Posted on 04/29/2013 10:55:17 AM PDT by imardmd1
This book describes Dr. Martin's personal journey from an evolution-trained scientist to a Bible-believing creationist. Dr. Martin examines many of the claims and theories of prominent evolutionists, comparing their often incredible, inconsistent, pseudo-scientific explanations of origins to the clear and simple description of the Creation as depicted in the Bible.
The result is the realization that evolution, just like creation, is in fact a faith system - in other words, it takes just as much faith, perhaps more, to believe in the Darwinist theory of evolution as it does to take as simple, profound truth the Bible's clear explanation of a world and a universe brought into existence by the mere thought process of Almighty God.
An additional treat in this book is a series of Marvels of God's Creation, animals whose incredibly complex design completely defies the ability of evolutionists to come up with any explanation for how the creature could have evolved to its present state.
This book is extensively footnoted and is suitable for a textbook in creation science. It gives all the glory to God for His magnificent creation and provides excellent topics for discussion and engagement of non-believers in debate on the world's origin, which can be used by the Holy Spirit to bring an evolutionist to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
So I decided to have a look at this book. It had been a long time since I read any young earth creationist literature,
neo-creationism/intelligent design has been the more active movement recently.
There’s a lot here, so I figure I’d just post anytime I had an issue with something presented regarding the science involved.
It didn’t take me too long to run into something. Specifically, Marvel of God’s Creation #1, the bombardier beetle. This little guy (or guys, there’s are over 500 different and distinct species) has been a favorite example for critics of evolution to point to and say “that had to be designed”. But on seeing it, the only thing i could think was “please, get the chemistry right”.
Unfortunately, Dr. Martin does not, but instead repeats an incorrect account of how the whole process works. Duane Gish (whose work appears to be heavily referenced in the book) long held and erroneously stated in “Creationist Scientists Answer Their Critics” that the mixture of hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone found inside the beetle would explode spontaneously. Only by virtue of an additional inhibitor chemical added to the mix keeps the explosion at bay. When the beetle wants to fire, it adds an anti-inhibitor and thar she blows.
Only, that’s not how it works. The two chemicals do not explode when mixed without an inhibitor. This has been demonstrated and was apparently known to Gish as far back as 1978.
Now, it’s reasonable to assume that maybe Dr. Martin wasn’t completely up on the topic of Bombardier Beetles and didn’t know that particular mistake had long been corrected. Except, he references an article posted at the talkorgins archive that explicitly explains the error Gish made.
So, this author included an account of how the Bombardier beetle bombards that has been known to be false for decades. And then referenced an article that contradicted the included account.
I’m trying not going to prejudge the whole work on this one mistake. But it doesn’t exactly bode well for what will follow.
Oh, and for a pretty decent explanation of how the bombardier beetle(s) actually works and a possible scenario to explain their evolution, I direct you to the very article cited by Dr. Martin.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
Fantasywriter quoting BJK: " 'natural explanations for natural processes.' "That is your presupposition in a nutshell."
No, not my presupposition, that is the first rule of science itself.
It's the reason why there can be no conversation between science and anything outside the scientific realm of "natural explanations for natural processes".
Fantasywriter: "God says He created the world by His command.
You are applying a natural explanation for what God says is supernatural."
Of course, since that is the very definition of the scientific enterprise: natural explanations for natural processes.
The philosophical term for this is methodological naturalism.
That's what the word "science" means, and as soon as you inject it with the supernatural, then it is no longer real "science".
But, to be precise, if you read Genesis carefully, you'll notice that not everything God created came into being on His word alone.
For examples:
So note all those verbs: separated, made, created, finished the work, formed a man, planted a garden.
These verbs and many other descriptions of God's actions imply physical actions, and where there is something physical, there science can attempt to explain how and when it all happened.
Fantasywriter: "As to God ‘creating’ evolution, where do you get that?
Where is there a hint in the Bible that God created evolution? [I’m referring to macroevolution.]"
Since the Bible says nothing about how God made, created or formed the Universe, there can not possibly be a scientific hypothesis or theory which contradicts the biblical account.
But here is the more important question: if God did not intend for us to see evolution as His creative process, then why did He make the earth to appear as if that's just what evolution is?
Fantasywriter: "Are you saying, in effect, ‘Of course there’s no hint of God creating evolution in the Bible, but I believe He did it anyway.’
Is that your bottom line?"
First of all, Genesis does not say how God created, formed, made or planted those things, and so science is free to investigate and report its findings.
And more to your point: there are many modern scientific understandings which are not mentioned in the Bible.
Does that fact make any of those other scientific ideas invalid?
Fantasywriter: "Look at it like this: if God used evolution, the Genesis acct wd read quite differently."
Not necessarily.
Fantasywriter: "I.e.: when it came to man, it wd say that God took a semian-likie creature and formed it into a man.
Subsequently the Bible wd not refer to man as made in God’s image but rather in the image of whatever ape-like creature He has used."
I don't see your problem with the Genesis 2 account:
Evolution hypothesizes that life did begin, in effect, "from the dust of the ground" and clearly God's breath was necessary to create a fully living human being.
As for creating man in the image of a simian...
Do you suppose that somehow God did not know on Day One what He intended to create on Day Six?
Bottom line is: I don't criticize the Bible for what it doesn't say, and am always pleased to find where it does help confirm scientific ideas.
Fantasywriter: "Did you know, btw, that the Bible actually does speak of evolution?
It does, in so many words.
Here’s the passage (2 Peter 3)...
It’s all right there in that passage.
Evolution’s faulty assumption:"
In fact, that passage contradicts nothing of science in general, or evolution in specific.
It mentions creation, flood and fire all of which are confirmed scientifically as happening in the past, and likely in the future.
Fantasywriter: "Christian evolutionists have to make one further assumption: that there is something divine about the animal-type that gave rise to man.
How else cd man be both descended from animals & reflect God’s divine image?"
I don't see your problem.
That mankind is created in God's image simply refers to our physical form, of which any number of other biblical creatures share a likeness -- giants and some angels come to mind.
But the key action we find in 2:7 where God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.".
I think that is the moment when pre-humans of whatever physical appearance became fully human beings.
If that doesn't satisfy you, then I can certainly sympathize, but don't share your concerns.
Fantasywriter: "Oh, & before you all rush in & claim that man & apes evolved along different lines, here are the words of Darwin himiself:"
First of all, Darwin's basic ideas of evolution -- descent with modifications and natural selection -- are indisputable, even by today's anti-evolutionists.
But, Darwin was wrong about other things -- for example, he knew nothing of genetics or DNA -- and in this example was speculating about which branch of monkeys humans descended from.
It turns out: fossil and DNA evidence suggest that ancestors of today's Old World monkeys split from Great Ape ancestors around 20 million years ago, and pre-humans split from our ancestors common to chimpanzees around four million years ago.
Those millions of years of separation are enough to guarantee no possible interbreeding, however certain pre-humans like Neanderthals, separated by just hundreds of thousands of years are, it seems, a very different matter.
Okay, BJK, IF you wd like me to reply to this post, something’s going to happen first. Namely, an apology. Am apology for post 174.
First, you claim to be a Christian but you gossiped behind my back. I’m going to assume you have at least a passing enough familiarity w your Bible to know what’s wrong w that.
Second, the underlying issue. I’ve posted here a lot. Never once in all that time has anyone ever said to me, ‘That’s it. First reason x, I will not read anything more you say, period’. I’ve seen it happen to many others, but it’s never happened to me.
If, however, it did happen, I can tell you some things straight out of the gate. First & foremost, I wd not post to that person again.
Why?
Primarily because I am an honest person. If I tell somebody I’m going to do something, I mean it. Therefore, my default mode is to assume the same of others. I.e.: I don’t assume they’re lying because in their place, I wouldn’t lie.
So since the person wd not be reading any more of my posts, why waste my valuable time writing to them? I don’t engage in futile efforts, for one thing, and more importantly, I have v little discretionary time to begin w. My schedule is, in fact, so full that it’s all I can do to post to a few threads in the course of any given day. Why I wd waste any of that precious time posting to a person who doesn’t want to hear what I have to say is beyond me.
Which ties into the second point. Why wd I attempt to force my words onto a party that desn’t want to hear them? That is disrespectful at best & neurotic at worst. Have you ever witnessed a person trying to force an unwilling party to listen to them? It’s an ugly, disquieting sight. Why is it any different if it happens on the Net? It’s still weird, & not something I want any part of.
If the above considerations were not enough [they’d be more than enough, obviously] there is a third. Namely, I’d be afraid of looking like a pathetic loser. I.e.: the kind of person who simply cannot let it go, has nothing better to do, and will continue to try to be heard long past the point when they’ve been tuned out. Who wants to look that way in public? It has LOSER spelled all over it.
So now to the specific situation. I informed a party on this thread I wd no longer read their posts. I said it & I meant it. Somehow you interpreted that as “projecting my behavior onto others”. & you did it in a snide, underhanded way. [I.e.: you discussed me publicly, by name, w’out pinging me, & you did it in the classic nasty-gossip mode.]
So you can just apologize.
Or not. It’s up to you. However, if no sincere apology is forthcoming, you’ll hear no more from me. The choice is yours.
[Oh, & by the way, what behavior of mine am I projecting? Honesty? The party in question has been blatantly dishonest, so no, that’s not the one in play. Why don’t you spell it out, BJK—or are you too gutless?]
“It’s an ugly, disquieting sight.”
Creepy. Creepy was the word I was looking for, which sums that kind of behavior up far better than ‘ugly’ & ‘disquieting’.
Sorry about post #174, I nearly always remember to include anyone mentioned in the address line, don't need a never-ending lecture about that.
If some explanation would help you feel better, it happened because I posted from my allegedly "smart" phone, which isn't nearly as smart as it's cracked up to be -- or rather, it makes me look dumber than I like to think I am... ;-(
But let's be clear: as far as I can see, your highly personal attacks on Swing_Ladder and goodusername were totally unwarranted and unjustified by any normal Free Republic standards.
So, it appears to me that you act like a semi- or professional offense-taker, who maybe just posts here for the purpose of getting your feelings hurt -- so you can complain and make personal attacks on others.
Of course, that's fine with me -- it takes all kinds to make the world go round.
I'm just not interested in it.
But if you ever want to get over your personal feelings, and address the questions we were discussing, then feel free any time.
I'm always happy to respond. ;-)
Fantasywriter: "[Oh, & by the way, what behavior of mine am I projecting? Honesty? The party in question has been blatantly dishonest, so no, that’s not the one in play. Why don’t you spell it out, BJK—or are you too gutless?]"
Your accusations against Swing_Ladder and goodusername appear to me as totally unwarranted, unfair and untrue -- they came out of the blue, and sound to me more like something you yourself must be doing and the projecting on others.
My question to you is: why make it so personal?
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.