Posted on 04/25/2008 11:30:50 AM PDT by lainie
An evolutionist professor from Antelope Valley College on Wednesday conceded the strong probability of intelligent design in life's earliest forms.
The announcement came at the end of a 3-hour presentation at the LPAC by scientists from Reasons to Believe, a Christian ministry that creates and tests scientific models based on the Bible.
Matthew Rainbow, a biology professor with a Ph.D. in molecular biology and biochemistry, told a crowd of several hundred that he had been persuaded to change his view of the origins of life about six months earlier, after reading books by the evening's two Reasons to Believe presenters, Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana.
Rainbow helped organize Wednesday's event in connection with a local Reasons to Believe chapter.
The professor described himself as a "flag-waving and card-carrying evolutionist and, about half the time, an atheist," but said evolutionary theory has not explained how the first living cells came into being.
"I now believe with about 60% certainty that the first living things were intelligently designed by a creator," Rainbow said.
"For 50 years, the best scientific minds on the planet have tried to show where the first cells came from and we failed miserably to demonstrate that. … If you try hard for 50 years and fail to show something, that's pretty strong evidence - the old theory of a prebiotic soup now appears to be kaput."
He referred to what many would know as the "primordial ooze," which some evolutionary theorists described as the birthplace of the earliest and simplest forms of life, leading to the evolution of all other forms.
Ross and Rana, and now Rainbow, contend that no such "soup" existed, primarily because no chemical evidence of it can be found, even in the oldest rock formations that bear evidence of early organic life.
(Excerpt) Read more at avpress.com ...
REASONS OFFERED - Dr. Hugh Ross, president and director of research at Reasons to Believe, a Christian ministry that creates and tests scientific models based on the Bible, addresses the crowd about his theories on creative design Wednesday at the Lancaster Performing Arts Center.
MOLLY HAUXWELL/Valley Press
LANCASTER - An evolutionist professor from Antelope Valley College on Wednesday conceded the strong probability of intelligent design in life's earliest forms.
Matthew Rainbow is one of the best scientific minds, self-evidently.
Bump for later read
A creation model derived from the Bible would include a universe that emerges from a "singularity beginning" - that is, a moment when space, time, matter and energy come into being where none previously existed.
"What is unique about the Bible (among creation stories) is that it speaks about God acting independent of space and time," Ross said.
Not only an intelligent designer - but it seems a Jewish or Christian one too...
Reasons to Believe has a "Statement of Faith" which "express the doctrinal convictions of every member of the Reasons To Believe staff and board of directors."
This is the beginning:
We believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the Word of God, written. As a "God-breathed" revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings.
Given this, they are unwilling and unable to entertain any evidence, theory, or science which does not support their view of the bible.
I don't think I would place much trust in their judgment in matters of science.
If by that you mean the God of the Bible, then yes. And, the only God there is, incidentally.
Lots of scientific sounding stuff, but no supporting evidence for ID in the article. It simply restates “if it’s complicated then it had to be designed”. Predicting that mitochondrial will be traced back to one group is an easy prediction since it had already occured when he made the prediction.
Rana said the Bible was limited in its scope in order to reach a broad audience with an efficient message.
"This is a book that is communicating to hundreds of generations," Rana said. "The Bible only uses vocabulary that can communicate to whatever generation is reading it. That would limit the degree of scientific content," especially if God meant it to fit in one volume.
What, God didn't tell Moses about DNA, radiometric age dating, etc.?
Coincidence?
(Where is PatrickHenry when we need him?)
Scientists: We've stopped ignoring Creator's tracks
“We’ve found the creator’s tracks.”
Turns out it was just a new type of dinosaur.
Ahhh, the crux of the matter!......
If you’re implying that I’m trying to create trouble, I am completely offended.
Why do you choose to be offended? Back and forth are s.o.p. for evolution/creation threads.
Not much credibility coming from a ministry with a mission statement that basically tells all the people working there what their results will be before they even start working.
Still, it would be interesting to see some peer review on this, preferably not from a ministry.
The delightfully named Dr. Rainbow admits that maybe just possibly 60% likely that there is a God (who incidentaly created the rainbow).
"The close affinity between Marxism and Darwinism continues to be evident in the currently popular evolutionary speculation called "punctuated equilibrium." (This declares that evolution occurs by sudden lucky-leaps forward, separated by long periods of essentially no change.)
Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, who first popularized this notion, recently pointed out that: "Hegel's dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official 'state philosophy' of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation, much like our own, but devoid of references to synthetic evolutionary theory, has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us learned his Marxism, literally, at his daddy's knee"
Stephen Jay Gould: A Scientist of the People
The radical politics of the biologist Stephen Jay Gould
Socialist Worker
June 7, 2002|Page 8
"Gould's parents were New York leftists, and he once boasted that he had 'learned (his) Marxism, literally at my daddy's knee.'.."
"In exposing the social roots of scientific ideas, Gould followed in the footsteps of one of his intellectual heroes, Frederick Engels--Karl Marx's close collaborator. Gould praised Engels' 1876 pamphlet, The Part Played by Labor in the Transition from Ape to Man."
"Gould was often seen on picket lines and at demonstrations. When residents of a racially mixed, working-class Cambridge neighborhood rebelled against police brutality in 1971, Gould joined a Students for a Democratic Society march to support the uprising. At around the same time, Gould joined Science for the People, one of the radical science organizations that emerged from the antiwar movement.
Later, Gould was on the advisory boards of the journal Rethinking Marxism and the Brecht Forum, sponsor of the New York Marxist School, which was dedicated to using "Marx's uniquely valuable contributions… to study conditions today and possibilities for transcending capitalism and building an emancipatory society.
The Encyclopedia of the American Left singled Gould out as one of the 'few scientists [who] have emerged as major public allies of the Left' and as 'perhaps the most formidable example of a supportive presence at Left events and for Left causes.'"
More at Socialist Worker.org:
http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-1/410/410_08_StephenJayGould.shtml
Niles Eldredge --Curator, Division of Paleontology and Curator of the [2006] Darwin exhibition at the American Museum of Natural History:
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/curator/
Niles Eldredge signs the call!
See "Endorsers of the Call to Drive Out the Bush Regime Include:"
http://worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2538&Itemid=2
FYI (for those who don't already know): World Can't Wait--Drive Out the Bush Regime is an "anti-war" front organization/movement for the Revolutionary Communist Party:
See: http://rwor.org/a/rwlink/links.htm
An Evening with Niles Eldredge
May 2nd [2006]
The World Can't Wait--Drive Out the Bush Regime! Presents
An Evening with Niles Eldredge
Curator of the Division of Paleontology and the Darwin exhibition at the American Museum of Natural History
Dr. Eldredge, a signatory of The World Can't Wait Call to Drive Out the Bush Regime, will discuss the battle over evolution as a microcosm of the state of affairs in society.
Introduced by David Helfand, Chair, Department of Astronomy, Columbia University
http://worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1392&Itemid=61
__________________________
"Last week’s guest blog by Harold B. Rollins began to explore the connections between evolutionary and environmental science, on the one hand, and, on the other, the world of policy decisions in American society—meaning, of course, politics.
Last January [2006] I accepted an invitation to add my signature to a full page ad published in the New York Times by an organization called The World Can’t Wait. Drive Out the Bush Regime.
I was honored to be asked to join such a roster of notables--but I confess it was Cindy Sheehan’s presence on the list that was the most important factor in my decision to join in. Here is an image of that page": http://www.nileseldredge.com/darwin_blogs_017.htm
Here's the Revolutionary Communist Party (see link) boasting of a 2005 FULL PAGE 'World Can't Wait--Drive Out the Bush Regime' ad of theirs which appeared in the New York Slimes.
The NY Times has since allowed several additional full-page RCP/WCW ads, including the one 'Prof' Niles Eldredge spoke of.
Article title: "Who Hated the Bush Ad"
http://www.rwor.org/a/028/who-hated-bush-ad.htm
From the website of the Revolutionary Communist Party, parent org behind World Can't Wait--Drive Out the Bush Regime...
"[we must] Create Public Opinion, Seize Power! We are preparing minds and organizing forces for the time when there is a major crack in the system, whenever it comes and wherever it comes from: an opening that makes it possible to bring the future Revolutionary Army of the Proletariat (R.A.P.) into the field and wage a revolutionary armed struggle that actually has a chance of winning.
And we have said that building our party itself is the most important part of organizing forces for revolution. This is true now, and it is true looking forward to the creation of that future R.A.P. and the waging of that armed struggle. ":
[revcom.us and rwor.org are both home page urls for the Revolutionary Communist Party]
http://revcom.us/a/v20/1000-1009/1000/barw.htm ______________________________________________
Seems they didn't find any Positive evidence at all, just not enough evidence of abiotic formation of biological molecules to satisfy Mr. 60% likely.
No coincindence at all. The article mentions both Religion and Science. And what do you know there is a Topic in this forum for article that fits just that discription. It is called (surprise surprise) Religion and Science.
I took the implication to mean that I intentionally posted this thread to create trouble, like some sort of troll. Not true. This story appears on the front page of my local paper and I thought it was worth sharing. That’s all.
And it does belong in the religion forum. It’s not “news.” The topic “Religion & Science” is for articles concerning “Creation, evolution, ethical issues posed by scientific advances.”
Yep, I feel the same way.
Thank you. Believe me, I’ll never post in this forum again. I can’t believe the ridiculous secret-handshake nonsense that goes on. Talk about close minded individuals.
We know you didn’t.. people just get all hot and bothered over these threads, so no matter where you post it, someone will say something. :->
You know, the religion/science forum topic may be a good idea. I’ll ping a mod on it.
Don’t stop just because some have attitude here. Just roll with the flow.. :->
Ummm, sorry, but no. Even the Judeo-Christian God asserts the existence of other gods/pantheons but limits His followers to one specific God, Him. That does not preclude the existence of other gods.
You might try reading some of Ross' material. He is not a young earth guy and he does make an effort to present the empirical data accurately. Some feel that he sometimes doesn't succeed, but then no one always does.
Huge hurdle for atheistic evolution to overcome.
Life was created by an intelligent agent. The ID'ers were correct.
Not that it's not entertaining, of course.
Additionally, they have a SERIOUS problem... Apparently according to them God was wrong when He revealed the books Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch, and the Catholic and Orthodox churches included those books well in advance of Martin Luther.
“straw man”
also: Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition. This fallacy often appears in the context of a straw man argument.
This article is welcome in the FReligion Forum.
You have FReepmail.
No need to be offended.
But I do object to the deliberate attempt to blur the lines between religion and science by doing what can only be described as belief-driven science, which has a particular goal (in this case, support of the bible) rather than true scientific inquiry. The two are antithetical.
That articles ostensibly dealing with science are routinely posted in the Religion Forum doesn't help. We end up with a preponderance of people who operate from belief, rather than the scientific method, contributing scientifically uninformed opinions based largely or solely on religious belief.
I can't help but feel that this is good for neither religion nor science.
It’s clear that you are impressed with your own ideas, but the fact is, some people presented a show, and the paper wrote an article, and it has to do with religious themes and scientific ones at the same time.
So it’s posted in the religion forum under the specific topic designed to carry such articles. Get over it.
whiskey tango foxtrot?
The irony for Stephen J. Gould is that Darwin was inspired by Adam Smith, specifically his The Wealth of Nations, not by Karl Marx.
The irony for Stephen Jay Gould is that Darwin was inspired by Adam Smith, specifically his The Wealth of Nations, not by Karl Marx.
I thought it kind of ironic that in a thread on an article that links an evolutionist to a biblical research group, whe get an article linking an evolutionist to Karl Marx. Are we supposed to connect those dots?
‘You are not even masters of this planet. What about Eurasia and Eastasia? You have not conquered them yet.’
‘Unimportant. We shall conquer them when it suits us. And if we did not, what difference would it make? We can shut them out of existence. Oceania is the world.’
‘But the world itself is only a speck of dust. And man is tiny helpless! How long has he been in existence? For millions of years the earth was uninhabited.’
‘Nonsense. The earth is as old as we are, no older. How could it be older? Nothing exists except through human consciousness.’
‘But the rocks are full of the bones of extinct animals — mammoths and mastodons and enormous reptiles which lived here long before man was ever heard of.’
‘Have you ever seen those bones, Winston? Of course not. Nineteenth-century biologists invented them. Before man there was nothing. After man, if he could come to an end, there would be nothing. Outside man there is nothing.’
‘But the whole universe is outside us. Look at the stars! Some of them are a million light-years away. They are out of our reach for ever.’
‘What are the stars?’ said O’Brien indifferently. ‘They are bits of fire a few kilometres away. We could reach them if we wanted to. Or we could blot them out. The earth is the centre of the universe. The sun and the stars go round it.’
So it’s posted in the religion forum under the specific topic designed to carry such articles. Get over it.
Sorry you were offended by my comments. I certainly would not wish you to stop posting articles.
It limits it to one specific God if you follow the evidence...and the Bible has more evidence to back it up than any other document in history. I tend to think you have not yet done the research or you could never reach any other conclusion. There is one God. He is the God of the Bible.
I’m only going by the 10 Commandments. Something about, “I am the Lord, your God, you shall have no other gods before Me.”
Given that logic, I have nothing to worry about from Dawkins either.
YEC INTREP
BeepTT
Even more ironic, perhaps, is that both Gould (an open marxist) and Darwin were reported to be agnostic. In my opinion, atheism is every bit 'faith-based' as traditional religion, since one must believe, beyond a doubt, that no god exists. How can anyone possibly 'know' that to be the case.
likewise
Sure. One must always consider where people of influence are coming from politically. Both the late S.J. Gould and Niles Eldredge were/are profoundly influential in the field of evolutionary biology.
Then this biblical research group is in bed with the Marxists, by their association with an evolutionary biologist who's been influenced by Gould and Eldridge.
"About 40% of me still has guarded hope that we will still be able to show how life evolved spontaneously according to the laws of normal physics and chemistry," he said. "I still believe, even though God appears to have specially created the first life, I still believe that I can powerfully defend … that pretty much all the rest of life still evolved."
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.