Two potential creation scenarios

[agnosticatheist]

Let's assume for the sake of this debate that the following premises are true:

A: The Christian God exists

B: The Christian God created the universe

Now, let's consider two possible creation scenarios.

Scenario 1: God created each species in a separate creation event.

Scenario 1 questions for debate:

1. Why would God create each species in separate creation events and yet make it appear that each species emerged from earlier lifeforms? Wouldn't that make God dishonest?

2. The Bible says that God is trustworthy; can he still be trusted if he made it look like large-scale evolution has taken place when in fact it hasn't?

3. Why would God make it look like large-scale evolution has taken place when in fact it hasn't, knowing full well that this will cause many to doubt God's existence?

Scenario 2: God created the conditions in which carbon-based lifeforms could emerge and evolve on Earth, and eventually lead to the emergence of Homo Sapiens, which God would give a soul to (and perhaps make some other minor changes to), which would result in the creation of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, or Modern Humans.

Scenario B Question for debate:

1. Why would God go to all that trouble when he could simply create each species in separate creation events?

Here's a broader set of questions that apply to both scenarios:

Why would God create lifeforms other than humans? Clearly humans are important because they "house" the human soul. But what about Wolves? Crocodiles? Crows? Gorillas?

What is the role of non-human lifeforms in God's "plan"?

Do they have souls too? Consciousness/awareness is a state that people claim is possible due to the soul.

Well, the more we observe and study the non-human natural world, the more it seems that consciousness/awareness exists on a spectrum, from human-level awareness (or perhaps higher...), down to complete non-consciousness/non-awareness (e.g. bacteria). There isn't some absolute line where life is divided between conscious and non-conscious, except for maybe at the "lower lifeform levels", but definitely not at the "higher lifeform levels". Dogs are conscious, they just aren't conscious to the same degree that humans are.

So, why create lifeforms besides humans and have consciousness exist on a spectrum?

Why would God do this knowing full well that it would cause people to question his existence?

It just seems to be such an interesting coincidence that God created lifeform consciousness on a spectrum.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 129:

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.

An interesting turn of phrase.

Is the challenge to show that I speak the truth in regard to what I believe?

I seek to determine if what you believe is truth.

You made claims and can't just fess up ya can't show any 'em are truth.


And of course, such as our challenges, the mods have soul discression on that'n.

If so, I merely return the challenge.

Please link to and quote verbatim any claims of mine you seek for me to tell about.

I ain't too scared to fess up, and say when I can't.


My challenge to your claims is a tool I use to expose possible fraudulent statements I think need 'em some figurin' on, 'cause I figured that's where the work was easy, and since I'm not getting paid, well let them big brains fight it out in the main rounds. I'm happy just poking sticks at rabbit.

And how 'bout a rabbit we find ourselves chasin' about, as you move from a lack of time, to being upset about my education, on to having forgot how the website rules work, and now here we are, you a-wonderin' what it is "I believe"?

I believe ya got caught with your hand in the cookie jar, and now it is, you can't escape lessen ya let go the cookies. And you love you some cookies.

Show me that you speak the truth when you say you believe that "matter acting according to its properties" is sufficient to explain microbes becoming abstract-thinking men.

Ever seen any stuff that ever acted like it was stuff it ain't?

Run pour a big ol' bunch of bacon grease on the kitchen floor, and when folk set to fallin', ya know grease acts like it is, we define it a-doin'. It ain't got nary an illusion 'bout what it is.


I'll dismiss the remainder of the post.


I feel we have more'n enough data to support some findings of our own...

Some rabbits can't be pulled outta empty hats.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 130 by JoeyKnothead]

I'll dismiss the remainder of the post.

Pity! It is my contention that it is the finest assemblage of verbiage ever articulated by the descendant of a microbe, that has acquired (via "the properties of matter") the ability to express itself with signs (or signals, if you prefer), and to pour bacon grease on the floor.

I challenge you to provide scientific proof to the contrary.

Or to demonstrate, in terms of a truth statement, how it makes any difference whether I, or anyone else, does or doesn't perform either act.

Some rabbits can't be pulled outta empty hats.

My understanding is, that's a trait reserved for only one entity: the universe itself.

Everything that's in it is consigned to behave as its material properties dictate.

But not the universe. It's able to "quantum fluctuate" itself into existence. And it don't even need no hat to fluctuate out of!

Nor no mind, nor no intelligence, nor no will, nor nor design, nor no information.

How 'bout that!

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 129 by Volbrigade]

Show me that you speak the truth when you say you believe that "matter acting according to its properties" is sufficient to explain microbes becoming abstract-thinking men.

This is easy to do. Because it happened. If your mind were open to it, you would not have to rely on the URL's that have been provided to you on the subject. You could do your own investigation.

This oft repeated "microbes 2 men" mantra signifies an argument based on ignorance and amazement at the wonder of reality. It may seem utterly impossible and fantastic to those who have not studied the subject, but yes, that is exactly what happened over a period of 2 billion years or so. Microbes evolved into millions of different species [including intermediate species, over billions of years], including other microbes. 99% of them have gone extinct. "Microbes to men" is a mantra that appeals to ignorance because it seems so impossible to the unschooled.

On what basis, if that is true, is a human being of any more value or worth than a chicken, pig, or sponge?

Please provide the scientific evidence that supports that one human should treat another any differently than they would treat, say, a fungus?

If you would provide that evidence, and demonstrate that you "speak truth in that regard"...

I sure would appreciate it.

Again, easily done. Here's the answer: There IS no inherent 'greater value' enjoyed by one organism over the other. Homo sapiens is anthropocentric. Nothing surprising at that. There is no overarching morality that justifies treating one organism differently than another. We see the world thru the eyes of our own species. We feel kinship with other animals based in large part by our perception of how similar they are to us. We play with, cuddle and even love our dogs and cats, but we feel no special kinship with microbes and mussels.

They too are kin, but the relationship is so attenuated some, in ignorance, see no relationship at all.

When you reflect on it, it is a pity how a false belief, for example creationism, can blind one to seeing the reality and wonder of life.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 132 by Danmark]

Quote:
Show me that you speak the truth when you say you believe that "matter acting according to its properties" is sufficient to explain microbes becoming abstract-thinking men.

This is easy to do. Because it happened. If your mind were open to it, you would not have to rely on the URL's that have been provided to you on the subject. You could do your own investigation.

First of all -- I think both you and Joey missed what I was saying here, which hinges on "when you say you believe...". But that's a fine point, and one that is not critical.

I find your explanation wholly unsatisfactory.

"Because it happened." Because what happened?

Microbes assembled themselves, against all possibility? And increased in information, to become, eventually, men?

I don't think so. And the evidence, looked at without the presupposition that there is no God, is dead stacked against it.

It seems more reasonable to attribute the creation to God; and the history of the universe to the account provided in His message system to us, delivered to the people out of which He would bring forth the Savior of mankind.

When you reflect on it, it is a pity how a false belief, for example creationism, can blind one to seeing the reality and wonder of life.

That's a sentiment, the value of which is completely subjective. In my opinion, it has no value at all, because the "false belief" is that microbes became men; and if it were true, there is no place in that belief for seeing "the wonder of life", which is nothing more than "matter acting according to its properties" in a pitiless, indifferent universe.

And acting badly.

The natural state of life in this naturalistic universe is one of disease, death, toil, savagery, carnivory, exploitation, war, poverty -- need I go on? With no explanation, no reason, no purpose; and no promise other than the banality of existence, until one's own material properties succumb to either entropy or violence.

Even the sanguine notion of "the wonder of life", which is properly delivered with the "gee whiz" credulity of a Carl Sagan, is a parasite on the actual wonder which fills the soul -- a gift of God -- when contemplating the splendor of His creation, in which "the things that are made showeth His handiwork", and "the Heavens declare His glory".

Just as to the materialist ("Whateverist") the concept of morality, and of good and evil, is a parasite on the actual categories that exist by His sovereign decree.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 119 by FarWanderer]

I don't want you to think I've been ignoring your posts, FW. I have been occupied, during the amount of time I have to devote to these idle musings, mostly with Joey and Dan.

The thought had crossed my mind, but I know better than to jump to conclusions.

Faith in one's cognitive abilities includes acknowledging the axiomatic truth that "everything that has a beginning must have a cause."

Well, it'd be folly to argue with something taken as an axiom. I will tentatively accept, though I think the meaning of "beginning" you are employing here is not universally accepted.

That the universe is not exempt from this axiom, simply because it is the universe.

Of course.

And that the cause of the universe must lie outside the universe itself

Wait a minute. Where did we establish that the universe has a beginning? Surely you aren't appealing to Big Bang cosmology here.

The bible, perhaps? Well, that'd be exactly what I was saying: that you take the bible, rather than your own cognitive faculties, as your first and last authority.

So, how do we establish this crucial point -- that the universe had a beginning?

Our cognitive abilities further lead us to conclude one of two things, in regard to this cause of the universe:

It is either mindless, impersonal, and indifferent; it following that the universe is a random event, without meaning or purpose:

Or it has the qualities of Mind; and hence Intelligence and Will; and the universe is the product of deliberate Design, which expresses Information (the opposite of randomness); and that Mind has a meaning, plan, and purpose for the universe It (He) created, as a subset of Its (His) own spiritual hypersdimensionality.

Intelligence Will Design Information.

Assuming that we can get beyond the prior hurdle of establishing that the universe has a beginning, and waving some minor issues I have with your wording, I more or less agree with what you say here.

I actually have no problem with deism, or generic theism, or whatever it best be called, when it is taken as a matter of philosophical assumption (though I will point out flaws in so-called proofs for it). Teleological thinking is just as well.

That is the first step in our cognitive pursuit: all else will follow from which of those steps you choose to take.

Perhaps, but even if so, the point is trivial.

If you want to presuppose there is meaning, will, purpose, design, whatever, in the universe, go right ahead. But that has nothing to do with whether evolution etc. is true or not.

As far as I'm concerned, proving evolution etc. from a teleological presupposition simply means proving that that's how the creator made things.

So, it's either "that's just how things are" or "that's just how things were made". In other words, the "two paths" you speak of here are identical when it comes to in-universe truths.

Where you differ with myself on this matter has entirely to do with you presupposing the bible in particular, and nothing to do with you presupposing creation in general.

As I hope I have made clear, the universe is designed in such a manner as to provide constant, continual empirical confirmation of either step, no matter how far you follow its consequent path; without providing conclusive proof of either.

Such is the reality that we face.

True, but trivial for the reasons meantioned above.

In terms of the "debate" -- my only purpose here is to frame it in its proper terms. And yes, it is properly termed a debate in regard to epistemologies, as I apparently must type out, yet again. One epistemology admits knowledge from "outside our time domain"; the other not only does not admit it; or even allow the possibility of it; it does not permit it as inclusive of the term "epistemology".

Well, the way you use the term "epistemology" is somewhat incorrect. You are talking about foundational presuppositions. Epistemology is the subject of what knowledge is and how it's obtained. Presuppositions are certainly related to that, but they are not epistemology itself. Conflating the terms has lead to confusion.

So we have an uncrossable gulf in our cognitive positions and understanding, right from the onset. Which is to be expected: "what communion has light with darkness?"

I disagree. If you truly thought that, you would attempt no communication at all.

The debate that follows from those two fundamental positions is purely and simply over the interpretation of the evidence that is available, through the prisms of the conflicting and opposite epistemologies.

I'm not so sure about that.

My issue is with taking the bible as the first and last authority. Here, let me ask the important question:

Do you lend authority to the bible by the authority of your own cognitive judgment, or is it not your place to do so because the bible is the greater authority?

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 119 by FarWanderer]

I don't want you to think I've been ignoring your posts, FW. I have been occupied, during the amount of time I have to devote to these idle musings, mostly with Joey and Dan.

The thought had crossed my mind, but I know better than to jump to conclusions.

Faith in one's cognitive abilities includes acknowledging the axiomatic truth that "everything that has a beginning must have a cause."

Well, it'd be folly to argue with something taken as an axiom. I will tentatively accept, though I think the meaning of "beginning" you are employing here is not universally accepted.

That the universe is not exempt from this axiom, simply because it is the universe.

Of course.

And that the cause of the universe must lie outside the universe itself

Wait a minute. Where did we establish that the universe has a beginning? Surely you aren't appealing to Big Bang cosmology here.

The bible, perhaps? Well, that'd be exactly what I was saying: that you take the bible, rather than your own cognitive faculties, as your first and last authority.

So, how do we establish this crucial point -- that the universe had a beginning?

You must have missed where I went through this, earlier.

If the universe did not have a beginning, it would be infinitely old.

And if so, it would have obtained a uniform temperature, from the flow of all heat to cold, and "no work could be done".

Since it is finite in age, it follows that it is finite in size. Expanding, perhaps (perhaps not) -- but finite. On both ends of the size spectrum, btw -- there is a limit to "smallness"; divide matter past a certain length, and it "loses locality", like a photon.

We exist in a finite, "digital simulation" (composed of quanta) of a metacosm, a spiritual "hyperdimensionality".

Our cognitive abilities further lead us to conclude one of two things, in regard to this cause of the universe:

It is either mindless, impersonal, and indifferent; it following that the universe is a random event, without meaning or purpose:

Or it has the qualities of Mind; and hence Intelligence and Will; and the universe is the product of deliberate Design, which expresses Information (the opposite of randomness); and that Mind has a meaning, plan, and purpose for the universe It (He) created, as a subset of Its (His) own spiritual hypersdimensionality.

Intelligence Will Design Information.

Assuming that we can get beyond the prior hurdle of establishing that the universe has a beginning, and waving some minor issues I have with your wording, I more or less agree with what you say here.

I actually have no problem with deism, or generic theism, or whatever it best be called, when it is taken as a matter of philosophical assumption (though I will point out flaws in so-called proofs for it). Teleological thinking is just as well.

That is the first step in our cognitive pursuit: all else will follow from which of those steps you choose to take.

Perhaps, but even if so, the point is trivial.

If you want to presuppose there is meaning, will, purpose, design, whatever, in the universe, go right ahead. But that has nothing to do with whether evolution etc. is true or not.

As far as I'm concerned, proving evolution etc. from a teleological presupposition simply means proving that that's how the creator made things.

So, it's either "that's just how things are" or "that's just how things were made". In other words, the "two paths" you speak of here are identical when it comes to in-universe truths.

Where you differ with myself on this matter has entirely to do with you presupposing the bible in particular, and nothing to do with you presupposing creation in general.

As I hope I have made clear, the universe is designed in such a manner as to provide constant, continual empirical confirmation of either step, no matter how far you follow its consequent path; without providing conclusive proof of either.

Such is the reality that we face.

True, but trivial for the reasons meantioned above.

"Trivial"?

I disagree. Rather strongly.

In terms of the "debate" -- my only purpose here is to frame it in its proper terms. And yes, it is properly termed a debate in regard to epistemologies, as I apparently must type out, yet again. One epistemology admits knowledge from "outside our time domain"; the other not only does not admit it; or even allow the possibility of it; it does not permit it as inclusive of the term "epistemology".

Well, the way you use the term "epistemology" is somewhat incorrect. You are talking about foundational presuppositions. Epistemology is the subject of what knowledge is and how it's obtained. Presuppositions are certainly related to that, but they are not epistemology itself. Conflating the terms has lead to confusion.

So we have an uncrossable gulf in our cognitive positions and understanding, right from the onset. Which is to be expected: "what communion has light with darkness?"

I disagree. If you truly thought that, you would attempt no communication at all.

[/quote]
I may be gettin' there...

The debate that follows from those two fundamental positions is purely and simply over the interpretation of the evidence that is available, through the prisms of the conflicting and opposite epistemologies.

I'm not so sure about that.

My issue is with taking the bible as the first and last authority. Here, let me ask the important question:

Do you lend authority to the bible by the authority of your own cognitive judgment, or is it not your place to do so because the bible is the greater authority?

[/quote]

Both.

You say you are... vaguely(?) deist in your approach.

I was too (a way station, on the path from ardent atheist to the cuddly fundamentalist Christian you have before you).

I once stood in judgment of the Bible. A "softness" in epistemological approach (I hope I don't have to use another word, to make myself clear. "Epistemology" as it is used by those with a materialist epistemology is nothing more than the massaging of words and their meanings. Don't get me started... ) leads to a softness in hermeneutics, and I freely picked and chose those things from the Bible that suited me; as well as choosing how I interpreted them.

I now understand that the Bible is an integrated message system from outside our time domain; and that God says what He means, and means what He says.

That is a realization that one must arrive at for themselves, by investigation; of course, I don't expect you or anyone else (Joey) to take my word for it.

However -- and this is rather strange, I don't expect you to accept it -- you must trust God in order to investigate the claim accurately.

Like a holograph, which only reveals its 3D image when illuminated by the laser that recorded it, the Bible only reveals its image when illuminated by the Holy Spirit which breathed it.

A little far afield, I know. Offered at no extra charge.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 119 by FarWanderer]

I don't want you to think I've been ignoring your posts, FW. I have been occupied, during the amount of time I have to devote to these idle musings, mostly with Joey and Dan.

The thought had crossed my mind, but I know better than to jump to conclusions.

Faith in one's cognitive abilities includes acknowledging the axiomatic truth that "everything that has a beginning must have a cause."

Well, it'd be folly to argue with something taken as an axiom. I will tentatively accept, though I think the meaning of "beginning" you are employing here is not universally accepted.

That the universe is not exempt from this axiom, simply because it is the universe.

Of course.

And that the cause of the universe must lie outside the universe itself

Wait a minute. Where did we establish that the universe has a beginning? Surely you aren't appealing to Big Bang cosmology here.

The bible, perhaps? Well, that'd be exactly what I was saying: that you take the bible, rather than your own cognitive faculties, as your first and last authority.

So, how do we establish this crucial point -- that the universe had a beginning?

You must have missed where I went through this, earlier.

If the universe did not have a beginning, it would be infinitely old.

And if so, it would have obtained a uniform temperature, from the flow of all heat to cold, and "no work could be done".

Since it is finite in age, it follows that it is finite in size. Expanding, perhaps (perhaps not) -- but finite. On both ends of the size spectrum, btw -- there is a limit to "smallness"; divide matter past a certain length, and it "loses locality", like a photon. We exist in a finite, "digital simulation" (composed of quanta) of a metacosm, a spiritual "hyperdimensionality".

You claim to know that the universe always changes, in overall structure, from non-uniform to uniform. Good. Now, how is it that you came to this knowledge? Inductive reasoning? Before coming to this conclusion, did you have to first consult a bible to make sure there was no contradiction with it?

If so, are you not treating the bible as a higher authority than your own cognition?

And if not, why should we treat ideas like evolution etc. any different?

Our cognitive abilities further lead us to conclude one of two things, in regard to this cause of the universe:

It is either mindless, impersonal, and indifferent; it following that the universe is a random event, without meaning or purpose:

Or it has the qualities of Mind; and hence Intelligence and Will; and the universe is the product of deliberate Design, which expresses Information (the opposite of randomness); and that Mind has a meaning, plan, and purpose for the universe It (He) created, as a subset of Its (His) own spiritual hypersdimensionality.

Intelligence Will Design Information.

Assuming that we can get beyond the prior hurdle of establishing that the universe has a beginning, and waving some minor issues I have with your wording, I more or less agree with what you say here.

I actually have no problem with deism, or generic theism, or whatever it best be called, when it is taken as a matter of philosophical assumption (though I will point out flaws in so-called proofs for it). Teleological thinking is just as well.

That is the first step in our cognitive pursuit: all else will follow from which of those steps you choose to take.

Perhaps, but even if so, the point is trivial.

If you want to presuppose there is meaning, will, purpose, design, whatever, in the universe, go right ahead. But that has nothing to do with whether evolution etc. is true or not.

As far as I'm concerned, proving evolution etc. from a teleological presupposition simply means proving that that's how the creator made things.

So, it's either "that's just how things are" or "that's just how things were made". In other words, the "two paths" you speak of here are identical when it comes to in-universe truths.

Where you differ with myself on this matter has entirely to do with you presupposing the bible in particular, and nothing to do with you presupposing creation in general.

As I hope I have made clear, the universe is designed in such a manner as to provide constant, continual empirical confirmation of either step, no matter how far you follow its consequent path; without providing conclusive proof of either.

Such is the reality that we face.

True, but trivial for the reasons meantioned above.

"Trivial"?

I disagree. Rather strongly.

Being as you provide no explaination for why, I can only imagine that you don't actually understand why I call it trivial.

In terms of the "debate" -- my only purpose here is to frame it in its proper terms. And yes, it is properly termed a debate in regard to epistemologies, as I apparently must type out, yet again. One epistemology admits knowledge from "outside our time domain"; the other not only does not admit it; or even allow the possibility of it; it does not permit it as inclusive of the term "epistemology".

Well, the way you use the term "epistemology" is somewhat incorrect. You are talking about foundational presuppositions. Epistemology is the subject of what knowledge is and how it's obtained. Presuppositions are certainly related to that, but they are not epistemology itself. Conflating the terms has lead to confusion.

So we have an uncrossable gulf in our cognitive positions and understanding, right from the onset. Which is to be expected: "what communion has light with darkness?"

I disagree. If you truly thought that, you would attempt no communication at all.

I may be gettin' there...

The debate that follows from those two fundamental positions is purely and simply over the interpretation of the evidence that is available, through the prisms of the conflicting and opposite epistemologies.

I'm not so sure about that.

My issue is with taking the bible as the first and last authority. Here, let me ask the important question:

Do you lend authority to the bible by the authority of your own cognitive judgment, or is it not your place to do so because the bible is the greater authority?

Both.

You say you are... vaguely(?) deist in your approach.

I was too (a way station, on the path from ardent atheist to the cuddly fundamentalist Christian you have before you).

I once stood in judgment of the Bible. A "softness" in epistemological approach (I hope I don't have to use another word, to make myself clear. "Epistemology" as it is used by those with a materialist epistemology is nothing more than the massaging of words and their meanings. Don't get me started... ) leads to a softness in hermeneutics, and I freely picked and chose those things from the Bible that suited me; as well as choosing how I interpreted them.

I now understand that the Bible is an integrated message system from outside our time domain; and that God says what He means, and means what He says.

That is a realization that one must arrive at for themselves, by investigation; of course, I don't expect you or anyone else (Joey) to take my word for it.

However -- and this is rather strange, I don't expect you to accept it -- you must trust God in order to investigate the claim accurately.

Like a holograph, which only reveals its 3D image when illuminated by the laser that recorded it, the Bible only reveals its image when illuminated by the Holy Spirit which breathed it.

A little far afield, I know. Offered at no extra charge.

In other words, you must believe in the Christian God before you can understand the bible before you can accurately understand the world.

This is completely not "both". It's abject submission of your cognition to the meme of Christianity.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 136 by FarWanderer]

If so, are you not treating the bible as a higher authority than your own cognition?

Of course.

Do you not treat a college biology book as a "higher authority" than "your own cognition"?

To borrow from C. S. Lewis -- a map of the coast of Japan as a "higher authority" than your experience of standing on the beach?

And if not, why should we treat ideas like evolution etc. any different?

We shouldn't.

We should weigh the merits of whether or not microbes were formed by chance in a universe that has no cause, and then proceeded to morph into men over time, by mindless, accidental processes.

That idea, and theory, is a total and abject failure on every count: in terms of reason, rationality, and empirical evidence.

Being as you provide no explaination for why, I can only imagine that you don't actually understand why I call it trivial.

Maybe not. I probably do -- but it's possible that I don't. You may further expand on it, if you wish. But you needn't bother. Really.

In other words, you must believe in the Christian God before you can understand the bible before you can accurately understand the world.

This is completely not "both". It's abject submission of your cognition to the meme of Christianity.

You're almost right, but totally wrong.

There is no "meme of Christianity".

There is our shared reality; and the metacosm of which it is but a subset; and the truth in regard to it, of which Christianity is the fullest expression available to us.

One can learn a great deal about "the mind of God" (cf., Einstein) by studying the design and order of His creation.

One can learn a great deal more about the character, will, and purpose of God by studying His revealed word to us, in the body of text agreed to across Christendom as inspired canon.

One can learn a great deal more about God by actually inviting Him in to your life, as the indwelling Holy Spirit.

But the fullest understanding possible in this world is by a combination of all three; by putting the Sovereign God foremost in all things.

Growing in the grace and truth to do that is a lifelong process.

I'll leave off here, before receiving a citation for "preaching".

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 136 by FarWanderer]

If so, are you not treating the bible as a higher authority than your own cognition?

Of course.

Do you not treat a college biology book as a "higher authority" than "your own cognition"?

To borrow from C. S. Lewis -- a map of the coast of Japan as a "higher authority" than your experience of standing on the beach?

I do not treat anything as a higher authority than my cognition. I grant authority by the final authority of my cognition.

I consider biology textbooks, by and large, as reliable because they have shown a pattern of reliability. To the extent I can verify their claims, they have proven accurate far more than not. For the claims that are more difficult to verify, I consider how many people could and have verified them. The easier a claim is to falsify, the more credibility is gained by people being in a position to falsify it but failing to do so.

Sometimes college textbooks might make entirely unverifiable claims. Such claims I do not accept, regardless of their source. If I do not understand how someone might know something, I certainly can't accept that they do.

And if not, why should we treat ideas like evolution etc. any different?

We shouldn't.

We should weigh the merits of whether or not microbes were formed by chance in a universe that has no cause, and then proceeded to morph into men over time, by mindless, accidental processes.

How about if microbes formed by design in a universe that has a cause, and proceded to morph into men over time, by guided, intentional processes?

Any problems with that?

In other words, you must believe in the Christian God before you can understand the bible before you can accurately understand the world.

This is completely not "both". It's abject submission of your cognition to the meme of Christianity.

You're almost right, but totally wrong.

There is no "meme of Christianity".

All beliefs are memes, whether they are true or false.

There is our shared reality; and the metacosm of which it is but a subset; and the truth in regard to it, of which Christianity is the fullest expression available to us.

What makes Christianity the fullest expression available?

One can learn a great deal about "the mind of God" (cf., Einstein) by studying the design and order of His creation.

Sure.

One can learn a great deal more about the character, will, and purpose of God by studying His revealed word to us, in the body of text agreed to across Christendom as inspired canon.

How do you know it's his word?

One can learn a great deal more about God by actually inviting Him in to your life, as the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Who are we to "invite", exactly? The God of the bible?

But the fullest understanding possible in this world is by a combination of all three; by putting the Sovereign God foremost in all things.

What's more likely to accurately reflect God's will? The universe God created, or books written by humans in his name? There can be no falsehoods, no misdirection, no distorting of the truth in creation itself- that I'm sure we can agree on. However, presupposing intention does not necessitate the bible being reflective of that intention, so how does the bible become the "word of God" in your mind? Reason? Presupposition? Which is it?

[Danmark]

Do you not treat a college biology book as a "higher authority" than "your own cognition"?

To borrow from C. S. Lewis -- a map of the coast of Japan as a "higher authority" than your experience of standing on the beach?

Without additional facts, neither of these sources necessarily has greater validity than the other.

The man standing on the beach may actually be in a position to discover errors in the map. OTOH the man on the beach may be dreaming, mentally addled, perceptually disabled, a liar, or just plain inaccurate for a variety of reasons.