Want Some Answers ???Evolutionism
Thanks for writing. Could I comment on your letter? You wrote,
>>I, for one, argue for evolution. Others here also argue for evolution. I don't think that any of us argues for "atheistic evolution." I'm not even sure of what that is. I have never seen or heard "atheistic evolution" mentioned in any science class, book or paper on the subject. I have heard the term used by creationists from time to time, but it's their term. There is no such subject as atheistic evolution in academia.<<
Evolution is either atheistic or theistic. Atheistic evolution holds that evolution occurred without God and all natural events are explained without Him. Any attempt to explain life's origins with models where God is included is rejected. Theistic evolution holds that God created original matter and used or allowed evolution to create man. Modern evolutionists are swinging towards theistic evolution. Skeptic's have no concern whether God used evolution or not and their websites don't reflect any concern. The nature of their comments is that all things can be explained naturally without God. And they don't seem to know which form of evolution to support. Eg you wrote,
>>The articles and letters on our site that deal with evolution are in response to attacks on it by a small but vocal minority who either do not understand the theory or reject it because it does not fit a particular religious viewpoint that everything in the bible must be taken literally.<<
Sceptics are not theologians and have no expertise in determining what's literal or figurative Scripture. Yes, theologians are not scientists, but there are scientists who are Christians. And evolution is not universally accepted. Many highly qualified scientists today reject evolution. In the USA alone, it's conservatively estimated that there are upwards of 10,000 professional scientists [the vast majority not officially linked to creation organizations] who believe in biblical creation. The SFN mock any literal interpretation of scripture [ie http://www.skepticfriends.org/badfruit.html by Tommy and Dawn "SFN staff"]. Obviously, Skeptics argue atheistic evolution against literal Creation.
>>Our site isn't about atheism. I am not an atheist and to the best of my knowledge neither are most of the other staff members. I agree with you. I also think its impossible to disprove God, so I make no attempt do that. There are no articles on our site written with the intention of disprovingthe existence of God. That is not what we are about.<<
Then consider theistic evolution. If God used evolution then that denies the central teachings of the Bible. The Bible teaches the creation of the species, not their evolution. They were created to reproduce "after their kind", not to evolve to some higher form. The Bible would lose its authoritative binding truths and reinterpreted for every era and situation. God then, is not the author of Scripture for it becomes a collection of human mythical documents. And death, killing and suffering, eg become an essential prerequisite for evolution. Death becomes an invention of evolution. 'Death' [in contradiction to the Bible] would exist before mans fall into sin [Gen.3:17-19]. So we find evolution incompatible with Scripture. Your website has nothing to do with proving God used evolution. You comment,
>>The Theory of Evolution is supported by a mountain of evidence. And yes, evolution is a theory. But in science, a theory is about as close to a fact as you are going to get. The Theory of Evolution has withstood every test and attack for over 100 years.<<
The Bible "has withstood every test and attack for over" 2000 years and remains credible. But Darwinian evolution is not "supported by a mountain of evidence" and the 'facts do not speak for themselves. They are 'read in the light of the theory'. 'Scientists who accept evolution are prepared to bend their observations to fit in with it. It remains an unproven hypothesis in the laboratories of science and utterly destitute of proof'. If you have no facts you have no right to form a theory. True science must be based on facts. Speculation without facts is not scientific. The powerful 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a serious obstacle for naturalistic evolution. Evolution is a theory with BIG problems, that's not just a 'literal' Bible view, but scientific view. There are experienced and intelligent scientists who find all forms of evolution exceedingly unsatisfactory in providing a credible explanation for the origin of the cosmos - based on the known facts and physical laws. Note these 6 quotes from evolutionists below -
 (Dr L.Watson Science Digest, vol.90 May 1982 p.44) "The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!"
 (J.Reader. (Missing Links New Scientist 26 March1981 p.802). "The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by two factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits. First, the fossils hint at the ancestry of a supremely self-important animal - ourselves. Secondly, the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present"
 (Prof.H.S. Lipson FRS Physics, Univ. of Manchester). He wrote, "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it. It remains an unproven hypothesis in the laboratories of science and utterly destitute of proof". [A Physicist looks at evolution' Physics Bulletin vol.31 1980 p.138].
 (S.J Gould) "Facts do not speak for themselves; they are read in the light of the theory" [Ever Since Darwin. Burnett Books 78 p.161-162]. "We are not just evolving slowly. For all practical purposes we're not evolving. There's no reason to think we're going to get bigger brains or smaller toes or whatever - we are what we are" [John's Lofton's Journal' Washington Times Feb.8 1984]
 (Dr Colin Patterson Palaeontologist Museum London Master Books USA 1984 p.89) "Its easy to construct stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test".
 (Dawkins) "The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer" [Necessity of Darwinism. New Scientist vol.94 15April82 p.130]. And - "We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance" [Blindwatch Marker p.43].
Skeptics know nothing of the evidence contrary to evolution because they hate and mock the bible so much. Their minds are closed. As yet, 'evolutionism has not produced a scientifically credible explanation for the origin of such immense complexities as DNA, the human brain and many elements of the cosmos'.
>>The vast majority of biologists consider it the cornerstone of their science. Evolution is the favored theory, again, of the vast majority of geologists, anthropologists, paleontologists and more. Many of those scientists believe there is a God and, because they do not take the narrow view, have no problem with evolution.<<
I can quote evolutionary "geologists, anthropologists, palaeontologists and more" who disagree and have problems with evolution. Botanist [evolutionist] N.H. Nilsson wrote, "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed". Dr.D.Raup Geology, "The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classics cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information" ['Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin' vol.50(1) Jan.1979 p.25]. "Evolution at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer" [D.Kitts Ph.D Zoology Univs. Oklahoma Palaeontology & Evolutionary Theory vol.28 Sept.1974 p.466]. Like I said, the theory of evolution is NOT a scientific proven theory or fact. If Sceptics honestly valuated the evidence they would KNOW this.
>>There are no articles on our site that mock the bible. If you are referring to "The Bibles Bad Fruit" essay, than you have mis-understood it. The idea is to show how you can take a phrase out of context and give it a new meaning that has nothing to do with the authors intended meaning. "Bad Fruit" is a demonstration of a ploy often used by "Creation Scientists" to add an appearance of scientific credibility to their incredible claims.<<
It's amazing how Sceptics think they understand and read the Bible more correctly than theologians. Amazing how they select verses and take them "out of context" and suggest the Bible says something many readers know it doesn't. If you people are so clever at that, why aren't you equally clever at examining evolution? To interpret the Bible, you use a problematic unproven theory that changes like the wind. But your desire to level "Creation Scientists" reveals a bias and ignores the shambles of evolution. Creationists teach, "A reptile can only produce a reptile, a horse can only produce a horse, and a monkey can only produce a monkey, never a man". That has more "credibility" than arguing for the missing links. Where are the missing links David?
I mentioned a list that shows atheistic evolutionary theory is a mess and atheism is essentially a religion based on blind faith. Yet remarkably contrary to your theistic evolutionary belief you respond -
>>the above list is silly. Unless you use the bible as evidence for the accuracy of the bible, which is not logical, your list fails. For example, outside of the bible, there is no evidence for the resurrection of Christ.<<
There's more information about "Christ" than all evolutionary books combined. Try Ignatius (AD.30-107) Epistle to Ephesians ch.11 or Clement to the Corinthians ch.24 (AD.57) etc. Too much 'evidence for the resurrection of Christ" to mention here, but you are NOT interested of course, the event changed the Roman Empire.
>>And just why would all the prophesies need to be disproved? It seems to me that disproving any one of them, to a literalist, should do the job.<<
There's 330 prophesies in the OT fulfilled in the NT. All fulfilled literally in one person within a few years, most in one day. Those who set out to disprove them usually become Christians. If an atheist could disprove all the prophesies in the Bible, he could prove conclusively it's a fraud.
>>But really, I do not care to mess with your religion. I have no investment in changing your religious beliefs. I will, however, continue to defend the teaching of science, and not religion, in science classrooms.<<
Don't worry about messing with religion, just prove evolution is plausible. Dr Durant taught in the classroom at University Swansea Wales that, "The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research leading to distortion, to needless controversy, and to the gross misuse of science" [How Evolution became a scientific myth' New Scientist 11 Sept. 1980 p.765]. Dr Laing [Geologist] taught - "For nearly 30 years working with recent geological graduates, I have to teach each one to forget the theories he was taught, just observe what is actually there and record it" [The Aust. Geolo, Newsletter no.48 19March 1984 p.7]. Why is that? Because "In any case, no evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation" [M.Ridley [Zoologist Oxford Univ.] New Scientist vol.90 25June 1981 p.831].
Senior Lecturer in Anthropology Syn Univ. taught, "One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip service to Darwinian Theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator from yet another area of material phenomena and not because it has been paradigmatic in establishing the canons of research in the life sciences and the earth sciences". [Evolved or not, that's the question' Quadrant Oct. 1981 p.45].
We don't see evolution happening. Every living thing contains a program [eg.DNA - information written on a long molecule]. Even the simplest-known one-celled creatures are mind-bogglingly complex but they never accidentally have an increase of information. That is, a coding for new structures, functions, greater complexity. Changes we do see don't involve increasing information but a decrease. How long do you think it would take DNA 'Data' to randomly fall in to place for it to function? You see, the origin of the genetic code is another baffling aspect for evolution; there are no laboratory models. Yet for evolution to occur it requires an increase of information to the DNA.
I have never read of any debate on Sceptic websites about evolution. There are many qualified scientists able to dissect the errors in evolutionary theory, yet I have never read one article on the bankrupt nature of evolution, not one! Yet the evidence against evolution is colossal and persuasive. In fact, why is evidence against evolution so rigorously excluded? Has anyone of your 'Friends' read the books I mentioned? I think not! Otherwise the Sceptics would not give such a fraudulent deceptive theory such credibility. Surely the Sceptics purse truth in other matters, why not regarding evolution?
David's Response to the above -
Nice of you to write. No need to reply if you're too busy, Tommy indicated "some are busy professionals". And it appears you have little further to add to the discussions.
>>O.K. I admit it. I'm part of the atheist/evolutionism conspiracy! All the those so called "people of faith" who know that evolution happens are closet atheists. How do I know? Most of them told me so. Bra hahahahahahaha...David<<
You a 'professional', ha ha. You mention 'conspiracy'. Soren Lovtrup wrote, "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of the world" [Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, Croom Helm NY 1987 p.422]. Malcolm Muggeridge wrote, "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has" [Pascal Lectures University of Waterloo Canada]. Having read what the followers of Darwin overlook, distort and mislead, the word 'conspiracy' is frightfully actuate. I would not have believed people could be so determined to prove something true, when there's no evidence.
Get one of those books I mentioned and read it. I'm finding the whole thing a very interesting study, but it's fill of people along the way who are easily fooled. Sceptics should be leading the way on this subject, rather than rubbishing those who recognize the fraud. But I guess, you people have a problem - you don't like Christians - you think they are funny and all they say is nonsense. Unfortunately that stops you from thinking.
Evolution and atheism go hand in hand and those 'so called people of faith who know that evolution happens' are not atheists but religious people who say Genesis 1-11 is either allegory, poetry, myth, or not true.
G, Chesterton wrote, "The world does not explain itself.. it is absurd for the evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admitted unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything" [Chesterton: A Seer of Science quoted by Hodgson National Review Jun.1987].
Evolutionist Sharon Begley, "So heated is the debate that one Darwinian says there are times when he thinks about going into a field with more intellectual honesty: the used-car business" [Science Contra Darwin. Newsweek Ap.8 1985 p.80]