Posted on 04/17/2012 4:27:49 AM PDT by scottfactor
Members of the anti-Christian, communist Left are obsessed with banishing the presence of Christian expression from all areas of the public square. They are probably the most fervent in this crusade in the government-run public school classrooms, where teachers are persecuted for displaying even a hint of Christianity.
I have written before about a California teacher, Brad Johnson, who is fighting back against a tyrannical school district that ordered him to remove patriotic banners from his classroom walls—banners that simply included the name of God in their sayings. These banners had long been hanging in his classroom, but the God-hating tyrants in his school district decided they could no longer abide even the written mention of the name of the Lord in that classroom. How very like Satan that is!
Mr. Johnson’s appeal is still pending in the courts, and the Thomas More Law Center has vowed to take it to the Supreme Court, if necessary.
There is another American teacher being persecuted for his Christian faith. This is a case out of Mount Vernon, Ohio.
As reported at the Rutherford Institute website, which is handling the case,
“The Rutherford Institute has appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of John Freshwater, a Christian teacher who was fired for keeping religious articles in his classroom and for using teaching methods that encourage public school students to think critically about the school’s science curriculum, particularly as it relates to evolution theories. Freshwater, a 24-year veteran in the classroom, was suspended by the Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education in 2008 and officially terminated in January 2011. The School Board justified its actions by accusing Freshwater of improperly injecting religion into the classroom by giving students ‘reason to doubt the accuracy and/or veracity of scientists, science textbooks and/or science in general.’ The Board also claimed that Freshwater failed to remove ‘all religious articles’ from his classroom, including a Bible.”
Here we have the case of a Christian teacher encouraging his students to approach the unproven, unobserved theory of evolution with the skeptical eye it deserves. The anti-Christian crusaders in our world are so viciously against any teachings that declare God is the Author of the universe and all that is in it that they will fiercely defend a terribly flimsy theory—or hypothesis, rather—that seeks to explain the origins of life in this amazing world in which we live. The hypothesis of evolution—which is not even a plausible explanation, with its gaping, fossil record holes and fantasy mechanisms—is the best the godless among us have come up with, and they cling to it with a fanatical fervor.
The fact that this school district even cited Mr. Freshwater for having a Bible in his classroom is also chilling and disgusting. We must remember that our God-given rights do not end just because we become teachers in the public school system. There is no such thing as the fabled “separation of church and state” as the Left insists. The only constitutional mandates are against the federal government establishing an official national religion in America, which it has never done, and interfering with Americans’ freedom to practice their faith, which it is doing more and more each year.
The bizarre beginning of this case was back in 2008, as reported in Mr. Freshwater’s Appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, filed last Friday by the Rutherford Institute,
“Despite objective evidence demonstrating Freshwater’s consistent excellence as an eighth-grade science teacher for over 20 years, and despite his immaculate employment record, Freshwater came under intense scrutiny following a 2008 incident in which a common classroom science experiment with a Tesla coil used safely by other teachers for over 20 years allegedly produced a cross-shaped mark on one student’s arm.
While the Referee who investigated this incident ultimately determined that ‘speculation and imagination had pushed reality aside,’… community hysteria resulting from rumors about Freshwater and the incident prompted the [School] Board to launch a full-scale inquisition into Freshwater’s teaching methods and performance. This sweeping critique focused entirely on trace evidence of Freshwater’s religious faith which allegedly appeared in the classroom. On January 10, 2011, the Board adopted a Resolution terminating Freshwater’s employment contract based upon a recommendation issued by Referee R. Lee Shepherd, Esq., on January 7, 2011 that Freshwater be terminated for ‘good and just cause.’”
The supposed “good and just cause” was Mr. Freshwater’s allowing his students to examine both sides of the evolution debate and teaching them to recognize issues in printed materials that could be questioned or debated, in other words, he was teaching his students critical thinking! The godless School Board also found offense in the fact that some of Mr. Freshwater’s counterpoints to the hypothesis of evolution involved—GASP!—arguments for Creationism or Intelligent Design. Oh, the horror!
According to the School Board, this “good and just cause” amounted to “Failure to Adhere to Established Curriculum.” That sounds like something out of Nazi Germany! Absolutely NO God talk allowed here, comrades!
Mr. Freshwater was also accused of “Disobedience of Orders,” because he was told to remove certain items from his classroom, which he did, but there was a patriotic poster featuring Colin Powell that he did not remove, but said he did not recall being told to remove it. That poster was handed out to teachers by the school office and was displayed in other classrooms in the district besides his. He also had a couple of school library books: one was a Bible, and one was titled “Jesus of Nazareth.” Because he had these things in his classroom, he was accused of “defiance.”
This is an outrageous injustice, and this case is extremely important for the future freedoms of teachers and students alike. As the President and founder of the Rutherford Institute, John Whitehead, stated,
“Academic freedom was once the bedrock of American education. That is no longer the state of affairs, as this case makes clear. ... What we need today are more teachers and school administrators who understand that young people don’t need to be indoctrinated. Rather, they need to be taught how to think for themselves.”
The godless people who aggressively push the hypothesis of evolution in our public schools cannot tolerate opposing viewpoints, and if Mr. Freshwater ultimately loses this battle in the courts, all of America will have lost yet another chunk of our Christian liberty at the hands of anti-Christian tyrants.
As reported by the Rutherford Institute, two lower courts have already sided with the School Board against Mr. Freshwater, ignoring the First and Fourteenth Amendment violations by the school district.
The conclusion of Mr. Freshwater’s appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court states,
“The [School] Board's actions constitute a violation of the First Amendment academic freedom rights of both Freshwater and of his students, of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, and of Freshwater's right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Because of its significant implications for academic freedom in public schools and the continued vitality of teachers' First Amendment right to openly practice and discuss their religious faith, the case is one of monumental public concern. As no reviewing court has yet examined these critical civil liberty components of this case, Freshwater prays that this Court will grant his petition and undertake that essential analysis.”
We should all be praying that Mr. Freshwater is given a victory over this anti-Christian, public school district. Ultimately, we are all Mr. Freshwater, and if he loses, we all lose.
We should also pray for, and consider financially supporting, the Rutherford Institute, which is made up of front-line, legal warriors who provide free legal services to people who have had their constitutional rights threatened or violated. From the Institute’s information page,
“The Institute’s mission is twofold: to provide legal services in the defense of religious and civil liberties and to educate the public on important issues affecting their constitutional freedoms.
Whether our attorneys are protecting the rights of parents whose children are strip-searched at school, standing up for a teacher fired for speaking about religion or defending the rights of individuals against illegal search and seizure, The Rutherford Institute offers assistance—and hope—to thousands.”
What a shame that creationism contributes nothing of value to science.
Maybe someone should have told Newton that as well.
At no point did he claim that God had to intervene mystically magically miraculously or spiritually in order for wrinkled pods and smooth pod pea crosses to reproduce 3/4th’s smooth pods and 1/4th wrinkled pods. He proposed that it was something physical within the pea that was being held hidden in the first cross that came out in 1/4th of the offspring in the second generation.
And we now know what it was that was physically within the pea waiting to be expressed in subsequent generations - DNA.
If the evolution you accept has no physical cause then it is as useless as the rest of creationism and can lead nowhere and to nothing - exactly where you left it and seem content to leave it - unproductive and useless.
When Galileo dropped weights off the tower of Pisa it was not to establish that balls of equal size but different weights fall at the same rate when dropped off the tower of Pisa - but to demonstrate that they would fall at the same rate no matter where they were dropped - and not just those two specific balls - but applicable to all balls of equal sizes but different weights.
Evolution is both testable and replicable. If I subject a bacterial population derived from a single bacteria and plated on ten different plates to ten different stresses - we can find adaptive evolutionary responses from all ten plates time and time again.
Antibiotic resistance to novel antibiotics have been real life observations of evolution in action - one with dramatic consequences to human health.
Because you don't really understand evolution I will give you a pas for claiming that the cause could be considered supernatural. If you knew the first thing about science or the theory of evolution you would know that the cause of evolution is far from supernatural (as your compatriot betty-boop claims that the evolution she says she accepts has “spiritual” causation).
There are none so blind as those shown the evidence but who refuse to deal with it.
Science is of use. Creationism is useless.
Deal with it.
I see you pinged your entire coward’s chorus!
Nice to know you don’t feel competent to discuss the issues on your own without tons of backup!
Amusing!
[[Sounds like you just described evolution there.]]
Absolutely- when Ken Miller lamely tried to ‘explain’ that blood clotting could evolve, he HAD to resort to supernaturaql processes i norder to CREATE the environment and steps needed in order for evolution to CREATE the irreducible aspects of advanced blood clotting- He just wasn’t smart enough evidently to understand that his ‘explanation’ only further styrengthened the idea of irreducible complexity- and he apparently wasn’t smart enoguh to understand that what he just described showed the NEED for and Intelligent Designer
Of course not! Mendel was a scientist as well as a theologian. He was looking for God's laws, not God himself. Perhaps he would acknowledge that the only "mystical intervention" that God ever did was "in the Beginning" — and He's been pretty much keeping "hands-off" ever since (except for occasional and comparatively rare direct interventions — which we call "miracles" because we don't know what else to call them.)
To repeat myself: Mendel was not only a Christian cleric; he was a full-blown scientist.
Unlike in our present age, Mendel probably never ever thought that there was some deep, irreconcilable, mutually-exclusive divide between theology and science. That is a post-modernist, "progressivist" notion that in all likelihood he had not heard of, and which likely would have been unimaginable to him.
As a life-long student of human history and culture, may I observe that never before our own times did human beings believe in this so-called "Cartesian split" in the human knowledge domain. Descartes himself would probably have been appalled by this so-called "split." After all, he himself said that the idea of God is the most fundamental idea a man can have, on which is based every other possible idea a man can have, including the idea of his own conscious self.
The fact of the matter is: philosophy (and theology as the "queen of metaphysics") and science have been intimately engaged with each other for some 7 millennia at least. They have cross-pollinated ideas since Day One.
I cite as evidence the profound influence of Newtonian mechanics in the shaping of the philosophical ideas of such notables as Descartes, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, et al.
To disparage philosophy is to express the preference for walking around on only one leg....
A person can always choose to do that, I'm sure. But why? It is ever so much more difficult to walk on one leg, when two are available to make our progress less difficult and more convenient....
So, why choose to walk on only one leg?
Well, where did DNA come from? That is, on what causal principle does it itself rest?
DNA is not "just" a physical molecule. It is one of the greatest "mysteries" in the world; for it not only maps the genome; but it can read it, and knows the "rules" of how to transcribe this intangible information into tangible physical processes/effects.
There is nothing in physics or chemistry that can explain any of this. Certainly Darwin is no help at all here — he never even heard of DNA during his lifetime....
“If the cause of a phenomena is material - then it is predictable, replicable and understandable.”
OK, How ‘bout we start with the formation of life on earth.
To say Creationism is useless is to say that Christianity is useless.
I know of no Christian who does not, as an article of faith, believe that God created the Universe.
Do you?
Who gave you the authority to hijack the lexicon and arbitrarily alter the meaning of terms? That’s the tactic of those who look to smear a whole people by demeaning their identity. 0bamatrons and admirers of Goebbels would applaud your calumny. Not many others.
What is the definition of Creationism offered by the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, revised edition 2003? Does it differ materially from other definitions?
Science, as it has been developed by our Judeo-Christian Western Civilization is successful because it is of use. So useful, in fact, that I claim it to be Judeo-Christianity’s happiest inspiration.
Some people have seized upon the readily observable phenomena of Natural Selection and have projected it into the religion of Darwinism; with “Evolution” as its most holy of sacraments. Like most religions, Darwinism is jealous of other religions. Unlike the Judeo-Christian Tradition, Darwinism has not learned to control its jealousy, so it seeks to drive Christianity not only from the public schools, but entirely from the public common.
The prohibition against the establishment of religion is an onus that falls entirely on the state. Government may not establish a religion or prohibit its free exercise. The prohibition may not act on individuals or private institutions. The Constitution limits and defines the powers only of government.
That [God] already knows the End — the purpose and goal of His Creation — does not affect its free development "In-Between" its Beginning and End...There are rules and guides to the system; but within those constraints, there is every possible scope for novelty to emerge in physical nature, via an evolutionary process.and
Perhaps [Mendel] would acknowledge that the only "mystical intervention" that God ever did was "in the Beginning" — and He's been pretty much keeping "hands-off" ever since...Given that, I really don't see what your problem with evolution is--what it is that you're insisting is there that "evos" somehow deny. If you said "In the beginning, God created a universe in which evolution, acting according to His laws, produced all the life forms we see today, with no need for further intervention," you'd get very little argument. But it seems that, for some reason, you can't bring yourself to say that.
But — the above is the essential message I have been trying to suggest —conditional on the following: I will not even attempt to overrule God by forbidding Him to perform a miracle every now and then if He wants to.
Were I to try to overrule God in this way, no less worthy a person than Isaac Newton would probably contradict me. It was his own understanding that a mechanical universe would tend to accumulate errors over time, unto total disorder in due course. And so God necessarily would have to step in from time to time, to set matters "aright" again.
Newton proposed that God's action was effected by means of a sensorium Dei — which I understand to be a sort of universal "field" that connects the material realm with the spiritual pattern it reflects.
Whatever the case, Michael Faraday evidently grasped the "field" principle here. And so gets the credit as the "father" of field theory to this day, in the process setting up the intellectual conditions necessary to the contemplation of quantum field theory....
Anyhoot, in closing, let me reiterate: Even Newton believed that God was constantly, directly involved with His Creation. Newton's name for God was: "The Lord of Life, with His creatures."
"Modern" science has the most wonderful history "behind it"!!!
Which history, it seems to me, modern science is trying to "forget" as soon as possible....
WHY??? Science is a public enterprise dating back millennia. It's an intergenerational collaboration going back to the dawn of history.
Why is "modern" (i.e., post-modern) science trying to drop such facts down the old "rabbit hole of memory," never to be seen again?
For if they do, they cut themselves off at the knees....
Or so it seems to me. FWIW.
Do you have a particular miracle in mind that you think God has performed, vis a vis the evolution of life?
Because if not, and if we can agree that whenever evolution started—i.e., whenever life arose—it was a long time after the Beginning, then I’m still not sure what your beef with Darwinian evolution is. You seem to want science to explicitly admit the possibility of something that you say yourself is probably unnecessary and maybe hasn’t ever happened.
Would you have a problem with a scientist who said, “Sure, God could step in and tweak things, or change them completely, any time He wanted. But while we’re waiting to find evidence of His actually doing so, I’ll keep trying to figure out what has happened on its own (according to His laws, of course)”? Because it seems to me that that’s what Newton was doing, and what Darwin was doing, and what most scientists today are probably doing.
And I would agree. I think God created a universe that is self consistent and progresses according to the natural laws that God designed.
Science only works when we make that assumption - that things are working according to natural laws.
Belief in a law giver is optional. But to me it logically follows that a universe created and unfolding according to natural laws had a law giver.
Proteins are amazing things - but they are not unexplainable by physics or chemistry.
How the process came about - where the information to produce something that reproduces its information- is (mostly) unexplainable (so far) by what we know of the natural world.
But there are many billions of worlds. And if life can create itself out of physical processes designed by God it wouldn't make me question my faith or think God unnecessary to the process.
Darwin didn't need to know the nature of hereditary material to strike upon the fundamental truths that...
the hereditary material is subject to variation.
That variation is subject to selective pressure.
That is all there is to it, and yet it is an amazingly explanatory and predictive theory when you want to explain or understand or profit/prevent loss from variations in human populations, adaptive responses of pathogens to immunity or antibiotics, similarities between species, and the vulnerability of populations with declining numbers and reduced habitat.
“In the beginning, God created a universe in which evolution, acting according to His laws, produced all the life forms we see today, with no need for further intervention,” you’d get very little argument. But it seems that, for some reason, you can’t bring yourself to say that.”
Spirited: The early Church Fathers are the organic connection between Jesus Christ, His apostles and our own time. In conforming to evolutionary theory modern Christians break that connection.
Evolutionism was not unknown to the Church Fathers. In their time though it was mainly taught against as reincarnation, transmigration, and metempsychosis.
The Triune God’s miraculous creation has its’ foundation in the fact that He spoke all things into existence from nothing. Early Church Father Augustine fully embraced creatio ex nihilo, as did others. Church Father Irenaeus comments,
“God, in the exercise of his will and pleasure, formed all things…out of what did not previously exist.”
Over and against creatio ex nihilo is evolutionism, one of the principle doctrines of ancient evolutionary cosmogonies such as the Enuma Elish.
In 1907 Pope Pius X dubbed Modernism and its principle doctrine Evolution “the synthesis of all heresies” in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis.
Modernism was inspired by tendencies prevalent in liberal Protestantism and secular philosophy:
“It was influenced by nineteenth-century studies by Kant and Hegel, by liberal Protestant theologians and biblical critics (such as Schleiermacher and von Harnack), by the evolutionary theories of Darwin, and by certain liberal political movements in Europe. The centers of Modernism were in France, England, Italy, and Germany. Two of its leading figures were Fr. Alfred Loisy, a French theologian and Scripture scholar, and Fr. George Tyrrell, an Irish-born Protestant who became a Catholic and a Jesuit, though he was dismissed from the Jesuits in 1906.” (Modernism, James Akin)
Forty-three years later, Pius XII cautiously stepped away from Pius X’s position even as he advised that his opinion not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine.
Despite Pius XII’s warning, large numbers of Catholics, Protestants and Evangelicals have nevertheless heedlessly embraced Evolutionary Theory from the time of Pius XII to our own.
That they ‘leaped without looking’ is the cautionary message delivered by Msgr. Charles Pope of the archdiocese of Washington. They have accepted the Theory of Evolution uncritically, noted Msgr. Pope. They hold a “rather simplistic notion” that the Theory of Evolution,
“… can be reconciled easily with the Biblical accounts and with our faith. Many will say something like this:
“I have no problem with God setting things up so that we started as one-celled organisms and slowly evolved into being human beings. God could do this and perhaps the Genesis account is just simplifying evolution and telling us the same thing as what Evolution does.” (Can A Christian Accept Evolutionary Theory Uncritically? Joe Carter, First Things, Oct. 18, 2010)
Catholics and other Christians who accept Evolutionary Theory uncritically have given no thought to whether theological and scientific claims are compatible. For instance said Joe Carter, to be a “theistic evolutionist”
“..in the sense that modern science will accept, requires one to adhere to polygensism (the theory that Adam was not one historical man but, rather, a euphemism for “mankind”). That position, however, is not compatible with the teachings of the Bible, the Church, or of Jesus. The polygensism problem is, for me, the biggest stumbling block to uncritically accepting the theory of macroevolution…” (ibid)
Polygensism is not the least problem. The uncritical acceptance of Evolutionary Theory places theistic evolutionists in the position of having to compromise Genesis. And to compromise the Genesis account is to compromise the whole Bible, which in turn compromises the Bibles’ main theme: man’s need of redemption.
The Genesis account speaks of man’s relationship with God starting at the pinnacle of Creation week in the Garden of Eden after which degeneration commences. Theistic evolution turns the Genesis account upside-down by teaching that man started out at the bottom and evolved his way to the top via the old amoeba-to-fish-to-dinosaur-to-ape-to-man story, meaning that possibly millions of lifeforms arose and died before man finally appeared. But if this account is true, then Gnostics are right to say that God the Father is a God of death, not life. As such, man needs to be saved from Him, not by Him.
Either man started at the top and fell, as God’s Word and His prophets who long ago declared the fall of man and his need for a Savior declare, or he started at the bottom and rose to the top, as evolution indicates. Both cannot be correct.
Scripture teaches that man’s fall is the reason for sin, degeneration and death. But if man is not fallen, then Gnostics are again correct to claim that Original Sin does not exist, meaning Lucifer did not fall and there is no need for Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to come to this planet and suffer a cruel death on the cross.
Additionally, Scripture emphatically declares that time has a beginning and an ending. In this view, history is the unfolding of time and events that will end with the Kingdom of God. Evolutionary Theory turns all of this upside-down by placing time, events and man on an eternal Escalator going “up, up, up.” Mary Midgley coined the phrase “the Escalator Myth” to refer to the idea that humanity is everlastingly riding an evolutionary escalator smoothly, progressively, ever upward toward some imagined state of perfection. (Scientific Mythologies, James A. Herrick, p. 100)
Now Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God Himself. But if evolution is true, then what becomes of Jesus Christ? Is there to be a future being greater than Him?
“Surely evolution will not have to reverse itself and concede that it reached its zenith with the birth of the Christ child a long, long time ago. Surely this colossal system will not have to concede that it is less able now to produce a greater than Jesus than it did produce two thousand years ago. If evolution is not now able to produce a greater than Jesus, then it seems the system has ceased to be evolution and has become devolution, at least in one sense (Taylor, 1974, quoted in “Can a Christian Still be an Evolutionist? Brad Harrub, Ph.D. ApologeticsPress.org)
Finally, if Evolutionary Theory is true, then man is a mixed-stew of genetic material, making him a close relative of every life form that preceded him. Additionally, since some of mans’ prior ‘kin’ were neither male nor female, then it stands to reason that no man or woman is really either male or female. Once again we see the inversion and destruction of the Genesis account:
“Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” KJB
Jesus Himself stated in Matthew 19:4 (cf. Mark 10:6): “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female.” But if Evolution Theory is true then Jesus Christ is a liar. And as long as we are tossing aside the Genesis account and Jesus Christ, then why not toss out all references to the Creation, starting with the gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John:
” … we also would have to throw out John, because the first few verses of chapter one review the beginning and Creation. Other scriptures such as Acts 4:24, Acts 17:25, Romans 1:20, Colossians 1:16, 1 Timothy 2:13, Hebrews 1:2, 1 Peter 4:19, and Revelation 4:11 also would be called into question if the Creation account is merely a “nice story,” but not historically accurate. As a matter of fact, the only books that do not refer to the first eleven chapters of Genesis in some form are the books of Philemon, and 2 and 3 John.” (Can a Christian Still be an Evolutionist? Brad Harrub, Ph.D. ApologeticsPress.org)
In the end we are left with two choices. Either God’s Revealed Word, creatio ex nihilo and Jesus Christ or Evolution Theory, which inverts creation, destroys God’s Word and turns Jesus Christ into a liar.
As it turns out, Pope Pius X was right to define Modernism and its’ principle doctrine evolution “the synthesis of all heresies.”
Mans’ mind is finite, not infinite. Try as it might it cannot know of things that took place before its’ own existence.
Pride refuses to accept the limitations that humility accepts, which is why humility keeps God’s question to Job in mind at all times:
“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if you have understanding”. Job 38:4
The idea that genes which resemble each other are therefore descended from each other is exactly the kind of logical error that the theory of evolution is predicated upon. Just because something looks like something else doesn't mean they are related. We can only assume that they are related if we first assume that all species are descended from one common ancestor, which you already admitted may not be true at all. Thus the whole facade of evolutionary theory collapses under the weight of its false premises.
Change may be inevitable, but change is not one species evolving from another species. Fossil evidendce shows that humans have changed over time, but they always changed into more humans, never into something else.
One can believe in evolution and believe in God, but if one does not believe in God, then they have a psychological need to believe in evolution. Thus they cling to their irrational and unscientific belief in evolution despite all the evidence that has disproved the theory.
I don't need to study up on evolution at all, I am very familiar with all the arguments. I studied them in college and found them unconvincing then and now. You even admitted that I was right that observing speciation does not prove that every animal speciates. It also does not prove that every animal came from speciation.
Indeed, dear spirited irish — you put your finger on the very crux of the problem of the personal and social division/disorder that seemingly manifests in outcomes of all public questions nowadays; the tendency of which is to emasculate the individual person, confiscate his wealth, reduce him to de facto slavery — all in the Name of, and to the greater Glory of, the State, the embodiment of the (current) Dictator and the claque of lackeys that supports him (and expects to receive benefits in return, at third-party — that is, our— expense, of course).
When the moral core of a society becomes rotten, destruction, disintegration comes upon that society as night follows day.
If history can teach us anything, it would seem to be this.
Thank you so very much, dear sister in Christ, for your simply beautiful essay/post! I feel pretty sure our friends of Darwinist persuasion haven't seen anything like it before. I only hope they will try to engage and if possible understand it.
For that reason, I didn't comment on spirited Irish's post. But in light of your challenge, there are two points I would make:
First, no one claims that Jesus was who He was because of some evolutionary process. "If evolution is not now able to produce a greater than Jesus, then it seems the system has ceased to be evolution"--that's just dumb. Nothing evolved to be the Son of God, and Jesus' divine nature owes nothing to evolution. On the other hand, there's no reason to think that in His human nature He was any different from any other man of his time--certainly nothing is recorded of His having other than a normal human body. It's the union of the two natures that makes Him unique, not the workings of some physical process.
Second, "Jesus Himself stated in Matthew 19:4 (cf. Mark 10:6): 'Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female.' But if Evolution Theory is true then Jesus Christ is a liar." I've certainly seen this claim before, and my answer would be twofold:
1. If I put flour, water, yeast, sugar, and salt in my bread machine, set the timer, and go to bed, am I a liar if I later say "I made bread last night"? (Especially if I'm the person who build the bread machine?) So if God in the Beginning created a universe that, according to His will and in accordance with His laws, eventually produced male and female humans, why is Jesus a liar to say God made them male and female at the beginning?
2. His point wasn't the timeline of creation, anyway--His point was the basis for the sanctity of marriage. It's only natural that He would teach in the language of a shared story. To borrow someone else's analogy, am I a liar if I give my kids the "when two people love each other very much..." answer to where babies come from? The point of the story isn't the mechanics of sex, and the point of Jesus' story wasn't the mechanics of creation.
Like I said, I don't want to argue Bible interpretation. But I didn't want you to go away thinking your "friends of Darwinist persuasion" were left dumbstruck by SI's points.
I did not appeal to the authority of the Pope to declare evolution true - I used him as a contrary example to the formulation that one cannot accept evolution and be a Christian.
I point out that most creationists ALSO believe in speciation - when they need to - and with dramatic speed and power. That is also not to support my acceptance of evolution - but to point out how rare it is to encounter someone so blind to reality that they deny speciation.
Just because something looks like something else doesn't mean they are related - but endogenous retroviarl sequence patterns provide a ton of evidence that they either are or are not closely related. That is how ignorant you are of modern biology - you think we are still looking at morphology? Ridiculous!
Contrary to your statement otherwise it is obvious that you are unfamiliar with science, evolution and biology.
Would you listen to a non-mechanic telling you that an internal combustion engine cannot provide the necessary power to propel you 60 mph? As such I take any advice from you about the utility of biological evolution - words unbacked by knowledge and unaware of the reality of the situation. In other words - worthless.
Change is inevitable - therefore evolution is inevitable. What is going to stop it? What would stop a 2% change in genetic DNA from accumulating in two separate populations over several million years?
That is like proposing that two groups that speak the same language will still speak the same language after being separated for a thousand years. Bloody hell mate, we hardly even speak the same language as the English after a couple hundred years and a ton of traffic between we and them.
I never said that Jesus is a liar to say God made them male and female at the beginning; neither did spirited irish.
The biblical point (I believe) is that God did create man "male and female" in the Beginning; i.e., in the spiritual creation of Genesis 1. Male and female were not physically "enfleshed" until Genesis 2, and not at the same time.
The point is, God's creation of man was already complete in Genesis 1, regardless of physical considerations that ensued later. That means that man did not gradually "evolve" into his present state, and certainly not from any lower order in nature.
Did you actually read spirited's essay/post? Did you understand it?
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.