"It proves you exist and so therefore you don't" PING!
Cheers!
Posted on 09/27/2006 9:56:09 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
Why Darwinism is doomed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 27, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2006
Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote in 1977: "Biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God." Darwinism teaches that we are accidental byproducts of purposeless natural processes that had no need for God, and this anti-religious dogma enjoys a taxpayer-funded monopoly in America's public schools and universities. Teachers who dare to question it openly have in many cases lost their jobs.
The issue here is not "evolution" – a broad term that can mean simply change within existing species (which no one doubts). The issue is Darwinism – which claims that all living things are descended from a common ancestor, modified by natural selection acting on random genetic mutations.
According to Darwinists, there is such overwhelming evidence for their view that it should be considered a fact. Yet to the Darwinists' dismay, at least three-quarters of the American people – citizens of the most scientifically advanced country in history – reject it.
A study published Aug. 11 in the pro-Darwin magazine Science attributes this primarily to biblical fundamentalism, even though polls have consistently shown that half of the Americans who reject Darwinism are not biblical fundamentalists. Could it be that the American people are skeptical of Darwinism because they're smarter than Darwinists think?
On Aug. 17, the pro-Darwin magazine Nature reported that scientists had just found the "brain evolution gene." There is circumstantial evidence that this gene may be involved in brain development in embryos, and it is surprisingly different in humans and chimpanzees. According to Nature, the gene may thus harbor "the secret of what makes humans different from our nearest primate relatives."
Three things are remarkable about this report. First, it implicitly acknowledges that the evidence for Darwinism was never as overwhelming as its defenders claim. It has been almost 30 years since Gould wrote that biology accounts for human nature, yet Darwinists are just now turning up a gene that may have been involved in brain evolution.
Second, embryologists know that a single gene cannot account for the origin of the human brain. Genes involved in embryo development typically have multiple effects, and complex organs such as the brain are influenced by many genes. The simple-mindedness of the "brain evolution gene" story is breathtaking.
Third, the only thing scientists demonstrated in this case was a correlation between a genetic difference and brain size. Every scientist knows, however, that correlation is not the same as causation. Among elementary school children, reading ability is correlated with shoe size, but this is because young schoolchildren with small feet have not yet learned to read – not because larger feet cause a student to read better or because reading makes the feet grow. Similarly, a genetic difference between humans and chimps cannot tell us anything about what caused differences in their brains unless we know what the gene actually does. In this case, as Nature reports, "what the gene does is a mystery."
So after 150 years, Darwinists are still looking for evidence – any evidence, no matter how skimpy – to justify their speculations. The latest hype over the "brain evolution gene" unwittingly reveals just how underwhelming the evidence for their view really is.
The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion – especially traditional Christianity. Evidence is brought in afterwards, as window dressing.
This is becoming increasingly obvious to the American people, who are not the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be. Darwinists insult the intelligence of American taxpayers and at the same time depend on them for support. This is an inherently unstable situation, and it cannot last.
If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid.
Get Wells' widely popular "Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Wells is the author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Darwinism and Intelligent Design" (Regnery, 2006) and Icons of Evolution (Regnery, 2000). He holds a Ph.D. in biology from the University of California at Berkeley and a Ph.D. in theology from Yale University. Wells is currently a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle
Did I miss a joke here somewhere? Or was that a backhanded reference to the "wipe the dust off the soles of your feet" ...?
Cheers!
That's not what the poll asked.
"Panta graphEs" is the phrase the Holy Apostle Paul uses. It means "all writings". The canon of Scripture was not fixed at that time, so it is a little odd to apply the phrase to the canon as later fixed by the Council of Carthage, and the 4th and 6th Ecumenical Councils (and shortened by Luther in imitation of the Christ-denying rabbis of the Council of Jamnia) to argue that the collection of books the Church canonized to be read in churches is the basis for the Church's way of life. A way of life that was well established by the time the last authored book, the Revelation to St. John, was written, and centuries before a decision was taken as to which books constituted Scripture.
The Revelation to St. John is contemporaneous (c. 96 AD) with St. Ignatius of Antioch's epistles (St. Ignatius' martyrdom is traditionally dated at 107 AD, but some scholars argue that it may have been as early as 98 AD). St. Ignatius' letters speak of the order of the Church and its liturgical life in a manner familiar to Orthodox Christians, as we continue the same life, albeit with the shorter Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom as the standard, and to Latin Christians, though post-Vatican II the similarity between their life and that of the ancient Church is less pronounced. And the letters speak of it as a well-established way of life, of Apostolic origin, not something being invented or discovered at the time.
In point of fact, when the Holy Apostle used the phrase, any Jew or Christian of Jewish heritage would have taken the phrase to mean the Law and the Prophets. One meets Christ in these writings, but only in prophecies and types.
I am reminded of a story from old Russia. A man had been seized by the atheism that was creeping into the intellectual classes even before the Revolution, and went to an old staretz. The man was distressed by his unbelief, and declared to the elder that he wanted to believe, but couldn't.
The elder did not send him to read the Scriptures, but gave him an icon of Christ, and bade him do 100 prostrations a day before the icon, and return in a year. The man returned a year later, joyous that he had found faith in Christ.
Indeed Our Savior is the pearl beyond price. The Scriptures are merely our primary testimony to Him.
"It proves you exist and so therefore you don't" PING!
Cheers!
"Where do you derive your belief?"
Same place. You hold to the literal truth and inerrancy of each word. I don't. And I'm as much a Christian as you.
Jumping to too many conclusions to count PING!
("Soma", anyone?)
Cheers!
Sacramental wine provides a better buzz.
"- I am a Christian who believes that only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have a claim to a lineage dating back to the time of Christ - and between the two of them, the Catholic Church is probably a better deal because its centralized structure, while having problems like any human institution, has been a better check on heresy than the more loosely organized Orthodox and Protestant churches...see my comments on John Paul The Great and ask yourself what Orthodox/Protestant figure of the past 500 years has had an impact for good in the world greater than he did...(I will help you out: the answer is "NONE")".
But a bit later you rightly praise Renaldus Magnus. I think he and the Pope worked tag-team :-)
Cheers!
I don't deny a person can believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior, and know very little about Him when they do put their trust in Him. The Gospel is a very simple message that is very supernatural (in which science has no jurisdiction):
We have unrecoverable flaws that seperate us from a relationship with God. Jesus lived a flawless life, then took the punishment we deserve on Himself so that we can be reunited in fellowship with our Creator. He also publically rose from the dead to demonstrate to mankind that this physical life is temporary and we have immortal bodies we will be resurrected to when we place our trust solely in His accomplishment for us.
The scripture is way beyond science. Science is entertaining and sometimes helpful.
I meant religious figure. The Pope-RWR-Maggie was a 3-person tag-team that brought down communism....
You owe me a new keyboard!! If God is responsible for mankind as is, He should be sued..
Sacramental wine provides a better buzz.
Actually, there is considerable evidence that Soma was the little jewel shown below. Google "Wasson" and "Soma" for details.
Buzz indeed!
Ok. Then go away. Take your scripture and go somehere else. This site is for people who will open their minds and think.
So your particular interpretation means you know Him and all the other poor sots out there are just shut out? Must be nice to be able to read whereas others cannot. Sad that God would conceal His Word to some but reveal it to you and a few of your fellow churchgoers.
We have unrecoverable flaws that seperate us from a relationship with God. Jesus lived a flawless life, then took the punishment we deserve on Himself so that we can be reunited in fellowship with our Creator. He also publically rose from the dead to demonstrate to mankind that this physical life is temporary and we have immortal bodies we will be resurrected to when we place our trust solely in His accomplishment for us.
I don't think any Christian will disagree with you on this.
The scripture is way beyond science.
No, merely addressing a different part of the Universe. Scripture deals with the spirit. Science deals with the physical. Render unto Caeser...
Science is entertaining and sometimes helpful.
God provided a fantastic Universe and gave us brains to try to explore and use it. Your flippant attitude about that which feeds you, clothes you, teaches you, heals you, and allows you to make "I Am More Saved Than You" posts is to denigrate God in the extreme.
I always get a kick out of Weekly World News.
You discerned the exact opposite of what I said. Try re-reading the paragraph.
*sigh* OK, lets dance this dance again on THIS thread. It is sad that you keep posting the same non-sequituers and bald assertions, get slapped down with facts and argumentation, then pop up on the next thread as if you hadn't already been schooled. Do you have that memory problem Dora in "Finding Nemo" had? Because they have treatment for that (courtesy of a combination of Biology and Chemistry, both of which rely on TToE).
TToE is on par with Physics, Astronomy (which is a much anti-Genesis as TToE), and Chemistry (also anti-Genesis).
I read it. You are trying to pretend to be magnanimous and say "well, as long as you accept Him it is OK. The fact you know little about Him (assumed "unlike me" and "because you understand science") isn't THAT important.
I got your meaning exactly.
Although if the RINOs ever had pushed through the amendment about the President no longer having to be a US citizen, she would've been near the top of the list.
Cheers!
Chemistry does not rely on the ToE. I've taken my share of college chemisty courses and the TOE never entered into them even once. It would be much more accurate to say that the ToE depended on chemistry.
As far as Bio, there's plenty to study there, too, that doesn't require the ToE at all. And I've taken those too, and while ToE is encountered more, the stuff I studied didn't *depend* on it.
So how is Astronomy and Chemistry *anti-Genesis*?
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.