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.a 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.

Does the creationist view eliminate the possibility that life forms evolved from non-living matter by chance? Given that no rational explanation has been given to indicate how this is possible, the evidence reveals an intelligent cause. A theist calls this cause “God.” The universe and life itself exists because God wills it to exist. The theistic evolutionist asserts that God used naturalistic evolution to create life. It seems that the necessary agency of time is the great flaw in this assertion. The evidence reveals that 150 million years is not enough time for the complexity of life to have naturally emerged from the dust of the Earth–a supernatural cause is implied. That cause which is outside of time and space is the same God of theistic religions.

Humankind as the pinnacle of creation is uniquely created bearing the image of God. The creationist believes that life is sacred and human life in particular holds intrinsic value and purpose and thus a creationist battles to uphold the common moral law – the law prescribed by the Moral Law Giver. Championing the pro-life cause, raising up children taught to respect the life and property of others, seeking to strengthen the family unit are all values gleaned from a Creator who purposed humans into being as an expression of His love. The theistic God not only caused and sustains His creation, He reveals the truth of His existence through that creation.

Following the evidence leads to God. There must be life after death. There is an absolute foundation for right and wrong. There is an ultimate meaning for life and people really do have free will. That free will enables us to choose either to acknowledge or deny the existence of a supernatural intelligent mind. The now agnostic Antony Flew writes, “The discovery of phenomena like the laws of nature–the communications network of the parable–has led scientists, philosophers, and others to accept the existence of an infinitely intelligent Mind. Some claim to have made contact with this Mind. I have not–yet. But who knows what could happen next? Someday I might hear a Voice that says, “Can you hear me now?”

If God has been given His walking papers, He does not seem willing to submit to those orders. “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” He still pursues the crown of His creation, revealing Himself through general revelation and when we seek Him, revealing Himself through special revelation. Jastrow summed up the quandary of the scientist when he follows the evidence where it leads. “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Advertisements
Comments
  1. “Given that no rational explanation has been given to indicate how this is possible, the evidence reveals an intelligent cause.”

    What qualifies as a rational explanation to you?

    “The evidence reveals that 150 million years is not enough time for the complexity of life to have naturally emerged from the dust of the Earth–a supernatural cause is implied. ”

    Explain.

    As far as following the moral law as described above, not only creationists obey such rules.

    You seem to be setting up a false dichotomy. For example, you say, “If God has been given His walking papers, He does not seem willing to submit to those orders”. This seems to imply that evolution is shoving God out of the picture. Although some people may indeed feel that way, that does not make it true. Faith in God is independent of one’s feelings about evolution. You will find people of all religious persuasions coexisting with this acceptance of evolutionary theory, and you’ll also find people of all religious persuasions who deny evolution.

  2. Nance says:

    For Ben, Lucy, Stacy and Airtightnoodle:

    I have been posting brief conclusions from a thesis I recently wrote. The only correction I wish to make is the Act currently in the Flordia Senate is called the Education Freedom Act, the house already passed it. No, Darwin did not call his theory Darwinian evolution, that would be rather arrogant. In long form it is evolution by natural selection as theorized by Chales Darwin and both creationists and evolutionist just shorten it for convienience sake.

    The fossil record in fact is evolution’s greatest hurdle, not its greatest evidence. Even Darwin recognized that. Please refer to pages 293-4 of your copy of Origin of the Species. As far as the rest of the arguments you seem to have issue with I recommend some reading, rather than my rehashing airtight arguments already made by greater minds than myself.

    Antony Flew, There is a God.
    Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator.
    Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time.
    Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers
    Francis Collins, The Language of God.
    Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology.
    Charles Ryrie, Bsic Theology.
    Thomas Chafer, Systematic Theology.
    Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution.

  3. Have you truly read The Language of God by Francis Collins? Collins affirms evolution wholeheartedly. He is a theistic evolutionist (though he calls it by a different name because he doesn’t like that term–he calls it biologos).

  4. Not to mention Hawking…who is more along the lines of a deist or agnostic.

  5. Nance says:

    Yes, dear, I have read all of them. Collins is a theistic evolutionist. Hawking is an agnostic. I have also read Dawkins’ God Delusion. I enjoy reading atheist and agnostic publications. You are a smart woman, I am sure you like me do not readily accept as truth everything you read. It is possible to investigate both sides and develop an objective evaluation of the facts. As objective as the human mind can achieve given one’s wordlview.

  6. Stacy S. says:

    http://www.flascience.org/free5.html

    ” …The House had stripped the Senate’s approved version in favor of the House’s own text and returned it to the Senate. The Senate didn’t like the House version at all. So the Senate then restored the text of SB 2692 and sent it back to the House, where it sat untouched and thus died. HB 1483 was already tabled, and so it died, too. When the Florida legislature ended its session on May 2, 2008, legislative attempts to open the door to creationism died in the House of Representatives. …”

    Stacy

  7. Nance says:

    Stacy, you seem to love quoting sources that are biased to your point of view. I can do the same thing, so what’s your point? The bill was still presented and not everyone has accepted evolution as fact and my state is not the only state persuing this type of legislation. If evolution were so cut and dry, there wouldn’t be so many scientists close to the evidence questioning the validity of it. I find it quite amusing that the evolutionists are running scared trying to block any attempt to for critical analysis of the evidence. What you so afraid of, huh?

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/03/darwinist_activists_at_florida.html

    “The Academic Freedom Act introduced in Florida’s Senate reads in part:

    An act relating to teaching chemical and biological evolution; providing a short title; providing legislative intent; providing public school teachers with a right to present scientific information relevant to the full range of views on biological and chemical origins; prohibiting a teacher from being discriminated against for presenting such information; prohibiting students from being penalized for subscribing to a particular position on evolution; clarifying that the act does not require any change in state curriculum standards or promote any religious position; providing an effective date.
    Nowhere does this bill call for allowing any alternative theories to be introduced into the classroom. Neither does it say that teachers should be protected in order to safely be able to present alternatives. Articles stating otherwise are flatly false.

    Students need to learn more about evolution, not less. When evolution is presented in the classroom, of course teachers should present the scientific evidence that supports the theory. But if a teacher also presents some of the scientific evidence that challenges the theory, they should not be reprimanded. Teachers and students both need the academic freedom to be able to learn and discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of any theory, including evolution. This is much different from teaching alternatives to evolution.

    Now that Darwinists have successfully ingrained in Florida’s state science standards the “fact” that Darwinism is the “the fundamental concept underlying all of biology,” they are quickly moving to make sure that teachers and students not be allowed to even question evolution. “

  8. Stacy S. says:

    The bill did not pass – it died. I watched it happen.
    I’ll be back in a sec with a link to a newspaper article if that is more to your liking.

    Stacy

  9. Stacy S. says:

    Here’s one from the Florida Baptist Witness if that’s more to your liking …
    http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/8776.article

    On May 1, the Senate sent the House version back to that chamber, refusing to agree to its language. The House failed to respond and legislation died when the legislative session ended the next day.

    Bunkley told the Witness, “In the end, it became evident to me that the House leadership team never really bought into the Senate’s” bill, which was the same language as the original House version.

    “I believe to let the bill die with the Senate’s language on the final day was the wrong decision. It would have been a significant first step in dealing with this issue. We could have come back next year with further adjustments incorporating the House’s well thought-out approach,” he said.

    Here’s another one you should like …

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/05/

    Florida House Republicans Kill Evolution Academic Freedom Measure
    Well, it’s official. The Florida House of Representatives refused today to pass the academic freedom measure on evolution previously passed by the state Senate, and so the measure is now dead because the legislative session has ended. Supposedly, the Florida House refused to pass the Senate bill because it favored a stronger measure to require the critical analysis of evolution.

  10. Nance says:

    You watched it happen?! What on CNN? Did you break out the confetti and champagne in celebration, too?

    Don’t get so excited, little set backs like this only strengthens the resolve of those who desire that the whole truth be told.

  11. Stacy S. says:

    “You watched it happen?!”

    Yes – Live internet feed from Tallahassee.

    “Don’t get so excited, little set backs like this only strengthens the resolve of those who desire that the whole truth be told.

    Nice of you to admit that you were mistaken.

  12. Nance says:

    Mis-matching wits with you has really put me in my place.

  13. “You are a smart woman, I am sure you like me do not readily accept as truth everything you read. It is possible to investigate both sides and develop an objective evaluation of the facts. As objective as the human mind can achieve given one’s wordlview.”

    Nance, you did not appear to be listing authors who have “greater minds than yourself” (your words, not mine) for the sake of objective evaluation.

    You stated:

    “The fossil record in fact is evolution’s greatest hurdle, not its greatest evidence. Even Darwin recognized that. Please refer to pages 293-4 of your copy of Origin of the Species. As far as the rest of the arguments you seem to have issue with I recommend some reading, rather than my rehashing airtight arguments already made by greater minds than myself.”

    You then went on to list various books with completely different viewpoints. How do you expect these books to answer the questions posed specifically to YOU, to back up YOUR viewpoint, when several of them contradict each other? They may have airtight arguments indeed, but when these airtight arguments contradict one another, that doesn’t help YOU make your point.

    And I’m still left wondering what your point is, anyway.

  14. haliburtonlighthouse says:

    Faith the sense that percieves the unseen. You use it to beleive in evolution. Fear is even faith in bad thigns happenign, making one act on somethng that has not happened yet. you need to have faith, you already do, but you don’t CHOOSE to have it in God. Possibly because you cannot beleive He lvoes you. Or that He is really Good. there are good arguements on either side, but if have ‘faith’ you see Him.

  15. You did this as part of a thesis? What institution allowed that?

  16. Haliburton–who are you talking to?

  17. Rickr0ll says:

    ok let’s add some fact to this argument:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

    come back after you have read this and then ask questions. i’m insulted by your attitude to the life’s work of many notable and intelligent scientists; in a very real sense you are saying that they were all either idiots or liars.

  18. Rickr0ll says:

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

  19. Rickr0ll says:

    i don’t need to believe it, there is plenty of evidence in the links that i’ve posted. By the by, scientific knowledge is perfectly alright to use, you don’t have to stay at your own level of ignorance when debating someone else. The internet is a valuable tool in spreading information quickly, i suggest you take advantage, like i have.

  20. Nance says:

    Thank you for the encouragement to better myself. Why do you think I spend my time discussing issues with people who hold opposing views, rick.

    Oh, that’s right, because I’m ignerunt.

  21. Rickr0ll says:

    and so am i. that’s why i look for source material. You ought to do the same. you know, good, peer-reviewed sources usually aid someone in making any kind of informed argument.
    Still avoiding the refutations that were all presented very clearly on the Creationist Claims Index. In that manner, i can’t say that you are discussing issues. Just constantly derailing the debate with side issues that are not relavent.

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