The double standard of proof.

If anyone follows the comments, you see that Joshua and I are at it again. As a postscript to this round, I hope, I am going to bring up something that I'm sure will be veeerrrry controversial. To wit: If Joshua held his belief in evolution to the same standards as he holds My belief in God, he'd be forced to reject it. The devil, you say? Let me go through the proofs for God's existence that I have posed and he has rejected, and apply the same standard to evolutionary theory.

Proof #1: Proof of the Bible. I believe that this is the inerrant, uncompromised Word of God, Taken down by Holy men, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and providentially protected by the One who made everything in the Universe. Joshua would say it was written by men, changed over the centuries in countless recopies and revisions, and nobody knows what the original of any of the books said.

I say, then, let's apply this same stringency to the prime textbook of evolution, Darwin's Origin Of Species. This book has gone through many reprintings since its first edition 150 years ago; by 1959, an index to all the changes made had to be published. The only way one can know what Darwin really said is to have THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT, which is basically what Bible doubters demand of believers. Only then could you footnote any subsequent text that quotes Darwin or references his theories. I can only assume Joshua does not have such a manuscript.

Proof # 2: Proof of Observation. I firmly believe in Romans 1: 20, which says,
20For 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.

Joshua would say that those observations are supposition, colored by the beliefs of the observer, and not valid as a proof. I say much of Darwin's evidence was based on observing the adaptations of a group of inbred birds on a remote island, and much evidence afterwards is of a similar vein. You find what you look for, right? Therefore, most of the collected "evidence" of evolution must be tossed out.

Proof # 3: Proof by revelation. When I say that God has revealed Himself to me in so many different ways, I am told that it is my imagination deluding me. I say, then revealed evidence through the fossil record is invalid; you cannot prove the parent-offspring relationship that shows the transition by dead bones, no matter how you test them. "Believing something you cannot prove is lazy and idiotic". You cannot prove a relationship you yourself did not observe.

Proof # 4: Proof of Faith. Faith, I am told, is not valid as proof, I am told, because just because I believe one God doesn't invalidate someone else's faith in another god, so I cannot know if my God is the true God. True enough, so far as it goes. But, that means that just because some people believe in evolution, it does not invalidate creationism, as others believe in. Therefore, we cannot know for sure if evolution is true, no matter how much faith we put in the body of scientific evidence.

Proof #5: Proof by concrete evidence. This, Joshua tells me, is the only thing that would change his mind. There was once a man named Thomas who felt the same way.
24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

I have to say then, in order for all things to be equal, that the only proof that would be acceptable by the "Joshua standard of proving God" would be that one would have to personally observe the birth of evolved offspring from the parent, and exhaustively test the DNA of both, before one could prove evolution.

Now, I don't expect Joshua or anyone else to go through all this. In fact, I can accept evolution to the point that it was part of the Master's plan. Nor does any of this need to be refuted or deconstructed. The whole point is, that there is no way for anyone to prove the existence of God to such a closed thought process. If Joshua needs to see God firsthand in order to believe, or wants to use God's non-compliance to justify his beliefs, fine. But if I don't expect him to go through all this, why should he ask it of me?

Epilogue: the rest of the story of Thomas:
26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."