Anti-evolution, pro science conservatives

Of all the factors that led to Mike Huckabee's demise in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes (insufficient funds, lack of foreign policy experience), there's one that has been largely overlooked: Huckabee's disbelief in the theory of evolution as it is generally understood – without the involvement of the Creator.

Perhaps you're thinking: What's evolution got to do with being president? Very little, as Huckabee was quick to remind reporters on the campaign trail. But from the moment the former Baptist minister revealed his beliefs on evolutionary biology, political commentators and scientists lambasted him. Some even suggested those beliefs should disqualify him from high office.

“Are you defining ID or Design as the equivalent of Biblical Creation?”

No, of course not. That definition is a typical straw man used by evolutionists who are incapable of dealing directly with ID.

Biblical Creationism itself is actually perfectly consistent with what we know about the universe and its origin. The problem is that so-called “young earth creationists” have latched onto a mistranslation of the original Hebrew text. The “days” of creation are not literal 24-hour days, but rather epochs or eons.

“What a bizarre question. Abiogenesis can be studied scientifically, per the scientific method. It can also be approached unscientifically, and has been.”

OK, I forgot I am dealing with a pedant, so I need to phrase my questions very precisely and sidestep the intent of the question.

Rather than asking, “Do you consider the study of abiogenesis (the origin of the first living cell) to be “scientific”? I should have asked:

Do you consider the modern theory (hypothesis?) of abiogenesis to be scientific? According to that theory (or hypothesis), the first living cell fell into place at random in a “primordial soup.” If so, please explain how it can be falsified.

I’m just trying to get people like you to use your God-given brain for one minute. If you think about it, you will realize that the modern notion of abiogenesis is every bit as “unfalsifiable” as you claim that ID is.

How can anyone possibly disprove the idea that the first living cell fell together at random at some time in the distant past? To do so, one would need to know the precise molecular arrangement of the entire earth for the past few billion years.

“LOL. No you simply didn’t understand the point. It was that Newton was a great scientist in the area of physics, but was something a nut in other areas of endeavor. Alchemy is not science, it borders on magic.”

First, let me say that when someone starts off with “LOL,” I can’t help but think that she is a teenage girl. If you aren’t one, you would do yourself a favor to quit impersonating one.

Secondly, calling Newton a “nut in other areas of endeavor” shows your complete lack of understanding of both Newton’s genius *and* the scientific endeavor itself. Newton is widely considered the greatest scientist who ever lived, and the fact that he didn’t share your modern understanding of chemistry did not make him a “nut” in any way.

The irony is that Newton’s discoveries in physics led the way to later discoveries in chemistry.

Right. Everyone knows that they are the result of DNA improvements -- that is, improvements (adaptations) to better cope with new local environments or changing environments.

I could not disagree with you more about what evolution via its artwork has done to degrade peoples regarding 'race'. Now God said all souls belong to him, the father and the son and that would as well include every soul that has or has not passed through this flesh age. As well as the phrase kind after kind which were formed/created for the purpose of the Heavenly Father and He said His creation was 'gooood'. Even that entity Satan, who was created long before this flesh age, and who will never get opportunity to pass through this flesh age, is own by the Creator as well. Some love the Father and others by their own free will reject him.

Genisis- it may not have been an apple per se- but it was the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil- something that God explicitely said not to partake of- the apple is metaphorical, and infact may not have been a physical fruit at all but rather was specific indulgences in ‘knowledge’, but the point still stands- WE through Adam partook of this fruit against God’s will

What do you mean it may not have been an apple per se... you stated earlier as though a fact the sin was eating apples. Now Christ said .... Mark 13:23 I have foretold you all things. It was NOT an apple tree that Christ cursed it was a FIG tree and do you find any mention of figs in the Garden of Eden?????

[[This is an ugly accusation against the Heavenly father that his children’s skin colors are result of DNA degradations.]]

Ugly ‘accusation’? How do you figure? We brought the curse of sin upon us willingly- EVERYONE is biologically degraded due to mutations- A Mutation causing skin color changes is no more derrogatory than a degredation that causes any other change in a species- it doesn’t mena one race is superior or inferior, so I’m not sure why you think this would be an ‘ugly accusation’ toward God?

[[Now there had to be people already in the land of Nod not of the Adam and Eve for Cain to have found a wife.]]

Yup- and htese people had spread out from their birthplace to inhabit another area and establish a comunity there- it in no way means that there were ‘other people’ created- it simply means that the offspring of Adam moved along to other places and Cain went to another comunity and m arried his kin-

[[God said His creation was gooood. It is NOT a mutation or fluke or deterioration of the DNA to see the many peoples of the globe. God says that ALLLL souls belong to him and that means alllll of us no matter what race we come in this flesh age.]]

First- you seem to be trying to make a race issue out of nothing- Yes- we are ALL God’s workmanship - every color, every person- ALL are from the original which was indeeed VERY good BEFORE the fall which introduced problems that Adam and Eve did NOT have to face had they not caused the curse to come upon mankind

Secondly- the DNA mutations only came AFTER the fall and mutations have NOTHING to do with a person’s race in regards to making one inferior or another superior- we are ALL susceptible to degredation and the result of degredation- no man has escaped the problems of the curse- so NO man can claim superiority- we are ALL less ‘perfect’ than Adam and Eve were before the fall, and infact, Adam and Eve may have been people of color, so that would mean- if anything- that we who are white are lesser than the original creations.

[[What do you mean it may not have been an apple per se... you stated earlier as though a fact the sin was eating apples.]]

I explained what I meant well enough- the apple may or may not be metaphorical. The’forbidden fruit’ could very well have been simply making themselves susceptible to listening to hte lies of the beguiling serpent. As you should know, we stand a much better chance of not sinning- not falling to temptation, IF we abstain from situations where we are subjected to inticing issues- the old saying “Garbage in - Garbage out’ is a saying exhorting us to simply stay away from garbagge because is we emerse ourselves in environments where sin is present, we are allowing garbage to infiltrate and pollute our minds and thus we indulge our sinful natures which makes it much much harder to resist the temptation.

The ‘forbidden fruit’ could very well have meant simply breaking away from God’s goodness and protection,. and instead preffering to let go of inhibitions and to listen to the lies of Satan and falling prey to His deceitfulness and then sinning.

[[It was NOT an apple tree that Christ cursed it was a FIG tree and do you find any mention of figs in the Garden of Eden?????]]

What in the world are getting at? This was an event many 1000’s of years AFTER the event in the garden and is irrelevent to our discussion here. (And by the way, you do understand that Christ’s curse was allegorical and meant that those who do not produce the ‘fruit of hte Spirit’ will be cut away and ‘cursed’, right?)

[[The problem is that so-called “young earth creationists” have latched onto a mistranslation of the original Hebrew text. The “days” of creation are not literal 24-hour days, but rather epochs or eons.]]

No sir, we haven’t ‘misunderstood’ the word ‘Days’

[[Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day]]

There is NO misunderstanding here- Dark was called night, light called day- the word day is NOT implying ‘many days’ or ‘many years’, it clearly means when it is light out, it is day, when it is dark, it is called night. The “Evening and Morning” were called a Day.

“I think its quite clear by the context that the Author of Genesis chapter 1 meant 24-hour periods. This was the standard interpretation up until the 1800s when a paradigm shift occurred within the scientific community and the Earth’s sedimentary strata layers were reinterpreted. Whereas previously the rock layers were interpreted as evidence for Noah’s flood, Noah’s flood was thrown out by the scientific community and the rock layers were reinterpreted as evidence for an excessively old earth. Some well meaning but terribly mistaken Christians then sought to reconcile this new anti-Flood, ant-Bible interpretation with the Genesis 1 account by reinterpreting “yom” as meaning vast unspecified periods of time. This was a mistake.

The truth is, the evidences in favor of Noah’s flood and a young earth far outnumber those in favor of an old earth and many of the old earth interpretations are known to rely upon faulty assumptions. Unfortunately the scientific community is entrenched on the matter and apparently they refuse to change their minds despite the weight of evidence contrary to their currently accepted paradigm. But please don’t let their stubborn refusal influence how you read your Bible! According to Exodus 20:9-11, God used six literal days to create the world in order to serve as a model for man’s work week. Work six days, rest one. Rest assured, God could have created everything in an instant if He wanted to. But apparently He had us in mind even before He made us (on the sixth day) and wanted to provide an example for us to follow.”

http://www.gotquestions.org/Genesis-days.html

In order to ‘Fit’ your itnerpretation of Day, you MUST then intentionally misinterprete what God said about “Day” and “Night”.

Christ did not command secret praying, nor did he forbid public praying- He mearely was pointing out hte hypocrisy of those hwo prayed for show- so that others would see them praying and think highly of them- Christ makes it quite clear that we are NOT to do as they do, but rather that we SHOULD pray from our hearts and NOT for public show as the religious leaders did.

Christ again was NOT condemning public prayer that is done from the person’s TRUE desire to meet with God through prayer. Christ infact said we SHOULD give public prayers and praying with others together.

[[Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.]]

The whole issue in Matt: 6:6 was to point out that the people should NOT be as the hypocrites, praying for public to see them praying and think highly of them- this type of prayer is false prayer with an evil intent- bolstering their self-esteeme in the presence of others. It was a pride issue- the hypocrites loved having people SEE them praying loudly and often- their reward was not from God, but from the approvals heaped upon them by the public.

Just like I said. You set your own unattainable standard of acceptable evidence for one idea, but your own absurdly low bar for ideas that suit you.

Biologists who spend their careers researching such matters are satisfied that they have realistic approaches to studying abiogenesis. Along you come and declare it all invalid even though it does not appear (from the info your page) that you are trained in this field or work in it. Then you throw in that I am a pedant.

If nothing else, you are entertaining. Shall I say LOL?

[[Can you provide a few links to stories about people getting arrested for publicly declaring their faith?]]

There are many- just google something like “People arrested for witnessing”

I get an email from Don at http://www.thesourcedaily.com/ and am always seeing articles about Christians being arrested for witnessing in public, for homeschooling parents being arrested and harrassed, for preachers being banned from publically professing their faith etc. There are many sites that keep track of Christian issues such as this. As well you can look up the law firm that represents Christians who are persecuted in this country- Can’t remember hte name but google “Law firm that represent Christians free of charge” or somethign similar- their caseloads are full of such cases.

[[Biologists who spend their careers researching such matters are satisfied that they have realistic approaches to studying abiogenesis]]

VaLID endeavor, yet, abiogenesis has never bene shown to be a reproducable process, and infact hte evidence shows that it is biologically impossible- noone is ‘interpreting’ anything- the biological evidence is clear. Abiogensis scientists only have their a priori assumptions about a process, and an a priori belief that everythiugn must be able to be explained within scientific means- they have dedicated htemselves to a religious hypothesis that is NON objective and which won’t even concider any other explanation- this is dogma- not science. The A priori beleif that everythign must have a scientific explanation, must follow ‘natural laws’, and must never be allowed a supernatural intervention at any point, is dogma- plain and simple

Let me ask this- IF a person were to have supernatural abilities, and that person created- oh- say a new species KIND which has never been witnessed before, and a scientist goes into the examination with an A priori belief that everyhtign MUST have a natural explanation, that it MUST have followed natural laws, and that NOTHING could have happened supernaturally, is that scientist being objective? If they won’t even allow a supernatural explanation despite evidence that shows a high probability of a supernatural event (the creation of a new species KIND by our super person), then is that scientist practicing a TRUE science and objective investigation? Of course not! They have gone into the examination with a pre-set, a priori beleif, and they are then determined to ignore any evidence which shows a high probability!

A scientist ignoring evoidence for an intelligent causation, and insists that there MUST be a ntaural causation, and who maligns any other position who opposes a natural explanation, is NOT practicing science, but rather a religious dogmatic BELIEF that is inconsistent with the scientific facts and evidneces.

[[If you are always get links to such information it should not be too much of a bother for you to share those links with us.]]

I have been answering many posts all day, I’m tired, and I have a blog to write as well as fix my blogtheme- and take a nap- If I have time tonight, I’ll try to get the links- (Not that anyone opposed to ID will even concider any evidences that refute their position- and it will be a waste of time on my part looking htem up as some on this forum automatically discount any Christian links- not based o nthe scientific facts presetned on the sites, but rather based solely on the fact that some sicnetists make statements OUTSIDE of the science of ID and have beleiefs OUTSIDE of the sicence of ID which don’t mesh with hteir belief in Macroevolution-

These folks have determined that there can be no sound science on sites which don’t beleive in Macroevolution- and my looking up links upon repeated demands ALWAYS results in comments attackign hte character of those in hte links provided and ignoring hte science and refusing to answer the science that refutes their own positions.) It’s a never ending cycle: Demand links, give links, the science in the links is ignored, and the character of those in the site in the link is attacked and ID is ad naseum maligned and belittled- Yup- that’s fun fun fun listening or reading petty accusations and irrelevent claims.

Right. Everyone knows that they are the result of DNA improvements -- that is, improvements (adaptations) to better cope with new local environments or changing environments.

I am reflecting the evidence of science, you are proselytizing.

This is an ugly accusation against the Heavenly father that his children's skin colors are result of DNA degradations.

Well would you call death an upgrade? Anyway DNA is a chemical and this is the definition of degrade.


1. to lower in dignity or estimation; bring into contempt: He felt they were degrading him
 by making him report to the supervisor.  
2. to lower in character or quality; debase.  
3. to reduce (someone) to a lower rank, degree, etc.; deprive of office, rank, status, or title, esp. as a
 punishment: degraded from director to assistant director.
  
4. to reduce in amount, strength, intensity, etc. 
 
5. Physical Geography. to wear down by erosion, as hills. Compare aggrade.
  
6. Chemistry. to break down (a compound, esp. an organic hydrocarbon). 
 
–verb (used without object) 7. to become degraded; weaken or worsen; deteriorate.
  
8. Chemistry. (esp. of an organic hydrocarbon compound) to break down or decompose.

Note definitions 6 and 8. If you wish to complain about the use of degraded to describe the offspring, have at it. Remember though, Cain murdered his brother.

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.