Happy New Year; one last crevo article to ring it in!
PING
"Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense. It has been tested repeatedly by examining the remains of now-extinct creatures to see how one species has emerged to replace another." He calls that "testing"?
"But if an intelligent designer had created the human eye, He (or She) made some big mistakes."There's no arrogance like those who think they are smarter than God.
Very good article - IMHO the proper way for Christians to view the debate. Evolution cannot be successfully argued against - and in fact it does NOT need to be. It can coexist with the fundamental notion of God as creator as found in the Bible.
So here is something I have not seened discussed for the evolutionists to consider.
A few years ago some fisherman caught a fish called a Celocanth. The Celocanth was believed to be long extinct since examples of the creature had been found in the fossil record estimated to be a 100 million years old. Yet the fisherman caught a live one that was not materially different from the ones in the fossil record.
But if time and mutation are the inevitable drivers of evolution and if these processes are constantly at work changing the species, then how can you explain the lack of any significant change in the Celocanth over a period of 100 million years?
The thoughts of fellow freepers on both sides of this question are welcome.
There is nothing compelling or even new about this article. Well, he managed to refrain from name-calling. That's something.
The Theory of Evolution is just that - A Theory.
The Theory of Intelligent Design is just that - A Theory.
Both theories have some facts that support them - and other facts that don't support them.
It used to be that places of higher learning taught students to think for themselves based on scientific facts and evidence.
But what "facts" support intelligent design?
1. Evolution doesn't explain anything on how it all began. As a theory, it is grossly incomplete. At least intelligent design has a theory on the "absolute beginning."
2. Where did the laws of nature and physics come from? They shape nature and effect evolution. Do we ignore the “architect” and just focus on the designs? Would this make any sense in any field of science or engineering?
3. Esteemed mathematicians and scientists have put forward fully vetted and accepted theories that the complex life we see on earth could have no way "accidentally" evolved in the “short” accepted age of the universe. The time period is too small and the complexity of life is too advanced or that there is no scientific way a cell could have evolved over any period of time in the life of the universe and in stages (as evolution demands). If these scientifically based theories can just be ignored, why not other theories?
4. The millions of miracles that have occurred and the hundred of thousands that have been documented since written history. Are they all fakes and hoaxes? Just because we can’t explain them should we just ignore them? Does this remind you of the 14th century “the world is flat” belief system or the universe revolves around the earth closed mindedness?
5. The historical accuracy of the Bible. Nearly a year doesn't go by where some archeologist finds a city/people/event/ruler exactly where the Bible said it was or medical/scientific breakthrough proves the validity of a Biblical historical point. So, if historically, the Bible can be trusted, why not on some spiritual level?
6. We have free will. We have morals and a conscience. We make ethical choices every day. Where did that come from? If we just "evolved" we should be just be following our natural DNA pre-programming as near robots (like flowers or wolves or fishes do - they do what they do because that is what they are - they can not choose to do different). Are we just blobs of DNA - and that is it? Then I/we are responsible for nothing - the DNA made me do it.
7. It is interesting that nearly all cultures and peoples in nearly every corner of the globe since the dawn of mankind have "invented" a God. Almost like we were preprogrammed to do so? If it was just a “random thing,” why is it so prevalent?
8. I can blow huge holes in the theory of evolution in explanation on how humans got here. For instance - evolution can not explain the "origin of life" from dead chemicals and the fossil evidence is unviable and dubious (at best) from animal to man. We know more on how the Brontosaurus evolved than man. Why is that? Is it because we have not looked hard enough or is it we are looking for something that doesn’t exist?
This is actually a very old argument: St Paul, the Apostle, once wrote of pagans: "Behold they have exchanged the Truth for a lie and worshipped the creation rather than the Creator."
It doesn't mean the theory of evolution is wrong - but it may mean that it needs to be updated and that it may only be a partial explanation (like micro-evolution of lizards on two separate islands over some time to adapt to their surroundings).
As I said - The Theory of Evolution is just that - a Theory. And when we let a Judge decide what theories are correct and what theories are incorrect we have truly lost something.
It seems like “progressives” or "secular humanists" or "naturalists" want it both ways - they believe in a "philosophy" that puts man at the center of the universe. That all can be explained by science, that humankind is good, that all bad things can be done away with if you have the right people in charge and the right laws. Their basic belief is that Man (or the state) is God.
They want what they "believe" to be taught in schools (at taxpayer expense, of course) and to the exclusion of any other philosophy.
For instance:
The Progressive agenda wants abortion on demand for any reason. If you believe in the opposite - that must be a "religious" belief and can/must banned from the schools, government or public grounds. Just look at the debates for the next Supreme Court justice.
The Progressive agenda wants only man at the center of morals and judgment. If you believe in the opposite - that must be a "religious" belief and can/must be banned from the schools, government or public grounds. Just look at the debates about gay marriage, drugs, pornography, divorce, adultery, cloning, prayer in school, vouchers, stem cell research, obscenity on the public airways, etc.
The Progressive agenda wants only "natural law and evolution" to explain how we got here. If you believe in the opposite - that must be a "religious" belief and can/must be banned from the schools, government or public grounds. Just look at the debate of evolution vs. creation.
And ETC. on nearly every issue.
See my point? One side gets all the benefits because they are only a "philosophy" and not a religion. The other side gets hammered because they are a "religion" and not a "philosophy." In reality, there is not a bit of difference between the two - it is all how a person personally views life (worldviews and ideologies). But somehow we have allowed one at the total exclusion of the other and called it "Constitutional," when it is about the furthest thing from the Constitution as the Founding Father wanted or desired.
Let's face it, "Darwinism has become Naturalism" and it is just as much religion as Christianity, Judaism, etc. Naturalists "worship" the idea that matter is all there is. What you see is what you get. Humanity is a product of time, chance, and natural selection. There can be nothing else outside of the natural system. Period. Any other claim is nonsense and nothing but superstition.
Actually, when you think of it - quite an intolerant religion at that.
Regards,
2banana
"...We have a "theory of gravity" that predicts the speed at which two objects.."
Sorry, gravity is a law. It's proven to exist. Besides a proper statement would describe acceleration of two objects towards one another in a gravitational field. You need a time variant with a known acceleration to "predict speed".
If you're going to slam alternative theories, such as ID, get your facts straight, first.
I disagree. TOE has survived 150 years of testing largely intact albeit modified. OTOH, Newton's theory is known now to be wrong and Einstein's theory is generally understood to be, at the least, incomplete and is expected to be transcended by unification with quantum theory.
So, it seems to me that, right now, TOE is stronger that the orthodox theory of gravity.
Same warmed over gruel. No thought at all. He's just repeating what other bigots have assured him is factual.
James Q. Wilson was the originator of the "broken window" theory of crime which was adopted by Rudi Guiliani, which saved NY City from anarchy, and which propelled Rudi into pre-9/11 eminence. He is worth paying attention to.
Maybe so, but the decision was on the law, not on science.
Wow - a conservative who recognizes that words mean things, and refuses to re-define words to suit a political agenda.
There's hope after all.
More just-so stories.
YEC INTREP
Check out this article about Intelligent Design!