Question for theistic anti-evolutionists

[seanD]

As a Christian who rejects the theory of evolution, I really want to know from other Christians who also reject evolution and have the guts to answer this, and especially (but not exclusive to) those who believe the earth is less than 6,000 years old, why you believe so many people are getting this so wrong. My specific question is: how do you explain why most intellectuals and academicians worldwide have been getting this wrong for so long and how this error is so powerful and predominant? Do you believe it's a human conspiracy? A supernatural conspiracy? A deception of Satan? A deception of God?

And please don't use the excuse that you don't give it much thought but just rely on faith because we all know human nature, and it's simply not possible that you went through life believing evolution is a lie without at least giving it a moment of thought why so many prestigious people of Universities around the world are incorrect on this issue. There has to be a specific explanation for this.

[RBerman]

People go with whatever they trust as an authority. All nonChristians and many Christians trust science sufficiently that when it disagrees with the plain sense of the Bible, they find a reason not to take the Bible in its plain sense. This has taken many forms over the years. The current popular approach is to deny that Genesis 1-11 intends to be historical in the first place.

[seanD]

People go with whatever they trust as an authority. All nonChristians and many Christians trust science sufficiently that when it disagrees with the plain sense of the Bible, they find a reason not to take the Bible in its plain sense. This has taken many forms over the years. The current popular approach is to deny that Genesis 1-11 intends to be historical in the first place.

This doesn't really answer the OP though. This is shifting the focus onto the effects instead of the cause. People give in to societal pressures and norms, what's cool, what's acceptable so that they are not thought of as oddballs, kooks, or unintelligent. I don't have a problem explaining the effects. This is not what I'm looking for. Christians either believe it's true or they believe it's not true, thus it's a lie. I'm looking for the explanation of the cause from the Christians who believe this is all a lie and a fraud, and why the most intelligent and trained individuals around the world for more than 100 years, the same people who form an entire establishment of ideas that have shaped the fabric of our culture and society and of whom we put an almost infallible trust in regards to other areas of our existence, believe this lie is true. There has to be a very powerful and specific explanation behind this phenomenon. I'm looking for your explanations for this. When you're laying in bed at night, meditating about it, what is the reasoning you use to justify why you disbelieve this idea and how this idea is so powerfully entrenched in our society and culture. Is it a conspiracy of man? Is it a deception from God?

Another question that would correlate with this is why God has allows such a powerful deception to thrive, but this is secondary to the primary question.

[RBerman]

Well, it doesn't keep me up at night in the way you suggest, because of the reasons I mentioned above. It's not a conspiracy. It's not a group of people pushing something they perceive as "a lie and a fraud." Thoughtful Old-Earthers have accepted science's epistemology, so that the supernatural is disallowed on the front end, as part of their definition of what it means to "do science." In general this is a helpful approach, because the universe generally unfolds through secondary means, according to the rules which God put in place to govern everything. But in specific instances (we call them "miracles"), God acts in ways not predictable through the general rules of the universe, and on those occasions, science's conclusions will not match up with reality.

[seanD]

Well, it doesn't keep me up at night in the way you suggest, because of the reasons I mentioned above. It's not a conspiracy. It's not a group of people pushing something they perceive as "a lie and a fraud." Thoughtful Old-Earthers have accepted science's epistemology, so that the supernatural is disallowed on the front end, as part of their definition of what it means to "do science." In general this is a helpful approach, because the universe generally unfolds through secondary means, according to the rules which God put in place to govern everything. But in specific instances (we call them "miracles"), God acts in ways not predictable through the general rules of the universe, and on those occasions, science's conclusions will not match up with reality.

Let me see if I can make sense of what you said in the second half of your post in light of the OP question. Note that I’m looking at what you said in the full scope of natural science theories and its conclusions (which includes the age of the earth), and assuming you are also considering how the science establishment arrives at those conclusions. If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that there are two different realities? The primary reality that is supernatural and the secondary reality that is physical or natural. The physical reality is made up of laws that God uses to govern it, but since it’s a secondary reality, it’s basically an illusion. So any assessment of the laws that make up the secondary reality will come out incorrect up against the primary reality. So the problem is not with those assessing the secondary reality, the problem is with the secondary reality itself?

[RBerman]

Let me see if I can make sense of what you said in the second half of your post in light of the OP question. Note that I’m looking at what you said in the full scope of natural science theories and its conclusions (which includes the age of the earth), and assuming you are also considering how the science establishment arrives at those conclusions. If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that there are two different realities? The primary reality that is supernatural and the secondary reality that is physical or natural. The physical reality is made up of laws that God uses to govern it, but since it’s a secondary reality, it’s basically an illusion. So any assessment of the laws that make up the secondary reality will come out incorrect up against the primary reality. So the problem is not with those assessing the secondary reality, the problem is with the secondary reality itself?

There's only one reality. But we build different models to try to understand it. In one model, there is no supernatural element. This model accounts for everything we see, except the things that occur miraculously. (Creation; Christ's resurrection; etc.) In another model, allowance is made somehow for the supernatural events described in the Bible. In a different other model, allowance is made for the supernatural events described in the Hindu Vedas. Or the Book of Mormon, or the Quran, or Dianetics, or the Necronomicon, etc.

[seanD]

There's only one reality. But we build different models to try to understand it. In one model, there is no supernatural element. This model accounts for everything we see, except the things that occur miraculously. (Creation; Christ's resurrection; etc.) In another model, allowance is made somehow for the supernatural events described in the Bible. In a different other model, allowance is made for the supernatural events described in the Hindu Vedas. Or the Book of Mormon, or the Quran, or Dianetics, or the Necronomicon, etc.

You seem to be beating around the bush without really providing an answer to the OP question. It sounds like you're suggesting that the two models can coexist, but they cannot. The earth can’t be both young and hundreds of thousands -- let alone billions -- of years old at the same time. God could not have formed the first human being from the dust of the earth and first female from his rib and gradually descended from lower primates over millions of years at the same time. Animal species could not have been created within 7 days and their fossils found in ascending order in layers of strata over millions of years at the same time. There is no allowance for the supernatural model because the physical model completely contradicts the supernatural model, unless you assume the latter is an ongoing function that affects the former (which would indicate an ongoing supernatural deception). I’m looking for an explanation from anti-evolutionists how the authoritarian edifice that upholds these natural science theories came about and how it remains so impenetrable, and why some of the most intelligent and capable minds in our existence, in all their observations, methodologies, and assessments believe wholeheartedly that it’s true. Anti-evolutionists uphold these individuals and their conclusions in almost every other aspect of the natural world, including their very health and welfare, but for some reason believe the same methodologies and assessments they use for our physical origins are wrong. There has to be a specific explanation why this establishment of great minds, that shapes the fabric of our very existence, collectively looks at the physical data and concludes that the earth is as old as it is and that species originated the way they think they did, if this is not the case. Either there is something amiss with the physical evidence itself, which suggests supernatural malfeasance and manipulation, or there is something collectively amiss with the intellectuals interpreting the data. Or else they are correct if neither of these is true, and the natural science theories are in fact true, which therefore cancels out the miraculous story of the Genesis creation. Anti-evolutionists for some reason are ready and willing to reject the latter, but seem to be afraid to touch the former.

[RBerman]

Two models of nature can exist, but both of them cannot be right. Your question was about what people believe, and the answer is that people have different assumptions which generate different models. The purely scientific model (i.e. the one that excludes the supernatural at the outset) is the product of Enlightenment-era materialist philosophy, though of course the roots go further back. There's nothing "amiss" with the physical data, and there's nothing "amiss" with the ability of intellectuals to think. But there is something "amiss" with their pure materialist assumptions. I am not aware that Creationists are "afraid to touch" something in this matter.

[Carrikature]

Either there is something amiss with the physical evidence itself, which suggests supernatural malfeasance and manipulation, or there is something collectively amiss with the intellectuals interpreting the data. Or else they are correct if neither of these is true, and the natural science theories are in fact true, which therefore cancels out the miraculous story of the Genesis creation. Anti-evolutionists for some reason are ready and willing to reject the latter, but seem to be afraid to touch the former.

I think the problem lies with the statement I put in bold. A false dichotomy is created where either God did no miracles in creation or God did miracles in creation. Every TE must believe that God created the universe at the outset and that the creation story holds true. What they disagree with is how long (from an earth standpoint) that actually took.

For myself, I believe that God created the universe as we know it. I think as part of His creation, he mandated specific principles, i.e. the natural laws that we study in all aspects of science. Now, were Adam and Eve special creations? I have little reason to think otherwise. I can take quite literally that a special place existed known as the Garden of Eden in which Adam and Eve thrived up until they ate of the fruit. The story seems pretty explicit that they were physically removed from this special place and blocked from ever re-entering. None of that necessarily has anything to do with the verification of evolution. The story of Cain makes no sense if you mandate that only Adam, Eve and Abel existed at that point in time.

There's nothing "amiss" with the physical data, and there's nothing "amiss" with the ability of intellectuals to think. But there is something "amiss" with their pure materialist assumptions. I am not aware that Creationists are "afraid to touch" something in this matter.

I think seand is saying that there seems to be a dichotomy that Creationists make, and I would agree with him. Creationists essentially say, "we trust scientists to be right about everything else but not about this specific instance." It would seem that this is what seand is referring to when he says Creationists are afraid to touch something. They are perfectly willing to claim scientists are wrong in one aspect, but generally refrain from claiming they are wrong about everything else.

However, I understand that this is not what you're saying. You're basically saying that the physical processes exist as we see it, but that they cannot be interpreted correctly in a system devoid of outside influences (as scientific methodology essentially mandates).

[RBerman]

I think seand is saying that there seems to be a dichotomy that Creationists make, and I would agree with him. Creationists essentially say, "we trust scientists to be right about everything else but not about this specific instance." It would seem that this is what seand is referring to when he says Creationists are afraid to touch something. They are perfectly willing to claim scientists are wrong in one aspect, but generally refrain from claiming they are wrong about everything else.

Creationists expect science to be right almost all the time, because miracles are few and far between. We expect miracles only where God has told us there will be miracles. If Scripture indicates that a miracle occured in situation X, we suspend the conclusions of science for that point only. The resurrection of Christ, the creation of the world, etc.

[seanD]

RB, this is the question posed in the OP…

My specific question is: how do you explain why most intellectuals and academicians worldwide have been getting this wrong for so long and how this error is so powerful and predominant? Do you believe it's a human conspiracy? A supernatural conspiracy? A deception of Satan? A deception of God? .

Two models of nature can exist, but both of them cannot be right. Your question was about what people believe, and the answer is that people have different assumptions which generate different models. The purely scientific model (i.e. the one that excludes the supernatural at the outset) is the product of Enlightenment-era materialist philosophy, though of course the roots go further back. There's nothing "amiss" with the physical data, and there's nothing "amiss" with the ability of intellectuals to think. But there is something "amiss" with their pure materialist assumptions. I am not aware that Creationists are "afraid to touch" something in this matter.

Creationists expect science to be right almost all the time, because miracles are few and far between. We expect miracles only where God has told us there will be miracles. If Scripture indicates that a miracle occured in situation X, we suspend the conclusions of science for that point only. The resurrection of Christ, the creation of the world, etc.

You’re beating around the bush, so I’ll be more specific:

1) Do you think scientists are correct that they find fossilized species buried in ascending order within millions of years of strata? Or are they incorrect? If they are incorrect, why do they claim this?

2) Do you believe scientists are correct that species gradually evolved and that they have evidence for this? Or are they incorrect? If they are incorrect, why do they claim this?

3) Do you believe scientists are correct when they claim that species including humans share common DNA? Or are they incorrect? If they are incorrect, why do they claim this?

4) Do you believe scientists are correct when they claim the earth and the universe is far older than 6,000 years old? Or are they incorrect? If they are incorrect, why do they claim there is ample evidence for this (far more than just carbon dating, which includes geological and astronomical data)?

[seanD]

I think the problem lies with the statement I put in bold. A false dichotomy is created where either God did no miracles in creation or God did miracles in creation. Every TE must believe that God created the universe at the outset and that the creation story holds true. What they disagree with is how long (from an earth standpoint) that actually took.

For myself, I believe that God created the universe as we know it. I think as part of His creation, he mandated specific principles, i.e. the natural laws that we study in all aspects of science. Now, were Adam and Eve special creations? I have little reason to think otherwise. I can take quite literally that a special place existed known as the Garden of Eden in which Adam and Eve thrived up until they ate of the fruit. The story seems pretty explicit that they were physically removed from this special place and blocked from ever re-entering. None of that necessarily has anything to do with the verification of evolution. The story of Cain makes no sense if you mandate that only Adam, Eve and Abel existed at that point in time.

Though this is not really the topic of the thread (I really don't want to turn this into a TE debate). Very little can be done to make a Genesis creation story fit into a natural science narrative. I've seen some TEers try and wiggle in between the lines and work around these problems, which is silly, because there is hardly anything salvageable of the story in this context. It's more honest to just admit the story is a myth.

[RBerman]

1) Do you think scientists are correct that they find fossilized species buried in ascending order within millions of years of strata? Or are they incorrect? If they are incorrect, why do they claim this?

They are incorrect that the strata are millions of years old. Their belief in the age of the earth is based on uniformitarian assumptions, i.e. the absence of miracles.

2) Do you believe scientists are correct that species gradually evolved and that they have evidence for this? Or are they incorrect? If they are incorrect, why do they claim this?

They are incorrect that the variety of animal life we see today is the result of speciation over millions of years. Again, their belief in the age of the earth (and thus the time for speciation) is based on false uniformitarianism.

3) Do you believe scientists are correct when they claim that species including humans share common DNA? Or are they incorrect? If they are incorrect, why do they claim this?

There are many DNA sequences common between species. This is observable. The reason for this commonality is a matter of interpretation, however.

4) Do you believe scientists are correct when they claim the earth and the universe is far older than 6,000 years old? Or are they incorrect? If they are incorrect, why do they claim there is ample evidence for this (far more than just carbon dating, which includes geological and astronomical data)?

Scientists apply uniformitarian principles to the available data to generate their conclusion that the earth is very old. If the principle is false, then the conclusion is false.

[Carrikature]

Though this is not really the topic of the thread (I really don't want to turn this into a TE debate).

Yes, I had figured that. I was trying to tiptoe that line to answer your OP without pushing things too far that direction.

Very little can be done to make a Genesis creation story fit into a natural science narrative. I've seen some TEers try and wiggle in between the lines and work around these problems, which is silly, because there is hardly anything salvageable of the story in this context. It's more honest to just admit the story is a myth.

I disagree, especially that last statement. 'Being more honest' would imply they actually think it's myth but won't actually say so. Regardless, there's nowhere to take this that doesn't get off topic and into a debate neither of us want.

Suffice to say that RBerman has the right of it, scientific principles are based on uniformitarian assumptions. These assumptions work great for pretty much everything, right up until the point where God is supposed to have intervened.

[seanD]

They are incorrect that the strata are millions of years old. Their belief in the age of the earth is based on uniformitarian assumptions, i.e. the absence of miracles.


They are incorrect that the variety of animal life we see today is the result of speciation over millions of years. Again, their belief in the age of the earth (and thus the time for speciation) is based on false uniformitarianism.



There are many DNA sequences common between species. This is observable. The reason for this commonality is a matter of interpretation, however.



Scientists apply uniformitarian principles to the available data to generate their conclusion that the earth is very old. If the principle is false, then the conclusion is false.

Now that I finally got a specific answer, let me ask another question. Since we know from the creation story that the physical world can be observed from a different perspective other than uniformitarian principles, and that there should be ample evidence for this data in the physical universe, why do scientists collectively base their assessments on uniformitarian principles only, without considering these other principles, and why is this authoritarian edifice that upholds these natural science theories unmovable, and has been for many decades, in this regard?