Posted on 03/10/2007 11:07:03 AM PST by balch3
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP)--Secular scientists who fear allowing the conclusions of creationism into secular universities have good reason to be afraid because they are accountable to the creator, Kurt Wise, professor of theology and science at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said on the Albert Mohler Radio Program in February.
If its true that there was a creation, then you realize that means theres someone in control, Wise said on the broadcast hosted daily by Southern Seminarys president. And if there was a flood -- in other words, a creator who actually judged this creation -- that means were in big trouble. So I think theres every reason why an evolutionist would be very frightened of creationists advocating creationism.
Wise appeared on the Feb. 13 show to comment on discussion stirred by recent news articles on evolution in commemoration of what would have been Charles Darwin 198th birthday Feb. 12. A USA Today article pointed out that some secular scientists are upset over the fact that a number of creationists have obtained doctoral degrees from major universities recently.
Wise earned a Ph.D. at Harvard University in paleontology under late evolutionist Stephen J. Gould. Mohler noted that famed evolutionist Richard Dawkins called Wise the greatest disappointment he knows in modern science -- a designation Mohler said should be worn with pride.
I am absolutely thrilled you end up in the center of his target, and thats why you are on the program today, Mohler said. Its because you have so boldly set out the case. Richard Dawkins cant imagine anyone who understands modern science in terms of its theory and history and paradigm and model and still believes the words, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
It is important for Christians to talk about evolution, Mohler noted, because too often believers have responded inadequately to the challenges of Darwinism.
For the better part of two centuries the Christian church has been trying to figure out how to respond to the challenge of Darwinian theory and the prevailing evolutionary model, Mohler said. Ill just be very candid to say that in so many cases the church has failed.
The two greatest errors Christians have made are capitulating to evolution on one hand and rejecting it in an unintelligent way on the other hand, Mohler said.
Wise argued that accepting the Bibles account of creation makes intellectual sense.
If you want a correct account of an event, you want an eyewitness, Wise said. You want an eyewitness whos reliable. You want an eyewitness who understands. Who better than God Himself? If He really is the creator, then He has the accurate account. How could a scientist thousands of years later, who wasnt there, actually have a better account of the origin than God Himself?
Modern science is limited because it draws conclusions based only on the things scientists can observe and experience, Wise said.
Scientists cannot deduce anything about a creation, he said. Theyve never seen a creation before -- not a creation out of nothing of the universe. Their experience is limited to what they see and hear in the present. With those kinds of limitations, they couldnt possibly deduce the right thing about the beginning of things.
Humans cannot separate science and religion because scientists begin their work with assumptions about the world that are deeply religious, Wise said, adding, Science drips with theology. You cannot do science without making theological assumptions.
Mohler pointed to the writings of prominent evolutionists as evidence that theology and science overlap.
All you have to do is read the evolutionists, he said. Theyre always talking about the meaning of life. Richard Dawkins tries to find it in the mystery in the sheer accidental nature of the whole thing. The late Carl Sagan tried to find it in the immensity of what appears to the human eye to be limitless space.... You cant talk about humanity without talking about the meaning of human life.
In response to a question from a caller, Mohler and Wise said they believe the earth is relatively young because they trust the Bibles account of creation as accurate and straightforward.
At the end of the day, I cannot interpret the straightforward words, sentences and propositions of Genesis 1-11 any differently than Romans 1-11, Mohler said. So thats why I hold to a young earth.
Wise agreed.
It seems to be a clear reading of Scripture that God told us that the earth is young, he said. And I hold that position for that reason. I also believe that science is such that these (evolutionary theories) are theories of humans. So if its a choice between Gods clear Word and humans reason, then Im going to take Gods Word.
The all-knowing, all-seeing scientists. Strange how some feel 'they' do and should have the last word.
Scientists work from the evidence. So far, that evidence has shown no signs of a global flood.
You can denigrate scientists all you want, but it means nothing. If you want to support the idea of a global flood ca. 4300 years ago, bring some scientific evidence.
By the way, I am one of those scientists--an archaeologist. The areas I have studied have no signs of a flood at ca. 4300 years ago. The stratigraphy, sedimentology, cultural development, mtDNA, etc. in this area all show a continuation for some 8-10,000 or more years.
You need to study your chemistry. In order for Le Chatelier's Principle to work, you have to have reactivity. And then you have to look at the stability and reactivity of the products involved. Le Chatilier's Principle does not prevent a reaction from occuring. It has nothing to do with it. If you were a chemist you would understand why. You are also wrongly working on the assumption that amino acid condensation/hydrolysis is the only pathway in such a system as our early Earth. I wasn't aware that chemistry operated differently in the lab than in the natural environment. It is foolish to think of an environment as diverse as one would find on a planet would be restricted to one set of chemical circumstances. The variety of conditions is incredibly diverse.
And yes, evolutionists have tried all kinds of arguments - directing clays, thermal vents, etc. - to gett around this, but none have shown any experimental promise. I haven't even addressed the kinetics of the system, for the simple fact that you actually have to have an appreciable reaction before kinetics have any importance. BTW, the Le Chatelier's argument is only one of many empirical arguments that doom the traditional evolutionist theories about the naturalistic formation of life in an early earth scenario. We've not even discussed the effects of hard UV on amino acids (no oxygen = no ozone), or the problems with the racemicity of the product AAs.
And you don't understand evolution. None of what you discuss above has anything to do with it. That's abiogenesis and is a differnt field of study completely. There is a lot of interesting work being done there, but it is not evolution.
Another bit of Augustine for you. Back then(c~400CE) a going controversy was between people who thought the earth and heavens were flat and those who thought they were spherical, rather than evolution:
"But someone may ask: 'Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a skin?' Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false.... But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions."
-St. Augustine
The Literal Meaning of Genesis
(p. 59)
Bump for later
Only when it's appropriate. You should take his words to heart. Whether you're actually trying to make Christians look hopelessly ignorant and ridiculously wrongheaded or not, that's the effect of your posts.
Well, maybe you just don't know what to look for?
Well, for your sake, I hope they find it on your watch. Not believing the flood didn't happen because you can't find it, IMO, is self-righteous. Can you take a snap shot of some air and wind for me. I know it's there but just can't see it. If you want to spent you life proving God's Word about His Creation is wrong, you will never ever do it.
BS. If there is evidence for a global flood at ca. 4300 years ago, where is it?
It is either there, or it is not. You believe there was such a flood, but where is the scientific evidence? The early geologists, seeking to prove a global flood, gave up about 1830--because the evidence showed otherwise.
(See tagline.)
To me, it's nothing but fantasies and desperate people arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Nam Vet
But people like you have ALWAYS been more than happy to help us heretics along by burning, stoning, and torturing us to death, right?
I don't have the words to politely express the loathing I feel for you and your kind - the rabid, frothing religious fanatics that handed control of Congress over to the socialists and communists of the Democratic party through their maniacal religious fanatacism.
By the way, people like you are regarded as a laughing stock by the rest of society - a pack of primitivist atavists who want to turn the clock back to the Middle Ages, when the Mother Church would murder anyone who disagreed with Biblical orthodoxy.
In other words, I want to tell you and your kind to STFU and DIAF.
Since floods happen all the time in the present day and leave behind characteristic evidence, it's pretty easy to see there is no evidence of a global flood. There are plenty of flood deposits in the geological column, but no Flood.
No.
However, the movement of water and the sediments laid down would have the same characteristics, whatever the scale of the flood. Sediments exposed to air and erosion also have characteristic features. The Grand Canyon shows an excellent geological sequence showing features that cannot be explained by a global flood, for example.
So God purposefully is misleading humanity by creating vast amounts of evidence that it's extremely old ?
I haven't seen a tyrannosaurus recently.
Maybe I missed it...
Check behind the sofa cushions.
Surely someone must be hiding a T. rex somewhere ...
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.