Who Is Banning Books Now?

Hal Lindsey Oracle ^ | 2/2/04 | Hal Lindsey

[js1138]

Anytime and anywhere prior to about 1975, being excommunicated or forcibly expelled from one's church would have had far reaching consequenses. It could me getting fired; it could mean failing to get a promotion; it could effectively end a marriage.

We tend to forget how much actual worldly power churches had until recently. Even now presidential candidates are quizzed about their reasons for leaving a church.

Now on the other side, I went to an intensely liberal college, where my thoughts on just about everything were unwelcome. (I was more of a gadfly than a conservative then.) I can sympathise with FReepers who claim they are discriminated against by college professors.

[old-ager]

> There's no such thing as a physical theory that can be proven. Evolution is supported my more accumulated evidence than any other historical physical theory. It is impossible to accept geology without accepting evolution. It is impossible to deny geology without denying physics. All the physical sciences are co-joined.

You VILL accept evolution, eh? That how it is? Calm down. A question. You are saying you know of recent (not fossil) evidence of one kind of creature evolving into another?

[old-ager]

> now that I think about it, in Linnaeus' time in many countries the Catholic Church was still a quasi-governmental institution

Linnaeus lived in Lutheran Sweden long after the 16th century reformation.

[js1138]

No, I am saying there are species living right now that include living specimins of transitional variations. There are, for example, populations of birds spread outgeographically in such a way that any adjacent individuals can mate with each other, but the fringe individuals cannot mate with the original population. This is a living example of how populations can gradually change. There is no sudden, new individual of a new species trapped without a potential mate.

[DannyTN]

"Yes. You've got it! Now if you could just apply that notion to the passages that prevent you from even considering evolution ..."

Well, I certainly agree that Genesis doesn't tell us how God create man and there are some possible gaps. Could he have used an evolutionary process. It's possible. But I doubt it.

There are several issues with this.

1. We are given a time frame that is reiterated as 7 days morning and night.
   • This does "appear" to put creation into earth's timeframe.
   • Even if the 7 days are literal 24 hour periods, it may still be possible that God used evolutionary processes in part of his creation. But I wouldn't bet on it. I don't see much evidence, that He did.
   • God, I suspect, is a master of time. And while there are those people who say that if God created Earth in 7x24 hours but made it look like 5 billion years, then God must be deceptive. I think that's a very foolish attitudeto import motive on God, when for all we know He may have been nothing more than process considerations that we haven't considered.
2. Is chance evolution, really creation? I suppose there is a loose interpretation, just like throwing paint on a wall is considered art. Setting up an evolutionary process to see what develops could I suppose be considered creation, even though He relies more on chance than true creative process. I really really doubt this though.
3. It still seems logical that random mutations are much more likely to lose information in the genetic code, drop information or replace it with meaningless random code, thereby reducing functionality than it is to improve it.
4. God tells us we are made in his image. It is really hard to construct a scenario where this doesn't refute evolution. Because if we are made by chance. what are the odds that we are turned out to be in God's image?

It is possible that in the creative process, God made some lifeforms that He subsequently decided to improve. Thus, what may look like evolution or random mutation to us, may be a continuation of God's direct design and intervention and not chance at all.

• The Milano mutation that fights heart disease, may not be a random mutation, but may be a special blessing.
• I've read that AB- blood type can be traced to Jewish heritage. I don't know if that's true or not. It is widely distributed in the world today. Of course the Jews scattered throughout the world. There are some Jewish groups with high counts of AB-. If it is true, it's interesting because AB- is thought to have "evolved" to have extra immunity from diseases and less susceptible to allergies. If true, I think it would be funny if God's chosen people have been blessed with the most advanced blood type.
• We have a record that God reduced man's lifespan down to 120 years. That's bound to be a genetic change. But did God use random mutation or how did God acccomplish this. The Bible does not say God never made any further changes to the Genetic code of His creation.

Most importantly though, I still don't believe the evolutionist's have not made their case. They say things are impossible based on their own current limited understanding. They make wild speculations about what happened in the past and present them as fact, even though it's been less than 200 years that man has even known dinosaur's existed. They are clearly biased in many of their writings. They have perpetrated frauds in support of evolution, which certainly did not get the kind of scrutiny from peer review that creationist writings get. They have and continue to ignore major pitfalls in assumptions about dating methods.

It's only been 200 years since man even knew Dinosaur's existed. On the other hand I've got a record that is at least 3000 years old that purports to be from our Creator, holds up the highest standard known of right and wrong, and that has other evidence such as fulfilled prophesy to back it up. I've watched through the years as scientists said the dates and people and places in the Bible couldn't possibly be correct, only to learn later that yes, those dates do match, those people did exist and those places were real places.

And while the record has been misinterpreted by some such as assuming "cannot me moved" means "not in motion or not in orbit". I expect that in the final analysis the Bible will be proved correct.

[DannyTN]

"Only problem with your position is that you can't determine what the Bible really means until you have an outside verification of the facts. No one saw any problem with an earth centered cosmology until an alternative became indisputable."

I disagree. The main importance of those passages were to state that God was responsible for the sunrise and sunset. It was God who made night and day. It was God who made the earth and put it in it's place. It was not intended to describe how he did it.

I actually agree with PatrickHenry here, that the same thing can be said of creation. It says God created us, it doesn't say how. Thus evolution is not specifically precluded, but It's doubtful for the reasons in my most recent post.

This doesn't preclude us from examining His creation to see what we can learn. However when we adopt positions that contradict what He has told us, based on limited analysis and understanding we are very subject to being wrong and subsequently proved worng by further analysis and further evidence.

This is what evolutionists object to, further anlaysis and further evidence. Anything that doesn't support their storyline is automatically rejected instead of evaluated on the merits of the science. That bias doesn't belong in science.

[js1138]

How can I disagree? Assume that God made a tree fully formed. Is there anything blasphemous about asserting that the current state of the tree implies a history of growth and development? The earth and the universe have a history, regardless of when and how they came into being. That history is not consistent with a simple literal reading of the Bible. Even though both "stories" might be true.

[DannyTN]

"The earth and the universe have a history, regardless of when and how they came into being. That history is not consistent with a simple literal reading of the Bible. Even though both "stories" might be true."

Agreed, but there is dispute about what that history tells us. Evolutionists reject any findings that conclude a different history than they have imagined. When they reject the science based on the conclusion, instead of on the science itself, then they show themselves to be biased.

That's what this thread was about.

[js1138]

So what is this evidence?

[PatrickHenry]

This is what evolutionists object to, further anlaysis and further evidence. Anything that doesn't support their storyline is automatically rejected instead of evaluated on the merits of the science. That bias doesn't belong in science.

Wildly incorrect. Science, by definition, deals with the evidence. That's why, from time to time, we have these dust-ups where the findings of science seem to contradict a literal reading of scripture. Science always goes with the evidence.

If some kook hides evidence that contradicts his pet theory, he's a fraud, and loses all respect in scientific circles. If you know of any genuine tales of evidence that contradicts evolution theory, please let us know.

On the other hand, I've spent years here watching an endless parade of creationists deny all the evidence of evolution. Just watch. Every new thread they show up with their claims that "there's no evidence" for evolution. It gets tiresome.

[old-ager]

Do you think there's a limit to how far these variations go? Is there visible proof of a series of transitions from one kind of being to another? Aren't you just describing breeding? Are you sure all of the non-dead-ender variations are not cyclical? I don't see "evolution" in the example you cite.

> birds

You acknowledge there's such a thing as a "bird"?

[Ignatz]

But, it's just the current theory. The scientists haven't nailed it down solid yet.
Unlike the garbage spread by the creationists (who are CERTIAN of their science, and will not stand questioning), there is much in the scientific literature that isn't settled yet.

I am as uncertain of "my" science as the next, but I am certain of my faith. To put it another way: as to the mechanism of creation, I "haven't nailed it down solid yet", but I am certain it was created.

Not only that, but I can debate this issue with you without insulting your beliefs on the matter. Perhaps you cannot do the same because you know to the depths of your being that you have so much more to lose if you are wrong than I do if I am wrong. If I am wrong I will never know it, but if you are wrong you will be (painfully) reminded of your error for all eternity.

[Virginia-American]

[referring to theological speculation] ... being able to think this way must have some purpose (else, evolutionists, why would we able to think this way?)...

Seems to me it's a side-effect of abstract reasoning ability. It's rather like the ability to read and write - this had no survival value until 5000 years ago in a very few cultures, yet everyone has the ability to become literate.

[Virginia-American]

You: It is unfortunate that embellished stories circulate amoung creationists. But I should note that occurs in the evolutionists camp as well.

Me: "Concrete examples, please."

You: New Guinea man.

New Guinea man is something I never heard of before. So I did a Google search. Most of the hits were Papuans, anthropologists, and so forth. Nothing having to do with human origins. Except one: Review of Jack Chick's "Big Daddy" at talk.origins. Surely you have more info than a Jack Chick tract!

(BTW, my opinion of Chick is that he has driven many more people *from* Christ than the secularists, commies, usual suspects could ever dream of.)

But seriously. "New Guinea Man"? A modern H. sapient skull something like 5000 years old. Please provide a link to some "embellished story" about it, and I don't mean Jack Chick.

You: The drawings of human embryos that look like different creatures but have been known to be false for a long time, but still get put in school science textbooks.

I ask for concrete, and get jello. Anyhow.

Presumably, you're referring to Haeckel's infamous drawings of embryos. an article about them According to this review of "Icons of evolution" "Haeckel's drawings are seldom if ever still printed in biology textbooks and when they are, they are there for historical reasons or as an wxample of the human falllibility aspect of science."

You do, of course, have some *specific*, *modern* counterexamples, don't you?

Now let's get away from Ernst Haeckel and look at some actual science. Embryology - the study of how complex things develop from single cells. Part of embryology is called von Baer's laws:

"Karl Ernst von Baer was the foremost German embryologist of the first half of the 19th Century. After carefully comparing the chick embryo to other vertebrates, he came up with four generalizations about vertebrate development. The photograph above comes from Scott Gilbert's Developmental Biology, 6th Edition (p. 10) von Baer's generalizations are:

The general aspects of a large group of animals appear earlier in embryonic development than do the more specialized ones.
Less general characters develop from more general ones.
The embryos of a particular species diverge more and more from those of other animals as development proceeds.
The young embryo of a "higher" animal is not like the adult of a "lower" one, but instead resembles its early embryo."

Source

These are called "laws" because they are simple observations, no theory trying to explain them. (this is the usual scientific terminology: Boyle's' law is an experimental result - it was later explained by the kinetic theory of gases. Ditto Kepler's laws, Bodes' law, etc)

Haeckel was trying to show that embryos resemble their adult ancestors, von Baer that they resemble their ancestors' embryos.

A specific example of this is the human (as an example of a mammalian) ear:

"In addition, in mammals only, the quadrate bone and articular bone shift off the jaw to become part of the ear. This shift is not a profound one in terms of distance, as the ear is so close to the jaw joint. The quadrate becomes the incus and the articular becomes the malleus. "

source

In other words, reptile and mammal embryos have what appear to be the same bones in the same positions. Then, in mammals, they move to become our ear bones.

The really interesting thing is that much later fossils were found with the jaw/ear bones in intermediate configurations in adults - these are the so-called mammal-like reptiles.

So Haeckel may have been exaggerating, but there is definitely a sense in which "ontolgeny recapitulates phylogeny".

There are other examples as well: the recurrent pharyngeal nerve goes from the neck, down into the chest, loops around the aorta, and comes back up to the throat. This adds something like 15 feet to it in giraffes! Its embryological development makes the reason for this obvious - in fish it doesn't take such a lengthy path, neither does it in early embryos; but the proportions change as we mature, and the nerve is stuck and can't change its path (I couldn't find an on-line illustration of this)

Surely you have no problem replacing Haeckel's misleading drawings with modern photos to illustrate these fascinating topics of biology.

Our embryos resemble tadpoles which resemble fish, embryonic horseshoe crabs are called 'trilobites' because they resemble extinct trilobites, immature insects resemble worms... definitely some food for thought here