Evolution vs Creation : # 1 Introduction
Evolution vs Creation : # 1 Introduction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cpNjyVvqK0&feature=related
Lie #1
“Evolution is a scientific fact…and the Bible relies on blind faith.”
Darwin’s own doubts about his ideas, in his own words:
Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?
The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.
. . . more
Friday 09 May 2008 | Banescu | Intelligent design, Videos |
Amazing to hear that there is zero evidence in the fossil records to back up the Darwinist theories. This little bit of information is completely hidden from the people and covered up by the propaganda from the media, scientific and educational establishments. Outrageous how the “transitional creatures” depicted in textbooks are made up and invented by artists rather then being backed by solid and confirmed evidence, they’re more like science fiction than science fact.
As Banescu pointed out, these people are the true Secularist Fanatics demanding adherence to their ideas based only on blind faith. Boy have these cult followers pulled the wool over the world’s eyes. It’s time the curtain came down and the truth be known.
Actually, there’s a lot of dissent and debate even among evolutionists. There are all kinds of competing theories about facets of evolution. So I don’t know if it’s accurate to say they’re all fanatics adhering to blind faith.
It’s perhaps worth mentioning that this documentary purports to debunk not just evolution, but also every other world religion besides Christianity.
There are two questions I would like to ask the supporters of ID:
1) what would count as evidence for evolution (or “Darwinism” as it is called here)? In other words, give an example of something that would convince you that evolution is true.
2) what would count as evidence against ID? In other words, give an example of something that would convince you that ID is false.
It is difficult to have a meaningful discussion without knowing what would count as evidence for or against either position.
Yes Phil, Christianity is true! I know this must be a shock to you, but Christ came to reveal the full Truth about God and reality. Other religions have a portion of that truth or grasp a slice of the full reality Christ revealed, but they also carry alot of mistaken beliefs, some are heresies, and some are plain fantasy.
Here’s how C.S. Lewis summarized it in his De Futilitate essay in the Christian Reflections book:
Hi Banescu,
I didn’t mean that as a swipe against Christianity. Generally, I try to avoid debating the truth or falsity of Christianity itself on boards like this. (In large part because I don’t think “truth” or “falsity” of Christianity can be proven, but also because I just don’t want to.) So, for example, I might maintain that evolution happened, but I don’t put that forth as evidence that God doesn’t exist, or that the Resurrection must not have happened, because I don’t really think that–even if evolution did occur–it disproves those particular beliefs.
However, I do think, in critiquing this documentary, that it’s important to view it in context: it’s a film that purports that “scientific proof” exists, not just for creation, but for all of the Bible. That’s a hell of a claim, and I don’t think most Christians would claim that there’s “scientific proof” and “evidence” that everything in the Bible is true.
Jim, you attempt to make equivalent knowledge of a living reality (God) for an empirically constructed pseudo-reality (non-God) and expect us to give you something that would be sufficient to trade the reality for the fantasy. How about insanity?
You routinely reject every piece of evidence that overwhelmingly leads to the Triune God and the Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ. It is only logical for me to do the same for your ‘evidence’
As I have pointed out over and over, it is not the ‘evidence’ that matters anyway, it is the cosmology one accepts and in which one believes. You are right on one thing. There can be no dialog between such two divergent cosmologies as each and every word means something entirely different depending upon the cosmology in which the words and subsequent thoughts are embeded.
You prefer the truncated cosmology of modern empiricism. Why you or anyone prefers to place such artificial and unnessary limits on one’s self is wholly beyond my comprehension when there is an infinite reality that one can inhabit and be nurtured by. Of course, it is far easier to live within tight limits that require little in the way of personal response than it is to accept and live in the Word of God, i.e, Jesus Christ, not the Bible. Unfortunately, the fact that most who attempt the way of Christ fail at it miserably, especially me, make it difficult for others to even attempt. However, the fact of my failure does not invalidate the Truth: God is and He is Incarnate. The Word is made flesh in the Person of Jesus Christ and in the visible universe we are able to perceive. “In Him we live and move and have our being”.
It is frequently asserted that acceptance of the cosmology of the Incarnate Logos prevents the study of the creation. Absurd! In fact, just the opposite is true. Pharisitical religion whether it is labled ‘Christian’ or ‘Science’ does block the exploration of reality. When we are able to worship the Creator more than the creation, the truth if revealed, not until then. All of mankind’s idol making leave us in darkness. In the modern world what is called science has become a system of idolatry that violates human beings and leads to the degradation of the rest of creation.
No ‘evidence’ will convince me to follow that path, only my own unrepentant life.
Michael writes: “As I have pointed out over and over, it is not the ‘evidence’ that matters anyway, it is the cosmology one accepts and in which one believes.”
Michael, you may have missed this, but on the “Ben Stein” thread, post #18, I quoted from Athanasius (giving you due credit for having pointed me to his ‘On the Incarnation.’) I then wrote
In other words, for the Christian, the divine nature of creation is something that is understood through revelation, not science. The assumption behind intelligent design is that the divine nature of creation can be demonstrated through science. In effect it is a materialistic argument for something that can only be understood through revelation.
Fr. Hans took issue with some of my terminology, but my point was that in traditional Christianity what the universe is all about is a matter of faith, not science. I believed that when I wrote it, and I believe it now.
But — then the discussion in a couple of the evolution/ID threads turned to the issue of evidence against or for evolution/ID. So I’m like, great, if people want to talk evidence, let’s talk evidence.
But here’s where it gets confusing for me. If it’s all a matter of faith, and of holding a particular cosmological worldview that follows from faith, why does any Orthodox Christian even bother with evidence, intelligent design, etc.? Or — if scientific evidence really is relevant, then why the appeal to faith to the exclusion of evidence?
You see what I mean? This is one case in which I think the “home team” should have a discussion about that issue, and I would be happy to sit on the sidelines in silence and see what people have to say.
Michael: “Unfortunately, the fact that most who attempt the way of Christ fail at it miserably, especially me…”
Dude, for what it’s worth, I think you have a very profound understanding of Christianity and even if I disagree with you I always take what you say very seriously. If Michael Bauman says “read this,” I read it. I have a couple of “liberal” friends who read the blog but never post, and they both say that your posts are the most interesting. So maybe you’re doing something right after all. Best wishes.
Jim, I don’t personally think that what is called “Intelligent Design” is particularly compatable with traditional Christianity. I bother with science because it is another way of exploring the intricacies of the Creation, of using what God has given us personally to explore the beauty and wonder of the rest of His work. It also is part of the way in which we can fulfill our job, to dress and keep the earth; to care for everything and everybody the way we are supposed to as knowing instruments of God’s grace. Christian faith is neither blind nor irrational, in fact just the opposite. However, it is not exactly empirical either though it can have an empirical dimension to it.
The issue here is one of faith, i.e., in what or whom do we, as human beings, place our faith. We are made creatures of faith. We will place that faith in the God who created us out of love for love, or we will place it in something else. When we place our faith in something other than God, we change ourselves for the worse. As the change takes effect, everything around us changes also, conformed to our diseased will. Death and destruction are the result as they are the fruit of sin.
Finally, just because I have a little knowledge about the Church and Her teachings does not mean I live them as I should. To paraphrase: if I don’t have love I am just a clanging cymble. What ever is gracious in what I write is solely due to God’s grace, not me. Sometimes I manage to get out of the way a little.
Note 7. Jim asks:
Jim, all cosmological views follow from “faith” — using your definition of the term. There is simply no way to get away from this, which is to say there is no way to avoid meta-physis (above the physical/material), if we want to address the deeper questions (purpose, meaning, morality, etc.).
Science cannot speak to this dimension of human life and experience. Yet this dimension of experience is inextricably bound to the material dimension as well.
Thus, I think the dichotomy implied in the question that somehow faith and science are two different dimensions, ultimately irreconciliable, is not true. It springs from the heady days of optimism in science, the unbounded faith in scientific naturalism, prevalent from Darwin’s era until it’s gradual erosion beginning with WWI and culminating in the Gulags, but still prevalent in the academy in particular.
Turning this around, not as a challenge but as an observation. I spent some serious time earlier this week checking our Richard Dawkin’s web site. I must say that he attacks Christianity with evangelical ferver. Frequently he called on philosophy/metaphysics rather than science when speaking of the deeper things that ultimately lie beyond the purview of science — but which he rather uncritically infers is “scientific” thinking.
IOW, for someone who does not believe in a metaphysical reality, or perhaps as one, like Sagan for example, who believes life can exist on other planets etc. (the material universe given an infinite dimension and possibility — materialist eternity?), he sure spends a lot of time trying to debunk the “diety” that he says does not exist.
What I find interesting is the fact that “Darwinists”, atheists, scientists, et al, want verfiable evidence for the existence of God, as if created methods can be used to study the un-created.
As a student of Christian Apologetics, brilliant arguments have been made in defense of the Christian Faith, using the historical record, original documents, and the like. These arguments, great as they may be, only demonstrate that the Bible is not some made up fantasy book like the Book of Mormon. Yet I believe faith goes beyond that.
St. Metroplitan Antony Khrapovitsky wrote that evidential apologetics are not the answer since we know that even in the NT we read of hundreds of people who actually saw Jesus, heard His words, saw His miracles, and did not believe. Maybe this is why Jesus told St. Thomas in the gospel of St. Luke, “Blessed are they who have not seen, yet believe.”
DavidS, I wouldn’t put scientists into this category because science, properly understood, can’t reach into the deeper questions (purpose, meaning, values), and there are a lot of good scientists. Put another way, God, like many constituents of human experience, such as love, beauty, coherence, etc. remains unquantifiable and non-empirical. He won’t be “proved” just like love, beauty, coherence, etc. can’t be (although they, like God, can certainly be known through human experience).
For this reason science will never “prove” a Designer either, which is to say that although ID points to a designer because design implies a Designer, it can’t prove the existence of the Designer for the same reasons given above.
Which brings us back to narrative. Only narrative provides the conceptual ground for making sense of the world and our place in it. The Darwinian hypothesis in my view functions on this level, although I would argue it is shallow in meaning and scope. Genesis is much more sophisticated dealing as it does with time, morals, etc. It really is a profound book. Further, I would argue that no person can live without this foundational narrative, whatever it may be.
So what’s the most powerful thing in the world? A word spoken in truth, which is to say a word that flows from the Word made flesh. Look at the effect of Solzhenitsyn’s Gulags on Marxism for example. It decimated it. Or for that matter, Paul’s Gospel on the pagan (and in some ways sophisticated) world. It overturned it. Remarkable events actually.
Michael writes: “Finally, just because I have a little knowledge about the Church and Her teachings does not mean I live them as I should.”
I’m sure you are in good company, among whom is the Apostle Paul. Whatever your faults or failings, for what it’s worth I always enjoy your posts and think you are basically a good person. So whatever you’re doing, please keep on doing it.
Fr. Hans writes: “Thus, I think the dichotomy implied in the question that somehow faith and science are two different dimensions, ultimately irreconciliable, is not true.”
They are different dimensions, but not ultimately irreconcilable. In that sense I like Steven Jay Gould’s idea that they are “non-overlapping magesteria [NOMA].” Consider this from Gould:
I believe, with all my heart, in a respectful, even loving concordat between our magisteria—the NOMA solution. NOMA represents a principled position on moral and intellectual grounds, not a mere diplomatic stance. NOMA also cuts both ways. If religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions properly under the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world’s empirical constitution. This mutual humility has important practical consequences in a world of such diverse passions.
Fr. Hans: “I spent some serious time earlier this week checking our Richard Dawkin’s web site.”
With all respect, I think you are reading the wrong material. Consider instead Steven Jay Gould, and Ken Miller, evolutionist and Catholic theist, who wrote:
“. . . each and every increase in our understanding of the natural world is a step toward God and not, as many people assume, a step away. If faith and reason are both gifts from God, then they should play complementary, not conflicting, roles in our struggle to understand the world around us. As a scientist and as a Christian, that is exactly what I believe. True knowledge comes only from a combination of faith and reason.“
Jim, I hate to be redundant, but faith in what? In whom? Wrong faith leads to wrong reason.
Jim -
You asked several post ago -
1) what would count as evidence for evolution (or “Darwinism” as it is called here)? In other words, give an example of something that would convince you that evolution is true.
First, the imagined “home team” does not, in my estimation, agree on the terms here. I think evolution, meaning the gradual development of life over a long period of time on earth, might well have occurred. I think the theory of mutation and natural selection (Darwin’s theory) is an inadequate explanation for evolution. I don’t think Fr. Hans and Chris would be with me 100% on this analysis.
What we do agree on is that Darwinism is a conceptual framework that purportedly arises from Darwin’s theory. This theory carries implications for how we see ourselves and our neighbors, and this framework is regnant in academia and other cultural institutions.
Now back to the question. I would, like Mike Behe, like to see one non-trivial example of a wholly new cellular function or speciation arising from plausible mutations. It can be a paper exercise if necessary, but no wild hand waving allowed.
I don’t think people realize how enormous the gap is between what is offered as examples, and what is claimed to have happened. It’s like saying “I can jump across the Grand Canyon”, being told “I don’t believe it” and then jumping over a crack in the sidewalk and saying “See, I told you”.
Tom C writes: “First, the imagined “home team” does not, in my estimation, agree on the terms here.”
I think that’s true with respect to several terms: evolution, intelligent design, design per se, and randomness. It’s important to have agreement on the terms, or at least to know where the differences of opinion are.
Tom C: “I think the theory of mutation and natural selection (Darwin’s theory) is an inadequate explanation for evolution.”
My belief is that most biological scientists would disagree with “inadequate.” BUT — I think they would completely agree with the idea that nothing in science is a given, and that it is entirely possible that future discoveries may lead to the development of different theoretical accounts of how evolution actually functions. Scientists are a competitive lot, and I’m sure if someone could come up with an alternate mechanism that better explains the evidence, he or she would be all over that.
Tom C: “I would, like Mike Behe, like to see one non-trivial example of a wholly new cellular function or speciation arising from plausible mutations.”
Actually I was looking for something more general, just the “kind of thing” that one might find persuasive. But I like your specific example even more.
To that end, the only thing I can think of in that category is the development of “ring species.” You can find a lot of material on that on the internet so I won’t bother reproducing it here. But in summary, a ring species is an example of a species that evolves around a large uninhabitable area. What happens is that the species develops in a ring around the area, spreading in two different directions from one starting point. Eventually the species “meet” on the other side of the area, but cannot interbreed.
Essentially, what you get is a snapshot of the development of subspecies. Each subspecies can interbreed with their neighbors, but when they meet on the other side they can’t. So check it out. I would be interested to hear your opinion on it.
Note 15: A definition for “order” that I’ve always found useful is to describe a system that contains inter-dependent parts where no one part can (or would have reason to) exist without the other. This is much more difficult to define in areas like art and music (although I think these labels are appropriate), but it’s a bit easier to find when referring to physiology.
To use a specific example: the cornea near the front of the eye (along with the lens and vitreous) is responsible for bending, refracting and focusing light rays. Without them, I’m uncertain what need there would be for a retina (towards the back) which is responsible for converting the light rays to electrical impulses which are then transmitted through the optic nerve.
I’m trying to fathom a “transitional” entity where only the lens had some sort of rudimentary functionality. At what point did the retina arise? How? As a “reaction” to the already-formed lens? The idea that they all simply “showed up” in some variation sounds equally implausible.
I’m not the most scientific-minded person, yet I fail to see how natural selection or any other evolutionary theory can explain how this would have occurred (although natural selection to a degree is evident in terms of minor variations of species).
James, your insights and observations are quite accurate. You’re beginning to understand the insurmountable difficulties presented by the Darwinist theory that random actions lead to super-structures and millions of yet undiscovered “transitionary” structures.
It’s actually even worse for the Darwinists. They can’t even provide one example or one experiment, where information in a single genome can increase via a random or “evolutionary” process; never mind processes that create entirely new organisms or all of life. When Richard Dawkins was asked: “Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?” he was not able to provide a single example (Richard Dawkins Can’t Provide One Example of Increased Genome) to support his ideas; not one.
Chris B. writes: “When Richard Dawkins was asked: “Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?” he was not able to provide a single example …”
You can find Richard Dawkins’ account of that interview here
http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm
as well as a complete answer to the question.
#15 Jim -
Regarding “ring species”, this is an example of evolution. I don’t dispute evolution. What I want is an example of how this could have happened by random mutation and natural selection. Which set of mutations occurred? How were they preserved by natural selection? I won’t accept explanations that amount to jumping over a crack in the sidewalk when we are talking about jumping across the Grand Canyon.
Tom, Regarding your observations:
I believe it’s actually worse than that. They haven’t even proven or shown how they can jump over that crack in the sidewalk. No scientific experiment or research project has shown or explained any aspect of their macro-evolutionary fantasies. That’s the big elephant in the room these Darwinists and secularists keep ignoring. That’s why all their “arguments” either attack the ID proponents, claim that “it will be proven”, or, in the case of the missing fossil records, explain it away by saying “the evidence will be found” or “we can’t find any evidence because… — fill in any made up excuse you can dream up –”.
That’s the stunning reality of this debate. The Darwinist cult followers and secularist fanatics who promote “evolution” as fact are backing up their myth using blind faith alone and/or via fantastic unproven and un-tested explanations regarding their dogma that have little to do with science and reality, and have never been verified and tested via scientific methods.
A little fuel to the fire (from one of the best, might I add): http://youtube.com/watch?v=L-UCo7JQm-A&feature=related
I would like to know how a “Darwinist” explains the evolution of a spider spinning a perfect web or bees constructing a perfect octagonal honeycomb in a bee hive. If either one of these are not constructed properly, the spider, or in the case of the honeycomb, the entire hive will perish. So how did they come about?