Creationism Education Intelligent Design

ID’s influence on the next generation Creation/Evolution debate

Spread the love

There is the common fallacy that ID was created to sneak creationism into public high schools. Actually, one could make the case that ID was created to sneak “creationism” into universities. 🙂

ID literature is more sophisticated than creation science literature, perhaps because it is (except for Of Pandas and People) usually directed more toward a university audience

Eugenie Scott
Eugenie Scott defeats Ed Brayton

and

I feel that the essential argument has to be carried on at the higher level, at the university level, and it’s interesting you see that the people that come from the NCSE side are always trying to say this is just an issue in the high schools

Phil Johnson

The link below is a video of a debate was between 3 Darwinists vs. 3 Creationist students of science. The Creationists relied heavily on ID materials and rarely appealed to theology or philosophy, they just kept pounding facts and mathematics and information theory and cybernetics.

The debate was, in some dimension, quite boring as what you’d expect from a dispassionate scientific inquiry. But that was also its strength. The Creationists appeared termperate, knowledgeable, and intelligent. A good fraction of their arguments came from ID literature, not from creation science literature or theology.

There was Raquel Murray, a Master of Science student in Modeling and Computational Science, with a BS in physics with math minor! Her proficiency in understanding biochemistry was amazing. Although her delivery was nervous and stuttering, her points were unassailable. She drew heavily, not on the Bible, but the work of atheist biologist Jack Trevors! Talk about a subtle and sophisticated line of argument! She made reference to the inability of any future discovery of physical law to thwart claims for the intelligent origin of information (the paradoxical fact that physics makes high levels of information possible but also simultaneously improbable, ala Shannon).

At best for the evolutionists, the debate was a draw, and the evolutionists had to rely on some fabricated “facts” (howlers such as the claim genetic code is created via thermodynamics, a total misinterpretation of this paper). If this is representative of the next generation in the Creation/Evolution debate at the university level, the creationists will fare very well. ID’s influence (which is not Bible based) is evident in its effect on biblical creationists. I didn’t watch the whole debate, but focused on the origin-of-life part of the debate and the origin-of-information part of the debate. The creationists were quite sophisticated in not making appeals to the authority of the Bible. They pounded the facts, math, information theory and cybernetics. God made the facts of nature, and He expects us to use those facts.

The way they argued reminded me of Phil Johnson’s admonition in dealing with Darwinists:

Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate

The creationist students, for the most part, did exactly that. Here is the video:

Creation vs. Evolution University Debate

NOTES:
Christ said in John 10:38

though you do not believe me, believe the works

38 Replies to “ID’s influence on the next generation Creation/Evolution debate

  1. 1
    Gregory says:

    Though asking direct, specific questions is sometimes mistakingly called ‘stalking’ by IDist-Creationists, I wonder if Salvador would answer a simple question.

    Do you have a personal opinion about the age of the earth? Do you think it is a few thousand years old, say 6000, 10000 or 50000, or that it is several millions of years old? Or have you reverted to the position: “I don’t know”?

    I ask this because, as is common among people that realise most sane, intelligent, educated people won’t believe them, it is a usual tactic of ‘creationists’ to try to be ‘nuanced’ and to hide their religiously-motivated anti-science ideology in public.

    For example, Salvador wrote:

    One may wonder how I can be sympathetic to Young Earth Creation given what I learned in these classes. It would be fair to say what I learned in these classes casts enormous doubt on the viability of the Young Earth Creation model, and at some point one must be willing to accept irresolution or even error in what one believes.

    What does that actually mean? He can be or he is? He is a young earth creationist or he isn’t? These things are obscured by his ‘enormous doubt’ talk. Is Salvador able to come out clearly and say he is *still* a young earth creationist or not?

    Sure, IDism is tarnished by its association with YECism, while at the same time it depends upon much of its financing from YECs. It is no wonder the vast majority of non-YECists, i.e. most living, breathing human beings reject IDism as politically-religiously motivated. From the many educated scholars and scientists I have spoken with and interviewed, IDism is indeed something like “the da Vinci Code” of biology.

    But hey, Salvador’s applied physics degree is probably just perfectly positioned to continue to apologise for IDism to supposedly on-side leaning Christian evangelical students in America. The question is: will he be promoting YECism to American youth while he promtes IDism or not?

    p.s. ‘creationism’ and “get the Bible out of the debate” are incompatible, they are contradictory. Creationism *is* inevitably a Bible-in conversation (like BA 77 and several others demonstrate here regularly).

    p.p.s. if really ‘dispassionate,’ why so many exclamation marks (!!!) from master Cordova?

    p.p.p.s. “one could make the case that ID was created to sneak “creationism” into universities.” Yeah, exactly 😉

  2. 2

    ‘creationism’ and “get the Bible out of the debate” are incompatible, they are contradictory. Creationism *is* inevitably a Bible-in conversation (like BA 77 and several others demonstrate here regularly).

    Fortunately, ID isn’t creationism, so it is perfectly reasonable to leave the Bible out of the debate, as Johnson counselled.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Gregory, I noticed that you did not address my question I posed to you the other day in regards to the blatant use of Theology in Darwinian reasoning. Could you, since you are so concerned to keep theology completely out of science (which is impossible to do!), please address this outstanding theological/scientific concern so as to not appear as a unfair hypocrite?

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-455605

  4. 4
    scordova says:

    it is a usual tactic of ‘creationists’ to try to be ‘nuanced’ and to hide their religiously-motivated anti-science ideology in public.

    You are still spewing the same garbage that creationists are anti-science.

    The only reason I’m willing to volunteer some answer is for the sake of the readers.

    Do you have a personal opinion about the age of the earth? Do you think it is a few thousand years old, say 6000, 10000 or 50000, or that it is several millions of years old? Or have you reverted to the position: “I don’t know”?

    It could be young, it is worth demonstrating, but the facts aren’t yet cooperating. That may change with better telescopes, space probes, experiments. I think YEC could be true, it would desirable for it to be true, but I’m not defending it vigorously because YECs don’t a have very defensible case until they solve distant starlight and radiometric dating. It is worth purusing as a question, because even if wrong, any question that generates empirical research is valuable. I self-identify as YEC, but I have doubts, serious doubts. I suspect its true, I hope it is true, but I’m not convinced it has a defensible case. I’m for vigorous inquiry into the question, but that’s not the same as vigorously asserting it is true.

    ID is another story. 🙂

    . ‘creationism’ and “get the Bible out of the debate” are incompatible, they are contradictory

    No they are not. If someone doesn’t believe in ID, give them the facts and they might believe. How do you think the father of the Wedge Phil Johnson became a Christian? Reading Michael Denton’s book first, then the Bible! Michael Behe rejected Darwinism after reading Denton’s book. And John Sanford accepted ID after reading Behe’s book. Denton’s book also converted an atheist who became a UD author by the name of Gil Dodgen.

    So quid pro-quo, Gregory, have your read Denton’s book and do you understand it? You want to see what really got the leaders of ID to accept ID, read Denton’s book. Denton is an agnostic. If you don’t understand why Denton’s book could inspire the movement, you’ll never understand what makes ID tick. You’ll only be able, as you have for 9 years, fallaciously frame the ID motivation in terms of fact-free religion instead of fact-supported theory that may support some people’s religious beliefs.

    So what if religion is a motivation for promoting facts. The motivations don’t invalidate the facts. The facts are on the side of ID, not Darwin. The enthusiasm is there because Darwinism is dying from the facts. Here is the facts from a top Darwinist:

    In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics

    Jerry Coyne

  5. 5
    scordova says:

    From Eugenie Scott:

    INTELLIGENT DESIGN

    In 1989, shortly after the Edwards Supreme Court decision, Of Pandas and People, a supplemental textbook for high school biology, was published (Davis and Kenyon 1989). Its publication signified the increasing OEC [old earth creationist] influence in the neocreationist antievolution movement, and introduced the term Intelligent Design (ID). ID is promoted primarily by university-based antievolutionists who tend to be PCs [progressive creationists] rather than YECs. Dean Kenyon, for example, a tenured professor of biology at San Francisco State University, and Percival Davis, who teaches at a public college, Hillsborough Community College, in Tampa, Florida, advocate ID.

    ID is a lineal descendent of William Paley’s Argument from Design (Paley 1803,)….

    ID literature is more sophisticated than creation science literature, perhaps because it is (except for Of Pandas and People) usually directed more toward a university audience…

    Antievolution at the University One of the leading exponents of ID is a University of California law professor, Phillip Johnson, who holds an endowed chair at Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley. Johnson appeared on the antievolutionist scene in 1991 with the publication of his book, Darwin on Trial (Johnson 1993). Because of Johnson’s academic credentials, and because he ignored arguments about the age of the earth and was even faintly contemptuous of YEC,….

    Although Johnson is an evolution basher, his main concern is not really with whether scientific data do or do not support evolution, but with broader questions of purpose and meaning.
    ….
    In the mid to late 1990s, university-based antievolutionism is a small but growing movement. For now, participants are dwarfed in both number and effectiveness by the more public efforts of organizations like the ICR, with its Back to Genesis road shows and media programs. YEC is still the most frequently-encountered antievolutionism that K-12 teachers have to cope with, but more and more it is being augmented by “arguments against evolution,” ID or other neocreationist positions. However, because a university-based antievolution movement has great potential to reach future decision-makers (who are being educated in universities today), this component of the movement may be highly influential in the future, even if it is small today. Future generations of college graduates may think that books like those of Johnson or Behe represent modern scientific scholarship on science and evolution.

    Eugenie Scott, 1997

    That video is symbolic of what Eugenie said 16 years ago, the future generation of college science students have been influenced by ID. My point is, even creationist college students have been influenced by ID, and it is evident in the way they held their ground against their science peers in debate.

  6. 6
    Joe says:

    Gregory,

    Do you think it is necessary to know soemthing about HOW the Earth was formed in order to make any determination about how old it is?

  7. 7
    Joe says:

    What this generation of debaters must do is make it clear that darwin created and argued against a starwman in the fixity of species.

    IOW make it clear that “evolution” isn’t being debated and make it clear exactly what is being debated.

  8. 8
    scordova says:

    The most accurate characterization of Phil Johnson’s journey is from himself. See:
    http://www.touchstonemag.com/a.....5-05-037-i

    Some excerpts:

    PJ: I wanted to know whether the fundamentals of the Christian worldview were fact or fantasy. Darwinism is a logical place to begin because, if Darwinism is true, Christian metaphysics is fantasy. ….

    I got the opportunity when I was on a sabbatical in London in 1987 or 1988 to read more about Darwinism. It was immensely interesting to discover that it’s all circular reasoning, deception, and pseudo-science. I had suspected that, but I saw that it was really true. It is a pseudo-science…

    The first book I read while on sabbatical was Dawkins’s Blind Watchmaker, which seemed fairly convincing on the first reading but full of holes on the second. Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis did much to alert me to the issues.

    But perhaps the greatest “Aha!” moment came when I was browsing in a bookstore in London with my wife. Kathie had been a bit skeptical of my developing interest in evolution. (I sometimes get in a little over my head.) She picked up a copy of Isaac Asimov’s Guide to Science—900 pages of pretty good popular science writing—looked up evolution, and there was a brief description of the theory, plus three pages of heavy-handed ad hominem denunciation of creationists for not accepting the absolute truth of this theory that was so obvious to all thinking persons. Then there was a brief section called “Proof of Evolution,” in which the entire proof—all the proof that Asimov thought was necessary—was the peppered moth experiment.
    ….
    The ignorance that’s involved, the indifference to the facts, is stunning. Anything that promotes the “Great Darwin” and the materialist understanding is uncritically received, unless it does something that’s politically incorrect.

    In short, my discovery that the reasoning in Darwinism is unscientific, illogical, and dishonest was tremendously important to me because it validates that “In the beginning was the Word” is really the correct starting point.

    ….
    I then got to know the people from the mainstream community and the creationist world who are critical of Darwinism. What I brought to the dissident movement—Nancy Pearcey has pointed this out—was a sense of strategy.

    People were caught in a rationalist mentality. They were thinking, “If we present facts and evidence, Stephen J. Gould will say, ‘Oh yes, you’re right and I’m wrong,’” and then the scientists would let them in. Well, I understand a little bit better how that world works, and I thought of it like a political campaign or big case litigation.

    So the question is: “How to win?” That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the “wedge” strategy: “Stick with the most important thing”—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate

  9. 9
    Chance Ratcliff says:

    Joe @7,

    “What this generation of debaters must do is make it clear that darwin created and argued against a starwman in the fixity of species.

    IOW make it clear that “evolution” isn’t being debated and make it clear exactly what is being debated.”

    I think those are good points. ID challenges the Darwinian mechanism (or lack thereof) and not a historical narrative.

  10. 10
    Joe says:

    And their historical narrative belongs in the “History of Life According to Darwin” class and not the science class.

    Or better yet, the “histories of life according to different cultures”, class.

    History-> history classroom. Science-> science classroom

  11. 11
    sixthbook says:

    Joe @10
    The funny thing is that they do teach human evolution in AP world history classes in high school. Looks like they are following your advice.

  12. 12
    Axel says:

    ‘….if really ‘dispassionate,’ why so many exclamation marks (!!!) from master Cordova?’

    Well, you, Greg, I know it’s a very fine distinction, but one may be wholly dispassionate in one reasoning, yet resort to emphasis, in an endeavour to get through to numbskulls.

  13. 13
    Axel says:

    Gregoire, My second word, ‘you’, in my #12, should read, ‘you know’. My profusest apologies.

  14. 14
    Axel says:

    @ your #3, Phil, do NOT order Greg to answer specific points, you raise. It is now called, ‘stalking’.

  15. 15
    Gregory says:

    @#13

    Yes, I am ‘Gregoire’ to French-native speakers. 😉 But there are likely *none* of those at UD, are there? Are there?? So why does ‘Axel’ the American persist in his attempted dual-language sophistication? To show he’s a good communicator?! 🙁

    It is highly like he has no more than a high school degree, or perhaps a bachelor’s degree in an unrelated field (just like Phil) to the main themes involved in ‘IDism,’ which he nevertheless ideologically defends.

    Yes, I know in a way that you don’t, Axel. Why, because I’ve studied IDism carefully and you haven’t (or just on internet blogs and a few IDist texts!). Your mistake is now post-facto corrected. No harm done.

    If there is any time, my response to Salvador will follow. But for now, it is easy to respond to ‘numbskull’-IDists such as ‘Axel.’ Expelled Syndrome is obviously in full effect. Quarantine your children!

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    Gregory, I’m so glad that a person, such as yourself, of such highly exalted esteem for his own intellect has humbled himself to such a point as to willingly grovel in the knowledge garbage pit of UD, so as to hopefully redeem us from our own ignorance. (even though you swore you would never grace us with your exalted wisdom again) How mighty virtuous of you sir. If we could only fully appreciate what a sacrifice this is for you.,,, With such awesome intellectual power at the mercy of your slightest whim, I was hoping if you apply your massive intellectual brawn to the question I asked the other day. Namely, since you are so concerned to keep theology completely out of science (which is impossible to do by the way!), why are you not equally concerned of the blatant use of Theology in Darwinian reasoning as you are of its use in ID reasoning?
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-455605
    I know you probably think it beneath your dignity to have to actually address this concern, but if you could bless those of us who may not be nearly as impressed with your intellect as you are impressed with your intellect with an answer I would appreciate it.

  17. 17
    Axel says:

    Ah, Gregoire… I am deezappointed in you…You’re not supposed to respond to groundlings comme moi. You said so yourself!

    But you, Self-Creationists, just wait till that ‘promissory note’ is cashed! Boy! Are there going to be some red faces among the IDists and UDers here! You’ll have have them on the run for sure.

  18. 18
    Axel says:

    Do you think it would make me sound more kind of ‘intellectual’, if I’d said, ‘Auto-Creationists, Gregoire?

  19. 19
    Axel says:

    On a more serious note, surely, apart from the interest of scientists employed to study the tangible, in the here and now, with time now divested of that classical underpinning, the only ‘time’ that is of consequence in the quantum word, is the eternal ‘time’ addressed by Phil, in one of his recent discursions. It’s all in the mind.

    Excuse me a moment. There are some burly looking characters in white coats at the door.

  20. 20
    Gregory says:

    There is no need to dignify the so-called ‘scientific’ claims of YECs like BA77. He’ll likely spew a few long posts with 5 or more links believing as an evangelical apologist that he is somehow convincing people to stop rejecting IDism. But he is convincing no one and making a fool of himself and IDism cum neo-creationism in the process.

    Priests should be (and likely are, if they know about it) ashamed if BA77 quotes their words in the advocacy of his fanatical IDist scientism!

    But as an apostle of the ‘church of no-denomination,’ BA77 will likely not be disuaded. He will feel persecuted instead of being shown to be ignorant.

    “Theology in Darwinian reasoning”?

    Go fish. Darwin was not a ‘theist,’ though he is buried in Westminster Abbey.

    Honestly, there are people who contribute at UD that are caricatures of real human beings. It is a very sad thing from a global perspective (i.e. forgetting American ignorances). Actual human beings, including Abrahamic believers that I interact with would be ashamed to call such introverted American propagandists as ‘intelligent.’ That would only serve to lower the meaning of humanity and life in a knowledge society.

    Go back to the caves, YECs, neo-creationists! Read your Bibles there by fire-light, even before the use of candles. You do not deserve credibility in front of the vast majority of Abrahamic believers today.

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    Gregory, if you are going to,,,

    Argument Ad Hominem? (William Lane Craig) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX3beh6g1Qg

    ,,Perhaps it would do you well to have at least your first sentence correct in your character attack?

    “YECs like BA77”

    I’m not, nor have ever been a YEC. I believe God created the universe approximately,,,

    Direct Measurements Place Universe’s Age at 13.79 Billion Years – May 2013
    http://www.reasons.org/podcast.....lion-years
    The Megamaser Cosmology Project. V. An Angular Diameter Distance to NGC 6264 at 140 Mpc; http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7273

    But since we are on the subject, Who or what do you think created the universe and what is your scientific evidence for it?

  22. 22
    tragic mishap says:

    Great point, Sal. I am about thirty years old now and I have heard lots of people my age intimate they would probably take creationism more seriously if their material wasn’t written for third graders. Plus old-school creationists have the annoying habit of constantly quoting the Bible and spending large portions of their time/space expounding upon it when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

    I’m grateful to the ID movement for its influence on creationism.

  23. 23
    Joe says:

    Hi Gregory,

    I see that you are cowardly avoiding my question wrt the age of the earth.

  24. 24
    Joe says:

    Hi sixthbook,

    That is good to know. I may have to look into that class to see what it is they teach.

    Interesting…

  25. 25
    Axel says:

    I wonder if it could be a factor in the Uncertainty Principle. It seems in any case, that non-locality casts a long shadow; or, rather, a rather dazzling light.

    It just seems like a shadow to our friends in the demi-monde of Self-Creationism, Aladdin’s Multiverse, dirt-worship, etc.

  26. 26
    Axel says:

    I’m from the UK, not the US, Greg. Does that make me a luminary? And I don’t read the Bible much. It makes me home-sick.

    You can do better than that, Greg. I thought you’d gone from being an amiable nutter, to becoming unhinged. Then I thought your psychological defences had recovered; and now, to my chagrin (pronounced the French way, si possible), I find your rants have that certain edge I last heard from an Aussie soldier just returned from a spell in Vietnam shouting at Malaysian troops. What’s upset you?

  27. 27
    Barb says:

    Gregory @ 20: That’s a lot of ad hominem argumentation you’ve got there. And Darwin may not have been a theist, but he trained to be a priest (pastor might be a better description) in the Anglican Church prior to doing his work as a naturalist. Pretending he always was an agnostic or atheist doesn’t work.

  28. 28
    scordova says:

    I’m from the UK, not the US

    Hi from across the pond!

    Thanks for visiting our humble blog.

  29. 29
    Robert Byers says:

    get the bible and gEnesis into the discussion because its the truth.
    ID is johnny-come-lately’s.
    Id’ers frustrate opposition to evolution because they insist on using geology as the foundation for biological investigation as does evolutionists.
    Only YEC does true science when questioning evolution.
    Our own conclusions are different as coming from a witness but our criticisms of our opponents are founded in true scientific methodology.
    Seems that way to me.

  30. 30
    Barb says:

    Robert Byers @ 29:

    Id’ers frustrate opposition to evolution because they insist on using geology as the foundation for biological investigation as does evolutionists.

    Because geology is a legitimate scientific field of study. And ID is legitimately scientific.

    Only YEC does true science when questioning evolution.

    From your original post: “get the bible and Genesis into the discussion because its the truth.” Now, I agree that the Bible is scientifically accurate, and this includes the book of Genesis. However, the separation of church and state in the US make this an impossibility.

    Our own conclusions are different as coming from a witness but our criticisms of our opponents are founded in true scientific methodology.

    Which is what, exactly? Peer review?

  31. 31
    Axel says:

    Wow, Sal (if I may make so bold). I’m the one extended the privilege. I only get the gist of the broader aspects of what you boffins discuss in your foreign language. I sometimes feel a great sense of comfort when I just come across a conjunction or a preposition I’m able to recognise.

    ‘here was Raquel Murray, a Master of Science student in Modeling and Computational Science, with a BS in physics with math minor! Her proficiency in understanding biochemistry was amazing. Although her delivery was nervous and stuttering, her points were unassailable. She drew heavily, not on the Bible, but the work of atheist biologist Jack Trevors! Talk about a subtle and sophisticated line of argument! She made reference to the inability of any future discovery of physical law to thwart claims for the intelligent origin of information (the paradoxical fact that physics makes high levels of information possible but also simultaneously improbable, ala Shannon).’

    It is thrilling when someone seems to have total or near-total mastery of a subject, isn’t it? I found that with William Lane Craig, the Christian apologist. And bornagain77 Philip, for all his modesty about his relative lack of formal tertiary accreditations is another one.

    I strongly suspect that his determined will to keep abreast of the latest research findings in physics and incorporate them into a grand synthesis, is (divinely) compulsive, and the reason for those relatively modest, formal accreditations. Thanks again for the welcome.

    PS
    Just caught me out on of those wretched, higher-maths Captcha thangs again! (9 x 6 is 54, not 72, isn’t it?) Just out of practice, you understand.

  32. 32
    Axel says:

    I mean the other way round! Just testing you.

  33. 33
    Axel says:

    Surely, the mere feature of non-locality at the quantum level is definitive disproof of materialism.

  34. 34
    Axel says:

    Does it not seem natural(!) that the mind should evince an affinity with the non-local quantum world, with which brute matter in its gross, spatio-temporal manifestation, seems so utterly at odds.

  35. 35
    Robert Byers says:

    Barb@30
    geology is legitimate for geology but not for biology.
    Biology conclusions , theories in them , must only be based on biology and must not be dependent on geology. Its a cheat. One can’t defeat the biology hypothesis/theory if one must first defeat the geology presumptions.
    Extract the geology from the evolution equation and there is no or little evidence for biological evolution.
    A historic blunder here that ID folks make too.

    YEC introduces our conclusions from the witness of the bible.
    YET our criticisms of our opponents don’t need the bible and are reliant on scrutiny of our opponents evidence.
    so we do a more pure job then ID because we deparate the geology from the biology.
    No cambrian explosion for us. Its illogical to attack evolution based on reading rocks showing just a snapshot in time. The time is wrong too.

  36. 36
    Barb says:

    Robert Byers@35:

    geology is legitimate for geology but not for biology.

    The two fields can be related, especially if you’re trying to determine which lifeforms live under which conditions (for example, the bizarre animals that live near deep sea vents). Both are legitimate fields of study and, at times, they intersect.

    Biology conclusions , theories in them , must only be based on biology and must not be dependent on geology. Its a cheat. One can’t defeat the biology hypothesis/theory if one must first defeat the geology presumptions.

    Some scientists would agree with you on that. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.” The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”

    The two fields became intertwined in the 19th century. Just two years before The Origin of Species was published, biologist and Harvard professor Louis Agassiz wrote that the living world shows “premeditation, wisdom, greatness” and that a major purpose of natural history was to analyze “the thoughts of the Creator of the Universe.”
    Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, the first volume of which appeared in 1830, cast doubt on the Bible’s creation account. Lyell claimed that the creation could not possibly have occurred in six literal days. Physicist Fred Hoyle wrote: “Lyell’s books were largely responsible for convincing the world at large that the Bible could be wrong, at any rate in some respects, a hitherto unthinkable thought.”

    A foundation was thus laid for skepticism. In the minds of many, science and the Bible could no longer be harmonized. Faced with a choice, many opted for science. “Lyell’s work had thrown the early chapters of the Old Testament into doubt,” Fred Hoyle wrote, “and Darwin’s book was there to replace it.”

    Extract the geology from the evolution equation and there is no or little evidence for biological evolution. A historic blunder here that ID folks make too.

    How do you explain plate tectonics?

    YEC introduces our conclusions from the witness of the bible.

    And, as mentioned before, this cannot happen in the United States. The Constitution says so.

    YET our criticisms of our opponents don’t need the bible and are reliant on scrutiny of our opponents evidence. so we do a more pure job then ID because we deparate the geology from the biology.

    How can you separate two fields of study that, as pointed out, intersect on occasion?

    No cambrian explosion for us. Its illogical to attack evolution based on reading rocks showing just a snapshot in time. The time is wrong too.

    If the Cambrian explosion is a myth, and radiocarbon dating is also wrong, then exactly what science are you basing your criticisms of your opponents on?

  37. 37
    Robert Byers says:

    Barb
    Lots of replies here but it all comes down, As i see it, to the use of strata and fossils within it to craw conclusions about biological lineage.
    Right or wrong in its conclusions I insist its not science. Its not using the subject to prove itself by its own evidence.
    Without the geology the biology would be wrong.
    SO i say its wrong to claim biological evolution or criticisms of it IS based on biological investigation. Evolutionists and ID however do this !
    The error was in the methodology and only secondarily in the asserted evidence by evolutionists.
    Evolutionism could of been turned into only a hypothesis, not a theory with presumed legitimate evidence making it so, long ago IF the geology had been ruled out of order as biological evidence.
    Fossils are mere biological data points and can’t be used as evidence for biological descent or process. nor attack it on these points.

  38. 38
    Barb says:

    Robert at 37:

    Lots of replies here but it all comes down, As i see it, to the use of strata and fossils within it to craw conclusions about biological lineage.
    Right or wrong in its conclusions I insist its not science. Its not using the subject to prove itself by its own evidence.

    Part of the problem for the evolutionists is that the strata don’t always show the fossils that are supposed to be there.

    Without the geology the biology would be wrong.
    SO i say its wrong to claim biological evolution or criticisms of it IS based on biological investigation. Evolutionists and ID however do this !
    The error was in the methodology and only secondarily in the asserted evidence by evolutionists.

    Science is an imperfect enterprise, and there will always be errors to deal with. The problem with evolution, though, is that the errors are ignored or made to fit the theory rather than revising the hypothesis or theory based on the data.

Leave a Reply