Information icon.svg RationalWiki has hit its two millionth edit! Time to go outside, guys.

Evolution:A Christian's Faith

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


The "insane crap" on the left side comes, believe it or not, from a "Science" textbook![1]

Introduction[edit]

As we have learned, both Creation and evolution must be accepted by faith. Neither is subject to human science, because no one but God was there at the beginning to observe what happened. One Christian has written the following statements to explain why her faith is in Creation rather than evolution.

Reality check[edit]

Claiming that things humans have not witnessed are matters of faith is ridiculous. For example, take a ship that sinks and no one survives, so there would be no one to witness it but "god". Just because only "god" witnessed it, does not mean scientists could not figure out the reason for the accident.

The statement also confuses evolution with the generation of life. Evolution has nothing to say about what happened "at the beginning" it tells us how life developed afterwards. That does not mean to say that there are no scientific hypotheses about the generation of life - only that evolution does not cover the point.

Finally, although the introduction claims, "One Christian has written the following statements to explain why her faith is in Creation rather than evolution." the text does no such thing. It is a series of unsubstantiated affirmations of belief without explanation.

What I Believe and Why[edit]

A. Why I Believe in Creation[edit]

1.[edit]

I believe in creation because I believe in God.

What we think and why[edit]

A. Why we think evolution explains the diversity of life on earth.[edit]

1.[edit]

I believe that science offers the most useful model for investigating the universe.

The statement to the left tells us absolutely nothing. It simply affirms itself. If she had told us why she believes in god it might have been a good start. Additionally, being a theist does not mean that one automatically must believe in creationism. One can be entirely devout, and still, based on the available evidence, accept that life had evolved, and continues to evolve.

2.[edit]

I believe in Creation because I believe in God's Word. I do not believe God would lie to me.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1:1

2.[edit]

I do not believe in Creationism because there is no scientific evidence to support it. It fails to explain basic observations in nature.

Yet again the statement is simply repeating the assertion of belief. It would be an improvement if they could demonstrate that the Bible is the Word of God without using the Bible as purported evidence. Also, the statement that God wouldn't lie is problematic because the Bible contradicts itself on numerous points. Genesis 1 and 2, for instance, give incompatible accounts of the Creation: different orders in which things were created, and so forth. (That doesn't mean it rises to the level of God lying, but it does indicate that at least some parts of the Bible are not reliable sources of information.)

3.[edit]

I believe that God will give me an understanding of His creative work when I accept by faith that He is the creator.

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God.
Hebrews 11:3a

3.[edit]

I believe that science gives us the tools to understand the world around us. The world is amoral, as is science.

The author to the left gives another tedious restatement without proof.

4.[edit]

I believe in Creation because God gives me evidence in nature that his Word (the Bible) and His creation are in perfect agreement. Both are His work.

4.[edit]

Evidence cannot be a tautology. More to the point, nature and the Bible are not in perfect agreement. For example insects have six legs, not four, and rabbits don't, in fact, chew the cud—meaning that Leviticus is in poor (or at least not perfect) agreement with His creation.

B. What I Believe about creation[edit]

1.[edit]

I believe that God began His creative work with nothing but Himself.

...so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Hebrews 11:3b

Unlike man when he makes something, God did not need materials to begin.

God + Nothing = Everything
Man + Nothing = Nothing

B. What we can say about creation[edit]

1.[edit]

Genesis 1:1 states that 'the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep(תְהֹ֑ום)'. The word also occurs in Genesis 7:11 and Isaiah 51:10 ('the springs of the great deep'). Its usage there would suggest that it was not 'nothing', as the text states, but, at the very least, some sort of space. Note that while Biblical quotations are not part of the scientific method, it has been stated that 'his Word (the Bible) and His creation are in perfect agreement. Both are His work.' In other words, the author has stated that everything in the Bible is necessarily true, and thus contradicts themselves.

2.[edit]

I believe that when a person chooses not to believe God's Word, that person will usually believe evolution.

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Romans 1:25

2.[edit]

She's reading the same programming as Andrew Schlafly!

Sure, if a person doesn't insist on a literal reading of the Bible (or Quran), they will generally accept the findings of science, because they know that scientific theories are heavily backed up by the available evidence...which you can't say for literal readings of any holy books, including (but not only) the Bible.

3.[edit]

I believe that God commands us to study his creation (the natural world) in order to master it for our benefit and glory.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.
Genesis 1:28a

3.[edit]

Funny, it's science that studies the natural world ("his creation") to learn more about it. But when it reports evidence that contradicts certain people's particular reading of their holy books, somehow it wasn't ok to study His creation after all.

4.[edit]

I believe that as we obey God's command to study the natural world (through science), we see much evidence that God created.

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork.
Psalm 19:1

4.[edit]

You can believe what you want to believe, but you don't have to live like a refugee. The only evidence this editor sees presented are random Biblical quotations.

The author also suffers from the clustering illusion.

The heavens (all of them) may well indeed "declare the glory of God" - but they may have made slightly differing declarations to the Inuit, the Babylonians, and the astronomers of the University of Novosibirsk. Thank heavens for the Bible.

5.[edit]

I believe that God created people in His image, separate from other living things. He gave us each an eternal soul.

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Genesis 2:7

5.[edit]

While the author of the discussed passage deserves some credit for construing the passage as denoting the soul, this sadly puts it outside the realms of provability; while it may be true, and philosophical debates on it are possible, the idea of 'the soul' cannot be proven or disproven. It doesn't really have much of a bearing on the subject anyway.

6.[edit]

I believe that God brought all things into existence by direct words and actions. His creating was not a process.

And God said, Let there be light.
And God said, Let there be a firmament.
Genesis 1:3a,6a
By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
Psalm 33:6,9

6.[edit]

Nothing special here - this statement is merely a summary of YEC. See here for a rebuttal.

(Note: in this quote - the uncapitalized "his" and "he" are in the original.)

7.[edit]

I believe that God gave all living things the ability to reproduce themselves within their own kind.

Jack Sparrow?

7.[edit]

The image used to illustrate this (and the next) point is interesting. It shows seven sparrows, all of differing species - meaning they can't interbreed. Some are even of different genuses: Passer (European sparrows) and Melospiza (song sparrows), which have nothing in common except the name "sparrow" and the fact that they are small brownish birds. Then it shows seven people, who, only by virtue of all being male, also can't interbreed. It would have been more accurate to show "primate kind" instead.

We think there is somehow an implicit racism being supported here, too, in that the different humans shown seem to be shown as "different", although still within one, as they call them, "baramin".

8.[edit]

I believe that God gave the potential for variety within a specific kind.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 1:11

8.[edit]

Nothing new here - this is simply claiming that common descent is untrue because Goddidit.


9.[edit]

I believe that God stopped creating at the end of six days; the first law of thermodynamics describes this truth.

Thus the heavens and earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Genesis 2:1

9.[edit]

How would the conservation of mass and energy describe the truth about God creating things, when it is said above that "God did not need materials to begin"? It also has nothing to do with six days.

10.[edit]

I believe that God is no longer creating anything; He is now preserving His physical creation. The first law of thermodynamics describes this truth.

Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou hast made heavan, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.
Nehemiah 9:6

10.[edit]

See First Law of Thermodynamics. This law has nothing to do with God; it merely states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

11.[edit]

I believe that the physical creation is gradually wearing out. This process started when Adam and Eve disobeyed God and their sin brought a curse on all of creation. The second law of thermodynamics describes this truth.

Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment [wear out gradually].
Psalm 102:25,26a

11.[edit]

See the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Also, chances are that a much better passage could be found in Ecclesiastes to illustrate "this truth". Although, the second law is more precise (and useful). Go figure.

12.[edit]

I believe that God will destroy this earth with fire and create a new heaven and earth. This change will be sudden.

As a vesture [clothing outfit] shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed.
Psalm 102:26b

12.[edit]

This has absolutely nothing to do with disproving evolution. Even if it did, it is yet another unscientific assumption without any supporting evidence.

C. Why I Do Not Believe in Evolution[edit]

1.[edit]

Evolution cannot answer my question, "Where did the world come from?"

C. Nobody asked you to "believe" in it.[edit]

1.[edit]

Evolution is not about where the world came from. That's probably why. Incidentally, gravity also doesn't explain where the world came from. Or mathematics. Or inorganic chemistry. Does that make the author disbelieve any of those?

2.[edit]

Evolution is not scientific. The study of science requires


a. something to observe and analyze and record
b. someone to do the observing, analyzing, and recording
c. the ability to repeat this scientific work

In the beginning, the only personality present was God, therefore, He is the only One qualified to answer my question.

Which makes more sense.jpg

2.[edit]

Evolution is scientific:


a. check
b. check
c. check

Also, the blatant fallacy here is the implicit suggestion that being able to directly observe an event or phenomenon taking place is somehow insufficient to be able to study it scientifically — because if you can't run experiments, you can't work out what's happened, right?

Wrong. Observational sciences should not be conflated with experimental sciences.

Observational sciences include every scientific discipline in which we logically cannot run experiments — including astronomy (we can't make galaxies), archaeology (we lack placebo civilizations), geology (we can't make new continents) and paleontology (we can't travel back in time and push various prehistoric animals into lakes), among others.

These "limitations" are all necessary features of reality which any functioning adult should be able to grasp quite easily. They are also necessary in order to make an observation scientific in the first place.

Observational science is science for the same reason that planting stuff in the soil yourself, unearthing it again, and claiming that "this is representative of what's actually in the ground without any human involvement" isn't science.

We just can't run "experiments" like that — we have to observe what's really there, not control it. What's in the ground is in the ground, and what's in the sky is in the sky. Deal with it.

Forensic science is another example of an observational science. The police can't just "set up" crime scenes instead of responding to (read: observing) real crime scenes. That would constitute some kind of forgery, not science.

The investigators have no valid alternative to simply working out the guilty party based on the actual clues provably observable at the real crime scene — footprints, fingerprints, phone records, etc. And they certainly can't add "clues" themselves. This is a basic requirement for even a shot at justice.

Is the author suggesting that no one should be convicted of a crime unless someone in law enforcement set up the entire crime scene beforehand as a controlled experiment?

And speaking of falsification — science doesn't rely on unprovable concepts like God to prove things, and for good reason.

Regardless, we can name an example study of evolution which fits all of the above given criteria anyways.

3.[edit]

Evolutionary ideas are not verified by scientific evidence.

3.[edit]

No, that's creationism. A classic case of psychological projection. There's a huge amount of scientific evidence for evolution (not just fossils, but morphology, genetics, research with bacteria, and so on), and it's supported by findings from other branches of science, such as geology (old Earth, not new), astronomy (old universe, not new), medicine (antibiotic-resistant diseases), etc.

It's obvious that evolution is science; see Disproving Evolution.

4.[edit]

Evolutionary ideas constantly change.

4.[edit]

Yes, evolutionary ideas DO constantly change, That's what makes it science, which attempts to build a verifiable model of the real world from empirical evidence, and not religion, which models a mostly-immaterial world on the basis of revelation. The fact that sciences continually change is a strength, not a weakness—they constantly improve their models of reality as more or better information becomes available. If science stopped changing, it wouldn't really be science any more, because science is really a process, not just a body of knowledge.

5.[edit]

Evolutionary ideas are as varied as the individuals who think them up.

5.[edit]

The same can be said about creationism, so this doesn't make sense.

6.[edit]

Evolution must be accepted by faith. Faith in evolution is unjustified by works.

6.[edit]

Projection again!

Worldwide, most Christians (and followers of other religions) accept evolution because it's strongly supported by the evidence; there's no faith required. There is faith required for someone to insist on the YEC account, which after all is supported only by one particular holy book, and only a specific interpretation of the accounts in that holy book. Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other on a number of points: the order of creation, most importantly, and the YEC narrative has picked and chosen between them. Why should anyone believe that specific account? It may seem obvious to young-Earth creationists, but it's not at all obvious to anyone who doesn't already believe it. That requires faith.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. Science:Order & Reality. 1980,1993 Pensacola Christian College, A Beka Book. Pp. 377-381