Want Some Answers ???Evolutionism
Hi David, You wrote,
>>Firstly, with regard to Evolution vs Creation. Yes, I cheerfully admit that there are scientists who dismiss the theory of non-theistic evolution. However, those who reject evolution altogether are very much in the minority. The majority of scientists - including some of those mentioned in your latest list of books - are debating HOW and WHY evolution occurs, not WHETHER it occurs. You've mentioned Fred Hoyle. As I understand his theories, Hoyle believed that life *evolved* in some other part of the universe and somehow travelled to Earth, where it then continued to *evolve*.<<
And I cheerfully admit the majority of scientists don’t know the truth about evolution. If the theory is true, where is the evidence? Yes Hoyle popularized ‘panspermia’, but “eventually came to realize that is woefully inadequate as a materialistic explanation of life’s origin”. He also coined the term ‘big bang’ but came to reject that as “preposterous” [p.6 ‘Big Bang Critic Dies’ G.Demme TJ vol.15(3) 2001]. But he is not a Biblical creationist or even a Christian yet he writes,
“…one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the out-come of intelligent design….problems of order, such as the sequences of amino acids in the chains….are precisely the problems that become easy once a directed intelligence enters the picture” [p.27-28 Evolution from Space].
So we agree, scientists do reject evolution on scientific grounds. It’s correct many scientists believe it (because they don’t research the matter). But we should remember that scientific principles are not established by belief or the majority vote. Even those who accept evolution, in many cases, do so not because of the actual scientific evidence (with which even most scientists are only superficially familiar), but because they have been intimidated by the myth that all scientists accept evolution! Scientists are only people, they hold a variety of views, some will refuse to listen, some have no comment, but others have rejected it.
I no longer believe mainstream scientists who are evolutionary are solidly based. More scientists have changing views about evolution. There have been so many times in the past when men got science wrong. Eg. “Alchemy” for years was believed to be science yet it was not true. A scientist then, is not one who has a possession of knowledge of irrefutable truth. What makes a good scientist is his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth.
>>Incidentally, I still question whether all the authors you've cited can really be described as "scientists", let alone "highly qualified" ones - Norman Macbeth is another lawyer, while Francis Hitching is a New-Age type who believes in UFOs, ESP, etc.<<
Well, Sir Fredrick Holye [“famous British astronomer”] is “highly qualified”. So is C.Wickramasinghe [one of “England’s leading scientists”] he worked independently of Hoyle and came to the same conclusion that life couldn’t “evolve”. Pro.R. L Wysong is “highly qualified” and Dr. Cohen – Engineer - Mathematician - Researcher - Author - Member of the New York Academy of Sciences - Officer of the Archaeological Institute of USA. And even Macbeth received his PhD from Harvard Law School (made evolution his life’s study). But if you want a “highly qualified” list, consider these -
“In the Beginning was Information”..... Dr. Werner Gitt.
"The Young Earth"..... Dr.J.D Morris.
"In the Minds of Men; Darwin and the New World Order"...... Pro.I.T.Taylor.
"The Fossil Evidence"..... Dr.G.Parker
"Evolution: the fossils STILL say NO!"...... Dr. D.T. Gish.
"Darwin on Trial"..... Dr. P.E. Johnson.
Dr Arthur Wilder-Smith - co-author over 70 scientific publ. & 30 books.
“Scientific Theology”..... Dr. P. Giem
“Refuting evolution”.... Dr.J.D Sarfrti.
“Those Gaps in the Sedimentary Lawyers”...... Dr. A.A Roth
Dr George Javor - published over 40 papers biochemistry.
Dr S. Grocott published over 30 research papers
“Evolution Debate”...... Dr. A. Mcintosh
“Orthondontic Intervention: A view from prehistory” .....Dr. J Cuozzo.
Dr S.Taylor – 80 scientific papers
“ Case for Creation”...... Dr. W. Frair
“Journal of Chemical Physics”..... Dr D.B. Deyoung
“In the Beginning God Created”..... Dr.J.H. Peet.
“Icons of Evolution”..... Dr. J.Wells
(See also). All earned qualifications from “real universities”. Dawkins said, “it pays to look closely at the institutions that awarded them and the subjects in which they were taken”. He said, they “earned not at real universities, but at little-known Bible colleges deep in Bush country”. So why not check if he’s telling the truth? Because if he thinks non-evolution scientists are idiots, and ignoring reality.
Yes Macbeth is an Attorney. But as I said, he’s “thoroughly conversant with evolution” and not religious. He exposes evolution fallacies just as a lawyer exposes a fraud in court. He gained valuable insights by attending the private monthly meetings of experts at NY's American Museum of Natural History. You would be surprised how freely experts acknowledge problems with evolution, at least in private meetings. Macbeth is amazed that this information is not filtering down to the second and third echelons with textbook writers and professors. He claims, “…any fool can see that evolution died years ago.” And he’s highly recommended by Dr E.O. Wiley. Ichthyologist American Museum of Natural History & now University of Kansas. (‘Systematic Zoology”. 24(2): 270 (1975).
Perhaps Hitching believes in “UFO’s and ESP” as you claim, after all he’s not a creationist. But like I said he’s “thoroughly conversant with evolution” He writes,
“But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don’t exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn’t, or might be, transitional between this group or that.” Hitching, p.19.
“The amino acids must link together to form proteins, and the other chemicals must join up to make nucleic acids, including the vital DNA. The seemingly insurmountable obstacle is the way the two reactions are inseparably linked—one can’t happen without the other. Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein.” Hitching, p.66. Do you disagree with his scientific appraisal?
>>Secondly, the abortion issue. You didn't directly answer my query about whether aborted foetuses go to Heaven or Hell (or neither). Are you willing/able to answer that question?<<
So if I say, they 'go to heaven' you say ‘isn't that good?’ You wrote, “then isn’t this a good thing” that they die and go “to heaven”. I can hardly believe anyone in their right mind would say that. There's no justification to kill anyone just because you (or I) think they will "go to heaven”. That’s the problem with humanism – man's self-determination has more value than life. Abortion today is grounded in humanism and evolutionism. You replied -
>>Do you deny that abortion existed before Darwin, or before the era of organised Humanism? Incidentally, what is your comment on God's magical infertility potion mentioned in Numbers 5:20-27? Might this not have induced an abortion in a pregnant woman?<<
Atheistic Evolution encourages the killing of innocent, defenseless, human babies – not the Bible. Number 5:20-27 doesn’t refer to “abortion” (see context - vs.1-31). It's an example of what happened under the Law with adultery. See verse 6.
Although abortion did not originate with evolution, it follows logically from it. No doubt some evolutionists might opposed it, but from an evolution perspective it’s easily justified, rationalized, or tolerated (Like stealing, rape etc). Evolution justifies evil behavior with seeming scientific credibility. From the viewpoint of atheistic evolution, humans are only animals. We kill spare cats, why not kill spare kids? If there's no God, no ultimate authority, and nothings really wrong or right, murder is a matter of circumstance and opinion. The opposite to Christianity. A false understanding of our origins has subtle, far-reaching, and profound consequences.
Calling an unborn child a “foetus” is dehumanising. Nor should we speak of “terminating a pregnancy.” That's just a euphemism for killing a young human. Unborn children are human.
Some evolutionists even try to explain rape as a consequence of evolution. Professors Randy Thornhill & Craig T. Palmer in, "A Natural History of Rape: Biological Basis of Sexual Coercion" (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2000) says rape exists because of evolution. These authors claim rapists, on average, have more children than other men, they have greater “reproductive success.” So after millions of years, rapist tendencies have spread throughout the human population. “Good,” according to evolution theory, is that which enhances “reproductive success”; “good” has nothing to do with morality. The fields of evolutionary psychology and socio-biology, taught in many universities, popularize and legitimize such ideas. You wrote,
>>Did you attend our abortion debate at Auckland University in 1999? You may be interested to read the case that was put forward at that debate by our Honorary Associate, Dr Zoe During: http://www.nzarh.org.nz/journal/spring99.htm#ARTICLE4 <<
No but I read that article “Is Abortion Justifiable? And of course atheistic ‘ Zoe During’ argues yes we must have abortion “without shame”. According to her abortion is ‘justifiable killing’ after all, babies are not yet “human” and “personhood” has not begun. She writes, “No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child into the world” So according to her – lets kill them. How about that!! Murder based on evolutionism, your "Honorary Associate" loves to kill.
The truth is the unborn baby is alive from the moment of fertilization – a unique human being. But if no one knows when full humanness is attained. Disagree? Then we cannot prevent a Satan-worshipping neighbor, who believes that full humanness begins at the age of two, from sacrificing his one-and-a-half-year-old son to Satan. After all, who knows when life begins?
Obviously, the creator of a complex machine can best provide its operating instructions. Likewise, only our Creator has the authority and ability to establish timeless, moral absolutes. And He says don’t murder. You replied,
>>Well, the Bible may *assert* that God said this, but proving that is another matter. Actually in the Old Testament, God spends a good deal of time getting His servants (Moses, Joshua, etc.) to murder men, women, and children (Exodus 32:27; Numbers 31:17; Joshua 10; and elsewhere). Would you "smash a baby against a rock" (Psa 137:9) if God commanded you to do so? Or is "murder" commuted to "justifiable homicide" when God commands it?<<
The Bible “asserts” clearly - "You shall not murder” [Ex. 20:13]. But we can prove anything from the Bible (and any book) by quoting selectively and remain ignorant of God and Bible. The Bible has no declarations to excite anyone to commit acts of cruelty and barbarity; even praying for the destruction of our enemies is out of the question.
Ancient warfare was cruelly waged against the next generation by destroying babies (cf Hos.10:14 13:16) it's what they did to Judah. So Psalm 137 mirrors the Babylonian atrocities against Jerusalem, not vindictiveness. Or is it alright for atrocities to be committed without response? The ancient laws of nations were not based on Christianity. But take God serious when He indicates His anger with the nations. Noah’s flood indicates He has already judged the world once, and this explains the fossil evidence better than the so-called, ‘millions of years’.
Those verses you list don’t change the fact that God is the author and supporter of life. And has a right to dispose of it when and how He thinks proper and as Judge of all the earth can do nothing but what's right. How unlike humanists who encourage murder without reason? But how can you accuse God of encouraging “murder” if you openly encourage a system of killing of the innocent, sick and “unwanted” without any end or any reason?
>>Nearly every Christian with whom I've had "dialogue" has told me that his particular church offers the only "true Christian perspective", and all other churches are not to be taken seriously. (Some of these Christians are not anti-abortion, come to think of it.)<<
Well, humanism certainly can’t “offer the only true perspective” it can’t offer anything “to be taken seriously”. If nothings right or wrong [and no ultimate truth] then nothing can be known.
Come to think of it, if ‘all ideals are equal’ and ‘your opinion is as good as mine’ [classic humanism] why ‘attack’ those who believe life is valuable? Why criticize scientists who reject evolution? If nothings right and wrong, what’s the problem?
>>By the way, are you a member of the Calvary Chapel, which sponsored the Ray Comfort debate? Thank you again for your time in answering my questions. Sincerely, David<<
No, not a member. Hope this helps bringing you closer to the truth. Regards
[Dwight Eisenhower] "It takes no brains to be an atheist. Any stupid person can deny the existence of a supernatural power because man's physical senses cannot detect it. But there cannot be ignored the influence of conscience, the respect we feel for the Moral Law, the mystery of first life….or the marvellous order in which the universe moves about us on this earth. All these evidence the handiwork of the beneficent Deity... That Deity is the God of the Bible and Jesus Christ, His Son."