Comment on Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism by BobRyan.
Kent said “About a year ago I checked virtually every SDA college biology department and found a lot of evidence that these people are publishing good science. I saw next to nothing on origins research.”
Well based on the scientists from LLU and SAU that gave their evidence at the â€œYes Creationâ€ event this year â€“ you were either not talking to those universities â€“ or you were clueless as to how to get a comprehensive answer to the question about all the research going on in those departments.
Your determined bias in quoting Clausen and ignoring Dr Roth â€“ again betrays the lack of objectivity in your efforts here. You are being far more transparent in that regard than you may have at first imagined.
Kent replies “So youâ€™re calling me â€œcluelessâ€ because I didnâ€™t learn much about the research at those universities?
I am stating that your wild claim to have “checked virtually every SDA college biology department and found a lot of evidence that these people are publishing good science. I saw next to nothing on origins research”
Did not including actually talking to LLU and SAU biology departments and asking about their ongoing research in the area of young-life.
I am pointing out that your ‘claimed’ objectivity does not go very deep when pressed for the “actual details”.
I am pointing out that when Roth, Spencer and Standish come to the “Yes Creation” event and talk about the research they are doing and that they have done – you simply dismiss it.
I am pointing out that you go much farther than this – in your dismissive statements about “the future” claiming to predict the outcome of Spencer’s research without even looking into it.
You betray your less-than-objective approach to this subject with almost every post.
BobRyan Also Commented
Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism
Not only do we have the atheist centric beliefs central to darwinism that dictate atheism… we also have the uniquely atheist argument made against I.D. dictating a conclusion for atheism.
Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism
BTW – when our supposedly “Theistic” evolutionist friends go to the extreme of arguing against ID – they are unwittingly taking a “distinctively atheist” position because that is the only reason for wanting to avoid the ID element that Paul says even the pagans are “without excuse” for ignoring.
When our Creationist friends oppose ID they are simply pointing out that ID is far short of the Bible doctrine on Origins.
It is like say of a Picaso — “well this paint appears on this canvas as if it did not happen by chance — it appears to be complex design not possible by random forces alone”. That comes far short of appreciating the painting for what it is — but it is still ‘minimum truth’ and spartan level of fact.
Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism
I strongly support the ID work that is being done and I will grant you that Morris is being short sighted in that remark.
The flaw that people like Morris see in ID is that ID is not Christianity, it is not the Bible, it is not a literal 7 day Creation week.
It was never intended to be.
It is not a substitute for the Bible model on creation.
It is simply observed science fact that is consistent with some models and not with others. It gives evolutionists the creeps – but as Morris notes it is so far from being Bible creation – that many agnostics and non-Christians easily join in with the ID school of thought.
As Paul claims in Romans 1 the ID fact is so blatant that even non-bible-aware pagans are “without excuse” when they try to ignore it.
Recent Comments by BobRyan
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?
Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?
Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.
“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)
Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.
(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)
By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.
Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.
What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.
An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.
1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..
2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.
3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.
4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).
In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.
Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??
Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.
hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.
The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.
Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis
Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind