I asked a dear friend who's much smarter than I on the subject of evolution to help articulate my perspective (sorry this got posted 2x, the first was basically unreadable without proper formatting):
Paradigms shift all of the time. Hundreds of years ago, it was the common consensus that the solar system revolved around the earth. The science textbooks changed and a new paradigm entered the scene. The beliefs of science are in constant flux. If the world lasts, a thousand years from now, our progeny will scorn our shallow understanding of the world. Compared to eternity future, we are but still at the beginning, playing with the dust and pebbles of the universe while thinking we are doing something grand.
Evolution is a paradigm that is in grievous trouble.
Fred Hoyle of the British Academy of Science and mathematician Chandra Wickramasinghe decided to calculate the probability of life coming into existence anywhere in the universe. Their results? Utterly impossible. They gave it all the time in the universe, but time plus chance produces nothing!
Francis Crick, Noble Prize winner for his discovery of DNA, also attempted to calculate the probability that life sprang into existence spontaneously. His results? Utter impossible. Instead of jumping into the arms of God, Crick decided to propagate the theory of genetic panspermia. In sum, his theory propounded that life on earth was seeded by benevolent and mighty aliens. Their work made life possible through the path of evolution. The problem? Crick merely delayed the impossible, casting it back on a continuous regression of aliens.
Stephen J. Gould, one of the greatest defenders of evolution, was also troubled by issues that he saw within evolution. As a result, he came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium. He postulated that there were sudden leaps in evolution that left no transitional forms. If only he had made one massive leap, he would have ended up where theists are today.
Are these the actions of men that believe that the evolutionary paradigm is secure?
While the defenders of evolution are resorting to new and stunning conjecture to cover the nakedness of evolution, intelligent design has been seeking to topple the entire infrastructure.
The simple design of a mousetrap is irreducibly complex, no one part of the mousetrap makes sense without all of the other pieces. The evolution of a species or a single organ is also irreducibly complex. Take for example the eye. The eye is composed of mechanisms that are entirely reliant upon one another for the eye to function at all. If evolution is true, each part of the eye evolved over time and accrued in aggregate form. Unfortunately, the individual parts of the eye do not promote the survivability of the animal. They may actually impede its survivability. Over millions of years, the evolutionist would have us believe that the portions of the eye accrued until we had a complete and functional organ.
Another stake in the heart of evolution is the absence of transitional forms. Darwin predicted that this would be the downfall of his theory. Nothing has been found. Frauds have been created such as Piltdown man, Java man and a host of other oddities found to be made out of bits of extinct pigs, apes, etc., but nothing definitive has been offered to support the claims of evolution. If nothing else, our excavations should lead us to conclude that life was more complex and varied in the past than it is at present. This concurs with the concept of entropy.
The third law of thermodynamics is at odds with evolution. Time and chance lead to a loss of genetic information, the accretion of deleterious and deadly mutations. Per the evolutionary model, the very environment that may have produced the earliest protein chain is the same environment that would wipe it out in the next second. Life and entropy teach us that life is fragile.
The fossil record has yielded no evidence for evolution. Fossil beds contain a mixture of
I asked a dear friend who's much smarter than I on the subject of evolution to help articulate my perspective:
Paradigms shift all of the time. Hundreds of years ago, it was the common consensus that the solar system revolved around the earth. The science textbooks changed and a new paradigm entered the scene. The beliefs of science are in constant flux. If the world lasts, a thousand years from now, our progeny will scorn our shallow understanding of the world. Compared to eternity future, we are but still at the beginning, playing with the dust and pebbles of the universe while thinking we are doing something grand.
Evolution is a paradigm that is in grievous trouble.
Fred Hoyle of the British Academy of Science and mathematician Chandra Wickramasinghe decided to calculate the probability of life coming into existence anywhere in the universe. Their results? Utterly impossible. They gave it all the time in the universe, but time plus chance produces nothing!
Francis Crick, Noble Prize winner for his discovery of DNA, also attempted to calculate the probability that life sprang into existence spontaneously. His results? Utter impossible. Instead of jumping into the arms of God, Crick decided to propagate the theory of genetic panspermia. In sum, his theory propounded that life on earth was seeded by benevolent and mighty aliens. Their work made life possible through the path of evolution. The problem? Crick merely delayed the impossible, casting it back on a continuous regression of aliens.
Stephen J. Gould, one of the greatest defenders of evolution, was also troubled by issues that he saw within evolution. As a result, he came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium. He postulated that there were sudden leaps in evolution that left no transitional forms. If only he had made one massive leap, he would have ended up where theists are today.
Are these the actions of men that believe that the evolutionary paradigm is secure?
While the defenders of evolution are resorting to new and stunning conjecture to cover the nakedness of evolution, intelligent design has been seeking to topple the entire infrastructure.
The simple design of a mousetrap is irreducibly complex, no one part of the mousetrap makes sense without all of the other pieces. The evolution of a species or a single organ is also irreducibly complex. Take for example the eye. The eye is composed of mechanisms that are entirely reliant upon one another for the eye to function at all. If evolution is true, each part of the eye evolved over time and accrued in aggregate form. Unfortunately, the individual parts of the eye do not promote the survivability of the animal. They may actually impede its survivability. Over millions of years, the evolutionist would have us believe that the portions of the eye accrued until we had a complete and functional organ.
Another stake in the heart of evolution is the absence of transitional forms. Darwin predicted that this would be the downfall of his theory. Nothing has been found. Frauds have been created such as Piltdown man, Java man and a host of other oddities found to be made out of bits of extinct pigs, apes, etc., but nothing definitive has been offered to support the claims of evolution. If nothing else, our excavations should lead us to conclude that life was more complex and varied in the past than it is at present. This concurs with the concept of entropy.
The third law of thermodynamics is at odds with evolution. Time and chance lead to a loss of genetic information, the accretion of deleterious and deadly mutations. Per the evolutionary model, the very environment that may have produced the earliest protein chain is the same environment that would wipe it out in the next second. Life and entropy teach us that life is fragile.
The fossil record has yielded no evidence for evolution. Fossil beds contain a mixture of species and life forms from supposedly different evolutionary eras all at the same level of excavation. The geological column, which is purported to have
You're obviously well educated on this subject. I have to admit that as a former atheist, and a relatively new Christian, I still struggle with many of the issues in these threads. However, I do try to "keep the faith" and I believe that God honors that commitment. I'm not going to tell you that God literally speaks to me, because quite frankly he doesn't, that's just not how it works. Perhaps my testimony can shed some more light on my perspective: http://dvdrsmth.blogspot.com/ I've neglected the content for quite some time, but hope you find it worthwhile.
Good points (especially if you take the emotion out;-). One of your statements is particularly worthy of further consideration IMO: "...and that the scientific method is the most powerful tool we've ever built for ourselves in the entire history of our race..." Scientific method is essentially observation, hypothesis, prediction, and testing. For scientific method to work one has to be able to disprove/test the proposed theory, right? Take the big-bang theory for example, is it possible to even attempt to disprove the theory through testing? Perhaps down the road, but certainly not to the degree that it would take to confirm theory to fact. (btw, yes I understand the same argument applies to an intelligent design theory -- at that point you just have to decide for yourself)
related blog article I ran across you might be interested in:
http://hunstem.uhd.edu/HUNBlog/blogs/index.php?blo g=2&title=are_we_teaching_scientific_method_the_ri &more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Honestly, I'm not sure I can fully articulate my logic behind the previous "it takes far more faith to believe that a "deity" did not create human life" statement. There are so many years of deliberation behind coming to that conclusion that I really can't state it concisely here. I hope to be able to some day, but for now all I can do is encourage you to be unbiased, consider the evidence, and decide for yourself.
One book that helped me to weigh some of the scientific evidence available to us today is entitled, "Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. ( http://www.leestrobel.com/ )
"An alarmingly high number of individuals responded that they believe the earth is only 10,000 years old, and that a deity created our species in its present form at the start of that period."
What's ironic is if you step back from the micro and consider life (and all that surrounds us) at a more macro level, it takes far more faith to believe that a "deity" did not create human life. Reminds me of a quote from a philosophy class in college, "To believe that God does not exist, is to believe that a stiff wind could blow through a junk yard a create a 747."
Slashdot Mirror
I asked a dear friend who's much smarter than I on the subject of evolution to help articulate my perspective (sorry this got posted 2x, the first was basically unreadable without proper formatting):
Paradigms shift all of the time. Hundreds of years ago, it was the common consensus that the solar system revolved around the earth. The science textbooks changed and a new paradigm entered the scene. The beliefs of science are in constant flux. If the world lasts, a thousand years from now, our progeny will scorn our shallow understanding of the world. Compared to eternity future, we are but still at the beginning, playing with the dust and pebbles of the universe while thinking we are doing something grand.
Evolution is a paradigm that is in grievous trouble.
Fred Hoyle of the British Academy of Science and mathematician Chandra Wickramasinghe decided to calculate the probability of life coming into existence anywhere in the universe. Their results? Utterly impossible. They gave it all the time in the universe, but time plus chance produces nothing!
Francis Crick, Noble Prize winner for his discovery of DNA, also attempted to calculate the probability that life sprang into existence spontaneously. His results? Utter impossible. Instead of jumping into the arms of God, Crick decided to propagate the theory of genetic panspermia. In sum, his theory propounded that life on earth was seeded by benevolent and mighty aliens. Their work made life possible through the path of evolution. The problem? Crick merely delayed the impossible, casting it back on a continuous regression of aliens.
Stephen J. Gould, one of the greatest defenders of evolution, was also troubled by issues that he saw within evolution. As a result, he came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium. He postulated that there were sudden leaps in evolution that left no transitional forms. If only he had made one massive leap, he would have ended up where theists are today.
Are these the actions of men that believe that the evolutionary paradigm is secure?
While the defenders of evolution are resorting to new and stunning conjecture to cover the nakedness of evolution, intelligent design has been seeking to topple the entire infrastructure.
The simple design of a mousetrap is irreducibly complex, no one part of the mousetrap makes sense without all of the other pieces. The evolution of a species or a single organ is also irreducibly complex. Take for example the eye. The eye is composed of mechanisms that are entirely reliant upon one another for the eye to function at all. If evolution is true, each part of the eye evolved over time and accrued in aggregate form. Unfortunately, the individual parts of the eye do not promote the survivability of the animal. They may actually impede its survivability. Over millions of years, the evolutionist would have us believe that the portions of the eye accrued until we had a complete and functional organ.
Another stake in the heart of evolution is the absence of transitional forms. Darwin predicted that this would be the downfall of his theory. Nothing has been found. Frauds have been created such as Piltdown man, Java man and a host of other oddities found to be made out of bits of extinct pigs, apes, etc., but nothing definitive has been offered to support the claims of evolution. If nothing else, our excavations should lead us to conclude that life was more complex and varied in the past than it is at present. This concurs with the concept of entropy.
The third law of thermodynamics is at odds with evolution. Time and chance lead to a loss of genetic information, the accretion of deleterious and deadly mutations. Per the evolutionary model, the very environment that may have produced the earliest protein chain is the same environment that would wipe it out in the next second. Life and entropy teach us that life is fragile.
The fossil record has yielded no evidence for evolution. Fossil beds contain a mixture of
I asked a dear friend who's much smarter than I on the subject of evolution to help articulate my perspective: Paradigms shift all of the time. Hundreds of years ago, it was the common consensus that the solar system revolved around the earth. The science textbooks changed and a new paradigm entered the scene. The beliefs of science are in constant flux. If the world lasts, a thousand years from now, our progeny will scorn our shallow understanding of the world. Compared to eternity future, we are but still at the beginning, playing with the dust and pebbles of the universe while thinking we are doing something grand. Evolution is a paradigm that is in grievous trouble. Fred Hoyle of the British Academy of Science and mathematician Chandra Wickramasinghe decided to calculate the probability of life coming into existence anywhere in the universe. Their results? Utterly impossible. They gave it all the time in the universe, but time plus chance produces nothing! Francis Crick, Noble Prize winner for his discovery of DNA, also attempted to calculate the probability that life sprang into existence spontaneously. His results? Utter impossible. Instead of jumping into the arms of God, Crick decided to propagate the theory of genetic panspermia. In sum, his theory propounded that life on earth was seeded by benevolent and mighty aliens. Their work made life possible through the path of evolution. The problem? Crick merely delayed the impossible, casting it back on a continuous regression of aliens. Stephen J. Gould, one of the greatest defenders of evolution, was also troubled by issues that he saw within evolution. As a result, he came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium. He postulated that there were sudden leaps in evolution that left no transitional forms. If only he had made one massive leap, he would have ended up where theists are today. Are these the actions of men that believe that the evolutionary paradigm is secure? While the defenders of evolution are resorting to new and stunning conjecture to cover the nakedness of evolution, intelligent design has been seeking to topple the entire infrastructure. The simple design of a mousetrap is irreducibly complex, no one part of the mousetrap makes sense without all of the other pieces. The evolution of a species or a single organ is also irreducibly complex. Take for example the eye. The eye is composed of mechanisms that are entirely reliant upon one another for the eye to function at all. If evolution is true, each part of the eye evolved over time and accrued in aggregate form. Unfortunately, the individual parts of the eye do not promote the survivability of the animal. They may actually impede its survivability. Over millions of years, the evolutionist would have us believe that the portions of the eye accrued until we had a complete and functional organ. Another stake in the heart of evolution is the absence of transitional forms. Darwin predicted that this would be the downfall of his theory. Nothing has been found. Frauds have been created such as Piltdown man, Java man and a host of other oddities found to be made out of bits of extinct pigs, apes, etc., but nothing definitive has been offered to support the claims of evolution. If nothing else, our excavations should lead us to conclude that life was more complex and varied in the past than it is at present. This concurs with the concept of entropy. The third law of thermodynamics is at odds with evolution. Time and chance lead to a loss of genetic information, the accretion of deleterious and deadly mutations. Per the evolutionary model, the very environment that may have produced the earliest protein chain is the same environment that would wipe it out in the next second. Life and entropy teach us that life is fragile. The fossil record has yielded no evidence for evolution. Fossil beds contain a mixture of species and life forms from supposedly different evolutionary eras all at the same level of excavation. The geological column, which is purported to have
You're obviously well educated on this subject. I have to admit that as a former atheist, and a relatively new Christian, I still struggle with many of the issues in these threads. However, I do try to "keep the faith" and I believe that God honors that commitment. I'm not going to tell you that God literally speaks to me, because quite frankly he doesn't, that's just not how it works. Perhaps my testimony can shed some more light on my perspective: http://dvdrsmth.blogspot.com/ I've neglected the content for quite some time, but hope you find it worthwhile.
Good points (especially if you take the emotion out ;-). One of your statements is particularly worthy of further consideration IMO: "...and that the scientific method is the most powerful tool we've ever built for ourselves in the entire history of our race..." Scientific method is essentially observation, hypothesis, prediction, and testing. For scientific method to work one has to be able to disprove/test the proposed theory, right? Take the big-bang theory for example, is it possible to even attempt to disprove the theory through testing? Perhaps down the road, but certainly not to the degree that it would take to confirm theory to fact. (btw, yes I understand the same argument applies to an intelligent design theory -- at that point you just have to decide for yourself)
related blog article I ran across you might be interested in:
http://hunstem.uhd.edu/HUNBlog/blogs/index.php?blo g=2&title=are_we_teaching_scientific_method_the_ri &more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Honestly, I'm not sure I can fully articulate my logic behind the previous "it takes far more faith to believe that a "deity" did not create human life" statement. There are so many years of deliberation behind coming to that conclusion that I really can't state it concisely here. I hope to be able to some day, but for now all I can do is encourage you to be unbiased, consider the evidence, and decide for yourself.
One book that helped me to weigh some of the scientific evidence available to us today is entitled, "Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. ( http://www.leestrobel.com/ )
"An alarmingly high number of individuals responded that they believe the earth is only 10,000 years old, and that a deity created our species in its present form at the start of that period." What's ironic is if you step back from the micro and consider life (and all that surrounds us) at a more macro level, it takes far more faith to believe that a "deity" did not create human life. Reminds me of a quote from a philosophy class in college, "To believe that God does not exist, is to believe that a stiff wind could blow through a junk yard a create a 747."