Saturday, October 15, 2005

Theistic Evolution – Not Possible

Christians cannot believe in both Evolution and Creationism. If some do, they are compromising their principals, either consciously or without realizing it.

Paul, in speaking about the different species returning to their maker, said the following: “But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, and another of fishes, and another of birds.” ( 1 Cor. 15:38-39)

The problem of a fish or a bird becoming human is just as impossible as iron becoming gold.

We are in our maker’s image. The Law of Probability says that even if it were possible, it would take more time than the age of the earth to evolve from a fish that swam onto the shore and then through this leap of faith the fish grew legs, etc, etc, until it became a human being. Again this is saying even if it were possible, and I don't believe it is.

It is obvious that God wants to remain unrevealed. This means that we will never discover the truth about the beginning of human life until God again revels himself. However just as Jesus was rejected when he was on this earth approximately 2000 years ago, we would probably reject him if he came amongst us again today.

The Scriptures tell us that God created each species separately, each after its own kind. The Scriptures also tell us that Adam was the first man.

I am sure that some of what is presented in Evolution Theory has some basis, but not the overall Theory. There is no organic evolution.

If it is Science then this process should be demonstrable and it of course is not, therefore by the definition of Science if it cannot be predicted or repeated then it can only be speculated. This means it does not fit the rules of being Science.

However, the only real way to debate this subject is to use Science to inspect the claims and determine if indeed Science actually agrees with the claims.

This book Icons of Evolution actually deals with the subject without any religious references.

Here is just one of the many reviews from the above link:

“I must admit that reading this book was somewhat shocking. I had expected to see rehashed creationist arguments about the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. On the contrary, nothing Wells says depends on creationist ideas. He has collected evidence from the mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific literature, and combined them into a compelling case against what we might call "textbook Darwinism." This might be a trivial accomplishment, since the record of high school and college textbooks is generally dismal. But his cumulative argument seems to me devastating to orthodox Neo-Darwinism, since it just is textbook Darwinism. Wells discusses the famous comparative vertebrate embryo diagrams-- which should be an embarrassment to any textbook author who includes them--the fallacious way homology is used for evidence of common ancestry, the collapse of the story of Peppered Moths, Darwin's finches, and many more pieces of the Darwinist lore. By the time I was finished, I had lost faith in almost everything I thought I knew about evolution. I now suspect that Darwin will soon join company with Marx and Freud.
I'm not sure what I believe at this point, but I can no longer buy the official story. I don't know if I agree with some of Wells' recommendations in his conclusion, but something clearly has to be done. Hysterical defenses of falsified "evidence" by Darwinian disciples at Talk.Origins and elsewhere convinces me that they didn't see this coming, and won't be able to deal with the actual facts involved.”


And yet another good review from the amazon.com link:


“This is the first book I've read on evolution that actually uses "science" to examine the evidence for or against the theory. (I've read many on both sides of the fence) Science being evidence based. Wells certainly has the scientific credentials to do this and certainly more qualified than most of us to examine this evidence and make assertions based such evidence or lack thereof. The central theme of the book examines the main "Icons of Evolution" that the defenders of the theory call upon to show that evolution has been proven or at least demonstrated by the preponderance of the evidence. When someone asserts that evolution is a "fact" or has been "proven" they typically use one or more or all of these "Icons". They are briefly:


1. The Miller-Urey Experiment
2. Darwin's Tree of Life
3. Homology
4. Haekel's Embryos
5. Archaeopteryx
6. The Peppered Moths
7. Darwin's Finches
8. Four winged Fruit Flies
9. Fossil horses and their evolution
10. Ape to Man (the famous ascendancy drawing)

Wells scrutinizes these icons and pretty much explodes them all. The real fact here is that none of these icons support Darwin's theory - even the ones that aren't faked ( like the peppered moths or Haekel's Embryos). One example I can sum up refers to the origins of life and the Miller-Urey experiment; if we don't know what conditions existed, or what conditions are necessary, and can't reproduce the event in the laboratory, and can't show it to be statistically probable-why are we so very sure that it happened? Such evidence would not hold up in court, and sure won't satisfy the requirements for a science.”

There we have it. These reviews pretty much sum up my feelings based upon what I had already discovered myself. Of course I had not come up with near the evidence that Mr. Wells has, nor do I want to imply I have made any exhaustive study, but my conclusions are similar to those of the reviewers above.



20 Comments:

At 7:34 PM, Blogger Roseville Conservative said...

AMEN!!!

Check out www.icr.org, great site for stuff like this.

Also, thanks a ton for your support on my blog.

 
At 8:43 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

RC,

My pleasure!


FAR.

 
At 9:56 PM, Blogger Roseville Conservative said...

You are appreciated, my friend.

 
At 11:02 AM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

FAR -

Here's a Libertarian who agrees with you on the ID issue.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed80.html

 
At 11:33 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

ii,

I loved it! :)

The Church of Evolution!

Burn the heritics... :)


FAR.

 
At 12:09 PM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

I thought you would. I thought of you as I was reading it. :-)

My favorite part was the point that teaching about Greek mythology didn't inspire students to make sacrifices at Athena's altar. My only comment to that is that Greek mythology is not taught in science class.

 
At 5:08 PM, Blogger Stalin the Shark said...

In all this talk about Jesus and Greeks, people overlook the far more relevant contemporary revelation of The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which has been endorsed by far more scientists than creationism, er, ID.

:-), StS

 
At 9:04 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

sts,

Does the FSM church have a Bible?

Many things are taken on faith and have no other proof than witnesses.

My Great-Great Grandfather had witnesses who wrote about him. I believe he existed. No one knows where he is buried and there are no other artifacts around to "prove" he existed. It can't be proven with science that he existed, but I have faith that he did.

God had people who wrote about him and witnessed that he existed. We have the writings of these witnesses as the books of the Old Testament.

Jesus had people who wrote about him and his miracles. One was a Roman Jew named Flavius Josephus who was commanded by the Romans to record secular history around 70 AD.

Many others wrote about him and we have these writings in the New Testament. Are we to believe all of these people are part of a giant conspiracy, and anyone in history who cannot be proved by science, is therefore no more valid than a Spaghetti Monster.

I did have a good laugh, but ID does have actual good sound people who are not kooks believing it has merit.

Again thanks for the laugh.

:)

FAR.

 
At 4:25 PM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

FAR - you have evidence that your grandfather existed. You. But for gramps, one of your parents would not have been born and the world would not have you.

I don't think there is a dispute that Jesus existed. My hangups with the doctrine are that much of the stuff in the Bible is not from Jesus' mouth. Much of the stuff was not written contemporaneously. And, most people aren't good at recording what they heard yesterday, let alone what their forefathers heard 200 years earlier. How are we to trust those witnesses?

And, even if we do trust them in the original language, how do we know that translations are correct? If there are differences between the Greek Bible and the NIV Bible, which do you accept?

Also, evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive. Natural selection is practiced everyday in breeding animals; breeding of slaves was practiced in the time when America was supposedly Christian, moral and righteous. Evolution is not simply the idea that man evolved from some lesser organism (that's far fetched). It includes concepts of adaptation to environment and natural selection, which are not at odds with religious teachings. The differences in physical features between a Chinese person, a Scandinavian and an African are not answered by religion, but they are explained by evolution.

In any event, I like the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory. I was hoping Fool would provide my laugh for the day, but Stalin stepped up to the plate. :-)

 
At 9:04 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

ii,

ii said: "The differences in physical features between a Chinese person, a Scandinavian and an African are not answered by religion, but they are explained by evolution."

- not answered by religion...

I think that there is one religious explaination and that is what happened at the "Tower of Babal."

At the time of the Tower of Babal, all humans not only looked alike, but they talked the same language.

God realized that when you have big populations, you have big problems with morality, and crime. Smaller rural areas tend to be more stable and more peaceful.

So, he made different groups talk and look different so they would disperse. The asians would look for their kind and move away, the African people would look for their kind and move away, the Scandinavian's would look for their kind and move away, etc.

"AND the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech." (Gen 11:1)

"Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth." (Gen 11:9)

"Evolution is not simply the idea that man evolved from some lesser organism (that's far fetched)."

I am pleased that you also believe that the origin of the human species is far fetched. I think that concept takes more faith than does creationism.


FAR.

 
At 9:07 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

P.S.

I am not saying that parts of the "Theory" of Evolution doesn't have truth. I am sure some of it does.

But Truth is Truth, and Scientific and Religious Truth should never conflict and if I have to choose, I choose the one that is always solid instead of the one that is "admittly changing" with every new discovery.

FAR.

 
At 9:21 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

Oh, a couple of more things.

I know that my ancestors existed because I am here, but I was trying to say that other than that, what scientific proof do we have?

As far a contemporary writings go, the first 5 books of the Bible were writen by Moses, and the New Testament was written by the Apostles. That is contemporary.

The differences between the Greek and King James or NIV, etc, are minor and seldom change the meaning of the Context. It may change a few word definitions, but the context is still the same in almost every case.

It is like trying 50 years from now to translate the word "cool." In some texts it would be translated as "neat" while in others it would be translated as "low temperture when touched" but when placed in context, it would become readily apparent.


FAR.

 
At 1:03 PM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

FAR -

Even if God confounded the languages and spread everyone around the earth, couldn't physical evolution via adaptation still occur? That verse doesn't say God changed their physical features - just the languages.

You'll either be amused or offended by my current post on the topic. :-)

 
At 1:31 PM, Blogger Stalin the Shark said...

FAR,

since we're talking about 'science', the bible doesn't really matter in that context. The Flying Spaghetti Monster thesis needs to be taken on faith - just like ID.

If the bible is to be taken as science, then I'd like to see the scientific experiments that prove a creator. BTW, ID doesn't speculate about who the intelligence is, officially; they also postulate it could have been space aliens.

And now, please clarify if Eve was made out of mud, or cut from Adam's rib; which of the two stories is correct? Both can not be.

:-), StS

 
At 5:01 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

sts,

I am sure that you understand the term "Metaphor" and that when Jesus said we are his "sheep", he didn't really mean it literally.

I think that Adam and Eve have atoms and molecules/elements just like all matter and metaphorically, you could say they and we were created from the earth/elements, but we both know that is too simplistic.

It is interesting that men have one less rib than women do if I remember my biology correctly, but I don’t believe that Eve was created from a rib except metaphorically speaking.

Who knows how Adam and Eve were created, there are lots of options and none of them have to be by organic evolution, that to me requires more faith than creation does. The law of probability says it is in all practical means impossible for it to be by chance.


FAR.

 
At 5:07 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

ii,

I will admit that it is possible that features can be part of adaptation. Perhaps God used that to do the changing.

I just know that truth is truth and science truth and religious truth should never be at odds. Again tho, if they are I like the one that has been consistant in it's truth, and not the one that changes with every new discovery.


FAR.

 
At 5:41 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

sts,

I don't think the Bible should be taken as science. It is not meant to be.

What people are trying to say is that the "Theory of Evolution" has so many scientists who doubt it and it also requires faith.


FAR.

 
At 10:02 PM, Blogger Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

10 23 05

Hello:
I am late to the discussion and have seen your blog from Craig DeLuz's blog. I like your witt. But in this case, I agree with II; evolution could have been a means through which different species developed, but God could have CREATED THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. How is the fossil record explained? Since I study physics, I see so very much order in the universe in everyday things all the way down to particle physics. When I think that the universe began time and space began, the question of what existed before it has no merit. I think God is so infinite in extent and grandeur that we can not possibly comprehend all the of vehicles that he uses to accomplish his will. I think that some Christians need to open up their eyes and see that the Bible doesn't contain ALL information related to God's knowledge; as NO BOOK IS CAPABLE OF HAVING ALL OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD; THAT IS WHAT GOT DR. FAUST INTO TROUBLE! So what I mean is that I disagree with your statement that Christians can't believe in God and in evolution at the same time; not true. God is capable of using any means to accomplish his goals! Good and thought provoking post btw! :)

 
At 12:36 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

mahndisa,

I think that God could use some of evolution but not the organic evolution because it disagrees with the Bible.

Truth is Truth and it cannot disagree. When it does, I pick the Bibile's Truth first, because the Science Truth changes.


FAR.

 
At 7:45 AM, Blogger clyde said...

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writer held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertions.

Example:
“But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, and another of fishes, and another of birds.” ( 1 Cor. 15:38-39)

This is a quote from Saint Augustine which sums up my opinion regarding ID.

I belive that someone can believe in evoluion and the bible without sacrificing the integrity of the bible. I also believe that there are biblical truths and scientific truths. The two does not need to contradict. However, if your interpretation of the bible does contradict with scientific truth, that's when you have a problem.

If you just look at evolution, and overlook all the nonsense that has been fed by some secular scientists which they claim as an implication of evolution, then it's just another scientific theory. They're so called implication is not science but a belief about science.

I don't deny though that it is the same case with theistic evolutionism. But this belief does not in any way contradict with the bible. (At least to my perspective.)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home