Supposedly, beliefs do have consequences. And its a long standing argument where a vindication of evolution over revelation is warranted, justified, or an outright falsehood, junk science foisted on the public. Depsite the seeming evidence of random, mutual and natural selection, there is an almost equal split in American attitudes that cuts across cultural backgrounds….
—“We are forever being told [by evolutionists] that they’ve got proof of evolution, but they haven’t,” says Monty White, former head of Answers in Genesis in the UK. “They’ve got proof of change within species. But the Bible doesn’t teach fixity of species; it talks about kinds. You can’t extrapolate from change within species to say that an ape-like creature can turn into man.”
White, who is a chemist, could claim to be the grand old man of creationism in the UK. He became a Christian as an undergraduate in 1964, and initially accepted theistic evolution, but by the early 1970s he had come to believe that evolution was not compatible with Christianity. He admits that his thinking on creation is a “faith position”, and wants evolutionists to do the same. “I object to the fact that evolution is taught as fact, rather than as a hypothesis. You’re allowed to question everything in this country except evolution.”—Read More:http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/17/evolution-versus-creationism-science image:http://www.artilim.com/artist/bruegel-jan-the-elder/the-flood-with-noahs-ark/
—Ross Rosevear, the museum’s curator, tells me he has been licking envelopes for the CSM since 1981 and is a convinced “young earther”. Almost all Christians used to go along with the idea that Genesis was a bit suspect on dates, and that the six days of the Bible were metaphorical, with each day representing a vast geological age. The majority of Anglicans, theistic evolutionists who have no difficulty in believing in a Darwinian God, would still abide by that. But the publication in 1961 of Henry Morris and John Whitcomb’s The Genesis Flood, which set out to give a scientific demonstration of the literal truth of the Bible, emboldened those who refused to accept evolution.—Read More:http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/17/evolution-versus-creationism-science
At a basic level, with due respect to Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, and other advocates of the Dour, evolution can be convincing that the background of the universe is dumb matter, while intelligence is an accident. Genesis situates intelligence at the inner center of the universe, while asserting that dumb matter is an illusion, or a decoy to divert from a deeper truth.
(see link at end)…Planet Earth is “about 9,000 years old,” and the study of evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang Theory is based on “lies straight from the pit of hell,” according to a Congressman responsible for crafting US government policy on science and technology.
Paul Broun, a fundamentalist Christian who occupies a safe Republican seat in Georgia, found his grasp of modern science being subjected to unwelcome scrutiny yesterday, after video of him espousing Creationism during an after-dinner speech was uploaded to YouTube.
“God’s word is true. I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell,” he told guests at a fieldsports-themed fundraiser for a local Baptist Church….
Henri Rousseau. The Dream. 1910. Source: WIKI
“It’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a saviour. There’s a lot of scientific data that I found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I believe that the Earth is about 9,000 years old. I believe that it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.”
Broun, who sits on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and occupies a seat in Congress so staunchly Republican that local Democrats are not even bothering to oppose him, added that a literalist interpretation of the Old Testament informs how he governs. Read More:http://www.independent.co.uk
s/world/americas/republican-congressman-says-evolution-is-lie-from-hell-8202896.htmlPeople like Broun, or more articulate advocates usually advocate a view that their antagonists error springs from a belief that evolution is scientifically proven, rock solid, and air tight. They argue this is not the case; though Darwin’s theories and that of the more contemporary followers may have proven a useful guide for select studies, they cannot withstand the vigor and theological wringer to be accepted as proven; a claim to acceptance based on the human mind’s inherent fear of saying they simply don’t understand. That is, the concept that the diversity of life came about through random mutation and natural selection is not grounded on empirical fact or a scientific theory(s) , but instead a reasoned conjecture founded on inferential methods , reverse extrapolation through “unknown unknowns” over and beyond unknown conditions.
—The theme of Adam and Eve provided Gossaert with an opportunity to portray male and female nudes at almost lifesize scale in some of his paintings. Initially, Gossaert followed Dürer’s staid approach, as in the latter’s famous 1504 engraving, but he increasingly engaged in an exploration of the bold sensuality of the two figures entangled in lust and guilt. This interpretation must have seemed shockingly innovative in the 1520s, imparting a very human emphasis to the biblical story of the origin of sexual knowledge. The understanding of human anatomy that Gossaert developed for his representations of Adam and Eve as well as for his mythological themes suggests that he studied the nude after life, but no relevant drawings survive. —Read More:http://viewfromthebow.blogspot.ca/2010/12/jan-gossaerts-renaissance.html
Given Darwin’s own criteria in Origin of Species, would he have rejected evolution based on our present knowledge of the fossil record. Creationists say even the most up to date formulations of Darwinian evolution have been shown to unreliable, not viable or workable, based on “unchallenged statistical models of molecular genetics,” in addition to the “irreducible biochemical complexity of all physiological processes.” which does not confirm the Creationist view but rather places Darwin’s theory, ironically, and paradoxically into the realm of leap of faith radicalism of unsubstantiated substantiations….
COMMENTS