From WhyNotWiki

Contents 1 Questions 2 3 Intelligent design 4 Creation 4.1 For: The philosophical/probability angle 4.2 Criticism of Intelligent Design 4.3 origins.org 4.3.1 Where are you coming from (the underlying presuppositions of this site)? 4.3.2 Why this focus? 4.3.3 What about the Bible? 4.3.4 What is Our Focus? 4.3.5 Intelligent Design and the Age Issue 4.3.6 What about the Bible and the Date of Creation? 4.4 4.5 5 Evolution 6 "Theistic evolution"; Can the theory of evolution be believed by a Bible-believing Christian 7 Sources of information / Origins 7.1 International Faith and Science Conferences 8 Book: Understanding Genesis: Contemporary Adventist Perspectives, Brian Bull, Fritz Guy, Ervin Taylor 9 Misc 9.1 10 Debates to fight in 11

[edit] Questions

• Is there a difference between micro- and macro-evolution?

[edit]

Origins  edit   (Category  edit)

Justin Gest. Source: The Collegian: Vol 91, Issue 17, 2007-02-22: Religion (page 12): "Debating with sledgehammers"

Let's talk ... a bit about ... Creationism, evolution, and intelligent design. [...]

I thought it would be more fun than Jello wrestling an otter to offer up the sportscaster’s rundown of why the argument is pointless.

They say that the best way to understand someone is to walk a mile in his shoes. This lets you know a) what kind of shoes he wears, b) whether his shoes fit you well, and c) how fast someone is willing to run barefoot to get his shoes back. Until I arrived on campus, I didn’t really understand how frustrating it can be to have your beliefs dismissed as spurious fluff. Most everyone seems to have made up their minds about how life came to be on the planet, and have been thoroughly vaccinated against picking up any of those contagious other ideas floating around. Side effects of the vaccination may include irritability, nausea, stubbornness, moodswings, or inflammation of the pride. Ask your doctor if Minutia® is right for you.

If I may be so bold, I’d like to give it the old college try to explain why each side thinks the other is poppycock. I’m not board-certified in this area, so don’t attempt to reference this in theology or biology or wherever intelligent design fits. Because intelligent design is such a long phrase, and I’m a lazy typer, it will be henceforth shortened to ID. Because it suggests that everyone around is AI. Or the Borg.

Creationists view Darwinists and ID’ers as attempting to subvert the Word of God, and failing to take into account the reality of sin. The true literal Creationist will point out that the Bible says otherwise, and any evidence to the contrary is either arrogance, the work of the Devil, or a test by God. Darwinism and ID are essentially the same thing to a Creationist, with a slight difference in the intention.

ID views Creationists and Darwinists as close-minded and unwilling to consider the evidence involved. According to ID, there is a wealth of information which shows the earth must be older than 6,011 years as claimed by Creationists. (As an offhand question, Christians have a big party to celebrate when Christ was born, and then again to celebrate when he died. Why isn’t there a birthday party for the world on October 23rd ?) They also argue that evolution cannot explain everything, and Darwinists are relying on speculation so gossamer thin it won’t hold water. Or something.

Darwinists view Creationism and ID as the same concept with differences in geology. Creationism simply does not fit scientific evidence, and ID looks suspiciously like Creationist’s Trojan horse. ID claims all the same results, just putting a Christian—I mean non-chancical—spin on it.

I just recently finished listening to the Michael Behe lectures. (In case people weren’t aware, WWC has lectures available for download at itunesu.wwc.edu.) I’ve been hearing snarky comments, questioning the College’s reasoning for bringing such a controversial figure anywhere near the campus, just on the off chance he might contaminate the water supply. It was surreal to be on the outside, hearing Creationists arguing about the tomfoolery of intelligent design. Imagine that one of your parents is absolutely furious about something you did, storms into the room, and begins yelling at your sister.

...

[edit] Intelligent design

[edit] Creation

[edit] Evolution

[edit] Sources of information / Origins

[edit] Book: Understanding Genesis: Contemporary Adventist Perspectives, Brian Bull, Fritz Guy, Ervin Taylor

The book review in Adventist Today, Vol. 15, Issue 6, 2007-(11-12), page 23, 25 by Sean D. Pitman gives enough reasons for me to avoid buying/reading this book.

This book, for example, claims that...

• Animals don't really suffer
• Genesis 1 is "neither scientific nor unscientific, but non-scientific"
• "The theory of evolution did not affect or bias the theory of long ages being represented by the geologic layers and fossil record"

This review argues against these claims and renews my confidence in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

[edit] Misc

http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2007/12/22/just-a-theory-ron-paul-doesnt-accept-evolution/. Retrieved on 2007-05-11 11:18.

http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2007/12/22/just-a-theory-ron-paul-doesnt-accept-evolution/#comment-122178,cabRon322,

Dr.Paul did NOT say he didn’t believe in evolution.

He said he believes he was created by his creator and doesn’t think there is ABSOLUTE proof for either side.

By saying you were created by a creator does NOT mean you reject the theory of evolution. This is exactly what he says in the full clip (which was butchered and doctored by many).

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=42n42J-gB_Y

Ultimately, he says the issue is NOT the reason he is running for office.

Paul knew this subject would be fodder for smears. He answered in a smart, legitimate manner without lying. Basically, he was a smart politician.

All this stupidity aside, HE STILL GETS MY VOTE

http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2007/12/22/just-a-theory-ron-paul-doesnt-accept-evolution/#comment-122608,Tyler Rick,

Some parts of evolution (microevolution) are provable, yes. But it's a bait-and-switch when you purport that just because PARTS of evolution are scientifically based, then the evolutionary hypothesis for the ORIGINS of life on this planet (which really shouldn't be considered part of the theory of evolution, but so often is lumped in) is ALSO scientifically based and provable. Has science produced a living organism out of dead matter? (No)

I find it so unfortunate that evolutionists consistently couple the parts of evolution that are scientific with those parts that are wildly speculative and expect everyone to swallow the whole package, all or nothing. There's a distinction to be made between origins science (we weren’t alive to observe back then, so this is where a lot of us have trouble with the claim that it is a scientifically proven theory) and operational science (observable and testable today).

Creationism as a theory of origins is no more based on speculation than is the "big bang" hypothesis. You claim there is no evidence for Creation, but there is plenty. You are just unwilling to review it. (Check out answersingenesis.org, icr.org, the book "Refuting Evolution", Dr. Walter Veith, etc., etc.) It's called confirmation bias, and both sides are guilty of it.

There is, for example, more than one way to interpret the fossils and geological record. One way is to presuppose that each stratus represents millions of years; the other way is to interpret the various strata as evidence of a world-wide catastrophic flood. Both explanations, I believe, are reasonable -- but the one that appears more plausible, of course, depends on your worldview and presuppositions. So how about we let people believe what they want to believe, and refrain from insulting each other's intelligence (please).

Ron Paul's policies are awesome and he deserves your vote, regardless of whether you believe in a naturalistic or a supernatural explanation of our origins. I hope you will not let your disagreement on this one issue overshadow the much more important things about Ron Paul: limited government and upholding the Constitution!

Vote Ron Paul!

It’s the only "natural selection"! :)

...

Transcript of Ron Paul’s FULL response on Evolution

Here is the full transcript of Congressman Paul’s remarks, the deleted sections in the edited video posted here by Truthdig, courtesy of The Largest Minority, are shown in [brackets].

“Well, at first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter, and I think it’s a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory, but I think [ it probably doesn’t bother me. It’s not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my life to understand the exact origin. I think ] the creator that I know created us, everyone of us, and created the universe, and the precise time and manner, I just don’t think we’re at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side. [So I just don’t . . . if that were the only issue, quite frankly, I would think it’s an interesting discussion, I think it’s a theological discussion, and I think it’s fine, and we can have our . . . if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn’t be running for public office.”]

...

There is really not enough information to understand what Ron Paul really believes.

I believe, also, that if he believes in creationism or evolution is irrelevant so long as he allows for an open education. It appears that Evolutionist are as much of a zealot as the creationist…because evolution, gay marriages and religion are secondary to inflation, the economy, war, health cost, and global warming, money management non-congressional individuals. Imagine, the nation money supply is being control by a private institution and people are squirming about evolution.

In the present state of public ideas regarding origins are two broad ideas……one of evolution and the other of creationism. There are some heated arguments regarding this concept, one is guided by an ancient book, the other by scientific methodology. In my view, however, one is a fantasy and the other an exaggeration.

One speaks of an old man with a beard existing before time was invented, calculating and manufacturing life out of pure magic. No one knows why this old man with a magical powers decided to create life, or where the idea of creating life came from. The other, well, is an exaggeration. Evolution means one thing. Evolution means change. That is all that evolution really is, change. There are models of evolution. but those models are serious lacking. But lets go back to this idea of change. Since ancient time, there are men who understood that change was an essential part of existence. This idea is at least 2500 year old, quite possibly prehistorical. When you read philosophies from the far east you can see this. Everything change, everything has to change, nothing is immutable. Therefore, not the frequency of allele within a gene pool. But evolutionary models are dumb perchance. One coconut hits a man on the other head but not the other, so one survives but not the other. One man mutates and becomes more efficient. All of this by dumb chance. The problem though is that there does not appear to be enough time for this to happen. 160 thousand years something happened to a hominid that allowed it to conquer the world. 160 thousand years ago there appear to be an unprecedented ability to master tools and improve his condition. The first human might have been born.

The thing is that proponents of evolution tried to explain evolution from the lack of any active volitional involvement, by the organism. everything was dumb luck. Have you ever seen an evolutionist attempt to explain intelligence and its impact on the organism? What exactly is the placebo effect. Why is intelligence so illusive. Materialist look the other way when they discover functionally and intelligent individual with 70% of brain mass missing. Thoughts appear to alter the physiology of the brain. Can thoughts act as mutagens? We dont know. Materialist atheist engrossed with the idea that organism change, purely from environmental circumstances. They tried to hard to promote the idea that the mind is the result of a physical organ…even though such a point of view is slowly collapsing.

Antonio Alejandro 01/8/08 at 7:33 pm

[edit]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0795176/board/nest/85609376. Retrieved on 2007-05-11 11:18.

i was just interested in getting into a little debate about the evidence for and against it. i don't know to much about it and am interested in a believer's point of view.

I am an atheist who believes in evolution by the way.

[Most commenters proceed to make fun of creationism...]

I am a fundamentalist Christian and have no problem at all talking about it because I believe in the end you are correct. I believe an honest scientist and person of faith have in mind the same goal, the pursuit of truth. The problem, as so repeatedly demonstrated in this thread, is that you and I unfortunately are in the minority. A lot so-called Christians are the number one cause of atheism. IE: When a waiter in a restaurant is left a religious tract instead of a tip, that is a huge cause of atheism. I don't claim to know about the origin of the planet. We can see the erosion and effects of warming and cooling over thousands and millions or perhaps billions of years. I don't see in any way how this damages religion in any way. I don't believe in evolution as a means of an origin of life, but I do believe in the nature of life to change and mutate.

The bird has always been a huge issue an stumbling block to me as yet that most in evolution AS CURRENTLY STATED can't answer. You see, if evolution, as any scientific theory, is bound by logic and reason, how is it a wing could form over millions, even thousands, even hundreds of years? If a creature is running/crawling/etc and a lump/membrane forms on its back... a mutation... that mutation is not capable of allowing flight. If then the membrane remains in place, there is no reason for muscle tissue to ever form around it and let it develop as an appendage. If it disappears in the next few generations, as IT NEVER HAD A REASON TO EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE, the wing would never form. I believe it takes FAR more faith to believe in evolution theory as it currently exists than to believe in any religion.

But that isn't your question. Your question is creationism in the ideas of Christians. I don't know how the universe or Earth or man came to be. As you know, Genesis is only a few thousand years old and all of the old testament is rooted in the creation and history or early Judaism. Christianity, strictly speaking, began with Christ, whom we believe to be not 50% God and 50% human, but 100% God and 100% human and the fulfillment of all the prophecies that were foretold by the Jewish prophets (Elijah, et al). I can tell you I believe this: I believe that God, as an intelligent designer, created the universe, or is the universe, and created our souls in such a way to be able to perceive the concept of time. I do believe "Adam and Eve" may have been in the "Garden" for TRILLIONS of years, as I believe there was likely no such entity as "Time" or "Space" prior to "The serpent and the apple", and I'm not even so sure about these events happening on Earth in reality. I believe the Bible is true. I believe as a book given to a man to be passed by oral tradition for thousands of years it would need to be told in such a way to maintain its truth and message. Whereas a debate on apologetics is far more easy with the New Testament, having lots of sources and corroborative evidence outside of the Bible to support it (Josephus, etc) it becomes difficult to do the same with the Old Testament. I was a Navy Nuc, and it was there I began to believe in God. In Nuclear physics and chemistry and radiological fundamentals and electrical theory and thermodynamics, certain things emerge. To take it all as random chance defies logic. I'm sure you've heard the example of going to the moon and finding a watch and saying "wow, these gears mustve shot out of the volcano this way" used by creationists as a means of arguing against evolution... a powerful, but incorrect argument. I'm not interested in winning an argument, I'm interested in the truth, and to me personally, even if "Heaven" is my matter decaying into the ground and creating life to worms and grass, the value of my life is greatly strengthened by my faith. I believe some facets of evolution perhaps may be true, certainly survival of the fittest... but overall I think is more egregious than the politicalization of man made Global Warming and will join it as an equally outrageous expose of our ignorance in a few hundred more years. You really have to remember that before evolution, the leading scientific theory was spontaneous generation. SG being the idea that a hunk of cheese lingering long enough will GENERATE mice, or meat in a corner will generate maggots, or that semen left in a woman long enough may generate a child. As silly and backward as this theory sounds today, was considered fact once. I don't know. No one does.

To all those who like to throw rocks at the Christians on this thread: Why not ask harder questions of evolution theory? People tend to gloss over it's vastly missing catalogs of missing links and inability to explain Duck-Billed Platypus just to stand around and guffaw at the red state hillbilly who is dumb enough to thank the creator of the universe for allowing him the privilege to eat. He doesn't pray because it changes you, my friend, he prays because it changes him.

...

Amateurs built The Ark, professionals built The Titanic.

YOU should watch "Zeitgeist" and "Ring of Power" on Google Video.

[Note to self: Need to find / write refutation to Zeitgeist part 1.]

I just don't get why there has to be an argument over creationism or evolution at all!! The way I see it, because all life seems to have a similarity to its design, such as animals with eyes mouths, organs etc that work basically the same, then you can assume that a Creator was behind that. Now as to evolution, cant we accept that the Creator "allowed" his creations to evolve through time too? This type of thought is called crealution and Im a crealutionist , how about you? :)

[edit] Debates to fight in

They are everywhere. It seems like every day someone new (probably a disgruntled evolutionist who is afraid that more and more people are starting to see the truth of Creation) starts a thread on some forum somewhere (Facebook, Amazon, YouTube, etc.) attacking creationism.

They use unprovable claims like "Evolution is a proven fact" and "Every scientist believes in it" and hope to get people to believe them based on their bold claims alone, rather than the evidence they present. But these forums aren't really a great way for either side to present evidence in a systematic or comprehensive way. They are simply a place for two sides of this very polarized debate can take potshots at each other and attack each other with pseudo-arguments and inflammatory remarks. Worthless. But if you don't fight the other side on these forums, then I'm afraid innocent people will be misled by the seemingly compelling arguments that evolutionists-with-too-much-time-on-their-hands provide. We need an army of fact-laden, intelligent defenders of creation truth to help defend against this onslaught.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwaNZg6nojE

[edit]

Aliases: Hypotheses of origin, Theories of origin, Theory of origin, Origin of the Earth, Origin of the universe