Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Christian Teacher in Ohio Battles Tyrannical Evolution Pushers
scottfactor.com ^ | 04/17/12 | Gina Miller

Posted on 04/17/2012 4:27:49 AM PDT by scottfactor

Members of the anti-Christian, communist Left are obsessed with banishing the presence of Christian expression from all areas of the public square. They are probably the most fervent in this crusade in the government-run public school classrooms, where teachers are persecuted for displaying even a hint of Christianity.

I have written before about a California teacher, Brad Johnson, who is fighting back against a tyrannical school district that ordered him to remove patriotic banners from his classroom walls—banners that simply included the name of God in their sayings. These banners had long been hanging in his classroom, but the God-hating tyrants in his school district decided they could no longer abide even the written mention of the name of the Lord in that classroom. How very like Satan that is!

Mr. Johnson’s appeal is still pending in the courts, and the Thomas More Law Center has vowed to take it to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

There is another American teacher being persecuted for his Christian faith. This is a case out of Mount Vernon, Ohio.

As reported at the Rutherford Institute website, which is handling the case,

“The Rutherford Institute has appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of John Freshwater, a Christian teacher who was fired for keeping religious articles in his classroom and for using teaching methods that encourage public school students to think critically about the school’s science curriculum, particularly as it relates to evolution theories. Freshwater, a 24-year veteran in the classroom, was suspended by the Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education in 2008 and officially terminated in January 2011. The School Board justified its actions by accusing Freshwater of improperly injecting religion into the classroom by giving students ‘reason to doubt the accuracy and/or veracity of scientists, science textbooks and/or science in general.’ The Board also claimed that Freshwater failed to remove ‘all religious articles’ from his classroom, including a Bible.”

Here we have the case of a Christian teacher encouraging his students to approach the unproven, unobserved theory of evolution with the skeptical eye it deserves. The anti-Christian crusaders in our world are so viciously against any teachings that declare God is the Author of the universe and all that is in it that they will fiercely defend a terribly flimsy theory—or hypothesis, rather—that seeks to explain the origins of life in this amazing world in which we live. The hypothesis of evolution—which is not even a plausible explanation, with its gaping, fossil record holes and fantasy mechanisms—is the best the godless among us have come up with, and they cling to it with a fanatical fervor.

The fact that this school district even cited Mr. Freshwater for having a Bible in his classroom is also chilling and disgusting. We must remember that our God-given rights do not end just because we become teachers in the public school system. There is no such thing as the fabled “separation of church and state” as the Left insists. The only constitutional mandates are against the federal government establishing an official national religion in America, which it has never done, and interfering with Americans’ freedom to practice their faith, which it is doing more and more each year.

The bizarre beginning of this case was back in 2008, as reported in Mr. Freshwater’s Appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, filed last Friday by the Rutherford Institute,

“Despite objective evidence demonstrating Freshwater’s consistent excellence as an eighth-grade science teacher for over 20 years, and despite his immaculate employment record, Freshwater came under intense scrutiny following a 2008 incident in which a common classroom science experiment with a Tesla coil used safely by other teachers for over 20 years allegedly produced a cross-shaped mark on one student’s arm.

While the Referee who investigated this incident ultimately determined that ‘speculation and imagination had pushed reality aside,’… community hysteria resulting from rumors about Freshwater and the incident prompted the [School] Board to launch a full-scale inquisition into Freshwater’s teaching methods and performance. This sweeping critique focused entirely on trace evidence of Freshwater’s religious faith which allegedly appeared in the classroom. On January 10, 2011, the Board adopted a Resolution terminating Freshwater’s employment contract based upon a recommendation issued by Referee R. Lee Shepherd, Esq., on January 7, 2011 that Freshwater be terminated for ‘good and just cause.’”

The supposed “good and just cause” was Mr. Freshwater’s allowing his students to examine both sides of the evolution debate and teaching them to recognize issues in printed materials that could be questioned or debated, in other words, he was teaching his students critical thinking! The godless School Board also found offense in the fact that some of Mr. Freshwater’s counterpoints to the hypothesis of evolution involved—GASP!—arguments for Creationism or Intelligent Design. Oh, the horror!

According to the School Board, this “good and just cause” amounted to “Failure to Adhere to Established Curriculum.” That sounds like something out of Nazi Germany! Absolutely NO God talk allowed here, comrades!

Mr. Freshwater was also accused of “Disobedience of Orders,” because he was told to remove certain items from his classroom, which he did, but there was a patriotic poster featuring Colin Powell that he did not remove, but said he did not recall being told to remove it. That poster was handed out to teachers by the school office and was displayed in other classrooms in the district besides his. He also had a couple of school library books: one was a Bible, and one was titled “Jesus of Nazareth.” Because he had these things in his classroom, he was accused of “defiance.”

This is an outrageous injustice, and this case is extremely important for the future freedoms of teachers and students alike. As the President and founder of the Rutherford Institute, John Whitehead, stated,

“Academic freedom was once the bedrock of American education. That is no longer the state of affairs, as this case makes clear. ... What we need today are more teachers and school administrators who understand that young people don’t need to be indoctrinated. Rather, they need to be taught how to think for themselves.”

The godless people who aggressively push the hypothesis of evolution in our public schools cannot tolerate opposing viewpoints, and if Mr. Freshwater ultimately loses this battle in the courts, all of America will have lost yet another chunk of our Christian liberty at the hands of anti-Christian tyrants.

As reported by the Rutherford Institute, two lower courts have already sided with the School Board against Mr. Freshwater, ignoring the First and Fourteenth Amendment violations by the school district.

The conclusion of Mr. Freshwater’s appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court states,

“The [School] Board's actions constitute a violation of the First Amendment academic freedom rights of both Freshwater and of his students, of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, and of Freshwater's right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Because of its significant implications for academic freedom in public schools and the continued vitality of teachers' First Amendment right to openly practice and discuss their religious faith, the case is one of monumental public concern. As no reviewing court has yet examined these critical civil liberty components of this case, Freshwater prays that this Court will grant his petition and undertake that essential analysis.”

We should all be praying that Mr. Freshwater is given a victory over this anti-Christian, public school district. Ultimately, we are all Mr. Freshwater, and if he loses, we all lose.

We should also pray for, and consider financially supporting, the Rutherford Institute, which is made up of front-line, legal warriors who provide free legal services to people who have had their constitutional rights threatened or violated. From the Institute’s information page,

“The Institute’s mission is twofold: to provide legal services in the defense of religious and civil liberties and to educate the public on important issues affecting their constitutional freedoms.

Whether our attorneys are protecting the rights of parents whose children are strip-searched at school, standing up for a teacher fired for speaking about religion or defending the rights of individuals against illegal search and seizure, The Rutherford Institute offers assistance—and hope—to thousands.”


TOPICS: Politics; Religion; Society
KEYWORDS: evolution; liberals
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-229 next last
To: betty boop
Maybe we can also say this of Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian monk who just happens to be the father of the science of genetics, which gave Darwin so many bright ideas.

What a shame that creationism contributes nothing of value to science.

Maybe someone should have told Newton that as well.

101 posted on 04/20/2012 1:12:53 PM PDT by metmom ( For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Gregor Mendel proposed that there was a physical cause to describe the physical phenomena he observed.

At no point did he claim that God had to intervene mystically magically miraculously or spiritually in order for wrinkled pods and smooth pod pea crosses to reproduce 3/4th’s smooth pods and 1/4th wrinkled pods. He proposed that it was something physical within the pea that was being held hidden in the first cross that came out in 1/4th of the offspring in the second generation.

And we now know what it was that was physically within the pea waiting to be expressed in subsequent generations - DNA.

If the evolution you accept has no physical cause then it is as useless as the rest of creationism and can lead nowhere and to nothing - exactly where you left it and seem content to leave it - unproductive and useless.

102 posted on 04/20/2012 1:13:51 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: metmom; betty boop
Did you not read where I pointed out to you that ALL science is based upon extrapolation.

When Galileo dropped weights off the tower of Pisa it was not to establish that balls of equal size but different weights fall at the same rate when dropped off the tower of Pisa - but to demonstrate that they would fall at the same rate no matter where they were dropped - and not just those two specific balls - but applicable to all balls of equal sizes but different weights.

Evolution is both testable and replicable. If I subject a bacterial population derived from a single bacteria and plated on ten different plates to ten different stresses - we can find adaptive evolutionary responses from all ten plates time and time again.

Antibiotic resistance to novel antibiotics have been real life observations of evolution in action - one with dramatic consequences to human health.

Because you don't really understand evolution I will give you a pas for claiming that the cause could be considered supernatural. If you knew the first thing about science or the theory of evolution you would know that the cause of evolution is far from supernatural (as your compatriot betty-boop claims that the evolution she says she accepts has “spiritual” causation).

There are none so blind as those shown the evidence but who refuse to deal with it.

Science is of use. Creationism is useless.

Deal with it.

103 posted on 04/20/2012 1:21:51 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I see you pinged your entire coward’s chorus!

Nice to know you don’t feel competent to discuss the issues on your own without tons of backup!

Amusing!


104 posted on 04/20/2012 1:24:50 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: metmom

[[Sounds like you just described evolution there.]]

Absolutely- when Ken Miller lamely tried to ‘explain’ that blood clotting could evolve, he HAD to resort to supernaturaql processes i norder to CREATE the environment and steps needed in order for evolution to CREATE the irreducible aspects of advanced blood clotting- He just wasn’t smart enough evidently to understand that his ‘explanation’ only further styrengthened the idea of irreducible complexity- and he apparently wasn’t smart enoguh to understand that what he just described showed the NEED for and Intelligent Designer


105 posted on 04/20/2012 1:55:37 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Alamo-Girl; metmom; YHAOS; exDemMom; xzins
At no point did [Mendel] claim that God had to intervene mystically magically miraculously or spiritually in order for wrinkled pods and smooth pod pea crosses to reproduce 3/4th’s smooth pods and 1/4th wrinkled pods. He proposed that it was something physical within the pea that was being held hidden in the first cross that came out in 1/4th of the offspring in the second generation.

Of course not! Mendel was a scientist as well as a theologian. He was looking for God's laws, not God himself. Perhaps he would acknowledge that the only "mystical intervention" that God ever did was "in the Beginning" — and He's been pretty much keeping "hands-off" ever since (except for occasional and comparatively rare direct interventions — which we call "miracles" because we don't know what else to call them.)

To repeat myself: Mendel was not only a Christian cleric; he was a full-blown scientist.

Unlike in our present age, Mendel probably never ever thought that there was some deep, irreconcilable, mutually-exclusive divide between theology and science. That is a post-modernist, "progressivist" notion that in all likelihood he had not heard of, and which likely would have been unimaginable to him.

As a life-long student of human history and culture, may I observe that never before our own times did human beings believe in this so-called "Cartesian split" in the human knowledge domain. Descartes himself would probably have been appalled by this so-called "split." After all, he himself said that the idea of God is the most fundamental idea a man can have, on which is based every other possible idea a man can have, including the idea of his own conscious self.

The fact of the matter is: philosophy (and theology as the "queen of metaphysics") and science have been intimately engaged with each other for some 7 millennia at least. They have cross-pollinated ideas since Day One.

I cite as evidence the profound influence of Newtonian mechanics in the shaping of the philosophical ideas of such notables as Descartes, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, et al.

To disparage philosophy is to express the preference for walking around on only one leg....

A person can always choose to do that, I'm sure. But why? It is ever so much more difficult to walk on one leg, when two are available to make our progress less difficult and more convenient....

So, why choose to walk on only one leg?

106 posted on 04/20/2012 1:56:28 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Alamo-Girl; metmom; YHAOS; exDemMom; xzins
And we now know what it was that was physically within the pea waiting to be expressed in subsequent generations — DNA.

Well, where did DNA come from? That is, on what causal principle does it itself rest?

DNA is not "just" a physical molecule. It is one of the greatest "mysteries" in the world; for it not only maps the genome; but it can read it, and knows the "rules" of how to transcribe this intangible information into tangible physical processes/effects.

There is nothing in physics or chemistry that can explain any of this. Certainly Darwin is no help at all here — he never even heard of DNA during his lifetime....

107 posted on 04/20/2012 2:07:32 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“If the cause of a phenomena is material - then it is predictable, replicable and understandable.”

OK, How ‘bout we start with the formation of life on earth.


108 posted on 04/20/2012 2:38:03 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; betty boop; metmom; spirited irish; Alamo-Girl; Matchett-PI; exDemMom; Agamemnon
Darwin's theory is successful because it is of use. Creationism is useless.

To say Creationism is useless is to say that Christianity is useless.

I know of no Christian who does not, as an article of faith, believe that God created the Universe.
Do you?

Who gave you the authority to hijack the lexicon and arbitrarily alter the meaning of terms? That’s the tactic of those who look to smear a whole people by demeaning their identity. 0bamatrons and admirers of Goebbels would applaud your calumny. Not many others.

What is the definition of Creationism offered by the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, revised edition 2003? Does it differ materially from other definitions?

Science, as it has been developed by our Judeo-Christian Western Civilization is successful because it is of use. So useful, in fact, that I claim it to be Judeo-Christianity’s happiest inspiration.

Some people have seized upon the readily observable phenomena of Natural Selection and have projected it into the religion of Darwinism; with “Evolution” as its most holy of sacraments. Like most religions, Darwinism is jealous of other religions. Unlike the Judeo-Christian Tradition, Darwinism has not learned to control its jealousy, so it seeks to drive Christianity not only from the public schools, but entirely from the public common.

The prohibition against the establishment of religion is an onus that falls entirely on the state. Government may not establish a religion or prohibit its free exercise. The prohibition may not act on individuals or private institutions. The Constitution limits and defines the powers only of government.

109 posted on 04/20/2012 3:05:51 PM PDT by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
I'm confused about what you're getting at. You have written
That [God] already knows the End — the purpose and goal of His Creation — does not affect its free development "In-Between" its Beginning and End...There are rules and guides to the system; but within those constraints, there is every possible scope for novelty to emerge in physical nature, via an evolutionary process.
and
Perhaps [Mendel] would acknowledge that the only "mystical intervention" that God ever did was "in the Beginning" — and He's been pretty much keeping "hands-off" ever since...
Given that, I really don't see what your problem with evolution is--what it is that you're insisting is there that "evos" somehow deny. If you said "In the beginning, God created a universe in which evolution, acting according to His laws, produced all the life forms we see today, with no need for further intervention," you'd get very little argument. But it seems that, for some reason, you can't bring yourself to say that.
110 posted on 04/20/2012 5:39:16 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; allmendream; Alamo-Girl; YHAOS; metmom; spirited irish; xzins; ...
In the beginning, God created a universe in which evolution, acting according to His laws, produced all the life forms we see today, with no need for further intervention," you'd get very little argument. But it seems that, for some reason, you can't bring yourself to say that.

But — the above is the essential message I have been trying to suggest —conditional on the following: I will not even attempt to overrule God by forbidding Him to perform a miracle every now and then if He wants to.

Were I to try to overrule God in this way, no less worthy a person than Isaac Newton would probably contradict me. It was his own understanding that a mechanical universe would tend to accumulate errors over time, unto total disorder in due course. And so God necessarily would have to step in from time to time, to set matters "aright" again.

Newton proposed that God's action was effected by means of a sensorium Dei — which I understand to be a sort of universal "field" that connects the material realm with the spiritual pattern it reflects.

Whatever the case, Michael Faraday evidently grasped the "field" principle here. And so gets the credit as the "father" of field theory to this day, in the process setting up the intellectual conditions necessary to the contemplation of quantum field theory....

Anyhoot, in closing, let me reiterate: Even Newton believed that God was constantly, directly involved with His Creation. Newton's name for God was: "The Lord of Life, with His creatures."

"Modern" science has the most wonderful history "behind it"!!!

Which history, it seems to me, modern science is trying to "forget" as soon as possible....

WHY??? Science is a public enterprise dating back millennia. It's an intergenerational collaboration going back to the dawn of history.

Why is "modern" (i.e., post-modern) science trying to drop such facts down the old "rabbit hole of memory," never to be seen again?

For if they do, they cut themselves off at the knees....

Or so it seems to me. FWIW.

111 posted on 04/20/2012 6:46:32 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Do you have a particular miracle in mind that you think God has performed, vis a vis the evolution of life?

Because if not, and if we can agree that whenever evolution started—i.e., whenever life arose—it was a long time after the Beginning, then I’m still not sure what your beef with Darwinian evolution is. You seem to want science to explicitly admit the possibility of something that you say yourself is probably unnecessary and maybe hasn’t ever happened.

Would you have a problem with a scientist who said, “Sure, God could step in and tweak things, or change them completely, any time He wanted. But while we’re waiting to find evidence of His actually doing so, I’ll keep trying to figure out what has happened on its own (according to His laws, of course)”? Because it seems to me that that’s what Newton was doing, and what Darwin was doing, and what most scientists today are probably doing.


112 posted on 04/20/2012 10:29:16 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
“Of course not! Mendel was a scientist as well as a theologian. He was looking for God's laws, not God himself. Perhaps he would acknowledge that the only “mystical intervention” that God ever did was “in the Beginning” — and He's been pretty much keeping “hands-off” ever since (except for occasional and comparatively rare direct interventions — which we call “miracles” because we don't know what else to call them.)”

And I would agree. I think God created a universe that is self consistent and progresses according to the natural laws that God designed.

Science only works when we make that assumption - that things are working according to natural laws.

Belief in a law giver is optional. But to me it logically follows that a universe created and unfolding according to natural laws had a law giver.

113 posted on 04/20/2012 11:04:20 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
DNA is a physical molecule and it IS the genome. What it does is have the information in the “Proteome” - which reads the genome to transcribe it into a message that produces the Proteome.

Proteins are amazing things - but they are not unexplainable by physics or chemistry.

How the process came about - where the information to produce something that reproduces its information- is (mostly) unexplainable (so far) by what we know of the natural world.

But there are many billions of worlds. And if life can create itself out of physical processes designed by God it wouldn't make me question my faith or think God unnecessary to the process.

Darwin didn't need to know the nature of hereditary material to strike upon the fundamental truths that...

the hereditary material is subject to variation.

That variation is subject to selective pressure.

That is all there is to it, and yet it is an amazingly explanatory and predictive theory when you want to explain or understand or profit/prevent loss from variations in human populations, adaptive responses of pathogens to immunity or antibiotics, similarities between species, and the vulnerability of populations with declining numbers and reduced habitat.

114 posted on 04/20/2012 11:16:16 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; allmendream; Alamo-Girl; YHAOS; metmom; xzins

“In the beginning, God created a universe in which evolution, acting according to His laws, produced all the life forms we see today, with no need for further intervention,” you’d get very little argument. But it seems that, for some reason, you can’t bring yourself to say that.”

Spirited: The early Church Fathers are the organic connection between Jesus Christ, His apostles and our own time. In conforming to evolutionary theory modern Christians break that connection.

Evolutionism was not unknown to the Church Fathers. In their time though it was mainly taught against as reincarnation, transmigration, and metempsychosis.

The Triune God’s miraculous creation has its’ foundation in the fact that He spoke all things into existence from nothing. Early Church Father Augustine fully embraced creatio ex nihilo, as did others. Church Father Irenaeus comments,

“God, in the exercise of his will and pleasure, formed all things…out of what did not previously exist.”

Over and against creatio ex nihilo is evolutionism, one of the principle doctrines of ancient evolutionary cosmogonies such as the Enuma Elish.

In 1907 Pope Pius X dubbed Modernism and its principle doctrine Evolution “the synthesis of all heresies” in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis.

Modernism was inspired by tendencies prevalent in liberal Protestantism and secular philosophy:

“It was influenced by nineteenth-century studies by Kant and Hegel, by liberal Protestant theologians and biblical critics (such as Schleiermacher and von Harnack), by the evolutionary theories of Darwin, and by certain liberal political movements in Europe. The centers of Modernism were in France, England, Italy, and Germany. Two of its leading figures were Fr. Alfred Loisy, a French theologian and Scripture scholar, and Fr. George Tyrrell, an Irish-born Protestant who became a Catholic and a Jesuit, though he was dismissed from the Jesuits in 1906.” (Modernism, James Akin)

Forty-three years later, Pius XII cautiously stepped away from Pius X’s position even as he advised that his opinion not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine.

Despite Pius XII’s warning, large numbers of Catholics, Protestants and Evangelicals have nevertheless heedlessly embraced Evolutionary Theory from the time of Pius XII to our own.

That they ‘leaped without looking’ is the cautionary message delivered by Msgr. Charles Pope of the archdiocese of Washington. They have accepted the Theory of Evolution uncritically, noted Msgr. Pope. They hold a “rather simplistic notion” that the Theory of Evolution,

“… can be reconciled easily with the Biblical accounts and with our faith. Many will say something like this:

“I have no problem with God setting things up so that we started as one-celled organisms and slowly evolved into being human beings. God could do this and perhaps the Genesis account is just simplifying evolution and telling us the same thing as what Evolution does.” (Can A Christian Accept Evolutionary Theory Uncritically? Joe Carter, First Things, Oct. 18, 2010)

Catholics and other Christians who accept Evolutionary Theory uncritically have given no thought to whether theological and scientific claims are compatible. For instance said Joe Carter, to be a “theistic evolutionist”

“..in the sense that modern science will accept, requires one to adhere to polygensism (the theory that Adam was not one historical man but, rather, a euphemism for “mankind”). That position, however, is not compatible with the teachings of the Bible, the Church, or of Jesus. The polygensism problem is, for me, the biggest stumbling block to uncritically accepting the theory of macroevolution…” (ibid)

Polygensism is not the least problem. The uncritical acceptance of Evolutionary Theory places theistic evolutionists in the position of having to compromise Genesis. And to compromise the Genesis account is to compromise the whole Bible, which in turn compromises the Bibles’ main theme: man’s need of redemption.

The Genesis account speaks of man’s relationship with God starting at the pinnacle of Creation week in the Garden of Eden after which degeneration commences. Theistic evolution turns the Genesis account upside-down by teaching that man started out at the bottom and evolved his way to the top via the old amoeba-to-fish-to-dinosaur-to-ape-to-man story, meaning that possibly millions of lifeforms arose and died before man finally appeared. But if this account is true, then Gnostics are right to say that God the Father is a God of death, not life. As such, man needs to be saved from Him, not by Him.

Either man started at the top and fell, as God’s Word and His prophets who long ago declared the fall of man and his need for a Savior declare, or he started at the bottom and rose to the top, as evolution indicates. Both cannot be correct.

Scripture teaches that man’s fall is the reason for sin, degeneration and death. But if man is not fallen, then Gnostics are again correct to claim that Original Sin does not exist, meaning Lucifer did not fall and there is no need for Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to come to this planet and suffer a cruel death on the cross.

Additionally, Scripture emphatically declares that time has a beginning and an ending. In this view, history is the unfolding of time and events that will end with the Kingdom of God. Evolutionary Theory turns all of this upside-down by placing time, events and man on an eternal Escalator going “up, up, up.” Mary Midgley coined the phrase “the Escalator Myth” to refer to the idea that humanity is everlastingly riding an evolutionary escalator smoothly, progressively, ever upward toward some imagined state of perfection. (Scientific Mythologies, James A. Herrick, p. 100)

Now Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God Himself. But if evolution is true, then what becomes of Jesus Christ? Is there to be a future being greater than Him?

“Surely evolution will not have to reverse itself and concede that it reached its zenith with the birth of the Christ child a long, long time ago. Surely this colossal system will not have to concede that it is less able now to produce a greater than Jesus than it did produce two thousand years ago. If evolution is not now able to produce a greater than Jesus, then it seems the system has ceased to be evolution and has become devolution, at least in one sense (Taylor, 1974, quoted in “Can a Christian Still be an Evolutionist? Brad Harrub, Ph.D. ApologeticsPress.org)

Finally, if Evolutionary Theory is true, then man is a mixed-stew of genetic material, making him a close relative of every life form that preceded him. Additionally, since some of mans’ prior ‘kin’ were neither male nor female, then it stands to reason that no man or woman is really either male or female. Once again we see the inversion and destruction of the Genesis account:

“Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” KJB

Jesus Himself stated in Matthew 19:4 (cf. Mark 10:6): “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female.” But if Evolution Theory is true then Jesus Christ is a liar. And as long as we are tossing aside the Genesis account and Jesus Christ, then why not toss out all references to the Creation, starting with the gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John:

” … we also would have to throw out John, because the first few verses of chapter one review the beginning and Creation. Other scriptures such as Acts 4:24, Acts 17:25, Romans 1:20, Colossians 1:16, 1 Timothy 2:13, Hebrews 1:2, 1 Peter 4:19, and Revelation 4:11 also would be called into question if the Creation account is merely a “nice story,” but not historically accurate. As a matter of fact, the only books that do not refer to the first eleven chapters of Genesis in some form are the books of Philemon, and 2 and 3 John.” (Can a Christian Still be an Evolutionist? Brad Harrub, Ph.D. ApologeticsPress.org)

In the end we are left with two choices. Either God’s Revealed Word, creatio ex nihilo and Jesus Christ or Evolution Theory, which inverts creation, destroys God’s Word and turns Jesus Christ into a liar.

As it turns out, Pope Pius X was right to define Modernism and its’ principle doctrine evolution “the synthesis of all heresies.”

Mans’ mind is finite, not infinite. Try as it might it cannot know of things that took place before its’ own existence.

Pride refuses to accept the limitations that humility accepts, which is why humility keeps God’s question to Job in mind at all times:

“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if you have understanding”. Job 38:4


115 posted on 04/21/2012 2:27:16 AM PDT by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Now you are trying to convince me that species speciate by citing creationist arguments? Again, like your appeal to the authority of the pope, appealing to the arguments of creationists to support your faith in the theory of evolution does not help your cause. It just shows that your faith in evolution is indeed a religious belief.

The idea that genes which resemble each other are therefore descended from each other is exactly the kind of logical error that the theory of evolution is predicated upon. Just because something looks like something else doesn't mean they are related. We can only assume that they are related if we first assume that all species are descended from one common ancestor, which you already admitted may not be true at all. Thus the whole facade of evolutionary theory collapses under the weight of its false premises.

Change may be inevitable, but change is not one species evolving from another species. Fossil evidendce shows that humans have changed over time, but they always changed into more humans, never into something else.

One can believe in evolution and believe in God, but if one does not believe in God, then they have a psychological need to believe in evolution. Thus they cling to their irrational and unscientific belief in evolution despite all the evidence that has disproved the theory.

I don't need to study up on evolution at all, I am very familiar with all the arguments. I studied them in college and found them unconvincing then and now. You even admitted that I was right that observing speciation does not prove that every animal speciates. It also does not prove that every animal came from speciation.

116 posted on 04/22/2012 2:00:39 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish; Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; allmendream; Alamo-Girl; YHAOS; metmom; xzins; ...
Either man started at the top and fell, as God’s Word and His prophets who long ago declared the fall of man and his need for a Savior declare, or he started at the bottom and rose to the top, as evolution indicates. Both cannot be correct.

Indeed, dear spirited irish — you put your finger on the very crux of the problem of the personal and social division/disorder that seemingly manifests in outcomes of all public questions nowadays; the tendency of which is to emasculate the individual person, confiscate his wealth, reduce him to de facto slavery — all in the Name of, and to the greater Glory of, the State, the embodiment of the (current) Dictator and the claque of lackeys that supports him (and expects to receive benefits in return, at third-party — that is, our— expense, of course).

When the moral core of a society becomes rotten, destruction, disintegration comes upon that society as night follows day.

If history can teach us anything, it would seem to be this.

Thank you so very much, dear sister in Christ, for your simply beautiful essay/post! I feel pretty sure our friends of Darwinist persuasion haven't seen anything like it before. I only hope they will try to engage and if possible understand it.

117 posted on 04/22/2012 2:51:42 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; spirited irish
I make it a rule not to engage with attacks on evolution that are based solely on someone's interpretation of the Bible or personal understanding of God. If people get the science wrong or make false claims about the evidence, I'll try and correct them. I'll even engage with philosophical ojections, when I think I see holes in them. But if it comes down to an evidence-free "evolution can't be true because God told me it isn't" statement, there's not a lot to say.

For that reason, I didn't comment on spirited Irish's post. But in light of your challenge, there are two points I would make:

First, no one claims that Jesus was who He was because of some evolutionary process. "If evolution is not now able to produce a greater than Jesus, then it seems the system has ceased to be evolution"--that's just dumb. Nothing evolved to be the Son of God, and Jesus' divine nature owes nothing to evolution. On the other hand, there's no reason to think that in His human nature He was any different from any other man of his time--certainly nothing is recorded of His having other than a normal human body. It's the union of the two natures that makes Him unique, not the workings of some physical process.

Second, "Jesus Himself stated in Matthew 19:4 (cf. Mark 10:6): 'Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female.' But if Evolution Theory is true then Jesus Christ is a liar." I've certainly seen this claim before, and my answer would be twofold:

1. If I put flour, water, yeast, sugar, and salt in my bread machine, set the timer, and go to bed, am I a liar if I later say "I made bread last night"? (Especially if I'm the person who build the bread machine?) So if God in the Beginning created a universe that, according to His will and in accordance with His laws, eventually produced male and female humans, why is Jesus a liar to say God made them male and female at the beginning?

2. His point wasn't the timeline of creation, anyway--His point was the basis for the sanctity of marriage. It's only natural that He would teach in the language of a shared story. To borrow someone else's analogy, am I a liar if I give my kids the "when two people love each other very much..." answer to where babies come from? The point of the story isn't the mechanics of sex, and the point of Jesus' story wasn't the mechanics of creation.

Like I said, I don't want to argue Bible interpretation. But I didn't want you to go away thinking your "friends of Darwinist persuasion" were left dumbstruck by SI's points.

118 posted on 04/22/2012 6:03:00 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
If the evidence doesn't convince you then I certainly cannot.

I did not appeal to the authority of the Pope to declare evolution true - I used him as a contrary example to the formulation that one cannot accept evolution and be a Christian.

I point out that most creationists ALSO believe in speciation - when they need to - and with dramatic speed and power. That is also not to support my acceptance of evolution - but to point out how rare it is to encounter someone so blind to reality that they deny speciation.

Just because something looks like something else doesn't mean they are related - but endogenous retroviarl sequence patterns provide a ton of evidence that they either are or are not closely related. That is how ignorant you are of modern biology - you think we are still looking at morphology? Ridiculous!

Contrary to your statement otherwise it is obvious that you are unfamiliar with science, evolution and biology.

Would you listen to a non-mechanic telling you that an internal combustion engine cannot provide the necessary power to propel you 60 mph? As such I take any advice from you about the utility of biological evolution - words unbacked by knowledge and unaware of the reality of the situation. In other words - worthless.

Change is inevitable - therefore evolution is inevitable. What is going to stop it? What would stop a 2% change in genetic DNA from accumulating in two separate populations over several million years?

That is like proposing that two groups that speak the same language will still speak the same language after being separated for a thousand years. Bloody hell mate, we hardly even speak the same language as the English after a couple hundred years and a ton of traffic between we and them.

119 posted on 04/23/2012 6:28:10 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; spirited irish; Alamo-Girl
... if God in the Beginning created a universe that, according to His will and in accordance with His laws, eventually produced male and female humans, why is Jesus a liar to say God made them male and female at the beginning?

I never said that Jesus is a liar to say God made them male and female at the beginning; neither did spirited irish.

The biblical point (I believe) is that God did create man "male and female" in the Beginning; i.e., in the spiritual creation of Genesis 1. Male and female were not physically "enfleshed" until Genesis 2, and not at the same time.

The point is, God's creation of man was already complete in Genesis 1, regardless of physical considerations that ensued later. That means that man did not gradually "evolve" into his present state, and certainly not from any lower order in nature.

Did you actually read spirited's essay/post? Did you understand it?

120 posted on 04/23/2012 9:02:11 AM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; spirited irish

Yes, I read her post, and I understood it. I’ve also read other things by her in the past, including essays she’s published elsewhere. (Assuming she’s the person I’m thinking of.)

I know neither of you said Jesus is a liar. What she said is that if evolution were true, then Jesus must have been lying when He said that God created them male and female at the beginning. I presume she meant this as an argument for why evolution must not be true, rather than an argument for why Jesus was a liar.

You write that God created man male and female regardless of “physical considerations that ensued later.” But evolution is all and only about physical considerations. If you allow that “God created them male and female” might have nothing to do with actual bodies, why can’t our bodies be the product of evolution? What do you mean by “his present state”—an ensouled body/enfleshed spirit? As with the statement about evolution producing Jesus, no one credits Darwinian evolution with producing the soul. If that’s your problem with evolution, you’re arguing with a straw man. (And don’t ask me at what point humans got souls—that’s above my pay grade.)


121 posted on 04/23/2012 10:46:00 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; spirited irish; Alamo-Girl; allmendream; Matchett-PI
But evolution is all and only about physical considerations.

Which is why arguably it is an "incomplete" theory. It tells us nothing about the origin of life or of consciousness; and yet living beings are both alive and in possession of some form of consciousness. Thus living beings are more than just their material or physical basis. Darwinism can't address that "more" in principle.

It is essentially an historical theory. It tells us what it alleges happened to biological species on an historical timeline. Yet this

...historical (or horizontal) perspective ... is only useful insofar as it helps to illuminate a non-historical or "vertical" dimension operating outside chronological time. Both religious and scientific fundamentalists attempt to locate in historical time what can only be found in metaphysical space, and mistakenly regard conventional history as more "real" than the deeper or higher truth from which it is a declension. — Robert Godwin, One Cosmos under God, 2004, p. 200

Plato had an interesting suggestion: He said that the soul is the "form" of the body. That is, it preexists (and post-exists) physical incarnation and is that which "describes" and "orders" the physical. He believed that souls are immortal long before Christianity came along to confirm this astounding insight.

You mentioned that you consider the question of "at what point humans got souls" is "above your pay grade." But God freely tells you this — in Genesis 1.

122 posted on 04/23/2012 11:18:20 AM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Which is why arguably it is an "incomplete" theory. It tells us nothing about the origin of life or of consciousness; and yet living beings are both alive and in possession of some form of consciousness. Thus living beings are more than just their material or physical basis. Darwinism can't address that "more" in principle.

You say that like it's a flaw in the theory. "Incomplete" is just a scarier word for "limited." The ToE is only trying to explain the physical basis of living beings. That it doesn't try to explain consciousness as well doesn't make its explanation of material bodies wrong, any more than the theory of star formation is wrong if it doesn't explain where the clouds of interstellar gas came from in the first place.

123 posted on 04/23/2012 12:01:46 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; Alamo-Girl; allmendream

“But evolution is all and only about physical considerations”

Spirited: This is true only for dogmatic reductive materialists (physicalists). Darwinism is indispensable to such people because it is the only materialist explanation for the workings of nature that they have. Since they are physicalists, then Darwinism is “all and only about physical considerations.”

Today many spiritual Transhumanists, evolutionary Christians, Cultural Creative’s, New Age Progressives, Integral Spiritualists, Interspiritualists and/or Transtraditional Spiritualists are adherents of Teilhard’s spiritual evolutionary concept.

Teilhard claims that after millions of years of evolution, a natural (immanent) god has finally emerged out of matter. Whereas Christianity dedivinized nature Teilhards’ idea redivinizes it.

Teilhards’ idea is merely a reprisal of the Babylonian evolutionary cosmogony ‘Enuma Elish’ and Egypts’ ‘The Evolutions of Ra...’ These most ancient evolutionary cosmogonies speak of pre-existing matter (watery chaos, abyss, void, Nu) and of a Sun-God, i.e., Ra, evolving out of it over time.

The respected traditionalist metaphysician Rene Guenon (1886-1951) explains the meaning of ‘the evolutions of Ra’ in his brilliant critical analysis of Theosophy and Spiritism entitled, “The Spiritist Fallacy.”

Guenon writes that within early Theosophist and spiritist (mediums/channelers) circles in Christendom use of the word ‘progress’ or ‘progressivist’ preceded the use of the word ‘evolution.’

The roots of Theosophy, hence of evolution, stretch back to the ancient Upanishads of India, to ancient Greece, and at their furthest reach, to Babylonia and Egypt.

In its Darwinian version, evolution describes the progress of life as it inhabits in succession the bodies of different kinds of lifeforms (macroevolution)over the course of millions and even billions of years.

Though Teilhards’ spiritual concept springboards off of Darwins’ idea it is actually a modern retelling of the Babylonian and Egyptian concept which describes the progress (transmigration) of soul as it inhabits in succession the bodies of different beings (macroevolution)over the course of millions and billions of years.

Guenon adds that eventually the word evolution became preferred, especially by empirical realists and materialists like Karl Marx because it had a more ‘scientific’ allure:

“This kind of ‘verbalism’...provides the illusion of thought for those incapable of really thinking...” said Guenon. (ibid, p. 231)

betty to Ha Ha: You mentioned that you consider the question of “at what point humans got souls” is “above your pay grade.” But God freely tells you this — in Genesis 1.

Spirited: Now either Teilhard’s idea is responsible for your soul or the supernatural Triune God is. If the former you are made in the image of nothing. If the latter you are a tripartite being, the spiritual image-bearer of the Triune God.


124 posted on 04/23/2012 12:20:05 PM PDT by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; Alamo-Girl; spirited irish; allmendream
The ToE is only trying to explain the physical basis of living beings.

What physical basis? Or to put it another way, the physical basis of WHAT???

How can one speak of the physical basis of life (and consciousness) if one's theory does not and cannot even deal with such considerations, for methodological (and ideological) reasons?

Is macroevolution some kind of "physical basis?" Nobody has ever seen "macroevolution" at work. It is as much an unobservable as the "angelic choir in heaven"....

125 posted on 04/23/2012 1:54:40 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Is a bacteria conscious? Is it alive? Obviously life is necessary of consciousness as we know it - but consciousness is not necessary for life.

Yes, evolution has a physical basis just as erosion has a physical basis. Nobody saw the Grand Canyon form - but we have seen the process at work that would have formed it over many years. Nobody saw horses evolve from split hoofed animals - but we have seen the process at work that would explain the genetic changes that went along with the morphological changes.

Do you need to see a star form from the beginning to utilize the predictive model that gravity and nuclear fusion is how stars form?

126 posted on 04/23/2012 2:02:41 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; Alamo-Girl; spirited irish
Is a bacteria conscious? Is it alive? Obviously life is necessary of consciousness as we know it — but consciousness is not necessary for life.

Yes. And yes.

Life and consciousness accompany one another. Where the first is found, at least the rudiments of the second are found, too.

Scientific studies actually bear this out. Based on experimental findings, it appears that bacteria are not only "social animals" (so to speak), but they demonstrate the rudiments of learning in their behavior.

127 posted on 04/23/2012 2:26:05 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
A bacteria is not conscious. They are not animals, let alone “social animals”. Their only “socialization” consists of molecular signals that directly trigger other molecular signals.

A bacteria makes no decisions. Either a response is molecularly triggered or it is not. There is no “learning”, but there is evolution.

A bacterial population subjected to a novel antibiotic doesn't “learn” to overcome the antibiotic - either they are of a genetic variation subject to the antibiotic or they are not.

That is natural selection of genetic variation - not learning.

The only way a bacteria “learns” is through subsequent rounds of evolution - like how a bacteria “learned” to digest nylon by mutating and further mutating the gene for an esterase enzyme until it was an enzyme that efficiently metabolized nylon.

Learning implies choices based upon knowledge.

A bacteria has no choices or knowledge - only molecular interactions.

128 posted on 04/23/2012 2:35:07 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; Alamo-Girl; spirited irish
A bacteria has no choices or knowledge — only molecular interactions.

So, how does a bacterium or a molecule "know" what to do, in order to manifest an "interaction?" Is this blind chance operating under the temporizing disguise of so-called "natural selection?" From which we can extrapolate so to say that the entire universe is the result of "chance," not God's creative Word?

You assert much, my friend. But never tell me on what basis your assertions can possibly rest.

Take, for example, a study I read regarding a laboratory experiment with amoebae.

Here was an amoeba, sitting in a petri dish culture into which a couple of grains of China ink was introduced. At first, the amoeba reached out as if to digest it, as potential "food." But almost instantly, it "spitted it out." It somehow knew that China ink was not food for it. So, the next time grains of China ink were introduced, the amoeba did not even approach them at all.

Looks to me like the amoeba "learned something." And in order to learn something, some form of consciousness must be present. Surely not the full-blown self-consciousness of a human being — said to be the only species on earth that possesses this quality. But a sort of consciousness sufficient to learn something new by trial and error.

Which seems to be more than some people can do, nowadays.

129 posted on 04/23/2012 3:53:14 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish; Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; Alamo-Girl; allmendream
Now either Teilhard’s idea is responsible for your soul or the supernatural Triune God is. If the former you are made in the image of nothing. If the latter you are a tripartite being, the spiritual image-bearer of the Triune God.

Teilhard’s Omega Point strikes me as the point at which the Triune God of Christian orthodoxy is dissolved into the pantheism of Advaita-Vedanta (Hindu) philosophy. At which point, all notions of personality — divine and human — are utterly erased.

Just a thought, FWIW.

Leave it to the Jesuits to come up with an idea like this.

Thank you so very much, dear sister in Christ, for your fascinating, informative essay/post!

130 posted on 04/23/2012 4:02:26 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
This is true only for dogmatic reductive materialists (physicalists). Darwinism is indispensable to such people because it is the only materialist explanation for the workings of nature that they have.

Experience has shown that many of the workings of nature (some previously thought to require supernatural intervention) do, in fact, have a materialist explanation. Given the centuries of sucess of scientists looking for such explanations, it's understandable that they'd keep looking. They don't have to be "dogmatic" or "reductive" (or even "materialist")--they just have to assume that the universe operates according to discoverable laws, and then try to discover them.

As for all those other people: it's not the fault of a theory about the evolution of bodies that some philosophers convince themselves it can be applied to the evolution of souls or the divine as well.

131 posted on 04/23/2012 5:26:24 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
What physical basis? Or to put it another way, the physical basis of WHAT???
How can one speak of the physical basis of life (and consciousness) if one's theory does not and cannot even deal with such considerations, for methodological (and ideological) reasons?

Because it works. I've suggested before that you have a tendency towards an "if we can't know everything, we don't know anything" approach to these issues. But take, for instance, the germ theory of how we get sick. We have a theory for the physical basis of disease, involving microorganisms and antibodies and receptors and all that stuff, and it seems to mostly work for making people better. But it doesn't explain why we're alive in the first place, or why placebos work, or why there are microorganisms. Does that mean it's no good? No, it just means it's limited--but within its purview, it's a very powerful theory. Same with evolution.

Is macroevolution some kind of "physical basis?" Nobody has ever seen "macroevolution" at work.

Sure we have. We've seen lizards develop new physical structures to accommodate a new diet. How macro do things have to be?

132 posted on 04/23/2012 5:38:24 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Change is inevitable - therefore evolution is inevitable.

That about sums it up. That is exactly the non-sequitur fallacy that your belief system is predicated upon.

You called me a liar but yes I studied biology and evolution in college, so yes I know very well the weaknesses of the discredited theory of evolution and I know the very good reasons to be skeptical of Darwinism and Darwinists. I also studied logic.

You want to just wave your hand and say that your theory MUST be true because it INEVITABLE! That's not science or reason, it's fanaticism.

133 posted on 04/23/2012 6:51:17 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Molecules stimulate other molecules that activate transcription factors that express DNA the produce molecular machines.

Based upon signals the amoeba will either absorb an item or reject it - and will express more molecules to detect a toxin when it is introduced so as to avoid it.

It is not a matter of choice.

Either the molecular interactions go off or they do not.

The basis of my assertions is a knowledge of biology. It is easy to think it is all magical or consciousness when you don't actually understand what DNA is and what it is doing in the context of an amoeba in a “petri dish”.

134 posted on 04/23/2012 10:58:53 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Because evolution is change in DNA - and DNA is not a stable molecule generation to generation - therefore evolution is inevitable.

You can deal with that fact or not - accusing me of fanaticism doesn’t address the fact that any form of molecular inheritance is subject to molecular change.


135 posted on 04/23/2012 11:00:59 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Evolution is both testable and replicable. If I subject a bacterial population derived from a single bacteria and plated on ten different plates to ten different stresses - we can find adaptive evolutionary responses from all ten plates time and time again.

Indeed. One of my greatest challenges in graduate school was to minimize environment stresses so that my mammalian cells would NOT evolve. Danged things evolved anyway, generally making them useless after 15-20 passages.

Evolution is not only an ongoing process, it is impossible to stop.

136 posted on 04/24/2012 2:44:45 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
To say Creationism is useless is to say that Christianity is useless.

As a scientific methodology, creationism *is* useless.

That isn't to say that Christianity is useless. Clearly, it has great use, in that it shapes the moral fabric of our society and influences our legal structure. It simply is not the proper tool to use, e.g., for investigating phylogenetic relationships of strains of the papillomavirus when trying to determine whether a specific strain is oncogenic.

137 posted on 04/24/2012 2:53:42 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Your statement only makes sense if your starting premise is that Creationism is false. If it is false, it is useless. Fine.

If we postulate that Creationism is the Truth, then your statement is that the Truth is useless when one is attempting to study Science. I'm sure you wouldn't say such a thing.

138 posted on 04/24/2012 3:06:05 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Like Emmett Till, Trayvon Martin has become simply a stick with which to beat Whites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Well, where did DNA come from? That is, on what causal principle does it itself rest?

DNA is an organic molecule. A system containing the elements that make up organic molecules (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen), a few other elements, and energy, spontaneously produces a large variety of organic molecules according to physical law.

DNA is not "just" a physical molecule. It is one of the greatest "mysteries" in the world; for it not only maps the genome; but it can read it, and knows the "rules" of how to transcribe this intangible information into tangible physical processes/effects.

The information is not "intangible." It is very physical, in fact, as are the enzymatic processes that eventually end up with various proteins that perform various functions on the organismal level.

There is nothing in physics or chemistry that can explain any of this. Certainly Darwin is no help at all here — he never even heard of DNA during his lifetime....

Any biochemist and/or molecular biologist can explain this, at every step of the way, in excruciating detail.

It does not matter that Darwin did not know the nature of DNA. Both his work and that of Mendel suggested that some sort of physical process was necessary for the variations seen between species, and between members of a single species. It was this implication inherent in their work that led generations of scientists to investigate and debate what the nature of this physical process was, a debate that was mostly settled in the 1950s when Watson, Crick, Franklin, and Wilkins solved the structure of DNA. From knowing the structure of DNA, it was a short step to demonstrating that DNA was, in fact, capable of storing the necessary information.

DNA consists of four letters, A, T, C, G. Those four letters are transcribed into RNA through physical enzymatic processes. The letters in RNA are A, U, C, G. Amino acids of proteins are coded by three letter words. AUG, for example, codes for methionine. The RNA letter string feeds through a ribosome, which attaches amino acids together in the order that their corresponding words appear in the RNA. The process is completely mechanical and explainable.

139 posted on 04/24/2012 3:32:33 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
If the evidence doesn't convince you then I certainly cannot.

The wall we run up against here is that the charlatans who sell young-earth creationism insist, as one of their selling points, that science and religion are incompatible and mutually exclusive. For someone who has swallowed that line, accepting that the evidence underpinning science is real means abandoning the promise of redemption and eternal life. The Pope himself has pointed out that there is no incompatibility between being a Christian and being a scientist, and he is a lot more credible than charlatans like Gish and his ilk...

I point out that most creationists ALSO believe in speciation - when they need to - and with dramatic speed and power.

Whenever I engage in these debates, I try to make it very clear that I am only addressing the issue of young-earth creationism, which I also call literal creationism.

I have no argument with any creationist who says that God created the universe through the mechanism of the big bang, 14 billion or so years ago, and at that time formulated all of the physical laws which make it possible for life to exist.

140 posted on 04/24/2012 3:49:54 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Your statement only makes sense if your starting premise is that Creationism is false. If it is false, it is useless. Fine.

As a literal account of how the universe, the earth, and all living things came into being, creationism *is* false. The story of creation as found in the book of Genesis is a metaphor. You don't need any knowledge of science to recognize that.

141 posted on 04/24/2012 4:08:23 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

That is one of the problems with creationism. It isn’t a matter of if it is false or true - it is useless either way.

Like “last Thursday-ism” - even if the entire universe sprang into being last Thursday with false memories and an invented history - any prediction or explanation based upon that is going to be useless - while predictions based upon there being many thousands of years of human history and many billions of years of cosmic history will bear fruit.

That is the crux of the matter to me.

Science produces useful models that help explain and predict.

Creationism is useless.


142 posted on 04/24/2012 6:30:49 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
As a scientific methodology, creationism *is* useless.

To assert what you are saying is to assert that Christianity is useless. Not to mention that the qualifier you’ve added has not been present in the conversation up to now. The declaration that Creationism (Christianity) is useless has been categorical. It’s too late now for a retreat into reasonableness (not without admitting an omission of epic proportions).

But, aside from that, your qualifier remains inadequate still. Absent Christianity, we may expect that the Tuskegee Experiment would have continued to its conclusion with none the wiser and no lessons learned (let’s hope that there have been lessons learned). Absent Christianity, there would have been no careful moral evaluation before E=MC2 was applied to two cities in Japan.

Methodology without morality is lethal.

That isn't to say that Christianity is useless.

No . . . of course not. Even in today’s societal atmosphere. Not yet.

Which is why the term “Creationism” is substituted for “Christianity” in so many posts on this forum (the fallacy of the “smuggled concept”). Which is why I spend even some of my time contesting the abuse of the term “Creationism” used in the many attacks launched against Christianity.

143 posted on 04/24/2012 11:07:06 AM PDT by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: metmom

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/p480x480/292635_343690805687529_343644792358797_922440_1727280670_n.jpg


144 posted on 04/25/2012 8:54:12 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

I LIKE that!!!


145 posted on 04/25/2012 9:46:12 PM PDT by metmom ( For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; metmom; betty boop

Antibiotic resistance is hardly evolution, clearly it’s been you all along that doesn’t understand science.

And speaking of Galileo...LOL... and the blind and those refusing to deal with the evidence and so on; don’t mind us chuckling at the irony of your choosing Galileo of all people, to contort yourself into a corner. Again:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/p480x480/292635_343690805687529_343644792358797_922440_1727280670_n.jpg


146 posted on 04/27/2012 7:16:38 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; betty boop; metmom

bettyboop:

Well, where did DNA come from? That is, on what causal principle does it itself rest?

DNA is an organic molecule. A system containing the elements that make up organic molecules (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen), a few other elements, and energy, spontaneously produces a large variety of organic molecules according to physical law.


She asked where it came from, not what it is...


147 posted on 04/27/2012 7:36:21 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

DNA variation being selected for among a population such that those variations that the antibiotic is less effective against predominate in subsequent generations is EXACTLY evolution through natural selection of genetic variation.

Darwin made a prediction.

When you look at the DNA of bacterial populations you see what he predicted.

There is variation within a population subject to selective pressure and this causes adaptation.

DNA change is inevitable. Because evolution is defined as change in inheritance of a population - and that inheritance is a molecule subject to molecular change - evolution is inevitable.


148 posted on 04/27/2012 10:26:43 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
To assert what you are saying is to assert that Christianity is useless. Not to mention that the qualifier you’ve added has not been present in the conversation up to now. The declaration that Creationism (Christianity) is useless has been categorical. It’s too late now for a retreat into reasonableness (not without admitting an omission of epic proportions).

That is making a huge leap from what I said. The creation story is absolutely useless as a scientific methodology. It is also useless for cooking, architecture, civil engineering, musical composition and performance, etc. Just because it is useless for any number of human activities doesn't mean it is useless for its apparent intended purpose, which is to give us insight about our standing with God.

Also, I do not use the terms "creationism" and "Christianity" interchangeably, nor do I recall seeing others use those terms interchangeably. The Christian faith (of any denomination) is far greater than a few passages in Genesis, and being a Christian is not contingent upon believing that every word in Genesis is literal. The truth of this is especially apparent when considering that many portions of the Bible are understood to be metaphorical.

But, aside from that, your qualifier remains inadequate still. Absent Christianity, we may expect that the Tuskegee Experiment would have continued to its conclusion with none the wiser and no lessons learned (let’s hope that there have been lessons learned). Absent Christianity, there would have been no careful moral evaluation before E=MC2 was applied to two cities in Japan.

We do not know how the Tuskegee experiment would have played out in a society with different ethics than ours. I do know that early in the 1900s, the Japanese conducted particularly brutal human experiments... I've heard accounts, and seen pictures which are completely stomach-turning. The Germans also conducted horrific human experiments during WWII. One of those societies was not Christian, the other was... it seems to me that ethics are formed by more than Christian faith, although Christianity provides a template on which to base ethics.

Methodology without morality is lethal.

Not necessarily. Plenty of scientific research can be performed without ever considering morality.

Which is why the term “Creationism” is substituted for “Christianity” in so many posts on this forum (the fallacy of the “smuggled concept”). Which is why I spend even some of my time contesting the abuse of the term “Creationism” used in the many attacks launched against Christianity.

As I said above, I do not use the terms interchangeably, nor have I seen anyone else use the terms interchangeably in this thread. I try to be very careful to specify that I'm not even talking about creationism in general. All of my comments specifically address the idea that the creation story in Genesis is literal. I do not appreciate the fact that scientists are routinely called liars, accused of fabricating data, accused of following some oddball "Darwinism" religion, and all of the other nasty things literal young-earth creationists (YECs) say about us. Apparently YECs feel perfectly okay saying those nasty things just because we're in the business of documenting the physical world around us, and our observations don't support the young earth story.

149 posted on 04/27/2012 10:29:11 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: tpanther; exDemMom; Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; allmendream; Alamo-Girl
She asked where it came from, not what it is...

Indeed, tpanther, that was my very question, which exDemMom simply ignored.

Let me put the question another way: How does an inorganic molecule become an "organic" one in the first place?

ORGANIC: adjective
"relating to or derived from living matter":
Chemistry relating to or denoting compounds containing carbon (other than simple binary compounds and salts) and chiefly or ultimately of biological origin. Compare with inorganic [adjective denoting "not consisting of or deriving from living matter"].

So, how does an inorganic molecule become an organic one? This transition would involve a non-living entity becoming a living entity. How does this happen?

I gather that since biochemistry has no answer to this question, exDemMom, Ha Ha Thats Very Logical, and allmendream simply dismiss it "by sleight of hand" as it were, and refuse to engage it.

As Robert Godwin has noted, "In their attempt to account for the origins of life (and discourage creationists), biochemists like to blur the distinction between life and matter. so now they talk about a period of 'pre-life' preparing the way for the emergence of life." And yet,

Really, this kind of "junk metaphysics" is an attempt to sneak the principle of natural selection into the universe before there is a biology for it to operate on. In any event, it makes no philosophical sense, for the term "pre-life" assumes something — life — which supposedly did not exist and could not have been predicted by merely looking at its molecular constituents. If a period of pre-life did in fact prefigure life, then it is unnecessary to qualify it as "pre-," because it was part of the process of life and therefore indistinguishable from it. In other words, if we wish to be intellectually honest, we must place "pre-life" on the life side of the matter/life divide, not on the matter side, unless we fatuously rename life "post-matter."...

If the materialistic explanation of life is true, it can't be true: matter is dead, life is matter. therefore life is dead. Nevertheless, most scientists take it for granted that life does not exist as anything separate and distinct from matter. In the fashionable reductionist view, this is simply the way it must be: biology is in the end nothing more than an unlikely but mildly interesting property of physics. (Why interesting? Why should matter be interested in anything?) But this is hardly a suitable explanation for such a profound mystery. Rather, it is a "question-begging fallacy" that "demands an initial acceptance of the doctrine of naturalism before any explanation is offered." In other words, only matter is ultimately real, so that life may be reduced to, and fully explained by, the electrical and chemical properties of atoms and molecules.... Knowledge must always be a one-way, bottom-up affair:

[Godwin cites Robert Rosen here], "One must never pass to a larger system in trying to understand a given one, but must invoke simpler sub-systems.... From simple to complex is only a matter of accretion of simple, context-independent parts." [emphasis mine]

But unfortunately, this means that biology can never be reached by physics — you can't get here from there. Instead of looking "forward" at what all the parts of an organism are converging upon — that is, the living organism — biology looks backward at that which the organism uses to express its functional wholeness, thus destroying the very thing — life — it is attempting to explain. This is odd, because it is not possible to even begin a discussion of life without an unstated intuition of the dynamic wholeness that is always manifested through it.

The "organic molecule" DNA seems to have something to do with the expression of that "dynamic wholeness" in living organisms. But many if not most scientists today believe that "wholes" are merely the "sum of their parts," and nothing more.

In closing, it appears our biochemicist correspondents here believe that the electrical and chemical properties of atoms and molecules plus "chance" plus "evolution" gives us an explanation of life.

But I believe that "chance remains a glorious cover-up for ignorance." I also note that strict determinism "is refuted by the very freedom whereby it is posited." As Godwin cites Barfield: "Chance, in fact = no hypothesis."

No wonder we "creationists" can never get on the same page with "Darwinist materialists."

Thank you ever so much, dear tpanther, for your astute observation, and for writing!

150 posted on 04/28/2012 10:18:58 AM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-229 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson