Now, let's be careful here. Myth, in this sense, does not mean 'something that isn't true'. I will here quote Stannard (Ibid.)

Whilst there is no denying that the biblical myths describe events that did not occur in any historical sense, that is not the point; they never professed to be accounts of that nature. The symbolic language in which they are couched is but a vehicle - a means of transmitting what really matters: their deep underlying truths.

And this is what we have here. Myths, not 'mere' myths, but Divinely inspired myths. The truths contained are important, not the vehicle. Thomas Thompson (The Bible in History - how Writers Create a Past, Jonathan Cape, London 1999) says

It has been most unbecoming for theologians to bicker so long about whether it was a man or a woman who was made fitst, and which brought sin into the world. Both theses distort Genesis' story

How true this is also of this whole literal/symbolic debate. Therefore, let us move on to the most important question, one it is 'becoming' to address:

What's it really mean then?
Quoted here: http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/genesis.htm


So myth means something other than "untrue" or "inauthoritative" - and is one of several views available to the theistic evolutionists. Will you have the honesty and courage to admit this?

Miller is one who accepts the mythic interpretation. Lamoureux, I'd chance to guess accepts a non-mythic interpretation.



QED:Of course theistic evolutionists practice methodological naturalism in their scientific work. Socrates, if he is honest, will admit that his doctoral thesis was consistent with methodological naturalism. He didn't invoke the supernatural as an explanation for a single chemical behavior in this doctoral thesis. And I have repeatedly explained that there is a huge difference between practising MN for the PRESENT, when God's main work is regular SUSTENANCE of His creation; and invoking MN for Earth history where God has plainly revealed that He acted supernaturally to created different kinds, curse Creation because of Adam's sin, judge the world by a global Flood, and confuse languages at Babel.

You have asserted the difference. You haven't explained the difference, nor have you explained why MN should be abandoned on the presumption that the YEC interpretation is the only correct one.



QED:And, of course, the fact that theistic evolutionists interpret Genesis, and perhaps even the words of Christ differently from Socrates does not mean that they dispute the word of Christ. This is another falsehood. They do dispute Socrates' interpretation of Christ's words as support for recent Creation, and a global flood. Some of them may also dispute Socrates' interpretation of Christ's words as support for the historicity of the story of Jonah and the 'whale', though I don't know specifically of that. As a class, they do not deny the words of Christ - they deny the interpretation of Socrates. This is the fourth consecutive falsehood in Socrates' hysterical attack on theistic evolution. Not false at all, because "interpret differently" is just code for "disbelieve". No-one would get away with this if we decided to "reinterpret" Dawkins' book to support special creation.

You claim to have broken some secret code, and to have proven that the only interpretation that is valid is your own - that any different interpretation is tantamount disbelief!

Yet you fail to provide the proof! You fail to provide the code!

MORE FALSEHOODS!!

The falsehoods add up, and the credibility of the YEC attack on theistic evolution diminishes.



QED:But Socrates does make a feeble plea that his interpretation really is God's word - "uninfected" as it were by anyone else's interpretation. After I point out that YEC is a tradition of men, he says:



QED:The irony here should be obvious to anyone. Socrates relies upon tradition to prove that his view is valid. If that doesn't qualify his interpretation as a tradition of men, I do not know what is. Nonsense -- I have always justified YEC from the Biblical text. The above was to show that great commentators have always interpreted it that was -- when they relied on the text itself (i.e. the Word of God) rather than the traditions of men (e.g. methodogical naturalism).

You have never justified YEC from the Biblical text. You have always appealed to your interpretation and its historical popularity. You have never once proven that the flood was global and that therefore it brought worldwide instead of local death. You have never proven that your interpretation was better.




QED:The simple fact is that - while a literalist interpretation has been the most historically popular, it is still an interpretation, and still subject to error from man's fallibility.It is the interpretation that follows the grammatical-historical approach. QED's existentialist nonsense that one interpretation is as good as another would never be allowed for the sorts of writings he believes.

Obviously, I believe that one interpretation is not as good as another. If I didn't, I would never suggest that an interpretation not already falsified by observational evidence could be better than one that is already falsified by observational evidence.


QED: Even so, Augustine (who also held to the Young Earth interpretation and was a staunch literalist) was able to see the prosaic natural interpretation of the creation week as no more "literal" than a spiritual interpertation. He was sincere, and uninfluenced by modern materialism or even methodological naturalism in his conclusion that the creation week was properly interpreted as a metaphor used to communicate a timeless creative action to time-bound humans. Actually, Augustine was part of the Alexandrian school which was influenced by neo-platonism.

Augustine was a thinker, never accepted any single interpretive school as infallible, and had views that were compatible with both modern YEC and modern theistic evolution.

[Socratism]

QED,


Quite obviously not, since what theistic evolutionists undermine is the YEC ability to propagate the erroneous notion that science and the Bible are in conflict to begin with.

You are mistaken. YECers do not propogate the notion that the Bible and science are in conflict, they propogate the notion that the Bible and evolution are in conflict.

Most YECers love science as much as I do, which is plenty.

What ticks me off is when people equate evolution with my beloved science.

[AtheistArchon]

YECers do not propogate the notion that the Bible and science are in conflict, they propogate the notion that the Bible and evolution are in conflict.

- Yet evolutionary theory is scientific in nature. If you cannot use the scientific method to debunk the empirical evidence which backs it up, then how can you address it without attacking (or otherwise distorting or twisting) science as a whole?

- I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Creationists do science backwards. They think science is simply collecting evidences which they think buttress an ad-hoc, preconceived conclusion. This is the opposite of science. Genuine science looks at the data and the empirical evidence first, and then posits a conclusion after testing and experimentation.

- Additionally, genuine science does not filter itself through any mystical texts or belief systems before coming to a conclusion. It accepts no supernatural explanations (like "fairies did it") because supernatural hypotheses can explain literally anything.

- Lastly, it's obvious that the bible (Genesis) and evolution are contradictory. The only choice one has to make is: do I accept science, or do I accept mythology?

[QED]

Yesterday @ 07:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=111684#post111684)
Socratism:

You are mistaken. YECers do not propogate the notion that the Bible and science are in conflict, they propogate the notion that the Bible and evolution are in conflict.

Evolution is a science, whether YEC's acknowledge that fact or not. It is not your intention to propagate the notion that the Bible and science are in conflict, but you do so when you insist that the Bible and evolution are in conflict.


Most YECers love science as much as I do, which is plenty.

Possibly.


What ticks me off is when people equate evolution with my beloved science.

You don't get to pick & choose. The method is the method.

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 04:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=111838#post111838)
AtheistArchon:



- Yet evolutionary theory is scientific in nature. If you cannot use the scientific method to debunk the empirical evidence which backs it up, then how can you address it without attacking (or otherwise distorting or twisting) science as a whole?

- I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Creationists do science backwards. They think science is simply collecting evidences which they think buttress an ad-hoc, preconceived conclusion. This is the opposite of science. Genuine science looks at the data and the empirical evidence first, and then posits a conclusion after testing and experimentation.

- Additionally, genuine science does not filter itself through any mystical texts or belief systems before coming to a conclusion. It accepts no supernatural explanations (like "fairies did it") because supernatural hypotheses can explain literally anything.

- Lastly, it's obvious that the bible (Genesis) and evolution are contradictory. The only choice one has to make is: do I accept science, or do I accept mythology?

That is NOT the only choice. That is like saying that if I reject the Big Bang then I reject all of science. How silly can one get?

But I do agree that the Bible and evolution (goo to the zoo) are contradictory.

:lol:

[AtheistArchon]

That is NOT the only choice. That is like saying that if I reject the Big Bang then I reject all of science. How silly can one get?

- You reject it, but on a basis that ends up contradicting science. There is no "all of science" in this context, there is only "all scientific theories"... some of which I would say you're perfectly justified in disbelieving.

- However, you reject evolution in two important simultaneous ways.

1. You reject it a-priori, because it simply cannot be true if the bible tells you otherwise. THAT is supernaturalism over science, plain and simple.

2. You reject it while trying to show that either evolution is false (which is again perfectly justifiable... IF you're doing science and not simply collecting data) or that creationism is true. The catch is that you have no stock in science to begin with; supernaturalism, and with it your preconcieved conclusion, trumps it every time without discussion. So what is this new method you're using? It looks like science to a 6th grader, but it's exactly the opposite of science when you get down to the nitty gritty.

- I'm still waiting for some real empirical evidence that crashes evolutionary theory. Yes, it is possible, it just hasn't been done yet. It isn't there! The only alternative you have is either to ignore science altogether, or to employ the wedge strategy and twist science around to make it look like creationism is actually something other than a religious myth.

[Socratism]

Today @ 01:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113420#post113420)
AtheistArchon:



- You reject it, but on a basis that ends up contradicting science. There is no "all of science" in this context, there is only "all scientific theories"... some of which I would say you're perfectly justified in disbelieving.

- However, you reject evolution in two important simultaneous ways.

1. You reject it a-priori, because it simply cannot be true if the bible tells you otherwise. THAT is supernaturalism over science, plain and simple.[quote]

That is false in my case because I rejected evolution prior to becoming interested in the Bible.

[quote]
2. You reject it while trying to show that either evolution is false (which is again perfectly justifiable... IF you're doing science and not simply collecting data) or that creationism is true. The catch is that you have no stock in science to begin with; supernaturalism, and with it your preconcieved conclusion, trumps it every time without discussion. So what is this new method you're using? It looks like science to a 6th grader, but it's exactly the opposite of science when you get down to the nitty gritty.

Again all false. Merely unsupported assertions.


- I'm still waiting for some real empirical evidence that crashes evolutionary theory.

The evidence is convincing to me, but of course one can not really "crash" a theory that doesn't predict anything in particular.


Yes, it is possible, it just hasn't been done yet. It isn't there! The only alternative you have is either to ignore science altogether,

I don't ignore science, only things that claim to be science but aren't.


or to employ the wedge strategy and twist science around to make it look like creationism is actually something other than a religious myth.

Well, some myths are true, like in this case.:teeth:

[chickenman]

I don't ignore science, only things that claim to be science but aren't.

who are you to decide what is or isn't science?

[Socratism]

Today @ 12:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114197#post114197)
chickenman:



who are you to decide what is or isn't science?

Many people on this forum do that. Why shouldn't I?

[QED]

06-01-2003 @ 11:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114544#post114544)
Socratism:



Many people on this forum do that. Why shouldn't I?

Why not, indeed? Tell us how you really define science.

We can learn:
1) If you mean something else when you say "science" or whether you mean the same thing that scientists mean when they say it.
2) If what you call "origins" science meets your criteria of what science is
3) If what you call "real" science meets your criteria of what constitutes science.

It should be interesting for all. I suspect that when you say "science" you mean something that is not equivalent to the term as it is normally applied.