In anticipation of the movie opening of Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", this Friday, many atheists and humanists in the academia mafia and blogland are defending the sacred cow of Evolution. They are outraged, angered, and disgusted that such a movie is getting so much ballyhoo. What nerve people have to question the white coat wearing smug priests of today, Secular Scientists. French Philosopher and former Jesuit Priest, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, asserted, "that even if all the specific content of the evolutionary explanation of life were to be demolished, evolution would still have to be taken as our fundamental vision; defenders of evolution, must never let themselves be detected into secondary discussions of the scientific 'hows' and the metaphysical 'whys. The Vision of the Past, trans. J.M. Cohen (New York: Harper and Row, 1967), p. 123 (italics added). In other words, evolution says, "you dare not have any other gods in before me." Philosopher, W.T. Jones, a non-christian, said that scientists had "elevated Darwinism to the level of a religious dogma." It takes a lot of faith to believe in evolution which asserts everything you see in nature today came from nothing. As a Christian, I believe there is a God who created the universe. Evolution is a religion not science. Romans 1:22, 23 states, "Claiming to be wise, they [unbelievers] became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." (ESV).
9 comments:
Congratulations on your misunderstandings of Evolution, you only help the cause by showing how little you know. Evolution has nothing to do with where life began, it simply states that since that point, life has evolved into more complex forms.
If Evolution is indeed a religion, it has more evidence of where we come from than all religious texts ever written...combined.
"Evolution has nothing to do with where life began, it simply states that since that point, life has evolved into more complex forms."
Well then, why does it say in my son's Kingfisher Science Book begin, "About 44 billion years ago life perhaps began..."?
"If Evolution is indeed a religion, it has more evidence of where we come from than all religious texts ever written...combined."
That is to laugh, show me one shred of scientific, empirical evidence of this so-called "evidence" of where we came from. Go ahead, use the scientific method for such an assertion. And for you to make absurd statement that evolution has more evidence than all religious texts ever written...combined shows you've been asleep at the wheel of your studies. Have you studied ALL religious texts throughout history for you to make such a claim? This is the Atheist's dilemma: you need to have faith for your religion of evolution. And Time is your god. "Boys and girls, a long, long, long, long, long, long time ago, this frog turned into a prince."
I suggest you read New Scientist or a good text book on biology for an explanation of evolution. It might give you a grounding from which to base your arguments rather than religious rhetoric.
The fact is that that Darwin presented compelling evidence for evolution in On the Origin and, since his time, the case has become overwhelming. What is your argument against it anyway? Do you believe that evolution and religion are incompatible?
Mr. Horton, I appreciate your persistence.
YOU SAID, "The fact is that that Darwin presented compelling evidence for evolution in On the Origin and, since his time, the case has become overwhelming."
Wasn't it Charles Darwin who said, and I quote, ""The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory, is it then a science or faith?"
Let me give you a few mathematical arguments against evolution.
Here's a quote from a non-religious scientist, Dr. Sten Odenwald (so I won't be accused of "religious rhetoric). He said, "Scientists agree that the earth is slowing down 1 sec in speed every 100 years. Thus, the length of the day is increasing by 0.0015 seconds every century, of which about 0.0007 seconds per century has to do with the tidal breaking of the Moon. As a result of this, the Moon's orbit must also increase so that the Moon is slowly getting farther and farther from the Earth by a few centimeters per year or so." (http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/scienceques2004/20050318.htm Dr. Sten Odenwald. Dr. Odenwald is the Education and Public Outreach Manager for the IMAGE satellite project.)
Go back in evolutionary time and add 1sec to that speed. Let's hypothetically say, 100K years earlier. The Earth’s rotation would be so strong, nothing would stay on the planet! We’d spin off into space! Yes. There are factors as to speed of axis 100K years earlier and other variables, however, even at half a second, 200K years ago, it’s the same result.!
Secondly, there is what's called the UNIVERSAL PROBABITLY BOUND. Without boring our audience with 10th to the 80th power formulas and such, I advise you to look it up. Billions, even Millions of years are not supported mathematically!
Lastly, the probability of a monkey writing, with a stick on the seashore, a given string of text as long as, say, Hamlet, is so tiny that, were the experiment conducted, the chance of it actually occurring during a span of the theorized “billions of years” is minuscule to zero. ( I say minuscule so I won’t be so dogmatic…ha ha).
These are just a few rough mathematical equations that disprove evolution! Say you don’t like math.
Well, let’s take some examples from our human body and evolution. What about the male and female genitalia? How did the “early primates” mate with just half a genitalia if millions of years took place for this to be perfect for mating? How did animals survive or populate the earth over all this time? Did the male and female genitalia just “POP” into existence? And how did they know how to use their sex organs to mate and populate the earth? Then there’s the eye. Did the eye evolve first? Why two eyes? Why not three? Why not one behind our heads? Even Darwin asserted the complexity of the eye was too rich to have evolved on it's own… and so did the the Delusionist, Richard Dawkins. He admitted some sort of ET intelligence for the complexity of life!
You see, just in this small comment, by lil’ o me, Evolution is found to have many holes. You can’t prove any of the above gaps in evolution scientifically with empirical evidence. You, like me, must have faith! But UNlike you and me, I don’t have that much faith to think we all came randomly from nothing. And why is secular science the only field where NOthing can evolve into SOMEthing?
I posit a supernatural intelligent being that created everything we see today, and that is the Christian God.
I'll leave you with the last word. Thanks for visiting.
What does the speed of rotation of the earth have to do with evolution?
There are several criticisms of Dembski's theory. One is the brute force attack that he uses in his calculations that he uses. He bases the idea on cryptographic algorithms after all. Similarly the chance of life evolving to include humans is not one in however many billion but one. You and I are evidence of that.
What has monkey writing got to do with evolution? That's a completely different issue. Have you actually read the Origin of Species? Do you know the basic principles of the science?
As for genitalia you can observe (if you choose) that many animals have various means of reproduction. I'm certain that you could work out various evolutionary phases for their development if you looked into the theory a little... or even read a biology text book.
You can examine the evolution of the eye as well if you look into it (pun intended). A sense organ to detect changes in light and movement would be a distinct advantage in locating food and avoiding predators. It is no wonder that we developed and improved it.
Surely a designer wouldn't have been stupid enough to include a blind spot in our eyes. Squids eyes don't have them because they had a different evolutionary path to their eyes.
"why is secular science the only field where NOthing can evolve into SOMEthing?"
This just proves that you don't understand it. Evolution is the science of changing life, from one species to another. Not the origins of life. Read about the subject and study and you'll come to understand that.
You posit a supernatural creator. Fine. Prove it.
Thanks James. I'll leave you with the last point on the matter. In a future post, I'll attempt to "prove" a coherent argument for the existence of God. But just to note, the question should be to you, what would suffice as evidence to you? But again, that's for a later post. Thanks.
A genuine and provable miracle would be a good start.
Evidence of a miracle? What type of miracle? No matter what kind, wouldn't then that take some kind of empirical verification and evidence?
How would a materialist, naturalist measure a supernatural miracle? How would you confirm it's evidence? How would you know if it's not some kind of demon playing a trick on you? You would have to keep layering evidence upon evidence upon evidence. Just be honest, any evidence I lay down would not suffice for you.
You put yourself in a never-ending cycle of evidence. You see my friend, it's not a matter of evidence for you. For the Christian, it's obviously clear. The evidence for the Christian is God's own word. It's the only worldview that comports with reality and nature.
I pray that the Holy Spirit can reveal that you and that you come to the realization of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Why do you think that the evidence is lacking for the existence and worth of gods? We have servicable strategies for determining the veracity of evidence. No miracle stand up to it though. Therefore what is claimed without proof can be dismissed without proof.
Post a Comment