Skip to comments.Phony Theory, False Conflict
Posted on 11/17/2005 9:25:39 PM PST by raj bhatia
click here to read article
"Why do archeologists keep digging for bones and missing links if it's all so self-evident? "
Are you normally this obtuse or are you just trying extra hard today?
They dig for bones A) because that's what archeologists do and B) A new find can help fill in the picture or provide information to modify / perfect the theory.
My words exactly!
I've always said...God created evolution.
"That's why it's called the THEORY of evolution.
Not the "LAW" of evolution."
Teach it as a theory, and don't incorporate it as a law, like Webster's seems to, and like so many of our HS graduates believe.
"and like so many of our HS graduates believe."
So many HS students belive all sorts of things, and it's not the fault of the subject being taught- it's the fault of either the teachers or the students.
When I learned about evolution, I understood it's a theory.
Anybody with half a brain should know that when things that can't be replicated firsthand - say, evolution or the formation of the planets and solar systems - that they are the prevailing theories based on our knowledge of the universe, the laws of physics, and the things we have been able to observe from collected evidence.
And I've never heard to evolution advanced as anything other than the "theory of evolution".
Darwinism has failed here. So now, according to Krauthammer, our role is to "disprove" something, be it Darwinism or ID.
A quick review:
Now, some definitions (from a google search):
Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.
A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts [Heinlein 1980:480-481].
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Observation: any information collected with the senses
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
You develop a hypothesis (not an assumption), and test it. If it is supported in the long run it can become a theory.
You do not "prove an assumption. Through reproducable experiment or direct observation." Neither "reproducable experiment" nor "direct observation" is required by science. A theory can never be proved, only supported or not supported.
"Darwinism" has been supported, not failed, as you claim:
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have [from an NSF abstract cited in RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread].It is interesting to see how some on these threads criticize the way science, particularly evolution, works and demand the most exacting of "scientific proof" all the while pushing ID, essentially a religious belief which has no evidence, no method, no falsifiable hypotheses, and certainly no proof.
No wonder Kansas had to redefine "science" to try to get ID in the back door.
"I've always said...God created evolution."
So we humans are part of a continuum.
By your statement, I'm assuming your religious.
I'll also assume you're Christian. (although I could be wrong on this, and if so, I'm sorry)
If I'm correct in my assumptions, then at what point in this continuum is the cutoff for whom Christ saved? Homo erectus? Homo Sapien? Homo Sapien after a certain date? Or should we just toss this religious thing aside?
Not to mention that the founding fathers of science saw the natural order of things and it confirmed for them an intelligence behind all of the laws and repeatable processes they saw.
What's harder to believe, that all of this complexity organized itself from nothing (and we still don't know the cause of the big bang), or that the universe was designed and ordered by an intelligence?
I just love it. And depending how the debate is going, either evolution is a long process and slow mutation process, or a punctuated equilibrium (many chgs in short spurts of time) idea. I wonder why we all don't sit around and wonder what kind of animal is going to come out of our cat when it gives birth. How come we don't see totally new animals being born? I've had evolutionists paint me a picture telling me to imagine the first 'bird' hatching from a dinosaur egg. This is how these people think it could have occurred. (I do sure hope another 'miracle' change takes place somewhere nearby so another creature is made so they might be able to have a mate, but I guess if you're going to wish for one hopeful monster, you may as well believe that two of them somehow come into being at the same time.)
If that's how it happens, how come we aren't seeing any new things like this? It should be observable as we have so much life being born on this rock. I just see micro-evolution (variation within species) nad this is easily observed and repeatable. Cats begat more cats. Dogs begat more dogs. But I've never seen a cat give birth to a new non-cat creature.
You know I also heard that if you kiss a frog, you might be able to turn it into a prince. That's pretty close to punctuated equilibrium.
If I'm correct in my assumptions, then at what point in this continuum is the cutoff for whom Christ saved? Homo erectus? Homo Sapien? Homo Sapien after a certain date?Most of these died before accepting Christ, so the question is moot.
Even those believers who make an ezception for righteous pagans put the cut off after "hearing the Word". So Jeffery Dahmer is "saved", and the Dali Lama is "unsaved"
Or should we just toss this religious thing aside?Gets my vote.
Moses, Abraham, Adam, Eve.... OUTTA HERE!
Marcus Aurelius, Socrates, Plato....BURN!
This religion is an inconvenience.
Forget it. We'll follow the infallible religion of Science.
Wrong. it's because Science is falsifiable (ie fallible) that it is open to correction and (evolution).
Religion, when wrong, is wrong forever.
"Religion, when wrong, is wrong forever."
And when right.....
It might be a guiding foundation of Truth to lead through this life of human foibles and arrogance.
We really need some way to test it.
Your point was made before: "the evolutionist "hobby shop" in the business of receiving taxpayer $$$'s in grants so they don't have to get real jobs and miseducating our children.":
"The U.S. Patent Office has never issued a patent for anti-gravity. Why is this? According to natural law and homeopathy, everything exists in opposites: good-evil; grace-sin; positive charges-negative charges; north poles-south poles; good vibes-bad vibes; etc. We know there are anti-evolutionists, so why not anti-gravitationalists? It is clearly a matter of the scientific establishment elite protecting their own. Anti-gravity papers are routinely rejected from peer-reviewed journals, and scientists who propose anti-gravity quickly lose their funding. Universal gravity theory is just a way to keep the grant money flowing.
"Even Isaac Newton, said to be the discoverer of gravity, knew there were problems with the theory. He claims to have imagined the idea early in his life, but he knew that no mathematician of his day would approve his theory, so he invented a whole new branch of mathematics, called fluxions, just to "prove" his theory. This became calculus, a deeply flawed branch having to do with so-called "infinitesimals", which have never been observed. Then when Einstein invented a new theory of gravity, he, too, used an obscure bit of mathematics called tensors. It seems that every time there is a theory of gravity, it is mixed up with "fringe" mathematics. (Newton, by the way, was far from a secular scientist, and the bulk of his writings is actually on theology and Christianity. His dabbling in gravity, alchemy, and calculus was a mere sideline, perhaps an aberration best left forgotten in describing his career and faith in a Creator.)"
Evolution was the most major philosophical cornerstone of naziism, communism, all the eugenics programs of the 19'th and 20'th centuries, and any number of other evils.
Newt Gingrich put the problem very succinctly in noting that the question of whether a man views his neighbor as a fellow child of God or as a meat byproduct of random processes simply has to affect human relationships.
Then again, the famous evolutionist Jeffrey Dahmer put it thus:
If a person doesnt think there is a God to be accountable to, thenthen whats the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? Thats how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing
Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.
From Sir Srthur Keith's "Evolution and Ethics:
The Behavior of Germany Considered from an Evolutionary Point of View in 1942
VISITORS TO GERMANY IN 1934 FOUND AN emotional storm sweeping through masses of the people, particularly the more educated. The movement had much in common with a religious revival. The preacher in this case was Adolf Hitler; his doctrine was, and is, tribalism; he had stirred in the emotional depths of the German people those long-dormant tribal feelings which find release and relief in mutual service; men and women who had been leading selfish lives or were drifting aimlessly were given a new purpose in life: service to their country the Third Reich. It is worth noting that Hitler uses a double designation for his tribal doctrine National Socialism: Socialism standing for the good side of the tribal spirit (that which works within the Reich); aud Nationalism for the ethically vicious part, which dominates policy at and outside the German frontiers.
The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him the national "front" of Europe is also the evolutionary "front"; he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people. He has brought into
modern life the tribal and evolutionary mentality of prehistoric times. Hitler has confronted the statesmen of the world with an evolutionary problem of an unprecedented magnitude. What is the world to do with a united aggressive tribe numbering eighty millions!
We must not lose sight of the purpose of our visit to Germany; it was to see how far modern evolutionary practice can provide us with a scientific basis for ethical or moral behavior. As a source of information concerning Hitler's evolutionary and ethical doctrines I have before me Mein Kampf, extracts from The Times covering German affairs during the last twenty years, and the monthly journal R.F.C. (Racio Political Foreign Correspondenee), published by the German Bureau for Human Betterment and Eugenics and circulated by that bureau for the enlightenment of anthropologists living abroad. In the number of that journal for July 1937, there appears in English the text of a speech given by the German Fuhrer on January 30, 1937, in reply to a statement made by Mr. Anthony Eden that "the German race theory" stood in the way of a common discussion of European problems. Hitler maintained his theory would have an opposite effect; "it will bring about a real understanding for the first time." "It is not for men," said the Fuhrer, "to discuss the question of why Providence created different races, but rather to recognize that it punishes those who disregard its work of creation." I may remark incidentally that in this passage, as in many others, the German Fuhrer, like Bishop Barnes and many of our more intellectual clergy, regards evolution as God's mode of creation. God having created races, it is therefore "the noblest and most sacred duty for each racial species of mankind to preserve the purity of the blood which God has given it." Here we have expounded the perfectly sound doctrine of evolutionary isolation; even as an ethical doctrine it should not be condemned. No German must be guilty of the "greatest racial sin" that of bringing the fruits of hybridity into the world. The reproductive "genes" which circulate within the frontiers of Germany must be kept uncontaminated, so that they may work out the racial destiny of the German people without impediment. Hitler is also a eugenist. Germans who suffer from
hereditable imperfections of mind or of body must be rendered infertile, so that "the strong may not be plagued by the weak." Sir Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics, taught a somewhat similar evolutionary doctrine namely, that if our nation was to prosper we must give encouragement to the strong rather than to the weak; a saving which may be justified by evolution, but not by ethics as recognized and practiced by civilized peoples. The liberties of German women are to be sacrificed; they must devote their activities to their households, especially to the sacred duty of raising succeeding generations. The birth rate was stimulated by bounties and subsidies so that the German tribe might grow in numbers and in strength. In all these matters the Nazi doctrine is evolutionist.
Hitler has sought on every occasion and in every way to heighten the national consciousness of the German people or, what is the same thing, to make them racially conscious; to give them unity of spirit and unity of purpose. Neighborly approaches of adjacent nations are and were repelled; the German people were deliberately isolated. Cosmopolitanism, liberality of opinion, affectation of foreign manners and dress were unsparingly condemned. The old tribal bonds (love of the Fatherland, feeling of mutual kinship), the bonds of "soil and blood," became "the main plank in the National Social program." "Germany was for the Germans" was another plank. Foreign policy was "good or bad according to its beneficial or harmful effects on the German folk now or hereafter." "Charity and humility are only for home consumption" a statement in which Hitler gives an exact expression of the law which limits sympathy to its tribe. "Humanitarianism is an evil . . . a creeping poison." "The most cruel methods are humane if they give a speedy victory" is Hitler's echo of a maxim attributed to Moltke. Such are the ways of evolution when applied to human affairs.
I have said nothing about the methods employed by the Nazi leaders to secure tribal unity in Germany methods of brutal compulsion, bloody force, and the concentration camp. Such methods cannot be brought within even a Machiavellian system of ethics, and yet may be justified by their evolutionary result.
Even in that result we may harbor a doubt: can unity obtained by such methods be relied on to endure?
There are other aspects of Nazi policy which raise points which may be legitimate subjects of ethical debate. In recent years British men of science have debated this ethical problem: an important discovery having been made a new poison gas, for example is it not the duty of the discoverer to suppress it if there is a possibility of its being used for an evil purpose? My personal conviction is that science is concerned wholly with truth, not with ethics. A man of science is responsible for the accuracy of his observations and of his inferences, not for the results which may follow therefrom. Under no circumstances should the truth be suppressed; yet suppression and distortion of the truth is a deliberate part of Nazi policy. Every anthropologist in Germany, be he German or Jew, was and is silenced in Nazi Germany unless the Hitlerian racial doctrine is accepted without any reservation whatsoever. Authors, artists, preachers, and editors are undone if they stray beyond the limits of the National Socialist tether. Individual liberty of thought and of its expression is completely suppressed. An effective tribal unity is thus attained at the expense of truth. And yet has not the Church in past times persecuted science just in this Hitlerian way? There was a time, and not so long ago, when it was dangerous for a biologist to harbor a thought that clashed in any way with the Mosaic theory of creation.
No aspect of Hitler's policy proclaims the antagonism between evolution and ethics so forcibly as his treatment of the Jewish people in Germany. So strong are the feelings roused that it is difficult for even science to approach the issues so raised with an unclouded judgment. Ethically the Hitlerian treatment of the Jews stands condemned out of hand. Hitler is cruel, but I do not think that his policy can be explained by attributing it to a mere satisfaction of a lust, or to a search for a scapegoat on which Germany can wreak her wrath for the ills which followed her defeat of 1918. The Church in Spain subjected the Jews to the cruelty of the Inquisition, but no one ever sought to explain the Church's behavior by suggesting that she had a
lust for cruelty which had to be satisfied. The Church adopted the Inquisition as a policy; it was a means of securing unity of mind in her flock. Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions. When the Huguenots fled to Germany they mingled their "genes" with those of their host and disappeared as an entity. The Jews are made of other stuff: for two thousand years, living amid European communities, they have maintained their identity; it is an article of their creed, as it is of Hitler's, to breed true. They, too, practice an evolutionary doctrine. Is it possible for two peoples living within the same frontiers, dwelling side by side, to work out harmoniously their separate evolutionary destinies? Apparently Hitler believes this to be impossible; we in Britain and in America believe it to be not only possible, but also profitable.
It must not be thought that in seeking to explain Hitler's actions I am seeking to justify them. The opposite is the case. I have made this brief survey of public policy in modern Germany with a definite object: to show that Dr. Waddington is in error when he seeks to place ethics on a scientific basis by a knowledge of evolutionary tendencies and practice.
Human Life: Its Purpose or Ultimate End
IN THE COURSE OF GATHERING INFORMATION concerning man's morality and the part it has played and is playing in his evolution, I found it necessary to provide space for slips which were labeled "Life: Its Ultimate and Proximate Purposes." Only those who have devoted some special attention to this matter are aware of the multitude of reasons given for the appearance of man on earth. Here I shall touch on only a few of them; to deal with all would require a big book. The reader may exclaim: Why deal with any of them! What has ultimate purpose got to do with ethics and evolution! Let a man with a clearer head and a nimbler pen than mine reply. He is Edward Carpenter, who wrote Civilization: Its Cause and Cure (1889).
It is from the sixteenth edition (1923) I am to quote, p. 249:
If we have decided what the final purpose or Life of Man is, then we may say that what is good for that purpose is finally "good" and what is bad for that purpose is finally "evil."
If the final purpose of our existence is that which has been and is being worked out under the discipline of evolutionary law, then, although we are quite unconscious of the end result, we ought, as Dr. Waddington has urged, to help on "that which tends to promote the ultimate course of evolution." If we do so, then we have to abandon the hope of ever attaining a universal system of ethics; for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy. Dr. Waddington has not grasped the implications of Nature's method of evolution, for in his summing up (Nature, 1941, 150, p. 535) he writes "that the ethical principles formulated by Christ . . . are those which have tended towards the further evolution of mankind, and that they will continue to do so." Here a question of the highest interest is raised: the relationship which exists between evolution and Christianity; so important, it seems to me, that I shall devote to it a separate chapter. Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed. Clearly the form of evolution which Dr. Waddington has in mind is not that which has hitherto prevailed; what he has in mind is a man made system of evolution. In brief, instead of seeking ethical guidance from evolution, he now proposes to impose a system of ethics on evolution and so bring humanity ultimately to a safe and final anchorage in a Christian haven.
Which brings us to Dover, Pa., Pat Robertson, the Kansas State Board of Education, and a fight over evolution that is so anachronistic and retrograde as to be a national embarrassment.Another:
In order to justify the farce that intelligent design is science, Kansas had to corrupt the very definition of science, dropping the phrase "natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us," thus unmistakably implying -- by fiat of definition, no less -- that the supernatural is an integral part of science. This is an insult both to religion and science.
While I tend to agree with some that there can be a progression from hypothesis to theory to law, most of the evolutionists on these pages with whom I've discussed do not believe that progression is a valid explanation of the relationship between theory and law. They would not agree that a theory becomes a law.
Incidentally, if Einstein stood on Newton's shoulders then Einstein was standing on the shoulders of a thoroughly relious man.
Isaac Newton (1642-1727) In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding from the Bible God's plan for history. He did a lot of work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
Einstein, a Christian - NOT. He was Jewish, and not very devout. His concept of a God was not a personal God, but one that was distant and hands-off. Evolution, to Einstein, is a natural process initiated by God, but left to it's own results.
Creationists who cite Einstein need to learn more about this very interesting fellow.
Not the "LAW" of evolution."
Teach it as a theory, and don't incorporate it as a law, like Webster's seems to, and like so many of our HS graduates believe.
Do you know what a scientific theory is? Laws are Theories, and Laws that have been disproven are taught in HS science classes. And no theory in any science has ever been proven. Netwons laws of motion are a perfect example. They have been disproven, yet they are still taught. Since you claim to be learned in science, can you tell me why?
It was his nephew, Bradley Einstien. Back then, you had to pretend you were a WASP to get invited to the good parties.
"It's pronounced Fronkensteen"
What, by your estimation, distinguishes a "devout Christian" who cannot be a Darwinist from a run-of-the-mill Christian who can be a Darwinist?
I love Krauthammer.....
"Does the dictionary tell you that one results in the other? "
DNA = genes
No it isn't. Such a thing happening would violate the theory of evolution.
Blackie? Excuse me? You smug, racist -------.
Evolution says that death has been with us since the beginning.
Salvation is irrelevant in an evolutionary world. Jesus is an irrelevant fraud in an evolutionary world.
That's a good point, too. Evolution is really quite incompatible with Biblical Christianity, hm?
You have a severe misunderstanding of Christianity, my friend. Hebrews chapter 11 addresses your sentiment here.
Your use of the term "righteous pagans" further shows that you don't understand the greatness of the grace and forgiveness offered to us by our Creator. There are none righteous, according to Scripture. And that makes the gift of salvation that much sweeter. In the end, it's "Who you know" that determines your future....
That's great, as long as evolution is false. The problem is that there is massive amounts of evidence that evolution is true, even though you've obviously ignored it.
So now your problem is that you've set up a situation where one must either reject the physical proof of evolution, or reject mere words printed in a Bible with nothing whatever to back them up.
Or, you can take the direction the Catholic church did. Accept both evolution and the Bible. Problem solved.
As for myself, I decided that your position was correct, that I had to accept one or the other. So I rejected God in favor of the physical evidence I see of evolution.
Your god is a fantasy god that is so weak that he can't exist alongside the facts of the natural world.
Where do you get this stuff? Are there special comic books for true believers?
"Very few, possibly no evolutionists are devout Christians."
I am a Jew who converted to Christianity I believe in the Word so much.
I also see no discord between a proper reading of Genesis (without an agenda and pre-conceived ideas) and God using evolution (whose natural rules He created, after all) to make man.
Indeed, while not a Roman Catholic expert, the nearest-to-official pronoucement from the RCC (by far the largest Christian denomination, followed by the Anglican that expresses much the same belief -- together amounting to probably 2/3 of Christiandom) is that Word and the science of evolution are perfectly harmonious.
"Scripture says that death entered the world following Adam's sin. Evolution says that death has been with us since the beginning."
These are different kinds of death. When Jesus says we must die so we may live, He isn't referring to a literally, physical death, but to the end of our fleshy desires and ambitions and submission to His. Death in this context is equivalent of separation from God. This symbolic meaning of death is crystal clear to anyone who reads the Bible without in earnest to see what God intended rather than with the idea that it means whatever you want it to mean, like liberals interpreting the Constitution.
"Salvation is irrelevant in an evolutionary world. Jesus is an irrelevant fraud in an evolutionary world."
Salvation isn't the least bit irrelevant. I am not quite sure how to debate this one, because I don't see how you come to that conclusion.
Absolutely. It's amazing: every time there's a scientific breakthrough that describes or explains God's glorious work, supposedly religious people feel threatened and go into denial. It simply doesn't occur to them that maybe they are fallible and should consider changing their interpretation of the Word. No, they are so arrogant that they think their beliefs are flawless no matter what anyone else says or proves. They reject Paul's assertion that God "passes all understanding." That kind of arrogance is inconsistent with a truly Christian life.
"Why do archeologists keep digging for bones and missing links if it's all so self-evident? "
That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this forum.
Don't reject God based on idiots who know neither God, nor the his works.
The Bible is amazingly logical, in context.
The problem is judgmental idiots read it in a vaccuum and with an agenda.
Go get a NIV Study Bible (inter-denominational and striped of agendas as much as humanly possible) that has all the good, thick, historical footnotes. Sold at Sam's.
Start with Matthew, who was an (what we call now) Orthodox Jew who converted, and who takes a very logial, step-by-step explaination of the whole thing.
Even if you choose to reject it as a religion, it is essential reading for anyone who lives in Western Civilization.
"Why do archeologists keep digging for bones and missing links if it's all so self-evident?"
An over-generalization, but for our purposes here, archeologists generally study human structures. (Paleotologists study pre-history).
But to answer your question, paleotologists hunt for fossils for the same reasons archeologists keep digging up David's Jerusaleum --- to learn about and study the past.
My reference to "death" is different from yours, and so the "context" is different. You mention a dying to sin, something elaborated on in Romans 6 (and other places). I'm referring to the warning of physical (as well as spiritual) death given in Genesis 2 (and later discussed in verses such as Romans 5:15).
Physical death did not exist prior to sin, according to Scripture. Death is a consequence of sin, not a tool that God used to develop humanity.
About your other comment, you're right -- salvation isn't the last bit irrelevant. In an evolutionary world, though, salvation is indeed a confused irrelevant muddle.
FWIW, I think of "evolution" as the gradual increase of genetic information and complexity over generations. There are obviously mutations and variety among species, but this is not evidence of a growth of genetic complexity.
Can you give me a verse or two in Gen 2 so I can look it up?
I am just confused how some people are able to believe both Genesis 1 and 2, and Darwinistic evolution.
According to Genesis 1:11-15, for example, vegetation was created before the stars. That's weird. And verse 25 says, "God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind." Note that phrase "according to their kinds."
There is just so much incongruity between Scripture and Darwinistic evolution....
Oh this is great stuff! (I wasn't aware that Jeffrey Dahmer was on the forefront of evolutionary biology research.)
Verses 16 and 17:
And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
And God's proclamation of his curse on Adam in Genesis 3:19:
"By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return"
Prior to that, there is no biblical evidence of death. Only evidence of life.
If you're talking about Gen 2:17, when God says Adam will surely die the moment he eats from the tree of good and evil, God couldn't possibly be referring to a literal death, because Adam doesn't literally die that moment. Indeed, later in the Bible people are referred to as descendants of Adam.
Newton was not, mainly because the theory of evolution had not been thought of during his life. Einstein, however, most certainly was an "evolutionist."
Einstein was no Christian.
Very few, possibly no evolutionists are devout Christians.
I know from first hand experience that this is not the case. And I myself, while not a Christian, am pretty serious about my religion.
It is in fact the evolutionist, the enemy of intelligent design, who makes himself the enemy of God.
You seem mighty presumptive, speaking for God.