I’m curious, how can the creation account (or Bible, for that matter) be taken as true – but not literal… the Bible isn’t just a story book or a text book… it claims to be much more. It is either a deceptive lie, a far-fetched lunacy, or it is what it claims to be… TRUTH.

By the way, I do know a little about where you stand (I’ve read your blog) and therefore, I can say that you, Collins, and Miller are liberal (after all, it’s a fairly relative term considering a person’s self-awareness and understand of the issues on ‘either side’ of himself). But frankly, I’ve read authors like them – just tired of hearing the same old reasons why a ‘new’ science is better than (needs to be fit into) the ‘old’ doctrine.

I continue to stand on an unchanging authority – one not based on the ‘newest’ technological & scientific breakthrough (which often changes, morphs, even contradicts itself given time)…
my rock is just that – a solid foundation.

Give it a shot, it’s awesome!

Furthermore, I don’t think you have any understanding of how conservative or liberal I am, so please refrain from making comments such as “Collins and Miller may be conservative and to the right of where you stand…”

You assume they (and myself) are liberal because of your own viewpoints. They may very well be more liberal than you–at least on this one point. There is no way for you to know that, however, unless you read and investigate their works and others like them for yourself. Again, you assume they have “squeezed” science into their theology…and you’ve never even read their works.

I stand by my last comment. Read them or not; the choice is yours. I think it would behoove you to do so, because even if you do not agree with their thoughts, at least at that point you will be better educated when arguing against viewpoints such as theirs, rather than making false generalizations.

Sorry – forgot to mention that I am a literalist. Genesis isn’t a fairy-tale story book just for kids in Sunday School – its God’s story of how things began, how things came to be. It makes perfect sense (add faith, of course).

Although Collins & Miller might be conservative and to the right of where you stand… they are ‘liberal’ and left from me & my position because: a- I am a literal interpretationist; b- They have tried to sqeeze in new ’science’ into a working theology.

Hope you read my last blog to Matt & let me know what you think.

Sorry to say, I predict this to be my last word in our discussion. Feel free to post yours. I regret that I cannot convince you that I believe in science and the scientific method – but yield every belief in science to my belief in a superior authority – God. He is, to me, both logical and beyond logic. He is easy to view according to fact and faith. As far as I can see, you and I could argue each of our points addendum to infinity and never convince each other (or anyone else for that matter) of the other’s point… I am no more convinced since this conversation (only that I am sure that I am not and never wish to be an atheist – please don’t take offense).

Much of our problem stems from the different starting points of creationists and Darwinists. Everyone, scientist or not, must start their quests for knowledge with some unprovable axiom—some a priori belief on which they sort through experience and deduce other truths. This starting point, whatever it is, can only be accepted by faith; eventually, in each belief system, there must be some unprovable, presupposed foundation for reasoning (since an infinite regression is impossible).

For Bible-believing Christians, God’s Word is our starting point: our presupposed foundation through which we interpret and balance fallen man’s ideas, including those derived scientifically. Although some may consider this a foolish faith, everyone has such faith in something. But which is foolish: faith in the unmovable Word of the omniscient creator God or faith in man’s fallible, changing ideas?

I appreciate your academic (but not so much your adolescent sarcasm) – it’s been a pleasure. I pray for God to continue to bless you and to reveal to you His love. Perhaps you would not agree, I have been to your blog and read several articles (to better understand you) – could you please read the Bible passage, Romans 1:20-25.

I’d like to assume that you have done things in your life to defy logic (falling in love / bungee-jumping…), but perhaps not. Why not consider taking the biggest risk of all… faith?

No, evolution contradicts a literal reading of the creation account. This doesn’t mean it contradicts the truths of the bible.

I suggest reading Collins and Miller yourself to judge if they have a “liberal” view of their religion or not. I do think you’ll find, however, that their beliefs are not liberal in the least, especially Collins.

1b – The Theory of Abiogenesis has had a lot of work and research put into it. It does have a fair chunk of evidence to back it up (as all scientific theories do). A decent summary of such can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

1c – Yes, mutations can add information. You can even see such in human mutations, when people are born with extra limbs for example. Again, this is what the evidence dictates and I have already linked to a quick summary of the evidence for this specific topic.

1d – Again, Irreducible Complexity is so far a completely unproven hypothesis. You make the mistake of assuming that smaller parts could not have been used for different purposes. Behe, for example, likes to use a type of bacterial flagellum as an example of IC – which has been examined and found to be false as outlined in the following:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

1e – It is incredulous if god claimed to do it, for to accept that claim as truth you would need to accept that a god being exists; a proposition for which there is no scientific evidence. Man is moral and the development of those has been rather well researched in not only human kind but also several species of animals, who have displayed altruistic acts within their own kind (and sometimes to other species). Primates often display such acts, as do certain types of Parrots and dolphins. Somewhat odd, if your case is accepted, that animals that barely have any concept of ’self’ let alone ‘god’ turn out to be altruistic and moral.

2a – Scientific evidence for evolution? You haven’t done much research into the matter, have you?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
There you have a brief rundown of just some of it, all peer reviewed and verified.
Now where is some of the peer reviewed and verified scientific evidence for young earth creationism?

2b – Science conflicts with the Bible on many fronts indeed. Such as the entire origins of the various species, global flood, exodus from egypt and so on.
They also are also conflicting when it comes to how to actually come to a conclusion and the way they work. Faith/Religion holds up a conclusion and then looks for evidence to support it (which is logically dishonest, to be blunt) while science looks at the evidence and forms conclusions from it.
Quite a few scientists, such as Miller, have found a way to live with both and that’s fine – those scientists, however, are not Young Earth Creationists.

2c – I’d agree that this debate is important to the extent of:
* Teaching children HOW to think, not what to think. Science does this, religious dogma … not so much.
* Science being kept as science and not eroded with silliness such as Intelligent Design.
* Religious tales being kept to churches and the home. They have no place, except possibly as part of a literature class, in a secular education system.

3a – You assume there is some sort of moral authority for Atheists; there is not one as you seem to be thinking of it. Human morality has changed throughout history, for example. We used to think slavery was great, that corporal punishment was just fine and so on. Of course, now we realise that neither are good at all and thrown them on the ol’ garbage heap.
Research shows that morals are pretty much psychological in nature, hardwired into our heads through a combination of social interaction, social contracts and evolutionary processes.

3b – You’re attempting to blame racism and the acts of Hitler on the Theory of Evolution, which is historically inaccurate and logically absurd. Scientific Theories, by definition, have no moral viewpoint or stance – the only even remotely related field (and this is a stretch) is philosophy. You may as well be trying to blame Hitler’s and Stalin’s actions on their moustaches or all the falling injuries and deaths through history on the Theory of Gravity. Or all the deaths from illness on the Theory of Germs.
And I have read the Bible, from cover to cover, on more than one occasion.

3c – I am an Atheist. And as far as I can see, I did address your last comment as much as it warranted – you attempted a rather poor argument from design.

Who is your god? Easy: science acc. to Darwin & Dawkins.

That is a rather silly argument to make. No one claims science is infallible or 100% accurate; which is actually one of the strengths of science – it’s always prepared to admit when it is wrong when new evidence comes to light. Science is merely a tool, just the best one humankind has found so far to explain the Universe.

I believe that I could use your own arguments against God to ‘reason away’ Darwin himself… or even our beloved Dr. Dawkins’ brain!

Then kindly attempt to do so.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster never claimed to create anything.

The FSM church would disagree with that. We will all be touched by his noodly appendage.

Zeus or Xenu never died for anyone.

That would be because neither actually existed except as concepts.

No serious scientists ever did give Buddha or Mithras credit…

Really? I guess all the Archaeologists are out of a job now, then. Buddhism is a rather popular faith, while Mithraism was THE big thing a handful of centuries BC.

All of which is a side issue. I claimed there is no more proof for the above deities than there is for an abrahamic deity/creator being and I stand by that statement.

Welcome! One big assumption that I didn’t know was even questioned… perhaps you can correct me (please keep in mind that I didn’t refer to just any belief-system in general):
I’ll let you in on my logic:
1 – ‘You guys’ are Darwinian evolutionists.
2 – Darwinian evolution contradicts the Bible (Creation account in Gen. 1-2).
3 – The Bible is God’s Word – to be believed.
4 – ‘You guys’ must not believe God.

As to Miller & Collins – I guess their belief in God (and/or evolution) is a very ‘liberal’ one… one of their making / choosing. It is definitely not the God of the Bible – unless that is they are not really serious evolutionists.

Yes, serious evolution & real Christianity cannot agree. ‘What fellowship has light with darkness? What concord has Christ with Belial? What agreement has Christ with an infadel?’ …See what I mean?

1a – Do you really think it’s possible that what has been observed in rare forms (matter / antimatter), as you mentioned, could account for the origin of the entire universe?

1b – I’m not arguing anything… where is the ’scientific method’ that has shown life can begin from non-life. I remember decades ago, when scientists began attempting (with the elements they assumed were on earth) to re-create life (adding a little ‘lightning’ of their own… as far as I’m aware – no serious scientific journal has yet peer-published a finding contrary to my appeal that life cannot spontaneously combust from non-life.

1c – You mean to tell me that you actually believe that mutations can add genetic information… No! That information had to be there, in some form, already… and most (if not all) mutations limit (not increase) that info.

1d – Just because a mousetrap non-organic doesn’t mean that logic won’t work in this instance. It absolutely applies in that if it work with something as simple as a mousetrap (1 function with 5 parts) how could it ever work with complex single-celled virus and bacteria – much less a complicated being like animals or humans?

1e – It’s not incredulous if God Claimed to do it… I know that I assume that man is moral & spiritual – but at what point do you observe this happening? It hasn’t and doesn’t.

2a – I agree – there’s proof for evolution… just as much as there is for creation (because we use the same bones, the same digs, the same research). We interpret the facts differently because of our world-view. My argument stands – you have not produced ’scienctific-method-style’ evidence. There’s plenty of evidence for a young earth (although you wouldn’t see it that way). As for every other ‘argument’ – teleological, cosmological, and anthropological… you’d deny from the start (it’s not an assumption – you already have).

2b – I’m interest to know how you think science and faith (a Bible-based faith) disagree? Is it not possible, according to Matt, for faith and fact to both be true? Where has science ever contradicted the Bible? Why is it that all of our productive scientists from 200+ yrs. ago were all strong believers?

2c – I realize they may not be everyone’s leader – but they are, like it or not, heading up the new atheism movement and championing the evolutionary theory. That’s really a side-argument, though – you’d agree that this debate is of primary importance… especially as it affects the minds of school-aged children and the like.

3a – Would you disagree that evolution and/or atheism leads to fluid and relative morals? I am still curious your views on right, wrong, truth, error, justice, injustice, lawlessness… who/what is your authority?

3b – Man, we’ve drifted far from this one – Racism can find refuge in Evolution’s Theory. That’s how this began… just because you don’t like the term ‘darwinism’ doesn’t mean that it doesn’t get used (by darwinians). Again, I didn’t say that Darwin invented all the evils – but how does it sit with you that your ’scientific conclusions’ also have such serious moral implications. I have realized and embraced the implications of my beliefs in origins… and although you (and Dawkins) love to pimp the Old Testament God of the Bible as a child-killing hate-monger. It might be good for you to read this dangerous book (to know the context of your assumptions).

3c – Matt, I forgot to ask you (sorry for assuming) – Are you an atheist or an agnostic? In your comment, you have again assumed something about me… you have responded as if I wrote something entirely different. Please address the issues in my last comment.

There are several proofs for God – but you are unwilling to accept even the most basic tenet of logic (when it conflicts with your god) Who is your god? Easy: science acc. to Darwin & Dawkins. I believe that I could use your own arguments against God to ‘reason away’ Darwin himself… or even our beloved Dr. Dawkins’ brain!

Thanks for the correction (Pascal, not Pasteur) – I realized that as soon as I hit Submit. As to your last few sentences… Please put a stop to the ridiculous and sarcastic remarks – open your heart and act like an adult. The Flying Spaghetti Monster never claimed to create anything. Zeus or Xenu never died for anyone. No serious scientists ever did give Buddha or Mithras credit… again, please don’t put words in my mouth… I said nothing about God zapping either one of us. If you are willing, I’d love to send you a few selections from the Holy Bible to read and consider. God bless you.

In your comments you said, “It’s what Dawkins, Scott, Myers, & others have been saying for decades. You guys think you have a corner on science and it’s our place to stay in a pew.”

Who are “you guys”? You seem to be generalizing that all who accept evolutionary theory are anti-religion or anti-Christian and look down on people that are not. There are many scientists who find no conflict between evolutionary theory and their belief system.

Read “Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth Miller and “The Language of God” by Francis Collins. They are both Christian biologists who accept belief in the God of the Bible and evolutionary theory, and they are not alone.

1b – You seem to be trying to appeal to the Law of Biogenesis in this particular section. No such scientific law actually exists, it’s existence seems to be some sort of brainbug amongst sections of the community. Whereas the Theory of Abiogenesis has actually shown this to be possible.

1c – Yes, there is a misunderstanding on your part in regards to genetic information. When you get a genetic ‘mutation’ (to use a really bad term for it, but otherwise I’d have to go on for ages to specify the terms used) it obviously is new genetic information that the organism gains. Of course, not all mutations add information, some do decrease it. And as organisms evolve to better suit their environmental needs, those wonderful genetics come along and get more information added as systems change. A decent rundown on this can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
Otherwise it’ll take too much time to explain here.

1d – Irreducible Complexity is, at this time, completely unproven with not even one examples of it being found and verified. Likewise, your example of a mousetrap does not work since a mousetrap is clearly a mechanical (not organic) device that does not contain any genetic information.

1e – There are lots of transitional fossils. I’ll even list a small number of them for you;Haasiophis terrasanctus, Pachyrhachis, Mososaurs, Pezosiren portelli, Runcaria and Halkiera. That’s not to mention the rather complete record we have of whale evolution, including the movement of the blow-hole from it’s original nasal type affair to where it can be seen now, to the almost complete recession of the hind legs.
And, again, the burden of proof lies on those making a claim (as it always does). You don’t seem to understand how humanity has reached the level of self awareness that it has and thus claim god must have done it – that’s a classic example of an Argument from Incredulity, which is a type of debate fallacy. Indeed, much research has been done into the development of the human brain and mind, though even the basics are far too long to copy/paste to here. To start with just the morals, look into what’s known as the Social Contract or Evolutionary Morality.

2a – You can point to exactly the same materials, yes. But then you would need to completely misinterpret the information available to reach a creationist conclusion.
Evolutionists have an extreme amount of scientific evidence, as mentioned previously, to make their case. The scientific evidence for creationism is really just about non-existent … unless you’d care to try to list some?

2b – If you think that science relies on faith then you do not understand science at all. Science is quite ready to admit that there are plenty of things it does not yet know but what it does not do is introduce what is known as an unneeded mechanism to explain gaps in knowledge (which leads into the rather silly ‘god of the gaps’ logical fallacy). Science finds information/evidence/data and then makes conclusions … which is about as far removed from faith based reasoning as you can get.

2c – Science and Atheism has no leadership as such. You grant Dawkins with far more authority that he, or anyone has, actually is. While people look up to him because what he says often makes sense (and he has one of those cool british accents) it does not make him any sort of leader.

3a – Your argument is circular reasoning at best, assuming god exists and that the bible is accurate in such things. And no, there is no evidence that god had all those fun laws (such as killing disrespectful children or adulterers) as temporary measures. And even if he did, then that does nothing but show that if they were temporary that means they changed, therefore gods laws/morality changed … therefore, by definition, they’re not absolute.
As for morality, again, look up the Social Contract and the Evolutionary Nature of Morality. Quite a lot of research has been done into it and it does fit rather nicely with all available evidence.

3b – You make several logical and reasoning mistakes here:
* There is no such thing as ‘Darwinism’. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to say on morality or ethics, it is nothing more than a scientific theory to explain genetic/species diversity on Earth.
* Trying to blame the Theory of Evolution for such things is as logically absurd as trying to blame Newton and the Theory of Gravity for plane crashes.
* Timeline. I never said Hitler came before Darwin. I said Eugenics and Social Darwinism existed before Darwin, which is true. Neither of those two concepts started with Hitler. And trying to base Hitler’s views on the Theory of Evolution is also absurd, it uses exactly the same false reasoning as trying to say Christianity is to blame for the KKK.
And yes, Dawkins is right. Which is why no one ever has (or hopefully ever will) attempt to set up a country based on one scientific theory; doing so attributes ethical properties/authority to something which has nothing to do with such.

3c – Basic (if somewhat badly worded) argument from design, which holds little to no logical weight and quickly falls into logical traps of it’s own and also relies heavily on bad ‘god of the gaps’ reasoning. Just to top it off, it makes a claim with no evidence to back it up and is also another argument from incredulity in the form of ‘why can’t people see it?!’.

As for your final paragraph…

This argument is known as Pascal’s Wager and might be an argument of minor worth if there were not hundreds of different religions and thousands of deities throughout human history. For this argument to even approach validity, you would have to be sure that you have selected the right deity; since if you do not choose the right deity (if one even existed at all) out of the various thousands, the result you hope for won’t be happening. After all, for example, there is no more evidence or proof for the Christian god than there is for Zeus, Wotan, Mithras, Xenu or even the fabled Flying Spaghetti Monster.

It also fails when you reason that if you decide based on ‘just in case’, any omniscient god is going to see right through your shallow belief and zap you for trying to fool him anyhow.