Unless it has to do with Deep Water Effects on Radioactivity

I kid, of course!

Do you realize that if you boil down your recent posts in response to my “absurd” question and Dan Klarmans post, not-so-subtly chastizing this line of questioning…

http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/10/08/why-choose-naturalist-explanations-over-biblical-creation/

…you are both saying EXACTLY the same thing that Erik B said in his many responses to me which is, “The truth is the truth and I can’t (or won’t) even consider the alternative.”

But of course Erik B is insane and you and Dan are not.

Hey man, I’m on your side! I rejected my religion long ago and love keeping up with the latest scientific news about the nature of our universe. But I still have an imagination too! So, let me get this straight…you and Dan can no more imagine what it would feel like to find proof there IS a God any more than Erik B can imagine there is not?

This comment continues to miss the point. The dispute between creationism and evolution is not a dispute about *facts*, it is a dispute about *methods*. It is the same with the ancient arguments that the Christian church had (and lost) about whether the earth or the sun was the center of our solar system, or whether germs or evil spirits were the cause of disease. The Christian church relies on dogma; science relies on the scientific method. That is the source of the conflict. Until you understand this critical point, your questions will continue to be nonsensical.

No, I don’t know what you mean, because it is most definitely NOT merely a question of terminology. Creationism presumes to explain how life *began* on our planet. To the best of my knowledge, no existing theory of evolution presumes to explain how life *began*. Evolution theories seek to explain how life, however it began, *diversified* into the wide variety of species we find in the fossil record and which we see living today. Thus, creationism and evolution address two entirely different concepts…two different realms of knowledge. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other, except to the extent that (Biblical) creationism purports to also explain speciation; namely, by divine miracle. Many non-Christian cultures and religions have their own creation myths, but plenty of people who embrace those belief systems have no trouble understanding and accepting evolution — again, because evolution does not seek to explain how life originated on our planet.

I’m going to continue beating this point home to all of you because it is so vitally important. Biblical creationism is one myth among many creation myths that tries to explain how our planet came to have life on it. But evolution is the only coherent, fact-based theory that explains how speciation happened. It’s not a question of what “feels more comfortable”: evolution theories are based on fact and empirical research; creation stories are based on myth. This is why it simply makes no sense to ask, “If tomorrow it were announced conclusively that the biblical account of creation was correct and the earth was only 6000 years old, (ignore for a moment the how and why, let’s just say there is no longer any question about it) would you be disappointed and why?” We simply cannot “ignore the how and why,” because the how and why ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE DISCUSSION. To a great extent, they are the ONLY things that matter, because the great triumph of human reasoning over religious doctrine is not about evolution versus creationism — it is about the SCIENTIFIC METHOD versus every irrational thought that has ever entered a human mind. If we ignore the how and why, then one creation myth becomes just as valid as any other, because we have no rational basis for distinguishing between truth and fantasy.

My thoughts exactly!

Thanks Karl. Although I disagree with you in matters of science, I thought your answer was honest and good.

“…it provides a sense of meaning to existence and definition to knowledge in general that suits my philosophy of life.”

Please allow me to push you to self-explore a bit further. Please define what you mean by your “philosophy of life”.

Might I suggest moving this conversation to Why Choose Naturalist Explanations Over Biblical Creation?

I am biased towards a model that I chose to believe could be wrong but I willfully chose to believe it because it provides a sense of meaning to existence and definition to knowledge in general that suits my philosophy of life.

The age of the earth can not be proven conclusively either way by science. If the consensus of the experts in the scientific community declared that they may have had their facts wrong and the earth could possibly be much younger than the 4.6 or so billion I wouldn’t be happy to see experts proven wrong, but I would be honest and say that I would be happy that science was not being monopolized by the interpretations of those with the predisposed point of view of naturalism.