On a recent episode of the Fellowship And Frivolity podcast, Bill asked a series of questions originally put together by David Wright which are supposed to let those who answer them know if they have been “evolutionized” by “bad science” and naturalism. Bill and Terry didn’t provide a link, and I’ve been unable to find using Google so I can’t pass it on to you.
First of all let me say, many of these questions are loaded heavier than a LongHorn Steakhouse baked potato. Here are the questions along with my answers and a few observations.
- Are tribes in South American rain forest more primitive forms of humans than we are? No
- Did dinosaurs live before humans? Yes (This does not indicate my belief in evolution, but rather in an Old Earth Theology that coincides with a literal interpretation of Genesis.)
- Were the people who lived in caves, and used simple tools unintelligent? No (Still, humans have learned more about the universe around us since Adam started working in the Garden of Eden. We make progress in medicine, agriculture, technology, science, etc. So it would be possible to answer this question with a yes, and still not indicate a belief in evolution.)
- Did Noah lack special tools or equipment to build the ark? No (Again, he obviously had what he needed, but he also didn’t have power tools or a Lowe’s store to help him out. This is just a stupid question.)
- Are the stars older than the earth? Yes (This does not indicate my belief in evolution, but rather in an Old Earth Theology that coincides with a literal interpretation of Genesis.)
- Is there more than one race? No (If there ever was a “trick question” this is one. Many people would answer yes to this question in regard to the ethnic separation of races (black, white, Hispanic, Latin, etc) but still hold that all of these “races” descended from one original human race.)
- Does it take millions of years to form fossils, oil, coal, and diamonds? Yes (This does not indicate my belief in evolution, but rather in an Old Earth Theology that coincides with a literal interpretation of Genesis.)
- Did Adam have to learn how to speak, read and write after he was created? Yes/No (How in the name of all that is holy could we possibly answer this question completely. Certainly Adam communed with God and this indicates speech, but it does NOT necessitate writing and reading. We can trace the, dare I say it, evolution of written language throughout history by looking first at the primitive symbol based writing and finally at the phonetically developed alphabets mankind uses today.)
What these questions show more than anything is the simplistic approach to the evolution/creation debate that many creationists take. It is interesting to note that historically, even the fundamentalist Christians did not take issue with an old earth theology. As with many things “fundamental” these ideas grew out of a fear that science would corrupt Christianity and leave us a society of godless men and women.
I certainly believe we have such a society, but I would make two points about it. First, mankind has been a godless society since he left the Garden of Eden. This is not a new situation brought about by evil naturalistic scientists. And secondly, to whatever degree it is possible to curb this evil side of humanity, we would have been (and still would be) better served to approach debates such as this one using sensible, well developed arguments rather than parlor tricks, and closed minded ignorance.
I’ve quoted and mentioned it a few times before, but a great place to begin your journey into a more developed approach to this dialog is The battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side Is Winning the Creation-Evolution, by Del Ratzsch. Del is a Christian, but his objective in this book is not to defend creation or evolution, but to point out first the history of both sides, and then the errors found in the common arguments presented by both sides. Ratzsch does not provide you with the answers, but rather asks all the right questions and leaves you questioning if your approach to the debate is the best one available. I’m currently working through this book for the second time, and I can’t recommend it enough.
If you can provide me with a link to David Wright and his original article I will be glad to provide the link.
Here’s what I found: Are You Evolutionized?
You suck at Google (just kidding).
Comment by Anthony Martin — July 20, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
Well, that clears things up not at all. I wonder who first came up with the “quiz”. David Wright or this Steve McGinnis guy or someone else? At any case it’s so weak I wouldn’t even classify it as an argument.
Comment by Aaron Jackson — July 20, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
Then you fell for it.
That’s the argument, anyway. Your basic Fallacy of Many Questions in action.
Comment by Anthony Martin — July 20, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
Exactly right!
Comment by Aaron Jackson — July 20, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
Actually, fossils only take a few months to form. During Noah’s flood billions of fossils could have been formed to explain why there are so many and yet none that “prove” evolution.
Comment by Torri — July 20, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
The question does not only speak to fossils, but also to oil, coal and diamonds. However, let the following be true:
a) fossils, oil, coal, and diamonds form in a matter of months
b) billions of fossils were formed during the flood
c) fossils do not “prove” evolution to be true
The question still remains, do these propositions necessarily “prove” evolution to be false? The obvious answer is no.
I’m not advocating evolution, but merely pointing out that the above argument is at best problematic, and at worse simply moot. If Christians want to “prove” creation they are going to have some difficulty in doing so, as both evolution and creation are philosophically if not scientifically unprovable. However, if Christians want to show the probability of creation over evolution they must come up with better arguments than “fossils can form in months”, “Noah’s flood can explain everything”, and “are you evolutionized?”
Comment by Aaron Jackson — July 21, 2007 @ 1:45 am
Tori, if it actually takes only a few months to form a fossil, then I take it you’ve witnessed the process?
The Genesis creation account is incomplete, so why do we Christians have to belabor topics that aren’t covered in Genesis? When I read the creation account, I’m not looking for a complete blueprint. The only thing I know by reading Genesis is that God made it and it was good and very good.
God made it, so don’t worship the creation, worship the creator.
Comment by Anthony Martin — July 21, 2007 @ 10:15 am
Maybe it’s not the only thing I know by reading Genesis, but it’s the main thing.
Comment by Anthony Martin — July 21, 2007 @ 10:23 am
i get where youre going with the quiz.
isnt the age of the earth really at the heart of this argument? of course if the earth is young evolution is out the window. and im not as comfortable as you are labelling the universe as ancient.
scientists can be produced on both sides of the age argument and i cant dogmatically state the earth is super old as you do.
without scientific information available to every joe blo in 2007, one would never assume an old universe from literal scripture reading. my charge still stands completely unmolested to my mind, that this is not exegesis from the scripture but rather addition to the scripture to make it sync with other peices of information, which are supposed to be subservient to the scripture. with the genesis account using the 7 day timeline and using terms like morning and night, it is at loggerheads with an old universe. and i cant figure it out.
this question has been nagging me for years.
aaron=pretty mean
Comment by adam — July 21, 2007 @ 11:06 am
Actually Anthony, I haven’t seen a fossil form in months but scientists have! No scientist will (in his right mind) say fossils MUST take millions of years to form, they just assume most have formed that way. Lab tests have proven that fossils, rocks, gems, etc. can form much more quickly than most people have been told or believe. By the way, I haven’t seen God either but I know he exists.
This whole young earth vs. old earth thing is mute to the fact that evolution poisons our world to the point that people turn away from faith because they believe science can give them all the answers to the universe.
Finally Anthony, do you ever disagree with Aaron on anything or are you the official High Caliber Guns.com yes man?
Comment by Torri — July 21, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
Torri,
I have several issues with your comments, and I will address them below.
First of all, you are right back where you were with your first comments. Let the following be true:
The question remains what do these premises prove? In a word, nothing. They do not prove evolution to be false, or creation to be true. They do not prove creation to be false or evolution to be true.
Ok, you haven’t seen fossils form over a period of months, but you believe it happens. You haven’t seen God, but you believe He exists. Again, all this proves is that you believe fossils form quickly and that God exists. It simply isn’t germane to the current dialog.
Let the following be true:
What does this prove? Does it prove that evolution is false? No, it only proves (when we assume that it is true), that evolutionary theory causes people to fall away from faith in God. Similarly it does not prove creation to be true.
Similar claims could be made about Mormonism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. Certainly these ideas turn millions of people away from God, but that fact alone does not prove those religions to be false. Instead of saying, “Islam corrupts people’s minds and leads them away from Christianity, therefore Islam is false,” we use Christian apologetics to show that the Islamic worldview is not cogent, coherent, comprehensive, etc., and that the Christian worldview is. In short, we provide good arguments to bolster our position, and do not rely on emotionally driven, empty statements of fact (or belief) to circularly argue our position. Which by the way, is what you’re doing here.
Now I could point out the obvious logical fallacy you are committing with this statement, or I could ask the same question to you concerning Fellowship And Frivolity, The Institute For Creation Research, Ken Ham, etc. Instead, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that while you agree with these people on some issues, you reserve the right to disagree on other issues, and that those of us that only hear from you when we discuss this particular topic are only seeing one side of your multifaceted belief system.
Comment by Aaron Jackson — July 21, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
Previously, on the High Caliber Guns web site, Torri said:
I stopped believing in evolution quite a while ago. Even when I believed it, it didn’t interfere with my faith. Yet I still trust science just like you, Torri.
I’m glad you agree that the old vs. young is moot when it’s put along side the topic of evolution. But I also think it’s possible for people to believe evolution yet hear the gospel and believe that Jesus died for their sins.
You’re using anecdotal evidence to prove that an erroneous theory of our origins will draw people away from faith. But erroneous theories about our origins have been around for a long, long time. These theories don’t interfere with God’s plan to save those He intended to save.
I don’t believe evolution now, but when I was younger in high-school, I thought evolution was the means God used, just like a great many Christians believe today. I had not examined the evidence back then, but science didn’t seem contradictory to faith, even though I believed a lie.
In fact, back then I believed a few other lies too. I believed that science proved that the earth stood still for one day according to Joshua 10:12-13. To me, the urban legend that NASA scientists discovered the missing day was confirmation of my faith, but it turns out that there was no NASA discovery.
Even still, I believe the Joshua 10:12-13 account. And I still believe the real discoveries in science that confirm biblical accounts, but I don’t need them to believe what the Bible says.
That’s really two questions (false dichotomy). Yes. No. In that order.
Comment by Anthony Martin — July 22, 2007 @ 10:33 am
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I liked your comments a lot. Well put.
Comment by Torri — July 22, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
I’d like to respond to the comments made on The Sitter Downers podcast. I was classified as an old-earth-creationist, I am not. I’m simply a creationist. If the earth is old, then great. If it’s young, so be it. I don’t think we can conclude either way just by reading the Bible.
If someone were to only read the Bible, ignoring all evidence and observation in nature, one might conclude an earth-centric universe. I’m not saying that a person who holds to the Young Earth model necessarily must also hold to an Earth Centric Universe model. What I am saying is that the argument is the same.
A person who holds to an Earth Centric Universe model would cite a literal reading of the Bible as proof, wouldn’t they? So shouldn’t that be a red flag for someone who holds to a Young Earth model?
Comment by Anthony Martin — July 31, 2007 @ 9:17 am