Electing a president who does not believe in evolution theory is a way to lead a nation to ruin, according to one scientist.
-
(Photo: AP Images / Alex Brandon)Republican presidential hopeful and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee campaigns in Mason, N.H., Monday, Jan. 7, 2008.
“The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming,” said Dr. Gilbert Omenn, professor of Internal Medicine, Human Genetics, and Public Health at the University of Michigan, during a science media day on Friday – one day after presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucuses.
“I would worry that a president who didn’t believe in the evolution arguments wouldn’t believe in those other arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin,” said Omenn, who was present for the release the pro-evolution book ”Science, Evolution and Creationism,” published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
In May, three GOP candidates had raised their hand during a debate when asked if they don't believe in evolution – the development of organisms and species from a primitive state. Among them was former Arkansas governor Huckabee, who last week rode a wave of support from evangelical Christians to win the opening round among Republicans in the 2008 campaign for the White House
"If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, I'll accept that....I believe there was a creative process," said Huckabee a day after the May 3 debate, according to the Associated Press.
The one time Baptist minister said he has no problem with teaching evolution as a theory in the public schools and he doesn't expect schools to teach creationism.
He is, however, against restricting students to learning only one idea when others exist.
"We shouldn't indoctrinate kids in school," he said. "I wouldn't want them teaching creationism as if it's the only thing that they should teach."
Francisco Ayala, a professor of biological sciences at the University of California, Irvine, however, says creationism should not be taught in schools at all.
“We don’t teach astrology as an alternative to astronomy, or witchcraft as an alternative to medicine. We must not teach creationism as an alternative to evolution,” he said.
Ayala said creationism is not scientific and worried that the teaching of creationism in school will continue if a creationist president is elected.
A poll conducted last year showed that two-thirds of Americans believe in creationism, while only 53 percent said they believe in evolution.
Among those who believe in evolution, however, most people still believe that God was behind the process.
Christian Post correspondent Ruby Hwang in San Francisco contributed to this report.
RSS
.jpg)
"theotrek-
You wrote "I happen to think God does not need me to defend him."
You're right, God doesn't need anything, in fact. However, He has most certainly called us to defend Him and His ways and His plans to a lost world that doesn't even know it's lost.
“I am put here for the defense of the gospel” (Phil 1:16).
“Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3).
“Encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it” (Tit 1:9).
“We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor 10:5).
“We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us” (2 Cor 5:20).
Have I misunderstood you? "
Quoting the Bible as evidence is no better than quoting Harry Potter or the DaVinci code, though at least the other two don't promote mass genocide, racism, sexism, homophobia, or execution for such dastardly deeds as picking up stick on Sunday. Religion of one period is the literary entertainment of another. Do you know where ending prayer with "Amen" comes from? That Jesus isn't the author of "The Golden Rule"? Where the stories of both Moses' and Jesus' birth come from? They all far precede the Old Testament, plagiarized and warped from earlier dead religions. If you want to know the future of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or any other religion, look back at what happened to the rest.
theotrek-
You wrote "I happen to think God does not need me to defend him."
You're right, God doesn't need anything, in fact. However, He has most certainly called us to defend Him and His ways and His plans to a lost world that doesn't even know it's lost.
“I am put here for the defense of the gospel” (Phil 1:16).
“Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3).
“Encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it” (Tit 1:9).
“We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor 10:5).
“We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us” (2 Cor 5:20).
Have I misunderstood you?
citsonga--Thanks. I happen to think God does not need me to defend him. He just calls me to follow and trust him. The only thing to fear with education is that I might have to give up on some of my pet ideas or traditions. Faith is not about a list of ideas. It is a relationship of dependence and trust. I have found God fully worthy of my trust.
theotrek:: "The nation is in ruin, not due to science. It is in ruin due to issues of greed, power, and putting self ahead of all others. Some call it the American Dream--step on everyone else in your rise to the top. The church has swallowed that ethic, rather than speak Jesus' message of love, forgiveness, mercy, and reconciliation. If you want to point fingers for our national ruin, point them at our failure to take Jesus to heart. Point them at our unfaithfulness in caring for the needs of the world. Remember USA for Africa? The church did not start that. It was secular musicians. Then we went, "Oops!" Some of us decided to a little something about it, but only when it did not interfere with keeping up with the Joneses. We are called to point the world to Christ by the way we love, not by the way we attack scientists interested in learning more about God's creative processes."
As an agnostice, I would like to say thank you. As far as I have seen, you are one of the few religious folks that post at this site that is a voice of reason.
ProfessorX,
You're dillusional and so are those thaty think evolutonary theory implys how we should behave ethically towards eachother in this first place. Anyone who takes that out of any scientific theory is already lost. Would a person consult any other theory regarding human ethics? No, of course not. The Evolutionary Theory ivolves how organism adapt and change over time and has no bearing on ehtical or moral implications on human behavior.
We do see how animals can operate in a symbiotic and altruistic nature that is beneficial towards both the host and the other species involved and so you're disilussion that 'survival of the fittest' implys as a license to kill is one from sheer ignorance.
Question for you Professor X, why do all other westernized countries that more readily accept Evolutionary Theory have better rankings for index's like infant mortality rate, crime rate, poverty rate, access to health and education, etc. ?
Why many of these countries out perform us, where in the USA we are far more religious? It's counter to the logic you're saying that evolution will lead to a downfall at all and obviously its one formed from ignorance.
"Have you studied the recent DNA evidence for evolution? This evidence is so powerful, I would bet if you understood it you would accept evolution as much as the biologists do"
I sure have, here are some recent DNA evvidences for just human evolution, nevermind the tons of evidence for other species for now. How would you refute these evidences Professor x?
Evidence of Common Ancestry: ERVs
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
Evidence of Common Ancestry: Human Chromosome 2
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
Kenneth Miller on Common Ancestry with Apes
www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_c3CkSmT3c
Professor X--The nation is in ruin, not due to science. It is in ruin due to issues of greed, power, and putting self ahead of all others. Some call it the American Dream--step on everyone else in your rise to the top. The church has swallowed that ethic, rather than speak Jesus' message of love, forgiveness, mercy, and reconciliation. If you want to point fingers for our national ruin, point them at our failure to take Jesus to heart. Point them at our unfaithfulness in caring for the needs of the world. Remember USA for Africa? The church did not start that. It was secular musicians. Then we went, "Oops!" Some of us decided to a little something about it, but only when it did not interfere with keeping up with the Joneses. We are called to point the world to Christ by the way we love, not by the way we attack scientists interested in learning more about God's creative processes.
Hello ProfessorX, I bet you're voting for Huckabee.
I'm surprised you think evolution equals no purpose to life. I love evolution and I have been studying it for years. In my opinion evolution is the most interesting science there is. I have so much purpose to my life, I don't have time for all of it. Even if you were right, and evolution meant all the things you listed, that would not prove evolution to be wrong. Have you studied the recent DNA evidence for evolution? This evidence is so powerful, I would bet if you understood it you would accept evolution as much as the biologists do.
You need to understand evolution is just science. Evolution is an important scientific fact, but understanding how it works does not change anyone's life. If a person loves his family, he isn't going to stop loving his family if he accepts the evidence for evolution.
Personally I think when a person understands he is part of nature, instead of being separate from nature, he becomes a better person. He is more likely to respect other animal species, and respect the environment other animals have to live in. For example, the people who are doing the most to protect endangered species are the biologists who accept and understand evolution.
THE NATION IS ALREADY IN RUIN AS A RESULT OF DARWINISM!!! It is Obvious that Dr. Gilbert Omenn, professor of Internal Medicine, needs to question his allegence to science-Fiction and open his eyes to see who the theory of evolution has influenced the identity and actions of its subscribers. Such Darwinian elitists rant from the tops of their ivory towers, and are completely clueless of the damage done to future generations of people who now believe their is no purpose to life, no absolute truth, no reason to be faithful, no reason to love or be loved, no reason to feel worth, no reason to value others, and no reason for sound thinking. Surely their philosophy of meaninglessness has gone straight to their head making their own thoughts meaningless along with this evolutionists argument.
THE DELUSIONAL MR. RICHARD DAWKINS
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&blogID=323117331&Mytoken=FF24C707-D791-4E1D-9551E871F5C5CE7152380450
LOL BobCu!!! It just goes to show how stupid some of the arguments I hear are!
FVThinker, I was joking. Sorry, I thought my joke was obvious.The truth is I'm an atheist, I love evolution, and I'm sure a president Huckabee would be a disaster for the entire world.
BobCu said: "Everyone knows Baptist ministers like Governor Huckabee are biology experts and know more about biology than any biologist."
WOW! At first I thought you were being sarcastic. I am dumbfounded that those word would knowingly pass your lips!
A question for you BobCu ... what is your position on higher education. Is acedemic schooling a good thing or a bad thing? Is more acedemic schooling (college, graduate school) a good thing or a bad thing?
"Electing a president who does not believe in evolution theory is a way to lead a nation to ruin, according to one scientist."
Scientists don't know what they're talking about. Everyone knows Baptist ministers like Governor Huckabee are biology experts and know more about biology than any biologist. Biologists say dumb things like "Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Huckabee is right about evolution. It's a lie being spread by hundreds of thousands of biologists. Biologists claim they have a mountain of evidence for evolution, but their evidence is nothing compared to the word of God in Genesis.
seedplanter, fact is that the US supreme court did intervene in the Florida decision. Funny thing about the conservatives on the court that voted in favor of bush. Normally they are all about states rights.
I am not and was not a fan of gore, but he would have been much better than the ignorant fool thats in the WH now.
your comment "Al Gore was a dangerous man"
dude, get a clue.
dumbya bush has the US bogged down in Iraq for years, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, the killing of thousands of people and the destruction of Iraq. The US had no business invading Iraq. Iraq was not a threat to the US and they had nothing to do with 9-11. It was all about the bush ego and OIL and perhaps lobbying by israel. Lets hope the fool doesn't go after Iran, the US has done enough damage in the ME. Its interesting most of the so-called christians that post here and the ones I know were and are in favor of the Iraq invasion. So much for that thou shall not kill thing. But wait, we must save the embryos....LOL.
"He [clinton] won out of default; due to independent candidates skimming votes from Bush Sr."
are you serious, those were legitmate votes. Thats the way the electoral process works. sometimes there are independent candidates. You might recall that it was independent candidates that took votes from gore otherwise gore would have won by an easy majority in florida.
Citsonga, come on, do you want another recount? Clinton didn’t win the popular vote. He won out of default; due to independent candidates skimming votes from Bush Sr. Al Gore was a dangerous man. Not only did he want to tax oxygen to save the rain forest, but he now wants to see a carbon tax sent to the UN.
Bush won the most states and the most counties. Gore won the popular vote, particularly that of the big cities. This reveals the growing divide between big cities and rural areas. I live in Illinois and most people who live outside of Chicago do not like the Governor. He seems to care little about those who live downstate. He cannot even get along with his own constituents downstate.
http://members.cox.net/mathmistakes/polling.htm
Electing an anti-evolution president will lead the nation to ruin...
just like electing a Mormon will make everyone mormons...
just like electing a Baptist will make everyone baptist...
just like electing someone who's "anti-feminist" will make everyone hate women...
Geez, is America full of morons?
maranatha7593 writes: "Electing an Anti-God president will lead this nation to ruin."
The facts would beg to differ. A Creighton University study (a Christian university) showed clearly that the prosperous democracies with the LEAST amount of religion had the FEWEST common societal ills (i.e. violent crime, teen pregancy and many other measures)
"It ain't what you don't know that get's you in trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - - - Mark Twain
maranatha7593 "Electing an Anti-Christ President will lead our nation to ruin."
Bush wasn't elected, he was selected by the US Supreme Court, but he may indeed be the anti-Christ as you point out, as the last seven years has seen a decline in America to be sure.
Our nation is already in shambles in many ways. We are led politically by people who vie for power, authority, and control. Some of the same claim to follow Christ. Jesus never accepted political solutions. The tools of politics are coercion, power, and fear of retribution. Jesus was willing to use only the tools of love, grace, mercy, forgiveness, and reconciliation. I hardly think God has a lot vested in our election process. God wants the church to do its own work and assume responsibility to lead the rest of the nation in an appropriate manner.
Electing an Anti-Christ President will lead our nation to ruin.
"Blessed is that nation whose God is the Lord."
Tgender-
“Yes, I generally take ID to be non-process, non-gradual creation.”
So, how exactly is this any different than regular creationism that exists under the same premise of poofing organics on a whim according to an unseen agent/god?. Easy, it’s not. ID is a neo-creationism that appeals to ignorance and gaps of knowledge that we’ve YET to figure out.
“I do not think the evidence for speciation on talkorigins (or anywhere else) has been that persuasive.”
Why not? You are just like Behe then. After he realized in court all those works related to the evolutionary processes of the immune system his reply was priceless. He said essentially that all that work wasn’t persuasive enough, or not enough evidence. What a cop out. In other words, Behe’s own admission of guilt is that his view of the immune system via ID was one built from ignorance b/c he hadn’t bothered to even read them such works in the 1st place. Go to ww.Nature.com or other such University.org sites that have front line knowledge.
“I'm curious, as a Christian, don't you believe that God is the Intelligent Agent that created the cosmos and all of life? Why would you object to ID as a way to detect that design?”
Well, of course your Christian god is the Intelligent Designer, even Dembski doesn’t hide this. You won’t hear IDiots saying that our organic life was intelligently designed by aliens, that you wont hear b/c it kills their whole motive.
Why couldn’t it be a Deistic or Pantheist god? Or a Hellenic god like Zeus or Jupiter. Or a Norse god like Thor or Loki? Or an African god like Juju? Or even a Hindu god? Of all the 3000+ recorded gods to choose from, Jesus is by no means the only choice.
The Abrahamic god(s) are always defined as being omibenevolence, among other things, and our universe is anything but benevolent towards life. Black holes, Quasars, Gamma ray bursts, colliding galaxies, colliding meteors and earthly natural disasters daily don’t show great benevolent design, but rather randomness and indifference.
Discussion by Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson
www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw
tgender--Caught! ;-)
As to ID, I have trouble with it as being science. I have no trouble with God being the agent behind the process. I happen to understand that God is Creator. I would much prefer, however, to delineate between theology/doctrine/faith and science. We have a bad historical record in dialog between faith and science. Galileo was considered a heretic when he claimed the earth revolved around the sun. Many felt the Bible and faith under attack by such a statement. To me, it is the same argument now. We want the Bible to teach all kinds of truth, rather than understand that there are limits to what it proposes to teach.
Let science describe how the natural world works (as best it can), and let the church speak of God's will and purpose for our lives (as best we can).
Science is still in process of discovery. So is the church in attempting to portray God. That is because as humans we are limited ("seeing through a glass, darkly"). My faith does not depend on having all the answers. It is in knowing the One desiring relationship with us forever.
theotrek said "I do tend to always think I am right. Of course, I am also known to change my mind. All of a sudden I am right again! (At least until I find out otherwise...) "
Then aren't you a fundamentalist by your own definition! ;-)
theotrek-
Yes, I generally take ID to be non-process, non-gradual creation. I do not think the evidence for speciation on talkorigins (or anywhere else) has been that persuasive. However, the post that you were responding to was simply trying to make the point that ID was indeed falsifiable, although I do not actually think it is false.
I'm curious, as a Christian, don't you believe that God is the Intelligent Agent that created the cosmos and all of life? Why would you object to ID as a way to detect that design?
tgender--I do tend to always think I am right. Of course, I am also known to change my mind. All of a sudden I am right again! (At least until I find out otherwise...)
bklinepope--thanks for sharing the link to the page with a pdf brochure of the National Academies Press book!
tgender-
" If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the "
That's a BIG IF. Well, too bad in the Dover trial most of the IDiots didn't even bother to testify b/c they're cowards. B/c Behe's didn't bother to read the 50 articles, 9 chapters and 2 books on the evolutionary process of the immune system he attributed it to ID. What a fool. here's your dunce cap Behe. In other words, b/c of his ignorance he thought it was ID. Same thing with the Bacteria flagellum, blood clotting, the eye, etc. that IDiots love to use as examples of some complexity that can't be resolve via natural means.
For ID to be scientific it must make predictions that are falsifiable, testable and so on. how can we flasify an undetectable, unseen, unknowable invisable agent, like id/god? we can't! it's like trying to falsify elves and gnomes that also don't exist.
what can ID predict? nothing. what else could it predict beyond that certain things are complex, which means and answers nothing.
a snowflake is more complex than a liquid H2O, does that mean it's the result of ID? of course not.
ID Discussion: 'that cell there is very complex, and we will never know how it works....it MUST be ID!'
such asertion that NO ONE will EVER figure it out is the height of arrogance. last century we didn't know how stars worked or what caused their glow. today we know it's b/c they are a giant fission acting under intense gravity. but, if we didn't know ID too would claim the stars as an instance of ID b/c they don't know.
that is an intellectual cop out. its an old argument from ignorance and god of the gaps of ignorance stance. it answers nothing and returns nothing and it useless.
"On the other hand, falsifying Darwinism seems effectively impossible"
what nonsense. easy, find enough credible, testeable evidence that disproves evolution, that's how. find some dinosaur bones in the same layer as H.Sapien ones.
Some people who are commenting on this blog may be doing so without having had the opportunity to read our book, “Science, Evolution, and Creationism.” This conversation might be enhanced and clarified by reading the book online or downloading it in pdf for free at http://www.nap.edu/sec.
tgender--Then you are taking ID as non-process, non-gradual creation. How about speciation as gradual process observed over the last couple of centuries?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
I fail to see how that addresses the issue of intelligent agency (Purposeful Design).
theotrek-
You wrote "Fundamentalist is generally taken as accepting a basic core of facts (foundation to faith). In practice, it is better associated with a mindset (I am right, and all else is wrong)."
I definitely don't think I am always right and those who disagree with me are always wrong. I'm fallible just like everyone else. But let's be honest. We all hold some things more strongly than other things because of our personal experience and research. For example, I believe quite strongly that Christ is the only way to be forgiven and saved from our sins (and that all other ways are false and therefore futile). I hold much more weakly my belief in the age of the earth and my eschatalogical views.
Thanks for the explanation Chris.
theotrek-
Falsifiability is merely the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown to be false. This doesn't mean that it actually is false, though. If you present good evidence that some complex organism arose from gradual Darwinian processes then you can falsfify ID.
tgender--
How can you falsify agency that is not verifyable? Even if I find evidence of a "gradual Darwinian process" in development of bacterium, who is to say that there is or is not some agency behind it? Supernatural by definition means beyond the material and observable world. It cannot be measured or identified by scientific means.
tgender--Fundamentalist is generally taken as accepting a basic core of facts (foundation to faith). In practice, it is better associated with a mindset (I am right, and all else is wrong). In SBC life, there have been various periods of fundamentalism that have all based a claim to a different set of doctrinal standards of who is in and who is out. If you gather the leadership together for an honest discussion, they will not truly agree among themselves.
Faith is viewed as a set of doctrines, more so than relational trust in Christ Jesus. I wrote a piece about that difference on faith as accepting facts v. trusting Christ. The difference is where you fall on the continuum between the extremes:
http://www.theotrek.org/resources/th/2003_Controversial_Faith.pdf
agentorange-
I'll quote William Dembski directly on this one:
Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is Darwinism falsifiable? Yes to the first question, no to the second. Intelligent design is eminently falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam's razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.
On the other hand, falsifying Darwinism seems effectively impossible. To do so one must show that no conceivable Darwinian pathway could have led to a given biological structure. What's more, Darwinists are apt to retreat into the murk of historical contingency to shore up their theory. For instance, Allen Orr in his critique of Behe's work shortly after _Darwin's Black Box_ appeared remarked, "We have no guarantee that we can reconstruct the history of a biochemical pathway." What he conceded with one hand, however, he was quick to retract with the other. He added, "But even if we can't, its irreducible complexity cannot count against its gradual evolution."
SummaTheologica--Values are one thing. Holding fast to ideas in the face of evidence of it not being correct is hardheadedness. I know some who will claim not to believe in evolution, simply so as not to have to defend themselves in certain circles. I know others who use the term inerrancy just to avoid a battle. When it comes to someone who must review conflicting intelligence reports as the rationale for waging a way, I want to know they can assess reality while laying aside as much bias as possible. I want to know that what they say is what they believe to the absolute best of their knowledge.
The problem is that I don't really trust ANY politician to tell me exactly what they believe and with what degree of uncertainty.
How is ID science if it doesn't operate under the scientific methods, one of which being falsifiability? if we can't falsify something, which in ID we can't as it assumes 'god did this and that, and that too' and other supernatrual acts, it can't be science by definition as it's not falsifiable. ID isn't science.
falsifiability is the main pillar in the foundation of the scientific process, without it everything ceases to be actual testable, predictable and can't be proven or disproven. in otherwords it reverts back to philosophy, which is at best, exactly where ID belongs.
Ok, but how does ID support its claims that 'something is utterly, ireducible complex'? easy, it inserts an unfalsifiable, disproveable agent, namely the 'intelligent designer', aka GOD who designed such complexity. since this agent in its very design is unfalsifiable it removes the ID agent from even being used in the process of science to begin with.
so in that sense, although ID doesn't state HOW the intelligent designer directed/caused such complexity, it indirectly says 'god made it that way, and we know this simply b/c it's (drum roll) COMPLEX!'
that is creationism 101, which is exactly why the judge in Dover threw ID's claims out on religious grounds.
In a given theory like quantum theory, we certaintly don't know everything about it. however it passes predictions and has never failed. the margin of accuracy is so high that although we lack absolute certainty on all of it, we know absolutely know enough to make testable predictions that yeild falsifiable results.
ID isn't even near this first step of making any predictions that are testable, predictable and falsiiable. instead, they just asert that anything that is too complex must be the result of ID or god. it's an intellectual cop out, a shrug of the shoulders...an 'i dunno...god did it!' solution to explain away ignorance. it helps no one in the end and answers nothing in return. it's about as usefull as tits on a nun.
ifeelfine72-Apology accepted.
I have never really heard a consistent definition of what people mean by “fundamentalist.” As for me, I hold a very high view of God as all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present, and completely sovereign over His creation. I also hold that the Bible is His inerrant Word (in the autographs). I take exception when people condescendingly describe believers like me as biblical literalists, suggesting that I “always interpret the Bible literally” and also that “literal interpretations are always incorrect.” Like all literature, the Bible should be interpreted as the author intended. Some parts are literal, some are symbolic—even within the same book, chapter, and passage. The trick is to determine the right interpretation based on the rules of hermeneutics.
When the Bible and nature are properly interpreted, they will be in complete harmony because they represent different windows on the one reality created by God. The problem is that, as fallible human beings, we make mistakes in both—we sometimes get our theology wrong (interpretation of the Bible) and we sometimes get our science wrong (interpretation of nature). We should strive to integrate all the evidence to get at the correct view of reality as God created it. If that makes me a fundamentalist, then so be it.
ifeelfine72 writes "Lots of scientists believe in both God and in evolution."
The cold hard facts are different. Of the National Academy of Sciences over 70% state that have no supernatural belief (atheists). Another 23% claim no belief in any personal god (deists). That leaves only 7% of them being theists. If you look at those with an area of expertise that actually has them confront the questions (i.e. biologists and cosmologists), the are almost universally non-believers. I believe that it was mathemeticians that had the highest level of supernatural belief. I don't think 7% constitutes "a lot" ... and the trend downward for the believing segment sharply down.
tgender - thank you for your comments. I apologize if I am whisked away with bouts of hyperboly. I don't have even keel or measure of say a theotrek or didymus. In any case, I still feel that fundamentalism is a bad thing - although I should have left the hyperboly out! Fundamentalism takes an extreme view of Christianity. The Christians that I go to church with aren't part of the emergent church (although I don't see anything wrong that) or part of the religious right or left, it is a middle of the road, United Methodist church (150 years old in the middle of the country) and even our old country pastor recognizes the facts of evolution. Fundamentalism's extreme view drives a wedge between Christians and that is very dangerous. I'll say it again, there is nothing in evolution that does anything to dispell my faith.
You mention that I contradict myself by saying I believe in evolution and God's direction of it. That isn't a contradiction at all. By its definition, science cannot include the supernatural. If that is the reason to throw out evolution then you must throw out the theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, etc. Lots of scientists believe in both God and in evolution. Ken Miller is one of the most famous - he wrote the text many high school biology students use and he is a devout, practicing Christian.
I believe someone already mentioned this but evolution is not the study of how the origin of life began in the world. That is a different branch of science altogether.
BTW: Carbon dating is only one of I believe 10-15 different methods for determining the age of the earth, fossils and other "super old stuff." And I'm not sure its the most accurate one. But all of the methods come pretty close to saying the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
Because when a nation can fall from that place where it was founded - which has been happening in our nation for some time. God help us to get back on track by getting back to His Word as the only righteous standard for our lives.
"Blessed is that nation whose God is the Lord."
How could an Anti-Evolution candidate bring a nation to ruins when it was founded on Judeo-Christian Values and practices?
FVThinker-
You said "Radio-Carbon dating showed that these processes took BILLIONS of years. That offered further support of evolution."
Tha half-life of Carbon-14 is 5,730 years and can be used to determine ages up to about 60,000 years.
FVThinker-
It may be convenient for you to ignore how life got started, but it makes your worldview incomplete. In fact, it has a VERY LARGE hole in it. That would concern me greatly if I held the evolutionary view. In fact, I've read lots of quotes from honest scientists who are troubled by this.
tgender,
Evolution has nothing to do with how life started. Absolutely nothing. Evolution by natural selection ONLY speaks to how the complexity of life came to pass once the first replicating entity came into existance.
Abiogenesis (how life started) is a completely separate discussion. But on that topic, just because science does not know just how life came to pass, does not give the Christian narrative validity. Just because a cookie is NOT chocolate chip does not make it, by default, make it a shortbread cookie.
maranatha7593 writes: "Electing an Anti-God president will lead this nation to ruin."
The facts would beg to differ. A Creighton University study (a Christian university) showed clearly that the prosperous democracies with the LEAST amount of religion had the FEWEST common societal ills (i.e. violent crime, teen pregancy and many other measures)
"It ain't what you don't know that get's you in trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - - - Mark Twain
ifeelfine72-
I do not think I called you an atheist. I simply said that any evolutionist who is also an atheist must explain how life came from non-life. It was a general question to anyone who fit that description. It was not intended for anyone in particular and therefore not to you. Please accept my apologies if that was not clear.
I fail to see how slapping labels on people (fundamentalist) and then saying they're the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity helps the debate. It also does not seem Christ-like. We should vigourously debate the ideas but treat each other with civility. This is the essence of tolerance.
I find your comment that Evolution does not deal with origins of life on earth to be an astonishing statement. Evolution deals with how we got the diversity of life we observe today. That necessarily includes the origin of that life. If you omit this, then you don't have a very complete answer, do you?
I also find your comment that Evolution happened exactly the way scientists said, but that God directed every bit of it is contradictory. Scientists say there was no intelligent action in Evolution--that it was the result of purely blind, natural processes. This leaves God out of it in their opinion.
Finally, I endeavor greatly to not close my eyes to any evidence, but I do try to form an integrated worldview that makes sense of ALL the evidence. Easier said than done I admit...
Electing an Anti-God president will lead this nation to ruin.
"Blessed is that naiton whose God is the Lord."
ProfessorX--Your claim that the "talkorigins.org Darwinist website” is filled with ambiguous language" does not seem to measure up to what I read on the site. Looks sufficiently supported with recent information in articles that I read last night. It is brief, but comprehensive.
ProfessorX, did you actually read the article? The point is that if someone can't follow the science, logic and reason which yields evolution, how could we trust him to make rational judgements on other things? Short answer is that we can't.
Chris333 - what are the other parts of ID? It seems to me their main tenant is bashing evolution, not proving ID. The only thing they preach is irreducible complexity and then talk about the Cambrian Explosion - but both of those things are swipes at evolution, not proofs of ID.
Part 2
His observations on the Beagle (of which I only scratched) were compelling on their own. The scientific ‘holy grail’, however, is when completely unrelated fields of science confirm the predictions of the original theory. Enter our discovery of DNA. Once we understood the role of this molecule and had the technology to look at it closely, biologists made a *prediction*. That prediction was that, if Darwinian Natural Selection were true, then the various species’ DNA would closely related to where they fit on the evolutionary tree. DNA jived with evolution exactly.
Darwin *predicted* that there would be many more precursor species to those that he observed. Of course archeology has unearthed gazillions of fossils the perfectly supported evolution.
Darwin also postulated that the changes he theorized could only occur over vast time frames but had no way to predict or test what that time frame was. Enter nuclear physics and our tremendous understanding of the behavior of matter. Radio-Carbon dating showed that these processes took BILLIONS of years. That offered further support of evolution.
Part 1:
The evidence for evolution-by-natural-selection is unquestionably overwhelming. In Darwin’s day (he planned on studying theology upon his return from his famous voyage) there were very few tools available to him. He could not excavate to ancient layers of earth and could only observe living and dead current species (at least one of his subjects graced his dinner table). Nuclear dating techniques did not exist nor did any knowledge of DNA. It is a great testament to his powers of observation that allowed him formulate his hypothesis. Some of the very compelling observations he made were that a great many species have five-fingered ‘hands’. With the exception of grossly different proportions, the whale’s flipper and the bat’s wing (as examples) are fundamentally identical in regards to the number of bones, how they are articulated, how they are attached (via similar arms and wrists), they are identical. Another observation was that (again adjusted for scale) early embryos of (for example) horses, mice and humans are virtually indistinguishable.
Most certainly, evolution satisfies the “criteria of the scientific method”. Charles Darwin’s grandfather had the idea of one species giving rise to other species. Charles further developed his grandfather’s concept and made some *predictions* (important to the scientific method) and looked for supporting evidence. If one species did give rise to other species, it would make sense that there would be great similarities between those species. The similarities that he observed were exactly what he predicted and looked exactly as they should if a natural process were passively selecting species based on their specific environment.
ifeelfine, irreducible complexity is just one part of the ID argument. Anyway I am not debating any specific theory of ID, I am only saying that what you are calling evolution is different than what the scientific community defines as evolution, what you are saying is essentially Intelligent Design. Regardless of the method by which God uses to create, it is He that is creating, not random shear biological functions. I am not attacking you on this point, I actually can agree with your point, I don't necessarily believe it is right, but it is my opinion that one can have total faith in the Bible and also believe in evolution (as you described). However I would add that the Bible makes it clear that Human beings are separate from animals, in at least as much as we have a soul, when God breathed into us.
Chris333 - I've always been clear about my stance on creation. Intelligent design is more of a philosophy than science. One of its premises (false I might add) is that some things are irreducibly complex. In every example folks bring up, its been show it could have evolved or how it actually did evolve. Where science says random, I say guided by the hand of God but again, that's my faith and not part of science.
Re: JoeU
There are no 'ten commandments"; its more like 13 or 14. Go back and look at Exodus 20. Also the creation story in Genesis shows the creation of plants before the sun and moon were created. How is that possible? Plants cannot exist prior to the sun being in existence.
A message to all the anti-religious bigots...
Mike Huckabee is NOT running for pastor of the United States; he is running for President of the United States and he is qualified to lead.
http://evolutionfacts.townhall.com
That “talkorigins.org Darwinist website” is filled with ambiguous language which is used to disguise their lack of evidence that is suppose to show that all organisms arose from common ancestors. They refuse to inform the public of the biochemical limitations of speciation and gene pool isolation. Their arguments are antiquated and their "so-called" evidence is so out-dated that it truly makes Darwinists look ignorant and uneducated.
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
God was there,
and He told us how and what happened:
Exodus 20: 1,11 (New International Version)
The Ten Commandments
1 And God spoke all these words:
. . .
11 For in six days the LORD made the
heavens and the earth,
the sea, and all that is in them,
but he rested on the seventh day.
Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath
day and made it holy.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus20;&version=31 ;
Lets teach the truth.
.
ifeelfine,
You said that fundamentalism was the worst thing to happen to Christianity. Maybe from a liberal perspective, but other than that, no definitely fundamentalism is not the worst thing to happen to Christianity by even a long shot. (when saying "Christianity" I mean the representation of Christianity, not the belief in itself) It is just the same to say, "Liberal Christian perspective is the worst thing to happen to Christianity"
Nonetheless, I will say my one major quam with those who typically define themselves as fundamentalists, and that is that they insist that the world must be 6000 years old by a literal interpretation of the Bible. Forcing this view is hurting the reputation of Christianity, but probably not as much as other groups who claim to be Christian and then try to mold Christianity into what may as well be a secular religion, and for all intents and purposes is the exact same as secularism (oh but they say they believe in God!)
theotrek, You said something about adam referring to man in general. Why does Paul say, sin entered the world through one man and was subsequently remedied by one man (referring to Adam and Christ)? If you want to make the case that Adam was just man in general, then you have to disprove a mountain of evidence. Just because a Hebrew name is representitive, it doesn't mean that it is not still a name. Abraham means father of many, we don't say, oh well it just means the ancestors of the Jewish nation, rather it is referring to one man.
ifeelfine,
You said, "I believe that evolution happened exactly the way scientists are finding it happened but God directs every bit of it. Of course the addition of God is my faith talking, not science."
At long last we see your perspective, though it is superficially contradictory maybe we can clear that up, and then at last you and I can be in agreement on this point. Here is the superficial contradiction in what you said, you said both that you believe that evolution happened exactly like scientists say, and that God directed every process of it. Scientists say that evolution must be completely random, if it is random then God is not directing anything. If however, as I believe you are, you are stating that evolution was the method by which God created life (with a special injunction when He breathed a soul into humans) then I can agree with that point of view. This however is Intelligent Design. If you reaffirm this then welcome to the Intelligent Design club!
Ifeelfine--Thanks for posting the http://www.talkorigins.org/ link. Lots of great information in one place!
tgender--As to the number of fossils available, see the following:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html
What a ridiculous knee jerk reaction.
I geuss someone forgot that Huck was also a governor.
Huck will ruin the country like he ruined Arkansas.
tgender-- Back to the fossil record's "missing links", see the following link on transitional fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
BTW: Nice to see you back theotrek!
tgender - Wow, so just because I've examined the evidence of evolution and found it to hold up, you think I'm an atheist. I've said it before and I'll say it again, fundamentalism is the worst thing to ever happen to Christianity. I am a Christian.
Here is the link to the question of macro-evolution I promised earlier:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
As for the origins of life on earth, evolution doesn't deal with that - its a different branch of science all together. But I'm sure you read that before. I'm quite convinced that you are closing your eyes to the facts because it upsets your personal worldview.
I believe that evolution happened exactly the way scientists are finding it happened but God directs every bit of it. Of course the addition of God is my faith talking, not science.
BTW, what apple? We read the text more from our traditions about it than for what it actually says for itself.
tgender--As a narrative, Genesis 2-5 may use Adam as both individual and representative. I take it more as a figure representing humanity from the point of creation. The Hebrew does not really support the term being used as a personal name. It uses the term as figuratively representing all of humanity, though there was no doubt a first human that God created. Linguistically, there is a problem with the term as a proper name. Paul's comments are inconclusive as to whether he takes Gen 2-5 as representative or literal-historical.
Theotrek-
Sorry, but the whole context of Gen 2 through 5 argues for Adam being a particular man. He talks to God, he names the animals, he eats the apple, he hid from God, he lays with Eve, he has children who have specific names, etc (and God talks to him). There is no way that all of humanity is in view. The NT also refers to Adam as the head of the human race. Through one man (Adam) sin entered the world and through one man (Jesus) it will be redeemed.
tgender--
NIV flip flops between "the man," "man," and "Adam". The Hebrew goes back and forth between "man" and "the man." At times, the translations use Adam when the Hebrew has no article (Gen 5:1-5), and at times they use Adam when the article is present. Sometimes it is rendered correctly as "the man." The Hebrew simply uses the generic term "man." It was the Greek Septuagint that began the practice of using the Hebrew term as though it were a personal name. In Hebrew, it just is not. It can refer to a specific man, or through that character all of humanity at once.
Theotrek-
Prior to Gen 2:20, the Hebrew term is “the man”. After that it uses just “man”, suggesting that Adam was the personal name of “the man”. Certainly your implication that this refers to mankind in general is not true. It clearly was one particular man.
Theotrek-
1. You did not answer my question, although this question was really addressed to an atheist evolutionist, which you seem to not be. An atheistic evolutionist must explain how life came from non-life. This is certainly in the realm of scientific inquiry for the atheist since he believes there is no supernatural realm. The answer from the Christian perspective obviously is that God did it.
2. We have an extremely rich fossil record and we would expect to have found many of the “missing links” by now if evolution was true.
3. So, evolution started and ended abruptly and is not going on today?
tgender--How does your translation of the Bible deal with the Hebrew tern "Adam" in chapters 1-5? Most I have seen go back and forth between Adam and man. That is because the term is the basic term for man. Eve happens to be the term for life. Interesting that for a story you seem to take as literal history no personal names appear. Man is formed and hangs in the air while God plants a garden and gets it ready for him.
tgender--
1. Scientific method cannot answer questions of supernatural agency. It can only address evidence of the material world. That does not rule out supernatural agency, but such is beyond its sphere of inquiry by definition of method.
2.The fossil record is sparse at best, and will not likely ever fill in the gaps due to how fossils are created. Even if we were to discover all fossils in existence, we would have gaps. The fossil is the exception in terms of evidence, and very rare.
3.The Cambrian Explosion occurred over a period of 30 million years. I guess that is sudden in some sense, but hardly a problem for evolutionary theory.
Genesis 1 does not say how God created. It says that God pronounced his will and nothing got in the way. One can try to be a stickler for 24-hr periods, but Gen 1 and 2 have different orders for God's creation. The texts weren't after describing the process, but the agent (God) and intent.
To ifeelfine72
I am saying that I believe creationism to be the truth - I said that evolutionists won't even accept it as a theory.
Point out where I have lied and I will seek forgiveness, but there is no proof of macro-evolution and you know it. I don't understand why most evolutionists and scientist are afriad of creationism - it is not like the world is going to fall apart.
I am not trying to convince anyone to believe creationism, just that there are some (Christ followers and scientists) who do believe it and that it should be treated and taught as an equal to evolution.
For those of you who are Christian Evolutionists, do you not believe that God created Adam and Eve fully-formed in the Garden of Eden? Do you think they evolved over millions of years from slime? What sense does this make of the Creation account in Genesis?
Here are three questions for all the evolution proponents:
1) How do you explain life from non-life using only blind chance and random processes?
2) How do you explain the absence of billions of gradual transitions in the fossil record?
3) How do you explain the sudden appearance of almost all animals fully formed at one time in the Cambrian Explosion?
Evolutionists must give good answers to these questions for someone to believe in Evolution (or do you take it all on blind faith?).
ifeelfine72 - I have studied this quite a bit (testing all things as you say) and I have seen no evidence for macroevolution. All evidence put forward has been for microevolution, which is not the same thing. As Qatonchozeh said in these posts, evidence for micro cannot add up to produce macro. It takes a different biological mechanism. Natural selection and genetic mutation can't do it. I look forward to hearing your evidence.
brooksie - so wait. Its not a theory but then it is a theory? I dont get it - that's ok, you clearly don't either. And you saying there is no evidence doesn't make it so. Please get your facts straight - you know it is a sin to lie.
Qatonchozeh - Wiggy has demonstrated more knowledge of evolution than you know. Your statements are ridiculous and ignorant on their face. People turning into polar bears - isn't evolution, its science fiction.
tgender - that is not true! We do have evidence. There are documented speciation. Its not "crocoduck" like you were hoping for but speciation. I'm in the middle of work but will look for the link later.
tgender - you're not seeing any evidence because you are shutting your eyes to it. Paul said, Test all things and hold to those things that are true!
To ifeelfine72
I don't believe that creationism is a theory - I believe it is the truth and is how our world and all that is in it came into existence (are you really saying that it is easier to believe that we evolve from the primordial sludge or that something/SomeOne greater than us created us?). My point is that evolutionists seem to be scared of creationism b/c most fully reject it as even a possible theory (which by rejecting it they are in essence saying that evolution is the only possible theory - and evolution is a theory, there is no proof). I am not afraid of evolution - on a micro scale, we see tadpoles "evolve" into frogs, but we do not see one species evolve into another (i.e. cats do not become dogs and vise versa). If you have proof of that, please let me know (and btw, I have studied evolution and the 'proof' or 'facts' are just not there - as there are many articles and books that have been written on this research also that you can read too.)
I am not asking anyone to believe in creation, but to look at the facts. The fact is: there is no evidence of macro-evolution (defined as one species evolving into another species). For me (and other Christ followers) it is more plausible that God created all that was created. I like the story of the watch and the watchmaker - is it more plausible that the watch simple came into existence and keeps time or is it more plausible that there is a watchmaker who put the watch together and keeps it running? Come to your own conclusion - just allow us that believe something else to have the freedom to believe it and allow others the chance to evaluate it for themselves.
*As a side note - does it really matter that Huckabee believes in creationism - he has never said that his primary goal as president would be to get creationism taught in all schools. Such criticisms of him sound more like evolutionists fear of creationism and the mounting evidence.
Wait, so he's a Professor of Internal Medicine ... and the theory of evolution is, what, a serious hobby? I would have expected that from a biologist, but not a medical teacher.
"The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health ... I would worry that a president who didn’t believe in the evolution arguments wouldn’t believe in those other arguments either."
I've got to say - that is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
To Wiggy:
Well little Wiggy, I can argue with "that." Just because you can jump 6 inches off the ground doesn't mean that you will be able to jump to the moon given enough time and practice. You demonstrate your ignorance of the issue. The micro and macro does not compound in this issue. When we speak of micro, we acknowledge the occurrence of millions of micros all across the globe, yet never jumping into macro. Macro is when a tree drops an acorn and it becomes a sparrow (eventually), and that is just plain idiocy for which all of you with all your blathering have nothing but your faith's conjecture. The schemes of evil God haters.
So there is a micro evolution, e.g. my body makes changes over a period a months/years when moving from Arizona to Alaska to adapt to the colder climate. But that doesn't mean in some supposed long period of time I will become a polar bear, as macro evolution would foolishly suppose.
And to ifeelfine72:
All your "science" and their peer reviewed fairy tales, is basically a bunch of God hating fools, looking around at each other and concocting some non-sense to justify their rebellion to God and soothe their evil heart. Just because you can multiply fools doesn't mean the truth is destroyed. If you really wanted to get your bubble burst there are many sources of information out there to show the fallacy of your faith in evolution. Some have been cited below.
And the so-called moderates and liberals that you quote really don't have a true faith. They are deceived, fools and liars for they do not believe the Holy Word of God.
That is the same Word that you also hate and that God will use to judge your evil life and rebellion against the Almighty King of Kings. You would be wise to repent and believe the gospel, or you will soon perish and stand dumbfounded before a very angry God who intends to poor out His wrath upon you for all eternity. A never-ending, tortured hopelessness is the future of the rebellious God haters.
Qaton
Micro and macroevolution are definitely NOT the same thing. Microevolution are adaptations within a species and I acknowledge that we have evidence for that. Macroevolution, on the other hand, requires changes to create whole new species. We have no evidence for that, yet that's what Darwinian evolution requires.
Look, the "micro/macro" evolution thing is a non-topic. It's an illusion. If you accept "micro" evolution, you can't deny "macro" evolution. A macro thing is only lots and lost of micro things put together. If you only move an inch at a time, eventually you'll travel any distance. Who can argue with that? Either evolution happens, or it doesn't. If you are going to deny evolution, don't waste everybody's time with this half way, silly compromise. It just weakens your position.
"Fundamentalists" are not afraid of evolution; we just don't see any evidence for it. I only hear evolutionists asserting their position, not arguing for it. What exactly is the evidence for macro-evolution that you have observed ifeelfine72?
brooksie777 - Would you care to elaborate on "the theory of creationism?" It is not a "theory" it is a part of our Christian faith - not science. And no one is asking you to "blindly accept" evolution. There are literally hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed articles and books on the subject. Anyone can go and read them. That would include you.
Moderate and liberal Christians are not afraid of evolution - only fundamentalists as they know that evolution is not compatible with fundamentalism. The facts of evolution scare them.
BTW: Macro-evolution has been observed.
Creationism is to evolution as astrology is to astronomy and alchemy is to chemistry. It really is that simple.
"Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord?"
Iran is the nation whose God is the Lord. Is that what you want for America? A theocracy? Teaching creation in schools will be a big step in that direction.
If you think about it, evolution is a religion that permeates multiple denominations that is based upon theories and assumptions whereas Christianity is a faith (only true faith in my opinion) that includes multiple denominations (including cultural lines) that is based upon fact.
Dr. Gilbert Omenn, professor of Internal Medicine says (in this contact), "6 is 9 and the 9 is the 6!"
Mr Professor, the LORD is asking you, "Do you not know? Do you not hear? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in; who brings princes to nothing, and makes the rulers of the earth as emptiness. (Isaiah 40:21-23)
Electing an Anti-God president will lead this nation to ruin.
"Blessed is that naiton whose God is the Lord."
tliml, who are you supporting for president?
DARWINISM and ATHEISM is UNSCIENTIFIC & MYTHICAL
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
The Shift in Momentum IS FOR PRESIDENT HUCKABEE in 2008
Mike Huckabee is presidential material and is alone able to defeat Hillary & Obama. I am now convinced that those wealthier donors to Romney's, Giuliani's, and Thompson's campaign have wasted their money and if they continue, are wasting their hard earned money on candidates who do not have voter appeal or substance. As a member of the younger generation, I will tell you point blank, Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson DO NOT connect with us.
ROMENY has run out of gas. He has been the worst investment money could buy. His persecution complex makes him so defensive, weepy and wimpy that he cracks under pressure. His fake, calculated tears make him appear too weak before America and rest of the world. Romney’s negative campaigning reveals his unprofessional desperation and that he is really an unkind angry old man. BOTH Romney's and Giuliani's flip flop past makes them a liability and not an asset for republicans in 2008.
Every time Huckabee is heard his approval amongst Republicans and Democrats increases even WITHOUT major financial support. Just imagine what would happen if he got the major financial support. He is the Republican's secret weapon in the 2008 election. Huckabee's proven leadership can help bring America together as a team.
A message to the anti-religious bigots...
Huckabee IS NOT running for PASTOR of the UNITED STATES; HE IS RUNNING FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and HE IS WELL QUALIFIED TO LEAD.
Huckabee is the BEST candidate because he not only attracts republicans but also democrats to his side without compromising his principles. Both side support is needed to win this election in 2008 and he has it.
25 REASONS and COUNTING WHY HUCKABEE WINS THE NOMINATION and the PRESIDENCY
http://evolutionfacts.townhall.com
I always find it interesting how we (Christ followers) are suppose to 'blindly' accept the THEORY of evolution as scientific fact, but evolutionists quickly dismiss creationism as religious wishful thinking. Which begs the question: why are evolutionists so afraid to even raise creationism as a theory? If there is no foundation to it, don't you think it would have faded by now? Could it be b/c the missing link has never been found?
Well, here is your missing link: "In the beginning, God created..." Until you trot out the evidence - the real physical evidence - that macro-evolution has taken place (that one species has evolved into another), I choose to believe (and am not forcing anyone else to believe) that "In the beginning, God created."
And btw - when and where is creationism regularly taught in public schools? (from article: "Ayala said creationism is not scientific and worried that the teaching of creationism in school will continue if a creationist president is elected.")
Eight years of ignorance and disdain of science in the white house is ENOUGH! Science and technology will be more and more important, as time goes on, and we cannot afford any more ignorant presidents. Even the Catholics recognize common descent, why can't our Christians? Tell you why, without an "Adam and Eve" and a flood myth, the whole fabric of literal Christianity falls apart at the seams.
Sorry folks, the earth is 4.5 BILLION years old, goes around the sun, and has supported life for at least 4 billion years. Get over it!
John 17:3
the fool says in his heart that there is no God
Dear Dr. Omenn, Here is an omen for you: "In the beginning God....." Yours if you want me, God.
Huckabee would lead this nation to ruin even if he DIDN'T go against evolutional theory! LOL
tpique1: I could not have said it better myself, great insight.
So that whole "All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" thing has led our country to ruin?
This folks is what happens when God gives men over to reprobate minds. First, why would an atheistic religion like evolution care whether the country went into ruin or not? Survival of the fittest remember? Second, same argument, why care about global warming? Third, the only thing evolutionists are afraid of is that their Reich might be exposed for what it really is: a shallow, unscientific establishment grounded in antichrist, biggoted dogma. Certainly, that's enough to send any demonoically inspired group running for cover.
Evolution seems unlogical and less scientific. If the scientists used their brains to try to prove creation rather than the atheist evolution they might actually make sense.
truthstands - again, clearly you know absolutely nothing about evolution.
With all due respect to the learned gentleman, I believe Dr. Omenn has made a statement that, among other things, is misleading and unscientific. For instance, he has stated two "theories" as "fact" - the theory of evolution and the theory of global warming. These two things are still very much the subject of debate and contention and only a handful of tunnel-visioned scientists are convinced that they are "facts".
Dr. Omenn has introduced another "scientific fact" here - that anyone who does not believe in evolution as a fact has neither the "logic" nor the qualities required of a prospective President of the USA. That also sounds like an interesting theory.
Dear Dr. Gilbert Omenn,
Your comment smacks of a disguised religious litmus test for candidacy.
Wow, when did the Scientists forget that if the Earth's Axis was tilted one degree north or south the Earth would freeze or fry? And we are just here by chance? Not hardly.
Only an inteligent being could create a world so perfectly put together, when one thinks about all of the contents of this earth how can you say it is all by some "Big Bang Theory." It makes less sense to believe in Evolution...
Woe to any nation that does not believe in God, does not believe in the salvation that is only found with Jesus Christ, nor does not believe the truth of the Word of God!
steveh20, because some of them also believe God is behide the process of evolution even though they believe evolution to some extent.
Once again, some "Scientist" consider evolution as "Fact" while it is only a theory - a poor theory only based on imagination. I don't see any reason why the nation would be ruined if we teach evolution as a theory in stead of saying it a fact. Even if we don't teach evolution at all, nothing in science would be hurt except some "Scientists" would lose their job.
"A poll conducted last year showed that two-thirds of Americans believe in creationism, while only 53 percent said they believe in evolution."
Bit puzzled here I thought 2 thirds would be 66% (2sf) how can it be that 53% believe in evolution then? Appreciate that the problem is with me.