http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4400&tip=1

A webcast from the UK Royal Society. One of Professor Steve Jones' claims in this talk is that creationism does more harm to religion than it does to science.

By posting the link I'm not saying I agree with any or all of his claims - I just thought it might provide an interesting counterpoint to our other recent discussions.

I found this in your link:

"Both evolution and creation are faith based systems. One holds that Man is in control and sets the rules, the other God is in control and sets the rules."

Interesting: I couldn't spot that quote. Can you point me to it?

Dear Bravus:

What is your belief regarding creation? Are you a sabbath keeper?



all the best,

gcw

It's in a letter (by Matt Arnold) re Design: SETI and Evolution, linked from the page which you sent us to (in Evolution vs Creationism? Have your say on our message boards)

This is it

Graeme

Ahh. Thanks, Graeme.

olger: Yes, I'm a sabbath keeper. God told me to do so, and I don't believe, as many do, that if the days of creation were not literal that that would invalidate the Sabbath as a memorial of creation.

But I actually don't have a firm belief regarding creation. I believe God is the Creator, and had a central role in creating the universe (and maybe many other universes). I just don't know what mechanism God used, and when creation happened. His role could have been to miraculously speak the world into existence 6000 years ago (although there'd be some interesting explanations to come in heaven about why he chose to make it look so much older), he could have created it that way a few million years ago and it's been essentially similar since, he could have created it a few million years ago and it could have changed quite a lot through natural processes, he could have set the Big Bang in motion a few billion years ago.

I don't have a firm position, and I tend to challenge everyone on every side who does to take other positions seriously and bring good arguments and evidence to the discussion. I recognise that some evidence is Biblical and some is scientific, and that it's not always easy to reconcile those quite different kinds of evidence with one another. But I do have a respect for both science and religion and their complementary (in my view) roles in informing us about life.

I conveniently avoid the debate altogether by invoking Hebrews 11:3.

"By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible."

To me this says it all.

(1) That understanding fiat ex nihilo creation by the word of God is a matter of faith (not science).

(2) That what we see today was NOT made of the stuff we see today (and therefore, the mechanisms of creation cannot be discerned by the scientific method).

(3) Deduction: whatever the scientific method discovers, therefore, may indeed be applicable insofar as understanding the stuff we can see today and how it works and by what laws it operates -- but it cannot discover the mechanism of its creation or how it got here or how it got that way.

If people ask me am I a creationist or evolutionist, etc. I tell them I am a Hebrews 11:3-ist.

If God created a new planet today, in our solar system, I wonder what age it would show up as by the methods we use to message age of this earth.

Exactly, Stan! The Bible says God inhabits eternity. (Isaiah 57:15). If something new comes from God, it's "put together" in a "place" of eternity and brought forth into a "place" of time. So of COURSE if we try to measure its age according to the laws that govern OUR dimension of existence rather than those of "making" in God's eternal one, we are going to get an "answer" that tallies in millions of years, because the emergence from eternity into time just DOES that ... there are different laws operative in eternity and probably different laws from THAT even, operative in the transition of going from eternity to a time-continuum (or whatever it's called). (Not a physicist, sorry, so I don't know the proper terminology.)

We know that spiritual things are foolishness to the carnel minded so it is no wonder that most secular scientists baulk at the idea of a divine creation.

The discussion is better framed in a philosophy of science setting. It is niether pure science nor pure philosophy. It is a combination of both.

I have this wild and crazy idea of Bravus hosting a philosophy of science program where he moderates discussions between short-age creationists, old-earth creationists and secular evolutionists. When I suggested this to Hope TV this was their response.

Hi Mr. Linder,

Thank you for taking the time to email us. The Hope Channel is open to
considering new programming. If you have a/some program(s) in mind please
give us further information about where they can be obtained for previewing.

If these programs are not yet produced, below is a link to the ATN
Programming and Production manual that will give more information as to what
the Hope Channel is looking for.

http://adventist.tv/techinfo/minimedia/ATN_prod_policy_Ver_1.2.doc

We appreciate your thinking of the Hope Channel and thank you for your
support.

Blessings,

Kirsten Palipane
Hope Channel