1. They walk about quoting from their sacred scriptures as if these writings contained something more than just words.
2. They denigrate anyone who disagrees with them, painting a false picture of dissenters as hopelessly lost and unenlightened.
3. They believe that their faith is the only correct one.
4. They attempt to force their views into politics, classrooms and the public sphere at large, claiming a superior knowledge.
5. They claim every new archeological, or geological find 'proves' their faith.
Who are these people, and how dare they act this way? Well, if you read much, you would say that this is the Christian Coalition, but I am speaking of those who promote the THEORY of evolution and humanistic perspectives.
Everyone uses the term theory when they speak of evolution, but no one, sad to say even Christians, treat it as a theory at all. The humanist will argue as if he/she is disseminating empirical data, rather than the writings of a group of people within the scientific community.
And when pressed about the apparent inconsistencies, they will always fall back on the trusty 'randomness' of nature, when there is no appearance of randomness in nature. When you peer through the Hubble you do not find random, you find order -- an order so exacting that we are able to launch rockets aimed at planets millions of miles away, that will pass within a hairsbreadth of said planet in order to do a photo shoot.
Now, why am I taking time out of the Feasts to make these points? Well, I am not writing this to start some kind of blog war amongst all 4 of the people who read this blog, rather I tire of the evolutionists who often paints Christians as throwbacks, with limited intelligence and infantile reasoning.
Unfortunately, there are some who do fit that description, but likewise, there are many on the evolutionary side of the debate who also fit that. And that has nothing to do with the veracity of our beliefs.
The evolutionist has comfortably sat in his/her glass tower and thrown stones for far too long. All the while the Christian community tries to debate using the arguments crafted by the evolutionist, thereby lending credence to their claims. It is time for Christians to call the evolutionist on the carpet using the same criteria that they use to judge (and quite frankly, ridicule) us.
Does the universe REALLY lend itself to an evolutionary mindset, being nothing more than a random series of 'accidents' that led to life as we know it, or is it not only possible, but MORE probable that an intelligent being created this environment? Have we somehow bucked the theory of entropy, and are moving towards more and more order as opposed to less and less?
Is man still evolving? If so, when was the last MICRO-evolution?
I don't expect to get answers to these, nor do I even want to get into some huge debate about these things (I am anxious to continue with my series), I simply tire of being painted as some kind of ignorant, superstitious, cave-dweller (intellectually), while the evolutionists paints themselves as 'higher-beings'.
8 comments:
And not to get into it, but just to answer one of your questions (I respect your desire not to get bogged down in ONE MORE DEBATE!...)
The last human micro evolution? I don't know that it's the latest, but...
cystic fibrosis. The estimates I saw had the mutation arising in the 14th century, and it's so prevalent in one group of people today (those with European ancestry) because while it is fatal when both genes are present, one gene makes the carrier much, much less likely to die of dysentary related disease, which were extremely common in the period between the heavy urbanization of Europe and the development of water purification systems in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Thanks for the input alierakieron... I want to ask -- would that be considered evolution (micro or otherwise), or would that be considered design?
I truly am not trying to stir this up, but I think in a different perspective when I see these types of arguments. I have no doubt that a Creator would put in place the ability to adapt to certain conditions, but I don't look at that as evolution.
Maybe I am being simple -- but I would attribute these 'safety' mechanisms to design rather than to mere chance or happenstance...
And then again, maybe I am simply rambling! :-)
Bottom line -- I believe that when we see examples as you cited that shows me design, not chance...
In this case I'd say you're conflating two different issues: mechanics and causation. The theory of Evolution says absolutely nothing about who created the universe, or how things are run - it analyzes the mechanics of the question. Evolution does not, it is true, *require* a creator. But it doesn't forbid one, either. Most people who describe themselves as evolutionists believe that God directs evolution; or rather, God directs creation, and evolution is one tool in the box.
That having been said, it would be easier to argue that CF and sickle cell were design rather than chance if:
A) The disease didn't kill millions of people, in truly horrific ways (I would think that if it was design, it would be a harmless beneficial mutation, not one that killed people painfully), and
B) The number of completely deleterious diseases didn't completely overwhelm the number of diseases wherein a single
'dose' of the disease was helpful.
Now, as a religious evolutionist, I would say that if anthing, CF and SCA are cases where God's grace tempered the damage done. The mistake I think you're making is confusing atheism with a belief in Evolution. They do coincide, certainly. But it's entirely possible to believe that evolution as a process is a correct assessment of the mechannical development of the world as we know it and to ALSO believe that God is the causative agent.
Make sense?
Actually most people that I know who describe themselves as evolutionists do not believe in God, but admittedly my circle may be smaller than yours in that particular area.
When I described design, I was discussing the fact that some aspect of the disease actually addressed a concern of the day -- i.e. the dysentary issue. Did I miss something there, maybe I misunderstood?
And I was not saying that design was illustrated in the particular disease, rather that we were designed to respond to things such as dysentary, and cope with them, albeit in this case a way that is flawed.
However, the flaw would be ascribed to the fallen nature of the world we live in, as opposed to the Creator designing the flaw.
Now, as far as being a religious evolutionist (interesting to me), how would you square the creation discussed in Genesis with evolution? Or, are you more in the deist mode, whereby God wound up the universe and is now letting it slowly wind down?
I am in no way being facetious in my questions -- I am curious about your perspective... Not because I am thinking about joining the Religious Evolutionist Club :-), but because I can't figure out how you square Biblical creation with evolution.
Maybe I am just missing it...
Sound thoughts, Ray.
Because there is only one possile inconsistency, to my mind, between an understanding of evolution as it actually stands, not how some like Dawkins would describe it, and the bible, and this is it: seven days. Our understanding of science says that it took millions of years to produce life as we know it, and the bible says seven days. But the bible several times makes reference to divine and human time being very different things, so I have no problem personally interpreting "seven days" to mean "seven stages". If you think about the Big Bang and "Fiat Lux!" - I think it is... well, a beautiful synthesis myself. If you look at the progression of Homo sapiens back through several thousand centuries, it really does, in many ways, look like clay being sculpted. But at some point, there was *one* Man. No matter how you cut it there had to be a first one. And at that point, I believe, God looked at his creation and said, "It is good." I realize this is not a literal interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis. But I would counter that response with a question: "What's the word in 8th century BC Hebrew for nucleotide"? I realize that may well not be a sufficient explanation for many, but it's where I am with it.
Let me put it a different way: we watch stars being born and dying in the telescope all the time. Does a process that we can observe challenge my faith? No! Does understanding that a baby is built cell by cell within my body challenge my faith? No! There's a natural process by which things happen, yes, but that by no means minimnizes the role of the Creator behind them. Rather, it absolutely humbles me, to think of a God who is able to design such an amazing and complex system.
I'm not a deist, because I don't believe god has stepped away from the table. He's constantly standing over, watching it, making sure the system is running according to His Will, and when it isn't, or when sees fits, he intervenes. Otherwise there would be no miracles. The system would work the same way every time. But it doesn't.
I know an awful lot of Christians, I should say, who believe that evolution explains much of how the world was built. The term "evolutionist" however is one that is probably self-applied by people who are atheist more often than not, so I think you have a point there.
All right, I've rambled on long enough! I know it's unlikely I'll convince you of anything - but that wasn't my intention. We only become solid in our own beliefs by interacting with others! I hope we both con profit from a friendly exchange of ideas.
alierakieron -- You may not have convinced me of anything, but I certainly enjoyed the conversation... I will ponder some of your points...
alierakieron -- One last pondering moment before I move on from this -- you say that you believe man was 'sculpted' over time.
I am curious how you reconcile this with a Sovereign God. In other words, is God a 'tinkerer', mucking about with His creation until He figures it out? Or, was he simply winding up the evolution machine and putting the raw material in place to BECOME a homo sapien.
Again, I am just trying to understand how one reconcile's these things when they are a 'religious evolutionist'. It would seem to me that they are two different worldviews and I have given a lot of thought to your responses. I still cannot reconcile both perspectives together.
Post a Comment