Skip to comments.Creationism, Christianity, and Common Sense
Posted on 09/26/2005 7:12:26 PM PDT by neverhome
Here we go again. According to a Washington Post article from 09/25/05, a group called Answers in Genesis USA is building a museum in Cincinnati dedicated to the proposition that the universe was created exactly as stated in the Bible. In other words, God created the universe in six days, and He did it only about six thousand years ago. The groups president, Kenneth Ham, is quoted in the Post as saying, "This is a battle cry to recognize the science in the revealed truth of God."
Science and religion remain at odds because each side is hamstrung by its own peculiar brand of extremists. Too many scientists utterly reject the notion that a supreme being had a hand in the creation of the universe. And, too many Christians (and followers of other faiths) believe that God created all this cool stuff in a blink of the cosmic eye. Each side refuses to consider the merits of the beliefs of the other. Thats too bad, because they both hold pieces to the puzzle.
(Excerpt) Read more at alanburkhart.com ...
But God has done things that are out of the ordinary - that occurred in the blink of an eye. If you believe Christ healed the blind, turned the water into wine and rose from the dead, then creating the world as we know it from the Bible is not hard to accept or believe.
The real issue with biologist is that they accept only perfection when publishing their research. To be granted a PHD or a masters you have to prove something on the biological level or smaller on the molecular level. It can't be a guess or a idea, it has to be backed up 100 percent. Well they do not apply this proof of perfection and factual findings with the concept of evolution. It's a far fetched unproven guess. If you want to call it microevolution when the flu mutates each year, fine, but macro evolution is rediculous.
This is incorrect. Most scientists object to religion pretending to be science. It's offensive to see people stoop to lowering their religion in that way.
On the other hand, there are some pretty weird scientists.
2005-09-26 Creationism, Christianity, and Common Sense
2005-09-26 Dispute over evolution goes on trial in U.S. court
2005-09-26 Does Genesis hold up under critics scrutiny? (Creation/Evolution)
2005-09-26 New Analyses Bolster Central Tenets of Evolution Theory
2005-09-26 The Problem With Evolution
2005-09-26 With world watching, trial starts
2005-09-25 In Evolution Debate, Creationists Are Breaking New Ground
2005-09-24 The trouble with Darwin (Bush's I.D. comments changed Australia's Educational Landscape)
2005-09-23 Ultimate thread on Dover, Pennsylvania's Evolution v. Intelligent Design trial
2005-09-22 Court Case Threatens to 'Drag Science into the Supernatural'
2005-09-22 Evan Jamieson, hydrometallurgy (Creation/Evolution)
2005-09-22 Insight into our sight: A new view on the evolution of the eye lens (Desperate conjuncture)
2005-09-22 Intelligent Design: An Ambiguous Assault on Evolution
2005-09-22 Intelligent designers down on Dover
2005-09-22 Intelligible Design
2005-09-21 Intelligent design? Not on this campus [Pennsylvania]
2005-09-21 Researchers create functioning artificial proteins using nature's rules
Crevo Warrior Freepdays for the month of September:
2004-09-15 Diana in Wisconsin
In Memoriam. Fallen Crevo Warriors:
Bring back SeaLion and Mondernman!
Thanks. Interesting, but I'll pass on this one.
What's the "Crevo Warrior Freepdays" section mean?
Bring back modernman and SeaLion
It's a list of Freeper crevo warriors who signed up in the current month. Sort of a Freeper version of "birthday month."
Let this one die.
Old stuff rehashed and rewarmed.
It's only in the past week, and it's basically a placemarker. Code wise, it isn't that big, either so it doesn't slow load times.
so you would consider someone LESS intelligent that produced something that is self replicating.
If microevolution can predict yearly flu mutations, then evolution as a scientific theory cannot be too "far-fetched". Natural selection certainly functions at some level, it is an essential catalyst behind the propogation of species over time.
My basis for believing in a universe far older than 7,000 years (by about 13.699 billion years) is the same science that is the basis for the technology applications that surround us. And I still attend church, and pray to God everyday....and He is a part of my life.
Now, evolution, I think, has not satisfied the burden of proof required of a scientific theory. But, for instance, the same laws (expressed as equations) that govern radioactive decay, nuclear fusion in stars and other processes point to a 4.5 billion year old sun, and an Earth made of rocks formed as long ago.
IMO, religion and science aren't competitors, and neither can define the other. Both, in my view, require a great deal of imagination, though. But the partisan camps that take the "my way or no way" view are misunderstanding the role of both in our civilization.
Why can't people get this?
Do the rules and laws of nature allow for a virgin birth?
Do the rules and laws of nature allow for someone to arise from the dead after 3 days?
Do the rules and laws of nature allow for water to turned into wine?
These are just a few of the examples of how the science that we as the basis for technology applications do not always apply to the Omnipotent Omniscience God of the Universe.
Evolution on a macro scale never took place. It's the most rediculous idea ever put forward.
Just because science cannot explain these miraculous events, does not mean they didn't happen. I in no way anticipate that science will be able to solve the mysteries of faith.
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.