Posted on 07/04/2007 5:43:27 PM PDT by balch3
Dear Editor,
Reading Kowlessar Misir's letter captioned "Science and Religion are mutually exclusive: belief is a matter of faith!" (07.06.30) is a tortuous journey. Throughout the letter, one senses the difficulty in conceptualizing the big picture, and also a desperate search for meaning. An indication of Misir's dilemma is the fact that, in the tight space of a single page, he asked 21 questions rather than exercise diligence in rationalizing their answers. The reason for this, sadly, is found in the very last line of his effort as he quotes Miller on Darwin, denying the existence of a soul. Could this intellectual panic be about Misir's infatuation with atheism and evolution? He is now engaged in the ultimate deception, making a case for a "God of diversity" while at the same time denying His (God's) existence. Remember Psalm 14:1 …
The available "scientific" evidence will add to his misery. He should recognize at once that it takes more faith to believe in evolution, Darwin and atheism than to believe in Jesus Christ!
In any belief system, it surely is a comfort to find that the "scientific" (however defined) basis upon which that system rests acts itself out with the reassuring consistency or probability of a "law". Likewise, it must surely portend disaster and crisis when the system has to be held up with the bandages of deception and denial. Dr. Hugh Ross (Reasons To Believe) adopts a view that is completely opposite to Misir's: "… science and faith are, and always will be, allies, not enemies. ... since (for) the same God who "authored" the universe also inspired the writings of the Bible, a consistent message will come through both channels. In other words, the facts of nature will never contradict the words of the Bible when both are properly interpreted." To believe any less of any belief system would be self-deluding indeed. Misir is fundamentally deficient in advocating that "These two concepts are mutually exclusive and there is never any convergence". He denies his own system, whatever that is, since he maintains that science cannot uphold it.
We should turn to Marilyn Adamson (Is there a God?) for a brief rebuttal of Misir's evolutionary concept that the "… world is a complex heterogeneous system and that evolved from a complex heterogeneous system". This idea of Misir's sounds impressive indeed until one carries the process to its absurdly infinite iteration. One must finally make a decision on where the first "complex" heterogeneous system came from. Complexity, by its very definition is ordered not chaotic, is multi-faceted, and reflects intelligence. Adamson offers six simple but compelling lower-order observations for the existence of the God of the Bible, and it is this level of abstraction in reasoning that Misir must aim at, rather than rhetorical thrust and parry. He may want, for example, to rationalize his concern with the validity of "philosophies that predate the common Biblical era" against the Christian position that the "Biblical era" begins, well, at the "beginning itself" per Genesis 1:1.
I sense that the most meaningful insight into Adamson's foresight is in her fifth point. Here, she maintains that "We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him." Misir is no different from billions of Christians in this regard, and here's the proof: after vowing to address "God" in a later treatment in as early as the second paragraph, he almost unconsciously refers to "God" no less than 15 times in the paragraphs thereafter. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob comforts him, and us, with the soothing words of Jeremiah 29:11-14. Misir has thereby found his answer as to why God gave him the "ability to intellectualize". To choose to seek God from a wide range of intellectual distractions is worship indeed, this with a peace that passes all understanding.
But I also sense that it is the higher-order arguments regarding Biblical creation/ evolution that Misir's attention is really focused on, since he says in concluding: "Scientific thought has provided the necessary tools of investigation that yielded knowledge and information, enabling us to make informed statements on the development of humankind." He however cites none of them, and I admire his caution, because evolution as a scientific principle has been all but disproved. A formidable body of evidence already exists in such works as Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? by Jonathan Wells (Regnery Publishing, Inc, 2000. 338 pages) and Science & Christianity: Four Views (InterVarsity Press, 2000. 276 pages) http://www.reasons. org/resources/fff/2001issue05/index.shtml# book_reviews. There are others.
Wells, for one, carefully documents his thesis from the work of evolutionary biologists, explaining that the "icons" of evolution-considered to be the best evidence for evolution-are nothing more than scientific myths, in most cases.
The lack of experimental and observational support for evolution's so-called best evidence comes not from recent scientific advances, in most instances, but from long-acknowledged mainstream scientific literature. This lack of support prompts Wells to repeatedly question why textbooks consistently present these "icons" as evidence for evolution when evolutionary biologists understand that these "icons" are equivocal at best in their support for evolution.
He believes that the answer to this question stems from a deliberate effort by Darwinian ideologues to suppress scientific truth out of concern that without these widely known "icons" of evolution, public support for evolution will wane.
The evolutionary "icons" addressed by Wells include: 1) the Miller-Urey experiment; 2) the evolutionary "Tree of Life"; 3) the homology of vertebrate limbs; 4) Haeckel's drawings of vertebrate embryos; 5) Archaeopteryx as the missing link connecting birds to reptiles; 6) the peppered moth story; 7) beak evolution and speciation among Darwin's finches; 8) the laboratory-directed evolution of four-winged fruit flies; 9) equine evolution; and 10) human evolution.
In Misir's world of evolution and atheism, the scientific tools have been applied, and the concepts found wanting. Now what?
We conclude that it takes more "faith" to believe in a lie called "Darwinian evolution", and the tragedy of atheism, than to believe in Jesus Christ! Now, we should examine how the scientific tools validate intelligent design and, by inference, creation!
Yours faithfully,
Roger Williams
Does he describe how grass and fruit trees were able to survive before there was a sun (Gen 1:12-16)?
The Flat Earth Society announced today that a majority of United Nations scientists now believe that the Earth really is flat.
The Bible contains thirty or forty stories about miracles and most of those are paranormal kinds of things for which rational explanations probably exist. Evolution requires an endless series of probabilistic miracles and grotesque violations of the basic laws of mathematics and probability theory. God vs Charles Darwin is one of life’s easier choices.
Can you explain how a rock came to life?
I could not agree with you more. You'll note, I'm sure, that evolution "to higher organisms" doesn't take place solely by "random mutation." Certainly, I've never heard any scientists claim that.
Have you ever seen some life form mutate into something improved?
This is a profession of faith. It is not supported by experience, but rather is contrary to experience. Far from being the product of intelligence, complexity necessarily must exist before intelligence. Omniscience is not a high degree of intelligence, but a different concept altogether.
Prove that. But be careful you don't prove too much. If, for example, it were contrary to the second law for a human being to grow from a single cell, then it must follow that the law is no law at all, but a falsehood.
Shouldn’t this be in Breaking News?
Yes, all the time. Which is how I caught drug-resistant tuberculosis in the Soviet Union in 1990. Now out of curiosity, have you seen God breathe the breath of life into the nostrils of some formed dust?
Why must so many highly religious people always be in such conflict with Science? If you believe that God created the Universe, then everything around you, including you is the actual “Hand of God”. If you desire to know the will of God, wouldn’t it be better to study the “Handy work of God”, with the minds his hand gave us. Than to study a book assembled in Byblos from stories, from all over the middle-east, by primitive and superstitious men who believed the world was flat, and disease was caused by demons entering in through your mouth. Translated, only God knows how many times, by similarly primitive men, who believed leeches, and bleeding a sick person, would remove the bad humors that cause disease. A greater understanding of the mind of God, is more likely to be achieved by the scientist studying the beauty of God’s creation filled with Quarks and Quasars, than the distorted writings of primitive men, no matter how divinely inspired, groping for some understanding of the world around them and their existence?
“Miller drubs Behe in Nature.”
Behe’s Dreadful New Book: A Review of “The Edge of Evolution”.”
Miller? Fanatic for evolution. Review by another rabid evolutionist? Wow...sure bring alot to the table here /s.
Paul
Genesis 1:1 IN the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. The sun is in the heaven(s) and this declaration pre-dates the verses you noted. Verse two of Genesis 1 says that And the earth was (word should actually be *became*) without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. (Deep what)
Something happened that cause this earth to become without form, and void, words that mean *waste*. This earth does exhibit the evidence that at some point in time there was cataclysmic destruction on this earth. Discovery channel has shows on all the time about super volcanoes, and there is evidence of meteorites hitting the earth. Something cataclysmic cause the death and destruction of the dinos all those millions of years ago.
Given what the evidence demonstrates I consider what Genesis 1:3-23 is describing would more accurately be an environmental clean-up given what verse 2 has to say.
Peter says IIPeter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of OLD, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Verse 6 Whereby the world that then *WAS*, being overflowed with water, perished:
IIPeter 2:7 But the heavens and earth which are *NOW*, by the same word are kept in store,.....
So even Peter knew around 2,000 years ago that this earth was very very very OLD.
I have NO conflict with LITERAL science, but this evolution mysticism is a load of donkey dung. Did not happen the way the religion of evolutionists claim!! As it is Written we are all made in the image of the Heavenly Father, but not all minds are in tuned with Him. This present age is by design to give opportunity for all His children to be born of woman, into a flesh going to die and return to dust body. When the flesh dies, the soul, or as Genesis calls it *breath of life* returns to the Father that sent it. As also Written not all of those sons of God were willing to go through this flesh age and they along with that one who believed in himself so much (Satan) are the only ones yet judged with a death of their "soul" sentence.
Flesh man is not going to design any methods that will make this flesh body live into eternity.
The grass and trees were created on day 3 and the sun on day 4. Ever kept a plant out of the sun for one day? It will live. And no the days werent long periods of time. The verses are very clear with the inclusion of evening and morning were the (insert number) day.
2nd Peter 3:5 is talking about the flood in Noahs day. The next verse says “by which the world that then existed perished being flooded with water.” The Bible gives the account of the world flooded with water in Genesis.
The hygiene laws were centuries ahead of science that discovered germs.Well, we need go no further then.
Put down that keyboard pronto and return poste haste to the Bible which must contain the answer(s) to your quest (IOW, why are you here? Simply to answer our questions ... or yours?)
Can I get a cut?
Enough gullible sheep to go around.
WHAT I want to know is: which came first - the chicken or ‘the means by which it reproduces’ (classically put: ‘the egg’)?
Or was it ‘chickens and eggs’ simultaneously?
ANd then, what about us primates that ‘carry’ our young within ... did we come equipped with pre-birth embyros just waiting to be ‘birthed’?
An inquiring mind wants to know ...
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.