The Bible says that God created the world in six days. I believe that. It is important to understand that we can not pick and choose what parts of the Bible we will believe. We can not say, ” oh, well I really like this verse about God loving us, but not this other one”. God is God, we must accept everything about him or nothing.
There are many scientist who are starting to say that we must have been the product of intelligent design. They feel that the more they know about life the more unlikely the idea of evolution is to be true. The problem is you will never hear the message that they have because the scientific community has shut them up. The scientist are “black balled” so to speak. They are unable to get published when they come out and say that there are scientific holes in Darwin’s theory.
Did you know that Darwin’s theory is racist? He believed that certain races evolved first and that other evolved last. He felt the races that evolved earlier were less developed and more “ape like”. I believe that being told that is why people allowed atrocities like slavery. There was one case that was discussed in answers in Genesis that stated one man was dragged to the US about 100 years ago, who was placed in the Bronx zoo to study him! His name was Ota Benga. The zoo keepers stated that the “angry little black man” seemed to be somewhat ape like. I must say, if I was placed in the zoo for study, I would be quite angry as well!!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/OneBlood/chapter10.asp
we are all God’s children, created equal, and we are all desended from Adam and Eve. Therefore, we are all related! The human race one big family, it is time we understood this and behaved that way. Darwin taught us that life was an accident, that we have no real value and that some of us have greater value than others. This is not true! We were created with a purpose, by a God who loves us!
Ben Stein has produced a documentary that reveals the scientists that would be heard if they were allowed. It is called ” Exiled – no intelligence allowed” I would challenge those who are christian and unchristian alike to see the film. He discusses the need for science to look into all aspects of evolution and is an “eye opening film” about the science of evolution.
http://answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/03/13/meeting-of-minds
or for more information you can go to – it is called expelled – no intelligence allowed
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php
You know, I think Pope Urban VIII said something very similar to Galileo four hundred years ago.
Galileo deserved to be heard and those who would support intelligent design over a racist theory that demeans the value of human life, also deserve to be heard. some say that the argument that by mere probability it is unlikely is a weak argument. I don’t think it is all! We live our lives on probability. I get into my car each morning trusting that the probablity that I will get into an accident is low. I also don’t think that is the only argument, but how could I be sure when those who would argue are silenced? It takes more faith to believe a theory that the author stated was only a theory than to believe in intelligent design. Why does the scientific community shun those who would seek the truth? Those who would dig deeper into a theory? Macro evolution is not a proven fact, it seems many have forgotten that.
Racist theory? Demeans the value of life? Where did you make this stuff up?
have you not read this stuff? the link I included discusses a african man that was placed in the BRONX ZOO, because he was assumed to be less human! Darwinism teaches that differant races evolved at different times. Those who evolved first were supposedly less human. If I were to believe this I would be a racist, Because I would believe that as a mid- thirties white person I was more human than others around me. I do not believe this. I believe we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, all family and all of equal value. When you say that all we see is an “accident of nature” you say that life has no purpose. If it has no purpose it has no value. Creationism says an intelligent designer created life for a purpose. This inheranlty increases the value of life.
Yes, I’ve “read this stuff.” I’m a biologist, I had to read this stuff to get a degree. To your examples, the person placed in the zoo was not placed there by people that actually understood biology or evolution. Racial diversity does not imply that one race is better than another.
If these people themselves actually understood inheritance, diversity, and evolution, they wouldn’t do those things.
the problem I still have is why is history repeating itself? Why are those that would say that there is more to be known not allowed to be published?
Why is the fact that many of Darwin’s theories are still only theories, not taught to school children? My son’s biology class was told that Darwinism is a fact. My best friend the biology teacher is not allowed to say that she believes in intelligent design. I can not argue the science with you. I am not a scientist, but I am also not uneducated. I have read the origin’s of man, and other things and have a great deal of interest, but I was a business major. I am a business person who believes strongly in the first amendment. I still ask that you watch Ben Stein’s documentary and please come back and tell me what you thought of it. I My goal is here is not to just rant and rave, but to hear and learn the thoughts of others. God and science need not be against one another. I believe in micro evolution, that is a fact. I just don’t believe that every thing we see came from nothing.
“My son’s biology class was told that Darwinism is a fact.”
Yes, evolution is a fact. So is gravity. They are both also theories (the theory of gravitation, and the theory of evolution); that is, there are theories about how both occur.
“My best friend the biology teacher is not allowed to say that she believes in intelligent design.”
Right – biology isn’t about what you believe, it’s about what you can demonstrate. If she can demonstrate an interventionist god, then she can teach ID as science. Until then, she would have to teach it as religion or perhaps philosophy.
“I just don’t believe that every thing we see came from nothing.”
Neither do I.
macro evolution is NOT A FACT! Please show me where the missing link has found. please show me where all the many holes in Darwinism have been filled. Gravity is not a theory, it is PROVEN fact. There is NO comparrison. Darwin’s theories have NEVER been proven, and they will be, because they are not correct. Darwin himself said that it took a lot of faith to believe his ideas. You have been brainwashed by your education to believe what is not there. Micro evolution is a fact. Macro evolution is not because it has not ever been scientificly proven.
“Please show me where the missing link has found.”
The funny thing is that each and every fossil constitutes a missing link between something or another. There are many missing links.
“Gravity is not a theory, it is PROVEN fact.”
Actually, it’s both. Einstein and others have theorized about gravity, electromagnetism, and atomic physics for a while now, and there are still unanswered questions. There’s a theory about light as well (e.g., are photons particles, waves, or both)?
“Darwin’s theories have NEVER been proven”
Sure they have. Would you like to start with an explanation and proof of natural selection?
Micro evolution is fact. Not macro. I have been sitting here talking with freinds both who teach biology. You may share what you believe as “proof” for macro evolution if you like.
I have another question for you. Where did the universe come from? My expectation is that you will go into the big bang and theories of chaos and all that but, before that. what caused what caused the “big bang”?
By the way, what did I say that touched a nerve? I was doing my best to be as polite as possible.
“Where did the universe come from?”
Sorry, I came here to talk about evolution, not cosmology or theology. For a short answer though: I don’t know (and neither do you, as much as I’m sure you’ll feign certainty).
If you’re going to sit here and pretend that macroevolution, including speciation and descent with modification aren’t factual though, then I’m sorry. I would recommend reading What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr, since you don’t know what you’re talking about (you did admit that you’re not well-educated on the topic, so please don’t take that personally – I’m quite ignorant on many topics, just not this one).
Well, from reading the actual post I want to re-iterate that most people are uneducated, or at least well under-educated about what the debate is even about. Admittedly, the Biology curriculum in this state allows for very little in-depth study of ANY topic, let alone controversial ones such as evolution. If it were a perfect world, I would love to present my students with the findings of sceintists on both sides of the fence but I am forced to ram evolution as fact down everyone’s throats.
Graduate school for me was very difficult – don’t question, just believe. With the exposition that the Miller-Urey experiment was flawed and the comparative embryology illustrations out of sync (taken at different times of developmental age so that the comparison doesn’t mean what it’s meant to mean), I am very disillusioned with the whole concept of macro evolution.
Admittedly, micro-evolution has been proven time and time again with antibiotic-resistant microbes leading the way as proof positive that variations can become adaptations and lead to the evolution of an entire population. The basics are very simple, really. We get into muddy water when we talk about how the human race came to be and the humanoid fossils that have been unearthed.
Certainly, if there were a Master Designer, he would use similar structures to elicit similar functions! Why would he “reinvent the wheel” when he already knows what form works well for a certain task? Comparative anatomy illustrations really don’t point toward macroevolution for me.
I know that I still have much more study to do on this topic but as far as my formal education goes, it has me LESS than convinced that this theory is 100% correct. I would much prefer to examine the issue from both sides, as opposed to the Darwin-heavy coursework I was subjected to. Now I have to use my own limited leisure time to explore what I wasn’t taught and that which American society as a whole chooses to shun – independent thought. (Spoken as a frustrated teacher who is pressured to “train” her students as opposed to questioning them.)
It should also be pointed out that there is NO difference between micro and macro evolution. It is an extremely silly differential thought up by creationists from places like Discovery Institute and ICR. It is NOT recognised by science.
ID is not taught as science because it is not science. The father of ID has admitted as such, Michael Behe has admitted as such – and if two of the biggest proponents of the hypothesis admit that, what chance does it really have of being science?
Meanwhile, this blog’s author demonstrates a horrible understanding of the Theory of Evolution in general. I recommend talkorigins.org (a highly respected and credible site, filled to the brim with scientific research and peer reviewed findings, run by scientists who know what they’re talking about) to actually find out what Evolution is all about.
Matt:
You are speaking exactly to the problem that I have with modern science. You say that there is not differentiation between micro and macro evolution, because mainstream science doesn’t use those terms. I might say that because a muslum does not agree with my theology that what they believe is not theology at all, but that would not make it so. To say that ID is not science and therefor, we should ignore what they say is wrong. some of these people have impressive credentials, the only differance is that they believe in ID. My problem is not that I have not studied what is written from differant sources, it is that those who would not agree are said to not know what they are talking about. I hear a lot of “well, that was debunked” and when i ask why the only answer i can get is ” that guy doesn’t know what he is talking about”. In my experience, when ever someone tries this hard to prevent someone else to from being heard, it is b/c the message is feared.
Matt,
It should also be pointed out that there is NO difference between micro and macro evolution.
I would actually agree IN PART with reflecthim on macro- vs. micro-evolution. Granted, creationists misrepresent those terms, and reflecthim probably doesn’t understand how they are simultaneously distinct but both very well-founded by the evidence, but they are valid terms in biology.
I learned the hard way by going toe-to-toe with Larry Moran last Fall and getting corrected in a rather harsh way.
Briefly though, the difference is the microevolution represents phyletic change, also called anagenesis, and not speciation or cladogenesis. Macroevolutionary patterns depend on the reproductive isolation of populations, something that natural selection alone does not appear to adequately explain.
Cheers for the clarification, Dan. Always happy to take new information on board like this.