Sunday, November 08, 2009 Last Update:11:25 am ET

Opinion|Fri, Jul. 27 2007 06:54 PM EDT

The Root of the Problem

By D. James Kennedy, Ph.D.|Christian Post Guest Columnist

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.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
  • Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:15 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    Oh, there's a Big Lie in this article all right - but the Theory of Evolution ain't it.

    Clearly this sort of "Lying for Jesus" must be aimed at the committed faithful, because it is so blatantly dishonest that any non-religious person can see right through it. I guess the question is: do moderate religious people, who haven't abondoned the use of their brains find this sort of lying offensive? Does it make them wonder why fundamentalist religious apologists are forced to use dishonesty in their thought-process? Does it make moderate religious people want to distance themselves from such blatant dishonesty?

    It's odd that Protestant Christians deride the Catholic church for superstition, yet the Catholic church has at least stopped fighting reality and admitted that evolution is irrefutable. Any church that wants to survive outside of Africa needs to accept that evolution is just part of reality.

    "Evolution is a world view"? Really? What compels a person to need to lie in this fashion? Is "Plate Tectonics" a world view? Acceptance of Atomic Theory or Germ Theory? Religionists just look like imbeciles when they make such ignorant and easily disproven claims. Is this REALLY how they want to portray themselves, and their religion? The Christian Post debases itself by associating with such backward and flawed thinking.

    Evolution has failed? Then why is it the underlying assumption of all modern biology? Who has ever provided one instance where it has failed? Nobody. I understand that the whole Adam and Eve myth falls apart when you accept the reality of evolution, and that this creates a problem for Christians (if there was no fall, what need is there for a redemption). But those are things that Christians need to work through independent of how the world actually works. Saying that evolution isn't how life changes is as intellectually valid as claiming a flat earth, or that other Theories like Atomic and Germ are "just theories".

    Racism and Hitler have far more to do with 1000s of years of religious bigotry than with any other cause. Hitler was a product of Christian anti-Jewish animus which only finally ended in 1945 after the orgy of the Final Solution finally repulsed the majority of Christians enough to abandon 2000 years of Jewish persecution.

    Is it just ignorance, or deceit, that attempts to link teen suicide with "evolution"? What is the link? Aren't most people still religious? Anyway, enough of this nonsense. There isn't a single honest or valid "opinion" in this entire column.

  • Sat Aug 04, 2007 1:19 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    laforte2007: You are a great… ahh… representative for the ‘strict 6-days’ creationists position. I commend you. Keep up the good work.

  • Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    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,

  • Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    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

  • Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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,

  • Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:13 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    #(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)

  • Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:13 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    #(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

  • Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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,

  • Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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,

  • Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    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.

  • Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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]

  • Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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]

  • Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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]

  • Tue Jul 31, 2007 8:39 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Tue Jul 31, 2007 11:18 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    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!

  • Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:08 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:50 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    To laforte2007: You are fortunate that MikkeIS is spending this much time with you. I'm not trying to be demeaning, but all your posts are demonstrating is how very, very little you know about the sciences. MikkeIS is correct in that facts don't, in the strictest sense, exist in science. There are theories that are so well supported by empirical evidence and observations that, in most contexts, we consider them to be facts. One excelent example is the Bohr model of the atom (nucleus of protons and neutrons surrounded be electrons). This is so well supported that there is virtually no conversation we can have where we cannot consider this to be a fact. Another excellent example is Evolution by Natural Selection which is in the same league as the atomic theory of matter.

    Both of these theories make stunningly accurate predictions. Both of these theories rest upon staggering volumes of empirical evidence. The ID/creationists offer NOTHING. Let me say that again. Naturalistic explanations offer evidence AND YOU OFFER NOTHING BUT VACUOUS DOGMA! Come back to the table when you have some sound evidence for your argument. Until then; just because you don't understand our position does not give your side credibility.

  • Mon Jul 30, 2007 5:46 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    #(Part 1/2)#

    Hey laforte2007, I'll have to ask that you make it more clear what you are quoting, and what is your reply, as I am having a hard time extracting your writings from my own. Also, I have to ask why you felt the need to add brackets to the paragraph you've quoted?

    In any case, with regards to the nature of scientific theories, no, I'm not trying to have it both ways, I'm trying to explain the nature of scientific theory vs. fact, which is rather different from what you are proposing.

    As I've pointed out before, a scientific theory is an explanatory model, which means that it is an explanation for a body of facts/phenomena. These facts are what I called the "fact of evolution", namely the evidences of common descent, the evidences of natural selection, and so on.


    In any case, please allow me to quote you the definition of a scientific theory from a few scientific sources. That should make it clear that a scientific theory is not just, as you suppose, a "fancy guess" ...

    "Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." ("Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science" by the National Academy of Sciences)

    "Theory: An explanation that is broad in scope, generates new hypotheses, and is supported by a large body of evidence." ("Biology", 7th edition, by Campbell and Reece)

    "A theory is an explanation of the general principles of certain phenomena, with considerable evidence or facts to support it." ("Chemistry, the Central Science", 9th edition, by Brown, LeMay and Bursten)



    I'm not sure what you mean by your comment that "this is only true in as far as math is concerned", but perhaps you can elaborate on that point?



    With regards to Hitler "crediting" Darwin, I'd first off like to see a citation for that claim, as I've been unable to find that anywhere. Can you quote Hitler as crediting Darwin or the theory of evolution?

    Secondly, as I've already pointed out, the theory of evolution does not provide any support to the notion of racial superiority, so I fail to see Hitler's poor understanding of evolution can be blamed upon the theory.

    That makes no more sense than blaming his actions due to his idiosyncratic understanding of Christianity upon that religion**, or blaming the actions of people who read the bible as justifying slavery upon Christianity?


    * See for instance these articles: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
    ** Though I can easily blame the religion that carried on the torch of anti-Semitism, from its origin in the Roman Empire.

  • Mon Jul 30, 2007 5:45 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    #(Part 2/2)#

    Secondly, there is plenty of evidence that demonstrates that we share a common ancestor with apes (and everything else for the matter), including a large number of fossil hominids*, as fell as my favorite, namely the molecular evidence, which includes the fact that humans have a high degree of similarity in both coding and non-coding DNA (messured to be around +95%), as well as shared pseudo-genes, and transposons and retro-virii, etc.

    To give a brief description, pseudo-genes are genes that are broken, and thus have no effect on the phenotype of the organism. A good example of this is the gene that is responsible for the production of Vitamin C, which is broken in the same way in humans and other primates, thus causing Scurvy if our diet doesn't contain enough Vitamin C. This fits what we would expect if all primates shared a common ancestor, as the gene is broken in the same way in all primates.

    Transposons are gene-sequences that can duplicate themselves in the genome when a cell replicates, with the result that a large part of our DNA consists of such "junk". When compared to other primates, these form a pattern that fits what we would expect, if we shared a common ancestor with these.

    Retro-virii, such as HIV, are viruses that write themselves into the genome of the host, and hence can be transmitted when the host reproduced, if the virii inserted itself into the genome of a sex-cell. As with transposons, these make out a large part of our genome. And as with pseudo-genes and transposons, these form a pattern that matches what we would expect to find if humans shared a common ancestor with the other primates.

    It should be clear that common descent is the only sensible explanation, as the alternative requires that a large number of species experienced the exact same deleterious mutation (and that these were fixed in the population), as well as the exact same transposon replications ending in the exact same places and retro-viral insertions in the exact same places in the genome.



    With regards to to the "chemical signatures and chemical make-up", of humans being the same as is found in dirt, I have to ask you to provide specifics, as your claims are to vague for me to actually look up the information.

    Moreover, as I've pointed out, given that all living organisms derive nutrients from dirt (directly or indirectly), this would hardly be suprising, depending on the specifics of the claim.

  • Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:59 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

    you have got to be jokeing your trying to have it both ways it eather is or it ait there isnt a middle ground,this is what you said------- By the way, (you are right that evolution is a theory). Or to be more exact, (evolution by natural selection is a theory),---then you say----( evolution itself is a fact) which is (explained by the theory)----.this is also a mis statement of facts as well-- In science, a theory is as high as you go, and contrary to common belief a "law" is not better than a theory. A scientific "law" is simply a mathematical description of a relationship in nature, --- (this is only true in as far as math is concerned)----and again you say---(whereas a theory is an explanatory model) which may include several laws.-in other words a fancy guess without actual proof or evidence to so a fancy guess-hence a-- theory

  • Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:50 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    sorry theres no evedence to prove the claim that there is a link between man and ape,there are no links there has been apro6-7 claims about missing links having been found scientists have shown them to have been false,if a human is reduced to the mapping of the the chemical signatures and chemical make-up,and the particles that builds us into what we are, they are the same as whats found in the soil,

  • Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:44 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    look up in a scientific book does it say darwins fact of human evolution,no it is still listed as only a theory.why because no matter how hard you may wish it wernt so the scientific standard for it to be called fact hasnt been established,go read for yourself from a non religious book about hitler and what be belived about his super humans and who he gave credit to for the ideas he had,also look up the writtings of the founders of planed parenthood and read there own words,

  • Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:36 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    MikkelS did a nice job describing the validity of theories and their place in discourse. Indeed, Evolution by Natural Selection is a theory and one that is so well supported that it is in an elite league. The scientific community offers EVIDENCE to support the theories. Creationists only offer conjecture.

  • Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:59 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    Hey laforte2007, I was not referring to the first book of the bible, but rather the Young Earth Creationist organization known as "Answers in Genesis". Sorry for the confusion.

    In any case, while I agree that we can't know the exact age of the earth, we can approximate it to a great degree, for which there are quite a number of solid methods. The fact that "[we] weren't there" doesn't do much to stop us from learning about the past, which should be obvious given the widespread use of forensic science in courts of law. Indirect evidence is almost always more trustworthy than the account of one or more witnesses.

    As I said before, you have to disregard quite a bit of modern science if you are going to claim that we cannot know the age of the earth or universe.


    I also agree that we didn't come from monkeys, though you won't like it either way, since we share a common ancestor with monkeys, and what we did "come from" would be something ape-like (remember, monkeys have tails, apes don't). In any case, I'm afraid that I'm not up to date with the modern research in abiogenesis, so I cannot give any specific suggestions as to what life itself came from, or how it came about.

    Though I will ask you to elaborate on your claim that we have the same "components" as dirt, which is as far as I can see only true in the most trivial sense: Namely that you can find the same atoms in dirt as in biological organisms. But that is not very suprising given the limited number of atoms to choose from, and the fact that all living (terrestrial) organisms derive nutrients from the "dirt", either directly or indirectly.

    However, if we go above the atomic level, you'll find that dirt consists of different molecules compared to a biological organism, given that most biological molecules are rapidly decomposed upon death.


    By the way, you are right that evolution is a theory. Or to be more exact, evolution by natural selection is a theory, evolution itself is a fact which is explained by the theory. In science, a theory is as high as you go, and contrary to common belief a "law" is not better than a theory. A scientific "law" is simply a mathematical description of a relationship in nature, whereas a theory is an explanatory model which may include several laws.

    Other theories include the germ theory of disease (which had to be amended recently due to the discovery of prions), atomic theory, the theory of gravitation, quantum mechanics, continental drift, and so on. Theories are what science does, and evolution by natural selection is no different in this regard.

  • Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:23 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

    FVThinker how can you be credible when you haven researched the information he has provided,nor you studied as long and hard in scripture,how many diplomas have you. those are not just given out free.They have to be earned,look up in a scientific book does it say darwins fact of human evolution,no it is still listed as only a theory.why because no matter how hard you may wish it wernt so the scientific standard for it to be called fact hasnt been established,go read for yourself from a non religious book about hitler and what be belived about his super humans and who he gave credit to for the ideas he had,also look up the writtings of the founders of planed parenthood and read there own words,

  • Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:08 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

    MikkelS-have you ever read genesis in hebrew,your understanding is pitifull,however, your not alown in this since you read in English,English is sorely lacking in imparting information and often times misused to further a wide variety of agendas,first let me say no-one can say with certainty the exact age of the earth since no one was there to see it,nor can any one say exactly how long it took unless you were there,yet from the hebrew it states it was an undeterminal (oops) amout of time,no matter what the mechanics were that were used it was done by God for his own reasons.we didnt come from monkeys,nor did we come from some soup or swamp,we came from the dirt,if our bodys are analized they have the exact same components as the dirt,

  • Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:25 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

    Yes. The author has many, many letters after his name . . . A.B., M.Div., M.Th., D.D., D.Sac.Lit., Ph.D., Litt.D., D.Sac.Theol., D.Humane Let.. I got these when google'ing his name. Anyone else notice the personal invenstment that he has in religous dogma? How can anyone such as this be considered credible when critiquiing Darwinian Evolution when there is no actual science on his resume? The only thing that all these letters indicate is that he is well read a segment of contemporary mythology.

  • Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:15 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

    Hey voodoo54. I'm well aware of Answers in Genesis, though I am afraid that I have nothing positive to say with regards to their argumentation or "evidences".

    Though I must admit that I'm impressed by how much of modern science they are willing to disregard in order to avoid the fact that the universe is very old, and rather than being just 6.000-10.000 years old.

  • Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:00 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    I can only assume that despite having the letters Ph.D. After his name, D. James Kennedy is amazingly ignorant of just what Darwin's theory is all about. Claiming that Hitler was an “evolutionist” because he sought to breed a race of supermen is a bit like claiming dog breeders must be too, since they actively breed better dogs (and have created more than 400 different breeds since the practice began). I believe you will find quite a few conservative Christians own dogs and some participate in breeding.

    It is true that one interpretation of Darwin's theory (known as “social Darwinism”) has often times been trotted out by racists to justify appalling acts of abuse and cruelty, but then so to are interpretations of biblical scripture, as for example this gem from Numbers: “And the LORD spake unto Moses in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye are passed over Jordan into the land of Canaan; Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places: And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein: for I have given you the land to possess it.” And how many generations of black men and women had to endure slavery because some bigot declared dark skin to be the 'mark of Cain'?

    As to Hitler as a Darwinist, well, Hitler never once mentions Darwin in Mein Kampf, or to my knowledge in any of his writings. He does however cite god as his inspiration 70 times in Mein Kampf, and his rhetoric was consistently laced with biblical references. In particular, Hitler insisted that his antisemitism was in defense of Christianity: "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross." from a speech in Munich on 12 April 1922.

    Yes folks, Adolf Hitler was born, raised and confirmed a Catholic, stood as an alter boy at services, and unto his dying say maintained he was a defender of Christianity. Many of his arguments for prayer in public schools would not sound out of place coming from the mouths of today's religious right...from people like D. James Kennedy, in fact.

  • Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:39 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    The above people need to look at Answers in Genesis, Cheers.

  • Sat Jul 28, 2007 8:50 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 2

    I can say little more than Didymus, but clearly the author of this article has little understanding of the scientific method and the intellectual credibility that empirical knowledge provides. His arguments should be an embarassment to enlightened theists.

  • Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:03 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    #(Part 3/3)#

    11) With regards to the quote by Charles Darwin, I ask you to read his book The Voyage of the Beagle, and tell me that this is not a melancholic statement, made by someone who has witnessed the overpowering encroachment of western civilization on the rest of the world.

    Consider for instance this quote:
    "I was crossing a ferry with a negro, who was uncommonly stupid. In endeavouring to make him understand, I talked loud, and made signs, in doing which I passed my hand near his face. He, I suppose, thought I was in a passion, and was going to strike him; for instantly, with a frightened look and half-shut eyes, he dropped his hands. I shall never forget my feelings of surprise, disgust, and shame, at seeing a great powerful man afraid even to ward off a blow, directed, as he thought, at his face. This man had been trained to a degradation lower than the slavery of the most helpless animal." (Chapter 2, VotB)


    12) You claim that Adolph Hitler is a "devout evolutionist", though I fail to see what that even means. Moreover, it was also the case that he was a devout believer, who thought that he was doing the will of the creator in waging war against the Jews, and his troops carried into battle a belt-buckle with the inscription "Gott mit uns" (God with us). To quote Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work."

    13) You claim that Darwin provided the idea that "some groups are more advanced along the evolutionary scale than others", though this is false on two counts: First off, this idea was much older than Darwin, in the form of the "Chain of being", where incidentally, blacks and other colored people were placed somewhere between whites and animals. Secondly, in terms of evolution by natural selection, the notion of "more evolved" doesn't even make any sense, in that evolution does not have an ultimate goal, but simply fits creatures to their environment. If this was what Margaret Sanger based her ideas on, then she was on shaky ground to begin with, in that the theory does not support such claims.

    14) With regards to evolution "[robbing] man of his significance", I can only say that I am sorry that you feel that way. Personally, I feel only joy when my understanding of the universe increases, even if it means that I have to reject such egocentric notions as geocentricism, or special creation.

    15) You claim that the theory of evolution claims that "the amazing complexity of living cells could come about by chance", which should rightfully be mocked. However, it's not a claim of the theory of evolution. If it was, then no scientist would touch the theory with a 10 foot pole.

    I hope that remedies some of the many misunderstandings found in this article.

  • Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:02 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    #(Part 2/3)#

    6) You claim that "[b]efore Darwin, an atheist was as scarce as a hen’s tooth", and in this you make two rather large mistakes. First off, as I've pointed out, atheism was already on the rise (see for instance Doubt: A History, by JM Hecht), and included well known people such as Thomas Paine. Secondly, a "hen's tooth" is not really that unusual, is a known vestigial organ in some wild population of chickens (see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000E9965-99A6-13FB-99A683414B7F0000). Unsurprisingly, given the current evolutionary theories, these teeth were lizard like.

    7) With regards to Dawkins' quote, it has never seemed to me that ignorance is a valid reason to posit the existence of supernatural beings, but your milage may vary. It should also be pointed out that Darwin himself was not an atheist, though he became an agnostic later in life, due to the death of his favorite daughter at a very young age.

    8) I fail to see how you came to the conclusion that evolution is a worldview, but even more so with regards to your claim that it is exclusive of gods. You surely are not ignorant of the large number of theists who accept the theory of evolution?

    9) You are in a very strict sense right that the "evolutionary worldview has long held sway in the law", namely in the sense that laws have always been "evolving", including those of your bible, which were not written all at once, nor were they set down in the present form until a number of centuries after the supposed birth of your messiah. Consider for the example of the rejection of Spectral evidence as valid during witch-trails, which is just one of the many changes that has, and continue to happen, in the laws of various contries.

    10) You mention the that "the idea that only the fit survive has led to both eugenics and genocide", though funny enough, that notion is based on a misunderstanding of evolution by natural selection. It doesn't matter if you survive, as long as you reproduce (consider for instance salmon, which is just one of many animals that die after reproducing).

  • Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:01 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    #(Part 1/3)#

    First off, due to the length of this reply, I've had to split this reply into several parts. In any case I'm afraid that your article suffers from some rather large problems, due to being based on claims that simply are not true, as well as largescale misunderstandings.

    1) Evolution as an idea is much older than Charles Darwin. What Darwin introduced was a mechanism for evolution, namely natural selection. But consider for instance so-called Lamarckian evolution (1744-1829), which supposed that traits accused during a creature's life could be inherited by that creature's offspring.

    2) It is incorrect to state that evolution is random, since the process of natural selection is entirely contingent upon the physical and biological parameters of a given creature's environment. What is random is the source of new variation, namely mutations, which are random with regards to the actual needs of the creatures.

    3) You claim that "Evolution rests on the claim that the universe is made up of nothing but matter", which is to say philosophical materialism. However, that is entirely false, as can be seen by the fact that many religious people see no problem at all with evolution. Moreover, if we assumed that there was such a thing as non-material entities, then the theory of evolution would apply to these as well, provided that they a) reproduce and b) do so without perfect fidelity. Moreover, the existence of such beings would do nothing do disprove the theory of evolution.

    4) The theory of evolution makes no claim as to the origin of "all things", it only makes claims as to the origins of biodiversity. Secondly, even if evolution did make such claims, it's trivially clear that your version would not be the one given, as you strawman presupposes something existing (which would count as part of "all things") as an explanation of the existence "all things", thereby making it circular.

    5) No scientific theory has need for a creator, which is simply a product of the way science works, due to among other things, the need for falsifiability. Moreover, I'm not sure where you got the idea that evolution was the "midwife" of atheism, as this philosophical viewpoint was already on the rise long before Darwin proposed his theory in the 1850s.

  • Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:52 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    It is sad to see ‘evolution’ propped up as an excuse for all of the world’s ills. What an amazing list we have here: atheism, abortion, homosexual sodomy, eugenics and genocide, the holocaust, racism, and teen suicide, a “monstrous edifice” that has “brought so much death and despair into human existence”.

    But reality is quite a bit different. Atheism is growing in popularity more today because religious folks are being… well, being religious, in a pharisaic pain in the butt kind of way, not because ‘evolution’ is being taught in our high schools. ‘Abortion’, ‘homosexual sodomy’, ‘racism’, and ‘suicide’, have all been around a lot longer than Darwin, and none of them throughout all the centuries have ever needed ‘evolution’ in order for them to be practiced.

    As for Kennedy’s comment: “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.” This is just industrial strength misinformation. To prop up evolution as a rational for the holocaust is nonsense.

    This article is essentially mere mud slinging, an absurd attempt at trying to make evolution look so monstrous and dirty that we will throw it away without even trying to understand it, so that we will condemn it as an incarnation of hell, and live in our blissful ignorance. Readers, why do we use misinformation like this? Why do we put up with it, and even call it ‘Christian’?

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Gifts
  • Health
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links