If the Bible said people evolved from animals...

[Justin108]

A question to Creationists:

If the Bible said people evolved from animals, would you be an evolutionist? Would the fact that the theory of evolution agrees with your holy book be enough to sway your belief in favor of evolution?

[Bust Nak]

I'm going to have to correct you on this one Bust Nak... Monta could believe something separate to both evolution and young earth creationism.

Granted, but given the context, those are realistically the only two options.

So, is it therefore also justified to require all who accept the concept of evolution, based on current bacterial studies, to defend a specific evolutionary progression, i.e. dinosaurs were reptiles or dinosaurs were birds?

You are not required to defend anything, you are even welcome to attack it, as long as you do it with the vigour required in any scientific enquire, i.e. don't repeat creationist talking points. It would also be nice if those who accept evolution to stop making noises at the current consensus, as this embolden the creationists.

Does the entire theory collapse, if man evolved from pigs or dolphins? If all of mankind did not evolve from a single tribe in what is now Sudan, does that collapse the theory?

No, of course not. The current consensus is exactly what it is.

Well, you'll be behind the times. But if you do not care to be precise and address members of this actual forum, you are free to do so.

Not interested in a semantic argument. I have made my definition known to you. Adopt it or don't, it doesn't matter as long as you know what I meant when I say "creationist," and I know what you meant when you say "creationist," then the word has served it purpose.

Now a question: Assuming you are not young Earth creationism sympathizers, why would you risk being associated with young Earth creationists? Wouldn't you want to distance yourselves from them as much as possible?

[bluethread]

So, is it therefore also justified to require all who accept the concept of evolution, based on current bacterial studies, to defend a specific evolutionary progression, i.e. dinosaurs were reptiles or dinosaurs were birds?

You are not required to defend anything, you are even welcome to attack it, as long as you do it with the vigour required in any scientific enquire, i.e. don't repeat creationist talking points. It would also be nice if those who accept evolution to stop making noises at the current consensus, as this embolden the creationists.

Does the entire theory collapse, if man evolved from pigs or dolphins? If all of mankind did not evolve from a single tribe in what is now Sudan, does that collapse the theory?

No, of course not. The current consensus is exactly what it is.

What is "the current consensus" and who gets a vote? I thought science was about verifiable facts and not consensus. For sola or prima Scriptura believers, what is written holds the same position as verifiable facts hold in science based philosophies. The RCC claims to be the keeper of "the current consensus" in Christianity. I personally do not give that any more credence than I do scientific "consensus". I believe there is an actual reality, but science is just a tool one uses to refine one's best guess. It is the same with theology. The Scriptures are just another tool to refine one's best guess on what is actual reality.

[Bust Nak]

What is "the current consensus" and who gets a vote?

An example is birds are descendant of dinosaurs. Scientists in the relevant field get a vote.

I thought science was about verifiable facts and not consensus.

It's both. You won't get very far with just verifiable facts.

For sola or prima Scriptura believers, what is written holds the same position as verifiable facts hold in science based philosophies. The RCC claims to be the keeper of "the current consensus" in Christianity. I personally do not give that any more credence than I do scientific "consensus".

Okay, but it sounds like you would not go that one step further and give the scientific consensus more credence?

I believe there is an actual reality, but science is just a tool one uses to refine one's best guess. It is the same with theology. The Scriptures are just another tool to refine one's best guess on what is actual reality.

Are you forgetting that some people read Scriptures and came to the conclusion that the Earth is flat? Would you accept that the plain reading of certain verses does give that impression?

[bluethread]

What is "the current consensus" and who gets a vote?

An example is birds are descendant of dinosaurs. Scientists in the relevant field get a vote.

So, this is a Priesthood, where what the majority of the Priesthood says is to be accepted as fact by the rest of us?

I thought science was about verifiable facts and not consensus.

It's both. You won't get very far with just verifiable facts.

You won't get very far in developing a philosophy. However, one can get quite a ways in providing information to support a philosophy. That is my point. Science provides the facts, and from that scientists and others develop philosophies. One may believe that those philosophies supported by a majority of scientists are stronger, but they are philosophies, and not facts, none the less.

For sola or prima Scriptura believers, what is written holds the same position as verifiable facts hold in science based philosophies. The RCC claims to be the keeper of "the current consensus" in Christianity. I personally do not give that any more credence than I do scientific "consensus".

Okay, but it sounds like you would not go that one step further and give the scientific consensus more credence?

The "scientific consensus" gets credence as it combines current verifiable facts, history, testimony and reason, just like any other philosophy.

I believe there is an actual reality, but science is just a tool one uses to refine one's best guess. It is the same with theology. The Scriptures are just another tool to refine one's best guess on what is actual reality.

Are you forgetting that some people read Scriptures and came to the conclusion that the Earth is flat? Would you accept that the plain reading of certain verses does give that impression?

Some read scientific studies and come to some rather extreme conclusions also, i.e. catastrophic climate change due to man caused global warming. I do understand that, as in scientific studies, certain passages can be taken out of context, misinterpreted and misapplied. Such is the nature of source documentation. That is why in developing a philosophy, one subjects source documentation to not just experimentation, but also historical, legal and rational analysis.

[Bust Nak]

So, this is a Priesthood, where what the majority of the Priesthood says is to be accepted as fact by the rest of us?

No, accepted as the scientific consensus. Treat it as fact if you must want but understand that it is subject to change.

You won't get very far in developing a philosophy. However, one can get quite a ways in providing information to support a philosophy. That is my point. Science provides the facts, and from that scientists and others develop philosophies. One may believe that those philosophies supported by a majority of scientists are stronger, but they are philosophies, and not facts, none the less.

Is gravity a philosophy? If no why single out evolution?

The "scientific consensus" gets credence as it combines current verifiable facts, history, testimony and reason, just like any other philosophy.

Okay, that's good enough for me, it seems a matter of semantic at this point.

Some read scientific studies and come to some rather extreme conclusions also, i.e. catastrophic climate change due to man caused global warming. I do understand that, as in scientific studies, certain passages can be taken out of context, misinterpreted and misapplied. Such is the nature of source documentation. That is why in developing a philosophy, one subjects source documentation to not just experimentation, but also historical, legal and rational analysis.

Extreme or not, man made catastrophic climate change is not passages taken out of context - it is indeed the intention of the message in said scientific studies. Scientists have came out and said it on record.

[bluethread]

So, this is a Priesthood, where what the majority of the Priesthood says is to be accepted as fact by the rest of us?

No, accepted as the scientific consensus. Treat it as fact if you must want but understand that it is subject to change.

Do you mean consensus that can be tested in a controlled environment, documented and the replicated? When one say something is scientific, that is what one is inferring, if not outright saying.

You won't get very far in developing a philosophy. However, one can get quite a ways in providing information to support a philosophy. That is my point. Science provides the facts, and from that scientists and others develop philosophies. One may believe that those philosophies supported by a majority of scientists are stronger, but they are philosophies, and not facts, none the less.

Is gravity a philosophy? If no why single out evolution?

Gravity, like genetic variation can be established by testing in a controlled environment, documented and then replicated. However, the assertion that gravity was the primary force in the creation of our solar system is philosophy, as is the assertion that genetic variation is the primary force in the creation of all life on earth.

The "scientific consensus" gets credence as it combines current verifiable facts, history, testimony and reason, just like any other philosophy.

Okay, that's good enough for me, it seems a matter of semantic at this point.

Semantics are important when they are used by someone to infer that a philosophy is credible by referring to it is as a verifiable process, i.e. science.

Some read scientific studies and come to some rather extreme conclusions also, i.e. catastrophic climate change due to man caused global warming. I do understand that, as in scientific studies, certain passages can be taken out of context, misinterpreted and misapplied. Such is the nature of source documentation. That is why in developing a philosophy, one subjects source documentation to not just experimentation, but also historical, legal and rational analysis.

Extreme or not, man made catastrophic climate change is not passages taken out of context - it is indeed the intention of the message in said scientific studies. Scientists have came out and said it on record.[/quote]

SOME scientists have done so, others not so much, just as SOME expositors are on the record saying that the Scriptures support the flat earth view. Sorry to have pricked on one of your sacred cows, but had I chosen an issue that you had no interest in, as you did with the flat earth view, you would have just said that you do not consider that view as scientifically based. Bottom line, the fact that some have extreme views does not necessarily impugn the information they use to support those views.

[Bust Nak]

Do you mean consensus that can be tested in a controlled environment, documented and the replicated? When one say something is scientific, that is what one is inferring, if not outright saying.

Of course, how else are you gonna get a scientist in the relevant field to "vote" for a theory?

Gravity, like genetic variation can be established by testing in a controlled environment, documented and then replicated. However, the assertion that gravity was the primary force in the creation of our solar system is philosophy, as is the assertion that genetic variation is the primary force in the creation of all life on earth.

Even when it can be tested in a controlled environment, documented and the replicated?

Semantics are important when they are used by someone to infer that a philosophy is credible by referring to it is as a verifiable process, i.e. science.

Or you can just call it science?

SOME scientists have done so, others not so much, just as SOME expositors are on the record saying that the Scriptures support the flat earth view.

Where that's were the scientific consensus come in.

Sorry to have pricked on one of your sacred cows, but had I chosen an issue that you had no interest in, as you did with the flat earth view, you would have just said that you do not consider that view as scientifically based. Bottom line, the fact that some have extreme views does not necessarily impugn the information they use to support those views.

But how are you deciding which interpretation of the Bible is correct? The flat one or the ball one? I am guessing you would fall back to empirical evidence. And this is my point - if empirical evidence is the deciding factor for the shape of the world, what use is the Bible as a tool to refine one's best guess on what is actual reality? Simply skip over the Bible and go straight to the empirical evidence.