In the beginning: The debate over creation and evolution, once most conspicuous in America, is fast going global, The Economist, April 19, 2007 ...
[Left: Atlas of Creation, Harun Yahya]
THE "Atlas of Creation" runs to 770 pages and is lavishly illustrated with photographs of fossils and living animals, interlaced with quotations from the Koran. Its author claims to prove not only the falsehood of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, but the links between "Darwinism" and such diverse evils as communism, fascism and terrorism. In recent weeks the "Atlas de la Création" has been arriving unsolicited and free of charge at schools and universities across French-speaking Europe. The book is available free as a download of a PDF file, but even zipped it `weighs' over 30 Mb. I have no plans to download and read it, so I am not here endorsing the book, or the views of its author Harun Yahya (aka. Adnan Oktar).
It is the latest sign of a revolt against the theories of Darwin, on which virtually the whole of modern biology is based, that is gathering momentum in many parts of the world. Darwinists make these claims, but they rarely say what those "theories of Darwin" are and substantiate how "virtually the whole of modern biology is based" on them.
This is another example of how Darwinists rely on fallacies to support their theory, in this case the fallacy of Argument from Authority, i.e. "virtually the whole of modern biology is based" "on the theories of Darwin," therefore they must be true.
And this is despite their official position that, "Students should never be told that `many scientists' think this or that" because "Science is not decided by vote, but by evidence" (my emphasis):
"The Framework's [Science Framework for California public schools, California State Board of Education, 1990] most constructive recommendation is that teachers and textbook writers should avoid terminology that implies that scientific judgments are a matter of subjective preference or vote-counting.Students should never be told that `many scientists' think this or that. Science is not decided by vote, but by evidence. Nor should students be told that `scientists believe.' Science is not a matter of belief; rather, it is a matter of evidence that can be subjected to the tests of observation and objective reasoning.... Show students that nothing in science is decided just because someone important says it is so (authority) or because that is the way it has always been done (tradition).The Framework immediately contradicts that message, however, by defining `evolution' only vaguely, as `change through time.' A vaguely defined concept cannot be tested by observation and objective reasoning. The Framework then urges us to believe in this vague concept because so many scientists do: `It is an accepted scientific explanation and therefore no more controversial in scientific circles than the theories of gravitation and electron flow.' An appeal to authority is unavoidable, because Darwinist educators cannot afford to reveal that their theory rests squarely on what the Policy Statement calls philosophical beliefs that are not subject to scientific test and refutation." (Johnson, P.E., "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, pp.145-146)
But as Phillip E. Johnson noted above, "An appeal to authority is unavoidable" for Darwinists because "their theory rests squarely on ... philosophical beliefs that are not subject to scientific test and refutation" (my emphasis).
The fact is that if God has supernaturally intervened at strategic points in life'a history (as the Bible claims He has in human history-see for example `tagline' quote below), "influencing key moments in evolutionary history (especially, of course, human evolutionary history)," as Richard Dawkins put it, or causing "miraculous additions at ... stage[s] of descent," as Charles Darwin put it:
"Darwin ... wrote in a letter to Sir Charles Lyell, the leading geologist of his day: `If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish...I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.' [Darwin, C.R., Letter to C. Lyell, October 11, 1859, in Darwin F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, reprint, pp.6-7]. This is no petty matter. In Darwin's view, the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non-miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. For what it is worth, it is also the whole point of this book. For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all. ... At first sight there is an important distinction to be made between what might be called 'instantaneous creation' and 'guided evolution'. Modern theologians of any sophistication have given up believing in instantaneous creation. ... many theologians ... smuggle God in by the back door: they allow him some sort of supervisory role over the course that evolution has taken, either influencing key moments in evolutionary history (especially, of course, human evolutionary history), or even meddling more comprehensively in the day-to-day events that add up to evolutionary change. ... In short, divine creation, whether instantaneous or in the form of guided evolution, joins the list of other theories we have considered in this chapter." (Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W Norton & Co: New York NY, 1986, pp.248-249, 316-317. Emphasis original)
then both "modern biology" and "the theories of Darwin" would be wrong, to the extent that they deny that supernatural intervention by God in life's history!
Then, on Dawkins' (and Darwin's) own admission, what "modern biology" textbooks and journals would have been describing all these years "was not evolution at all" but rather "divine creation" (my emphasis)!
To be continued (time permitting) in part #2.
Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
Exodus 31:18. When the LORD finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the Testimony, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God.
Posts
6 comments:
Many people, when they can't provide evidence for their theory, adopt the strategy of falsehood. Such is the case with many of those who have fallen victim to the propaganda of renowned evolutionists.
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This 'should' be possible now, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell.
After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists of today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.
If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.
Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!
Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!
Jim Collins
Jim
>If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This 'should' be possible now, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell.
An Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology virtually admitted that "the artificial synthesis of a living cell is impossible" despite "astounding advances in science and technology":
"In these days of astounding advances in science and technology it is perhaps rash to declare dogmatically that anything such as the artificial synthesis of a living cell is impossible. Yet, on what sort of microloom would a biologist weave the membranes of the endoplasmic reticulum, or with what delicate needles could a biologist fashion the intricacies of the cell nucleus?" (Price, F.W., "Basic Molecular Biology," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY, 1979, p.466)
Yet they believe a `blind watchmaker' must have done it, despite "All appearances to the contrary," because in their atheistic philosophy, "blind forces" are "the only watchmaker" there is:
"All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W Norton & Co: New York NY, 1986, p.5. Emphasis original)
>After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists of today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.
Even if scientists did eventually synthesise from non-living chemicals a living cell (and as far as I am aware they are nowhere near that), they would only show that "Under the influence of intelligence" it is possible "to produce living matter from its nonliving base" which is "precisely the supernaturalist point of view":
"The scientific materialists are bending all their efforts to demonstrate that, if a reaction leading up to life can take place now, in laboratory reaction vessels, without supernatural aid, then proof positive has been effectively delivered that no supernatural agency was needed to produce life at the beginning, at archebiopoesis. Thus any synthetic, laboratory production of life in the laboratory, under what are presumed to be conditions resembling those on the earth when life arose for the first time, is heralded in many circles as driving the last nail in God's and the supernaturalist's coffins. Who needs God and the supernaturalist position if life on the earth can be effectively accounted for without either? Before accepting this commonly assumed position let us consider the following: Is it not remarkable that this view is not generally recognized for what it is-an absolute contradiction? For all the efforts of the scientific naturalists to prove their point by the above mentioned method only serve, in fact, to verify the correctness of the supernaturalist position. For, is it not true that the scientific materialists are, in their experiment, applying intelligence and thought to the ordering of matter? Under the influence of intelligence they are hoping to produce living matter from its nonliving base. This is precisely the supernaturalist point of view." (Wilder- Smith, A.E., "The Creation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution," T.W.F.T. Publishers: Costa Mesa CA, 1988, pp.xix-xx)
>If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
As St Paul said, "Although they claimed to be wise, they [those who suppress the truth of God revealed in creation] became fools" (Rom 1:22) and "For this reason ["they refused to love the truth and so be saved"] God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie" (2Th 2:11. My emphasis).
>Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. [...]
In the final analysis it is allowing their minds to be taken captive by a materialistic-naturalistic philosophy:
"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ" (Col 2:8).
>Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!
>Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!
Agreed. This is the problem of evolution, that hydrogen gas + time + chance = humans!:
"From these highly dispersed hydrogen and helium gases ... somehow, evolutionists believe, stars and galaxies created themselves, our solar system created itself, life created itself, and from that first primordial form of life all other forms of life evolved, including man.... Thus, so the story says, we have gone from hydrogen gas to people. It was George Mulfinger who reminded us that if this is true, then we could say that hydrogen is an odorless, tasteless, invisible gas which, if given enough time, becomes people!" (Gish D.T., "Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics," Institute for Creation Research: El Cajon CA, 1993, p.154).
Stephen E. Jones
Just when it appeared that God may have delayed his response to evolutionists, enter THE QUEST FOR RIGHT, a masterful work on creationism.
The great gulf of ambiguity that once separated Intelligent Design from legitimate scientific discourse has been abolished. It is a fact: The Quest for Right has accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between forces advocating creationism and those promoting evolution.
The Lord has heard the cries of His people and responded with a scientific resource on creationism that will stop these onslaughts against Christianity. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena that will ultimately replace the Darwinian view.
For example, the investigation dismantles the hocus pocus responsible for the various absolute radioisometric dating techniques by which rocks and other materials are supposedly dated. Absolute-"perfect, complete, definite; without a prospect of being incorrect." On these incalculable formulae— and they are incalculable—rest the science council's claim that the earth is of great age, accreting some 4.6 billion years B.C. Upon publication of The Quest for Right, the council's choice of the superlative absolute will be assessed to be a scurrilous invective, an "abusive, offensive, even vulgar, connotation." After all, who would question an absolute? It is a matter of record that these dating systems are the tools by which evolutionists have attempted to rip apart the validity of historical documentations, specifically, that the account of creation as recorded in the Bible is mythology. The Quest for Right has changed all of that: the scientific record of creation has stood undaunted against these attacks and has proven to be an invaluable asset to the in-depth investigation.
The first three volumes of the seven volume set will be published early fall '07. The Quest for Right is all new from the get-go and is destined to make headlines that will reverberate within the halls of academia throughout the world. Coming soon to bookstores and online merchants such as Amazon.com, Barnes and Nobel.com, Walmart.com and questforright.com. Author, C. David Parsons, biblical scholar and scientist extraordinare.
Anonymous
[...]
>For example, the investigation dismantles the hocus pocus responsible for the various absolute radioisometric dating techniques by which rocks and other materials are supposedly dated. Absolute-"perfect, complete, definite; without a prospect of being incorrect." On these incalculable formulae— and they are incalculable—rest the science council's claim that the earth is of great age, accreting some 4.6 billion years B.C.
This is a fallacy of False Dilemma that the only two alternatives are: 1) biblical literalism (implied), that the Earth is ~6,000-10,000 years old; or 2) "the earth is ... some 4.6 billion years" old.
But in fact, an age of the Earth of only 100,000 years would be just as fatal for biblical literalism as "4.6 billion years."
And in fact biblical literalists like Sylvia Baker admit that non-radiometric age indicators, like "Salt in the sea" point to an Earth of "200 million years":
"Is there anything in the discoveries of science that would suggest the earth to be as young as 10,000 years? ... Nevertheless, there are many indications that the world is not nearly so old as evolutionists claim ... Salt in the sea Salt is continually being washed into the sea. It has been calculated that, even allowing for the formation of rock salt by evaporation and making the unlikely assumption that no salt was there in the first place, an absolute maximum of 200 million years would give the amount now found." (Baker, S., "Bone of Contention," [1976], Evangelical Press: Welwyn UK, 1986, Second Edition, pp.25-26. Emphasis original)
[...]
>Author, C. David Parsons, biblical scholar and scientist extraordinare.
If this is Parson's claim of himself, then it sounds like he might need to reconsider 1 Cor 13:4, "Love ... does not boast, it is not proud [puffed up - KJV]".
Stephen E. Jones
Mr. Jones, the inherent error in your argument is the fallacy that there was no salt in the sea in the beginning. Of course, Jesus, the Christ, created all things in the beginning, to include salt in the sea, lead in rocks, etc. If you will provide an address, I will be happy to provide you a copy of Volume 1 of The Quest for Right which went to press on Dec., 6th. We expect to have books in hand 4-6 weeks. Please view our Windows movie at http://questforright.com for more detail. Please know that the information contained in the several volumes goes well beyond that which is taught in the colleges and universities. Hence, set your expectation to high and you will not be disappointed. C. David Parsons, Author, The Quest for Right
David
>Mr. Jones, the inherent error in your argument is the fallacy that there was no salt in the sea in the beginning.
Disagree that it is a "fallacy". And I don't claim that "there was no salt in the sea in the beginning."
The fact is that salts are continually being formed by the weathering of rocks and those salts are continually being washed into the sea. The dissolved salt level of the sea remains fairly constant because there are billions of tons of salt precipitated on the sea floor. Those precipitates can be seen today in ancient sea floors that have been again raised up as dry land due to plate tectonic movements. See "Why is the Ocean Salty?"
Well before radiometric dating, in the 16th-19th centuries, scientists (including the then Professors of Geology at Oxford and Cambridge who were Christian creationists) released there were many such continuing geological processes which, if extrapolated back at that observed rate, yielded an age of the Earth of hundred of millions of years.
Of course one can just deny all this scientific evidence, in favour of one's own literal interpretation of Genesis 1, but then why would one bother with the scientific evidence at all?
>Of course, Jesus, the Christ, created all things in the beginning, to include salt in the sea, lead in rocks, etc.
Agreed that "Christ ... created all things in the beginning" (Jn 1:3; 1Cor 8:6; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2).
But disagree that He created it "to include salt in the sea, lead in rocks, etc.", such as to give His creation a appearance of age of many hundreds of millions of years, when in fact it would only be tens of thousands of years.
The Bible does not say that, unless one choses to interpret the "days" of Genesis 1 literally. But, apart from the scientific evidence, there is evidence in the text itself that the days were not intended by God to be taken literally, e.g. the Sun not being created until Day 4 (Gn 1:14-19), more than halfway through the creation `week'; the number of events in Day 6 as revealed inGn 2:15-23"; and Day 7 having no end (Gn 2:1-3).
And, as the 19th century novelist and clergyman Charles Kingsley criticised the classic appearance of age argument by Philip Henry Gosse in his 1857 book, "Omphalos," it would require one to "believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie" (my emphasis):
"The Reverend Charles Kingsley, an intellectual leader of unquestionable devotion to both God and science, spoke for a consensus in stating that he could not `give up the painful and slow conclusion of five and twenty years' study of geology, and believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie.' And so it has gone for the argument of Omphalos ever since. Gosse did not invent it, and a few creationists ever since have revived it from time to time. But it has never been welcome or popular because it violates our intuitive notion of divine benevolence as free of devious behavior- for while Gosse saw divine brilliance in the idea of prochronism, most people cannot shuck their seat-of-the-pants feeling that it smacks of plain old unfairness." (Gould, S.J., "Adam's Navel," in "The Flamingo's Smile: Reflections in Natural History," [1985], Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1991, pp.110-111).
>If you will provide an address, I will be happy to provide you a copy of Volume 1 of The Quest for Right which went to press on Dec., 6th. We expect to have books in hand 4-6 weeks. Please view our Windows movie at http://questforright.com for more detail. Please know that the information contained in the several volumes goes well beyond that which is taught in the colleges and universities. Hence, set your expectation to high and you will not be disappointed. C. David Parsons, Author, The Quest for Right
Thanks, but no thanks.
Stephen E. Jones
Post a Comment