Why I Am Not an Evolutionary Creationist | Live with Dr. Fazale "Fuz" Rana

[@gmjsimmons]

I deeply admire your ministry. As with Fuz, Dr. Ross was the first writer to resolve my problems with young earth creationism in a satisfactory Christian model. For years I listened to your Creation Update podcast on my way to work and read many of the ministry's works. Recently, I have read Dr. Collin's book and he is an Evolutionary Creationist (I probably have the term wrong). I was eager to see him address the Cambrian explosion and transitional life forms; however, he gave few plausible examples of transitions and that was it. I was willing to change my view but that just did not in any way fill in the huge gaps. I also love James Tour, but he doesn't fill in the fossil record either.So unless there is an amazing find of transitional life fossils, I will stick with the RTB paradigm. Few issues in my life have been as firmly resolved as the evolution issue, so I thank you guys for helping me so much in this area and many other areas.

[@srollins67]

Wow. I have to say I am very impressed. I’ve recently found out about Dr. Ross and feel like I might have gotten a little addicted so to speak on basically everything he puts out. I’m a huge fan. I must admit, I haven’t paid much attention to any of the content that flows out of Reasons-To-Believe that Dr. Ross doesn’t personally create. Dr. Rana is no opening act. This guy is amazing! What a gift he has. Seems very sincere and I love his wanting to please attitude. Very easy to listen to. Weird thing is, I’m one of those guys who has never posted a comment on the Internet. I don’t even have a Facebook account and try somewhat stay out of the digital world for the most part. I use KZbin and I’m not sure how this works or if he actually gets to see these comments but I’ve watched a few of Fuz’s videos today and he just seems so eager to interact with his audience, I felt kind of compelled to post a comment. So, my name is, Scott Rollins, and I’m from Pleasanton, California in the USA. I love researching the relationship between science and faith and get a lot of the content organizations like RTB create. If I had a question for Dr. Rana, and I actually don’t. But, to help out with possible questions for future discussions. When sharing our faith with non believers does our fascination with Apologetics/Science discoveries some how distract from the message of the gospels and the cross? Just for the sake for argument, if we think about Johns’s message, or Paul’s, or even Jesus. The message was pretty simple. Repent. Pick up your cross daily. Remain holly and separate from the world. Etc. Seems to me there’s a place for every message that points us to how much God loves us but would be interested in your thoughts. I’ve read comments by scholars that suggest Hugh adds to scripture by explaining in greater detail explanations not found in the Bible. So, my question is, if you were given a chance to speak let’s say at a conference overseas with a audience that hasn’t heard much about Jesus. Which message would you personally focus on? How science shows us Gods exists? Or, the message of the cross and how much Jesus loves us?

[@PaulPetersen2014]

Looking at the complex designs of the chemistry, biology, universe, and all life around.. it's an amazing world and an amazing God.

[@Muffy1024]

Dr Rana, having been introduced to RTB by Art Carroll, I have been sincerely blessed by everyone who presents. You are no exception and I thank you!

[@APolitically]

Greetings from Germany. Looking forward to the videos of the conference!

[@KevinGDrendel]

I appreciate your explanation and thought process. I am not a science person, but these issues are obviously important issues to be discussed and addressed intellectually by people of faith. I just recently met you and enjoyed your presentation of a Christian perspective on transhumanism. After many years of being highly skeptical of evolution, not just as a matter of faith, but as a matter of common sense, but being equally skeptical of young earth creationism, it was a breathe of fresh air to find Hugh Ross and RTB. You guys have given me some solid ground to stand on intellectually and spiritually. Thank you!

[@professordavidcarr2022]

I have taught geology for 20 years and am a Christian. I see the merits of both evolutionary and old Earth creationism. Our God can do anything he wants. However, the scientific method supports old Earth. That's where I lean. It's entertaining to explore. But it's not Paramount. My worship is Paramount. Your show allows me to express a different scientific view in the classroom. Thank you!

[@simclimie6045]

I agree with your view Old earth...

[@simclimie6045]

Here is my email [e-mail] If your interested in conversation

[@James5877]

I am also an Old-Earth Creationist because it fits the best with both the biblical text and the scientific evidence

[@darklogic6998]

The Bible is the inerrant word of God. How do you know it was meant to be interpreted and not literal. I believe the Bible was written by primitive people in an unsophisticated time without divine inspiration. There is no evidence for God. So every time a new scientific idea that contradicts the Bible, you claim it was not meant to be taken literally.

[@gareginasatryan6761]

GoodNews777 even if you don’t have the fossil record, it’s obvious that you can’t have large scale natural changed in a few days. For example, animals need time to adopt to the habitat. They take time to grow and flourish. Similarly, the processes where the earth changed take millions of years. You can’t get fossil fuels in a few days

[@cptrikester2671]

Great presentation 👏. The "understanding gap" between "Reasons to Believe" and "Is Genesis History" channels (I recommend both) is widening.

[@artbattson3000]

It is safe to say that Dr. Rana does not hold to any theory of unintelligent design. That said, neo-Darwinian evolution is, in reality, a theory of unintelligent design: a creation story without a Creator.. No intelligence or intervention is allowed. (Humans can be genetic engineers but God can't be.) If evolutionary creationists accept neo-Darwinian theory (as it accepted by the vast majority of scientists) it is very hard to understand what the noun "creationist" actually means in any biological sense. If evolutionary creationists accept neo-Darwinian theory as an adequate mechanism to explain the origin and diversity of life on Earth they face a number of problems. 1. The history of life on Earth is not Darwinian. The pervasive pattern of natural history reveals the disparity of the body plans preceding variations on these pre-existing themes (macro precedes micro). Darwinian theory predicts the opposite (micro precedes macro). While there is nothing like a good theory of origins, neo-Darwinian theory is nothing like a good theory of origins. 2. Random mutations do a better job of explaining loss of functional information and genetic load than they do major evolutionary change while natural selection does a better job of explaining stasis through the elimination of useless transitional or incipient stages than is does explaining major evolutionary change on a gradual stepwise basis. Darwin's mechanism of natural selection lays a better foundation for a Theory of Conservation than a Theory of Evolution. 3. The theism (belief in a Creator who acts in space and time) is difficult to justify unless evolutionary creation rejects neo-Darwinian theory (except at lower-taxon levels) and sees God as a genetic engineer (in addition to phenomenal physicist, incomparable chemist, marvelous mathematician, etc.). Point #3 leaves us with this question - If a person believed that God acted as a genetic engineer, modifying pre-existing life-forms over time to create new species, genera, families, orders, classes, phyla, etc. would the person be better described as an Evolutionary Creationist or an Old Earth Creationist? (Perhaps he/she could be either.) The devil is in the definitions (which is probably why Dr. Rana sidestepped a much more lengthy answer to the question).

[@kingdomkid7225]

I'm so glad to have stumbled across this video! Thank you

[@SOULSafeProductionZ]

Me too!

[@SOULSafeProductionZ]

I tapped it by mistake and I'm glad I did

[@Justadudeman22]

You've proven God's existence. Your beauty is too great to deny.

[@Morgan-pf8nu]

I love your work! I’ve learned so much

[@RTB_official]

We're so glad! 🥹

[@t264385]

Hi Fuz. Since I got to know RTB I also discovered the old creationism which also for me was positively chocking. Seems logic for me as well and I completely agree with you. In addition, I speak very much almost all the time in RTB context to reach people for Christ finally. So I got involved with a biologic teaecher a few weeks ago. Finally he is an agnostic and the discussion was realy difficult because he was not realy listening to me as I'm not a scientist as a background. Although I used as much as possible your arguments. What I was thinking due to these kind of conversation is that I miss people like you on my side. So for the future I have some ideas to be developed together with RTB. Thank you for your input into this broadcast. BR S

[@romans32426]

well done. I am in your camp.

[@romans32426]

From near Tacoma WA, previously (75 years) from LA County which included zip codes 91773, 91750, and 91740.

[@tiger234z]

Thank you Fuz for sharing your religious life story and how you came to be Christian. I have a similar religious story and can appreciate the journey. Thank you for saying the evolutionary creationist are very similar to what we in rtb believe. I would say that maybe we at rtb believe in "micro-evolutionary (to make inter-species changes) creationism" where God is still involved to make those large species changes like to create two humans (not evolved from humanoids) and breath into them to make adam and eve, while their are still humanoids on the planet. I believe in similarities from 'common designer' not 'common descent' . :)

[@jeremyjean-pierre4977]

Wait a minute I thought every Creationist believed in adaptation and speciation (micro evolution)?

[@Yarah777]

Blessed are you oh God, King of the Universe.

[@blairgoodman5135]

Hi, I am from Vancouver, Canada.

[@starduzt8816]

Greetings from Bolivia!

[@danielfinlay5612]

I agree with you all the way man ,since you can trace Jesus's linige back to major historycal Figures and you can see that they are through anilizing ,thus proving your point .

[@dwseagraves]

Howdy, from Houston Texas

[@SOULSafeProductionZ]

I'm glad I tapped this video.

[@russellw222]

I was a young earth creationist for decades, now -and with a more ushakeable faith over the years - Fuz, I would love to hear you explain the first and earlier stages of the Big Bang. Also, is there a book at Reasons to Believe that would help me to grasp this theory?

[@SOULSafeProductionZ]

I disagree with evolutionary creationism and I am a person who thinks that the earth and the universe is old.

[@eightywan2318]

Is this going to be a weekly thing? And if so at what time?

[@RTB_official]

Visit Dr. Fuz Rana on Facebook and Twitter to see the dates and times of the live recordings. The videos are usually posted within a week on KZbin depending on his travel schedule.

[@McDonnelMark]

I don’t think it was Brown v Board of Education. Probably you’re talking about McLean v Arkansas.

[@mtennes]

Did the Sanford session on Genesis and Evolution get published online?

[@tedbates1236]

I am an old earth creationist but do not want to fellowship with theistic evolutionists without it being known that I dislike evolution period. The main difference between atheistic evolutionist and theistic evolutionist is the letter a.

[@stevehardcastle9765]

Nope i was an "old" earth creationist. but now with all the "data" i tend to theistic evolution. If you choose not to worship the great i am and his Son with me, fine...

[@craigsiler814]

Rosamond CA

[@Hubbs3of6]

Are there any works that discuss or theorize about the laws of nature before the fall?

[@simclimie6045]

Enjoyed your story

[@briandavilla1323]

Brian Davilla in Dayton, TN

[@mayzuno4969]

Love this post! I’m learning so much! I just realized I used to be an evolutionary creationist , but recently as I started reading the Bible more I started rejecting it..

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

@May Zuno Why? Expand Please.

[@MPoweredChristianMinistries]

Hi Fuz, the link in the profile is not working..

[@RTB_official]

Here it is! www.reasons.org/articles/did-god-create-using-evolutionary-processes

[@fazalsubhan1393]

Lots of think sir Excuse me sir. Can you lesson the Dr zakir naik lectures??????

[@chrisforeman9949]

Brown vs. board of education dates fro 1954

[@kyloken]

Hey Fuz, it's Kenny

[@piscator_M1-17]

I am 100% A old earth evolutionary creationists. I already subscribe to your channel hit me in the new chat.

[@tausif3k]

Your name says Christian Atheist.... I just wonder whether if you are an Atheist who is also a creationist? Because that I have not seen before.

[@kgross102464]

I've listened twice, and haven't really heard a scientific argument against evolutionary creationism. Did I miss it?

[@Symbol_Minded]

Kevin Ross he stated he wasn't arguing against anything, he was just going to explain his stance. Go to their website to read up on the arguments you want to hear.

[@Symbol_Minded]

Kevin Ross or watch his debates.

[@kgross102464]

I wouldn't have made this comment if the title didn't clearly suggest he was going to give reasons why he isn't an evolutionary creationist. If all he was doing was explaining his view, he should have entitled the video, "Why I am an Old Earth Creationist."

[@Yesica1993]

@ Kevin Ross He stated at the start that he was just going to give his stance and basic journey. He said it's too big a topic to give it justice in this limited time. Check the reasons.org site for more detailed material.

[@holz_name]

+Kevin Ross "Why I am an Old Earth Creationist." Because I saw evidence of an old earth and believe the Bible. "Why I am an Young Earth Creationist." because I believe the Bible. Simple.

[@d3in0nychu5]

If biblical concerns are a major part of your rejection of evolution, why didn't you unpack that more? All you said was "Adam and Eve MUST be historical", but didn't really examine why.

[@allenbrininstool7558]

No a major part is that there is no evidence of gradual change; only sudden appearances followed by vast periods of stasis. This evidence fits the biblical model more than the Darwinian model.

[@d3in0nychu5]

Blues Man 63 exactly, you're assuming some sort of "Biblical model" without defining what it is. There are multiple Darwinian explanations for the evidence, all of which mesh with various interpretations of the Bible. The choice is not Darwin vs Bible: it's about what scientific explanation best fits the observable facts, and which interpretation of the Bible best fits the textual information. Scientific theory and Biblical interpretation may inform each other on occasion, but they do not rely on each other.

[@houstongordon9033]

d3in0nychu5 you need to watch all of his other videos and go their website to get that explanation. This only a short 30 minute video, he can’t explain everything in it.

[@christopherlee7451]

Whether or not you’re “Comfortable” with those views is irrelevant to the facts… Your reason for not choosing to accept the fact of evolution was revealed when you said it would undermine your Faith in Christianity and the thought of that is to much for you to bear. With that viewpoint, no amount of facts will be sufficient for you.

[@holz_name]

So, where is the evidence for creation?

[@Yesica1993]

@ Erwin Müller "So, where is the evidence for creation?" Uh, all around you, 24 hours a day. The fact that you even typed this comment is evidence of it. It's nonsensical to think that the human brain and body, along with all the other wonders of the universe came to be just by random chance and a lot of time. We wouldn't think that even of a sentence scrawled in the sand on the beach! We instinctively know that someone wrote that. It didn't just "happen" by the tides and a lot of time!

[@holz_name]

+Yesica1993, nature is evidence of nature, nothing more. For example, if I see a tea cup, that's evidence of the tea cup, not evidence that somebody put it there. We know from *experience* that somebody put the tea cup there, because tea cups don't appear just by them self. But we don't have any experience that some Intelligence created nature. Lacking such experience, there is no reason to say that nature is evidence of an Intelligence. > "We wouldn't think that even of a sentence scrawled in the sand on the beach! We instinctively know that someone wrote that. It didn't just "happen" by the tides and a lot of time!" Yes, I agree. But why do we know it instinctively? Because we have experience that people write sentences on beaches. We don't have any experience of an Intelligence writing sentences on beaches, and we don't have any experience of an Intelligence creating nature. So, where is the evidence for creation?

[@holz_name]

+20july1944 1. It currently exists 2. It is either self-existent or it was created. Ok, I can agree to your two premises. But again, how do we know that a tea cup was created and is not self-existent? By experience. We know from experience that people must create tea cups for them to exists. What experience do we have with nature? Nature was always there, nobody created nature as far as we know. So, clearly, the conclusion must be that nature is self-existent. And, no, the Big Bang doesn't state that nature was created. If you just go to Wikipedia (or a text book), and read what the Big Bang theory is all about, you would see that it's "the prevailing cosmological model for the universe[1] from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[2][3][4] The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state". The Big Bang theory does not say that the Universe was created. It just describes the evolution of the Universe. It just says that the universe was very dense and very hot "in the beginning", and it expanded extremely fast in a Big Bang. We simple don't know what was before the Big Bang. The quantum fluctuations could be self-existent, for example.

[@j1u2a2n3p4a5b6l7o7]

There will never be a acientific evidence for the existence of God, or that the universe was created by Him. Because we believe he is an infinite being. Therefore, he exists independent of the laws of nature, time and space. Atheism vs creationism are both philosophical conclusions with no scientific evidence to support BOTH beliefs systems. Because of science, we can know and study how life functions, and how it developed. But science will never tell us how it came to be. Atheist and Christians both have the same scientific facts, but different philosophical conclusions. You can believe that at the beginning there were particles and energy, and somehow they came together to produce elements, that somehow came together to produce macromolecules, that somehow came together to produce life, that somehow it developed to create complex life, that somehow came together to produce consciousness, that somehow it came together to produce morality. Or you can believe that in the beginning was the WORD, and all things were made by Him. That is mass energy, not primary. They are derivative.

[@j1u2a2n3p4a5b6l7o7]

Im a believer and I believe there are reasonable evidences that point to a Theistic God. I´m telling Him that there is no SCIENTIFIC evidence to prove it. If I´m wrong I´m really willing to hear it.

[@vanordman]

Would it be accurate to say that RTB believes the following: 1. God created the Universe then the Earth. 2. God introduced life on our planet in such a way that the appropriate life was introduced at the appropriate time to prepare the planet for the next type of life that was later introduced. 3. Then ultimately, when the planet was ready, he introduced man. If my understanding above is accurate then what would stop people from speculating sometime in the future that some alien civilization did this? It sounds a little like what science fiction would call terraforming a planet.

[@artbattson3000]

Vance, this is a nicely written and concise summary of an old-earth creationist position. Rather than speculating on alien civilizations (which would not have created the universe anyway) the most reasonable thing to do might be to ask if the God mentioned in your three-point summary has revealed himself anytime in human history. I would start with the three largest theistic religions, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism and see what you find. Given the Old Testament prophecies fulfilled by Jesus regarding the coming Messiah and his ability to perform miracles (including raising the dead to life) alien civilizations would be superfluous. Besides, the same God who created the universe would undoubtedly have created them.

[@vanordman]

Art Battson thanks for your response. I

[@vanordman]

Art Battson I'm a Christian but I'm just wondering if the evidence starts mounting my suggestion wouldn't become a fallback position for people that don't want to believe in a creator.

[@artbattson3000]

Vance - I would want to gently and respectfully ask them why they didn't want to believe in a creator. You might watch Dr. Gary Habermas on doubt (including volitional doubt) towards the top of the Video section at ARN - www.arn.org. He offers great insights on the issue.

[@vanordman]

Art Battson my question was more theoretical, your response seems to indicate to me that people could someday respond in the way I was speculating.