Evolution vs. Creation Debate in Tucson, Arizona May 10

Calvery Chapel Tucson and Fellowship of Christian Athletes ^ | May 10, 2003 | Fellowship of Christian Athletes

[\/\/ayne]

Click on the image below for a PDF flyer



click here to get Adobe Acrobat Reader which reads PDF files

Saturday May 10, 2003

All Saturday meetings except the debate will be held at Calvary Tucson’s East Campus 8725 E. Speedway Blvd.

9:00 AM “Origins of Life and the Universe” . . . . .Hank Giesecke

10:00 AM “Fifty Facts Why Evolution Doesn’t Work” . . . .Russell Miller

11:00 AM Lunch

1:00 PM “Age of the Earth, and Intelligent Design” . . . .Hank Hiesecke

2:00 PM “Data from Mt. Saint Helens” . . . . .Russell Miller

3:00 PM Break

4:30 PM Dinner available at U of A’s McKale Center

6:00 PM Debate at University of Arizona McKale Center “Alternative World Views: Evolution and Creation”
Dr. Duane Gish and Professor Peter Sherman

Sunday May 11, 2003
Calvary Tucson East Campus
8:00 and 10:20 AM “Take Creation Captive”.......Hank Giesecke

Calvary Tucson West Campus
9:10 and 11:30 AM “Creation or Chaos”......Dr. John Meyer

Calvary Tucson East Campus
6:00 PM “Why 600 Scientists Reject Evolution” ......Dr. John Meyer

[Right Wing Professor]

At any rate, music was much more beautiful in the days of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart & Co., when there was considerably less sexual promiscuity and the object of most then-new compositions was the glory of God, not the glory of man (or woman or sex).

You can't blame this on evolution. 10 generations ain't enough. It's a sobering and scary thought that the raw talent of a Bach and a Mozart are probably still out there, and all we've got is John Adams and Eddie Vedder.

FWIW, Bach wrote for the glory of God. Mozart wrote largely for money and fame. If you think Vienna in 1785 was less promiscuous than, say, Lincoln, NE in 2003, you should read some of Mozart's letters. I've never liked Beethoven enough to read much about his life.

[Right Wing Professor]

These ideas aren't simple at all. They're profound. They certainly don't occur to animals. Yet evolutionists claim that our ancestors were animals. If that's so, then this allegedly basic morality must have evolved. If so, let's hear how. If evolution is correct, it shouldn't be that hard to postulate a reasonable account.

I just did. And, by the way, 'thou shalt not kill' and 'thou shalt not steal' have been so often ignored in the last century, I think it's a real stretch to claim they're any kind of innate human trait. People most certainly kill, often and for very trivial reasons. They steal like bandits. We can certainly propose mechanisms by which humans might have evolved an innate moral sense. Whether they in fact did evolve one is very much an open question.

[My2Cents]

Excellent comments.

As Paul Stookey wrote in a song, "A scientist can tell you how night turns into day, but he can never take the wonder away."

[Stop Legal Plunder]

You can't blame this on evolution. 10 generations ain't enough

Fair enough. But do you really think more sex with more music groupies will improve the quality of the musical compositions?

As you noted before, philosophy has gone bad, reduced to navel-gazing. (I think theology went bad, first, but that's another story). The larger culture, and its musical expressions, have followed. Music won't get better until the culture again recognizes and honors transcendent order. Until then, all we'll see for the most part is the music equivalent of Jackson Pollack paintings (or whatever is the closest commercial successful equivalent thereof).

[Right Wing Professor]

Well, Bach had 20 children

He gets the Charles Darwin seal of approval!

[Right Wing Professor]

Fair enough. But do you really think more sex with more music groupies will improve the quality of the musical compositions?

Only if the groupies suddenly develop a yen for harmony and counterpoint. :-)

[Aric2000]

Figured that out? It doesn't take long does it?

[Stop Legal Plunder]

...by the way, 'thou shalt not kill' and 'thou shalt not steal' have been so often ignored in the last century, I think it's a real stretch to claim they're any kind of innate human trait.

The moral law is innate. But it's different from physical laws in that it can be disobeyed.

[Dataman]

THese debated become so laughable at times.

I laughing.

[Aric2000]

You are so much fun to mess with, I will be good now, I promise. LOL

[Aric2000]

These debates do become laughable, because you try to denounce science with faith. That is when it gets REALLY hilarious.

Science uses evidence and facts, so use evidence and facts to denounce it.

When you use morality, which is a religious/philisophical doctrine, to denounce evolution, then I have to laugh, because if that is the best you can do, you have a problem.

[Dataman]

These debates do become laughable, because you try to denounce science with faith. That is when it gets REALLY hilarious.

I like to poke holes in your indoctrination with science. I say, for example, that natural laws are violated by your theory. That is discrediting evolution using science. But it's over your head. That may not be funny but it certainly is amusing.

[f.Christian]

I like to poke holes in your indoctrination with evolution !

[Dimensio]

Now he's not as bad as Kent Hovind

Kent Hovind, the man who claimed that there are only 1041 electrons in the known universe?

[f.Christian]

mantra boy ... liberal yakking pts --- evorhetoric !

[Dimensio]

alternative alleged by evolution, which is that the universe created itself.

You have just demonstrated your utter ignorance of evolutionary theory. Biological evolution deals with biology, and as such it says nothing regarding the origin of the universe, much less that "the universe created itself".

As for the claim of a Creator God, you still need to pony up evidence for it. Trashing evolution does not amount to proof of a Creator God. Creationism must stand or fall upon its own merits, asserting that it's either naturalistic evolution or divine Biblical Creationism is a false dichotomy.

Your arguments regarding morality are little more than appeal to consequences and strawman attempts, misusing evolution to define "rape" as "right", indicating again that you know nothing of the theory.

Love can be explained by evolution. The emotion lends to a strong sense of pair-bonding, which can provide an advantage for reproduction.

[Stop Legal Plunder]

One reason for conflict in this thread is conflicting views of the nature of culture and society. As I see it, the foundations of culture and society are theological and philosophical. These two, working together, provide the rational for a society's ethics, and on this ground develops the sciences and the arts.

Thus if the root is bad so too is the tree. And if the tree is bad (e.g. the deplorable condition of art and music in the West today) then the cause is a problem with the roots. Part of that problem is evolution, which because it makes claims about (or at least is logically applicable to) metaphysical matters of the kind addressed by philosophy and religion, impacts the arts, politics, and other parts of the tree in a negative way.

Many argue that evolution shouldn't be applied as it is, but that's inevitable for a system which claims to supply an alternative source of ethics. It won't just be limited to changes in populations, as some have suggested in this thread. That's not how human nature works.

People don't want to be told what to do by higher authorities (even when it's in their own good: e.g. parents telling children not to touch the hot stove), so when someone comes along and offers a theory that seems to explain the world without a troublesome God who tells us what to do, it's natural that many people will embrace that theory and apply it beyond its original imagining.

All philosophies work that way, and seeing negative unintended consequences is one way to confirm that a philosophy is bad. Marxism, for example. Lots of people are still trying to find or apply a purer version (it was corrupted in the Soviet Union, China, etc.), but they don't want to think there just might be something wrong with the theory itself.

It's fair to test evolution in the same way: what are its fruits when applied, however imperfectly or however impurely? One certain fruit is that the individual should be subordinate to the species. Millions may die if humanity progresses as a result. We could wait for millions of years, for weaker races to die off slowly, or we could take the next evolutionary step and apply brainpower to accellerate the process. The latter is the approach taken by the former Soviet Union and early communist China. Pointing this out isn't an attack, just a note from the historic record.

The burden of proof is on those who would tell us not to extend the application of evolution to such logical consequences in society or, alternatively, show us how those consequences aren't logical.

[Dimensio]

There is no God who will judge me.

What's this about you not asserting that all who accept the theory of evolution are atheists and me being an idiot for making such an inference?

[Dimensio]

Ah, yes, the wonderful fun false dichotomy of Christian Biblical literalism vs. purely naturalistic views.

Do you really believe that there are no religions in the world apart from Christianity or are you just ignoring them because they make your assertions weaker?

[Dataman]

I like to poke holes in your indoctrination with evolution !

Yes, I should have said "science" (with the quotes).