Posted on 04/30/2007 1:18:21 PM PDT by mjp
The debate over creation and evolution, once most conspicuous in America, is fast going global
THE “Atlas of Creation” runs to 770 pages and is lavishly illustrated with photographs of fossils and living animals, interlaced with quotations from the Koran. Its author claims to prove not only the falsehood of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, but the links between “Darwinism” and such diverse evils as communism, fascism and terrorism. In recent weeks the “Atlas de la Création” has been arriving unsolicited and free of charge at schools and universities across French-speaking Europe. It is the latest sign of a revolt against the theories of Darwin, on which virtually the whole of modern biology is based, that is gathering momentum in many parts of the world.
The mass distribution of a French version of the “Atlas” (already published in English and Turkish) typifies the style of an Istanbul publishing house whose sole business is the dissemination, in many languages, of scores of works by a single author, a charismatic but controversial Turkish preacher who writes as Harun Yahya but is really called Adnan Oktar. According to a Turkish scientist who now lives in America, the movement founded by Mr Oktar is “powerful, global and very well financed”. Translations of Mr Oktar's work into tongues like Arabic, Urdu and Bahasa Indonesia have ensured a large following in Muslim countries.
In his native Turkey there are many people, including devout Muslims, who feel uncomfortable about the 51-year-old Mr Oktar's strong appeal to young women and his political sympathies for the nationalist right. But across the Muslim world he seems to be riding high. Many of the most popular Islamic websites refer readers to his vast canon.
In the more prosperous parts of the historically Christian world, Mr Oktar's flamboyant style would be unappealing, even to religious believers. Among mainstream Catholics and liberal Protestants, clerical pronouncements on creation and evolution are often couched in careful—and for many people, almost impenetrable—theological language. For example, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the world's 80m Anglicans, has dismissed literal readings of the Creation story in Genesis as a “category mistake”. But no such highbrow reticence holds back the more zealous Christian movements in the developing world, where the strongest religious medicine seems to go down best.
In Kenya, for example, there is a bitter controversy over plans to put on display the most complete skeleton of a prehistoric human being ever found, a figure known as Turkana Boy—along with a collection of fossils, some of which may be as much as 200m years old. Bishop Boniface Adoyo, an evangelical leader who claims to speak for 35 denominations and 10m believers, has denounced the proposed exhibit, asserting that: “I did not evolve from Turkana Boy or anything like it.”
Richard Leakey, the palaeontologist who unearthed both the skeleton and the fossils in northern Kenya, is adamant that the show must go on. “Whether the bishop likes it or not, Turkana Boy is a distant relation of his,” Mr Leakey has insisted. Local Catholics have backed him.
Rows over religion and reason are also raging in Russia. In recent weeks the Russian Orthodox Church has backed a family in St Petersburg who (unsuccessfully) sued the education authorities for teaching only about evolution to explain the origins of life. Plunging into deep scientific waters, a spokesman for the Moscow Patriarchate, Father Vsevolod Chaplin, said Darwin's theory of evolution was “based on pretty strained argumentation”—and that physical evidence cited in its support “can never prove that one biological species can evolve into another.”
A much more nuanced critique, not of Darwin himself but of secular world-views based on Darwin's ideas, has been advanced by Pope Benedict XVI, the conservative Bavarian who assumed the most powerful office in the Christian world two years ago. The pope marked his 80th birthday this week by publishing a book on Jesus Christ. But for Vatican-watchers, an equally important event was the issue in German, a few days earlier, of a book in which the pontiff and several key advisers expound their views on the emergence of the universe and life. While avoiding the cruder arguments that have been used to challenge Darwin's theories, the pope asserts that evolution cannot be conclusively proved; and that the manner in which life developed was indicative of a “divine reason” which could not be discerned by scientific methods alone.
Both in his previous role as the chief enforcer of Catholic doctrine and since his enthronement, the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has made clear his profound belief that man has a unique, God-given role in the animal kingdom; and that a divine creator has an ongoing role in sustaining the universe, something far more than just “lighting the blue touch paper” for the Big Bang, the event that scientists think set the universe in motion. Yesterday America, today the world
As these examples from around the world show, the debate over creation, evolution and religion is rapidly going global. Until recently, all the hottest public arguments had taken place in the United States, where school boards in many districts and states tried to restrict the teaching of Darwin's idea that life in its myriad forms evolved through a natural process of adaptation to changing conditions.
Darwin-bashers in America suffered a body-blow in December 2005, when a judge—striking down the policies of a district school board in Pennsylvania—delivered a 139-page verdict that delved deeply into questions about the origin of life and tore apart the case made by the “intelligent design” camp: the idea that some features of the natural world can be explained only by the direct intervention of a ingenious creator.
Intelligent design, the judge found, was a religious theory, not a scientific one—and its teaching in schools violated the constitution, which bars the establishment of any religion. One point advanced in favour of intelligent design—the “irreducible complexity” of some living things—was purportedly scientific, but it was not well-founded, the judge ruled. Proponents of intelligent design were also dishonest in saying that where there were gaps in evolutionary theory, their own view was the only alternative, according to the judge.
The Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which has spearheaded the American campaign to counter-balance the teaching of evolution, artfully distanced itself from the Pennsylvania case, saying the local school board had gone too far in mixing intelligent design with a more overtly religious doctrine of “creationism”. But the verdict made it much harder for school boards in other parts of America to mandate curbs on the teaching of evolution, as many have tried to do—to the horror of most professional scientists.
Whatever the defeats they have suffered on home ground, American foes of Darwin seem to be gaining influence elsewhere. In February several luminaries of the anti-evolution movement in the United States went to Istanbul for a grand conference where Darwin's ideas were roundly denounced. The organiser of the gathering was a Turkish Muslim author and columnist, Mustafa Akyol, who forged strong American connections during a fellowship at the Discovery Institute.
To the dismay of some Americans and the delight of others, Mr Akyol was invited to give evidence (against Darwin's ideas) at hearings held by the Kansas school board in 2005 on how science should be taught. Mr Akyol, an advocate of reconciliation between Muslims and the West who is much in demand at conferences on the future of Islam, is careful to distinguish his position from that of the extravagant publishing venture in his home city. “They make some valid criticisms of Darwinism, but I disagree with most of their other views,” insists the young author, whose other favourite cause is the compatibility between Islam and Western liberal ideals, including human rights and capitalism. But a multi-layered anti-Darwin movement has certainly brought about a climate in Turkey and other Muslim countries that makes sure challenges to evolution theory, be they sophisticated or crude, are often well received.
America's arguments over evolution are also being followed closely in Brazil, where—as the pope will find when he visits the country next month—various forms of evangelicalism and Pentecostalism are advancing rapidly at the expense of the majority Catholic faith. Samuel Rodovalho, an activist in Brazil's Pentecostal church, puts it simply: “We are convinced that the story of Genesis is right, and we take heart from the fact that in North America the teaching of evolution in schools has been challenged.”
Even in the United States, defenders of evolution teaching do not see their battle as won. There was widespread dismay in their ranks in February when John McCain, a Republican presidential candidate, accepted an invitation (albeit to talk about geopolitics, not science) from the Discovery Institute. And some opponents of intelligent design are still recovering from their shock at reading in the New York Times a commentary written, partly at the prompting of the Discovery Institute, by the pope's close friend, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the Archbishop of Vienna.
In his July 2005 article the cardinal seemed to challenge what most scientists would see as axiomatic—the idea that natural selection is an adequate explanation for the diversity and complexity of life in all its forms. Within days, the pope and his advisers found they had new interlocutors. Lawrence Krauss, an American physicist in the front-line of courtroom battles over education, fired off a letter to the Vatican urging a clarification. An agnostic Jew who insists that evolution neither disproves nor affirms any particular faith, Mr Krauss recruited as co-signatories two American biologists who were also devout Catholics. Around the same time, another Catholic voice was raised in support of evolution, that of Father George Coyne, a Jesuit astronomer who until last year was head of the Vatican observatory in Rome. Mr Krauss reckons his missive helped to nudge the Catholic authorities into clarifying their view and insisting that they did still accept natural selection as a scientific theory.
But that was not the end of the story. Catholic physicists, biologists and astronomers (like Father Coyne) insisted that there was no reason to revise their view that intelligent design is bad science. And they expressed concern (as the Christian philosopher Augustine did in the 4th century) that if the Christian church teaches things about the physical world which are manifestly false, then everything else the church teaches might be discredited too. But there is also a feeling among Pope Benedict's senior advisers that in rejecting intelligent design as it is understood in America they must not go too far in endorsing the idea that Darwinian evolution says all that needs to be, or can be, said about how the world came to be.
The net result has been the emergence of two distinct camps among the Catholic pundits who aspire to influence the pope. In one there are people such as Father Coyne, who believe (like the agnostic Mr Krauss) that physics and metaphysics can and should be separated. From his new base at a parish in North Carolina, Father Coyne insists strongly on the integrity of science—“natural phenomena have natural causes”—and he is as firm as any secular biologist in asserting that every year the theory of evolution is consolidated with fresh evidence.
In the second camp are those, including some high up in the Vatican bureaucracy, who feel that Catholic scientists like Father Coyne have gone too far in accepting the world-view of their secular colleagues. This camp stresses that Darwinian science should not seduce people into believing that man evolved purely as the result of a process of random selection. While rejecting American-style intelligent design, some authoritative Catholic thinkers claim to see God's hand in “convergence”: the apparent fact that, as they put it, similar processes and structures are present in organisms that have evolved separately.
As an example of Catholic thinking that is relatively critical of science-based views of the world, take Father Joseph Fessio, the provost of Ave Maria University in Florida and a participant in a seminar on creation and evolution which led to the new book with papal input. As Father Fessio observes, Catholics accept three different ways of learning about reality: empirical observation, direct revelations from God and, between those two categories, “natural philosophy”—the ability of human reason to discern divine reason in the created universe. That is not quite intelligent design, but it does sound similar. The mainly Protestant heritage of the United States may be one reason why the idea of “natural philosophy” is poorly understood by American thinkers, Father Fessio playfully suggests. (Another problem the Vatican may face is that Orthodox Christian theologians, as well as Catholic mystics, are wary of “natural philosophy”: they insist that mystical communion with God is radically different from observation or speculation by the human brain.) The evolution of the anti-evolutionists
Whatever they think about science, there is one crucial problem that all Christian thinkers about creation must wrestle with: the status of the human being in relation to other creatures, and the whole universe. There is no reading of Christianity which does not assert the belief that mankind, while part of the animal kingdom, has a unique vocation and potential to enhance the rest of creation, or else to destroy it. This point has been especially emphasised by Pope Benedict's interlocutors in the Orthodox church, such as its senior prelate Patriarch Bartholomew I, who has been nudging the Vatican to take a stronger line on man's effect on the environment and climate change.
For Father Coyne, belief in man's unique status is entirely consistent with an evolutionary view of life. “The fact we are at the end of this marvellous process is something that glorifies us,” he says.
But Benedict XVI apparently wants to lay down an even stronger line on the status of man as a species produced by divine ordinance, not just random selection. “Man is the only creature on earth that God willed for his own sake,” says a document issued under Pope John Paul II and approved by the then Cardinal Ratzinger.
What is not quite clear is whether the current pope accepts the “Chinese wall” that his old scientific adviser, Father Coyne, has struggled to preserve between physics and metaphysics. It is in the name of this Chinese wall that Father Coyne and other Catholic scientists have been able to make common cause with agnostics, like Mr Krauss, in defence of the scientific method. What the Jesuit astronomer and his secular friends all share is the belief that people who agree about physics can differ about metaphysics or religion.
Critics like Father Fessio would retort that their problem was not with the Chinese wall—but with an attempt to tear it down by scientists whose position is both Darwinist and anti-religious: in other words, with those who believe that scientific observation of the universe leaves no room at all for religious belief. (Some scientists and philosophers go further, dismissing religion itself as a phenomenon brought about by man's evolutionary needs.)
The new book quoting Pope Benedict's contributions to last year's seminar shows him doing his best to pick his way through these arguments: accepting that scientific descriptions of the universe are valid as far as they go, while insisting that they are ultimately incomplete as a way of explaining how things came to be. On those points, he seems to share the “anti-Darwinist” position of Father Fessio; but he also agrees with Father Coyne that a “God of the gaps” theory—which uses a deity to fill in the real or imagined holes in evolutionary science—is too small-minded. Only a handful of the world's 2 billion Christians will be able to make sense of his intricate intellectual arguments, and there is a risk that simplistic reporting and faulty interpretation of his ideas could create the impression that the pope has deserted to the ranks of the outright anti-evolutionists; he has done no such thing, his advisers insist.
Not that the advocates of intelligent design or outright creationists are in need of anyone's endorsement. Their ideas are flourishing and their numbers growing. As Mr Krauss has caustically argued, the anti-evolution movement is itself a prime example of evolution and adaptability—defeated in one arena, it will resurface elsewhere. His ally Father Coyne, the devoted star-gazer, is one of the relatively few boffins who have managed to expound with equal passion both their scientific views and their religious beliefs. He writes with breathless excitement about “the dance of the fertile universe, a ballet with three ballerinas: chance, necessity and fertility.” Whether they are atheists or theists, other supporters of Darwin's ideas on natural selection will have to inspire as well as inform if they are to compete with their growing army of foes.
Don Vito Corleone advised a heroin dealer that the Corleone Family would not be financing, protecting or participating in the heroin trade with or without the heroin dealer (played by Al Lettieri). Nonetheless, Don Vito wished the heroin dealer well since the interests of that hero9in dealer and of the Corleone Family neither coincided nor clashed. So it is with those who are descended from humans through the grace of God and those who claim simian or apelike ancestry (and prove it by their claims and their "worship" of the false gods of "science"). Of course, like the heroin peddler who determined upon assassinating Don Vito (unsuccessfully), the simian descended are not satisfied to mind their own fantasies and business but seek to farm the earnings of those descended from humans to finance the distribution of their godless propaganda through the forced mechanism of gummint skewels which follow a regimen of ignorance as scholarship, godlessness as science and various socialist and materialist fantasies as "history."
However Darwin may have fared at Cambridge, Jesus Christ saved each and every member of the human race who will take Him up on the offer on His terms.
The Anglican church's temporary gain was "science's" permanent loss. Fortunately nothing important was harmed. If Darwin had determined that man was descended from Stilton Cheese it would have made no more difference. Even Darwin himself did not presume to have discovered anything useful, assuming falsely that he discovered anything at all.
Scientific discoveries (by definition part of the search for TRUTH) include such useful things as transistors (despite the looney bin imagination of inventor William Shockley on other matters), telescopes, microscopes, the speed of light, the effects of sunstorms on radio/TV transmissions, radio, TV, internal combustion engines, antibiotics, cellular therapies, chemotherapy, CAT Scan technology, photography, FAX technology, the curve ball, the knuckle ball, the slider, golf, bifocals, thermometers, odometers, tachometers, transmissions, carburetors..... and do not include pseudoscriptures of no conceivable utility like The Origin of Species and its silly pseudoreligious pretensions to replace Scripture with a pack of fantasies usefdul only to atheistic theologians of academe.
If Darwin did that well at Cambridge, it says more about Cambridge in an age of legacies than it says about Darwin. Imagine how badly he would have fared if the admissions of that era had been on merit.
AND BTW that's creed not screed although I plead guilty, guilty, guilty to sneering at what deserves to be sneered at.
“Evolution is the explanation for (and the predecessor of) modern genetics.”
This is just not true. Biologists at Darwin’s time believed in continuous heredity, and Darwin’s work was based on this extending to the idea of infinite plasticity of life. It wasn’t until Mendelian inheritance was rediscovered in 1900 that an underlying separate mechanism for inheritance was even considered.
I think biology is still stuck on the infinite plasticity of life model, and has shoehorned random mutation into genetics in order to fit the old paradigm after discontinuous heredity was accepted. Even new discoveries of intracellular mechanisms to fight mutation like RNAi haven’t made a dent in the idea. When it was discovered that the genetic code is not universal, infinite plasticity marched on.
“I think that is one of many reasons why some people have such a hard time with it. It does not offer an absolute truth like religion does.”
The theories within the framework of evolution may be changing and fluid, but the philosophical framework of evolution is defended as absolute truth by proponents in the evolution camp. Stephen J Gould said, “Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact.” Science isn’t very fluid when it comes to most observed phenomena. Newton’s laws still hold true in the macro level, and were only refined, and not altogether done away with for relativity and quantum mechanics.
“But with religion, it is easy to take a literalist approach and then go on spiritual war with anything that even remotely contradicts that fundamentalist perspective. There is no introspection or questioning of one’s interpretation.”
You must not visit the Religion forum much. Varying Bible interpretations on the silliest things are fought out tooth and nail. Fundamentalists on all sides call each other blasphemers, heretics, and antichrists. The tiniest hair-splitting difference in doctrine or theology is considered soul-threatening. The new movements shun the old, and the old shun the new. Even within Christianity, faith can be very fluid.
I saw that awhile back and then, recently, they showed it at my church. That’s a keeper. I enjoy it everytime I view it - so THANK YOU!
Always a pleasure. The “Godfather” motif is illustrative.
Sorry, but I have a tendency to use a sledgehammer on a fly..but I found these....
Interesting points of view.......
Teacher posts evolution challenge
By RORY SCHULER
Staff Writer
Lebanon Daily News
Lebanon Daily News
ANNVILLE — If you believe in evolution as fact, Tom Ritter has a thousand bucks that says he can prove you wrong.
“I want to put one of these evolutionists on the spot,” Ritter said yesterday while standing in his chemistry-lab classroom at Annville-Cleona High School. “I want them to put their money where their mouth is. Let’s belly up to the bar and see what you’re made of.”
Ritter, a chemistry and physics teacher, has laid down a public challenge to those who believe that evolution is the only rational explanation behind life and the existence of modern organisms.
On the state’s Constitution Party Web site, Ritter has posted the ground rules for a debate to be held in mid-May between himself and a yet-to-be-determined opponent whom he characterizes as an “evolutionist.” Ritter wants to argue the topic and have the debate judged by a panel of high-school students, with a cash prize at stake.
The debate is tentatively scheduled for the evening of May 15, 16 or 17. He hopes to find a worthy opponent by Friday.
Ritter said he has strong feelings against teaching evolution as fact while leaving out other theories, including creationism. He said those feelings far predate last year’s controversy in the Dover School District in York County, when parents sued to have a statement about “intelligent design” removed from the classroom.
“Personally, I don’t have much interest in evolution, creation or ‘intelligent design,’” Ritter said. “I’m interested in science. I believe teaching evolution as fact perverts science. You could teach evolution as a theory, and I’d have no problem with that.
“My faith doesn’t have much to do with evolution,” he said. “I believe in God, and I believe there may be a creator. When people teach evolution as (if) it has to be true, they’re teaching something that hasn’t been and cannot be proven. These people — these dedicated evolutionists — are really just dedicated atheists.”
Ritter said he believes the teaching of only evolution in public-school science classes is a concept driven by atheists. To be fair, Ritter feels the theory of creation should be offered as an alternate possibility.
“Evolution may be right, at least in parts,” Ritter wrote in part of the on-line debate challenge. “But it is not treated as science, and materialism is a faulty theory to rely upon. Thus anyone who insists it is the only possible explanation employs evolution as an article of faith.”
He wants the debate to be one-on-one, between himself and another teacher or professor of science with a strong educational background. Each debater is to place $1,000 in escrow. The winner will take the pot.
The outcome is to be decided by a jury of high-school seniors who are undecided on the subject, Ritter said. A willing school, from within a 50-mile radius, will be chosen, and then a question regarding the teaching of evolution and creationism in the public-school setting will be posed. Several students who answer “undecided” to the question will compose the panel.
No audio-visuals or handouts will be permitted. Each person will have an 18-minute introduction, 12 minutes for cross-examination, and a seven-minute closing statement. The challenger will choose who goes first.
Ritter said anyone officially associated with the state Department of Education, any state politician, anyone who teaches a physical science or biology class at an accredited college or university, any member of good standing in a nationally recognized science organization, or on the masthead of a science publication with more than a 500,000 paid circulation is eligible to participate.
The Constitution Party of Pennsylvania has also announced it is willing to pay a $500 finder’s fee to the first Pennsylvanian who gets a qualified challenger to actually debate Ritter under the ground rules.
While Ritter said he’s not a member of the party, he and the group share several common interests and beliefs, as they connect to the the teaching of evolution.
Ritter, 58, of Orwigsburg in Schuylkill County has taught in the Annville-Cleona School District for eight years. A former owner of a screen-printing business and a past Pennsylvania Air National Guard reservist, he also organized the annual Physics Pow-Wow at Lebanon Valley College from 1999 to 2002.
He’s a member of the Hersheypark Physics Day committee, was a frequent presenter at state Science Teachers’ Association conventions, and had his article, “The Baker St. Irregulars Meet Archimedes” published in the April 2005 edition of The Physics Teacher.
——————
http://www.constitutionpartypa.com
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=11648
Why Are Darwinists So Afraid of Intelligent Design?
by Barney Brenner
Posted Jan 17, 2006
Darwinists must be an endangered species. How else to explain their 80-year need for court protection to ensure their survival?
In 1925, an ACLU-driven defense team in the Scopes-Monkey Trial wanted a court to declare that laws forbidding the teaching of evolution were unconstitutional. In recent weeks, in a courtroom in Dover, Pa., the same organization applauded a judge’s ruling that the teaching of ideas contrary to evolution, in this case Intelligent Design, were unconstitutional.
The same ACLU that once advocated for free and open discussion in schools is working to see it stifled today.
Its website boasts, “Intelligent Design is a religious view, not a scientific theory, according to U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III in his historic decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover. The decision is a victory not only for the ACLU, who led the legal challenge, but for all who believe it is inappropriate, and unconstitutional, to advance a particular religious belief at the expense of our children’s education.”
Science involves observing nature and producing hypotheses which explain the data — and of discrediting theories which don’t fit new observations. Having judges decide what constitutes science is as nonsensical as scientists issuing judicial decisions.
And the irreligious left, perpetually misusing the First Amendment, can’t identify which religion is being established. Is it that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses or of Catholicism? Perhaps Mormonism or Orthodox Judaism? Among many others, these disparate faiths all claim as canon the book of Genesis, where the religious version of creation is found.
But ironically, while no particular religion is being promoted by the teaching of Intelligent Design, there’s a belief system, which has established “churches” in several states, that is being favored by ACLU— and court-imposed censorship: atheism, whose worldview promotes moral relativism and secular humanism.
The left maintains that Intelligent Design is merely creationism — a literal reading of the Bible’s account of creation — camouflaged in scientific language. But even a casual perusal of ID demonstrates there is no dependence on Genesis for any of its arguments, nor does it teach any biblical doctrine. It merely demands an examination of the evidence — or lack thereof — that uncountable species arose from primordial soup, or that they evolved over time from one to another.
To support Darwin’s theory, the earth should be teeming with myriad transitional specimens, but they are noteworthy, despite incessant extrapolation, only by their absence.
Other modern observations are daunting for Darwinists: digital information — universally a mark of design — in the genetic code and irreducibly complex structures such as miniature molecular machines within the cell which Darwin could hardly begin to imagine. Using the eye as an example, he coined the phrase, “organs of extreme perfection and complication” and recognized his theory’s inability to explain them. New discoveries only exacerbate these shortcomings.
And despite frequent references to “organic chemicals” present on the formative earth, neither Darwin nor modern scientists can demonstrate how to get from these compounds to just a single-cell living organism, or even a virus — let alone the complex life forms. The search for that initial “spark” of life, or an explanation of why it is no longer in evidence, has been forever elusive.
Ironically, the scientific community, which anxiously tries to find evidence of other intelligent life in the universe, blatantly turns its back on the one intelligence we have the most indication of: a creator; a master chemist for whom the DNA code — a puzzle which even our terrestrial species is just starting to grasp — is a simple blueprint.
Even though ID relies not at all on the Bible, it does leave open the conclusion that the designer is the biblical God and this implication of God is what the Darwinists seem to fear.
So there may yet be hope for these folks since the Psalmist says, “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.” Let’s hope they eventually wise up.
________________________________________
Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
Just a few proofs that Darwin just might not be right.......
Pope Preaches Against Chance Evolution Man is Not the Chance Result of Evolution
By John-Henry Westen
REGENSBURG, Germany, September 12, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - This morning Pope Benedict XVI discussed evolution in his homily at the outdoor Mass celebrated in Islinger Field. In a direct attack on the concept of random chance evolution, Pope Benedict asked rhetorically: “What came first? Creative Reason, the Spirit who makes all things and gives them growth, or Unreason, which, lacking any meaning, yet somehow brings forth a mathematically ordered cosmos, as well as man and his reason.”
The Pope explained that the belief in God as Creator comes in the most ancient profession of faith known to Christians, the Apostles’ Creed. “As Christians, we say: I believe in God the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth - I believe in the Creator Spirit. We believe that at the beginning of everything is the eternal Word, with Reason and not Unreason,” he said.
While faith is not opposed to science, the Pope noted that some scientific endeavor is aimed at opposing faith. “From the Enlightenment on, science, at least in part, has applied itself to seeking an explanation of the world in which God would be unnecessary,” he said. The Pope added, “And if this were so, he (God) would also become unnecessary in our lives.”
Man, “would then be nothing more than a chance result of evolution and thus, in the end, equally meaningless,” said the Pope.
However, Benedict XVI, noted assuredly that attempts to show God as unnecessary in the explanation of the universe are futile. “But whenever the attempt seemed to be nearing success - inevitably it would become clear: something is missing from the equation!,” he said. “When God is subtracted, something doesn’t add up for man, the world, the whole vast universe.”
See the English translation of the homily from Vatican Radio here:
http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=948...
NIV Isaiah 40:26
Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name.
NIV Isaiah 41:19-20
19. I will put in the desert the cedar and the acacia, the myrtle and the olive. I will set pines in the wasteland, the fir and the cypress together,
20. so that people may see and know, may consider and understand, that the hand of the LORD has done this, that the Holy One of Israel has created it.
NIV Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
________________________________________
________________________________________
NIV Deuteronomy 4:32
Ask now about the former days, long before your time, from the day God created man on the earth; ask from one end of the heavens to the other. Has anything so great as this ever happened, or has anything like it ever been heard of?
NIV Psalms 89:47
Remember how fleeting is my life. For what futility you have created all men!
NIV Psalms 104:30
When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth.
NIV Psalms 139:13
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
NIV Psalms 148:4-5
4. Praise him, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies.
5. Let them praise the name of the LORD, for he commanded and they were created.
NIV Isaiah 40:26
Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name.
NIV Isaiah 41:19-20
19. I will put in the desert the cedar and the acacia, the myrtle and the olive. I will set pines in the wasteland, the fir and the cypress together,
20. so that people may see and know, may consider and understand, that the hand of the LORD has done this, that the Holy One of Israel has created it.
NIV Isaiah 42:5-6
5. This is what God the LORD says— he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it:
6. “I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand.
NIV Isaiah 43:1
But now, this is what the LORD says— he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: “Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have summoned you by name; you are mine.
NIV Isaiah 43:6-7
6. I will say to the north, `Give them up!’ and to the south, `Do not hold them back.’ Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth—
7. everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.”
NIV Isaiah 45:7-8
7. I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.
8. “You heavens above, rain down righteousness; let the clouds shower it down. Let the earth open wide, let salvation spring up, let righteousness grow with it; I, the LORD, have created it.
NIV Isaiah 45:12
It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.
NIV Isaiah 45:18
For this is what the LORD says— he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited— he says: “I am the LORD, and there is no other.”
NIV Isaiah 54:16-17
16. “See, it is I who created the blacksmith who fans the coals into flame and forges a weapon fit for its work. And it is I who have created the destroyer to work havoc;
17. no weapon forged against you will prevail, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and this is their vindication from me,” declares the LORD.
NIV Isaiah 57:16
I will not accuse forever, nor will I always be angry, for then the spirit of man would grow faint before me— the breath of man that I have created.
NIV Isaiah 65:17-18
17. “Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.
18. But be glad and rejoice forever in what I will create, for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight and its people a joy.
NIV Ezekiel 28:13-15
13. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared.
14. You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.
15. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.
NIV Malachi 2:10
Have we not all one Father ? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our fathers by breaking faith with one another?
NIV Matthew 13:35
So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.”
NIV Matthew 25:34
“Then the King will say to those on his right, `Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
NIV Mark 10:6
“But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.’ (Not umpteen eons later; after lots of Evolution takes place!)
NIV Mark 13:18-19
18. Pray that this will not take place in winter,
19. because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.
NIV Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
NIV Romans 1:25
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
NIV Romans 8:20-22
20. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope
21. that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
22. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
NIV 1 Corinthians 11:8-9
8. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
9. neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
NIV Ephesians 3:8-9
8. Although I am less than the least of all God’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
9. and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.
NIV Colossians 1:16-17
16. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
17. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
NIV 1 Timothy 4:4-5
4. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
5. because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
NIV Hebrews 4:13
Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
NIV Hebrews 9:11
When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation.
NIV Hebrews 9:26
Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world.
NIV Hebrews 12:26-29
26. At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.”
27. The words “once more” indicate the removing of what can be shaken—that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken may remain.
28. Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe,
29. for our “God is a consuming fire.”
NIV 2 Peter 3:4
They will say, “Where is this `coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”
NIV Revelation 4:11
“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”
NIV Revelation 10:6
And he swore by him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it, and said, “There will be no more delay!
NIV Revelation 13:8
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.
NIV Revelation 17:8
The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come.
Everything that is alive is a transitional. I'd call that teeming. If you disagree, name an exception.
In the beginning was the UNIVERSE. Until that is explained, life is just a late arrival subset of creation. When we figure out how the universe and it’s operation came to be, we will have the answer to the origins of life. First things first.
The exception is that those organisms that were supposed to be the beginning of evolution are still with us. Secondly, you obviously read and searched hard for at least one point that you could find some challenge, when I provided a large amount of support for the ID and creation. :))
However, it saves a lot of time since a lot of folks that “doth protest to much” analyze line for line and turns truth around or innudate the writer with so many, almost funny responses in order to obfucate the issue or confuse the writer.
I disagree, it’s not teeming enough....:)))
Quote from another poster relative to the kosovo situation, but an interesting concept linking Religion........
“Serbs and Jews are two of the few peoples on earth whose entire ethnicity is based on religion. Convert from Judaism to something else, you are no longer “a Jew”. Convert from Serbian Orthodoxy to Islam or any other religion, you are no longer “a Serb”.
The best way to destroy religion is to destroy those whose entire cultural identity is founded on it, first, then chip away at everyone else.”
With Jesus Christ this is impossible....when you hang with some religion, you are seated in the world. The world can be chipped away.
What the heck is that supposed to mean?
well, that means there are species that missed the Evolution train and are still in existence, for one. :))
10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design (Part I)Part II and III is there.
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003089.html
you are one of those that reads to find at least one straw or one card to pull the house down. This is a typical technique of disinformation. However, when using the truth this is near impossible to do, unless deceit or trickery is used. Read what I posted, and don’t stop at the first point that you can strike back with....read for knowledge and possible rethinking, or comments that are designed to clear up and not purposely cloud the issue.
Well, I guess he would have done equally well, since I was referring to how he did on final exams. However he gained admittance, placement in exams didn't have a thing to do with "legacies," but rather how well you knew your Greek, Latin, William Paley, John Locke, math, physics, etc. (Darwin actually did best on the theological subjects and scraped by in math.) Besides, even if daddy Darwin pulled a few strings to get Chuck in the door, it wasn't strictly a "legacy". None of the Darwins had attended Cambridge. None were even Anglicans.
Even Darwin himself did not presume to have discovered anything useful, assuming falsely that he discovered anything at all.
I don't know where you get that. Darwin wasn't overly puffed up about his achievements. He certainly lacked your pompous ability to strut while seated. But he was justly proud of his accomplishments, many of which are still useful to this day.
Just for instance Darwin did a complete and thorough study of the systematics of barnacles. He spent 8 years on this and dissected thousands of animals the size of a pin head under a microscope, right down to their (much smaller) genitals, mouthparts, appendages, etc. He took on this task because the taxonomy (classification) of cirripedae was in complete disarray, and Darwin had discovered a new species during the Beagle voyage that didn't fit properly into any of the existing categories.
The result is that Darwin completely reworked the classification scheme of the order, and Darwin's classification is still used today. Granted it's less unusual in systematics than in many other fields, but nevertheless it's quite an accomplishment in science to still be relevantly cited by modern researchers more than 100 years after your death, and 160 after your work was published. (Darwin's cirripidae monographs were published during the 1840's.)
Now you might not think it "useful" to better understand the diversity, ecological roles, etc, of barnacles, but many scientists who study them would disagree. So, for that matter, would some commercial interests whose capital assets are damaged by barnacles.
However Darwin also made useful and original discoveries in even more practical fields like animal husbandry and gardening. He often published letters and articles in trade magazines for gardeners, pigeon fanciers/breeders, etc. One of his last books published detailed experiments and related investigations into the role of earthworms in forming and conditioning vegetable soils. He also published original research on the behavior, physiology and adaptations of insectivorious plants, climbing plants and orchids, the later at least of some commercial interest even if as an aesthetic product.
One might also mention that although evolutionary theory has had (at least until lately, e.g. the use of selection algorithms and models to create new drugs) few direct technological applications, it did provide the basis for a "natural" classification system, as Darwin himself realized for the barnacles.
Now whereas taxonomy (the classification of living organisms) likewise has few if any direct technological applications, it is a crucial prerequisite for nearly all other biological technologies. IOW you have to be able to bring some sensible order to the overwhelming diversity of living things before you can start exploiting them most effectively.
So, for instance, although Linnaeus, who devised the first robust and useful system of classification, contributed nothing directly thereby to technology, it's certainly no coincidence that unprecedented advances in, for instance, plant pharmacology followed thereafter.
got this today from a mailing...........
quote:
A majority of Americans abhor the practice of partial-birth abortion - Congress passed a ban against it - the President signed it - the Supreme Court of the United States upheld it....
“Yet within minutes of that ruling, pro-abortion members of Congress raced to introduce a so-called ‘’Freedom of Choice’’ Act which would totally reverse the decision of the people, the Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court.
Not only that, but they made this new bill retroactive - so
that the decision of the high court would evaporate!
The ACLJ needs your help immediately! Please give an online gift today to stop the multi-million-dollar abortion lobby and to protect the ban on partial-birth abortion.
It didn’t take long for the applause to start from the entire abortion lobby - the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, N.O.W., NARAL Pro-Choice America, and others.
Which means millions of dollars could flow into the campaign for this legislation.
For Senators Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, and others to introduce a bill (H.R. 1964 and S.1173) enshrining abortion into law is nothing less than a brazen, political move - but it is also extremely dangerous.
This bill says the federal government cannot regulate abortion.
Bottom line: It will enshrine abortion into law and completely decimate our efforts to eliminate it from America!
I find it useless to post scattergun criticisms. Those who do so are criticised for spamming. So I do one thing at a time. Be assured that if and when you satisfactorily answer my question, I will move on to another.
So tell me, what exactly does it mean to miss evolution's train?
means that their existence is just another hole in Evolution......remember one obsucation of a fact at a time. I like your style. lolol....:))
Its called votes, money, cowardice, and being deceived....simple.
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.