Evolution, the Bible, and the Book of Nature - Books & Culture

Yes, as a matter of fact, it is ugly. Is evolution really as supported as he would have us believe?

__________________
Charlie Johnson
Downtown Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, student

Of course not. Then again, for "most" evolutionary scientists, there is no God, and so "science" has no foundation--so they can make it whatever they need it to be to support their theories. So-called "theistic evolutionists" have no such excuse and probably are simply not taking seriously the scientific problems with their worldview.

__________________
Jonathan
Audio Engineer
Reformed Anabaptist
Ohio

Moroni's magical glasses of proper interpretation:

I don't think it is, but It's been hard for me to navigate this debate, given that presuppositions are so powerful and that, as Kuhn and other philosophers of science have pointed out, our 'paradigm' effects the way we interpret data. So it's very possible that once a theory is considered true by the scientific community, all subsequent evidence will be interpreted as supporting that theory(which was Kuhn or Poppers(can't remember) critique of evolution in his early years; IE it was too broad to be falsified, and so the theory could continue to adapt itself to new evidence, which is a sign of a bad theory).

That is the feel that I get with evolution. The evolutionists rejoice in the victories of their theory, but minimize the difficulties(and there are a lot). I don't know if it's intentional, but it's a terrible way to do science. That's an attitude that halts scientific progress. The Newtonians could have staunchly held on to Newtonian physics by focusing on it's strengths, and just choosing to ignore the few phenomena that could not be explained in the Newtonian framework. They could have just said that the "the much-emphasized gaps do not represent any real threat to the overall framework", as Francis Collins said in that interview(I realize that physics and biology are radically different and so this analogy isn't perfect, but I think that point is still valid : Progress in science is made by not being dogmatic about a certain paradigm, and the attitude being exhibited by the evolutionists is ultra-dogmatic).


Anyhow, thanks for posting the interview, though I wish Collin's would have actually put together some arguments for evolution instead of just vaguely referencing the genetic data that supports evolution.

__________________
Andrew C.
IFB
LBCF 1689

Dear Karl W. Giberson,

Thank you for your insight in comparing creationism to heliocentricism. No one has ever thought of that before! How ingenious! Also, I'm thankful that you were able to present both sides of the creation/evolution debate fairly and without bias. Of course those fundamentalists who hold to a young earth are the same as the geocentrists of the 15th century. Why didn't I ever notice that before?



-----Added 7/20/2009 at 12:06:14 EST-----

And did anyone else notice this?

Rather telling, if you ask me.

__________________
Seth Stark
Member, Communion Presbyterian Church (ARP), Irvine, CA
Biola University, Graduate Student, M.A. - Science and Religion
Seth's Blog