Let's Review...Ten Points of Discussion
Bible Stuff - Three Points
First, Jesus has been established as an historical character from eyewitness accounts in the Bible, writers of history such as Josephus, and people who might have rather erased all records of him, that is, the Romans and Jews. The Romans recorded the existence of "Chrestus" and His followers. The Jewish Talmud has references to Jesus, his birth, his ministry and also the Book of Matthew. Almost everyone agrees that He existed, other than a fringe factor that can be ignored. I consider the self-styled Bible scholar known as G A Wells to most definitely be one of the fringe. I am on the side of the majority opinion that Jesus was most definitely an historical character.
Second, it has been established that there is a great deal of controversy within the ranks of Biblical scholars concerning the dating of the New Testament books. There are competing camps, neither of which can claim a concensus. I am on the side of the early daters, as I have posted previously.
Third, I have established myself as a Bible literalist. Unless the Bible is clearly using prophetic or allegorical terminology I take it literally for both doctrine and historical narratives. This puts me in the minority, but it is not a tiny minority by any means.
Creation Stuff - Seven Points
I am going to first make a concession. Whereas I don't believe in macroevolution, the Tiktaalik controversy caused me to consider the matter carefully. Creationists are correct in saying that "Tik" is not a pure transitional form, since it remains a fish. On the other hand, macroevolutionists are correct in believing that if indeed there is a continuum of creatures from water to land, then "Tik" is closer to bridging that gap than any other fossil found. It is the closest thing to a transitional form yet discovered. It doesn't "prove" macroevolution to be true, but it is significant in that it is an expected find if macroevolution is true. As evidence it is definitely a blow for the macroevolutionary side of the fight. If macroevolution was able to be proved at some time in the future then a few more fossils like Tiktaalik would go a long way towards that end.
First, it is true that the majority of scientists of every discipline believe macroevolution to be true. For most of them, that doesn't enter in to their particular field of research. I am in the opposing camp, a small one, but one that includes some very brilliant and capable scientists. (disclaimer - The ID list is of scientists who agreed with this statement - “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” ) It would be more gracious of macroevolutionists if they would cease the propaganda campaign trying to configure creationists as cranks. Cranks believe the world is flat, or that the UFO's are coming to get us soon, or other ludicrous beliefs. Creationism has been the belief of some of the great scientists of all time and has never been disproved, it has just become unpopular. I find it interesting that so many macroevolutionists go to great lengths to portray creationists as whacked-out pseudo-scientists with no credentials. Is this a way to stop the discussion before it is begun?
Second, the large amount of historical records and the evidences of carvings and figurines and drawings is evidence that dragons and sea-monsters and firebirds were actual living beings - dinosaurs. Once they became uncommon they tend to take on the characteristics of myth. But much mythology is just history passed on by "Chinese Telephone" so to speak. No one has been able to come up with a reasonable explanation for why it is that so many of these representations and records are accurate depictions of dinosaurs according to the best paleontological evidence we have today.
Third, there are evidences in virtually every culture that the Bible narrative of Genesis is true or at least evidences that support the narrative. Genealogies around the world mention Noah, Sham, Ham and/or Japheth and some go all the way back to Adam. There are world-wide flood accounts from cultures on every continent. The Biblical account was carefully safeguarded by the family of Adam through Noah down to Moses and then on through time by Jewish scribes carefully counting words and comparing scripts so that not "one jot or tittle" would be miscopied. This is why the Genesis account is plausible whereas other stories have the appearance of what we call myth.
Fourth, Uniformitarianism, once a tenet of macroevolution, has been largely debunked. Geoleogists are moving back to catastrophism. Creationists say the events surrounding the Noahic Flood are responsible for the geological record in stone. Macroevolutionists say that it is a record of multiple catastrophes with varied causes, such as comets, local floods, meteors, etc.
Fifth, a very controversial subject is the matter of evidence surrounding the Noahic Flood and the fossil record. Both camps believe that the fossil record is strongly on their side. Macroevolutionists deny that the Ark and the Flood are plausible and that the time factors are wrong. Here is another place where the age of the earth and the Universe become part of the dialogue.
Sixth, there are conflicting opinions regarding the statistical possibilities of macroevolution and the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Also, another controversial subject is that of Irreducibly Complex systems. The fine-tuning of the Universe is yet another factor to be considered. In all of these discussions creationists sometimes find themselves on the same side as Intelligent Designers, with macroevolutionists on the other side. But make no mistake, ID proponents and creationists are not necessarily coming from the same place. My point of view concerning the origin of life and the Universe are quite different from a Hugh Ross or a William Dembski. There are Christians who are macroevolutionists and Christians who are creationists. There are non-Christians who nonetheless are creationists or ID'ers and there are non-Christians who are macroevolutionists. I am a Christian who is a creationist but I sometimes use the arguments of ID proponents when they are, to me, valid, even if there are areas of disagreement between us.
Seventh, in my opinion the primary reason a person is either on the side of macroevolution or creation seems to be world view. I believe it is the rapidly changing world view of a Western World moving away from Christianity and towards Humanism in the 1800's that led to the theories of Darwin being adopted, Uniformitarianism accepted, and Biblical textural criticism popularized. Once popularized, such thoughts became the "default setting" for the teaching of those disciplines, thus many Christians have come to agree with positions that are not in accord with the Bible. At that point many Christians decide to not take the Bible literally in places they might have otherwise done so, on the basis of what is considered by the world to be common or accepted knowledge. There were no great discoveries in the 1800's to disprove God, but rather there were hypotheses proposed that did away with God as a necessity.
First, Jesus has been established as an historical character from eyewitness accounts in the Bible, writers of history such as Josephus, and people who might have rather erased all records of him, that is, the Romans and Jews. The Romans recorded the existence of "Chrestus" and His followers. The Jewish Talmud has references to Jesus, his birth, his ministry and also the Book of Matthew. Almost everyone agrees that He existed, other than a fringe factor that can be ignored. I consider the self-styled Bible scholar known as G A Wells to most definitely be one of the fringe. I am on the side of the majority opinion that Jesus was most definitely an historical character.
Second, it has been established that there is a great deal of controversy within the ranks of Biblical scholars concerning the dating of the New Testament books. There are competing camps, neither of which can claim a concensus. I am on the side of the early daters, as I have posted previously.
Third, I have established myself as a Bible literalist. Unless the Bible is clearly using prophetic or allegorical terminology I take it literally for both doctrine and historical narratives. This puts me in the minority, but it is not a tiny minority by any means.
Creation Stuff - Seven Points
I am going to first make a concession. Whereas I don't believe in macroevolution, the Tiktaalik controversy caused me to consider the matter carefully. Creationists are correct in saying that "Tik" is not a pure transitional form, since it remains a fish. On the other hand, macroevolutionists are correct in believing that if indeed there is a continuum of creatures from water to land, then "Tik" is closer to bridging that gap than any other fossil found. It is the closest thing to a transitional form yet discovered. It doesn't "prove" macroevolution to be true, but it is significant in that it is an expected find if macroevolution is true. As evidence it is definitely a blow for the macroevolutionary side of the fight. If macroevolution was able to be proved at some time in the future then a few more fossils like Tiktaalik would go a long way towards that end.
First, it is true that the majority of scientists of every discipline believe macroevolution to be true. For most of them, that doesn't enter in to their particular field of research. I am in the opposing camp, a small one, but one that includes some very brilliant and capable scientists. (disclaimer - The ID list is of scientists who agreed with this statement - “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” ) It would be more gracious of macroevolutionists if they would cease the propaganda campaign trying to configure creationists as cranks. Cranks believe the world is flat, or that the UFO's are coming to get us soon, or other ludicrous beliefs. Creationism has been the belief of some of the great scientists of all time and has never been disproved, it has just become unpopular. I find it interesting that so many macroevolutionists go to great lengths to portray creationists as whacked-out pseudo-scientists with no credentials. Is this a way to stop the discussion before it is begun?
Second, the large amount of historical records and the evidences of carvings and figurines and drawings is evidence that dragons and sea-monsters and firebirds were actual living beings - dinosaurs. Once they became uncommon they tend to take on the characteristics of myth. But much mythology is just history passed on by "Chinese Telephone" so to speak. No one has been able to come up with a reasonable explanation for why it is that so many of these representations and records are accurate depictions of dinosaurs according to the best paleontological evidence we have today.
Third, there are evidences in virtually every culture that the Bible narrative of Genesis is true or at least evidences that support the narrative. Genealogies around the world mention Noah, Sham, Ham and/or Japheth and some go all the way back to Adam. There are world-wide flood accounts from cultures on every continent. The Biblical account was carefully safeguarded by the family of Adam through Noah down to Moses and then on through time by Jewish scribes carefully counting words and comparing scripts so that not "one jot or tittle" would be miscopied. This is why the Genesis account is plausible whereas other stories have the appearance of what we call myth.
Fourth, Uniformitarianism, once a tenet of macroevolution, has been largely debunked. Geoleogists are moving back to catastrophism. Creationists say the events surrounding the Noahic Flood are responsible for the geological record in stone. Macroevolutionists say that it is a record of multiple catastrophes with varied causes, such as comets, local floods, meteors, etc.
Fifth, a very controversial subject is the matter of evidence surrounding the Noahic Flood and the fossil record. Both camps believe that the fossil record is strongly on their side. Macroevolutionists deny that the Ark and the Flood are plausible and that the time factors are wrong. Here is another place where the age of the earth and the Universe become part of the dialogue.
Sixth, there are conflicting opinions regarding the statistical possibilities of macroevolution and the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Also, another controversial subject is that of Irreducibly Complex systems. The fine-tuning of the Universe is yet another factor to be considered. In all of these discussions creationists sometimes find themselves on the same side as Intelligent Designers, with macroevolutionists on the other side. But make no mistake, ID proponents and creationists are not necessarily coming from the same place. My point of view concerning the origin of life and the Universe are quite different from a Hugh Ross or a William Dembski. There are Christians who are macroevolutionists and Christians who are creationists. There are non-Christians who nonetheless are creationists or ID'ers and there are non-Christians who are macroevolutionists. I am a Christian who is a creationist but I sometimes use the arguments of ID proponents when they are, to me, valid, even if there are areas of disagreement between us.
Seventh, in my opinion the primary reason a person is either on the side of macroevolution or creation seems to be world view. I believe it is the rapidly changing world view of a Western World moving away from Christianity and towards Humanism in the 1800's that led to the theories of Darwin being adopted, Uniformitarianism accepted, and Biblical textural criticism popularized. Once popularized, such thoughts became the "default setting" for the teaching of those disciplines, thus many Christians have come to agree with positions that are not in accord with the Bible. At that point many Christians decide to not take the Bible literally in places they might have otherwise done so, on the basis of what is considered by the world to be common or accepted knowledge. There were no great discoveries in the 1800's to disprove God, but rather there were hypotheses proposed that did away with God as a necessity.