Skip to comments.Evolution vs. God: Shaking the foundations of Faith
Posted on 10/17/2013 1:18:41 PM PDT by redleghunter
If you are familiar with Ray Comfort and the man on the street Way of the Master ministries, you will like this video. WoM ministries produced the linked youtube 30 minute video on Evolution vs. God. Ray and crew go to two CA universities to interview and debate science students and science faculty on Darwinian evolution.
So please set aside a half hour from your busy schedule and enjoy "Evolution vs. God."
Fun for later.
The THEORY of evolution does not preclude the fact of God. They are not mutually exclusive ideas.
The problem is that we have no way to understand the concept of eternity.
Life is a subset of creation.
How did the universe evolve?
Lets play the God V Evolution game.
Watch the video and score yourself:
10 points for every stray man
15 points for every false premise
5 points for any logic fallacy (specify)
>>Life is a subset of creation.<<
Everything is a subset of creation.
>>How did the universe evolve?<<
If physics, geology, chemistry and astronomy are not compelled to answer the question of abiogenesis as a prerequisite, neither is TToE.
Evolution is simply not possible. Natural selection cannot make new species. Mutations are nearly always destructive, or, at best, do not add anything significant to a species. Lamarckianism has been shown to be false. What were once viewed as vestigial organs and structures, i.e. holdovers from an evolutionary past, are now shown to have a function. “Junk DNA,” containing the failed evolutionary experiments of a species is not present. The history of paleontology is rife with fakes, frauds, and fudged date. Furthermore, the DNA molecule is information, and information always has an intelligent source. Indeed, it takes a very blind leap of faith to hold to Darwinism.
>>Evolution is simply not possible. Natural selection cannot make new species. Mutations are nearly always destructive, or, at best, do not add anything significant to a species. Lamarckianism has been shown to be false. What were once viewed as vestigial organs and structures, i.e. holdovers from an evolutionary past, are now shown to have a function. Junk DNA, containing the failed evolutionary experiments of a species is not present. The history of paleontology is rife with fakes, frauds, and fudged date. Furthermore, the DNA molecule is information, and information always has an intelligent source. Indeed, it takes a very blind leap of faith to hold to Darwinism.<<
Every single statement is scientifically incorrect (except maybe the one about fakes, which science itself discovered — religion has no such ability to police itself).
And there is no such thing as “Darwanism.”
Religious people who disrespect science are every bit as annoying as scientific people who disrespect faith.
Evolution is the only explanation for the existence of leftist vermin. If God specially created them then he is not good.
To the headline: who’s faith, not mine
I would agree that the most common error in the dialog between science and theology is on the misunderstanding of evolution, its evidence and its shortcomings.
Those on the religious side discount all of evolution’s points based on an interpretation of Genesis which is uncompromisingly literal when a compelling argument can be made that much of it is beautifully poetic and symbolic.
Those on the science side exploit the layman’s knowledge of most people to try and extrapolate from evidence conclusions that simply don’t follow. Lawrence Krauss does this continually with physics. It’s ridiculous to pretend evolution is some airtight theory that disputes God. It has many deep problems, and things it can’t explain, like the puzzling Cambrian explosion.
You also have that origin of life question. Over time, mathematicians have found that the spontaneous creation of life on earth is so improbable, you’d be surprised how many scientists genuinely believe life on earth was seeded by aliens.
“seeded by aliens” just pushes the problem to another planet.
This gentleman disagrees...
Nope no escape. If they make the 'no creator theory' that evolution does they have to answer for the existence of matter as well as life.
So you are claiming Lamarckianism is true?
>>Nope no escape. If they make the ‘no creator theory’ that evolution does they have to answer for the existence of matter as well as life.<<
Since TToE makes no such representation, it is on par with its fellow branches of science.
Science is therefor insufficient to explain the origin of matter.
>>So you are claiming Lamarckianism is true?<<
I made no such statement nor can one be inferred from my post(s).
Ah, but it allows you to say “Well, we don’t know what the conditions on this alien planet would be. Perhaps they might make life more probable!”
There is another problem that presents itself however. Let’s say aliens did seed life on earth.
One of the problems evolution has encountered is with each successive discovery, it seems the first life has been pushed further back in time. That shortens the amount of time available for the variables to line up, decreasing the probability.
How many years would an alien species take to evolve to the level of space travel required to reach earth from the nearest possible system? Far longer than earths’ history for sure. So we’re pushing the time back further. And what if life on the alien planet was just as unlikely as here, and was in fact seeded by ANOTHER alien race? With each successive ‘seeding’ the probability would get closer and closer to bumping up against a period where no life could have existed in the universe, period.
I see now this is in the Religion forum.
I shall now retire from the thread at least knowing I have informed lurkers many of us Conservatives do know and embrace science AND do not buy into invented false dichotomies of faith vs. science (there is no conflict).
Have a good day all.
I would fully agree with this statement. Since matter (as we known it) comes into being with the creation of the ‘natural world’, science cannot exceed its bounds to before that time. When the ‘natural world’ begins, science begins. When the ‘natural world’ ends, science ends.
Theory is the highest level of proof in science. Newton’s Laws of Motion were corrected by Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.
Darwin at 22 after leaving Christ’s College, Cambridge, and previously raised in a Unitarian environment, jumped upon the opportunity to join a an evangelical trip abroad on the converted brig ship, the Beagle, to return Christianized natives to Tierra Del Fuego circa 1832, personally financed by his father’s 400 pound annual allowance and labeled himself a self-financed gentleman’s companion to the 26 year old Captain.
The Christian communities at that time believed in the harmony of science and theology, but sought to explain Scripture based upon science, rather than science upon the Providence of God. Cambridge considered his findings more heretical than scientific a he definitely lacked the prior academic background to be considered a postgraduate student at the time. Many of his assertions for transmutation were within several years pointed out as improper identification of well known species and improper labeling, rather than ancient evolutionary evidence.
The consequence of begging the question, placing science before God, simply seeks to justify its premise by reasserting its premise, placing the Creation before the Creator.
Someone wrote a series of statements including:
“Lamarckianism has been shown to be false”
To which you responded:
“Every single statement is scientifically incorrect”
“If physics, geology, chemistry and astronomy are not compelled to answer the question of abiogenesis as a prerequisite, neither is TToE.”
Ok, sure. However, you do need to establish common descent as a prerequisite, which you cannot do.
“And there is no such thing as Darwanism.”
Have you called up Stanford and informed them of this yet? They’re still listing it in their encyclopedia of philosophy as if it was an actual thing!
God didn’t create any man as a leftist. He just gave us free will, and some of us chose to become douchebags.
There is something true in that, within reason. "Science says we are causing our planet to heat up."
Well we all have our crosses to bear....Liberals are one of them.
What troubles me is how scientists who balk at evolution are treated by their peers who espouse the evolutionary line. Reminds me of close-minded liberals.
For a scientist...For the average Joe, not so much...Actually you don't have to know anything about it other than it's the antithesis of Christianity...
1Ti_6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
Evolution is falsely called science...Perhaps God annoys you as well...
There are two ideas, that without the existence of each, I should have become the most ardent of atheists....
The question of the origins of matter and energy which science can not even begin to touch and this premise of Paul’s...”If there be no resurrection of the dead, (including the first born of men, Christ Jesus) then let us eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die!”
Everything about Christianity hinges on the resurrection of Jesus. For it proves God’s love for man and it also supports everything else in the Bible as being true. If Christianity be not truth, then there is no other truth....thus why bother to live righteously, love your neighbor, help the stranger? Life would be nothing but a party, assuming you are the one at the top of the food chain...otherwise life becomes the law of tooth and claw, the survival of the fittest!
Bookmarking to read and share; thanks.
Are you saying God was incapable to create as revealed?
Come on you can do better than that.
Making assumptions without viewing?
A good statement, however nothing of the kind happens in the video.
I believe many Christians who believe in evolution do so because they don’t want to be seen as backward. It’s important to them for others to view them as intellectual, etc.
Personally, I couldn’t care less what people think of me.
Evolution and Christianity do not complement each other. In the New Testament, Jesus said that God created people “in the beginning.” Evolution teaches that humans are a recent arrival in the scheme of things.
Further, the Biblical creation account describes the Garden as a paradise with no death or suffering, until the fall. Evolution teaches millions of years of bloodshed among animals before mankind arrived. Evolution says death, suffering, and pain brought man into existence; the Bible says man’s sinful actions led to death. The two are completely contradictory.
Scripture says that God ended the work of Creation after He made it. It’s not still in the process of being finished and perfected. Right now the world and everything in it are under the curse that resulted from mans’ fall-—groaning in pain, waiting for God to restore it.
Upon finishing His work of creation, God looked on it and pronounced it “good.” But how could He, a holy, loving God, have called it that if He required millions of years of suffering and dying to finish it? That’s not what we know God’s nature to be.
The problem is that we have no way to understand the concept of eternity.
According to Darwinist William Provine and conservative Evangelicals one cannot correctly hold both views.
Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with deterministic principles or chance. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable. The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false. William B. Provine, Progress in Evolution and Meaning in Life, in Evolutionary Progress, ed. Matthew H. Nitecki (University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 65
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.