I don't think quotes would be effective here. There are too many points to make. I've asked before, but would you be able to open a new forum for these specific videos? It would seperate the discussion from the general topic of evolution and specify the videos on drdino.com.
Here is my response to your comments:
1. Eric presents a false dichotomy between belief in evolution and belief in creationism.
- See response to #9
2. Eric presents a false association of evolution science with atheism (the assertion that evolution science is necessarily atheistic/ and that one cannot believe that evolution could be part of God's work of creation).
- Your comment has two separate points. He was saying that the Evolutionists don't believe in God. They don't. They eliminate God from the process as is obvious in their explanations since they never mention God.
Don't you think that a hasty generalization? Just because scientists seek a natural explanation for the phenomena they observe doesn't mean they necessarily exclude God from the process.
The second part is his belief as a Christian. I agree with him on that.
3. Eric presents a false association of creationism with genuine Christianity. Creationism as we know it today is really a product of fundamentalist Protestant attempts to make their version of Christianity stand up to modern and post-modern criticism. It's really just as flawed as the fundamentalism that gave it birth, since it's built on the same shaky foundation of Protestant thought.
- This sounds like an Evolutionist comment. Their "version of Christianity" is that God created the world and that Jesus Christ is the Saviour of our souls and that He will come again. Protestant theology aside, are they wrong about this? What is Creationism as we know it from the past, then? You're really stretching this one.
I really don't think so, since much of the foundation for creationism is a Protestant belief in sola scriptura
. If the Scriptures alone are to be our authority for faith and doctrine, then the Scriptures are authoritative even when used as a science text. Creationism is also built on a very literalist interpretation of Scripture, a literalism that isn't universally accepted in the Orthodox Church.
4. If God did indeed create the world a mere 6000 years ago, wouldn't the fossil record be consistent with that time frame?
- Dr. Mary Schweitzer found soft tissue in a dinosaur bone in 1992. Google it and read the articles. The scientists are dumb-founded. The evolutionist ones, anyway. They can't explain it. Now, they are saying that they need to re-assess their views on fossilization. It's a big problem in their theory.
But how does that disprove evolution? Just because a theory has holes in it based on our limited knowledge of what we observe doesn't mean the theory is bunk. It just means that there are some things we don't know.
5. False limitation of science to what we can "see, test, and demonstrate". In its essence, science is really a systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation (from dictionary.com), and theory is basically the attempt to explain what we can observe. What is there in this definition of science that forbids us from observing the historical record the physical world has given us and attempting to offer explanations for what we see in this historical record? Why is this not science, simply because we can't repeat it in a lab?
- Theory is speculation. I propose a theory and then I have to prove it. When I make a comment, you want proof because you want to see that I am writing about something that actually exists. Science is observational. There's nothing false about that. But, speculating that there was a Big Bang and macro-evolution is. Basically, this is their opinion. Why don't you ask them for proof? I'm surprised that you take their word for it and don't drill them on providing proof. You certain put a lot more effort in doing that to me.
I take their word for it? I don't much take anyone's word for anything unless I see proof, and that includes what I've read of modern scientific theories. You can call me a doubting Thomas if you like, because I am. But when I'm convinced by the evidence, I'm also like St. Thomas in that my conviction is extremely difficult to dissolve. I've read enough about biology and astrophysics to be convinced that the Big Bang Theory and the theory of evolution are at least plausible--do remember that I once believed in young-earth creationism as you do, so the contrary evidence had to be rather strong to dissuade me from this position. In fact, I see in the Big Bang theory very clear support of my Christian belief that God created the universe and everything therein ex nihilo
. Belief in the Big Bang doesn't necessarily require one to be an atheist and can even lead one to deeper faith in God--I suspect very strongly that the same is true of evolution.
6. The assertion that "because science is limited, we can learn nothing from it" really begs the question.
- I don't remember that part in the video.
That's because the assertion was the whole gist of the video.
7. I've never before heard anyone assert that the Big Bang involved rotation.
- The Evolutionists don't like to talk about it. Maybe that's why you never heard about it.
Maybe it's because the evolution we're talking about on this thread is a theory of a specific scientific discipline known as biology. Those biologists who acknowledge the validity of the theory of evolution probably don't talk much about the Big Bang because the latter theory is specific to cosmology, astronomy, and astrophysics, subjects on which biologists are not really all that qualified to speak. You're conflating cosmology and biology into one vast scientific conspiracy, just as you conflate evolution with atheism.
8. Untested assertion: "If the Big Bang theory were true, everything in the universe would be distributed evenly." Where does he get that idea? Does Eric have no knowledge of the even distribution of background microwave radiation that astronomers have observed coming from all directions in the universe?
- I've read some articles about this, but I really don't see the need to get into it. His point was talking about the planets. Can we drop this area? I think it's more important to focus on how something can come from nothing. Once upon a time, there was nothing and then there was a big explosion. In physics we learn that there needs to be a force that is the source of reaction. Creation-evolutionists will say, ah-ha...that's God. But, you're taking the teaching of Evolutionists who don't believe in God and trying to make the two views fit. That's another dilemma. That's the part I don't agree with.
Why do you so automatically associate evolutionist and atheist? Again, that strikes me as a hasty generalization.
9. False dichotomy between science and religion: Eric attempts (unconvincingly, AFAIC) to define what science is and show how evolution theory cannot be considered science, but because he presents no third or fourth options outside of science and religion, he automatically presumes that because evolution theory is not science, it MUST be religion. Nowhere, however, does Eric define religion and demonstrate how the theory of evolution matches that definition.
- Maybe we're not looking at the same video because he did an excellent job at explaining that. He point blank stated that there are only two options: those who believe that the earth was created and those that believe that it created itself.
That's the problem! He point blank stated that there are only two options, and in so doing he artificially limited the debate to only those two options. What authority does he have to do that?
What third or fourth option are you looking for...aliens from another planet?reductio ad absurdum
Why do you assume that because I seek more options that the options I seek are such absurd things as space aliens or a flying spaghetti monster? I'm not saying what other options I'm looking for; I'm just suggesting that Eric Hovind shouldn't just limit himself to two.
The evolution theory is based on speculation.
Yes it is, but the speculation is based on what can be observed. Have you heard of such a thing as an educated guess? Particularly a guess that's well supported by the evidence?
You, of all people, question our posts and ask us to present support for our comments. How do you just accept an evolution teaching and not ask for support?
Because I've already seen the support. Besides, I really don't so much believe in evolution as I do merely keep myself open to the idea that evolution may be a plausible scientific theory and that it's not impossible to recognize evolution as part of God's creative work.
Here, I feel that you are using the double standard because of your own personal beliefs. The evolution theory is a religion because it's based on the unknown.
That begs the question: Why is that which is based on the unknown necessarily a religion?
Someone has to believe in it to follow it. Yes, just as we believe in God, but can't provide scientific proof. The question is, which one is true?
That also begs the question: Why are belief in evolution and belief in creation (NOT creation-ism
) necessarily opposed to each other? This you have not proven.
We cannot serve God and mammon. But, with our faith in Christ, we can prove the events of the Bible and of the New Testament, but just look at what the Evolutionists are preaching. Can you say that they can offer proof for that?
And just what do you see them preaching?