CREATIONISM----F.Y.I

by nakedmvistar 72 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  nakedmvistar

  In the midst of the debates -- or wars -- concerning the issues of creation and evolution, there is a tendency to over-generalize. Both sides often refer to the opposing side with the broad term of either "evolutionist" or "creationist." And yet there exists within both sides a great deal of variety and even controversy. As a creationist myself, I am hoping the following will help increase the understanding of the variety of positions on the creationist side of the fence.

  In the United States, and perhaps in all the western culture(s), the term "creationism," or "creation," is automatically associated with Christianity and the Bible. In particular it is associated with the book of Genesis, the beginning book of the Bible, which recounts the story of creation. However this generalization ignores those of other faiths who believe just as firmly in creation as opposed to evolution from their respective points of view. The Islamic faith is a creationist faith (whether or not its proponents agree with this position). Information regarding the Islamic creation beliefs may be found here:

  http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~bakal/islam/nature.html

  In Japan, there is the Kojiki, the ancient chronicle of creation.

  The book Red Earth, White Lies, by Vine Deloria, Jr., (Fulcrum Publishing, 350 Indiana Street, Suite 350, Golden, Colorado 80401) deals with the Native American beliefs regarding creation as opposed to evolution.

  The list could ago on, but it is important to realize that the term "creation" should not be relegated to Christianity exclusively. This is doing a great disservice to the beliefs of many other people in the world.

  Because Genesis is also the first book of the Hebrew, or Jewish, Scriptures, there is a strong creation movement within the Jewish faith as well.

  Within the Christian community, there are also different views of creation:.

  1. Old universe, old earth, old life: This view is commonly held by theistic evolutionists, or those who claim Christian beliefs regarding Jesus Christ but do not accept Genesis as a straightforward account of the beginning of all things. This model accepts ancient ages based on man's knowledge of science and the laws science is aware of today. This is the compromise position, basically, between creation and evolution. When there is seeming opposition between the Bible and current science, science wins and the Bible is considered either incorrectly translated or incorrectly understood. Although God is acknowledged in this model, He is generally relegated to the position of "clockmaker" in an almost deistic fashion; He set up the universe and life and established the laws by which it has run ever since.

  2. Old universe, old earth, recent life: This position is held by those who subscribe to what is often referred to as the "Gap Theory" of Genesis, wherein it is believed that the universe and the earth are quite old, but that, at one point or another, and for one reason or another, the early earth was either destroyed and re-created or simply held in abeyance until the creation of recent life. This is the official, or semi-official doctrine of some churches.

  3. Old universe, young earth, recent life: This position, not as commonly held, considers the universe to be old, but earth itself, and, subsequently life, to be young. This is also the position of some parts of Christianity.

  4. Young universe, young earth, recent life: This is the classic Christian model which is so widely disputed by those of the evolution camp. In this model the entire universe, including, of course, the earth and all life, is less than 10,000 years old. This is in keeping with the most straightforward reading of the Genesis account in combination with the lists of generations in Genesis 5, 10 and 11.

  It is the fourth model, which is the commonly considered definition of "creation" as it is discussed today. This is the model, along with -- to a lesser degree -- models 2 and 3 which is ridiculed and fought against by many in professional education, science, and communications. Within the last three models there are several "sub-groups" as well. Here I will deal with only the fourth model, known as the YEC model (young earth creation model) as the others are included or excluded by implication.

  1. The Flood of Noah was responsible for the vast majority of the geologic strata we see today. This is the historic position of young earth creationists. It is the official position of the most well-known creation organizations, including the Institute of Creation Research in southern California ( http://www.icr.org/) and Answers in Genesis ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/index.asp?Area=Home), based both in Kentucky and Brisbane, Australia.

  2. The Flood of Noah was only one of several catastrophic events contributing to the geologic record. There are a number of individuals in this camp who have been putting together models based on what they understand of both the Bible and the geologic record as well as other areas of science. The two most noted at this point are Barry Setterfield and Bernard Northrup. However other models are also in the works according to several communications I have received personally.

  With this short introduction, then, it might be seen that to categorize "creationists" into one camp -- often the fourth camp of the Christian position -- is to be working out of ignorance of what is involved in creation. As a note, as well, it might also be necessary to clear up the term "creation science." Science is science. Lab work is lab work and field work is field work. Science, in its purest form, deals with what can be tested and worked with. It does not matter, when adding materials to a Petri dish, when excavating fossils, when operating the spacecraft, whether the person or people involved are atheistic, deistic, agnostic, New Age, or however else they might consider themselves. The technical aspects are not part of the belief systems of the men and women involved.

  The adjectives "creation" and "evolution" get added to the term "science" when the matter of presuppositions and conclusions are dealt with. There is no scientist anywhere in the world who does not hold to some kind of presuppositional truth in his own life. That which he considers true will invariably color his understanding of the science he is involved with. Thus, those who believe evolution to be true will see their work in terms of evolution theory. Those who believe creation to be true will see their work in terms of creation theory. Each will form conclusions based on what they consider true in the first place. The data can be exactly the same and the conclusions can be radically different because of this. Thus, "creation science" is not a separate science itself, but a way of looking at science through the eyes of those who believe, in whatever form, that the universe and all life was the result of creation by some kind of deity.

  The last point that should be brought up here is the relatively new area referred to as "Intelligent Design." Those involved with this frame of reference are part of various religions or are non-religious altogether. Intelligent Design is the logical and philosophical position, combined with science, which says that the universe and life itself give strong evidence for intelligent design. The identity of the Intelligent Designer is left to the individual -- it is not a matter for discussion within the parameters of the Intelligent Design movement itself. There are both Christians and non-Christians in this movement, as well as those who are agnostic. It is a far wider-reaching category of thought than creation as discussed above, but includes it. Some of the articles by those involved in the Intelligent Design field can be found here:

  http://www.origins.org/menus/evolution.html

  http://www.arn.org/arn2.htm

  Understanding the different areas of creation beliefs should help all those involved in the debates to argue more precisely and intelligently. When broad generalizations are made it can cause respect to be lost and produce defensiveness. There is too much to be said in the creation/evolution controversy for ignorance to be allowed to lead the way.
• 

  Pancho

  Check out Dave Matson here http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/index.shtml
• 

  TheOldHippie

  Nice info; The "Read Earth, White Lies" is an interesting book, which I enjoyed - its description of the Bering Strait area, over which hordes of people and animals supposedly should have migrated, not to speak of the valleys of Siberia which incidentally run North-South and not East-West, are very good as a basis for questiong those notions.

  And I guess Behe is one of the foremost "Designers", he's a Catholic himself, as far as I recall.

  The Witness community would fall into category 2, would it not?

  Finally, whatever one might think of the Young-Earthers, the category 4, they at least do a whole lot of experimenting and publishing and thinking. I have dep respect for the honest and seincere ones among them because of their hard work to prove their opinion.

  I think this is one tough area; I see and hear seemingly proofs for evolution is so many programs, but at the same time this light way in which it is presented, that plants and small animals somehow figure out things, decide to grow eyes, work together, such each other's juices and protect each other, decide to migrate, find out this and that - while higher animals like whales just go killing themselves on some stupid shore, no matter how hard you try to help them off ........... My horse ain't smart, and definitely has decided not to develop any new organs ....

  A German scientist, Scherer, has written books used at school where he presents a creation model, somewhere in the Behe area I guess. In some European countries, like Germany and France, Darwinism is not as warmly embraced as elsewhere.
• 

  Liberty

  Hi Naked,

  Nice post but I would disagree about comparing the preconcieved notions of the scientific method and Creationists. There is a vast difference between science and Creationism. Science is based upon observations from the nature while Creationism is driven by religious faith in the supernatural. Invisible super beings are the first cause in Creationism and such beings cannot be discovered by any known scientific method therefore all the research that follows is faith based, in essence using natural phenomenon to prove the supernatural (trying to prove that which is unprovable). God, gods, or other supernatural beings would have to make themselves known in the physical realm before they can become the subject(s) of a true scientific study. Science is the study of the natural world and not of the supernatural.

  If, for instance, I claim my car was hand made by the ghost of Henry Ford scientists could study the car and even draw conclusions about its materials and manufacture but could not prove that a ghost made the car unless Henry Ford appeared to them in an observable form and demonstrated how he made my car. Since God or any other gods have so far not appeared to scientists for study in an observable form they are as real as Henry Ford's ghost. Studying the earth to prove that gods exist is as futile as studying my car to prove Ford's ghost exists. Adding a document which states that Ford's ghost inspired its writing and then describes how and why he built my car is not that helpful except that if it describes a process which proves to be false when compared to the actual car it only proves that the document itself is faulty, further straining the credability of the ghost story in the first place.

  Edited by - Liberty on 18 September 2002 11:44:3
• 

  nakedmvistar

  In 1981, the United States National Academy of Sciences passed a resolution saying that "Religion and science are separate and mutually exclusive realms of human thought whose presentation in the same context leads to misunderstanding of both scientific theory and religious belief." The statement was intended only for use in a public-relations campaign against the creation science movement, and it has never been invoked against evolutionary pantheists, agnostics, or scientific materialists. For example, the Academy makes no protest when Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene) uses the authority of science to promote atheism, or when physicists promote a "theory of everything" that will allow its possessors to "know the mind of God," or when Carl Sagan proclaimed in his Cosmos series that "the Cosmos is all there is, or ever was, or ever will be." On the contrary, the National Academy gave Sagan its Public Welfare medal.

  Chet Raymo is another in the long line of scientific metaphysicians who yearn to make a religion out of science; and so he argues that Christians should adopt for religious purposes what he calls "the new creation story." His description of the new story is more in poetic than scientific language, as befits an admirer of Teilhard de Chardin, but he clearly is referring to the standard version of evolutionary naturalism. According to this story, nature did its own creating through unintelligent material processes, particularly the purposeless Darwinian mechanism of random mutation and natural selection. God was involved if at all only in the very beginning, in setting up the laws, and thereafter nature runs by itself. In Raymo's words, nature itself "becomes the sublime scripture," humans are viewed as the universe becoming conscious of itself through evolution, and prayer consists of rejecting miracles while giving praise and thanksgiving to nature.

  The National Academy's motives may have been partisan, but there is clearly some truth in its warning that mixing science with religion can produce a highly intoxicating brew. Teilhard's comment that "less and less do I see any difference between research and adoration," which Raymo quotes with approval, is about as far from the ideal of scientific > objectivity as one can go. When scientists begin to worship their own concepts, they are tempted to proclaim vast philosophical systems rather than stick to what the data is showing.

  So it was with Teilhard, and so it is with evolution-worshipers generally. The first thing to understand about Raymo's "new story" is that scientists cannot prove that known natural forces can produce complex biological organisms. They assume this crucial and highly debatable fact, regardless of the evidence. No one has demonstrated that chemical evolution can produce life in the first place. Indeed this field is in a state of confusion and cannot even begin to account for the information content of the simplest organisms. Despite what you were told in school and in countless public television nature programs, natural selection has no substantial creative power. Ask for evidence and all you will get are examples of trivial variations in fundamentally stable populations. Look at the fossils and you will see a general pattern of unexplained sudden appearances of new forms of life followed by stasis - meaning the absence of fundamental evolutionary change. Neo-Darwinism is more accurately classified as materialist mythology than as science.

  The highly regarded Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin explained the true basis of evolutionary science in a remarkably candid essay in the New York Review of Books (January 9, 1997). Lewontin has as low an opinion of the adaptationist "just-so" stories of the neo-Darwinists as I do. In spite of his skepticism, however, he accepts the basic story of evolutionary naturalism because, in his own words,

  We have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

  If you are going to define science as applied materialist philosophy, then of course you are going to end up with a materialist creation story, one that excludes the possibility of a personal God who created us and answers prayer. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that this new story has been validated by scientific testing. The important questions are all decided in the assumptions and definitions.

  In fact the new story is rapidly becoming an old story and it may not be around much longer, even in the scientific world. For a look at the way things are going, see the recent article in the Boston Review by James A. Shapiro, professor of microbiology at the University of Chicago, with the provocative title "Scientific Alternatives to Darwinism: Is There a Role for Cellular Information Processing in Evolution?" Just to give the flavor of the article, here is a string of excerpts:

  The molecular revolution has revealed an unanticipated realm of complexity and interaction more consistent with computer technology than with the mechanical viewpoint which dominated when the neo-Darwinian modern synthesis was formulated....It has been a surprise to learn how thoroughly cells protect themselves against the kinds of accidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are the sources of evolutionary variability....The point of this discussion is that our current knowledge of genetic change is fundamentally at variance with postulates held by neo-Darwinists....Is there any guiding intelligence at work in the origin of species displaying exquisite adaptations that range from lambda prophage repression and the Krebs cycle through the mitotic apparatus and the eye to the immune system, mimicry, and social organization?

  Shapiro takes jabs at both the Creationists and the neoDarwinists, accusing both groups of "presenting a static view of the scientific enterprise." He blames Creationists for refusing to credit the successes of science, but also comments that, when faced with new ideas, neo-Darwinists "assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science."

  James Shapiro plays by the same scientific rules that Richard Lewontin does, and so he is still talking about the origin of cellular information-processing systems as a problem in "evolution." But the systems he describes are analogous to sophisticated computers, and there is no known natural process that can produce anything of that kind. Scientifically, Shapiro's program is identical to that of Michael Behe, the molecular biologist (and Roman Catholic) author of Darwin's Black Box (1997). The difference is that Shapiro tries to use language that scientific materialists can conceivably tolerate, whereas Behe dares to make the obvious inference that the evidence of biology points unambiguously to design, and hence to the reality of a Designer.

  In short, Chet Raymo is urging Christians to rely for their salvation on a theory derived from materialist philosophy, rather than from scientific testing. Since scientific materialists don't hesitate to give advice to religious people, I suggest religious people should return the favor. Let's gently advise the evolutionary scientists that they need to cultivate a bit more of that objectivity they are always recommending to others. They could make a start by learning to tell the difference between what they assume and what they investigate.
• 

  crownboy

  Liberty, your points are well expressed. Evolutionist didn't just jump out of bed, open a 2,000 year old book, and declare the theory valid. Unfortunately, that's precisely what YEC's and other creationists who base their "science" on old books do. Evolutionist can prove their case, it just requires some research and time on the part of people to recognize this. Most of the other creationists, who may be "theistic evolutionist" are OK with me, as long as they keep their religious convictions out of the science lab. Science isn't here to prove religious claims, it's here to verify facts about the natural universe. If this proves some "religious point" along the way, fine, but don't fudge the evidence and mislead people (like with the Society's Creation book).

  nakedmvistar, I see you've used a Philip Johnson article as your second post (see: http://www.ldolphin.org/broken.html, second article). Johnson's works have been critiqued regularly by scientist (see : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/johnson.html, also for a critique by a Christain see: http://www.asa3.org/gray/evolution_trial/dotreview.html ). Also Johnson is a lawyer, not a scientist. He's also an AIDS denier, BTW (see: http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001486&p=), which makes me wonder about his "scientific mind".

  Basically, your Philip Johnson article is mainly silly because it proposes some "atheist conspiracy" in science, which simply does not exist. Guys like Richard Dawkins speak out about their worldview aside from their scientific work, not in conjunction with it (unlike a lot of creationists). Science may help them understand their world better, but they don't do their scientific work with the goal of "affirming atheism" in mind. Before accepting some of these guys claims do some research, you'd be surprised at what you find .
• 

  Xander

  In any case, in your bio you mention that although you consider the WT corrupt, you believe 'most of their teachings are correct'.

  I assume this means you believe in the christian concept of deity?

  May I be so bold as to ask why you would belief in a single all-powerful being responsible for creation? I happen to be a fan of a more 'guided evolution' concept, but I can't justify the diversity, hardness of life in general, and cruelty in the animal world with a single, all powerful, unified and loving creator.
• 

  nakedmvistar

  Many points of view....back and forth. Dolphin also has his own agenda but I find his articles intriguing nonetheless.
• 

  nakedmvistar

  God is the foundation for all my beliefs in creationism. I don't research creationism and evolution to justify my belief in him. He reafirms and solidifies them. A single deity in control with an absolute and perfect agenda is central to my faith. I do hold to the belief that this world is physically and spiritually out of balance. God will correct this in his own time. Faith in a God is difficult if not impossible to prove in the scientific realm. I only seek to reenforce this with my research.
• 

  SixofNine

  nakedmvistar, if you post other peoples' writings, credit them. Lest dumb people start following you, instead of the person who actually did the mental masturbation it takes to rightfully get dumb people to follow them.

  Thank you.