Why I came to peace with science
Friday October 24, 2008
Categories: Creation vs. Evolution
Dear Ken: I am enjoying our exchange very much and appreciate the civility of our conversation, which is on an often hostile topic that generates ad hominem attacks. I believe we are successfully exploring representative positions rather than simply having...
Filed Under: Bible, Bible interpretation, Christian, Christianity, Creation vs. Evolution, Creationism, Darwin, evangelicals, Evolution, Genesis, Karl Giberson, Ken Ham, science, the Beagle
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Blogalogue
There are always at least two sides to every belief. The Beliefnet Blogalogue pairs writers who differ on important questions about faith, and asks them to debate timely topics.
Subscribe
Wow..I was very dissapointed with this post. So much misunderstanding, so much fallacious arguing, so much asking already long answered questions, and so much (for some reason) seemingly blaming infallible God for fallible man doing what they do best and misrepresenting Scripture. I found it very startling that Dr. Giberson does not find the Bible to claim itself to be infallible, what with the whole God can not lie, knowns all things, and breathed the Scriptures into man and thus the Bible can not be wrong (fallible). I must say this was a grevous dissapointement. Well written and easy to understand, but with all due respect, poorly researched and defended.
I now do not fully grasp where Dr. Giberson stands on the fallability of Scripture.
Yes very disappointing indeed. Dr. Giberson is equating science and evolution as if they are one and the same. So if a young-earth creationist says "I don't believe in molecules to man evolution." Dr. Giberson will counter "Oh so you creationists don't believe in science?! What? You've never taken your child to the medical doctor to treat an earache?"
His "Bible isn't proposition, it's narrative" line of thought is making Dr. Giberson sound like Brian McClaren or Rob Bell.
Karl, I believe you missed Ken's point. He asked you how you could be certain that there's no absolute certainty anywhere, given that your statement seemed absolutely certain. You responded by saying there was "no evidence that humans have access to any absolute sources of truth." Call this statement S. Given that S is stated as if it were an absolute truth, S is a counterinstance to S. So your claims are self-referentially inconsistent. Vern
I agree wth the above two posts. Giberson's counter-position that says believing the Bible to be infallible means we cannot have understanding about how to interpret the world while we, at the same time, are believing in the infallibility of Scriptures seems unguided. Even if both sides could conclude that Genesis does not follow a literal mode throughout, but sometimes becomes figurative (for man's sake) it seems that the reiteration in Leviticus that God created all things in six days and rested on the seventh would be a case-closer.
Karl, You are being unfair to an honest scientist when you say "This is just plain false." You may disagree as you obviously do so strongly. But I believe that the evidence is strongly in favour of the idea that everyone has their axe to grind.
If man has no access to absolute truth, then how can we be certain that Christ is the way? The Bible really is an all-or-nothing piece. Of you can't trust even the smallest part of it, why would you put your faith in any of it? To say that the Bible isn't a source of absolute truth is to undermine the whole of Christianity.
There's no point trying to get through to morons who have no interest in reality. Why is this even being discussed with any seriousness? Ignore them.
Hey Vern, you like playing games? How about this: There is no absolute certainty because nothing can be demonstrated to be absolutely certain, including this statement.
Solve your problem? If you want to believe nonsense go ahead. Have fun with that.
Greetings all,
I completely agree with Stefan. If there are pieces of the bible that cannot be trusted to be accurate (taken in context with literary style being considered), then why should we trust any of it? People are smart enough to figure this out.
I do agree with Karl on one thing: the issue is not science vs. the bible. This is because science helps us CONFIRM the literal six day creation and ~six thousand year old world, as well as confirm the global flood recorded in Genesis. With all due respect and love, I don't understand why followers of Christ resist the history in the Bible concerning the six day creation when there are so many resources out there today helping us understand that the world around us confirms it.
Science is simply a pawn in the battle of worldviews. It seems obvious that Mr. Ham is taking the Word of God as his authority before doing his science while Mr. Giberson is taking the secular myth of evolution as his absolute authority before doing his science. Since two mutually exclusive hypotheses (evolution and special creation) cannot both be true (logically speaking), it stands to reason that only one will stand the test of time. It's obvious to me which one will. As Paul stated to the Romans, "Let God be true, and every man a liar."
Josh, I could not have said it better myself, nor do I think Mr. Ham could. Well, maybe a bit. Lol But it still stands that I am impressed. It would be awsome to acquire your email or facebook or something so we can talk about this more in private, as to avoid the unavoidable onslaught of rejection from many others here. If you think this would be possible, visit the above post and drop me a line. I'm hoping we can share sources and allow "iron to sharpen iron" as Solomon put it. God bless
This is the crux of the matter: the evolution defender Giberson is a theological liberal rather like Spong. Gresham Machen pointed out over 80 years ago in "Christianity and Liberalism" that theological liberalism wasn't just a branch of Christianity, but a totally different religion.
Giberson's straw man attacks against inerrancy were long ago dealt with by the classic "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" (URL above), e.g.:
Article IV.
WE AFFIRM that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.
WE DENY that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.
...
Article VII.
WE AFFIRM that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.
WE DENY that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.
Article VIII.
WE AFFIRM that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.
WE DENY that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.
Article IX.
WE AFFIRM that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.
WE DENY that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word.
It's also notable that Giberson uses propositions to promote his postmodernist denial of the value of propositional truth, e.g. "Propositions are lifeless and non-relational" is itself a proposition!
Time to give up Dr. Giberson. It was a nice try, but if someone plucks out their eyes they're never going to see the light. And that we have a lot of blind, willfully ignorant people supporting the fundamentalist view on origins is pretty evident from the almost childlike 19th century mentality we see in many of these comments. They're happy with their games, charades, and parlor tricks, anything to avoid having to see the big picture. Just let them be.
The debate was going well untill this post. Giberson - why are you trying so hard to make this a battle of "Science vs Bible"? Clearly you are trying to give the impression - just by using the word "science" - that your arguments are intellectually superior. Evolutionists use that tactic all the time when they run out of intelligent and usefull things to bring into the discussion. You just plain ran out. In addition, you have also demonstrated that you have indeed replaced Christianity with "Science" as your religion.
Karl Giberson said "Science is not equipped to assess miracles like the resurrection of Christ, for example."
Scince is not eqipped to assess any singularity.
Science also is not equpped to assess one time events like the origin of the universe. It is not reproduceable.
Science also is not equippped to assess things that are no longer happenning like life from non life.
Science has come up with no mechanism for the generation of the vast amounts of information stored in DNA.
Rich, your claim call it R, "There is no absolute certainty because nothing can be demonstrated to be absolutely certain, including this statement."
It follows from this that Q, "R cannot be certain because it cannot be demonstrated."
But it also follows from this that Q is certain, which contradicts R. Thus, you have not escaped the incoherency of your claim.
All well-intentioned attempts to reconcile ancient biblical and modern scientific cosmology are an exercise in futility. If the scientists of half a millennium ago were alchemists, why should we imagine that Israelites more than two and one-half millennia ago cared one whit about modern science?
For the sake of the discussion, let us assume that modern scientific theory coincides perfectly with what God has always known to be true. If he had revealed these truths to the pre-scientific biblical authors, would they have made any sense to either these authors or their readers? To assume that God communicated a message that was meaningless to every generation until our own is the height of arrogance.
The Bible did not secretly encode scientific truth in the Bible, which has only recently discovered across hundreds of years of trial and error--hypotheses and experimentation, not through special revelation.
It seems more than coincidental that no one before the advent of modern science ever attempted to explain the Bible’s statements on creation in terms of today’s prevailing views.
Those who claim to “find” their science in the Bible are actually only unwittingly (or dishonestly) importing their modern assumptions and conclusions into the ancient text. Such modern ideas, allegedly “discovered” in the Bible, would have made no sense whatsoever to the ancient biblical authors or their first readers.
If this was their real, albeit hidden, meaning, are we to imagine that God withheld the true meaning until our privileged day, when (we arrogantly imagine) we now know the last word on everything.
Do attempts to validate the truth of the Bible by appeal to its alleged hidden scientific accuracy actually do a service to the Bible or to God?
Have we learned nothing from the errors of the Medieval Church, which felt compelled to defend the prevailing worldview as the timelessly true biblical and Christian view, despite newly discovered evidence? Was it really the biblical evidence or the Church’s dogma that compelled it to defend the Ptolemaic model of the universe and reject as heresy the Copernican model?
A theory’s ability to explain all then-known evidence about the solar system from the point of view of an earth-bound observer without the advantage of the telescope obviously did not make it a fact. Galileo and space-exploration demonstrated that the Ptolemaic and other early cosmic models depended on inadequate evidence.
What’s to make us think we now have all the evidence? Why risk making dogmatic claims about what the Bible teaches about the method of creation that future discoveries may well prove mistaken?
Newton’s 17th century theories were rightly recognized as an improvement over Kepler’s. But what if a scientist during the not-so-long-ago era when I took high-school physics had attempted to make a case for Newtonian physics as the biblical view? Would we now be compelled to dismiss the evidence supporting Einstein’s theories as unchristian and contrary to the teaching of the Bible? Will new evidence emerge to make Einstein’s views obsolete?
Deductive approaches to biblical interpretation can be used to prove virtually anything. That is, if we know in advance what we want to prove and are willing to select and shuffle verses arbitrarily and ignore their historical and literary contexts, we can make the Bible say whatever we please. Only a disciplined approach that is historically sensitive and appropriately self-critical can lead to persuasive results.
Biblical interpreters, professional or amateur, must take care lest their conclusions tell more about their assumptions and prejudices than about the Bible.
Leroy, you are a crafty writer, but I caught you way up at the beginning of your post. You think that only currently, and apparently through Science, that the modern Creationist scientist is revealing unknown things from the Creation account? Things that were not known when, say, Moses himself read Genesis? The scriptures in antiquity are the same as now. We may comport more details and have our computer models, but the knowledge of a six day creation where God created all things is the same knowledge then as is now. You wrote, "To assume that God communicated a message that was meaningless to every generation until our own is the height of arrogance.". This is some of such crafty writing I mention, and it contains your accusation of arrogance. Nobody has assumed such a thing. Not even yourself. It is a straw-man tactic.
Dear Karl,
Even though we disagree on this subject, we would like to thank you for your respectful postings during this debate. We hope that you will consider doing more of these with Ken and others in the future.
My wife Rose (formerly Rose Rogers, Ed's sister) and her family know you from ENC in Quincy, MA. Rose sends her best.
Although we are young earth creationists, we hope you will check out our website. Again, thank you for providing us this venue.
May God bless you!
Tom doesnt seem to understand that the axe he is grinding comes from his own disire to support his own fundimental point of veiw
Darrell Falk's book, recommended by Giberson, is full of nonsense. Alex Williams' review inthe Journal of Creation (URL above) points out:
...
Falk writes as if he is breaking new ground, but it has all been said before. On the one occasion that he does address two critiques of his position (p. 199), he does it as if in response to spoken comments from his students, not from any published literature that he has read. He quotes three young-earth creationist (YEC) authors (Morris, Gish and Whitcomb) but only to make points in his own arguments, and at no stage does he attempt to address published YEC critiques of compromise positions, including his own. He thus presumes to contribute a complementary view of creation to the YEC position without having researched the subject!
...
to the objection that his views put death before sin, Falk answers Romans 5:12 and 1 Cor. 15:22 by saying it was only man who died, and then only spiritually. By this logic, the resurrection of the Last Adam would also have to be spiritual, rather than the bodily one that left the tomb empty—and the only sort of ‘resurrection’ that would be meaningful to a Jew.
...
I can sympathize with a fundamentalist because it is very comforting to have an absolute authority in ones life. But ultimately it is in fact your interpertations of the Bible that become the absolute authority rather than the Bible itself. Does the Bible say what it means or means what I say? I was raised in a Baptist church and went to a baptist school. I even went to a Christian college. But I admit I feel away from the faith; but I am recently begun exploring my faith some more and trying to figure out what is real. I admit I find the Bible to be a great book because of its history and influence on Western Civilization. I also find the teachings of Jesus Christ to be of great value to me seeing it is the ethics of Christ which seem to motivate me for the most part. But I admit I have my own beliefs which are based mostly on my upbringing and genetic predispositions. So what else can I say but live long and prosper!
In Refuting Compromise I write:
**Is biblical interpretation infallible, and does it matter?**
Some would dismiss the superiority of Scripture over ‘science’ by asserting that while God’s Word is infallible, human interpretations are not. From this, they assert that it’s not God’s Word vs man’s fallible interpretations of nature, but man’s fallible interpretation of the Bible vs man’s fallible interpretation of nature. More colloquially, they might say of a young-earth creationist analysis of Scripture, ‘That’s just your interpretation.’
This is fallacious reasoning and borders on postmodernism, where objective truth is denied. One does not need to be an infallible interpreter to be able to interpret the meanings of most passages accurately, any more than one needs to be an infallible mathematician to know that 1+1=2. The accuracy of interpretation of Scripture is determined by how it matches the intended meaning of the author. This is determined by rules of grammar and historical and literary context. Those who wish to deny a particular interpretation of Genesis need to find a basis in the biblical text from the application of these rules; an appeal to general human fallibility is simply not sufficient.
It’s also worth noting that such post-modernist claims are self-refuting. When a post-modernist writes ‘it is impossible to know 100% how to correctly interpret a piece of writing’, he certainly intends that people correctly interpret this particular piece of his own writing. But he has no basis for objecting when an opponent throws his post-modernism back at him and decides to ‘interpret’ that statement as meaning, ‘A piece of writing has an objective meaning which is usually possible to interpret correctly.’
*******
RC still available from CMI (URL above, actually an AiG article, even) although AiG has expunged it despite 2004 being "Operation: Refuting Compromise". Ken Ham wrote "AiG has something really challenging in store for 2004!" in Answers Update–US
January 2004:
"We will be releasing the most comprehensive book ever written to combat the compromise teaching of ‘progressive creation’ (a position that allows for billions of years, big bang, local Flood, death and disease before sin, etc.) that has permeated much of the church, Christian colleges and seminaries. This will be offered at extra-special subsidized prices to enable many thousands of copies to be distributed to churches, colleges, etc."
The dichotomy of science and religion has garnered many advocates on both sides, but science and religion are like two legs of a stool, not capable of standing upright without at least one more leg. In this case the third leg is history and history properly applied serves to adjudicate between Bible/science conflicts. One example of this is the Tower of Babel chapter beginning with Genesis 11:1 which reads: "The whole earth was one of language and one speech."
The King James translators arrived at Genesis 11 thinking that the population of the entire world was concentrated at Shinar after the flood and spoke one common language. Had they known the corresponding history of the ancient Near East which only surfaced in the last 160 years, they could have selected words more accommodating to the facts as we know them today. Hebrew ‘erets was translated "earth," although in the next verse the same word is rendered as the "land" of Shinar. If the Hebrew ‘erets had been rendered “land” and saphah was translated literally as “lip” rather than the broader word “language,” we would read the text as follows: “And the whole land was of one lip and one speech.”
Shinar was the Hebrew word for Sumer where the Sumerians lived and the Sumerians we know spoke a completely unrelated language. So it is unlikely that the writer intended to convy that everyone in the world spoke one common language when there were at least two languages spoken right there. So the common interpretation that Babel was the place where different languages transpired is based upon a bad translation.
What the verse would have conveyed had it been properly translated is that there was one topic of conversation going on at the time, they were of one lip, and it concerned the building of the zigurrats in Mesopotamia during that period of time of which the Tower of Babel was one of many.
Large scale function for ‘endogenous retroviruses’
by Shaun Doyle
Journal of Creation 22(3):16, 2008
URL above
I just clicked on the link provided by Giberson connecting us to his book about Darwin. I read for a few minutes. I find it utterly amazing how evolutionists can lie so blatantly about Charles Darwin.
Giberson states that Darwin was a devoutly religious man well into middle age ("Saving Darwin" pages 19,20; claim was, of course, unsupported; but Giberson did quote-mine Darwin's Autobiography egregiously). This is, of course, completely false. Darwin was not religious or a Christian after the Beagle voyage ended in 1836. Darwin became a Materialist in 1837-1838, that is, in the two immediate years after his return from the voyage when he was in his late 20s. We know these things by Darwin's own admission: private Notebooks M and N on Materialism. Darwin refers to himself as a Materialist.
We also know that during this same time period (1837-1838) he renounced the Bible and Christianity (Autobiography, pages 85-87; see footnote by his son Francis dating the commentary to the two years, 1837-1838). Most importantly, during the same two year period, he conceived his transmutation theory (Autobiography page 124).
Therefore, in 1837-1838, Darwin became apostate, converted to Materialism, and developed a evolution theory propelled by material agency (God absent from reality). Giberson is a brazen liar. Darwin was a closet Atheist from 1837-1838 onwards. Evolutionists like Giberson must lie about Darwin because it is almost utterly inexplicable as to how "Christian" evolutionists can accept a life origins theory built on pro-Atheism presuppositions (= Materialism). This fact makes "Christian" evolutionists fools and buffoons, accepting the same origins theory as Richard Dawkins, justifying the quotes marks around Christian. Giberson is a double agent; posing as a Christian, attempting to deceive naive Christians into accepting Darwinism. Evolution is built on Atheism ideology, that is, the idea that God is not involved in reality (= Materialism). If Giberson is not a double agent then he is demonstrably confused since real Christians do not accept pro-Atheism presuppositions (Materialism) concerning reality.
Ray Martinez
pyramidial@yahoo.com
I have shown that both theism and atheism are rational. As a result, no scientific theory, including the theory of evolution, is relevant to the debate of theism vs. atheism. The debate is a useless battling of windmills.
I explain this insight in a comment that I posted today under the blogalogue debate between Michael Novak and Heather MacDonald on the topic "To Believe in God or Not?", subtopic "How Do We Tell A True Act of God From A False One?"
More generally, I explain the insight in a comprehensive theory of human life that I recently published and that I introduce at www.philipbitar.com.
Ray Martinez accuses Giberson of "lying" concerning Darwin's religious faith, but frankly the actual evidence is not as Martinez describes it. Darwin's religious beliefs have been studied by several very careful historians, in scholarly articles and in books. There is no complete agreement about some details, just as there is no complete agreement among historians about some details in the lives of many other people from the past -- evidence is sometimes ambiguous or even lacking entirely. However, most historians who have looked carefully at this would agree with the following points.
(1) Darwin was a Christian while he was on the HMS Beagle.
(2) He gave up believing in Christianity, according to his own testimony years later, at the age of forty -- that is, around 1849, ten years before he published On the Origin of Species but several years after (not before) he had written two early versions of the ideas in that book. One of those versions, from 1844, is quite lengthy (more than 200 hand written pages).
(3) The events that led him to abandon Christianity were the deaths of his father (a so-called "freethinker" who did not believe in Christ) in 1848 and his 10-year old daughter Annie, who died over the Easter holiday in 1851. He could not accept that his father was damned to hell, and he could not believe in a God who would allow his daughter to suffer as she did. It was the circumstances of life, not evolution, that brought this about.
Mr. Martinez gave some evidence for his interpretation, but this is an instance in which those who have considered *all* of the evidence have drawn a very different conclusion. For a very readable overview by a genuine Darwin expert, James Moore (who co-wrote one of the standard biographies of Darwin), I recommend the chapter devoted to the myth "That Evolution Destroyed Darwin's Faith in Christianity," in the new book edited by Ronald Numbers, "Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion" (Harvard University Press, 2009).
I am not a Darwin expert myself, Mr. Martinez, but I know many Darwin experts (including Moore), and as an historian of science I've studied Darwin more than most people. I find the tone of your comments for Giberson completely inappropriate, as well as unjustified in terms of content. I am not accusing you of "lying," since I assume you are not well versed in this topic. But you should not be accusing others of that sin out of your own ignorance.
Ted Davis: (1) Darwin was a Christian while he was on the HMS Beagle.
Ray Martinez: Agreed.
Ted Davis: 2) He gave up believing in Christianity, according to his own testimony years later, at the age of forty -- that is, around 1849, ten years before he published On the Origin of Species but several years after (not before) he had written two early versions of the ideas in that book. One of those versions, from 1844, is quite lengthy (more than 200 hand written pages).
Ray Martinez: False.
Darwin tells us in his Autobiography as to *when* he abandoned Christianity: the two years 1837 and 1838 (Autobio:85-87). Darwinists evade and misrepresent his admission because they want him to be a Christian during the formulation of his theory. The same source tells us that his theory was "clearly conceived" by 1839 (Autobio:124). Notebooks M and N have Darwin admitting that he converted to Materialism during the same time period (1838-1839). Mr. Davis has evaded these facts.
Darwin never said he forsook Christianity around 1849. This is when he gave up researching its factual claims.
Ted Davis: (3) The events that led him to abandon Christianity were the deaths of his father (a so-called "freethinker" who did not believe in Christ) in 1848 and his 10-year old daughter Annie, who died over the Easter holiday in 1851. He could not accept that his father was damned to hell, and he could not believe in a God who would allow his daughter to suffer as she did. It was the circumstances of life, not evolution, that brought this about.
Ray Martinez: False.
Darwinists ASSERT the death of Annie to have cause him to become apostate. We have no statement from Darwin saying as much. Darwinists repeat the assertion because they want the death of a child to be the cause of his apostasy and not evolution. Again, Darwin's own unambiguous statements in his Autobiography and Notebooks M and N tell us that he became an Atheist-materialist by 1839----the exact same time his theory was "clearly conceived."
Ted Davis: Mr. Martinez gave some evidence for his interpretation, but....
Ray Martinez: ....evidence which Mr. Davis has ignored and evaded.
Ted Davis: ....but this is an instance in which those who have considered *all* of the evidence have drawn a very different conclusion.
Ray Martinez: "Those" (= Darwinists). Again, I have provided a motive as to why Darwinists misrepresent as to *when* Darwin became an apostate. Some Darwinists, like Harvard Professor Ernst Mayr, are objective and honest:
Ernst Mayr:
"It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a ‘materialist’ (more or less = atheist)" (American Scientist; May, 1977:323).
Ted Davis: I am not a Darwin expert myself....
Ray Martinez: Quite objective of you to admit. I have expertise concerning Charles Darwin. I am currently writing a large paper refuting Darwinism.
Ted Davis: I find the tone of your comments for Giberson completely inappropriate, as well as unjustified in terms of content. I am not accusing you of "lying," since I assume you are not well versed in this topic. But you should not be accusing others of that sin out of your own ignorance.
Ray Martinez: Mr. Giberson straight out lied when he said Darwin was religious, if not a Christian, most of his life. Giberson quote mined Autobiography---egregiously----and conveniently omitted Darwin's damning admissions. This is completely dishonest. You have every reason and motive to stand with me against Giberson, that is, persons who lie. For it is they who stain the honest Darwinists like Ernst Mayr and Richard Dawkins.
For the record: Ken Ham is a vicious liar or deluded moron too.
Ray Martinez, Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creationist-species immutabilist, Paleyan Designist, British Natural Theologian.
pyramidial@yahoo.com
Karl Giberson: "I wish that Christians could 'come to peace with science,' to paraphrase my friend Darrell Falk's book on evolution. So much energy is expended fighting the wrong battle, trying to undermine science instead of understanding it as the creative work of God."
Ray Martinez: The whole point of evolution says Theos (= invisible Designer) is not involved with biological production----that unintelligent natural or material forces produce life. This is why Darwinists/evolutionists argue tooth and nail against the concept of design as existing in nature. This is why all Atheists are Darwinists.
Is Karl Giberson incredibly ignorant or a brazen liar?
Of course we recognize Karl Giberson as being a brazen liar, attempting to trick naive Christians into accepting the same biological origin theory that all Atheists accept.
101 FACTS:
If God is involved with biological production this is called Creationism or Intelligent design.
If God is NOT involved with biological production this is called Darwinism (evolution), Naturalism or Materialism.
The concept of "creation" and the concept of "evolution" (since 1859) are antithetic in nature: the former accepts supernatural or Intelligent agency to account for life; the latter accepts unguided-undirected material forces to account for life. Both are postulated under the scientific assumption that the other does not exist.
Karl Giberson (= "Christian") is playing the role of a double agent, attempting to misrepresent the basic differences and objective claims of each theory so evolution is not viewed to be what it is: pro-Atheism.
Ray Martinez
pyramidial@yahoo.com
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.