Menu Close

Creationism to Atheism or Science trumps Biblical Literalism

guest-post

Guest post by Matthew who blogs at Confessions of a Young Earth Creationist

The subject of Biblical literalism is a hot topic at the moment thanks to the recent debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. I am a former creationist, now an atheist. The creationist argument is not scientific and, despite what some creationists would claim, there is no conspiracy to promote evolution or an old universe the science behind them is solid. There is obviously no room in this post to address every creationist argument, what I will do below is address what made me a creationist and some of the reasons for my eventual rejection of it and why I became an atheist.

Get Them Young

Life for me started in the missionary world of Zambia, Central Africa. School was a boarding school deep in the bush close to the Zaire (as it was then) border. The school was founded by missionaries and populated mostly by missionary children. All the teachers were from Christian stock (they still are today) and saw their work as Christian mission. As children we never seriously questioned the existence of the Christian God. The whole ethos of the school was (still is) God centered so it wasn’t just an education I received, it was also an indoctrination. I still have in my childhood memorabilia a New Testament that I was given for memorizing and reciting a chapter from the Bible. Christianity was far more than an Religious Education lesson, it was a lifestyle and ethos from which everything else flowed.

The whole of my early life was steeped in this lifestyle that assumed God. There was very little opportunity for questioning God because everyone believed. There were times when we were warned that the world outside hated God and we would be persecuted for being Christians. We were told we should stand strong in the face of that because when our education stopped and we entered the world, the challenges would come. Now that I think about it more, as young children, we were taught to fear those who were not Christians.

I recall there were several stories we were told about missionaries who had lost their lives in the service of God. These people were held up as heroes and martyrs, people who were selfless and did not fear death and counted their lives as less important than the mission of spreading God’s word.

This view of the righteous Christian missionary, fighting for God in a world full of evil atheists who hated us, framed my outlook for a long time.

On Science and God

All Bible teaching, that I can remember, was literal, which meant creation, the flood, the tower of babel, the exodus from Egypt, the sun and moon being commanded to stand still, the testing of God with a fleece and so on; all the stories were told as historical events. Interest in science and nature was also encouraged, though the school library had copies of National Geographic and in science lessons we were always told that exploring the world through science was a good way of seeing how beautiful the world is that God made for us.

The only conflict that I remember is the day when new biology books arrived and we were instructed to open the books to a specific page and cross out a paragraph that referred to evolution.  The reference was to fish flapping between drying pools of water and eventually learning to use their fins to walk, which over generations turned into legs. We laughed at the description and took great pleasure in crossing out the words.

Becoming an Adult

At 18, I left Zambia at the insistence of my father, to start my life in England and my eventual career in IT. I found a local Methodist church and got involved. It was a major culture shock for me. I was very naive and struggled  with fitting in with the other young adults at church. English attitudes were much more liberal than the missionary culture I was used to. At work, it was even harder, Christians were not the majority and atheists were happy to be vocal about it. The words of warning from my youth came back to haunt me.

It was about this time that I had my first shock from within the Christian community. The Bishop David Jenkins made front page news by claiming that the resurrection of Jesus was not literal and that he lives only in our words and thoughts as we talk about and remember him. Worse was to come at house group the next week, the minister confirmed that this was indeed the truth and he believed it too. I was stunned and speechless; I literally didn’t know what to do with my thoughts. It was the first time I had been exposed to different people within the Christian church having different ideas of key elements of the bible.

A chance conversation at work revealed that one of my co-workers had an uncle who was a minister in the USA and had written a book on origins. I duly borrowed the book, it was a creationist book, and with the foundation of my early education, my journey into creationism became complete. I would hold and argue creationism for the next 20 years.

A couple of years later, I was living in a different part of town and going to a different church, this time Anglican, as it was closer to where I lived. It would be here that I would meet and marry my wife. The church itself was liberal, like most Anglican churches in England. There was a strong evangelical element though and it was through this section of the congregation that I would get very involved in what is known as spiritual gifts. Praying in tongues and for the healing of others and demonstrations of being filled by the Holy Spirit were regular occurrences during these services. These more evangelical elements served to strengthen my literal view of the bible, even though not everyone shared my origins view. For me, it had to be true because it didn’t make sense for it not to be.

Getting Out

One of the most common accusations that creationists make against those that accept evolution is that evolutionists start from the position of millions of years and look for the evidence to back it up and will always interpret the evidence as validation of that. This is nonsense of course, and the irony is that it is the creationist that starts from the position that their god exists and that everything we see confirms that.

Evolutionary science does not actually do that of course, it starts from a null hypothesis scenario, that is, nothing is assumed to be true and the conclusion that is drawn is guided by the results. The greatest thing that could happen in science would be for evolution to be overturned and that the existence of a god proven. To argue otherwise is to completely misunderstand how the scientific community operates.

It was when I eventually managed to understand the above that I started to lose my grip on creationism. It was a long and slow journey and there is no specific point I can indicate and say “that’s when it happened”. Instead there are markers along the way where I can see that a little grain of wider understanding crept in. Eventually, all those little grains became a pile that was too large to ignore.

I credit this journey to my appreciation of things scientific and natural. This love eventually led me to reading blogs and listening to podcasts. It was this new digital medium that enabled me to directly compare and contrast the creationist argument with the science argument. Increasingly, I found the creationist argument lacking in substance, while the science argument talked about observation followed by study and process and examination and conclusion and challenge and testing. Creationists object to scientific processes that go against the literal bible interpretation, but they do very little to offer any viable mechanism as an alternative. The requirement to have God do a miracle is relied upon too much.

Increasingly, I found the science of evolution and an old universe cohesive and logical until it was simply no longer possible for me to accept creationism. From that moment on, I was on the slippery slope out of Christianity. It would take a further 3 years, while I questioned to myself all aspects of the Bible that I knew and various experiences that I had previously attributed to God. There is just one event I can’t fully explain away, that is when I went through what is called a deliverance experience. I accept that I may never know fully understand what actually happened that evening; however, one ripple does not a foundation break.

53 Comments

  1. Avatar
    Michael Alioto

    Please elaborate on the “deliverance experience”. You probably left it out for a reason…but I had to ask. Of course there are things that happen that we can’t explain…that isn’t proof there is a god obviously. But I am curious.

  2. Avatar
    August Rode

    I have become convinced, over years of chatting on the interwebs with creationists, that anyone who says that they believe the Bible to be literally true has never read it. Generally, what they tend to believe is what they’ve been told to believe by their pastor or some other similar authority; the words that are actually in the Bible are of little consequence. It certainly didn’t take much effort to find that some of the Bible stories are *not* what I was taught they were.

  3. Avatar
    Brian

    May I share that my deliverance from religion came when I honestly stated that I did not believe, and that I could see no reason to believe in any God. I was delivered, felt a sent of immense release. The use of deliverance at the end of this essay is quite provocative and I would also love to hear more about it.

  4. Avatar
    Geoff

    I’m engaged in a very civil discussion elsewhere with a creationist (the second there’s the slightest hint of abuse the thread would be closed). I’m struck by how, as ever, he refuses to acknowledge the evidence for evolution, preferring simply to say ‘there is no evidence’.

    There is probably more evidence for evolution than there is for any other scientific theory. We understand more than we understand gravity, and the underlying processes are certainly more intuitive. Yet never once, ever, has a creationist sought to engage the evidence, rather they challenge the basic premise with what they see as pithy rebuttals, such as ‘if humans evolved from apes why are there still ape?’. Of course, the only reason they do this is because they’ve never enquired as to the evidence. And that’s the paradox for creationists regarding evolution. As soon as they read and understand the evidence then they cease to be creationists.

    • Avatar
      marfin

      Evidence for evolution , real evidence for how over time a fish becomes a reptile, and how a reptile becomes a bird , this I gotta see, please show this evidence.

        • Avatar
          marfin

          The fossil record is probably some of the best evidence for creation and not evolution, research into the fossil record is not a very scientific endeavour as its not amenable to the real scientific method . When you have a fossil what do you really ,have nothing but a brief snap shot of a moment in history, everything after that ,is someones interpretation of the fossil . So If I presented to you 6 skeletons and asked you which on was your great , great , great grand daddy , without dna evidence it would be impossible to tell so how on earth can you tell if any particular fossil is the ancestor to any other fossil you cannot its just speculation .What we find in the fossil record is extinction , and stasis, not a gradual change , why on earth did Stephen J Gould come up with his theory of punctuated equilibria , its because all fossils are fully formed creatures and not intermediates as Darwinists like to think.
          You can read pretty much anything you want into the fossil record, if I was to hand you a bag of nuts, bolts, nails, staples, screws, etc and ask you to show how over time these fixing devices had developed
          you could lay out a nice little tree just like the fossil record , but would it be right as give the nuts , bolts screw, to ten different people you would get ten different trees but you could never tell who was right or whether each on was modelled on a previous one or had been designed specially for a specific purpose.

          • Avatar
            August Rode

            “The fossil record is probably some of the best evidence for creation and not evolution, …”

            Ooh… no. The fossil record is actually really clearly a record of life that exhibits gradual morphological change over deep time. The only way in which it could possibly be evidence for creation is if one completely ignored the time element.

            To be clear, it isn’t just the fossils that are important. One also has to be completely aware of the age of the rock in which those fossils are found. If one ignores the age, the fossil itself loses much of its meaning.

            “without dna evidence it would be impossible to tell so how on earth can you tell if any particular fossil is the ancestor to any other fossil you cannot its just speculation”

            That’s right and it’s also one of the reasons why no scientist alive today declares any fossil species as *directly* ancestral to any fossil or extant species.

            “What we find in the fossil record is extinction , and stasis, not a gradual change , why on earth did Stephen J Gould come up with his theory of punctuated equilibria , its because all fossils are fully formed creatures and not intermediates as Darwinists like to think.”

            No, we absolutely do find a gradual change over deep time. It just isn’t as finely graduated as many creationists would like it to be. And yes, all fossils are those of fully formed creatures. To think that they ought to be something else shows a complete misunderstanding of how evolution works.

            “You can read pretty much anything you want into the fossil record…”

            Only if you are selective about what you’re willing to read from it. If you ignore aspects of it, you will get a false impression of what it has to say.

        • Avatar
          Scott

          Michael,
          So sorry you have fallen for Marfin’s ruse. Ignore him. He has no ability or interest in trying to understand science, much less evolution. He’s the resident Troll on anti-science. Nothing you can say, post or argue will do any good. Save yourself frustration and let him be.

          Scott

          • Avatar
            Michael

            Reminds me of my now ex-girlfriend. Doesn’t matter if all the evidence points to me doing nothing wrong, it doesn’t matter if all the evidence clearly points to her misinterpretation of facts, it doesn’t matter if all her friends told her “he’s not wrong”…none of that matters. All that matter is her therapist telling her something out of ignorance about me (without “knowing the facts” or knowing me)…and her blindly following her advice.

            Trust me…I’m use to people like marfin and know exactly when to cut the line and let them drown in their own ignorance.

          • Avatar
            Bruce Gerencser

            Marfin has been commenting for years now. I think, generally, he’s a decent guy, but no amount of “evidence” is going to move him off his belief that the Bible record found in Genesis 1-3 is how the universe came into existence. Since neither he nor I are trained scientists, I’ve tried to move the discussion back to the Bible. So far, I have not succeeded. As long as an Evangelical/Conservative/Fundamentalist Christian/Muslim believes the Bible is a divine text, there’s really no hope of having an evidenced-based discussion. Even when the evidence is overwhelming, such people will always retreat to the safety of faith and God says _______.

            Those who have interacted with Marfin before (and others who think the same way) know not to bite.

      • Avatar
        exrelayman

        Marfin, your asking for “real evidence” and the phrase “this I gotta see” seems to indicate that you are hostile to the idea of evolution. The evidence is there, and overwhelming to the extent that roughly 95 to 97% of biological scientists accept it.

        The subject is too vast to be adequately covered in blog commentary argumentation. You can see a good deal of it at talkorigins.org, if you are sincere in your “this I gotta see” line. That site references the source of everything they present and also references other good sites.

        I offer this information instead of trying to argue it out with you online. I am old and weary of the fruitless interweb confrontations.

        It is easy to bash an idea. It takes much time and effort to diligently examine both sides of an issue and weigh their respective merits. This is more unlikely to occur also if the idea being investigated is contrary to the biases one has going in. But should you truly desire the truth instead of winning a web argument, that is the way to go.

        I have tried to avoid the derision inherent in your comment and in Brian’s response to it. I leave it to others to judge how well I have succeeded in this.

        • Avatar
          marfin

          I am not hostile to any idea`s I just don`t find the evidence for evolution compelling in any way, and even if 99.9% of biologists accept it that`s not how science works , otherwise there would be no new scientific discoveries.People like Einstien, Pasteur, Currie,Chain, all went against the beliefs of their day thats how progress happens.Now if you have some compelling evidence for evolution I would love to see it.

          • Avatar
            Michael

            Well marfin, there isn’t hope for you then. You saying that you can’t believe the OVERWHELMING majority (95-97% of the world’s scientists) that have researched this and back it up. You thinking that your ignorance in this topic somehow supersedes the knowledge and rigorous testing into these hypothesis that have turned them into scientific theory (which means they are the truth as we know it today) and that are being taught in our schools truly proves you are incapable of “good sense” (as opposed to common sense because common sense is no longer common). And it is through these theories and understandings that other discoveries are made which all fall in line with the evolution theory.

            You can not take a vacation from your beliefs as Dan suggested. Your explanation of how science works is wrong. You have a very skewed view on stuff. To that end, might I suggest the grape flavored kool-aid…the cherry one isn’t sweet enough.

          • Avatar
            Geoff

            Not one of the great scientists you mention ‘went against the beliefs of the day’ (incidentally using the word ‘belief’ in this context betrays your leanings). Assuming you mean ‘science’ of the day, I’d argue that they took what existed to new heights. Lay people, especially the religious, will try to argue that science is always changing its mind, making it unreliable. That is the opposite of the truth; science develops and even ideas that have been shown to be ultimately wrong, if held for the right reasons, will have formed the foundation for future discoveries. There’s a superb piece from Isaac Asimov which I heartily recommend

  5. Avatar
    Brian

    marfin, I think the easiest way to start is by googling some easy reading on evidence of evolution. Then, so that the believer reader does not go into ‘the bends’, they can read some googled stuff for evidence of God. After a short time, if the evidence of your reading does not become overwhelming, then stop reading and have a cup of tea. The need to believe is the basis of Creationism. The need to believe, the individual need to be believe will be in direct proportion to the inability to accept evidence to the contrary. Science only suffers this need for delusion when Science is used by believers and the human element sets aside the scientific method in order to maintain delusion.
    I would like you to see the real evidence for evolution too. Would the old testament God allow you time-off to consider in a very serious manner how it does not exist? Can you take vacation days for reading? No. The need to maintain belief trumps Science. Now the only thing to do is tie your child to a sacrificial stone and listen for instructions. 😉

    • Avatar
      marfin

      I have read large parts or all of, the Origin of species, Why evolution is true, the god delusion, a candle in The demon haunted world, so I feel I HAVE read quiet a bit , so if I was to enter a discussion with you do you understand the subject or would you direct me elsewhere.

      • Avatar
        Geoff

        You may well have read those books, but you clearly weren’t concentrating. I just don’t see how you can doubt evolution if you have properly understood them.

        You refer to the scientific method as being not applicable to evolution. Wrong, it absolutely is, though it is inevitably an approach that has had to be slightly different to other areas. Jerry Coyne outlined a number of factors which, if found, would stop the truth of evolution in its tracks. They have not been found.

        And if you want to actually discuss the evidence, then how about explaining the existence of atavisms and vestiges, in such a way that evolution wasn’t a factor?

  6. Avatar
    Brian

    Geoff, thank-you for the link to Asimov at

    He writes so clearly and informatively, and has that friendly ability to be conversational in revealing his knowledge.
    I really enjoyed his use of the word “wronger” too. It seems a subtle and yet enlightening little English lesson thrown in for good measure.
    What strikes us as wrong sometimes might not be wrong at all. What we hold to in fear and comfort might be even wronger than wrong.
    The world is almost flat, just a wee bit pear-shaped and bulges near the equator. We know this to be true now and yet Science would discard the ‘truth’ in a moment of proof showing true to be wronger.
    People would laugh at the joker suggesting the world is spherical (and of course they did) because the world is so obviously flat with bumps here and there.
    You cannot trust God to respond to Scientific proofs. Proofs only point out that something previous to the present, better proof was wronger. God was never wronger… (because God never was)
    (By the way, a plane flies up up up to 5 or 6 miles into the sky and then flies straight, flat and straight. I know this because I can watch my glass of juice in front of me and it never changes… always flat. Then after hours and hours, down down down and the plane lands flat on the flat earth. Up from flat, flies flat and down to flat. That is flat flat flat…. And somehow Science said, wronger, not wrong but wronger.
    (Now, follow me because I am perfect love… or you will burn eternally, you miserable prick.)

  7. Avatar
    exrelayman

    Mea culpa. Fed the troll didn’t I? His first comment made it clear that’s what he was, and I even suspected as much. It’s not all bad. Anyone truly wanting to know can weigh the various comments and see what makes the most sense.

    I love that someone referenced the Asimov essay. I have loved it for years.

  8. Avatar
    marfin

    Bruce thanks for at least considering at least that I might be a decent guy, but did you notice all the reply`s only one made any effort to present any actual evidence and that was August re the fossil record, but the fossil record is beyond empirical science,as take archaeopteryx for instance please show me one test, or experiment that can be repeated and repeated like proper science to show archaeopteryx is the ancestor to modern birds, it can`t be done.
    And of the rest why did none of them just say your an idiot here are 5 of the best empirical evidences for evolution which show clearly evolution is a fact, they did not do that because the evidence does not exist.
    I don`t consider myself a Troll I just don`t appreciate people who claim and make such bold statements re evolution but then can`t back it up , i don`t care what anyone believes as I actually believe in the existence of free will unlike most real atheists , so believe what you like just don`t call it scientific fact when clearly its not.

    • Avatar
      Geoff

      I already gave you two reasons why evolution must be true though, as usual when dealing with creationists, you simply ignore the question and move on as though it weren’t asked. And please note, I really don’t mean that as an insult, or a sleight, but it is an observation that never seems to vary.

      Okay you want five areas of evidence. Here goes

      Atavisms and vestiges (already mentioned) equals two.
      Bad design
      Biogeographical diversity.
      Antibiotic resistance

      And for real life evolution in the laboratory google the Lenski experiments and here’s a link to a documented evolutionary change of species

      http://www.wsj.com/articles/scientists-observe-wasps-evolving-into-new-species-1446229404

      • Avatar
        marfin

        Vestiges ,- you mean like the thyroid gland, the pituitary gland , and so forth as 100 years ago these were considered vestiges.
        Bad design-says who this is a philosophical discussion not a scientific one as each animal is part of a system so maybe the bad design suits the overall system better.
        Biographical diversity , once again this is not evidence for evolution for as all this is saying is in certain geographical area certain unique creature exist, you then infer evolution caused it, you cant show from this, how a fish became reptile , though you can show how a fish might become a different coloured ,shape or larger type fish based on geographical isolation.
        Antibiotic resistance is due to plasmids which already existed in the bacteria treated with the antibiotic, so once again no evolution.
        If this is the best evidence there is to show how every single living creature has come about through tiny minute change at a cellular level and this from the first living cell through the astronomical diversity we see today then the theory is worse off than I thought.
        Heres a question for you to get from a reptilian scale to a bird feather how does that happen surely you would need to re-programme the cell to do this how were the cells re programmed , where did this new information and blueprint for feathers come from.I know what the neo Darwinian party line is but you tell me what do you think .

        • Avatar
          Geoff

          Yes there are plenty of vestigial organs. My favourites are the appendix, male nipples (as a runner I can tell you those are a bloody irritation!), wisdom teeth, and wings on ostriches. Although some are of some slight assistance, none are now serving the purpose for which they originally evolved.

          But why do you refer to the pituitary and thyroid glands as vestigial organs. They aren’t.

          Okay, no mention of atavisms. I don’t blame you.

          Bad design is nothing to do with philosophy. Bad design is..well, either bad design or else evidence of evolution. Never mind organs such as the eye, or the ridiculously designed flatfish, let’s go for the jugular, with the laryngeal nerve. This leviathan is 3 feet long in humans, 15 feet in giraffes. Properly routed it would be about a foot long (in both humans and giraffes). However, because of evolution it’s had to slowly get longer and longer as it diverted round other organs. Evolution explains this; no alternative does.

          Biogeographical diversity isn’t that different organisms exist uniquely in different, unconnected, environments, it’s that there is both a variation in organisms, yet similarities, consistent with the predictions of evolution. To quote Jerry Coyne ‘The biogeographical evidence for evolution is now so powerful that I have never seen a creationist book, article or lecture that has tried to refute it. Creationists simply pretend that the evidence doesn’t exist’.

          As for your attempt to dismiss the issue of antibiotic resistance, this from Science Daily

          “Antibiotic resistance is a consequence of evolution via natural selection. The antibiotic action is an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce. They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will be a fully resistant generation.”

          As for how did feathers evolve from scales? They didn’t.

    • Avatar
      August Rode

      “…show archaeopteryx is the ancestor to modern birds, it can`t be done…”

      Of course it can’t be done, marfin. Without DNA, no fossil species can be demonstrated to be ancestral to any other fossil or extant species. That’s why no scientist in the world claims that archaeopteryx is ancestral to modern birds. Nevertheless, archaeopteryx is transitional between theropod dinosaurs and birds; it clearly has dinosaur features that birds don’t have and it clearly has bird features that dinosaurs don’t have. So, whatever it is you think you’re arguing here is not representative of the facts.

  9. Avatar
    marfin

    So August the duck billed platypus what is it on its way from and what is it on its way to becoming.The platypus has the features of 4 or 5 different species so what were its ancestors,the fact that we find mosaic type creatures is not evidence of ancestry. The fact that you cannot put the archaeopteryx fossil to empirical testing makes it outside real science does that make it wrong ,no it just makes it something we can never bet our house on.

    • Avatar
      August Rode

      All species are on their way from what their ancestral species were to being what their descendant species will be. There is no reason to think otherwise.

      I don’t know what you think a “mosaic type creature” is.

      Archaeopteryx is subject to empirical testing. There are two main sources of information. The fossil itself tells us about the organism’s morphology and that is what shows clearly that it has both dinosaur and bird features. The other source of information is the rock in which the fossil was found and that tells us the age of the fossil. Archaeopteryx ages to a period during which the dinosaurs were well established but the birds were just beginning to appear. It is these two things together, intermediate morphology and intermediate age, that signal its identification as an intermediate between dinosaurs and birds.

      • Avatar
        marfin

        August , are you saying it is impossible that a creature with bird like and reptile like features existed that was not a link between dinosaurs and birds , and so archaeopteryx was definitely an intermediary creature.
        So when the head of the Natural history museum in London said is archaeopteryx the ancestor to modern birds , perhaps yes perhaps no there is no way of putting this to the test , what do you thing he meant.
        If having different features makes you a missing link than having a bill must make the platypus a missing link between birds and mammals and who knows what else yes or no ?

        • Avatar
          August Rode

          Did the head of the Natural history museum in London actually say what you claimed he said? Can you back that up?

          If you compare the anatomies of a duck’s bill and a platypus’ bill, you’d find that they are only superficially similar. What leads you to think that’s adequate? Try looking at the materials these bills are made of, how they develop and how they’re organized structurally.

          • Avatar
            marfin

            So you feel more confident in making bold claims for fossils which have no organic material left to examine , than real a live creature which has a bill, has fur , lays eggs, has a poisonous spur on its hind legs , and say the rock we found yes that a missing link the live animal we found which has part of various species that only appears that way .

          • Avatar
            August Rode

            marfin, the platypus has a bill that is only superficially like that of a duck. Structurally, they’re quite different so it is unlikely that one derived from the other. Birds are simply not in the ancestry of platypuses. Laying eggs is not a big deal as we know that mammals derived from reptiles and reptiles lay eggs. I don’t know what your issue with the spur is and I can’t interpret the remainder of your comment. Why not proofread your comments before posting them?

  10. Avatar
    marfin

    here`s a question would any of you guys jump from a plane wearing a parachute made by the principles of un guided evolution , ie copying errors and selection or a parachute designed by a qualified designer, I know which one I would choose.

      • Avatar
        marfin

        Of course I know , but I believe it does make me question common sense, people believe that the most intricately detailed and complex creatures known came about by a process that they would not use to make a parachute or a plane or even the most basic items we use in our everyday lives, so what does that say about this so call amazingly creative process, I know what it tells me , it does not work.

        • Avatar
          Michael

          Then why bring up the question in the first place? I question your “common sense” (or as I see it…good sense). I question that you want all this empirical evidence for science but willing to accept “God said it, I believe it, that settles it”. That’s not empirical. Playing by 2 sets of rules.

          I question your good sense when there is evidence (what science considers evidence) and 97% of the scientists agree to what we have RIGHT NOW points to all these things we are discussing AS FACT…and that all areas of science cross checked each other on these things…AND YOU can’t accept it because a book that was written in the infancy of intellect you take as god’s word. And there are 30000 denominations of Christianity. Science doesn’t have 30,000 opinions on how evolution or the formation of the earth happened.

          Good sense marfin…good sense

        • Avatar
          August Rode

          In my experience dealing with creationists, the phrase “common sense” seems to come up a lot. It never means what the creationist thinks it means. What you mean when you use it, marfin, is that you don’t understand how evolution works so you think that no one else should either. How can you logically infer that something doesn’t work when you don’t know how it works or what it does? It would be like me trying to claim that cars don’t work because they can’t make change for a dollar.

          Parachutes and planes are designed and built for a purpose. Living creatures have no intrinsic purpose and are neither designed nor built.

          • Avatar
            marfin

            So you say I don`t know how evolution works please enlighten me , how specifically do dinosaur`s change into bird`s over time, and please don`t say dinosaurs don`t change into birds thats now how evolution works, please just explain to me the mechanism that gets one type of creature to change into a totally different type of creature.I have read why evolution is true so I know what the party line is but pray tell please enlighten me.

          • Avatar
            August Rode

            Better idea. You tell me how evolution works since you claim to know “the party line.” Based on what I’ve read from you so far, it’s unlikely that you do know it.

      • Avatar
        marfin

        Yes it was the late Colin Patterson , you need to read the book Darwins enigma where Luther Sunderland questions the heads of 6 different Museums Chicago, New York , London etc and not one of them was willing to commit to naming what they thought was a intermediary between the major different species, fish to reptile, reptile to bird etc. Now is that not amazing that not one of these experts was will to stake their academic reputation on any major missing link. So if us religious types are so dishonest and deluded read the book for yourself and draw you own conclusions.

        • Avatar
          August Rode

          marfin, is it too much to ask you to obtain your science from scientific sources rather than from religious ones? Does your grocer do your car repair? You’re getting your “information” from the wrong sources and what you’re ending up with isn’t information as much as it’s your own biases, confirmed back at you.

  11. Avatar
    marfin

    So are you saying all the interviews in this book are staged and the author just made it all up , well they should have sued him , well what do you know they did not sue because they said what the author says they said.
    So you Won`t enlighten me re the mechanism for evolution well what I will do is grab my copy of why evolution is true and grab the exact page and let you know tomorrow , as I would not want to misquote anyone.

    • Avatar
      August Rode

      “So are you saying all the interviews in this book are staged and the author just made it all up…”

      I haven’t said that, marfin. I don’t know whether what’s in the book is accurate or not. Interestingly, neither do you. Given that the book was written by a creationist, I have concerns that it may not accurately reflect the state of the science at the time it was written. I’ve read enough creationist materials to know that “creation science” is an oxymoron. Creationist arguments seem always to be constructed back-to-front: by knowing what the conclusion ought to be, arguments that seem to lead to that conclusion are then sought.

      Hey, good news… I’ve found a free electronic copy of the book…

      • Avatar
        August Rode

        marfin, I’m happy to engage you on this issue but in deference to the other readers, let’s take it offline to email. Please contact me at aug.rode@gmail.com to continue this conversation. I’ve begun reading “Darwin’s Enigma” and have been finding problems.

        • Avatar
          Geoff

          I’ll be interested to see read your view in due course, August. There is little I can find to recommend the book, outside of creationist circles. In all the years since publication there are just 13 Amazon reviews (12 on .com and 1 .co.uk.).

          The only ‘proper’ review tears it to pieces. The book author himself is not informed in the subject about which he writes (I assume he’s not actually a scientist, but that may be unfair). The ‘interviews’ are apparently misrepresented (the reviewer has read the interview transcripts, one reason the review stands out over all the others), and in parts written to say the opposite of what the interviewee actually said.

          In short, it’s one of those books which its supporters claim overturns evolutionary science. If it did then Marfin could rest assured that, in the years since publication, its ‘truth’ would have been picked up by evolutionary biologists. Marfin should remember that science works by ‘disproving’ theories. It’s what scientists relish. The scientist who disproves evolution will become world famous and wealthy. Luther Sunderland is neither.

          • Avatar
            Bruce Gerencser

            LUTHER D. SUNDERLAND, B.S. (Penn State University), an aerospace engineer with the General Electric Company, was involved for 30 years with the research and development of automatic flight control systems (autopilots) for a number of aircraft such as the F-111, Boeing 757 and 767. He was elected to the engineering honor society Tau Beta Pi, is an Associate Fellow in the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics, authored many published articles and papers on aviation, and holds a number of patents in his field. As an avocation he spent over 20 years intensively studying the scientific evidences relating to theories on origins…

            http://www.creationism.org/books/sunderland/

          • Avatar
            August Rode

            I have found Sunderland using some highly questionable tactics. For example, Sunderland makes much of Karl Popper’s contention that evolution (or more properly, natural selection) is untestable, a position that Popper recanted years before Sunderland’s book was published.

          • Avatar
            Geoff

            What! You didn’t get Marfin to change his mind; there’s a surprise.

            The point is that if someone properly, and with an open mind, examines the evidence for evolution, then they accept it. If they don’t then they have a closed mind.

Want to Respond to Bruce? Fire Away! If You Are a First Time Commenter, Please Read the Comment Policy Located at the Top of the Page.

Bruce Gerencser