On Creationism

The Discovery Institute has an article about ID Science. You, know, the whole observation, hypothesis, prediction, test thing. They even claim they do just that:  http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/09/post_41077191.html Prediction Natural structures will be found that are irreducibly complex, and contain parts in intricate patterns. Only two things wrong with this prediction. 1. It is not a necessary consequence of their theory. God could have chosen to create things that were not like that. Compare to the nested hierarchy predicted by evolution. This must be true, if evolution is true. This is vital to a prediction because it gives falsifiability. Evolution would be falsified if there was no nested hierarchy. ID would not be falsified if irreducibly complex is never found. 2. It is perfectly compatible with evolution. Testing By experimentally removing or breaking parts in a system, then testing for functtionality without those parts, we can determine ...

This is a response to an article by Duane Gish, on the web site of the Institute for Creation Research. Gish was one of the big names in creationism, and had a Ph.D. in biochemistry, so we would expect him to be quite an authority. He pasted away in March of this year. The article is here.The section titles are taken from that document. http://www.icr.org/article/177/ I. The Universe and the Solar System Were Suddenly Created. This is an astonishing claim.  Sure, the universe suddenly appeared (whether created or not), but not the solar system. Curiously Gish offers zero evidencve to support his claim that the solar system was suddenly created. With regards to the universe, he cites the Second Law as proving God did it, which I have taken apart previously . II. Life Was Suddenly Created.  He bases this claim on the fact that there is a certain point in the fossil record before which there are no fossil - which is exactly what you would expect. He claims the first...

Christian apologists have made several attempts to explain away references to the firmament, and many modern Bibles now use the term "expanse" to try to sweep the issue under the carpet. This post looks at some Christian apologist web pages that attempt to deal with the issue. Answering Islam Web page here .They look at this verse: Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass? Note that in those times mirrors were made of molten bronze or copper, which was then polished, so "molten looking glass" presumably meant a metal mirror. They quote Norm Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook On Bible Difficulties , 1992, and so shall I. It is true that the origin of the Hebrew word raqia meant a solid object. However, meaning is not determined by origin (etymology), but by usage. Originally, the English word 'board' referred to a wooden plank. But when we speak of a church board memb...

If you hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible, the creation account in Genesis 1 is quite a problem. Let us look at how creationists attempt to surmount some of the issues. Dumbing Down http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html I would first like to point out that God has not revealed the entire creation process in the Genesis creation account, but only that which is particularly relevant to mankind. Many events in the creation account of the Bible have been intentionally left out (unicellular life forms, dinosaurs, etc.), I believe, because they would have been difficult to express in the Hebrew language, and would have lead to confusion, since they would not have been understood through the vast majority of mankind's existence (i.e., only understandable in the last two centuries). On the surface this seems perfectly reasonable, but is it? Ancient man was not stupid. he was just as bright as we are. The difference is that we have two centuries of scienc...

William Lane Craig is a Christian who seems to make a living by debating non-Christians about the existence of God. One of Craig's favourite topics is the Kalam cosmological argument. Here is Craig's formulation: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. Whatever begins to exist has a cause Number 1 is carefully formulated to exclude God; God did not begin to exist, so he did not have a cause. It is a bit of semantic trickery that builds in the conclusion Craig wants to reach. You might as well exclude the universe. Everything except the universe and God has a cause, and we have no particular reason to suppose the universe has a cause, do we? The claim of number 1 is based on inductive reasoning . All the things around us have a cause, therefore it is likely that some other thing also has a cause. Inductive reasoning is not certain, but it is what we do all the time, and is often the only way ...

This parable is recorded in Luke 19. Luke 19:11 As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately. 12 He said therefore, “A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. 13 Calling ten of his servants,[a] he gave them ten minas,[b] and said to them, ‘Engage in business until I come.’ 14 But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’ 15 “When he returned, having received the kingdom, he ordered these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by doing business. 16 The first came before him, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made ten minas more.’ 17 And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant![c] Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.’ 18 And the second came, sa...