Chief,
I appreciate being able to have a calm discussion with someone about this for a change. I am deliberately not responding to the troll on here in hopes that he will go away.
I do however need to clarify a few points.
If God did create everything by His spoken word as the Bible says He did, would science be able to find evidence of it? If you say no, then what good is science if it can't find the truth?
I think you are missing the point here. IF God created the universe with a spoken word, science would not be able to find evidence, because science would not be looking for that answer. Science could look to see how that happened- meaning what physical laws were followed for the universe to come to exist in its present form, which is exactly what the field of physics studies. Again, science studies the natural world, God and His spoken word would be a supernatural explanation. Not a bad explanation, just not a scientific one.
The reason it is not a scientific answer would be that it would end the area of study. What would have happened if John Snow and simply said “God is making people sick and die” instead of tracing the source of the cholera outbreak in London to a water pump handle? We would not have deveolped the modern Germ Theory or medicine as we know it. The “God did it answer” is a dead end (I do not mean that in a negative context) for science because it ends the area of inquiry. Science is interested in the HOW, not the WHO.
To answer your last question regarding truth, that is a tricky thing to define. Different people have different truths. Again, I do not feel qualified to judge who's truth is better, I am just trying to discuss what science is- or should strive to be.
I have had conversations with Ph.D. level Scientists, some that teach at Division I prestigious universities that have told me they NEVER use the evolutionary model when conducting their scientific work. Throughout their education process, they were taught that it actually got in the way of their research. So what does that say about highly educated scientists that disagree with you about the evidence of evolution?
I would say that I would be extremely surprised if these scientists were conducting research in the biological fields, especially as related to genetics, cellular function, medicine, or phylogenetic relationships between organisms. There are many areas of science that an individual could conduct research and earn a PhD without using the Evolutionary theory such as Chemistry, Physics and Geology, etc. Still there are others who have PhD’s in the social sciences, who claim to be scientists.
What do you say about the fraud in science textbooks and the false statements claiming fact only to find out that they are based on assumptions? Haeckel's embryo drawings were fake. His theory was invalid and yet textbook authors perpetuate the fraud without commenting on the inaccuracy.
A major criticism I have of the Anti-Evolution camp is their cherry picking of a few controversial (and widely discredited people even by scientists who helped develop evolution) and showing their flaws and then expanding them to the entire scientific body of research. Haeckel was a racist who did not even believe in Darwinian evolution at the time. He misapplied evolutionary theory and used it as a justification for the genocide committed by the Nazi's. This is not an accurate representation of those who support evolutionary theory. It would be akin to using our troll friend who has been posting on this forum as evidence against evolution. I do not know exactly what "fraud" you are referring to, but I have personally seen actual prepared slides of embryos from various diverse organisms, and seen similarities in their development. Mammalian embryos have structures that greatly resemble gill slits in fish, which eventually develop into the bones of the inner ear. I am not aware of any valid argument discrediting this evidence.
Your last point is very telling and led me to question your definition of a fundamental Christian. You also use the label "currently accepted scientific theories" loosely. Have you come to a point that you cannot have a literal interpretation of scripture? Do you view the bible as unreliable?
A clarification- I never presented my self as a fundamentalist Christian, only as a Christian (one who believes in God and His only Son Jesus Christ). I referred to a PhD Biologist I worked for who was a self described fundamentalist Christian who had no conflicts with evolutionary theory. I did not discuss his level of fundamentalism with him, but I do know he was a deeply devout individual- and a very good scientist. Regarding my own personal beliefs, I feel that they are and should remain personal. My intent for joining this discussion was not to change anyone beliefs, but to hopefully shed some light on this "controversy" and show how both sides are misapplying science for their own personal gains, and to show that there does not have to be a personal conflict between science and religion. In an answer to your last question above, I personally do find the Bible to be reliable, I just don't know that I am relying on it the same way you are.
I have talked to several biblical literalists that take Genesis 1-12 at face value along with it's description that the earth is very young and that Adam was a real man. If you believe in millions of years, you cannot believe that Adam was a real man. They have high level science degrees and have debated many college professors in public with great success.
Again, I would question several things. 1st- what are their areas in which they received PhD’s. I don't know which people you are referring to, but I have read of several people portraying themselves as "Anti-Evolution" Scientists with impressive credentials, but on closer inspection their PhD’s and other accolades are generally in fields that are not related to Evolution- such as theology, philosophy, Chemistry, etc. If they are new earth creationists, I seriously doubt their PhD’s were awarded in Biology, Geology, or Physics as those are all areas of study that generally involve vast amounts of time for their primary theories play out. Furthermore, being a good debater is not necessarily related to being a good scientist. Again, it seems as if the anti-evolution camp likes to throw around people like Haeckel to discredit evolution. The problem in a debate is the pro-evolution debater must agree, because Haeckel has been discredited by those who support evolution. To the lay person in attendance this looks like an admittance of a weakness of evolution, when in fact it is a misrepresentation of who Haeckel was and what his thoughts were. Fortunately for us, science is not a debate nor a political process (at least it should not be). This allows people of all faiths to be participants.
Have you seen the movie, Expelled? Your thoughts?
I have not, nor have I heard of it. Unfortunately with my job and young family there is precious little time for any other activities.
I do really appreciate your demeanor and tone of your response. It's refreshing and does help the dialogue.
Ditto.
