Can an Evolutionist be Saved?

Oh, yes, Craig, if I type "Scientists who believe in the young earth theory" into Google, it is really going to find a lot of websites. Obviously, you don't know how search engines work either.

Besides, what belief do you want....ANYTHING....and I can find it for you on the internet.

Where do you think all of these "academic" scientists learn their "academic" beliefs? From the other "academic" teachers who live in their Ivory towers and teach more "academic" evolutionism.

If you want to get down to it, you yourself are in the minority, becuase MOST of those "academic" scientists don't even believe in God, PERIOD. Therefore, you are simply straddling the fence, between the "academic" scientists that think God is not real and Christians, who believe the Bible.

How do you even justify believing in God, in today's secular academic world?

 

Philip,

" If we take Genesis as allegory, why don't we take Mathew, Mark, Luke and John as allegory? Who is in charge of what is "real and what is smoke and mirrors?" "

No one would advocate taking genesis as ALLEGORY per se. But the OEC advocates would likely assert that the main points of Genesis are YHWH's power and man's sinfulness. They would say it was intentionally told in a story like manner because tha was typical for ancient near eastern people like Moses.

Regarding the Gospels - that's a different story. The NT as a whole was clearly designed as a witness to the resurrection of Christ. The scope, language, style, and intended audience were much different than those of the pentateuch.

How do we know the difference?

Study to show thyself approved.

 

'scuse me, but I did not properly read your statement, Craig, on what to type into the search engine.

Strangely enough, I find that MOST scientists who believe in Creation are those working in research for large companies, not in liberal colleges where evolution is presented as fact, not theory.

A scientist certainly does NOT have to work for a university to be a good scientist. Most of the scientists I know work for a living and therefore, they have learned "real-world" facts that often are not found by those still living in an Ivory Tower.

 

Can you post the names of just five evolutionary biologists who do not believe in God? I can't post the name of even one!

Your post is an excellent example of how fundamentalist extremists make false claims to justify their non-cognizant, non-biblical belief in a young earth.

 

This is true of evolutionists as well. They operate from the premise that everything has a naturalistic explanation... no matter how fantastic that explanation is. It can always be dressed up in serious sounding scientific terms to cover the underlying assumptions.

Never is evolution taught with the disclaimer that the theory is predicated on core assumptions that are not provable nor falsifiable and therefore not scientific but rather faith based.

Disagree? Then prove that everything we observe has a purely naturalistic explanation.

Show me the objective proof that radio isotope dating is reliable for articles over 10K years old. Yes, you can cite articles with fancy... confusing... terms. But boil it all down and you have assumptions. Yet this method of dating is continually cited as if authoritative.

A couple of supposed human ancestors, I think Nebraska man was one, were debunked as frauds but left in textbooks for years after.

The lack of transitional life forms has been so perplexing that many evolutionists question whether they exist and have adopted different views that are likewise unproveable. Yet gradual evolution is still taught as fact in some books.

A Minnesota HS teacher was fired a couple of years ago for doing nothing more than pointing out weaknesses in the theory of evolution and citing where assumptions were employed in place of real factual data.

If the theory and its advocates are really honest, wouldn't they want honest discussion, disclosure, and criticism? Why do they object to ID or Creationism being taught beside evolution? If evolution is true then the best thing one could do is lay it out side by side with a silly myth.

 

Christians should be very wary of this sight, and especially of the older material.

The philosophy of this organization from the beginning is that the end justifies the means, and that any amount of distortion of the facts in order to prove their personal and extra-biblical conviction of a recently created earth is justified. I know this to be the case because, as a biologist, I have read much of their literature over a period of about 30 years and have continued to be appalled by their blatant lack of academic and Christian ethics in presenting and discussing scientific data. And of course they have come under severe fire from both Scientists and mainstream educated Christians for their junk science and willful distortion of the facts. Therefore, in more recent years their science has improved and they have become more careful in presenting their data, but they still have a long way to go to be considered scientifically credible or ethically acceptable.

For those who are not trained scientists and who desire to know for themselves whether or not competent scientists believe in a young earth, type into your computer search engine the names of the “scientists” who believe in the a young earth. If you will do this, you will find for yourself that NONE of them are employed ANY university that is noted for academic excellence in the sciences. Check out their degrees and where they got them and what their degrees are in and compare this information with what they are claiming to have knowledge of. Don’t take my word for any of this. Check out the facts for yourself!

</font>[/QUOTE]By the Sea, By the Sea, By the wonderful Sea is flat wrong. The Faculty and Adjunct Faculty of the ICR are shown below. A quick read of their degrees shows that they are well educated, none got their degrees by mail order!!!! :D

I met Dr. Henry Morris when I was an instructor at VPI and he was head of the Civil Engineering Department, a position he held for 13 years

Dr. Carl Fliermans is employed at the Savannah River National Laboratory where he is a distinguished scientist. If I am not mistaken he was instrumental in isolation the cause of Legionaires Disease.

Dr Russell Humphreys, is a retired scientist from Sandia National Laboratory where he worked on nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics and the Particle Beam Fusion Project. He is author of the book Starlight and Time which I have mentioned previously on this forum.

ICR Resident Faculty

Austin, Steven A. - Professor of Geology
B.S., University of Washington, Seattle, WA,1970
M.S., San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, 1971
Ph.D., Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979

Cumming, Kenneth B. - Professor of Biology
B.S., Tufts University, Medford, MA, 1956
M.A., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1959
Ph.D., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1965

DeYoung, Donald B. - Professor of Astrophysics
B.S., Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Ml, 1966
M.S., Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Ml, 1968
Ph.D., Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 1972

Franks, Robert H. - Associate Professor of Biology
B.A., San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, 1956
M.D., University of California Los Angeles, CA, 1960

Gish, Duane T. - Professor of Biochemistry
B.S., University of California, Los Angeles, CA, 1949
Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1953

Morris, Henry M. - Professor of Hydrogeology
B.S., Rice University, Houston, TX, 1939
M.S., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 1948
Ph.D., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 1950

Morris, John D. - Professor of Geology
B.S., Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, VA, 1969
M.S., University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 1977
Ph.D.. University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 1980

Snelling, Andrew - Professor of Geology
B.Sc., University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, 1975
Ph.D., University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, 1982

Vardiman, Larry - Professor of Atmospheric Science
B.S., University of Missouri, Rolla, MO, 1965
B.S., St. Louis University, St. Louis, MO, 1967
M.S., Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 1972
Ph.D., Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 1974


ICR Adjunct Faculty

Baumgardner, John R. - Associate Professor of Geophysics
B.S., Texas Tech University, Lubbock, 1968
M.S., Electrical Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 1970
M.S., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles,1981
Ph.D., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1983

Carothers, Linn E. - Associate Professor of Statistics
B.S., University of Southern California, University Park, 1973
M.S., California State University, Northridge, 1979
Ph.D., University of Southern California, University Park, 1987

Chaffin, Eugene F. - Professor of Physics
B.S., Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, 1970
M.S., Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, 1972
Ph.D., Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, 1974

Chittick, Donald E. - Professor of Physical Chemistry
B.S., Willamette University, Salem, OR, 1954
Ph.D., Oregon State University, Corvalis, OR, 1960

Deckard, Stephen W. - Assistant Professor of Education
B.A., McKendree College, Lebanon, IL, 1975
M.S., University of Illinois, Champaign, IL, 1979
Ed.D., University of Sarasota, Sarasota, FL, 1986

Englin, Dennis L. - Professor of Geophysics
B.A., Westmont College, Santa Barbara, CA, 1968
M.Sc., California State University, Northridge, CA, 1970
Ed.D., University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 1975

Faulkner, Danny R. - Associate Professor of Astronomy
B.S., Bob Jones University, Greenville, SC, 1976
M.S., Clemson University, Clemson, SC, 1979
M.A., Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 1983
Ph.D., Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 1989

Fliermans, Carl B. - Professor of Biology
B.S., Asbury College, Wilmore, KY, 1966
M.Sc., University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 1969
Ph.D., Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 1972

Humphreys, D. Russell - Associate Professor of Physics
B.S., Duke University, Durham, NC, 1963
Ph.D., Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 1972

Lindsey, George D. - Associate Professor of Science Education
B.S., East Texas State University, Commerce, TX,1967
M.S., East Texas State University, Commerce, TX, 1968
Ed.D., East Texas State University, Commerce, TX, 1981

Meyer, John R. - Professor of Biology
B.A., Kearney State College, Kearney, NE, 1962
Ph.D., University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 1969

Osborne, Chris D. - Assistant Professor of Biology
B.A., California State University, Fullerton, CA, 1976
M.S., Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA., 1985
Ph.D., Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA., 1989

Parker, Gary E. - Professor of Biology
B.A., Wabash College, Crawfordville, IN, 1962
M.S., Ball State University, Muncie, IN, 1965
Ed.D., Ball State University, Muncie, IN, 1973

Stark, James - Assistant Professor of Science Education
B.S., San Diego State University, 1959
M.S., University of Southern California, University Park, 1964
Ed.D., United States International University, San Diego, 1983

All members appointed to the faculty of the ICR Graduate School have terminal degrees in their fields of instruction. All faculty members are also expected to be of high moral character and personal integrity, firmly committed to the ICR Tenets and Educational Philosophy.

 

Are you trying to say that truth only emanates from academia? Are you trying to say that a biased paradigm is not present among the "experts"?

Please cite the one major grant recently given to someone making a concerted effort to critique or disprove evolution or to prove some other theory of origins.

College faculties especially those associated with philosophical or political subjects have become inbred. They no longer welcome or allow those who do not share a certain set of core beliefs. An article recently came out discussing the lack of political conservatives in college faculties. They discovered that there is an implicit liberal standard to attain tenure.

 

Evolutions core premise is that everything must have a naturalistic explanation.

As a follow up to Phillip's question about what is and is not allegorical- What supernatural event recorded in the Bible, even the NT, does not have an obvious naturalistic alternative?

 

Is there a reason you felt compelled to resort to name calling and such an arrogant dismissal of other points of view?

 

Craig, you ARE joking aren't you. Did I read this right, you want me to name five biologists who do NOT believe in God?

I probably know about twenty or thirty personally. But, I'm certainly not going to post their names on a public website. Especially since I am trying to witness to them and "evolution" is their big HANG-UP with believing in a Creator.

 

Is there a reason you felt compelled to resort to name calling and such an arrogant dismissal of other points of view? </font>[/QUOTE]That's okay Scott. My "non-Biblical belief in a young earth" is an oxymoron anyway. For in six days God created the Earth, etc. etc.

 

Man am I glad I not so smart as to reject what the Bible clearly teaches, because unregenerant men have said to do so. Clearly the simplicity of the Scripture continues to confound the "wise".

I sure the Lord is impressed by all the degrees of these men and He will submit to their superior intellect. :rolleyes:

Bro Tony

 

I could do with a grant for my work on Creation History but I don't even know where to apply for it.

Mike Gascoigne
Anno Mundi Books
www.annomundi.co.uk

 

According to the New Testament, there's one unforgivable sin which is Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. I've always interpreted this as rejection of Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. My understanding is that other misinterpretations of the Bible are forgivable. I don't believe that belief in evolution is an unforgivable sin if it is one at all.

 

The issue of evolution vs creation 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.

Those 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, 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.”

‘Evolutionist’ Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum, put the entire problem of evolution in perspective [address at the American Museum of Natural History in November, 1981] when he said:

“For over 20 years I thought I was working on evolution .... [But] there was not one thing I knew about it. .... So for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: ‘Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true?’ I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a very long time and eventually one person said, ‘Yes, I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school.’ ... During the past few years ... you have experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. .... Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but somehow seems to convey anti-knowledge.”

See also: http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/pattamnh.html

The evolutionist at the above conference had it right - “it ought not to be taught in high school.” When a substantial number of students are graduating with only a marginal ability to read it seems that time spent studying evolution is wasted. Must a child be indoctrinated in the vagaries of evolution in order for them to understand reading, literature, history, geography, mathematics, physics, chemistry, or even high school biology? Why this incessant drumbeat that evolution be taught in public schools? The social impact of evolutionary thought with its ‘survival of the fittest’ is not trivial: it gave us Hitler, his master race, and the Holocaust; Marxist-Communism, Stalin, Mao, and their slaughter of millions; and Margaret Sanger, Eugenics, Planned Parenthood, and abortion - the American Holocaust. Could it be that the education establishment and certain in the scientific community wish to eliminate from the conscious thought of young people any belief in the accountability of man before his Creator?
:D

 

Duh! What do the degrees and positions held by these men have to do with evolutionary biology? Absolutely nothing!

They are no more qualified to teach creationism that than Darwin’s grammar school teachers.

Stephen A. Austin is NOT employed by “ANY university that is noted for academic excellence in the sciences or any other kind of a university. He is employed by the ICR institute and creationist websites fictitiously say they he is a Professor of geology.

Kenneth B. Cumming is NOT employed by “ANY university that is noted for academic excellence in the sciences or any other kind of a university. He is employed by the ICR institute and creationist websites fictitiously say they he is a Professor of geology. The academic world does not even know that this man is alive!

Donald B. DeYoung is NOT employed by “ANY university that is noted for academic excellence in the sciences or any other kind of a university. He is employed by Grace College in Indiana, A four-year Christian Liberal Arts college. And even creationist websites admit that his specialty is solid-state and nuclear science, as well as astronomy. What do his degrees have to do with evolutionary biology? Zero!

Robert H. Franks is NOT employed by “ANY university that is noted for academic excellence in the sciences or any other kind of a university.

Duane T. Gish has NEVER been employed as a professor of anything by ANY university that is noted for academic excellence in the sciences or any other kind of a university. In the academic world he is dismissed as having a lot of loose screws, and even the absence of some very important ones.

ANY website, atheist or otherwise, that willfully and knowingly exaggerates, distorts, and falsifies the academic accomplishments of it adherents and calls itself a “Christian” organization needs to re-think what it means to be a Christian. I certainly would not argue that the average evolutionary biologist is perfect, but I have NEVER seen one resort to such gross deception as the ICR.

Now it is you turn! Type in ALL the other names and see if you find a single man or woman who is employed as a professor at any university that is noted for academic excellence in the sciences. And remember that professorships in universities noted for academic excellence are very much more difficult to come by that research positions.

And please note that I did NOT hunt and pick! I started at the very top of the list that you provided and began working my way down the list till I was so sickened by the deception and deceit of the ICR that I could go no further.

 

Aren't we off topic from the OP here? :confused:

 

Funny, Craigbythesea is living in some kind of ivory tower himself. Obviously, a scientist HAS to be EMPLOYED by a university before he can be considered believable.

Believe ME, the scientists working for IBM, Intel, Biotech, and many, many other big companies put most university professors to shame.

Why in the WORLD, do they have to teach at a university to be considered a good scientist?

In my opinion, that is a quite ignorant theory considering the number of excellent scientists I personally know working in medical and other industries.

These are REAL WORLD scientists, and believe me, a good many of them do NOT believe in evolution. Probably a MUCH BIGGER ratio than those hidden away in their little universities that obtain their higher knowledge directly from Heaven itself. :rolleyes:

 

Back to the topic, I agree with what Mike said on another page, --way back.

No, belief in creation is not a prerequisite to salvation; HOWEVER, I would expect a growing Christian to begin to accept the ENTIRE Bible as the Word of God and not some fable.

 

I "accept" as much of the Bible as you do. The difference between us is that I understand it and you don't.