Posted on 06/17/2007 6:54:37 PM PDT by Rodney King
Why I believe in Creation Posted: December 17, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern
I was stunned the other day when I asked evolution-believing listeners to my nationally syndicated radio show to call in and tell me why they believed.
"Just give me one reason why you accept the theory," I said. "Just give me the strongest argument. You don't have to give me mountains of evidence. Just tell me why I should accept it."
Not one evolutionist called in.
Meanwhile, the phone banks lit up with dozens of evolution skeptics.
Go figure. For more than 40 years, evolution has been taught as fact in government schools to generations of children, yet there is still widespread skepticism, if not cynicism, about the theory across the country.
But, because of political correctness and the fear of ostracism, most people are afraid to admit what they believe about our origins. That's why I wrote my last column – "I believe in Creation."
The reaction to it has been unprecedented. While I expected mostly negative fallout, most letters have been quite positive.
So, I decided to take this issue a step further. Since the evolutionists don't want to tell me why they believe in their theory, I figured I would explain why I believe in mine.
The primary reason I believe, of course, is because the Bible tells me so. That's good enough for me, because I haven't found the Bible to be wrong about anything else.
But what about the worldly evidence?
The evolutionists insist the dinosaurs lived millions and millions of years ago and became extinct long before man walked the planet.
I don't believe that for a minute. I don't believe there is a shred of scientific evidence to suggest it. I am 100 percent certain man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time. In fact, I'm not at all sure dinosaurs are even extinct!
Think of all the world's legends about dragons. Look at those images. What were those folks seeing? They were clearly seeing dinosaurs. You can see them etched in cave drawings. You can see them in ancient literature. You can see them described in the Bible. You can see them in virtually every culture in every corner of the world.
Did the human race have a collective common nightmare? Or did these people actually see dragons? I believe they saw dragons – what we now call dinosaurs.
Furthermore, many of the dinosaur fossils discovered in various parts of the world were found right along human footprints and remains. How did that happen?
And what about the not-so-unusual sightings of contemporary sea monsters? Some of them have actually been captured.
There are also countless contemporary sightings of what appear to be pterodactyls in Asia and Africa.
You know what I think? I think we've been sold a bill of goods about the dinosaurs. I don't believe they died off millions and millions of years ago. In fact, I'm not at all convinced they've died off completely.
Evolutionists have put the cart before the horse. They start out with a theory, then ignore all the facts that contradict the theory. Any observation that might call into question their assumptions is discounted, ridiculed and covered up. That's not science.
How could all the thousands of historical records of dragons and behemoths throughout mankind's time on earth be ignored? Let's admit it. At least some of these observations and records indicate dinosaurs were walking the earth fairly recently – if not still walking it today.
If I'm right about that – which I am – then the whole evolutionary house of cards comes tumbling down.
This is the evidence about which the evolutionists dare not speak.
You do not understand what I am trying to say. I must take the blame for this, as I have obviously failed to make myself clear.
Let me try again: Science per se is impossible in a mechanistic universe. It must borrow the concept of universal laws and transcendent rules of behavior, which are an absurdity when all one has are particulars. Naturalistic Science itself is a self contradiction, in that it must make assumptions about the nature of the universe which contradict the materialistic ("particulars only") worldview of atheism. A naturalist cannot make meaningful statements with a universal scope, and science is predicated on the uniformity of nature. Therefore, an "atheistic scientist" is literally stabbing his own discipline to death. He can say "this has happened this many times" but nothing more. Of course, scientists DO say more, and make statements about the nature of the universe, postulate laws, and (sometimes) mock the poor religionist with his head in the sand. But they do so by stepping OUTSIDE the confines of empiricism and thus effectively deny what they say they believe about atheism. Just look at these crevo threads. Every single rebuttal to the young earth advocates who show up here (and many of the rebuttals are spot on) are ALL predicated on assumptions of the uniformity of nature. This is an assumption which CANNOT be drawn from empirical observation. It is an assumption which the man of science imposes on the data from "within his head" if you will. It is this insistence that we live in a world of transcendentals while at the same time attempting to deny it that I call the self-contradiction of the "atheist scientist." He simply ignores the contradictions and records another bit of data. The Christian says that this is willing self deception, that a person will willingly lie to himself and believe it rather than face the possibility that the universal applications he seeks must have a transcendent source, and that transcendent source might be personal, moral, and sovereign.
You do not understand what I am trying to say. I must take the blame for this, as I have obviously failed to make myself clear.Let me try again: Science per se is impossible in a mechanistic universe.
It must borrow the concept of universal laws and transcendent rules of behavior, which are an absurdity when all one has are particulars.
Naturalistic Science itself is a self contradiction, in that it must make assumptions about the nature of the universe which contradict the materialistic ("particulars only") worldview of atheism. A naturalist cannot make meaningful statements with a universal scope, and science is predicated on the uniformity of nature.
Therefore, an "atheistic scientist" is literally stabbing his own discipline to death. He can say "this has happened this many times" but nothing more. Of course, scientists DO say more, and make statements about the nature of the universe, postulate laws, and (sometimes) mock the poor religionist with his head in the sand.
But they do so by stepping OUTSIDE the confines of empiricism and thus effectively deny what they say they believe about atheism. Just look at these crevo threads. Every single rebuttal to the young earth advocates who show up here (and many of the rebuttals are spot on) are ALL predicated on assumptions of the uniformity of nature.
This is an assumption which CANNOT be drawn from empirical observation. It is an assumption which the man of science imposes on the data from "within his head" if you will. It is this insistence that we live in a world of transcendentals while at the same time attempting to deny it that I call the self-contradiction of the "atheist scientist."
He simply ignores the contradictions and records another bit of data. The Christian says that this is willing self deception, that a person will willingly lie to himself and believe it rather than face the possibility that the universal applications he seeks must have a transcendent source, and that transcendent source might be personal, moral, and sovereign.
The fossil record is very incomplete. That's why theories like punctuated equilibrium pop up.
Ah, yes. that has been the fundamental assumption of science, going back at least to Isaac Newton's Principia. I'm not aware of any progress in knowledge that has resulted from the assumption that nature is capricious or diddled with by demiurges.
Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?
Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed.
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.
.....You do not understand what I am trying to say. I must take the blame for this, as I have obviously failed to make myself clear.
In case you missed what I was trying to say, I am DENYING VEHEMENTLY your very first point. I am saying that in an atheistic OR an eastern worldview, science itself is impossible. In saying that, I am NOT saying that atheists or Bhddhists do not do science. What I am saying is that they abandon their own worldviews (selectively) in order to move into the framework which makes science possible. Science does NOT look the same to all these people, because their worldview denies the possibility of true science. At the same time, men only SELECTIVELY live in those false worldviews....., kind of like the atheist who denies the existence of objective morality and then raises hell with the faculty over being improperly denied tenure. It is the same basic problem, only in the field of knowledge, and not morals.
thanks for being patient with me in trying to express this.
No it doesn't.
What, you’re leaving us hanging? Did you read his conclusion?
I can be patient at times.
I am aware that people compartmentalize. There are young earth creationists doing competent science, even research in evolution. Somehow they park part of their mind at the laboratory door and do good science.
But science does not conflict with spirituality or the religious impulse. To the extent that it conflicts with religion, it conflicts with specific claims about available evidence in the natural world.
For example, science has no mechanism for denying a universal flood. What it can reliably deny is that such a flood has left physical evidence in support of its history. One could make similar statement about the age of the earth and about common descent.
The methodologies of science cannot address miracles or supernatural interventions except to examine claims of physical evidence.
Utilitarianism is not a sufficient answer, though. Believing in universals because it helps the trains run on time is rubbish. It is, in fact, the picture often painted of the Christian who believes nonsense because he is not brave enough to face the implications of his worldview should it prove to be false.
At the core of attempting to build a field of knowledge (which includes science), either we have a choice that matter is chaotic, irrational, and not subject to any "laws" of behavior, or we have an ordered and orderly universe. Science cannot resolve that question for us, because -again- all it can say is "this appears to have happened, and then this appears to have happened." Making "sense and order" out of data requires....., well, sense and order. Science may cry out "but I HAVE to have that in order to exist!" at which time the Christian can say "yes, you do."
Actually, it does. An empiricist (again) can only say "this appeared to happen" and then "this appeared to happen." Formulating "laws of behavior" and then extrapolating them to statements about non-observed events is by definition outside the purview of a true empiricist.
He goes on to finish that paragraph by stating, "The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
Which conclusion were you referring to? I have the entire text in front of me.
The point is that of the millions of fossils in the record now, there are no transitional forms that I've ever heard of. I have yet to find anyone that can point one out.
I really think the theory of evolution makes sense. It's a pretty straightforward way to explain things. But there doesn't seem to be a lot of concrete evidence for it.
Only if you arbitrarily assume a mechanistic universe. Science itself did not do so for many years, when it decided that naturalism looked better as a backdrop than theism. If you doubt me,read Kepler or Faraday. Both of these men saw their methods as evidence of the wisdom and grandeur of a Creator and saw no intrinsic reason why science should be done within the presuppositions of naturalism.
All you are doing with the above statement is repeating the philosophical precommitments of many (most?) within the academic community today. It (the statement) has nothing to do with science proper, which functions within the confines of a universe which is charged with the immanence of a Creator who does, in fact, leave evidences of Himself in creation.
Naturalism is not science. It is the prevailing philosophy of the scientific community, but is not requisite for science to exist or function. In fact, naturalism ultimately kills science, in that it denies (by definition) the existence of absolutes. We have had this discussion before.
As far as I can tell you have the objection to assumptions that processes that appear to have occurred predictably for going on 14 billion years will continue to do so in future. They might change, but until then I’ll go with the track record.
The conclusion you just stated in the sentence before this!
The point is that of the millions of fossils in the record now, there are no transitional forms that I've ever heard of. I have yet to find anyone that can point one out.
Let's see:
Archaeopteryx. Confusciusornis. Homo erectus. Pakicetus. Ambulocetus. Basilocetus. Eohippus. Gogonasus. Tiktaalik. Captorhinus. Protoceratops. Diarthrognathus. Chiniquodon. Probainognathus. Morganucodon. Triadobatrachus.
Enough for you? I could go on!
Thanks for that info...much appreciated...
There are primitives on this board who also think that heliocetrism is also a plot deny God's existence, as well as a few of the flat earthers who are also YEC!
Oh yes, I agree. If you assume a uniformitarian set of processes for that tiny set of observed data we have recorded, and then extrapolate from that an assumption that they represent ALL processes and then assume that those processes have not changed at all in 14 billion years, then it appears nothing much has changed.
Damn, I bet you set the scale in YOUR logic classes!
Rules of Reasoning in PhilosophyRule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.
Rule II. Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
As to respiration in a man and in a beast, the descent of stones [meteorites] in Europe and in America, the light of our culinary fire and of the sun, the reflection of light in the earth, and in the planets.
Rule III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither [intensification] nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
For since the qualities of bodies are only known to us by experiments, we are to hold for universal all such as universally agree with experiments; and such as are not liable to, diminution can never be quite taken away. We are certainly not to relinquish the evidence of experiments for the sake of dreams and vain fictions of our own devising; nor are we to recede from the analogy of Nature, which [is] . . . simple, and always consonant to itself. We no other way know the extension of bodies than by our senses, nor do these reach it in all bodies, but because we perceive extension in all that are sensible, therefore, we ascribe it universally to all others also. That abundance of bodies are hard, we learn by experience, and because the hardness of the whole arises from the hardness of the parts, we, therefore, justly infer the hardness of the undivided particles not only of the bodies we feel but of all others. That all bodies are impenetrable, we gather not from reason, but from sensation. The bodies which we handle we find impenetrable, and thence, conclude impenetrability to be an universal property of all bodies whatsoever. That all bodies are moveable, and endowed with certain powers (which we call. . . [inertia]) of persevering in their motion, or in their rest, we only infer from the like properties observed in the bodies which we have seen. The extension, hardness, impenetrability, mobility, of the whole, result from the extension, hardness, impenetrability, mobility, . . . of the parts; and thence we conclude the least particles of all bodies to be also all extended, and hard and impenetrable, and moveable, . . . And this is the foundation of all philosophy. . .
Lastly, if it universally appears, by experiments and astronomical observations, that all bodies about the earth gravitate towards the earth, and that in proportion to the quantity of matter which they severally contain, that the moon likewise, according to the quantity or its matter, gravitates towards the earth, that, on the other hand, our sea gravitates towards the moon, and all the planets mutually one towards another, and the comets in like manner towards the sun, we must, in consequence or this rule, universally allow that all bodies whatsoever are endowed with a principle of mutual gravitation. . .
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions...
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.