"Evolution ... schmevolution! I just need to cool my belly!" (sorry folks for the poor humor ... really just a test of posting an image ... just ignore it!)
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
Not true. The beginning is undefined. That does not mean impossible. It is wise to remember that nature doesn't obey physics. Instead physics models what we think that nature does. As a physicist I deal all the time with undefined situations. Sometimes you can use different mathematical methods to define a point which is undefined in another. A classic example is the divergence of something that is proportional to the inverse square of its displacement (written f(r)=(1/r²)*r^ or r/r³ where r^ (the ^ is supposed to be on top) is the unit vector in the direction of r). If you take the divergence of this value you will get zero, but if you use the divergence theorem (which is a surface integral around the point) you will get 4π. The problem here is that the function doesn't behave at r=0. Physicists solve this by introducing a functional called the Dirac Delta Function which assigns the zero point a value. There are tons of physical situations just like this. If you are a mathematician you will recognize that this means that physics does not live in L². Again you need to remember that physics doesn't tell nature how to work, it only describes it the best that we know how. A simpler case that is taught in introductory calculus courses is the function f(x)=sin(x)/x. At what value is this function at 0? With one mathematical method I would say that it is undefined (0/0). With another I would say that it approaches 1.
To be perfectly honest though, my divergence example wasn't undefined in the mathematical sense, it was just wrong with the assumption that it lived strictly in L² where the Dirac Delta Function cannot exist.
So, the evolutionist bases his THEORY on Laws of Physics that he admits are not completely defined and may well be changing? A theory based on an assumption?
IF the beginning is undefined, then why is it not well within reason that a divine being created the universe?
- Evolutionists don’t know where the matter came from
- Evolutionists don’t know how old it is
- Evolutionists don’t know what state it was in before your theory starts
- Evolutionists don’t know who, how, why or when the current Laws of Physics that we rely on came into existence.
- Evolutionists don’t know if the current Laws of Physics have always been the same, and have NO WAY of knowing if they ever changed or how much they changed.
Yet, Evolutionists are telling me they know, AS FACT , what happened on earth 3 billion years ago?
I’m not a physisist. I’m an engineering technician with a healthy dose of common sense.
I have to deal in facts, standards, repeatability, reality. I look at what you just told me and conclude that you have undertaken to prove and purport as FACT a theory and are using parameters that are neither set nor completely defined.
In the engineering world, we call that GIGO.
"Evolution ... schmevolution! I just need to cool my belly!" (sorry folks for the poor humor ... really just a test of posting an image ... just ignore it!)
So do all a priori and most a posteriori theories. In mathematics you might assume Euclid's axioms are true. In theoretical physics you might assume that Schrödinger's Equation (or in classical mechanics, Newton's 2nd Law) is true. In both these cases you have axioms that you have to accept to be true without justification when you are doing theoretical work (though your 'secret' justification will always be a posteriori). As for a posteriori theories, you expect to get an observation of something (to confirm or reject a theory). Otherwise you wouldn't be looking.
-Evolutionists don’t know who, how, why or when the current Laws of Physics that we rely on came into existence.
- Evolutionists don’t know if the current Laws of Physics have always been the same, and have NO WAY of knowing if they ever changed or how much they changed.
Neither do physicists (except perhaps how physics has changed in the last 13 billion years). What is your point? Do you assume that scientists know everything? Did you completely miss my point where I said that physics only describes nature? Let me put it in bold so you don't forget: Physics does not tell nature what to do, it only describes it the best way we know how. Granted, theoretical physics is pretty accurate (in some cases, like quantum electrodynamics, experiments have been built to test up to 11 significant digits and yet still agree with theory). But that still does not mean that you can have insight from it.
I have to deal in facts, standards, repeatability, reality. I look at what you just told me and conclude that you have undertaken to prove and purport as FACT a theory and are using parameters that are neither set nor completely defined.
What are you talking about? Feel free to cite the relevant posting. I think intelligent design is a crackpot theory and that evolution is the more likely theory to be correct (thought they are not mutually exclusive or more importantly exclusive of other possible theories). But so far in this discussion I have only talked about the validity of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in evolution and how undefined variables are common in science but still give rise to well defined situations (because science does not tell nature how to act). I don't see how you could have drawn any conclusion of my intentions from my postings. All that I did was correct fundamental errors in how two different posters (yourself included) mischaracterized science.
The importance of the term is that there is only one true God. Everyone believes either in a God or that some other thing has the qualities of God. For some it's allah for some it's time and matter and the cosmos and for some it's their Harley and lots of beer. Idolatry takes many forms but it is still religion.
Yeah I told myself that too, until He stood up and showed Himself to me.
Since Behe completely disagrees with the young-earth creationists who worship him, this isn’t a problem for him. Behe thinks that the universe is ancient and that all organisms on earth descended from one initial organism. He is essentially a theistic evolutionist who holds the additonal requirement of constant mini-miracles on God’s part to keep things going. The young earth creationists ignore these minor details because they don’t have a lot of options.
“...than the distorted writings of primitive men, no matter how divinely inspired, groping for some understanding of the world around them and their existence?”
‘You deny the very Power of God with this sentence.’
No, I just recognize the flawed nature of those assembled and edited the Bible. I make no attempt to judge what God’s purpose was in the development of the Bible. I do however recognize that God gave Man a brain, and I don’t think he would have done that if he didn’t expect Man to use it to explore his creation. Those who refuse to question every thing, insult God by not using the gift he gave us.
A greater understanding of the mind of God, is more likely to be achieved by the scientist studying the beauty of God’s creation
Go 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 ...
God’s gifts to those who study his creation.
Why must so many highly religious people always be in such conflict with Science?.....
I have NO conflict with LITERAL science, but this evolution mysticism is a load of donkey dung. Did not happen the way the religion of evolutionists claim!! As it is Written we are all made in the image of the Heavenly Father, but not all minds are in tuned with Him. This present age is by design to give opportunity for all His children to be born of woman, into a flesh going to die and return to dust body. When the flesh dies, the soul, or as Genesis calls it *breath of life* returns to the Father that sent it. As also Written not all of those sons of God were willing to go through this flesh age and they along with that one who believed in himself so much (Satan) are the only ones yet judged with a death of their “soul” sentence.
Flesh man is not going to design any methods that will make this flesh body live into eternity.
You clearly think the written word of man, as assembled in the Bible, is a better way of understanding God’s will, than the actual hand of God all around you. You call the theory of evolution donkey dung, but fail to refute any of the evidence God has placed on this Earth for mankind to find. Finally, you insult God by failing to use the Brain God gifted you with, to examine the Universe he created for us.
“You obviously havent read the book of Leviticus especially the parts about hygiene. The hygiene laws were centuries ahead of science that discovered germs. I guess the primitives just lucked up on those. Also, the Bible doesnt say the earth is flat, it makes reference to the four corners of the earth (ie north south east and west)in Revelations 7:1. Although is does specifically say that the earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22)and hangs on nothing (Job 26:7). Be careful your biblical ignorance is showing.”
You clearly didn’t understand my post. I was trying to point out that the Bible is a much lesser source for the understanding of God, than that of actual hand of God present in the Universe all around us. I was also trying to point out that those studying the hand of God are closer to God, Holier if you will, than those whose understanding comes primarily from the Bible. Since, God place evidence of evolution on Earth for man to find, he clearly wanted us to find it. It may be that God has placed further evidence for us to find that will disprove the theory of evolution. Since God gifted us with brains he clearly wants us to explore his creation, and as our understanding of his creation grows, we can use his gifts to create cool things like TV, cars, airplanes, and computers.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
verse 2 The same was in the beginning with God.
verse 3 All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made.
verse 4 In Him was life; and the life was the *light* of men.
verse 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Now the brain God gifted me with draws me to study His word, which He predestined certain human beings to pen for us even to this day. What they penned does NOT disagree with the literal factual evidence. Evolution is not factual it is a hypothesis dreamed up by man, kinda like sending the universal gesture to the Heavenly Father.
It is not factual to say the world is just 6,500 years old. The evidence against this is overwhelming.
I agree, we do not know how old this earth is, Peter among others says there was an earth age before this one, which was destroyed and the earth shows those scars.
That isnt at all what your original post said. I actually refuted some of the points you made. You cant just come back and change the argument.
“NO MATTER HOW DIVINELY INSPIRED”
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.
How tall He was didn't seem to matter as He was nailed to a cross.
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.