It has been called “The Big Lie.” It has been used to deceive hundreds of millions of people and has been instrumental in the death of millions. It is at the root of most of the great ills that now afflict society. “It” is evolution—the theory, first introduced by Charles Darwin, that says we are the product not of a benevolent Creator, but of a blind, random, and spontaneous process.
Evolution rests on the claim that the universe is made up of nothing but matter. It holds that matter, time, and chance—the unholy trinity of materialism—brought all things into existence. Evolution, therefore, has no need for a Creator and has been midwife to the growth of atheism in the last 150 years. Before Darwin, an atheist was as scarce as a hen’s tooth. But, as atheist Richard Dawkins has put it, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
Sadly, Darwin did more than provide atheists with an excuse to reject God. His idea has leaped from science to almost every other arena of human endeavor. Evolution is, after all, more than a scientific theory. It is a worldview—a way of understanding all of life that entirely excludes God.
This evolutionary worldview has long held sway in the law. It has led courts to discard the principles laid down on Mount Sinai in favor of legal standards that adapt to evolving social standards—a notion that allows judges to discover new rights, such as the right to abortion, or the right to engage in homosexual sodomy.
Evolution has also led to lethal consequences. The idea that only the fit survive has led to both eugenics and genocide. Darwin predicted that, “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world.”
Adolf Hitler, a devout evolutionist, applied these ideas and taught them to his troops. He was absolutely determined to create a super race. Six million Jews lost their lives as a result.
Darwin’s theory supplies a rationale for racism—the idea that some groups are more advanced along the evolutionary scale than others. It gave to Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, an intellectual foundation for her campaign to rid mankind of what she called “human weeds,” so that the superior stock might prevail.
Evolution also robs man of his significance. The Bible teaches that man is an immortal creature created in the image of God. Today, students are taught that man has no purpose and that chance, not God, governs all. When life has no meaning, no purpose, and no future, some young people take their own lives. Suicide is the third largest cause of death among youth ages 15-24, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
And yet, evolution as science has failed at every point. The late British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle mocked the idea that the amazing complexity of living cells could come about by chance, calling it “nonsense of a high order.” Yet it is this “nonsense” that our children are being taught in schools as scientific fact.
My earnest prayer is that the Lord will topple the whole monstrous edifice of evolution, which has brought so much death and despair into human existence. May evolution’s collapse be swift and complete! In its place may Christ be glorified, and the wondrous effects of His ethical, moral, and spiritual teaching prevail once more in our nation and in this world.
Adapted from Dr. Kennedy’s message: “The Root of the Problem.”
_________________________________________________
D. James Kennedy, Ph.D., is senior minister of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, and president of Coral Ridge Ministries, an international Christian broadcast outreach.
RSS
laforte2007: You are a great… ahh… representative for the ‘strict 6-days’ creationists position. I commend you. Keep up the good work.
if you had looked at the claim - survival of the fittest that darwin made,-weigh it against the laws passed in hitlers germany(incl,pre war,And by whom- include there scholarly teachings and -beliefs,public and private of these individuals,the paralels are frighting to say the least, how ever you want me to spell it out for you,I wont because anyone who has compared the two can see there conections,darwin refered to survival of the fittest often,i dont care who said what,the ideas put forth are repulsive on so many levels,
MikkelS-I can see you wont look investigate what i am trying to point out maby,the nuances must be too slight for you to see.and I wont do the research for you,for the most part what ive said was a direct quotes from non christian web sites whole pages,i know I also put my opinion in,but science will only go so far,the rest is faith,maby some day youll see the wonders God has placed befor you and if not,sorry
i know some things are opinion but i have observed there are those who beleve that there is no such thing as (absolutes) or (absolute law),they do beleve all things are transitory in nature,there for no law is absolute,If the person beleves there is a God, then they are somehow beyond having the ability to grasp knowledge let alown question at the alter of science,for those who dont want to beleve in God,that they can change laws and rule as they wish,put a loaded gun to your head pull the trigger and see if there is no such thing as absolute law,I will pick this conversation up with you on the other side,or then again maby not,test this and see if it works,
#(Part 1/2)#
Hey laforte2007. I'm not sure where you are going with your "there are those who believe that there is no such thing as absolutes or absolute law", though I'm guessing that you balking at us explaining the nature of scientific laws.
If that is the case, then you need to know that science can make no claim to absolute certainty, nor to absolute laws, as there is no epistemological foundation upon which to base such claims. Scientists may _postulate_ absolute laws, and there are laws that are considered to be pretty damn solid, such as the laws of thermodynamics, but there is no way in which they can be validated as being absolute.
Consider for instance the fact that Newtons famous Law of Gravitation was shown to be wrong in the case of high speeds and/or a huge mass, and you'll understand why scientists are much more careful about postulating "laws" as absolutes these days.
In case you are interested, here are a few definitions of "scientific law" from the same sources as before:
"Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances." ("Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science" by the National Academy of Sciences)
"A scientific law is a concise verbal statement or a mathematical equation that summarize a broad variety of observations and experiences." ("Chemistry, the Central Science", 9th edition, by Brown, LeMay and Bursten)
#(Part 2/2)#
Secondly, with regards to your claim that "survival of the fittest" was mirrored in German laws/teachings/etc., then I first off need to ask you to specify what exactly you are talking about, as vague insinuations really doesn't cut it.
Secondly, I need to point out that the term "survival of the fittest" was a term coined not by Charles Darwin, but by Herbert Spencer in his book "Principles of Biology" (1962), and which mirrored the pre-Darwinian view of natural selection as a purely negative force, that simply weeded out the "less fit".
In terms of the theory proposed by Charles Darwin, this is not even correct, as Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection operated under what can be described as differential reproductive success, or to rephrase, that some animals are better at producing offspring than others.
In the long run, survival is of little importante to evolution, which is why you see animals such as the Salmon, that die after having reproduced.
Thirdly, with regards to the so-called "missing link", which is really a misnomer anyway, I'd like to know on what grounds you discount the large number of hominid fossils that are presently known? I've already linked to a set of articles* that go over these in detail, so perhaps you can give a more cogent explanation for your rejection of the evidence?
Moreover, even without the fossil evidence, a very strong case for common descent can be made via the molecular evidence, as I've pointed out before. Simply discounting the fossil evidence does little to strengthen your case for special creation.
Fourthly, I have to ask why you felt the need to copy and paste large chunks of other website**, without attributing it to the authors? Need I point out that this is not only plagiarism, it's also a violation of copyrights? And I'm especially curious, given that the terms as defined on those websites doesn't conflict with how we used them ...
* See for instance this article: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
** Copied from http://www.whatislife.com/education/fact/fact_home.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
i know some things are opinion but i have observed there are those who beleve that threre is no such thing as absolutes or absolute law,they do beleve all things are transitory in nature,there for no law is absolute,If the person beleves there is a God, then they are somehow beyond having the ability to grasp knowledge let alown question at the alter of science,
if you look at the claim made - survival of the fittest that darwin made,-weigh it against the laws passed in hitler germany(incl,pre war,And by whom- include there scholarly teachings and -beliefs,public and private of these individuals,the paralels are frighting to say the least,
so unless a missing link can be shown to be real,untill that time a cloud of distrust will contine to hang over the man is decended from apes belevers,animals are adaptable to a limited point as well as plant,to say a pine tree can change into a pear tree given time is stuped,the mystery time factor strikes and behold chango presto its now some thing else,I beleve the earth was filled with such an abundance of life that your fuzzy math couldnt keep up, Facts must not be believed for what they are, but for what they explain.
It is said that half of the information in a science textbook is outdated within a few decades. So what then constitutes a scientific fact? From the point of view of outdated science textbooks, it can be concluded that biology is a historical science, i.e., a scientific fact has a history and could not be understood without understanding its history. The changing knowledge in science is the result of refutations or the falsification of a theory (see Karl Popper).
What has not been refuted can be considered a scientific fact. This is a functional definition and pays tribute to the 'fact' that knowledge changes with time, and it is exactly this historical starting point that will be adhered to most rigorously here. When looking beyond the physical sciences, theories often lack mathematical formalism. So how do we get hold of a fact? What is there that defines the relationship between hypothesis, experiment and theory?
One example from the biological sciences shall shed light on the process of acquiring scientific knowledge as we will gain hold on the concept of a 'scientific fact' in the process. The example offered here is about the currently accepted model of the structure of biological cell membranes.
Fact in philosophy
In philosophy, the concept fact is considered in epistemology and ontology. Questions of objectivity and truth are closely associated with questions of fact. A "fact" can be defined as something which is the case, that is, the state of affairs reported by a true proposition.[12][13]
Facts may be understood as that which makes a true sentence true. For example, the statement "Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system" is made true by the fact that Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system. Facts may also be understood as those things to which a true sentence refers. The statement "Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system" is about the fact that Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system.[14]
[edit] Correspondence and the slingshot argument
Some versions of the correspondence theory of truth hold that what makes a sentence true is that it corresponds to a fact.[15] This theory presupposes the existence of an objective world.
The Slingshot argument claims to show that all true statements stand for the same thing - the truth value true. If this argument holds, and facts are taken to be what true statements stand for, then we reach the counter-intuitive conclusion that there is only one fact - "the truth". [16]
[edit] Compound facts
Any non-trivial true statement about reality is necessarily an abstraction composed of a complex of objects and properties or relations.[17]. For example, the fact described by the true statement "Paris is the capital city of France" implies that there is such a place as Paris, that there is such a place as France, that there are such things as capital cities, as well as that France has a government, that the government of France has the power to define its capital city, and that the French government has chosen Paris to be the capital, that there is such a thing as a "place" or a "government", etc.. The verifiable accuracy of all of these assertions, if facts themselves, may coincide to create the fact that Paris is the capital of France.
Difficulties arise, however, in attempting to identify the constituent parts of negative, modal, disjunctive, or moral facts.[18]
Fact in science
Further information: scientific method and philosophy of science
Just as in philosophy, the scientific concept of fact is central to fundamental questions regarding the nature, methods, scope and validitity of scientific reasoning.
In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a conjecture or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[19]
Various scholars have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation, some of which are detailed below. Also, rigorous scientific use of the term "fact" is careful to distinguish: 1) states of affairs in the external world; from 2) assertions of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term is used in both senses in the philosophy of science. [20]
[edit] Scholarly inquiry regarding scientific fact
Scholars and clinical researchers in both the social and natural sciences have forwarded numerous questions and theories in clarifying the fundamental nature of scientific fact.[21] Some pertinent issues raised by this inquiry include:
* the process by which "established fact" becomes recognized and accepted as such;[22]
* whether and to what extent "fact" and "theoretic explanation" can be considered truly independent and separable from one another;[23][24]
* to what extent are "facts" influenced by the the mere act of observation;[25] and
* to what extent are factual conclusions influenced by history and consensus, rather than a strictly systematic methodology.[26]
Consistent with the theory of confirmation holism, some scholars assert "fact" to be necessarily "theory-laden" to some degree. Thomas Kuhn and others pointed out that knowing what facts to measure, and how to measure them, requires the use of some other theory (e.g., age of fossils is based on radiocarbon dating which is justified by reasoning that radioactive decay follows a Poisson process rather than a Bernoulli process). Similarly, Percy Williams Bridgman is credited with the methodological position known as operationalism, which asserts that all observations are not only influenced, but necessarily defined by the means and assumptions used to measure them.
[edit] Fact and the scientific method
Apart from the fundamental inquiry in to the nature of scientific fact, there remain the practical and social considerations of how fact is investigated, established, and substantiated through the proper application of the scientific method.[27] Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent from the observer in that no matter which scientist observes a phenomenon, all will reach the same necessary conclusion.[28] In addition to these considerations, there are the social and institutional measures, such as peer review and accreditation, that are intended to promote factual accuracy (among other interests) in scientific study.[29]
Etymology and usage
The word fact derives from the Latin Factum, and was first used in English with the same meaning: "a thing done or performed", a use that is now obsolete.[3]
The common usage, "something that has really occurred or is the case", dates from the middle of the sixteenth century.[4] Fact is also synonymous with truth or reality, as distinguishable from conclusions or opinions. This use is found for instance in the phrase Matter of fact,[5] and in "... not history, nor fact, but imagination."
Fact also indicates a matter under discussion deemed to be true or correct, such as to emphasize a point or prove a disputed issue; (e.g., "... the fact of the matter is ...").[6][7]
Alternatively, "fact" may also indicate an allegation or stipulation of something that may or may not be a "true fact",[8] (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has a long history in standard English.[9]
Fact may also indicate findings derived through a process of evaluation, including review of testimony, direct observation, or otherwise; as distinguishable from matters of inference or speculation.[10] This use is reflected in the terms "fact-find" and "fact-finder" (e.g., "set up a fact-finding commission").[11]
AnnieServantofJesus says "If man wants to believe that he is descended from an APE as opposed to being created in the Image of Almighty God; then I say let them believe whatever they like."
It has nothing to do with chosing something to believe based on personal preference. It is itellectually responsibility that has me believe the explanation that has the most compelling evidence . . . regardless of whether I 'like' it or not. Should I choose to believe the explanation that might be more comforting but has NO evidence, does not make the other explanation false.
If man wants to believe that he is descended from an APE as opposed to being created in the Image of Almighty God; then I say let them believe whatever they like. It is not my job to convince them one way or another. If they can look at the creation that is beautiful beyond description and they cannot see the CREATOR in all that HE has made; that is sad for them.
See, I know that I am a created daughter of THE KING OF HEAVEN and that's all I need to know! I was created by GOD and created for GOD! Thank you Father God!
laforte2007, you do realize that you are misusing the word ‘theory’, in scientific parlance it is basically defined as (from Dictionary.com):
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena… A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity… a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"…
But you appear to be demanding that we define it in unscientific terms, as something like: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
It’s kind of like the English word ‘love’. There is the Christ-like agape form of ‘love’, and then there is the eros form of ‘love’, which is purely sexual. You don’t want to mix those two definitions up, which would lead to some very serious misinterpretations of the Bible, and yet the word is spelled exactly the same way by both definitions. (So, please be careful, since you appear to have an issue with finding the correct definition for certain words.)
As for evidence for evolution, there is quite a bit of it, the missing link was found a while ago. But the real issue here isn’t the amount of, or quality of the evidence that can be provided. It’s the fact that no amount of evidence can be provided under any circumstances to creationists to prove evolution, all evidence must be denied, no matter how solid the evidence is. In short, truth, apart from a singularly narrow interpretation of the Bible, cannot be true, no matter how true it is, it must be false.
We are not being intellectually honest with ourselves when we do this. We are lying to ourselves.