THE SUNDAY SERMON
by One Vike
There is a disturbing trend that has taken hold of the modern day Christian community, and it is my opinion that this trend is causing a schism as big as the one that was addressed at the Council of Nicea over the Trinity. Now this is not a debate for those who have no faith in Christ, for what accord has Christ with Belial? No, this is strictly a debate for those who profess Christ as their Lord and Savior. Unfortunately, those who attempt to address the problem are usually labeled as rabble-rousers who only wish to spread discontent within the ranks of Christendom. This trend I speak of, is the compromising of the Word with the idea of evolution known as theistic evolution or Old Earth Creationism. I say “compromise”, because in the 150 years since Darwin offered his theory of evolution, the only side in the argument that has offered to compromise its position has been the Christian side. I have yet to see the evolutionary camp temper it's teachings to include God anywhere in the equation of creation.
If I am wrong, then I challenge someone to prove to me that the godless Darwinists have ever compromised their position on evolution. If anything they have stiffened their resolve to convert all mankind to their atheistic system that excludes a Creator other than random chance. The evolutionary thinkers are not struggling to find a way to harmonize the events of Genesis 1-11with the words of Darwin or Stephen J. Gould. They are beating the drum of "science" versus "religion" so loud that they cannot hear the evidence that some Christian apologists would try to get them to consider. Too often, those who present any evidence that makes a case for the Biblical account of creation are even ridiculed by Christians who believe in theistic evolution. In many cases they are ridiculed in the same way the ungodly Darwinists ridicule them. Well allow me to present a few reasons why I do not have enough faith to believe in the OEC's theistic evolutionary theory.
As I said, my article is not directed at anyone who does not claim to be a Christian, so I will not be addressing the scientific or geological particulars of evolution or of space and time. This is strictly a debate between Christians who claim to be Biblical “Young Earth Creationists”, and Christians who hold to the views of “Old Earth Creationism”, “Theistic evolutionism”, or the “Gap Theory”. However, before I present my reasons why I believe these beliefs are all wrong, I must distinguish the difference between "Macro Evolution", and "Micro Evolution".
Microevolution is not really evolution at all. It is the simple variation within a species. It is the prominence of genes being displayed within that species. It allows a family to have one child with blond hair and blue eyes, while the other has brown hair and brown eyes. The children have not evolved (they are still human), they simply differ in their dominant genes. In like manner, most Christian micro evolutionists believe that all dogs in the world today have evolved within the species from two dogs Noah brought onto the Ark, and thus it would be similar to every other species that exists on the planet today.
Macroevolution on the other hand refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes, and this is the bases for which Darwin's theory has been propagated.
Now back to my reasons for disagreeing with theistic evolutionists. I find it sad that a Christian who would claim to hold to the truths of the Scriptures could turn around and say that he questions the most basic and foundational truth revealed in the Scripture: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1. In doing so, he is not merely questioning the curious mechanics and unique events of the creation week, but he is debating the very words and message of that week. Furthermore, to deny God created everything through Christ in a normal 6-day period is to question the very character and nature of God. It attributes to Him the evil, wasteful, chaotic, random, purposeless, death-filled processes of evolutionary "creation" that would make Him the very Author and Sustainer of all that the theory of evolution demands. In my opinion those who attribute to the power of Satan those miracles which Christ performed, or generally those works which are the result of the Holy Spirit is in danger of committing Blasphemy. Matthew 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-29; Luke 12:10
Secondly, and probably the most disturbing fact about having a belief in theistic evolution would the denial of the doctrine of Original Sin. Think about it, if suffering, death and extinction are inevitable components of the evolutionary process, then it follows that the doctrine of Original Sin makes no sense. Humans evolved into a world that was already filled with suffering and other forms of imperfection, such as hurricanes and floods, so death is not a punishment for sin because death has always been a part of the cycle of life and evolution on earth. Taken to its inevitable conclusion, that humans are not responsible for suffering and evil and death is simply a natural process rather than a punishment, what need is there for atonement and redemption? After all if man is not responsible for sin as the Bible says, then the Bible is wrong, and if the Bible is wrong why live by it's precepts?
Now I need to address the debate over the Hebrew word “Yom” or יום. Those who wish to disagree with the literal translation of the Bible that claims God created in 6 literal earth days use the argument that “yom” is sometimes used to describe an age or era. I offer six reasons theistic evolutionists and OEC's are wrong in their interpretation of the record of Genesis.
1.) Moses repeats, “And there was evening and there was morning, one day” Genesis 1:5, Genesis 1:8, Genesis 1:13, Genesis 1:19, Genesis 1:23, Genesis 1:31.
2.) In the context of 24 hour days, Moses again defines what he means by yom, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy” Exodus 20:11; Exodus 31:17.
3.) The Hebrew word for day yom is used 1480 times in the Old Testament, and is translated by some different 50 words. It can mean an indefinite time, but it is not used as an age of millions or billions of years. When "yom" is used with a numerical adjective, it refers to a 24 hour day.
4.) The Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, the Septuagint, uses "hemera" or ἡμέρα, which normally means a 24 hour day such as, “And He was in the wilderness forty days” Mark 1:13.
5.) Furthermore, if Moses meant a period of long eons or ages, then the translators should have used the Greek word, "aion" or αἰών. which is the word Christ used when he gave His followers their marching orders for the great commission in Matthew12:20
“teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen
"Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her." And Jesus answered and said to them, "Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH SO THEN THEY ARE NO LONGER TWO, BUT ONE FLESH. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
So, from this exchange you can see that Jesus obviously agreed with Moses in his interpretation of the creation story, thus rejecting macro evolution and the Old Earth theory. Jesus specifically said, “from the beginning He made them”. He did not say, “In the beginning he started the process”. Jesus believed there was a definite beginning and that Moses did not write an allegorical story because the Israelites were to primitive to understand the truth. So if Jesus said so, why would anyone want to disagree with Him?
Also, those of you who are proponents of theistic evolution are walking a very thin line, because you also must deny the very existence of the Trinity.
”For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.” John 5:7
”In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1:1
“yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him” 1 Corinthians 8:6
”He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.” Colossians 1:15-17
“You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; And You renew the face of the earth.” Psalm 104:30
”And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” Genesis 1:2.
The Scriptures, and an understanding of the texts, should be enough to prove to Christians that the Bible is right. When it comes to the debate with the godless Darwinists, we Christians are living in great times. Every day we find more evidence that proves the Scriptures are historically, archeologically, and scientifically correct. Now is not the time for Christians to compromise our faith in God, for ultimately that is how we will be judged. Do you have enough faith in God to believe He is who He says He is, and that he can do what He said He would do? The faith of a mustard seed is all you need to throw a mountain into the sea, could you imagine the trembling of the Godless if we Christians had such faith?
I pray that those who have ears to hear will hear His voice and call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Amen
OV,
Could God have created an old Earth? I mean, he created a man and a woman, not a boy and a girl. Could he have created a mature (say 4.6 billion year old) Earth? Does your interpretation of the scripture allow that?
I'm just curious. A former teacher asked that once.
Mark
From his earliest years Darwin was a Christian, he attended church regularly, studied the Bible and even intended to become a clergyman. In his later years he still attended church and believed in a higher power, however he was more agnostic about the whole Biblical history part and this was a result of his scientific investigations into the Bible as well as other areas. Had he not chose to investigate and expand the limits of man's understanding he would have likely been a minister for the Anglican Church! lol
I have heard many, many evolutionist teachers readily admit there is no evidence to rule out God or a higher power that works through evolution. However, going beyond to teach something Biblical that was a faith based issue was outside the focus of their class room parameters, so I never expected them to concede anymore than that. So, yes indeed in my experience they were quite willing to compromise and say, if you believe in Jesus or God or Buddha or whatever this is your faith and we are not here to undermine your faith. I think that is fair enough. And there should be nothing in evolution to undermine your faith. It certainly has not affected mine.
My teachers told me from high school thru college that faith and science could exist on an equal plain, because they are in two separate categories and one should not cancel out the other. I blieve this is true. It seems that some Christians who are adamant about creationism say you either buy the whole package or you can't buy any of it, this is especially true of evangelicals from my humble perspective. Either you believe 100% of the Bible or you can't believe any of it. That seems too harsh and so I have taken a different personal approach.
Darwin was villified for decades by the so-called good Christians of his day who persecuted him, sought to suppress his science and the truth behind it. But, truth is something that always finds a way to survive the book burnings. This fact about Christian oppression hasn't helped the credibility of our religion has it? I know its better now, but the persecution is still around but it's persecution-lite now. They (Christians, Jews, and Muslims) sadly have a bad track record for trying to supress truth and punishing scientists for so-called acts of heiresy. A whole lot of people have been unjustily killed by religion in general and our own church for the mere suspicion that their beliefs contradicting the Bible or the Koran.
I hope we can move past those dark times and let faith be embraced by those of faith without attacking science and vice versa. Faith based religion has nothing to fear from open and honest science. And let me add, people who exclude religion based upon their knowledge of science are not being very open minded. They are just as bad as their religious counterparts. Afterall, this is a big universe and there is so much more that we don't know than what we do know. To deny God with the puny amount of scientific evidence we have at this time is to be irrational, in my opinion.
Yes, Jesus created wine that was better then the rest. He gave it the semblance of age, yet he created it with the stewards helper watching. So God can and does give us the idea of age.
Which just supports the Scriptures even more. God made the laws is the universe for us to abide by, not Him. We may try but we cannot put him in a box that only humans can understand, when we try we make Him a very small god.
My God is big enough to transcend time and space. In 2 Kings 6:14-17 Elijah asked God to open the eyes of his servant who only saw the enemy circled around the city. When God opened his eyes he saw a myriad of angels on chariots surrounding the enemy. So he learned why Elijah was not worried.
Then if we look at the idea that there is a spirit world that even scientists admit is possible, then how can we say what God can and cannot do. Like I said this whole article is based upon the scriptures because I do not debate those who have no faith, just those whose faith is so weak they must deny the Holy Trinity because they have compromised with the world in order to not be ridiculed.
Also, as I said in my article, those who attribute the work of Christ or the Holy Spirit to any other are in danger of committing Blasphemy. Not my words, but the very words of Christ as I pointed out in the article. Remember Pharisees said Christ did miracles through Satan. That was blasphemy of Christ and the Holy Spirit.
I have in the past used the sciences of archeology, cosmology, and other areas to argue against the OEC and evolution, but this article is directed to those who say they believe in God, but then turn around and say He did not do what Christ said He did.
Excuse me? I do not and have not in the past attacked science. I attack their results. I can go toe to toe with anyone who claims that God used man's limited knowledge to create the heavens and earth. I can even do it using the science you claim that Christians like me attack.
Christians have for too long been cow towed by those who claim to be smart. If you so desire, I will go into the reasons why the evolutionists, and the many weak kneed Christians who have caved in on their faith to accommodate the false teachings of evolution are wrong.
I am sorry, but there is no room for Christ and Darwin at the same table. To even suggest such a thing is heretical in and of itself. I do not back down nor do I accept the illogical scientific analysis of the evidence those who would deny God's power. There is more then enough of evidence to prove everything I believe about the Earth being less than 10,0000 years old. And you are mistaken of you think I will just slink on off to the primordial path of ignorance and allow you to paint me into the same box your little god is in.
I need to go and present my Sunday message, but I will take this up again when I get back. What ever questions you have for me, I will answer to the best of my ability. However, do not expect me to back down. This is more important to the Christian faith then liberal theologians would like to admit, because they stand on the quicksand. I stand on the Rock and my faith will not be shaken, it cannot for it is based upon God's wisdom not man's.
Good article OV, I see you have decided to ruffle up the feathers of the home crowd again. Well after reading the many arguments for and against the sides you bring up, it is my opinion that people who seek the truth have a tendency to say "Who am I to think that I have all the answers? Perhaps my thinking needs to be modified just a bit. Perhaps my opponent's argument is not completely wrong."
Arrogant people who have an agenda have a tendency to say "I'm right. You're wrong. Shut up. Get off the stage. I'm prepared to say anything at all as long as I "win" this argument. I'm prepared to be a slippery fish and change my argument as often as needed to throw you off. The important thing is that you lose and I win."
I associate the second style of thinking with Leftists, and with supporters of Evolution. These people will not compromise, but they count very heavily on the idea that their opponents are likely to compromise and thereby incrementally lose the whole argument.
I'm like you OV, I will not compromise. I know that leaves me out of the discussions between the so called elite thinkers in our society, but I would rather sit on the hill and listen to Christ then follow the Pharisees. As I recall He too was considered an outsider and an enemy of the norm. We are in good company with Him.
Thanks for the defense of the the truth through the use of Scriptures, as usual you have done a superb job.
OV, I think you have misunderstood what I said. I never claimed you attacked science. Sorry, but that was just not said. But, what I did say and what is absolutely the "gospel" truth and something I must defend is this:
1. Darwin was absolutely villified and denounced by many Christians of his day for his beliefs and even some in this day and this did impede the free academic exploration of his ideas.
2. Religion has killed more people in the name of religion than science has killed in the name of science. And unfortunately, many were merely killed in the name of religion for no good reason whatsoever. Sad, but still true.
3. Religious people from Darwins time and earlier that disagreed with the findings by modern scientists have been quick to lable the new thinker as heretics and/or mock them as foolishly wrong. Some still do this and it is unfortunate because in the long term it is they who will be mocked for their closed mindedness and intolerance and that just didn't have to happen if they had not felt so threatened and fearful of things they didn't understand.
4. There should be no problem with people of faith pursuing their beliefs in a modern world, just as there should be no problem with people of science doing their research.
Jack, you took the words right out of my mouth.
I can't believe anyone still seriously uses the word "heretical." OV, are you unaware of the massive amounts of needless bloodshed this word has caused?
Nancy:
"Arrogant people who have an agenda have a tendency to say "I'm right. You're wrong. Shut up. Get off the stage." "
Well, it's good that you can admit OV is being arrogant...
"I associate the second style of thinking with Leftists, and with supporters of Evolution."
Uh...OK, I guess that's not what you meant...
"These people will not compromise, but they count very heavily on the idea that their opponents are likely to compromise and thereby incrementally lose the whole argument.
I'm like you OV, I will not compromise."
Nancy, you are contradicting yourself all over the place! You and OV are doing exactly what you condemn. Are you open to the possibility that you might be wrong? I know OV isn't. I do not set out to disprove anyone's deeply held religious beliefs...I just don't take kindly to being condescended to because I do not share them.
OV...just in terms of language, and sensitivity to certain words, substitute words for "heretic" would include: deviationist, dissentor, innovator, nonconformist...these would push fewer buttons, lol.
While it may be true that Christians (religion) once impeded "the free exploration of his (Darwins) ideas" it is also true that today's scientific community is hell bent on impeding or dismissing scientists/scientific evidence that supports the notion of creation.
Jack the idea that science hasn't been responsible for deaths is not precisely true. "In the name of science" perhaps, but if you consider that Hitler was a Darwinist (Jews were decendents of dogs and pigs) the number of deaths caused because of his "belief" in science are pretty stunning. Add to that the "science" behind the banning of DDT after Rachel Carsons book came out and you have a very big number of dead attributable to "faith" in science.
I believe that faith is necessarily an individual matter; another cannot choose or seek for me. I can share my beliefs as a Christian, and I believe it is both necessary and wise to share based on scripture, but I cannot force those beliefs on anyone...they must choose.
Science, or interest in it, is an activity of exploration and should be regarded as such. Sadly, many today are using it, or trying to use it, to discredit religion and faith. I think we lose as human beings, and in our society, when that happens. There are also many scientists that have very strong Christian beliefs. Their voices are being surpressed and that is unfortunate indeed. It is a reflection of the inherent bigotry in the secular scientific community against religion. Many people today don't seem to notice or mind that kind of bigotry...a n obvious double standard.
I honestly don't think Christian scientists are being surpressed, unless it was in the old Soviet empire and yes, back then they were supressed.
But, thats not really what we're talking about it is it? On the whole what I see are some religious scientists trying to push their faith based agenda into the world of scientific research and other scientists who adhere to the norms of scientific proof simply not buying it. That is not supression, it is just rejection, just as they might come to reject an experiment that has been repeatedly tried and repeatedly failed The Christian scientists are welcome to their views, but I don't think the scientific community is obligated to give them equal footing as other theories without equivelant proof. Scientists don't want to hear how the world was created 6000 years ago, or man walked with the dinosaurs or people lived to be 300 years old when almost all that is based on faith and not science. It's been generally accepted based on a good deal of evidence that this Biblical notion of the earth is not correct and the world is mllions of years old and it has endured many extinctions too. There is so much proof that scientists don't want to keep chasing their tale over the same old issue, they want to move on until something new is brought forth. I'm okay with that, but I would not EVEN consider for one moment that I should discourage anyone who's faith calls for such beliefs. This is freedom of religion. I want to be free to chose between my faith and my understanding of science without being told I am evil if I believe something other than the religious doctrine.
As for Hitler, I don't know if he believed in Darwinism as I know it, but he professed to be a Christian. Hitler did mention Christianity many times in his writings. He paid Christianity a lot of lip service in Mein Kampf, and he claimed to be a Christian.
"Jack the idea that science hasn't been responsible for deaths .." With all due repsect I never said that, I just noted that religion has taken a greater toll on humanity that science.
My background is Christian evangelical and I have been on the other side of this argument many times, but I have reconcilled that my faith doesn't have to come from a doctrine of inerrancy in order to believe in a higher power. Again, I'm only speaking for myself, but there is room in my world for science that conflicts with Biblical passages and it doesn't shake my faith one bit.
I have come understand there are definately things that are writen in the Bible that are suspect and border on silly supersticious activites that almost nobody in the modern Christian world could believe, but they don't talk about it either. It's ignored. That doesn't stop me from believing the many other good things in the Bible. However, if someone else has the opinion that every single word in the Bible is the devine word of God, they are welcome to that opinion. I see it a little different of course, but I hope we can all allow ourselves that latitude to live with each others views and agree to disagree if need be.
K, thank you for your kind words. I just meant that we ALL need to be tolerant of other opinions and keep the door open for discussion, for the sake of enlightenment. In matters of religion too often I hear, "God said it, I believe and thats that! End of discussion." That's a shame, because without trying to convince each other who's right I believe we can find some areas of co-understanding and mutual respect to see it from each others perspective.
"OV...just in terms of language, and sensitivity to certain words, substitute words for "heretic" would include: deviationist, dissentor, innovator, nonconformist...these would push fewer buttons, lol. "
Great point, Tina. I'm glad to see I'm not alone in finding this word problematic.
Jack, I too "pick and choose" what to believe from the Bible (as does the Pope and I'm betting OV.) I am also open to the possibility that none of it is true, but there are certain ideals that I have never quite given up on, such as the idea that Jesus is the son of God. I don't really have any reason to believe this, and I am open to the possibility of it being wrong--but that's faith for ya.
Jack: "On the whole what I see are some religious scientists trying to push their faith based agenda into the world of scientific research and other scientists who adhere to the norms of scientific proof simply not buying it. That is not supression, it is just rejection, just as they might come to reject an experiment that has been repeatedly tried and repeatedly failed The Christian scientists are welcome to their views, but I don't think the scientific community is obligated to give them equal footing as other theories without equivelant proof."
I'm amazed at the amount of fear/rejection of anything that might be associated with religious views. Evolution is a theory! By your rules evolution cannot be taught as fact, but in fact it is being taught as if it were fact. Many of the theories that back up evolutionary theories are also presented as fact. Global warming science is a recent example of how this happens and becomes established thought within our school systems.
I found a couple of articles that are in keeping with my own thoughts in the matter. One has to do with Hitler and his "belief" in Darwinism (not blaming Darwin but Hitlers "faith" in the scientific theory). The other has to do with teaching creationism, not as religious belief but as an alternative scientific theory.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=
The Darwin-Hitler connection is no recent discovery. In her classic 1951 work The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt wrote: “Underlying the Nazis’ belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human being.”
The standard biographies of Hitler almost all point to the influence of Darwinism on their subject. In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock writes: “The basis of Hitler’s political beliefs was a crude Darwinism.” What Hitler found objectionable about Christianity was its rejection of Darwin’s theory: “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.”
John Toland’s Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928: “An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right.”
In his biography, Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris, Ian Kershaw explains that “crude social-Darwinism” gave Hitler “his entire political ‘world-view.’ ” Hitler, like lots of other Europeans and Americans of his day, saw Darwinism as offering a total picture of social reality. This view called “social Darwinism” is a logical extension of Darwinian evolutionary theory and was articulated by Darwin himself.
The key elements in the ideology that produced Auschwitz are moral relativism aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of human life, a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser races, that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the Jews. All but the last of these ideas may be found in Darwin’s writing.
Like Hitler, Charles Darwin saw natural processes as setting moral standards. It’s all in The Descent of Man, where he explains that, had we evolved differently, we would have different moral ideas. On a particularly delicate moral topic, for example, he wrote: “We may, therefore, reject the belief, lately insisted on by some writers, that the abhorrence of incest is due to our possessing a special God-implanted conscience.”
In the same book, he compared the evolution of people to the breeding of animals and drew a chilling conclusion regarding what he saw as the undesirable consequences of allowing the unfit to breed:
“Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” In this desacralized picture of existence, to speak of life as possessing any kind of holiness is to introduce an alien note.
Most disturbing of all, in The Descent of Man, Darwin prophesied: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.”
While it must be very clearly emphasized that the gentle-souled Darwin himself never supported ill treatment of any race or group, his words (theory) inspired a movement to “scientific” racism.
http://tasc-creationscience.org/other/plaisted/www.cs.unc.edu/_plaisted/ce/index.html
The theory of evolution explains the origin of all life on earth by ordinary physical and chemical processes. This theory has been very well developed, and has considerable intellectual appeal. However, for one who interprets the Christian Bible literally, there are apparent contradictions between evolution and the account in Genesis. This page shows how it is possible to reconcile a literal reading of Genesis with a surprising amount of the scientific evidence. We do not mean to criticize those who support the theory of evolution, but for one who is willing to accept the possibility of supernatural intervention, we believe that a creation theory is an acceptable alternative. (This material does not necessarily represent any organization, including the University of North Carolina and the State of North Carolina.)
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/teaching.html
Science deals with conclusions based on evidence observed so far. The conclusions of science are therefore tentative and subject to change. Religion deals with eternal truth and is not subject to change. If creationism is taught in terms of conclusions based on the evidence and not as eternal truth then it is not religion but science and it can be taught in the public schools.
How can this be done? By presenting scientific evidence that is consistent with a creation of life by a supernatural being. The teacher would state that certain scientific evidences are consistent with the theory that a supernatural being created life on earth. However, this is not a religious statement because new evidences could be found that would negate these evidences. Thus the conclusion that these evidences are consistent with a creation of life by a supernatural being, is not a religious statement because it does not assert an eternal truth. The teacher is not saying that God created life, only that some current evidences are consistent with the theory that a supernatural being created life. Also, these evidences do not prove that God created life; they are merely consistent with this assumption, and some of them may pose problems for evolutionary theory. Such teaching would not violate the separation of church and state.
Another way in which teaching creationism is not teaching religion is that creationism does not refer to the beliefs of a particular religion, but refers to the belief that God created life, and this belief is common to many religions.
Furthermore, it is legitimate from a scientific viewpoint to present a scientific theory that states that we do not have any valid scientific explanation for the origin of life, and in fact, as science is currently defined, there may be no valid explanation for the origin of life. The reason for this is that science is defined so as to exclude supernatural explanations, so if in fact life did originate by supernatural means, then there would be no valid scientific explanation for the origin of life. Therefore it is legitimate in a science class, without being religious, to present the possibility that there can be no valid scientific explanation for the origin of life if in fact life originated supernaturally. This can be presented without introducing religion into the science class. Again, this is not a proof that God created life, but simply a presentation of a theory stating that there may be no valid scientific explanation for the origin of life because of the way science is defined.
Perhaps if creationism were presented in this way, the objections to its teaching in the public school system would be overcome. Hopefully this approach will help to resolve current controversies about the teaching of creationism in the public schools.
If we are not willing to say that belief in science has been responsible for deaths or that it suppresses scientific evidence of creationism then we cannot either say that Christianity has been responsible for deaths or suppression of scientific enquirey. Rather, in both cases, the idiocy of men regarding their beliefs has suppressed investigation and been responsible for deaths.
I think we need to be consistent. I also think that targeting Christians or Christian belief with the intention to suppress is ongoing in our society on many levels including in the scientific community.
Tina, I have to plagerize a little for the sake of expedience because there is so much to respond to and the following generally represents my view, so I feel... "creationism, creation science and intelligent design are ideas based on varying interpretations of the Bible and different religious beliefs. Consequently, any attempt to supplant or even to supplement the teaching of evolution in public schools in a way that promotes these ideas would have the effect of advancing religious views. By protecting the right and ability of students to learn science that is not molded by religious doctrine, we best fulfill the promise and purpose of the First Amendment.
The theory of evolution is a fundamental concept of biology and it is supported by the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence. Simply eliminating evolution from the public school curriculum in order to ease community tensions would do a great disservice to all students. First, it would deny public school students an adequate science education – which is more and more becoming a necessity for professional success in a high-tech world. Second, it would send the message that families cannot be trusted to reach correct conclusions when confronted by ideas that may appear to conflict with their own religious beliefs.
On both counts, Americans deserve better.
The National Academy of Sciences puts it, "the scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming." Unfortunately Darwin would not be happy to learn that almost half of Americans don't accept evolution. And he would be downright dismayed that teaching evolution is a routine source of controversy in public schools, even though organizations such as the National Science Teachers Association regard understanding evolution as essential to scientific literacy.
The news gets grimmer. Last year, Louisiana enacted a law that encourages teachers and students to debate the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution, with the clear implication that evolution is shaky science. Oklahoma is considering a similar bill. A bill introduced in Mississippi would require disclaimers about evolution to be affixed to biology textbooks.
What is behind such efforts? Creationism, usually. Although it comes in different flavors—differing on the age of the Earth, whether living things share a common ancestry, and the power of natural selection—at its core is the rejection of the scientific explanation of the history of life in favor of a supernatural account involving a personal creator: God.
In the United States, creationists are typically fundamentalist Christians. But certainly not all Christians reject evolution. Francis Collins, the geneticist who led the effort to sequence the human genome, describes himself as a "serious Christian" who believes that "God, in his wisdom, used evolution as his creative scheme." And more than 11,000 members of the Christian clergy have recently expressed their support for teaching evolution.
Still, driven by their religious discomfort, creationists have long assailed the teaching of evolution. At first they tried to ban it. In the 1920s, antievolution laws were filed in 20 states and enacted in five. When, in 1968, the Supreme Court ruled that such laws were unconstitutional, creationists regrouped and rebranded their view as "creation science."
Scientists evaluated the claims of creation science, rejecting them as scientifically unfounded. Yet law after law was proposed to require equal time for teaching creation science as a credible alternative to evolution. Finally, in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court ruled such laws unconstitutional, too.
Undaunted, a group of creationists devised a minimalist form of their view—dubbed "intelligent design"—in the hope of evading the constitutional barrier to teaching creationism in the public schools. Their hopes were dashed in 2005, when a federal judge found intelligent design was a variant of creationism and not a scientifically credible alternative to evolution.
These attempts have foundered because of the First Amendment's establishment clause, which forbids government actions that have no secular purpose or have the primary effect of promoting (or inhibiting) religion. Creationists have failed to convince the courts that teaching creationism passes the test.
Creationism is not just a legal failure. It is a scientific failure as well. Scan the scientific research literature: There are no signs that anyone is using creationism, whether as creation science or its newfangled form of intelligent design, to explain the natural world. In contrast, not a year passes without the appearance of thousands of scientific publications that apply, refine, and extend evolution.
Defeated in court and unable to make their mark in science, creationists have increasingly turned to the fallback strategy of attacking evolution without mentioning any specific creationist alternative. The bills in Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Mississippi are examples, as are struggles over the treatment of evolution in state science standards in Kansas, Ohio, and Texas.
As for me, I think creationism verses Darwinism was a case settled decades ago, and until some earth shaking new evidence comes forward to reverse our best guess about the origins of man, I'm siding with Darwin for now, but this is not to say I am against the Bible, Jesus or Christianity.
I hope we can move past those dark times and let faith be embraced by those of faith without attacking science and vice versa. Faith based religion has nothing to fear from open and honest science. And let me add, people who exclude religion based upon their knowledge of science are not being very open minded.
I agree that faith should be embraced, but it should be faith in the One and Only god through His Son Christ. As for attacks on scientists ans science, there is more attacks upon the character and findings by Christian scientists by the secular scientific world then their is the other way around. I do not see Ross, Behe, Humphreys and other Christian scientists trying to deny the secular scientists their tenure or stripping them of their professorships because of their findings.
Fact is though today's secular scientists are themselves practicing religion by putting so much faith in their false scientific findings. Consider how much of the modern day science has become to mixed with ideology that it is used to push agendas for many politicians and the government entities they have created to control the masses. One major area you will obviously agree with me upon is the sycophantic following of the lies and propaganda of Global warming, so that scientists have falsified information to prop up this religion. Which is what they have done for evolution but people like you and others who see the manipulation of the facts for global warming fail to see the same that was done and still is for evolution.
I know a lot of evolutionists disagree with the evolution angle, but evolution has become the weapon of choice in the war against religion. There’s a real dearth of protest against misusing science in political and ideological gain.
It is being misused and abused by those who want to hijack it, and the lack of protest from the scientific community is alarming. That silence implies a fair degree of agreement with what’s going on.
Instead of what used to be the search for knowledge and the application of it for the betterment of mankind’s lot, science has become, for many, what they put their confidence in in looking for the answers that only religion can provide. It is being treated, mostly by the atheist/agnostic, the same way that believers treat religion and their faith in God.
The scientific method is useful for exploring our universe. It is useless for providing the answers about the meaning of life, and that is just what is happening today. The faith that some put in science equals the faith that others put in God.
Thus, for some, science has become their religion. I would rather put my faith in God than those of the scientific community that have faith in programs and beliefs that have just served to help destroy this country.
Good article and while I may not totally agree with you OV, you did a nice job of making your stand.
To all who feel offended by my opinions,
I will work on a reply that will cover most of what you all brought up, but for now let me say this.
Am I to assume that some of you at Post Scripts here are now the arbiters of language? What will you all decide is inappropriate next week? Maybe the claim that homosexuality is a sin that can keep one who practices it out of heaven. After all, just last week Congress added homosexuals to the the list of protected individuals for hate crimes.
Following the track of history from Europe and Canada when they did the same thing it was just a matter of time before pastors were brought before tribunals to determine if they committed the crime of hate against a protected segment of their society. Hundreds of thousands of Christian radio and television programs are now banned from Canada because they have dared to claim that Homosexuality is a sin. Will you suggest that the word 'Heretic" be banned also?
No, I do not believe what I said was inappropriate nor bad manners. It is what it is. Just imagine what Paul, or Peter would have said of such a person who claimed that there is room in their faith for God not being the true Creator in the way He said He was?
I have lived to see both conservatives and liberals join together and claim God used evolution. Now I am also seeing some conservatives join liberals in demanding that I temper the use of certain words that they deem inappropriate for the discussion of theories that call into question the very word of God.
What was it I said?
"I am sorry, but there is no room for Christ and Darwin at the same table. To even suggest such a thing is heretical in and of itself."
Well the idea that Darwin solved the problem of evil in the world by introducing the concept of (undirected) natural selection is heretical. That is what believing in the theory presented by Darwin basically states. Don't take my word for it, let's ask a man who claims to be a Christian but defends the right of Christians to believe God used evolution to create the heavens and the earth, Francisco J. Ayala. Ayala is an esteemed geneticist and evolutionary biologist who teaches at University of California. He is another heretic that you can read about here in this article by Sally Lehrman titled, "The Christian Man's Evolution: How Darwinism and Faith Can Coexist".
So let us look at what the definition of a Heretic is shall we.
Now Darwin was not a Catholic, he was an Anglican from Scotland, so he fit the second definition. Until he renounced Christianity, (and he did by the way) he was a Christian heretic, and so is any Christian who holds to the views of evolution as to how God got the job done. After he disavowed any and all faith in Christ he was a damned heretic, and when he died an unrepentant heretic he went straight to hell.
I wrote this article as a biblical reason why such beliefs do not conform with Christianity, and as such I repeat;
"There is no room for Christ and Darwin at the same table. To even suggest such a thing is heretical in and of itself." I believe this to be true, because ideas can be heretical even if the person who has the idea isn't. However, usually a person would not come up with a heretical idea and push it upon the world unless they were a heretic, like Darwin was.
For those who say,
I have this to say. Do not think that just because you claim not to be a Christian or at least not one who does not believe in all the Bible directs a Christian to be, that you are somehow immune from God's wrath on judgment day. Or do you think that God will say to you on judgment day,
Take my word for it, denying the truth of the Scriptures and creating your own christian reality, will not get you off the hook with God. On Judgment day there will be many sinners, even many who attend church regularly standing in line with those who never went, never confessed, and created their own gods. Remember, Christ is the only way through that door of death to God, and only believing in the Christ of the Bible will save you from the second death where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Just because you profess to believe in God is not enough, as James wrote in his epistle,
Also believing and practicing what he taught is needed, not having faith in Him but believing what you wish about the Scriptures. It is faith in Him and doing as he says.
I will work on a response to the other items you all brought up and post them as I get time, but this has erupted a firestorm here and a few other places I linked the article to, as I predicted. However, I was also prepared for the battle.
All glory be to God and His Son, Jesus Christ.
OV
"How can this be done? By presenting scientific evidence that is consistent with a creation of life by a supernatural being. The teacher would state that certain scientific evidences are consistent with the theory that a supernatural being created life on earth. However, this is not a religious statement because new evidences could be found that would negate these evidences. Thus the conclusion that these evidences are consistent with a creation of life by a supernatural being, is not a religious statement because it does not assert an eternal truth. The teacher is not saying that God created life, only that some current evidences are consistent with the theory that a supernatural being created life. Also, these evidences do not prove that God created life; they are merely consistent with this assumption, and some of them may pose problems for evolutionary theory. Such teaching would not violate the separation of church and state."
I actually don't have a problem with this being mentioned in the classroom, Tina, as long as this theory passes certain scientific requirements. I am not certain it does, but if the scientific and educational community disagrees, then I'm fine with that. But it certainly shouldn't get equal time, as the evidence for creationism simply does not compare to the evidence for evolution. But I wouldn't mind actual evidence of creationism being presented as an alternative theory, as long as it does not stray into religious beliefs--which we all know it too often does.
(Had he not chose to investigate and expand the limits of man's understanding he would have likely been a minister for the Anglican Church! lol)
Two separate replies are needed for this statement, allow me to first answer to the bold type that you said Darwin was choosing to expand the limits of man's understanding, which is hogwash. Darwin had an idea and spent his life trying to manipulate the facts to prove he was right but failed. Just like today's scientists continue to manipulate the facts to prove he was right. All these excerpts are from this article that was written about Darwin taken from his own writings.
Next rebuttal; you wrote, ............................................................................................
(Had he not chose to investigate and expand the limits of man's understanding he would have likely been a minister for the Anglican Church! lol)
Now about Darwin's Christian views and him being able to be a pastor which may have been true in his early life before he took that little boat trip around Africa. Later after he returned he may have been able to be a pastor in OUR DAY when pastors and Theologians are compromising on the Word like they are. But not back in the 1800's, I do thank you for making me laugh. Here some more excerpts from the article on Darwin.
Like I said in this article there is ample evidence from Darwin's own writings to prove he was an atheist who preferred the word agnostic. So no he was not a Christian. His words not mine, but as i said he could probably be a pastor in today's world. Heck, if Benny Hinn can be why not Darwin. I wouldn't put your faith in what they teach though.
End of excerpts.......I'll work on more rebuttals to the comments posted later.............OV
Jack "creationism, creation science and intelligent design are ideas based on varying interpretations of the Bible and different religious beliefs..."
I hear where you're coming from and appreciate the distinction you wish to make, however, the scientists that I have heard speak don't begin with religion and then move to science. They offer the research work they have done, the discoveries they have made, and the scientific evidence that "suggests" intelligence and design supporting the theory. In fact they don't mention religion except in the context of a design; obviously if there is design there must be a designer. These are not religious apologists they are scientists explaining how through their work they have come back repeatedly to this design theory. One specifically set out to disprove the theory and in the end could not deny the probability.
"Simply eliminating evolution from the public school curriculum in order to ease community tensions would do a great disservice to all students."
I don't know of anyone who has suggested we remove or eliminate evolution theory...except for frightened secularists.
"it would deny public school students an adequate science education"
On the contrary, if done properly, it would enhance science education. Science is about enquirey. It requires an open mind. It is the evolutionists that wish to limit the possibilities, and therefor science education, by oppressing the theory of intelligent design. (It is also the secular volutionists that have chosen to deny some evidence and advance others in order to promote evolution and discredit creation.)
"'the scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming.'"
Seems to me I've heard that word before..."concensus" is the word they use when they KNOW they cannot say proof. Evolution is an unproven theory...just like global warming. It is what secularist WANT people to believe and they promote it and oppress all sccienctific evidence that points to another theory.
"Scientists evaluated the claims of creation science, rejecting them as scientifically unfounded."
This also sounds familiar. Of course a secularist would come to this conclusion...just like they do with global warming...an issue unrelated to religion.
"disclaimers about evolution to be affixed to biology textbooks."
At the very least it should be taught as a theory so students decide for themselves how much they agree with the theory or not. That is what distinguishes education from indoctrination. Students should be made aware of all theories. They should learn all about the science and how the science supports each theory...or not. Debates would be healthy and beneficial in that it would inspire students to do research into the theories on their own, enhancing their education.
"Their hopes were dashed in 2005, when a federal judge found intelligent design was a variant of creationism and not a scientifically credible alternative to evolution."
It is possible that even a federal judge could be mistaken based on what he has learned, and not learned, in school. Ignorance is simply a matter of not having adequate information. New technologies have given us the ability to look at the human cell at the level of it's most basic component...did they find a random blob of chemicals at that basic level? No...they found what could only be described as tiny motors. The material is organic but it works and has purpose just like a mechanical device. Something like that suggests design not randomness. But you have to be willing to think outside the box of sixty years of science by secular preference to even consider it. Supposedly scientists do not dismiss possibilities unless they have been "proven" to be untrue.
"In contrast, not a year passes without the appearance of thousands of scientific publications that apply, refine, and extend evolution."
And in all of these years of concentrated research and discovery they still have not been able to show the links of one form of life moving to another form. They have shown adaptation and ways that species have evolved but never a fish becoming a monkey. If that theory has so much evidence to back it up and if all life evolved from the sea, for instance, I would think that there would be all kinds of fossils that show the phases of evolution from one species to another. to my knowledge they have not found any. Evolution is a theory. What amounts to secularists trying to explain life. They are welcome to do that as they see fit but they have no right to dismiss scientific enquiry that moves in the direction of intelligent design...that is oppression of evidence!
Both theories, in the end, rely on belief or faith.
I've always maintained if I had the perspective God has I could explain the mysteries of the world but since I don't I refuse to go solid on theories sold by consensus.
One of my favorite jokes:
One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.
The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."
God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!"
But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."
The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down to grab himself a handful of dirt.
God just looked at him and said, "Oh, no you don't...you get your own dirt!"
So jack I guess these guys are just a bunch of morons who just don't a have a clue like those scientists who claim we evolved from rocks, right.
See, K. OneVike doesn't have to consider facts, the merit of your arguments ... he has only to call you a heretic.
Cool, huh? It's a vast advantage they have that way.
And the state of public education in this country wants attention.
"The Scriptures [the Bible], and an understanding of the texts [the Bible], should be enough to prove to Christians that the Bible is right."
Only if they were never taught to think . . . . .
Wow, One wonders where I should start except to say that your assertion that more have died from the persecution of religion than from science is a charge those who vilify Christianity bring up quite often. Actually it's an accusation used with many different comparisons, whether it be science, disease, etc. etc. Unfortunately we live in a fallen world where man has been attempting since the fall in the garden to get back in the good graces of God. So with that attempt there have been other men who have used their influence in the name of religion to get other men to bend to their will not God's.
Take Margaret Higgins Sanger for instance who championed the idea of abortion to exterminate blacks from the planet because she thought blacks were inferior and needed to be culled from society. Science in turn used their expertise to learn how to systematically eliminate babies from the womb of the mother before the baby is born. Not rte mention the science used to develop the pill man of which actually kill the fertilized egg, thus killing a human.
I found this study that compared the number of deaths in America due to different causes. What the study did was use government statistics to determine how many deaths accrued from 1973 when the Supreme Court legalized abortion to 2001. This is what they found, the numbers are staggering.
Abortion; 27,156,700
Heart Disease: 2,266,789
Cancer: 1,638,350 (all forms)
Accidents: 370,723
Violent Crime: 306,313
AIDS: 292,522
So as you can see science is responsible for more murders in those 27 years then anything else. As for world wide the numbers are astronomical. In the 37 years since Roe vs Wade there has been 1.7 billion abortions world wide, and that is just the ones that are reported. Is there any one who wants to take a guess what the true number probably is? That is 1,700,000,000 at a clip of 46 million per year or 126027.34 babies a day are killed in the name of scientific advancement.
Then there was the scientific calculations and science experiments that were at the forefront of Hitlers desire to exterminate a class of people from the planet like Sanger desired to.
Conclusion is that you are wrong about your accusation because I did not even mention the number of people killed in the name of Socialism, communism, fascism, and other forms of totalitarianism that took place in the 20th century alone. The last estimates I read was that more people have been killed in the name of communism then any other reason in recorded history. Consider if you would this excerpt from a study completed in 1993 By R.J. Rummel titled, HOW MANY DID
COMMUNIST REGIMES MURDER?
So no, I do not accept you accusation that more people have been killed in the name of religion then science. Especially since the communist regimes used science to maximize their terror on the people of the world.
I am next working on the proof that Creation scientists are being persecuted by the secularist who are against the idea of any intelligent designer such as God being involved in the creation of the universe and man.
You need to be careful about making accusations off the cuff, because I do not back down. You should know that by now.
OV says, “Wow, One wonders where I should start except to say that your assertion that more have died from the persecution of religion than from science is a charge those who vilify Christianity bring up quite often.” And… “So no, I do not accept you accusation that more people have been killed in the name of religion then science. Especially since the communist regimes used science to maximize their terror on the people of the world. “
By now I think everyone should know that religion has been the source for much war and human destruction. It’s not my assertion, it is just a fact, whether we like it or not...facts are well, facts. I can’t be held responsible for those who use misplaced facts to discredit religion and I know this happens and it’s unfortunate. But, please don’t throw me in with these people because I am not trying to discredit anyone or anything, I am just expressing my opinion on a few key issues and this is getting us off track.
Let me be clear: I’m not saying [a] particular religion is responsible for so many wars and deaths. And I am saying, religion in general has a worse track record for inhumanity than the pursuit of science.
How can we still be debating such an obvious thing?
To infer that the pursuit of “science” somehow shares equally in this dubious distinction is unworthy of debate as the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. It's disappointing to me personally to see us going back and forth on what is so obvious. Further, if we are to have a productive debate, then we must stay on target otherwise the debate quickly expands beyond comprehension with so many other side issues that’s its confusing to our readers. Then we’re not debating, we’re posturing and trying to overwhelm the opposition with irrelevant factoids
To return to my basic points:
1. I have respectfully disagreed that creationism should be taught with exactly the same weight as evolution and I have stated why I feel this way. Scientific discovery simply overwhelms creationism, although it does not eliminate it as a theory and if one wishes to hold to that lesser theory, that is more a of faith choice and they are welcome to it.
2. I feel that on the whole in the United States that we’ve been pretty fair to the creationist theory, but it has lost ground over time and through evolving science, not through persecution, but because of the far greater weight of evidence that keeps accumulating. Until this changes, we have to go with what is most plausible and that is evolution, but you are free to embrace creationism as a doctrine of faith. I have no issue with that.
3. However, I also felt that my faith should not be tied to supporting what I see as bad science.
4. In the USA, in our modern history, I just didn’t see any great attempt by science to persecute creationists. Yes, they just disagreed with them because the evidence leads us elsewhere, but that is not the same as persecution.
OV said, “You need to be careful about making accusations off the cuff, because I do not back down. You should know that by now.”
Then you are assuming they were “accusations” and that elevates this conversation to a whole new area and it’s just not true. I made no accusations, but I did offer my opinion as stated I thru 4. If you can find an accusation there you win.
I honestly don't think Christian scientists are being suppressed, unless it was in the old Soviet empire and yes, back then they were suppressed.
While investigating to get all the evidence to prove that you are wrong that creation scientists are being attacked by those who disagree with them, I thought this short list of some more scientists would show how many renowned scientists agree with me. Just a few points to take into consideration before you read their names.
1. All the founders of the major branches of science, were creationists.
2. Every paleontologist of significant note today, affirms the fact that the fossil record is lacking in evidence.
3. Of those who are a part of the 600 plus voting scientists of the Creation Research Society, they must all have earned a master's degree in a recognized area of science, or they are not allowed to participate in the compilation of scientific data that they use to back up their claims. There are thns of thousands of men who have done good work in the field of Creation science that have not been allowed to join this group due to the qualifications they set to be a member.
150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.
The following list is very incomplete. While I am including these scientists on this list, I do not make a claim that they are religiously affiliated in the same religion or denomination as me. They are included only because they believe in the Creation of the universe through a means other than evolution. Thus they would be promoters of a Young Earth theory, and they have scientific evidence that backs up their belief.
List of Creation Scientists
Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.)
Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert)
Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
Thomas G. Barnes (physicist)
Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist)
Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)
Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy)
Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer)
Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)
Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist)
Duane T. Gish (biochemist)
John Grebe (chemist)
Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)
William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
George F. Howe (botanist)
D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist)
James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)
John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist)
Leonid Korochkin (geneticist)
Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist)
Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
Frank L. Marsh (biologist)
Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)
James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)
Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist)
Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)
Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)
John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)
James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)
Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)
Charles B. Thaxton (chemist)
William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist)
Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
A.J. (Monty) White (chemist)
A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert)
John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)
I am not giving a more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists for two reasons:
(1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy,
(2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions. It is the discrimination and persecution of such scientists that I am currently working on to show how you are very wrong in your assertion.
And I am saying, religion in general has a worse track record for inhumanity than the pursuit of science.
How can we still be debating such an obvious thing?
Where and what is the religion involved in the death of 1,700,000,000 babies since R vs W became law. It was science that made that possible and science that is used to continue it.
1.7 billion is more deaths then all the deaths from religious wars in history combined.
1,700,000,000 abortions,..geez, OV you might just as well blame cars for car wrecks as to blame science for abortions. lol
Okay, science made it possible in the pursuit of good medicine, but people did it all on their own, science didn't dictate the terms here, they abused them using the law, not science!
OV: "Following the track of history from Europe and Canada when they did the same thing it was just a matter of time before pastors were brought before tribunals to determine if they committed the crime of hate against a protected segment of their society. Hundreds of thousands of Christian radio and television programs are now banned from Canada because they have dared to claim that Homosexuality is a sin. Will you suggest that the word 'Heretic" be banned also?"
I do not support the banning of any kind of language. The appropriate response to free speech is more free speech. Criticizing your use of a word =/= trying to legally ban that word.
You, on the other hand, have yet to convince me that if you ran the country, you wouldn't ban all speech that contradicted your own personal faith. I know you claim to be for freedom, but I really get the feeling that you would have no problem taking away the rights of all those who you claim are "heretics" in order to push your religion.
Tina: "I don't know of anyone who has suggested we remove or eliminate evolution theory...except for frightened secularists."
Really? I've heard many Christians say we should completely remove evolution from the curriculum. In fact, if you accept the premise that evolution is abjectly false and based on manipulated data, I don't see what other conclusion you could draw other than we should remove it.
Let's ask OneVike: OV, do you think evolution should be removed from the curriculum?
And Tina, evolution IS taught as a theory, as far as I know.
And Jack is right about the abortion thing. Even if you accept the premise that abortion is murder--which I don't--and even if you ignore the fact that abortion has occurred ever since women have been getting pregnant--which only a very ignorant person would do--the conclusion still doesn't make sense, as abortion has pretty much nothing to do with evolution. So the only conclusion that can be drawn from what OV is saying is "science is bad," which I really don't think is what he intended.
Also, just to throw this out there again, the Bible never mentions abortion, which according to OV's logic used in his article on slavery means that it is not a sin.
K" "I've heard many Christians say we should completely remove evolution from the curriculum. In fact, if you accept the premise that evolution is abjectly false and based on manipulated data, I don't see what other conclusion you could draw other than we should remove it."
Interesting. I didn't suggest removal of evolution from the curriculum, I suggested inclusion of information that would stimulate thought and debate and increase the value of the educational experience for the students. What I would like to see in our schools is the removal of all indoctrination teaching. To deny this is happening with regard to global warming (a theory) or evolution (a theory) in grammer and high schools is to be blind or indifferent. Teaching science is one thing...teaching scientific theory as fact to the exclusion of other theories is another.
I believe this conversation included the suggestion that, as Jack put it, "religion in general has a worse track record for inhumanity than the pursuit of science."
I maintain that people, using their "faith" or "belief" in ways that result in unnecessary death, are responsible not science or religion. In the case of Chritianity the religion is being blamed to discredit it rather than the people involved in historical events. History has recorded deaths attributed to religious beliefs but have yet to record the terrible record of deaths caused by human "belief" in scientific discovery. In fact when the suggestion is made, that banning the use of DDT based on a scientific "belief" is responsible for millions of dead, the uninformed world rejects the notion out of hand. The fact remains that those deaths are directly attributed to blind faith in the (bad) science behind Rachel Carsons assertions. They were received as fact, embraced without scientific proof, and politically used to ban the use of the substance. This is the kind of thing that happens when education becomes indoctrination. Disallowing scientific discovery that points to intelligent design reinforces blind acceptance of concensus rather than open minded enquirey.
"...it is legitimate from a scientific viewpoint to present a scientific theory that states that we do not have any valid scientific explanation for the origin of life, and in fact, as science is currently defined, there may be no valid explanation for the origin of life."
Inclusion creates the space for all positions. It allows respectful place for those with personal faith and for those who dismiss a deity. Exclusion narrows the space putting people of faith on the fringe. (before you know it they are labeled as nuts...lol) A single theory (evolution) can then be used as a weapon against other ideas and theories. This is not supportive of well rounded education and it is not the proper approach to science.
Tina, regarding your statement, " I maintain that people, using their "faith" or "belief" in ways that result in unnecessary death, are responsible not science or religion." To a degree I can go along with this. However, if people act irrationally and hurt others based on their religious beliefs and nothing more, then their religion must bear strong accountability.
I'm thinking Islam has a lot to account for right now.
"...then their religion must bear strong accountability.
I'm thinking Islam has a lot to account for right now."
I have a lot of ambivilant feelings about Islam. I have a problem with a text that forces adherence and advocates killing those who won't convert or who convert away from the religion. I have a problem with killing ones own children. In that respect it may be the only religion on earth like it...is there any other?
The original accusation was about Christianity and that is what I had in mind and was defending.
Let's ask OneVike: OV, do you think evolution should be removed from the curriculum?
No I and neither do the Creation scientists think evolution should be banned. I think all sides should be taught and it is my opinion that a large majority would see the holes that the theory of evolution would have from all evidence being put on the table.
This is not supportive of well rounded education and it is not the proper approach to science.
You said this before in the past and now I must give you a complete answer. I find this more important to respond to than the scientist attacks I was preparing. First off, the Bible does speak about abortion, you just need to read the Word for all it is worth and not pick and chose what Scriptures you think are relevant and wish to follow. See, when I read the Bible I believe every Word was inspired by the Holy Spirit and thus all Scriptures are the very Words of God. I take it all and accept it.
Let me start by saying that God values all human life and that He wants all people to come to repentance to inherit eternal life.1 The Bible explains that the entire life of a human - from the beginning to its natural end - is sacred, since God determines the length of those days.2 So to begin with I need to prove to you what the Bible says about when human life begins.
Many people like you claim that the Bible is silent in regard to God's view on life before birth. The fact is though that while the Bible does not specifically define when life begins, it does give us enough information to formulate a solid biblical position.
Jesus demonstrated the love of God for children often during His ministry. In one passage, Jesus took a child to him and sat with him. He said, "See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you, that their angels in heaven continually behold the face of My Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 18:10). Jesus tells us not to despise or look down upon the least powerful and significant (by human standards) of humans. It is ironic that the most helpless humans are those inside the womb. Of all the risks that we must face in our lives, the most dangerous place we can be is in the womb, since fully one third of all human babies are aborted in this nation - over one million every year. Greater than 98% of all abortions are done for non-medical reasons.
The Old Testament provides most of the information on God's view of life before birth, since it gives us the law. The law specifically addresses the issue of taking the life of a fetus in the book of Exodus:
Therefore, the law tells us that a man who induces an abortion or miscarriage is to be punished, indicating that God values life before birth. A verse from Hosea3 says that abortion is a punishment for sin, indicating God views it as bad. Likewise, God expressed His disgust for the Ammonites, who "ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead".4 Not to mention even in todays world if a pregnant woman gets drunk and kills her fetus in a car wreck they charge her with manslaughter. Also if a man causes a woman to lose her child by beating her up, the law today is like the law of the Bible that the man is charged with murder.
Now on to what the Bible tells us about the beginning of life in the womb. The Bible says that God is involved in our creation from the womb:
Now just so you do not get confused about animal vs human life allow me to clarify the difference in god's view and His Word. Since the killing of animals has been allowed by God from as early as just after the fall.5It would be helpful to first define what makes human life different from that of the animals. The Bible says that God created three kinds of creatures:
Most of God's creatures possess bodies only. These creatures include the insects, worms, fish, etc. God defines the creatures possessing souls as being the birds, the whales, the predatory and domesticated land mammals, and human beings (Genesis 1:20-27). Creatures which possess a soul have the characteristics of having a mind, a will, and emotion. Most of us who have cats or dogs realize that these soulish creatures have all these character traits.
Therefore, the difference between human life and animal life is that, in addition to having a body and soul, we are endowed with a spirit, (1 Thessalonians 5:23), by which we can communicate with, love, and worship God. The Bible tells us that God forms this spirit within us,6 and we are endowed with a spirit before birth (Luke 1:15), which makes us fully human before we are born.
In addition, there are a number of great men of God (and Jesus) who were called to be God's servants from the womb:
Samson:
Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, "A man of God came to me and his appearance was like the appearance of the angel of God, very awesome. And I did not ask him where he came from, nor did he tell me his name. "But he said to me, `Behold, you shall conceive and give birth to a son, and now you shall not drink wine or strong drink nor eat any unclean thing, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death.'" (Judges 13:6-7, see also Judges 16:17)
Jesus (prophecy):
Jeremiah:
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)
John the Baptist:
"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother's womb." (Luke 1:15)
Paul:
But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother's womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased (Galatians 1:15)
In addition, the Bible tells us the wicked are estranged or enemies of God from the womb:
The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth. (Psalm 58:3)
Now I need to take you through the steps of what the Bible considers murder, because all of the above verses tell us God considers us to be human before we are born, but they don't answer the question of when we actually become so. I propose there is a way to know what God considers the latest point in development at which we must consider a fetus to be a living human. Even before God gave Moses the law, when He gave Noah and his family all the animals for food (in addition to the plants), He told them, "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood" (Genesis 9:4).
There are many Christians who consider the moment the fetus begins to produce blood to be the beginning of life, because thay say God considered blood to be the basis for life and the shedding of human blood, which results in death, to be murder. Therefore, If they are correct then let us look at when the blood flow begins. Science tells us that the heart of the human fetus begins to form 18 days after conception.8 There is a measurable heart beat 21-24 days after conception.9 Since blood is flowing at this point, this is when some Christians believe the fetus to be human. Now considering different women can vary in their menstruation cycle, determining that day can be tricky because women do not usually find out that they are pregnant until they have missed a cycle, unless they are monitoring it for verification of pregnancy. If they are monitoring it then they are not wanting to get an abortion because they want to get pregnant.I and many Christians agree with me that life begins at the moment of conception however. Whe you consider that the zygote, the conceptus, the embryo, fulfills the criteria needed to establish the existence of biological life. It has metabolism, development, the ability to react to stimuli and cell reproduction. That's why taking the life of an embryo is terminating the life of the embryo, which is killing.This is why I am against all forms of abortion regardless of moment it happens and some birth control pills actually kill the zygote. So while it's true that everyone is born and conceived in sin, according to the Christian worldview, pre-born children are innocent because they have done nothing to deserve capital punishment. They deserve, instead, protection.For all practical purposes, from a biblical perspective, abortion at any point must be considered murder by Bible-believing Christians.
Here is a list of the References used to make my point that the Bible may not use the word Abortion, but it does speak about the act of killing innocent life before it is born from the womb.
Sorry for the textbook lesson, but you did ask.
Hmmm...I could be wrong, but I don't think there was anything said of an accusatory nature about the Christian religion specifically. In fact other than evolution v creationism, which was merely an opinion, the only other thing tied to Christianity albeit indirectly was the conversation about religion in the most general terms, where religion was a mechanism for some leaders to justify war and oppression, i.e., the Pope verses the Knights Templar, or todays Islamic jihadist wars, etc., they have all taken a toll on mankind in the name of God and some still are abusing the name of God. In my humble opinion in todays modern world Christians are completely innocent bystanders when it comes to war and aggression and they have caused no harm to anyone. I see Christianity as absolutely a religion of peace and we only see a very few abberations of misguided Christian people that it is so miniscule and so isolated from the whole of Christianity as to be irrelevant when citing any sort of moral equivelancy to jihadists.
I would join OV on this point of not banning either evolution or creationism. I don't want to see anything with a shred of merit banned as a theory. A theory is just that, and banning it smacks of book burning. However, as a teacher, I would probably give more creedance to evolution because science supports that more than creationism.
Then again it is quite arguable that there is NO difference between evolution and a creationism if taken to their foundation. And suddently there was a spark of life and all things are begun (creationism) and throughout time that spark of life has not changed although all living creatures slowly adapted and changed to their invironment (evolution).
In that sense both are correct.
I honestly don't think Christian scientists are being surpressed, unless it was in the old Soviet empire and yes, back then they were supressed.
I have not finished with your replies yet jack, so now I will take on your assumption that creation scientists have not been suppressed.
First off, obviously you never watched Ben Steines movie, "Expelled" , or you would not make such an uninformed statement. That is unless you consider Ben Stein just another religious demagogue who has no clue of what he is talking about, because he makes the case that creation scientists are being suppressed all over the country and have been for years.
However if you would rather not waste your time watching his move, then read this excerpt from an article titled, "Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview"
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{[
As part of an ongoing research project, over 100 active self-labeled creationists were interviewed who are, or were, employed in academia. He specifically asked if they had faced religious discrimination and, if so, to delineate their experience. Almost all believed that their creationist beliefs caused at least some career problems. These ranged from open derision to outright firings, and even attempts to rescind earned degrees. Some cases were tragic in their extent, blatancy and consequences. The discrimination experiences discovered were grouped in the following general categories:
(1) Derogatory and clearly inappropriate comments
Gross name-calling, even by eminent scientists, is commonly found in the secular literature. A typical example is Isaac Asimov’s statement that all,Examples range from placing obscene or anti-creationist cartoons in the workers’ mailboxes to open, blatant, inappropriate direct name-calling. Bolyanatz noted that evolutionists often assume that,
(2) Refusal of admittance to graduate programs
It was found that it was not uncommon for a creationist to be denied admission to a degree program even if he/she clearly exceeded published admission standards. In some cases the person denied was able to locate letters of recommendation which recommended against admission specifically because of the candidate’s creationist worldview.
(3) Refusal to award degree
Some creationists interviewed, although they clearly met all of the requirements, were openly denied a degree (usually a Ph.D. in the sciences) because of their creation orientation and/or publications.
(4) Denial of promotion
Many creationists claimed that they were not promoted even though they clearly exceeded the written standards for promotion (high student ratings, more than an adequate number of publications, etc.). In several cases this was openly because of their creationist publications.
(5) Denial of tenure
Many cases of tenure denial clearly based mainly on the creationist activities of the candidate were encountered. It was often obvious that bias existed because of active involvement in the creationist movement. Research has well documented that a known scientific creationist who does not experience some bias in this crucial decision is a rare exception. This view was fully supported by the interviews with creationist professors and others.
In many cases of religious discrimination, the university was open and blatant about such, either claiming immunity or citing various laws or precedents which they felt either rendered them unaccountable, or the law ineffective in rectifying their illegal behavior. In one case the university did,
In this case, the university claimed that,
Research on discrimination
28 professors at a recent science convention were surveyed about discrimination against creationists. All those interviewed stated that they doubted very much if their department would ever hire an out-of-the-closet creationist for a faculty position. Some claimed that they themselves were not opposed, but felt that because a creationist would likely encounter serious problems in their department, it would be best if they not support their hiring. One added that it would not be objectionable to defend creationism on philosophical grounds, but an attempt to do so using biology would preclude hiring.
Although some prominent creationists have experienced little discrimination, or discrimination for which they could prove a prima facie case, almost 70 percent of those Bergman interviewed claimed to have faced discrimination, and close to 40 percent believed they had evidence to demonstrate their claims. The thousands of creationists with tenure in science departments usually achieve it by one of two ways. One survey found that the most common method is to stay in the closet—not openly identify oneself as a creationist (43 percent); and the second method (38 percent) is to become a creationist after achieving tenure. This study did not locate a single out-of-the-closet conservative creationist awarded tenure in any state university in the last ten years, and very few before. These results take on more meaning in view of the fact that two decades ago tenure was usually automatic.
Discrimination against creationism and creationists is not only widespread, but often irrational. Fully 12 percent of those interviewed stated they had received death threats, and/or highly emotional, non-verbal feedback and irrational verbalization's against their persons.
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
Finally, if you so desire I will list the many scientists and the troubles they have faced for their beliefs and findings. But it will be a very very long list of suppressed scientists who support the idea of a Young earth.
Next I will start shooting holes in your idea that the science supporting a young earth theory has been totally discredited. Because you are wrong there also.
It's been generally accepted based on a good deal of evidence that this Biblical notion of the earth is not correct and the world is millions of years old and it has endured many extinctions too. There is so much proof that scientists don't want to keep chasing their tale over the same old issue, they want to move on until something new is brought forth.
My first fact to prove you assertion that there is no proof. Let me present some more on Dr Gentry whom I introduced twice already, but now I have some more about him, his research and how those who disagree with him have attempted to suppress his work, which again proves your claim that creation scientists are not suppressed wrong again.To this day not one evolutionary scientists has proved his findings to be wrong. The ones that tried backed down when confronted by Dr Gentry in person.
In his early career, Robert V. Gentry served as a physicist (B.S., M.S.; University of Florida) in the nuclear/space defense industries and taught college/university math and physics. He then developed an absorbing interest in testing the conventional evolutionary model of Earth’s origin and age, and has dedicated his scientific career to finding answers that could only be obtained through years of investigating fossil traces of an extraordinary type of radioactivity inscribed in Earth’s basement rocks, the granites. His research so far has resulted in authoring or co-authoring over twenty research papers in scientific publications, such as Science, Nature, Geophysical Research Letters, Annual Review of Nuclear Science, and Earth and Planetary Science Letters. Most of these reports were published during the thirteen years (1969-1982) he spent as a Visiting Scientist in the Chemistry Division of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, some of which detailed discovery of evidence of Earth’s rapid creation and its young age. In 1977 these discoveries led to an honorary D.Sc., and subsequently to his being called to testify in defense of the state’s creation position at the 1981 Arkansas creation/evolution trial. There he testified his discoveries disproved Earth’s evolutionary origin and instead affirmed the Genesis account of Earth’s six-day creation and young age.
His book, Creation's Tiny Mystery, recounts how ACLU evolutionist witnesses failed to refute his discovery of evidence of Earth’s instant creation, being forced to say it was only "a tiny mystery," which they hoped someday to solve. Silence concerning this continuing failure to overthrow this proof of creation has thus far been secured by the evolutionists censoring discussion of this topic from scientific journals for over two decades.
Even more blatant censorship of his most recent discoveries began in early 2001 when Los Alamos National Laboratory personnel deleted his ten scientific papers on cosmology and astrophysics from their U. S. government sponsored e-print archive, prior to their scheduled release on the Internet on the evenings of 2/28/01 and 3/5/01. Continued suppression of these papers, now by Cornell University, stems both from the resistance of evolutionists to the implications of his discovery that the universe possesses a nearby universal Center -- which overthrows big-bang cosmology with its crucial assumption of a no-center universe -- and from his discovery of GENESIS, a new astrophysical model of the cosmos which affirms that the literal six-day Genesis record includes the creation of the visible universe.
More information on his book and two documentary videos about his work, Fingerprints of Creation and The Young Age of the Earth, both of which have aired on various PBS stations since the fall of 2001, is available at www.halos.com. More information about his ten papers and documentation of censorship, first by Los Alamos and more recently by Cornell University, is available at www.orionfdn.org. Dr. Gentry is a long-time member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, Research Society of Sigma Xi, the American Physical Society, and the New York Academy of Sciences. For several years he has been listed in Who’s Who in America and Who’s Who in Science and Engineering.
What follows is a list of all of Dr gentry's work with the accompanying PDF links for you to look at them your self. As I said his findings have yet to be disproved, what they do is ridicule him and they attempt to destroy his work but they cannot refute his findings.
(1) Gentry, R.V. 1970. "Giant Radioactive Halos: Indicators of Unknown Alpha-Radioactivity?" Science 169, 670. PDF (2) Gentry, R.V. 1971. "Radiohalos: Some Unique Pb Isotope Ratios and Unknown Alpha Radioactivity." Science 173, 727. PDF (3) Gentry, R.V. 1973. "Radioactive Halos." Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23, 347. PDF (4) Gentry, R.V. 1974. "Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Science 184, 62. PDF (5) Gentry, R.V. 1977. "Mystery of the Radiohalos." Research Communications NETWORK, Breakthrough Report, February 10, 1977. PDF (6) Gentry, R.V. 1978a. "Are Any Unusual Radiohalos Evidence for SHE?" International Symposium on Superheavy Elements, Lubbock, Texas. New York: Pergamon Press. PDF (7) Gentry, R.V. 1978b. "Implications on Unknown Radioactivity of Giant and Dwarf Haloes in Scandinavian Rocks." Nature 274, 457. PDF (8)Gentry, R.V. 1978c. "Reinvestigation of the α Activity of Conway Granite." Nature 273, 217. PDF (9) Gentry, R.V. 1979. "Time: Measured Responses." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 60, 474. PDF (10) Gentry, R.V. 1980. "Polonium Halos." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 61, 514. PDF (11) Gentry, R.V. et al. 1973. "Ion Microprobe Confirmation of Pb Isotope Ratios and Search for Isomer Precursors in Polonium Radiohalos." Nature 244, 282. PDF (12) Gentry, R.V. et al. 1974. "'Spectacle' Array of Po-210 Halo Radiocentres in Biotite: A Nuclear Geophysical Enigma." PDF (13) Gentry, R.V. et al. 1976a. "Radiohalos and Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification." Science 194, 315. PDF (1) Gentry, R.V. et al. 1982a. "Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment." Science 216, 296. PDF(2) Gentry, R.V. et al. 1982b. "Differential Helium Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment." Geophysical Research Letters 9, 1129. PDF (1) Gentry, R. V. 1997. "A New Redshift Interpretation." Modern Physics Letters A, Vol. 12, No. 37, 2919. (This paper was also posted in 1998 on the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: astro-ph/9806280.) PDF
(2) Gentry, R. V. 1998. "The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta." This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: gr-gc/9806061. PDF
(3) Gentry, R. V. 1998. "The New Redshift Interpretation Affirmed." This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: physics/9810051. PDF
(4) Gentry, R. V. 2001. "Is the Scientific Community in for a Big Surprise about the Big Bang?" This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: physics/0102092. PDF
(5) Gentry, R. V. 2001. "Is the Scientific Community Aware of the Extraordinary Confusion over Big Bang's Expansion Redshifts?" This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: physics/0102093. PDF
(6) Gentry, R. V. 2001. "Galaxies Point to Flaws in Big Bang's Expanding-Balloon Illustration and to Smoking Gun Signatures of GENESIS." This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: physics/0102094. PDF
(7) Gentry, R. V. 2001. "How Will the Scientific Community React to Big Bang's Vast Nonconservation-of-Energy Losses?" This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: physics/0102095. PDF
(8) Gentry, R. V. 2001. "Relativistic Operation of the GPS Exposes the Fatal Flaw in Big Bang's Cornerstone Expansion Postulate." This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: physics/0102096. PDF
(9) Gentry, R. V. 2001. "Ultimate Disproof of the Big Bang Cosmos from Its Bizarre Prediction that Photons Are Permanently Inscribed with H's Value at Time of Origin." This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: physics/0102097. PDF
(10) Gentry, R. V. 2001. "Discovery of a Nearby Universal Center Is the Smoking Gun Signature of GENESIS that Overturns Big Bang's Cosmological Principle." This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: physics/0102098. PDF
(11) Gentry, R. V. 2001. "GENESIS Is Strongly Affirmed because Its (m, z),(∆θ, z) and Apparent Brightness Relations Are Consistent with Observations." This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: physics/0102099. PDF
(12) Gentry, R. V. 2001. "Disproof of Big-Bang Cosmology Points to Seven Smoking Gun Signatures of GENESIS' Astrophysical Framework." This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: physics/0102100. PDF
(13) Gentry, R. V. 2001. "The Absence of Pop III Stars and Prior Discovery of Short Half-Life Extinct Primordial Radioactivity Disprove Big Bang's Nucleosynthesis Scenario and Substantiates GENESIS' Rapid Creation Postulate." This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: physics/0102101. PDF
(14) Gentry, R. V. 2003. "Discovery of a Major Contradiction in Big Bang Cosmology Points to the New Cosmic Center Universe Model." CERN Preprint, Ext-2003-021. PDF
(15) Gentry, R. V. 2003. "New Cosmic Center Universe Model Matches Eight of Big Bang's Major Predictions Without the F-L Paradigm." CERN Preprint, Ext-2003-022. PDF
(16) Gentry, R. V. 2004. "Collapse of Big Bang Cosmology and the Emergence of the New Cosmic Center Model of the Universe." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 56, 4. PDF
(17) Gentry, R. V. 2006. "Flaws in Big Bang's Central Assumption Leads to Discovery of Nearby Center and Associated Cosmic Model with Its Vacuum Energy a Dark Energy Candidate." PDF
More to come as I get a chance to put it together.
"No I and neither do the Creation scientists think evolution should be banned. I think all sides should be taught and it is my opinion that a large majority would see the holes that the theory of evolution would have from all evidence being put on the table."
I apologize, then.
"The Old Testament provides most of the information on God's view of life before birth, since it gives us the law. The law specifically addresses the issue of taking the life of a fetus in the book of Exodus:
"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life." (Exodus 21:22-23)
Therefore, the law tells us that a man who induces an abortion or miscarriage is to be punished, indicating that God values life before birth"
Or it means that God values a woman's right to her own body. You will find no pro-choice person that believes it's OK for another person to cause a miscarriage or abortion without the pregnant woman's consent, and you will find very few who think this offense shouldn't be legally punished in some way. But even if it does prove that God values life before birth--which I actually think is most likely true--clearly he does not equate an accidental miscarriage with a murder, as the penalty is only a fine, unless further injury is caused to the mother, in which case the perpetrator pays with his life. Now, if abortion were considered murder by God, then why would the "further injury" clause be necessary? I believe this indicates that the Old Testament God values the mother's well-being more than that of her unborn. So to me, this seems consistent with the idea that a woman choosing to end her own pregnancy is not equitable to murder (though it may still be a sin).
Of course, you could argue that since this is based in Old Testament law, it's not applicable to how great of a sin abortion is today, as many things that were considered acceptable in the OT were condemned in the NT, and vice versa. But if it is applicable, then I think it disproves your point.
"A verse from Hosea3 says that abortion is a punishment for sin, indicating God views it as bad."
No, it says that miscarriage is a punishment for sin. "Miscarriage" and "abortion" are two very different things. You will find very few pro-choicers arguing that a miscarriage is not a bad thing for a woman.
"Likewise, God expressed His disgust for the Ammonites, who "ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead".4"
I'm not sure about the context here, but it seems from what you quoted that this again refers to a violent, nonconsensual act, which is again not the same as a woman choosing an abortion.
"Not to mention even in todays world if a pregnant woman gets drunk and kills her fetus in a car wreck they charge her with manslaughter."
Really? I hadn't heard of this. Do you have a citation? It may be true, but I don't think it should be.
"Also if a man causes a woman to lose her child by beating her up, the law today is like the law of the Bible that the man is charged with murder."
I'm also somewhat surprised by this, as I knew that this was a crime, but not that it was considered murder. I don't really have a problem with that, because again, I believe in the woman's right to choose, and for someone else to choose to terminate another person's pregnancy is a huge moral offense, much larger than a person choosing that for themselves, in my opinion.
The quotes about God forming us in the womb are much more convincing, but still, IMO, vague enough to debate. The value that God places on fetuses does not have to be "zero" in order for abortion to be acceptable; it just has to be less than the value He places on his born children, and I think that passage from Exodus indicates that this is the case. So while I believe that God may value fetuses, I believe He values the lives and rights of mothers more. And I do still find it curious that the Bible is never explicit about abortion, despite the evidence you present. I think you can take it either way, honestly, which is why it puzzles me to see the idea that abortion is a sin, or even murder, taken as fact in so many Christian circles, when it really is more debatable than that, as we have both shown.