Monday, August 21, 2006

Faithful to God, Science

Found this article link called Faithful to God, Science through SmartChristian.com.

I particularly liked the following excerpts:


He urges his fellow scientists to give up the arrogant assumption that the only questions worth asking are those science can answer. He entreats his fellow believers to recognize it's not blasphemous to learn about the world.



One day last summer, in the basement office of his suburban home here, Collins dictated this manifesto into a tape recorder: "Science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced. God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible." It became the central thesis of his book — with this addendum: "Abandon the battlements."

This plea for a truce encourages some veterans of the culture wars.

Polls routinely show that about half of all Americans believe God created man, fully formed, within the last 10,000 years, as the Bible recounts. The vast majority of scientists find that ludicrous, but their account of man evolving from primordial muck does not resonate broadly, especially with Christians who believe in a personal God, deeply concerned about each human life.



"I had a great concern that this would be portrayed as though we were taking away room for spirituality, making us out to be nothing more than a mechanical instruction book — robots, machines, victims of our DNA," Collins said.

Invited to the White House to announce the triumph, Collins tried to signal that those concerned with the soul and the spirit should not take the new science as a threat. "It is humbling for me, and awe-inspiring," he said, standing at Clinton's side, "to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God."


I do feel, however, that this idea is questionable:


Collins, some hope, might bridge this gap by reassuring Christians that they can buy evolution without selling out their faith.


I agree with this:


Some Christians accuse Collins of denying the foundation of faith when he calls the Biblical creation account an allegory.

"Not accepting the history in Genesis undermines the entire gospel," said Ken Ham, president of a ministry called Answers in Genesis, which promotes creationism. "The Bible says from dust we come and to dust we return. We don't return to an ape-man when we die."


In my conversations with Darwinists, I have found this to be true also:


From the other camp, some scientists ridicule Collins' effort to find a place for God in the scientific framework.

"I could just as well say that there are 70 pink elephants revolving around the Earth," said Herbert A. Hauptman, a Nobel laureate in chemistry. Science and faith "are simply incompatible," he added. "There's no getting around it."


It appears (to me, at least) that the "two camps" will always be like boxers in a ring, going back into their own corners...

The last few paragraphs were very telling; especially the Collin's last sentence:


Outsiders sometimes ask, with alarm, whether this knowledge will allow scientists to "play God" — to manipulate and enhance man's genetic code in ways nature never intended. Collins urges public debate to set boundaries, or as he puts it: "How far down the line do we go [before] we start to affect what it means to be human?"

But he never feels as though he's on the verge of usurping God with his discoveries in the lab. The more he learns, the more he's humbled.

As he explores each intricate rung of DNA, Collins said, "it's like I'm glimpsing a little of God's mind."

*******

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1

In chapter four of D. James Kennedy's book, "Why I Believe,", Dr. Kennedy shares why he believes in Creation.

While doing an internet search, I ran across a Darwinist's refutation of several things that Kennedy stated in this chapter. What was disturbing to me, though, was the fact that the Darwinist left out six, very important paragraphs from the chapter and also claimed that Kennedy "started the chapter" with this statement:


"It means that we live in a time when there are only two religions competing for the minds, hearts, and loyalties of Western man. The future of this world will be determined, humanly speaking, by Western man. One of those religions is Christianity; the other religion is evolution."


That is blatant intellectual dishonesty! Seems typical, though, since we now know the truth of the "Icons of Evolution" that had been (and some still are!) passed off as "fact."

The following is the part that the Darwinist left out. After reading it, I'm sure you will recognize why he didn't want to "refute" that particular portion.


Examining creation will bring us closer to the Creator. That is what the earliest founders of science believed, or as the founder of astronomy put it, we would be merely thinking God's thoughts after Him.

But something happened on the way to the twentieth century. In the middle of the nineteenth century when modern science began to develop, the entire scientific enterprise was hijacked.

I am referring to Darwin's theory of evolution. Canada's leading scientist, who was chosen to write the Introduction to the centennial edition of The Origin of the Species, said that the greatest evil Darwin has brought upon the world is to somehow divide science from God and, in fact, set the two at each other's throats.

The theory of evolution has had enormous and devastating impact upon the modern world in which we live. Michael Denton, author of a fascinating book titled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, wrote:

The voyage on The Beagle [Darwin's ship on which he set sail from England in 1831] was a journey of awesome significance. Its object was to survey Patagonia; its result was to shake the foundations of western thought. The Origin of the Species [which followed] has been referred to as "one of the most important books ever written" [it is because it seeks to shake the foundation of the most important book ever written]. As far as Christianity was concerned, the advent of the theory of evolution and the elimination of traditional teleological thinking was catastrophic.


Teleological thinking is the thinking you and I engage in every day. To think teleologically is to believe life has purpose and an end. The evolutionist believes nothing has purpose or an end. Consequently, life has no significance or meaning or importance. The whole scientific enterprise, however, has been hijacked into a naturalistic or materialistic view of the world. Naturalism believes that there is nothing in the universe but nature, nothing supernatural; materialism believes that there is nothing in the world but matter.

What does that mean?

*******

You can read the rest at Alex Matulich's "refutation" site. But wait! Can we be sure that he has honestly quoted Dr. Kennedy?

Oops! Found another convenient part of Kennedy's quote missing from Matulich's post!

Matulich wrote:
"K> They would get up and walk out, and rightly so. But that is the way men accept evolution."


But I have Dr. Kennedy's book and this is the entire quote:

"They would get up and walk out, and rightly so. But that is the way men accept evolution-by blind faith!"


Hmmm....and Matulich accuses Kennedy of misquoting? You know what they say about people in glass houses?? Look in the mirror Matulich!!

It would be quite a project to counter-refute Matulich's drivel. But it might be fun to count the misquotes that he's guilty of. Any volunteers out there? ;-)

Lastly, I want to post a link to Joe Carter's 10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design: Addendum -- PZ Myers Proves My Point over at the Evangelical Outpost. [Click on link and scroll down to it.]

Lots of comments too!

Happy reading!

Hat tip: Evangelical Outpost

SmartChristian

11 comments:

Christinewjc said...

Left everyone speechless?

Guess so...

Christinewjc said...

My Neocounter visitor display is broken! :-(

I just don't know what happened! Had to delete it because I kept getting an error message on the page. Aarrgghhh!

Christinewjc said...

Yay! My country visitor neocounter is fixed!

Christinewjc said...

Here we go again...

Darwin-Hitler connection sparks attacks

Bloggers try to discredit experts on evolution's connection to bloodshed.

Excerpt:

"A new television program linking Darwin to Hitler and the contemporary abortion industry isn't even on the air yet, and already the attacks have begun on those who appear in it.

Author and Christian broadcaster D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries said the new "Darwin’s Deadly Legacy" is a ground-breaking inquiry into Darwin’s "chilling" social impact, and it will air nationwide on Aug. 26-27 on "The Coral Ridge Hour."

That "Pharyngula" blogger has this under his screen name:

"Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal."

Oh boy...talk about a radical left winger!!

I'm looking forward to seeing Darwin's Deadly Legacy.



"This groundbreaking documentary from Dr. Kennedy and Coral Ridge Ministries, looks into the chilling social impact of Darwin's theory of evolution -- and the mounting evidence that Darwin had it wrong on the origin of life.

This 60 minute special featuring Richard Weikart, author of From Darwin to Hitler, Lee Strobel, author of The Case for a Creator; Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution; Phillip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial; Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box, and Ian Taylor, author of In the Minds of Men will show why evolution is a bad idea that should be discarded into the dustbin of history."

Yes!!

Christinewjc said...

Preview Darwin's Deadly Legacy.

It's chilling...

Bound to get Darwinists foaming at the mouth!

Christinewjc said...

Find out where to watch.

Boo said...

It's supremely ironic you would put those comments under this post. Here's what Dr. Collins has to say about the Darwin-Hitler special:

"After being contacted by the ADL [Anti-Defamation League, who are also appalled at Kennedy's attempt to trivialize the Holocaust] about his name being used to promote Kennedy's project, Dr. Collins said he is "absolutely appalled by what Coral Ridge Ministries is doing. I had NO knowledge that Coral Ridge Ministries was planning a TV special on Darwin and Hitler, and I find the thesis of Dr. Kennedy's program utterly misguided and inflammatory," he told ADL"

As to why you're not getting replies, I would guess everyone's finally figured out there's really no point. Your brain is impervious to facts and logic. It's always the same pattern: you make bad arguments, which your debating opponents show to be false, then you drop the thread and shortly thereafter bring up the same bad arguments in a new thread, and round and round we go. I mean, what's the point any more of me saying that your big evidence of the dishonesty of "Darwinists" based on this one guy saying a quote was at the beginning of a chapter rather than near the beginning of a chapter is remarkable silly (and doesn't change the substance of his critique one iota), or that the guy had just said Kennedy was claiming people who believe in evolution take it on faith just as religious people do right before the second quote where he didn't include the last three words you wanted him to, even though they don't change the context of the quote at all? Or that teleological thinking has nothing to do with the entire scientific method, or that you have been presented with ample evidence over and over and over that evolutionists are not nihilists, or that evolution and eugenics are incompatible because evolution depends on genetic diversity and the whole point of eugenic is to narrow the gene pool, or that Mein Kampf constantly talk about a Creator and references Martin Luther's antisemetic diatribes far more than Darwin, or that there was an official Reichsbishop running the Catholic church in Nazi Germany who reported to Hitler but that doesn't mean Catholicism was responsible for the Holocaust (although I'm sure the centuries of passion plays that made a big deal out of demonizing Jews as Christ-killers didn't help), or that it's odd to complain about saying humanity came from muck and then turn around and say humanity came from dust, or that Ken Ham's statement that "We don't return to an ape-man when we die" is possibly the single most idiotic strawman ever constructed in the history of the world? None of it ever makes any difference. You're committed to your point of view over everything else and any facts that threaten it just set off your cognitive dissonance alarms and make you pull the blanket over your head more tightly.

Christinewjc said...

Well, it's unfortunate that the ADL thinks that Kennedy is "trivializing" the holocaust. I don't think that is his intention at all. As a Christian believer, he knows the importance of supporting Israel. The Bible has the admonition about "those who bless her (Israel) vs. those who curse her" and the consequences of cursing God's chosen people.

I think that it's important to see the entire broadcast before making judgments about it. However, from what I have read, the segment that Dr. Collins is in has nothing to do with the Hitler/Darwinism segment.

I happen to think that you are dead wrong when you said, "Or that teleological thinking has nothing to do with the entire scientific method." This is only by the choice of Darwinists because it places doubt in the minds of those who haven't fallen for their macro-mantra hook, line and sinker. But their insistence that "If it isn't matter, it doesn't matter" is wearing thin with inquisitive minds.

Kennedy is absolutely correct that Darwinists take their beliefs "on faith." The macro-evolutionary part of the theory is not proven. The evidence for micro is stretched to make people believe that it's true. But the evidence doesn't support it. That's what extrapolation means and I know of evolutionists who completely agree, but it doesn't bother them. Well, it bothers me. I think that the design inference is a much better springboard towards the truth.

You are being intellectually dishonest (but most of all, spiritually dishonest) if you can't admit that Darwin's "survival of the fittest" opinions have not been used to promote evil purposes since that book was written. I find YOU ironic! You don't mind when people claim that Hitler was a "Christian", but you howl like a coyote when a preacher makes the connection of Hitler's spiritual depravity when he used Darwin's theory as an excuse to murder Jews during the Holocaust. I'm sad for YOU!

You may chose to put your head in the sand and ignore the negative and evil spiritual implications that Darwin's theory has caused; but I refuse to do that.

The difference between your (and evolution's view) of man coming from the muck verses God creating man from the dust of the earth demonstrates that our bodies aren't the most important thing about us. It is when God "breathed into the nostrils of man the breath of life" that man became a human being, including not only a body, but also a soul, mind, and spirit.

Darwinism chooses to ignore these facts about ourselves. Atheistic Darwinists were filled with joy when they finally had a theory that could eliminate God from the origins arguments. And they wrote it right into the definition of science in order to keep that "Divine foot from the door." Evolutionists have an absolute hissy fit when faced with the teleological facts about man's design. THAT is why they don't want to "make a connection" between the two. THAT is why God and teleological thinking was kicked out of man's thinking upon origins. [Heh heh...get that...man's THINKING on origins. Where did the concept of "thought" come from?] I know , I know...that's a philosophical question that Darwinism CAN'T ANSWER! And, IMO, that's the point that makes their theory lacking in truth... Eliminate the possibility of other explanations on origins from schools and Darwinism wins by default. That's nice...disallowing a competitor to compete in the arena of ideas makes Darwinists appear to fear something...hmmm....]

Ham was probably being sarcastic when he made that comment. Don't evolutionists have a sense of humor anymore? Probably not. Especially since they see their precious macro-evolutionary nonsense being exposed for what it is...a fraud, evidence-lacking, philosophical, mindless, matter and motion only, process that didn't have "man" in mind...but oozed from the goo billions of years later! To me, that is the most illogically and stupid "theory" ever thought of! It's not even a good hypothesis considering all that we now know about the complexity of even just one single cell!!

But you're right. Why should I waste MY time arguing with YOU? You have a closed mind that's just as tight as those who held the closed universe concept and it's not gonna budge one iota. So just stay that way for all I care. I'll choose to follow what Jesus said about Creation. As our Perfect Creator and Sustainer, He has all the answers that you obviously don't. And I'll take His Infallible Word over your (and any other Darwinist's)fallible thinking any day!

Boo said...

"I think that it's important to see the entire broadcast before making judgments about it. However, from what I have read, the segment that Dr. Collins is in has nothing to do with the Hitler/Darwinism segment."

Which segment was what Dr. Collins was criticizing.

"I happen to think that you are dead wrong when you said, "Or that teleological thinking has nothing to do with the entire scientific method." This is only by the choice of Darwinists because it places doubt in the minds of those who haven't fallen for their macro-mantra hook, line and sinker. But their insistence that "If it isn't matter, it doesn't matter" is wearing thin with inquisitive minds."

The scientific method existed long before evolution came on the scene, and it has nothing to do with teleological thinking. Science tells us about is. Teleology tells us about ought. You cannot get ought out of is, which is why science is not a moral guide. C.S. Lewis devoted a considerable amount of The Abolition of Man to explaining this fallacy. Whatever meaning we want to get from what science discovers is not a scientific issue.

"Kennedy is absolutely correct that Darwinists take their beliefs "on faith." The macro-evolutionary part of the theory is not proven. The evidence for micro is stretched to make people believe that it's true. But the evidence doesn't support it. That's what extrapolation means and I know of evolutionists who completely agree, but it doesn't bother them. Well, it bothers me. I think that the design inference is a much better springboard towards the truth."

You've switched the argument now. First you were complaining that the evolution author was trying to hide Kennedy's claim that evolutionists take their beliefs on faith. Now you're arguing that Kennedy's right. The author devotes considerable space to showing why Kennedy is wrong, which you have not addressed. Are you now retracting your initial claim that the author was being dishonest since he said quite clearly that Kennedy was talking about faith?

One more time on this one: macroevolution has been observed. Therefore, it happens. Whether or not our current understanding of evolutionary theory gives us a complete explanation of how it happens is irrelevant to the fact that it does happen.

"You are being intellectually dishonest (but most of all, spiritually dishonest) if you can't admit that Darwin's "survival of the fittest" opinions have not been used to promote evil purposes since that book was written. I find YOU ironic! You don't mind when people claim that Hitler was a "Christian", but you howl like a coyote when a preacher makes the connection of Hitler's spiritual depravity when he used Darwin's theory as an excuse to murder Jews during the Holocaust. I'm sad for YOU!"

Someone who desires evil purposes will twist anything they can to justify it. That is not the fault of whatever is twisted. The Bible has been used to promote evil purposes since it was written, but that does not mean the Bible is evil. My point about Hitler's connections to Christianity was that Hitler abused the authority of whatever was available to justify himself, but that does not mean Christianity is evil, a point you knew full well already. Hitler was not a Christian, nor did he understand evolution. Hitler was just evil. He perverted and used Christianity when it suited him, he perverted and used Darwinism when it suited him. He perverted and used socialism until he gained power, then chucked all the socialistic parts of the Nazi platform. He perverted and used capitalism to gain the support of industrialists, then turned on them. That is not the fault of Christianity or Darwinism or socialism or capitalism. That is the fault of Hitler, and people who didn't know enough about those various systems to recognize how they were being perverted.

"The difference between your (and evolution's view) of man coming from the muck verses God creating man from the dust of the earth demonstrates that our bodies aren't the most important thing about us. It is when God "breathed into the nostrils of man the breath of life" that man became a human being, including not only a body, but also a soul, mind, and spirit."

And who's to say God couldn't have breathed our souls into muck instead of dust? Does the water in muck keep the soul out?

"Atheistic Darwinists were filled with joy when they finally had a theory that could eliminate God from the origins arguments."

And their subjective feelings about evolution have no bearing on the objective accuracy of evolution. Athiests like it for religious reasons, you hate it for religious reasons. Again, read your C.S. Lewis.

"Evolutionists have an absolute hissy fit when faced with the teleological facts about man's design. THAT is why they don't want to "make a connection" between the two."

No, they just recognize that ought and is are two different things.

"THAT is why God and teleological thinking was kicked out of man's thinking upon origins. [Heh heh...get that...man's THINKING on origins. Where did the concept of "thought" come from?] I know , I know...that's a philosophical question that Darwinism CAN'T ANSWER! And, IMO, that's the point that makes their theory lacking in truth..."

And as I have pointed out many times before, no one is claiming that evolution explains the ultimate truth about everything, or if anyone is they're a pretty poor excuse for a scientist.

"Ham was probably being sarcastic when he made that comment."

But he was still creating a ridiculous strawman to attack, and frankly I think he expected his intended audience to take it seriously. Someone who is schooled only in creationist/ID claims about evolution is naturally going to believe that evolution is completely absurd, because creationists/IDers always present a highly distorted and ridiculous version of what evolution actually says.

Axlq said...

Alex Matulich quoted Kennedy's chapter on evolution in its entirety, leaving nothing out except a diatribe at the end. Clearly you were referring to a newer edition of "Why I Believe." Talk about intellectual dishonesty, comparing apples to oranges. I note also that the "missing" paragraphs do nothing to detract from Matulich's point.

Christinewjc said...

Hello non-courageous Axle (or whatever your name is). It always makes me chuckle when people post comments but won't allow access to their profile. Makes me think that they must have something to hide.

Anyway.

There is a huge difference between what Matulich claimed Kennedy said:
Matulich wrote:

"K> They would get up and walk out, and rightly so. But that is the way men accept evolution."

And what Kennedy actually said:

"They would get up and walk out, and rightly so. But that is the way men accept evolution-by blind faith!"

Those last three words qualify the comment in a particularly certain way. Leaving it out changes the context of the entire sentence.

That is dishonest, no matter what your opinion happens to be.