A few days ago I came across a great book just published by the National Academy of Sciences entitled Science, Evolution, and Creationism. It’s a quick 54-page read on how evolution is the “only tested, comprehensive scientific explanation for the nature of the biological world today that is supported by overwhelming evidence and widely accepted by the scientific community.”
It’s a great read and I encourage everyone to take a peek. You can go to their site and register to download it for free or grab it locally here to save yourself the hassle :)
The reason I posted this article today was due to an email I received from Scott in Oklahoma. Scott claims that evolution is baseless and has little supporting evidence if any at all.
Even though I here this often, it still shocks me that in this day and age people refuse to accept what countless independent researchers from every faith, race, and culture have tested and come to accept. It truly is baffling.
Take a gander at Scott’s email and see what you think. To me this is like arguing that Earth is flat and not accepting the fact that we have seen the planet from space much less circumnavigated it :)
Please be thoughtful and thorough in your responses. Maybe we can enlighten just one person :)
Scott from Oklahoma writes:
Hey,
I’ve read through some of your site and see the usual excuses and focus on people’s opinions. My question is have you really considered what is true. It’s easy to say something is not true if you see corruption, ignorance, abuse and a host of other anomalies within a movement or religion. That’s just an excuse to not believe something. Don’t make the mistake of associating these religious shortcomings with the truth.
Whether you and I agree or not does not change the truth. I hope you would at least agree that there is an absolute in this world. If not then I’m talking to the wrong person. It’s interesting to hear your discussions of evolution and how un-scientific the creation story is. I guess those same nagging questions within the “religion” of evolution about lack of scientific evidence don’t ever come up. Like those silly Laws of Physics and how they get in the way of evolution religion. Oh well, what’s a little matter being destroyed or created for the sake of a religion that makes it easier to deny God. Yeah, I can really see how the universe is getting more organized at the same time it is becoming less organized.
It’s just amazing that someone of reasonable intelligence like yourself can buy into a theory that was eventually abandoned by the ones that came up with the whole thing. If I were you I’d really look at this whole evolution religion thing a little more closely. I personally think you’ve been duped and hate to see you misled. Maybe start with logical questions like where are all the remains, fossils, etc of the actual trans-species of animals or humans. I guess I’ve missed out on all the amphimammals out there or the dino-birds that we’ve dug up. Not that I’m denying there were dinosaurs. Just questioning that everything came from a few central life forms.
Oh yeah, if the evolution theory of natural selection actually happens then how after millions or billions of years or whatever the latest guess is, how are there still weaker species of animals that are predated on by stronger species. Seems like they would all be gone. Oh well, again these are just pesky questions that don’t have to be considered when you believe in a religion like evolution. Unless you can prove that evolution is true (you can’t because it’s a theory) then if you believe in it, it’s a religion to you. Oh, wait a minute you don’t believe in religion. That’s a serious problem I think. Good Luck!
Scott
PS I tried to be smart and answer your challenge question with a silly answer,
but you got me.
Related posts:
I have never met a person who understands evolution and then refutes it. I have met many who claim understanding it and refuting it but they have never been able to explain evolution to me without errors.
Science requires no faith.
Evolutionists have absolutely “NO” evidence for macro evolution (micro evolution is fine)
Seems to me evolutionists have an “agenda”. They are trying to get rid of “morality” so that “every man can do what is right in their own eyes” No laws (like NOT bearing false witness), therefore no law giver.
Evolution/atheism is a “religion” in my opinion and it reeks of New Age mumbo jumbo (You will eventually “evolve” to be gods)See Gen. 3:5, that lie is as old as this earth (which isn’t all that old!)
AND before anyone starts picking on creationists, there are wacky people on both sides. Scientists on both sides just need to give “evidence” on what they find and they can “respectfully” disagree on earth’s origin.
In my opinion it takes WAY WAY WAY more faith to believe in evolution (it came from nothing) than it is to believe in creation (God created it!)
From http://www.creation.com
Foxes crying foul in the henhouse!
Atheists’ cunning ploys to silence debate about origins
Photo by Grant Zippel
Speakers at a CMI SuperCamp answer audience questions
by Gary Bates
Published: 5 February 2009, updated with comments below, 9 February 2009
Recent news articles have featured claims that famous evolutionary naturalist Sir David Attenborough, apparently receives hate mail from alleged creationists telling him to “burn in hell” for not crediting God in his presentations.1 One wonders why a man held in such high regard would think that this is worthy of a news announcement.
At CMI, we regularly receive such mail, and often more ‘colourful’ than that—but so what? However, even the fundamentalist Darwinian evolutionist Richard Dawkins thought this was worthy of a mention on his own site.2 But why?
Those of us closely involved in the origins debate realize that “crying foul” is an oft-used tactic by the biblioskeptics to try and marginalize, in particular, the creationists. Understandably, the immediate reaction the average person (both Christians and non-Christian) has to such statements is revulsion. Evolutionists like Attenborough and Dawkins know that most Christians (me included) would be embarrassed to be associated with such remarks. Their hope is that the average Christian who might be sitting on the fence when it comes to whether God may have used evolution or not, will distance themselves from talking about or having anything to do with creation or creationists. Similarly, their hope is that the non-Christian will regard creationists as hypocrites, because, after all, “Aren’t they supposed to be loving Christians?” For example, one blogger wrote on Dawkins’ site:
“As for sending hate mail to him, that tells you all you need to know about the people who espouse the ‘loving and peaceful’ religion they follow like sheep.”2
Unfortunately, this shows how all can be tarred with the same brush, i.e. guilt by association. We all know that there is the occasional extremist out there (in Christian and non-Christian circles alike) who will go too far. It’s ironic though that no one bats an eyelid when someone like Dawkins et al. lets fly at Christians, often feeling justified by the unswerving faith he has in his own worldview. In CMI-UK CEO Philip Bell’s review of Dawkins book The God Delusion, he suggests that such tactics reflect Dawkins’ insecurity in his own position. He cites examples of name-calling with invectives such as “psychotic delinquent’, “evil monster” to describe God. Elsewhere he lets fly at creationists, calling them “unsophisticated Christians” and “dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads”.
Creationists … not allowed to speak back!
Photo by Bogdan Bednarczyk
Gary Bates answers one to one questions after a meeting
Let me share just one example from personal experience—one of a type I know most creation speakers could probably attest to—that will show what’s going on here. (I will withhold the location and the name of the church to avoid embarrassment.)
Some years ago, an evangelical church that is very active on university campuses arranged an afternoon seminar. I was invited to give several lectures and conduct question and answer sessions. It was an exciting event as many hundreds of people, both young and old, turned out to hear the information. At the end of the first session I made myself available for questions (as all our speakers do). One young man rushed to the front of the queue that was already forming. Like a machine gun in full flight he started firing questions at me, one after another. Most of these were what we often call Creation Answers Book type questions, that is, the most-asked questions we receive on the creation/evolution subject. So I was able to provide answers to the volleys being served up. It soon became obvious, though, that this young man had a huge list of pre-prepared questions that were more important to him than the answers. I tried to be very patient but no one else was getting a turn. So, I respectfully pointed out the many people waiting and suggested he come and see me at the end of the next session when I would be happy to answer more of his questions. He did, but once again attempted to monopolize the time, and his attitude became increasingly agitated as I again provided answers to his questions. Eventually, he did not even bother to listen to the answers before immediately jumping to the next question.
He personally didn’t know of any evidence that could prove his position.
This type of thing regularly happens to our speakers and generally reveals the motives of the person asking the questions. They are not seeking answers, but are only there to try and “stump the creationist”—to try to show that we don’t have any answers to “true science”. On this second occasion I pointed out that I believed I had been gracious and patient with him, but that it became clear that he wasn’t really interested in the answers. In particular, he tried to refute my comments about historical science—that is, that past events are presumed and interpreted in the light of one’s worldview or belief system. He claimed that the ”facts” prove evolution. I realized that if he refused to listen due to his entrenched belief system then I needed to challenge him about the foundations of that system. I said that I would only be prepared to answer any more of his questions if he could answer one of mine. So I asked him to tell me of the one piece of “evidence” that unequivocally proves evolution or even ages of millions of years. He ignored me and tried to engage me once more, so I reminded him of my offer once again, then answered the questions of others who were waiting. He went and sat down.
At the end of the final session he appeared once again and interjected with his questions, so I asked him if he had an answer to my question. He then stated that he personally didn’t know of any evidence that could prove his position but he said that he knew of scientists who could. I then asked who these scientists were and what was the evidence these alleged scientists knew of. He was eventually forced to admit that he didn’t know that either.
Asking questions
It was certainly not my intention to embarrass him, but for the onlookers (and hopefully to him) it was a clear example of misplaced trust in the hierarchy of the established evolutionary community and their own belief system. I could only do this by asking him questions in return. I pointed out that not only did he need to have faith in his evolutionary worldview, but worse still, he was also placing his faith in people who had faith in their evolutionary worldview. And, I reminded him, “Where’s the evidence that is so convincing?”
The episode with this young man reminds me of a comment by CMI scientist Dr Russell Humphreys in a recent CMI newsletter article:
“There is a little-known irony in the controversy between creationists and evolutionists about the age of the world. The majority of scientists—the evolutionists—rely on a minority of the relevant data. Yet a minority of scientists—the creationists—use the majority of the relevant data.3 Adding to the irony is the public’s wrong impression that it is the other way around. Therefore, many ask: ‘If the evidence is so strongly for a young earth, why do most scientists believe otherwise?’ The answer is simple: Most scientists believe the earth is old because they believe most other scientists believe the earth is old!” …
………………………………
http://www.creation.com also has a lot of info on Darwin. this article was quite amusing “Holy war? Who really opposed Darwin? Popular belief has it back to front …
”
They have alot of info on Darwin and Dawkins. If there are some who are not into doing what the young man in the above article was doing, please read the articles with an “open mind”.
Ally, wow, that’s a lot of nonsense to spew out in one post. Next time, just post the link instead of copying all that bullshit from the likes of Christian Quoter (talk about a conspiracy…) into RF. We’ve seen it all before anyway.
Anyway, “macroevolution” is an artificial construct by creationists, and does not accurately represent that evolution is an ongoing process, albeit with a range of step sizes depending on various factors. Evolution, macro or otherwise, is not simply not disputed within the scientific community. The only people still clinging to the creationist fallacies are those without an understanding of evolution, and/or with a vested interest in preserving their superstitions.
Religion is for the gullible, the ignorant, and the stupid, and for those who would profit from them .
There is evolution (as Korgan said it, no macro or micro but just evolution) and then there is speciation which perhaps could be described in simplistic terms as micro-evolution but that is stretching it, so lets not.
Evolution does not have any agenda nor do evolutionists (at least a step up from darwinists) try to get rid of “morality”. That is the realm of religions, behaviour modification by using psychological or social threats.
Morality is evolutionary trait in humans which religions try to eradicate and replace with artificial construct more palatable to the dogma.
Religionists have absolutely “NO” evidence for divine morality.
It might seem hard to grasp but the idea of evolution is not to actively change the concept to fit your personal idea but the concept survives by being the most adaptable and suited to the external stimuli regardless of your personal ideas.
And once more with a feeling, evolution has nothing to say from whence life appeared, it merely explains how life changes. The difference between abiogenesis and evolution is always tripping people up and thus revealing the level of understanding in regards of evolution.
Faith has nothing to do with science, science works even if you disagree with it. Faith fails when you stop ignoring reality.
Do you think highest rates certificates are also responsible for that?
It has been found that lemon juice, when applied to the affected area, will help to heal the skin.
Best you should change the blog subject title Creationism–A Veil Of Ignorance » Religious Freaks to something more suited for your blog post you write. I loved the post withal.
Learn about what the bible says here. It’s easy to understand.
Intimately, the post is actually the greatest subject on this related issue. I agree with your conclusions and will thirstily appear forward to your approaching updates. Just saying thanks will not just be enough, for the extraordinary lucidity inside your writing. I will at once grab your rss feed to stay informed of any updates.
I enjoy reading your content but maybe this time you perhaps have been too tired when writing because the post it feels rushed.
Good information once again! I am looking forward for more updates:)
Nice website , I like your share
I have entried your blog on my bookmark . Thanks
Nice blog , I like your article
I have entried your blog on my bookmark . Thanks
I’m just back from Rockness. By the price of their hot dogs they probably aren’t funded by the EU…