Posted on 06/11/2003 3:31:46 PM PDT by aculeus
So... It now appears that a fuller, more accurate description of your position would be, "Evolution is the folklore of those who don't want to believe in G-d, although actually there are many other reasons for people to accept evolution as well which I forgot to mention the first time around."
There is no logical reason, no GOOD reason for a person to try to claim to believe in G-d and yet believe in evolution. To believe G-d "used" evolution to make the world is blasphemous. Of course people have "reasons" but there's no good reason to believe in theistic evolution.
The facts do not support evolution. The "spin" placed on them by materialistic, anti-G-d evolutionists supports evolution. The facts are more consistent with the history described in Chapters 1-11 of Genesis.
I have found that evolutionists, as a whole, are more "religious" in their evolutionist fervor than creationists are. They are willing to lie and scheme to keep their stranglehold on our education system.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n4_games.asp
Games some people play by Henry Morris
The supreme rule of this game is to stifle arguments against evolution—any way you can.
First published in: Creation/i> 23(4):35 September–November 2001
A leading evolutionary scientist has made a revealing admission. Richard Dickerson, an authority in chemical evolution and a professing theist, has said:
‘Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule. Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behaviour of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.’1
Thus, evolutionary ‘science’ is not necessarily a search for truth, as we used to be told, but a game in which scientists try to find naturalistic causes, even for the origin of the universe and all in it.
At the conclusion of a creation/evolution debate in which I participated some years ago, a professor in the audience said, in effect: ‘You may well be right; special creation is probably the truth and evolution is wrong. Nevertheless, evolution is science, and creation is religion, so only evolution should be taught in schools.’ Not every evolutionist is as frank, but this really is the game they play.
A second rule seems to be that the end justifies the means. In Stephen Jay Gould’s book, The Mismeasure of Man, that noted evolutionary author argues that the social and political bias of an author (Gould himself has admitted being a Marxist) could have an effect on his scientific results. Commenting on this, another evolutionary Marxist at Harvard University, Dr Richard Lewontin, has (no doubt subconsciously) suggested this second rule of the evolutionists’ game plan:
‘Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies, because they believe that small lies can serve big truths.’2
Alternatives ‘outlawed’
Even though scientists never cite any real scientific evidence for evolution, doctrinaire evolutionists insist there is such evidence, because any alternative is outlawed by the rules.
‘In other words, it’s natural selection or a Creator. There is no middle ground. This is why prominent Darwinists like G.G. Simpson and Stephen Jay Gould, who are not secretive about their hostility to religion, cling so vehemently to natural selection. To do otherwise would be to admit the probability that there is design in nature—and hence a Designer.’3
A third rule of this game of evolutionary science seems to be to insist that all scientists, by definition, are evolutionists. Even though thousands of creationists with post-graduate degrees in science are pursuing careers in science, these are commonly ignored or ridiculed or even denied status as scientists by the evolutionary establishment. The game plan is that, no matter what scientific credentials they have, scientists cannot be creationists without forfeiting their status as scientists.
In fact, many think it would be better not to let creationists become scientists at all. When I was an engineering department chairman at Virginia Tech, I asked the biology professor in charge of the doctoral program in that department whether a creationist student could get a Ph.D. degree in his department. The answer was ‘No!’ No matter how outstanding his grades or dissertation or even his knowledge of evolutionary theory, if he did not believe in evolution, he could not get the degree.
This commitment to the rules of the game has been expressed starkly by two university professors:
‘… as a matter of fact, creationism should be discriminated against. … No advocate of such propaganda should be trusted to teach science classes or administer science programs anywhere or under any circumstances. Moreover, if any are now doing so, they should be dismissed.’4
That opinion, by an Iowa State University engineering professor, was published by the main US organization dedicated to fighting creationism—an organization whose establishment was funded by the Carnegie Foundation.
Fail creationists
Another Iowa professor said any professor (lecturer) should have the right to ‘fail any student in his class, no matter what the grade record indicates’ if that professor discovers the student is a creationist.5 Furthermore, the student’s department should have the right of ‘retracting grades and possibly even degrees’ if the student becomes a creationist later.5
Famous Christian scholar, C.S. Lewis, who had long supported the idea of theistic evolution, changed his mind just before he died, and said:
‘I wish I were younger. What inclines me now to think you may be right in regarding it [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders.’6
This is, indeed, quite a game some people are playing!
References 1. Dickerson, R.E., The Game of Science, Perspectives on Science and Faith 44:137, June 1992.
2. Lewontin, R.C., The Inferiority Complex, New York Review of Books, 22 October 1981, p. 13.
3. Johnston, G.S., The Genesis Controversy, Crisis, p. 17, May 1989.
4. Patterson, J.W., Do scientists and scholars discriminate unfairly against creationists? Journal of the National Center for Science Education, p. 19, Fall (Autumn) 1984.
5. Frazier, K., Competence and Controversy, Skeptical Inquirer 8:2–5, Fall (Autumn) 1983.
6. Lewis, C.S., Private letter (1951) to Captain Bernard Acworth, one of the founders of the Evolution Protest Movement (England). Cited by evolutionist Ronald Numbers in his book, The Creationists, University of California Press, California, p. 153, 1992.
Reprinted and condensed by permission from Acts and Facts, Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, California.
Therefore science can not be used to explain origins because it evolution is a mathematical impossibility.
The facts are the existence of the fossils, interpretation comes in with asking how they got there.
Well there is no doubt many (most) fossils are caused by floods which quickly bury animals before their bones get scattered/destroyed by scavengers. But they are caused by many seperate floods over time that are localized not the result of one worldwide flood.
One of the biggest problems (of many) with a worldwide flood is plants, Unlike animals most plants float for awhile so if it was one worldwide flood that caused fossils we would find the top layer of any geological column full of fossilized plants. But we don't plants are mixed in with the animals through out the whole column.
For more problems see
Noah's Flood: The Creationist Explanation of Fossils
Did Noah's Flood Really Happen?
Also I find it funny that the bible while making numerous references to unicorns doesn't mention Dinosaurs at all.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Blast from the Past. |
||
|
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Out of Africa Ping.
Oh no.
Now there’s 2 more missing links.
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.