In his latest jibe against Creationism, Charles makes a few coments that are worth comenting.
Notice the emotional words "fanatical" and "hating" that Charles uses in these short lines. I believe he uses those words with the clear purpose of arboring negative feelings towards those who believe that God spoke the Truth about Creation in Genesis 1.
Since I’ve posted two articles about Sarah Palin’s statements on creationism, let’s go across the aisle and see what the fanatical Darwin-hating creationists at “Answers In Genesis” think.
Do creationists hate Darwin? I have been reading a lot of creationist material for some years, and I have never seen "hatred" for Darwin anywhere. Now, do we hate darwinism? Sure we do, since it's a lie. The Bible says:
Prov 8:13 To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech
Continuing....
They’re also examining Palin’s statements, and of course they’re eagerly hoping she’ll be an advocate for their weird pseudo-science: Is She Really a Creationist?Coming from a man who believes that land mammals became whales, and dinossaurs became birds, it's trully amazing him considering the belief that there is empirical evidence for design in the universe as "weird pseudo-science".
(Notice how they add footnotes everywhere to make it seem like a scholarly work.)
Oh, those evil creationists! How dare they to put the references for the things they are claiming?! Pure evil! EVIL, I say!
(...) The Answers in Genesis crowd is quick to reassure the world that they don’t want to force creationism on students—not because it’s wrong or anything, but because science teachers trained in “Darwinism” wouldn’t be able to teach their pseudo-science well enough.
Which is, by the way, true. We only need to observe the ways the mainstream media portrays Christian beliefs in general, creationism in particular, to see that darwinian teachers would do their best to put creationism in the worse light possible.
Instead, they’re in favor of “teaching the controversy,” the current strategy of creationists and proponents of “intelligent design.” Rather than force their hooey into schools, they want to sneak it in.
LOL!
That's right! There is no controverys around the theory of evolution. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Every single thing about the theory is 100% right, and 100% observable. If you say that it isn't so, then you must be a young earth creationist.
The truth of the matter, of course, is that it is not only the evil creationists who are pointing out the problems with the theory of evolution. Here is a short collection of citations by scientists concerning areas where the theory is lacking: (All emphasys mine)
"To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason.Bottom line is that there is no shortage of scientists who say out that the evidence points away from the theory of evolution, and closer to the design hypothesis. What Charles and his darwinian brothers sugest, contrary to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of conservatives, and contrary to the wishes of most americans, is that we don't tell the students about the problems of the theory because, says Charles, that is "sneaking creationism". In other words, we should throw away the evidence lest people become creationists. Never mind the truth.
But to the Darwinist, the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence!"............
Michael Denton,
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. London: Burnett Books, 1985, p. 351.
"What gambler would be crazy enough to play roulette with random evolution? The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Durer's 'Melancholia' is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform.
There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it."Pierre-Paul Grasse,
French zoologist in 'Evolution of Living Organisms' (New York: Academic Press, 1977), 104
...........
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology.
But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity--omnipotent chance."
T. Rosazak,
Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.
.............
"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being?
There is another theory, now quite out of favor, which is based upon the ideas of Lamarck: that if an organism needs an improvement it will develop it, and transmit it to its progeny.
I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.
I know this is an anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."Dr. H. S. Lipson,
F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, 'A physicist looks at evolution', Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138
.................
"The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."Arthur Eddington,
(Astrophysicist): Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233.
Charles then cites Answers in Genesis and comments on their words:
Incidentally, it should be noted that there is no such position as a “neutral” or “non-religious” stance in this debate. Public school biology textbooks and many teachers explain the origin of the universe and life through “natural” processes, defining science as explaining things by “natural” processes. They are indoctrinating students in an atheistic religious belief—that no god is or has been involved; thus, naturalism—in essence, atheism—is now the religion taught in public schools. Parents need to wake up to the fact that public education is not non-religious. Even the Bible affirms that one is either for Christ or against—clearly teaching that there is no such “neutral” position.
If you don’t want to turn the clock back to medieval times and deny most of modern science, then according to Answers in Genesis you’re a damned atheist.
Huh, that is not what they said, Charlie. They said that by defining science as the enterprise which seeks only "natural causes", public schools are in fact indoctrinating people in naturalism. That is hardly a neutral position.
Why should we accept their assumptions and their definitions when debating untestable events?
And you can’t be neutral, or believe in God and evolution; it’s creationism or hell.
They didn't say that either. But it's a common trend among darwinists to misquote creatonists. They can't handle the true position, so they make up caricatures, and "attack" them.
One can be a Christian and believe in evolution. The problem is that he is not consistent. If God is the Creator, surely He left evidence. Is that evidence seen? If yes, then creationists are right. If not, then atheistic evolutionists are right.
If God, as the Master Designer, was Unable to leave evidence for Himself in the things He created, He is the Only Designer who was Unable to leave evidence. Even humans are able to leave evidence of their work (paintigs, etc). Strangely, God, the Supreme Designer, was not Able to leave evidence.
But what does Charles make of the evolutionists who say that evolution and God are mutually exclusive? How come he puts the canard "Belief in evolution does not exclude belief in God", and points it at creationists? He should be using that line against people like Dawkins who say that evolution made it possible to be an intelectually fullfilled atheist.
What is it about evolution that makes atheists be intellectually fullfilled? Perhaps Charles should write them, and tell them that they have to get back being intelectually unfullfilled, since evolution does not remove God from the place of Creator.
Or does it?
0 comentários:
Post a Comment
Be respectful. Comments are moderated.