Intelligent Design, Science & Religion

[The Barbarian]

On 3/13/2020 at 11:42 AM, XRose said:

'Catholics aren't the only Christians, and we aren't the only ones who will be saved.'  You must be joking! Is that what popey tells you! You haven't a cat in hell's chance of avoiding slaughter when Jesus returns and the second death on Judgment Day!   

Obviously, "Christian" has a different meaning for you than for other Christians.   And Jesus makes it very clear in Matthew 25, how He will judge who goes with Him and who goes with the devil and his angels.  And it's not belonging to the right church, or what you think of evolution.

On 3/13/2020 at 11:42 AM, XRose said:

Get  down on your knees in front of Ishtar and Tammuz

I thought you said you were Christian.   I never knew of a Christian who would do that.

 

[kwikphilly]

45 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I thought you said you were Christian.   I never knew of a Christian who would do that.

Blessings Barbarian

    They/we wouldn't......I'm sorry ,accept my apology for how you were spoken to

                                                                                                                                With love-in Christ,Kwik

Edited March 30, 2020 by kwikphilly
spelled name wrong

[The Barbarian]

I appreciate your kindness, but I'm pretty thick-skinned.  Please excuse my bluntness; it's something on which I'm trying to do better.

 

 

[Paul James]

On 8/25/2019 at 2:45 PM, one.opinion said:

You can certainly believe in a 6000 year old earth and a 144 hour creation period, however it is absolutely false to claim that one cannot accept both God’s Word and evolution. You can disagree with me, but you cannot tell me what I accept.

This is your opinion, but as someone that could be classified as a theistic evolutionist, my opinion differs completely. In the words of 19th century theologian, Charles Kingsley,

“Shall we quarrel with Science if she should show how those words (Darwin’s) are true? What, in one word, should we have to say but this?–We knew of old that God was so wise that He could make all things; but behold, He is so much wiser than even that, that He can make all things make themselves.”

My awe of the Lord’s beauty, power, and creativity is only enhanced by the complexity of the evolutionary process.

This is also largely untrue. I, and many of my colleagues, accept the theory of evolution AND the inerrancy of God’s Word.

Again, you may certainly disagree, but I suggest taking care with assertions that can easily be proven false.

Theistic evolution is atheistic evolution implanted into Genesis.  There is no difference between the two.   Jesus never believed in it, because He was the one who created the universe according to the Father's design, so He was there when He created it.  Therefore He is the only one who really knows, and if He did create the universe through evolution, He would have told us;  but He didn't.  Also, the Genesis account of the different stages of creation totally differs from the evolutionary account.  For instance, the earth was first created as a cold sphere totally surrounded by water, three days before the sun and stars were created.  By the 4th day, the earth was fully formed with plants and trees, before the rest of the universe was created.  And the rest of the universe was created by God saying, "let it be", and was spread out and formed into galaxies, stars and planets all in one 24 hour day.

Evolution tells us that man evolved from fish out of the primordial slime millions of years ago, and developed from ape to man over millions of years.  Genesis says that man was instantly created on the 6th day of creation, and woman was created some time later from Adam's rib.   

Without a literal Genesis, we wouldn't have a seven day week, or marriage between man and woman, nor would we have names for the animals because Adam named them.  That is significant, because evolution says that early man was small-brained and less intelligent, but the Bible says that Adam was intelligent and was able to give names for all the animals and creatures that he saw.  Also, early man had a system of handwriting, farming, and tools.  Adam and Eve were gardeners, and Cain and Abel were farmers.  Musical instruments were known from the earliest man.

Without a literal Genesis, we wouldn't have a fall, sin and death, and the need for a Saviour. That would mean that the gospel of Christ, including His death on the cross would have no meaning, and Christianity would be no more than just a system of religious self improvement, no different from the pagan religions of the world.

[Paul James]

On 3/30/2020 at 9:55 AM, A Christian 1985 said:

I am perturbed, flabbergasted, and disturbed by the continuing efforts of ignorant, misguided, and scripturally incorrect religious people to foist their misconceptions, under the guise of ‘scientific theories’ (creationism, intelligent design, etc.) upon the educational system. ANY school of thought which has ANY supernatural mechanisms as a means is inherently disqualified to be a scientific discipline. In addition to the obvious damage and hindrance to our educational curricula, these attempts are a huge misrepresentation of spiritual reality and Biblical truth; and are a tremendous disservice to God and His interests concerning the human race. Please objectively consider the enclosed information. May it finally put to rest the ‘red herring’ of an evolution/Genesis conflict. Should you find it to be of value, feel free to disseminate it as far and wide as you wish.

           

...The more famous subject of Darwin's uniformitarianism, usually termed  "evolution," comes to the front. This is always a controversial and emotional subject, and is usually discussed in a quasi‑scientific manner. ¹²⁸

 

Evolution was, in its conception, an applied extension to biology of the school of thought known as uniformitarianism. Evolution itself is a logical explanation of the information that it correlates, and the evidence of the appropriate scientific fields have consistently verified the mechanisms necessary for substantiating the validity of evolution. Evolution, while it is not a proven process in the strictest sense, is completely valid in its viability and is the only logical process (i.e., one amenable to scientific analysis) so tenable.

 

 Modern humanists, increasingly anti‑Genesis in outlook, were growing in numbers and in positions of importance, especially in academic circles. To Voltaire, for instance, any mention of the Flood was offensive; it implied too much of God, or of judgment, or of the Judeo‑Christian heritage. Despite evidence left by fossils and sedimentary strata, as well as literary heritages, a Biblical Flood was taboo to him, and to many others.

Voltaire was somewhat typical of the anti‑spiritual humanists of his day. He was thoroughly anti‑Christian and anti‑Judaistic. He felt that the burial of the Bible in general and the Genesis record in particular, would be a great service to mankind.¹³⁰

 

The human error in the promotion and promulgation of evolution was, and still is, of two aspects: Firstly, as we shall see later on in this chapter, the school of thought that gave rise to the theory of evolution­- Uniformitarianism‑ is totally in contradiction to scientific evidence. Uniformitarianism was founded on insufficient and incomplete data, and the motives for its adoption were more anti‑Genesis than they were pro‑scientific.

 

Evolution as a scientific discipline must be divorced from the associated parent philosophy “Uniformitarianism” which was in vogue preceding it for reasons which have been discredited since. Evolution is a valid scientific discipline, Uniformitarianism is a disproven philosophy and school of thought. Uniformitarianism has intruded and embedded itself into scientific thought and thus skewed many considerations of cosmology and astral physics from being objective and empirical. Never mind poor old Emmanuel Velikovsky: While the evidence that he was considering was and is relevant and valid, his derivations (due to his great lack in correct scientific methodology) and conclusions were far amiss. He thus did a great disservice to the school of astral catastrophism, and set back its credibility immensely.

The most recent conclusive disproof of Uniformitarianism is this(Coverage to the public was broadcast on a segment of Nova in 2004):

1. In the past decade (1990's) a radar/topological mapping satellite of improved precision surveyed the surface of Venus.

2. Recently formed (even of possibly historical times), non-eroded craters were found in large and significant quantities on the surface of Venus, craters which were not the result of volcanic activity, but of astral catastrophism (meteoric impact).

3. When a renowned (I didn’t take note of his name, due to the following) uniformitarian astrophysicist was interviewed for his opinion he said: “Well, I don’t see how Uniformitarianism can ever possibly explain these craters. But, nevertheless, I’m not willing to give it up”.

4. Gentleman, this is not objective, logical, scientific methodology. Scientific methodology requires that when the derived conclusions of your theory are found to be false in light of the evidence, then you either discard the theory or, if possible modify the flawed part of it accordingly. To cling to it after it has been disproved is not objective, it is religious domaticism.

“Creationism” per se in all of its multi-fared manifestations, invoking to some extent and at some point a supernatural genesis of species, thus by its very nature cannot nor ever can be a scientific discipline. That being the case, “creationism” has absolutely no place whatsoever in any scientific textbook.

                            

The second mistake, resulting from the same anti‑spiritual motivation as the first, was in the use of evolution as one pillar of a mechanistic explanation capable of circumventing the problem of first cause, i.e., the origination of everything. Evolution is merely a process and is not an explanation of actual creation; the explanation of creation per se does not lie within the realm of scientific explanation.

 

 The only distinct meaning of the word "natural" is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as such requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once.¹³²

 

The author of the above is referring to the implications of natural as is connotated by the term "natural selection." The very working mechanism of evolution implies intelligence behind such a process no less so than does that of a supernatural divine creation.

 

 I see no good reason why the views given in this volume (the Origin of Species and the Descent of Mari) should shock the religious feelings of anyone.... A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as liable a conception of the Deity to believe that he created a few original forms capable of self development into other and needful forms as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws. ¹³³

(These are Charles Darwin's own words here)

 

The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.

 

Evolutionists for non­scientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.

 

Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-­Creation" argument.

 

The orthodox Christians escaped the greater error altogether; but, nevertheless gave clear testimony to the influence of the popular belief in their interpretation of the commencing chapter of Genesis. For they made the first verse signify the creation of a confused mass of elements, out of which the heavens and earth were formed during the six days, understanding the next sentence to be a description of this crude matter before God shaped it. And their opinion has descended to our days. But it does not appear to be substantiated by Scripture, as we shall presently see, and the guile of the serpent may be detected in its results. For how great a contest has it provoked between the Church and the World!

 

            For we are told that in the beginning God created (bara) the heaven and the earth; but the Scriptures never affirm that He did this in the six days. The work of those days was, as we shall presently see, quite a different thing from original creation: they were times of restoration, and the word asah is generally used in connection with them.

                Now asah signifies to make, fashion, or prepare out of existing material; as, for instance, to build a ship, erect a house, or prepare a meal.¹³⁹

 

Today, to be pro‑spiritual and to appreciate the Judeo‑Christian heritage, one must, it seems, be anti‑scientific. This is a common consensus; it is a mirage.¹⁴⁰

 

To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4^th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.

 

I would believe that Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse are real live characters before I would believe in the evolution fairy story.  In fact. Superman and Batman are more logical as real people than what evolutionists are presenting as scientific "fact".

[one.opinion]

8 hours ago, Paul James said:

I would believe that Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse are real live characters before I would believe in the evolution fairy story.  In fact. Superman and Batman are more logical as real people than what evolutionists are presenting as scientific "fact".

You’ve already proven your inability to support your viewpoint from a Biblical perspective. I find it highly unlikely that you can make a better argument from a scientific one.

[Paul James]

10 hours ago, one.opinion said:

You’ve already proven your inability to support your viewpoint from a Biblical perspective. I find it highly unlikely that you can make a better argument from a scientific one.

The thing is that evolution is a religion not a science.  

[one.opinion]

13 minutes ago, Paul James said:

The thing is that evolution is a religion not a science.

I guess that all depends on how you define "religion" and "science". I do know quite a bit about science, but only an amateur at studying religion. But I haven't seen any scientific evidence disputing evolution in quite some time, and I'm not sure what I'm missing from my analysis of Romans 5 that I believe best interprets the passage discussing death in a spiritual sense, rather than physical.

[Paul James]

11 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I guess that all depends on how you define "religion" and "science". I do know quite a bit about science, but only an amateur at studying religion. But I haven't seen any scientific evidence disputing evolution in quite some time, and I'm not sure what I'm missing from my analysis of Romans 5 that I believe best interprets the passage discussing death in a spiritual sense, rather than physical.

Science involves using the scientific method - observation, examination, testing, replication.  There are problems with evolution, because no scientist has ever been able to observe it happening, so he cannot get off the home plate with his attempt to prove it through science.  Scientist can observe the evidence only in the present - the way it appears now.  So a scientist can view the fossil record and see a fish with another fish halfway in its mouth.  He can conclude that the fish died halfway through a meal and not through natural causes.  He can examine a mammoth dug out of the Arctic ice in a good state of preservation and see that it died with a mouthful of plant matter, as if it died suddenly before finishing his meal.  Then he can discover a complete dinosaur skeleton that appears to show the animal had been bowled over and over in a torrent of water, and the signs of the flow of water a seen all around the area.   He can then conclude that these animals died suddenly through some cataclysmic event, possibly a flood.   He can then go high up in the Andes and discover the same fossils there and conclude that the only way they they can get there is if they were washed there through a rise in the water level to that height.

Through all this evidence, he can conclude that at some period in the earth's history there was a world-wide cataclysmic flood that wiped out every land animal on earth;  also that there were dinosaurs alive at the time of that flood.   As a scientist he can examine the records of different cultures, and discover that each one, right back to earliest times, has a flood myth that have definite similarities among them.  This will confirm to him that there was indeed a world-wide flood that occurred.

But a scientist cannot go back and make any conclusions about how things originated, therefore he cannot use the scientific method to observe them.  Therefore, he can only make guesses about how the world may have been first formed.   Darwin was one of those scientists, and through observation he made guesses about the origin of the species.

But what has happened is that atheists, who don't want to include God in the picture, have dreamed up evolutionary theory and made it their belief system.  They cannot prove their beliefs through the scientific method, so they can't really say it is a true science, although they present it that way to deceive uninformed people that it is a science.   In this way, evolution is a religion, based on a set of beliefs.

Creationism is also a religion, based on what the Bible says about how the world was first formed.

Therefore, it all depends on which religion people decided to adopt as their own belief system.

[one.opinion]

48 minutes ago, Paul James said:

So a scientist can view the fossil record and see a fish with another fish halfway in its mouth.  He can conclude that the fish died halfway through a meal and not through natural causes.  He can examine a mammoth dug out of the Arctic ice in a good state of preservation and see that it died with a mouthful of plant matter, as if it died suddenly before finishing his meal.  Then he can discover a complete dinosaur skeleton that appears to show the animal had been bowled over and over in a torrent of water, and the signs of the flow of water a seen all around the area.   He can then conclude that these animals died suddenly through some cataclysmic event, possibly a flood.

Sure, a flood would be a very good explanation for such fossils. But to be evidence of Noah's flood, all of the evidence around each of these fossil finds would have to point to the exact same flood. Massive floods are not uncommon events, and it would be nearly impossible to state (even ignoring radiometric dating of the surrounding rock sediments) that they all came from the same flood.

50 minutes ago, Paul James said:

He can then go high up in the Andes and discover the same fossils there and conclude that the only way they they can get there is if they were washed there through a rise in the water level to that height.

If the fossils were formed at the top of the Andes, an animal would have to float up to the top of a mountain, and then be rapidly buried in sediment. This would not be physically possible. This would require massive amounts of sediments to float to the top of the water level, and then somehow come crashing down. Even YEC scientists acknowledge that the fossils were formed before the mountains (https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/high-dry-sea-creatures/). Virtually all trained geologists would agree that mountains rise over very long periods of time, instead of quite suddenly, as Dr. Snelling states, but they all agree that fossils were not deposited at the top of peaks nearly 30,000 feet high.

 

1 hour ago, Paul James said:

Through all this evidence, he can conclude that at some period in the earth's history there was a world-wide cataclysmic flood that wiped out every land animal on earth;  also that there were dinosaurs alive at the time of that flood.

If this were the case, we would expect large modern animals (elephants, hippos, giraffes, etc) to be buried alongside dinosaurs. However, this mixing of large modern animals with dinosaurs has never been observed. The clear conclusion as that the dinosaurs were fossilized long before the modern animals we now see on the planet.

1 hour ago, Paul James said:

As a scientist he can examine the records of different cultures, and discover that each one, right back to earliest times, has a flood myth that have definite similarities among them.

Since civilizations arose along major rivers that flooded annually, it is no surprise that flood stories are rather common. Multiple cultures with flood myths is not strong evidence for a single, global flood.

 

1 hour ago, Paul James said:

But what has happened is that atheists, who don't want to include God in the picture, have dreamed up evolutionary theory and made it their belief system.  They cannot prove their beliefs through the scientific method

No, evolutionary theory is based on evidence, not dream. Evolution, in it simplest state, is the heritable change in populations over time. We can observe this happen directly. What can be observed directly now can be extrapolated backward through the analysis of the fossil record and the genetic record.

I generally think of religion as an active worship of something or someone that is greatly revered. There is no such entity or figure for evolution, it is simply a theory that works very well with massive amount of accumulated information - through the process of inductive reasoning.