Thank you for that response. It demonstrates exactly what I have been saying all along in the 'Creation verses Evolution' threads. The fact that you do not give the same scrutiny to evolution that you do to things that challenge it is revealing.
When we demand "evidence" for something, should we not demand equal evidence from both sides of an issue?
Firstly, you're setting up a false dichotomy. Evolution and creation are not "both sides of an issue". Evolution is a scientific theory, creationism is religious movement. If evolution were proven wrong tomorrow, it would not lend any credibility to creationism.
Secondly, I do demand evidence of evolution theory. This is how I came to be aware of the evidence, to research it personally, and conclude that the evidence is overwhelmingly strong in favour of common descent. Evolution, unlike creationism, does not subsist entirely on empty claims and assertions, but supports all of its assertions with relevant facts and observations, whilst still having room for adjustment, improvement and elaboration. This is how good science works.
When that substantiated "evidence" cannot be produced, that is when "belief" comes into play. The "proofs" then become what the supporters of each side "want to believe" based on other aspects like logic and deduction, then each will point to the reasons why they adhere to their chosen position....each as passionate about their stance as the other. Bias is expressed by both sides, so the pot accusing the kettle as if they have dibs on truth is a little pointless.
I'm afraid that playing the "we both have a bias so both positions are equal" card doesn't work in this debate. Facts are not a matter of personal bias, and the fact that people from a wide variety of religious backgrounds accept, support and even research evolution - while those who reject it are almost uniformly fundamentalist Christians and Muslims - is pretty strong indication that the bias is entirely one-sided. I have no personal bias or requirement to believe evolution is true any more than I have a personal bias or desire to believe that the sky is blue, it's just that all available observations indicate it.
Evolution is touted as non negotiable truth....but we all know that it is subject to interpretation, just like the Bible is. Therefore we chose our position for our own reasons. They are deeper than most people imagine and tell a lot about what is in the hearts of humans....what motivates their "beliefs".
There are very specific and technical aspects of evolution still up for debate, sure. But the broad strokes that "evolution occurs" is definitely no up for debate any more than gravity is. What is also not up for debate is the facts that we have found that strongly indicate common ancestry, such as the gradual speciation seen in the fossil record and the relation of all life through genetics. If you can posit a better explanation for these particular observations that explains all of the details better than evolution, you are more than welcome to put it forward, but so far creationism can offer nothing more than "God did it". You are free to believe this, of course, and as far as I am concerned you can believe in the Bible in what ever way you wish and yet still accept evolution. I don't believe the false dichotomy that creationists set up that evolution is inherently atheistic. Some of the most prominent evolutionary scientists on the planet are religious.
The pictorial situation you posted is amusing but not factual. You see, the trees are and the water and other parts of the picture are not denied...they just have a different explanation...equally "factual" to those with an opposing view.
In that case, how you explain the speciation that we observe in the fossil record? When we find a species in the geological strata, and then it disappears and another species which appears very similar to the previous species begins appearing, what is your explanation for that? Did the former species just cease existing and a new, coincidentally similar species appear out of thin air, or did one species evolve into the other? Which explanation is more reasonable: the explanation which requires belief in species magically appearing out of nothing, or the explanation that merely requires existing species to reproduce with variation (something that we observe every single day).
The point of the analogy is that you don't have to have "every piece" in order to be able to make out the bigger picture. In fact, science is pretty-much based around formulating and testing ideas BECAUSE we don't have the whole picture. We are NEVER going to have a "complete" fossil record, because that would mean having the complete fossilized remains of every single generation of every single phyla, species and population from the very dawn of life itself. Considering how rare fossilization is, this is simply never going to happen. But the fact is that we have found thousands of transitional fossils, and every single one confirms evolutionary predictions, and cannot be adequately explained (at least, currently) by any other process than evolution.
Does it really matter in the final analysis, what people "believe".....whether they have real "evidence" or not?
It doesn't matter what people believe, but it does matter what the facts are. And it definitely matters when people formulate conclusions in spite of, or contrary to, the facts. The creationist movement in America (and some other countries) is attempting to remove tried and tested science from schools and insert their religious ideology into it. That is what matters. If creationists weren't actively trying to lie about the facts (not an allegation I'm making at you personally, but I have observed many creationists and creationist websites that outright lie about the claims and facts of evolution on countless occasions) there wouldn't be a problem. You can say "I believe this" without having to bolster your position by lying about or misrepresenting opinions or facts you disagree with or just plain don't like. This is the issue, otherwise creationism would be almost harmless.
Bottom line....we all get what we ask for at the end of the day. Those who do not believe in a Creator God who has an eternal purpose for his creation, have no hope of life beyond this one.....they will get what they ask for.....nothing beyond this life. (2 Thess 1:7-9)
For those who do express belief in a Creator God and yet deny him in their beliefs and actions...these too will get what they ask for....judgment and denial of entry into God's kingdom as law breakers. (Matt 7:21-23)
And those who take the Creator at his word and try to the best of their ability to support his side of the Edenic issue...that of the Creator's right to set reasonable limits within the exercise of free will for humankind....these obedient ones who "do the will of the Father" will get what they ask for too....everlasting life in the same conditions that Adam was given at the start, but lost for all his children. (Rev 21:2-5)
Unending life in paradise surroundings is programmed into us. Death is not natural for humankind even though it is all we have ever known. Collectively, we have a natural desire to go on living, so when death takes our loved ones, many had the desire to invent somewhere for them to go after death.....this is pure denial that death is actually the cessation of life. (Gen 3:19) So belief in an afterlife of some description permeates most religious cultures......and yet the notion of an invisible part of man continuing to live on after death is not taught in the Bible. (Eccl 9:5, 10)
Not meaning to sound dismissive, but as far as I'm concerned the Bible has absolutely zero bearing on any facet of this debate. Evolution v. creationism is not an atheism v. theism debate. Evolution is not inherent atheistic, as has been said before.
Still, at least you're trying to drag us back on topic! Props for that.
Worshippers of the Creator know that he has a purpose for everything he does.....we are 'made in his image' so we too are beings who exhibit purpose in our activities, though the motives for many of them are often selfish.
If people are satisfied with their position and what it means for their future, then why all the arguments?
For the same reason there would be arguments if a particular religious group decided they opposed the theory of gravity, and instead wanted schools to teach their particular religious ideology as a viable scientific alternative called "intelligent falling".
All we have to do is state our case and allow the hearers to respond as they will. But in stating our case, all we can do is tell the truth as we understand it.....the rest is up to those who are seekers to make up their own minds about it. We have already made up ours...each as passionate about our position as the other.
I still like to believe that there is always a common ground that can be reached - even if it isn't agreement necessarily, but just a better understanding of the other side and why they formed the conclusions they do. Perhaps I'm somewhat naively optimistic in that sense, but I do try to always keep open the possibility for change both in my mind and the minds of those I disagree with.
Jesus told, nay, Commanded us not to judge Hypocritically. Meaning if I'm addicted to drugs, I can't say to someone else, "hey you shouldn't do drugs." If I did that I'd be judging hypocritically, the way Jesus forbade his followers to do. However, if by the grace of God we got rid if our addiction or never started in the first place, then our plank is removed or was never there for that particular sin. So we can clearly see and tell our friend that it's wrong and help them out of it.
