Featured Video

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

28 August 2008

Breaking: Religion and "Science" Not in Conflict

This is another plot atheistic evolutionists use try to put Christians to sleep. They proclaim in the media that "science" and "religion" are not in conflict. What they don't tell the media is that "religion" and "science" (by which they mean evolutionism) are not in conflict because they see religion as an evolutionary by product. In other words, religion is just something that happens in your head.

Adding to that, they adhere to the NOMA, which was promoted by the late evolutionist and marxist Steven Jay Gould. (NOMA stands for "Non Overlaping Magisteria")

Basically it says that "religion" (by which they mean Christianity) and "science" are in diferent domains and diferent spheres. Religion deals with morality and how to behave. "Science" tell us how the world works. Therefore, there shouldn't be any conflict since they are in diferent realms of existence.

Sounds nice, but there are many problems.

First of all, true science and Christianity are not at war. In fact, looking down in History, we'll see that the founding fathers of many of the fields of science evolutionists use against Christianity were started or received a great impulse thanks to the work of Christians

Secondly, Christianity makes Historical claims that contradict atheistic evolutionism. For example, God says in John 1 that before the material world existed, the Word of God (The Lord Jesus) already was. He is the Un-evolved Creative Inteligence behind the living world. This contradicts the theory of evolution which says that inteligence is an evolutionary by product.

Both can't be right. Either the Bible is right, or evolution is right.

So the Bible makes claims that go into the scientific domain. Which one should we trust? The testemony of men, who were not there when the world begun, or the Bible?

Thirdly, what do we make of evolutionists who say the evolution goes against the Bible? Are they "misrepresenting" evolution too?

"As were many persons from Alabama, I was a born-again Christian. When I was fifteen, I entered the Southern Baptist Church with great fervor and interest in the fundamentalist religion, I left at seventeen when I got to the University of Alabama and heard about evolutionary theory." (E.O. Wilson, "Toward a Humanistic Biology"; The Humanist, September/October, 1982; p. 40).

In his article, "The Meaning of Evolution," atheist G. Richard Bozarth claims that
"Christianity has fought, still fights and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, for evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing" (American Atheist, September 20, 1979, p. 30).

Funny how these atheists know full well what evolution really means. Perhaps those who say that evolution and Christianity are in contradiction should contact them and tell them that they are wrong?....

26 August 2008

On the Front Lines of the *Religious* Wars in Florida

I had this post ready two years ago, but for some weird reason, it never came up. Here it is.
I was beggining to wonder when would the first anti-Christian and anti-Creation post apear on LGF. It has been almost 2 days, and no evolutionary propaganda in Charles' blog.

Even though Charles doesn't say much, he does call evolution "science":

"New York Times writer Amy Harmon follows high school science teacher David Campbell’s efforts to reach students who’ve been raised as strict creationists, fighting a Florida political establishment that’s hostile to the science of evolution"
First of all, notice the highly reliable source of this article New York Times. We all know how the NYT is a honest, unbiased news agency, right? Right?

Leaving that aside, is evolution science? Does it meet the criteria of a scientific discipline? If it is science, it is open to criticism, or all criticism is ruled out as "religious", and therefore, "outside of science"?

Those are big questions, and we will have the time to comment on that.

People might wonder why do I consider evolutionism anti-Christian. Well, from the Biblical point of view, the world exists because God wanted it to exist. Life forms exist for the same reason.

The theory of evolution however (let's grant it the title "theory") says that the living world exists NOT bcause Someone wanted it to exist, but solely due to the result of unguided, impersonal forces of nature.

The article makes the common darwinian mistake of conflating natural selection with particles-to-people evolution. They use the inteligently guided change in Mickey Mouse as some form of evidence of what "nature" did without inteligent design.

Then they say that what happened to Mickey Mouse was "evolution". It never dawned the NYT writter that 1) the process was the result of inteligent design, NOT randomess as pescribed by darwinism, and 2) It was Mickey Mouse in the beggining as it it Mickey Moue today. Where's the evolution?!!

This type of bait and switch is very common among darwinists. They use the empirical fact that animals undergo changes as evidence that the living world came into existence without any Personal Design.

A word to the writter of this article and to the evolutionary teacher cited in the article:

If you are really trying to shove your religious theory down the american people's throat, try to find real evidences of what you believe. Natural selection is not evolution, and a cat that turns into a cat is not evidence for evolution, (specialy if you oppose evolution against creationism).

Secondly, don't forget what your theory says. It says that ALL the living forms in existence today are the result of NOTHING BUT the unguided, uncaused, unplanned, undirected, un-inteligent forces of nature.

THEREFORE you must find that magical force of nature that is able to do just that.

25 August 2008

Purpose of the Blog

(Changed at 18:40 - 25/08/08 - Western European Time)

This Blog in no way reflects the views on origins by the owner of Little Green Footballs.

Little Green Footballs is a blog which has very good and reliable information about politics, Israel and the conservative party, among many other issues. Charles has been in the forefront in exposing many of the things in which MSM (Mainstream Media) is being dishonest, unreliable and plainly biased towards the liberal cause.

However, when it comes to the debate between atheistic evolutionism and Inteligent Design, Charles Johnson does not reflect the views the majority of conservatives have.

As much as I like his blog (and I like it a lot), when it comes to unguided evolution, he is totally wrong on that, and I hope to show it in here.


Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More