Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Dear Michael,
I seriously hope for a positive outcome on your medical tests. Keep us posted.
Since this thread is slowly dying, I occasionally glance at it, but as I touch on below, I question the value of investing a lot of time in it.
I wonder if Stuu and noguru might be encouraged to move on to other forums, like The Barbarian was. Getting kinda lonely in the atheist bleachers here.
It is not uncommon for someone (me) to hold some important views diametrically opposed to views others (you) have. In spite of those differences, being courteous and cordial in conversations is still possible, and even more likely to be productive than relying on antagonism. You clearly value people’s friendship, even to the extent of cultivating friendship with those of us who are not believers in your theology. I commend you for that, but at the same time, I feel frustrated that you are unwilling to seriously look at our opposing views.
Specifically, several times you have said you have neither the time (nor the interest) to invest an hour or two in attentively watching videos that show why specific ideas in creationism are erroneous, or to read scientific articles and studies. Yet periodically you post laundry lists (culled from creationist sites) of claims against evolution and old earth science and then ask for our opinions on them. You have exactly the same number of minutes in your days that each of us has in our days. In my case, I have read your Bible, multiple times, as well as numerous commentaries by Christian academics. But all-in-all, I spend a distinctly higher portion of my time studying science – learning the way the world really works. I wish you too would spend some serious time looking at opposing views.
You seem a bit sensitive when the common label of “Mother Nature” is used to describe the totality of the way nature is seen to operate. Does the allusion to “Mother” nature, in your mind, obviate God? Just remember that “Mother Nature” simply anthropomorphizes the way the universe works, and if your God is real, then it would simply refer to the physical creation God made.
Anyway, I could comment on each itemized creationist claim your listed, but it would be vastly more productive for you to actually acquaint yourself with the scientific side of each argument, then, armed with information on both sides of the claims, if you are honestly interested in truth, you will see which side accepts the evidence as seen in nature. Your track record in this thread all too often has been to simply dismiss explanations that you don’t want to accept. Not much use in me carefully explaining things that you will immediately trash.
Interplanner
Well-known member
BJDavis,
when I read your comment that you had read the Bible several times, it made me think of Lyell's operating principle that he would only evaluate processes he could see. It seems like a plausible way to procede until you realize that the person writing Genesis was writing something that could have been seen had those people written (some did), but that Lyell would not have known what to do with what was happening in front of him. The problem is he had already declared his intention: to get rid of Moses. The reason you would do that would be some other issue with Moses. It wouldn't be an issue with the recorded physical events as such.
The account is reality-based and even sounds 'modern' by comparison with several of the other parallel ones. While it has its unusual features, it also has its unnecessary reality-based ones for which there is no progress in the account, but simply to anchor it in reality: names of rivers, details about the climate, locations of special metals, etc.
You may have noticed how many of our key scientific changes have come from post-American-Independence Britain. In geology, that's Hutton trying to put down Buckland. Followed by Lyell and Darwin, followed finally by the president of Harvard in the US selecting a law department head with one critical criterion: that Origin of Species replace Genesis. Yes, for law.
If you know what the American Revolution was about, in terms of the scope and size of government, you have your answer as to why this push came from England. There would be no military answer to the American minimization of government, so British intellectuals were needed to undercut the fundamental principle in the American system: the direct connection between God and the indivdual. In short, God had to be killed, or deleted, or unthinkable. That is why science went in the direction it did. To attack minimal government. This is much more the British post-revolutionary agenda than strict theology. In fact, T. Payne tried to attack theology as such and was countered by a scholar on the Jewish War as predicted 40 years in advance by Christ, who toured England and pretty much hushed Payne in defeat.
As you may have noticed, it took on a religious & fundamentalist tone. Our dilemma today is not separation of church and state but separation of anti-church and state. But I do mean that much of the science is just as pushy as a religion. The extreme improbability of the suitability of earth in its celestial and chemical context. The kinds of censorship over 'issues' that come up: thousands of mammoths in the north, the size of Monterey canyon, catastrophist geologists in general, gaps in the Grand Canyon 'schedule' of time of as much as 267M years, the lateral transfer of massive amounts of sedimentation, bulldozing as it goes and therefore anti-uniformitarian, the 'how things look after millions of years' test which many, many items do not pass.
What is the first item, according to A. Mayor in THE FIRST FOSSIL HUNTERS, about which people found evidence demanding a story in explanation? Marine fossils and seashells way inland and at the tops of mountains. Evidence of global deluge and recent creation.
I suggest the British post-Independence intelligentsia was much more of a stooge for centralized, Royal-Imperial government than anything else.
Dear All,
Thanks for posting here even after I'd gone. I've come back to try once again to monitor this thread. You've kept it alive and I am flabbergasted at what you've all done here. Some other friends have asked me to stay, so I'm going to.
May God Bless All Of Your Souls!!
Michael
Thanks for posting here even after I'd gone. I've come back to try once again to monitor this thread. You've kept it alive and I am flabbergasted at what you've all done here. Some other friends have asked me to stay, so I'm going to.
May God Bless All Of Your Souls!!
Michael
Dear DavisBJ,
Hey Buddy!! I'm back to give it another try. You've all kept this thread going!! That is commendable indeed!! What do you mean that this thread is slowly dying??!! Don't you see all of the posts here?? It just has some good, different members. Sure, it hasn't been barraged like before, but that could happen again easily at any given time. And it has enough atheists and agnostics here, so no problem. Why should I go spend a lot of time with Christians who don't need my help to lead them to Jesus when they've already found Him?? Instead I am with those who don't know Jesus and God well, and so I go on.
I do hope to see Stuart and noguru here soon. I regret that they are banned and hope it won't be for much longer. Maybe we could appeal to Knight to pardon them this time? It's been so long already and I miss them. Davis, I am going to get a CAT Scan this Monday to see if the cancer has spread to my lungs. There is no telling where it has spread to. This Scan costs a lot of money and I have to pay a hefty copay. I am not too thrilled about that. But I have pulled the money out of savings and will get it done after all. I will let you know what happens. I care about people and I love them. That is me, DavisBJ!! Well, I'll chat with you more soon. It's getting late. In A Bit!!
Michael
Last edited:
Dear alwight,
Hi Dude!! I hope that ALL is going well with you these days!! I got talked into coming back here by some thoughtful friends here on another thread that I had written. I never got to see my birthday thread. I went back to the immediate archives and couldn't find it. I didn't know the name of it. I'm so thankful that someone gave me a birthday thread!! Everyone here is so nice and good. I'm going to give it another try here. My bank reimbursed me for most of the money stolen from my bank card and gave me a new bank card with a different number on it so that they can't steal more money away from me. The other card is void now. It gives me some hope about online banking still. Well, I should get going. It's almost 4am here. You take good care of yourself and will talk soon!!
Cheerio, Matey!!
Michael
Hi Dude!! I hope that ALL is going well with you these days!! I got talked into coming back here by some thoughtful friends here on another thread that I had written. I never got to see my birthday thread. I went back to the immediate archives and couldn't find it. I didn't know the name of it. I'm so thankful that someone gave me a birthday thread!! Everyone here is so nice and good. I'm going to give it another try here. My bank reimbursed me for most of the money stolen from my bank card and gave me a new bank card with a different number on it so that they can't steal more money away from me. The other card is void now. It gives me some hope about online banking still. Well, I should get going. It's almost 4am here. You take good care of yourself and will talk soon!!
Cheerio, Matey!!
Michael
Dear patrick jane,
I'm so sorry about the other day!! I wish you would not have stayed awake so long that night. I see someone named Arsenios, so you were right. You've got to admit it that I thought you called me an arse. I was quite appalled when I read it and went off the handle. It won't happen again. I do hope you will accept my apologies and forgive me. I just was quite upset at it all. And now I know that Steko donates his time to a Jail. Just misunderstandings is all. Hope to hear from you soon!!
May Jesus Urge You To Forgive Me And Open Your Heart!!
Michael
I'm so sorry about the other day!! I wish you would not have stayed awake so long that night. I see someone named Arsenios, so you were right. You've got to admit it that I thought you called me an arse. I was quite appalled when I read it and went off the handle. It won't happen again. I do hope you will accept my apologies and forgive me. I just was quite upset at it all. And now I know that Steko donates his time to a Jail. Just misunderstandings is all. Hope to hear from you soon!!
May Jesus Urge You To Forgive Me And Open Your Heart!!
Michael
alwight
New member
Click on the link Michael
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113563
I'm glad you got some money back.
Click on the link Michael
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113563
I'm glad you got some money back.
Dear alwight,
You're awesome!! Thanks for showing that to me. I had no idea. I feel so LOVED!! I could almost start crying. I don't cry, usually. God has wiped my tears away years ago. It takes a lot to make me cry. I've been through a lot!! I just had to thank everyone who participated on my Birthday, so that is why I made a special thread to thank them. Did you see that CAKE!! Marvelous!! Yummy!! It looks absolutely delicious!! You made my week, Al!!
I'm glad I decided to come back on TOL!! Otherwise, I would never have known!!
Much Appreciation To You!!
Michael
:cloud9: :cloud9: :cloud9: :angel: :angel: :angel:
Dear DavisBJ,
I have carefully read your post here and finally, I see what you are saying! You see, my God does not want me to bother reading evil things that are written against Him, but I read them so that I can respond. God wants me to eschew evil. Some science is evil. I know you don't understand this, but anything that says other than Him creating everything is heresy/evil. That is why I am the way I am. Still, I can see your point and you are right. I have read much about science in my life and I glean what I can from it that I can enjoy, like science about life and caterpillars, and jaguars, and all the different animals. That is part science. I also am interested in how meteorologists discover things about storms like tornadoes and hail, and snow and hurricanes. I am interested in many things that are scientific. Tons of things. It's just some things I cannot agree with about certain scientific issues. One of them is hearing that Science disagrees with My God. That I can't tolerate and won't. But, I will hear both sides and weigh it all in the balances to find out which is true. I am a Libra, after all. So that's how I am. It works out quite well for me weighing both sides and keeping an open mind. I see that you think man was created way before our Adam. I can see your point and if God tells me it is so when I see Him, I will believe it with no problem. It is not like I am a stick in the mud. If God says the Universe is tons older, then I will believe that also. But I can't just take your word for it or your cohorts {scientists} word for it. I have to hear it directly from God or I won't believe it. The same way that you are set in your ways to believe what you do. We both are staunch believers and advocates. But I do have an open mind if I hear it from the right Source. Then, I WILL believe it all. In the meantime, I will weigh what I hear from what you say, and consider each thing you say. I am willing to read a long article you have that you can post here, but I really don't want to watch an hour-long video, when I can probably read the article a lot faster. I can read 500 wpm. So it's quicker. I took a speed reading class in school and did very well there. Okay, I will close for now. This is lengthy and you probably don't want to read it all. I've got to tell you that I DO consider A LOT of what you say, and you don't realize it because I don't tell you so. So now I am telling you. I do analyze and read what you have to say to me. And yes, I love you. You are one of my brothers, because our God says that we are mutual descendants of Noah and his family. We are all family, regardless of our race. Nobody seems to consider this.
God Bless Your Soul, DavisBJ,
Michael
Dear TheDuke,
I posted an article. I did not write it. There is no way that I'm going to quote your reply and go back and forth from page to page each time I want to answer one or two sentences of the article at one time. That's not going to happen.
Best Wishes,
Michael
I posted an article. I did not write it. There is no way that I'm going to quote your reply and go back and forth from page to page each time I want to answer one or two sentences of the article at one time. That's not going to happen.
Best Wishes,
Michael
Creation vs. Evolution - A Question of Origins
The creation vs. evolution debate is a question of origins. How did we get here? Were we created or did we evolve randomly? Are we the product of purposeful intelligence or are we merely the end result of countless cosmic accidents? Does it even matter?
Creation vs. Evolution - Reason vs. Religion
The popular media often portrays the creation vs. evolution debate as science vs. religion, with creation being religious and evolution being scientific. Unfortunately, if you don't agree with this label, you too are labeled. Regardless of whether you're a creationist or an evolutionist, if you disagree with the stereotype, you're condemned and "exposed" as a religious fanatic who is secretly trying to pass religion off as science or, even worse, trying to disprove science in order to redeem a ridiculous, unscientific, religious worldview. The fact is neither model of origins has been established beyond a reasonable doubt (otherwise, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called the "theory" of evolution). Whether we like to admit it or not, those of us who subscribe to the theory of evolution do so by faith. And while the recognition of design in biology may have theological implications, it is not based upon religious premise - it's based upon empirical observation and logic.
Creation vs. Evolution - Why Does It Matter?
Why do we even squabble over creation vs. evolution? Does it really matter what we believe about where we came from? Absolutely. Our views on morality, justice, purpose, self-worth, humanity, obligation, and destination are all closely tied to our views on human origins. For example, without affirming or denying the veracity of evolution theory, let's take a moment to consider what the theory of evolution teaches about human origins and what impact this teaching has had upon human behavioral patterns.
Evolution teaches that as species evolve they eventually reach ideal population levels. As species advance, superior species eliminate inferior species -- "survival of the fittest." Weak and inferior members of a species should be eliminated for the preservation of superior bloodlines and for the conservation of essential resources. "Nature" doesn't desire "the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow." [1] "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows." [2] And as humans are merely a species of animal, we have no intrinsic value and are therefore by no means exempt from "the war of nature." Thus, we have Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) asking the rhetorical question, "should I not also have the right to eliminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin?" [3] Hitler, of course, is remembered for murdering more than 6,000,000 individual human beings, all of whom he deemed to be inferior members of the species. Was Hitler wrong? Did he misinterpret and misrepresent the theory he claimed to cherish so much? Apparently not. Renowned British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist Sir Arthur Keith (1866-1955), who was knighted in 1921, came to Hitler's defense, "Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions" [4] Keith reassured us, "The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." [5] Joseph Stalin (1879-1953), another ardent evolutionist, surpassed even Hitler in zeal, murdering at least ten times as many "inferiors" (estimates range from 60,000,000 to 100,000,000 people). Was Stalin wrong? What about Pol Pot? Well, not if you subscribe to the evolutionary worldview. In fact, to the philosophically consistent, uncompromised evolutionist, Hitler and Stalin ought to be considered role models.
And so we see how a worldview can impact human behavior. Here, we see murder, a most disapproved human behavior, not only condoned, but encouraged. So, does it matter what we believe about where we came from? Absolutely. However, even more important than what we believe to be true is what actually is true. Someone might not believe in gravity, for example. Nevertheless, if that person were to step off a tall building, that person would splat on the ground below, regardless of what they believed. And so, once again, we have the question: are we the product of purposeful intelligence or are we merely the end result of countless cosmic accidents? Don't rely on hearsay. Investigate the evidences for yourself.
Footnotes: 1. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1924, p. 286.
2. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 1859, p. 400.
3. Adolf Hitler, quoted in Joachim Fest's, Hitler, 1974, p. 679-680.
4. Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics, 1947, p. 14.
5. Ibid., p. 230.
The creation vs. evolution debate is a question of origins. How did we get here? Were we created or did we evolve randomly? Are we the product of purposeful intelligence or are we merely the end result of countless cosmic accidents? Does it even matter?
Creation vs. Evolution - Reason vs. Religion
The popular media often portrays the creation vs. evolution debate as science vs. religion, with creation being religious and evolution being scientific. Unfortunately, if you don't agree with this label, you too are labeled. Regardless of whether you're a creationist or an evolutionist, if you disagree with the stereotype, you're condemned and "exposed" as a religious fanatic who is secretly trying to pass religion off as science or, even worse, trying to disprove science in order to redeem a ridiculous, unscientific, religious worldview. The fact is neither model of origins has been established beyond a reasonable doubt (otherwise, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called the "theory" of evolution). Whether we like to admit it or not, those of us who subscribe to the theory of evolution do so by faith. And while the recognition of design in biology may have theological implications, it is not based upon religious premise - it's based upon empirical observation and logic.
Creation vs. Evolution - Why Does It Matter?
Why do we even squabble over creation vs. evolution? Does it really matter what we believe about where we came from? Absolutely. Our views on morality, justice, purpose, self-worth, humanity, obligation, and destination are all closely tied to our views on human origins. For example, without affirming or denying the veracity of evolution theory, let's take a moment to consider what the theory of evolution teaches about human origins and what impact this teaching has had upon human behavioral patterns.
Evolution teaches that as species evolve they eventually reach ideal population levels. As species advance, superior species eliminate inferior species -- "survival of the fittest." Weak and inferior members of a species should be eliminated for the preservation of superior bloodlines and for the conservation of essential resources. "Nature" doesn't desire "the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow." [1] "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows." [2] And as humans are merely a species of animal, we have no intrinsic value and are therefore by no means exempt from "the war of nature." Thus, we have Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) asking the rhetorical question, "should I not also have the right to eliminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin?" [3] Hitler, of course, is remembered for murdering more than 6,000,000 individual human beings, all of whom he deemed to be inferior members of the species. Was Hitler wrong? Did he misinterpret and misrepresent the theory he claimed to cherish so much? Apparently not. Renowned British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist Sir Arthur Keith (1866-1955), who was knighted in 1921, came to Hitler's defense, "Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions" [4] Keith reassured us, "The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." [5] Joseph Stalin (1879-1953), another ardent evolutionist, surpassed even Hitler in zeal, murdering at least ten times as many "inferiors" (estimates range from 60,000,000 to 100,000,000 people). Was Stalin wrong? What about Pol Pot? Well, not if you subscribe to the evolutionary worldview. In fact, to the philosophically consistent, uncompromised evolutionist, Hitler and Stalin ought to be considered role models.
And so we see how a worldview can impact human behavior. Here, we see murder, a most disapproved human behavior, not only condoned, but encouraged. So, does it matter what we believe about where we came from? Absolutely. However, even more important than what we believe to be true is what actually is true. Someone might not believe in gravity, for example. Nevertheless, if that person were to step off a tall building, that person would splat on the ground below, regardless of what they believed. And so, once again, we have the question: are we the product of purposeful intelligence or are we merely the end result of countless cosmic accidents? Don't rely on hearsay. Investigate the evidences for yourself.
Footnotes: 1. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1924, p. 286.
2. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 1859, p. 400.
3. Adolf Hitler, quoted in Joachim Fest's, Hitler, 1974, p. 679-680.
4. Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics, 1947, p. 14.
5. Ibid., p. 230.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Dear Interplanner,
It is from All About Philosophy. It doesn't give an author. Try typing All About Philosophy and see what happens. I have a Part 2 that I'm going to post in a bit.
Much Love To A Brother In Christ!!
Michael
:cloud9: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :guitar:
Dear gcthomas,
Hey Dude!! Good to see you post here! I just love it when you do. It's kind of rare!! Oh, I know that the theory doesn't depend upon what some dictators did. They were creepy dictators though, Hitler, Mussolini, and Pol Pot!! They killed a lot of Jewish and Christian people. It's tragic. Well, I'm going to post Part 2 of the article now. Glad to hear from you, buddy!!
Tons Of Love And Blessings,
Michael
:guitar: :singer: :cloud9: :cloud9: :angel: :angel:
Part 2
Creation vs. Evolution - A Question of Origins
The creation vs. evolution debate is a question of origins. How did we get here? Were we created or did we evolve randomly? Are we the product of purposeful intelligence or are we merely the end result of countless cosmic accidents? What does the evidence say?
Creation vs. Evolution - What Are We Looking For?
Without hard evidence, the creation vs. evolution debate wouldn't amount to much more than a philosophical grudge match. Everyone has their own opinion. The question is what is the basis for that opinion? You see, people can believe whatever they want, but that doesn't make them right. It's the hard evidence that separates the proverbial wheat from the chaff. Keep in mind that "evidence" is not the same as "proof". Evidence is helpful in forming conclusions, while proof concludes the matter altogether. If we had proof, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called a theory. So what constitutes evidence? What are we looking for?
Creation denotes the existence of a divine Creator who has exercised His creative abilities, creating this world and the life-forms we see. Life is the product of intelligent contrivance. Thus, apparent design in biology would constitute evidence for a Designer. It is a self-evident and universally recognized truth: concept and design require an intelligent designer. So, while recognizing design in biology is not based upon religious premise (but upon empirical observation and logic), it certainly has theological implications [1]. Do we find apparent design in biology? Yes. In fact, apparent design pervades the biologic realm [2, 3]. When we apply the general principles of detecting design to living creatures, we find it reasonable to infer the existence of a Creator.
Evolution stresses the naturalistic (random, undirected) descent of all living creatures from a common ancestor [4] who originally evolved from inorganic matter. Life is the product of random chance. What we need here is a plausible mechanism, feasibility, and a history of functionality. British naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) gave the evolutionary worldview scientific credence by supplying the much needed mechanism - "natural selection". That was 150 years ago. Today, we know that mechanism to be deficient, even in light of genetic mutation. With the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years we've been exposed to a whole new dimension in living systems that was previously unknown. Evolutionary biologists are now looking for a new mechanism, one that can overcome genetic constraints and other chemical-oriented barriers that have been identified in recent years. Until this mechanism is found, the theory of evolution (a theory which has enjoyed prominence in biological circles for over 100 years) simply lacks feasibility, and thus, credibility.
Creation vs. Evolution - Reason vs. Religion
The popular media often portrays the creation vs. evolution debate as science vs. religion, with creation being religious and evolution being scientific. In an ironic twist, it's the creationists who have a solid empirical basis for their theory, while the evolutionists are left clinging to their convictions by faith.
Is it reasonable to acknowledge a Creator? When challenged by skeptics to prove the existence of a Creator scientifically, Dr. Wernher von Braun, the "Father of the American Rocket and Space Program," replied, "Must we really light a candle to see the Sun? …The electron is materially inconceivable, and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airliners through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real, while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive of Him? …The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which always will lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction." [5] To simply dismiss the concept of a Creator as being unscientific is to "violate the very objectivity of science itself." [5] While we may not be able to comprehend knowledge of a Creator, we certainly can apprehend it.
Footnotes:
1. "Unlocking the Mystery of Life," documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.
2. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986.
3. Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 1996.
4. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 1859.
5. Originally published in Edward F. Blick's Special Creation vs. Evolution, 1988, pp. 29-31.
Creation vs. Evolution - A Question of Origins
The creation vs. evolution debate is a question of origins. How did we get here? Were we created or did we evolve randomly? Are we the product of purposeful intelligence or are we merely the end result of countless cosmic accidents? What does the evidence say?
Creation vs. Evolution - What Are We Looking For?
Without hard evidence, the creation vs. evolution debate wouldn't amount to much more than a philosophical grudge match. Everyone has their own opinion. The question is what is the basis for that opinion? You see, people can believe whatever they want, but that doesn't make them right. It's the hard evidence that separates the proverbial wheat from the chaff. Keep in mind that "evidence" is not the same as "proof". Evidence is helpful in forming conclusions, while proof concludes the matter altogether. If we had proof, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called a theory. So what constitutes evidence? What are we looking for?
Creation denotes the existence of a divine Creator who has exercised His creative abilities, creating this world and the life-forms we see. Life is the product of intelligent contrivance. Thus, apparent design in biology would constitute evidence for a Designer. It is a self-evident and universally recognized truth: concept and design require an intelligent designer. So, while recognizing design in biology is not based upon religious premise (but upon empirical observation and logic), it certainly has theological implications [1]. Do we find apparent design in biology? Yes. In fact, apparent design pervades the biologic realm [2, 3]. When we apply the general principles of detecting design to living creatures, we find it reasonable to infer the existence of a Creator.
Evolution stresses the naturalistic (random, undirected) descent of all living creatures from a common ancestor [4] who originally evolved from inorganic matter. Life is the product of random chance. What we need here is a plausible mechanism, feasibility, and a history of functionality. British naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) gave the evolutionary worldview scientific credence by supplying the much needed mechanism - "natural selection". That was 150 years ago. Today, we know that mechanism to be deficient, even in light of genetic mutation. With the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years we've been exposed to a whole new dimension in living systems that was previously unknown. Evolutionary biologists are now looking for a new mechanism, one that can overcome genetic constraints and other chemical-oriented barriers that have been identified in recent years. Until this mechanism is found, the theory of evolution (a theory which has enjoyed prominence in biological circles for over 100 years) simply lacks feasibility, and thus, credibility.
Creation vs. Evolution - Reason vs. Religion
The popular media often portrays the creation vs. evolution debate as science vs. religion, with creation being religious and evolution being scientific. In an ironic twist, it's the creationists who have a solid empirical basis for their theory, while the evolutionists are left clinging to their convictions by faith.
Is it reasonable to acknowledge a Creator? When challenged by skeptics to prove the existence of a Creator scientifically, Dr. Wernher von Braun, the "Father of the American Rocket and Space Program," replied, "Must we really light a candle to see the Sun? …The electron is materially inconceivable, and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airliners through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real, while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive of Him? …The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which always will lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction." [5] To simply dismiss the concept of a Creator as being unscientific is to "violate the very objectivity of science itself." [5] While we may not be able to comprehend knowledge of a Creator, we certainly can apprehend it.
Footnotes:
1. "Unlocking the Mystery of Life," documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.
2. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986.
3. Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 1996.
4. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 1859.
5. Originally published in Edward F. Blick's Special Creation vs. Evolution, 1988, pp. 29-31.
Dear patrick jane,
Hey, you might have noticed that I don't post in the Chatbox anymore. It's too easy to misunderstand or not have good communication sometimes. I may post rarely, but that's about it. I don't want you putting me on ignore because of some mistake. It happened twice. I'm not going to let it happen again.
Much Love For You, In Jesus Christ!!
Michael
:angel: :cloud9: :cloud9: :cloud9: :angel: :singer: :guitar:
Interplanner
Well-known member
It has to do with morality by default: if humans are just nature, guess what? Do you realize that Germany (the generation called 'young Germany') called itself true nature. That was German monism. There was only one reality: nature. Only Germany was "in."
"The planet will not survive the human species; that species must be destroyed." --environmentalist hijacker, Canada, 1993. People do awful things when life is wrested from its framework in the Judeo-Christian view.
Dear Interplanner,
Good to have you here, Mr. Faithful!! Germany, such a small country causing all of that turmoil and death! Killing Jews!! Terrible!! And little Italy too, with Mussolini!! And now the Arab states {some of them} want Israel's people to die again. And the U.S. isn't doing much to help them. We've ALWAYS been a staunch supporter of Israel and now, it is not going well at all. We need to speak up!! This Obama dude is or was a Muslim himself. That's what the heck is wrong. I can't believe I voted for him twice. But it's only been late in his second term in office that he is showing his true colors. He's letting tons of Syrian refugees in the country and I'm not bad, but they are going to take our jobs or our welfare and gov't. funding programs, like Medicare and Social Security. Who knows? I just hope he doesn't let in any sympathizers with those wanting to do away with the U.S. or Great Satan, as many call us. Let's hope for the best!! That it will have been a good idea taking in so many refugees.
God Be With You, Interplanner,
Michael
:angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :cloud9: :cloud9: :rapture:
- Status