Today's Christian News Online - The Christian Post
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (JN 8:32)
CP HOME
> Opinion > Columns
What Darwinism Can't Do
The Edge of Evolution
By
Chuck Colson
Christian Post Guest Columnist
Sat, Oct. 20 2007 10:19 AM EDT
[-] Text [+]
Prev1Next
Most Commented Articles
Opponents Forsee Massachusetts as 'Las Vegas of Gay Marriage'
Theology Professor Leaving Traditionalist Seminary Over Bible Claims
In Defense of Marriage – Part III
Prop. 8 Supporters Sue Over 'Prejudicial' Ballot Wording
N.Y. Out-of-State Gay 'Marriage' Case Heads to Court
Non-Believers Take On Challenge in 'Make Me a Christian'
Which Universities Have the Most Religious Students?
-
Thousands Pay Tribute to Christopher Laurie
The Truth Behind Randy Pausch's 'Last Lecture'
Top Hamas Leader’s Son Converts to Christianity
Theology Professor Leaving Traditionalist Seminary Over Bible Claims
Non-Believers Take On Challenge in 'Make Me a Christian'
Christian-Muslim Statement Among First Fruits of 'Common Word' Gathering
Christopher Laurie Memorial Service Set for Live Webcast
-
-
Obama's 'Rock Star' Status Not Enough for Conservative Voters
-
Anglican Head Compared 'Faithful' Gay Relationships to Marriage
-
Group Calls for 31-Day Prayer to Protect China's Believers During Olympics
-
U.S. Praised for Adding Human Rights to N. Korea Agenda
-
Soviet Critic, Devout Christian Solzhenitsyn Buried in Moscow
-
Chapman Family Discusses Tragic Loss in First Public Interview
-
HIV Battle All About Partnership, Says AIDS Expert
-
Featured Advertiser Links
Comments
A creator you must mean the alien race known as the Asgard.
The small body big head large almonds shaped eyesgray skin. There are pic's and video of there space ships many people around the world have seen them most give the same description
of what they look like. The whole GOD story is a cover up so we don't find out about them.
The Asgard don't want to change our natural development. We are like mice in a maze to them.
There studing of us will help them make better life else were..
At least there is some evidence
that aliens exist..
Where or what made this god you are talking about. Like responses below all you got is faith. Just like the men who strap bombs to there self and blow people away.
Or kill abortion doctors because god told them to.....
HOw did all animals fit on the ark?
IT would take 6 inches of rain a minit 40 feet per hour to flood the earth.
Where did all the water go.
How did all the animals get from a montain in Turkey to where they live today? with out leaving bone behind. why no kangroos in turkey today?
Scientists do not want to "stifle dissent" when it comes to ID; indeed, the problem is that the questions and examples Behe uses have all been thoroughly debunked and/or answered. At the Dover trial Behe got pwned by saying he hadn't read the stacks of papers and books that solved his "problem" or irreducible complexity in the bacteria flagellum, and then admitted that astrology could be considered science.
As for concerns that science will be decided by courts and not evidence--ironic much? If ID'ers want their precious science taken seriously perhaps they should take all that money they devote to PR and do some research, experiments, go on a couple fossil digs, predict where the next bit of irreducible complexity will be found, etc., etc. Proponents of the big bang nor indeed of evolution never had to go to court to get their ideas taught; no, they slogged it out in papers and universities and laboratories throughout the world. They did the hard work and it paid off.
Go ahead: disprove evolution. Dismantle Darwin. The scientists would love it. Nothing is sacred in science, nothing is taboo--except utter BS.
I think the righteous and religious among us should start attacking other sciences that ignore god as well. How about challenging the godless theories outside of biology. It's time to widen the front. Granted, the whole of modern biology depends on the theory of evolution, which says that all life forms evolved from a single common ancestor billions of years ago, without god's help. But what do other branches of science say about god?
What about cosmology? The science of cosmology says that the whole universe began 13.5 billion years ago in the Big Bang, that the stars, galaxies and planets formed through natural processes, that every element in everything we are made of was formed in stars, without any help at all from god. This is an outrage. It's time to put god back in the equations.
Don't you think it's about time to scale up the attack on Science? Rally the troops, it's time to go after that godless science of cosmology. For too long professors have brainwashed our kids with this atheism-based belief system. It should be easy to discredit! After all, did you know that there is much less evidence for the Big Bang theory than there is for the theory of evolution?
HAW549: By the way, helping the sick and poor is not socialism - its Christianity. If you want to legislate Christianity and make a real difference, don't make gay marriage illegal or force the teaching of ID, start by helping the poor or providing universal healthcare. Jesus was as liberal and as progressive as they come. If there is one common thread in the Bible, its help the poor and the least amonst us. I don't believe that the Discovery Institute counts as the least amonst us, nor do Bush's friends who get huge tax cuts.
HAWK49: It seems as though there are a lot of folks whose gifted ministries are preaching about ID and the abomination of homosexuality - its too bad more folks gifts didn't revolve around helping the poor and sick. I know lots of Christians (like myself) who see evolution (no one of any educational standing - at least credible educational standing - calls it Darwinism) and can't help but see the beauty of God in all of it. I think evolution happened exactly the way scientists are finding it happened and yet I know that God's hand was in all of it. I would urge you to stop wasting time on something as ridiculous as this and appreciate God's creation for what it is.
Personally, to me, it's starting to look like the Christian Post is really the Christian Right Wing Post - and if you don't have right wing, conservative political leanings then you can't be a true Christian and that is a shame because Jesus' ideas were as radical and progressive as you can possibly get.
ifeelfine72:
I do believe God has commanded us to both help the least among us (that does not mean government socialism) and to defend the faith against false philosophies and false teachings that are alluring the elect and causing many to turn against God. George Barna has demonstrated very well how nominal Christians have bought the lies of secular humanism and how many children of Christian homes, when they leave the home also leave the church. Also reflect upon the body and we all are gifted for different ministries. Some may be to study and teach about God's general revelations. Take a look at the powerpoint presentation on www.nehemiahinstitute.com and see how effective Christian kids (90% of them) have bought into the secualr humanist lies. Their Christian worldview is nonexistent. I am leaving in a few minutes on a trip so I will not be around to respond. I urge you to refect on God's word regarding what I mentioned and seek out The Truth Project in your area to learn more of God's total design for His creation.
HidingBehingNickname: I've never read his book nor do I care to. But I didnt make that claim, nor did I offer an opinion on the review. My point was on the whole idea of even talking about this in the first place. Why as Christians should we care about this? If you spent as much time helping the least amongst us (the poor, sick, imprisoned, maligned, etc) as you do wasting time talking about this stuff then the world would be a much better place. Cleary the entire point of the Bible is wasted on you.
Thanks HBN for your feedback. I've gone back and read my original comment, I can't find any mention of the book in it or any claim to have read it, so I'm not certain where you get the idea from that I claimed to have read it? Can you let me know why you think this, thanks.
For the IDers, realize the devious games the devil's religion of humanism (ye shall be as gods) plays. The court ruling evolutionists use to say irreducible complexity and Intelligent Design was refuted is a hoax. The court case is real, the decision was based on misrepresentation by an ACLU evolutionist.
In Dover Trial, ACLU’s Expert Witness Mischaracterizes Intelligent Design
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
September 27, 2005
Harrisburg, PA -- The case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District opened in federal court yesterday with the ACLU calling its first expert witness in an effort to tell the court how it should define science. The ACLU is suing the school board of Dover, Pennsylvania for adopting a policy that requires students to listen to a three-paragraph statement about the theory of intelligent design.
The ACLU’s first expert witness, Dr. Kenneth Miller, testified that the scientific theory of intelligent design is untestable and therefore unscientific. Later he contradicted himself by proceeding to discuss how he has made various arguments in scientific forums testing design theory.
“Most of Dr. Miller’s testimony today against intelligent design was simply based upon a misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design,” said scientist Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture.
“Dr. Miller’s testimony is disturbing because it demands that the Court rule on the nature of science and the validity of scientific theories—matters which should be left to scientific experts and not be decided by courts,” added Luskin.
Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Decision
Traipsing into Evolution is a critique of federal Judge John E. Jones's decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. In this concise yet comprehensive response, Discovery Institute scholars and attorneys show how Judge Jones's Kitzmiller decision was based upon faulty reasoning, non-existent evidence, and a serious misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design.
For the IDers. If you come across evolutionists that refute irreducible complexity you can give them this exercise:
Present the evolution of a woodpecker and learn something about irreducible complexity.
From whom did the woodpecker evolve?
Explain how mindless, random natural selection (chance) developed its very long tongue with a glue sack to glue the tongue going out and an anti-glue sack to neutralize the glued tongue coming back in. How do you suppose the tongue reel system was created by the darwinist mindless, random force? Before or after the tongue development? How did drive system get developed by chance and at what part of the iterative process. After the bird figured out he couldn’t operate his new tongue? How do you suppose the proper glue and anti-glue got developed? How many iterative steps and years did that take? What if the anti-glue system didn’t come about or get perfected until after the glue system. The bird would have just a single chance to use his tongue then that would be it.
Where did the cushion for his brain come from and how do you suppose just mindless blind force ever specified the material and designed it so the brain can survive the beatings? How did this force get the proper size of this protective system?
How do you suppose the woodpecker ended up with two claws forward and two claws backwards to allow him to hang on the trunks of trees? The other birds have three forward and one behind to sit on tree branches or webbed feet for the water. Interesting how mindless, random natural selection just happened to get all their feet to work for the proper environment.
How was the birds brain reprogrammed for his new tasks. How was it reprogrammed so he knew to search for bugs behind tree bark? How was it programmed so he knew how to operate the glue and anti-glue systems along with the reel so their actions were always syncretized? How was the DNA reprogrammed to build all these new systems?
How is it that at least one he woodpecker and one she woodpecker were mindlessly evolved by chance at the same time so they could procreate?
Dr Jobe Martin has the answers for you. You could go to the evolutionists gurus and come up empty handed. Or do what Carl Sagan preached………just use you imagination. With a little free-thinking you can develop your very own evolutionary tale such as Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Lucy, etc.
For the IDers, ask your evolutionist friends why lies and myths have to be used to indoctrinate their belief onto the captives of our government schools:
From Jonathan Wells Icons of Evolution,
When asked to list the evidence for Darwinian evolution, most people--including most biologists--give the same set of examples, because all of them learned biology from the same few textbooks. The most common examples are:
a laboratory flask containing a simulation of the earth's primitive atmosphere, in which electric sparks produce the chemical building-blocks of living cells;
the evolutionary tree of life, reconstructed from a large and growing body of fossil and molecular evidence;
similar bone structures in a bat's wing, a porpoise's flipper, a horse's leg, and a human hand that indicate their evolutionary origin in a common ancestor;
pictures of similarities in early embryos showing that amphibians, reptiles, birds and human beings are all descended from a fish-like animal;
Archaeopteryx, a fossil bird with teeth in its jaws and claws on its wings, the missing link between ancient reptiles and modern birds;
peppered moths on tree trunks, showing how camouflage and predatory birds produced the most famous example of evolution by natural selection;
Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands, thirteen separate species that diverged from one when natural selection produced differences in their beaks, and that inspired Darwin to formulate his theory of evolution;
fruit flies with an extra pair of wings, showing that genetic mutations can provide the raw materials for evolution;
a branching-tree pattern of horse fossils that refutes the old-fashioned idea that evolution was directed; and
drawings of ape-like creatures evolving into humans, showing that we are just animals and that our existence is merely a by-product of purposeless natural causes.
These examples are so frequently used as evidence for Darwin's theory that most of them have been called "icons" of evolution. Yet all of them, in one way or another, misrepresent the truth.
Science or Myth?
Some of these icons of evolution present assumptions or hypotheses as though they were observed facts; in Stephen Jay Gould's words, they are "incarnations of concepts masquerading as neutral descriptions of nature." Others conceal raging controversies among biologists that have far-reaching implications for evolutionary theory. Worst of all, some are directly contrary to well-established scientific evidence.
For you Christians that question why the fuss over darwinism Vs ID:
This is a raging battle of religious worldviews; the Christian worldview Vs the humanist worldview. The religion of humanism is founded on "there is no God" so they have to rely on darwinsim. ID has rightfully shaken the darwinists' religious worldview as it was built on falsehoods. If a humanist insists that his worldview is not a religion then ask him why his American Humanist Association files for religious exemption with the IRS. This is based on the functional model of religion, not the substantive model.
American Humanist Association
Also Known As: AHA
1777 T St NW
Washington, DC 20009
Who We Are
The American Humanist Association is the oldest and largest Humanist association in the United States and serves as a primary voice of Humanism nationally.
• This organization is a 501(c)(3) Public Charity .
• This organization is not required to file an annual return with the IRS because it is a religious organization.
• Additional narrative information in this report was last supplied by the organization on July 24, 2007.
• Contributions are deductible, as provided by law.
For those knuckleheads who claim ID is not peer reviewed and published.
PEER-REVIEWED & PEER-EDITED SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING THE THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN (ANNOTATED)
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
July 1, 2007
Editors's Note: Critics of intelligent design often claim that design advocates don’t publish their work in appropriate scientific literature. For example, Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University, was quoted in USA Today (March 25, 2005) that design theorists “aren’t published because they don’t have scientific data.”
Other critics have made the more specific claim that design advocates do not publish their works in peer-reviewed scientific journals—as if such journals represented the only avenue of legitimate scientific publication. In fact, scientists routinely publish their work in peer-reviewed scientific journals, in peer-reviewed scientific books, in scientific anthologies and conference proceedings (edited by their scientific peers), and in trade presses. Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science was first published not in scientific journal articles but in scientific books—including Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus, Newton’s Principia, and Darwin’s Origin of Species (the latter of which was published in a prominent British trade press and was not peer-reviewed in the modern sense of the term). In any case, the scientists who advocate the theory of intelligent design have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some in mainstream university presses), trade presses, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books.
We provide below an annotated bibliography of technical publications of various kinds that support, develop or apply the theory of intelligent design....[go to the website to read the list]
Citizen: Silly me for thinking your post was somehow related to Mr. Colson's article on Dr. Behe's book and its review by Dr. Dawkins. My mistake.
Romans 1:20 “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”
Hidingbehindnickname: Do you see any mention of Michael Behe or his book in my post? No? Then why are you lying about my post?
The Darwinbots have arrived!
What do you guys do, have a daily google and when your god is critized or not admired sufficiently email each other to form a small crowd of protesters out front the article you don't like?
torus, ifeelfine72, torus, Wiggy, Huxley, Will E, steveh20, and of course the troll employed by CP known as Citizen:
Chuck was giving his opinion about the book 'Edge of Evolution' and the review given by Dawkins. I see from all of your comments that (just like Dawkins) none of you have read it.
Do you know what word is used for someone who talks about a book but has not read it? It is the same word used for all people who say anything that they don't know is true ...
(But maybe there is an evolutionary advantage to lying)
Atheist are blind and cannot sees. They are fools in their own wisdom and ignorant theories. Theories are man best guest to answer questions they arent able to solve. Theories makes them sound smart. Scientist haven't proven anything about creation other than they can explain it. Many atheist have died waiting on scientist to prove that God doesn't exist. Keep waiting. Scientist know the universe is winding down. God said this world would not be here always. Let the the clock run out if you want. Just think it only your soul you're risking. O wait you don't believe you have one. Well you can use that argument in heaven and see how far it gets you.
Because, ifeelfine, not all of us are theists like you. I don't believe Chuck has your best interests at heart. In this article he takes a contemporary topic that he doesn't understand and he presents it in a way which is intended to relax his fellow Christians in order to convince them that they need not think about it either. In other words he is trying to pacify you by encouraging you not to think.
Do some research on ID yourself and you'll find holes in his arguments a mile wide. If he had your best interests in mind, don't you think he'd learn the topic before writing a column on it? You would think so but his intentions are not what you think.
As people of faith, why must we get worked up on these silly issues? I have a feeling that for Pastor Chuck, this is more of a political issue than a religious one (the term "Darwinism" is only used for political effect - its evolution). I can promise you that Jesus didn't care one bit about this. We get all worked up about gay marriage, abortion, evolution - things the Bible isn't the least bit clear on and then woonder why mainstream America isn't more open to a Christian message. I say we need to look at ourselves and determine . . . is this really something we are doing for the betterment of our Christian faith or is there another agenda?
I think Pastor Chuck's ministry is wonderful. Jesus would be proud but why sully those good works with something like this?
Maybe you should learn something about evolution and/or something about intelligent design before commenting on them. For example:
a. To call evolution "random" rather misses the point and implies that there was no directing force at all. In fact survival of the fittest is the directing force which filters out certain random mutations.
b. Intelligent design has already been discredited. Behe has already trotted out one book of "case studies" (the eye, flagellum) which were rapidly discredited on the stand. Now he's trotted out another one. Watch science dissect this one in a hurry, too.
c. No secularist has yet to agree with the ID premise. The ID movement was started by theists in order to find some "scientific' basis for their faith, they just erased the "god" bit to try to get it slipped into the mainstream. They failed.
d. Lastly, science works to some degree by filling in gaps with testable hypotheses. The existence of gods is not testable and it follows that if ID wants to be science it better stop at the point of "We can't yet explain XXX" and shouldn't try to suggest something untestable from there.
So Michael now admits that evolution happened, only it was guided by god. How many ID supporters are aware that their champion accepts life did, in fact, evolve from a common ancestor? Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the majority of IDists think the theory opposes evolution totally. You know, "no such thing as macro-evolution" nonsense.
"He even goes much further than many of us, including myself, by declaring his belief in a common ancestor."
Mr. Behe's new position is no more scientific than his last position. Chuck, do you think that just because he conceded his position opposing evolution his ideas are now somehow more credible to us rationalists? Do you at the same time have the nerve that you yourself do not agree with him? Are you supporting him or not? Which is it?
Mr. Behe's book was destroyed by critics, not just Dawkins but also many others. The man's original theory was blown out of the water during the Dover trial and now he is simply grasping at straws.
Colson sez: :Naturally, Dawkins accuses Behe of doing exactly what he does not do: Namely, he suggests that Behe states that where evolution reaches its limits, “God must step in to help.”
Behe does no such thing. What he does is provide a series of case studies, such as the malaria virus, the AIDS virus, and the human immune system, and shows what evolution did or did not do for them. For example, he shows that although human cells have evolved in many ways to combat malaria, many humans are still vulnerable to it—and in some cases, those human cells are even worse off than they were before. This means that evolution is not always as progressive as Darwinists would have us believe. As Behe puts it, what Dawkins and others have called an “arms race” is really much more like “trench warfare,” unleashing forces that can damage organisms as easily as it can help them. So evolution has its limits.
First of all, Chuckles, malaria is not a virus. It is a eukaryote protozoan of the Class Sporozoa.
Second, you (and Behe) seem to have a very weak understanding of what goes on when evolution involves a symbiotic relationship, especially a parasitic and pathogenic one as in malaria. Evolution occurs on BOTH sides of the ball. The malaria parasite is evolving in response to changes in the defense responses of the human hosts. Humans cannot produce a system of defense that malaria can't break because the malaria organism responds to each "improvement" in the human (or any other kind of host-parasite relationship). There is no progress in evolution, only change. Whether Darwin understood that evolution is not progressive depends on what his understanding of "progress" was. In order for a thing to make progress, there must be some kind of end toward which such progress is made. No one has ever found any such teleologic end or purpose in the universe or for the universe. Evolution is understood not to be progressive and your statement that Darwinists would have you believe that it is, is a lie. I thought you were a believer in the Ten Commandments. What happened to the one about lying?
Behe's "trench warfare" term, is totally vacuous and irrelevant. Even in trench warfare, there are arms races between the armies. Better guns, better training, better artillery, tanks, gas warfare are all examlples of how trench warfare had its own arms races. For each advantage gained, there were responses that neutralized them. Gas masks were developed to respond to gas attacks, and tank traps and mines were responses to tanks. No, Behe is totally off.
And why haven't you read the Dover decision, Chuckles? In it, even a conservative Bush appointed judge could see right through Behe's misunderstandings and the Discovery Institute's lies.
As atheists are focused of inventing more unintelligent scenarios, which are merely supported, by their various science-FICTION novels and movies (alternate universes), they continue to lose credibility within the emerging science community and the mass public. The old guard secular humanist has reached to new levels of irrelevance. Their evolution evidence scattered, fragmentary, ambiguous, vastly inconclusive, and lacks inter-cohesion with other scientific branches all the while conflicting with known laws of nature and demands that its adherents invest great faith in the creative powers of random mutations and chance. Darwin’s supporters have unwittingly become the epitome of superstitious. The institutional influence of atheism, secular humanism, and the "so-called" humanist free thinkers has withered to core along with their dying myth called Darwinism.
Regardless of a persons occupation and stated beliefs, when atheism and secular humanism is philosophically practiced they have inspired the some greatest miseries on the face of the earth, namely, depression, suicide, moral decay leading to rampant STD's, holocausts, forced euthanasia and sterilizations, violence, selfishness, abortion, infanticide, totalitarianism, drug and alcohol addiction, no moral compass of decency, pornography addiction, molestations, worthlessness, anarchy, the censorship the freedom of speech, the censorship of the freedom of the press, and have inspired governments and schools that limit, censor, criminalize, persecute those who freely express their faith. It really does not matter if people label themselves a priest, a pagan, a teacher, a senator, a scientist, an engineer, a Christian, a miser, an American, a Bio-chemist, a pastor, a reporter, a Darwinist, a mistake or whatever – when the philosophy of atheism/agnosticism or secular humanism is actually practiced you can expect some or all of the above mentioned miseries.
But there is hope…
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
You’ll want to bookmark it.
"Dare to think for yourself."
Ironic much, Chuck?
Hello
I'm concerned by the statement "This means that evolution is not always as progressive as Darwinists would have us believe" written in this article. Darwinism explains that orgaisms evolve due to descent with modification. This means that when a species evolves, this should not be interprated as progress but rather as an organism gaining an advantage over other organisms in a particular enviroment which increses the survival prospects of its off spring. A good example would be the whales ancestor which lost it's legs as it evolved in an aqueous enviroment , this is not progress (or re gress for that point) it is just a response to a particular enviroment, and one which gives it an advantage. Evolution is not progressive, it does not have a direction, those who think it does (though where they get the idea from I don't know) should go and re study the subject before they pronounce on it again.
Regards
Steve
P.s Richard Dawkins is a scientist, what is wrong with him reviewing the work of another scientist? Thats how science works.
Charles Colson apparently lives in an alternate universe where Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District never happened. Read the opinion in that case (http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf) and read Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul by Edward Humes.