Evolution and the Last Supper

This article really speaks my heart. I don't at all mind saying I think evolution theory is sheer madness and likely the greatest deception in human history.

The phenomenon of irreducible complexity nailed the coffin shut on this pipe-dream long ago, IMO.

Science falsely called, it remains a theory to this day, while seemingly held and preached as self-evident truth.

The day will declare it.

Thanks much for this fine article.

When science becomes an opposition to God and is in err concerning the faith is when it begins to think above (beyond) that which is written, then is when it is false. As for secular commentaries, theories, and their portrayal of how they think about God; to the believer it ought to be irrelevant, because as believers we do be live God´s Word which tells us that the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, and therefore we are in agreement with God and His Word, seeing that we believe. They of the world speak of the world, and the world hears them; but they who are of God hears God´s Word, and hears none other.

Originally Posted by IMINXTC

This article really speaks my heart. I don't at all mind saying I think evolution theory is sheer madness and likely the greatest deception in human history.

The phenomenon of irreducible complexity nailed the coffin shut on this pipe-dream long ago, IMO.

Science falsely called, it remains a theory to this day, while seemingly held and preached as self-evident truth.

The day will declare it.

Thanks much for this fine article.

Thank you for your kind words and encouragement. I've always found it amusing that atheists scoff at the notion of an eternal, self-existant Creator as irrational and illogical, yet see no problem with endowing an undesigned universe with those very attributes. It's easy to study the building blocks of gentic design, while denying a Designer. But at some point, you have to deal with where the building blocks came from. And that's where atheists must ultimately admit that rely on faith as much as creationists do. The only real difference is, they don't know what they have in.

The word "science" means knowledge. And science as it exists in opposition to faith in God, began in the garden of Eden when man chose to gain the knowledge to choose for himself what is right or wrong, rather than trusting in the truth of God's word. The lost continue to choose that same dark road to destruction today, rather than follow the lighted path into God's presence, illuminated by the truth of His Word.

There is a serious problem with your allegory. A picture is not alive; it does not reproduce. It is not subject to mutation or gene duplication or retroviruses over multiple generations, because there are no multiple generations. Evolution doesn't claim that billions of genes randomly flowed into place, it claims that they were guided there by the forces of environment. I'm sorry to argue, but you are putting forth an argument that can only fail with scrutiny, and why should be arm ourselves with tin swords when we have God on our side?

Ultimately, God is the base cause and source of all things, and everything that exists is a purposeful creation of Him. God is capable of working through both natural and supernatural means to accomplish His will - as we see every day through the miracle of childbirth, or the weather, or in every other amazing fact of our life that has a natural cause. No natural process, including evolution, can change that fact, and none can point anywhere but inevitably to God.

Originally Posted by crawfish

There is a serious problem with your allegory. A picture is not alive; it does not reproduce. It is not subject to mutation or gene duplication or retroviruses over multiple generations, because there are no multiple generations. Evolution doesn't claim that billions of genes randomly flowed into place, it claims that they were guided there by the forces of environment. I'm sorry to argue, but you are putting forth an argument that can only fail with scrutiny, and why should be arm ourselves with tin swords when we have God on our side?

Ultimately, God is the base cause and source of all things, and everything that exists is a purposeful creation of Him. God is capable of working through both natural and supernatural means to accomplish His will - as we see every day through the miracle of childbirth, or the weather, or in every other amazing fact of our life that has a natural cause. No natural process, including evolution, can change that fact, and none can point anywhere but inevitably to God.

This is sometimes claimed as a weakness in Paley's argument as well. However, the analogy is not about life as much as it is about design, or even the mechanisms of design. Thus, a nature that can produce life and/or evolve life by natural mechanisms which then lend said life certain components for specific functions that appear to have been designed, might actually imply a designer. Said another way, a nature that can do all of that might certainly imply a designer of that nature. After all, just because a human artist painted the "Last Supper", it is actually a product of nature, no?

You even stated as much in your post: "God is capable of working through both natural and supernatural means to accomplish His will". Do you mean to say that God is working undetected and invisibly? Or is your statment merely eyewash? (Not meaning anything by that last question really, just that there is a difference in non-theistic naturalism, or materialism, and what you propose.)

I believe that God works mostly through invisible means; He established the laws of nature, and they bend to His will. Whether or not He constantly tinkers or manipulates creation into doing what He wants, or he simply kicks off processes, doesn't matter; like a row of dominoes falling, He knows that the inevitable result is His will. That being said, I don't know why He'd need to constantly tinker with something if He had established it and it could not act against His will; that would almost seem to imply an inability on His part to get things right the first time. God has to work supernaturally at times because we, as agents of free will, have the right to muck things up.

I am not a "naturalist" in the sense that I believe nature in itself is sufficient to explain everything. I guess I am in the sense that God uses nature to accomplish His will in the world, and it is every bit as much evidence of His glory as the greatest supernatural miracle.

While I appreciate your feedback, I think you missed my point. The article was not meant to be a scientifically sound parallel to evolutionary processes, but an analogy to illustrate the impossibility of random chance being responsible for the existence of the material universe itself.

There is tremendous difference between the principles of Evolution and those of Cosmology, my friend, and the latter is what I was addressing: the origin of the building blocks, not the mechanics of how they come together to facilitate progressive changes in life forms--how DNA and genetic encoding originated, not how they work.

Scientists have been able to decipher the human genome, dabble in recombinant DNA, and even clone life forms. They study and analyze the inner workings of a clearly brilliant design, yet deny there was a Designer.

And when all is said and done, those who mock faith in a Creator, have only faith in their theories as to what forces produced the original materials, and wrote the complex instructional code. They rely on random chance and billions of years as the only alternate explanation for our existence. That was the point.

I do agree with that.

Great analogy and well written, Sojourner; enjoyed it.
Since you brought it up: A fact not commonly realized (and often intentionally withheld) is that the complete title of Darwin's discourse is not "The Origin of Species", but "The Origin of Species. by means of Natural Selection, Or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life "....a 'politically incorrect' omission which is rarely mentioned by evolutionists and when the omssion is revealed, causes them to bristle with contempt.

Faithful One

Originally Posted by Faithful One

Great analogy and well written, Sojourner; enjoyed it.
Since you brought it up: A fact not commonly realized (and often intentionally withheld) is that the complete title of Darwin's discourse is not "The Origin of Species", but "The Origin of Species. by means of Natural Selection, Or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life "....a 'politically incorrect' omission which is rarely mentioned by evolutionists and when the omssion is revealed, causes them to bristle with contempt.

Faithful One

Thank you, Faithful One. I actually didn't know about the full title of Darwin's work, and its racial connotation. But I know that a "survival of the fittest" mindset undergirded much of the dehumanization, exploitation, and even attempted extermination of various peoples throughout history. Adolph Hitler drew upon those principles in seeing the need to eliminate "inferior" races from the gene pool, as did George Bernard Shaw and Margaret Sanger (the patron saint of Planned Parenthood).

But regarding origins, it's both amazing and amusing that brilliant, scientific minds can irrationally attribute the universe and its intricate, complex systems to sheer, dumb luck--even as they ridicule Creationism as irrational.

Most acknowledge a design, at least in principle, yet deny a Designer. And they do so, to avoid acknowledging a Creator, which would require them to admit to something greater than their own god of human intellect. I've had dialogue with atheists, and nothing makes them angrier than pointing out that belief in unproven (and unprovable) theories about the origin of the universe is no less a reliance on "faith" than belief in a Creator.

"But regarding origins, it's both amazing and amusing that brilliant, scientific minds can irrationally attribute the universe and its intricate, complex systems to sheer, dumb luck--even as they ridicule Creationism as irrational"


The most complex concept I could imagine would be an all powerful deity yet you are more than happy to believe that this deity just exists because it exists, without need for causality.
If everything requires a creator then why does this rule not reply to the creator itself ?
This is extremely hypocritical and I doubt you've ever had any real dialogue with an atheist.

Originally Posted by Edwin Hubble

The most complex concept I could imagine would be an all powerful deity yet you are more than happy to believe that this deity just exists because it exists, without need for causality.
If everything requires a creator then why does this rule not reply to the creator itself ?
This is extremely hypocritical and I doubt you've ever had any real dialogue with an atheist.

Hey Edwin. I just wanted to insert that the reasoning goes something like this. IF a law of first cause exists, then ipso facto that law must itself have been brought into existence. So of course, on the face of it, there would be no need for causality for that which brings the law of causality into existence.

Originally Posted by watchinginawe

Hey Edwin. I just wanted to insert that the reasoning goes something like this. IF a law of first cause exists, then ipso facto that law must itself have been brought into existence. So of course, on the face of it, there would be no need for causality for that which brings the law of causality into existence.

An infinite Universe is more likely.

Originally Posted by Edwin Hubble

"But regarding origins, it's both amazing and amusing that brilliant, scientific minds can irrationally attribute the universe and its intricate, complex systems to sheer, dumb luck--even as they ridicule Creationism as irrational"

The most complex concept I could imagine would be an all powerful deity yet you are more than happy to believe that this deity just exists because it exists, without need for causality.
If everything requires a creator then why does this rule not reply to the creator itself ?
This is extremely hypocritical and I doubt you've ever had any real dialogue with an atheist.

I have had the discussions I refer to, sir, and they inevitably bog down with the other party saying exactly what you're saying now: "If God created everything, explain where He came from."

I'll tell you what I told them: I can't explain God. I readily admit that my belief in an eternal Creator is a matter of faith. One cannot believe in something that has been conclusively proven, because faith and proof are mutually exclusive.

Yet, do you possess the intellectual honesty to admit that what you believe about the origin of the universe (or its lack of origin, depending on your perspective), is also predicated on faith? For that is how one must ultimately define a belief in something currently unproven and unprovable.

I can easily turn both your argument and charge of hypocrisy around on you: you readily accept an eternal, self-existent universe, yet reject a Creator possessing those attributes, as irrational. Explain how you see a designed universe as more logical than an undesigned one.

Either the universe is the work of a Creator, or the work of an impersonal, nameless, "something" from nowhere. Both of these are infinite concepts beyond the grasp of our finite minds, and it's up to each individual to choose which seems more rational.

I choose to believe in an uncreated Causer rather than "uncaused" causality. I choose to believe that the design I see all around me is the work of a Designer. I suspect you have only a vague notion of what you believe in, and more certain of what you don't believe in.

evolution is just a big lie that is put out by the devil to disrupt the christians i fell that it is very wrong in all it says

Originally Posted by Sojourner55

...
... I know that a "survival of the fittest" mindset undergirded much of the dehumanization, exploitation, and even attempted extermination of various peoples throughout history. Adolph Hitler drew upon those principles in seeing the need to eliminate "inferior" races from the gene pool, as did George Bernard Shaw and Margaret Sanger (the patron saint of Planned Parenthood).

Good point and the veracity of your statement is apparently the very reason evolutionists avoid the use of the full title.

Thanks for the response.

But regarding origins, it's both amazing and amusing that brilliant, scientific minds can irrationally attribute the universe and its intricate, complex systems to sheer, dumb luck--

DUMB luck -- Great description of the theory of evolution.

I've had dialogue with atheists, and nothing makes them angrier than pointing out that belief in unproven (and unprovable) theories about the origin of the universe is no less a reliance on "faith" than belief in a Creator.

Wanna make them angrier? Bring up the fact that evolution theory, by their OWN definition, doesn't even qualify as SCIENCE:

Evolution:
Not observable
Not repeatable
Not testable
NOT SCIENCE.


Faithful

Originally Posted by Faithful One

Good point and the veracity of your statement is apparently the very reason evolutionists avoid the use of the full title.

What full title is that?

Originally Posted by Faithful One

DUMB luck -- Great description of the theory of evolution.

As long as you're dead set against confronting the idea rationally.

Originally Posted by Faithful One

Wanna make them angrier? Bring up the fact that evolution theory, by their OWN definition, doesn't even qualify as SCIENCE:

Evolution:
Not observable
Not repeatable
Not testable
NOT SCIENCE.

Also not a very accurate definition of either science or evolution, but I have question. Why would you WANT to make them agry in the first place? Is your goal to hurt their feelings or to champion "truth"?

Originally Posted by HisLeast

What full title is that?

Way to jump right in there without knowing what's going on, Hisleast. Try READING the previous posts before trying to jump into a discussion of which you know nothing about.

Why would you WANT to make them angry in the first place?
Is your goal to hurt their feelings or to champion "truth"?

Your post makes it very clear that Truth OFFENDS and makes angry those who reject it... and trying to impune my motives won't help your case to "prove" evolution theory one bit.

Is it your goal to start an argument or to find the truth ?
Again; by interrupting and mis-interpreting my post to Sojourner apparently the later is not the case.

Try reading Sojourner's post if you want to interact with any intelligence.
Meantime why don't you let Soujouner reply to the post addressed to him.

Faithful

Originally Posted by Faithful One

Way to jump right in their without knowing what's going on, Hisleast. Try READING the previous posts before trying to jump into a discussion of which you know nothing about.

I did try reading, but I am still uncertain as to what title you're refering to. Instead of rolling your eyes, perhaps attempt answering an honest question honestly.

Originally Posted by Faithful One

Your post makes it very clear that Truth OFFENDS and makes angry those who reject it...

Then why not let "the truth" stand on its own? Why must you attempt to go out of your way to "make them even angrier"? Does it make you feel good, having a group of people you feel justified in hating?

Originally Posted by Faithful One

Is it you goal to start an argument or to find the truth ?

When it comes to these kinds of discussions, the search for truth is hopeless, given the amount of character assassination and unmitigated hostility.

Originally Posted by Faithful One

Again; by interrupting and mis-interpreting my post to Sojourner apparently the later is not the case.

Try reading Sojourner's post if you want to interact with any intelligence.
Meantime why don't you let Soujouner reply to the post addressed to him.

This is a message board. If the concept is unfamiliar to you, anyone is allowed to post in the thread at any time. Its not interruption, and my post does not prevent Sojourner from posting in the slightest. You may insult my intelligence at your leisure. It only serves to prove my guess that you care more about condemning someone else than promoting something you feel is true.