Posted on 03/21/2016 9:30:20 AM PDT by fishtank
Evolutionary Tyranny Still Casts Cloud Over Science
by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. *
A recent scientific paper, published in the high-profile journal PLOS ONE, made three separate references to the amazing design of the human hand…and rightly attributed them to the Creator.1 Evolutionists cried foul and raised such an uproar that the journal retracted the paper.
Evolutionary scientists often claim they are objective in their work as researchers and educators. They also claim that creationist research isn't valid because creationists don't publish in secular journals. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The reality is that evolutionists are seldom objective in their pursuit of truth, but instead often abuse their power as gatekeepers and suppress anything that points to a Master Creator as the source of design and complexity in living systems. The irony is obvious: Secular scientists censor creation research, then they mock creation scientists for not publishing in secular journals.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Let us ask, why we even wanted science that was of the kind you posit.
It is not an oxymoron; it’s how the field began. Surely you must have studied some of the history? Or did you believe science was virgin birthed like Christ?
It's clear that there was no universe before day one.
I thought it took a week for God to put it all together. Then the Jews wrote the history itemizing the birth from Adam on and his descendants along with their multi-centuries long lives. I saw a lot of detail there in Genesis. Most Biblical Scholars put the age of the Earth about six thousand years old. Just add the week of God's work to get the age of the universe. Not so silent to me. Of course, it is not congruent with geology, genetics, archeology, paleontology, and cosmology.
Re: “Creator” is not a mechanism that is scientifically valid.”
In fairness, some of the greatest scientific minds of the past might disagree, such as Newton and Kepler. Of course that doesn’t mean God exists, but belief in His creative ability does not mean one holding such a belief is necessarily unscientific.
Wouldn’t a purely naturalistic Darwinian have to believe that:
1. Matter, energy, i.e. the universe came into being of its own accord - or,
2. Matter, energy, the universe has always existed - there is no
beginning even though the universe appears to have one and is
expanding.
3. The apparent design we seen in the universe is really “un-designed”
randomness.
Do these beliefs describe valid “scientific mechanisms” simply because they do not mention God? Aren’t such beliefs also “leaps of faith” as well?
I don’t mean to be argumentative, these are just my own musings. I just don’t see belief in God as the creative force behind existence as an “irrational, unscientific” view.
The problem is a “science” that acts like it is virgin birthed, beyond reproach, itself able to determine what the ultimate desideratum of mankind is.
It is showing itself in spades in this stormer character.
Hand-waving words? Do you think that murder, theft, and mayhem only warrant hand-waving? And I don’t believe that mankind per se has a goal. I think individuals or groups of individuals may, but in and of itself, mankind does not.
If there were no God to forbid them, yes we could excuse them all for the sake of short term gain.
You will lose in the long run to those who DO believe that mankind has a goal... unless of course with hand waving you can put over the idea on them that it does not.
I fight you explicitly on this one. I evangelize....
“Creationism is pseudo-science.”
Hello.
I can understand how you would say that, if you haven’t had much exposure to rigorous discussions about irreducible complexity or intelligent design.
You might want to look at Michael Behe’s blog (I am NOT the author of the blog.)
http://behe.uncommondescent.com/
And the idea that mankind has a goal is dangerous to you, because it might step up to “science” one day and tell it that there is somewhere even it should not go.
Ultimately, science is the product of experience, and that does not require even a knowledge of god. How do you explain tool-making by certain animals?
Creationism is going a Bible verse too far
Re: “It’s clear that there was no universe before day one.”
Not necessarily. The Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void.”
The universe and the earth could have been around any number of years prior to the events of verse two where it says that the “Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters” and Him beginning His creative acts upon the earth and the universe described later in the chapter.
But day 4 is when the rest of the universe other than the earth is created.
Re: “Ultimately, science is the product of experience, and that does not require even a knowledge of god. How do you explain tool-making by certain animals?”
I agree that knowledge of God is not required for the scientific method of experimentation to work - knowledge is knowledge whether the scientist believes in God or not - the laws of physics work whether or not one is a theist or an atheist. Gravity causes a theist or an atheist to fall. Brain size and intelligence that allows certain animals to “learn” from experience does not exclude God as being a creator of them.
If God created the universe and the laws of physics, all of it works as designed whether a human believes in His existence or not.
And, again, Genesis is silent about the physical age of the earth.
Look instead at what Genesis requires by the actual text.
Genesis 1 speaks of the earth bring in a condition which is entirely consistent with the idea of catastrophism. The word frequently translated as “create” is actually the word for “prepare”, to make something from ingredients already on hand.
That doesn’t mean the The Lord didn’t create the universe, only that it didn’t need to happen in the moments before He was hovering over the waters.
Genesis also requires that all the forms of life created during the time specified were created before the woman, not before the man because some exemplars are presented as being specially fashioned, rather than being called forth from the earth, after The Lord declares it is not good for man to be alone.
The time period indicated is then far too short to be discerned in the fossil record.
Just as a Genesis is silent on the physical age of creation it is likewise silent on what life may have existed before it was brought to the state mentioned in Genesis 1:1.
This is not that out there as we find references to both making things new and to official epochs reckoned to be distinct from each other in Scripture.
Genesis 1:1 might be thought of as the start of just those sorts of thing with just as much adherence to the actual text as YEC has ... therefore it is proper to describe YEC as a superfluity.
By definition, belief that powers operate beyond the laws of nature is unscientific.
As far as Newton and Kepler are concerned, both were very religious. But as important as their scientific contributions are, if they were have any inkling of technological complexity that exists today they would find it incomprehensible and probably satanic.
I don’t really know what Darwin thought of cosmology, but I do know he was heavily influenced by uniformitarianist Lyell, so I imagine he thought the universe had always existed. Of course the concept of an expanding universe was unknown at the time.
Lastly, nature is not random—it is the result of the properties of matter. What appears to be design is a reflection of that.
The only people who would excuse them are already immoral, and no religious belief will alter that. The world is full of religious people who do things expressly prohibited by their god.
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.