Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact..?

Not when the eyewitness is the one who actually did the creating.

 

@KeyserSoze do you believe in God? Did Jesus come back from the dead?

 

One of the first challenges to my new- found faith as a high school student centered around creation, that was back in the 1970’s.

As a freshman in a small Christian college I was assigned a book by Bernard Ram, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, written in the late 1950’s, just before Morris and Whitcombs, Genesis Flood.

Ramm coined the descriptive, Progressive Creationist, a type of day-age creationist. The Biological sciences, that time in the 1970’s, were beginning to explode with new discoveries. If I were to label myself back then, I’d be a progressive creationist. But I wasn’t satisfied with the way scripture integrated with the theory.

I read everything I could on the topic, even going so far as learning Hebrew to grasp even more of the meanings behind the revelation God gave us about his creation.

it wasn’t until recently, after reading John H. Walton’s book called, The Lost World of Genesis One and Two, that I began to rest in my understanding of the topic.

Walton effectively separates science from the scriptures. Walton is a six-day creationist (24 hours/day if you wish). But he makes a strong case that the days describe the function of each item rather than its material creation.

John Walton opens up the creation passages in ways that allow for a wide range of scientific hypothesis. He has continued to write broadly on various topics including Adam and Eve, the Flood of Noah, Joshua’s entrance into Canaan and even Scripture itself, as well as a volume on Old Testament Theology.

I would encourage those of you who so strongly condemn evolutionists, calling them all sorts of vile names and questioning their salvation, to pick up a copy of Walton’s book and understand his argument. I’m not asking you to agree with it, merely begin to understand where others are coming from and how we think.

Rob

 

This argumentation contradicts your points and is thus ill-advised, as it will seem to undermine your own thesis. People do get famous in science by maintaining a status quo of atheism, e.g., Dawkins; and can be attacked or ostracized by other scientists for breakthrough ideas, e.g., Einstein and Galileo.

Also, some have gone from famous to infamous because of hoaxes and falsifying data, and this has certainly been the case in the field of evolution. So, let's not pretend all scientists are fair or honest.

Darwin did not originate his hypothesis, nor did he establish its validity as a theory. He cited cases, such as finch beak variations, that proved nothing; admitted a very faulty fossil record; and considered dubious the success of establishing the human mind based on an ape's. In other words, Darwin's doubts proved far more valid than his evidence for his hypothesis.

Many scientists attempt to illegitimately extrapolate the success of genuine scientific discovery to usurp the role of philosophy and theology. This is where the real contention lies and why the reputation of scientists is called into question. Atheist scientists should stick to their own field of expertise, but will not because they have an agenda besides science.

 

There are two points that render the task you have set for yourself nigh impossible. First, the hypothesis of "evolution" was illegitimately declared an indisputably established theory long before modern DNA evidence. Second, it is generally so closely bound to atheism by its main proponents that it is pitted against every premise that God could have had something to do with it, aka, "creation."

 

But this is precisely what is going on with your abiogenesis "just so" story. It is the atheistic, or as you prefer, methodological naturalism, equivalent of appeal to miracle. 'The existing energy' somehow
wrought as necessary. Scientists must do much better than that for a hypothesis to truly be called scientific.

Also, Newton recognized the intricate design in the universe, including the scientific laws, and naturally attributed them to God.