Do creationists accept biology?

[dad]

So what? Are you going to put your money where your mouth is and avoid all products of science? That would mean that you could not post here. By your rather faulty logic since abortions rely on science on your computer relies upon much more science you are a strong supporter of abortions.

I'll avoid child sacrifices...thanks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll avoid child sacrifices...thanks.

Then you realize how faulty your argument is. Good, we are finally getting somewhere.

 

[Yerda]

First, hi all quoted below. I hope you're all well and also sorry it took me so long to respond.

I think I understand your perspective. You believe in God and use the Bible as your guide. In terms of biology let's say for the purposes of discussion that God created us (and everything) but the way he did it isn't fully clear. Is that acceptable to you?

I've studied some biology and there are a couple of motivations for this thread related to that. I don't claim to be an expert or an authority - I've taken classes, read some textbooks, carried out a bit of lab work etc. I learned that cells, the tiniest parts of living things, are mind-blowingly complicated, composed themselves of so many interacting and interrelating parts that it is brain melting for me to consider how much is going on inside a living being at any time. You can take this as being down to God's brilliance, I've known theists who do.

My point is this, the current understanding that we have in biology seems to me to indicate that life, like the world and all the ideologies and philosophies in it, is temporary in a very special manner. Not just that living things must pass as all things do but that they are in a constant state of flux from one moment to the next and from one generation to the next. Change seems to be either built in to life or just an inescapable feature of being a thing in the world.

I'm not going to try to get you to accept that evolution has to have happened. I believe it did and you can believe whatever seems most reasonable to you. But what I am curious about whether you and others who have doubts about evolution might want to look at some of the reasons, based on what we understand of biology, that it looks somewhat inevitable to many of us.

I'm trying to be strictly non-combative here. I'd quite like to just have a conversation that isn't peppered with either side making demands and trying to outwit each other, that's really boring to me. Part of that is people listening and no-one listens when it gets heated.

The fact that you asked this, indicates you genuinely want to know.
Speaking for myself, I don't follow the crowd - never did... except a popular celebrity - you know, when you are young and "foolish".

For me, the world can formulate it terms, ideas, morals,... I don't follow them, just because they are accepted. I don't even use certain words.

I have a guide to my life that works perfect, for everything I do and say.
I choose to do and say what is acceptable to my conscience, based entirely on Bible principles.
You might say, God is my principle teacher and guide... on everything.

So for example, my boss could tell me to lie to a client. He might as well be talking to the wall. "But everyone does it", or "It's only a small thing". It's not what God teaches me. Fire me.

So when it comes to biology, the same principle applies
I accept the things that can be demonstrated to be true.
When it comes to using terms, I apply the same principles

In a nutshell, This world is temporary, with all its ideologies, philosophies, etc., so I don't use this world to the full... if you know what I mean.

Ok. Good. I'm not a theist but from what you say in practical terms we aren't that far apart in our general attitude.

Would you agree that it is demonstrated to be true that within each living cell the DNA acts like a code for building the proteins that are organised into the structures and processes that go with being a living cell?

I agree with @nPeace....
There is so much that is of benefit to us in many fields of science and being anti-evolution doesn't mean being anti-science.

I love science...but I think the idea that dinosaurs can come from microscopic single celled organisms is ridiculous. There is no proof that it ever happened....and when you say that to them, they get all upset and tell you that science is not about "proof"...its about "evidence".......but the evidence is interpreted to fit their theory so can you trust anything they say?
That is so confusing because if you can't prove what you claim, then all you have is a 'belief' that something is true.....that requires 'faith', doesn't it? And we get disparaged for that by them for that very thing. Go figure.

You have to understand the difference between what science can 'prove' and what they can't....because what they can't prove, they suggest in such a way that it sounds like they have. Scientific sleight of hand.



When you consider the gulf between man and animals, we see what is meant by us being "made in God's image and likeness". There is not another creature alive that compares with us.....regardless of what science wants to suggest. Apes are apes, who were also a work of the Creator....but man is unique. His uniqueness cannot be the product of blind chance or random mutations or natural selection or any other supposed mechanism.

We have free will and we are not just programmed by instinct like the entire animal kingdom. We have a level of intelligence that means that we can learn so much from our parents, our peers and mentors, our environment and past experience. We can plan for the future because our intelligence allows us to go there through the faculty of imagination....animals have no real concept of the future...they can be conditioned by past experiences, but they live in the present. Any behaviors that affect their future is carried out automatically.....as if is 'programmed'.
Have you ever run a program that was not designed by someone with an intelligent mind?

Something that is also proof of being made in God's image is our creativity. Animals are often programmed to build their own 'houses or nests, and each one is specific to that creature. Even birds of different varieties will instinctively build the same nests that their parents built before they were hatched.....so how do they know what to build and what to make it out of?

What other creature can create the same kinds of artistry out of talent instead of instinct? What other creature creates theatre, poetry, literature, sculpture or art out of their free will? How are these traits of benefit to any evolutionary survival advantage? Science has suggestions about these things but I personally find them to be most unsatisfying.

What do you think?

To me, it is also ridiculous that dinosaurs and everything else can be descended from single celled organisms. I also happen to think it's most likely true. There are various lines of evidence you can look at but I'm eager to stress that I don't have all the answers and also I don't believe anyone else does.

The switching of terms like proof and evidence and moving the goalposts on what science is and does is common enough for even me (an athiest who accepts most science) to recognise it happens. The truth is, I reckon, that the people who argue for evolution and natural explanations don't always understand the subjects to a great depth. This is true of me also. I just know what makes the most sense to me and I try to stick to what I'm confident is empirical and verifiable though I do enjoy speculating.

Yes, we are very different from the rest of the animal kingdom. We aren't so removed maybe when you consider all of the other hominids who appear to have lived over the past few million years. Do you agree that from australopithecines to the extinct humans like homo erectus there are a range of apes and ape like creatures that suggest we aren't quite so spectacularly unique?

I think our artistic talents are something to do with what we are. The ability to create beautiful things seems useless to our survival but it might not be completely useless to evolution. Like those little birds that built pretty nests or perform cute little dances to entice a mate human artistic impression might have some bearing on whether we are attractive to others and that has some bearing on whether we reproduce.

When it is empirical and verifiable.

This is a good principle. Are the examples of textbook biology you don't consider empirical and verifiable?

Yes, I am a "creationist"
The bible says that God commanded the earth to bring forth life.
And then he command the seas to bring forth life.
And that's how life formed - firstly from the wetting and drying of
fresh water pools which help concentrate organics.
And then life came from the sea.

We are either creationists or we believe the universe was here
forever - which dodges the issue of how it came to be, and why.

I'm sometimes taken by the idea that the universe or something even grander is eternal. I agree that doesn't answer the question of why there is anything but there's something satisfying about the idea for me.

I don't rule out the possibility that something like God made the world but I'm not sure that it's much of an answer either.

 

[Yerda]

Believe you are kin to worms all you like. That is not biology, it is horror fiction.

I find it to be one of the most beautiful ideas in all of science (or any other field). It's so counter-intuitive and yet it brings all the parts together into a whole that no other scientific theory does (or can).

 

[PruePhillip]

I find it to be one of the most beautiful ideas in all of science (or any other field). It's so counter-intuitive and yet it brings all the parts together into a whole that no other scientific theory does (or can).

We are "kin" to worms, and daffodils and butterflies to. But they don't necessarily
have to be our ancestors. Just as chimps and gorillas are not our ancestors.

 

[Yerda]

We are "kin" to worms, and daffodils and butterflies to. But they don't necessarily
have to be our ancestors. Just as chimps and gorillas are not our ancestors.

Those definitely aren't our ancestors.

 

[dad]

I find it to be one of the most beautiful ideas in all of science (or any other field). It's so counter-intuitive and yet it brings all the parts together into a whole that no other scientific theory does (or can).

I do not find it beautiful to be descended from slimy germs or bugs or from animals. I find that insulting. Insulting to God, who fashioned us in His image, and gave us scripture telling us how. But you may find your religion beautiful if you like. It is not fact or evidence based. It is a regimented fusion of beliefs splattered thoroughly over evidences, and has been maliciously called science.

 

[Astrophile]

I would say the way science facilitates killing embryos shows that they are murderously insane.

Would you say the same thing about the ways science contributes to preventing miscarriage (2,960,000 sites on Google)?

 

[Deeje]

Thank you so much for your reasonable reply....I will try to give you a reasonable response.

I think I understand your perspective. You believe in God and use the Bible as your guide. In terms of biology let's say for the purposes of discussion that God created us (and everything) but the way he did it isn't fully clear. Is that acceptable to you?

The way God created all life is as clear to me as evolution is to you. I have faith in God as the intelligence behind the science, (not the theory) and evolutionists prefer to have faith in what they see as "evidence" for a slow and gradual process that was formed over millions of years with no intelligent direction at all. As I said, when I see something that functions on an incredibly complex level that exhibits purpose, I do not automatically assume that it came about by chance. That to me would seem to be an unintelligent assumption.

Mind you, I do see that one of the main reasons why scientists reject direct creation is because of the dogmatic YEC approach. I find that totally unrealistic too, that everything was created in 7 literal days....dinosaurs on the ark etc. That is clearly nonsense......but there is a view that straddles both of these positions. This position accommodates both science AND the Bible. There is nothing in the Bible that restricts the creative "days" to just 24 hours. This is where JW's stand. We see the "days" as perhaps millions of years long. The Genesis account also accommodates a very ancient earth.

We see God as a thoughtful Creator, taking all the time he needed.....because he is not a magician.

I've studied some biology and there are a couple of motivations for this thread related to that. I don't claim to be an expert or an authority - I've taken classes, read some textbooks, carried out a bit of lab work etc. I learned that cells, the tiniest parts of living things, are mind-blowingly complicated, composed themselves of so many interacting and interrelating parts that it is brain melting for me to consider how much is going on inside a living being at any time. You can take this as being down to God's brilliance, I've known theists who do.

Yes, and it's that clearly demonstrated brilliance that shines through in creation IMV, exhibiting an incredible level of detail that until the invention of the microscope, went completely unnoticed. Creatures that we cannot see with the naked eye exists and are essential in that microscopic world. The detail of their bodies and the purpose they serve just reinforces the amazing detail and purpose of creation....from the microscopic to the unimaginable dimensions of the universe....it is mindbogglingly complex.....too complex to have come about by chance according to my logic.

My point is this, the current understanding that we have in biology seems to me to indicate that life, like the world and all the ideologies and philosophies in it, is temporary in a very special manner. Not just that living things must pass as all things do but that they are in a constant state of flux from one moment to the next and from one generation to the next. Change seems to be either built in to life or just an inescapable feature of being a thing in the world.

We see the adaptive abilities of all creatures as something pre-programmed into all living things by a thoughtful Creator. Something that is very obvious in creation, is that God loves variety, and changing environment or food source is a trigger for adaptation. But we never see adaptation producing anything but a new variety of an existing creature. To suggest that adaptation can explain evolution at the macro level is based more on imagination than fact. Science makes many 'suggestions' about what "could have" happened, but that is all they can ever be. They can always interpret their evidence to fit their theory.....to retain any credibility, they must.

To me, it is also ridiculous that dinosaurs and everything else can be descended from single celled organisms. I also happen to think it's most likely true. There are various lines of evidence you can look at but I'm eager to stress that I don't have all the answers and also I don't believe anyone else does.

So atheists can believe in "ridiculous" things too? LOL

We have lines of evidence as well, and we have as much 'proof' for our position as you guys do.

You see how much "belief" plays a role in both camps? But apparently only one group will admit to it.

The switching of terms like proof and evidence and moving the goalposts on what science is and does is common enough for even me (an athiest who accepts most science) to recognise it happens. The truth is, I reckon, that the people who argue for evolution and natural explanations don't always understand the subjects to a great depth. This is true of me also. I just know what makes the most sense to me and I try to stick to what I'm confident is empirical and verifiable though I do enjoy speculating.

Yes, you've hit the nail on the head there.....it's what we 'want' to believe that will ultimately determine what we will accept as our truth. Speculation takes on a whole new dimension in evolutionary science.

In the world of academia, there is great pressure to adopt evolution as a fact or else face ridicule and exclusion. Creation is presented as a fairy tale, and "educated" people simply can't accept anything but science (even if it is ridiculous). It's a powerful tool to persuade people. Almost as good as Christendom's "hell" promised for those who don't accept 7 day creation.

JW's are not subject to either of those proposals, so we accept what the Bible actually teaches as our truth. It fits in nicely with what science can prove, not necessarily what they assume.

Yes, we are very different from the rest of the animal kingdom. We aren't so removed maybe when you consider all of the other hominids who appear to have lived over the past few million years. Do you agree that from australopithecines to the extinct humans like homo erectus there are a range of apes and ape like creatures that suggest we aren't quite so spectacularly unique?

I can't really agree that we "aren't quite so spectacularly unique".....I believe that the gulf between humans and any ape puts us in a whole other category when it comes to our unique human abilities and characteristics.
Does science really have the evidence to suggest that we are nothing but smart apes? Are we just hominids?

Perhaps this will explain better than I can....
Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

I think our artistic talents are something to do with what we are. The ability to create beautiful things seems useless to our survival but it might not be completely useless to evolution. Like those little birds that built pretty nests or perform cute little dances to entice a mate human artistic impression might have some bearing on whether we are attractive to others and that has some bearing on whether we reproduce.

Can you explain instinct? How does a bird know how to build a nest specific to their species, when they were not even around to learn how to do it from their parents? Same with their courtship dances...who taught them to do that dance before they were even conceived?

How do butterflies or birds (or whales) know to migrate at a certain time of year, to a specific point on a map thousands of miles away? Why do salmon expend an enormous amount of energy swimming upstream to their spawning grounds, only to die there after ensuring the perpetuation of their species?

How do you assume that instinct isn't a program that was designed by an intelligent mind? Can you assume that intelligent design requires no designer? I can't. That is science's fantasy IMO.

Nice talking to you.....

 

[Astrophile]

Believe you are kin to worms all you like. That is not biology, it is horror fiction.

We are kin to bananas and mushrooms as well. As I have said before, it's better than being related to Hitler, who was probably about my 24th cousin.

 

[Astrophile]

So for example, my boss could tell me to lie to a client. He might as well be talking to the wall. "But everyone does it", or "It's only a small thing". It's not what God teaches me. Fire me.

So if a police officer tells you that you mustn't bore a hole through the ear of one of your slaves, or indeed that you mustn't keep slaves, do you respond by saying that that is not what God teaches you (Deuteronomy, 15:16-17) and that you will go to prison rather than disobey God's commands?

 

[dad]

Would you say the same thing about the ways science contributes to preventing miscarriage (2,960,000 sites on Google)?

Well if we have dr jeckle and mr hyde, we should look at what the whole man does, not just the psycho good side!

Let's run the numbers. There may have been something like 40 millions abortions performed a year for say, the last decade. That is about 400 million dead babies!

Let's see the numbers for the miscarriages?

 

[dad]

So if a police officer tells you that you mustn't bore a hole through the ear of one of your slaves, or indeed that you mustn't keep slaves, do you respond by saying that that is not what God teaches you (Deuteronomy, 15:16-17) and that you will go to prison rather than disobey God's commands?

If the guy thinks he is living in ancient Israel, he doesn't need a cop, but a man in a white coat!

 

[Astrophile]

I love science...but I think the idea that dinosaurs can come from microscopic single celled organisms is ridiculous.

Do you think that the idea that dinosaurs came from Permo-Triassic archosauriformes - Archosauriformes - Wikipedia - is also ridiculous? Have you examined the evidence for this hypothesis?

 

[dad]

We are kin to bananas and mushrooms as well.

I do admit science is kept in the dark, and is out of it's tree.

As I have said before, it's better than being related to Hitler, who was probably about my 24th cousin.

False. Siblings are not responsible if one of them turns out to be a whack job killer. God makes us all different, and heredity is not what determines salvation. Putting down God's created man kind because of the sinners who refused to repent and come to the light is putting down God. Claiming He lied in Genesis is putting down God. Claiming that all the prophets and apostles and writers of the bible who acknowledged that He did form man and create all things is insulting God.

 

[dad]

We see God as a thoughtful Creator, taking all the time he needed.....because he is not a magician.
..

He explained how many mornings and evening were involved.

 

[Deeje]

Do you think that the idea that dinosaurs came from Permo-Triassic archosauriformes - Archosauriformes - Wikipedia - is also ridiculous? Have you examined the evidence for this hypothesis?

Well I guess that depends on whether you assume that the diagrams made by scientists, with the systems of classification determined by them are accurate.

According to Wiki....

"In biology, taxonomy (from Ancient Greek τάξις (taxis), meaning 'arrangement', and -νομία (-nomia), meaning 'method') is the science of naming, defining (circumscribing) and classifying groups of biological organisms on the basis of shared characteristics. Organisms are grouped together into taxa (singular: taxon) and these groups are given a taxonomic rank; groups of a given rank can be aggregated to form a super-group of higher rank, thus creating a taxonomic hierarchy. The principal ranks in modern use are domain, kingdom, phylum (division is sometimes used in botany in place of phylum), class, order, family, genus, and species. The Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus is regarded as the founder of the current system of taxonomy, as he developed a system known as Linnaean taxonomy for categorizing organisms and binomial nomenclature for naming organisms.

With the advent of such fields of study as phylogenetics, cladistics, and systematics, the Linnaean system has progressed to a system of modern biological classification based on the evolutionary relationships between organisms, both living and extinct."

Taxonomy (biology) - Wikipedia

So, on what basis are these creatures grouped in a line of relatedness....."on the basis of shared characteristics".

So its basically saying that similarity is enough to assume relatedness. Sorry, that is weak grounds for an assumption....but no one seems to notice how weak it is unless you use the power of suggestion.
If your first premise is wrong, then everything you build on it will be false. That is how I see evolution.

Look....here is a diagram from your link....these are members of the "lizard" family. Is the fact that all lizards share characteristics mean that all these are descended in a line of evolution? Why can't they just be various species of lizards?....created by a Being who loves his art...to explore new possibilities.....variations on a theme? God is not a magician.....so who said that these creatures must have evolved from one another?

The closest science can get without lying to to say they "might have" or "could have".....some then conclude they "must have"....sorry, but I am not buying it.

You know the thing that made me smile.....is the pigeon at the end.....he is so obviously a lizard.....

Archosauriformes
Proterosuchidae

Archosaurus

 
Proterosuchus

 
 
Erythrosuchus

 
 
Vancleavea

 
Proterochampsia
 
Tropidosuchus

 
Chanaresuchus

 
 
Euparkeria

Crurotarsi
Phytosauria*
 
Parasuchus

 
 
Smilosuchus

 
Pseudopalatus

Archosauria
 
Pseudosuchia

 
Avemetatarsalia


So when does science end.....and imagination take over?

I find that creation is just as plausible...no! even more plausible than the 'suggestions' made by those who want God to disappear.

You can believe them if you wish.....not me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He explained how many mornings and evening were involved.

Magic is not an explanation.

 

[Deeje]

He explained how many mornings and evening were involved.

We use the same terminology to describe the beginning or "dawn of a new era". Or "in my grandfather's day".
The fact that there was an evening and a morning does not designate a "day" to a Jewish audience. Their days ran from evening to evening.....

The creative periods had definite beginnings and endings......that is all that was intended to convey.

.

 

[Astrophile]

Well if we have dr jeckle and mr hyde, we should look at what the whole man does, not just the psycho good side!

The man's name was Dr. Jekyll; you obviously haven't read the book.

Let's run the numbers. There may have been something like 40 millions abortions performed a year for say, the last decade. That is about 400 million dead babies!

Where did you get your numbers from? According to https://en.wikipedia.org/Abortion, 'about 56 million abortions are performed each year in the world, with about 45% [about 25 million] done unsafely.' 'Unsafe abortions result in complications for about 7 million women a year. Unsafe abortions are also one of the leading causes of deaths during pregnancy and childbirth (about 5-13% of all deaths during this period). Most unsafe abortions occur where abortion is illegal, or in developing countries where affordable and well-trained medical practitioners are not readily available, or where modern birth control is unavailable' - Unsafe abortion - Wikipedia . What are you doing to improve medical care for pregnant women in developing countries and to make birth control available, in order to reduce the number of unsafe abortions?

Let's see the numbers for the miscarriages?

It is estimated that the rate of miscarriage among all fertilisations is between 30% and 50% - Miscarriage - Wikipedia . That means that the number of miscarriages is more than half the number of babies successfully born and possibly as many as the total number of babies born. 'The global average birth rate was 18.5 births per thousand population in 2016' - Birth rate - Wikipedia - or about 4.3 births per second, or a total of about 136 million births for the 366 days of the year. The number of miscarriages was therefore between about 60 million and about 140 million. Research into preventing miscarriage isn't likely to save as many babies as are lost to abortions, but a combination of such research and introducing measures to reduce the number of unsafe abortions would probably make a significant difference.