Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: betty boop
I agree with you regarding Dr. Collins. I understand he is a "recovered atheist." :^)

Dr. Collins is a demonstration that it's possible to completely accept God and the Savior, and accept evolution at the same time. My biggest argument is with people who will not accept that such a choice is an option.

The evolution battle has more similarities with the innumerable doctrinal arguments between the various denominations going back as far as the 1st century, than it has with any kind of scientific, or even philosophical debate.

95 posted on 06/24/2007 3:52:32 PM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]


To: narby; .30Carbine; Alamo-Girl; tacticalogic; hosepipe
Dr. Collins is a demonstration that it's possible to completely accept God and the Savior, and accept evolution at the same time. My biggest argument is with people who will not accept that such a choice is an option.

narby, I regard myself as both creationist and evolutionist: creationist, because I think the origin of the universe was a divine act; and evolutionist, because I think the created universe evolves. As a process in space and time, it either has to evolve or remain static. Clearly, it is not static. It seems to me Genesis, and the Holy Scriptures in toto, refer to an evolving universe, or creation. The point of Darwinist theory that I simply cannot accept -- because I consider it thoroughly irrational -- is that biological evolution is a "blind," random, purposeless process. It seems to me that you cannot get from a blind, random, purposeless process to an ordered universe that produces particular clearly purposive natural entities. Even plants seem to have "purpose," in the way they behave. And certainly in the results they produce for the biosphere. Were it not for photosynthesis, plant life could not exist in the first place. And if plant life did not exist, neither could any higher biological form. The entire food supply of biological entities on this planet depends on plants, directly (as in the case of herbivores) or indirectly (as in the case of carnivores).

The words "random" and "purposeless" are the absolute killers for me, when it comes to Darwinian theory. Plus the virtual impossibility of testing "truth claims" like this. What experiment can a scientist design that could show life to be random and purposeless, when everything we human beings know about our world on the basis of direct observation and knowledge of human and natural history screams the very opposite?

If someone could put together an experiment like that, I'd be very interested in taking a look at it. But I'm not holding my breath....

100 posted on 06/24/2007 5:17:18 PM PDT by betty boop ("Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- A. Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson