I recently got into a debate over young earth creationism. One objection to the view went as follows: “A scientific theory is a concise set of statements which has broad explanatory and predictive power within its purview. In order to be considered scientific, a hypothesis must predict what must or must not be observed if it is true. If such things are not observed/observed, then the hypothesis is considered falsified. [Scientific Creationism] does not espouse any idea which makes exclusive predictions about what must or must not be observed. Every biological observation falls under “God made it that way” or borrows from evolutionary theory and says “it adapted that way.”…
-
-
AiG vs. BioLogos pt.2: Dr Jeanson (AiG)
There is a clock in DNA. Does it show how old the species is or not? We have less than 5% of DNA’s function. This is small fruit and does not conclusively tell us that ancestry is common or not. So, what do the number of DNA differences show? DNA resides in the nucleus and mitochondrial DNA resides in a separate part of the cell. The mitochondria is passed on through the maternal line (the sperm unites only with the nucleus). DNA has its own language comprising of four letters, ATCG. We can compare two DNA strands. When there is similarity and difference we can see it. DNA strands might…
-
AiG vs. BioLogos pt2: Dr Venema (BioLogos)
Dennis Venema I am sitting waiting for part 2. Some comments on what I’ve heard so far: So far the talks have not focused on Adam. Instead, we have heard arguments for the thesis that the similarities of traits across species do not show common ancestry and that they do. Neither argument is conclusive since both arguments conclude from that the data does not disconfirm the respective theories. Conclusions are thin. Design was a feature of Dr Jeanson’s talk – all the data is compatible with design. But this is true even if evolution is true. The data would not be radically different given either evolution or young earth. This…
-
AiG vs. BioLogos: Dr Venema (BioLogos)
Dr Venema from BioLogos is professor of Biology at Trinity Western University in BC, Canada. Dr Venema is a theistic evolutionist (or evolutionary creationist, as he calls it). Here are my notes: Three assumptions: If every square inch of creation is under the Lordship of Christ, then science is an act of worship. If God is the author of both books–the Bible and nature–then there cannot be a contradiction. If there is apparent conflict between our study of the Bible and nature, it is only apparent. A theory is an explanatory framework that has survived testing and makes accurate predictions. Evolution is this kind of theory. It makes accurate predictions,…
-
Creation and Evolution: Plantinga’s Solution
Just how do we relate science and faith, specifically, the Christian faith? Christians who take their Bible seriously will also take reason seriously. God is eminently reasonable; one could even say God is reason. But all too often there is a feeling that Christians are caught between irrational, reason and science denying positions and compromise with their faith. Plantinga outlines three approaches to the problem. First, the two-truth approach. According to this view one might affirm a proposition in science and deny it in theology. Second, the truth-from-a-standpoint approach suggests that we can hold to apparently contradictory propositions since we can be sure of both being true according to the discipline…
-
Monogamy vs Evolution
For the actor, Ethan Hawke, who left his wife to marry the nanny, monogamy is inappropriate to the human species: “People have such a childish view of monogamy and fidelity. “He’s cheated so he’s bad, she’s cheated so she’s bad”, as opposed to a recognition that our species is not monogamous.” Hawke’s remarks make two points. First, what is morally justifiable is based on what is observed. Lots of people do it, therefore it is morally justifiable. The problem with this is that there are many things we all do that are not morally justifiable. Everyone is prone to lying and, I dare say, everyone has lied at some time. Yet…
-
Why Young Earthers are Not Nutters…
Being a “nutter,” for my non-British friends, means being crazy, doolally, mad and irrational. And young earthers, those who hold to the view that God created the universe six to ten thousand years ago in roughly six twenty four hour days, are, according to many people (mostly in academia or media), nutters. The reason they might be deemed nuts is mostly a matter of supposedly ignoring what’s in front of them – the evidence. Of course there might be more to it than mere stuff (see here for my comments about the logic of evolution), but let’s leave that aside for a minute. I want to suggest that it is not nuts to think…
-
Evolution and the Soul
Historically, Christians have held to various forms of dualism, the idea that the human person is both material and immaterial This, it is said, is what makes it possible to exist beyond the grave even though one’s earthly body remains in it. To the materialist such an idea is archaic and unnecessary. Evolution explains our origins without human souls and if the cost is not living on after we die then so be it. Of course there are many who are both Christian and committed to an evolutionary explanation of human origins. If one is committed to evolution and to the idea of life after death one must explain a possible way that the soul emerges through…