Creationism vs. Evolution

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." -Jesus

 

Does the best scientific evidence point to a few thousand year old cosmos, as Young Earth Creationists like to claim, or one that is a few billion years old?

A recent meeting of Christian astronomers sought to answer that question. During the meeting, Drs. Danny Faulkner and Hugh Ross presented the best case for a young and an ancient universe, respectively.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=e867NvLQ61E
...Brief outtake from the discussion in question

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GaiAomEVpKY
...The complete discussion for those interested

A panel of evangelical Christian astronomers, mutually agreed upon by both presenters, evaluated the arguments to decide in which direction the evidence pointed. The panel's report appears below and on Reasons To Believe's website: www.reasons.org

One aspect of the panel's assessment should be noted. A common perception is that results from a single experiment are capable of arbitrating between competing scientific models. Rarely does science operate so cleanly. Instead, as identified by the panel, scientific advance usually occurs through incremental gains in knowledge with meticulous cross-checking of assumptions and elimination of possible errors. The weight of evidence from multiple experiments, attacking the question from independent lines of reason (rather than a single line of evidence or result) leads to the correct answer. In this instance, the panel determined that the bulk of evidence available strongly affirms the antiquity of the universe.

The Panel of Astronomers’ Statement Follows
--------------------------------------------------------------

The following statement, prepared by the scholars whose names are attached, must be given in its entirety wherever it is reproduced. Copyright (held collectively by the authors), 2010

--------------------------------------------------------------

An Evaluation of Evidence for the Age of the Universe

A group of Christians professionally trained in astronomical research has reviewed presentations by Drs. Danny Faulkner and Hugh Ross, covering arguments on the age of the universe. We appreciated the civility and respect of the discourse on a topic often generating more heat than light within the Christian community.

Our analysis concentrates on arguments made by the speakers dealing with astronomical data and calculations, rather than about Biblical interpretation or biological evolution, because the former are our areas of professional expertise. We do note that, for example, one's view of Scriptural interpretation and theology will affect the range of models one would consider.

Our aim has been to assess the evidence for the age of the universe in the light of the arguments presented, using a standard scientific approach. Science seeks to make progress in understanding the physical world through inductive reasoning, rather than the watertight proofs found in mathematics. This means that scientific understanding advances through an enormous amount of focused, incremental efforts with many consistency checks in the context of a mutually accountable scientific community.

Drawing sound conclusions about a general question such as the age of the universe cannot be done on the basis of one argument alone but requires many different independent experiments including tests that could falsify competing claims. Any conclusions, along with an evaluation of their certainty, are then made on the basis of the overall weight of the available evidence. There will often be some data that appear to disagree with the rest of the evidence; this does not automatically provide evidence for alternative hypotheses but often means that our theoretical understanding is not yet entirely complete.

Ross's arguments provide solid evidence that the universe is billions of years old. He presents several independent arguments, based on a wide range of data, indicating that the universe and most objects in it are much older than ten thousand years. The light-travel-time argument is particularly strong in both its basis in physical principles and its simplicity.

Faulkner does not present evidence for a universe thousands of years old but rather makes claims for isolated inconsistencies in the case for great age. While it is common scientific practice to look for holes in well-established theories, the new contrary evidence must either be very strong to counter the existing evidence for the theory or else be supported by a new theory that readily explains both the new evidence and the old.

We judge that the "inconsistencies" pointed out by Faulkner do not meet either of these criteria. In some instances the observations are completely consistent with our current understanding of these physical systems in the context of an old universe; in others, while universally accepted interpretations don't exist today and our knowledge is often still incomplete, such explanations are likely to be forthcoming as observations and theory progress.

It is our professional judgment that the weight of the evidence overwhelmingly supports a universe that is billions of years old.

---------------------------------------------------------

Gabriela Canalizo, Ph.D. (Associate Professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Riverside)

Gerald Cleaver, Ph.D. (Associate Professor, Department of Physics, Baylor University)

Kyle Cudworth, Ph.D. (Director, Yerkes Observatory, Professor, The University of Chicago)

Pamela L. Gay, Ph.D. (Executive Director Astrosphere New Media Association, Edwardsville, Illinois)

Deborah Haarsma, Ph.D. (Chair and Associate Professor, Physics & Astronomy Department, Calvin College)

Bruce Hrivnak, Ph.D. (Professor, Department of Physics & Astronomy, Valparaiso University)

Stephen Kane, Ph.D. (NASA Exoplanet Science Institute, Caltech)

William Keel, Ph.D. (Professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Alabama)

Patricia Reiff, Ph.D. (Director, Rice Space Institute, Rice University)

Aaron Romanowsky, Ph.D. (Associate Specialist, University of California Observatories)

Matthew S. Tiscareno, Ph.D. (Research Associate, Department of Astronomy, Cornell University)

Rogier Windhorst, Ph.D. (Regents' and Foundation Professor, School of Earth & Space Exploration, Arizona State University)

Donald York, Ph.D. (Professor, Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Chicago)

 

That is something I really stink at. I can't paint to save my life - unless I have enough rolls of blue tape to make the Michelin Man.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cPdMmusV1ZU

 

Another article from a NON-Theistic source stating that Neo-Darwinism is a failed theory. Genetics, it seems, is one of Darwins killers... along with the Cambrian explosion, and Darwins inability to explain how life came from non-life. Those are just a few of Neo-Darwinism's problems.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/98152.article

 

This particular article was written in 1995, a long time ago in the history of evolutionary science, and really does not "kill" Darwin at all. Some of its main claims are seen in the following sections:

"....It is clear biology needs a theory of organisms as self-organising systems that generate emergent order if evolution is to be understood. This is now a very real and exciting possibility, but it is an interdisciplinary task that requires mathematical, physical, and biological input. It simply cannot come from the study of genes and molecules alone, useful as this is.

"There is another dimension of Neo-Darwinism that is also problematic. The analytical power of molecular genetics has resulted in a new expansion of Neo-Darwinism with a strongly applied, technological dimension. One manifestation of this is the project to identify every human gene, coordinated by the international Human Genome Organisation (HUGO), with associated squabbling over patent rights on potentially lucrative applications in the fields of medicine and designer gene engineering....

"....There are immense social and ethical issues involved. It is obvious extreme caution is required because of our ignorance of the genetic, biological, and ecological consequences of gene manipulation. ....Without this, we shall find that Neo-Darwinism is not only prone to misleading rhetoric and inadequate science, but its applications may result in ecologically dangerous agricultural applications."

Far more current data has come to be available in the years since this piece was written, again none of which "kills" Darwin in any way..

 

I think the time since 1995 has only increased the problems, not reduced them. Hence the 700 plus scientist willing to sign the statement

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

There names and fields of expertise can be read here:

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

In 1995, signing that list would have been unheard of, all though Stephen J. Gould first wrote about his doubts regarding Darwinism in 1983.

 

And you are correct, Darwinism is not dead....I just think it's dying.

Time will tell.

 

First off, science is not a democracy. You could have 5,000,000 scientists sign a document saying that the sky is zebra striped. It changes nothing... However, if it was a democracy, your 700 measly scientists would be overwhelmed by millions.

 

You are absolutely right. Science is not a democracy. There are no scientists that disagree about the speed of light, the periodic table of elements or that water is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. However, the fact that 700 scientists are willing to stand up and say 'this is far from settled scientifically' gives the lie to evolution being a settled science. And those 700 are just the ones willing to sign a document and risk being marginalized. Science is supposed to be a search for facts. It is supposed to encourage questioning not suppress it. The very fact that there are different schools of thought on evolutionary process is enough to show that evolution is far from proven.

Even if science were a democracy, keep in mind that there was a time when science said that heavier than air flight was "impossible", that if you drove faster than 30 mph you would suffocate and that bleeding someone that was sick would remove the "ill humor" that was in them. Just because the majority believe something, does not automatically make it right.

 

Or it could be said this way;

Religious belief is not a democracy. There are believers that disagree about the speed of light, strange as that may seem. The periodic table of elements or that water is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, maybe not so much.

However, the fact that 700 (or 700 thousand) believers are willing to stand up and say 'the questions my religion pretends to answer are far from settled' gives the lie to religious belief being a settled issue. And those 700 (or 700 thousand) are just the ones willing to sign a document and risk being marginalized by other believers.

According to the Bible religious belief is supposedly based on ultimate truth. Truth, having nothing to fear, encourages questioning and does not suppress it. The very fact that there are different schools of thought on religious belief is enough to show that religious truth claims are far from proven.

Even if religious belief were a democracy, keep in mind that there was a time when religiously dictated belief said the earth was the center of the cosmos, and to disagree was punishable by death, or that praying over someone that was sick would remove the "evil spirit" that was in them.

Just because religionists believe things and dredge up 'proof text' to buttress their arguments does not automatically make these things true.

The scientific method is based on ongoing critical inquiry into the very nature of observable truth.

Religious belief is based on what others, more often than not as prone to error as the next guy, say that things written in ancient texts supposedly mean, then get all huffy when critical inquiry of any sort ensues.

 

How many of those "scientists" are signing it due to a bias imposed by religion? It is pretty settled within the scientific community. I found your archaic ideas point to be very ironic

 

You've made that point far better than anyone else here has, and it remains unrefuted by the secularists. Another one I had made earlier was about the astounding sophistication of DNA. If the DNA of the approximately 50 trillion cells in just one human body was put end to end, it would form a line about 2.88 billion miles long. This is longer than 15 round trips from the Earth to the Sun.

Only a secularist could so freely choose to deny what is obviously the infinitely intelligent design of his own physical body, and then have the hubris to declare his own denial to be an intelligent choice.

The kind of person who can embrace the blind secularist denial of the intelligent design of the very physical reality within which he exists, is very likely to arrive at and act upon other equally faulty conclusions in life.

 

How many "scientists" didn't sign it due to a bias imposed by their own parasitic dependence on government funding?

 

Creationism is an unverified theory

 

There are many different belief systems in existence. I happen to only believe one is true and can back it up not by just one "proof text" but by the entirety of scripture (and yes, even by some basic scientific facts). If I found something that proved I was wrong and showed me something better, I would change. Interestingly, when Jesus was on earth, there was only one way in which Christians worshipped. It was not until after he and the apostles were all gone that different sects developed - but that digresses from the discussion at hand.

There is a huge difference between someone explaining their belief system and someone stating something as scientific fact which has not been proven empirically by data. The speed of light can be measured. Water can be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis. These experiments are repeatable scientific fact. Take a non-living pot of chemicals, pass an electric current through it, create the building blocks of life, form them into proteins, then form them into living cells, and then make them into the vast variety of life that exists on earth, and then I will believe you. If evolution did indeed occur by chance, leading to life, then it should not be too difficult to make it happen in a controlled laboratory setting with all of the accumulated scientific knowledge that evolutionary scientists claim to have at their disposal.

 

Intelligent design is verified by the reality of the physical body in which you are living.

 

or it could be simply evolution

Neither theory can be absolutely verified

So your arguement against evolution is exactly parallel to the one against creationism