Posted on 06/09/2006 6:16:57 AM PDT by tomzz
You can't help but notice that there is a very vocal sort of a little clique of evolutionists on FreeRepublic, and there has always been a question in a lot of people's minds as to whether or not the theory of evolution is in any way compatible with conservatism.
This new book ("Godless") of Ann Coulter's should pretty much settle the issue.
Ann does not mince words, and she has quite a lot to say about evolution:
"Liberals' creation myth is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is about one notch above scientology in scientific rigor. It's a make-believe story, based on a theory which is a tautology, with no proof in the scientists laboratory or the fossil record, and that's after 150 years of very determined looking. We wouldn't still be talking about it but for the fact that liberals think evolution disproves God....
It gets better from there, in fact a lot better. Ann provides a context for viewing the liberal efforts to shut down everything resembling debate on the subject in courtrooms and makes a general case that it is the left and not the right, which is antithetical to science in general. Anybody interested in this question of American society and the so-called theory of evolution should have a copy of this book
Have you visited the book site? She has an amazing number of negative reviews, and so very fast! They must be writing up a strom backstage at the People's Republic of Amazon. What they don't understand is that every review brings anyother delighted grin from Ann.
When I joined there was only one kind of Thread News!
I think what Coulter said needed to be said even if it was over the top!
It has been too long before someone spoke up!
You say stuff like this about science and still wonder why you don't have more input to what is taught in science classes.
It's no wonder why I stay out of the Religion Forum.
But the facts are mentioned to suit the purpose of the writer. And his purpose was to show that the God of Israel was active, that He would command an unwilling Jewish prophet to go to pagans and preach repentance, and that he would withhold punishment of those pagans if they did repent and turn away from their own gods.
And certainly the writer was inspired to show Jonah as a type of Christ: three days in a whale's belly (Christ three days in the tomb), a mission to non-Jews (Christ's salvific death and resurrection for all men, not limited to Jews).
Is that "too free" an interpretation of Jonah? Are Tobit, or Judith, or Esther historical books, or are they free compositions with some historical facts thrown in for interest?
In exegetical terms, Jonah is known as para-historical midrash.
Ah, now I understand the confusing fussing earlier about moving this thread to another place. This is not evo "turf"...
Evidence is evidence. The trail you construct from the evidence is not evidence, but a construct of reasonable conjecture.
Evolution is an abstract theory of common sense. Most of it is not testable. Common descent has not been directly observed, but may be reasonably inferred. Just because fossils look alike does not mean their representative life forms are historically derived from one another. If such reasonable inferences truly constitute "science" then so do the reasonable inferences of those who attribute organized matter perfroming specific functions to intelligent design.
The notion that matter organizes itself to perform specific functions by virtue of non-intelligent forces is but an article of faith. Objective reality offers numerous examples of intelligent agents causing matter to be organized for specific functions. It does not, however, offer a person by the name of "nature," or an entity by the name of "chance" to declare scientifically what is the cause of organized matter, e.g. particle matter that does not dissolve into chaos.
Is your objection to a literal interpetation of Jonah based upon notion that it would be impossible for a human to survive for three days inside a large fish?
There is no escape that science left YECism behind well before the end of the 19th century.
That's one thing, but not the only thing. I suppose it's not impossible for a man to survive in the belly of a fish for three days, but that's not the main point of the Jonah narrative.
The big fish is a metaphorical vehicle for returning the reluctant prophet back to the Ninevites so that they may repent. Jonah's three days prefigures Christ's three days in the tomb.
I'm going to go the opposite way on this one.
I don't think so. Quantum Theory throws physical reality as we know it wide open. Age as we perceive it is relative. Solid objects are comprised primarily of empty space. These things jibe well with the biblical texts which declare that a Creator spoke existence into being, creating energy first and establishing laws which keep the creation functioning as designed until such time as the Creator establishes a new and different physical reality.
An objective, world wide record of sedimentary activity agrees with the biblical text which states the earth was primarily covered with water at first; more than enough to result in a world wide deluge when the "fountains of the deep durst forth." Living creatures have always been observed to remain within boundaries WRT change (evolution), thus agreeing with the biblical texts which assert living creatures were created "after their kinds."
So . . . the physical evidence is in accord with the biblical texts. Nothing mysterious, supernatural, or unscientific about that.
No, science has not left behind those things to which the biblical texts attest. If anything, Darwinism left science behind. Science continues to affirm and uncover the works of God, just as it is meant to do.
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.