Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing

The American Prowler ^ | 11/24/04 | Hunter Baker

[neoconsareright]

WACO, Texas -- At one time, the debate over Darwin's theory existed as a cartoon in the modern imagination. Thanks to popular portrayals of the Scopes Trial, secularists regularly reviewed the happy image of Clarence Darrow goading William Jennings Bryan into agreeing to be examined as an expert witness on the Bible and then taking him apart on the stand.

[F16Fighter]

"Evolution is a religion and not science."

Therein lies the irony, my friend.

[go_W_go]

I just think that it's ironic when Evolutionists deride those that have faith in Creationism / Intelligent Design, when they (Evolutionists) make up for the lack of scientific evidence with faith.


It is quite ironic. It takes more faith to believe the lie of evolution, which has NO evidential standing, than to believe in a little thing called EVIDENCE! Evidence supports the biblical account of creation. Interesting, how there exists NO evidence of one species becoming another species in the fossil record. Some people point to Archeopteryx, not only has this myth been debunked, but now bird fossils have now been found dating back to the late Triassic!!! You don't (and won't) read about this in the popular journals, that's for sure. And how about those hoaxes of "Piltdown Man", later found to be the skull of an Orangutan with the teeth filed down (the filing marks were still fresh), oh yeah, and how about "Nebraska Man", that one turned out to be a.... get this... pig's tooth, out of which the "Scientific community" built a prehistoric predecessor of modern man. Or how about "Peking Man", one might ask. Well if you are willing to build a subhuman ancestor out of a single skull cap (not the entire skull, mind you, just a piece of bone), well then, I guess we should call that an incredible piece of scientific work. Never mind that nearly complete, modern human skeletons were found in the same strata, within 50 yards of the "Peking Man's" skull cap.

Those who won't believe in creation, are simply holding on to the little comforts of life. Not having to answer to a higher power gives them a great sense of freedom, after all, admitting there's a God would mean admitting they are sinners in need of a Saviour. People like their sin, it's in their nature. What they don't realize is that their sin will mean their ultimate demise.

I'll pray for all of you who find it difficult to admit in the existence of God (despite the evidence that He does exist) right now, and hopefully, at least some of you, will see the error you are spreading, and BLINDLY believing. You see, believing in evolution is a BLIND belief, it says "I'll believe it, even without a shred of evidence to support it".

You believe what you want, I'll believe in the evidence...

Bless you,

Jeff

[M. Thatcher]

Behe's work has been particularly disturbing to evolution advocates because he seems to have proven that organic machines at the molecular level are irreducibly complex and therefore could not have been the products of natural selection because there never would have been any intermediate working mechanism to select.

It would be interesting if one single poster on this thread had actually commented on the actual substance of the actual article posted instead of instantly descending into the boilerplate snottiness (from both sides) that defines this "debate."

[Bikers4Bush]

My point is that even Darwin himself could not explain away certain aspects of life on this planet with his theory of evolution and was therefore left to acknowledge that despite his best efforts to refute intelligent design he was forced to accept it.

When you cite the works of the guy who was ultimately forced to accept the idea of intelligent design as the guy who refutes it you have drilled the holes in your own bucket.

[cwiz24]

Ever hear of carbon dating? Probably not.

[Rhadaghast]

Hay yall sound like a liberal loose in a conservative chat room. Dumby this and dumby that. Name calling and no honest debate. Darwin stated that there were 2 things that his theory could not explain; The eye and the feather. They still have not been explained. Can any one tell me why the public school text books still contain the debunked drawings of the fetus through the evolutionary process? That was debunked 25+ years ago.

[cwiz24]

Can you distinguish between the ultimate origin of life and its later evolution?

[cwiz24]

Doesn't mean they didn't, either.

[F16Fighter]

"You don't have to take the Bible literally."

Are you suggesting it be treated like the New York Times?

Jesus Christ, who often quoted the OT, Himself said he was a descendant of Adam -- NOT an "amoeba sprung from primordial ooze."

IOW, compromise is NOT an option -- either the Bible is ALL true, OR a total crock.

Satan loves when the bible is questioned and thus it's authority undermined.

[Bikers4Bush]

Therein lies the question. Do I think life has and continues to evolve? Absolutely. Do I think life was set up to do just that? Absolutely. The only question that remains is who set it up to do that?

I will begin to believe the evolutionists when science manages to take a completely barren wasteland of existence and create sustainable life from it.

Mind you I'm only asking science to create a single life form from nothing for me to begin to believe. I'm not asking them to create millions of them.

[go_W_go]

It's not about amens and God, it's about science.

The problem with evolution is that SCIENCE DISAGREES WITH IT!!!!! If you would spend a little time RESEARCHING, rather than reading every little thing you get your hands on and BLINDLY BELIEVING, you'd see the obvious error of your beliefs.

Please don't resort to name calling, I didn't call anyone a moron, so why did you? You should try to assert your beliefs with substance, not blind attacks, especially since you don't really know me. Sounds a bit like the Kerry libs way of debating, to me... "Because I said so.." just won't cut it.

Bless you anyway

[F16Fighter]

"Hay yall sound like a liberal loose in a conservative chat room. Dumby this and dumby that. Name calling and no honest debate."

Wanna run another check on exactly who you meant your post for?

[bibarnes]

It is, virtually, impossible for finite beings to comprehend infinity. I am a fundamentalist Christian and I don't have a handle on infinity.

I do have a video interview with an evolutionist from some large university where he makes the statement that there are more "transitional" species than we could ever hope to catalog. When asked to name one he replied "We haven't found them yet".

To answer the question "Who created the Creator", I can only point to the Bible (oh no not that) where it says "Before Abraham was, I Am". Faith? Definitely, but then it requires a lot of faith to believe in evolution.

[cwiz24]

But you're quoting Jesus Christ from the Bible. You're using the Bible to provide the proof of it's own validity. The logoc escapes me.

[go_W_go]

Ask any archaeologist if the Bible is a reliable source of history... I'll wait.... When archaeologist go out to disprove the Bible, they come back converted.

[cwiz24]

The field of paleontology is young and we haven't even chipped the surface of the discoveries that are forthcoming in the field of evolution. I can name one transitional species: Archaeopteryx