Archive for the ‘evolutionism’ Tag

Believing What You See   Leave a comment

Even atheist scientists admit the world appears to be designed.

Yeah, really, they do.

Richard Dawkins stated in “The God Delusion” that “Living things are not designed, but Darwinian natural selection licenses a version of the design stance for them. We get a short cut to understanding the heart if we assume that it is designed to pump blood.” (2006, p. 182). While denying that the heart is designed by any intelligence, he admits it’s easier to understand it if we assume it was.

Jerry Coyne wrote in Why Evolution is True (2009), “if anything is true about nature, it is that plants and animals seem intricately and almost perfectly designed for living their lives … Nature resembles a well-oiled machine, with every species an intricate cog or gear.” (p. 1). On Page 3, he wrote “The more one learns about plans and animals, the more one marvels at how well their designs fit their way of life.” Michael Shermer in Why Darwin Matters (2006) wrote “The design inference comes naturally. The reason people think that a Designer created the world is that it looks designed” (p. 65). Dawkins wrote in The Greatest Show on Earth (2009) that “So compelling is that illusion (of design) that it has fooled our greatest minds for centuries, until Charles Darwin burst onto the scenes.” (p. 416).

Rick says he always stood in awe of the human body and its apparent design. “Think about ball-and-socket joints in the hips and shoulders, the S curve of the spine that allows us to walk upright.” It’s one reason he never claimed to be an atheist. He could never completely deny that the human body he knows so well as a scientist really looks like it was designed … design would require a designer.

Missing Connections   Leave a comment

David has slowly come to admit that paleontology can’t explain some of the gaps in the fossil record. In his more-atheistic youth, he was sure paleontology would soon answer his questions. These days, he admits, it doesn’t look like it will.

To the layman, that means paleontologists are still operating in the realm of theory, but that doesn’t prevent many who don’t enjoy mystery in their world from acting as though scientists have found iron-clad proof of what they desperately want to be true.

Most scientists know what they have is evidence, not proof. That’s why discerning readers will note the small disclaimers found throughout evolutionary literature. For example, when parts of a foot, hand, pelvis and skull were uncovered in a South African cave in 2008, it was hailed by the media as a “missing link” between modern man and the ancient ancestor we supposedly share with apes. ABC News called Australopithecus sediba it a “game changer” because the cave the remains were found in dated to 1,977,000 years. The media announced the fossils were that old as well.

Of course, if you’ve got your reason cap on today, you recognize that a cave almost always predates someone living in it, but that gets lost in the shuffle of announcing a big discovery that seems to silence skeptics of evolution. Nobody notices the small words that disclaim that this is an unproven theory. The finding is a “strong confirmation of evolutionary theory”, but it isn’t proof because the actual events were not observed and are not repeatable.

Such disclaimers are often skipped over by Americans when reading about science because our public school system guides our youth to believe in experts, especially scientists, regardless of the evidence. We are taught that a theory is the same thing as a certainty if it comes from an “expert”. We ignore the disclaimers that serve as quiet admission that the “experts” haven’t found proof, just evidence they hope confirms their theory.

So what happens when an “expert” realizes that if macroevolution ever occurred, there should be millions of transitional fossil forms documenting the evolution of the various species?

Darwin himself expected to find an enormous number of these once that we knew to look for them. Yet, after more than a century of fossil mining and analyzing the geologic strata, the “experts” have found only sporadic and questionable fossils that even the evolutionary community cannot agree upon.

If atheistic explanations for the origin of the universe were true, we should be witnessing the spontaneous generation of life and matter all over the place. Or maybe at least once somewhere. We’d see transitional forms between different varieties of living organisms. But science hasn’t found that, even as they continue to hold out hope that they will.

David now calls himself an agnostic because he recognizes the truth of the following statement.

“Faith is being sure of what we hope for and being convinced of what we do not see.” Hebrews 13:1

New Evidence   1 comment

The Markham Clan Research group

  • Bai – former master-degreed biochemist, current teacher/associate pastor
  • David – atheist/agnostic paleontologist
  • Lela – former reporter, current administrator, sometimes Sunday School teacher, blogger
  • Rick – research doctor, former agnostic, born again Christian

David’s primary interest is dinosaurs. I won’t get more specific than that because he’s got a career to be concerned about and questioning orthodoxy in today’s scientific world is as dangerous as questioning orthodoxy in Wittenberg in the 15th century. While our group has no expert in early homonids, prehistoric creatures like Neanderthal have figured prominently in our discussions.

The evolutionists tell me that fossil evidence and DNA research “prove” that man has evolved. Certainly that’s what gets out into the press, but that’s only one interpretation.

When the first skeleton was uncovered in 1856 in the Neander Valley of Germany, the difference in bone construction was explained by rickets or arthritis, but there was a strong movement in the early 20th century to call these fossils evidence of evolution. Still, in 1978, one of the leading authorities on Neanderthals, Erik Trinhaus of Washington University (which is where Rick works) concluded that there was nothing in the skeleton evidence to suggest that Neanderthals were inferior to modern humans in locomotion, manipulation, intellect or linguistic abilities. I remember reading about this in college in the 1980s.

In 2001, Science Magazine introduced the coexistence theory to the public. The admission that modern humans and Neanderthal existed at the same time and comingled was necessitated by recent fossil findings that put Neanderthals and modern man in the same place at the same time. Scientists dated the remains of anatomically modern humans from caves in Israel to around 92,000 to 100,000 years old, which placed modern humans earlier than Neanderthal skeletons found in neighboring (less than a football field) caves that dated 40,000 years later. David reports there was quite a lot of panic among the more atheist groups of paleontologists who had accepted the standard evolutionary view that Neanderthals were the dimwitted forerunners (or at least distant cousins) of humans.

How very inconvenient for that highly fanciful “Ascent of Man” artwork we were all raised to bow before!

I’m not a young earth creationist, so I don’t get all lathered by such discoveries. I accept the world is millennia old. I don’t need to defend the counting of the “begats” because I recognize the Biblical history prior to Abraham as a synopsis of a longer history. We really cannot assess time periods prior to Abraham.

Therefore, since my faith does not lie in counting begats, it is interesting to read about the research into the mitochondrial DNA of Neanderthal. By 1998, scientists had pretty much concluded that Neanderthal was not an ancestor of modern humans, but a proto-human species that failed the evolutionary experiment. Scientists have since suggested that modern humans and Neanderthals had several encounters with each other that resulted in a mixing of DNA – mating. In fact, there have been multiple burial sites found where modern humans and Neanderthals were interred together, providing strong evidence that they lived and worked together. In 1999, archeologist Randall White suggested the evidence pointed to Neanderthals just being people.

In other words, science had a theory that it has had to modify. That is what science is supposed to do and if scientists did not have presuppositions to defend, it would be a merely interesting bit of observation that Neanderthal turns out to be us. But some scientists, many of them actually, hope the public will simply shrug and not consider the greater implications, because that threatens their presuppositions.

Bill Nye the Scientism Guy   Leave a comment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU

Posted May 31, 2013 by aurorawatcherak in Common sense

Tagged with ,

Faith & Science Are Different, Not Incompatible   2 comments

I do so believe in dinosaurs and I do NOT believe the earth is 6000 years old. That, by the way, was one man’s interpretation of the Bible, which doesn’t claim the earth is 6000 years old. It follows the Hebrew people and their lineage, which goes back about 6000 years.

I believe that Bible was inspired by God and written by the hands of humans. Humans 4000 years ago had limited understanding of the natural world. As they wrote a book of history, I suspect some concepts just didn’t communicate very well between an eternal, all powerful, and spiritual Being to His limited creation.

Example?

Nobody knows how many “days” it actually took God to create the earth or how long He spent creating the universe. No, I am not saying I disbelieve the Bible. I believe it took six periods of time for God to create the universe. I suspect that Moses did not understood “day” in the same way that God experienced those periods of time.

What is a “day” to an eternal Being? Time must be a relative concept for Him, since He’s always existed. In fact, a thorough reading of the Bible would show the reader that God experiences time in a way that we do not. He knew what we would do before we existed, implying time applies to humans in a linear fashion, but God is outside of time. To Him, the moment of Creation may be like a second ago to us. So “day” means …? Well, there are those who insist it means a 24-hour period of planetary revolution, and God still loves them, but the Biblical account says God didn’t create the sun until the third “day”, so …? Yeah, not a scientific document. It’s a historical document, scribed by a time-limited human trying to understand a communication from an infinite and eternal Being. It might be a little like my dog trying to understand one of my blog posts. As dogs go my husky-mix is incredibly bright, but this blog post would be over her head. So, Christians who apply reason to the discussion of the earth’s age recognize that we really don’t know from the Bible how old the earth is and we’re okay with that.

It’s not denying science to have faith. It’s denying science has a right to define faith.They really are two completely separate subjects. Faith should not limit science because science deals with how the universe works, but neither should science seek to limit faith because faith deals with why the universe exists. That’s a middle ground that I think any Bible believing Christian can grow comfortable with if we allow ourselves to. Defending faith does not require that we discount science … only that we point out when scientism oversteps into areas that it is not qualified to comment upon.

I do consider myself a “creationist” in that I believe God created the world in the way described in the first chapters of Genesis, but I also think the first chapters of Genesis do not tell a complete picture. We have no idea how many generations separated Adam from Abraham. What is written about the time before Abraham is synopsis of millennia, most likely.

In my honest non-partisan way, I do not myself wholly agree with any one version of “creationism”. I find parts of the Creationist argument compelling (hence the acceptance of the first chapters of Genesis), but I also agree with Intelligent Design on some things. Science is a wonderful subject, but I think scientists sometimes draw wrong conclusions from their data because they want their worldview validated. I am also drawn to the BioLogos movement, what might be termed “theistic evolution”. My mind is not made up and I think that is a sign of intelligence, reason and faith.

All true Christians believe that God created the universe and all life. You can’t claim you’re a Biblical Christian and also say you think God wasn’t intimately involved. On the other hand, you can disagree with Young Earth Creationists who believe God created everything 6,000 to 10,000 years ago and dismiss much of modern mainstream science. I hold that Scripture and modern science both reveal God’s truth and that these truths are not in competition with one another. There is some disagreement in how to reconcile the truths of science and Scripture on particular issues. I’m not completely sold on evolution mainly because it is so often presented as evolutionism, which is a subset of scientism – the atheistic worldview that denies the existence of the supernatural even when it is so evident you’d have to be blind not to see it.

Stine Writing

Poetry, Positivity, and Connecting!

Writer vs the World

In search of beauty, inspired by literature.

Inside My Mind

Words from my brain

Happiness Between Tails by da-AL

Tales + Books + Compassion + Culture + Wagging Tails

Fairfax and Glew

Vigilante Justice

The Wolf's Den

Overthink Everything

SaltandNovels

Sprinkling wonder into writing

Remmington Reads

A book enthusiast bringing you all things bookish

MiddleMe

Becoming Unstuck

Magical BookLush

A New Dimension to Explore!! A reason to Love and A promise to fight the wrong is hidden in Books. Come, Let's Explore it!!!

Jacquie Biggar-USA Today Best-selling author

Read. Write. Love. 💕💕💕

Not Very Deep Thoughts

Short Fiction and Other Things

%d bloggers like this: