Creation OR Evolution

[Quemtal]

Hi everyone. I stumbled across this site quite by accidence, though I’m terribly glad I did. It’s a lively and open site in which one may expound one’s views, and may hear myriad other opinions.
Reading many of the discussions however, something shocked me: the number of members who seem to believe in evolution/long-age earth and yet call themselves Christians. I’m new to the site, so maybe this issue has been explicitly dealt with elsewhere (if so, please inform me); but if not, it’s one I would like to raise. I’m a Christian, and only a young one at that (eighteen-years-old). The world constantly bombards us with long-age earth points of view, and I must choose whether to believe these or not. I choose to base my thinking upon the infallible Word of God—that God said what He meant to say. If God meant to say He used evolution and millions of years, He would have written Genesis very differently.
Below I’ve given just a few reasons (there are many more) why I believe that to be a Christian on MUST believe in a literal Genesis to be a Christian.
I would just like to hear what others think about this topic. What are your views, beliefs, &c?

Some people say that the Genesis account of Creation is only an allegory or a metaphor. If this is so, a new translation of the Bible is necessary:

‘Then the Lord God formed the metaphor from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the metaphor became a living creature’ Genesis 2.7

‘Through one Metaphor sin entered the world…’ Romans 5.12

‘Enoch, seventh from a Metaphor’ Jude 14

‘The son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli… Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Metaphor, which was the son of God.’ Luke 3.23-28

‘Thus it is written, “The first Metaphor became a living being; the last Metaphor became a life-giving spirit.”’ 1 Corinthians 15.45

Would you consider such a translation to be accurate? I hope your answer is no. So if the Bible doesn’t say this, why do some Christians?
Without a literal belief in Adam, there is no literal belief in Jesus, which is absolutely necessary to be saved. The truths of the Gospel are reliant upon the HISTORY of Genesis 1-11. Without a first Adam, there can be no last Adam! An allegorical or metaphorical reading of Genesis is incompatible with the Gospel. And anyway, how metaphorical could we be? If you don't take 'the first man Adam' literally, how is it you can take 'GOD CREATED the first man Adam' literally?

Millions of years and evolution place death before the Fall. But death cannot have occurred before the fall, otherwise (yet again) the Sacrifice od Christ is negated.

As Christians, we must follow the example of Christ. But Christ was not an evolutionist (I know, it didn't exist then as it does now). Also, he wasn't a long-earther (they did exist then). When Jesus was asked about marriage (Matt. 19.3-6), he quoted Genesis 1.27 and 2.24. Jesus knew that without the history of Genesis, then there was no foundation for His teaching--and without the teachings of Christ, there is no Christianity.

Many read the Bible by reading into it. They put thoughts between the lines, thoughts that are not in God’s Word. And as a result there are evolutionists who call themselves Christians.
So please let’s read the Word for what it says, not what we want or expect it to say. Let’s allow the Bible to shape our view of the world, and not let the world shape our view of the Bible. Let’s keep in mind the words that first deceived Man, the words of Satan in the Garden, ‘Did God really say…?’ If we try to add to God’s Word as did Eve, then we too will fall. Remember Paul’s plea in 2 Corinthians 11.3, ‘But I’m afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.’
Here’s an exercise to try: First, read Proverbs 1.5-6, ‘Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not in your understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him…’ Then, read the Creation account in Genesis, but lay aside all outside thoughts, all your own ideas and notions. Read it, not INTO it.
Thank you for bearing with me so long (if you made it this far). I know it’s a long post, but I thought it necessary, and still there’s so much I’ve left out. I want to hear your thought and opinions on this matter. Thank you.

[Titan]

I found this very interesting:

Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, professor of paleontology at Harvard University and a leading Darwinist, recently ended his year-long silence concerning the attack on Darwinism from the book Darwin on Trial by Berkeley law professor Philip Johnson.

Gould responded with a three-page book review in the July 1992 issue of Scientific American. In the review, Gould chastised Johnson for what he perceived as the misuse and omission of scientific evidences, the lack of understanding of the logic of evolutionary thought, and on the inability to cogently and equitably debate the issues.

In response, Johnson asked the editors of Scientific American if they would grant him equal space to answer Gould. The publication denied Johnson's request. In an effort to grant Johnson the opportunity to rebut his critics, Johnson's reply is printed in its entirety. The Real Issue has summarized Gould's review at the end of Johnson's rebuttal.

I got this from: http://www.origins.org/articles/johnson ... maker.html

[youngborean]

That was a good article, thank you.

[Samurai Tailor]

http://www.origins.org/articles/johnson ... maker.html

Johnson does not seem to know all that much about those with whom he disagrees. First and foremost, Gould was not an atheist. Neither was he an evangelist, but he had no overt agenda to see religion defeated beyond the pseudoscientific twaddle that occasionally cropped up.

Furthermore, Johnson parrots the creationist canard about the alleged lack of transitional fossils between "major groups." It is curious that he would bring that up in along side Gould, as Gould is rather well-known for a quip chastising creationists for misrepresenting punk eek and reaffirming the abundance of transitionals above the species level.

[Titan]

Are you sure that Gould is not an atheist? I have read quite a bit of his work and it has that angle to it.

The point is not Johnson but Scientific American. I disagreee with some of Johnson's conclusions but if the Scientific American magazine is going to print an article stating Phillip Johnson needs to give both perspectives they should give both perspectives, allowing a response to Gould's comments.

[Jose]

Are you sure that Gould is not an atheist? I have read quite a bit of his work and it has that angle to it.

The point is not Johnson but Scientific American. I disagreee with some of Johnson's conclusions but if the Scientific American magazine is going to print an article stating Phillip Johnson needs to give both perspectives they should give both perspectives, allowing a response to Gould's comments.

But that's usually not the way it is with book reviews. You write a book, and a variety of people write reviews of it. If you disagree with the reviews, well, you disagree. I know of no journals in which rebuttals of reviews are common (there may be such journals, but I don't know of them). The logic is that the book writer has had pages and pages to make his or her points. The reviewer has only a few paragraphs to discuss them. This is already highly unbalanced, in favor of the author of the book.

As we might expect, Johnson didn't say a lot more in his rebuttal of Gould's review than he said in the original book. For example,

...Some of us are not content with that, because we know that the empirical evidence for the creative power of natural selection is somewhere between weak and non-existent. Artificial selection of fruit flies or domestic animals produces limited change within the species, but tells us nothing about how insects and mammals came into existence in the first place.

In any case, whatever artificial selection achieves is due to the employment of human intelligence consciously pursuing a goal. The whole point of the blind watchmaker thesis, however, is to establish what material processes can do in the absence of purpose and intelligence. That Darwinist authorities continually overlook this crucial distinction gives us little confidence in their objectivity.

Examples of natural selection in action, like Kettlewell's observation of population shifts in the peppered moth, actually illustrate cyclical variation within stable species that exhibit no directional change.

I simply cannot imagine that, in his entire book, he failed to belittle artificial selection, or to pretend that selection by humans operates on fundamentally different genetic principles than selection by some other aspect of nature, or to pretend that natural selection in peppered moths is irrelevant because there were two selection events, resulting in "no directional change" when both directional changes are added together. These are the classic creationist topics, which suffer from the same errors whether in the original book or in the rebuttal to the review.

In other words, it is not clear that Scientific American has an obligation to provide equal time to Johnson, or to the authors of any books that they review. Nor does the local newspaper need to allow the producers of movies to critique the movie reviews that are written by viewers. Nor do restaurant guides need to provide rebuttals from restaurants they have reviewed.

[Titan]

But that's usually not the way it is with book reviews. You write a book, and a variety of people write reviews of it. If you disagree with the reviews, well, you disagree. I know of no journals in which rebuttals of reviews are common (there may be such journals, but I don't know of them). The logic is that the book writer has had pages and pages to make his or her points. The reviewer has only a few paragraphs to discuss them. This is already highly unbalanced, in favor of the author of the book.

I was curious as to whether this was the criteria that you felt Scientific American was following. For instance, if a creationist were to write a review of Gould's books would they print it, and if they did print it would they allow Gould to respond. If the tables were turned I think the bias would be obvious.

I personally have nothing against Scientific American, I receive the magazine each month and enjoy it. I just thought that the argument was ironic.

[Titan]

I was just considering something. When an accusation is brought against evolution the biologists and chemists reply, it may have been delayed but the answer comes out. The conclusion that comes back is that evolution no longer must address that problem. When I was considering this the thought came to my mind "All is possible in the realm of speculation". For example, someone could say "If we shot you into space you would die." I could find a reply using all my knowlege of astronomy and find some answer that shows that it would be possible for me to live.

Now, I believe in evolution I just don't want to be a blind follower. Lets consider the eye. A species of cave fish lost the use of eyes because they "No longer needed it". This made me curious because it was said that animals developed light spots so that they could differentiate which way the sun was shining from. So if one cave fish gains a small amount of eyesight and it helps him survive just a little then why would the species have been able to lose it so easily, couldn't some aspect of it benefit them?

The fossilized sequence in the Cambrian explosion can be baffling as it appears that many organisms appeared all at once in the strata. This was easily answered that "Evolution had a period of rapid growth." Of course, they could be correct, but one must look past their own preconception, their own bias and say "Is that really a plausible answer?"

To turn the tables. Creationists do the same just as often. Why are the bacteria lower in the rocks than all other forms of life? Some say that it is because they sink faster, or give some answer like that. But is it plausible.

Now, I know exactly what the response is going to be, few are going to agree with me and follow their own conception. Juliod is going to say that the evolution answers are indeed plausible and Y.E.P is going to say the same for creation. I ask those of you who are near the middle to please, hold out on responding and think about it. For perhaps a day, and then discuss this point.

[Jose]

But that's usually not the way it is with book reviews...

I was curious as to whether this was the criteria that you felt Scientific American was following. For instance, if a creationist were to write a review of Gould's books would they print it, and if they did print it would they allow Gould to respond. If the tables were turned I think the bias would be obvious.

I personally have nothing against Scientific American, I receive the magazine each month and enjoy it. I just thought that the argument was ironic.

In general, book reviews are solicited by the editors, which would make it pretty unlikely that they wouldn't print a review that they had asked for. Therefore, my guess is that, if Scientific American asked someone to review one of Gould's books, then they would print the review but not a rebuttal. In principle, it would make no difference if the reviewer were a creationist. In practice, however, it is unlikely that they would ask a creationist. The reasons are all of those that we are debating here: is creationism "science" or is it "theology"? Is it a valid technique to start with the conclusion, then pick and choose data to find something that supports the conclusion? Is it even appropriate to ask someone for a review when they have already published work that shows they have fundamental misconceptions about the field?

Now, I know exactly what the response is going to be, few are going to agree with me and follow their own conception. Juliod is going to say that the evolution answers are indeed plausible and Y.E.P is going to say the same for creation. I ask those of you who are near the middle to please, hold out on responding and think about it. For perhaps a day, and then discuss this point.

Does this mean I have to wait a while before I can comment? dum de dum...de dum...

[Samurai Tailor]

I was just considering something. When an accusation is brought against evolution the biologists and chemists reply, it may have been delayed but the answer comes out. The conclusion that comes back is that evolution no longer must address that problem. When I was considering this the thought came to my mind "All is possible in the realm of speculation". For example, someone could say "If we shot you into space you would die." I could find a reply using all my knowlege of astronomy and find some answer that shows that it would be possible for me to live.

Due no doubt to my poor comprehension skills, I am unable to extract any particular point or meaning from the above.

Now, I believe in evolution I just don't want to be a blind follower. Lets consider the eye. A species of cave fish lost the use of eyes because they "No longer needed it". This made me curious because it was said that animals developed light spots so that they could differentiate which way the sun was shining from. So if one cave fish gains a small amount of eyesight and it helps him survive just a little then why would the species have been able to lose it so easily, couldn't some aspect of it benefit them?

The missing part of this equation is that structures do not evolve in a developmental vacuum. Every part of an organism has a specific matter/energy cost to the organism, both during development and in use during physical maturity.

Perhaps a structure like the eye has a high operating cost to the individual. Thus, a mutant whose eyes are slightly less sophisticated - in an environment where sight is a much less useful commodity - now has a bit more resources to devote to other necessary activities.

The fossilized sequence in the Cambrian explosion can be baffling as it appears that many organisms appeared all at once in the strata. This was easily answered that "Evolution had a period of rapid growth." Of course, they could be correct, but one must look past their own preconception, their own bias and say "Is that really a plausible answer?"

Perhaps not, but neither is that a particularly fair representation of the Cambrian "explosion." The emergence of hard body parts made fossilization significantly more likely to occur. New fossil discoveries have added ~30 million years to the so-called beginning of the mass-appearance of modern phyla. The possible concurrent rise of sexual reproduction would have increased genetic variability at least an order of magnitude.

My own research has led me to conclude that the popular account of the Cambrian explosion is at least partially a strawman of creationist design.

[Titan]

The reasons are all of those that we are debating here: is creationism "science" or is it "theology"? Is it a valid technique to start with the conclusion, then pick and choose data to find something that supports the conclusion?

It is obviously theology and that is what it centers around (that is my opinion) but creationists will cry out that they follow science and say that evolutionists are merely trying to have an excuse for their immoral behavior (sometimes, not always). Evolutionists will say that they are following science and that creationists are picking and choosing stuff to support their preconceptions.

I was wondering, has Scientific American ever printed a critique by a creationist about an evolutionists book? I don't think so, at least I can't think of one. The creationists could be limited to merely science but I doubt the position would be offered to anyone.

Does this mean I have to wait a while before I can comment? dum de dum...de dum...

LOL, sorry, I just didn't want people to immediately answer with their previous comments. I want people to think, instead of copying and pasting (figuratively).

Due no doubt to my poor comprehension skills, I am unable to extract any particular point or meaning from the above.

It was merely a confusing introduction, entirely my fault.

Perhaps a structure like the eye has a high operating cost to the individual. Thus, a mutant whose eyes are slightly less sophisticated - in an environment where sight is a much less useful commodity - now has a bit more resources to devote to other necessary activities.

Well from what I have read of evolutionary articles, the eye evolved from an eyespot that aided organisms in finding hte way to the surface. I don't see how an eye would help that much, a simple sense of touch would be all you need.

Perhaps not, but neither is that a particularly fair representation of the Cambrian "explosion."

Well, that is the coined term. I've read it in paleontology records as well as in my Biology book. The word "explosion" is always used. It is as if punctuated equilibrium worked overtime.

My own research has led me to conclude that the popular account of the Cambrian explosion is at least partially a strawman of creationist design.

I've read a lot about it in Biology books, it isn't made up. The fossilization sequence does exist. Although, more complex organisms are a little higher up.