Skip to comments.New Scientist: 'Godless communists' embrace creationism
Posted on 06/16/2010 7:59:05 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Enthusiasts of creationism on the fringes of the American evangelical movement now have the strangest new allies - in a nation that made atheism its state religion.
Yes, creationism has now reared its ugly and evolving head in Russia, the heart of the "Godless communism" that prevailed in the Soviet Union.
And, as pointed out in a superb blog by Michael Zimmerman in the Huffington Post, the Russian rhetoric sounds strangely familiar.
After giving a lecture last week in Moscow, Hilarion Alfeyev, Archbishop of the Russian Orthodox Church, was reported by Reuters saying:
"The time has come for the monopoly of Darwinism and the deceptive idea that science in general contradicts religion. These ideas should be left in the past... Darwin's theory remains a theory. This means it should be taught to children as one of several theories, but children should know of other theories too."
This is a pretty clear inference that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in school. American creationists could have written the script for him, as they've been pushing the same tactic now for years under different guises, most recently as intelligent design.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
Sadly, the only one trying to deceive here is you.
You make a number of assumptions that if any were wrong, would throw your hold accusation in to doubt.
But don't think that the Big Bang doesn't have its own miracles at work. If cosmologists generally agree to a 14 billion YO universe, you have your own light travel-time "horizon problem" because of uniform temperatures and not enough time between points A and B.
Well, math is mostly just logic.
Logic must have been useful early on in hunting and later, war. Incidentally, language is useful in exactly the same areas.
"...Thus, the Founders were able to formulate the ideal of separation of church and state, not for the purpose of ending religion's influence, but strengthening it."
1. The Horizon Problem
2. The Flatness Problem
3. The Galaxy Formation Problem
4. The Antimatter Problem
Here is an excellent source which explains in layman terms what these problems are:
And here are some things I found some time ago on inflation theory...
Alan Guth [inventor of Inflation theory]: "Those 'little creatures'[cosmic microwave background photons], however, would have to communicate at roughly 100 times the speed of light if they are to achieve their goal of creating a uniform temperature across the visible Universe by 300,000 years after the Big Bang." http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth2.html
As Albrecht, now at the University of California at Davis, puts it, inflation is not yet a theory: "It is more of a nice idea at this point."...
"The model in Guth's original paper, published in Physical Review D in 1980, admittedly did not work. Michael Turner of the University of Chicago, who took part in Bardeen's calculation of the density perturbations, says Guth had been brave. "One of the striking things about [Guth's] paper," Turner says, "was that he said: 'Look, guys, the model I am putting forward does not work. I can prove it doesn't work. But I think the basic idea is really important.' "
In fact, Guth's "old" inflation ended too soon, and too messily. A "graceful exit" was needed to make the universe look remotely similar to ours. In 1982 Paul Steinhardt, another co-author of Bardeen's calculation, solved the graceful exit problem together with Andreas Albrecht; Linde also found a solution independently. Their "new" inflation worked by adjusting the shape of the potential function, a sort of mathematical roller-coaster that defines the properties of the inflation.
Most of the mechanisms proposed ever since rely on carefully adjusting the shape of the hypothetical potential function. None, it seems, has been too convincing. "All these models seem so awkward, and so finely tuned," says Mark Wise, a cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology.
Physicists would like a theory that avoids such gimmicks, one that shows how things ought to be from first principlesor at least with the smallest possible number of assumptions. "Fine tuning" is the opposite.
It was two fine-tuning problems, two such implausible balancing acts, that inflation was supposed to have solved. "You're trying to explain away certain features of the universe that seem fine-tunedlike its homogeneity, or its flatness," says Steinhardt, now at Princeton University, "but you do it by a mechanism that itself requires fine tuning. And that concern, which was there from the beginning, remains now." As Albrecht, now at the University of California at Davis, puts it, inflation is not yet a theory: "It is more of a nice idea at this point." "
Put another way Calculus is merely an specific form of Abstraction, which is useful for say making plans, drawing maps, etc.
I don't know if the New Scientist people are any good at Science but when it comes to History, they are Deeply Ignorant. Or Stupid.
“Does not compute.”It would appear Andy Coghlan writing for New Scientist thinks that a blog entry written by Michael Zimmerman which appeared in the Puffington Host, was ‘superb’.
I don’t where you read that idea from, but it’s so off base that it goes beyond being incorrect.
“I dont where you read that idea from, but its so off base that it goes beyond being incorrect.”
—They didn’t reject evolution per se, but they did ban Darwinism and Mendelism. Many pro-Darwinists were killed or sent to Siberia.
Or, conversely, read Genesis and it eliminates evolution
So, when Genesis speaks of God ‘creating’ man from the dust of the earth and then ‘breathing’ life into him; when it speaks of creating the animals that will reproduce according to their kind (not making new kinds), where is the ‘evolution?
These people who believe in Theistic Evolution either :
1) Take Genesis metaphorically ( don’t ask me how they do it ).
2) Are not Christians, but Deists or Theists. They want to have their cake and eat it too ( i.e., believe in a creator, but a not too hands-on one ).
At least, that’s the way I see it.
It does not SUGGEST this, it says so
20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 2:18 tp 2:20 suggests humans came before animals.
18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
The above verse describes how God created them, not when. It does not say "and then..."
20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Genesis 4:15 suggests there were other humans in the land of Nod who were not direct bloodline to Adam and Eve.
You are looking at this through the eyes of today. At the start, mankind was very long lived, almost 1000 years. Adam and Eve would have and did have very many children. Where ever Cain went, there would have been more than ample time for more to follow.
It can, and anyone who suggests it can't is questioning the process by which God created and manages the Earthly world.
It can not. the Creation is described clearly in Genesis. Anyone who says it can is calling the Word of God, in Genesis, a lie.
Evolution is an anti-teleological explanation of the world, so on this point alone it is immediately incompatible with intelligent planning of a creator. A non-teleological world-view is incompatible with any notion of an intelligent God or divine providence.