Welcome


Thank you for visiting our new forum! To start posting again please follow the link below to create a new password. First time forum users please follow the link to register. CFI thanks you for continuing the discussion on evidence-based thinking and humanist values.

No conflict Evolution and Genesis


Forums Forums Science and Technology No conflict Evolution and Genesis

This topic contains 5 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  deros 2 days, 11 hours ago.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #19970

    pgardner2358
    Member

    I am perturbed, flabbergasted, and disturbed by the continuing efforts of ignorant, misguided, and scripturally incorrect religious people to foist their misconceptions, under the guise of ‘scientific theories’ (creationism, intelligent design, etc.) upon the educational system. ANY school of thought which has ANY supernatural mechanisms as a means is inherently disqualified to be a scientific discipline. In addition to the obvious damage and hindrance to our educational curricula, these attempts are a huge misrepresentation of spiritual reality and Biblical truth; and are a tremendous disservice to God and His interests concerning the human race. Please objectively consider the enclosed information. May it finally put to rest the ‘red herring’ of an evolution/Genesis conflict. Should you find it to be of value, feel free to disseminate it as far and wide as you wish.
    The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.
    Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.
    …The more famous subject of Darwin’s uniformitarianism, usually termed “evolution,” comes to the front. This is always a controversial and emotional subject, and is usually discussed in a quasi﷓scientific manner. 128
    Evolution was, in its conception, an applied extension to biology of the school of thought known as uniformitarianism. Evolution itself is a logical explanation of the information that it correlates, and the evidence of the appropriate scientific fields has consistently verified the mechanisms necessary for substantiating the validity of evolution. Evolution, while it is not a proven process in the strictest sense, is completely valid in its viability and is the only logical process (i.e., one amenable to scientific analysis) so tenable.
    Modern humanists, increasingly anti﷓Genesis in outlook, were growing in numbers and in positions of importance, especially in academic circles. To Voltaire, for instance, any mention of the Flood was offensive; it implied too much of God, or of judgment, or of the Judeo﷓Christian heritage. Despite evidence left by fossils and sedimentary strata, as well as literary heritages, a Biblical Flood was taboo to him, and to many others.
    Voltaire was somewhat typical of the anti﷓spiritual humanists of his day. He was thoroughly anti﷓Christian and anti﷓Judaistic. He felt that the burial of the Bible in general and the Genesis record in particular, would be a great service to mankind.130
    The human error in the promotion and promulgation of evolution was, and still is, of two aspects: Firstly, as we shall see later on in this chapter, the school of thought that gave rise to the theory of evolution- Uniformitarianism﷓ is totally in contradiction to scientific evidence. Uniformitarianism was founded on insufficient and incomplete data, and the motives for its adoption were more anti﷓Genesis than they were pro﷓scientific.
    The second mistake, resulting from the same anti﷓spiritual motivation as the first, was in the use of evolution as one pillar of a mechanistic explanation capable of circumventing the problem of first cause, i.e., the origination of everything. Evolution is merely a process and is not an explanation of actual creation; the explanation of creation per se does not lie within the realm of scientific explanation.
    The only distinct meaning of the word “natural” is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as such requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once.132
    The only distinct meaning of the word “natural” is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as such requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once.132
    The author of the above is referring to the implications of natural as is connotated by the term “natural selection.” The very working mechanism of evolution implies intelligence behind such a process no less so than does that of a supernatural divine creation.
    I see no good reason why the views given in this volume (the Origin of Species and the Descent of Mari) should shock the religious feelings of anyone…. A celebrated author and divine has written to me that “he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as liable a conception of the Deity to believe that he created a few original forms capable of self development into other and needful forms as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws. 133
    (These are Charles Darwin’s own words here)
    The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.
    Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.
    Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the “pro-Creation” argument.
    The orthodox Christians escaped the greater error altogether; but, nevertheless gave clear testimony to the influence of the popular belief in their interpretation of the commencing chapter of Genesis. For they made the first verse signify the creation of a confused mass of elements, out of which the heavens and earth were formed during the six days, understanding the next sentence to be a description of this crude matter before God shaped it. And their opinion has descended to our days. But it does not appear to be substantiated by Scripture, as we shall presently see, and the guile of the serpent may be detected in its results. For how great a contest has it provoked between the Church and the World!
    For we are told that in the beginning God created (bara) the heaven and the earth; but the Scriptures never affirm that He did this in the six days. The work of those days was, as we shall presently see, quite a different thing from original creation: they were times of restoration, and the word asah is generally used in connection with them.
    Now asah signifies to make, fashion, or prepare out of existing material; as, for instance, to build a ship, erect a house, or prepare a meal.139
    Today, to be pro﷓spiritual and to appreciate the Judeo﷓Christian heritage, one must, it seems, be anti﷓scientific. This is a common consensus; it is a mirage.140
    To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church’s defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.
    A Message for the Human Race

    #240638

    Abby Hafer: Animals That Shouldn’t Exist, According to Intelligent Design (AHA Conference 2016)
    American Humanist
    Published on Jun 30, 2016
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f31AoXFAWls
    Abby Hafer is an author, scientist and public speaker. Her book debunking Intelligent Design, The Not-So-Intelligent Designer—Why Evolution Explains the Human Body and Intelligent Design Does Not became a #1 bestseller on Amazon in the category of Theism. Abby Hafer is not averse to irony. Her public speaking has taken her all over the United States and she has given many radio interviews, including appearing on NPR and WBAI.
    Her scientific career includes a doctorate in zoology from Oxford University, many research projects in physiology, and a stint monitoring fish populations on the Bering Sea. More recently, she published “No Data required: Why Intelligent Design Is Not Science”, which was published in The American Biology Teacher. She teaches human anatomy and physiology at Curry College and lives in Massachusetts with her husband, the astronomy writer Alan MacRobert.

    Abby has a wonderful sense of humor and gives an Awesome little talk, highly recommended for the curious.

    #240649

    Evolution is merely a process and is not an explanation of actual creation; the explanation of creation per se does not lie within the realm of scientific explanation.

    Hell it doesn’t lie within the realm of the human the mind!
    It certainly doesn’t lie within the realm of ancient tribal texts.
    Incidentally, here’s cool little video

    Your 500-million year Family Tree –
    Published on Sep 22, 2017 by Palaeocast – Talk by Dr Joseph Keating
    Recorded at the British Science Festival 2017, Brighton
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usiPFZ352Dg

    #240677

    Advocatus
    Participant

    I used to think that there was no conflict either. I would read Genesis, “And God said Let the Earth bring forth living things…” and think that that was a perfect, concise description of Evolution.
    But that only works if you allow yourself to interpret the Bible figuratively or metaphorically. Some things the Bible says are simply not true. The Bible claims that there is a firmament (a solid barrier) in the sky, and above that barrier are “storehouses” holding rain and snow.

    #294578

    Lausten
    Participant

    Keep reading, it gets worse. It says you shouldn’t eat shrimp. Why? That’s just mean.

    #294583

    deros
    Participant

    I agree, no conflict!  There is no way facts and truth can conflict with archaic fantasy tales.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.