Further Update: Lo and behold they lifted the block!

Update: Florida Citizens for Science has been sending me traffic by way of commenting about my blog on their website, while blocking me from viewing those comments. So to all my evolutionist friends out there, “Welcome!”

 Rom 12:14-21

 14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.

17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.  

 

Unlike the gravitational theory or the theory of relativity, evolution theory has never been proven; however, the naturalist view has been warmly embraced by the scientific community. Lewis Chafer wrote, “The evolutionary hypothesis that all organic substances were derived from a single organism, for which they have no rational explanation as to its beginning, is surprisingly irrational for a theory that has attracted so much acceptance.” The notion that life originated from non-living matter is very dogmatic in its assertion since this has never been observed. Because the scientific community assumes the theory of evolution to be true and views all new discoveries through that lense, any peer who deviates from that assumption experiences a fierce retaliation.

Why would a community which prides itself on its objectivity eagerly embrace an unproven theory as truth? Chafer answers, “Without a doubt evolution has arisen from the desire of unregenerate people to explain the universe without God or with a minimum of divine intervention.” World renown atheist astronomer, Robert Jastrow agrees, “The religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. . . .the mind reacts by ignoring the implications—in science this is known as “refusing to speculate”—or trivializing the origin of the world by calling it the Big Bang, as if the Universe were a firecracker.” Yet, 150 years after Darwin’s publication, evolution theory is taught as fact in schools and the political ramifications are heard daily on the floor of congress as generations have been impacted by the diminished value of life.

When human life ceases to hold intrinsic value, the purpose and value of any life becomes equitable to that of the rock from which it evolved. Fortunately the conscious of the masses refuses to embrace evolution as fact. Florida was the first to submit a Freedom of Education Act allowing the inconsistencies of evolutionary thought to be taught in the public classroom. But the damage has already been done within the fabric of a world that would love nothing more than a valid excuse to deny God. When a community embraces a world view that strips humanity of purpose and value, one should not be surprised at the staggering rise in fetal murder, steady increase in youth crime, and deterioration of the family unit. William Provine said if Darwinianism is true then “there’s no evidence for God, there’s no life after death, there’s no absolute foundation for right and wrong, there’s no ultimate meaning for life, and people don’t really have free will.” It appears that as Lee Strobel wrote, “God has been given his walking papers.” Or has He? Unlike evolution does the creationist view follow the evidence where it leads, or is it just a “God of the gaps” theory claiming divine intervention when a natural explanation evades?

What do you think?

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Ben Hoffman says:

    Sorry… evolution has been proven and observed.

  2. Nance says:

    No, Ben, micro-evolution has been observed and proven. Changes within species is observable and proven. Macro-evolution has not. I challenge you to provide data supporting your statement.

  3. Ben Hoffman says:

    Nance, the evidence for macro-evolution is fossils, and there is enough evidence and scientific agreement that makes it “proof.”

    Thanks for visiting my blog. 🙂

  4. Lucy Lowe says:

    “Why would a community which prides itself on its objectivity eagerly embrace an unproven theory as truth?”

    The simple answer is it doesn’t. Evolution is proven, a falsifiable theory which has not been falsified and is supported by a wealth of evidence in geographical distribution and the fossil record to name just two examples.

    You’ve made the common mistake of attacking Evolution for something it doesn’t address – the origin of life. Evolution explains how life developed from simple to complex – for thoughts on Scientific ideas for the origin of life you ought to read up on Abiogenesis.

    I think it is an important point to also remember, Evolution does not invalidate the idea of a God. It is perfectly possible to accept the reality of Evolution and still believe in the existence of a God.

    I don’t really understand the following sentence: “if Darwinianism is true then “there’s no evidence for God”

    Aside from the fact I don’t know what Darwinianism is, (Charles Darwin certainly didn’t come up with the term and no Scientist would ever use it), the truth is there isn’t actually any evidence for a God outside of the various holy books anyway. This doesn’t mean you can’t continue to believe in a God if you choose as it’s all faith based anyway.

    Finally, this assertion: “When a community embraces a world view that strips humanity of purpose and value, one should not be surprised at the staggering rise in fetal murder, steady increase in youth crime, and deterioration of the family unit”

    I’m afraid I don’t share with you this bleak outlook on life. Evolution is a fact but life still has purpose and value – I fail to see any contradiction there.

    Anyway, unlike the God theory 🙂 it is possible to disprove Evolution. Rabbit fossils in the pre-Cambrian is the most famous example but just one fossil found out of place would make all reasonable people reject Evolution overnight. The fact is every single piece of data so far retrieved has supported rather than contradicted Evolution. Thousands and thousands of pieces of evidence in various fields of study all supporting the theory. Every single one. You may consider that to be “all down to chance” (to coin another common misconception about Evolution) but I find that a bit hard to believe.

    Anyway, I hope you’re able to overcome your misconceptions and reconcile your faith in your God with reality.

    Good luck and have a lovely day,

    Lucy

  5. Stacy S. says:

    Florida passed no such act.

  6. I think Lucy pretty much said all the things I would have said myself. It is entirely possible to believe in God and accept evolution as fact. Accepting evolution as fact does not necessarily lead to a sinful life, depressing worldview, etc.

    I also think you have an incorrect idea of what a “theory” is and what it means to be “proven” correct. The following link may help: http://airtightnoodle.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/what-do-we-mean-by-theory-anyway/

  7. Zachary says:

    I would to address a few things in brief, and make a few corrections.

    1) Miss Lucy stated thus:

    “[…]the truth is there isn’t actually any evidence for a God outside of the various holy books anyway.”

    This is untrue. It is possible to cite the universe as evidence for God, bypassing the evolution argument and moving straight into causality and the necessities of the source of such a causal chain.

    2) Miss Lucy also stated:
    “This doesn’t mean you can’t continue to believe in a God if you choose as it’s all faith based anyway.”

    This is common misunderstanding of theism. God can be proven via pure reasoning (through such arguments as Anselm and Descartes’ formulations of the cosmological argument, to take just one example). Most times people fail to define “faith” when they use it in this context. Most people use “faith” to mean, “something that I will believe based, essentially, on nothing” (and by this, they can only mean, “what I believe because I want to believe it).
    I prefer the definition of faith which is more akin to,
    “I will go on believing what I know to be true despite my varying moods and emotions which might have me believe otherwise.”

    Faith is the act of holding onto the facts which have been proven a thousand times over despite the overwhelming temptation to fall into doubt.

    Lucy seems to be treating “faith” in the former way, which I feel is incorrect.

    3) “airtightnoodle” said,
    “Accepting evolution as fact does not necessarily lead to a sinful life, depressing worldview, etc.”

    And I will agree, but for anyone who thinks that it is possible to not believe in God and still escape a “depressing world view” would be advised to read this: http://truthisasnare.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/atheism-or-morality-whatll-it-be/

  8. I’m not an atheist myself, but I know several that lead moral lives and certainly do not have a depressing world view.

  9. Rickr0ll says:

    oh my god Zach, you HAD to mention Anselm didn’t you? ooooh, very bad move….
    After all, Anselm’s argument can prove that god is necessarily evil, by invoking the fact that an existant tyrranical God is far worse than any imaginary one. Futhermore, perfection doesn’t exist, so Anselm’s argument is wothless anyway. One last thing is that our conception of God is only as great so that we cannot imagine anything better, but God himself knows what is better than us “His thoughts are higher than our thoughts,” i must remind you.
    Descarte’s cosmological argument rested more or less on the ontological argument, it was an only way to move past “I am self aware” to “Reality is real.” Besides, doesn’t Cosmology refute it? There has been so much done in the way of cosmology that you need to look into before assumning that these tired arguments work.

    look at all of these and the comments(particularly on vid 2):

  10. Rickr0ll says:

    yep still winning. By default, but a win’s a win.

  11. Rickr0ll says:

    huh, that’s odd, the philosophical entries were ignored… Maybe it’s that you can’t acknowledge the fact that most of what you say is baseless, philosophically or scientifically. The fact that you use one to debate the other is proof positive of this.

  12. Nance says:

    “Maybe it’s that you can’t acknowledge the fact that most of what you say is baseless, philosophically or scientifically.”

    Or maybe I didn’t know you commented on this post…
    “perfection doesn’t exist”
    How do you know what not-perfect is without some standard of perfect? How do you know perfection does not exist? How do you know you’re not perfect?

  13. Rickr0ll says:

    there is no standard of perfect! What is perfect in the universe? Nothing!! You sound like Anselm. Get off that wagon, the wheels were stolen hundreds of years ago!

  14. So how do I get the attention of the Florida Citizens for Science?

  15. Nance says:

    “So how do I get the attention of the Florida Citizens for Science?”

    You’ll have to ask them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s