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
Can you explain how a rock came to life?A 'dry rock' or a rock sitting in a pool of ... salted* water on the edge of a pool exposed to sunlight** and an 'atmosphere' of some kind***?
(* the 'Salts' to include a variety of elements and compounds)
(**sunlight possibly MUCH stronger than seen now including much higher UV and even IR values)
(*** higher concentrations of gases we now label as 'trace' amounts)
The grass and trees were created on day 3 and the sun on day 4. Ever kept a plant out of the sun for one day?Hmmm ... I see a problem; these plants could possibly freeze, and since we actually have plants in the world today that can't survive below freezing temps without a sun to WARM things a bit this would seem to be a problem if true as stated ...
A greater understanding of the mind of God, is more likely to be achieved by the scientist studying the beauty of God's creationGo easy there ... mankind is likely to 'discover' how nature works and using those discovered laws and principles develop science and engineering disciplines and eventually build worldwide communications networks using computers and - and - ...
I seem to have lost that last thought ...
Genesis 1:1 IN the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
The sun is in the heaven(s) so what is declared is the beginning without telling us the when. Isaiah 45:18 - For thus saith the LORD That created the heavens: God Himself That formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it no *IN VAIN*, He formed it to be inhabited: "I am the LORD; and there is none else.
Now in Genesis 1:2 we are told something happened to this earth to cause the earth to become *without form, and void* which is the very same Hebrew word as Isaiah uses. This is what Peter is describing when he said the world (age) that WAS and he also says the heavens were of OLD.
Peter already describes Noah's flood in the previous chapter (IIPeter 2:4-5, note 5 says And spared not the *OLD* (ancient) world,..." is speaking about the reason for Noah's flood, and in that flood not all perished. That word perished distinguishes the *AGE* being described.
Noah's flood was for a specific purpose as stated in Genesis 6:2 That the *sons of God* saw the daughters of men (Adam) that they were fair: and they took them wives of all which they chose. Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made *man on the earth*, and it grieved Him at His heart. Genesis 6:9 These are the Generations of NOAH: Noah was a just, man and *perfect* in his generations, and Noah walked with God. Meaning Noah and his family did not partake with what is described in verse 2 of Genesis 6. So the flood would have been about where these that Genesis 6:2 described and would have covered their whole known earth.
It is an introduction, a literary device if you will, and nothing more.
Verse two, a continuation of the prelude or introduction, acknowledges the intent in verse one, and states their (the earth and the heavens) relative status, which at that point, is pretty much non existent.
Finally, here is Strongs definition for the so called mistranslation, controversy, of the word "was/became," in verse two:
1961 hayah haw-yaw a primitive root (compare 1933); to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):— beacon, X altogether, be(- come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-)self, require, X use.
As you can see, although the word could be translated as "became," it doesn't imply a necessary transition, as from one state to another, or a pre history of sorts. The King James Version, which translated the word as "was," is in perfect alignment with the definitions available, and again, such a definition does not necessarily imply a transition.
Now, here's the rub. Even if you did translate it as "became," with the implication of a transition...the first instantiation which preceded this transition would be entirely irrelevant and meaningless from our perspective since the transition would have obliterated any evidence at all of the first instantiation, per the terms, without form or substance (void)
The argument, that this one single word, "became," is indicative of a pre history, evidenced by the fossil record so to speak, is an argument that is not very well thought out at all, since all that evidence *must* originate from the second instantiation.
And with that, you're back where you started, without accomplishing anything...
Genesis 1:1 is a declaration of what happened IN the beginning. The word Genesis means IN the beginning. The second verse establishes that something happened to that creation and what we are not told is the when of it. We are told in other places the why of verse 2 but never in the whole of the Bible does it say how long ago or in what year either the beginning was or when the rebellion took place. When did the souls get created? We are not told but we do know that the souls have a history before they were ever placed into these flesh bodies. Jeremiah was told and Paul says that before Jacob and Esau were ever born that God loved Jacob and He hated Esau.
The argument, that this one single word, "became," is indicative of a pre history, evidenced by the fossil record so to speak, is an argument that is not very well thought out at all, since all that evidence *must* originate from the second instantiation.
The fossil record is visual to be found evidence of an age prior to this one, the Bible tells us Satan rebelled and God threw him down, Paul speaks often and much about predestination. There had to be a pre this age for anyone since the creation of man in the flesh for that literal meaning of that word to be accurate.
Jeremiah is told about the destruction of this earth pre-flesh man and he was told to tell us that Jer.4:22 For my people is foolish, they have not known ME. The are sottish (see what the Strong's says about that word sottish) children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.
Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void: and the heavens, and they had no light. Uses the very same Hebrew words that Moses used in Genesis 1:2.
v. 24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
v25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all of the birds of the heavens were fled. Can't be Noah's flood because there were at least 8 survivors from that flood.
v26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the *CITIES* thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by His fierce anger.
We could not lug around a Book that accurately described what you call the art of creation.
Who needs the sun when you have the Glory of God. If you would get God out of your man- box, perhaps you could fathom. In fact, we will need no sun that damages skin because we will have the Glory of God, His warmth and His light. Please look into that. The sun and moon were put here for us. Plenty of plants survive the ultimate darkness of Barrow Alaska, BTW. And my poinsettias need super darkness to bloom.
You deny the very Power of God with this sentence.
How about any of the above!
The point was a refutation of the claims by eagle74 that the Bible was written by primitive men who believe that demons caused illness. Science discovered the why of the hygiene laws in the Bible. Im not dismissing science only eagle74’s ignorance of what the Bible contains.
When will the scientific community come up with any evidence that supports evolution?
The fact is that plants (and everything else) depend on the sun because God made it that way. If He had chosen to sustain them with His Glory he certainly could have. And if they were put here for us, then what was the point of that unless we need them? Your argument contradicts itself.
You got it wrong: he uses logical thinking.
One thing that does it for me is the giraffe. The fossil records show no transitional ancestors. A mutation producing longer legs simultaneously with longer neck (not to mention the complex system of valves necessary for such a long neck) to appear simultaneously is extremely improbable. As for the other animals on the savannah, I find it interesting that the same "natural slection" that dictated a giraffe's neck to grow somehow didn't apply to the others.
Now that I have answered your question, how about answering mine. What specific experiment or observation do you feel supports the ToE?
Try rooting around in PatrickHenry's List-O-Links (now the Un-Missing Links).
Plenty of evidence listed there.
In the confirmation for a nested hierarchy of species, simply classifying life forms does not prove that they evolved from a single species no matter how you draw the tree. Suspiciously absent from this tree are the life forms that established the origin for two branches. For example, no specific species exists from which both reptiles and mammals evolved.
Your web site is beautiful and all, but it does not show that all life evolved from a single species. If anything, it sheds doubt upon it.
Noncence
Based on this rambling nonsense I conclude that the letter writer is somehow related to Ricky Williams.
The real question to evolutionists is why are you an athiest? It’s not about science, it’s about defying God.
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.