Getting over our love for Darwin

Darwins Deadly Legacy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mxXICZ9mXo :thumbs:

 

Jesus SPOKE it all into! Can you put that into a lab and try to simulate that? Its not natural selection...rather SUPERnatural selection. Jesus said you did not choose me but I have choses you.:jesus: Believe the record "Scriptures""or believe a lie.

 

The best one can say about Intelligent Design is that it is a step in the right direction away from mindless, random evolution.

The essence of chance evolution is that out of the googleplex to the googleplex of solar systems in existence in the unverse, at least one will produce the series of events which would lead to the proper environment to further lead to another series of events to produce what we now call "life".

This opposed to:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.​

FWIW, I'm a young earth 6 day creationist.
Does this cause "problems and conflicts" considering my education?​

Yes, but I don't care. ​

If and when the Lord (rather than Darwin, Hawking, Sagan, etc) corrects me (or my view of Genesis 1-3) then I'll change my view.​

What does it really matter what you call it? Science, religion, phiilosophy?​

It's all (and all books except one) going up in smoke anyway.​

2 Peter 3
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and theelements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.​

HankD​

 

Evolution is an atheistic philosophy, therefore, abiogenesis must be an integral part of this philosophy.

An honest scientist cannot tell you that macro-evolution is a fact!

Again, macro-evolution is not science. Science is based on observation not imagination. This atheist philosophy has caught the attention of many and been romanticized by some such as Jack London. Unfortunately some professing Christians have been seduced by this pseudo-science!

 

And just how does it adhere to the scientific method? That is if you are talking about macro-evolution rather than micro-evolution. It has never been shown that one species developed from another nor can it be.

 

And it fits the whole array of evidence much better.

 

The definition of what science is has been changed from what it meant 150 years ago in order to purposely disqualify creationism or intelligent design as being called science.

It is no different from people who say the Bible is unscientific because it calls a whale a fish (Jonah 1:17) and a bat a fowl (Lev 11:19). When the scriptures were written the definition of fish included mammals such as whales, or dolphins, and the bat was considered a fowl. Only in the last 200 years were new classifications developed with terms like mammals.

It is really a deceptive trick to fool the simple.

 

It is more of a lay person vs scientist thing. The lay understanding of evolution, largely from television shows, incorrectly includes abiogenesis. Darwin himself never specifically talked about the origin of life. His book was about how new species occur with the assumption that life had already begun somehow, hence The Origin of Species.

 

SO! Darwin wrote fiction like Jack London.:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

Johnv could not get himself to say that Darwinism was not science. The problem here is not so much supposed differing views of Darwinism but the implications of this mentality on policy decisions.

All science has a philosophical base. For the Darwinist, the philosophy is that nondirected natural forces are sufficient to explain the diversity of life on earth, and he rejects the supernatural saying, "That's not science." To say that a supernatural explanation isn't science is a conclusion dictated by a Naturalistic philosophy, not a conclusion to which one is led by examining the evidence.

Evolution is said to be scientific because by definition it rejects a creator, and ID is said to be unscientific because it allows a supernatural intelligence. They're saying in so many words that Evolution is real and Intelligent Design is not.

They'll deny that, but in practice they affirm it. Ask them whether policy decisions should be based on science or theism. Remember, the philosophical basis of science (so called) is Darwinism. They will always say policy decisions should be based on "science."

 

A couple points

1. Whether something is a science or not has nothing to do with whether it allows for the presence of a creator or not. Talk.origins is the leading website that supports evolution and debunks creationist claims. This is their view on the compatibility of evolution with the existence of God.

2. Science does not reject the existence of all that is supernatural. But if something is dependent on a supernatural explanation, it is not a science.

I'm sure there are many Christian scientists, regardless of their view on evolution. Acknowledging the truth of biology, chemistry, etc, does not require a rejection of everything outside of the sciences like the supernatural.

However, if someone were to give an explanation for a biological phenomenon, for instance pain by saying that spiritual forces we cannot detect like chi are responsible for it, that is not a scientific explanation. It may be a correct explanation, but it is not a scientific one. There are many things in this world that we cannot and possibly will never be able to explain scientifically. That doesn't make explanations about them false, just non-scientific.

 

Science is the study of certain laws of the universe and the way things work. Where there is disagreement is on the interpretation of what is observed. Laws of the universe, such as the law of gravity, or how fast the planets move in orbit, are facts that we learn from observation, based on God's creation. So there is no inherent conflict between science and the Bible.

The conflict between science and the Bible is not really an issue with science itself as it is with certain interpretations and theories from science, such as evolution stating we came from apelike creatures.

Since God's word denies this, this is a conflict. But it's not a conflict between science and the Bible, but rather a conflict between scientific interpretations/theories and the Bible.

Sound science and the facts of science line up with God's word because science is the study of things that God created. There are scientific things that are not mentioned in the Bible, but they don't conflict with it.

The problem with evolution is not that it's part of science, but that it is a belief that is supposedly based on science.

 

I agree with this but would also add that the conflicts are also due to our interpretations of scripture.

I agree that science and the Bible do not conflict. But our interpretation of science and our interpretation of the bible can conflict. One or both are then incorrect. We may never know which this side of heaven.

 

That is a philosophical argument. The Big Bang is accepted as science because it is naturalistic, not because it can be subjected to the scientific process.

 

It is true that some people who believe in biological evolution also profess to believe in God. It is also true that evolution in its ultimate sense is an atheistic philosophy.

Following is some information I presented in a letter to a newspaper some years ago. Perhaps it will help put evolution in context.

The issue will never be closed as long as there are Christians who accept the biblical story of creation by faith and people who accept the theory of evolution by faith. Neither can be proven. Only the Creator was present at the start of creation; no one was present at the start of evolution.

The creation model begins with the eternal Creator of infinite intelligence, power, and authority who spoke the universe into existence. The many scientists who believe in creation insist that the creation model best explains the data accumulated about the universe and life.

Scientists whose faith is evolution insist the study of the universe and life supports evolution. The evolutionary model begins with - well that depends. The most popular ‘guess’ is the ‘Big Bang Theory’ in which a ‘tiny speck’ of unknown origin with infinite mass explodes: the universe, you, and I are the subsequent result. A second ‘guess’, with some adherents, is the spontaneous creation of the universe from the mathematics of quantum physics and relativity theory! [page 206, Vol. 2 and page 16, Vol. 3 of The Modern Creation Trilogy by Henry M. and John D. Morris]

A common misconception is that evolution is the fruit of modern science, beginning with the publication of Origin of the Species. Actually belief in spontaneous generation of life and evolution is almost as old as recorded history and was included in the belief systems of most pagan civilizations. The Hebrews were apparently unique in their belief in divine creation.

Evolutionists are in general agreement concerning the denial of a Creator and creation as a ‘religious myth’. There is, however, a ‘thorn in the flesh’ evolutionists are unable to remove, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which Albert Einstein called the “premier law of science”. This law states that there is an inexorable tendency of all natural processes toward decay and disorder; evolution requires the reverse.

Evolution is presented as fact and implies universal agreement among evolutionists. Nothing could be further from the truth; the harmony among evolutionists is more like that of rutting tomcats. For example, Professor Pierre Grasse of the Sorbonne University in Paris writes: “Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms .... only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms.” [page 49, Vol. 2, The Modern Creation Trilogy] In contradiction Mark Ridley, ‘evolutionist’ professor of zoology at Oxford University, writes: “In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.” [Who Doubts Evolution?, New Scientist, Vol. 90, June, 1981.]

Evolutionists argue that most reputable scientists reject creation. This is patently false. Most of the great advances in science during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries were made by scientists who believed in creation. Today a substantial number of prominent scientists also reject the bases for the evolutionary model.

Sir Ernest Chain, co-holder of the 1945 Nobel Prize for developing penicillin has stated: “Classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.”

The 1971 winner of the Nobel Prize in science Dennis Gabor speaking of biological evolution, has stated: “I just cannot believe that everything developed by random mutations ...”

Albert Fleischmann, of the University of Erlangen, has written: “The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long-deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man.”

Dr. Etheridge, world-famous paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, has remarked: “Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species.”

 

Yes, that is true. Of course, I also maintain that evolution is a belief and is not science.

 

Interestingly, the Big Bang theory was articulated by a Georges Lemaitre, a Roman Catholic priest to explain redshifting found in observable astronomical data. For many years, it was criticized by the atheistic arm of the scientific community because it sounded too much like creationism.

But the competing scientific model of the steady state theory which implied a universe without a finite starting point was discredited by the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation. This discovery also backed Lemaitre's big bang theory which is now the predominant scientific explanation for astronomical redshifting.

As with evolution and abiogenesis, the Big Bang theory does not require the belief that a creator was not behind it. I believe Mr. Lemaitre was a theist, being a Roman Catholic priest. Of the Big Bang, evolution and abiogenesis, I believe the Big Bang has the most in common with Creationist interpretations of the bible. "Let there be light" sounds a lot to me like a singularity leading to an expanding universe.

 

I'm not sure what this ultimate sense of evolution you are trying describe is. Are you saying that creationists who like to attack evolution know this ultimate sense of evolution and are the only ones who can describe it?

Evolution as understood by the majority of the scientific community, by Darwin and its early proponents and by most texts written about it does not require atheism for its validity.

Here is a quote from the Origin of Species. Maybe Darwin was an atheist. But this quote clearly suggests that the presence of a creator was not inconsistent with his model of evolution.

Sure, evolution is an attractive theory for atheists. Creationists also like to falsely attack evolution by saying it requires atheism to believe. But none of those things actually make atheism a part of evolution.