Doubting Darwin: panic in the suites of evolution

The sky is falling! Many interest groups and journalists raced to tell that to the public when a modest but important bill became law in Tennessee early in April. The law instructs teachers and administrators to "create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues."

What's not to like? The law, similar to one in Louisiana, also protects teachers who help students (I'm quoting from the official legislative summary) "understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught. ..." Oh, here's the problem: Evolution is one of the theories that can now be analyzed and critiqued.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the National Association of Geoscience Teachers, and many others have gone ape over the inclusion of evolution. They revere critical thinking and the freedom to explore, but not when it might produce irreverence toward their idol.

Those groups and many journalists brought up Tennessee's 1925 law that made illegal the teaching of evolution in public schools and led to the Scopes "monkey trial." They did not note that most public schools in the four score and seven years since then have gone to the other extreme by forbidding the teaching of anything but evolution. In states from Virginia to Washington true believers in evolution have harassed and driven away teachers who dared to teach both sides of the Darwin debate.

If macro-evolution were proven, the true believers would have a case, but more than 800 Ph.D.-bearing scientists have signed a statement expressing skepticism about contemporary evolutionary theory's claims that random mutation and natural selection account for the complexity of life. These scientists say, "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

The 1925 law tried to close off debate, but the think tank that has proposed laws like Tennessee's new one, the Discovery Institute, is working to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It wants evolution, including its unresolved issues, to be fully presented to students: "Evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned."

That gets to the heart of the hysteria. The New York Times editorialized in 1925 for "faith, even of a grain of mustard seed, in the evolution of life." The Times said evolution gives us hope for progress: "If man has evolved, it is inconceivable that the process should stop and leave him in his present imperfect state. Specific creation has no such promise for man."

Specific creation, of course, has the ultimate promise: God cares. Sadly, many look desperately for hope elsewhere, anywhere. Last month the New York Times editorial page editor, consistent with his predecessors, criticized critics of evolution who have "learned to manufacture doubt." The Times, of course, daily manufactures doubt regarding God, but thunders, "Thou shalt not doubt" evolution. If other states follow Tennessee's example, we'll have a robust debate instead of more attempts to suppress it.

It is a simple question,

“How many of them have seriously investigated the claims of Christ”

but one can go far deeper than mere words and concepts both in God’s Word and how it relates to His creation. It not just the atheists that put up walls, but Jesus did warn us plenty that we would be in the minority, hated b/c the world first hated Him, and that there would also be many that claim to be christians who simply never knew Him.

Our unified purpose after having been saved is to share both in words and deeds, and also devote our lives to study and show ourselves approved for every good work.

For those who sincerely seek Him, they will find Him [Romans 10:9-13]. Faith will be gifted to the believer, His Spirit will indwell each of us, and perfect righteousness will be imputed to us for though we are still fallible in our present flesh, He will no longer see us as sinners but instead welcomes us as Sons of God. All of His promises are now at work and active in our lives [Romans 8:28]. The Word comes to life literally!

The only valid way to worship Him is in truth and faith. Only then will one’s desire grow to read the Word, learn the Word, then live the Word and ultimately to Love Him and His Words. The unique claims are all true and this truth will set one free ~ free indeed! Only in His Free Gift [for none can earn it] of faith. For only with faith can we begin to understand all of His Truths.

Having read all of His words has compelled me to continue re-reading and listening to many good teachers of His Word. The Holy Spirit also inspires me to read voraciously because He promises to lead me in all truth and understanding, so I read the latest findings and knowledge of man and His universal truths practically jump right off the pages or screens.

***Rather, I was using the value of pi as a surrogate for all the universal constants which govern physics (and which are sometimes used as evidence of intelligent design)****

Jeremiah 33:25 -

“But this is what the Lord says: I would no more reject my people than I would change my laws that govern night and day, earth and sky.”

They are God’s laws.

Where do you think the laws and constants in the universe come from? From an evolutionary worldview it is all a great cosmic accident. All of the order in the universe came out of the disorder of a big explosion... in complete violation of the 2nd law of Thermo.

In a Biblical (or for that matter ID) worldview it makes a whole lot more sense.

Despite all of the rantings and insults that Creationists and ID proponents get from the evolutionist crowd, science actually proves the existence of a Creator....

One of these statements is true:

1. Matter/Energy do not exist.
2. Matter/Energy are eternal.
3. Matter/Energy spontaneously generated out of nothing.
4. Matter/Energy were created.

Option #1 is falsified by the Scientific Method.
Matter & Energy are observed everyday.

Option #2 is falsified by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which states that energy is running down and we will eventually have no usable energy left. At that point we will suffer “heat death”....the sun can not burn forever, it will eventually run out of fuel. If the universe were eternal, this would have happened already.

One more thing on this.... secular science is all-in on the Big Bang theory, admitting that there was a beginning and therefore the universe is not eternal.

Option #3 - Spontaneous generation is falsified by the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (By natural processes, energy cannot be created or destroyed), The Law of the Conservation of Matter (By natural processes, matter cannot be created or destroyed although it can change form) and the Law of Cause and Effect (every effect must have a greater and preexistent cause).

That leaves us with Option #4... that matter and energy were created. This does not violate any natural law and is the only available option we have left.

Natural law itself has falsified all the other options..... Naturalists, who believe only in nature and in nothing Supernatural have to ignore natural law to believe what they believe..... If you believe in a Creator, you’re accountable to Him... and they’re not having any of that.

Thought you might like this quote from a Nobel Prize winning Harvard neurobiologist, George Wald:

“When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion — that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.”

Romans 1:19-22 -

19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools

Way deep down inside even the most ardent atheist knows there’s a Creator.

I’ll be responding to two of your posts here, Notary.

****I think you both might be surprised to know how many atheists and agnostics find that the idea of a universe created in six days, less than ten thousand years ago, is one of the major walls between them and the Christian faith.****

The reverse is also true….. from Junior High School the Theory of Evolution is taught as fact. Those who go on to college and major in some science discipline are indoctrinated in every class they take at the collegiate level and beyond. It is accepted as truth by them and why not? They paid a fortune for that education and that’s what they were taught.

So now here come some scientists wearing some pretty impressive sheepskin their ownself who say “Hey, we’ve really looked at this in depth and actually examined some of the claims of the other side and they’re making a pretty good case.” They are met with ad hominems and catcalls….. better that than to deal with the arguments.

You may recognize this exact same thing going on with the “climate change” debate today. “He disagrees with me and a whole bunch of other smart guys….. ergo, he’s a buffoon.”

Evolution is not even in the remotest sense science. It meets none of the standards of the scientific method….. you can’t observe it (I love the Richard Dawkins quote on this: “Evolution has been observed, its just hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”), test it or repeat it and there is absolutely no test even imaginable that could be used to falsify it. As such, it is not science but philosophy. Here’s the kicker, though…. Since evolution is true, then there’s no need to believe in a Creator God. That is why studies have shown that 70%+ of scientists are atheist or agnostic.

**** How many of them have seriously investigated the claims of Christ, but when told that to be Christians they must accept the Bible as literal and inerrant even when it touches upon biology, astronomy, and geology have said “Oh. All right then.....” and quietly walked away.****

While the Bible is not a science book, when it speaks of science it speaks truth. I showed you in a previous post some science that is in the Bible some 2000+ years before being discovered by secular science. I can give you many more if you’d like….there are a lot of them.

Be careful not to cite miracles as science (such as the long day in the book of Joshua). The Bible never claims this to be a natural phenomenon…. It quite clearly says that it was a supernatural act of God.

**** Is it possible for a Christian to believe that the Creator accomplished his work incrementally, over millions of years??****

There are many Christians who believe in long ages. Salvation in Christ is dependent upon repentance and belief in the ultimate sacrifice of Christ on the cross as their only means of salvation….. belief in long ages is not then a barrier to eternity with their Creator. It is, however, doctrinally wrong in so many ways.

In summary….. you say that the Genesis timeline is a stumbling block. If the Genesis timeline is a rock, the theory of evolution is a boulder….. a much bigger obstacle for most people.

The Global Warming Nazis are not the only ones who ignore and try to hide evidence against their theory and explain away things that don’t square with it….. in fact their game plan is the same one that’s been used by the evolutionists for years.

I can recommend all kinds of materials if you have the courage (and it does take courage) to examine the other side. I hope you will, Notary.

I'll be happy to take a look at any materials you can recommend that can be found free on the net or possibly at my library.

Please keep this in mind as we continue to discuss the subject:

I do not claim that evolution can explain how life came to be or why it came to be. Nor do I have an answer to those questions myself.

The only questions to which evolution attempts to provide an answer are

(1)Why are there so many different species on earth?
(2)Why do they look and behave the way they do?
(3)Why do we find remains of so many species that are no longer present as living plants and animals?

I don't ask the ultimate questions of "why?" I just look at the natural world as I see it, and the processes of nature as they can be observed, and ask "What is the most reasonable explanation for how these processes could produce this particular world??"

101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe

There are some interesting arguments here for why the earth may not be 4+ billion years old, nor the universe 14.

But remember, to make the Genesis chronology work literally, it's not enough to prove a younger earth than that. It's necessary to prove a really, really, really, really, really, really, really young earth. An earth in which (for example) the Great Pyramid was built when the entire universe was scarcely five thousand years old.

And this does create some problems, because if a single unimpeachable measurement can show that the universe is (say) more than 100,000 years old, biblical inerrantists have to posit that physical processes don't work now as they have in the past.

Take for example astronomical parallax and the observed speed of light. If the universe is only 10,000 years old, then either (1) the universe was created with galactic expansion already 99+% of the way from the big bang to what we see now, or (2) the speed of light was several orders of magnitude faster in previous millennia than it is presently.

Item #92 in your link above directly addresses this, but with the conclusion that the universe may "only" be 100 million years old. This is equally as fatal to the Genesis chronology as is 14 billion, a point that the authors chose for some reason not to address.

Both (1) and (2) above give the impression that God is playing a cosmic con game with our minds and senses, which to me is a far more frightening concept than that of no God at all.

Before addressing the "fifteen points" in this pamphlet, I'd like to make sure we are not constructing a straw man.

That straw man being the division of all opinion into (a) "The universe and all in it was created by God precisely according to the Book of Genesis sequence and literal timetable" versus (b) "The universe and all in it is the result of blind chance, beginning to end".

Now although there are a number of outspoken proponents of (b), it is by no means the only alternative to (a) as the pamphlet (particularly items 1, 6 and 11) appears to suggest.

Off the top of my head, I would suggest

(a) the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian God, exactly as according to Genesis.
(b) the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian God, but the Genesis account is in many ways allegorical.
(c) the universe was created by some other God or Gods, in a manner and for a purpose revealed to us other than in the Bible.
(d) the universe was created by a God whose purpose and method has not yet been made known to us (deism or pantheism)
(e) The universe was set in motion by a creative force but since then has operated strictly according to the natural laws established at that time.
(f) The universe is the result of blind chance, beginning to end.

My personal position is not that I am required to defend (f) as the only truth. Rather, my position is that (a) is contradicted by the evidence of the world we live in, but that (b) through (f) are all possible alternatives.

Prior post you stated: “And this does create some problems, because if a single unimpeachable measurement can show that the universe is (say) more than 100,000 years old, biblical inerrantists have to posit that physical processes don’t work now as they have in the past.”

I would simply conclude that we will always have some very inconclusive and controversial science and natural clocks too. But when the natural clocks are all reviewed as an amalgamtion they surely do point back to a time of one beginning, a singularity of Earth and Universe, a big bang if you will ~ an explosion/expansion so unique it added order and beauty to all of creation.

Science has not yet determined how to accurately read all the various and sundry natural clocks. What catastrophic events may affect them profoundly? Has anything truly been observed to proceed only uniformly in this Earth/Universe? If you wish to apply radiometric dating I would ask:

Has science observed any/all decay rates closely enough for all situations (i.e. lightning, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sunspots, big bang, etc.) to conclude that are always completely uniform?

“Take for example astronomical parallax and the observed speed of light. If the universe is only 10,000 years old, then either (1) the universe was created with galactic expansion already 99+% of the way from the big bang to what we see now, or (2) the speed of light was several orders of magnitude faster in previous millennia than it is presently.”

Interesting that you bring these up as well - I’d have to agree the very early universe does appear to break all known natural laws beginning with the singularity or taken to a further extreme creation ex nihilo [out of nothing]or ‘in the beginning God’. Yet cosmic background radiation levels and the heat signature of the Universe both appear to also support only thousands of years.

Have you seen this creation week math? Positing, if God did set aside all natural laws in a supernatural creation week then the 1st day relative time lapse for the expansion of the universe may have appeared to allow for 7 to 8 billion years, the 2nd 24 hour day relativity appeared as 3.5 to 4 billion years and so on thru the 6th day with a relative appearance of 13.7 to 15.7 billion years.

Also ‘God rests the 7th day’, what does that whopper of a statement truly mean?

In regard to the “Starlight and Time” issue addressed in your posts.

The theory of evolution has a comparable problem for which there is no current credible answer.

This is from an article by Robert Newton:

The big bang model assumes that the universe is many billions of years old. While this timescale is sufficient for light to travel from distant galaxies to earth, it does not provide enough time for light to travel from one side of the visible universe to the other. At the time the light was emitted, supposedly 300,000 years after the big bang, space already had a uniform temperature over a range at least ten times larger than the distance that light could have travelled (called the “horizon”) So, how can these regions look the same, i.e. have the same temperature? How can one side of the visible universe “know” about the other side if there has not been enough time for the information to be exchanged?

The full article can be viewed here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v25/n4/light-travel-time

****Before I set out my reasons for rejecting a literal interpretation of Genesis....in your view, what is the maximum age of the Earth and of the universe which would be consistent with the Genesis account?****

A literal reading of scripture is that God created in six 24-hour days. Using the genealogies and understanding that there are a few gaps I would say the upper limit on the age of the earth is about 10,000 years.

I’ll ask you a similar question..... in your view, what is the minimum age of the earth in order for evolution to be true?

Since I know that part of your evidence will be Radiometric dating methods, I’ll give you something to ponder:

An 8 oz. glass contains 50% ice and 50% water. How long did it take to get that way?

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.