22 November 2015

Dumbasininity of the Day


T
he truth is that the study of evolution and creationism is historical science, not laboratory science. Some aspects of this historical science can be studied and analyzed in the laboratory, but how this actual science gets extrapolated back into history depends on one’s worldview. If you believe there is no god and that everything around us came from nothing, then you will be convinced that the laboratory science supports evolution. If you believe in God and the historical Genesis account, you will see clearly how this same laboratory science supports creationism.—Jim Hittepole
[“Letter: Science Supports Creationism,” in Statesville Record & Landmark, 11 November 2015]

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Many people accept the science behind evolution, yet are still people of faith and religion. They just don't blindly accept every last word in a document that was written and interpreted by other fallible human being millenniums ago. The only contradiction they do not accept, is the foolish notion that tons of physical evidence do not support knowledge which ascertains a very long long history of our Earth---which in fact has been evolving over billions of years.

It's absurd to believe that since no humans were present at the beginnings of the earth, that all the numerous pieces of evidence pointing to its tremendously long past, are only subjective mistakes. That's like seeing human shoe prints on the sand, and then refusing to believe that a human being walked down the same beach a little while ago, or, one might just as well observe huge Redwood trees, and claim that there is no proof that they were at one time, very young new trees?

When all reason is subjected to such a philosophical snow job, those who promote it can say what they want. But they were also not present at the beginning and their belief that God was, is based on their faith in the accuracy of the old testament---not any kind of rational knowledge! PERIOD!

Ed Darrell said...

Though, many who believe in God will, as Darwin and Sedgwick did, presume that nature is God's creation, another testament of God, from God's own hands -- and therefore more reliable than written scripture or Christian tradition.

Which is to say, if nature shows evolution, that must be what God wants us to know.

That's how most Christians see it, in my experience.

Anonymous said...

ED Darrell,

I agree with that sentiment. Unfortunately many Young Earth Christians have tried to discredit both the evidence of evolution, and all differing spiritual beliefs from religions other than their own. To me it just makes sense that since there is such massive evidence supporting physical evolution, then that is what has been happening and what will continue to happen--none of which proves or disproves the notion of an all powerful being behind it.

Whatever one has faith in, that faith is based on willing acceptance of a theological system. That alone doesn't make such acceptance good or bad, true or false---it just means that system based on faith, not on reason or scientific knowledge.


Anonymous said...

The idea that proof of evolution involves only historical science and not laboratory science, is also quite false. the laboratory is the place where polar ice core samples are analysed, and where various methods of dating fossils and artifacts takes place. The history of evolution, is not composed of some narrow window of brief occurrences, but rather has been fleshed out and logically established as encompassing billions or years through laboratory experiments and meticulous measurements. Just as one picture equals a million words, a testable hypothesis can be used to establish large amounts of physical evidence---and one needn't have been there to know they are true.

The belief that since God was there, then his proof is clearly the most dependable, is of course, a catch 22 conclusion based primarily on an individual's decision to believe such a presupposition in the first place. Its reliability depends on the assumption that there truly is a God who inspired and wrote the bible. And since our understanding negates the notion that any of us were there with God when the earth began, we must admit to having no way of objectively knowing that what religion attributes to a divine being, actually has been created by God.

To me personally, the many intricate physical laws and the existence of incredibly wondrous things like DNA, encourages me to attribute them to God. But my beliefs are not based on verifiable laboratory experiments, nor will they ever be. The most we can do is have faith and believe in our own intuitive inferences as being types of evidence that support the existence of a divine being.

Anyone is free to base their faith on their own beliefs that what they believe is actually true, but for God's sake, let's just admit our faith is composed of a great many presuppositions and theories, that can only be accepted by relying on unproven and unprovable faith!

God, heaven, hell, the devil, angels, Adam and Eve, and the whole 9 yards may all be true. But none of these concepts is derived exclusively from objective reasoning. At the most they are based on assumptions about what we believe, or what we want to believe.

Copyright © 2005-2017

StatCounter