From the article: "The irony is obvious: Secular scientists censor creation research, then they mock creation scientists for not publishing in secular journals."
Posted on 03/21/2016 9:30:20 AM PDT by fishtank
Evolutionary Tyranny Still Casts Cloud Over Science
by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. *
A recent scientific paper, published in the high-profile journal PLOS ONE, made three separate references to the amazing design of the human hand…and rightly attributed them to the Creator.1 Evolutionists cried foul and raised such an uproar that the journal retracted the paper.
Evolutionary scientists often claim they are objective in their work as researchers and educators. They also claim that creationist research isn't valid because creationists don't publish in secular journals. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The reality is that evolutionists are seldom objective in their pursuit of truth, but instead often abuse their power as gatekeepers and suppress anything that points to a Master Creator as the source of design and complexity in living systems. The irony is obvious: Secular scientists censor creation research, then they mock creation scientists for not publishing in secular journals.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
From the article: "The irony is obvious: Secular scientists censor creation research, then they mock creation scientists for not publishing in secular journals."
Image selected by fishtank - to me, it's obvious that the journal editors are as two-faced as politicians.
No matter what is seen the answer has to come back “It had to be evolution all the way.”
The weird thing is that this theory came about as an alternative to theistic creation in the form of a “spirit led” evolution where the spirits were not of a Judeo-Christian sort. Even these folks, however, were smart enough not to venture an “it just happened of itself” theory. They knew their figurative sprites and gnomes were needed.
It was later that the secularists took it up in a form that excluded the aid of any supernatural factor.
It is a Rubicon to cross. Will we or won’t we believe “we are fearfully and wonderfully made”?
Once we do, then we can discuss the details all day and all night. We do not have good visibility into them. One would not expect any physics understanding to be able to tell us how miracles are going to act. The scripture is not addressed to our curiosity, but to God’s glory in the acts.
So how old is the earth?
It’s old enough for what it was needed for.
How’s that for an answer :-)
Genesis is actually silent on that, saying nothing about the age of the universe or earth before Genesis 1:1.
That article went on flights of fancy. A science journal has no business saying God made a hand in X manner, to do Y task, etc. Just explain the realities of the hand in mechanical and scientific terms. That is supposedly what the paper was about.
This is weak.
Funny that the design of the human hand is trumpeted as proof of creation yet the fact that the same general design is shared by primates and several rodents is ignored.
Why is that?
And we need to be careful not to misunderestimate (bushism) the need. There were critters crawling the earth well before people ever walked it. All of this meant something to the Lord. The scriptures tell us so. A righteous man is kind to (regards the life of) his beast. You (the Lord) preserve man and beast. The lion roars and receives its food from God.
God got glory in all of these things too. The ultimate act in this play was mankind (us) but that doesn’t mean there were no preceding meaningful acts in it.
I try, more or less valiantly, to dodge exact age questions. The scripture isn’t tailored to our curiosity. Day-age is possible and there are some intriguing suggestions, but couldn’t be proven by any science we know. (Why don’t the creation accounts tell us of any noons or afternoons?)
Au contraire... a science that has taken leave of God is weak.
These are more proofs, actually. The feature doesn’t show on all animals.
I’ve written a number of scientific papers. Every claim made in them has to be supported by evidence. “Creator” is not a mechanism that is scientifically valid.
Until recent times, creator was a postulate in science. Science itself was an obedience to the mandate from scripture to subdue the creation.
We’re now watching what it looks like without that... and it’s slowly falling apart. One thing that becomes obvious... if you don’t really think God is looking over your shoulder as you do it, honesty becomes only what you think you can put over on your fellow man. Globull warming anyone?
more drivel to pay the rent and exorbitant salaries
Of course not every creature has a hand with an opposable thumb. They don’t need it.
But for every creature that does have such a need there is a commonality that to some people says that evolution is an aspect of a grand design...or else why do forms of life on earth have so much in common?
How would you explain where the material came from for the Big Bang?
God created evolution. Man created the bible.
Double lol at ridiculousness repeated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.