Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: johnnyb_61820
Evolution _is_ a theory of creation.

No, it really isn't. It's a theory of change of what exists: specifically, speciation of living forms.

The evolutionary theory really does explain speciation , but it does not mean that God doesn't exist, or that Man doesn't have free will. Properly understood the Evolutionary theory doesn't impact on these at all. Ignorant faux-scientists in Darwin's time DID however insist that Evolution meant this. They insisted that Science had disproved God.

The other half of the quarrel came from biblical literalists insisting that literal interpretations of Genesis were, in fact, God's Revelation.

So two sets of people found themselves grouping behind banners marked "Science" and "Religion" - when in fact the banners should have been labelled "Unscientific Dogmatic Atheists" and "Biblical Literalists". And we today find ourselves inheriting their same dull quarrel.

There is no doubt that evolution occurs, and there is also no doubt that there is something innately different about man: he is not a mere naked ape. DNA explains genetic inheritance but does not explain free will or the immortal soul. The two things are both true and there is no actual contradiction between them.

6 posted on 12/07/2005 7:05:52 AM PST by agere_contra (You are worthress, Arik Bawdrin!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: agere_contra

"The evolutionary theory really does explain speciation"

There is literally no disagreement here. No creationist, young-earth or otherwise, disagrees with this.

It seems like you are not aware of what creationists actually believe. I've got a blog you might be interested in:

http://baraminology.blogspot.com/

It's best to start at the beginning.

"There is no doubt that evolution occurs, and there is also no doubt that there is something innately different about man: he is not a mere naked ape."

If that were the only question, then there would be little disagreement, except for the militant Darwinists (however, there are still MANY of these in the biological sciences). However, there are many others, such as the question of the flood, of the goodness of the original creation, of whether common designs or common descent are the best explanations of similarities (see especially Berra's Blunder), whether God actually intervenes in history, in what ways He does, and whether or not the Biblical accounts of His actions are correct.

And it's not just Christians, either. There are a great number of diverse people who share the same stories that the Christians do. The great flood is everywhere, and shares the same characteristics (favored family gets saved, the whole world floods, etc). Many pagan histories trace their lineages back to Noah. In fact, many cultures have the same date for both Creation and the Flood as does the Bible! And take Joshua's long day. This was recorded by numerous cultures -- on this side of the world. On the other side of the world there was a record of a long night.

The fact is that history is the best interpretation of Genesis 1-11. In fact, even many scholars who do not believe that anything in Genesis 1-11 occurred at all believe that it was _meant_ to be history. And that history, while not exactly the same, is consonant with many traditions throughout the world.

Only by throwing out all old-world evidence do we arrive at the same conclusions that evolutionists do -- that everything arose from single-celled animals. The reasons aren't all historical, either. Evolution has a massive information problem. No mechanism can be shown to account for the kind of changes and gains in semantic information that have been suggested by evolutionists.


10 posted on 12/07/2005 1:14:01 PM PST by johnnyb_61820
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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