Evolutionists Confounded That Creationism and ID Will Not Die

Militant evolutionists have worked hard in attempt to get rid of creationism and intelligent design and they so naively thought that the Dover case back in 2005, was the nail on the coffin. But this has not been the case rather it has confounded them to the utter most with great concern.

For those who are not familiar with the Dover case, the whole point was not about teaching alternative theories in the classroom but instead it was about allowing students to hear a brief message that other material supporting intelligent design was available in case they were interested. By the way, intelligent design is not the same as creationism. Those there some areas of agreement but overall it’s not the same. A critical analysis of it was written here.

New Scientist, John Farrell puts points his finger at the Discovery Institute which he gives most of the blame…

“None of this means that the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based think tank that promotes intelligent design, has been idle. The institute helped the conservative Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), headed by Christian minister Gene Mills, to pass a state education act in 2008 that allows local boards to teach intelligent design alongside evolution under the guise of “academic freedom”.

Really John? Where in the school’s textbooks are you seeing this? Is the school teaching about intelligent agents providing information to DNA for the origin of life? Barbara Forrest, philosopher who is a long-time activist with the NCSE makes an absurd claim that Louisiana is going to start teaching intelligent design next year. All this means is, Forest is very worried that children will have access to creationist materials (if they desire them) and the focus of her troops that normally fight for her cause have shifted elsewhere in a troubling year popular wise for her preferred political party.

This same Barbara Forrest believes that self-organization and self-assembly which are non-Darwinian mechanisms with naturalistic origins would lead the public towards creationism or intelligent design. The fact of the matter is, the American public is already there! This is the same Barbara Forrest who believes showing weaknesses in evolutionary theories is intelligent design. The fact of the matter is, science theories have weaknesses and it depends upon the pattern of those weaknesses and how that affects the theory. The establishment is stacked and under the influence of grant money which holds to faith in evolutionary theory.

A friend of mine son who is in his first year of college, who has been home schooled prior to that, who was also given evolutionary biology as an easy “A” class by his counsellor has found out that his University biology textbook the previous year was openly making anti-religion comments. So much so that students complained about the textbook which prompt the school to replace it this year with a more traditional textbook which claims evolution is an indisputable fact.

So creationism and intelligent design have confounded evolutionists who thought or were hoping that creationism and intelligent design would have died at the hands of a state judge who ruled what was science and what was not, and what the students could be told and what they couldn’t be told. In the end, both are alive and well!

Advertisements

Battles and Confusion About Theistic Evolution

Differences of opinions in the Christianity community is nothing out of the ordinary because Christians grow at different spiritual levels. The Bible points out in Romans 15, there are two sets of Christians,  those who are stronger and then those who are weaker. The ones stronger in the faith,  happily “bear their infirmities of the weak.”

A pro-evolutionist publication which I have mentioned a number of times in this blog, “New Scientist” has been delighting in an emerging battle between those who believe evolution can be reconciled with religion, and those who say the two should be kept separate.

The Discovery Institute who heads the intelligent design movement claims one cannot be a Christian and also believe in evolution. There is a problem with the Discovery Institute taking on this issue because their organization doesn’t use the Bible as a foundation for it’s investigation on how nature works.

They are certainly not a ‘Christian’ organization but has a worldview with a mixture of an unknown supernatural or natural (as it believes in possible alien life forms) as source for the origin of life. This is just as bad as the NCSE, with their Faith Network Coordinator which has printed a curriculum for adult Sunday School classes.

So the question remains, can one be a Christian and still believe in evolution. The answer is “yes.” As stated earlier in Romans 15, there are strong and weaker Christians. Does that mean the two go together in harmony, so one can  actually come closer to God using “Theistic Evolution?”

The answer is a resounding “no” because a Christian would be sinning if he/she believed evolution was compatible with the Bible. A worldview and the Bible are two different things (which Discovery Institute would be right)  so it would not bring them closer to God.

An example, a new convert might still have many errors, and still might be sitting in a false ‘church’ or still holding on to evolution. It might be years before they realize their errors and come out, or they might die before then but they still go to heaven.

Now on to Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project and the launch of their new website, claiming evolution is compatible with religion. This site does indeed attempt to use the Bible to make their claims. Although they wrongly try to fit the story of evolution within the framework of the Bible and then adds to it.

For instance, the fall of Adam they claim is compatible with evolution because they believe there were animals living before Adam’s time. Not only that but claiming human’s came into the earth’s history very late because the story of evolution says so.  This mixture or a worldview is not biblical nor practical.

What about using evolution to justify atheism like Dawkins promotes? Evolution is not neutral like some have tried to claim and certainly cannot be fitted into the framework of the Bible, but evolution can be fitted into the framework of atheism because that is where it’s actually compatible.