Friday April 18, 2014
Jump to content
Mr. Garret, there have been many scientists who regard the Theory of Evolution as definitive proof that life can exist without God or the creation account in the Bible. Richard Dawkins is world renown for his outspoken views on this. Stephen Gould and Carl Sagan also held this view. Before evolution became widely known Ernesto Haeckle said he would rather believe in the recently (in his time) disproved theory of spontaneous generation even though he knew it couldn't be true, than to let a Divine Foot in the door. There is a segment of scientists who are intentionally out to show the Bible to be false.
Creationists have done scientific research using the requirements you have proposed to show that the Bible's account of creation is the correct one. The RATE Research Project was an 8 year study conducted by a team of PHD scientists who published 1500 pages of research report to show their findings. There are 2 creation research journals that you can refer to for further verification that these scientists do their research in the manner accepted by the scientific community at large. They are Research Quarterly, put out by the Institute of Creation Research, and the Technical Journal, easily accessed through the Answers In Genesis web site.
People will not find out about these things in our culture unless someone makes them known. That is my goal. I can't do that if I allow people to persist in sweeping a valid scientific theory under the rug and out of view simply because they are not educated in the constructs of the theory or the research that supports it.
I agree that for Christians this is a moot point. But there are others that think evolution has disproved the Bible and in order to get them to consider the reality that biblical truth and the validity of the scriptures can be verified through scientific research and every day observations this defense must be made. The Christian is also exhorted in scripture to give a defense of the hope that is within us. I would be glad to give my personal testimony but in this forum I am trying to show the validity of a scientific theory that is denied without scientific cause. To me, and other believers who hold to the literal view of Genesis, this is a big deal and is foundational to a fundamental understanding of the Creator God.
If you have read my letters to Mr Aleshire you have seen the reasons I see that Darwin's Theory of Evolution contradicts many of the accepted laws and theories of science.
I am all in favor of promoting civility and respect in the letters and blogs. My main concern is a result of the back and forth mentioned in the article between myself and you. I expressed a different opinion than one stated in the editorial on SB1213 which elicited a response and, like you said, there we went. The concern is from the fact that your comments were attached to the letter I wrote while my response to the comments was delayed by up to 4 weeks until you had time to comment on my comments. I do know the tremendous responsibilities of the editor and I have done my best to be respectful of the editor's time, but in fairness, I think it would be proper to print my response in a timely fashion if your schedule prevents a quick response. It appears you are on the right track in your suggestion for some self restraint in these matters and perhaps you have arrived at that conclusion for the very reasons I have stated.
On the other hand, my problem is one of space. How can I respond to the monthly evolution education we are given wrapped in articles on the petrified forest of Arizona and fishing at Bear Flats and many others (over half of the content promotes evolutionary dogma) in the small letter that we are allowed?
I am thankful for the blog where I can give longer responses but I don't know the percentage of readers that go there. I would be surprised if it was 1 in 3. Is there any data on that?
That is my 2 cents worth. I don't know if I helped clarify any issues but perhaps this perspective will help in the policy evaluation.
It is very interesting to see how different people see the discussion mentioned in Phon's letter. My contention is that Creation science is as scientific as Darwin's Theory of Evolution and that Darwin's Theory of Evolution requires as much faith in the unseen as any religion and therefore it is just as religious as Creation science. Scientists from both camps do observational science by the scientific method and must interpret events in the past through the lens of the assumptions determined by their particular world view. Biblical Creationists do point to the Bible as their beginning point for interpreting the past. This is no more religious than an evolutionist pointing to Darwin's writings as their beginning point for interpreting the past. You have to have faith that truth lies in the writings of the one in whom you believe. Concerning the area of observational science, both groups do science the same. Believing in a Creator does not hinder a scientist one bit. The following is a short list from the many scientists who have done groundbreaking work in various scientific fields and also had faith in a Creator God. Most of these lived before Darwin published The Origin of Species. Johann Kepler, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Rudolf Virchow, Louis Pasteur, James Clerk Maxwell. and Gregor Mendel. These men laid the foundation for many fields of science including a proper understanding of some of the very things that started the technological revolution, which you rightly declared, impacts our lives in so many ways.
My hope is that this response further clarifies where the real debate has been. It has not been religion vs science but it has been whether Creation science should be taught in the classrooms of our public schools along with Darwin's Theory of Evolution as was proposed by SB1213 several weeks ago.
I would stand a lot better chance if you would submit the info for me William. Seriously, you must surely recognize that I am not putting this information out there for any personal gain. This is a long and painstaking process to show people that there is another view that has credible scientific verification that should at least be reviewed. The fact that many people who have been indoctrinated in Darwin's theory will consider me in an unfavorable light is not a fun thing for me but putting out information that calls into question this unprovable theory so people can see and decide for themselves where the truth exists is what I have been led to do. So, if you haven't already, check out the findings of the Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth (RATE) research project. The findings concerning coal and diamonds are very interesting. Check out the research and see for yourself if they followed the scientific method.
I am not sure how a theory that states that living things change into other living things by chance and random processes can be a candidate for intelligent design. Does that mean that chance and random and intelligent are the same?
From what I can glean from your letter I am confident that my view of the Creator has fewer limitations of what the Creator God can do than the view you have proposed. I believe that the Creator God could have brought about life any way He wanted. There are many ideas out there for what He did do, including the one in your letter. I believe that the Creator God gave man a record of what was actually done in creation through scripture written under the inspiration of that same God. I believe that the Creator God is powerful enough to state those truths in a way that is readily understandable by the believing person and to preserve those scriptures until this day. What was revealed in the scriptures is what He wanted mankind to know and believe. I believe that the first man was formed from the dust of the ground with no ancestors because that is what the Creator God tells us in His word. Is your view of the Creator God unlimited enough for you to consider these possibilities?
In your article in the 4/2/13 Roundup you expressed your belief that you and
your dog have descended from a common ancestor. The only way that the time
elapsed from diversifying from a common ancestor would even be attempted is if
you have that belief in place. For those of us that hold to the special creation
of man we simply see a difference in the DNA of the two kinds. Most of the
differences were placed there by God in the beginning and some have come about
by adaptation and mutation since the fall of man in the garden.
The part of the cell theory that says that cells come only from existing cells
is the part evolution must contradict.
I guess you are intimating that the molecular structure of a crystal is an
information code. All I can do is disagree with that statement.
The mechanism for changing one kind (family) of organisms into another is still
missing, there is no explanation for the beginning of life, any tree of life
that can be drawn up can only be inferred from the fossil record by a person who
has faith that some day science will find an answer to the missing pieces
mentioned here. In other words, those who adhere the idea that Darwin's Theory
of Evolution is the correct explanation for the beginnings of life and the
development of life on the earth do so by faith in the unseen. This is no
different from my faith in the beginning of life that is taken from the Bible. I
have yet to see why they are not both religions when faith is involved in both.
Factor in the fact that Darwin's theory predicts the continual development of
new kinds (families) of living things while the Bible says that living things
can only produce more of their own kind which is one of the most observed truths
in science. This, as well as the incredible complexity seen in living things, is
why so many people seem to intuitively know that Darwin's theory is false. One
must over rule one of the most common observations in the natural world to
believe that somehow these great changes have occurred based on the authority
that scientists borrow from present accomplishments to solicit agreement about
their beliefs for historical science.
I have cited the RATE PROJECT in previous letters and I cite it again as
research done by PHD scientists with 1500 pages of data and conclusions. This
was all based on testable assumptions by creationists, so please don't say that
creationists cannot perform testable observations because this research shows
that assumption is not true. They predicted, based on a literal view of
scripture, that C14 would be found in diamonds. All 12 diamond samples were
tested by reputable dating labs and all 12 samples did indeed contain measurable
amounts of C14 which disputes the 1-2 billion years age most secular scientists
have assigned to them. This is just 1 example documented in their research.
I would like all readers to know that the editor was quick to respond to my
questions about Tuesday's mix up. I commend him for that! Please understand that
even though we differ greatly our explanation of the beginnings of life there
has not been any mud slinging in either direction. I appreciate the fact that he
will allow an open discussion so people can see the view from both sides and
make up their own minds on where the truth lies.
That brings me to comment on the notes attached to my letter. I agree with the
assessment on the arbitrary nature of deciding on new species and I would like
to point out that I did not use that term even once in my letter. To clarify
where the biblical kind would fit into the commonly used 7 levels of
classification, think of the family level. That is equal to kind in the majority
of living things. So my contention is not that no new species are formed but
that we have never observed one family of organisms becoming another family.
The terms adaptation and evolution seem to be used interchangeably in your
writings. This is quite misleading. I have never questioned adaptation. It is
observable and all the things we can see in DNA that leads to adaptation we can
now observe. You called this evolution when you referred to dogs and finches.
For clarity these changes should be referred to as adaptation, or in the case of
dogs, it is also selective breeding. Neither of these animals have ever been
observed to give rise to a new kind of animal. I am surprised that you would use
the finches since the data shows that their bills change with their food source
which is believed to be driven by moisture amounts. The bills have fluctuated
back and forth around the mean of bill size at a surprisingly rapid rate for the
200 years they have been observed. So there is no evolution in the microbe to
man (and all other living things) sense. Also, since cross breeding and genetic
manipulation both involve an outside intelligent source shouldn't they
automatically be removed from the discussion of how chance and random processes
have mysteriously moved life in an upward progression?
Please see the editor's note in the 4/5/13 Roundup to see a clarification by the editor of an error made in the printing of this letter.
I would like to clarify some things and respond to your questions. Common evidence is the geologic column. Uniformitarianism has faded into the background and punctuated equilibrium seems to be in favor among most evolutionists. Biblical creationism holds to the formation of most of the sedimentary layers as the result of a world wide flood. The interpretation of the layers is driven by 2 opposing world views. It happened in the past. Who is to say one is scientific and one is mythological. I have explained the evidence from the biblical view in a past letter so I'll just say that thick folded layers with no evidence of heating are found in the Grand Canyon and other places all over the earth. All cells come from existing cells is the part of the cell theory that evolution must violate. You skipped the Law of Biogenesis that simply says that living things are only produced by other living things. AIG suggests refraining from using the 2nd Law as a consequence of the fall of man in the garden. I did not use it this way. I say that a world that is going from organized to chaotic as a result of the 2nd Law and the Law of Entropy cannot keep producing more complexity in organization through chance and random processes. Since my statement on information and intelligent sources said "without exception", all you have to do is state one exception to falsify my statement. I would like to see that example rather than the intellectual put down that you resorted to. In 1618 Johannes Kepler published the 3rd of three laws of planetary motion still used today. This pioneer of the scientific method said the chief aim of science is to discover God's workings. He believed a rational intellect put nature in order so that we can learn about God by looking on His creation. If he was thousands of years behind I would like to know who was thousands of years ahead of him. Finally, we can know the Bible is true by looking at the fulfilled prophecies, knowing that archaeology repeatedly confirms its history, seeing that modern day biblical content matches that found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and many other fragments and scrolls preserved from biblical times. Last but not least the concept of kinds found in the first chapter of Genesis is still the best depiction of what we observe in the world today. I hope I have added clarity in my answers to your objections and questions.
While I personally think the Intelligent Design Theory has some flaws, it does account for the obvious intelligence in the design of living things. I even read "Darwin's Black Box" by Behe to see first hand what was drawing some scientists away from Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I did not see in that book, or any other ID literature, any of the multitude of shortcomings you have put forth here. I cannot help but question if you have truly examined this theory by actually studying the basic foundations of the theory. If you knew about the concept of irreducible complexity that is a key component to the theory, many of your claims would have to be abandoned. Your next to last paragraph indicates that you are unaware that this is a theory that belongs in the life sciences and would therefore have no influence on the development of electricity, electronics and so forth as you have claimed. Mr. Lister and myself have both called into question Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Nowhere in his letter or my letters or posts do we question science and nowhere do I see where anyone has called science evil. This false claim can be easily seen by anyone willing to read the previous posts and letters. Because Mr. Lister has a different opinion than you, you have categorized him, called him intolerant and called into question his science education (even though he is a professional biologist), as well as assigning him motives that are not evident in his writing. Would you call yourself tolerant or intolerant? Questioning theories is a part of science and science cannot be science without the questioning process. Genesis 1 explains the origin of matter, energy, time and intelligence as well as the origin of the kinds of living things. It should only be discarded if it can be refuted by observational science, not categorically just because it is in bibliical scripture. The validity of the concept of kinds is established by observations of living things. That should establish some credibility for this ancient account of the beginning.
Last login: Saturday, May 25, 2013