J. R. Miller offers a reasonable discussion of varieties of Biblical creationism:
Maybe you have heard the accusation that biblical creationists are blinded by their ancient theology which forces them to reject the modern “scientific fact” of evolution. But what do people mean by this accusation? What is evolution? Is biblical creation a de facto rejection of evolution science itself or just a rejection of how some scientists interpret the data? The answer, it turns out, depends on how one defines evolution. Therefore, to properly address this supposed conflict between biblical creation and evolution theory let me start with some simple definitions.
For example,
So, if the Bible teaches the cosmos had a beginning, does that mean all Christian must believe in the Big Bang? No. As previously mentioned, even scientists committed to a naturalistic worldview do not accept the Big Bang as settled science. Natalie Wolchover writes for Quanta Magazine, “The leading hypothesis about the universe’s birth — that a quantum speck of space became energized and inflated in a split second, creating a baby cosmos — solves many puzzles and fits all observations to date. Yet this “cosmic inflation” hypothesis lacks definitive proof. Telltale ripples that should have formed in the inflating spatial fabric, known as primordial gravitational waves, haven’t been detected in the geometry of the universe by the world’s most sensitive telescopes.”
So while belief in the Big Bang is a live option for Christians, it does not mean the Bible teaches the Big Banga—a theory which only addresses physical causation and speaks nothing about the Divine origin through God’s spoken word. That being said, there are elements of the theory which are compatible with biblical cosmology. Most notably, the Big Bang theory posits an absolute beginning of space and time which comports with the biblical teaching of creation ex nihilo (Gen. 1; Psa 33:5–6). The history of Big Bang science reveals this important connection. The theory was first known as the hypothesis of the primeval atom, posited in 1931 by Georges Lemaitre (mathematician, priest, and physicist). His theory looked at the evidence for the expanding universe as evidence for a smaller denser ex nihilobeginning. His theory also supported the idea of an expanding universe stretched out by God’s hand (Job 9:8; Isa 42:5; Jer. 10:12). Lemaitre’s theory ran counter to thousands of years of Aristotelian science which held to an eternal and unchanging universe. Ironically, it was anti-religious bigotry that which assumed a naturalistic cause that kept some scientists from examining the evidence on its own merit. Physicist Fred Hoyle derided the “Big Bang” model as an “irrational process” that “can’t be described in scientific terms,” akin to creationism. In 1965, Hoyle scrambled to find an ad hocsolution to explain the cosmic microwave background data and save his Steady State Theory. Hoyle rejected all the evidence for the Big Bang theory until his death in 2001. J.R. Miller, “3 Meanings of Evolution & Biblical Creation” at More than Cake
Could be helpful if you can still find a rational discussion group on controversial topics.
See also: Miller: The evidence shows that Lucy is an ape species, not a human ancestor (J. R. Miller)
Fine-tuning of the universe: Why David Hume’s objections fail (Joseph R. Miller)
Do racial assumptions prevent recognizing Homo erectus as fully human? (Joseph R. Miller)
and
Was Neanderthal man fully human? The role racism played in assessing the evidence (Joseph R. Miller)
The last paragraph of Miller’s conclusion:
Of course this essay is aimed at Christians (and not at me), and perhaps he’s saying something like “yes, you can be a Christian and believe in naturalistic evolution, but here are some very bad results of that belief”.
But it reads like an argument from consequences. Isn’t the ultimate problem with rejecting biblical creation the fact that such a rejection is wrong? (In Miller’s view).
It seems to me that the ultimate problem with any false belief is that it’s false, period.
re 1: :-).
We need a like button, or thumbs up emoticon.
There were Christians before there was a Big Bang theory. Doesn’t that conclusively answer the question?
Thanks, jdk.
Christians believe in Christ as their Lord and Saviour.
That’s why they are Christians.
They don’t have to believe in anything else.
daveS cites this conclusion from the article:
And then daveS argues that
Yet the result of believing false things, besides the ‘simple’ fact that they are false and should, on that basis alone, not be believed, is the fact that they do indeed have bad consequences for us.
As the supposed atheistic utopias of Soviet Russia, Communist China, and the Darwinian science of Nazi Germany, i.e. eugenics, euthanasia, etc… and present day abortion and euthanasia, as well as the overall degradation of morality in present day America, testify,,, the consequences of believing the false doctrine of Darwinian evolution have been downright catastrophic on man.
But I agree with your overall sentiment, Darwinian evolution, and atheistic naturalism in general, should be rejected, first and foremost, simply because they are false.
And grievously false at that.
In fact, it would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism, methodological naturalism and/or Darwinian evolution have turned out to be.
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
To repeat, it would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism, methodological naturalism and/or Darwinian evolution have turned out to be.
Verse:
Of related note, multiple lines of evidence from modern day science now, unequivocally, show that man is not nearly as inconsequential in this universe and on this earth as atheists have falsely been trying to portray us to be.
In fact, modern science even goes so far as to show that we are indeed “made in the image of God”
In 2014 a group of leading evolutionary scientists stated that, after 4 decades of intense research, they have “essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,”
And Dr. Vedral, who is a Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and who is also a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics, states, “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”
It is hard to imagine a more convincing scientific proof that we are made ‘in the image of God’, and that we therefore have a very deep meaning and purpose for our lives, than finding both the universe, and life itself, are ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and, moreover, have come to ‘master the planet’ precisely because of our unique ability infuse information into material substrates.
Verses
Perhaps a more convincing proof that we are made in the image of God, and that our lives truly do have meaning and purpose, could be if God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was indeed God.
And that is precisely the claim of Christianity:
Verses:
I think what the above comments are missing is that you can KNOW they’re false BECAUSE they have such deleterious consequences.
Dealing with reality, as it actually is, is a prerequisite for prolonged success.
Denying reality will eventually bite you hard in a soft place.
“Wherefore by their fruits shall ye know them”
… said some guy, who might be relevant to the definition (i.e. necessary elements) of Christianity.
ScuzzaMan,
That is true in some cases, certainly. If somehow I come to believe that I can fly, then it’s likely that I will encounter some very deleterious consequences. And when those consequences unfold, as I plummet to the ground, I would (briefly) realize that my belief is/was actually false.
But does (or would) the existence of the ills that Miller describes tell me that naturalistic evolution is false? I don’t see how.
To clarify a little, in the last sentence of #8, I’m referring to the existence of those ills among people who accept naturalistic evolution.
daveS states;
The negative consequences for atheists believing false things, such as the false belief that there is no value, meaning, and purpose to life, is just one of the many lines of evidence that show us that their naturalistic/Darwinian worldview is false.
Moreover, these negative consequences for atheists play out both mentally and physically
But besides those personal negative consequences for Darwinian atheists, many lines of experimental evidence also show us that Darwinian evolution is false
As to the topic of atheists believing false things in general, as Donald Hoffman has shown through numerous computer simulations of population genetics, if Darwinian evolution were actually true then ALL of our observations of reality would be illusory.
Yet, reliable observation is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method.
Thus, since Darwinian evolution denies ‘reliable observation’, which is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method itself, then obviously Darwinian evolution can never be based upon the scientific method and is therefore falsified once again in its claim to be a scientific theory.
Moreover, completely contrary to what Hoffman found for Darwinian theory, it turns out that accurate perception, i.e. conscious observation, far from being unreliable and illusory, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, i.e. far more reliable of reality, than the mathematics of population genetics predicted. In the following experiment, it was found that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
Apparently science itself could care less if atheists are forced to believe, because of the mathematics of population genetics, that their observations of reality are illusory!
As Richard Feynman stated: “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
Verse:
bornagain77 @ 6
False beliefs can certainly have unfortunate consequences for believers. Jumping off a tall building in the false belief that you can fly unaided like Superman will bring you up against hard reality somewhat abruptly – and fatally. But then so did the sincere belief that the effects of diabetes could be cured by prayer lead to the death of the daughter of the devout family that prayed so hard.
The socialist dystopias of Soviet Russia, Communist China and Nazi Germany were built on political ideologies that were incidentally atheist. Do we really need to look at earlier theocratic states that were equally oppressive? Do we really need to review the virulent anti-Semitism of Martin Luther, one of the founding fathers of Protestantism?
As for Darwin’s theory of evolution, like its subsequent developments, it is an attempt to explain what we observe around us. It is not a doctrine which decrees how we should behave towards one another.
Evolution, naturalism and atheism are far from perfect but they are truer than any of the alternatives in my view.
Strange then that science and technology have proven to be more prodigiously fruitful and productive the more they have distanced themselves from religious presuppositions.
Do you believe that vaccines can protect you against some of the world’s worst diseases or do you prefer to rely on prayer? If you or someone close began to display some worrying symptoms of illness, would you consult the Bible or your family doctor?
Sticks that turn into snakes, talking snakes, the parting of seas, someone turned into a pillar of salt for daring to look at God’s work, a crowd of thousands fed with a few loaves and fishes, water turned into wine – just which of us is adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination?
Just exactly what does that mean? Are we like God physically? Are you saying that God is a bipedal hominoid? Does He have a navel? Are we like God mentally? Given that we are not omniscient, that we do not see the innermost recesses of every other mind, that not a sparrow falls, etc that seems unlikely as well. So, again, in what way are we made in God’s image?
The problem with this is that information, in the sense we use in everyday conversation, is about something and that something precedes the information that we acquire about it. So if Dr Vedral envisages information as the foundation of all reality, preceding everything else, then he is using the word in a very different sense to the one I understand. If you’re familiar with Dr Vedral’s work, perhaps you can find a passage from his works which defines information in the sense he is using it.
In defense of his false belief in Darwinian atheism, a false belief which, as mentioned at the bottom of post 10 continuing through post 11, “if Darwinian evolution were actually true then ALL of our observations of reality would be illusory”,,, regardless of that crushing fact Seversky states this anyway,
First off, it might surprise Seversky to know that modern day hospitals and medicine in general owe their existence to Christianity:
Louis Pasteur, renowned for his discoveries of the principles of vaccination, thought materialistic philosophers to be foolish.
Edward Jenner, who, like Pasteur, was a devout Christian, and who also was instrumental in the smallpox vaccination, was an English physician who was a champion of vaccination in spite of ‘fierce opposition and in the teeth of threats against himself.’
As to polio and measles, John Enders, “The Father of Modern Vaccines”, towards the end of his life stated that “There must be a mind behind it all.”
The same can be found with the discovery of antibiotics. Antibiotics pioneer Ernst Chain said he “would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation” as Darwinism
Philip Skell, another researcher in antibiotics, is scathing of the claim that Darwinian evolution has contributed to medicine
In fact, it is by recognizing the limits of what unguided material processes can do, (recognizing that there are in fact strict limits to what Darwinian processes can do), that the most promising avenues of medical research into new drugs that combat disease are now being found:
The multiple drug cocktail that has been so effective in controlling HIV uses much the same strategy of being beyond the ‘edge of evolution’ that Dr. Behe elucidated in the preceding article:
Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor states Darwinian explanations by themselves are ‘worthless to medicine’.
Ferngren states “Darwin’s theory did not make a significant contribution to clinical medicine.”
In fact, in so far as the Darwinian meta-narrative has influenced medical diagnostics, it has led to much medical malpractice in the past:
In fact besides medical malpractice, Darwinian evolution, with its false predictions, such as ‘junk DNA, has a long history of sending all of biological science down blind alleys instead of fostering medical breakthroughs:
Moreover, if atheists were truly concerned with maintaining a healthy society, (instead of just trying to maintain their atheistic beliefs no matter what propaganda they have to spew), then they should be first and foremost to renounce their atheism since atheism is shown to be very unhealthy for individuals and for society as a whole: See top of post 10 for references to that effect. Also see euthanasia, eugenics and abortion.
Moreover, in his statement Seversky also tried to imply that prayer was completely ineffectual and that miracles can NEVER happen. He is wrong on both counts:
Bottom line, Seversky dishonestly tried to say that Christianity was antagonistic towards medicine, and science in general, and that prayer was completely ineffectual.
Seversky is, as usual, completely wrong in his bias against Christianity.
The truth of the matter is that Darwinian Evolution in particular, and Atheism in general, have been disasters for both medicine and science.
As stated previously in the middle of post 6, ” it would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism, methodological naturalism and/or Darwinian evolution have turned out to be.”
Verse:
if anyone is interested in a cosmological that fully aligns with scriptural testimony and attests to thousands not billions timeline see SPIRAL cosmological Redshift Hypothesis, that to date has help up well as the stronger science ie higher probability explanation of the natural observations, vs SCM-LCDM