Posted on 07/04/2007 5:43:27 PM PDT by balch3
Dear Editor,
Reading Kowlessar Misir's letter captioned "Science and Religion are mutually exclusive: belief is a matter of faith!" (07.06.30) is a tortuous journey. Throughout the letter, one senses the difficulty in conceptualizing the big picture, and also a desperate search for meaning. An indication of Misir's dilemma is the fact that, in the tight space of a single page, he asked 21 questions rather than exercise diligence in rationalizing their answers. The reason for this, sadly, is found in the very last line of his effort as he quotes Miller on Darwin, denying the existence of a soul. Could this intellectual panic be about Misir's infatuation with atheism and evolution? He is now engaged in the ultimate deception, making a case for a "God of diversity" while at the same time denying His (God's) existence. Remember Psalm 14:1 …
The available "scientific" evidence will add to his misery. He should recognize at once that it takes more faith to believe in evolution, Darwin and atheism than to believe in Jesus Christ!
In any belief system, it surely is a comfort to find that the "scientific" (however defined) basis upon which that system rests acts itself out with the reassuring consistency or probability of a "law". Likewise, it must surely portend disaster and crisis when the system has to be held up with the bandages of deception and denial. Dr. Hugh Ross (Reasons To Believe) adopts a view that is completely opposite to Misir's: "… science and faith are, and always will be, allies, not enemies. ... since (for) the same God who "authored" the universe also inspired the writings of the Bible, a consistent message will come through both channels. In other words, the facts of nature will never contradict the words of the Bible when both are properly interpreted." To believe any less of any belief system would be self-deluding indeed. Misir is fundamentally deficient in advocating that "These two concepts are mutually exclusive and there is never any convergence". He denies his own system, whatever that is, since he maintains that science cannot uphold it.
We should turn to Marilyn Adamson (Is there a God?) for a brief rebuttal of Misir's evolutionary concept that the "… world is a complex heterogeneous system and that evolved from a complex heterogeneous system". This idea of Misir's sounds impressive indeed until one carries the process to its absurdly infinite iteration. One must finally make a decision on where the first "complex" heterogeneous system came from. Complexity, by its very definition is ordered not chaotic, is multi-faceted, and reflects intelligence. Adamson offers six simple but compelling lower-order observations for the existence of the God of the Bible, and it is this level of abstraction in reasoning that Misir must aim at, rather than rhetorical thrust and parry. He may want, for example, to rationalize his concern with the validity of "philosophies that predate the common Biblical era" against the Christian position that the "Biblical era" begins, well, at the "beginning itself" per Genesis 1:1.
I sense that the most meaningful insight into Adamson's foresight is in her fifth point. Here, she maintains that "We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him." Misir is no different from billions of Christians in this regard, and here's the proof: after vowing to address "God" in a later treatment in as early as the second paragraph, he almost unconsciously refers to "God" no less than 15 times in the paragraphs thereafter. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob comforts him, and us, with the soothing words of Jeremiah 29:11-14. Misir has thereby found his answer as to why God gave him the "ability to intellectualize". To choose to seek God from a wide range of intellectual distractions is worship indeed, this with a peace that passes all understanding.
But I also sense that it is the higher-order arguments regarding Biblical creation/ evolution that Misir's attention is really focused on, since he says in concluding: "Scientific thought has provided the necessary tools of investigation that yielded knowledge and information, enabling us to make informed statements on the development of humankind." He however cites none of them, and I admire his caution, because evolution as a scientific principle has been all but disproved. A formidable body of evidence already exists in such works as Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? by Jonathan Wells (Regnery Publishing, Inc, 2000. 338 pages) and Science & Christianity: Four Views (InterVarsity Press, 2000. 276 pages) http://www.reasons. org/resources/fff/2001issue05/index.shtml# book_reviews. There are others.
Wells, for one, carefully documents his thesis from the work of evolutionary biologists, explaining that the "icons" of evolution-considered to be the best evidence for evolution-are nothing more than scientific myths, in most cases.
The lack of experimental and observational support for evolution's so-called best evidence comes not from recent scientific advances, in most instances, but from long-acknowledged mainstream scientific literature. This lack of support prompts Wells to repeatedly question why textbooks consistently present these "icons" as evidence for evolution when evolutionary biologists understand that these "icons" are equivocal at best in their support for evolution.
He believes that the answer to this question stems from a deliberate effort by Darwinian ideologues to suppress scientific truth out of concern that without these widely known "icons" of evolution, public support for evolution will wane.
The evolutionary "icons" addressed by Wells include: 1) the Miller-Urey experiment; 2) the evolutionary "Tree of Life"; 3) the homology of vertebrate limbs; 4) Haeckel's drawings of vertebrate embryos; 5) Archaeopteryx as the missing link connecting birds to reptiles; 6) the peppered moth story; 7) beak evolution and speciation among Darwin's finches; 8) the laboratory-directed evolution of four-winged fruit flies; 9) equine evolution; and 10) human evolution.
In Misir's world of evolution and atheism, the scientific tools have been applied, and the concepts found wanting. Now what?
We conclude that it takes more "faith" to believe in a lie called "Darwinian evolution", and the tragedy of atheism, than to believe in Jesus Christ! Now, we should examine how the scientific tools validate intelligent design and, by inference, creation!
Yours faithfully,
Roger Williams
John 14: 8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
I’m guessing He’ll appear tall to everyone, seeing that we shall all bow the knee to Him.
I admire you for attempting to handle such inane prating.
I admire you for attempting to handle such inane prating.
Thank you and great post! Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess... I switched to the same mode the Lord used when addressing Satan. Scripture only.
“What do these words mean to you? Any God Who could not get his exact and precise meaning conveyed is no god. ANY distortion in the Scriptures would render them valueless. God managed to see to it that the first Book He gave the earth, The Torah, remained utterly unchanged by so much as one character for over four thousand years. It exists today in precisly the form it has always had. Four thousand years. Don’t doubt the power of God.”
Why do you assume that God isn’t achieving exactly the effects he wants now? And what Distorted version do you prefer, “The King James version?” The Bible and the Torah are a collection of stories from all over the middle-east, many from Egypt, and Babylon. The story of Noah’s arc is from a flood story out of what is now Iraq. I don’t doubt the power of God; I just doubt that any book or man can describe it. Nor do I believe that God’s will or intentions are necessarily understandable by man. You are completely wrong that the Torah is unchanged in 4,000 years, if for no other reason than the word meanings have change in the light of the advancement of human knowledge.
OK, now I’m confused. I was trying to examine your evidence and you switch to posting verses. So when you said “he stood up and showed Himself to me” I guess I am to take that as a metaphor, but of what exactly?
Acts 9: 1 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”
5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?”
Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.[a] It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”
6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?”
Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
7 And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one. 8 Then Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened he saw no one. But they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.
Ananias Baptizes Saul
10 Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and to him the Lord said in a vision, “Ananias.”
And he said, “Here I am, Lord.”
11 So the Lord said to him, “Arise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for one called Saul of Tarsus, for behold, he is praying. 12 And in a vision he has seen a man named Ananias coming in and putting his hand on him, so that he might receive his sight.”
13 Then Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he has done to Your saints in Jerusalem. 14 And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name.”
15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. 16 For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.”
17 And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus,[b] who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized.
19 So when he had received food, he was strengthened. Then Saul spent some days with the disciples at Damascus.
Are you claiming to be Saul?
FACT: The to rah is unchanged, PERIOD! YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN FACTS. That you cast the Torah’s meaning as a function of mens perception is about as silly and as selfserving as an argument can get.
That you seem to also KNOW the absolute origins of the old and new testaments is ANOTHER handy insight denied the rest of us (and is quite)useful for dismissing other’s ideas that you can’t dismiss with actual arguments.
The stupidity and incoherence of the idea that God failed in his attempts to communicate with His creation or that inability to make his Truth known IS HIS BIG PLAN!!! Well...words fail. How does one argue with a guy who is making it up as he goes along?
God MUST make men aware of and understand certain things—THAT is a given. Anything else is incoherent. God SAYS that the Torah is His, That Jesus is His, that Jesus’ life and words are his.
So tell me:What are the “distortions” in the King James? How do YOU judge them AS distortions? There MUST be a ruler or to judge deviation—WHAT is your ruler?
The argument that there is a God but no way to understand what He wants, indeed to confuse or cast as interrelated what He wants with what He HIMSELF knows and understands, is simple human, selfserving rationalizing.
Actually it’s a bit closer to prevaricating, in that Man is reasonable and in turning from reason finds the license that he wants.
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.