Reddit reviews In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation

> PhD scholars

I have a book full of essays by scientists, arguing in favor of creationism.

I keep it displayed on my bookcase to remind me that even those highly educated in fields I respect can believe stupid things.

I'm going to take what you wrote on face value and answer honestly:

Some places don't deserve it. I'll use the example of a book I was given, and why I chose to apply what you're claiming is a genetic fallacy.

I got given a book about why creationist science is true and evolution is actually a religious belief. https://www.amazon.com/Six-Days-Scientists-Believe-Creation/dp/0890513414

Thing is I'd looked at the subject quite a bit already, and just doubted it was worth my time. But I opened it up all the same, flicked through a couple of pages, and quickly found an argument that I'd seen disproven many times before. I also saw lots of claims, and arguments, that I hadn't seen before.

It takes work to disprove these things, propaganda from the KKK or anti-vax or even (something probably much less harmful) like Flat Earthers, is actually pretty hard to pull it apart bit by bit. Their arguments/propaganda can be really refined, really subtle, really damn time-consuming. Insidious. Just saying "only idiots believe it" is way over valuing our intelligence.

That example from the book? It was a claim that I'd spent an hour or so reading about previously. I didn't have the time, or desire, to fact check every claim the book would make.

So I came to this conclusion "this is the sort of book which publishes lies." and I chose not to read the book.

I do believe in a literal reading of the Bible. As the article said, religion and evolution shouldn't be against each other, and, to me, God is above all. If the mainstream view of science disagrees with God, then it is wrong. I'm not going to go into detail about how evolution is proven wrong (it's mostly in this book) so I'll leave it at that.

You used the terms "zero" and "in it's entirety". They are absolute terms. No exceptions. So if I provide one exception to each will essentially make your facts faulty. No matter what you are debating, absolutes are extremely difficult to support, and you can't support your assertions.



You asserted two things using absolute statements:


1.) “…there is ZERO evidence of genesis being literal …”


2.) “… the entirety of science is in complete opposition to it.”


Statement 1.) You may say there is zero evidence you accept, but you cannot say there is zero evidence. Zero is an absolute, but with a simple Google, you will easily have a list of organizations and websites dedicated to offering evidence that Genesis is literal. (Yes, I understand you consider the evidence: horrible, weak, wrong, bad and circumstantial – but you cannot say it isn’t evidence.)


To support statement #1, you must unequivocally demonstrate that there is ZERO evidence. You can’t do it. There is in the very least one piece of evidence. (Yes, I understand you consider the evidence: horrible, weak, wrong, bad and circumstantial – but you cannot say it isn’t evidence.) You can’t support the absolute term “zero”.


Statement 2.) To prove this statement faulty, all I have to do is provide one example of science not opposing a literal Genesis:


Scientist alive today who accept the biblical account of creation.


Scientists at Answers in Genesis


Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation

Seems like a lot of these comments are anti-young earth creationism. So I figure I'll chime in.

First, thanks for being respectful in your approach! I see so many people just being cruel or dismissive when it comes to talking about creationism.

I suppose there are a few ways to approach the subject. I'll go through my reasons.

- The book of Genesis is written as factual, not poetic like the psalms, or prophetic like revelations. I believe it should be read as such.

- When God creates the world, he says 'It is very good', as the world was without sin before the fall. If the world was created over billions of years, with millions of years of death, plague and disaster, it would not have been sinless or 'very good' as God proclaimed.

- The world is made of things that require multiple components to exist simultaneously to function. Complex mechanisms are necessary to support life, DNA, RNA and proteins all require complex mechanisms and each other to function. Cells require that oxygen be distributed effectively and safely around inside the cell membrane to where it is needed without damaging the cell. Simply put, life is complex and requires interdependent parts to function, and as such, would need to be formed simultaneously.

- When it comes to dating methods, evolutionist often make assumptions about the starting conditions of the object they are dating. Potasium-Argon dating, for example, suffers from the flaw of assuming that there was no initial argon trapped in volcanic rocks at the time of their solidification.

- Fossils are found as we would expect them to be had the Flood happened. In fact, the fact that we don't find intermediate forms between creatures in the fossil record certainly lends credence to creationism. Darwin was aware of this and mentioned it as the biggest challenge to his theory, but put it down to the fact that the fossil record was not fully complete. Since then, we have expanded that record significantly and the same problem persists.

- Honestly, the flood is heavily tied in with a lot of stuff about fossils and geology. There are some really interesting books I'll pop at the end that you could read.

- Methods of estimating the the age of the earth or the universe apply assumptions about processes and rates that extend into the distant past, especially with erosion. General assumptions applied universally may seem reasonable but don't really make sense. Catastrophic events and processes can have a massive effect on how 'old' a landscape seems. For example, when mt st hellens erupted, it created an almost scale model of the grand canyon with sediment layers being deposited then suddenly eroded by pyroclastic steam, water and mud flows. The canyon walls now resemble those that are assumed to be of great age, even though we know them to be quite young.

​

Believing in young earth creationism isn't fundamental to faith in God. There are plenty christians out there who disagree with me on this subject and yet I still believe them to be true christians. I do think that believing Genesis as being literal is quite important to faith. The origin of sin and the fall of man are laid out clearly there, and things start to get shaky when you dismiss it.

​

Some reading material:

In six days

A bunch of stuff from answers in genesis

I think one of the hardest humps to get over is the fact that the majority of scientists believe in the theory of evolution. But are still a very significant number who don't. 1 Same thing with global warming. Many scientists do not subscribe to it and of course they are ridiculed and many lose their careers. It is incredibly difficult and strange to say that something that seems so supported by a consensus could potentially be wrong. It's in line with being a conspiracy theorist, someone who says that corporations are the real controllers of America, and that the top 1% have their interests ahead of everyone else. It's as strange as saying that the global intellectual elite believe that the earth is overpopulated and that if we do not drastically reduce the population, the human race would destroy itself and become extinct, and that as a result, they must choose the lesser of two evils, and do all that they can to reduce population, even if the methods seem less than humane. All these things would be simply insane to say. How can it be possible that the majority is wrong?

Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

How can thousands of geologists and paleontologists and doctors and scientists simply be wrong? I think that is the largest hurdle to get over. If there were more of a debate for instance, and evolution were not the status quo, more would be willing to consider the opposite side of the coin. In a sense, it is somewhat like the story of the emperor who wore no clothes. These men claimed to be dressing the king with outrageously beautiful clothes, and no one could see them, but they dare not spoke lest they be ridiculed and laughed at. And it was not until a child in the crowd yelled that the emperorer was naked, that all the rest of the crowd stepped in, and spoke up, and laughed. A bystander effect in a sense. It is a difficult bias to overcome, and requires an open, thoughtful mind. Even if you listen to the other side just to ridicule and laugh at them, at least you hear their case before giving them judgment. Most who learn in academia never hear the other side.

But consider the evidence. Watch creationists and evolutionists debate in a civil, friendly, respectful manner on youtube. Scrutinize every detail. But don't prejudge until you consider the evidence. Both sides have the same evidence, the same fossils. Here's some written stuff if you prefer it, but I highly recommend the videos: 2

>but every now and then you get a truly beneficial one that does create information.

I'm not arguing there are no beneficial mutations. I'm arguing that the experiments thus showcased did not show an increase in information. Its just scrambled, or deleted. Less information, less variety, less and less options. And the really naughty part about this is the bait and switch - I asked for an increase in information experiment, and I get an article that fallaciously references the Lenski.

>probably reads more than he'd like..

I would suggest this book because he might like to follow his philosophies to their frightful conclusions.

>"evolution is just a theory" makes most of the "arguments not to use"

I didn't ever say this! Please read my statements before shoving words into my mouth. So do you know that there is a difference between science, and a scientific theory? Did you know that speciation has a root word, 'species', that BrunnerPB admittedly agrees that its a non-scientific word? So then, would you explain to me why I have to accept a word as a scientific definition when its root words and concepts are not? A word like 'speciation' is packed full of evolutionary precepts wont be simply slid into usage without challenge.

>Our side isn't even considered a theory, after all.

Am I in crazyland? Do you even know what a theory is? And who are you sourcing in with this statement? Creation theory is alive and viable, defensible, and in my opinion, enjoys much stronger evidence and arguments than the assumptions of evolutionary theory. Might I suggest a book for you sir - In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. Its not blind faith that has convinced me in special creation - its evidence.

*edit: formating

If you want sources, talk to them.