Christian Evolutionist or just atheist wannabe?

In the Dover case we see a battle between Christian evolutionists and the group atheist/agnostic/atheist-wannabe.

Behe, the Pope etc are on the side of the "Christian evolutionist" denying much of scripture but still clinging to the notion in Romans 1 that God's handiwork SHOWS His own attributes (clearly shows in fact) as it is seen to be HIS work showing HIS intelligent mind at work.

Of course in Behe's case he reduces THAT down to "the machines in nature SHOW deliberate design not random mud droppings".

The atheist of course could not stand such a "design" concept - they NEED to say "oh no - EVERYTHING in nature is merely random mud droppings and by that we mean NATURAL not needing any explanation which would imply actual intelligence did something".

Bible believing Christians who trust the Creator's account can not blame the atheists and agnostics for taking that predictable position apriori to all science fact. They are "stuck there" by their world view. No question.

Innexplicably - The so-called "Christian evolutionists" on this board clearly align themselves with the atheist-wannabe camp of the atheist-evolutionists! (Innexplicable to both Bible believing Christians AND to atheists and agnostics!!).

They then ask the actual Bible believing Christians who trust the Creator's account of HIS work in Creation - WHY we are supporting the evolutionist claims of Behe.

The fact is we do not argue for his work as stating OUR position - it is far too weak. But to the extent the "Christian evolutionism" is actually "Christian" we support it.

But in the case of the so-called Christian evolutionism seen on this board that amounts to nothing more than "atheist-wannabe-evolutionism" - we find nothing in common and even find the same objections to it that actual "Christian evolutionists" like Behe find.

Nothing would please us more than to debate BEHE on evolutionism! To find that the so called Christian evolutionists here were in fact "Christian enough" to hold to the Romans 1 principle that is "so obvious" Paul claims EVEN PAGANS "get it"!!

But that day is a long way off.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Christian America is like this great ocean liner with these little rebel groups getting in their little boats and blowing up chunks of the ship little by little. The American version that used to be so ripe for Christianity - so tailor made for Christian evangelism, schools, government etc is slowly giving way under the continual sniping to atheist evolutionist humanism.

When Germany finally caved in - it was catastrophic for the Jews and many Bible believing Christians.

In the case in Dover and the raging debate between Christian evolutionists like Behe and atheist-wannabe-evolutionist some creationists may "think" they have no part in the debate. But they are wrong.

The extreme censorship manifest in the decision was formulated as a direct slam against true open and unrestricted science and also against Bible believing Christians. The draconian decision was made in favor of blind censorship in the science classroom forbidding the school board to even ADMIT to the existence of ID or the debate on ID or the fact that evolutionism continues to be tested.

The fact that the ACLU thinks that anything "anti-Christian" is by definition both "pro-science" and "pro-america' should tell you something.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here at least we have someone who "Claims" to be a Christian Evolutionist that has not tossed out as much of the Bible as Romans 1. I count us "fortunate" to get one to admit this on this board.

Since both ID and Darwinian Naturalism are contradictory theories about "HOW" life has come to be as it is today and since we have NO example of the Darwinian flavor at the macro level - HOW is it that ID is faith?

In fact it would be easier to posit that of the two ONLY Darwinian naturalism is faith since we never actually see it in nature at the macro level!

I have three Christmas angels out on the lawn - I claim they were "designed" but someone can easily argue that all the basic composit elements of the angels occur naturally in nature and with "the right gratuitous-yet-unlikely sequence of chemical reactions and heat" the plastic, glass, metal, rubber all come into being.

Is it "faith" to "believe" it is by design rather than the incredibly unlikely sequence "story easy to tell but not science"??

I can also tell that "A beaver did not design it" -- the level of design it would take is beyond the accumen - beyond the technology of beavers as intelligent as they are --

Is that "religion" to observe that obvious fact?

(BTW as Far as I know - I have never actually seen any person make one but I am certain mankind has the technology and that we COULD make one).

In Christ,

Bob

 

• As quoted by Michael Behe – 2002 April 23 ADDRESS TO THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1205

• Harold acknowledges that Darwinists have no real explanations for the enormous complexity of the cell, only hand-waving speculations, more colloquially known as “Just-So stories.”— or as Colin Patterson calls them “Stories easy enough to tell but not actually science” or as Gould calls them "thought experiments" not found IN nature.

 

I suppose in all fairness I should add that the Darwinian evolutionist probably wants to say "yes but could the BEAVER tell that another beaver did not build the 3 angels and that some rare event in nature does not fully explain them?"

 

Try to follow the argument please.

I said (assuming your OWN claim to believe in ID was in fact "true") that the 3 christmas angels in the yard are examples of "Design". How "surprising" that you should then argue that any point in favor of design "proves evolution is false" after you said you believed "both at once".

Apparently you are now having a hard time with the simple concept of "design" that you feigned to believe just a moment ago.

But going on with that obvious illustration - my point is that design (that you "claimed" to beiieve and promote) is the more rational "Conclusion" for HOW those christmas angel components came together "just-so", (rather than fabricating a "just-so-story" about how extremely unlikely natural sequences could have given rise to those angels.)

Your claim was that when confronted with such a design case (in nature) it is only "faith" that tells you that rocks and oil did not in fact "engage in an unlikely sequence of events and reactions to form the angels" (or the DNA encoding/decoding system in nature) --

Instead of responding to the salient points of the argument - you "pretend" not to get the point about "design" which previously you pretend to promote/believe/support?

How "unexpected". Is this just more of the same "I will say anything for the cause of Darwin"??

In Christ,

Bob

 

I see - so you still reject Romans 1 along with the rest of scripture that refutes the speculations of Darwin??

EVEN in your so called acceptance of "design" as a believer in so-called "Christian" Evolutionism you continue to reject the obvious fact of Romans 1 that the DESIGNER is God AND that HIS attribtues are "clearly seen" IN what HE has made??!!

How sad.

Why not just admit that you REJECT "INTELLIGENT" Design (As you come up with your "natural selection FOSTERS design"??)

Why do you fear separation from the atheist evolutionists to the point of EVEN joining them in denying INTELLIGENT design? (Or is your "faith" in intelligent design a "FAITH" since you SEE design being "fostered" by rocks so often??)

In Christ,

Bob

 

"Design" that is "fostered" by rocks or are you saying that it is your "religion" to believe that the design is in fact INTELLIGENT even though "scientifically" you SEE the astute rocks going around "fostering design" in DNA encoding an decoding systems?

In that case - you must have some pretty great faith there!

What about the Romans 1 "pagan" that "clearly SEE" the invisible attributes of the CREATOR in His Creation? Are they "being faithful" like you as they ignore those brilliant rocks also?

Maybe it is time we contrasted your views to an actual "Christian evolutionist" like Behe that clings to evolutionism WHILE ALSO claiming that the DESIGN we SEE in nature is in fact the SAME thing that Paul is talking about in Romans 1.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The case of the atheist-wannabe is pretty pathetic when you think about it. They "have" to tow whatever line that atheist evolutionists set for them - and yet they have to claim to be "Christian".

Their bondage is obvious, hollow and transparent and can be seen each time science (as in the RATE project) is shown to confirm some point of Bible truth - they "reject it out of hand" just as the atheist would. Reject-first study later.

You "never" see them say "Oh how wonderfully cofirming for the Christian view" and then say "Oh but then I studied this for a few months/years and discovered a flaw in RATE so now sadly I must let that one go too. ".

Rather they "predictably" take the atheist route "Deny and reject first, bash christians second and then -- FIND understanding third".

How tragic!

Even the Atheist evolutionists and the agnostic evolutionists have commented on the tragic plight of these people.

And now it turns out in the Dover case - that our very own "Atheist wannabe" group does not even agree with the CHRISTIAN EVOLUTIONIST views of people like Dr. Behe!!

In Behe's case "Christian Evolutionist" actually "means something". It means he REALLY DOES hold to the fact that the PAINTER did the PAINTING EVEN while clinging to Evolutionism!!

He shows IN his model of ID that he still holds to the OBVIOUS points of Romans 1 that states that the painters handiwork SHOWS the painters own attributes of intelligence!

For scientists like Dr. Behe that claim to be "Christian evolutionists" their views are consistent with Romans 1

The painter is "not an idiot" in their views and the "Bible is true" when it says HIS attributes are "clearly SEEN IN nature".

But the agenda of our atheist wannabe group here is too transparent, too hollow and bound to rank atheism - to even grasp THAT level of "Christian evolutionism" as compromised as it is!!

How sad.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Another obvious flaw in the tactics of the atheist-wannabe group here has been total lack of ability to embrace objective standards.

When the Creationist side holds to the high standard of NOT simply quoting their OWN group for the salient point DEFECTS in the other view -- but we show that EVEN the ICONS of the OTHER SIDE admit to those SAME DEFECTS - what is the shallow response from the atheist wannabe?

They REFUSE to step up to the plate and MATCH that level of objectivity by showing a CREATIONIST scientist pointing to the SAME DEFECTS in creationism that the a-w group claims to have found!!

In FACT they charge that this glaring GAP in objectivity is "bad for creationists" as IF it would have been "so much better" to ONLY quote CREATIONIST sources and NOT show that EVEN the OTHER SIDE admits to the salient points in the discussion of FLAWS in Darwinian Evolutionism!!

How pathetic! And what is worse - when they expect the other atheist-wannabe readers to "Swallow that" as IF being subjective and dogmatic instead of stepping up to the plate and being OBJECTIVE -- is a "good thing" -- those readers seem to be cowed enough to actually DO IT!!

I am frankly shocked that these transparent, flawed embarrasing tactics appeal to their OWN readership at all!!

What kind of darkened compromise is that??

In Christ,

Bob