I wasn't trying to be pejorative, just descriptive, but you do know that 'rationalisation' is not the same as reasoning, right?

I'm delighted that you have those beliefs and convictions, and don't at all want to assail them. I've tried to explain why I find it increasingly difficult to share them, but I'm a seeker not any kind of teller.

Not to John now but to everyone: the personal attacks are not reassuring me of the veracity of recent creationism. Resorting to attacks suggests insecurity and weakness of argument, not faith and assurance.

A seeker? That is good. Yet, is it a level playing field? For example, a professor of biochemistry takes a stand and commits professional suicide in order to publish an expose of Darwinian long-age evolution. Those who will publicly take such a stand are few and far between. Consider your response. Was it on the merits? Or, do I correctly recall you posting something about "One" person taking such a position? Looking back through the history of science, how many times did great progress occur because one person took a principled stand? Consider, for example, Chandrashekar, Einstein, Galileo, etc., etc., etc.

Do you see your position as truly neutral, or leaning toward long-age evolution, in which case it would take a great amount of evidence in order to change your view?

I've considered Behe's arguments carefully in other contexts and found them wanting, in the sense that he deliberately steps outside science in his explanations. I didn't spend a lot of time on analysing them here, partly because bevin addressed them to some extent. I can certainly address Behe's claims in more detail if you like.

In terms of advances based on one person's work, sure - we can cite Newton and Einstein. But one guy isn't necessarily Newton or Einstein, he may be the harbinger of phlogiston theory or cold fusion. I didn't reject Behe's work because he's one guy, I rejected it on its merits.

...and when I say I don't have a specific position or bias, I mean it, I'm not lying or being disingenuous.

Quote:

---

Bevin, you should not assume that the reason someone does not reach the same conclusions that you have is because they do not have all the facts.

...

There are things which I cannot explain. There are equally things which present problems for the evolutionary theory. My faith is based foremost on God's promises and trust in His word.

---

In short, you don't have an explanation for the visible world based on short age creationism, you don't like the theory of evolution purely for religious reasons, and so you have decided to go with your current understanding of the Bible.

That's okay - at least you aren't pretending to have a scientific basis for your position.

/Bevin

Bevin,

Do you believe that you have a human nature that is deceptive? Paul calls this inclination "the deceitfulness of sin". So at its core "indwelling sin" is a deceiver. Our minds, outside the influence of the Holy Spirit, are incapable of understanding truth in any form.

Let's look at this concept:

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools....

One of the fruits of "ungodliness" [living life without God] is "futile" reasoning. The result?

Verse 25 "They [the ungodly] exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen."

Serving created things include "the mind" - the intellect. It is as easy to make an idol of cherished ideas as to fashion gods of wood or stone.

Rob

Quote:

---

It is as easy to make an idol of cherished ideas as to fashion gods of wood or stone.

---

Yes, and the people who are refusing to study the world around them and instead are clinging to their personal belief in the literal accuracy of Genesis are doing exactly that - making an idol of their personal cherished ideas.

/Bevin

When, in the evolutionary scheme of things, did sin appear on the scene?

Rob

On "the big bang":

"Because nothing was there, therefore that which exploded was nothing. Because stars were there afterward, they came from that explosion of nothing."

Quote:

---

What do I hear?

---

Nothing, apparently.

/Bevin