Posted on 11/10/2009 2:43:38 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Charles Darwin published his “Origin of Species” in 1859. There he presented the classic formulation of his theory of evolution. Lady Ashley, reacting to the theory at the time, remarked, "Let's hope that it's not true; but if it is true, let's hope that it doesn't become widely known." Lady Ashley's second hope has failed: Darwin's theory is everywhere and has now become textbook orthodoxy. This year, universities around the globe are celebrating the 150th anniversary of Darwin's “Origin of Species” as well as the 200th anniversary of his birth.
But what about Lady Ashley's hope that Darwin's theory is false? Darwin presented a bleak picture of ourselves: we are mere modified apes; we are the "winners" in a brutal competitive evolutionary process, most of whose players are "losers," wiped off the evolutionary scene before they could leave a legacy; the traditional Christian view that we are made in God's image is simply a story we tell to convince ourselves that we're special.
Intelligent design supporters like me view Darwin's theory as untrue and even as laughable: The theory purports to give a materialistic account of life's development once life is already here, but it has a gaping hole at the start since matter gives no evidence of being able to organize itself from non-life into life. The fossil record, especially the sudden emergence of most animal body plans in the Cambrian explosion, sharply violates Darwinian expectations about the historical pattern of evolutionary change. The nano-engineering found in the DNA, RNA, and proteins of the cell far exceeds human engineering and remains completely unexplained in Darwinian terms.
Darwin lovers are quick to reject such complaints. After all, as novelist Barbara Kingsolver declares, Darwin's idea of natural selection is "the greatest, simplest, most elegant logical construct ever to dawn across our curiosity about the workings of natural life. It is inarguable, and it explains everything." Kingsolver is no fan of Christianity. Yet many Darwin lovers are Christian. Francis Collins, who directs the National Institutes of Health, is a Christian Darwinist. Leaving aside a healthy skepticism that regards every scientific theory as refutable in light of new evidence, Collins exempts Darwinian evolution from such skepticism: "evolution, as a mechanism, can be and must be true."
Any theory that explains everything and that can and must be true is either the greatest thing since sliced bread or the greatest swindle ever foisted on gullible intellectuals. The intelligent design community takes the latter view, siding here with Malcolm Muggeridge, who wrote: "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."
Still, it's easy to understand why so flimsily a supported theory garners such vast support. It provides the creation story for an atheistic worldview. If atheism is true, then something like Darwinian evolution must follow. Hence, any attack on Darwin becomes an attack on the atheistic secularism that pervades our culture.
Nonetheless, even though atheism implies Darwinism, the reverse is not true: Darwinism does not imply atheism. Indeed, Christian theists who embrace Darwin abound.
The wedding between Darwinism and Christianity, however, is an uneasy one. To be sure, plenty of marriages are uneasy, and uneasy marriages are often endured because divorce can entail more difficulties than endurance. Thus, when I got involved with the evolution controversy 20 years ago, I naively thought that any Christian, given sufficient evidence against Darwinism, would immediately jump ship. Darwinian evolution, according to Cornell historian of biology Will Provine, is "the greatest engine of atheism ever invented." Why should Christians stick with such an engine when it's no longer needed?
Little did I realize how infatuated many Christians are with Darwin. Having convinced themselves that design is an outdated religious dogma, they embraced Darwinism as a form of enlightenment. And having accommodated their faith to Darwin, they became loath to reexamine whether Darwinism is true at all. Unlike Lady Ashley, Christian Darwinists hope that Darwinism is true. But is it really? In this year of Darwinian bacchanalias, let us soberly reassess whether Darwin's theory is indeed true. And if the evidence goes against it, as the intelligent design community is successfully demonstrating, then let's be done with it. In that case, reconciling Christianity with Darwinism becomes a vain exercise, solving a problem that no longer exists.
—William A. Dembski is research professor in philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and is the author of prominent books in the field of intelligent design, including his latest, “The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems,” written with biologist Jonathan Wells.
bmflr
Wonderful!
“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”
Awesome.
I added “creation” to the keyword list.
I added “science” to the ping list :o)
http://www.theonion.com/content/index
While Darwinism may not directly imply atheism, it certainly goes against biblical creation...and it certainly implies deism, for how could a loving God create using suffering and death as one of the main mechanism for evolution?
Even without evolution suffering and death is a vital part of the food chain.
There was a whole lot of suffering and death documented in the Bible, some of which was completely a result of Man's fallen nature, but some of it was necessary for our own education and salvation.
Did the Israelites really have to spend 40 years wandering in the desert? Did that many Egyptians have to suffer and die before the Israelites were let go? Did all but the few who were on the Ark have to be drowned?
God's ways are above our understanding, but they seem to involve lots of suffering and death.
And I didn't even mention Christ's suffering and death on the cross.
The Bible specifically contradicts evolution. It says that God created everything very good, and that suffering and death did not enter the world until mankind sinned against God. The Bible claims degeneration from a pristine state, not steady improvement from an inferior state.
Good to see you have dropped the "evo-atheist" insults and accusations. You are indeed making progress.
Even though Darwin himself fell away from the Christian faith he had in his early years?
Just rattle that blather off and we neanderthals will just have to accept it; eh?
Little do these 'Christians' know what their Holy Book says!
God created everything and everything was very good
or
Everything that God created was very good?
|
Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
"I think that generally (& more & more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."
( Quoted from Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991, p. 636. )
If, as they say, they 'believe' the words of Jesus and the New Testament writers,
then they have to decide what the following verses mean:
Acts 17:26-27
26. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
27. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.
Romans 5:12-21
12. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
13. for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
16. Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
19. For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
21. so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
If there were no one man, that means SIN did NOT enter the World thru him.
If Adam was NOT the one man, that means SPIRITUAL DEATH did not come thru him.
If SIN did NOT enter the World thru the one man, that means Jesus does not save from SIN.
Are we to believe that the one man is symbolic? Does that mean Jesus is symbolic as well?
The Theory of Evolution states that there WAS no one man, but a wide population that managed to inherit that last mutated gene that makes MEN different from APES.
Acts 17:24-26 24. "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. Was LUKE wrong about this?1 Corinthians 11:8-9 9. neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.Was Paul WRONG about these???If so, is GOD so puny that He allows this 'inaccuracy' in His Word?? |
Genesis 2:18
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
Thanks for posting this.
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.